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

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Sharon urges Jews to flee France

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Sharon urges Jews to flee France
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 18 July 2004 07:07 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From Yahoo News

quote:
JERUSALEM - Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on Sunday urged French Jews to flee the country to escape a rising tide of anti-Semitism, while acknowledging that the French government is fighting racial violence.

The latest French Interior Ministry figures show 510 anti-Jewish acts or threats in the first six months of 2004 — compared to 593 for all of last year.

"If I have to advocate to our brothers in France, I will tell them one thing," Sharon told visiting American Jewish leaders in Jerusalem. "Move to Israel, as early as possible."

Anti-Semitic acts against Jewish schools, synagogues and cemeteries have risen in France in recent years, coinciding with growing tensions in the Middle East. Many attacks have been blamed on young Muslims.

"We see the spread of the wildest anti-Semitism there," Sharon said.


Yeah, Israel is a much safer place to live right now.

[ 18 July 2004: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zahid Zaman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6459

posted 18 July 2004 07:10 PM      Profile for Zahid Zaman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Interestingly, the blame is being placed on the Muslims living in France who themselves are being alienated by the banning of the hijab. Seems to me like Sharon and company are trying to spread the conflict to other parts of the world.
From: Mississauga/Waterloo, ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 18 July 2004 07:25 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What alarmist crap. The French government is run by a somewhat right-wing President with clearly no love lost for any organized religion, and its legislature is dominated, as far as I know, by moderate-left parties with no desire to participate in any program of organized support of anti-semitic activities whatsoever.

Sharon should be slapped with a shovel.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 18 July 2004 07:43 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
He tried the same crap with Argentina, taking advantage of that country's dire economic crisis.

There is an old saying, "Heureux comme un Juif en France". The Republic, for all its faults, was supposed to be blind to the religious sympathies of its citizens.

I have many Jewish friends, and many (mostly nominally) Muslim friends - in the first case, by Jewish, I'm referring much more to background than any religious belief. None of either group want to live anywhere else, but they would sure like to find a place to boot Jean-Marie Le Pen to.

And there are lots of kosher goat cheeses and pâtés in France.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zahid Zaman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6459

posted 18 July 2004 11:10 PM      Profile for Zahid Zaman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So, Sharon doesn't go unquestioned. His more sinister motives against the French Muslim population seem to be more at play here:

France angered over Sharon's call


From: Mississauga/Waterloo, ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 19 July 2004 06:27 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here are a couple of articles from the French press on this insulting "appeal".
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3226,36-372990,0.html

http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=224625

C'est hier, lors d'une réunion publique à Jérusalem devant des associations américaines, qu'Ariel Sharon a lancé son appel : «Je propose à tous les Juifs de venir en Israël; mais c'est absolument nécessaire pour les Juifs de France, et ils doivent bouger immédiatement. En France, il se répand un antisémitisme déchaîné.» Tout en soulignant que «le gouvernement français a pris des mesures contre des actes antisémites», le Premier ministre israélien a ajouté : «Aujourd'hui, à peu près 10 % de la population [française] est musulmane, ce qui permet l'essor d'une nouvelle forme d'antisémitisme fondée sur des sentiments anti-israéliens» (1).

Note the insult to Muslims - I'm sure at least 10% of the Israeli population would be Muslim, no? And the usual crap about "a new form of antisemitism based on anti-Israel (or anti-Israeli) sentiments".

De même, Haïm Korsia, proche collaborateur du grand rabbin de France, Joseph Sitruk, a expliqué que la question du départ des Juifs de France «ne se pose pas». «Juifs de France, cela ne veut rien dire. Il y a des citoyens français qui sont juifs comme d'autres ont une autre religion. Nous sommes une partie de l'âme de ce pays. En revanche, il faut appeler à un sursaut républicain généralisé pour que chacun puisse être ce qu'il est.»

I like what the aide to the Chief Rabbi said. The expression "Jews of France" takes us back many years. The rabbi's aide said quite rightly "there are French citizens who are Jewish as there are others of other faiths. However, it is important to appeal for a "sursaut républicain" - a renewal of Republican values might be a way of explaining that - so everyone may be what they are".

And one can raise the question, if Sharon was speaking to USian associations, why the hell didn't he exhort THEM to move to Israel?


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 19 July 2004 07:21 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sharon has regularly called for all Jews to emmigrate to Israel. After all, it's a basic tenent of Zionist ideology. He's also concerned about losing the demographic race to the Palestinians. So, seen in this context, there's nothing really new here. The irony, of course, is that Israel has made Jews worldwide less safe, and is likely to continue to do so.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 19 July 2004 09:26 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
... Sharon told visiting American Jewish leaders in Jerusalem ...

That would appear to be the significant context, wouldn't it?

Just about anybody else would be ashamed to be so obvious, so unsubtle, so like a caricature in a melodrama, and yet political leaders like Sharon seem to have no shame.

It is traditional for audiences at melodramas to do this to stock characters, so I exercise my right as a member of the audience: Boo! Hiss! Get him off the stage!


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 19 July 2004 09:31 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes. Nothing like a little French-bashing to get in good with a lot of those folks in the U.S. And what better way to get your message out?
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 19 July 2004 09:33 AM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This morning on the radio they quoted French Jews who think Sharon is full of it and think he should butt out.
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 19 July 2004 10:51 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, too bad I didn't hear that - I can only imagine the invective.

Here's some more from Le Monde. Needless to say, angry comments not only from Jewish but from Arab/Muslim representatives. The rector of the Mosque of Lyon emphasised the racist nature of Sharon's comment - 10% Muslim population = danger to Jews.

The articles also point out Sharon's main motives. As skdadl pointed out, the US audience was not an error. Other than seeking "a million Jews for Israel", Sharon is out to discount the European Union as a major player in solving the Israel/Palestine conflict and leave that role up solely to the US, assumed to back Israel's most outrageous behaviour without question.

Unless every French Jew and every Argentine Jew moves to Israel (which would be a horrific cultural loss for both of those countries, and it ain't gonna happen) then Sharon will have to more seriously target the US Jewish community for Aliyah. I think that could open up rifts he doesn't want to see.

[URL=.
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3208,36-373043,0.html ]Le Monde editorial [/URL]

Sharon seeks a million Jews

[URL=
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3224,36-373024,0.html ]indignation in France[/URL]


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 19 July 2004 10:59 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The rector of the Mosque of Lyon emphasised the racist nature of Sharon's comment - 10% Muslim population = danger to Jews.

To all those who believe that history proceeds in a straight line, onwards and upwards, I submit for your consideration Ariel Sharon and his bestest friends, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney&Co.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rand McNally
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5297

posted 19 July 2004 12:00 PM      Profile for Rand McNally     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It appears that most people responding here have focused on the opportunism, and ulterior motives of Sharon’s comments. This is fair, however it surprises me that no seems to have expressed any concern about the underlying premise. “The latest French Interior Ministry figures show 510 anti-Jewish acts or threats in the first six months of 2004 — compared to 593 for all of last year.” It would appear from those numbers that there is reason for the local Jewish community to be concerned. Also, the EU’s report on anti-Semitism seems to show that this is a trend throughout Europe. The opportunist use of a problem by Sharon does not diminish the fact there appears to be a problem.
From: Manitoba | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 19 July 2004 12:03 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You are right, Rand. Many of us started threads about anti-Jewish, anti-Arab/Muslim and other racist incidents in France and elsewhere. I don't think any of the articles or spokespersons are denying that there is a problem.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 19 July 2004 12:07 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Rand (still love your atlas), later today, or maybe tomorrow, I will find the old thread where we discussed this issue, backed up by stats from the USian Bnai Brith (summarized in an essay in a year-old issue of the NYReview of Books), in the context of the rising incidence of anti-Semitic incidents in the U.S.

One incident of race-hatred of any kind anywhere is one too many, always. There is no doubting the problem. But there is also no doubting the political context/s, and then there are the lies, the damned lies, and the statistics.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rand McNally
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5297

posted 19 July 2004 12:17 PM      Profile for Rand McNally     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On the flip side, Norway's third largest political party wants to ban Islam.

http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/english/article254421.ece

"The religion as it is practiced is a threat against our social system and way of life.”


From: Manitoba | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 19 July 2004 12:54 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, no. As the article makes clear, it is not the position of the party, nor is it the position of one party local unit, that of Kristiansand. Rather, it is the position of two
"central figures" of the local association, including one alderwoman.

It would be similar if the President of Conservative Party Riding Association of, say, Barrie, or Kamloops, came out with such a declaration.

While I have no doubt that lots of FP militants are racists, this position does not reflect party policy at the national level.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rand McNally
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5297

posted 19 July 2004 01:00 PM      Profile for Rand McNally     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jeff, your right. I overstated the facts. Sorry. Still a bit of disturbing news.
From: Manitoba | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
SnowyPlover
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6431

posted 19 July 2004 04:25 PM      Profile for SnowyPlover     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The irony, of course, is that Israel has made Jews worldwide less safe, and is likely to continue to do so.

Israel has provided a home for millions of Jewish refugees who would have otherwise faced tremendous danger and much worse circumstances. Included in this impressive track record are efforts to bring in Jewish refugees from Europe after WWII, from Algeria, Morrocco, Iran, Russia, Syria, Iraq, Ethiopia, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, and Argentina.

So if Israel isnt a safe enough place for Jews to live in, where should they go? Regardless of Israel, anti-semitism is a deeply ingrained phenomenon that would have Jews facing danger no matter where they lived. Surprisingly, the US is one of the only places in the world where anti-semitism hasnt been increasing like the patterns in Europe. No wonder, Jews in Israel and Jews in America feel they have something in common! Oh wait, I thought Europe was supposed to be a tolerant liberal democratic society? It seems the only thing they have been tolerant of lately is anti-semitism!


From: Archipelago | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 19 July 2004 04:29 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SnowyPlover:
So if Israel isnt a safe enough place for Jews to live in, where should they go? Regardless of Israel, anti-semitism is a deeply ingrained phenomenon that would have Jews facing danger no matter where they lived. Surprisingly, the US is one of the only places in the world where anti-semitism hasnt been increasing like the patterns in Europe. No wonder, Jews in Israel and Jews in America feel they have something in common! Oh wait, I thought Europe was supposed to be a tolerant liberal democratic society? It seems the only thing they have been tolerant of lately is anti-semitism!

Oh Christ. What the hell is this siege-mentality crap?

People who endlessly repeat paranoid fantasies about everybody being out to get them are usually regarded with more than a little pity, you know - and I don't think it works much differently for an entire group.

There are still Jews in Germany, you know.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 19 July 2004 04:45 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SnowyPlover:

Israel has provided a home for millions of Jewish refugees who would have otherwise faced tremendous danger and much worse circumstances. Included in this impressive track record are efforts to bring in Jewish refugees from Europe after WWII, from Algeria, Morrocco, Iran, Russia, Syria, Iraq, Ethiopia, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, and Argentina.

So if Israel isnt a safe enough place for Jews to live in, where should they go? Regardless of Israel, anti-semitism is a deeply ingrained phenomenon that would have Jews facing danger no matter where they lived. Surprisingly, the US is one of the only places in the world where anti-semitism hasnt been increasing like the patterns in Europe. No wonder, Jews in Israel and Jews in America feel they have something in common! Oh wait, I thought Europe was supposed to be a tolerant liberal democratic society? It seems the only thing they have been tolerant of lately is anti-semitism!


The increase in anti-Semitism in Europe if directly attributable to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Jewish-Muslim tensions it has engendered. It is not the classic, virulent European anti-Semitism of the past.

Much of the relationship between Jews and non-Jews in most of the countries you cite were excacerbated by the conflict as well. This is not to say that Israel has not been a haven for oppression. But a secular, democratic Israel/Palestine would serve much the same purpose. And without worsening relations between Jews and non-Jews in the region, with the inevitable spill over to other parts of the world.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 19 July 2004 05:00 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On one hand, Sharon is encouraging them to leave France. On the other hand the Settlements are growing. I do not believe for a second, that Sharon wants to dismantle the settlements in Gaza. Meanwhile the settlements are expanding at an alarming rate. Increased from 1.5% to 36%

web page


From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 19 July 2004 05:05 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
SnowyPlover says:

quote:
Surprisingly, the US is one of the only places in the world where anti-semitism hasnt been increasing like the patterns in Europe.


I copy here from repeated discussions on babble last year:

quote:
Tony Judt, "The Way We Live Now," NYR 50, no.5 (27 March 2003): 6-10.

(I'm just going to type this in fast and raw, so forgive any typos. It is a longish extract for babble, but a small part of the original, so I hope this doesn't bother the NYR or Judt.)

quote:
A second Europhobic myth now widely disseminated in the United States is more pernicious. It is the claim that Europe is awash in anti-Semitism, that the ghosts of Europe's judeophobic past are risen again, and that this atavistic prejudice, Europe's original sin, explains widespread European criticism of Israel, sympathy for the Arab world, and even support for Iraq. The main source for these claims is a spate of attacks on Jews and Jewish property in the spring of 2002, and some widely publicized opinion polls purporting to demonstrate the return of anti-Jewish prejudice across the European continent. American commentary on these data has in turn emphasized the "anti-Israel" character of European media reports for the Middle East. (7)

To begin with the facts: according to the American Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which has worked harder than anyone to propagate the image of rampant European anti-Semitism, there were twenty-two significant anti-Semitic incidents in France in April 2002, and a further seven in Belgium; for the whole year 2002 the ADL catalogued forty-five such incidents in France, varying from anti-Semitic graffiti on Jewish-owned shops in Marseilles to Molotov cocktails thrown into synagogues in Paris, Lyon, and elsewhere. But the same ADL reported sixty anti-Semitic incidents on US college campuses alone in 1999. Measured by everything from graffiti to violent assaults, anti-Semitism has indeed been on the increase in some European countries in recent years; but then so it has in America. The ADL recorded 1,606 anti-Semitic incidents in the United States in the year 2000, up from 900 in 1986. Even if anti-Semitic aggression in France, Belgium, and elsewhere in Europe has been grievously underreported, there is no evidence to suggest it is more widespread in Europe than in the US. (8)

But what of attitudes? Evidence from the European Union's Eurobarometer polls, the leading French polling service SOFRES, and the ADL's own surveys all point in the same direction. There is in many European countries, as in the US, a greater tolerance for mild verbal anti-Semitism than in the past, and a continuing propensity to believe longstanding stereotypes about Jews: e.g., that they have a disproportionate influence in economic life. But the same polls confirm that young people all over Europe are much less tolerant of prejudice than their parents were. Among French youth especially, anti-Semitic sentiment has steadily declined and is now negligible. And overwhelming majority of young people questioned in France in January 2002 believe that we should speak more, not less, of the Holocaust; and nearly nine out of ten of them agreed that attacks on synagogues were "scandalous." These figures are broadly comparable to results from similar surveys taken in the US. (9)

Most of the recent attacks on Jews in Western Europe were the work of young Arabs or other Muslims, as local commentators acknowledge. (10) Assaults on Jews in Europe are driven by anger at the government of Israel, for whom European Jews are a convenient local surrogate. The rhetorical armory of traditional European anti-Semitism -- the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," Jews' purported economic power and conspiratorial networks, even blood libels -- has been pressed into service by the press and television in Cairo and elsewhere, with ugly effects all across the youthful diaspora.

