Scrat wrote: Certain Jewish people throughout history have done very evil things.
People throughout history have done very evil things. Full stop.
Israeli Apartheid
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Israeli Apartheid
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
At last someone has made an attempt to address the question seriously. That, at least, sets you apart from some of the contributors who would probably not recognise a thread of argument if it were tied round their necks.
I don't think the fact that an area of land was once inhabited by a particular race of people necessarily confers an everlasting right of sovereignty. (We are talking not so much about merely living in a country so much as possessing and governing it). If that were so the British, for example, would have an overwhelming case for regaining France whilst the effects on most of the Balkan states would be incalculable. America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand would also find themselves in a very embarrassing position.
Even if Israel was the original home of the Jews - and the bona fida's of that claim are scripturally murky to say the least - it has never been accepted generally as a sovereign state and there is little evidence to suggest that it ever was.
You argue that after the destruction of Europe during the war, it was best for the Jews to leave Europe yet neither of these statements holds water. In the first place Europe was far from destroyed. Some of the German cities had been - quite deservedly - razed and some of the transport infrastructure had been knocked around but rebuilding was not a protracted task and within a very short space of time, things were back to normal.
It was not the best time for the Jews to leave, however. It was the best time for them to remain and make capital of the suffering that had been imposed on them from within Europe by, principally, the Germans. It is not inconceivable that had they diverted the efforts they made in settling in Israel into being granted sovereignty over part of Germany - no more than their deserts and a claim that at the time would have been unassailable - their position in the world and the respect in which they are held might have been very different today.
The truth is that Israel was obtained by subterfuge, force of arms and a claim based upon a scriptural precedent which few even in the Christian world accept literally. Th result was to dispossess the people who were already domiciled in the region; a people whose claim to sovereignty could be justified by right and title.
Not only did the establishment of Israel ride roughshod over the destinies of those already living in the region but it was an action that could never be anything other than a catalyst for bloodshed and civil strife. The situation would have been bad enough had its affects been purely local but the fact is that an escalation could serious effect international security
.
Were the present government of Israel to be replaced tomorrow by the most benign administration imaginable, I do not believe it would make any dfference. The Palestinian people would still have to cope with the fact that their land was occupied by a foreign power and their struggle, perforce, would continue.
In conclusion, I do not believe that the Jews had any right to take possession of Palestine nor do I believe that it is in the interests of world security for them to remain there.
I hope I have addressed all the points raised and look forward to having my arguments put to the test of intellectual scrutiny!
WE
I don't think the fact that an area of land was once inhabited by a particular race of people necessarily confers an everlasting right of sovereignty. (We are talking not so much about merely living in a country so much as possessing and governing it). If that were so the British, for example, would have an overwhelming case for regaining France whilst the effects on most of the Balkan states would be incalculable. America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand would also find themselves in a very embarrassing position.
Even if Israel was the original home of the Jews - and the bona fida's of that claim are scripturally murky to say the least - it has never been accepted generally as a sovereign state and there is little evidence to suggest that it ever was.
You argue that after the destruction of Europe during the war, it was best for the Jews to leave Europe yet neither of these statements holds water. In the first place Europe was far from destroyed. Some of the German cities had been - quite deservedly - razed and some of the transport infrastructure had been knocked around but rebuilding was not a protracted task and within a very short space of time, things were back to normal.
It was not the best time for the Jews to leave, however. It was the best time for them to remain and make capital of the suffering that had been imposed on them from within Europe by, principally, the Germans. It is not inconceivable that had they diverted the efforts they made in settling in Israel into being granted sovereignty over part of Germany - no more than their deserts and a claim that at the time would have been unassailable - their position in the world and the respect in which they are held might have been very different today.
The truth is that Israel was obtained by subterfuge, force of arms and a claim based upon a scriptural precedent which few even in the Christian world accept literally. Th result was to dispossess the people who were already domiciled in the region; a people whose claim to sovereignty could be justified by right and title.
Not only did the establishment of Israel ride roughshod over the destinies of those already living in the region but it was an action that could never be anything other than a catalyst for bloodshed and civil strife. The situation would have been bad enough had its affects been purely local but the fact is that an escalation could serious effect international security
.
Were the present government of Israel to be replaced tomorrow by the most benign administration imaginable, I do not believe it would make any dfference. The Palestinian people would still have to cope with the fact that their land was occupied by a foreign power and their struggle, perforce, would continue.
In conclusion, I do not believe that the Jews had any right to take possession of Palestine nor do I believe that it is in the interests of world security for them to remain there.
I hope I have addressed all the points raised and look forward to having my arguments put to the test of intellectual scrutiny!
WE
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: Even if Israel was the original home of the Jews - and the bona fida's of that claim are scripturally murky to say the least
scripture is not history, per se. there is plenty of historical record confirming palestine being the home of the jews. of course, "israel" in the modern construct is not israel of ancient times either. of course, the same can be said for many sovereign nations of today.
- it has never been accepted generally as a sovereign state and there is little evidence to suggest that it ever was.
that's a bizarre claim. they are accepted as a sovereign state by the majority of nations in the world.
Th result was to dispossess the people who were already domiciled in the region; a people whose claim to sovereignty could be justified by right and title.
citations please. there isn't a shred of truth to the above. the palestinians before the inception of israel were a nomadic, tribal people, for the most part. there has never been a sovereign nation of Palestine, so how can you claim they had sovereignty? what right and what title - any more so than the jews?
The Palestinian people would still have to cope with the fact that their land was occupied by a foreign power and their struggle, perforce, would continue.
again, not a shred of truth. there have been jews living in palestine for thousands of years. that they were a minority of the population isn't in dispute; when israel was formed, the arab states urged the palestinians to leave; and also urged the jews in their lands to go to israel. the arab nations were glad to be rid of their jewish populations. the palestinians however have been treated like 'the nigger in the woodpile' by their arab "brothers". they've been used as political capital. The palestinians, since they never were a sovereign nation to begin with, became refugees, primarily because the neighboring arab states had no interest in taking them in.
you again call it "their land". Palestine - the historical region - was populated by jews and gentiles and muslims and 'palestinians' (along with many other subgroups). it was never a soverieign nation. for the most part, that curve along the mediterranean has been great 'highway' of migration for thousands of years. countless tribes of different descent have passed through, many staying, many not, but not since ancient times has it been under a contiguous rule, and never by any group that was called "the palestinians". assyrians? sure. romans? you bet. chaldeans? certainly. phoenecians? of course. the british? absolutely. the egyptians? indisputably. the palestinians? never.
i don't often recommend wikipedia as a reference, because as a primary source it tends to be pretty pathetic. however, it's interesting to read the entry on palestinians. genetically, the palestinians tend to be closer to the jews than to their arab brothers! the neutrality of the article is in dispute - unsuprisingly - so it must be taken in that light.
In conclusion, I do not believe that the Jews had any right to take possession of Palestine nor do I believe that it is in the interests of world security for them to remain there.
no more right to take possession than the british had when they took control of the previously unincorporated region. no more right than the french who took control of lebanon.
but the reality is that much of the middle east is as it is because of the banquet carving that took place after world war I. blame mother england for what happened in the middle east if you must.
I hope I have addressed all the points raised and look forward to having my arguments put to the test of intellectual scrutiny!
WE
i'm quite certain you'll dismiss my comments, since you consider me mentally ill. have fun.
scripture is not history, per se. there is plenty of historical record confirming palestine being the home of the jews. of course, "israel" in the modern construct is not israel of ancient times either. of course, the same can be said for many sovereign nations of today.
- it has never been accepted generally as a sovereign state and there is little evidence to suggest that it ever was.
that's a bizarre claim. they are accepted as a sovereign state by the majority of nations in the world.
Th result was to dispossess the people who were already domiciled in the region; a people whose claim to sovereignty could be justified by right and title.
citations please. there isn't a shred of truth to the above. the palestinians before the inception of israel were a nomadic, tribal people, for the most part. there has never been a sovereign nation of Palestine, so how can you claim they had sovereignty? what right and what title - any more so than the jews?
The Palestinian people would still have to cope with the fact that their land was occupied by a foreign power and their struggle, perforce, would continue.
again, not a shred of truth. there have been jews living in palestine for thousands of years. that they were a minority of the population isn't in dispute; when israel was formed, the arab states urged the palestinians to leave; and also urged the jews in their lands to go to israel. the arab nations were glad to be rid of their jewish populations. the palestinians however have been treated like 'the nigger in the woodpile' by their arab "brothers". they've been used as political capital. The palestinians, since they never were a sovereign nation to begin with, became refugees, primarily because the neighboring arab states had no interest in taking them in.
you again call it "their land". Palestine - the historical region - was populated by jews and gentiles and muslims and 'palestinians' (along with many other subgroups). it was never a soverieign nation. for the most part, that curve along the mediterranean has been great 'highway' of migration for thousands of years. countless tribes of different descent have passed through, many staying, many not, but not since ancient times has it been under a contiguous rule, and never by any group that was called "the palestinians". assyrians? sure. romans? you bet. chaldeans? certainly. phoenecians? of course. the british? absolutely. the egyptians? indisputably. the palestinians? never.
i don't often recommend wikipedia as a reference, because as a primary source it tends to be pretty pathetic. however, it's interesting to read the entry on palestinians. genetically, the palestinians tend to be closer to the jews than to their arab brothers! the neutrality of the article is in dispute - unsuprisingly - so it must be taken in that light.
