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   » Fighting the racism that goes by the name of Zionism

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Fighting the racism that goes by the name of Zionism
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 02 June 2005 12:32 AM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
Sometimes racism is subtle -- a word, a gesture, the unspoken systems of prejudice that make up glass ceilings.

The racist hate that has infected the Zionist movement is not that subtle kind:

Saad Maabad, Dalida Nazigian and her 8-year-old daughter were on their way back home from eating at McDonald's in West Jerusalem. They were going to Nazigian's parents' home in the Armenian Quarter in the Old City in East Jerusalem. Nazigian and Maabad are both 27. Nazigian is a redheaded, blue-eyed Christian who not long ago divorced her husband, a Jordanian; he is a dark-haired Muslim with a spikey haircut. . .

As they approached IDF Square, next to Jerusalem's City Hall, where the eastern and western parts of the city meet, they noticed a group of some 30 youngsters, the boys walking separately from the girls. As it happened, they had just come back from the monthly ritual of encircling the Temple Mount - a mass of skullcaps, prayer shawls and long skirts - and were now screaming "Death to the Arabs!" and "Filthy Arabs, get out of our country!" at the top of their lungs.

Maabad and Nazigian didn't pay much attention. Having been born into the occupation, such scenes are familiar to them. The little girl skipped ahead of them and tried to get her mother and her friend to play. "We didn't think they would do anything to us," they recall now - but before they realized what was happening, the Jewish group assaulted them, the boys attacking Saad and the girls Dalida and her daughter, pummeling and kicking them.

Maabad, who teaches physical fitness and two years ago came in third in the "Mr. Palestine" contest because of his muscular physique, was able to fend off the boys and then tried to get the girls off his girlfriend and her daughter. A few of the boys backed off and one of them threw a large stone that struck him in the chest and hand. The girls continued to beat Dalida and her daughter, who clung tightly to her mother in desperation, wailing.

"They pushed her to the ground," Nazigian relates with pent-up emotion. "I shouted at them, `What are you doing? Can't you see she's just a little girl?'

full article

Hate is the heart and soul of Israel these days, and yet Zionists are making a Herculian effort to "own" the topic of racism and the conflict, by flinging charges of anti-Semitism over all and sundry.

These charges appear ridiculous in the light of real racism, and exemplified by Israelis like Haifa University Prof. David Bukay, who has been quoted as saying:

"When an Arab or a Muslim opens his remarks with the expression wallahi, he is apparently intending to lie," and, "There is no condemnation, no regret, no problem of conscience among Arabs and Muslims, anywhere, in any social stratum, of any social position."

"Various reports quoted Bukay as saying in his classroom that "Arabs should be shot in the head," "Arabs are stupid," and "Arabs are alcohol and sex." full text

But surely these are isolated extremists who don't reflect the society as a whole? If only.The reality is that, as Haaretz put it,"Israeli society -- or at least part of it -- is severely ill, infected with blatant, contemptible racism."


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 June 2005 12:57 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I bet this thread reaches 100, in less than 12 hours.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 02 June 2005 01:02 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There are many things going on here, many things that need to be addressed.

First and foremost, the acts of anti-Arab racism described are deplorable. There is indeed a hardened core of racism in Israeli society, fueled by the Settler movement and the rigid ideologues. Remember, Israel's governing party, Likud, has yet to officially endorse the notion of a Palestinian state. Who are the rejectionists?

But to make the equation, Zionism=Racism, is too damn pat. It is as reductionist as the equation that critisizing Israel equals anti-Semitism. Zionism is a complex interplay of ideologies, all relating to Jewish nationalism and nowadays the state of Israel.

At its most benign, Zionism is nothing more than the belief and identification with self-determination for the Jewish people. The state of Israel, the expression of that self-determination, is in the process of denying it to another people through military occupation and settlement. That has to stop.

But I don't think the Yesha Council gets to own Zionism any more than Opus Dei gets to own Catholocism or Stalinists gets to own Socialism. There is room for progressive Zionism in the end to Occupation; there has to be. If someone is under the severe misimpression that a lasting peace is going to result without the participation of the Jewish majority in Israel - who identify with Zionism almost unanimously - then they had best get over it.

Racial tensions, whatever their ideological underpinnings, are not going to get better while the Occupation continues. The Occupation has to stop. The settlements have to go. Let's keep our eyes on the ball.

[ 02 June 2005: Message edited by: Coyote ]


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 02 June 2005 01:42 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Coyote:

Thanks for your balanced post. I think this is a very charged issue. All I can say is that the issue is grey. Very grey and not black and white. Zionism is complex and did start as a benign nationalist movement for survivors of mass extermination. It is permissible to criticize elements of the movement that has become extreme. But to say that all settlers are racist is to me, the same as all Palestinians are terrorists. I think however you have hit the nail on the head. Many will never accept a (Jewish) state in the Middle East. So it must be vilified and what better way then to use the Nazi analogy (as done even in these postings above). Because to deligitimize the reason for Israel's existence (i.e. Holocaust denying or minimizing as well as equating Zionism = racism) will justify annihilation of a democratic state. Yes Israel has its faults. Many but You are right in saying that the Jewish majority character of the state must be accepted. Now let's talk about peace.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 02 June 2005 01:43 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
I bet this thread reaches 100, in less than 12 hours.

Can you say 200?


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 June 2005 01:49 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
Coyote:

Zionism is complex and did start as a benign nationalist movement for survivors of mass extermination.


Fact 1: Not it did not. Zionism was originally popularized in the 19th Century. Theodore Herzl is generally credited with being the founder of the movement.

I know you don't like facts peech, but that is the reality.

quote:
So it must be vilified and what better way then to use the Nazi analogy (as done even in these postings above). Because to deligitimize the reason for Israel's existence (i.e. Holocaust denying or minimizing as well as equating Zionism = racism) will justify annihilation of a democratic state.

Fact 2: Your were the first person to use the word Nazi in this thread.

Fact 3: No one here has minimized or denied the Holocaust.

Suggetion 1: Try responding to what people are saying as opposed to responding to the arguements that you think anti-Zionists are making.

[ 02 June 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 02 June 2005 02:12 AM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
There are many things going on here, many things that need to be addressed.

First and foremost, the acts of anti-Arab racism described are deplorable. There is indeed a hardened core of racism in Israeli society, fueled by the Settler movement and the rigid ideologues. . .

But to make the equation, Zionism=Racism, is too damn pat. It is as reductionist as the equation that critisizing Israel equals anti-Semitism. Zionism is a complex interplay of ideologies, all relating to Jewish nationalism and nowadays the state of Israel.

At its most benign, Zionism is nothing more than the belief and identification with self-determination for the Jewish people. . . .
But I don't think the Yesha Council gets to own Zionism any more than Opus Dei gets to own Catholocism or Stalinists gets to own Socialism. There is room for progressive Zionism in the end to Occupation; there has to be. If someone is under the severe misimpression that a lasting peace is going to result without the participation of the Jewish majority in Israel - who identify with Zionism almost unanimously - then they had best get over it.

[ 02 June 2005: Message edited by: Coyote ]


Good post, Coyote. A few things that come to mind. First, Israel had a severe racism problem long before there were settlers, in fact, long before Zionists achieved the conquest of Palestine.

Take Hertzl's comment that Palestinians must be "We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. . . Both the process of expropriat ion and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly." That is already, at the end of the 19th century, a pretty dramatically racist outlook.

Or take the comment by David Ben-Gurion Minister of Arab Affairs in 1960 "We shall reduce the Arab population to a community of woodcutters and waiters." Seven years before the occupation, and a clearer expression of systematic racism is hard to imagine.

Second, while the idea that Palestinian self-determination must be achieved by agreement with Zionists is popular, it is far from a foregone conclusion. Certainally the Jewish minority has no right to a seperate state, simply because they want one, any more than do Iraq's Sunnis or South Africa's whites. For the moment, they have the power to maintain their position, but things change. The history of colonial movement elsewhere show that rather than the natives "getting over it" it is ultimately the colonists who "get over it" -- or get out.

Finally, I'd say that, while some Zionists might be not be racists, the vast majority express racism in national opinion polls, the ideology as a whole is racist in its principles, the state is racist in its policies, and the things that all agree they must do to maintain themselves as a dominaint minority are racist. In that context a non-racist Zionist is much like the non-racist Nazis; admiriable as an individual but irrevelent in evaulating the collective.

[ 02 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]

[ 02 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 June 2005 09:01 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I see what you are trying to say, but it should be pointed out that National Socialism was predicated on race war and a direct attack on Jewish people -- racism was a central ideological tenent. On the other hand much of the racism of Zionism is (to paraphrase E. Said) a result of the exclusion of cultural identities external to Jews -- the Arabs (or anyone else for that matter) simply do not appear as relevant to the ideological construct.

The Nazis set out to attack the Jews explicitly. Zionist end up attacking the Arabs becuase they are in the way of the Zionist project. There is a significant difference.

So while it is true that the internal logic of Zionism tends towards a racist expression, largely because of its exclusionary nature, such racism manifests itself pragmatically.

As a result of the ongoing violent conflicts with the Arabs that is inspired by this mono-cultural outlook, many Jews whom have chosen to pursue the Zionist project in Israel have also adopted the baser forms of emotionalized racial superiority of the kind you referred to in your first post. This kind of racism is unfortunately common to all nations and cultures during violent conflicts.