The ADL asserts that all this "confirms a new form of anti-Semitism taking hold in Europe. This new anti-Semitism is fuelled by anti-Israel sentiment and questions the loyalty of Jewish citizens." That is nonsense. Gangs of unemployed Arab youths in Paris suburbs like Garges-les-Gonesses surely regard French Jews as representatives of Israel, but they are not much worried about their patriotic shortcomings. As to Jewish loyalties: one leading question in the ADL surveys -- "Do you believe Jews are more likely to be loyal to Israel than to [your country]" -- elicits a consistently higher positive response in the US than in Europe. It is Americans, not Europeans, who are readier to assume that a Jew's first loyalty might be to Israel.

The ADL and most American commentators conclude from this that there is no longer any difference between being "against" Israel and "against" Jews. But this is palpably false. The highest level of pro-Palestinian sympathy in Europe today is recorded in Denmark, a country which also registers as one of the least anti-Semitic by the ADL's own criteria. Another country with a high and increasing level of sympathy for the Palestinians is the Netherlands; yet the Dutch ahve the lowest anti-Semitic "quotient" in Europe and nearly half of them are "worried" about the possible rise of anti-Semitism. Furthermore, it is the self-described "left" in Europe that is most uncompromisingly pro-Palestinian, while the "right" displays both anti-Arab and anti-Jewish (but often pro-Israel) bias. Indeed, this is one of the few areas of public life in which these labels still carry weight. (11)

Overall, Europeans are more likely to blame Israel than Palestinians for the present morass in the Middle East, but only by a ratio of 27:20. Americans, by contrast, blame Palestinians rather than Israel in the proportion of 42:17. This suggests that Europeans' responses are considerably more balanced, which is what one would expect: the European press, radio, and television provide a fuller and fairer coverage of events in the Middle East than is available to most Americans. As a consequence, Europeans are better than Americans at distinguishing criticism of Israel from dislike of Jews.

One reason may be that some of Europe's oldest and most fully accredited anti-Semites are publicly sympathetic to Israel. Jean-Marie Le Pen, in an interview in the Israeli daily Ha'aretz in April 2002, expressed his "understanding" of Ariel Sharon's policies ("A war on terror is a brutal thing") -- comparable in his opinion to France's no less justified antiterrorist practices in Algeria forty years earlier. (12) The gap separating Europeans from Americans on the question of Israel and the Palestinians is the biggest impediment to transatlantic understanding today. Seventy-two percent of Europeans favor a Palestinian state against just 40 percent of Americans. On a "warmth" scale of 1-100, American feelings toward Israel rate 55, whereas the European average is just 38 -- and somewhat cooler among the "New Europeans": revealingly, the British and French give Israel the same score. Is it the Poles who exhibit by far the coolest feelings toward Israel (Donald Rumsfeld please note). (13)

(Footnotes not included. If you really need them, you now have the library reference to find them.)

[ 24 July 2003: Message edited by: skdadl ]


So shall we talk about Europhobia?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 19 July 2004 05:19 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And just in case SnowyPlover wants to talk anyone into thinking that USian Jews are united on this issue:

Esther Kaplan, "The Jewish Divide on Israel," The Nation, 24 June 2004.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
SnowyPlover
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6431

posted 19 July 2004 05:29 PM      Profile for SnowyPlover     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The increase in anti-Semitism in Europe if directly attributable to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Jewish-Muslim tensions it has engendered. It is not the classic, virulent European anti-Semitism of the past.

True. However the increase in anti-semitism lately has sparked an ancient negligence to confront anti-semitism in Europe that was so common 19th century post-emancipation up until today. The fact that Europeans can continue to tolerate anti-semitism is a direct breach of their 'well-established liberal ethos'. In addition, the classic virulent European anti-semitism has set the precedent for anti-semetic attacks throughout Europe. When verbal condemnations on Israel win mainstream acceptance, its a small step to ignoring or excusing acts of violence against Jews. Especially in places like France, where you have mounting political pressure from the Muslim community. Anti-Israel sentiment is the newest mask worn by hatred.

[QUOTE] Much of the relationship between Jews and non-Jews in most of the countries you cite were excacerbated by the conflict as well. [QUOTE]

Also true. But this was caused by the fact that these countries refused to acknowledge that the Jewish people had a right to live in a home aswell. During the initial opposition for the creation of the state of Israel, it wasnt about Israeli policy or conduct...it was about Jews. Every state that supressed or expelled the Jews living there in response to the creation of Israel did so out of anti-semitic impetus. This may be the reason why it is so hard these days to differentiate who is criticizing Israel constructively and fairly, and who is criticzing Israel out of anti-semitic motives. Anti-Zionism is the newest mask worn by anti-semitism.


From: Archipelago | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 19 July 2004 05:33 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The fact that Europeans can continue to tolerate anti-semitism is a direct breach of their 'well-established liberal ethos'.

Um. SnowyPlover, let me guess.

You hadn't bothered to read either of my sources before you posted, had you? That's ok: maybe we cross-posted. Maybe you'll read them now.

Would you mind telling us what those quotation marks around "well-established liberal ethos" mean? From where did you get that quotation?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
SnowyPlover
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6431

posted 19 July 2004 05:59 PM      Profile for SnowyPlover     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sweeping conclusions are often misleading skd. Try this on for a change. Cross-posted we did. Your article didnt give me much to work with. Try this on for a change:


ADL European Survey Findings: "A Potent and Dangerous Mix"


From: Archipelago | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 19 July 2004 06:21 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that stuff just shows how right-wing the ADL has become. Pity - it used to be an anti-racist group "anti-defamation league" that fought racism against other groups such as African Americans as well as against Jews.

I have lived in France and have many friends there. Quite a few are of Jewish origins (Askenazi and Sephardic) and others of Arab origins (Maghrebian and Levantine). Anti-semitic acts are universally condemned, with the possible exception of the far right, that is even more racist with regard to Arabs and Black Africans.

My friends of Jewish origin sure as hell don't want to move to Israel and face military duty and run the risk of suicide bombers and other forms of violence - and the hardships caused by living in a society where military spending leaves little money for other ends - just to escape a possible encounter with rude ghetto youths who are ruder still to their own sisters.

This statement is ludicrous: " When verbal condemnations on Israel win mainstream acceptance, its a small step to ignoring or excusing acts of violence against Jews." Condemning the policies of a government is very different from accepting racism against a group of people - who in this case have nothing per se to do with the government - French Jews are Frenchpersons, not Israelis.

You do have one valid point - there are waves of persecuted Jews who found a safe haven in Israel. But there were many more who did do in Palestine before Israel was founded in 1948. The fact that the Jewish DPs had no choice but to go to Israel is a great failure by the Allies (the US as much as Europe) - as those people had every right to return to their original homelands and be protected there.

Actually nowadays the Jewish community in Germany is the fastest growing in the world - from a few DPs who found employment in postwar Germany and stayed on (including the family of someone close to my heart ) to about 100.000 now.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 19 July 2004 06:57 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SnowyPlover:
Sweeping conclusions are often misleading skd. Try this on for a change. Cross-posted we did. Your article didnt give me much to work with.

Well, how could I disagree? That sweeping generalizations about "Europeans" are, well, "misleading" would be the euphemism -- bigoted would be the hard truth, wouldn't it?

Now, your ADL link would appear to be to their stats for 2002, which are the stats that Tony Judt was working with. I see only one contradiction: he and the ADL seem to disagree on what the ADL found about opinions concerning first national loyalties.

Which of us can say who is right there? His analysis is still the rather more thorough, don't you think?

For those of us who have fought anti-racist battles our entire adult lives, especially those of us who learned to do that first of all by reading our beloved Anne Frank when we were the same age she was as she wrote, it is heart-breaking to watch the Beast return -- the anti-Semitic beast, the anti-Muslim beast, the "gee, those people don't shop and eat pizza in quite the sophisticated way that we do" beast. All those beasts.

Honestly, SnowyPlover, I am wondering what your point is. Are you seriously arguing that "Europeans" -- some imaginary group, I assume, given how many real human beings would be subsumed under that label -- are somehow more deeply evil than human beings elsewhere? That they are worse than North Americans? The North Americans who ran Abu Ghraib?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 19 July 2004 07:22 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SnowyPlover:

However the increase in anti-semitism lately has sparked an ancient negligence to confront anti-semitism in Europe that was so common 19th century post-emancipation up until today. The fact that Europeans can continue to tolerate anti-semitism is a direct breach of their 'well-established liberal ethos'. In addition, the classic virulent European anti-semitism has set the precedent for anti-semetic attacks throughout Europe. When verbal condemnations on Israel win mainstream acceptance, its a small step to ignoring or excusing acts of violence against Jews. Especially in places like France, where you have mounting political pressure from the Muslim community. Anti-Israel sentiment is the newest mask worn by hatred.

But this was caused by the fact that these countries refused to acknowledge that the Jewish people had a right to live in a home aswell. During the initial opposition for the creation of the state of Israel, it wasnt about Israeli policy or conduct...it was about Jews. Every state that supressed or expelled the Jews living there in response to the creation of Israel did so out of anti-semitic impetus. This may be the reason why it is so hard these days to differentiate who is criticizing Israel constructively and fairly, and who is criticzing Israel out of anti-semitic motives. Anti-Zionism is the newest mask worn by anti-semitism.


Congragulations. You're doing very well in Macabee's stead.

Where is your proof that Europeans are "tolerating" anti-Semitism? Your assertion that it is a "small step" from verbal condemnations of Israel to outright anti-Semitism is astounding, if not surprising. It is part of a continuing Zionist campaign to smear anyone who would dare criticize Israel's policies. The other Arab countries opposition to a "Jewish homeland" cannot be separated from their view that the creation of such a homeland without the consent of the Palestinians was an injustice. You can agree or disagree with that viewpoint, but it is not anti-Semitism. Finally, you regurgitate the new party line that "anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism. It is not, not matter how many times it is repeated. I am Jewish. I am anti-Zionist. Are you calling me anti-Semitic? Macabee, typically, dodged the question. Maybe you can.

[ 19 July 2004: Message edited by: josh ]


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 19 July 2004 07:34 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
... Sharon told visiting American Jewish leaders in Jerusalem ...

Call me slow, but do you think that that use of "American" might include "Canadian"?

Well, coincidences do happen. Y'never know. Maybe our guy is just having a holiday and all.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 19 July 2004 09:16 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A "working holiday, no doubt. Gotta get the latest chapter in the manual.

quote:
Especially in places like France, where you have mounting political pressure from the Muslim community.

This sounds like a good argument, for a couple of seconds.

In what form does this pressure manifest itself?

quote:
Jacques Revah, chargé d'affaires of the Israeli Embassy in Paris, said Sharon's comments were only a way of telling Jews they belonged in Israel.

"Mr. Sharon had the same message for all Jews in the world, and if he pointed out France, it was to praise the position and the measures France has taken to combat anti-Semitism," Revah said.


Is everyone paying attention? This is how a weasel talks.

quote:
What does Ariel Sharon want? Perhaps an increase in French Jewish emigration to Israel. In spite of the assertions of Israeli officials, however, and even if the sense of insecurity among France's Jews is incontestable, the flow of departures for Israel is no exodus. The vigorous response of several representatives of the French Jewish community to the Prime Minister's statement moreover demonstrates that he's on the wrong track.

Another hypothesis is that by disqualifying France this way, Mr. Sharon keeps Europe out of the political game in the Middle East. On the eve of an important step that could see the Labor party enter his government to get the Israeli retreat from Gaza accepted, the message the Likud Party head would thus be conveying to American organizations could be the following: the settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains an affair between Israel and the United States, and Europe, stained by its pro-Arab stance, remains confined to its role as banker.


Sharon and France

[ 20 July 2004: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
SnowyPlover
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6431

posted 20 July 2004 12:36 PM      Profile for SnowyPlover     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
-63% said they know "nothing" or a "very little" about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict

"While a majority of Europeans say they closely follow media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, many are at a loss when asked about their knowledge of the situation in the Mideast," said Mr. Foxman. "That is most troubling, and it raises fundamental questions about the level of education on the history of the Palestinian/Arab-Israeli conflict. It also speaks to the quality of European media coverage of the Mideast conflict, which we know has often been skewed against Israel. Clearly, Europeans follow the media closely, but this survey shows that many feel as if they are not getting the whole story."


You missed that contradiction too skd. Judt claims that Europeans are more informed than Americans and that the European media is more balanced...yea right. It is those sweeping conclusions that I'm talking about. Europhobic I'm not. I happen to have many friends in Europe. I'm just taking a look at the facts. The survey, if you didnt catch on...also noted that in comparison to the 'Anti-Semitism in America survey', Europe ranked in higher percentiles for Anti-Semitic sentiments. Here it is again: ADL European Survey

As is the tendency of people in this forum to spin and twist, I'll reiterate: My argument here is not to say that Europeans are somehow more evil. No, my intention is to point out that Anti-Semitism is more tolerated in Europe, (in places like Denmark, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Poland, Hungary, etc.) therefore making it more unsafe and uncomfortable for Jews to live there. This thread started with the alarming Anti-Semitic stats in France. True?

The debate between Judt and ADL is an interesting one. Who is more thorough? Well, I think the aim here was rather to interpolate the facts and draw our own conclusions. By the way, where are the sources for Tony Judt skd?


From: Archipelago | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 20 July 2004 12:53 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Um, no: this thread started with Sharon's bigoted overgeneralizations about the French. Talk about spin!