In conclusion, I do not believe that the Jews had any right to take possession of Palestine nor do I believe that it is in the interests of world security for them to remain there.
no more right to take possession than the british had when they took control of the previously unincorporated region. no more right than the french who took control of lebanon.
but the reality is that much of the middle east is as it is because of the banquet carving that took place after world war I. blame mother england for what happened in the middle east if you must.
I hope I have addressed all the points raised and look forward to having my arguments put to the test of intellectual scrutiny!
WE
i'm quite certain you'll dismiss my comments, since you consider me mentally ill. have fun.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
Well, at least we have the makings of a decent debate.
I certainly agree that scripture is not (necessarily) history although the two come together now and again. Nor, indeed, do the respective boundaries match exactly.
When I said that Israel was not acepted as a sovereign state, I should have made myself more clear. I was referring to the historical context and not that of the post-war period.
I do not dispute that sovereignty of the area has always been a grey area and indeed my use of the expression was something of a misnomer. Nonetheless, as you yourelf assert, the Jews were in the minority in the area and were not a governing force. The fact that the Palestinians had crystalised into a recognisable administration did not, surely, entitle the majority to return after something like two thousand years to take possession. The Palestinians had custom and practice on their side. The fact that tribal warfare is a way of life in the area still does not confer upon the Jews the right to take possession.
Whoever it may or may not have belonged to, the Jews had no right in recent times to walk in and assume government.
Wilkipedia is not something I am familiar with - presumably it is some sort of web-based reference.
I can't speak for the French since their system of colonial administration was quite different from ours but we did not subsume Palestine into either the empire or the colonial system. We had a presence there and not a government.
After the relative cogency of the greater part of your artgument, it is a pity that you loosen your grip towards the end. It is (or was) inevitable that land changed hands after a major conflict - not all of it remote, look at Alsace for example. With the states and alliances involved it would be unreasonable to expect otherwise.
Britain's subsequent and rather unenthusiastic involvement in the area arose largely from our activities in the Great War and relationship with Egypt and was relinquished as soon as an excuse could be found.
Whether we should have supported the status quo in Palestine more energetically is a moot point but at the time we, like most of the Western world, were tired and weary with the greater part of our attention elsewhere.
I certainly agree that scripture is not (necessarily) history although the two come together now and again. Nor, indeed, do the respective boundaries match exactly.
When I said that Israel was not acepted as a sovereign state, I should have made myself more clear. I was referring to the historical context and not that of the post-war period.
I do not dispute that sovereignty of the area has always been a grey area and indeed my use of the expression was something of a misnomer. Nonetheless, as you yourelf assert, the Jews were in the minority in the area and were not a governing force. The fact that the Palestinians had crystalised into a recognisable administration did not, surely, entitle the majority to return after something like two thousand years to take possession. The Palestinians had custom and practice on their side. The fact that tribal warfare is a way of life in the area still does not confer upon the Jews the right to take possession.
Whoever it may or may not have belonged to, the Jews had no right in recent times to walk in and assume government.
Wilkipedia is not something I am familiar with - presumably it is some sort of web-based reference.
I can't speak for the French since their system of colonial administration was quite different from ours but we did not subsume Palestine into either the empire or the colonial system. We had a presence there and not a government.
After the relative cogency of the greater part of your artgument, it is a pity that you loosen your grip towards the end. It is (or was) inevitable that land changed hands after a major conflict - not all of it remote, look at Alsace for example. With the states and alliances involved it would be unreasonable to expect otherwise.
Britain's subsequent and rather unenthusiastic involvement in the area arose largely from our activities in the Great War and relationship with Egypt and was relinquished as soon as an excuse could be found.
Whether we should have supported the status quo in Palestine more energetically is a moot point but at the time we, like most of the Western world, were tired and weary with the greater part of our attention elsewhere.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
anastrophe wrote: ............since you consider me mentally ill. have fun.
Absolutely not. Although even if you were, I would not recommend my son. When asked why he had opted for the pseudo-science of psychiatry instead of conventional (and useful) medicine, he replied that psychiatry was by far the easiest of the medical disciplines. "You are not," he explained, "actually obliged to cure anyone." He added that none of his patients had anything wrong with them, anyway.
On top of that, his fees are criminal.
WE
Absolutely not. Although even if you were, I would not recommend my son. When asked why he had opted for the pseudo-science of psychiatry instead of conventional (and useful) medicine, he replied that psychiatry was by far the easiest of the medical disciplines. "You are not," he explained, "actually obliged to cure anyone." He added that none of his patients had anything wrong with them, anyway.
On top of that, his fees are criminal.
WE
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: The first point you make is surely an ideal and whilst it may be an admirable goal, do we not have to deal with the state as it is rather than as we should like it to be?
As to the second, I have not (yet) done any reasoning. So far all I have done is to pose a question to which I am still waiting for an answer.
There are, surely, circumstances where it may be justifiable to remove people from their place of residence. In the early 1940's large numbers of civilian people from Germany settled in the occupied countries including Western Russia. Was their removal in 1945 justifiable? In this case, presuming you have right on your side, it is not what you do but how you do it.
I haven't finished reading the posts following this but allow me to say that I should have been more clear. I think postulating on whether or not the state of Israel should exist is as much an idealistic (depending who you ask) rambling as my borderless world. Israel does exist and, aside from where the borders should be, there is no indication that any international body is about to undeclare them a sovereign state.
Re my use of "reasoning", I'm assuming your POV is being argued from a rational evaluation of the facts available via reports, investigations, literature and human rights advocates from both sides of the border in question. It is an assumption on my part. I agree with all you've said except for the occassional blurring of the difference between the actions of the Israeli government and Jewish people in general. It is an important distinction.
As to the second, I have not (yet) done any reasoning. So far all I have done is to pose a question to which I am still waiting for an answer.
There are, surely, circumstances where it may be justifiable to remove people from their place of residence. In the early 1940's large numbers of civilian people from Germany settled in the occupied countries including Western Russia. Was their removal in 1945 justifiable? In this case, presuming you have right on your side, it is not what you do but how you do it.
I haven't finished reading the posts following this but allow me to say that I should have been more clear. I think postulating on whether or not the state of Israel should exist is as much an idealistic (depending who you ask) rambling as my borderless world. Israel does exist and, aside from where the borders should be, there is no indication that any international body is about to undeclare them a sovereign state.
Re my use of "reasoning", I'm assuming your POV is being argued from a rational evaluation of the facts available via reports, investigations, literature and human rights advocates from both sides of the border in question. It is an assumption on my part. I agree with all you've said except for the occassional blurring of the difference between the actions of the Israeli government and Jewish people in general. It is an important distinction.
Israeli Apartheid
anastrophe wrote:
citations please. there isn't a shred of truth to the above. the palestinians before the inception of israel were a nomadic, tribal people, for the most part. there has never been a sovereign nation of Palestine, so how can you claim they had sovereignty? what right and what title - any more so than the jews?
"[S]ome of the advantages the West Bank (and to a lesser extent the Gaza Strip) possessed on the eve of the occupation - a productive agricultural sector with no water constraint, thriving trade with the eastern part of Jordan and other Arab countries, a strong tourism sector, an adequate infrastructure, an excellent basic educational system (for the period), a growing professional and entrepreneurial class - have been dissipated " George Abed, "Beyond Oslo: A Viable Future for the Palestinian Economy"
again, not a shred of truth. there have been jews living in palestine for thousands of years. that they were a minority of the population isn't in dispute; when israel was formed, the arab states urged the palestinians to leave; and also urged the jews in their lands to go to israel. the arab nations were glad to be rid of their jewish populations. the palestinians however have been treated like 'the nigger in the woodpile' by their arab "brothers". they've been used as political capital. The palestinians, since they never were a sovereign nation to begin with, became refugees, primarily because the neighboring arab states had no interest in taking them in.
citations please. I do believe I've posted an essay written by the King of Jordan at the time that expressly contradicts your claims.
you again call it "their land". Palestine - the historical region - was populated by jews and gentiles and muslims and 'palestinians' (along with many other subgroups). it was never a soverieign nation. for the most part, that curve along the mediterranean has been great 'highway' of migration for thousands of years. countless tribes of different descent have passed through, many staying, many not, but not since ancient times has it been under a contiguous rule, and never by any group that was called "the palestinians". assyrians? sure. romans? you bet. chaldeans? certainly. phoenecians? of course. the british? absolutely. the egyptians? indisputably. the palestinians? never.