The kinds of things you have referenced are quite similar to the kinds of thing many Americans said about the Japanese in WW2, or even the British about the Germans and Italians. Nothing really special, even if it is base and disgusting.

One doesn't have to look very far to find this kind of racism being expressed by Arabs against Jews. It comes from the same source: ongoing competition, violence and war.

Base racism against Jews in National Socialist Germany, as state policy, was lauded, applauded, and encouraged, while base racism in Israel is still very much the domain of private individuals and non-state organizations, even though the state may act in a racist manner as natural pragmatic extension of the founding philosophy of the country.

Being anti-Arab is not central to being a Zionist, while being anti-Jewish was central to being a Nazi.

To summarize: National Socialism is explicitly racist, Zionism is at best implicitly so.

[ 02 June 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 02 June 2005 11:31 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Cue:

Wow ! Talk about twiting the facts to serve your purpose! Bravo.

Thanks for reminding me of the facts:
" Not it did not. Zionism was originally popularized in the 19th Century. Theodore Herzl is generally credited with being the founder of the movement."
I suppose youwont wnat to bereminded that the Jews have been in"Palestine" for a long timebefore then. Similarily you will not want to know that th ePalestinians (at that time) collaberated with the Nazis (also known by you as National Socialist). But heaven forbid that they should be called racist.

"I know you don't like facts peech, but that is the reality."
I suggest you visit the "Zionist Entity" (Israel) and find out just how those other ethnic groups are treated and how many wish to return to territories "governed" by their "enlightened" neighbours. BTW good use of Nationalist Socialist (without using the N word) to tar Israel.
BTW your fellow Israel bashers are willfully blind to the campaign of racial and wthnic hatred carried on by the Arab world (including the Palestinians) through the media, education and culture (i.e: publishing and broadcasting the Protucals of the Elders of Zion). You wont find this in Israel.

[ 02 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 02 June 2005 11:34 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Peech, you've got to learn to read what people write. Cueball was saying the two are intrinsically different, and not the same thing at all.

To wit:

Cueball said:

quote:
Being anti-Arab is not central to being a Zionist, while being anti-Jewish was central to being a Nazi.

To summarize: National Socialism is explicitly racist, Zionism is at best implicitly so.



From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 02 June 2005 11:42 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
Peech, you've got to learn to read what people write. Cueball was saying the two are intrinsically different, and not the same thing at all.

To wit:

Cueball said:


I read it and disagree. Otherwise the logic is that all states founded on Nationalism are racist. (even those upon religion such as the Vatican). Secondly Jews are NOT a race! Hitler tried to make this a fact and by rrepeating this and throwing it back into Jews faces (Zionism=racism) is a sinister form of hatred.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 02 June 2005 11:49 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
rsfarrel:

As Cueball noted in another thread, the major left-secularist groupings in Palestine (PFLP, Fatah, etc.) have embraced a two-state solution. That's good enough for me as a starting point.

I am the last to defend the Zionist movement in terms of the establishment of Israel, and I have written here and elsewhere on that subject extensively.

You may be right that Palestinian self-determination can, at some unforeseen time in the future, be achieved without negotiation and support from Zionists of a more moderate ilk. Anything is possible. But this raises troubling spectres in and of itself: It posits the continuation of the conflict until such point as one side "wins". It is the logic of the settlers. The logic of Hamas.

On the other hand is the logic of ethical humanism, which acknowledges our flaws and mistakes and says that we can move beyond them. No one has to "lose", and no one has to "get over" anything.

Negotiation and accomodation is the hard route, one rejected by Likudniks and jihadists alike.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 02 June 2005 11:55 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
rsfarrel:


On the other hand is the logic of ethical humanism, which acknowledges our flaws and mistakes and says that we can move beyond them. No one has to "lose", and no one has to "get over" anything.


Couldn't agree more. But negotiations = talk. And relationships are fostered through anongoing dialogue.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 02 June 2005 01:04 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree with most of your argument, coyote, and I definitely agree issues can't be painted in terms of black and white. But rsfarrell also has a legitimate argument that I don't think has been properly expressed.

Cueball rightly acknowledges that the Israeli government does not employ a policy of racism akin to national Socialists.

Israeli racism in terms of civil society is more similar, in my view, to the southern states. There is a tacit acceptance of racism by the state not unlike what existed in the United States prior to the civil rights movement.

Equally troubling is the inability of Israeli society and its proponents to acknowledge the degree and the depth of Israeli racism.

[ 02 June 2005: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 02 June 2005 01:46 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Equally troubling is the inability of Israeli society and its proponents to acknowledge the degree and the depth of Israeli racism.
I think this is true only if one accepts the Yesha Council and its ideological brethern in Israel and beyond as the voice of Israeli society. There are other voices, ones that actively and courageously act to counter that deeply integrated racism.

What I am suggesting is that yes, anti-Arab racism is deeply entrenched in Israeli society. The question then becomes how is that problem addressed? First and foremost, the most naked manifestation of that racism must be confronted: The Occupation, and the Settler movement that provides the ideological and political impetus for it.

Even that, of course, is no sinecure. Just this past year Spain was rocked by a series of racist events just like the soccer match described in the OP: Spanish fans made monkey calls every time a Black player on an English side touched the ball. They held signs with the most vulgar wording you can think of. Here in Canada we have learned of the racist beating and assault, racist in motivation, of a South Asian youth by a group of White hoodlums.

So racism is not unique to Israel - it has to be addressed there as it must be addressed here and throughout the world. What is unique is the Occupation, and it is there we must start.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 02 June 2005 02:16 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree the occupation is unique. And I agree there are elements withing Israel that are courageously fighting against racism and for peace.

But, for the most part, Israeli racism is denied as though it doesn't exist. I was not aware of the Spanish episode but I can imagine many Spaniards, inside and outside the country have reacted with horror. We know in this country that when there is an overtly racist act, most often there is an almost instantaneous outpouring of support for the victims and condemnation for the perpetrators.

Israel, to me is much like police forces. Rather than deal with the racism, their supporters instead deny it and attack the character of those who point to it. Consider the above post which I think is typical. Pointing to Israel racism makes one an "Israel basher."

I guess, in the end, how do you get Israeli society, as a whole, to respond in a positive way to the occupation if they do not view their Palestinian neighbours as equals deserving of their respect and concern?

Mr. TV, the Israeli broadcaster who has just released a book, like you points to the settler mentality as a large part of the reason behind Israeli attitudes toward Palestinians and he says settlers are viewed almost as heros in Israel.

If Palestninian lives held as much value in Israel as Jewish lives, would settlers still be viewed as heros?


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 02 June 2005 03:01 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
I see what you are trying to say, but it should be pointed out that National Socialism was predicated on race war and a direct attack on Jewish people -- racism was a central ideological tenent. On the other hand much of the racism of Zionism is (to paraphrase E. Said) a result of the exclusion of cultural identities external to Jews -- the Arabs (or anyone else for that matter) simply do not appear as relevant to the ideological construct.

The Nazis set out to attack the Jews explicitly. Zionist end up attacking the Arabs becuase they are in the way of the Zionist project. There is a significant difference.

So while it is true that the internal logic of Zionism tends towards a racist expression, largely because of its exclusionary nature, such racism manifests itself pragmatically.

. . .

One doesn't have to look very far to find this kind of racism being expressed by Arabs against Jews. It comes from the same source: ongoing competition, violence and war.

[ 02 June 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


Well said. My point in the Nazi analogy was not to make a broad comparison between Zionism and Nazism, but to reference those people we've all heard about, Arthur Schlindler and the like, who were revolted by the system they found themselves a part of. I was trying to say that evaluating Zionism based on its exceptions would be a perverse as evaluating Nazism baseed on its exceptions.

There are many different kinds of racism within Zionism. Some of them coexist with progressive thinking. A better analogy might be to the antebellum USA. There were many divisions. There were people who held slaves and abused them. There were "enlightened" owners who treated their slaves more kindly. Then there were the people who opposed slavery entirely. But most of those people were still racists. If you asked them "Would you mind living next door to a black person? Your children going to school with black childern? Your daughter marrying a black man?" you were going to find out the the vast majority, even the highest lights of the progressive cause, held intensely racist attitudes.

And so it is in Israel. I urge you to look into yourself. A good site is

http://www.arabhra.org/ about race relations inside the Green Line.

I can't agree with you when you blame the war for Israeli attitudes. If you read the very earliest Zionist writings about the "Arab problem," they are tripping with references to other colonial projects, and openly racist statements like this one:

"Culturally they are five hundred years behind us, they have neither our endurance nor our determination"

-- Ze'ev Jabotinsky

One of the earliest acts of the Zionism movement in relationship to the British occupation regime which took power in 1917 was to demand that Jewish civil servants receive higher wages than Arab civil servants. And this was the attitude of Zionism towards Palestinians down to the present day.

I'm afraid Israeli racism caused the war, not the other way around!


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 02 June 2005 03:19 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
rsfarrel:

As Cueball noted in another thread, the major left-secularist groupings in Palestine (PFLP, Fatah, etc.) have embraced a two-state solution. That's good enough for me as a starting point.

I am the last to defend the Zionist movement in terms of the establishment of Israel, and I have written here and elsewhere on that subject extensively.

