Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
DAVE KERSTING: How to dissect Zionist arguments (which are based on racist assumptions)
Dave Kersting answers the arguments of a typical Zionist. It becomes clear in this analysis that Zionists rely on racist tricks and assumptions in order to justify what they have done and what they continue to do (e.g. the most racist assumption is that somehow "the Arabs" -- a collective group rather than individuals -- are just inherently anti-Semitic and their violence towards Zionists has nothing at all to do with what Zionists did to them or had planned for their homeland of Palestine. How would Chinese have reacted? Would we now being hearing about the inherent anti-Semitism of the Chinese had the Zionist enterprise been conducted in China?
Martin Sall writes: In 1920 and 1921 and 1929, there were no territories of 1967 to impede peace between Jews and Arabs. Indeed, there was no Jewish State to upset anybody.
Dave Kersting replies:
Martin Sall treats the demi-Zionist "end the occupation" argument as if it were the best we can do. He responds to those who meekly ask Israel to "return to the 1967 borders" and beg its leaders for a Zionist "two-state (apartheid) solution" which would limit Jewish supremacy (and perpetual banishment of ethnically unwanted original populations) to MOST of Palestine - compensating the Palestinians by declaring an equally racist, Arab-supremacist "Palestinian state" under the walls, watchtowers, and warplanes of the Zionists. That entire discussion is, itself, the Zionist trick - as the absurdity of the goal merely proves that such discussions THEMSELVES are the ideal Zionist conditions: the ZIONISTS know that trying to make racism work "peacefully" can only assure endless boondoggles, breakdowns, generous offers, accidents, overreactions, and more of the same relentless Zionist expansion.
Martin Sall's response was written for the Zionists masses (and many "progressives"), who "don't know" that the racist intention of dispossessing the Palestinians and creating a Jewish state was perfectly clear by 1919, as reported by every observer, including the King-Crane Commission, sent by President Wilson to study the situation. King-Crane also reported that the British officers in the area agreed that the Zionist plan would require force of arms. Violent racist conquest does not occur in more overt and documented forms.
In the Zionist perspective, the local population (the families referred to as "the Arabs") had insufficient respect for Eastern European claims and failed to accept their ethnic-cleansing and run away "peacefully" - thus showing their true colors as anti-Semitic terrorists.
The Zionists had also been buying up land - through illegitimate records of the recent Turkish occupiers - and evicting its occupants on the basis of Imperial Turkish legalities, which denied the occupants' right to possess the land they had worked for generations.
Zionist power in Palestine began as an extension of (fully bogus) Turkish Imperial authority.
Even in the best light, the Zionist campaign to "purchase" Palestinian land, evict non-Jews, and create "Jewish-only" zones, would violate modern statutes against flaming racism. Such statutes reflect the fact that orchestrated campaigns of ethnic discrimination are de-facto forms of violent racism, which always cause horrible injustice and endless conflict - until they are reformed. With or without a written statute, the RACISM remains the same, and so does the damage to BOTH SIDES, until the racism is ended. An openly-announced campaign to transform Sid or Daniel's hometown into an officially racist state, in which their ethnicity was to be unwelcome, would certainly upset EVERYBODY in the entire town, region, state, and nation - even Sid and Daniel I suspect. The perpetrators would, of course, be arrested at once. In Palestine, the British occupiers would not LET the legitimate local authorities arrest the openly-declared racist invaders. But we are supposed to think "the Arabs" are subhuman for feeling the way any people would feel in that situation and for doing what any people would do.
Martin Sall: Nevertheless, the same oppressed and repressed Palestinians slaughtered tens of Jews in Jerusalem, Jaffa, Safed and Hebron. Indeed, 67 Jews were slaughtered one day in Hebron in 1929. Dear world, why did the Arabs - the Palestinians - massacre 67 Jews in one day in 1929?
Those who actually do want peace consider that a valid question, which really should be answered; it is not just a rhetorical Zionist jape, as Martin Sall intends it, to elicit racist guffaws against the fundamental inferiority of people who would do such things, presumably for no reason. Apparently, we are supposed to assume Palestinian people are just born anti-Semitic - and they had hoped and prayed all their lives that thousands of Jews would come from Eastern Europe, start evicting the local population, and provide a pretext for slaughter. Do Sid and Martin actually need us to remind them that those who killed Jews, in riots that included violence on both sides, should have been caught and punished if possible? People who only notice the ethnicity of their antagonists and then condemn "the Arabs - the Palestinians" in general, are openly declaring themselves as racist as can be. The thing is, "Arab" ethnicity has nothing to do with anything. The locals' only problem was that they were not "Jewish" enough for the intended "Jewish state." The point is that ANYONE, ANYWHERE ON EARTH - any people - would have responded to that racist takeover campaign with the same standard human responses. In the US, the perpetrators would be arrested and put in jail. In other places, where the law is not allowed to move sensibly, eruptions of counter-violence - against the violence of ethnic displacement - would be inevitable. If the "Jewish state" had been promoted in China, the Zionists would have encountered the same resistance, sometimes peaceful, sometimes violent, from the Chinese locals, and so the Zionists would have had to teach us to hate "the Chinese" as genetically and pathologically anti-Semitic. We would have been hearing, all our lives, how "the Chinese" had "tried to strangle the Jewish state in its cradle" and how "the Chinese" are just sort of LIKE that.
Martin Sall: Could it have been their anger over Israeli aggression in 1967? And why were 510 Jewish men, women and children slaughtered in Arab riots between 1936-39? Was it because Arabs were upset over 1967?
We would also hear all sorts of Zionist comedy about WHY "the Chinese" went around slaughtering Jewish men, women, and children - the hilarious conclusion being that "the Chinese" are just born anti-Semitic - because if they WEREN'T, they would have accepted their "legal" (albeit racist) dispossession "peacefully" like normal people. Comparing numbers and horrors is stupid, but plenty of local Palestinians were killed, due to the racist takeover of their land, before, during, and after the conflicts in question. The entire indigenous leadership was murdered, executed, or expelled by the British - on behalf of Zionism. Those who want peace do not seek to dehumanize either side: we decry the racist POLICIES that are illegal in decent places precisely BECAUSE they always entail violence, or more correctly - as Martin Luther King said - such policies ARE violence, in and of themselves. Martin Sall fails to mention that the Zionists were the primary terrorists, even against the British for failing to hand Palestine over to them fast enough.
Martin Sall: And when you, world, proposed a UN Partition Plan in 1947 that would have created a "Palestinian State" alongside a tiny Israel and the Arabs cried "no" and went to war and killed 6,000 Jews - was that "upset" caused by the aggression of 1967?
The scheme to take more than half of Palestine and turn it into an officially racist-supremacist "Jewish state" - a self-declared "settler-state" - in extreme contradiction of the will of the indigenous population, is a classic case of violent racist aggression. Its endorsement by a clique of Imperial Powers - or by ANY self-proclaimed authority - does not make it any less racist or violent. Nor was any such power claimed by the UN anywhere in its charter. The whole vote was a Zionist-sponsored charade. But it's great when the Zionists cite that Partition Plan as their authority, because it totally explodes any denials of racism. Even if the UN could legitimize racist invasion, that would not render the racism any less racist: the Partition Plan only gives Zionist racism a stamp of bogus approval. The main problem is that no approval, of any kind, can make racism work "peacefully." That is why decent people have learned to oppose it.
Again, no people on Earth would allow the creation of a brand-new state in their region - and this would remain true, EVEN if the invaders held up their religious books and read how their "God" had given the place to them. If Sid, Martin, and Daniel try that here in California, the police will cry "no" and "attack" them and put them somewhere where they can't hurt themselves. Far more than 6000 Palestinians were killed, as 750,000 of them were being ethnically-cleansed according to the long-avowed Zionist plan. Only in a Zionist universe do people travel hundreds of miles to create a new state, and ethnically-cleanse most of the population, and then tell their children they did it because they were "attacked."
Martin Sall: And, by the way, dear world, why did we not hear your cry of "upset" then? The poor Palestinians who today kill Jews with explosives and firebombs and stones are part of the same people who - when they had all the territories they now demand be given to them for their state -attempted to drive the Jewish state into the sea. The same twisted faces, the same hate, the same cry of "itbach-al-yahud" (Massacre the Jew!) that we hear and see today, were seen and heard then. The same people, the same dream - destroy
And where does the Zionist logic lead - again to the same conclusion: the Palestinians are simply murderous, born with twisted faces, and only a dream to destroy; and they do this for no reason. The Zionist distortion runs like this, starting with reality: 1.) The Palestinians want to go home and live as equals. 2.) That return would end the Jewish supremacy that was the whole purpose of their dispossession in the first place. 3.) So let's confuse our children - and the stupidest adults - with the lie that asking Jews to live as equals means "driving the Jewish state into the sea." When Nazi Germany occupied Holland, many Dutch people shouted, with twisted faces "Kill the Germans." When US troops were marching through Vietnam, many Vietnamese people, with twisted faces, shouted "Kill the Americans." And when Jews march through Palestine, building their "Jewish-only" settlements, shooting anyone who resists or throws a stone, and expanding their "Jewish state," it is only natural for the victims to shout "kill the Jews." No, the problem in Holland was NOT a bunch of Dutch terrorists, reveling in their innate anti-Germanism, and delighted at the opportunity to kill Germans. The problem in Vietnam was not the natural inferiority of Vietnamese people, who jealously hate Americans and lured them into their streets and fields, for no reason, in order to kill them with "explosives, firebombs, and stones." And no, the Palestinians do not hate people who do not rob and murder them.
As to those who will say it is a waste of time to talk to these Zionists: I certainly don't blame anyone for having no interest - if they already know how to respond, in public, to the Standard Zionist Line, which is so consistent and so dumb. But all over the campuses, well-meaning ethnic-equality activists and peace activists are finding exactly the same worn-out and openly racist arguments or japes, as taught at Zionist summer-camps.
And, odd as it may seem, WAY TOO MANY DO NOT KNOW HOW TO RESPOND.
That is WHY the "anti-war" movement has so stupidly deemed this a "difficult issue" - so "difficult" that Zionism is still timidly avoided by the mainstream "anti-war" organizers.
I appreciate this list because it gives these Zionists a chance to get the classic Zionist case out onto the dissecting table, under lights and cameras. I know it's absurdly easy and seems terribly obvious, but all the "progressive" waffling does not reflect that easyness and obviousness at all.
Those on this list who already know or who just don't care may, of course, freely delete my posts. My main purpose is to marshal the argument, for its own sake - and also to send it to other lists, where people feel it's important to stay on top this stuff.
I certainly don't intend this stuff for the little creeps themselves.
These Zionists on this list are really on a roll - damning themselves and their ideology wonderfully, and it all goes into the file marked "Zionism 101."