You pull your conclusions out of thin air. The argument here support a conclusion that no one deserves the land yes you maintain that Israel has more right to be a sovereign state. You've actually managed to support William's conclusion. The entire group was called Palestinian. The current peoples are the left overs that haven't taken on a new name.
i don't often recommend wikipedia as a reference, because as a primary source it tends to be pretty pathetic. however, it's interesting to read the entry on palestinians. genetically, the palestinians tend to be closer to the jews than to their arab brothers! the neutrality of the article is in dispute - unsuprisingly - so it must be taken in that light.
:D he breaks his rule for a disputed article no less. Could it not be said also that the Jews are genetically close to the Palestinians? It might be nice if Israel would take that into consideration when creating their big divide between the Jews and everyone else.
citations please. there isn't a shred of truth to the above. the palestinians before the inception of israel were a nomadic, tribal people, for the most part. there has never been a sovereign nation of Palestine, so how can you claim they had sovereignty? what right and what title - any more so than the jews?
"[S]ome of the advantages the West Bank (and to a lesser extent the Gaza Strip) possessed on the eve of the occupation - a productive agricultural sector with no water constraint, thriving trade with the eastern part of Jordan and other Arab countries, a strong tourism sector, an adequate infrastructure, an excellent basic educational system (for the period), a growing professional and entrepreneurial class - have been dissipated " George Abed, "Beyond Oslo: A Viable Future for the Palestinian Economy"
again, not a shred of truth. there have been jews living in palestine for thousands of years. that they were a minority of the population isn't in dispute; when israel was formed, the arab states urged the palestinians to leave; and also urged the jews in their lands to go to israel. the arab nations were glad to be rid of their jewish populations. the palestinians however have been treated like 'the nigger in the woodpile' by their arab "brothers". they've been used as political capital. The palestinians, since they never were a sovereign nation to begin with, became refugees, primarily because the neighboring arab states had no interest in taking them in.
citations please. I do believe I've posted an essay written by the King of Jordan at the time that expressly contradicts your claims.
you again call it "their land". Palestine - the historical region - was populated by jews and gentiles and muslims and 'palestinians' (along with many other subgroups). it was never a soverieign nation. for the most part, that curve along the mediterranean has been great 'highway' of migration for thousands of years. countless tribes of different descent have passed through, many staying, many not, but not since ancient times has it been under a contiguous rule, and never by any group that was called "the palestinians". assyrians? sure. romans? you bet. chaldeans? certainly. phoenecians? of course. the british? absolutely. the egyptians? indisputably. the palestinians? never.
You pull your conclusions out of thin air. The argument here support a conclusion that no one deserves the land yes you maintain that Israel has more right to be a sovereign state. You've actually managed to support William's conclusion. The entire group was called Palestinian. The current peoples are the left overs that haven't taken on a new name.
i don't often recommend wikipedia as a reference, because as a primary source it tends to be pretty pathetic. however, it's interesting to read the entry on palestinians. genetically, the palestinians tend to be closer to the jews than to their arab brothers! the neutrality of the article is in dispute - unsuprisingly - so it must be taken in that light.
:D he breaks his rule for a disputed article no less. Could it not be said also that the Jews are genetically close to the Palestinians? It might be nice if Israel would take that into consideration when creating their big divide between the Jews and everyone else.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
koan wrote: I haven't finished reading the posts following this but allow me to say that I should have been more clear. I think postulating on whether or not the state of Israel should exist is as much an idealistic (depending who you ask) rambling as my borderless world. Israel does exist and, aside from where the borders should be, there is no indication that any international body is about to undeclare them a sovereign state.
Re my use of "reasoning", I'm assuming your POV is being argued from a rational evaluation of the facts available via reports, investigations, literature and human rights advocates from both sides of the border in question. It is an assumption on my part. I agree with all you've said except for the occassional blurring of the difference between the actions of the Israeli government and Jewish people in general. It is an important distinction.
The question is, or has become, whether Israel has a right to a continued existence. As a self-governing state it has been in existance for only about 55 years and established itself by taking control of a part of Palestine without any authority and at a time when world-wide sympathy for the wrongs inflicted on the Jews by the Germans made it very difficult for their invasion to be countered.
I use the term 'invasion' advisedly. The great majority of Jews who settled in the area were not natives.
Test the question by analogy. Suppose a large body of, perhaps, Hindi decided that they had some scriptural right to settle in Western Oregon and, possibly using some convenient disaster as indirect justification, landed and declared the coastal zone of Oregon as an independent self-governing country. Let us assume that somehow the settlement was achieved overnight and that the customs and practices of the populace were completely alien to those of the rest of North America. Suppose, further, that the United Nations decided to recognise Hindegon and tended to lean in its direction whenever a dispute was referred for arbitration.
Under those circumstances, may I suggest that the former occupants of Oregon - not to mention the entire United States - would still be locked in combat with Hindegon in fifty-five years time and, further, that they had some justification for their struggle
I take the point about the difference between the Jewish people and their government but in a democracy it is rarely possible to distinguish between the one and the other. The Middle East policies of President Bush, for example, have been highly controversial yet when the American people had the opportunity to replace him, he was re-elected to office with an increased majority. Thus the people of America are deemed to be in agreement with those policies. Ditto Mr Blairm and Britain. Ditto Adolf Hitler and the Germans.
It is only when the population rebels and deposes their leader, by ballot or otherwise, is it possible to draw a valid distinction.
Interesting debate!
WE
Re my use of "reasoning", I'm assuming your POV is being argued from a rational evaluation of the facts available via reports, investigations, literature and human rights advocates from both sides of the border in question. It is an assumption on my part. I agree with all you've said except for the occassional blurring of the difference between the actions of the Israeli government and Jewish people in general. It is an important distinction.
The question is, or has become, whether Israel has a right to a continued existence. As a self-governing state it has been in existance for only about 55 years and established itself by taking control of a part of Palestine without any authority and at a time when world-wide sympathy for the wrongs inflicted on the Jews by the Germans made it very difficult for their invasion to be countered.
I use the term 'invasion' advisedly. The great majority of Jews who settled in the area were not natives.
Test the question by analogy. Suppose a large body of, perhaps, Hindi decided that they had some scriptural right to settle in Western Oregon and, possibly using some convenient disaster as indirect justification, landed and declared the coastal zone of Oregon as an independent self-governing country. Let us assume that somehow the settlement was achieved overnight and that the customs and practices of the populace were completely alien to those of the rest of North America. Suppose, further, that the United Nations decided to recognise Hindegon and tended to lean in its direction whenever a dispute was referred for arbitration.
Under those circumstances, may I suggest that the former occupants of Oregon - not to mention the entire United States - would still be locked in combat with Hindegon in fifty-five years time and, further, that they had some justification for their struggle
I take the point about the difference between the Jewish people and their government but in a democracy it is rarely possible to distinguish between the one and the other. The Middle East policies of President Bush, for example, have been highly controversial yet when the American people had the opportunity to replace him, he was re-elected to office with an increased majority. Thus the people of America are deemed to be in agreement with those policies. Ditto Mr Blairm and Britain. Ditto Adolf Hitler and the Germans.
It is only when the population rebels and deposes their leader, by ballot or otherwise, is it possible to draw a valid distinction.
Interesting debate!
WE
Israeli Apartheid
I need something clarified, William
If you are saying that a people can't claim a land by heritage rights then how do the Palestinians claim it by heritage either? However the Jewish army arrived, I don't think it can be denied that they won the war for the land. Your arguments are working for and against you at the same time. Perhaps you can explain in a more linear way?
For a number of reasons, the following story popped into mind over the settlement of the Jewish people in what is now Israel, who agreed to it and why. It is interesting because Arabs are condemned for being a culture of death based on their willingness to sacrifice children. (Jean Bethke Elshtain, Just War Against Terror)
To arouse international sympathy for its cause, the Zionist movement sought in 1947 to gain entry into Palestine for the boat Exodus despite British opposition. It was crammed with survivors of the Nazi holocaust, half of whom were children, mostly orphans. "The saga of the Exodus is strewn with the eyes of these orphans," writes the biographer of the ship's captain. These orphans "are the real story of the the Exodus." The saga was later immortalized in Leon Uris's best seller Exodus, which became a canonical text of American Zionism. What cultural values did Uris - and American Jewry - celebrate in his semifictionalized account? Uris tell the story of how Jewish orphans were placed on a boat "ready to fall apart." The engine room was loaded with dynamite, the Zionists threatening to "blow ourselves up" if the British fired on the ship. "If the Zionists are so sincere," the British wondered, "why are they endangering the lives of three hundred innocent children?" To which the Zionist hero of Uris's novel, Ari Ben Canaan, retorted: "I am astounded at Whitehall's crocodile tears over our victimizing of children...If Whitehall is so concerned about the welfare of these children, then I challenge them to throw open the gates of Caraolos [where Jewish refugees were being held]. It is nothing more or less than a concentration camp. People are kept behind barbed wire at machine-gun point with insufficient food, water and medical care." (like Gaza?) Next, Ari Ben Canaan put the orphans on board the Exodus on a hunger strike: "Anyone who passes out will be placed on deck for the British to look at...Do you think I like starving a bunch of orphans? Give me something else to fight with. Give me something to shoot at those tanks and those destroyers." (A not unfamiliar lament.) After depicting scenes of the starving children, Uris has Ari Ben Canaan issue the final challenge that "ten volunteers a day" among the Jewish orphans "will commit suicide on the bridge of the ship in full view of the British garrison."
any typos are mine. emphasis and bracketed commentary from original text.