Snowy, like the people you tend to quote, you make sweeping subjective claims and sling overgeneral labels around in a way that is disturbing. I doubt there can be many people posting to babble, eg, who believe that "the French" is a category to be discussed in anything but a light-hearted fashion.

About Judt's sources, as I say above:

quote:
(Footnotes not included. If you really need them, you now have the library reference to find them.)

That article is not/has never been on the NYR website. What you have there I retyped with my own little pinkies. I am not going to type out all the footnotes too. You have the source, the NYR date, so it will be easy to find in the library.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 20 July 2004 12:59 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SnowyPlover:
As is the tendency of people in this forum to spin and twist ...

Bite me, Argyle.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
SnowyPlover
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6431

posted 20 July 2004 01:04 PM      Profile for SnowyPlover     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Finally, you regurgitate the new party line that "anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism. It is not, not matter how many times it is repeated.

It doesnt have to be repeated Josh. Anti-Zionism consists of the belief that Jews dont have the right to live in their own autonomous home, having sovereignty and maintaining their normative sense of nationhood. Anti-Zionism is in fact a proclamation that the Jewish people, (constituting a race, a religion and a nation) do not have the right to self-determination. It is saying that universally accepted principles such as self-expression, self-determination, and sovereignty dont apply to Jews. Weren't you at all taken back by the UN 'Zionism is Racism' Resolution of 1975, or the melange of anti-Zionist--or should I say Anti-Semitic--rally's, protests and demonstrations at the World Conference in Durban, South Africa 2001?

When every Arab constituency prior to 1948 denied the Jews any sort of right to live autonomously...(regardless of their concern about the Palestinians which really did not constitute big concern considering all of the monarchs in the area wanted a slice of Palestine and werent at all planning on a Palestinian autonomous state)...that was Anti-Semitism.


From: Archipelago | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 20 July 2004 02:01 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SnowyPlover:
[QB]

You missed that contradiction too skd. Judt claims that Europeans are more informed than Americans and that the European media is more balanced...yea right. It is those sweeping conclusions that I'm talking about. Europhobic I'm not. I happen to have many friends in Europe. I'm just taking a look at the facts.


Where are those facts? Friends are not facts. You do have these 'facts' that your 'friends' are feeding you, right?

quote:
As is the tendency of people in this forum to spin and twist, I'll reiterate: My argument here is not to say that Europeans are somehow more evil. No, my intention is to point out that Anti-Semitism is more tolerated in Europe, (in places like Denmark, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Poland, Hungary, etc.) therefore making it more unsafe and uncomfortable for Jews to live there. This thread started with the alarming Anti-Semitic stats in France. True?

This argument relies on the false premise that the number of antisemitic attacks in a society is necessarily linked to the amount of tolerance for antisemitism. This is not necessarily the case - there's no logical cogency there. A particularly 'busy' group of antisemites does not mean that society as a whole 'tolerates' their actions.
Specifically, France is mentioned in the ADL findings and in the Judt piece as a location where antisemitism is at a very low level amongst a huge swathe of the population - and yet the attacks in France outnumber those in other European countries. In other words, your own numbers cast serious doubt on your findings.

Moreover, even in those places where antisemitism is 'tolerated', it does not appear to be at a level significantly higher than in the U.S. - where presumably Jews are comfortable.

[ 20 July 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


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

posted 20 July 2004 02:10 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It doesnt have to be repeated Josh. Anti-Zionism consists of the belief that Jews dont have the right to live in their own autonomous home, having sovereignty and maintaining their normative sense of nationhood. Anti-Zionism is in fact a proclamation that the Jewish people, (constituting a race, a religion and a nation) do not have the right to self-determination. It is saying that universally accepted principles such as self-expression, self-determination, and sovereignty dont apply to Jews.

Disingenious argument. A strawman, in fact. You're assuming that your definition of 'Zionism' is agreed to by 'AntiZionists'. Is it?

Speaking for myself, I would say "No". The principles you speak of are all somewhat agreeable to me - leaving aside that I think nationalism is a kind of collective narcissism...

However, it is not the principle of a Jewish nationalism or the terms of international law that I - and a great many other AntiZionists - disagree with. Rather, it is the manner in which 'Zionism' was and is carried out. It's the genesis of a chauvinistic and xenophobic ideology of 'Jewishness' that pervades early-, middle- and late-Zionist literature and actions. It's the militarism - all-too-easily embraced - not to mention the stench of fascism in the most predominant strain of Zionist thought in this century - i.e. Jabotinky-ite Revisionism. His Iron Wall is before us today. His direct political progeny (Likud) are in the driver's seat, and Labor boasts as their heroes people whose view of the conflict was perhaps even more ideologically blind to the Arabs - e.g. Golda Meir and Ben-Gurion.

It's the constant refusal to take responsibility for the consequences of 'Zionism' - i.e. millions of displaced people, the human rights abuses, the Occupation, and the current conflict that has grown out of this. It's the arrogance to think that you can hold a group of close to a million people under your boot for 30 years and then blame them when they get rowdy and start to fight back.

It's the failure to - even for a minute - honestly admit that Israel has been denying the Palestinians their self-determination, etc. for decades. That it has failed to live up to the basic notion of reciprocity pervading the entire notion of 'nationalism' in international law. It's the continued insistence on the importance of the 'theory' of international law while Israel ignores the bodies entrusted to enforce that same international law when it is censured by them.

It's the cynical bought-and-paid for attempts to manipulate 'antisemitism' and the Holocaust (like dear Ariel, the subject of this thread) to engender a paranoid and reactionary mindset amongst Jews (and people generally) in order to sell his aggressive, militaristic Zionism as the only solution.

It is that the 'Arab Question' -- pontificated on by generations of Israeli and non-Israeli Scholastics alike -- has never been humbly and genuinely addressed to the Arabs in Question.

This is just a sketch of the 'Zionism' that many 'AntiZionists' oppose.

So take your "AntiZionism Is Racism" smears and shove 'em.

[ 20 July 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
SnowyPlover
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6431

posted 20 July 2004 02:45 PM      Profile for SnowyPlover     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Where are those facts? Friends are not facts. You do have these 'facts' that your 'friends' are feeding you, right?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As is the tendency of people in this forum to spin and twist, I'll reiterate: My argument here is not to say that Europeans are somehow more evil. No, my intention is to point out that Anti-Semitism is more tolerated in Europe, (in places like Denmark, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Poland, Hungary, etc.) therefore making it more unsafe and uncomfortable for Jews to live there. This thread started with the alarming Anti-Semitic stats in France. True?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This argument relies on the false premise that the number of antisemitic attacks in a society is necessarily linked to the amount of tolerance for antisemitism. This is not necessarily the case - there's no logical cogency there. A particularly 'busy' group of antisemites does not mean that society as a whole 'tolerates' their actions.
Specifically, France is mentioned in the ADL findings and in the Judt piece as a location where antisemitism is at a very low level amongst a huge swathe of the population - and yet the attacks in France outnumber those in other European countries. In other words, your own numbers cast serious doubt on your findings.

quote:


From: Archipelago | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 20 July 2004 02:49 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SnowyPlover:


It doesnt have to be repeated Josh. Anti-Zionism consists of the belief that Jews dont have the right to live in their own autonomous home, having sovereignty and maintaining their normative sense of nationhood. Anti-Zionism is in fact a proclamation that the Jewish people, (constituting a race, a religion and a nation) do not have the right to self-determination. It is saying that universally accepted principles such as self-expression, self-determination, and sovereignty dont apply to Jews.


No one, at least I'm not, is saying that Jews do not have a right to live in their ancestoral homeland. However, that does not require a separate state based on religion. Jews could, and should, have a right to live anywhere in the land from the sea to the Jordan, but in a democratic, secular state. That viewpoint is not anti-Semitic. Those who say it is have an agenda, and they are playing the anti-Semitism card to silence anyone who would dare challenge the agenda. Besides, many "peoples" do not have a separate state.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
SnowyPlover
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6431

posted 20 July 2004 02:51 PM      Profile for SnowyPlover     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Where are those facts? Friends are not facts. You do have these 'facts' that your 'friends' are feeding you, right?

I wasnt reffering to my friends in Europe Courage. The facts are from the ADL survey.

quote:
Specifically, France is mentioned in the ADL findings and in the Judt piece as a location where antisemitism is at a very low level amongst a huge swathe of the population - and yet the attacks in France outnumber those in other European countries. In other words, your own numbers cast serious doubt on your findings.

The findings are based from the ADL Survey in 2002 and dramatic increase in anti-semitism in France in 2004 that was posted at the beginning of this thread. My numbers follow a timeline of increasing anti-semitism in Europe more than America.


From: Archipelago | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 20 July 2004 02:53 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The main problem is that from the outset, the creation of Israel was yet another example of the West exploiting a Third-World people to solve a problem of its own making - genocidal anti-semitism and what to do with the survivors. The survivors should have been supported and protected in Europe, and emigration to the Americas should have been eased for the survivors who so desired. Why should peoples of the Middle East have to bear responsibility for the mass murder inflicted by a Western disease?

I think people in the West (I mean Europe and the nations in the Americas of European background and culture) quite rightly feel guilty in their causing, abetting or assenting to the Nazi genocide. But it is a shame that this guilt is used to oppress another people, and not as a spur to fight racism - which, if we recall, was the initial response, as in the concept of crimes against humanity and the universal charter of human rights.

Hmm, defining Jews or Jewish people ... always tricky, that one. Sartre said Jews were those others defined (and oppressed) as Jews. Certainly Judaism is a religion, but many Jews are atheists or indifferent to religion, and the Nazis - and many other anti-semites - saw converts as still being Jews. Are Jews one people, or many? In Eastern Europe (Yiddishland) Jews were very much a separate population, as were Roma. In Germany and France, though they spoke the language and took a very great part in the national cultures, there was a kind of Jewish identity to be sure. And the Jewish peoples of the Mediterranean are yet another case...

One thing though is very clear - and I'm shocked that even a hard-line Zionist would say such a thing - Jews are most definitely not a race. Please leave such language for the sort of folks we agree upon to hate.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 20 July 2004 02:58 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That was beautiful, Courage -- very sad too, of course.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
SnowyPlover
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6431

posted 20 July 2004 03:19 PM      Profile for SnowyPlover     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It's the genesis of a chauvinistic and xenophobic ideology of 'Jewishness' that pervades early-, middle- and late-Zionist literature and actions.

Oh I know exactly what your talkin' about Courage: I remember when the early Zionists revolted violently against the Arabs in 1926, 1929, 1936 and 1947 that constituted their chauvinistic militarism right? And when the Zionists declared war on the Arabs in 1948, 1967 and 1973. Or when the Zionists rejected the partition plan of 1937 and 1947 that also constituted their chauvinistic, xenophobic character? Correct? No

Or when in 1978 the Begin and the Likud failed to concede the Sinai in exchange for peace, that was a classic expression of xenophobic militarism. And when in 1978 also, the Israeli's failed to accept peace with Syria in exchange for the Golan. But ofcourse, that also occured in 1993 and 1996 when those darn Zionists didnt recognize the PLO and the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. And who can forget, in 2000 when Israel was offered a peace proposal that would arrive at a final agreement and they failed again because their so narcissistic! Accurate? No

quote:
It's the militarism - all-too-easily embraced - not to mention the stench of fascism in the most predominant strain of Zionist thought in this century - i.e. Jabotinky-ite Revisionism. [QUOTE]

The only militant stream of Zionism was in fact Jabotinsky's Revisionists. The Likud party today is far from a Revisionist, fascist dissertation. I think you are speaking of the 'all-two-easily' embraced DEFENSE that is common in the history of Israel.

[QUOTE] It's the constant refusal to take responsibility for the consequences of 'Zionism' - i.e. millions of displaced people, the human rights abuses, the Occupation, and the current conflict that has grown out of this.


The most well-known new-sociologists who documented the issue ragarding the Palestinian displaced persons was in fact an Israeli! Believe it or not. His name is Benny Morris! And there are several other Israeli historians alike who account for the responsibility's of Israel. And they are called Post-Zionists. There is definitely not a lack of accountable Israeli's who understand that in order for Israel to survive, first and foremost the conflict with the Palestinians must arrive at an agreement and statehood.


From: Archipelago | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
SnowyPlover
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6431

posted 20 July 2004 03:21 PM      Profile for SnowyPlover     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
please excuse the untidy use of the [QUOTE] option. I'm still getting used to this program.
From: Archipelago | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 20 July 2004 06:29 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A litany of propaganda and contextless history. Note that I didn't say that progress hasn't been made on some fronts.

Speaking of the Palestinians specifically, there have been some fleeting attempts made to accomodate them. The language is telling. It is instructive that your list of concessions to the Palestinians is largely presented in this manner: "See, Israel granted those Palestinians a few things. It even recognised them as a people!" Isn't that great, that Israel has recognised the Palestinians!?!

Whoop-di-doo. Last I checked it wasn't up to 'Israel' to be the final arbiter of whether the Palestinians get a state or not. Here we see a deeply entrenched colonial racism. "Sure, we came here and took their land, but they fought back and we had to punish them for that. But, on second thought we've decided that maybe they can have some of it back, if they play by our rules."

BTW, last I checked Morris wants Israel to take 'responsibility' all right - but from a position that holds that Israel did not go far enough. This kind of cynical 'realism' is actually a distillation of the Revisionist/Likudnik position from it's fascist roots on up. This school of thought has always been quite open about the fact that the Arabs have a very clear and morally compelling claim to Palestine and about the ugly 'necessities' of creating a 'Jewish State'. It's just that they figure all that can be overcome with strong shows of force and political manipulation.

Note the similarity between Morris' "great revelations" (and his on-the-record opinions about the failure to go 'far enough' in 1948) and Moshe Dayan's words 40 years ago:

"Using the moral yardstick mentioned by [Moshe Sharett], I must ask: Are [we justified] in opening fire on the [Palestinian] Arabs who cross [the border] to reap the crops they planted in our territory; they, their women, and their children? Will this stand up to moral scrutiny . . .? We shoot at those from among the 200,000 hungry [Palestinian] Arabs who cross the line [to graze their flocks]---- will this stand up to moral review? Arabs cross to collect the grain that they left in the abandoned villages and we set mines for them and they go back without an arm or a leg. . . . [It may be that this] cannot pass review, but I know no other method of guarding the borders. then tomorrow the State of Israel will have no borders."

Think of the similarity to this trope to current positions about the "Security Wall" and its efficacy. Note that the 'moral question' is today - as then - swept aside in favour of a chauvinistic notion of 'peace' and 'security'. How much has changed, then?