You may be right that Palestinian self-determination can, at some unforeseen time in the future, be achieved without negotiation and support from Zionists of a more moderate ilk. Anything is possible. But this raises troubling spectres in and of itself: It posits the continuation of the conflict until such point as one side "wins". It is the logic of the settlers. The logic of Hamas.

On the other hand is the logic of ethical humanism, which acknowledges our flaws and mistakes and says that we can move beyond them. No one has to "lose", and no one has to "get over" anything.

Negotiation and accomodation is the hard route, one rejected by Likudniks and jihadists alike.


I agree that a long-term settlement has to be a win-win. I think a properly constructed democratic secular state can provide that, and I don't think that the two-state solution, especially as it is presently conceived, can.

As you point out, many Palestinians support a two-state solution -- although they also support the right of return. That is fine. I don't think I damage their cause my keeping Zionists mindful of the fact that there are other people on the horizon would would not concede 78% of a land to which they have no right at all. Rather, it focuses the mind, I would think. So you can be the good cop, I'll be the bad cop, and maybe at the end of the day something will change.

Negotiation and accomodation are fine, but no one will bother to negotiate with you unless you are willing to fight. Sometimes we have to stand up and fight for justice. What you call the way of the settlers I would call the way of Churchill, and way of Martin Luther King -- the way of Christ. Fighting is nothing to be ashamed of, if you are fighting in the right way with the right weapons -- and adversion to fighting is no proof of enlightenment. As e.e. cummings warns us:

"Jehovah buried, Satan dead,
Do fearers worship much and quick,
Badness not being felt as bad
Itself thinks goodness what is meek."


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 02 June 2005 03:28 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
I see what you are trying to say, but it should be pointed out that National Socialism was predicated on race war and a direct attack on Jewish people -- racism was a central ideological tenent.

Sure, after labour leaders, socialists and communists were stashed away in concentration camps, and socialist wing of the party murdered in their sleep, I suppose the real "socialists" were free to implement a corporate welfare state based on racism and slave labour. Good point.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 02 June 2005 04:02 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
It was called "National Socialism," Fidel; that's not anyone's fault.

We all know they weren't real socialists.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 02 June 2005 04:30 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
'Attacks against Arabs happen all the time'

A pleasant barbeque at the Olga beach in Hadera in 2002 took a turn for the worse when more than a dozen 20-somethings strolled up to the Shbitas and their friends and asked: "Are you Arabs?"

They replied that they were, following their response with, "Why are you asking?"
Arabs aren't welcome, the group was told; the families were told to leave. And then, to emphasize the point, the group attacked the Arab families, leaving several of them with injuries, some serious.

It took Taghrid's husband a month to recover from a deep knife wound to his side, she related at a press conference two years later, held in conjunction with Tuesday's release of a report highlighting racism against Arab-Israelis. She herself has never been the same.

(From the Jearusalem Post)

Some statistics:

59% of Jewish Israelis would not tolerate having an Arab citizen as their boss (JPost).

70% of Jewish Israelis oppose land sales to Arabs (Haaretz).

63% believe Arab citizens of Israel should be "encouraged to leave" by the state (Haaretz).


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 02 June 2005 05:10 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:
It was called "National Socialism," Fidel; that's not anyone's fault.

We all know they weren't real socialists.


Sure, I understand that I keep good company in this forum. The Nazis were probably the first socialist party to ever receive funding from the industrialist and banking elite. And Hitler was the biggest liar of the last century. Every once in a while, it's good that a machine does a sanity check is all I'm saying. We're all good machines here. No offense intended.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 June 2005 05:28 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
Cue:

Wow ! Talk about twiting the facts to serve your purpose! Bravo.

Thanks for reminding me of the facts:
" Not it did not. Zionism was originally popularized in the 19th Century. Theodore Herzl is generally credited with being the founder of the movement."
I suppose youwont wnat to bereminded that the Jews have been in"Palestine" for a long timebefore then. Similarily you will not want to know that th ePalestinians (at that time) collaberated with the Nazis (also known by you as National Socialist). But heaven forbid that they should be called racist.

"I know you don't like facts peech, but that is the reality."
I suggest you visit the "Zionist Entity" (Israel) and find out just how those other ethnic groups are treated and how many wish to return to territories "governed" by their "enlightened" neighbours. BTW good use of Nationalist Socialist (without using the N word) to tar Israel.
BTW your fellow Israel bashers are willfully blind to the campaign of racial and wthnic hatred carried on by the Arab world (including the Palestinians) through the media, education and culture (i.e: publishing and broadcasting the Protucals of the Elders of Zion). You wont find this in Israel.

[ 02 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


You completely missed almost everything that I said.

My post was a direct attack upon the comparison between National Socialism and Zionism. I can only assume that you are missing your reading glasses or to busy to read what I am saying, becuase I noted repeatedly that the Nazi's (if you prefer) were racist at the core, while Zionist racism is not the same, and perhaps not even a mandatory requirement of the ideology:

quote:
Being anti-Arab is not central to being a Zionist, while being anti-Jewish was central to being a Nazi.

I don't see how I could be more clear.

Also, your statement that there were Jews in Israel, has no bearing on my statement that you were wrong in saying that:

quote:
Zionism is complex and did start as a benign nationalist movement for survivors of mass extermination.

I was pointing out that the Zionist idea is much older than the Holocaust.

Herzl was dead before WW1: Theodore Herzl

quote:
Herzl's ideas were met with enthusiasm by the Jewish masses in Eastern Europe, although Jewish leaders were less ardent. Herzl appealed to wealthy Jews such as Baron Hirsch and Baron Rothschild, to join the national Zionist movement, but in vain. He then appealed to the people, and the result was the convening of the First Zionist Congress in Basle, Switzerland, on August 29­31, 1897.

Also, while it is a case that there were Jews throughout the Ottoman empire prior to the invention of Israel, the truth is that the Sephardim made up less than 5% of the population of Palestine, and owned less than 3% of the land. Immigration of the Ashkenazi began in ernest in the 1880's.

Also, I quite explicitly noted that some Arabs are also guilty of the kind of mudane racism that was featured in the articles about Israeli racists that Farrel linked too. Let me refresh your memeory:

I said:

quote:
One doesn't have to look very far to find this kind of racism being expressed by Arabs against Jews. comes from the same source: ongoing competition, violence and war.

So your indignant cry that, I am "willfully blind to the campaign of racial and wthnic hatred carried on by the Arab world," is quite plainly wrong. But my point would be that this "campaign," is not in any was shape or form the same as the kind of fanatic racism of the National Socialist. Rather, I am saying that it is the same kind of mundane racism that is expressed by some Israelis who are fringe dwellers of the politcal landscape.

Niether Kach nor Hamas are in governance anywhere. Though of course Sharon's brinksmanship, may help change that.

[ 02 June 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 02 June 2005 05:38 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Cue:

Ok I stand corrected and I have my reading glasses on now. I just reject totally that Zionism = racism.
Furthermore although Zionism is older than the Holocaust, the state of Israel would unlikely have been formed but for the Holocaust. Thanks for your thoughtful post.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 June 2005 05:53 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree that the Holocaust was a major impetous behind the creation of Israel as a state.

But it is also important to note that there is considerable evidence that Zioist cadres actively manipulated the terrible state of Jewish DP's to bulk up Jewish immigration to Israel.

quote:
Using massive, newly unraveled archival material, the book describes life and the world of the Jewish DPs, up to the drama that took place as the Zionists tried to draft 'Good human material' for Palestine immigration, and thereby brought the conflict between Jewish and Zionist national agendas to its peak. Refugees and survivors were not always interested in Palestine immigration, and thus Zionists sometimes resorted to unusual steps in the European DP camps: In 1945, they forcefully prevented the rescue of child survivors; in 1948, they instituted there forced conscription to the Israel Defence Force".

From this thread here, about the book In the Shadow of the Holocaust: Jews vs Zionists , by Yosef Grodzinsky.

There have been several instances, even in recent memory, where Israeli auhtorities have manipulated Jewish migration. For instance in the 70's Israel opposed Jewish immigration of Soviet Jews to Europe and the US, despite the stated wish of many to move there, as opposed to Israel.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 02 June 2005 06:31 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Cue:

Well that is controversial and debateable. However even if the numbers have been mnaipulated (imagine that someone would do such a thing!) is correct the number of Palestinians allegedly "displaced" in 1948 has been grossly exaggerated. Additionally the number of Jews expelled from Arab countries is in excess of 800,000. How about compensation for them?


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 02 June 2005 11:09 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
Cue:

Well that is controversial and debateable. However even if the numbers have been mnaipulated (imagine that someone would do such a thing!) is correct the number of Palestinians allegedly "displaced" in 1948 has been grossly exaggerated. Additionally the number of Jews expelled from Arab countries is in excess of 800,000. How about compensation for them?


a) You are totally off topic.

b) Simply saying the numbers could be distorted without offering any evidence contributes nothing to the discussion.

b) The number of Palestinians ethnically cleansed by Israel was between 700,000 and 800,000, most historians agree.

c) Few Jews were expelled from Arab countries. Mass expulsion is a fantasy dreamed up in the last ten years or so to deflect the moral force of the undeniable evidence that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were expelled from their homes.

Signifigant harassment and human rights violations encouraged many to leave, but this was not the intent of the government; in most cases it was illegal for the Jews to leave. Racism, discrimination, harassment, in some cases pogroms, but not (as was the case with the Palestinians) delibrate expulsion and ethnic cleansing.