Norman Finkelstein, Beyond Chutzpah, p117-118 all details are well referenced and documented as footnotes.
If you are saying that a people can't claim a land by heritage rights then how do the Palestinians claim it by heritage either? However the Jewish army arrived, I don't think it can be denied that they won the war for the land. Your arguments are working for and against you at the same time. Perhaps you can explain in a more linear way?
For a number of reasons, the following story popped into mind over the settlement of the Jewish people in what is now Israel, who agreed to it and why. It is interesting because Arabs are condemned for being a culture of death based on their willingness to sacrifice children. (Jean Bethke Elshtain, Just War Against Terror)
To arouse international sympathy for its cause, the Zionist movement sought in 1947 to gain entry into Palestine for the boat Exodus despite British opposition. It was crammed with survivors of the Nazi holocaust, half of whom were children, mostly orphans. "The saga of the Exodus is strewn with the eyes of these orphans," writes the biographer of the ship's captain. These orphans "are the real story of the the Exodus." The saga was later immortalized in Leon Uris's best seller Exodus, which became a canonical text of American Zionism. What cultural values did Uris - and American Jewry - celebrate in his semifictionalized account? Uris tell the story of how Jewish orphans were placed on a boat "ready to fall apart." The engine room was loaded with dynamite, the Zionists threatening to "blow ourselves up" if the British fired on the ship. "If the Zionists are so sincere," the British wondered, "why are they endangering the lives of three hundred innocent children?" To which the Zionist hero of Uris's novel, Ari Ben Canaan, retorted: "I am astounded at Whitehall's crocodile tears over our victimizing of children...If Whitehall is so concerned about the welfare of these children, then I challenge them to throw open the gates of Caraolos [where Jewish refugees were being held]. It is nothing more or less than a concentration camp. People are kept behind barbed wire at machine-gun point with insufficient food, water and medical care." (like Gaza?) Next, Ari Ben Canaan put the orphans on board the Exodus on a hunger strike: "Anyone who passes out will be placed on deck for the British to look at...Do you think I like starving a bunch of orphans? Give me something else to fight with. Give me something to shoot at those tanks and those destroyers." (A not unfamiliar lament.) After depicting scenes of the starving children, Uris has Ari Ben Canaan issue the final challenge that "ten volunteers a day" among the Jewish orphans "will commit suicide on the bridge of the ship in full view of the British garrison."
any typos are mine. emphasis and bracketed commentary from original text.
Norman Finkelstein, Beyond Chutzpah, p117-118 all details are well referenced and documented as footnotes.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
koan wrote: I need something clarified, William
If you are saying that a people can't claim a land by heritage rights then how do the Palestinians claim it by heritage either?
However the Jewish army arrived, I don't think it can be denied that they won the war for the land. Your arguments are working for and against you at the same time. Perhaps you can explain in a more linear way?
The Jew's didn't claim it by heritage. They obtained it by the rather underhand tactics given in your text allied to the methods alluded to earlier. The justification for going to Palestine was based on scripture.
To say that the Jewish army won the war for the land has to be allied to whether or not the cause was just. A few years earlier the German army had won the war for Polish, French and Scandinavian land but the matter could not be allowed to rest there because the German cause was not just. Might has to be coupled with right.
WE
If you are saying that a people can't claim a land by heritage rights then how do the Palestinians claim it by heritage either?
However the Jewish army arrived, I don't think it can be denied that they won the war for the land. Your arguments are working for and against you at the same time. Perhaps you can explain in a more linear way?
The Jew's didn't claim it by heritage. They obtained it by the rather underhand tactics given in your text allied to the methods alluded to earlier. The justification for going to Palestine was based on scripture.
To say that the Jewish army won the war for the land has to be allied to whether or not the cause was just. A few years earlier the German army had won the war for Polish, French and Scandinavian land but the matter could not be allowed to rest there because the German cause was not just. Might has to be coupled with right.
WE
Israeli Apartheid
Looking back to the Balfour declaration is illuminating.
Balfour himself said "we deliberately and rightly decline to accept the principle of self-determination" for the "present inhabitants" of Palestine, because "the question of the Jews outside Palestine [is] one of world importance" and Zionism was "rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700 000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land." For Cabinet Minister (and the first British high commissioner of Palestine during the Mandate period) Herbert Samuel, although denying the indigenous population majority rule was "in flat contradiction to one of the main purposes for which the allies were fighting," it was nonetheless permissible because the anterior Jewish presence in Palestine "had resulted in events of spiritual and cultural value to mankind in striking contrast with the barren record of the last thousand years." And for Winston Churchill, testifying before the Peel Commission, the indigenous population had no more right to Palestine than a "dog in a manger has the final right to the manger, even though he may have lain there for a long time," and no "wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race, or at any rate, a more worldly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." The point is not so much that the British were racists but rather that they had no recourse except to racist justifications for denying the indigenous population its basic rights. "
Beyond Chutzpah, p 9-10
The Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel was publicly read in Tel Aviv on May 14, 1948, before the expiration of the British Mandate of Palestine at midnight...The new state and its government was recognized de facto minutes later by the United States and three days later de jure by the Soviet Union (Stalin thought a communist or communist-oriented Jewish state could be a useful "thorn in the back" of his capitalist rivals in the Middle East). It was however opposed by many others, particularly Arabs (both the surrounding Arab states and the Palestinian Arabs), who felt it was being established at their expense. (wikipedia)
The question of the legitimacy of the independence of Israel is arguable if it was founded on reasoning that contradicts international law. How they won their battle for the land is just as dirty as any war gets and I don't think anyone denies they they used terrorism to get there. All wars have their hideous qualities. I do, however, see validity to questioning the justification of the declaration. I am interested in looking further into the wording of the declaration itself. Perhaps it violates international law, in which case, it should not be accepted. The general acceptance of Israel as a sovereign nation does tend to discourage the question of whether or not it is legitimate.
This is a branch from the tree of the original thread but one that actually has interesting questions to pursue.
Balfour himself said "we deliberately and rightly decline to accept the principle of self-determination" for the "present inhabitants" of Palestine, because "the question of the Jews outside Palestine [is] one of world importance" and Zionism was "rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700 000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land." For Cabinet Minister (and the first British high commissioner of Palestine during the Mandate period) Herbert Samuel, although denying the indigenous population majority rule was "in flat contradiction to one of the main purposes for which the allies were fighting," it was nonetheless permissible because the anterior Jewish presence in Palestine "had resulted in events of spiritual and cultural value to mankind in striking contrast with the barren record of the last thousand years." And for Winston Churchill, testifying before the Peel Commission, the indigenous population had no more right to Palestine than a "dog in a manger has the final right to the manger, even though he may have lain there for a long time," and no "wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race, or at any rate, a more worldly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." The point is not so much that the British were racists but rather that they had no recourse except to racist justifications for denying the indigenous population its basic rights. "
Beyond Chutzpah, p 9-10
The Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel was publicly read in Tel Aviv on May 14, 1948, before the expiration of the British Mandate of Palestine at midnight...The new state and its government was recognized de facto minutes later by the United States and three days later de jure by the Soviet Union (Stalin thought a communist or communist-oriented Jewish state could be a useful "thorn in the back" of his capitalist rivals in the Middle East). It was however opposed by many others, particularly Arabs (both the surrounding Arab states and the Palestinian Arabs), who felt it was being established at their expense. (wikipedia)
The question of the legitimacy of the independence of Israel is arguable if it was founded on reasoning that contradicts international law. How they won their battle for the land is just as dirty as any war gets and I don't think anyone denies they they used terrorism to get there. All wars have their hideous qualities. I do, however, see validity to questioning the justification of the declaration. I am interested in looking further into the wording of the declaration itself. Perhaps it violates international law, in which case, it should not be accepted. The general acceptance of Israel as a sovereign nation does tend to discourage the question of whether or not it is legitimate.
This is a branch from the tree of the original thread but one that actually has interesting questions to pursue.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
I was wondering how long it would be before the Balfour declaration was dredged up. The Israeli's are very fond of quoting it and just as fond of omitting the final paragraph which states there would be no objection to a Jewish state being established in Palestine ....................provided it was acceptable to all the other parties living in the area.
Balfour himself was Jewish. Samuel and Churchill were expressing their views on the matter.
I am always amused at the word racist. I have heard it a thousand times but no-one has ever told me precisely what it means. I suspect that most of us are all in our own way racist and that it is probably not a bad thing. There is a difference between making reference to a generalised racial characteristic (the Germans are good at composing music, Jew have a talent for making money, the British write good literature, etc) and throwing people into a concentration camp because of those differences. Nowadays both seem to be racist!