Moreover, it is also true that Morris (as well as most of the other post-Zionists: Shlaim, Segev, etc.) have been beseiged by opponents to their 'revisions'. Their audience - judging by book sales and other imperfect barometers - has largely been among Europeans and North Americans, and not among Israelis. They hardly speak for the 'common people' or 'the establishment'.

[ 20 July 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
SnowyPlover
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6431

posted 20 July 2004 08:11 PM      Profile for SnowyPlover     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
A litany of propaganda and contextless history. Note that I didn't say that progress hasn't been made on some fronts.
Speaking of the Palestinians specifically, there have been some fleeting attempts made to accomodate them. The language is telling. It is instructive that your list of concessions to the Palestinians is largely presented in this manner: "See, Israel granted those Palestinians a few things. It even recognised them as a people!" Isn't that great, that Israel has recognised the Palestinians!?! Whoop-di-doo. Last I checked it wasn't up to 'Israel' to be the final arbiter of whether the Palestinians get a state or not. Here we see a deeply entrenched colonial racism.

No you didnt say that anything about progress having been made. In fact, you deemed Zionism as chauvinistic and xenophobic, which is completely misinformed and bigoted. Contextless history? Please Courage, spare me your useless blanket statements. I dont see anything contextless in noting the efforts of Israel to help in achieving a final status for the Palestinian people. And Israel has done much more diplomatically than recognize Palestinian self-determination that's for sure. You're right, its not up to Israel to be the final arbiter, but the role of Israel is not obsolete in the state-building process. Israeli diplomatic initiatives as 'fleeting', I dont think so mister. By the way, who has helped the Palestinians lately? Has Arafat or the PA ever been instrumental in negotiating a final settlement or even succeeding in multilateral measures with Israel? According to history, NOT REALLY. And nowadays we understand why this is so, just tune in to your local news station and see that we are a far cry away from Palestinian control and internal security. Dont kid yourself here, laying the blame entirely on Israel for every Palestinian grievance is an injustice.

Colonial racism? Thats a pretty vague, unmerited conclusion. Prior to 1948, the dilemma occured when both sides were challenged to acknowledge each-others legitimacy and self-determination. What happened there?:

"The immigration of Jews to Palestine was vastly different from colonialism, both with respect to their situation in their countries of origin and with respect to their relationship with the land itself. Unlike colonial powers, the Jews were a people in exile, foreigners wherever they went; they were everywhere a minority, and in some places persecuted relentlessly; and they had never possessed national sovereignty over any land but the land of Israel. Add to this their profound cultural and religious bond to the land, and you have a solid basis for a unique connection between the Jews and the land of Israel—one far more compelling than the claims of a typical group of European settlers."
-Gavizon, Ruth. "The Jews Right to Statehood"

quote:
"Sure, we came here and took their land, but they fought back and we had to punish them for that. But, on second thought we've decided that maybe they can have some of it back, if they play by our rules."

We both know that its not as simple as that. Common Courage! I'd expect more from you! Then again up until now you have criticized Israel over flimsy blanket statements that have no merit.

My mentioning of Benny Morris and the Post-Zionists was not in order to measure their effectiveness. Your decree was that Israel has failed to take responsibility for it's actions. When in fact, Israel takes responsibilty all the time. Including with regards to the security Wall and matters occuring in the territories. There is a well enforced rule of law in Israel if you didnt know and it is enforced in the Palestinian territories aswell. Just take a look at the Israeli Supreme court website that often rules against the army!:Decisions of the Supreme Court

Consider today, when Shin Bet head Avi Dichter declared that 150-200 Israeli's are wanted for threats of assasination of the Prime Minister. Terrorism is not tolerated in any form, Israeli or Palestinian.

Its your decree that Israel has failed to acknowledge the Palestinian right to self-determinatin. When in fact, its been evident all along.

fooled you thrice...this is simply unpleasant.


From: Archipelago | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 20 July 2004 08:32 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think in retrospect the Allies could probably have gotten the USSR to go along with giving all of East Germany to the Jewish survivors of the Holocaust, with USSR guarantees of the border with West Germany provided that East Germany, like Austria, remained neutral and not in NATO or the Warsaw Pact.

That would have been more just.


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

posted 21 July 2004 05:00 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Snowy:

Most of what you wrote is panicked nonsense; a veritable petting zoo of red herrings and canards and hardly worthy of a response. Moreso since we (re: Babblers) have been around this Mulberry Bush too many times to count. I personally am weary of it.

But just a couple of correctives to your "fool"-ishness:

quote:
...you deemed Zionism as chauvinistic and xenophobic, which is completely misinformed and bigoted.

Please read what I wrote again (emphasis added):

quote:
However, it is not the principle of a Jewish nationalism or the terms of international law that I - and a great many other AntiZionists - disagree with. Rather, it is the manner in which 'Zionism' was and is carried out. It's the genesis of a chauvinistic and xenophobic ideology of 'Jewishness' that pervades early-, middle- and late-Zionist literature and actions. It's the militarism - all-too-easily embraced - not to mention the stench of fascism in the most predominant strain of Zionist thought in this century - i.e. Jabotinky-ite Revisionism. His Iron Wall is before us today. His direct political progeny (Likud) are in the driver's seat, and Labor boasts as their heroes people whose view of the conflict was perhaps even more ideologically blind to the Arabs - e.g. Golda Meir and Ben-Gurion.

At no point have I spoken of 'Zionism' as wholly chauvinistic - only that this kind of thinking is easily found in a great amount of Zionist literature, propaganda, and actions. I even mentioned specific strains of Zionism characterised by this sort of mindset and which have a high degree of political saliency at this time. I note you have no rebuttal to this.

quote:
"The immigration of Jews to Palestine was vastly different from colonialism..."

This is a red herring. I note that your response does not address the actual charge I made about colonial racist attitudes. And really, one little quote is not going to make your case. I could quote dozens of sources that demonstrate the colonial mindset of Zionists and Israelis - including many important Zionist political leaders; i.e. not theoreticians and authors of armchair fodder. People like Weizmann, Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir, Jobotinksy, Begin, etc.

Anyway, as above, I note that you haven't addressed the way in which your narrative is largely the old colonial story of the 'savage unrepentent natives' versus the 'forces of civilisation'. You have actually replicated this entire narrative throughout most of your postings.

And lastly, your reposte about Benny Morris is the most laughable thing yet. You claim that,

quote:
My mentioning of Benny Morris and the Post-Zionists was not in order to measure their effectiveness.

This is absurd. Above, in the context of discussing Morris, you said:

quote:
There is definitely not a lack of accountable Israeli's...

So, clearly, the question is about their effectiveness. You can't say that Morris' "Post-Zionist" thinking is an example of Israel taking responsibility for their action en masse if this strain of thought is not accepted as valid en masse or - most importantly - in the halls of the military and political establishment.

Moreover, you have failed to address the real implications of Morris' position - which are counter to your own assertions. Yes, Morris says "we did it", but he also says, "but we had to, and it's okay." That's a lot different than saying, "Oh shit, we should fix this real soon."

Anyway, thanks for bringing Morris up. I'm personally of the opinion that he shouldn't be considered a "post-Zionist" at all, and that he fits in nicely with Jabotinsky, Sharon, and the rest of the 'realists' of the Revisionist school. He is a perfect example of the so-called 'progressives' on 'the Left' in Israel who have essentially adopted the same radical position as the right-wing in regards to the Palestinians and Arabs in general.

Rememeber this is the same "accountable" Morris who thinks that ethnic cleansing isn't always a war crime. This is the same "accountable" Morris who says that Palestinians are "barbarians" who ought to be put in a "cage".

Whooey - what a fine example indeed, this Mr. Morris.

[ 21 July 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
SnowyPlover
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6431

posted 21 July 2004 06:03 PM      Profile for SnowyPlover     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So, clearly, the question is about their effectiveness. You can't say that Morris' "Post-Zionist" thinking is an example of Israel taking responsibility for their action en masse if this strain of thought is not accepted as valid en masse or - most importantly - in the halls of the military and political establishment.

Maybe you didnt catch on to my previous entry regarding Israeli accountability. Regardless of the effectiveness of Post-Zionists, evaluations and acountability for actions taken by the military are valid and functional en masse. I included the link to the Israeli Supreme Court so you might possibly seek some validity behind your blanket statements.

quote:
Rememeber this is the same "accountable" Morris who thinks that ethnic cleansing isn't always a war crime. This is the same "accountable" Morris who says that Palestinians are "barbarians" who ought to be put in a "cage".

Please bring forth all of your unaccounted for citations because your argument is rather flimsy for me aswell. Including quotations of Morris claiming the Palestinians as 'barbarians who ought to be put in a cage' and claiming that 'ethnic cleansing isnt always a war crime.' BTW- Morris did not excuse any of the atrocities that occured in the War of Independence.

quote:
This is a red herring. I note that your response does not address the actual charge I made about colonial racist attitudes. And really, one little quote is not going to make your case. I could quote dozens of sources that demonstrate the colonial mindset of Zionists and Israelis - including many important Zionist political leaders; i.e. not theoreticians and authors of armchair fodder. People like Weizmann, Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir, Jobotinksy, Begin, etc.

Anyway, as above, I note that you haven't addressed the way in which your narrative is largely the old colonial story of the 'savage unrepentent natives' versus the 'forces of civilisation'. You have actually replicated this entire narrative throughout most of your postings.


I suggest you take a look at the article I provided in the previous post written by Ruth Gavizon. There, you will find the effectively detailed narrative you are searching for. Specifically, section III evaluates the liberty vs. the right of Jews to establish a state in Palestine and investigates this issue in periods dating from the late 19th century until today. You know Courage, my references aren't there just for show. It helps to inquire about where I'm coming from instead of simply thrashing about with judgemental condemnations of my standpoint.


From: Archipelago | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 21 July 2004 06:22 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Re: Morris.

Go read the Ha'aretz interview with Henry Makow, January 15, 2004.

The relevent passages concerning "barbarians" and "cages" are these:

quote:
Morris(BM):"True. But when one has to deal with a serial killer, it's not so important to discover why he became a serial killer. What's important is to imprison the murderer or to execute him."

Interviewer(I):Explain the image: Who is the serial killer in the analogy?

BM: "The barbarians who want to take our lives. The people the Palestinian society sends to carry out the terrorist attacks, and in some way the Palestinian society itself as well. At the moment, that society is in the state of being a serial killer. It is a very sick society. It should be treated the way we treat individuals who are serial killers."

I:What does that mean? What should we do tomorrow morning?

BM:"We have to try to heal the Palestinians. Maybe over the years the establishment of a Palestinian state will help in the healing process. But in the meantime, until the medicine is found, they have to be contained so that they will not succeed in murdering us."

I:To fence them in? To place them under closure?

BM: "Something like a cage has to be built for them. I know that sounds terrible. It is really cruel. But there is no choice. There is a wild animal there that has to be locked up in one way or another."

The rest of the interview, where the reader will be shocked and suprised to learn that not only is "The Arab world...barbarian..." but that the Nakba of 1948 isn't all that significant in a "cosmic" sense, and that the "cosmic" suffering imparted upon Jews over the centuries mitigates the obvious (though less significant) suffering visited on the Palestinians. Here, Palestinians are of a lesser moral order than Jews, having become props in the "cosmic" morality play that Jews find themselves in. What was that about narcissism?

As for the issue of 'narratives', I don't concede on my original point: that one example of a non-politically important author does not give an accurate depiction of the ideology underlying mainstream Zionist accounts of the conflict with the Palestinians, specifically as it concerns colonial-style racism. This was, afterall, the topic of discussion, despite your attempts to insert a red herring into the mix. And, in fact, if we take a look at the quote you provide, we actually start to see the seeds of the narcissism that I've been talking about. Essentially, because Jews have suffered, it makes it a 'different' kind of colonisation. However, recall that much of North America was colonised by political refugees - Puritans, Hugenots, etc.. This doesn't make the problems of colonisation any less acute. It doesn't change the fact that Zionist colonisation was begun and fomented under the auspice of Ottoman and British Imperial interests, and consciously connected with the interests of European Imperialism/Colonialism by it's own political leaders. That Jews were suffering in Europe cannot change this simple fact.

A large proportion of mainstream Zionist thinking partakes in the colonial narrative of 'redeeming' the land (implying that there is something unfit about it and it's current inhabitants). This narrative is found in both right-wing religious Zionist literature and in so-called 'Left-wing' Zionist positions which saw Israel as the place where a proper Jewish working-class could emancipate itself from mental and physical bondage. The relevent ommission in all these mythologies is always the reality of the Palestinian Arab presence on the land already. Where that reality is addressed it is usually done so in terms which denigrate the Palestinians culturally and morally, or with the affirmation that enough force will convince the backward Arab to give in. We are reminded of the 'progressive, Left-wing, Post-Zionist' Morris and his agreement with Jabotinsky and Ben-Gurion on the issue of the Arab "barbarian" and the need to use force to make them accept Zionism. What was that about militarism and fascism, again?


On the issue of the Israeli Supreme Court decision, this issue has been discussed elsewhere where I, among others, have argued that there is nothing really shocking or progressive about the ruling and that is simply an affirmation of the political status quo with a few adjustments. It's like saying, "Sure, you can cage those animals, but make sure that the cage is big enough that they aren't too cramped."

And as for 'judgemental' responses to your posts - if you didn't want that, don't wade in here spouting off line after line of half-baked Israeli Ministry of Information propaganda...

[ 21 July 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


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

posted 22 July 2004 01:54 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Did anyone hear the As it Happens interview with a French Jewish leader tonight (Wednesday)?

He basically said that Sharon doesn't speak for French Jews and that the French take antisemitism very seriously, which is one reason why we hear so much about any antisemitic incidents in France.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
SnowyPlover
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6431

posted 22 July 2004 02:09 PM      Profile for SnowyPlover     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As for the issue of 'narratives', I don't concede on my original point: that one example of a non-politically important author does not give an accurate depiction of the ideology underlying mainstream Zionist accounts of the conflict with the Palestinians, specifically as it concerns colonial-style racism. This was, afterall, the topic of discussion, despite your attempts to insert a red herring into the mix. And, in fact, if we take a look at the quote you provide, we actually start to see the seeds of the narcissism that I've been talking about. Essentially, because Jews have suffered, it makes it a 'different' kind of colonisation. However, recall that much of North America was colonised by political refugees - Puritans, Hugenots, etc.. This doesn't make the problems of colonisation any less acute. It doesn't change the fact that Zionist colonisation was begun and fomented under the auspice of Ottoman and British Imperial interests, and consciously connected with the interests of European Imperialism/Colonialism by it's own political leaders. That Jews were suffering in Europe cannot change this simple fact.