[ 02 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]

[ 02 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]

[ 03 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 02 June 2005 11:21 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:

a) You are totally off topic.

b) Simply saying the numbers could be distorted without offering any evidence contributes nothing to the discussion.

b) The number of Palestinians ethnically cleansed by Israel was between 700,000 and 900,000, most historians agree.

c) No Jews were expelled from Arab countries. That is a fantasy. Signifigant harassment and human rights violations encouraged many to leave, but this was not the intent of the government; in most cases it was illegal for the Jews to leave. Racism, discrimination, but not (as was the case with the Palestinians) delibrate expulsion and ethnic cleansing.



Your post is utterly and patently biased and incorrect. Jews expelled from Arab lands and lands confiscated is well documented:

http://www.cjnews.com/viewarticle.asp?id=1642

They were tortured harassed and deliberately expelled.

Secondly your choice of ethnically cleaned is a deliberate attempt to mislead using loaded terms. Palestinians fled left and also were pushed out. The numbers are grossly inflated by you. Your attempt to use the term ethnic cleansing is a deliberate attempt to deligitimize Israel. Nice try.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 02 June 2005 11:29 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
And more from: http://www.cjnews.com/viewarticle.asp?id=1597


By branding all Jews in Arab countries as Zionists, the Arab states caused them to flee their birthplace and seek refuge in Israel. The arrival of almost 600,000 Jews from the Arab countries of the Middle East and North Africa between 1948 and 1956, out of approximately 860,000 Jews living in these countries at the time, was the first major exodus in the region after World War II. What could have been an exchange of population between these Jews and the Palestinians who fled Israel or were expelled, turned into a protracted conflict the end of which is not yet in sight....n the 20th century, discriminatory legislation, persecution and death sentences against Jews were carried out by Arab states, even though they were members of the United Nations. Jews in these countries were eventually expelled through legislation enacted for this purpose and specifically directed against Jews who were forced to leave behind, despite their protests, both communal and private possessions accumulated over long centuries of living in these countries.......

But don't let the facts get in the way of your idealogy.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 02 June 2005 11:45 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
Nothing that happened to Jews in Arab countries has anything to do with the racism endemic to Zionism as practiced in the state of Israel today. It is totally irrevelent, and its only purpose here is to divert the debate from the real issues.

PS: As impressed as I am by your unsupported assertions that the numbers are "exaggerated" and by by the unsourced assertions of an unsigned editorial at "The Canadian Jewish News," I suggest you read some actual historians, unless you are afraid the facts might get in the way of your ideology.

[ 02 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 03 June 2005 12:13 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:

Secondly your choice of ethnically cleaned is a deliberate attempt to mislead using loaded terms. Palestinians fled left and also were pushed out. The numbers are grossly inflated by you. Your attempt to use the term ethnic cleansing is a deliberate attempt to deligitimize Israel. Nice try.

quote:
What people fail to recognise is that Israel owes its very existence as a Jewish State to massive ethnic cleansing. The overall picture is undisputed: In 1948, there were about 600,000 Jews in Palestine. The number of Palestinians driven out from the territory taken by Israel in 1947-1949 is estimated at 600,000 to 720,000 (says the nationalistic Israeli historian Benny Morris in his authoritative The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem)

Ran HaCohen


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 June 2005 01:20 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
But don't let the facts get in the way of your idealogy.

I am glad that we are getting into a dsicsussion based in evidence. Farrel is right, there are no serious historians who dispute the 700,000 and up figure. Nor do they deny that there was significant coercion. That number is even the number that is used commonly by Israeli peace negotiators.


Two Israeli historians on these facts, Benny Morris a firm supporter of Ben Gurions expulsion of Palestinian Arabs has this to say in interview with Ha'retz, he describes the means and the ends:

quote:
According to your findings, how many acts of Israeli massacre were perpetrated in 1948?

"Twenty-four. In some cases four or five people were executed, in others the numbers were 70, 80, 100. There was also a great deal of arbitrary killing. Two old men are spotted walking in a field - they are shot. A woman is found in an abandoned village - she is shot. There are cases such as the village of Dawayima [in the Hebron region], in which a column entered the village with all guns blazing and killed anything that moved.

"The worst cases were Saliha (70-80 killed), Deir Yassin (100-110), Lod (250), Dawayima (hundreds) and perhaps Abu Shusha (70). There is no unequivocal proof of a large-scale massacre at Tantura, but war crimes were perpetrated there. At Jaffa there was a massacre about which nothing had been known until now. The same at Arab al Muwassi, in the north. About half of the acts of massacre were part of Operation Hiram [in the north, in October 1948]: at Safsaf, Saliha, Jish, Eilaboun, Arab al Muwasi, Deir al Asad, Majdal Krum, Sasa. In Operation Hiram there was a unusually high concentration of executions of people against a wall or next to a well in an orderly fashion.

[SNIP]

Are you saying that Ben-Gurion was personally responsible for a deliberate and systematic policy of mass expulsion?

"From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer. There is no explicit order of his in writing, there is no orderly comprehensive policy, but there is an atmosphere of [population] transfer. The transfer idea is in the air. The entire leadership understands that this is the idea. The officer corps understands what is required of them. Under Ben-Gurion, a consensus of transfer is created."

Ben-Gurion was a "transferist"?

"Of course. Ben-Gurion was a transferist. He understood that there could be no Jewish state with a large and hostile Arab minority in its midst. There would be no such state. It would not be able to exist."

I don't hear you condemning him.

"Ben-Gurion was right. If he had not done what he did, a state would not have come into being. That has to be clear. It is impossible to evade it. Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here."


Another, not nearly so eager Israeli historian is Illan Pappe of the university of Haifa. In his article "Israeli Historians ask: What really happened fifty years ago," he says:

quote:
The new historiographical picture is a fundamental challenge to the official history that says the Jewish community in Palestine faced possible annihilation on the eve of the 1948 war. Archival documents expose a fragmented Arab world wrought by dismay and confusion and a Palestinian community that possessed no military ability with which to threaten the Jews. The Arab world went about announcing its commitment to the Palestinians in strident, war-like rhetoric, but it did little on the ground to save Palestine.

The new historians argue that annihilation was impossible because of Jewish superiority in two crucial areas, diplomacy and military preparedness.4 The Jewish community had carried the day in diplomatic maneuvering in the United Nations and by accurately analyzing the balance of military power on the ground. An unwritten agreement between the Jewish Agency and the Arab Legion, the strongest Arab force in the area, practically guaranteed that the battle-ready Jewish forces would prevail.

[SNIP]

The Jewish military advantage was translated into an act of mass expulsion of more then half of the Palestinian population. The Israeli forces, apart from rare exceptions, expelled the Palestinians from every village and town they occupied. In some cases, this expulsion was accompanied by massacres as was the case in Lydda, Ramleh, Dawimiyya, Sa’sa, Ein Zietun and other places. Expulsion also was accompanied by rape, looting and confiscation. Expulsion was not always direct. Sometimes the Jewish fighters terrorized and terrified villagers into fleeing their homes. In a few cases total surrender saved some of the population from expulsion, but not always.


There is no one who seriously disputes the figures, though as in the case of Morris and Pappe, they differ in their opinions as to the validity of the expulsion, Morris accepts is, while Pappe rejects it.

[ 03 June 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 03 June 2005 01:23 AM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nope. Won't fight against "the racism that is Zionism." Won't alienate the Israeli left. Won't give ammunition to zenophobic rabbis in Israel who crow every time shit like this is mentioned. No way.
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 June 2005 01:26 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Read the thread CMOT, its a good dissection of the issue. Your input would be valuable. More than a terse rejection that is.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 03 June 2005 03:05 AM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
Also Charles Smith of the University of Arizona, who puts the number at 730,000 ("Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict," Bedford/St. Martin's).

And Avi Shlaim, Oxford University, 700,000 ("The Iron Wall," Norton).

Both peer-reviewed professional historians specializing in the Middle East.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 03 June 2005 08:12 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:

PS: As impressed as I am by your unsupported assertions that the numbers are "exaggerated" and by by the unsourced assertions of an unsigned editorial at "The Canadian Jewish News,"
[ 02 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]



"Unsigned editorial"? Name how many newspapers worldwide have "signed" editorials. Why center out the Canadian Jewish News?

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 03 June 2005 08:26 AM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:
PS: As impressed as I am by your unsupported assertions that the numbers are "exaggerated" and by by the unsourced assertions of an unsigned editorial at "The Canadian Jewish News," I suggest you read some actual historians, unless you are afraid the facts might get in the way of your ideology.

[ 02 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


rsfarrell almost all news papers have an opinion and editorial section also know as the OP-ED section. This section is usually comprised of 3 parts:

1 Opinion pieces that are written and attributed to the author
2 Editorials that never have a name with them. It is understood to 99% of the world that they are written the either the paper editor or section editors and are called editorials because they come from editors
3. letters to the editor that respond both to stories and editorials.

Tell me do you complain to the Post, Star, Sun and Globe about their unsigned editorials? Or do you know that they do not need to be signed?

so please tell me what your problem is with the CJN? If you have a concern with the accuracy of the editorial complain to the editor.


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 03 June 2005 12:30 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
All arguments need sources. What is a good source for one argument may not be good for another, and a piece of writing can be good and valuable without being a good source in a given discussion.