WE
Balfour himself was Jewish. Samuel and Churchill were expressing their views on the matter.
I am always amused at the word racist. I have heard it a thousand times but no-one has ever told me precisely what it means. I suspect that most of us are all in our own way racist and that it is probably not a bad thing. There is a difference between making reference to a generalised racial characteristic (the Germans are good at composing music, Jew have a talent for making money, the British write good literature, etc) and throwing people into a concentration camp because of those differences. Nowadays both seem to be racist!
WE
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: I was wondering how long it would be before the Balfour declaration was dredged up. The Israeli's are very fond of quoting it and just as fond of omitting the final paragraph which states there would be no objection to a Jewish state being established in Palestine ....................provided it was acceptable to all the other parties living in the area.
Balfour himself was Jewish. Samuel and Churchill were expressing their views on the matter.
I am always amused at the word racist. I have heard it a thousand times but no-one has ever told me precisely what it means. I suspect that most of us are all in our own way racist and that it is probably not a bad thing. There is a difference between making reference to a generalised racial characteristic (the Germans are good at composing music, Jew have a talent for making money, the British write good literature, etc) and throwing people into a concentration camp because of those differences. Nowadays both seem to be racist!
WE
I wonder if you are misinterpreting me. I'm looking for the supporting ideas behind your hypothesis.
My understanding of how the word "racist" was used in the passage I quoted was that the declaration was made despite the acknowledgement that it placed the value of a Jewish life above the value of a Palestinian life.
You might want to dive into the wording of the declaration of independence by the state of Israel. The preamble alone makes a lot of false statements and provides fodder for your hypothesis as well. I'm making a thorough study before I present any evidence.
Balfour himself was Jewish. Samuel and Churchill were expressing their views on the matter.
I am always amused at the word racist. I have heard it a thousand times but no-one has ever told me precisely what it means. I suspect that most of us are all in our own way racist and that it is probably not a bad thing. There is a difference between making reference to a generalised racial characteristic (the Germans are good at composing music, Jew have a talent for making money, the British write good literature, etc) and throwing people into a concentration camp because of those differences. Nowadays both seem to be racist!
WE
I wonder if you are misinterpreting me. I'm looking for the supporting ideas behind your hypothesis.
My understanding of how the word "racist" was used in the passage I quoted was that the declaration was made despite the acknowledgement that it placed the value of a Jewish life above the value of a Palestinian life.
You might want to dive into the wording of the declaration of independence by the state of Israel. The preamble alone makes a lot of false statements and provides fodder for your hypothesis as well. I'm making a thorough study before I present any evidence.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
Sorry, I think it was me that gave the wrong impression. Apologies. I was just commenting generally without making much of a point.
Quite apart from what I perceive as the irregularity of Israel's existance, my great fear is that we are all likely to suffer because of its presence in a part of the world where it simply does not belong.
Quite apart from what I perceive as the irregularity of Israel's existance, my great fear is that we are all likely to suffer because of its presence in a part of the world where it simply does not belong.
Israeli Apartheid
Declaration
Follow the link and you will find all the justifications for their existence listed. Go through them and see if they do or don't stand up to examination.
That is my starting point. I'm looking because I realised I was possibly dismissing a point of view because of outside influence ie)propaganda, misinformation, etc.
I like to know that my reasoning is well founded.
Follow the link and you will find all the justifications for their existence listed. Go through them and see if they do or don't stand up to examination.
That is my starting point. I'm looking because I realised I was possibly dismissing a point of view because of outside influence ie)propaganda, misinformation, etc.
I like to know that my reasoning is well founded.
Israeli Apartheid
Preamble:
ERETZ-ISRAEL [(Hebrew) - the Land of Israel, Palestine] was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books.
investigate.
Reminding fellow Zionists that Jewry's "historical right" to Palestine was a "metaphysical rather than a political category" and that, springing as it did from "the very inner depths of Judaism," this "category...is binding on us rather than on the Arabs," even the Zionist writer Ernst Simon was emphatic that it did not confer on Jews any right to Palestine without the consent of the Arabs.
Beyond Chutzpah, p8-9 with footnotes.
so the first paragraph is based on falsity as noted by Jewish historians and writers.
ERETZ-ISRAEL [(Hebrew) - the Land of Israel, Palestine] was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books.
investigate.
Reminding fellow Zionists that Jewry's "historical right" to Palestine was a "metaphysical rather than a political category" and that, springing as it did from "the very inner depths of Judaism," this "category...is binding on us rather than on the Arabs," even the Zionist writer Ernst Simon was emphatic that it did not confer on Jews any right to Palestine without the consent of the Arabs.
Beyond Chutzpah, p8-9 with footnotes.
so the first paragraph is based on falsity as noted by Jewish historians and writers.
Israeli Apartheid
After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom.
I don't have much problem with that bit. People are welcome to pray. But, again it appeals to the metaphysical.
Factual: they were exiled from the land by the Romans. I object to the capitalization of Dispersion as if it were a unique event. I'm not sure if they had political freedom before the dispersion. Anyone?
I don't have much problem with that bit. People are welcome to pray. But, again it appeals to the metaphysical.
Factual: they were exiled from the land by the Romans. I object to the capitalization of Dispersion as if it were a unique event. I'm not sure if they had political freedom before the dispersion. Anyone?
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: Sorry, I think it was me that gave the wrong impression. Apologies. I was just commenting generally without making much of a point.
Quite apart from what I perceive as the irregularity of Israel's existance, my great fear is that we are all likely to suffer because of its presence in a part of the world where it simply does not belong.
let us not forget that egypt has somehow managed to live in peace with israel for some twenty seven years, and jordan has managed to live in peace with israel for some twelve years. in both cases, a negotiated peace.
if these bordering nations of israel are willing to set aside their differences accept israel's existence in peace, others should be able to as well. it certainly isn't for lack of trying on israel's part.
Quite apart from what I perceive as the irregularity of Israel's existance, my great fear is that we are all likely to suffer because of its presence in a part of the world where it simply does not belong.
let us not forget that egypt has somehow managed to live in peace with israel for some twenty seven years, and jordan has managed to live in peace with israel for some twelve years. in both cases, a negotiated peace.
if these bordering nations of israel are willing to set aside their differences accept israel's existence in peace, others should be able to as well. it certainly isn't for lack of trying on israel's part.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Israeli Apartheid
anastrophe wrote: let us not forget that egypt has somehow managed to live in peace with israel for some twenty seven years, and jordan has managed to live in peace with israel for some twelve years. in both cases, a negotiated peace.
if these bordering nations of israel are willing to set aside their differences accept israel's existence in peace, others should be able to as well. it certainly isn't for lack of trying on israel's part.
in case we forget you are there to constantly bring it up, relevant or not.
last time you mentioned Jordan and Egypt you were saying how they were intentionally using Palestine as a pawn to aggrevate Israel and that they were the ones who should shoulder Israel's burden of providing for the occupied territories (which confused me since the regulations over occupying forces clearly state where the responsibility lies). So what is it? Jordan and Egypt are buddy buddy with Israel or they are playing an evil game of chess? In the meantime, while you argue with yourself, I will continue to look into the topic at hand.
if these bordering nations of israel are willing to set aside their differences accept israel's existence in peace, others should be able to as well. it certainly isn't for lack of trying on israel's part.
in case we forget you are there to constantly bring it up, relevant or not.
last time you mentioned Jordan and Egypt you were saying how they were intentionally using Palestine as a pawn to aggrevate Israel and that they were the ones who should shoulder Israel's burden of providing for the occupied territories (which confused me since the regulations over occupying forces clearly state where the responsibility lies). So what is it? Jordan and Egypt are buddy buddy with Israel or they are playing an evil game of chess? In the meantime, while you argue with yourself, I will continue to look into the topic at hand.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Israeli Apartheid
"living in peace" is not synonymous with necessarily liking each other. it is synonymous with an absence of warfare.
it's a shame this needs to be pointed out. god forbid i interfere with a Good Thing being denigrated and dismissed. It's amusing that you make light of Peace, regardless of its negotiated and unfriendly nature.
it's a shame this needs to be pointed out. god forbid i interfere with a Good Thing being denigrated and dismissed. It's amusing that you make light of Peace, regardless of its negotiated and unfriendly nature.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Israeli Apartheid
A is friendly with B
A beats the crap out of C
D sees A being friendly with B and says that A is not violent because A is friendly with B.
D concludes that A must not be beating the crap out of C because A is not violent.
This is your "logic"?
now back to the regular program
A beats the crap out of C
D sees A being friendly with B and says that A is not violent because A is friendly with B.
D concludes that A must not be beating the crap out of C because A is not violent.
This is your "logic"?
now back to the regular program
Israeli Apartheid
Breaking down the reasons Israel was granted sovereignty, even if those reasons are demostrably false, is not going to change the UN's declaration of them as a state. With the US veto in place I don't think they are going to change their minds.
Being in a research mode, I am tempted to break it all down anyway but it is more of an academic exercise than a practical one.
I've found an interesting article that addresses the main issues of the debate.