True, the Zionists were sponsored by European interests. However this does not undermine the fact that Jews had the 'liberty' to purchase and settle land in Palestine prior to and after the Balfour Decleration which was later affirmed by their 'right'. Classifying a well-known understanding of the history of Israel as a red-herring is in fact avoiding truth. If you had read Part III of the article, you might understand where 'liberty' and 'right' factor into this equation. Oh wait, maybe you just avoided it. Returning to the subject of colonization: I insist that labeling Zionism as 'colonial racism' is a weak assertion and an unfavorable opinion formed without merit or knowledge of Zionist history. Zionism was a pluralist movement that did in fact consider the Arab question. Sure, there were Zionists like the Revisionist and Jabotinsky who were convinced that force was a key tool. Yet, Jabotinsky only gained popularity after the British were slowly failing to arbitrate between Jews and Arabs and were wholely retracting Jewish immigration and land purchases. (during and after WWII) Jabotinsky was also the only one who in 1939, proclaimed that millions of Jews would have to be saved.

Yet to assert that Zionist history was dictated through the aims of colonial racism is again, excessive. Zionism was founded as a pluralist movement. The Arab population in Palestine was definitely acknowledged and considered. Try reading Ahad Ha'am or David Epstein and you might acquire a more balanced view. You bring up an important point in acknowledging that Zionist history does not go without its flaws. Yes, the Palestinian injustice was a major backlash. But this did not occur at the feet of Jewish colonization in Palestine alone. Arabs in and around Palestine were for that matter much more responsible for the fate of indiginous Palestinians. Dont forget that the Arabs never for a second conceded to the Jewish 'right' to live autonomously. Which by 1937 was 'rightful'. In fact, they declared war on the Jews with the intention of ridding them of Palestine by either exiling them or killing them. With close to half a million Jews in Palestine by 1948 (and more arriving by the day) you can beleive this would have constituted some sort of mass genocide.

In addition, prior to 1948, Jewish land was bought from Arabs. In places where land was settled, the Tower and Stockade method rendered it legal, unless the British came along one day and decided to arbitrarily dismantle homes and farms because of political pressure from Arab riots that spilled over to the repetitive White Papers in favor of Arab interests.

Indeed Zionist colonization was a product of Ottoman and Western rule. But if political Zionists had not sought international recognition in the first place, (from Germany, France, America and finally achieved with Britian) and had not the Socialist Zionists initiated the process of immigration to Israel themselves in the first place(in 1897), then imperial interests would have been served anyhow. Your argument is irrelevant. Besides, I would say that the West adopted more prerogative in appeasing the Arabs in order to achieve their interest, rather than appeasing the Jews who were merely a product of successful diplomacy and recognition of the abstract notion of self-determination. In short, the Jews didnt serve the interests of the West as did the Arabs who the West was seeking to exploit for oil and money. In comparison, fullfilling Jewish commitments was hardly an important manifestation in the 'problem' of colonization.

quote:
A large proportion of mainstream Zionist thinking partakes in the colonial narrative of 'redeeming' the land (implying that there is something unfit about it and it's current inhabitants). This narrative is found in both right-wing religious Zionist literature and in so-called 'Left-wing' Zionist positions which saw Israel as the place where a proper Jewish working-class could emancipate itself from mental and physical bondage. The relevent ommission in all these mythologies is always the reality of the Palestinian Arab presence on the land already. Where that reality is addressed it is usually done so in terms which denigrate the Palestinians culturally and morally, or with the affirmation that enough force will convince the backward Arab to give in.

Classifying the significance of 'redeeming the land' as racist is again ignoring historical reference. Zionists of different streams identified and interpreted this term in several ways. Religious Zionists saw is as a way to 'redeem' the land in preparation for the messiah. Socialist Zionists saw it as a way to 'redeem' grievances, promote equality and make a connection with their spirit and well-being. Politicial Zionists saw it a way to redeem the land for independence and a Jewish nationhood. True, your reference to revisionst zionism is true, but not at all homogenous for the Zionist movement as a whole.

Although right wing Zionists blamed the Arabs for incompatibilty and inconsistency, this 'redeem the land' concept was neither a consolidated policy nor a common thread. On the contrary, Arab presence was recognized. Prior to 1948, Jewish land was bought from Arabs. In places where land was settled, the Tower and Stockade method rendered it legal, unless the British came along one day and decided to arbitrarily dismantle homes and farms because of political pressure from Arab riots that spilled over to the repetitive White Papers in favor of Arab interests. (Which also reinforced the Arab presence)

Arabs interests were also sponsored by Europeans aswell. So this whole colonization process is really irrelevent when you consider that the dynamic was between Arabs and Jews with the sponsorship of Western powers. The Arabs in Palestine, specifically the monarchs from the Hejaz, were working in tandem with Britian and France to overthrow Ottoman rule. The Arabs, with their persistent petitioning of Britian, France and even the US, claimed that Jews had no 'right' to live in an autonomous home no matter how many Jews occupied Palestine.

If we are speaking of narcissism, it was clearly more enforced and championed amongst the Arab constituency's who declared war on Israel in the first place. Courage, you are forgetting that this whole tension erupted out of Arab disregard for a diplomatic solution and out of Arab monarchical self-indulgence. How could Israel possibly have nurture a progressive and considerate mentality with regards to a people, (Arabs/Palestinians) who constantly saw fit to declare war and resort to violence. Woo, now we are talking. All I'm saying here is, that this animosity, this fear, this negligence to at times consider the plight of the Palestinians, is not bread out of racist Zionist logic from its inception! It comes from an unfortunate past that both sides have endured.

quote:
On the issue of the Israeli Supreme Court decision, this issue has been discussed elsewhere where I, among others, have argued that there is nothing really shocking or progressive about the ruling and that is simply an affirmation of the political status quo with a few adjustments.

I was speaking about the accountability and the democratic nature of Israel. That even under occupied conditions, the Supreme Court has a very precise watchful eye on the military and its actions. Besides, if in your view its an affirmation of the political status quo, then it is relevant in noting that the ICJ ruling was of the exact same nature. The political status quo of all the countries who ruled against the Wall who didnt even consider deaths accumulated by Terrorists bombings and who ruled that Israeli has the right to defend itself from the another nation, but not for that matter, from terrorists.

Benny Morris's view does not go unnoticed however. His words are disturbing and I thank you for providing the source. I would hope you understand by now however that the status quo is not of racist or fascist reasoning. As said, its much more complicated than that. Even Morris suggests that Palestinian state would help heal. But like you said in our discussion about Labor, it wont happen overnight.


From: Archipelago | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 22 July 2004 03:00 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here is an open letter from a spokesperson for L'Union juive française pour la paix, "No, I will not emigrate to Israel". Sorry, I just received a word file from the association, so I haven't got a web link:

Non M. Sharon, je n’émigrerai pas en Israël !

Vous avez choisi le jour même où la France commémorait la rafle du Vélodrome d’Hiver pour presser ceux que vous nommez " les juifs de France " d’émigrer en Israël.

Vous aggravez votre cas, et jetez de l’huile sur le feu, lorsque vous justifiez cette prétendue urgence en citant le chiffre de 10% de musulmans en France.

Non M. Sharon je n’émigrerai pas en Israël.

1. Je n’émigrerai pas : la France est le pays de ma naissance et celui de ma famille paternelle et maternelle, d’origine alsacienne, depuis des générations. Je suis pupille de la Nation, mon père ayant été fusillé par les nazis et leurs collabos français, mais c’était en 1944. Nous sommes en 2004. " Heureux comme Dieu en France " disaient les juifs d’Europe centrale et de Russie, en arrivant ici. Je suis citoyen français.

2. Je n’émigrerai pas : la France n’est pas antisémite, même si des actes antijuifs ont été commis ces derniers temps, mais aussi anti arabes ou islamophobes, et les auteurs de ces actes sont divers : esprits mentalement fragiles, néo-nazis qui croient que leur heure est venue puisque tant d’électeurs se reconnaissent dans le vote d’extrême droite, jeunes paumés, Français d’origine arabe, qui se trompent d’ennemi et croient soutenir le peuple palestinien là-bas, en s’en prenant aux juifs ici. Ils n’entendent pas Mme Leila Shahid qui leur répète qu’ils se trompent de cible.

3. Je n’émigrerai pas : la vocation du sionisme a été et reste de rassembler les Juifs du monde en Israël, Etat qui se dit juif. Lors de la récente crise économique et politique en Argentine, vous appeliez déjà les Juifs argentins à faire leur " alyah ". Aujourd’hui ce serait le tour des Français. Se manifeste à nouveau la collusion objective entre le sionisme et l’antisémitisme. Mais chacun peut voir qu’Israël est un des pays du monde où les Juifs vivent le moins en sécurité, du fait de l’oppression du peuple palestinien.

4. Je n’émigrerai pas : vos déclarations irresponsables voudraient opposer les Français juifs aux Français arabo-musulmans. Vous n’y parviendrez pas. Nous suivrons au contraire l’exemple de ces Juifs de l’Union Juive Française pour la Paix et de ces Maghrébins de l’Association des Travailleurs Maghrébins de France qui, ensemble, sont allés soutenir le peuple palestinien et les opposants israéliens à la politique criminelle de votre gouvernement. Au Proche-Orient comme en France, l’urgence est de détruire les murs pour construire des ponts.

5. Je n’émigrerai pas : je refuse de bénéficier de la soi-disant " loi du retour " dans un pays qui n’a jamais été le mien, un pays dont les gouvernements violent le droit international, en érigeant un mur illégal, en colonisant illégalement les territoires occupés en Cisjordanie et à Gaza, en détruisant des oliviers, des orangers, des maisons, en tuant des hommes, des femmes, des enfants. Ce sont les Palestiniens, chassés en 1948, en 1967 et aujourd’hui qui ont droit au retour dans leur patrie.

6. Je n’émigrerai pas : M. Sharon, vous avez réussi l’exploit de contraindre même le CRIF, qui prétend représenter tous les Juifs de France et contribue par sa politique suiviste à la confusion entre Israéliens, sionistes, Juifs à l’aggravation des tensions, à se démarquer de vos propos incendiaires. Merci pour cela au moins.

Non M. Sharon, je n’émigrerai pas. C’est ici, dans mon pays, en Europe que je combattrai tous les racismes et aussi votre politique jusqu’à ce que le peuple palestinien puisse enfin vivre en paix dans son Etat, en Palestine, aux côtés du peuple israélien, dans toutes ses composantes, en Israël.

Jean Claude Meyer.
06 83 69 17 93
21/07/04


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 22 July 2004 03:18 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
re: Zionism

Thanks, but this territory has been covered elsewhere on Babble. I'm well-versed in the intellectual history of Zionism. Moreover, I'm more than a little weary of your mischaracterisations of my arguments and your strawman-ing. I challenge you to provide a single example of me claiming that Zionism was and is - ONLY - colonial racism.

As for Ha'am, a more instructive analysis would look into how his 'tolerant' Zionism was quickly quashed and pushed aside. This strain of Zionism - carried on by Arendt, Buber, Magnes, et al - was always, and remains, a minority view within the umbrella of 'Zionist' thought.


Labelling Jabotinksy as a fringe element is naive and myopic to the real effects that his movement has had on the development of Zionist thought and the state of Israel. You have the relative importance of these two schools of thought to 'mainstream' Zionism completely backward! It is not difficult to trace the lineage of Revisionist thinking into the most problematic of Israeli policy, including the Occupation, the ridiculous 'Security Wall' - not to mention the overriding notion that all that the Palestinians will listen to is force - whether it be in the shape of walls and checkpoints, or in the shape of troops and tanks. This 'Iron Wall' strategy is before us today and is accepted by the so-called 'doves' in Labour and 'hawks' in Likud. Even your oh-so-progressive Mr. Morris has taken this viewpoint to new and absurd extremes. A cursory examination of the versions of this story that we get around here (yours, Mishei, Starbuck, etc.) demonstrates how this attitude is quite pervasive even amongst nominally 'progressive' Zionists.

On the question of timelines; consider that as prominent a figure as Chaim Weizmann described the Arabs of Palestine as "the rocks of Judea, as obstacles that had to be cleared on a difficult path.." before the British conquest. Here we see that the derisive (toward Arabs) attitude of Jabotinsky has a clear geneology in Zionist thinking. Moreover, if we look further into Weizmann's comments on the matter of Jewish immigration we get some evidence about how the 'Arab Question' was dealt with in central Zionist circles - at least as far as their enunciated policy was concerned:

quote:
"In its initial stage, Zionism was conceived by its pioneers as a movement wholly depending on mechanical factors: there is a country which happens to be called Palestine, a country without people, and, on the other hand, there exists the Jewish people, and it has no country. What else is necessary, then, than to fit the gem into the ring, to unite this people with this country? The owners of the country [the Ottoman Turks] must, there for, be persuaded and conceived that this marriage is advantageous, not only for the [Jewish] people and for the country, but also for themselves."

Here we find the genesis of the old ditty of 'A Land Without People for A People Without Land'. Arabs are entirely absent from this narrative. They are just written into the margins. One of the key developments that Jabotinsky's 'realism' brought to Zionist thought was a paradoxical acceptance of the view of Ha'am and the other 'progressives'. His position (if you read his articles) was a dissent from the commonly held position that the Arabs either weren't really a force, or weren't really there at all, or were too backward to do anything, or just needed to be ignored. Against this narcissistic myopia he posited a violent solution. He argued that the Arabs must be taken into account, but only insomuch as they must be considered an adversary to be beaten and/or destroyed with enough force. His 'realism' was to acknowledge (finally) the Arab presence in Palestine, but only in order to position them as a permanent and hated other to be expelled or worse.

So we see that on the matter of the 'Arab Question' you've missed the point entirely - over and over. The 'Arab Question' certainly received a certain amount of play within Zionist discourse. It was not, however, brought to the Arabs themselves in any meaningful way. Moreover, we see that the most important of Zionists (e.g. Weizmann) were only beginning to consider them at all. Weizmann's own recount of early Zionist ideology ("In its initial stages") is hardly evidence of a serious inquiry into the real problem posed by Jewish colonisation on the resident Arab majority - i.e. this so-called "pluralism" you keep raving about.