Unsigned editorials -- I am well aware of what they are, thank you -- are a poor source of facts from which to make an argument about the history of the Middle East. If it were a well-known newspaper with a reputation for accuracy, "The Economist," or the NYT perhaps, there might be an argument for assuming the basic facts to be correct. The Canadian Jewish News is obscure as well as unqualified.

A contrast can be seen with the later posts on the issue, which cited four tenured professors of history specializing in the Middle East, all citing numbers within 50,000 of each other. That is the kind of evidence that is respectable in an argument about history.

[ 03 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 03 June 2005 01:06 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:
Nothing that happened to Jews in Arab countries has anything to do with the racism endemic to Zionism as practiced in the state of Israel today. It is totally irrevelent, and its only purpose here is to divert the debate from the real issues.

PS: As impressed as I am by your unsupported assertions that the numbers are "exaggerated" and by by the unsourced assertions of an unsigned editorial at "The Canadian Jewish News," I suggest you read some actual historians, unless you are afraid the facts might get in the way of your ideology.

[ 02 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


You just don't like the source. Why? Because you don't like the facts and secondly it's a "Jewish" paper, right??


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 03 June 2005 01:11 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

Ran HaCohen


So by your "logic" then the withdrawal of settlers from tehGaza is ethnic cleansing. The settlement of Cananda, USA, by Europeans (to teh detriment of 1st Nations Peopels) was ethnic cleaning? How about dropping the politically loaded crap?


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 03 June 2005 01:21 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
You won't like the source but since you want to quote "history":

http://www.infoisrael.net/cgi-local/text.pl?source=3/e/310720022

Muhammad's followers believed in conversion, big time, and swarmed around the Middle East giving everyone a fair choice-become a Muslim or die. These Arabs stormed Palestine in 638 A.D. Do the math. The Arabs got to the region 2379 years after the Jews....But we do know that there were probably fewer than 350,000 people, the majority Arab, in the whole region (including what is now Jordan) when Mark Twain made a pilgrimage in 1867....

http://www.infoisrael.net/cgi-local/text.pl?source=3/e/archives/261120021

A travel guide to Palestine and Syria, published in 1906 by Karl Baedeker, illustrates the fact that, even when the Islamic Ottoman Empire ruled the region, the Muslim population in Jerusalem was minimal. The book estimates the total population of the city at 60,000, of whom 7,000 were Muslims, 13,000 were Christians and 40,000 were Jews. "The number of Jews has greatly risen in the last few decades, in spite of the fact that they are forbidden to immigrate or to possess landed property," the book states. Even though the Jews were persecuted, still they came to Jerusalem and represented the overwhelming majority of the population as early as 1906. And even though Muslims today claim Jerusalem as the third holiest site in Islam, when the city was under Islamic rule, they had little interest in it.

....This is the modern real history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. At no time did the Jews uproot Arab families from their homes. When there were title deeds to be purchased, they bought them at inflated prices. When there were not, they worked the land so they could have a place to live without the persecution they faced throughout the world.

[ 03 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 03 June 2005 02:14 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You won't like the source but since you want to quote "history"

The sources become much more limited when it isn't the truth in which you are interested.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
clear mutiny
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9494

posted 03 June 2005 02:27 PM      Profile for clear mutiny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yes, Harriet, the Jewish Temple did exist in Jerusalem. I know Arafat insists it didn't and his excavators are busy destroying all archaeological record of it. But next time you visit Rome, go check out the Forum and you'll find its story carved in the ancient stone of Titus's arch. Let's start at the beginning.

That's from your link Peech.
Is that true, are efforts being made to obliterate the archeological record?

If so, it speaks of a hatred so fanatical that history itself must be destroyed, to meet an end. Is there no hope for the Jewish state?


From: no localized | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 03 June 2005 02:52 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:

The sources become much more limited when it isn't the truth in which you are interested.


Ditto!


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 03 June 2005 02:53 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by clear mutiny:

That's from your link Peech.
Is that true, are efforts being made to obliterate the archeological record?

If so, it speaks of a hatred so fanatical that history itself must be destroyed, to meet an end. Is there no hope for the Jewish state?



What is your point? And yes ther is hope for the Jewish state even without your support.

From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
clear mutiny
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9494

posted 03 June 2005 03:09 PM      Profile for clear mutiny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Peech, do you have other sources for the claim that the archeological record is being destroyed? That is what I am asking.
From: no localized | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 03 June 2005 03:10 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Read the thread CMOT, its a good dissection of the issue. Your input would be valuable. More than a terse rejection that is.

Here she goes.
Zionism(much like early Canadian nationalism) is based on the exclusivity. the idea that there must be a state for one ethnic group and one ethnic group only in a given piece of territory.
This tenant is central to all branches of Zionist thought, and while I have my reservations about Zionism and the actions of Israel's founding fathers, I agree with Coyote. Condemning all Zionism as racism is incredibly counterproductive and harms the anti occupation movement. Anti Zionist activists who are involved with the struggle against Israeli imperialism in the West Bank and Gaza must remember that while they may not like Zionists of any political stripe, the only people who have enough power to end Sharon's messianic wet dream of Greater Israel are, you guessed it, the Zionists.
I will fight " the racism that in Zionism" after the occupation is over, not before.
Besides, Ed Broadbent and Steven Lewis are both committed Zionists. I don't feel comfortable calling either man racist.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 03 June 2005 03:23 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:
If it were a well-known newspaper with a reputation for accuracy, "The Economist," or the NYT perhaps, there might be an argument for assuming the basic facts to be correct. The Canadian Jewish News is obscure as well as unqualified.


The CJN is one of Canada's leading ethnic journals. It has a well deserved reputation for accuracy and has been around for close to 50 years. As JPJ challenged, if you have a problem with any article write a letter to the editor. That is the decent thing to do . Instead you choose a vile harangue against the paper. This speaks more about you than the CJN.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 June 2005 03:28 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now it's "vile" to discuss the quality of journalism of a newspaper, or whether or not a person believes it's a credible source?

Wow, I guess that's news to all those people who attack The Toronto Sun, the National Post, The Globe and Mail, and the Toronto Star on a regular basis, huh? I guess those people are all "vile" too. Or! Maybe they're demonic!

Yes, that's what they are! Demonic! Demonic and vile, I tell you!


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 03 June 2005 03:29 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Wow, I guess that's news to all those people who attack The Toronto Sun, the National Post, The Globe and Mail,

No Michelle those papers are ok it is the obscure papers that lack credibility


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
clear mutiny
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9494

posted 03 June 2005 03:33 PM      Profile for clear mutiny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Toronto itself is vile, I tell you!
Torontonians have no credibility!

From: no localized | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 June 2005 03:34 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hee. Editorials. Grope and Flail editorials. Hee.

I do read them, but mainly because it is so much fun to watch the editors daily twist selves into pretzels, writing most often in defiance of the pretty good reporting that their real journalists do.

My favourites are always the ones where they choke back just long and hard enough to endorse the Tories in any impending election. Yee hee hee.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 03 June 2005 03:50 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is this true, Peech?

quote:

Theodor Herzel
The founder of modern Zionism

“It is essential that the sufferings of Jews.. . become worse. . . this will assist in realization of our plans. . .I have an excellent idea. . . I shall induce anti-Semites to liquidate Jewish wealth. . . The anti-Semites will assist us thereby in that they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of Jews. The anti-Semites shall be our best friends”. (From his Diary, Part I, pp. 16)


A bunch of anti-semites according to Macabee

[ 03 June 2005: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 03 June 2005 04:36 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Only extremists from the left and the right today equate Zionism with racism. This was finally and totally rejected by the UN decades ago. Frankly it speaks ill of Babble that such a thread exists. The only other place I recall seeing a similar discussion was on Don Black's neo-Nazi website.
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 03 June 2005 04:37 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Macabee, why not can the histrionics and examine the replies to the thread?
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 03 June 2005 04:42 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Because it's so much easier not to.

All I have to say is that, in theory, Zionism is not necessarily racist. And it certainly did not intend to so be when it was formulated. But, in practice, it certainly has exhibited these tendencies.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 03 June 2005 04:59 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
I agree with Josh. There is nothing about Zionism as a thesis which logically requires racism. The same could be said about segragation in th South or apartheid in South Africa. All of those ideologies are ostensibly not about superiority or inferiority, but about seperation. It is the implementation of them in the world that we actually live in that makes those ideologies racist.

A little story: In 1897, the Jews of Vienna despatched a delegation of two rabbis to examine the country for its suitability. The delegation reported back as follows: "the bride is beautiful but she is married to another man."

That is the point at which Zionism became hopelessly infected with racism. Because the moment you bring "Altneuland" out of the mists of fantasy and plant it in a land in which people have already made their lives and homes, and dismiss those people as primitive or inferior or simply unimportant, at that point your ideology can only be described as racist.

[ 03 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 03 June 2005 05:10 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As a wimpy secullarist, I find the religious themes of the site disturbing.

Yes, the Zionist project was wrong. Yes, the foundation of Israel has endangered Jews worldwide and yes according to one interpretation of Talmudic scripture, the state shouldn't exist. The problem is that I don't think the " the Talmud argument" should be part of the debate. Condemning the entire Jewish population of Israel as blasphemers and labeling the state as Zionist(when 20% of population is anything but) isn't helpful. There are lots of perfectly good secular arguments against Jewish nationalism, made by perfectly decent rationalists. Let's use those.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 03 June 2005 05:30 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The only other place I recall seeing a similar discussion was on Don Black's neo-Nazi website.

That doesn't make the anti Zionists who have posted here wrong.

Anyway, very few people here have said that Zionism is entirely racist. We're just acknowledging the ideology has a dark side.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 03 June 2005 05:35 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
As a wimpy secullarist, I find the religious themes of the site disturbing.

Yes, the Zionist project was wrong. Yes, the foundation of Israel has endangered Jews worldwide and yes according to one interpretation of Talmudic scripture, the state shouldn't exist. The problem is that I don't think the " the Talmud argument" should be part of the debate. Condemning the entire Jewish population of Israel as blasphemers and labeling the state as Zionist(when 20% of population is anything but) isn't helpful. There are lots of perfectly good secular arguments against Jewish nationalism, made by perfectly decent rationalists. Let's use those.


would ou like to rewrite history? If so I get yoit thread. Otherwise not. Because Israel is here to stay regrdlessof whetehr YOU think it has a right to exist.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 03 June 2005 05:36 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

That doesn't make the anti Zionists who have posted here wrong.

Anyway, very few people here have said that Zionism is entirely racist. We're just acknowledging the ideology has a dark side.


As does democracy, socialism, feminism etc. So what???


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 03 June 2005 05:40 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:
I agree with Josh. There is nothing about Zionism as a thesis which logically requires racism. The same could be said about segragation in th South or apartheid in South Africa. All of those ideologies are ostensibly not about superiority or inferiority, but about seperation. It is the implementation of them in the world that we actually live in that makes those ideologies racist.

A little story: In 1897, the Jews of Vienna despatched a delegation of two rabbis to examine the country for its suitability. The delegation reported back as follows: "the bride is beautiful but she is married to another man."

That is the point at which Zionism became hopelessly infected with racism. Because the moment you bring "Altneuland" out of the mists of fantasy and plant it in a land in which people have already made their lives and homes, and dismiss those people as primitive or inferior or simply unimportant, at that point your ideology can only be described as racist.

[ 03 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]



Again Nice try to get Zionism = racism in through th eback door. NO it is NOT by defination racist. And to use th eSouth African analogy is inaccurate and historically incorrect. The only reason to do so is to villify Israel which (I might ad) the Arabs have been so successful at. Once again all countries in the world have been settled by "others". I don't here you crying out that USA, Canada or god forbit Saudia Arabia are racist countries??


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 June 2005 05:46 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On sourcing. I certainly would not completely discount the CJN on its factual credibility. I doubt very much that it would lie, intentionally. On the other hand it might become the victim of other journalistic fraud. This happens to all newspapers to a certain extent. However, it is not about discounting any source out, but building a case based on corroboration of evidence. As well, for me, it is more a matter of deciding which sources are more credible and do there research well.

So, I would likely take a story written in the Globe and Mail over one written in CJN, just because the CJN is overtly biased on the issue of Israel. I would likewise take the Globe and Mail, at face value, over any number of Palestinian web sites.

But over any of those I would take researchd work of history scholars, especially when they all corroborate each other on the broad facts, if not the exact specifics. In this case numerous schollarly sources all establish that at 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were expelled from the region of Israel in 1948, and most concur that the means by which this was effected was fairly brtual.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 03 June 2005 05:59 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
"NO it is NOT by defination racist."

Wow, you are quite the debater. But what if I were to say:

"YES it IS by definition racist."

Then it's pretty much a stalemate, isn't it?


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 03 June 2005 06:01 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:
"NO it is NOT by defination racist."

Wow, you are quite the debater. But what if I were to say:

"YES it IS by definition racist."

Then it's pretty much a stalemate, isn't it?


Well we know where you are at now don't we?


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 03 June 2005 06:02 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
No, wait . . .

"YES, it IS racist, times infinty plus one, NO TALKBACKS."

Now I win.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 03 June 2005 06:04 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:

Well we know where you are at now don't we?


You mean lowered to your level? Sorry, Peech. The difference is, I'm being ironic.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 03 June 2005 06:07 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
On sourcing. I certainly would not completely discount the CJN on its factual credibility. I doubt very much that it would lie, intentionally. On the other hand it might become the victim of other journalistic fraud. This happens to all newspapers to a certain extent. However, it is not about discounting any source out, but building a case based on corroboration of evidence. As well, for me, it is more a matter of deciding which sources are more credible and do there research well.

So, I would likely take a story written in the Globe and Mail over one written in CJN, just because the CJN is overtly biased on the issue of Israel. I would likewise take the Globe and Mail, at face value, over any number of Palestinian web sites.

.


There has not been anything from the Rope and Nail on the expulsion of Jews from Arab lands which was my original point. With great respect to your opinion I could say that the Rope and Nail is a white anglosxon newspaper (although its editor is Jewish) and therefore I doubt its accuracy because it is an "ethnic" newspaper. Now doesn't that make your argument sound a little weak??

[ 03 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 03 June 2005 06:07 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:

You mean lowered to your level? Sorry, Peech. The difference is, I'm being ironic.


Don't flatter yourself
On second thought go ahead and flatter yourself.

[ 03 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 03 June 2005 06:31 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There has not been anything from the Rope and Nail on the expulsion of Jews from Abab lands which was my original point.

And that has what to do with the price of tea in China or the actions of Israel?

Collective guilt of all Arabs cannot be based on acts by some Arab states; the initial and subsequent expulsion of Palestinians because Arab states (not Palestinian Arabs) later carried out repressive policies against Jews are no justification.

In other words: two wrongs don't make a right.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 03 June 2005 06:34 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes peech, I would like to rewrite history.
but there's no use crying over spilled milk.


Please remember that I refused to condemn Zionism as racism. I stated quite clearly in one of my other posts in this thread that to make such generalizations is counterproductive. I believe that it alienates the Zionist left(a good relationship with them is essential if we are ever going to end the occupation) and gives credibility to the fanatical settler movement.(The very people we are fighting against)
As for the statement, that I will fight " the racism that in Zionism" after the occupation is over, not before."
I believe that that statement is ill advised and would very much like to retract it. Not all Zionists are racists, I should know, my granny was one.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 03 June 2005 06:47 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
Yes peech, I would like to rewrite history.
but there's no use crying over spilled milk.


Please remember that I refused to condemn Zionism as racism. I stated quite clearly in one of my other posts in this thread that to make such generalizations is counterproductive. I believe that it alienates the Zionist left(a good relationship with them is essential if we are ever going to end the occupation) and gives credibility to the fanatical settler movement.(The very people we are fighting against)
As for the statement, that I will fight " the racism that in Zionism" after the occupation is over, not before."
I believe that that statement is ill advised and would very much like to retract it. Not all Zionists are racists, I should know, my granny was one.


OK now I think we have some common ground. I think racism anywhere should be fought. I also think most modern Israelis are secular, are sick of being reminded of ancoint history (WWII) and would love nothing more than to have peace and live in equal co-exitence with their neighbours (all). However ther are several obstacles: the religious control over the state (Israel) and the desire of some )if not most) of their neigbours to wipe them out. I personally believe that ongoingdialogue is the best and only vehicle to all sides of the dispute.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 03 June 2005 06:50 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by The Dude:

And that has what to do with the price of tea in China or the actions of Israel?

Collective guilt of all Arabs cannot be based on acts by some Arab states; the initial and subsequent expulsion of Palestinians because Arab states (not Palestinian Arabs) later carried out repressive policies against Jews are no justification.


Correct but my point was that compensationfor expulsion of the Jews (which by the way began before 1948) is a necessary component to b eincluded into any settlement with the Palestinians for their "loss". BTW why is it that none of the Arab neighbours have ever contributed to the ifrastructure f the Palestinian State? (other than financing terror and hate)???

[ 03 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 03 June 2005 07:03 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Correct but my point was that compensationfor expulsion of the Jews (which by the way began before 1948) is a necessary component to be included into any settlement with the Palestinians for their "loss".

Apples and plywood. Compenastion for Jews expelled by Arab states is a seperate issue from compensation for Palestinians expelled by Israel. Unless you are arguing that the Palestinians are responsible for the Jews' expulsion, the two are issues to be dealt with seperately.

Incidentallly, how many of those expelled from Arab countries settled in Israel?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 03 June 2005 07:06 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by The Dude:

Apples and plywood. Compenastion for Jews expelled by Arab states is a seperate issue from compensation for Palestinians expelled by Israel. Unless you are arguing that the Palestinians are responsible for the Jews' expulsion, the two are issues to be dealt with seperately.

Incidentallly, how many of those expelled from Arab countries settled in Israel?


Nope it is Apples and Apples since many (incidentally) settled in Israel (as no one else wanted them) then it would be out of their pocket thant anycompensation would come from.
So there!

[ 03 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 03 June 2005 07:42 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
OK now I think we have some common ground.

Not really.

Let's go back through my post so I can tell you exactly what I meant.

quote:
Yes peech, I would like to rewrite history.
but there's no use crying over spilled milk.