Israel’s “Right to Exist is a Question of Legitimacy
By Genevieve Cora Fraser
In 1947, the United Nations arrogantly attempted to give away Palestine by floating the non-binding Resolution 181, but though it was accepted by the General Assembly, the resolution was not accepted by both parties which was legally necessary for the General Assembly's recommendations to be implemented. If it had been it would have prepared the foundation for the creation in Palestine of an Arab state and a Jewish state, and as a result would have terminated the Mandate for Palestine.
That is a point William brought up already. That the Arabs had to accept the resolution for it to be binding.
This is a fairly important detail.
Being in a research mode, I am tempted to break it all down anyway but it is more of an academic exercise than a practical one.
I've found an interesting article that addresses the main issues of the debate.
Israel’s “Right to Exist is a Question of Legitimacy
By Genevieve Cora Fraser
In 1947, the United Nations arrogantly attempted to give away Palestine by floating the non-binding Resolution 181, but though it was accepted by the General Assembly, the resolution was not accepted by both parties which was legally necessary for the General Assembly's recommendations to be implemented. If it had been it would have prepared the foundation for the creation in Palestine of an Arab state and a Jewish state, and as a result would have terminated the Mandate for Palestine.
That is a point William brought up already. That the Arabs had to accept the resolution for it to be binding.
This is a fairly important detail.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Israeli Apartheid
koan wrote: A is friendly with B
A beats the crap out of C
D sees A being friendly with B and says that A is not violent because A is friendly with B.
D concludes that A must not be beating the crap out of C because A is not violent.
This is your "logic"?
no, as a matter of fact, it's not. your construct bears no relationship to what i wrote.
you have a vivid imagination, i'll give you that.
A beats the crap out of C
D sees A being friendly with B and says that A is not violent because A is friendly with B.
D concludes that A must not be beating the crap out of C because A is not violent.
This is your "logic"?
no, as a matter of fact, it's not. your construct bears no relationship to what i wrote.
you have a vivid imagination, i'll give you that.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Israeli Apartheid
i'd pay folding money for an ignore function that really works.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Israeli Apartheid
anastrophe wrote: i'd pay folding money for an ignore function that really works.
It's called self restraint
It's called self restraint
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Israeli Apartheid
koan wrote: It's called self restraint
wow, that mailorder psychology course really paid off.
wow, that mailorder psychology course really paid off.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Israeli Apartheid
Following the take-over of Palestine, UN Resolution 194 mandated Israel to accept the Palestinian “Right to Return to their homes “and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property." That too was ignored and Israel's legitimacy hung on it.
The issue of compensation has come up in a few books. In one instance I read that the Palestinians were being advised to not seek compensation because it would give Israel the right to keep the land. It's a bit of a catch 22.
The issue of compensation has come up in a few books. In one instance I read that the Palestinians were being advised to not seek compensation because it would give Israel the right to keep the land. It's a bit of a catch 22.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
Any peace that exists between Egypt (which has a long score to pay off) and Jordan is a purchased rather than a negotiated peace. So long as Israel lies under the protective banner of America, an uneasy truce (as opposed to peace) is likely to survive. I doubt if the truce will last.
As for Balfour, et al. These pronouncements had no legal basis and were simply the echoes of an indication of a direction in which the middle east might move. They may have conferred a unintended respectability (30 years later) on the creation of Israel but they had neither force of law nor force majeur. As for the Israeli statement made on the eve of the Mandate, they could hardly say anything else.
WE
As for Balfour, et al. These pronouncements had no legal basis and were simply the echoes of an indication of a direction in which the middle east might move. They may have conferred a unintended respectability (30 years later) on the creation of Israel but they had neither force of law nor force majeur. As for the Israeli statement made on the eve of the Mandate, they could hardly say anything else.
WE
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
anastrophe wrote: "living in peace" is not synonymous with necessarily liking each other. it is synonymous with an absence of warfare.
it's a shame this needs to be pointed out. god forbid i interfere with a Good Thing being denigrated and dismissed. It's amusing that you make light of Peace, regardless of its negotiated and unfriendly nature.
There is a world of difference between an uneasy peace and a secure peace.
it's a shame this needs to be pointed out. god forbid i interfere with a Good Thing being denigrated and dismissed. It's amusing that you make light of Peace, regardless of its negotiated and unfriendly nature.
There is a world of difference between an uneasy peace and a secure peace.
Israeli Apartheid
The UN resolution seems to be the one that is demanding attention.
I did notice some conditions in the resolution calling for the partition. A number of the conditions a) haven't been met and/or b) are being violated.
I did notice some conditions in the resolution calling for the partition. A number of the conditions a) haven't been met and/or b) are being violated.
Israeli Apartheid
anastrophe wrote: because they are a sovereign nation *where no sovereign nation existed before its creation*.
The fact that the land was only part of a soverign nation does not make it any less "owned" territory. For an outside body to cede that land to people other than its inhabitants is questionable. For recent immigrants into the area to declare UDI and attempt to force those inhabitants out does not make it their soverign nation - it makes an unholy fight that will not be resolved until both sides sit down and talk.
To hold the attitude that everything the Israelis do is right and the Arabs are filthy animals, as some on this board do, does nothing to resolve the problem and admits of no solution other than genocide.
The fact that the land was only part of a soverign nation does not make it any less "owned" territory. For an outside body to cede that land to people other than its inhabitants is questionable. For recent immigrants into the area to declare UDI and attempt to force those inhabitants out does not make it their soverign nation - it makes an unholy fight that will not be resolved until both sides sit down and talk.
To hold the attitude that everything the Israelis do is right and the Arabs are filthy animals, as some on this board do, does nothing to resolve the problem and admits of no solution other than genocide.
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote:
I take the point about the difference between the Jewish people and their government but in a democracy it is rarely possible to distinguish between the one and the other. The Middle East policies of President Bush, for example, have been highly controversial yet when the American people had the opportunity to replace him, he was re-elected to office with an increased majority. Thus the people of America are deemed to be in agreement with those policies. Ditto Mr Blairm and Britain. Ditto Adolf Hitler and the Germans.
It is only when the population rebels and deposes their leader, by ballot or otherwise, is it possible to draw a valid distinction.
This is one of the many unfortunate fact about having a representative democracy with only two parties and a single vote every four years. It is not possible for the people to express their opinion about any single issue - all they can do is vote against the worst choice.
It is made even more difficult when you have a single vote to chose your local representative and the party to run the national government.
By re-electing Bush you deam the American people to have voted for the war but it's equally likely that they voted against the Democrats plans for the American ecconomy - or the building of a sewage plant just outside of town.
I take the point about the difference between the Jewish people and their government but in a democracy it is rarely possible to distinguish between the one and the other. The Middle East policies of President Bush, for example, have been highly controversial yet when the American people had the opportunity to replace him, he was re-elected to office with an increased majority. Thus the people of America are deemed to be in agreement with those policies. Ditto Mr Blairm and Britain. Ditto Adolf Hitler and the Germans.
It is only when the population rebels and deposes their leader, by ballot or otherwise, is it possible to draw a valid distinction.
This is one of the many unfortunate fact about having a representative democracy with only two parties and a single vote every four years. It is not possible for the people to express their opinion about any single issue - all they can do is vote against the worst choice.
It is made even more difficult when you have a single vote to chose your local representative and the party to run the national government.
By re-electing Bush you deam the American people to have voted for the war but it's equally likely that they voted against the Democrats plans for the American ecconomy - or the building of a sewage plant just outside of town.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Israeli Apartheid
Bryn Mawr wrote: The fact that the land was only part of a soverign nation does not make it any less "owned" territory.
i repeat, the land was not a part of any sovereign nation. there was no legal sovereignty *at all*.
For an outside body to cede that land to people other than its inhabitants is questionable.
jews have been inhabitants of the region continuously for thousands of years. so you can't claim that they were not the land's inhabitants.
For recent immigrants into the area to declare UDI and attempt to force those inhabitants out does not make it their soverign nation - it makes an unholy fight that will not be resolved until both sides sit down and talk.
the suggestion that the palestinians were "forced out" is questionable. the neighboring arab nations encouraged the palestinians to leave israel. they also encouraged their existing jewish populations to move to israel. certainly, some palestinians were forced out. however, for the most part it was a voluntary exodus - not a happy one, but not one driven at gunpoint either.
To hold the attitude that everything the Israelis do is right and the Arabs are filthy animals, as some on this board do, does nothing to resolve the problem and admits of no solution other than genocide.
i'm not sure who here on the board has referred to the arabs as filthy animals. i agree that that would be a highly immoral stance. contending that because the israelis are not perfectly benign and have committed egregious acts themselves, that therefore everything they do is wrong certainly doesn't help the matter either. some on the board denigrate the negotiated peace between israel and egypt, and israel and jordan. apparently believing that open warfare would be preferable to the nearly thirty years without military violence between egypt and israel for example. pointing out that the absence of military violence is good does not imply that there are no bad acts occurring elsewhere.
i repeat, the land was not a part of any sovereign nation. there was no legal sovereignty *at all*.