Also, it is interesting that you invite me to read Ha'am, when it was I who first brought him into this discussion. But beyond the details, now that he's in play, I think that he - like Morris - is a very instructive example. If we consider that Ha'am's reports on Jews in Palestine (as early as 1891) already speak of the derisive and "tyrannical" (his word) attitude of Zionist colonists toward the Arabs we see that your claims about the 'pluralism' of early Zionism are cast into doubt - USING YOUR SOURCES!

Reading Ha'am we find not just a dissenting voice but an indication of what is being dissented against. The very fact that he wrote in protest against a widely held viewpoint tells us a little about the intellectual and political atmosphere in Palestine (and among Zionist colonists generally) at that time. He was not in the majority - he was dissenting (ineffectively I might add) from the common view held by those carrying out the act of Zionist colonisation. The fact that he has been essentially pushed to the margins of Zionist thought (he and his ilk are usually listed as a kind of quaint afterthought in categorisations of Zionism by Zionists themselves) is perfect evidence of how insignificant his sort of thinking has been on the general course of intellectual and actual political events. The 'bi-national' solution suggested by this tradition is now considered 'antisemitism' by many proponents of Israeli policy: I invite you to look into Babble's archives for examples.

Since it was only ever my contention that the politically salient versions of Zionism were rife with militarism and chauvinism, your example of Ha'am, etc. does little to weaken my argument. In fact, we see that if we read Ha'am in context that my initial argument is reinforced.

As for the rest, it's hot, and I just don't have time today to debunk more spurious claims about the 'innocent Zionists' confronted by those 'violent Arabs'. We see that even your own examples of 'progressives' belie your position. This basic flaw in your position is readily apparent, so I need not go further at this time.

Good day, enjoy the heat.

]

[ 22 July 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


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

posted 22 July 2004 03:56 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks for that article, lagatta.

French Jews don't appear any more interested in taking orders from Sharon than the French in general are in following orders from Bush.


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

posted 22 July 2004 04:08 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, thanks Lagatta for bringing that here for us.

I apologise for fomenting so much thread drift.

I do think that what we are speaking of is connected however: Sharon is engaging in manipulation and fear-mongering to bolster his chauvinistic politics.
Now, we see that even French people - who have done a lot to counter antisemitism in their midst if the ADL is to be taken seriously (I know, I know) - are under attack by this ravenous mindset. He's pushing a 19th Century nationalist position: the old 'One People, One State' business that has lead to some of the worst political disasters in recent memory. He is essentially fighting against a more modern form of 'assimilation', positing a nationalist/chauvinist ethos as the only political solution to ethnic discrimination and tension. The sound of anti-liberalism in his protests are readily apparent, in fact.

You'd think that people would be wise to that argument by now. It is clear that Jews are safer and more secure in states that consider themselves to be 'civic' and multiethnic rather than strictly 'ethno-national' - though these two categories are never as purely seperate as it may seem at first glance. Either way, despite the manipulative claims of some alarmists, Jews are clearly in a better position in many parts of Europe than just about anywhere else - including dear old Eretz Yisroel.

[ 22 July 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 22 July 2004 04:40 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mr Meyer who wrote the UJFP letter seems like a courtly old gentleman, but I'm sure he got a chuckle out of the fact that even the CRIF (roughly equivalent to the CJC) is pissed off at Sharon's provocation.

I have some thread drift of my own on "pupille de la Nation" - not just a pupil in the schoolboy sense, but someone who was "adopted" by the Nation - it seems to have started in the First World War that decimated a generation of young men, many already fathers, and was extended to child Holocaust survivors such as Mr Meyer. It doesn't mean the State took the children away from surviving relatives, but that it acted as a tutor in the sense of supporting their education etc.

I haven't got time to translate Mr Meyer's letter, but of course I'll be pleased to answer any questions.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
SnowyPlover
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6431

posted 22 July 2004 05:00 PM      Profile for SnowyPlover     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So we see that on the matter of the 'Arab Question' you've missed the point entirely - over and over. The 'Arab Question' certainly received a certain amount of play within Zionist discourse. It was not, however, brought to the Arabs themselves in any meaningful way.

On the contrary, you are nitpicking appropriate references from history in trying to prove that nobody considered the Arabs or was never 'brought to the Arabs themselves'. Recall Husayn McMahon? Recall Hitlers promises to Husayni that he'd wipe away Palestine of its Jews. Brought to the Arabs? Ofcourse it was. The Arabs even brought the question to America in the King Crane Commission, or brought to them in the countless White Papers. (Churchill, MacDonald, Peel, UN?) Indeed, the Arab question recieved a vast amount of play in Zionist discourse. Unfortunately, more than you are willing to admit. (Or willing to omitt for that matter)

quote:
If we consider that Ha'am's reports on Jews in Palestine (as early as 1891) already speak of the derisive and "tyrannical" (his word) attitude of Zionist colonists toward the Arabs we see that your claims about the 'pluralism' of early Zionism are cast into doubt - USING YOUR SOURCES!

Why that is pluralism at its finest! Attempting to shape Zionist history as a non-pluralist phenomenon is disingenuous coming from a person who thinks he's so well-versed in its history. Ha'am has always been considered a prominent Zionist and rarely been cast as a 'quaint afterthought'-->an injustice done on your part aswell. Well-versed uh? With regards to the anti-semitic remark, I invite you to consider the debate today amongst Israelis who think that bi-nationalism is still feasible. It's the anti-Zionism that many Jews are concerned about.

quote:
As for the rest, it's hot, and I just don't have time today to debunk more spurious claims about the 'innocent Zionists' confronted by those 'violent Arabs'. We see that even your own examples of 'progressives' belie your position. This basic flaw in your position is readily apparent, so I need not go further at this time

Shying away from a relevant and vital part of my position? You're weak attempt to debunk my position is further undermined by the incapacity to confront this issue. I never casted the Zionists as 'innocent'. In fact, where did you get that quote from Courage? Your continual denial of the progressive nature of Zionism is obsolete at this point. Its undoubtably true that if you look at the history of Israel, the internal Zionist debate between Jews has cultivated a much more progressive nature on their rather than on the part of the Arabs. Sorry Courage, your snotty criticism didnt save you this time.


From: Archipelago | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fly133
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6521

posted 22 July 2004 05:37 PM      Profile for Fly133        Edit/Delete Post
You guys (Courage & Co.) are using random excerpts from history in order to argue points that are much further downstream from the main source of the conflict. Why don’t you start from the basic assumptions, which you will read if you get to the bottom of this message (see A,B,C) and see where you take it from there. The same way you attack the Zionist movement, you can do to the Palestinian/Arabs (anything from the Muslim Brothers, to Hag Amin Al Husaini to Arafat and Habash). You write about facts that are at best partial, and at worst manipulated.

This is a struggle between two national movements – Zionist and Arab. None of them is right or wrong. Just clear conflict of interest. Notwithstanding the argument within the Zionist movement (different fractions in democracy, my friends – revisionists, Ahad Ha’am, Borochov, whomever) – the Arab side have the same things, except MUCH less democratic. They kill the factions that do not agree. To remind you, Husaini supported Hitler, but that, to part of you, may seem acceptable also. King Abdalla from Jordan and Anuar Sadat were assasinated. (Rabin too, but not for thinking like "Courage"...he was much closer to Sharon...)
The Zionist movement is not clear of faults – nor is the other side. Read the following and get to A-B-C.


· "Palestine" was never an independent country or People. The Ottoman Empire ruled this piece of land for 400 years, until 1917. (Beforehand, in a broad brush, it was the Crusaders and before the Romans). Actually, the last independent State was Israeli Kingdom, ruled by Hashmonai King - Alexander Yanai, just before the emergence of Herod (appointed by the Romans) and than Jesus, ruin of 2nd temple, Jews to Diaspora etc.
But NEVER a state of Palestinian People.
· That, however, in my opinion, is irrelevant, since today there are 4 million Palestinians, claiming they are a nation. So be it. One should accept the fact that there need to a compromise w/them. So forget ancient history, let's talk about realities, and the last 100 years.
· Since 1917 the place was ruled by UK under a mandate ("British Mandate") from the League of Nations (preceded the UN, after WWI), after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
· The Zionist movement, established in 1898 by Herzel, after many discussions and argument, decided to try to solve the 2000 years problem of the Jewish People (genocides, pogroms, anti-Semitism, lack of land) by trying to gather everyone back to a semi-empty piece of land in Palestine. (True, not empty. A fault. Inhabited sparsely by tribes from, Muslim Arab, Christian Arabs and Bedouin decent).
· Since 1917, the Zionist movement got the western world APPROVAL and MORAL SUPPORT in at least 3 major milestones:
· Nov. 2nd, 1917, Balfour (British Minister of Settlements) Declaration, setting a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine. (along side the present inhabitant, but with the clear intention to set a home for Jews from all over the world.)
· Phil Committee - 1937, during the Arab "intifada" of 1936-39, recommending to divide the place to 2 nations/states. BEN GURION ACCEPTED THIS (causing a big rift inside the Zionist movement). THE ARABS REJECTED.
· Nov. 29th, 1947 - The UN decision in Lake Success, NY, 2/3 of the world vote to divide the land, enabling the establishment of the State of Israel, on part of Palestine, so the Arabs can have alongside a Palestinian state. BEN GURION ACCEPTED THIS, and DECLARED INDEPENDENCE. THE ARABS REJECTED, and started an all out 12 months war. Which they lost in a grand way. (Our War of Independence).

Now, if someone is anti-Zionist (Jew OR Arab), and does not accept the right of Jews to live as a People/Nation in Israel - he is in an argument with most of the western world of the last 100 years. I am in no interest or chance to convince him. He should study the real facts, and decide what to do - since Israel is a fact, both for Jews, as well as for others. If something will demolish it - it will be internal weaknesses, not outside haters, reality-deniers or anti-Semites.

Insomuch as the rest of the 100 years struggle over the land of Israel (or Palestine, it's semantics)
· Historical/religious claims should be less relevant - on both sides.
· Jews and Israel are there to stay. So are the Arabs
· Israel also won the wars, and lost a lot of lives for that. (So did the Arabs, but they initiated most of them, and lost. Don’t be such naïve philosophers. In this world – it is a struggle for existence).
· During the struggle, there were many injustices done by both sides. 'Courage' hi-lights only where Israel was at fault, or inhuman. Yes, sometimes they were, but MUCH LESS than the other side.
· And it should not matter anyhow, since we are looking for practical solution not absolute justice.
· There should be compromise on the land, but there should be 3 basic premises that are not under discussion:
· A-Jews will have an independent homeland/state in Israel.
· B-Arabs will have an independant homeland/state in Palestine.(alongside Israel)
· C-Land should be divided somehow into 2 states, since Jews are not ready to live in one dual-nation state. (They will become minority in 50 years).

NOW....
Before 'Courage' and his entourage start to argue about Chauvenistic/Facist Likudniks, or Moshe Dayan's comments in the 1950s, they should discuss A,B,C.
· If they do not agree on A- all the rest of their claims are irrelevant, for obvious reasons. The discussion should focus on their denial of A first. How do they propose to deal with this, and on what moral basis/ And on what practical basis?
· If they do not agree on B -what are they actually saying?
· If they do not agree on C - they should realize that there are some $5 million Israelis (plus probably 8-10 (out of 13) million Jews) that DO agree on C, AND have received the world approval for this 3 times, AND they have economy, and army, and nuclear power. So - face the facts 'Courage', and let's compromise on something that will give each side part of their desire, with peace and security. Otherwise - it is a long struggle for all.

==============


From: Florida | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 22 July 2004 06:17 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Pardon me sir, but this really isn't acceptable:

"To remind you, Husaini supported Hitler, but that, to part of you, may seem acceptable also." babble is the forum of a PROGRESSIVE site, www.rabble.ca - supporting Hitler is certainly not among the common progressive causes, whether we are social-democratic, Marxist, anarchist or left-liberal in outlook.

Since I'm not a "guy", I guess you weren't speaking to me anyway.

It would be nice if this thread could stay at least somewhat on topic. I'm not really interested in taking part in an umpteenth shouting match about Israel-Palestine. I imagine this thread was in "Middle East" because it started out from yet another provocative comment by Ariel Sharon. I would have put it in "rest of the world" and kept it centred on France - a place I know far more about, in terms of life experience.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 22 July 2004 06:25 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There should be compromise on the land, but there should be 3 basic premises that are not under discussion:

Jawhol! We must remain silent!

Incidentally, we've been over this many times already in many other threads.

[ed.] lagatta posted this while I was writing:

quote:
I would have put it in "rest of the world" and kept it centred on France

That's what I was thinking myself, that this could have been focused on France in the "rest of the world" section.

I, too, would like to see this thread stay on topic.

[ 22 July 2004: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 22 July 2004 06:27 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
SnowyPlover, are you working from sources that you are not always citing as quoted material?

I've wondered this before on this thread, but I ask here specifically because, in your second last post, this passage appears twice, barely changed (a bit is added the second time):


quote:
In addition, prior to 1948, Jewish land was bought from Arabs. In places where land was settled, the Tower and Stockade method rendered it legal, unless the British came along one day and decided to arbitrarily dismantle homes and farms because of political pressure from Arab riots that spilled over to the repetitive White Papers in favor of Arab interests.

From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fly133
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6521

posted 22 July 2004 07:19 PM      Profile for Fly133        Edit/Delete Post
Lagatta,Qa'bong
Read back up...you will see the topics loud and clear. France is nice, but it is not the only focus. Is also not part of the Middle East.

From: Florida | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 22 July 2004 08:22 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, but the title of this thread directly pertains to France: "Sharon urges Jews to flee France".

"Flee" cannot fail to remind me of many friends of mine who had to flee for their lives or whose parents did. Many of those people - or their parents - were Jewish - or seen as such by the Nazis and their sycophants and toadies. I also seem to know a fair contingent of second-generation refugees - whose parents fled Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy or the whole Nazified Europe and wound up in Latin America in Plan Condor days.

Fleeing is leaving everyone and everything you love out of terror of a horrific, undignified death. Makes me think of old Sigmund Freud who was dying anyway but whom friends convinced to leave Vienna because of the hideous indignity the Nazis would visit on Jews and "decadent" writers, thinkers and artists".