When I wrote that, I did not mean to imply that Israel should remain a Jewish state forever. I was merely saying that the Jewish population should be allowed to stay in the country once the Zionist ideology is dispensed with and a one state solution is inacted.

quote:
Please remember that I refused to condemn Zionism as racism. I stated quite clearly in one of my other posts in this thread that to make such generalizations is counterproductive. I believe that it alienates the Zionist left(a good relationship with them is essential if we are ever going to end the occupation) and gives credibility to the fanatical settler movement.(The very people we are fighting against)

Take this as read. In order for the exclusionary Zionist project to end piecefully the Israeli Defense Forces must withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza, and in order for them to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza, pressure must be put on the Israeli government by Zionist activists like Uri Avnery. The kind of retoric used by the babbler who started this thread only serves to strain relations between outsiders and orginizations like Gush Shalom.

quote:
As for the statement, that I will fight " the racism that in Zionism" after the occupation is over, not before."
I believe that that statement is ill advised and would very much like to retract it. Not all Zionists are racists, I should know, my granny was one.

I do not believe that Zionism is racism, no one who has risked their life in the occupied territories to save innocent Palestinians from brutal treatment, as many Zionists have done over the years, could possibly be thought of as racist, but that does not stop me from believing that Zionism should be dispensed with, or that David Ben G was wrong when he created Israel in 1948.
I do have some romantic attachment to the idea of a Jewish homeland, but I also believe that, looking at the big picture, Jews would have been better off if Israel had never been founded.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 03 June 2005 07:47 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:

Nope it is Apples and Apples since many (incidentally) settled in Israel (as no one else wanted them)

[ 03 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]



Of course, they were treated like horse pucky once they got there, but...

[ 03 June 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 03 June 2005 08:27 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
In order for the exclusionary Zionist project to end piecefully the Israeli Defense Forces must withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza, and in order for them to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza, pressure must be put on the Israeli government by Zionist activists like Uri Avnery. The kind of retoric used by the babbler who started this thread only serves to strain relations between outsiders and orginizations like Gush Shalom.

Let me say, I think the title of the thread did not come out sounding as I'd intended. I meant to imply that racism disguises itself as Zionism, not that Zionism is simply racism and nothing else.

I think the text of my posts reflects that. I do think that Zionism should be described as a racist movement, as are segragation and apartheid. I think this is important because a single, democratic state means the end of Zionism, and it's important to explain to people why the Zionist movement belongs on the dustbin of history.

Unfortunately if you confront the occupation without confronting Zionism, Zionists are going to take that ideology and use it to inform their relationships with Palestinians in Israel, with the new Palestinian state, with the refugees, and with the rest of the Arab/Muslim world. So even though the occupation is the most destructive element of Zionism, I don't think it can be isolated, as many would like to.

Imagine you go to start your car one morning and a giant, hairy paw with razor-sharp claws takes a piece out of your leg.

You consult your neighbor, who says "You've got a bobcat under there. You'd better get rid of it." To which you reply: "Oh no, I have no idea how to get rid of a bobcat. That would be dangerous, it would cost time and trouble, and to get rid of him completely, though it might be the ideal solution, would only anger him further. No, it is that paw that is the biggest problem. So here's what I'm going to do; I'll wait for the paw to come at me and then smash it with a hammer. Problem solved."

Some problems have to be tackled head-on. Half-measures are sometimes worse than nothing.

I do not believe that Zionism is racism, no one who has risked their life in the occupied territories to save innocent Palestinians from brutal treatment, as many Zionists have done over the years, could possibly be thought of as racist, but that does not stop me from believing that Zionism should be dispensed with, or that David Ben G was wrong when he created Israel in 1948.

If you read what I wrote above, you'll find that I don't think all Zionists are racists. There are exceptions. If I understand you to be saying that Zionism, whatever its orgins, has run its course, and needs to give way to something else, perhaps a secular, non-racial Israeli nationality, then I think we agree in the essentials.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 June 2005 08:32 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech: There has not been anything from the Rope and Nail on the expulsion of Jews from Arab lands which was my original point. With great respect to your opinion I could say that the Rope and Nail is a white anglosxon newspaper (although its editor is Jewish) and therefore I doubt its accuracy because it is an "ethnic" newspaper. Now doesn't that make your argument sound a little weak??

Not at all. I am not talking about ethnicity. I am talking about overt editorial bias. Which in fact discounts the G&M as it is editorially biased toward Israel, but less so than the CJN.

If you are concerned about 'ethnic' bias I would draw your attention to the fact that every source I have used in our disucussion are Jewish, if not Israeli?

The right of return is an individual right. Palestinians were not invited to immigrate to Lebanon, Syria, Jordan or Egypt. Israel, on the other hand actively supported Jewish immigration and made a promise to ensure immigrating Jews their livelyhood. That was Israel's choice.

Significant in this regard is the fact that Israel does not and never has demanded compensation or repatriation for Jews displaced by Arab governments. This arguement is never raised by Israel itself, only casually raised by laypersons for the rhetorical purposes, in discussion such as these.

Why? Because if Israel were to actually demand such it would mean that it would have to recognize its own responsibility for recognizing the right of individual Palestinians to return to the properties stolen from them by Israel.

[ 03 June 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 03 June 2005 09:25 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:


The right of return is an individual right. Palestinians were not invited to immigrate to Lebanon, Syria, Jordan or Egypt. Israel, on the other hand actively supported Jewish immigration and made a promise to ensure immigrating Jews their livelyhood. That was Israel's choice.

Significant in this regard is the fact that Israel does not and never has demanded compensation or repatriation for Jews displaced by Arab governments. This arguement is never raised by Israel itself, only casually raised by laypersons for the rhetorical purposes, in discussion such as these.

Why? Because if Israel were to actually demand such it would mean that it would have to recognize its own responsibility for recognizing the right of individual Palestinians to return to the properties stolen from them by Israel.

[ 03 June 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


Wow:

You're not hiding your objectivity are you. Lands "stolen". This is possibly the biggest hoax of our century. BTW for your information Israel is negotiating for compensation for lands actually stolen by Arabs from the Jews who were citizens of their own countries and who were tortured, imprisoned and expelled. A great number of the Palestinians whose land was "stolen" from them fled, left or volunteered to leave because they were told by their Arab allies to leave so that the Jews could be driven into the sea. Albeit another number were pushed out by the war (which was started by the Arabs, BTW) and another segment were pushed out by the Israelis. Of course it's much more romantic (ala Lawerence of Arabia style) to say all Palestinians had "their land" stolen. I ask you this: if Israel had not made framing out of dust and sand ... would these same poor helpless exploited, displaced Palestinians still want their land (dust) back? Probably not. In the middle east theatre is the same as politics and the Palestinians are the masters of theatre and propaganda.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 03 June 2005 09:30 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

looking at the big picture, Jews would have been better off if Israel had never been founded.


I couldn't disagree more. And a one state solution will not happen. Because the peoplewho really count (israelis and Palestinians) know this and are presently negotiating a 2 statesolution. All the leftist/scmetist ideaolgues on this site and everywhere else do not live ther and quite frankly don't count (incliding yours truly).


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 03 June 2005 09:32 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:
Sometimes racism is subtle -- a word, a gesture, the unspoken systems of prejudice that make up glass ceilings.

The racist hate that has infected the Zionist movement is not that subtle kind:

Saad Maabad, Dalida Nazigian and her 8-year-old daughter were on their way back home from eating at McDonald's in West Jerusalem. They were going to Nazigian's parents' home in the Armenian Quarter in the Old City in East Jerusalem. Nazigian and Maabad are both 27. Nazigian is a redheaded, blue-eyed Christian who not long ago divorced her husband, a Jordanian; he is a dark-haired Muslim with a spikey haircut. . .

As they approached IDF Square, next to Jerusalem's City Hall, where the eastern and western parts of the city meet, they noticed a group of some 30 youngsters, the boys walking separately from the girls. As it happened, they had just come back from the monthly ritual of encircling the Temple Mount - a mass of skullcaps, prayer shawls and long skirts - and were now screaming "Death to the Arabs!" and "Filthy Arabs, get out of our country!" at the top of their lungs.

Maabad and Nazigian didn't pay much attention. Having been born into the occupation, such scenes are familiar to them. The little girl skipped ahead of them and tried to get her mother and her friend to play. "We didn't think they would do anything to us," they recall now - but before they realized what was happening, the Jewish group assaulted them, the boys attacking Saad and the girls Dalida and her daughter, pummeling and kicking them.

Maabad, who teaches physical fitness and two years ago came in third in the "Mr. Palestine" contest because of his muscular physique, was able to fend off the boys and then tried to get the girls off his girlfriend and her daughter. A few of the boys backed off and one of them threw a large stone that struck him in the chest and hand. The girls continued to beat Dalida and her daughter, who clung tightly to her mother in desperation, wailing.

"They pushed her to the ground," Nazigian relates with pent-up emotion. "I shouted at them, `What are you doing? Can't you see she's just a little girl?'

full article

Hate is the heart and soul of Israel these days, and yet Zionists are making a Herculian effort to "own" the topic of racism and the conflict, by flinging charges of anti-Semitism over all and sundry.

These charges appear ridiculous in the light of real racism, and exemplified by Israelis like Haifa University Prof. David Bukay, who has been quoted as saying:

"When an Arab or a Muslim opens his remarks with the expression wallahi, he is apparently intending to lie," and, "There is no condemnation, no regret, no problem of conscience among Arabs and Muslims, anywhere, in any social stratum, of any social position."

"Various reports quoted Bukay as saying in his classroom that "Arabs should be shot in the head," "Arabs are stupid," and "Arabs are alcohol and sex." full text

But surely these are isolated extremists who don't reflect the society as a whole? If only.The reality is that, as Haaretz put it,"Israeli society -- or at least part of it -- is severely ill, infected with blatant, contemptible racism."


This is a piece of work. A really demented piece of logical insanity. Againthankgod you and your opinion as to what is really going to happen in teh middle east is irrelevent.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 03 June 2005 09:38 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Half measurea are better than no measures at all.
quote:
Some problems have to be tackled head-on. Half-measures are sometimes worse than nothing.


I'm a one stater, but there are very few one staters in in Isreal.(there are very few two staters come to that)
So, what do I do? Do I rant and rave, condemning Zionism as a racist movement, putting forward a solution to the Isreali/ Arab conflict that has absolutely no support in Isreal proper or do I comprimise, and work with good, if somewhat misguided people like Uri avnery to set up a temporary two state solution?
Yes, I believe that Zionism should be thrown into the dustbin of history, but that dosen't mean the average Isreali Does.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 03 June 2005 09:45 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
I'm glad you got around to reading the first post in the thread, Peech.

Of course, some people who have read what they were commenting on before denouncing it, but I see you have your own style.

I rather like "a demented piece of logical insanity." I'll put it among my treasured memories along with "vile hanguage."


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 03 June 2005 09:49 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:
I'm glad you got around to reading the first post in the thread, Peech.

Of course, some people who have read what they were commenting on before denouncing it, but I see you have your own style.

I rather like "a demented piece of logical insanity." I'll put it among my treasured memories along with "vile hanguage."


Glad you like it. But vile hanguage (sic) sound better.
Have a great day or evenng wherever you are!

[ 03 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 03 June 2005 09:51 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
Half measurea are better than no measures at all.

I'm a one stater, but there are very few one staters in in Isreal.(there are very few two staters come to that)
So, what do I do? Do I rant and rave, condemning Zionism as a racist movement, putting forward a solution to the Isreali/ Arab conflict that has absolutely no support in Isreal proper or do I comprimise, and work with good, if somewhat misguided people like Uri avnery to set up a temporary two state solution?
Yes, I believe that Zionism should be thrown into the dustbin of history, but that dosen't mean the average Isreali Does.


I am a one-steaker myself. I think all states should be thrown out and let's start over.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 June 2005 09:56 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:

Wow:

You're not hiding your objectivity are you. Lands "stolen". This is possibly the biggest hoax of our century. BTW for your information Israel is negotiating for compensation for lands actually stolen by Arabs from the Jews who were citizens of their own countries and who were tortured, imprisoned and expelled. A great number of the Palestinians whose land was "stolen" from them fled, left or volunteered to leave because they were told by their Arab allies to leave so that the Jews could be driven into the sea. Albeit another number were pushed out by the war (which was started by the Arabs, BTW) and another segment were pushed out by the Israelis. Of course it's much more romantic (ala Lawerence of Arabia style) to say all Palestinians had "their land" stolen. I ask you this: if Israel had not made framing out of dust and sand ... would these same poor helpless exploited, displaced Palestinians still want their land (dust) back? Probably not. In the middle east theatre is the same as politics and the Palestinians are the masters of theatre and propaganda.


I have read what I have read and come to the conclusion that I have. It is not about objectivity, it is about the historical record and the conclusions that one draws from the evidence. I have shown you my evidence, you have not shown me any of yours.

I want you to notice something here peech, rather than respond to your post directly.

I have provided two sources to two historians (both Israeli) who directly contradict everything you have just said. They have thoroughly researched this topic, interviewed witnesses both Palestinian and Israeli, and done forensic analysis of attrocity sites and mass graves. All of their evidence contradicts what you are saying.

Now, you have provided absolutely no sources, scholarly or otherwise to support your case. So rather than simply reiterating what is the commonest and least sophisticated brand of Israeli propoganda that I have heard countless times, why don't you do a little bit of research, and come up with some links to bona fide historians, who contradict the historians whom I have presented to support my position.

You can go on asserting what you are asserting, for ever and ever, but that does not change the fact that I have provided evidence to support my assertions, you have not.

My conclusion, based on the evidence, is that the Palestinians were driven from their land and that it was stolen for Israeli settlement.

[ 03 June 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 03 June 2005 09:59 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
Half measurea are better than no measures at all.

I'm a one stater, but there are very few one staters in in Isreal.(there are very few two staters come to that)
So, what do I do? Do I rant and rave, condemning Zionism as a racist movement, putting forward a solution to the Isreali/ Arab conflict that has absolutely no support in Isreal proper or do I comprimise, and work with good, if somewhat misguided people like Uri avnery to set up a temporary two state solution?
Yes, I believe that Zionism should be thrown into the dustbin of history, but that dosen't mean the average Isreali Does.


No they don't, but if activists went by that rule ("fight only for solutions with support within the ruling class") they would never have fought segragation in the South, or apartheid, or the occupation of Africa by the European powers. Sometimes there is just no constituency for the right thing, and we have to create one.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you pointed out that there are very few two-staters in Israel period. I agree. The fact of the matter is that there are going to have to be dramatic changes in the Israeli Jewish consciousness for any peace to be possible, one-state or two-state.

I'm afraid we aren't going to get to that by struggling not to offend people. Furthermore I believe (and this has been my personal experience) that many Zionists cynically use the progressives' fear of alienating the Zionist left to deaden criticism of Israel. "Don't offend the left . . . they will deliver peace, but not if they feel threatened" the story goes. Do you really buy that story?

I want to enlist the support of Jewish Israelis, but I think what we need at this point is something on the order of an intervention. We need to reach out our hands in friendship, while at the same time not compromising the truth one bit. I agree with Baldwin:

The word integration means, if it means anything, that we, with love, shall force our brothers to see themselves as they really are, to cease fleeing from reality and begin to change it.

[ 03 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 03 June 2005 10:03 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am a 2 state supporter always have been always will be. 2 states living side by side in peace and friendship is what i hope for.

As far as both the Israelis and the Palestinians people I can only hope that their are more 2 state supporters than 1 state supporters. And that the 2 staters can make dreams into reality.

What is sad is that I firmly beleive that their is a will for 2 states today on the ground. But the will has not as of yet been transformed into action.


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 June 2005 10:17 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Funny that, but it seems that the facts on the ground keep making Israel bigger and bigger. Stalling the peace process is to whose advantage?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 03 June 2005 10:33 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The stalling of the peace process is to the advantage of those in Israel and Palestine that never want peace.
From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 June 2005 10:39 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To whose territorial adavantage is the war?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 03 June 2005 10:49 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Once again Cueball any stalling of the peace process is to the advantage of those who never want peace.

It does not matter if those who oppose peace are Israeli, Palestinian, Isralis and Palestinians. Halting any peace only helps those that never want peace


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 June 2005 11:05 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is never about hating peace. War “is merely the continuation of policy by other means,” as Karl von Clauzewitz said.

Whose policy is advantaged by stalling the peace process? In other words who gains?

[ 03 June 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 04 June 2005 12:09 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:

So by your "logic" then the withdrawal of settlers from tehGaza is ethnic cleansing.


This is too stupid to respond to.

And this:

quote:
At no time did the Jews uproot Arab families from their homes.

... is just plain lying.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 04 June 2005 12:15 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
CUE:

I have read what I have read and come to the conclusion that I have. It is not about objectivity, it is about the historical record and the conclusions that one draws from the evidence. I have shown you my evidence, you have not shown me any of yours.


Facts:

The Mandate for Palestine
http://www.infoisrael.net/cgi-local/text.pl?source=3/d/070120031

UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (III)

http://www.infoisrael.net/cgi-local/text.pl?source=3/d/310120031

The Palestinian National Charter:
Resolutions of the Palestine National Council

http://www.infoisrael.net/cgi-local/text.pl?source=3/d/311220021

The Declaration of the Establishment
of the State of Israel 14 May 1948 http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00hb0


I may not be a legal expert

But when legal proclamationsof ownership are declaredby what is it called again... oh yah the United Nations etc ceding title and then a war is declared against teh rightful owner but nations who refuse to abide by the law... then when they lose they want their land back????

I don't need a friggin historian to convice me when something is bullshit tha tit is right just because it is more politically correct and you don't like it.
So fact: Israel exists (too bad).
Fact teh Palestinians lost a war and therefore lost land.
Fact: They want it back now and (wait for it) they want a one state solution becase (wah wah wah ) they lost a war ...by choosing the losing side
Is that the facts you want Cue????


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 04 June 2005 12:16 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

... is just plain lying.


So don't reply.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 04 June 2005 12:20 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Funny that, but it seems that the facts on the ground keep making Israel bigger and bigger. Stalling the peace process is to whose advantage?

Oh my god Cue you are just too damn funny! Have you bothered to lookat a map??? Israel is the size of a pin and it's neighbours (you know those oil rich ones who contribute zero to the plight of Palestinians) have most of the territory and yet want Israel to give it back????
Give me a break. I'll bet you will dig up a historian or two (and find an Israeli or a Jew) to support your extreme view.
Peace is the only answer. How about sme fruitful discussion about how that can be other than the usual Israel - a racsit Imperialst dog bull shit???

[ 04 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 June 2005 12:21 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry to cut this monologue short, but this thread is about a hundred posts long.
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