For an outside body to cede that land to people other than its inhabitants is questionable.
jews have been inhabitants of the region continuously for thousands of years. so you can't claim that they were not the land's inhabitants.
For recent immigrants into the area to declare UDI and attempt to force those inhabitants out does not make it their soverign nation - it makes an unholy fight that will not be resolved until both sides sit down and talk.
the suggestion that the palestinians were "forced out" is questionable. the neighboring arab nations encouraged the palestinians to leave israel. they also encouraged their existing jewish populations to move to israel. certainly, some palestinians were forced out. however, for the most part it was a voluntary exodus - not a happy one, but not one driven at gunpoint either.
To hold the attitude that everything the Israelis do is right and the Arabs are filthy animals, as some on this board do, does nothing to resolve the problem and admits of no solution other than genocide.
i'm not sure who here on the board has referred to the arabs as filthy animals. i agree that that would be a highly immoral stance. contending that because the israelis are not perfectly benign and have committed egregious acts themselves, that therefore everything they do is wrong certainly doesn't help the matter either. some on the board denigrate the negotiated peace between israel and egypt, and israel and jordan. apparently believing that open warfare would be preferable to the nearly thirty years without military violence between egypt and israel for example. pointing out that the absence of military violence is good does not imply that there are no bad acts occurring elsewhere.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: There is a world of difference between an uneasy peace and a secure peace.
obviously. both, however, are an absence of military violence, which is a good thing, by nearly all measures.
obviously. both, however, are an absence of military violence, which is a good thing, by nearly all measures.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: I doubt if the truce will last.
if twenty seven years doesn't satisfy you, what will? twenty eight? two hundred and twenty eight?
the peace could fall apart tomorrow. quite certainly and literally. i'm sure your doubts have been echoed daily since March 26, 1979.
i can't believe an absence of war is being downplayed.
if twenty seven years doesn't satisfy you, what will? twenty eight? two hundred and twenty eight?
the peace could fall apart tomorrow. quite certainly and literally. i'm sure your doubts have been echoed daily since March 26, 1979.
i can't believe an absence of war is being downplayed.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Israeli Apartheid
anastrophe wrote: i'd pay folding money for an ignore function that really works.
With a thread as tightly defined as this one it's easy - don't click on it.
With a thread as tightly defined as this one it's easy - don't click on it.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
anastrophe wrote: obviously. both, however, are an absence of military violence, which is a good thing, by nearly all measures.
I do not think so. In an uneasy peace one is living on one's nerves because of the lack of security. Under those circumstances it is sometimes better to clear the situation with a good fight.
I do not think so. In an uneasy peace one is living on one's nerves because of the lack of security. Under those circumstances it is sometimes better to clear the situation with a good fight.
Israeli Apartheid
anastrophe wrote:
i'm not sure who here on the board has referred to the arabs as filthy animals. i agree that that would be a highly immoral stance.
Bronwen wrote: Israel is surrrounded by filthy, murderous Islamic jackals who have been trying to destroy it from Day One of its existence, and they do so by the most cowardly means imaginable, hiding behind their own women and children.
Bronwen wrote: When the terrorism against Israel ends, once and for all, I can personally guarantee you that none of these filthy, rat-infested Islamic hellhole nations will have anything to fear from Israel. They will then be able to spend all of their time murdering and terrorizing one another, in the name of Al-lah, of course, while Israel lives in peace, freedom, and security.
I'm sure there are more like that but I'll stop at two.
as to the rest of this particular post, I don't see a single citation anywhere in it and I have evidence to contradict most of those statements. Please do share the sources of your opinion.
i'm not sure who here on the board has referred to the arabs as filthy animals. i agree that that would be a highly immoral stance.
Bronwen wrote: Israel is surrrounded by filthy, murderous Islamic jackals who have been trying to destroy it from Day One of its existence, and they do so by the most cowardly means imaginable, hiding behind their own women and children.
Bronwen wrote: When the terrorism against Israel ends, once and for all, I can personally guarantee you that none of these filthy, rat-infested Islamic hellhole nations will have anything to fear from Israel. They will then be able to spend all of their time murdering and terrorizing one another, in the name of Al-lah, of course, while Israel lives in peace, freedom, and security.
I'm sure there are more like that but I'll stop at two.
as to the rest of this particular post, I don't see a single citation anywhere in it and I have evidence to contradict most of those statements. Please do share the sources of your opinion.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
I should be interested to know how Bronwen (Welsh?) is in a position to give such a guarantee.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: I do not think so. In an uneasy peace one is living on one's nerves because of the lack of security. Under those circumstances it is sometimes better to clear the situation with a good fight.
i don't think there's any significant nervous issues within egypt.
i don't think there's any significant nervous issues within egypt.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
anastrophe wrote: i don't think there's any significant nervous issues within egypt.
I take it you haven't been there lately.
I take it you haven't been there lately.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: I take it you haven't been there lately.
no, i haven't. have you?
no, i haven't. have you?
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Israeli Apartheid
anastrophe wrote: i repeat, the land was not a part of any sovereign nation. there was no legal sovereignty *at all*.
Repeating an incorrect fact does not make it any more correct.
Up until the Mandate it was part of the Ottoman Empire. At the end of the Great War, with the defeat of the Ottomans, the victors took over and divided it as they saw fit. That does not mean that there was no legal sovereignty prior to the Mandate.
anastrophe wrote: jews have been inhabitants of the region continuously for thousands of years. so you can't claim that they were not the land's inhabitants.
Prior to the start of the immegration, say about 1910, what was the percentage?
I'll rephrase my statement - for an outside body to cede the land to a tiny minority of its inhabitants is questionable.
anastrophe wrote: the suggestion that the palestinians were "forced out" is questionable. the neighboring arab nations encouraged the palestinians to leave israel. they also encouraged their existing jewish populations to move to israel. certainly, some palestinians were forced out. however, for the most part it was a voluntary exodus - not a happy one, but not one driven at gunpoint either.
By their own admittion, the Israelis used the tactics of terror to make the Palestinians to leave their homes - that sounds like forcing them out to me.
anastrophe wrote: i'm not sure who here on the board has referred to the arabs as filthy animals. i agree that that would be a highly immoral stance. contending that because the israelis are not perfectly benign and have committed egregious acts themselves, that therefore everything they do is wrong certainly doesn't help the matter either. some on the board denigrate the negotiated peace between israel and egypt, and israel and jordan. apparently believing that open warfare would be preferable to the nearly thirty years without military violence between egypt and israel for example. pointing out that the absence of military violence is good does not imply that there are no bad acts occurring elsewhere.
I have never contended that everything that the Israelis do is wrong - I'm just trying to get you to admit that *something* that they've done is wrong!
Repeating an incorrect fact does not make it any more correct.
Up until the Mandate it was part of the Ottoman Empire. At the end of the Great War, with the defeat of the Ottomans, the victors took over and divided it as they saw fit. That does not mean that there was no legal sovereignty prior to the Mandate.
anastrophe wrote: jews have been inhabitants of the region continuously for thousands of years. so you can't claim that they were not the land's inhabitants.
Prior to the start of the immegration, say about 1910, what was the percentage?
I'll rephrase my statement - for an outside body to cede the land to a tiny minority of its inhabitants is questionable.
anastrophe wrote: the suggestion that the palestinians were "forced out" is questionable. the neighboring arab nations encouraged the palestinians to leave israel. they also encouraged their existing jewish populations to move to israel. certainly, some palestinians were forced out. however, for the most part it was a voluntary exodus - not a happy one, but not one driven at gunpoint either.
By their own admittion, the Israelis used the tactics of terror to make the Palestinians to leave their homes - that sounds like forcing them out to me.
anastrophe wrote: i'm not sure who here on the board has referred to the arabs as filthy animals. i agree that that would be a highly immoral stance. contending that because the israelis are not perfectly benign and have committed egregious acts themselves, that therefore everything they do is wrong certainly doesn't help the matter either. some on the board denigrate the negotiated peace between israel and egypt, and israel and jordan. apparently believing that open warfare would be preferable to the nearly thirty years without military violence between egypt and israel for example. pointing out that the absence of military violence is good does not imply that there are no bad acts occurring elsewhere.
I have never contended that everything that the Israelis do is wrong - I'm just trying to get you to admit that *something* that they've done is wrong!
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Israeli Apartheid
Bryn Mawr wrote: Repeating an incorrect fact does not make it any more correct.
Up until the Mandate it was part of the Ottoman Empire. At the end of the Great War, with the defeat of the Ottomans, the victors took over and divided it as they saw fit. That does not mean that there was no legal sovereignty prior to the Mandate.
sigh. this goes back and forth. there was never a sovereign nation of Palestine. there was no palestinian government that was forced out upon the creation of israel. if you are suggesting that the sovereigns of Palestine were the british, and that israel took it away from them, then you're not suggesting that israel was taken from palestinian sovereigns You had said "The fact that the land was only part of a soverign nation does not make it any less "owned" territory." So your contention seems to be Palestine was a sovereign nation owned by britain, not the palestinians.