Dave Kersting replies:
Martin Sall treats the demi-Zionist "end the occupation" argument as if it were the best we can do. He responds to those who meekly ask Israel to "return to the 1967 borders" and beg its leaders for a Zionist "two-state (apartheid) solution" which would limit Jewish supremacy (and perpetual banishment of ethnically unwanted original populations) to MOST of Palestine - compensating the Palestinians by declaring an equally racist, Arab-supremacist "Palestinian state" under the walls, watchtowers, and warplanes of the Zionists. That entire discussion is, itself, the Zionist trick - as the absurdity of the goal merely proves that such discussions THEMSELVES are the ideal Zionist conditions: the ZIONISTS know that trying to make racism work "peacefully" can only assure endless boondoggles, breakdowns, generous offers, accidents, overreactions, and more of the same relentless Zionist expansion.
Martin Sall's response was written for the Zionists masses (and many "progressives"), who "don't know" that the racist intention of dispossessing the Palestinians and creating a Jewish state was perfectly clear by 1919, as reported by every observer, including the King-Crane Commission, sent by President Wilson to study the situation. King-Crane also reported that the British officers in the area agreed that the Zionist plan would require force of arms. Violent racist conquest does not occur in more overt and documented forms.
In the Zionist perspective, the local population (the families referred to as "the Arabs") had insufficient respect for Eastern European claims and failed to accept their ethnic-cleansing and run away "peacefully" - thus showing their true colors as anti-Semitic terrorists.
The Zionists had also been buying up land - through illegitimate records of the recent Turkish occupiers - and evicting its occupants on the basis of Imperial Turkish legalities, which denied the occupants' right to possess the land they had worked for generations.
Zionist power in Palestine began as an extension of (fully bogus) Turkish Imperial authority.
Even in the best light, the Zionist campaign to "purchase" Palestinian land, evict non-Jews, and create "Jewish-only" zones, would violate modern statutes against flaming racism. Such statutes reflect the fact that orchestrated campaigns of ethnic discrimination are de-facto forms of violent racism, which always cause horrible injustice and endless conflict - until they are reformed. With or without a written statute, the RACISM remains the same, and so does the damage to BOTH SIDES, until the racism is ended. An openly-announced campaign to transform Sid or Daniel's hometown into an officially racist state, in which their ethnicity was to be unwelcome, would certainly upset EVERYBODY in the entire town, region, state, and nation - even Sid and Daniel I suspect. The perpetrators would, of course, be arrested at once. In Palestine, the British occupiers would not LET the legitimate local authorities arrest the openly-declared racist invaders. But we are supposed to think "the Arabs" are subhuman for feeling the way any people would feel in that situation and for doing what any people would do.
Martin Sall: Nevertheless, the same oppressed and repressed Palestinians slaughtered tens of Jews in Jerusalem, Jaffa, Safed and Hebron. Indeed, 67 Jews were slaughtered one day in Hebron in 1929. Dear world, why did the Arabs - the Palestinians - massacre 67 Jews in one day in 1929?
Those who actually do want peace consider that a valid question, which really should be answered; it is not just a rhetorical Zionist jape, as Martin Sall intends it, to elicit racist guffaws against the fundamental inferiority of people who would do such things, presumably for no reason. Apparently, we are supposed to assume Palestinian people are just born anti-Semitic - and they had hoped and prayed all their lives that thousands of Jews would come from Eastern Europe, start evicting the local population, and provide a pretext for slaughter. Do Sid and Martin actually need us to remind them that those who killed Jews, in riots that included violence on both sides, should have been caught and punished if possible? People who only notice the ethnicity of their antagonists and then condemn "the Arabs - the Palestinians" in general, are openly declaring themselves as racist as can be. The thing is, "Arab" ethnicity has nothing to do with anything. The locals' only problem was that they were not "Jewish" enough for the intended "Jewish state." The point is that ANYONE, ANYWHERE ON EARTH - any people - would have responded to that racist takeover campaign with the same standard human responses. In the US, the perpetrators would be arrested and put in jail. In other places, where the law is not allowed to move sensibly, eruptions of counter-violence - against the violence of ethnic displacement - would be inevitable. If the "Jewish state" had been promoted in China, the Zionists would have encountered the same resistance, sometimes peaceful, sometimes violent, from the Chinese locals, and so the Zionists would have had to teach us to hate "the Chinese" as genetically and pathologically anti-Semitic. We would have been hearing, all our lives, how "the Chinese" had "tried to strangle the Jewish state in its cradle" and how "the Chinese" are just sort of LIKE that.
Martin Sall: Could it have been their anger over Israeli aggression in 1967? And why were 510 Jewish men, women and children slaughtered in Arab riots between 1936-39? Was it because Arabs were upset over 1967?
We would also hear all sorts of Zionist comedy about WHY "the Chinese" went around slaughtering Jewish men, women, and children - the hilarious conclusion being that "the Chinese" are just born anti-Semitic - because if they WEREN'T, they would have accepted their "legal" (albeit racist) dispossession "peacefully" like normal people. Comparing numbers and horrors is stupid, but plenty of local Palestinians were killed, due to the racist takeover of their land, before, during, and after the conflicts in question. The entire indigenous leadership was murdered, executed, or expelled by the British - on behalf of Zionism. Those who want peace do not seek to dehumanize either side: we decry the racist POLICIES that are illegal in decent places precisely BECAUSE they always entail violence, or more correctly - as Martin Luther King said - such policies ARE violence, in and of themselves. Martin Sall fails to mention that the Zionists were the primary terrorists, even against the British for failing to hand Palestine over to them fast enough.
Martin Sall: And when you, world, proposed a UN Partition Plan in 1947 that would have created a "Palestinian State" alongside a tiny Israel and the Arabs cried "no" and went to war and killed 6,000 Jews - was that "upset" caused by the aggression of 1967?
The scheme to take more than half of Palestine and turn it into an officially racist-supremacist "Jewish state" - a self-declared "settler-state" - in extreme contradiction of the will of the indigenous population, is a classic case of violent racist aggression. Its endorsement by a clique of Imperial Powers - or by ANY self-proclaimed authority - does not make it any less racist or violent. Nor was any such power claimed by the UN anywhere in its charter. The whole vote was a Zionist-sponsored charade. But it's great when the Zionists cite that Partition Plan as their authority, because it totally explodes any denials of racism. Even if the UN could legitimize racist invasion, that would not render the racism any less racist: the Partition Plan only gives Zionist racism a stamp of bogus approval. The main problem is that no approval, of any kind, can make racism work "peacefully." That is why decent people have learned to oppose it.
Again, no people on Earth would allow the creation of a brand-new state in their region - and this would remain true, EVEN if the invaders held up their religious books and read how their "God" had given the place to them. If Sid, Martin, and Daniel try that here in California, the police will cry "no" and "attack" them and put them somewhere where they can't hurt themselves. Far more than 6000 Palestinians were killed, as 750,000 of them were being ethnically-cleansed according to the long-avowed Zionist plan. Only in a Zionist universe do people travel hundreds of miles to create a new state, and ethnically-cleanse most of the population, and then tell their children they did it because they were "attacked."
Martin Sall: And, by the way, dear world, why did we not hear your cry of "upset" then? The poor Palestinians who today kill Jews with explosives and firebombs and stones are part of the same people who - when they had all the territories they now demand be given to them for their state -attempted to drive the Jewish state into the sea. The same twisted faces, the same hate, the same cry of "itbach-al-yahud" (Massacre the Jew!) that we hear and see today, were seen and heard then. The same people, the same dream - destroy
And where does the Zionist logic lead - again to the same conclusion: the Palestinians are simply murderous, born with twisted faces, and only a dream to destroy; and they do this for no reason. The Zionist distortion runs like this, starting with reality: 1.) The Palestinians want to go home and live as equals. 2.) That return would end the Jewish supremacy that was the whole purpose of their dispossession in the first place. 3.) So let's confuse our children - and the stupidest adults - with the lie that asking Jews to live as equals means "driving the Jewish state into the sea." When Nazi Germany occupied Holland, many Dutch people shouted, with twisted faces "Kill the Germans." When US troops were marching through Vietnam, many Vietnamese people, with twisted faces, shouted "Kill the Americans." And when Jews march through Palestine, building their "Jewish-only" settlements, shooting anyone who resists or throws a stone, and expanding their "Jewish state," it is only natural for the victims to shout "kill the Jews." No, the problem in Holland was NOT a bunch of Dutch terrorists, reveling in their innate anti-Germanism, and delighted at the opportunity to kill Germans. The problem in Vietnam was not the natural inferiority of Vietnamese people, who jealously hate Americans and lured them into their streets and fields, for no reason, in order to kill them with "explosives, firebombs, and stones." And no, the Palestinians do not hate people who do not rob and murder them.
As to those who will say it is a waste of time to talk to these Zionists: I certainly don't blame anyone for having no interest - if they already know how to respond, in public, to the Standard Zionist Line, which is so consistent and so dumb. But all over the campuses, well-meaning ethnic-equality activists and peace activists are finding exactly the same worn-out and openly racist arguments or japes, as taught at Zionist summer-camps.
And, odd as it may seem, WAY TOO MANY DO NOT KNOW HOW TO RESPOND.
That is WHY the "anti-war" movement has so stupidly deemed this a "difficult issue" - so "difficult" that Zionism is still timidly avoided by the mainstream "anti-war" organizers.
I appreciate this list because it gives these Zionists a chance to get the classic Zionist case out onto the dissecting table, under lights and cameras. I know it's absurdly easy and seems terribly obvious, but all the "progressive" waffling does not reflect that easyness and obviousness at all.
Those on this list who already know or who just don't care may, of course, freely delete my posts. My main purpose is to marshal the argument, for its own sake - and also to send it to other lists, where people feel it's important to stay on top this stuff.
I certainly don't intend this stuff for the little creeps themselves.
These Zionists on this list are really on a roll - damning themselves and their ideology wonderfully, and it all goes into the file marked "Zionism 101."
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
up to the top
The writer of the nonsense (that "article") basically just went to the bathroom on the internet and invites people to clean up the poop by discussing his ridiculous dishonest crap with him.
In my opinion, Dave Kersting's analysis is remarkably clear and cuts through the obfuscation surrounding this conflct. He doesn't subscribe to much of the Zionist baggage that so many of us have internalized.
He certainly is NOT "anti-Semitic" as some of the posts above charge and then try to disingenuously malign him by making nefarious linkages to dubious sites that may or may not be Zionist constructs in the first place (real anti-Semitism is a Zionist's best ally).
What is interesting is their hysterical response to his arguments which are completely anti-racist but also happens to include the Zionist variety.
In my thinking, Zionists go into hysterics especially when someone tells the whole truth without giving in to Zionist pressure. They simply don't want anyone to get an inkling of why Palestinians might behave the way they do when it is in fact simple human behavior -- any people encountering the same ethnic displacement would respond as they did. This includes black South Africans, East Timorese, the French resistance to the Nazis, the Dutch resistance to the Nazis, the Russians to the Nazis, the Algerians to the French, the Vietnamese to Americans, Iraqis to Americans, Latin American peasants to their right wing elites, etc.
If Zionists had tried their enterprise here in the states, I suspect they would have been met with far more violence than the resistance the Palestinians have put up...