A lot of those people, Jewish or not, went anywhere they could. To Palestine, to Kenya (recent film "Nowhere in Africa", based on Stefanie Zweig's memoirs) to Brazil, (Stefan and Stefanie Zweig were unrelated)...


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fly133
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6521

posted 22 July 2004 09:27 PM      Profile for Fly133        Edit/Delete Post
Yes, Lagatta, and it is all connected, now you understand: Israel was established EXACTLY in order to enable Jews to have an OPTION to leave. Not a MUST LEAVE, but rather an OPTION WHERE TO LEAVE TO. Which, of course, as you may remember, they did not have in 1492 in Spain, or in 1880 in Russia, or in 1939 in Germany, and by 1942 in the rest of Europe.
So now they do, and Ariel Sharon may have made a diplomatic snafu, but if you dig deep enough, he was just expressing to core moral behind Israel’s reason d’etre (French indeed…). Just 10-100 years before the holocaust, Germany was the most cultured and inviting country in Europe, for Jews. The Jewish Emancipation movement started in Germany by Mendelssohn, writing on there flag: Emancipation, assimilation. We are German first (if not only…). Who would think….?

Is France the same? Well, no, I hope not. But when you have been burnt once by hot water, you become careful with luck warm water as well. And France, as much as anti-Semitism is concerned, is definitely getting warmer by the month, we all agree.

So while Sharon could have been more polite and politically correct, he was not speaking out of context. Read the history. And for Jews in France that feel insulted – lucky for them, Israel will always maintain their right to flee – IF THEY WANT…And hopefully, they would not need to.

By the way, FACT: During the last 12 months, the amount of residential Real Estate bought in Israel by French people (Jews..?) has expanded few folds. Wonder why….

And, Lagatta, another by the way:
FLEE
v. fled, (fl d) flee·ing, flees
v. intr.
1. To run away, as from trouble or danger: fled from the house into the night.
2. To pass swiftly away; vanish: “of time fleeing beneath him” (William Faulkner).
Where is-
Quote: "...Fleeing is leaving everyone and everything you love out of terror of a horrific, undignified death.."
coming from?


From: Florida | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 22 July 2004 09:45 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
*bzzzt*...overuse of caps for EMPHASIS. Two minute penalty for obnoxiousness.

quote:
So while Sharon could have been more polite and politically correct...

Isn't this the topic of this thread? Not revisiting why Israel exists or the history of anti-semitism, or the right of return, but the fact that the Prime Minister of Israel has in fact no sense of diplomacy at all and is only making the situation worse for everybody? Oh, I know...it's not important to you and no one can argue that you don't feel duty-bound to jump right in and set everyone straight (..using definitions from the dictionary, no less), but aren't you well...MISSING the point?


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 22 July 2004 10:02 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fly, what I said about flight was not a dictionary definition but a poetic transposition of refugee studies and the life stories of many people near and dear to me, many but not all of whom were Jews.

One need not be a Trotskyist, any more than one need be a Freudian to seize the pathos of the dying Freud leaving Vienna to die in dignity abroad, to harken to what Trotsky - that old "Prophet Outcast" said about Palestine - that the Zionist dream was a "death trap for Jews".

Why on earth would a country like that be a haven if the Nazis returned or Bush decided the Saudis were more crucial than the Israelis?

Sorry, I think (here we see a convergence of many currents) that only a fight by ALL against the dark side of "scientific racism", militarism and genocide can be effective. The reason the Nazis were able to exterminate entire human groups is because they first exterminated revolutionaries, the labour movement, "degenerate artists" and others who did not accept a lockstep march to ultimately suicidal folly. Even the German people (I mean even those who weren't Marxists, Social-Democrats, Jews, Trade Unionists, gay, physically or mentally defective, etc...) wound up paying a horrific price for such folly.

French Jews are French. I'm not thinking of such abstractions, I'm thinking of some very, very dear friends - they have a right to live in their own country. And the same applies to French Arabs! Vive le couscous, qu'il soit kascher ou halal!


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 22 July 2004 11:20 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Is France the same? Well, no, I hope not. But when you have been burnt once by hot water, you become careful with luck warm water as well.

Who am I to question such a virile argument?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fly133
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6521

posted 23 July 2004 02:59 AM      Profile for Fly133        Edit/Delete Post
Hinterland,

Sorry for using too many caps. If it hurts you - I apologize.
You are really good in focusing on the main issues.
And on Sharon - OK, so I agree, he has no sense of diplomacy.
Case closed. Am I MISSING other point that is worth spending typing time on?

Lagatta,

My heart goes for all your good friends. Sorry for being practical and matter-of-fact, rather than [quote]"poetically transposed". How many lives did poetic tranposition saved, comparing to practical solutions and direct actions? And I have suffering friends also - for other reasons. Same with family. So what? Propose solutions, rather than restate the problems.

Your French Jewish friends – of course they have the right to live in their own country. But being Jews, they also have the additional right to flee to another place – if their country, even if informally, by not overcoming anti-Semitism, rejects them. Jews in Germany did not have this option. Just an option.

Did I hear from you some practical proposals for the French nation – about ways to ensure the rights of your friends to live securely in their land? I guess not.

Re: Trotsky
He was a bright guy that lived and died about 70-110 years ago. Yesterday's news. What he said may have been relevant to his period, or not. We know today much more than he ever knew or had the basis to assume about Jews and Zionism. Why do you need to quote a dead Marxist rather than stating something original and constructive generated by yourself? And of all – he claimed that Zionism is a death trap for Jews…. Yeah, sure, the brilliant communist revolution was better (see 20 years later, Stalin and 20 million Russians tortured and/or killed). Meanwhile, that became a bad dream and worst reality, while Zionism grew to be a homeland for (at least) 6 million.

Oh yes, as much as Nazis rising again and Bush deciding that Saudis are more important – what about an earthquake that will demolish Montreal, makes it REALLY (sorry Hinterland) unsafe for Jews.


From: Florida | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 23 July 2004 05:59 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As I said before in my own post, my references to Freud, to Trotsky or to a friend of mine in Montreuil for that matter were not an argument about psychoanalysis, permanent revolution or (thinking of the friend in Montreuil) experimental cinema. My point was simply that my friends are French and have the right to live in their own homes, in their own country, and the duty to fight racism there.

I quoted Trotsky simply because I think what he said about Zionism was premonitory. I don't think there is really such a place as a safe haven, and Zionism as it now stands has made the world a more dangerous place for Jews in Strasbourg, Buenos Aires and wherever...

All human beings must have the right to flee lethal dictatorships and genocides. Jews have no monopoly on being victims of genocide - there are some pretty horrible things happening to human beings right now in Congo and the Sudan. But the right to a safe haven is not the right to steal another people's land.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fly133
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6521

posted 23 July 2004 11:06 AM      Profile for Fly133        Edit/Delete Post
Lagatta,

Quote: “Zionism as it now stands has made the world a more dangerous place for Jews in Strasbourg, Buenos Aires and wherever... “

Israel was established in 1948.
Jews killed in racial or national violence in the 50 years up to 1948 – 6-7,000,000 millions

Jews killed in racial or national violence in the 50 years after 1948 – 5-10,000

Got it?

Quote: “All human beings must have the right to flee lethal dictatorships and genocides. Jews have no monopoly on being victims of genocide”

Of course you are right. We just happen to speak about Jews now. I does not take away from others.

Quote: “But the right to a safe haven is not the right to steal another people's land.”

* Nobody stole nobody's land. Get this data, and check it if it seems inaccurate in principle: "Palestine" was never an independent country or People. The Ottoman Empire ruled this piece of land for 400 years, until 1917. (Beforehand, in a broad brush, it was the Crusaders and before the Romans). Actually, the last independent State was Israeli Kingdom, ruled by Hashmonai King - Alexander Yanai, just before the emergence of Herod (appointed by the Romans) and than Jesus, ruin of 2nd temple, Jews to Diaspora etc. But never a state of Palestinian People.


From: Florida | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 23 July 2004 11:21 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Israel was established in 1948.
Jews killed in racial or national violence in the 50 years up to 1948 – 6-7,000,000 millions

Jews killed in racial or national violence in the 50 years after 1948 – 5-10,000


You're comparing apples and oranges. Of course, it is speculation as to what the numbers would be post-1945 had the UN not approved the creation of Israel, but one thing is clear, contrary to Zionism's predictions, Jews are not safer as a result of separatism.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
MyName
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6174

posted 23 July 2004 11:32 AM      Profile for MyName        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
Zionism as it now stands has made the world a more dangerous place for Jews in Strasbourg, Buenos Aires and wherever...


No, Lagatta. Antisemites make the world a dangerous place for Jews. If Jew-haters burn a school library in Montreal or murder a hundred Jews in Buenos Aires, who are the criminals - the Zionists or the Jew-haters?


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 23 July 2004 11:39 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh well, this thread has drifted out to sea...

quote:
Israel was established in 1948.
Jews killed in racial or national violence in the 50 years up to 1948 – 6-7,000,000 millions

Jews killed in racial or national violence in the 50 years after 1948 – 5-10,000


How many Jews were killed in racial or national violence in the 50 years before 1941?

I believe that babble has an informal rule against using the Holocaust to justify Israeli human rights abuses.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 23 July 2004 11:50 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Nobody stole nobody's land. Get this data, and check it if it seems inaccurate in principle: "Palestine" was never an independent country or People.

Oh, for Crom's sake. Do we need to go around this mulberry bush again too?


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 23 July 2004 11:52 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Dear Fly:

Please first read the million or so threads we have on babble covering repeatedly almost everything you could possibly say to defend Israel. You should do a search for "Mishei" and "Macabee" to find the bulk of them.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Khadiija
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6142

posted 23 July 2004 12:02 PM      Profile for Khadiija   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
al-Qa'bong posted

quote:
Did anyone hear the As it Happens interview with a French Jewish leader tonight (Wednesday)?

No, but I did catch the interview with Norman Jewison last night on The Arts Today. He was talking about his film The Statement and said that he has never met an anti-semite who thought he was an anti-semite.


From: the twilight zone between Canada and the U.S. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
SnowyPlover
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6431

posted 23 July 2004 12:26 PM      Profile for SnowyPlover     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
SnowyPlover, are you working from sources that you are not always citing as quoted material?
I've wondered this before on this thread, but I ask here specifically because, in your second last post, this passage appears twice, barely changed (a bit is added the second time):

This narrative was not source related. I was typing out my entry and moving a few paragrphs around so as to make it more of a timeline. By mistake I copied and pasted this paragraph and forgot to ommit the former. my bad


From: Archipelago | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fly133
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6521

posted 23 July 2004 01:33 PM      Profile for Fly133        Edit/Delete Post
Josh,
Quote:” You're comparing apples and oranges. Of course, it is speculation as to what the numbers would be post-1945 had the UN not approved the creation of Israel, but one thing is clear, contrary to Zionism's predictions, Jews are not safer as a result of separatism. “

a. What is separatism to do with this? You spend too much time in Canadian politics. Speaking about apples and oranges, you are cooking a fruit salad here.

b. Just restating your opinion without backing it up with data or reason – is fruitless as well. Read history; bring up some hard data from reliable sources, and than we'll talk about security for Jews pre & post Zionism.


Al-Qa’bong,

Quote: “How many Jews were killed in racial or national violence in the 50 years before 1941?
I believe that babble has an informal rule against using the Holocaust to justify Israeli human rights abuses. ..”

Well, let’s see:

a. Since 1880/90– probably hundreds of thousands: Russians (Chemlenitsky) pogroms supported by the Czar, Russian revolution, Stalin jenocide, in Palestine by Arabs, WWI, and more.
You asked for it, you got it.
b. I never mentioned the Holocaust, nor human rights. Do you need support of informal rules (if ever exist) when you have no good reasoning for your position?


From: Florida | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 23 July 2004 01:44 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You didn't have to mention the Holocaust. Your "six million" was enough.

Your mention of "WWI" is a red herring, as many more millions of Gentiles (and did you forget the Armenians?) than Jews were killed in that war.

Eleven percent of the French population was killed or wounded in the 14-18 War. Perhaps they should have had their own state?

Russian pogroms. OK, good point.

Stalinist genocide? Pick a group. Stalin attacked them.

quote:
No, but I did catch the interview with Norman Jewison last night on The Arts Today. He was talking about his film The Statement and said that he has never met an anti-semite who thought he was an anti-semite.

That's a very catchy quotation. What does it have to do with the French Jewish leader?

[ 23 July 2004: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
SnowyPlover
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6431

posted 23 July 2004 03:09 PM      Profile for SnowyPlover     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But the right to a safe haven is not the right to steal another people's land.

In all honesty, after the developments in this thread, sputing blanket statements about 'stolen land' are a display of partial, propoghandish perspective. Lagatta, if you had read the debate above and contacted its sources, you might have acknowledged that incriminating the establishment of Israel on the 'stolen land' claim is obsolete. Do we really need to go around this mulberry bush again?

quote:
Your mention of "WWI" is a red herring, as many more millions of Gentiles (and did you forget the Armenians?) than Jews were killed in that war.

Eleven percent of the French population was killed or wounded in the 14-18 War. Perhaps they should have had their own state?


A moot point Qabong. The intention of mentioning deaths of Jews in the past is relevant when considering the structure of this debate. Other casualties in history are not the focus of this thread. There is no time here for your relativist nonsense.

quote:
Stalinist genocide? Pick a group. Stalin attacked them.

Stalin attacked Jews en masse. Thats what we are talking about here. stay focused.

quote:
I believe that babble has an informal rule against using the Holocaust to justify Israeli human rights abuses.

Who is justifying anything regarding Israeli Human Rights abuses? How is this at all related? We are talking here about Jewish casualties in history and their association with the safety of Jews present day in Israel and elsewhere. You come off deliberately attempting to derail the central theme of this thread which I raised originally regarding the weak argument that Jews are less safe today with Israel in the picture.


From: Archipelago | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 23 July 2004 03:39 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SnowyPlover:
Stalin attacked Jews en masse. Thats what we are talking about here. stay focused.

In the Soviet Union in Stalin's time, all you had to do was be a member of a group Stalin thought was a "class enemy" to be subject to mass arrests and possible genocide.

While I agree that Stalin harbored anti-Semitic attitudes, he was no Adolf Hitler. He had no specific extermination program designed to wipe the Jews off the map of the USSR.