Prior to the start of the immegration, say about 1910, what was the percentage?
beats me. they were the minority, that's not in dispute. they became the majority as many palestinians left at the encouragement of the neighboring arab states, and as the arab states encouraged their jewish populations to move to palestine.
I'll rephrase my statement - for an outside body to cede the land to a tiny minority of its inhabitants is questionable.
in 1948, when israel was formed, the jews represented 80% of the population. therefore, the land was ceded to the overwhelming majority of its inhabitants.
By their own admittion, the Israelis used the tactics of terror to make the Palestinians to leave their homes - that sounds like forcing them out to me.
what part of "for the most part" wasn't clear to you? yes, most definitely some palestinians were forced out.
I have never contended that everything that the Israelis do is wrong - I'm just trying to get you to admit that *something* that they've done is wrong!
i have acknowledged time and again that the israelis have done wrong things.
Up until the Mandate it was part of the Ottoman Empire. At the end of the Great War, with the defeat of the Ottomans, the victors took over and divided it as they saw fit. That does not mean that there was no legal sovereignty prior to the Mandate.
sigh. this goes back and forth. there was never a sovereign nation of Palestine. there was no palestinian government that was forced out upon the creation of israel. if you are suggesting that the sovereigns of Palestine were the british, and that israel took it away from them, then you're not suggesting that israel was taken from palestinian sovereigns You had said "The fact that the land was only part of a soverign nation does not make it any less "owned" territory." So your contention seems to be Palestine was a sovereign nation owned by britain, not the palestinians.
Prior to the start of the immegration, say about 1910, what was the percentage?
beats me. they were the minority, that's not in dispute. they became the majority as many palestinians left at the encouragement of the neighboring arab states, and as the arab states encouraged their jewish populations to move to palestine.
I'll rephrase my statement - for an outside body to cede the land to a tiny minority of its inhabitants is questionable.
in 1948, when israel was formed, the jews represented 80% of the population. therefore, the land was ceded to the overwhelming majority of its inhabitants.
By their own admittion, the Israelis used the tactics of terror to make the Palestinians to leave their homes - that sounds like forcing them out to me.
what part of "for the most part" wasn't clear to you? yes, most definitely some palestinians were forced out.
I have never contended that everything that the Israelis do is wrong - I'm just trying to get you to admit that *something* that they've done is wrong!
i have acknowledged time and again that the israelis have done wrong things.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Israeli Apartheid
anastrophe wrote: sigh. this goes back and forth. there was never a sovereign nation of Palestine. there was no palestinian government that was forced out upon the creation of israel. if you are suggesting that the sovereigns of Palestine were the british, and that israel took it away from them, then you're not suggesting that israel was taken from palestinian sovereigns You had said "The fact that the land was only part of a soverign nation does not make it any less "owned" territory." So your contention seems to be Palestine was a sovereign nation owned by britain, not the palestinians.
If you read what I said, the land was part of the Ottoman Empire until its soverignty was removed at the end of the Great War.
anastrophe wrote: beats me. they were the minority, that's not in dispute. they became the majority as many palestinians left at the encouragement of the neighboring arab states, and as the arab states encouraged their jewish populations to move to palestine.
At the encouragement of a boot up the backside
anastrophe wrote: in 1948, when israel was formed, the jews represented 80% of the population. therefore, the land was ceded to the overwhelming majority of its inhabitants.
This I cannot let pass - at the end of the Mandate the relevant figures were Arab 1,243,867 and Jew 552,670 - whither 80%
anastrophe wrote: what part of "for the most part" wasn't clear to you? yes, most definitely some palestinians were forced out.
The accuracy of it? The ratio of those forced out to those who left under no pressure to do so.
anastrophe wrote: i have acknowledged time and again that the israelis have done wrong things.
I must have been away that day.
If you read what I said, the land was part of the Ottoman Empire until its soverignty was removed at the end of the Great War.
anastrophe wrote: beats me. they were the minority, that's not in dispute. they became the majority as many palestinians left at the encouragement of the neighboring arab states, and as the arab states encouraged their jewish populations to move to palestine.
At the encouragement of a boot up the backside
anastrophe wrote: in 1948, when israel was formed, the jews represented 80% of the population. therefore, the land was ceded to the overwhelming majority of its inhabitants.
This I cannot let pass - at the end of the Mandate the relevant figures were Arab 1,243,867 and Jew 552,670 - whither 80%
anastrophe wrote: what part of "for the most part" wasn't clear to you? yes, most definitely some palestinians were forced out.
The accuracy of it? The ratio of those forced out to those who left under no pressure to do so.
anastrophe wrote: i have acknowledged time and again that the israelis have done wrong things.
I must have been away that day.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Israeli Apartheid
Bryn Mawr wrote: If you read what I said, the land was part of the Ottoman Empire until its soverignty was removed at the end of the Great War.
at which point i question what the issue is then. israel wasn't taken from the ottomans. israel wasn't taken from a sovereign nation of palestine before 1948.
At the encouragement of a boot up the backside
in both directions, for both populations, yes.
This I cannot let pass - at the end of the Mandate the relevant figures were Arab 1,243,867 and Jew 552,670 - whither 80%
my source: http://factsofisrael.com/en/stats.shtml
your source?
The accuracy of it? The ratio of those forced out to those who left under no pressure to do so.
okay. i don't have any figures for what the ratio was. what are yours?
I must have been away that day.
disingenuous, mean-spirited, and certainly not in the spirit of an honest discourse. the israelis have done many bad things. so have the palestinians. so have the egyptians, the jordanians, the lebanese, the syrians, and for that matter the british, the french, the goths and visigoths, the romans and the african aboriginals.
so back at you - i'm just trying to get you to admit that, oh, say, suicide bombers who cry out "allah akhbar" before pulling the cord on a commuter bus are doing something wrong as well.
at which point i question what the issue is then. israel wasn't taken from the ottomans. israel wasn't taken from a sovereign nation of palestine before 1948.
At the encouragement of a boot up the backside
in both directions, for both populations, yes.
This I cannot let pass - at the end of the Mandate the relevant figures were Arab 1,243,867 and Jew 552,670 - whither 80%
my source: http://factsofisrael.com/en/stats.shtml
your source?
The accuracy of it? The ratio of those forced out to those who left under no pressure to do so.
okay. i don't have any figures for what the ratio was. what are yours?
I must have been away that day.
disingenuous, mean-spirited, and certainly not in the spirit of an honest discourse. the israelis have done many bad things. so have the palestinians. so have the egyptians, the jordanians, the lebanese, the syrians, and for that matter the british, the french, the goths and visigoths, the romans and the african aboriginals.
so back at you - i'm just trying to get you to admit that, oh, say, suicide bombers who cry out "allah akhbar" before pulling the cord on a commuter bus are doing something wrong as well.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Israeli Apartheid
anastrophe wrote: my source: http://factsofisrael.com/en/stats.shtml
your source?
http://www.plands.org/atlas/8.htm
anastrophe wrote: okay. i don't have any figures for what the ratio was. what are yours?
For the number of Palestinians who left without pressure - 0%
More seriously, who can tell - but making out that the number leaving in fear of their lives was minimal is streaching things.
anastrophe wrote: disingenuous, mean-spirited, and certainly not in the spirit of an honest discourse. the israelis have done many bad things. so have the palestinians. so have the egyptians, the jordanians, the lebanese, the syrians, and for that matter the british, the french, the goths and visigoths, the romans and the african aboriginals.
so back at you - i'm just trying to get you to admit that, oh, say, suicide bombers who cry out "allah akhbar" before pulling the cord on a commuter bus are doing something wrong as well.
Been there, done that :
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... tcount=318
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... tcount=156
I seriously cannot recall any occasion when you have admitted that the Israelis have commited and acts of terrorism, brutallity, agression or illegality - it's always they're retalliating or defending themselves.
your source?
http://www.plands.org/atlas/8.htm
anastrophe wrote: okay. i don't have any figures for what the ratio was. what are yours?
For the number of Palestinians who left without pressure - 0%
More seriously, who can tell - but making out that the number leaving in fear of their lives was minimal is streaching things.
anastrophe wrote: disingenuous, mean-spirited, and certainly not in the spirit of an honest discourse. the israelis have done many bad things. so have the palestinians. so have the egyptians, the jordanians, the lebanese, the syrians, and for that matter the british, the french, the goths and visigoths, the romans and the african aboriginals.
so back at you - i'm just trying to get you to admit that, oh, say, suicide bombers who cry out "allah akhbar" before pulling the cord on a commuter bus are doing something wrong as well.
Been there, done that :
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... tcount=318
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... tcount=156
I seriously cannot recall any occasion when you have admitted that the Israelis have commited and acts of terrorism, brutallity, agression or illegality - it's always they're retalliating or defending themselves.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Israeli Apartheid
Bryn Mawr wrote: I seriously cannot recall any occasion
then apparently it is for lack of trying.
then apparently it is for lack of trying.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]