He certainly is NOT "anti-Semitic" as some of the posts above charge and then try to disingenuously malign him by making nefarious linkages to dubious sites that may or may not be Zionist constructs in the first place (real anti-Semitism is a Zionist's best ally).
What is interesting is their hysterical response to his arguments which are completely anti-racist but also happens to include the Zionist variety.
In my thinking, Zionists go into hysterics especially when someone tells the whole truth without giving in to Zionist pressure. They simply don't want anyone to get an inkling of why Palestinians might behave the way they do when it is in fact simple human behavior -- any people encountering the same ethnic displacement would respond as they did. This includes black South Africans, East Timorese, the French resistance to the Nazis, the Dutch resistance to the Nazis, the Russians to the Nazis, the Algerians to the French, the Vietnamese to Americans, Iraqis to Americans, Latin American peasants to their right wing elites, etc.
If Zionists had tried their enterprise here in the states, I suspect they would have been met with far more violence than the resistance the Palestinians have put up...
The average zionist does not make the arguments the jackass author claims.
THe author of that ridiculous article uses some ultra-extremist zionist type of person, who is fantasy, and if he exists he certainly does not represent the average zionist, and then shoots down those arguments.
This article is utter filth.
The average zionist wants a safe israel, fair treatment of all israeli citizens, and the average zionist wants a palestinian state - but ONLY if it's run by moderates and not the likes of arafat or hamas.
The average zionist does not want or claim the things that writer is saying.
Holocaust-denial websites and blatant anti-semitic websites hurl the same type of nonsense around as that article does. In fact, that author is quoted on many of the web's biggest holocaust-denial sites, because his views are as absurd and hateful and dishonest as possible.
THe author of that ridiculous article uses some ultra-extremist zionist type of person, who is fantasy, and if he exists he certainly does not represent the average zionist, and then shoots down those arguments.
This article is utter filth.
The average zionist wants a safe israel, fair treatment of all israeli citizens, and the average zionist wants a palestinian state - but ONLY if it's run by moderates and not the likes of arafat or hamas.
The average zionist does not want or claim the things that writer is saying.
Holocaust-denial websites and blatant anti-semitic websites hurl the same type of nonsense around as that article does. In fact, that author is quoted on many of the web's biggest holocaust-denial sites, because his views are as absurd and hateful and dishonest as possible.
I think Dave Kersting is right on the mark. I think the reason Zionists don't like it and are desperate to see it deleted is because other people who read what he says might get a realization of how they've been manipulated to believe certain things about this conflict (like the idea that "the Arabs" are just inherently anti-Semitic).
Also, it is dishonest of the writer to intentionally fail to mention that Palestine, which was a territory, was mostly taken away and turned into Jordan.
80% of what for hundreds of years was "Palestine" - a territory controlled by the Turks/Ottoman Empire and by Syria almost all of the time, was turned into the muslim-only state of Jordan.
20% the remainder became israel + the west bank + gaza.
To pretend that Palestine was there for hundreds of years and then chopped off and made into Israel, ruining Palestine, is untrue.
Palestine was always controlled by larger powers, and the bulk of it became Jordan. A sliver became Israel. And the bulk of it plus the arab parts of the other sliver teamed up to repeatedly try to kill the jewish part, and the result was that jews gained additional land.
It's as if the United States was a territory, not a country, and 80% of the United States became California, and 20% became X and Y, and then the world yells that X "stole" the United States, even though 80% of the United States became California, and Y were offered control but turned it down and chose to just keep attacking X.
80% of what for hundreds of years was "Palestine" - a territory controlled by the Turks/Ottoman Empire and by Syria almost all of the time, was turned into the muslim-only state of Jordan.
20% the remainder became israel + the west bank + gaza.
To pretend that Palestine was there for hundreds of years and then chopped off and made into Israel, ruining Palestine, is untrue.
Palestine was always controlled by larger powers, and the bulk of it became Jordan. A sliver became Israel. And the bulk of it plus the arab parts of the other sliver teamed up to repeatedly try to kill the jewish part, and the result was that jews gained additional land.
It's as if the United States was a territory, not a country, and 80% of the United States became California, and 20% became X and Y, and then the world yells that X "stole" the United States, even though 80% of the United States became California, and Y were offered control but turned it down and chose to just keep attacking X.
--"...it is dishonest of the writer to intentionally fail to mention that Palestine, which was a territory, was mostly taken away and turned into Jordan."
Talk about dishonest.
Zionists are some of the most dishonest characters around. They could give Holocaust deniers a real run for their money.
In all the handovers of power, the Palestinians were never ethnically cleansed like they were by the (what was predominantly) Eastern European Zionists.
The Arabs had freed themselves of Ottoman rule with British weapons and their own blood (led by T.E. Lawrence -- "Lawrence of Arabia") and were then promptly betrayed by the British who refused to give them more arms and then disarmed them and controlled Palestine.
In all this, never once did Syrians, Jordanians or even the *hated* Turks ethnically cleanse the Palestinians off of their land or out of their own homes. Only the neo-colonial Zionist settlers did this to them.
In fact, had the Arabs not freed themselves of the Ottoman Empire, Zionists would have never been able to do what they did under the British who were practically co-conspirators in the Zionist project.
Talk about dishonest.
Zionists are some of the most dishonest characters around. They could give Holocaust deniers a real run for their money.
In all the handovers of power, the Palestinians were never ethnically cleansed like they were by the (what was predominantly) Eastern European Zionists.
The Arabs had freed themselves of Ottoman rule with British weapons and their own blood (led by T.E. Lawrence -- "Lawrence of Arabia") and were then promptly betrayed by the British who refused to give them more arms and then disarmed them and controlled Palestine.
In all this, never once did Syrians, Jordanians or even the *hated* Turks ethnically cleanse the Palestinians off of their land or out of their own homes. Only the neo-colonial Zionist settlers did this to them.
In fact, had the Arabs not freed themselves of the Ottoman Empire, Zionists would have never been able to do what they did under the British who were practically co-conspirators in the Zionist project.
So this guy thinks the Jordanians never ethinically cleansed the Palestinians.
I suppose the tens of thousands of Palestinians killed by the Hashemites in the 1970's were not ethnically cleansed. (I.E. look up Black September, you moron)
But when Israelis kill 1 or 2 Palestinian terrorists, that is ethnic cleansing.
The difference? The Jordanians are Arabs and Moslems, so it's okay for them to kill thousands. Israelis are Jews, so it's not okay for them to kill anyone.
Oh well.
I suppose the tens of thousands of Palestinians killed by the Hashemites in the 1970's were not ethnically cleansed. (I.E. look up Black September, you moron)
But when Israelis kill 1 or 2 Palestinian terrorists, that is ethnic cleansing.
The difference? The Jordanians are Arabs and Moslems, so it's okay for them to kill thousands. Israelis are Jews, so it's not okay for them to kill anyone.
Oh well.
--"...tens of thousands of Palestinians killed by the Hashemites in the 1970's..."
King Hussein of Jordan did repress the Palestinians in 1970 and killed about 2000 NOT "tens of thousands" as you dishonestly state.
What you leave out though is Israel's role in this. When Syria tried to come to the rescue of the Palestinians, Israel blocked them leaving Hussein free to move against them.
"In 1970, he [Kissinger] invited Israel to intervene in Jordan when a beleaguered King Hussein asked for US protection. Syrian troops had entered the country in support of militant Palestinians then engaged in a trial of strength with the little King. Israel was only too happy to comply with this most irregular request. It made some much-publicized military deployments in the direction of Jordan. Emboldened by this support, Hussein's own forces then engaged the Syrians, who quickly withdrew. Hussein's army was thus left free to slaughter the Palestinians."
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030721&c=4&s=seale
You also don't discuss how the Palestinians ended up in Jordan in the first place (displaced from the safety of their homeland which Zionists took over).
Well over 1 million palestinians were ethnically cleansed by Israel in 1948 (780,000 expelled) and 1967 (300,000 Palestinians expelled + 160,000 Syrians expelled from the Golan Heights).
So the Palestinians were forced to Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt by massive ethnic cleansing on the part of Israel.
King Hussein of Jordan did repress the Palestinians in 1970 and killed about 2000 NOT "tens of thousands" as you dishonestly state.
What you leave out though is Israel's role in this. When Syria tried to come to the rescue of the Palestinians, Israel blocked them leaving Hussein free to move against them.
"In 1970, he [Kissinger] invited Israel to intervene in Jordan when a beleaguered King Hussein asked for US protection. Syrian troops had entered the country in support of militant Palestinians then engaged in a trial of strength with the little King. Israel was only too happy to comply with this most irregular request. It made some much-publicized military deployments in the direction of Jordan. Emboldened by this support, Hussein's own forces then engaged the Syrians, who quickly withdrew. Hussein's army was thus left free to slaughter the Palestinians."
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030721&c=4&s=seale
You also don't discuss how the Palestinians ended up in Jordan in the first place (displaced from the safety of their homeland which Zionists took over).
Well over 1 million palestinians were ethnically cleansed by Israel in 1948 (780,000 expelled) and 1967 (300,000 Palestinians expelled + 160,000 Syrians expelled from the Golan Heights).
So the Palestinians were forced to Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt by massive ethnic cleansing on the part of Israel.
--"But when Israelis kill 1 or 2 Palestinian terrorists, that is ethnic cleansing."
Poor little Israel.
How dare anyone judge little Israel for its daily killing of terrorists like the 10 year old child who was killed TODAY -- which was explained away by NPR's Linda Gradstein (the Israelis were shooting at the adults' knees and "accidentally" shot him in the head).
This is documented 20 minutes into this audio program:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/09/1645680.php
But, of course, Israel is the victim. The ten year old Palestinian child (oops, I mean "terrorist") left them with no choice.
Poor little Israel.
How dare anyone judge little Israel for its daily killing of terrorists like the 10 year old child who was killed TODAY -- which was explained away by NPR's Linda Gradstein (the Israelis were shooting at the adults' knees and "accidentally" shot him in the head).
This is documented 20 minutes into this audio program:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/09/1645680.php
But, of course, Israel is the victim. The ten year old Palestinian child (oops, I mean "terrorist") left them with no choice.
That's not what's being said.
Why do you make this crap up?
Why not discuss the actual points being made, instead of making up your own stupid examples and arguing against yourself?
Israel is singled out in ridiculous fashion. It's a fact. Where are the protests for saudia arabia, iran and other muslim states to be broken up and turned into democracies that are equal for all? Why just demand Israel be perfect while ignoring israel's asshole neighbors whose actions are directly relevant to how Israel must conserve itself?
Why spend all this time demanding that the 6 million jews of israel all become perfect, while barely uttering a word (and certainly never protesting or boycotting) about the 700 million muslims right nearby?
Why do you make this crap up?
Why not discuss the actual points being made, instead of making up your own stupid examples and arguing against yourself?
Israel is singled out in ridiculous fashion. It's a fact. Where are the protests for saudia arabia, iran and other muslim states to be broken up and turned into democracies that are equal for all? Why just demand Israel be perfect while ignoring israel's asshole neighbors whose actions are directly relevant to how Israel must conserve itself?
Why spend all this time demanding that the 6 million jews of israel all become perfect, while barely uttering a word (and certainly never protesting or boycotting) about the 700 million muslims right nearby?
It's quite appropriate that you titled your post "Stupid." That, it certainly is.
Look. I was responding directly to you're statements. Second, Israel receives the LIONS share of our foreign aid and that combined with its occupation and dispossession of another people is what I want to stop.
Zionists will talk your head off. Like the energizer bunny they just keep going and going and going...
Look. I was responding directly to you're statements. Second, Israel receives the LIONS share of our foreign aid and that combined with its occupation and dispossession of another people is what I want to stop.
Zionists will talk your head off. Like the energizer bunny they just keep going and going and going...
>The average zionist wants a safe israel,
on somebody else's land.
>the average zionist wants a palestinian state - but ONLY if
Zionists get to pick who runs it and how.
on somebody else's land.
>the average zionist wants a palestinian state - but ONLY if
Zionists get to pick who runs it and how.
No, zionists don't want a safe Israel on "someone else's land." Zionists want a safe Israel on Israel's land.
And after a bunch of arab wars against israel, Israel got some additional land.
If palestinians ever stop being lunatics, Israel will consider giving them some of the land Israel won from egypt and jordan in the last really big war.
And after a bunch of arab wars against israel, Israel got some additional land.
If palestinians ever stop being lunatics, Israel will consider giving them some of the land Israel won from egypt and jordan in the last really big war.
What makes it Israel's land? Be specific.
or only when you don't have an answer?
Leftist: Lets talk about Jewish crimes
Normal Person: Why not talk about all crimes?
Leftist: Your changing the subject - only Jewish crimes
Normal Person: Why single out Jews?
Leftist: Because they commit crimes
Normal Person: But all peoples commit crimes
Leftist: Your changing the subject again - why are you trying to cover up Jewish crimes
Normal Person: Why not talk about all crimes?
Leftist: Your changing the subject - only Jewish crimes
Normal Person: Why single out Jews?
Leftist: Because they commit crimes
Normal Person: But all peoples commit crimes
Leftist: Your changing the subject again - why are you trying to cover up Jewish crimes
anti-Zionist - the content of the 1919 King-Crane Commission Report?
Zionist - why not talk about something else?
anti-Zionist - the Irgun Zvai Leumi proposals to the Nazis concerning the Solution to the Jewish Question?
Zionist - why not talk about something else?
anti-Zionist - Israeli PM Yitzahk Shamir's role in the Irgun Zvai Leumi assassination of Count Folke Bernadotte?
Zionist - why not talk about something else?
anti-Zionist - the Irgun Zvai Leumi/Stern Gang massacre of civilians at Deir Yassin?
Zionist - why not talk about something else?
anti-Zionist - the USS Liberty?
Zionist - why not talk about something else?
anti-Zionist - the Lavon Affair?
Zionist - why not talk about something else?
anti-Zionist - Operation Cyanide?
Zionist - why not talk about something else?
anti-Zionist - Mordechai Vanunu?
Zionist - why not talk about something else?
anti-Zionist - Dominik Suter, Urban Moving Systems, explosives-tainted moving vans, false passports, joy & mockery on September 11?
Zionist - why not talk about something else?
anti-Zionist - Ian Hook?
Zionist - why not talk about something else?
anti-Zionist - Rachel Corrie?
Zionist - why not talk about something else?
anti-Zionist - birthrights for Brooklyn-born fundamentalists and Peruvian converts?
Zionist - why not talk about something else?
anti-Zionist - kee betachbulot ta'ase lecha milchama?
Zionist - why not talk about something else?
Zionist - why not talk about something else?
anti-Zionist - the Irgun Zvai Leumi proposals to the Nazis concerning the Solution to the Jewish Question?
Zionist - why not talk about something else?
anti-Zionist - Israeli PM Yitzahk Shamir's role in the Irgun Zvai Leumi assassination of Count Folke Bernadotte?
Zionist - why not talk about something else?
anti-Zionist - the Irgun Zvai Leumi/Stern Gang massacre of civilians at Deir Yassin?
Zionist - why not talk about something else?
anti-Zionist - the USS Liberty?
Zionist - why not talk about something else?
anti-Zionist - the Lavon Affair?
Zionist - why not talk about something else?
anti-Zionist - Operation Cyanide?
Zionist - why not talk about something else?
anti-Zionist - Mordechai Vanunu?
Zionist - why not talk about something else?
anti-Zionist - Dominik Suter, Urban Moving Systems, explosives-tainted moving vans, false passports, joy & mockery on September 11?
Zionist - why not talk about something else?
anti-Zionist - Ian Hook?
Zionist - why not talk about something else?
anti-Zionist - Rachel Corrie?
Zionist - why not talk about something else?
anti-Zionist - birthrights for Brooklyn-born fundamentalists and Peruvian converts?
Zionist - why not talk about something else?
anti-Zionist - kee betachbulot ta'ase lecha milchama?
Zionist - why not talk about something else?
I forgot to tell you on the other thread to go back to school - the Irgun Zvai Leumi NEVER proposed to the Nazis ANYTHING concerning the Solution to the Jewish Question. You, my friend, are somewhat of a historical ignoramus.
Numerous reliable American investigations have ruled out intentional Israeli bombing of the USS Liberty, and this lie (intentional bombing) lingers on...Anti-Zionists don't give a damn about findings which contradict their convictions. You have blinders on your eyes and still expect people from outside your camp to relate to this trash seriously. Sheesh...
Joy & mockery on September 11? It was the Palestinians and perhaps some other Arabs who rejoiced and mocked.
You guys want to talk for the sake of talking, even whenever you're peddling lies or even don't know the facts pertinent to the topic at hand (see my reference to Irgun Zvai Leumi above, for instance).
Pathetic.
Numerous reliable American investigations have ruled out intentional Israeli bombing of the USS Liberty, and this lie (intentional bombing) lingers on...Anti-Zionists don't give a damn about findings which contradict their convictions. You have blinders on your eyes and still expect people from outside your camp to relate to this trash seriously. Sheesh...
Joy & mockery on September 11? It was the Palestinians and perhaps some other Arabs who rejoiced and mocked.
You guys want to talk for the sake of talking, even whenever you're peddling lies or even don't know the facts pertinent to the topic at hand (see my reference to Irgun Zvai Leumi above, for instance).
Pathetic.
Let's Obsess: "And after a bunch of arab wars against israel, Israel got some additional land. "
And, when an Arab state stepped up to the plate and said "We really mean it when we say peace" -- as opposed to the self-preserving doubletalk Arafat has perfected over the last few decades of his despotic reign, a reign true peace would endanger -- Israel said, "Here -- have the Sinai."
They did that, in part, with the idea that other Arab nations, including the Palestinians, might get the hint.
They haven't; they -- like posters on this board -- are too busy finding ways to blame everything wrong in the Mideast on Thuh Zi-i-ionists.
@%<
And, when an Arab state stepped up to the plate and said "We really mean it when we say peace" -- as opposed to the self-preserving doubletalk Arafat has perfected over the last few decades of his despotic reign, a reign true peace would endanger -- Israel said, "Here -- have the Sinai."
They did that, in part, with the idea that other Arab nations, including the Palestinians, might get the hint.
They haven't; they -- like posters on this board -- are too busy finding ways to blame everything wrong in the Mideast on Thuh Zi-i-ionists.
@%<
Gehrig shows how he is just a typical Zionist propagandist.
Israel wasn't attacked by Arabs numerous times as he and his ilk constantly lie.
Israel attacked its neighbors repeatedly except in the 1973 war.
And no, Israel didn't just "give" the Sinai to Egypt. Israelis started ethnically cleansing Egyptian villages and Egypt attacked Israeli positions in the Sinai in response. This attack shook Israel up enough that they conceded to Sadat's offers since 1971 of a peace treaty.
Israel wasn't attacked by Arabs numerous times as he and his ilk constantly lie.
Israel attacked its neighbors repeatedly except in the 1973 war.
And no, Israel didn't just "give" the Sinai to Egypt. Israelis started ethnically cleansing Egyptian villages and Egypt attacked Israeli positions in the Sinai in response. This attack shook Israel up enough that they conceded to Sadat's offers since 1971 of a peace treaty.
Wow, do you work for the Palestinian AUthority or something? Your historical revision and painting Israel, and not arab countries, as the aggressor in the wars that were fought is quite amazing. Seriously, contact Yasser Arafat and say you want to work for him as a public relations assistant or something.
Chomsky:
Let’s go back to 1967 and 1982. In 1967, Israel was not attacked and nobody even pretends that. I mean, back at the time, Abba Eban, it was his job at the UN to claim that Israel was attacked. He knew it was a lie, and what he was saying were total lies. And you can’t even get this in Israeli –
Same Questioner, #5:
And about the attack in ’73, ’72?
Noam Chomsky:
You want to go back to that? Let’s take a look at ’67. I’ll come then next to ’73. In 1967, Israel launched the war. Now you could say it was a legitimate pre-emptive strike if you like, but there is just no question that Israel attacked. Okay? That is not even a matter of debate. As for 1973, no, Israel was not attacked. What was attacked was Israeli occupied territory. Egypt attacked Egyptian territory that was held by Israel under the conditions that I described, after Israel refused a peace treaty. The fact of the matter is, there is not one case in which Israel was attacked.
-Noam Chomsky (from a transcript of a Q&A session during a talk)
http://web.media.mit.edu/~nitin/mideast/chomsky_qa.html
In fact, the reason Egypt attacked Israeli positions in the Sinai in 1973 (not Israel as is claimed) is because the village of Yamit was ethnically cleansed by Israel and Israeli settlers introduced there. The settlers than used the Egyptians as virtual slave labor. Sadat warned that this meant war but was ignored. This is documented in Chomsky's Fateful Triangle.
Or take a look at an earlier war. 1956. Israel along with Britain and France attacked Egypt. How is this an Arab attack against Israel?
Or 1948 in which Zionists repeatedly tell us how poor little Israel was almost killed in its baby crib. What is not revealed is that at that time, there was no such thing as Israel and over 94% of the land there belonged to Palestinians. So the "baby crib" that was actually destroyed was the Palestinian homeland.
How is it that such basic facts have been turned on their heads and everyone thinks it is the other way around?
Certainly, the Israeli invasions of Lebanon in 1978 and 1982 were undisputed Israeli attacks against a neighbor which killed 2000 and 20,000 people respectively (almost all civilian).
Let’s go back to 1967 and 1982. In 1967, Israel was not attacked and nobody even pretends that. I mean, back at the time, Abba Eban, it was his job at the UN to claim that Israel was attacked. He knew it was a lie, and what he was saying were total lies. And you can’t even get this in Israeli –
Same Questioner, #5:
And about the attack in ’73, ’72?
Noam Chomsky:
You want to go back to that? Let’s take a look at ’67. I’ll come then next to ’73. In 1967, Israel launched the war. Now you could say it was a legitimate pre-emptive strike if you like, but there is just no question that Israel attacked. Okay? That is not even a matter of debate. As for 1973, no, Israel was not attacked. What was attacked was Israeli occupied territory. Egypt attacked Egyptian territory that was held by Israel under the conditions that I described, after Israel refused a peace treaty. The fact of the matter is, there is not one case in which Israel was attacked.
-Noam Chomsky (from a transcript of a Q&A session during a talk)
http://web.media.mit.edu/~nitin/mideast/chomsky_qa.html
In fact, the reason Egypt attacked Israeli positions in the Sinai in 1973 (not Israel as is claimed) is because the village of Yamit was ethnically cleansed by Israel and Israeli settlers introduced there. The settlers than used the Egyptians as virtual slave labor. Sadat warned that this meant war but was ignored. This is documented in Chomsky's Fateful Triangle.
Or take a look at an earlier war. 1956. Israel along with Britain and France attacked Egypt. How is this an Arab attack against Israel?
Or 1948 in which Zionists repeatedly tell us how poor little Israel was almost killed in its baby crib. What is not revealed is that at that time, there was no such thing as Israel and over 94% of the land there belonged to Palestinians. So the "baby crib" that was actually destroyed was the Palestinian homeland.
How is it that such basic facts have been turned on their heads and everyone thinks it is the other way around?
Certainly, the Israeli invasions of Lebanon in 1978 and 1982 were undisputed Israeli attacks against a neighbor which killed 2000 and 20,000 people respectively (almost all civilian).
Wow, do you work for the Israeli government or something? Your historical revision and painting Arab countries, and not Israel, as the aggressors in the wars that were fought is quite amazing. Seriously, contact Ariel Sharon and say you want to work for him as a public relations assistant or something.
Don't think if you flash Chomsky in front of readers you'll convince educated folks as to what has really occured. His comentary is unreliable on this account.
1948 - the nascent Israeli state was attacked by 5 Arab armies from neighboring countries 1 day after its independence declaration.
1956 - Israel attacked Egypt after the latter had refused to open the blockade it imposed on the Tiran Straits against Israeli marine vessels, even though these were international waters.
1967 - Israel had to strike pre-emptively to defend itself from an imminent attack by Egypt, Syria and Jordan (and perhaps by troops of other Arab countries).
1969-1970 - Egypt's provocations started what has been terned "the attrition war".
1973 - Egypt and Syria jointly attacked Israel on the same day and caught Israel by total surprise.
1982 - Israel invaded Lebanon to (among other objectives) defeat the PLO which was based in Lebanon and had been terrorizing northern Israel.
So, it's obvious that the Arab side was the aggressor. Please don't try to throw anymore sand in our eyes.
1948 - the nascent Israeli state was attacked by 5 Arab armies from neighboring countries 1 day after its independence declaration.
1956 - Israel attacked Egypt after the latter had refused to open the blockade it imposed on the Tiran Straits against Israeli marine vessels, even though these were international waters.
1967 - Israel had to strike pre-emptively to defend itself from an imminent attack by Egypt, Syria and Jordan (and perhaps by troops of other Arab countries).
1969-1970 - Egypt's provocations started what has been terned "the attrition war".
1973 - Egypt and Syria jointly attacked Israel on the same day and caught Israel by total surprise.
1982 - Israel invaded Lebanon to (among other objectives) defeat the PLO which was based in Lebanon and had been terrorizing northern Israel.
So, it's obvious that the Arab side was the aggressor. Please don't try to throw anymore sand in our eyes.
--"Don't think if you flash Chomsky in front of readers you'll convince educated folks as to what has really occured [sic]. His comentary [sic] is unreliable on this account."
Right. Chomsky is "unreliable."
And "anti bullshit" is?
Also, I usually don't correct people's spelling, but since you presumably consider yourself "educated folk," maybe you could spell out your words correctly next time.
Right. Chomsky is "unreliable."
And "anti bullshit" is?
Also, I usually don't correct people's spelling, but since you presumably consider yourself "educated folk," maybe you could spell out your words correctly next time.
Even educated people occasionally make typos, which is what occurred in my above post.
The difference between us is I don't comment on people's typos. I've passed the grade school/junior high period of deriving delight out of correcting others' spelling mistakes and have realized substance is what matters.
The difference between us is I don't comment on people's typos. I've passed the grade school/junior high period of deriving delight out of correcting others' spelling mistakes and have realized substance is what matters.
They didn't attack. They counter attacked an invasion of crusader-colonialists.
that "correction" was very funny.
Keep those laughs comin'.
Keep those laughs comin'.
--"1948 - the nascent Israeli state was attacked by 5 Arab armies from neighboring countries 1 day after its independence declaration."
That is, the nascent Israeli state which did not exist because it's citizens owned 6% of the land while the Arabs lived in their homes on 94% of the land.
"1956 - Israel attacked Egypt..."
Israel attacked...so of course, this was an Arab attack.
"1967 - Israel had to strike pre-emptively to defend itself from an imminent attack by Egypt, Syria and Jordan (and perhaps by troops of other Arab countries)."
Israel attacked once again...
As to the imminency of an Arab attack, that is not what Israel's leaders thought:
"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai in May [1967] would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it."
-Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin
Le Monde, February 29, 1968
"In June, 1967, we again had a choice. the Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him"
-Prime Minister Menachem Begin
New York Times, August 21, 1982
"The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was 'no threat of destruction' but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could 'exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.' "
Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."
"1973 - Egypt and Syria jointly attacked Israel on the same day and caught Israel by total surprise."
What what was attacked was Israeli Occupied Territory. Egypt attacked Israeli positions in the Sinai and Syria attacked Israeli positions in the Golan Heights. What is disturbing here though is that the reasons for the attacks are unknown and rarely sited. For example, 160,000 Syrian civilians were forced off their land and out of their homes in the Golan Heights where they currently still live in refugee camps in Syria.
In the Sinai, Ariel Sharon in January 1972, " 'drove off some ten thousand farmers...bulldozed or dynamited their houses...destroyed their crops and filled in their wells,' to prepare the ground for the establishment of six Kibbutzim...Subsequently Israeli bulldozers uprooted orchards (what is called in technical terms "making the desert bloom"), CARE aid from the U.S. was withheld to force landowners to sell their lands, mosques and schools were destroyed, and the one school to escape demolition was turned over to a new Kibbutz."
-Noam Chomsky
"The Fateful Triangle," pg. 106
"The 'New York Times' reported that 'local Arab labor is cheap,' not troubling to explain why. Some lived only a few hundred yards away, but they were not even provided with water from the pumping stations..."
-Noam Chomsky
"The Fateful Triangle," pg. 194
"...these events elicited no comment from democratic socialists who were singing hymns of praise to Israel while denouncing anyone who dared raise questions about these policies as anti-Semites, bloody-minded radicals who support terrorism and hate democracy, etc."
-Noam Chomsky
"The Fateful Triangle," pg. 107
--"1982 - Israel invaded Lebanon to (among other objectives) defeat the PLO which was based in Lebanon and had been terrorizing northern Israel."
"terrorizing northern Israel"
Why would they do that? Could it have something to do with the massive provocations which killed hundreds of Palestinians and Lebanese and which went on for MONTHS before there was even a single reprisal?
See this:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/06/1621818.php
That is, the nascent Israeli state which did not exist because it's citizens owned 6% of the land while the Arabs lived in their homes on 94% of the land.
"1956 - Israel attacked Egypt..."
Israel attacked...so of course, this was an Arab attack.
"1967 - Israel had to strike pre-emptively to defend itself from an imminent attack by Egypt, Syria and Jordan (and perhaps by troops of other Arab countries)."
Israel attacked once again...
As to the imminency of an Arab attack, that is not what Israel's leaders thought:
"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai in May [1967] would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it."
-Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin
Le Monde, February 29, 1968
"In June, 1967, we again had a choice. the Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him"
-Prime Minister Menachem Begin
New York Times, August 21, 1982
"The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was 'no threat of destruction' but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could 'exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.' "
Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."
"1973 - Egypt and Syria jointly attacked Israel on the same day and caught Israel by total surprise."
What what was attacked was Israeli Occupied Territory. Egypt attacked Israeli positions in the Sinai and Syria attacked Israeli positions in the Golan Heights. What is disturbing here though is that the reasons for the attacks are unknown and rarely sited. For example, 160,000 Syrian civilians were forced off their land and out of their homes in the Golan Heights where they currently still live in refugee camps in Syria.
In the Sinai, Ariel Sharon in January 1972, " 'drove off some ten thousand farmers...bulldozed or dynamited their houses...destroyed their crops and filled in their wells,' to prepare the ground for the establishment of six Kibbutzim...Subsequently Israeli bulldozers uprooted orchards (what is called in technical terms "making the desert bloom"), CARE aid from the U.S. was withheld to force landowners to sell their lands, mosques and schools were destroyed, and the one school to escape demolition was turned over to a new Kibbutz."
-Noam Chomsky
"The Fateful Triangle," pg. 106
"The 'New York Times' reported that 'local Arab labor is cheap,' not troubling to explain why. Some lived only a few hundred yards away, but they were not even provided with water from the pumping stations..."
-Noam Chomsky
"The Fateful Triangle," pg. 194
"...these events elicited no comment from democratic socialists who were singing hymns of praise to Israel while denouncing anyone who dared raise questions about these policies as anti-Semites, bloody-minded radicals who support terrorism and hate democracy, etc."
-Noam Chomsky
"The Fateful Triangle," pg. 107
--"1982 - Israel invaded Lebanon to (among other objectives) defeat the PLO which was based in Lebanon and had been terrorizing northern Israel."
"terrorizing northern Israel"
Why would they do that? Could it have something to do with the massive provocations which killed hundreds of Palestinians and Lebanese and which went on for MONTHS before there was even a single reprisal?
See this:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/06/1621818.php
Thanks for the additional laughs you provided many readers referenced in your "arguments" about the 1948 and 1956 wars.
Begin and Rabin weren't Israel's leaders in 1967. Begin was a cabinet minister "without a portfolio" (as they call it in Israel), i.e. the ruling party of the time let Begin join the so-called "emergency government" they established as a demonstration of Israeli unity in the face of the danger Egypt had already been posing to Israel over the last weeks. Rabin was the IDF's chief of staff. Ezer Weitzman, as you yourself can deduct from the quote, wasn't a leader either. *Levi Eshkol* was Israel's prime minister and leader. HE THOUGHT OTHERWISE.
In 1973 Syria and Egypt indeed attempted to force Israel to withdraw from and give back the Golan Heights and the Sinai, but for that end they launched also a concurrent international diplomatic attack compounded by an oil embargo in addition to the military attack. But you're overlooking the fact Israel offered these territories back to the respective Arab countries in the aftermath of the 1967 Six Day War in return for real peace, yet the Arabs refused to even negotiate with Israel, let alone recognize it in the pre-1967 borders. Thus, instead of taking the Golan, the West Bank, Gaza and the Sinai back through peaceful negotiations, they used military, economic and diplomatic force for that end. So please don't insult our intelligence. The reasons cited by you and Chomsky are take a distant second.
I'm not surprised to read your attempt to excuse PLO's terror against northern Israel from at least since the early 1980s. One more confirmation of how so many have forgotten that the PLO shouldn't have been allowed to establish "Fatahland" - a state within a state - in southern Lebanon.
Begin and Rabin weren't Israel's leaders in 1967. Begin was a cabinet minister "without a portfolio" (as they call it in Israel), i.e. the ruling party of the time let Begin join the so-called "emergency government" they established as a demonstration of Israeli unity in the face of the danger Egypt had already been posing to Israel over the last weeks. Rabin was the IDF's chief of staff. Ezer Weitzman, as you yourself can deduct from the quote, wasn't a leader either. *Levi Eshkol* was Israel's prime minister and leader. HE THOUGHT OTHERWISE.
In 1973 Syria and Egypt indeed attempted to force Israel to withdraw from and give back the Golan Heights and the Sinai, but for that end they launched also a concurrent international diplomatic attack compounded by an oil embargo in addition to the military attack. But you're overlooking the fact Israel offered these territories back to the respective Arab countries in the aftermath of the 1967 Six Day War in return for real peace, yet the Arabs refused to even negotiate with Israel, let alone recognize it in the pre-1967 borders. Thus, instead of taking the Golan, the West Bank, Gaza and the Sinai back through peaceful negotiations, they used military, economic and diplomatic force for that end. So please don't insult our intelligence. The reasons cited by you and Chomsky are take a distant second.
I'm not surprised to read your attempt to excuse PLO's terror against northern Israel from at least since the early 1980s. One more confirmation of how so many have forgotten that the PLO shouldn't have been allowed to establish "Fatahland" - a state within a state - in southern Lebanon.
anti-CFB: the Irgun Zvai Leumi NEVER proposed to the Nazis ANYTHING concerning the Solution to the Jewish Question. You, my friend, are somewhat of a historical ignoramus.
anti-CFB: Numerous reliable American investigations have ruled out intentional Israeli bombing of the USS Liberty, and this lie (intentional bombing) lingers on...Anti-Zionists don't give a damn about findings which contradict their convictions.
quote:
===============
who ignore irrefutable evidence
===============
a) You haven't provided anything in the way of evidence - let alone any that can be refuted or devalued.
b) your "honestreporting" link concerning the repeated attack on the USS Liberty doesn't work - - I suggest you read the accounts of the survivors, then do some research on Operation Cyanide - OK?
c) I have more Liberty flash if yr interested
===============
who ignore irrefutable evidence
===============
a) You haven't provided anything in the way of evidence - let alone any that can be refuted or devalued.
b) your "honestreporting" link concerning the repeated attack on the USS Liberty doesn't work - - I suggest you read the accounts of the survivors, then do some research on Operation Cyanide - OK?
c) I have more Liberty flash if yr interested
Laughter really is a tonic for the psyche...
Alas, you probably wished really bad things for the honestreporting link so they would come true...
PS: Just so you know, I posted my message above BEFORE I got a chance to read your clarification re NMO/Stern Gang on the other thread.
Alas, you probably wished really bad things for the honestreporting link so they would come true...
PS: Just so you know, I posted my message above BEFORE I got a chance to read your clarification re NMO/Stern Gang on the other thread.
you're afraid honest people will get to know the truth which dispels all the lies that are being spewed regarding the USS Liberty incident, most notably that it was deliberately attacked by Israel.
Fine, readers who really care about finding out the contents of the URL you removed will go to the "honestreporting" site and search for themselves and find it.
I didn't know you guys in editorial considered it an enemy site...
:-)
PS: will you also ban me now because of this post?
Fine, readers who really care about finding out the contents of the URL you removed will go to the "honestreporting" site and search for themselves and find it.
I didn't know you guys in editorial considered it an enemy site...
:-)
PS: will you also ban me now because of this post?
And the text of the formal collective policy decision that, for SF-IMC editorial positions, Zionism should officially be designated as racism is... where?
After all, if it's truly what you believe, it should be no trouble formalizing it, right? Just think of all the headaches it would solve -- all you'd have to do is say, "Read the Policy, Bub," and blast away any post that even dares suggest that there's more to the Mideast story than dreamt of in your dogma.
@%<
After all, if it's truly what you believe, it should be no trouble formalizing it, right? Just think of all the headaches it would solve -- all you'd have to do is say, "Read the Policy, Bub," and blast away any post that even dares suggest that there's more to the Mideast story than dreamt of in your dogma.
@%<
The editors probably haven't actually read honestreporting's articles, they just see the words "honest reporting" and get offended by such a concept.
That's why every anti-israel lie is allowed to remain here and is supported.
That's why every anti-israel lie is allowed to remain here and is supported.
AP and Reuters select news items that question Israeli policy -- but avoid items that justify it.
Journalists covering the Mideast conflict have to answer a hard question each day: "Given the range of newsworthy items that constantly emerge, what should I run with, what's my story?" Whatever they deem "in" will be zapped to tens of thousands of newspapers, radio stations and TV screens worldwide; what's ruled "out" will disappear from world consciousness. This, in a nutshell, is how the media's content decisions shape public opinion.
In the past week, such decisions on three major topics fell into a curious pattern ― when the news item challenged Israeli policy, it made it "in," but when the item bolstered Israeli policy, it was deemed "out":
1) Israeli Restrictions on Palestinians
IN: Both Reuters and the Associated Press released articles on September 8 trumpeting a new Amnesty International report that condemned, among other IDF practices, Israel's use of administrative detention against Palestinians active in terror organizations.
OUT: The Israeli government's startling announcement that the Palestinian perpetrators of the (Sept. 9) dual terror attacks in Tsrifin (7 murdered, 30 wounded) and Jerusalem's Café Hillel (8 murdered, 50 wounded) were both, just six months ago, released from administrative detention in an Israeli prison.
Israeli policy is to continue administrative detention when necessary. The media's method of selective reporting, however, leaves Israeli policy woefully unexplained.
2) Arafat and Peace
IN: Both Reuters and AP (Sept. 13) painted Yassir Arafat as a peace-lover under siege. AP's headline was "Arafat Urges Israel to Return to Peace Talks," while Reuters quotes Arafat saying, "I appeal to you the Israeli people, together we can make peace."
OUT: That very day (Sept. 13), masked gunmen from Arafat's own Fatah movement stormed the TV station Al Aribiya in Ramallah, held the employees at gunpoint, then systematically destroyed their equipment as "a warning" for unflattering reports on the PA. Acknowledging his involvement, Arafat later apologized to Al Aribiya in the middle of the night.
[The media frequently quote voices of dissent within Israeli politics, but almost never bring equivalent Palestinian dissent. For example, also deemed "out" this week was a remarkable voice of protest from a prominent Palestinian journalist, who wrote an article in a Palestinian daily critical of the Arafat-led PA's "all or nothing" policy. Said Tawfiq Abu Bakr, "It is difficult to find a greater and more deeply rooted culture of self-deception than that in our Arab and Palestinian arena; a culture of daydreams in the height of a burning summer. People cling stubbornly to rosy dreams and delude themselves that these are the facts."]
Israeli policy is to remove Arafat, as an obstacle to peace, enemy of Palestinian moderation, and undemocratic strongman. The media's method of selective reporting, however, leaves Israeli policy woefully unexplained.
3) Palestinian Schoolchildren
IN: Both Reuters and AP reported large gatherings of Ramallah schoolchildren rallying in support of Yassir Arafat (Sept. 13). AP adds the detail that the children shouted "With our souls and our blood we defend Abu Ammar [Arafat's nom de guerre]," while Arafat "waved and blew kisses from a window."
OUT: The Jerusalem Post reported that the children had some other things to say (which apparently didn't interest AP and Reuters): "I'm prepared to go to the Jews myself and to kill them wherever they are," and "At school they tell us, go to liberate Palestine...We have to carry out suicide attacks because the Jews are killing us."
And outside Arafat's compound, one group of supporters shouted, "We will sacrifice millions of martyrs on the road to Jerusalem."
Israeli policy is to remove Arafat's grip on Palestinian culture, in order to eliminate the ongoing incitement in textbooks and classrooms calling for the murder of Israeli citizens. The media's method of selective reporting, however, leaves Israeli policy woefully unexplained.
Journalists covering the Mideast conflict have to answer a hard question each day: "Given the range of newsworthy items that constantly emerge, what should I run with, what's my story?" Whatever they deem "in" will be zapped to tens of thousands of newspapers, radio stations and TV screens worldwide; what's ruled "out" will disappear from world consciousness. This, in a nutshell, is how the media's content decisions shape public opinion.
In the past week, such decisions on three major topics fell into a curious pattern ― when the news item challenged Israeli policy, it made it "in," but when the item bolstered Israeli policy, it was deemed "out":
1) Israeli Restrictions on Palestinians
IN: Both Reuters and the Associated Press released articles on September 8 trumpeting a new Amnesty International report that condemned, among other IDF practices, Israel's use of administrative detention against Palestinians active in terror organizations.
OUT: The Israeli government's startling announcement that the Palestinian perpetrators of the (Sept. 9) dual terror attacks in Tsrifin (7 murdered, 30 wounded) and Jerusalem's Café Hillel (8 murdered, 50 wounded) were both, just six months ago, released from administrative detention in an Israeli prison.
Israeli policy is to continue administrative detention when necessary. The media's method of selective reporting, however, leaves Israeli policy woefully unexplained.
2) Arafat and Peace
IN: Both Reuters and AP (Sept. 13) painted Yassir Arafat as a peace-lover under siege. AP's headline was "Arafat Urges Israel to Return to Peace Talks," while Reuters quotes Arafat saying, "I appeal to you the Israeli people, together we can make peace."
OUT: That very day (Sept. 13), masked gunmen from Arafat's own Fatah movement stormed the TV station Al Aribiya in Ramallah, held the employees at gunpoint, then systematically destroyed their equipment as "a warning" for unflattering reports on the PA. Acknowledging his involvement, Arafat later apologized to Al Aribiya in the middle of the night.
[The media frequently quote voices of dissent within Israeli politics, but almost never bring equivalent Palestinian dissent. For example, also deemed "out" this week was a remarkable voice of protest from a prominent Palestinian journalist, who wrote an article in a Palestinian daily critical of the Arafat-led PA's "all or nothing" policy. Said Tawfiq Abu Bakr, "It is difficult to find a greater and more deeply rooted culture of self-deception than that in our Arab and Palestinian arena; a culture of daydreams in the height of a burning summer. People cling stubbornly to rosy dreams and delude themselves that these are the facts."]
Israeli policy is to remove Arafat, as an obstacle to peace, enemy of Palestinian moderation, and undemocratic strongman. The media's method of selective reporting, however, leaves Israeli policy woefully unexplained.
3) Palestinian Schoolchildren
IN: Both Reuters and AP reported large gatherings of Ramallah schoolchildren rallying in support of Yassir Arafat (Sept. 13). AP adds the detail that the children shouted "With our souls and our blood we defend Abu Ammar [Arafat's nom de guerre]," while Arafat "waved and blew kisses from a window."
OUT: The Jerusalem Post reported that the children had some other things to say (which apparently didn't interest AP and Reuters): "I'm prepared to go to the Jews myself and to kill them wherever they are," and "At school they tell us, go to liberate Palestine...We have to carry out suicide attacks because the Jews are killing us."
And outside Arafat's compound, one group of supporters shouted, "We will sacrifice millions of martyrs on the road to Jerusalem."
Israeli policy is to remove Arafat's grip on Palestinian culture, in order to eliminate the ongoing incitement in textbooks and classrooms calling for the murder of Israeli citizens. The media's method of selective reporting, however, leaves Israeli policy woefully unexplained.
anti CFB: "I forgot to tell you on the other thread to go back to school - the Irgun Zvai Leumi NEVER proposed to the Nazis ANYTHING concerning the Solution to the Jewish Question. You, my friend, are somewhat of a historical ignoramus."
[ "ANTI CFB", a.k.a. "ANTI ANGIE", a.k.a. "ANTI IMPERSONATOR", a.k.a. ANTI BULLSHIT, a.k.a. "CRITICAL THINKER".
HE'S THE ONLY ONE WHO LEAVES OUT THE HYPHEN BETWEEN "ANTI" AND WHATEVER NAME HE USES.
YOU HAVE TO WATCH THOSE TELLTALE *HABITS* AND *PATTERNS* "CRITICAL THINKER" !! ]
ANTI-"CRITICAL THINKER": No, the Irgun only offered to fight with the NAZIS in 1940! (Source: Lenni Brenner)
"CRITICAL THINKER": "Numerous reliable American investigations have ruled out intentional Israeli bombing of the USS Liberty"
ANTI-"CRITICAL THINKER": Too bad the former CAPTAIN of the USS Liberty and his crew knew and said different!
CRITICAL THINKER: "Joy & mockery on September 11? It was the Palestinians and perhaps some other Arabs who rejoiced and mocked."
ANTI-"CRITICAL THINKER": Interesting that the NEW YORK TIMES(!) and the JEWISH FORWARD(!) -- WHICH WAS EVEN *MUCH* *MORE* DAMNING THAN THE NEW YORK TIMES STORY (the Forward, I guess, needs to let Jewish-Americans know what's going on, but apparently doesn't expect many non-Jews to read it) -- reported differently and backs up everything that CFB said above!
(For all the rest here who don't know, the Times and the Forward carried a story about Israeli agents -- "students" or "moving company employees" -- caught celebrating 9-11, overlooking the World Trade Center's Twin Tower's ruins. Distraught NYC citizens witnessing this, reported the outrageous behavior to police, who eventually picked up what turned out to be Israeli (Jewish) citizens.
These "students" or "moving company employees" were actually observed in several places in New York and New Jersey, overlooking or within sight of the WTC ruins in their bizzare antics, suggesting both that they were -- for *some* reason (Isreal's hand?) -- celebrating the WTC disaster, and that they hoped to frame Arabs for smaller bombings that these Israelis were going to carry out in NY. THEY WERE CAUGHT WITH *PIPE BOMBS*(!) AND OTHER BOMB PARAPHERNALIA IN THEIR VAN!
It is also widely known that Sharon chortled, upon seeing the WTC disaster on TV, "Now the U.S. is one of us!"
CRITICAL THINKER: "Pathetic."
ANTI-"CRITICAL THINKER": Yes you are, Critical Thinker.
[ "ANTI CFB", a.k.a. "ANTI ANGIE", a.k.a. "ANTI IMPERSONATOR", a.k.a. ANTI BULLSHIT, a.k.a. "CRITICAL THINKER".
HE'S THE ONLY ONE WHO LEAVES OUT THE HYPHEN BETWEEN "ANTI" AND WHATEVER NAME HE USES.
YOU HAVE TO WATCH THOSE TELLTALE *HABITS* AND *PATTERNS* "CRITICAL THINKER" !! ]
ANTI-"CRITICAL THINKER": No, the Irgun only offered to fight with the NAZIS in 1940! (Source: Lenni Brenner)
"CRITICAL THINKER": "Numerous reliable American investigations have ruled out intentional Israeli bombing of the USS Liberty"
ANTI-"CRITICAL THINKER": Too bad the former CAPTAIN of the USS Liberty and his crew knew and said different!
CRITICAL THINKER: "Joy & mockery on September 11? It was the Palestinians and perhaps some other Arabs who rejoiced and mocked."
ANTI-"CRITICAL THINKER": Interesting that the NEW YORK TIMES(!) and the JEWISH FORWARD(!) -- WHICH WAS EVEN *MUCH* *MORE* DAMNING THAN THE NEW YORK TIMES STORY (the Forward, I guess, needs to let Jewish-Americans know what's going on, but apparently doesn't expect many non-Jews to read it) -- reported differently and backs up everything that CFB said above!
(For all the rest here who don't know, the Times and the Forward carried a story about Israeli agents -- "students" or "moving company employees" -- caught celebrating 9-11, overlooking the World Trade Center's Twin Tower's ruins. Distraught NYC citizens witnessing this, reported the outrageous behavior to police, who eventually picked up what turned out to be Israeli (Jewish) citizens.
These "students" or "moving company employees" were actually observed in several places in New York and New Jersey, overlooking or within sight of the WTC ruins in their bizzare antics, suggesting both that they were -- for *some* reason (Isreal's hand?) -- celebrating the WTC disaster, and that they hoped to frame Arabs for smaller bombings that these Israelis were going to carry out in NY. THEY WERE CAUGHT WITH *PIPE BOMBS*(!) AND OTHER BOMB PARAPHERNALIA IN THEIR VAN!
It is also widely known that Sharon chortled, upon seeing the WTC disaster on TV, "Now the U.S. is one of us!"
CRITICAL THINKER: "Pathetic."
ANTI-"CRITICAL THINKER": Yes you are, Critical Thinker.
Hey editor/s, if you consider my correcting CFB's lies and mistakes a sick and evil agenda, so be it. I'm flattered and think of this agenda as a badge of honor. You established I'm a racist since I don't object to Israel's existence, is that not, smart editor/s?
As to JA...I won't respond to the points to such a nutter who intimates I'm actually other posters too. Too bad he can't be muzzled somehow.
I just hope he isn't entertaining a notion he is intimidating me. I hereby also promise he won't silence me. This crazed loon seems pretty stupid.
As to JA...I won't respond to the points to such a nutter who intimates I'm actually other posters too. Too bad he can't be muzzled somehow.
I just hope he isn't entertaining a notion he is intimidating me. I hereby also promise he won't silence me. This crazed loon seems pretty stupid.
You're a racist since you don't object to states whose central ideology is ethnic based, militaristic expansionism. One such state is Israel. The Third Reich was another.
and I'm not a racist anymore than you are.
why are you supporting an ideology based on ethnicity?
why do you constantly harass "Zionists" on this site?
thanks JA!
The Media Liason Officer for Manly Council in Sydney - Chris Parsons--directed abuse at me for several months following my posting of referenced extracts relating to the activities of Urban Moving Systems agents on September 11.
http://melbimc.nomasters.org/news/2003/08/52014_comment.php#52128
I wonder why a taxpayer-finded public servant would do that?
I wonder how he will explain his illegal activities to the New South Wales Independant Commission on Corruption?
http://www.icac.nsw.gov.au/reporting/index_reporting.cfm
I'm having a great day, btw....
The Media Liason Officer for Manly Council in Sydney - Chris Parsons--directed abuse at me for several months following my posting of referenced extracts relating to the activities of Urban Moving Systems agents on September 11.
http://melbimc.nomasters.org/news/2003/08/52014_comment.php#52128
I wonder why a taxpayer-finded public servant would do that?
I wonder how he will explain his illegal activities to the New South Wales Independant Commission on Corruption?
http://www.icac.nsw.gov.au/reporting/index_reporting.cfm
I'm having a great day, btw....
Because they are racists. You're supposed to harrass racists. It's a mitzvah.
Not all 'Zionists' are racists. Many aren't. They won't become such just because you want them to.
I also refuse to accept Nessie's logic according to which anyone who supports the existence of Israel even in the faintest manner is a Zionist and therefore a racist. That is laughable BUNK.
What the hell is a "mitzvah" anyway?
I also refuse to accept Nessie's logic according to which anyone who supports the existence of Israel even in the faintest manner is a Zionist and therefore a racist. That is laughable BUNK.
What the hell is a "mitzvah" anyway?
Israel's citizens are white jews, sephardic jews, black jews, a handful of asian jews, christian arabs, muslim arabs, etc. etc. etc. All have an equal vote and can work wherever they want. But as far as immigrating there, it's the one tiny sliver of earth that acted like a guaranteed "new home" for jews who could no longer stand the discrimination they faces in europe or some arab countries. You appear to totally disregard the symptom of the problem and instead just blame the defensive-minded solution jews came up with. You appear to totally disregard that Palestinians, in general, don't want one big happy democratic state with Jews. They, generally (the muslim palestinians at least), want one big Muslim state. And hamas, islamic jihad and other very large palestinian organizations want no jews at all, period. Yet you want to try to force them to all live together?
Israel is a little broader than that. Jews from China and Jews from Europe hardly have the same culture and aside from fundamental beliefs share few cultural similarities. What most Americans assume to be Jewish culture is culture specific to parts of Eastern Europe.
Israel isnt all Jewish either. A large percentage of the Israeli population doesnt believe in God or practice Judaism.
Israel is racist towards Palestinians and Arab Israelis (if an Israeli citizen marries a Muslim from Pakistan that person can become an Israeli citizen BUT thats not true for Palestinians as of the recent law passed.) It is a form of racism thats not dissimilar to what one finds in Europe and the US. The US has had alien exclusion acts that have targeted certain groups (specifically people from East Asia) and it now has an immigration policy that targets both Arabs and Muslims for specifically harsh treatment. Germany and Italy (and most European countries) also have immigartion policies based on ethnicity (if you ancestors were Italian its legally easier to become Italians than if your ancestors were from Africa).
Israel is not as a whole much more racist than other countries but a few things set it apart.
1. The discriminated against group is the "native population" (this is also true in the US and most of S and Central America)
2. The discriminated against group has no country to call home (this is also true for Kurds and Romani)
3. The discriminated against group is a majority in the areas controlled (West Bank, Gaza plus Israel proper). (This was true in S Africa and most former European colonies)
4. The shear amount of US military aid
To some extent Israel is in the spotlight for the same reason S Africa was in the spotlight and before that most European colonies in Africa where in the spotlight. But that doesnt explain why the focus is on Israel NOW.
Israel's treatment of the Palestinians has been bad for decades but the outcry by activists in the US is very recent. How many people posting attacks against Israel on this site were either neutral or proIsrael five years ago? Id bet quite a few. Why the change? Was it the intifada? That did increase activism but the protests for Palestine were very small just three years ago. So what caused the shift in focus?
Look at any activist discussion board (this one or other indymedias for example) and go back to when Isreal/Palestine/Zionists became a major topic. When was that? It seems to have been around the time the US was declaring victory in Afghanistan. The issue isnt a bad one for people to focus on but the reason for the focus is very much the mentality of a heard of sheep. People got together to protest one issue and when the issue started to dry up a similar issue needed to be found. Since there had been an antiRacism against Arabs and Muslims component to the antiAfghanistan War protests it wasnt hard to shift focus to some conflict in the Middle East. 9/11 put the Middle East under a corporate media spotlight so that was another factor. Coverage of the conflict in Palestine therefore increased and when the media was so worried asking questions like "Why does they hate us", Palestine became a logical focus.
Whats strange is that the conflict has been dealt with differently than Afghanistan was. Despite the ethnic and religious problems in Afghanstan nobody had the equivalent of "Zionist" to yell. You couldnt yell about Islamic fundamentalists since they opposed the US in that war. When Indonesia massacres thousands in Ache (in numbers far greater than in Palestine and with huge amounts of past military aid from the US) and denys people in Ache rights, its condemned by activists but since there is no word like Zionist to call the Indonesians it stays out of focus.
There is always the word Nazi or fascist that is sortof a generic far right or far left term used to mean anyone who disagrees with what is politically correct at the current moment, but in most cases that word is hard to organize around. You dont hear conspiracies about Indonesian Nazis being behind 9/11 or Indonesian Nazis being behind US policy. Zionists and words like Zionazi has a weird spin to them that allows the Left to bring up oldfashioned antiSemitic conspiracy theories while claiming to really only be dealing with current world issues.
Israel's current actions have been absolutely horrible, and its good that people have organized to oppose Israel, but its really weird how the Left (and most specifically anarchists and the radical left) have failed to question the motives of many at the protests and seem to prefer arguing around difficult issues like antiSemitism (by arguing about definitions, trying to prove Nazi-Zionists ties through out of context historical quotes etc..) rather than dealing with them head on.
Israel isnt all Jewish either. A large percentage of the Israeli population doesnt believe in God or practice Judaism.
Israel is racist towards Palestinians and Arab Israelis (if an Israeli citizen marries a Muslim from Pakistan that person can become an Israeli citizen BUT thats not true for Palestinians as of the recent law passed.) It is a form of racism thats not dissimilar to what one finds in Europe and the US. The US has had alien exclusion acts that have targeted certain groups (specifically people from East Asia) and it now has an immigration policy that targets both Arabs and Muslims for specifically harsh treatment. Germany and Italy (and most European countries) also have immigartion policies based on ethnicity (if you ancestors were Italian its legally easier to become Italians than if your ancestors were from Africa).
Israel is not as a whole much more racist than other countries but a few things set it apart.
1. The discriminated against group is the "native population" (this is also true in the US and most of S and Central America)
2. The discriminated against group has no country to call home (this is also true for Kurds and Romani)
3. The discriminated against group is a majority in the areas controlled (West Bank, Gaza plus Israel proper). (This was true in S Africa and most former European colonies)
4. The shear amount of US military aid
To some extent Israel is in the spotlight for the same reason S Africa was in the spotlight and before that most European colonies in Africa where in the spotlight. But that doesnt explain why the focus is on Israel NOW.
Israel's treatment of the Palestinians has been bad for decades but the outcry by activists in the US is very recent. How many people posting attacks against Israel on this site were either neutral or proIsrael five years ago? Id bet quite a few. Why the change? Was it the intifada? That did increase activism but the protests for Palestine were very small just three years ago. So what caused the shift in focus?
Look at any activist discussion board (this one or other indymedias for example) and go back to when Isreal/Palestine/Zionists became a major topic. When was that? It seems to have been around the time the US was declaring victory in Afghanistan. The issue isnt a bad one for people to focus on but the reason for the focus is very much the mentality of a heard of sheep. People got together to protest one issue and when the issue started to dry up a similar issue needed to be found. Since there had been an antiRacism against Arabs and Muslims component to the antiAfghanistan War protests it wasnt hard to shift focus to some conflict in the Middle East. 9/11 put the Middle East under a corporate media spotlight so that was another factor. Coverage of the conflict in Palestine therefore increased and when the media was so worried asking questions like "Why does they hate us", Palestine became a logical focus.
Whats strange is that the conflict has been dealt with differently than Afghanistan was. Despite the ethnic and religious problems in Afghanstan nobody had the equivalent of "Zionist" to yell. You couldnt yell about Islamic fundamentalists since they opposed the US in that war. When Indonesia massacres thousands in Ache (in numbers far greater than in Palestine and with huge amounts of past military aid from the US) and denys people in Ache rights, its condemned by activists but since there is no word like Zionist to call the Indonesians it stays out of focus.
There is always the word Nazi or fascist that is sortof a generic far right or far left term used to mean anyone who disagrees with what is politically correct at the current moment, but in most cases that word is hard to organize around. You dont hear conspiracies about Indonesian Nazis being behind 9/11 or Indonesian Nazis being behind US policy. Zionists and words like Zionazi has a weird spin to them that allows the Left to bring up oldfashioned antiSemitic conspiracy theories while claiming to really only be dealing with current world issues.
Israel's current actions have been absolutely horrible, and its good that people have organized to oppose Israel, but its really weird how the Left (and most specifically anarchists and the radical left) have failed to question the motives of many at the protests and seem to prefer arguing around difficult issues like antiSemitism (by arguing about definitions, trying to prove Nazi-Zionists ties through out of context historical quotes etc..) rather than dealing with them head on.
I believe "blech" made a few erroneous statements or omissions while were the result of insufficient pre-knowledge:
>"Israel isnt all Jewish either. A large percentage of the Israeli population doesnt believe in God or practice Judaism."
~ Clarification: true enough, but their disbelief in God or they being secular doesn't mean they aren't officially Jews. We find the same phenomenon throughout the entire Western world, also vis-avis Christians. But in Israel it's very rare or even non-existent to find people of no religious denomination whatsoever, something quite commonplace in the US.
>"Israel is racist towards Palestinians and Arab Israelis (if an Israeli citizen marries a Muslim from Pakistan that person can become an Israeli citizen BUT thats not true for Palestinians as of the recent law passed.) It is a form of racism thats not dissimilar to what one finds in Europe and the US. "
~ Reality: the recent law passed by the Knesset is a self defense measure which was conceived to twart a grave problem of Palestinians who had been illegally infiltrating Israel to make good on their aspired "right of return" by marrying Israeli Arabs (citizens) under the guise of "family unification" which had been permitted on humanitarian grounds, before. Some 200,000 Palestinians had infiltrated Israel proper.
>"1. The discriminated against group is the "native population" (this is also true in the US and most of S and Central America)
2. The discriminated against group has no country to call home (this is also true for Kurds and Romani)
3. The discriminated against group is a majority in the areas controlled (West Bank, Gaza plus Israel proper). (This was true in S Africa and most former European colonies)"
~ Reality:
1. I assume this poster meant the Arabs/Palestinians are the "native population".
2. Although both they and the "home country" don't want and don't like it, the Palestinians in question do have a country to call home: Jordan. Mosy people have prefered to overlook this fact as it's too incompatible with political correctness, pro-Palestinian dogmas, agendas and conventional wisdom.
3. The Palestinian population (including in Israel proper) is about the same size as the Jewish population in Israel proper and the disputed territories combined.
>"Israel's current actions have been absolutely horrible"
~ Clarification: that's strictly in the eye of the beholder.
>"and its good that people have organized to oppose Israel"
Clarification: opposing Israel is not good; opposing a specific policy by Israel may be good.
>"Israel isnt all Jewish either. A large percentage of the Israeli population doesnt believe in God or practice Judaism."
~ Clarification: true enough, but their disbelief in God or they being secular doesn't mean they aren't officially Jews. We find the same phenomenon throughout the entire Western world, also vis-avis Christians. But in Israel it's very rare or even non-existent to find people of no religious denomination whatsoever, something quite commonplace in the US.
>"Israel is racist towards Palestinians and Arab Israelis (if an Israeli citizen marries a Muslim from Pakistan that person can become an Israeli citizen BUT thats not true for Palestinians as of the recent law passed.) It is a form of racism thats not dissimilar to what one finds in Europe and the US. "
~ Reality: the recent law passed by the Knesset is a self defense measure which was conceived to twart a grave problem of Palestinians who had been illegally infiltrating Israel to make good on their aspired "right of return" by marrying Israeli Arabs (citizens) under the guise of "family unification" which had been permitted on humanitarian grounds, before. Some 200,000 Palestinians had infiltrated Israel proper.
>"1. The discriminated against group is the "native population" (this is also true in the US and most of S and Central America)
2. The discriminated against group has no country to call home (this is also true for Kurds and Romani)
3. The discriminated against group is a majority in the areas controlled (West Bank, Gaza plus Israel proper). (This was true in S Africa and most former European colonies)"
~ Reality:
1. I assume this poster meant the Arabs/Palestinians are the "native population".
2. Although both they and the "home country" don't want and don't like it, the Palestinians in question do have a country to call home: Jordan. Mosy people have prefered to overlook this fact as it's too incompatible with political correctness, pro-Palestinian dogmas, agendas and conventional wisdom.
3. The Palestinian population (including in Israel proper) is about the same size as the Jewish population in Israel proper and the disputed territories combined.
>"Israel's current actions have been absolutely horrible"
~ Clarification: that's strictly in the eye of the beholder.
>"and its good that people have organized to oppose Israel"
Clarification: opposing Israel is not good; opposing a specific policy by Israel may be good.
Some other differences between the Israel/Palestine conflict and other conflicts (in addition to the fact that Israel receives more aid from us than any other country in the world and more than the entire sub-Saharan Africa):
1. Israel's occupation of Palestine is the longest running Occupation in modern times.
2. This is the only conflict I know of in which people who oppose our government's extraordinary aiding of the aggressors in the conflict (Israel) are accused of racism (anti-Semitism).
The second observation is one of the reasons the first observation is possible. Israel's supporters use every nasty trick at their disposal (including charging anti-Semitism) to prevent any outcome other than maintaining or increasing the extraordinary levels of aid our government gives to Israel (Over $12 billion this year -- $3 billion in the usual aid + $9 billion in loan guarantees which are really gifts as they don't have to be repaid + other unofficially acknowledged aid).
1. Israel's occupation of Palestine is the longest running Occupation in modern times.
2. This is the only conflict I know of in which people who oppose our government's extraordinary aiding of the aggressors in the conflict (Israel) are accused of racism (anti-Semitism).
The second observation is one of the reasons the first observation is possible. Israel's supporters use every nasty trick at their disposal (including charging anti-Semitism) to prevent any outcome other than maintaining or increasing the extraordinary levels of aid our government gives to Israel (Over $12 billion this year -- $3 billion in the usual aid + $9 billion in loan guarantees which are really gifts as they don't have to be repaid + other unofficially acknowledged aid).
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network