It is to be re-emphasized that the Soviets would target anybody suspected of "counter-revolutionary activity" and that slim excuse was simply used to justify, after the fact, mass arrests and executions of people who had done nothing wrong except to criticize Stalin or even just be in the wrong place.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
SnowyPlover
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6431

posted 23 July 2004 03:55 PM      Profile for SnowyPlover     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It is to be re-emphasized that the Soviets would target anybody suspected of "counter-revolutionary activity" and that slim excuse was simply used to justify, after the fact, mass arrests and executions of people who had done nothing wrong except to criticize Stalin or even just be in the wrong place.

True. Yet the connection here is that Stalin and his cronies performed mass arrests and executions of Jews out of shear Anti-Semitism. His targeting of Jews as a "class enemy" was endorsed merely because they were 'Jews'.

He was no Adolf-Hitler. But his traditional Anti-Semitism took the exact same form, adopted similar policy's and initiated Jewish casualties in the process.

Re-emphasizing the nature of Stalins iron fist with regards to 'anyone' is useless. It is a weak analogy attempting to vacillate in the face of the unduly state-sponsored anti-semitism of the era.


From: Archipelago | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 23 July 2004 04:03 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Holy smokescreen, Snowy, you talk about others going off the focus of the debate? The thread's about Sharon's telling French Jews to emigrate to Israel, remember?

quote:
Your mention of "WWI" is a red herring, as many more millions of Gentiles (and did you forget the Armenians?) than Jews were killed in that war.

Eleven percent of the French population was killed or wounded in the 14-18 War. Perhaps they should have had their own state?

A moot point Qabong. The intention of mentioning deaths of Jews in the past is relevant when considering the structure of this debate. Other casualties in history are not the focus of this thread. There is no time here for your relativist nonsense.


Right, the deaths of millions is a moot point.

As long as Israelis aren't the victims nothing else matters. Besides, someone else raised the issue of "WWI".

As for the "structure of this debate", you, Fly123 and Mishei/Macabbee have a disturbing predeliction for telling others how to participate in a discussion. Certain terms are verboten; certain statements aren't open to debate.

You don't own the language and you haven't the right to tell others how words are to be used. I realize that attempting to stifle debate and discussion is set out in the manual as but one of your propaganda tactics, but don't expect anyone here to comply.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 23 July 2004 05:12 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I do wish we could keep the topic on France. Actually, the horrific slaughter in the First World War had a huge influence on French attitudes on the eve of the Second. Probably far more than any "eternal anti-semitism", and certainly more than the French being "craven". Remember, French Socialist PM Léon Blum was Jewish...

I posted a letter from a leader of a French Jewish peace group (himself a Holocaust survivor). I'm trying to find other commentary from anti-racist groups in France - SOS-racisme denounced Sharon's statement, both in terms of what he said about Jews and what he said about Muslims, reminding Sharon that people of Jewish and Arabo-Muslim origins were French citizens with every right to live in France and not to be dictated to from abroad. I'll keep on top of any other initiatives and post them on the board - though if I start a new category it will be in "rest of the world", or "activism", not "Middle East". French citizens of Jewish faith or background are Europeans, not Middle Easterners (and the vast majority of "Arabs" and "Sephardim" in France are not Middle Eastern by origin, but Maghrebian).

In general, I don't think mentioning other genocides and mass murders is "relativism" - it is important to look at how such horrors could develop - and alas continue to our day - in their historical context.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 23 July 2004 06:10 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fly133:
* Nobody stole nobody's land. Get this data, and check it if it seems inaccurate in principle: "Palestine" was never an independent country or People.

While I tend to be very skeptical of this sort of "they weren't a nation" stuff, it doesn't really matter.
There were people living there. Proto-Israelis terrorized them, occasionally massacred them, drove them off the land and homes they were living in, and refused to let them come back. They then, as an early act of their newly formed state, declared that the land in question belonged to the Jewish National Fund.

That's somebody stealing somebody's land. Whether it was stealing a *country's* land seems immaterial--the people driven out of where they lived, whose land (to which they had legitimate and in most cases official and legal title) was stolen from them, were real people like me and, presumably, you.
The proto-Israelis stole the land, the farms, the towns, that all those now in refugee camps owned. They still have it. Whether the people in those refugee camps constituted a "nation" at the time is irrelevant. What should be done about it now is a separate question as well. One can admit the truth and still say "Well, too late, what's done is done", or, as that historian guy says, roughly, "Yeah, we stole it, but too bad--losers weepers." I don't think those are reasonable positions, but they are at least based on reality.

The basic fact remains: They. Stole. The. Land.

To claim otherwise is to either live in a fantasy world or to propagandize. Incidentally, since you'll no doubt float this red herring: Yes, the same is true in North America for whites. We stole the land. What to do about it is, again, a separate question.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Khadiija
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6142

posted 23 July 2004 07:58 PM      Profile for Khadiija   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The basic fact remains: They. Stole. The. Land.

You must be saying that the Palestinians stole the land because I don't recall how the Palestinians happened to buy this piece of land.

Get. Real.


From: the twilight zone between Canada and the U.S. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617

posted 23 July 2004 09:01 PM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Khadiija:

You must be saying that the Palestinians stole the land because I don't recall how the Palestinians happened to buy this piece of land.

Get. Real.


Buy it from whom? Themselves?


From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Khadiija
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6142

posted 23 July 2004 09:07 PM      Profile for Khadiija   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
We dealt with this earlier. Ask Al Qa'bong, Jews have been living in Palestine Israel for thousands of years. The Palestinians are not the original inhabitants of the land.
From: the twilight zone between Canada and the U.S. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 23 July 2004 09:17 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The fact remains that the ones that pushed out the palestinians were not the same ones who lived there thousands of years ago. Except methusalah I guess. Therefore they had no right to displace others. And I dont see everyone rushing to give the first nations their land back, jewish or not so its a hypocritical arugment as well as a false one
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 23 July 2004 09:18 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As spake by Khadiija:
We dealt with this earlier. Ask Al Qa'bong, Jews have been living in Palestine Israel for thousands of years. The Palestinians are not the original inhabitants of the land.

Hold on. We have a contradiction here.

First it is alleged that the Jews came "to a country with nothing in it". As "proof" people who make such allegations haul out Mark Twain's disdainful comment about Palestine trashing it as being so much scrubland with a few nomads.

Then, when presented with the implication that if there were already people on that land, it would mean the carpetbaggers who busted in during the 1920s to 1940s just prior to the Israeli declaration of independence actually swiped that land from someone else, so now the same people as mentioned above, without any apparent dissonance at all, turn right around and say "well gee, there's always been Jews there, even though the Romans kicked them all out! Fa fa fa!"

So which is it? Was there no-one or lots of people?

You cannot say that a thing is in two mutually exclusive states.

[ 23 July 2004: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fly133
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6521

posted 23 July 2004 09:22 PM      Profile for Fly133        Edit/Delete Post
Qabong,

Slow down and contain your frustration. We talk here about whatever we like, and your inability to counter-discuss your points does not put you in a moderator position. Go take a cold shower and find some brain.
Nobody forgot millions of deaths. You just can't find anything logical to say so you spray your irrelevant combination of ignorance and manipulation all over this respectable forum.

Lagatta,
Quote:
..” I'm trying to find other commentary from anti-racist groups in France - SOS-racisme denounced Sharon's statement, both in terms of what he said about Jews and what he said about Muslims, reminding Sharon that people of Jewish and Arabo-Muslim origins were French citizens with every right to live in France and not to be dictated to from abroad…”

Lagatta, your seem like a serious person:
Why won’t you go to the source, Sharon’s quote: Where did you get the idea that he told French citizens, of any origin, that they do not have the right to live in France? He spoke to French Jews; maybe stated politically incorrectly ,that Israel is a second home for them, and they should consider fleeing France in the face of growing Muslim led anti-Semitism. What is that to do with their right to stay?

Quote:
”.. French citizens of Jewish faith or background are Europeans, not Middle Easterners (and the vast majority of "Arabs" and "Sephardim" in France are not Middle Eastern by origin, but Maghrebian)…”

Great. The ultimate "form over substance". So if you post your opinions in different location – they become more valid? Stay with us, we like you.

Rufus,
Quote:
“..While I tend to be very skeptical of this sort of "they weren't a nation" stuff, it doesn't really matter.
There were people living there. Proto-Israelis terrorized them, occasionally massacred them, drove them off the land and homes they were living in, and refused to let them come back. They then, as an early act of their newly formed state, declared that the land in question belonged to the Jewish National Fund. ..”

Now Rufus,
of course, you can also claim that Torontonians are coming to Quebec and steeling the babies of the Franco-Canadians. Both claims are REALLY based on facts.
Learn History. JNF BOUGHT all the land it eventually owned.
Massacres were perfoirmed mostly by Arabs. Some by Jews. Not right, definitely out of control. Shouldn't have happened. But, La guerre com la guerre. Wake up.

Quote:
“….To claim otherwise is to either live in a fantasy world or to propagandize. Incidentally, since you'll no doubt float this red herring: Yes, the same is true in North America for whites. We stole the land. What to do about it is, again, a separate question. ..”

Rufus,
You are right. Get out. You are a man without a homeland.
If you are Jewish, good for you, at least you can move to Israel.


From: Florida | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 23 July 2004 10:37 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Qabong,

Slow down and contain your frustration. We talk here about whatever we like, and your inability to counter-discuss your points does not put you in a moderator position. Go take a cold shower and find some brain.
Nobody forgot millions of deaths. You just can't find anything logical to say so you spray your irrelevant combination of ignorance and manipulation all over this respectable forum.


Well, this certainly is a carefully-crafted argument.

Give me a few minutes to allow me to "find some brain" so I'll be able to refute your logic.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
MyName
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6174

posted 23 July 2004 11:00 PM      Profile for MyName        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
Eleven percent of the French population was killed or wounded in the 14-18 War. Perhaps they should have had their own state?

Good idea. Let's call it France.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 24 July 2004 04:22 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A brilliant riposte!

It seems there isn't quite enough brain to go around today.


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

posted 24 July 2004 04:47 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Monkey's brains might be an acceptable substitute. I hear they're in fashion in Washington DC cuisine.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617

posted 24 July 2004 09:09 AM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fly133:
[QB]
Learn History. JNF BOUGHT all the land it eventually owned.[QB]

Yes, ALL 6% of the land they currently control. But, it seems I am lousy with math since the most generous rounding can't make 6% a 100%. Or could it be that I am ignorant in economics since I assumed that land size does not undergo inflation (6% real land in 1947=100% actual land in 2004).

quote:
[QB]Massacres were perfoirmed mostly by Arabs. Some by Jews. Not right, definitely out of control. Shouldn't have happened. But, La guerre com la guerre. Wake up.
[QB]

Yes, plan-D was an Arab plan, and the Hagana and Stern (among others) were Arab paramilitaries
I quote Ilan Pappe (A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples. Cambridge University Press, UK, 2004)

(On Plan-D) "The second, and far more important, objective of the plan was to cleanse the future Jewish state of as many Palestinians as possible. The main military force was the Hagana, which had several brigades. Each brigade received a list of villages it was to occupy. Most of the villages were destined to be destroyed, and only in exceptional circumstances were the soldiers ordered to leave them intact." (page 130)


From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fly133
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6521

posted 24 July 2004 04:04 PM      Profile for Fly133        Edit/Delete Post
Liminal,

Your screen name is a good mutation of what its source should be: Minimal. Minimal credibility.

Quote:
“Yes, ALL 6% of the land they currently control. But, it seems I am lousy with math since the most generous rounding can't make 6% a 100%. Or could it be that I am ignorant in economics since I assumed that land size does not undergo inflation (6% real land in 1947=100% actual land in 2004). “

Liminal,Minimal credability to your numbers. Your information is false. JNF was established in order to buy land, which it did initially. Since the establishment of the State Of Israel, JNF is doing other things, which you can find out for yourself. Go study. The land that is not privately owned (by Jews, as well as by Arabs) is owned by a government organization called Real Estate Israel, which is operating under the law, in a democratic country.

Moving on - to your inventions regarding the Hagana and Lechi (Stern Group).

Quote:
“Yes, plan-D was an Arab plan, and the Hagana and Stern (among others) were Arab paramilitaries I quote Ilan Pappe (A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples. Cambridge University Press, UK, 2004)
(On Plan-D) "The second, and far more important, objective of the plan was to cleanse the future Jewish state of as many Palestinians as possible. The main military force was the Hagana, which had several brigades. Each brigade received a list of villages it was to occupy. Most of the villages were destined to be destroyed, and only in exceptional circumstances were the soldiers ordered to leave them intact." (page 130) ..”

Don't quote some descendant voices that are reliable only as long as the real facts support their political opinions, otherwise - manipulate. The brand "Cambridge" does not qualify it more than the canadian brand "Zundel" qualifies the occurance of the Holocaust. Just lately, a professor from the same institution (or maybe Oxford?) was almost expelled (or maybe, hopefully, was) for being a bigot and refusing to accept student because of race and nationality. Go study that as well. Seems like you are part of this respectable Kingdom, that was never into imperialism and driving natives (as they used to call them) to the edges of the universe.
Which, funny enough, leads us to the subject matter:
Stern Group, is a small fraction of Jewish renegades, (very few hundreds), that even if they wanted, could not occupy anything. From the other side, they manage to help drive away that respectable Kingdom, which have received a mandate to rule fairly, and could not. Are you guessing what am I talking about?
And, to add, you obviously do not even know what was Hagana, if you qualify them in the same breathe with Stern. At a period of time in 1945-46, they actually fought the Stern Group. Hagana was THE main stream pre-1948 Jewish Defense Organization.
Hagana never had a "Plan" to do what you are describing. If it all, it would have been the IDF, since when some Arabs were kicked out of their villages (yes, it did happened in some extreme situations, unfortunately), it was done during 1948, by than the Hagana was not in existence anymore. Read, read, and don’t draw from the hip.


From: Florida | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 24 July 2004 04:13 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fly 133, you're habit of insulting every poster you disagree with is not particularly endearing, to say the least. I'd cut you a break, chalking it up to the Florida heat. But anyone stupid enough to live there in the summer, deserves what they get. So, I think I'll swat you now.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 July 2004 04:52 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Agreed. Fly33, enough with the insults. If you're looking for a place to spread gratuitous insults, find another forum.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 24 July 2004 05:07 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Rilly long thread. I thought that lagatta had restarted this discussion under Rest of the World, which seems the better place, no?, if it's France we really want to talk about?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 July 2004 05:15 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good point.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

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

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca