community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
Discussion on Israel
by JonUs
Monday, May. 05, 2003 at 11:43 AM
What does the Anti-war movement have against Israel?
I would like to hold a discussion on what the anti-war movement has against Israel. I want to why you support the palestinian's instead of Israeli's. Links to sites that you feel explain your anger. Anything that you feel is valid to this discussion.
JonUs
Expensive Fairy Tale
by -
Monday, May. 05, 2003 at 12:51 PM
The majority of us tend to bet on the underdog. It's hard to feel bad for the Apache pilot who is getting rocks thrown at him while he is chain-gunning litte kids.
The only nation in the mid-east allowed to have WMD's, attack it's neighbors, attack US warships, spy on the US, has broken more UN resolutions than all other countries combined (not to mention the use of the US veto) and openly conducts genocide.
First, no foreign power should have the kind of undue, unconstitutional influence upon Congress that the Zionist lobby does. There's no sinister conspiracy, the lobbyists and PAC's give a few grand to congressional campaign funds and Congress votes to send them billions of American tax dollars in foreign aid. The whole idea is based on mythological claim to land. The bible says to eat disobedient children, too. Why back up a nation based on fairy tales? The Irish in the occupied six counties? Fuck 'em. The native Americans? Fuck em. East Timor? Fuck 'em. The Kashmir? Fuck 'em. All of the have physical, linguistic and, historical claims to the land in question. But since none of them have influence over campaign funding, so they may as well not exist.
It is hard for me to fathom why an historically persecuted people who now experience some safety and respect would go to the only place on earth where they are violently persecuted.
It's bad theology, too. Ask any hasidim if the nation of Israel can be legitimate if not founded by the Messiah. The answer will surprise you. Not to mention the wacko Rapture cult here in the US that is trying to rebuild Solomon's Temple to end the world.
It's nothing I want my name or money associated with.
Perhaps a better question would be why are the proponents of empire backing Israel unconditionally?
On Palestinian Solidarity
by Dan P.
Monday, May. 05, 2003 at 1:01 PM
Most people who stand in Palestinian solidarity due so out of a desire for justice. There are anti-semites who may rear their ugly heads in the crowd too, but don't think that one can't be pro-justice and not anti-semitic and stand in solidarity with Palestinians.
At the very heart of the issue of Palestine is dispossession and displacement. In 1948 and again in 1967 wars fought resulted in massive displacement of *civilian* inhabitants of Palestine. These are the people who today reside as refugees in the occupied Palestinian territories, in Jordan, in Syria, in Lebanon, and in other various places around the world. In short, they've been seriously shafted, and that's what Palestinian solidarity is all about.
All people, regardless of ethnicity, race, and religion, have a right to be treated as equals in their homes. Jewish, Muslim, Arab, Christian, Greek, German, Armenian, Anglo, Russian- wherever they originally hail from and whatever they call their god, they need to be treated as equals. Unfortunately, this is not what has happened on the ground. On the ground in Palestine, massive numbers of refugees were created and prohibited from returning to their homes, while at the same time Israel accepted (and in some cases used force to terrorize people into emmigrating from their home countries) Jewish immigrants from around the world. Something in innately wrong if land is being denied to people who lived there just years ago and given to people whose claim to the land is based on the religion they practice and the fact that 5,000 years ago people who practiced that religion lived there. On the ground in Palestine, those who resided west of the Green Line in 1949 are second class citizens in a state that treats them no better (some would argue worse) than African Americans were treated in the 1950s. On the ground in Palestine, those who resided east of the green line by the time the conflict was over are forced to live under what amounts to a permanent military occupation while the land they thought they would have soverignty over continues to be given away to ultra-nationalist settlers.
That being said, it is not just to resolve the problem by punishing Jews. Jews should not be kicked out of Israel. I would make the case that a settler in the West Bank not be forced to leave, either. Peace and justice will not happen until people can live as equals WITH A BLIND EYE TO THEIR RELIGION AND ETHNICITY in the land, regardless of what the state they live in is called, and regardless of how power is distributed. There also needs to be some form of resolution to the refugee problem.
That being said, it should be noted that Zionism is not inherently racist, but rather a significant portion of those who have come to be Zionists are reliant on racism to justify Palestinian dispossession. Also, it should be noted that Zionist power in this country is far, far different from Jewish power. The strongest Zionist lobby in this country is and probably always will be the Christian right. If anyone spews off stuff on indymedia or elsewhere about Jews controlling the world, take it with a grain of salt and look for other patterns of anti-semitism.
Because hatred isn't the way to peace.
Thank You for the feed back
by JonUs
Monday, May. 05, 2003 at 4:57 PM
I am going to write a response to each of you individually beacuse the content of your messages was so different. One thing that will not be tolerated in our discusion is lies so.....
"The majority of us tend to bet on the underdog. It's hard to feel bad for the Apache pilot who is getting rocks thrown at him while he is chain-gunning litte kids. "
Although the part about betting on th underdog is true the part where you claim that Apache pilots shoot little kids is not true. There has been no documented case of this happening. If you can cite one I will apologize.
"The only nation in the mid-east allowed to have WMD's, attack it's neighbors, attack US warships, spy on the US, has broken more UN resolutions than all other countries combined (not to mention the use of the US veto) and openly conducts genocide. "
O.K here is the second lie in your response. One, more countries in the Middle east have WMD. Everyone knows this, please don't try to pass that off as a fact. Two, Israel has been attacked(ie on the defensive side) in three major wars. As far as attacking US warships I have read nothing about that and would like some information on it. EVERYONE spies on the US.
"First, no foreign power should have the kind of undue, unconstitutional influence upon Congress that the Zionist lobby does. There's no sinister conspiracy, the lobbyists and PAC's give a few grand to congressional campaign funds and Congress votes to send them billions of American tax dollars in foreign aid."
I do agree with you that they have influence in congress but its not Technicaly unconstitutional. Since any american person, company, or organization is allowed to give money to a campaign funds. See Supreme Court cases.
" The whole idea is based on mythological claim to land. The bible says to eat disobedient children, too. Why back up a nation based on fairy tales? The Irish in the occupied six counties? Fuck 'em. The native Americans? Fuck em. East Timor? Fuck 'em. The Kashmir? Fuck 'em. All of the have physical, linguistic and, historical claims to the land in question. But since none of them have influence over campaign funding, so they may as well not exist. "
Please try to keep this civil. Your logic in this paragraph does not make sence to me please reword.
"It is hard for me to fathom why an historically persecuted people who now experience some safety and respect would go to the only place on earth where they are violently persecuted. "
Because it is their historical home.
"It's bad theology, too. Ask any hasidim if the nation of Israel can be legitimate if not founded by the Messiah. The answer will surprise you. "
This honestly depends on who you ask. But even so that does not deal with the problems at hand.
"Not to mention the wacko Rapture cult here in the US that is trying to rebuild Solomon's Temple to end the world.
It's nothing I want my name or money associated with.
Perhaps a better question would be why are the proponents of empire backing Israel unconditionally?"
Proponents of empire?
Mr. Nameless,
Perhaps if we stick to a specific time this discussion could be better contained. I would like to stick with the time period from 1993 to now. If that is not Ok with you please let me know. If it is OK with you please explain to me why you feel the "Peace Process"(time after the Oslo Accords) didn't actually produce a peace? Explain why violence towards Israel actually increased after Oslo was signed.
JonUs
A response to follow for Dan P.
response
by irhdlo
Monday, May. 05, 2003 at 5:21 PM
well, if someone invaded western pennsylvania and decided to found and "racially pure" jewish state, and started blowing up your houses and deporting you and your neighbors. how would you feel?
dan
by -
Monday, May. 05, 2003 at 5:41 PM
At the very heart of the issue of Palestine is dispossession and displacement. In 1948 and again in 1967 wars fought resulted in massive displacement of *civilian* inhabitants of Palestine.
In 1948 Israel begged the Arabs to stay and work with them to form a new country. Those arabs "fled" because Trans-Jordan and Iraq told them to get out of there so they could kill the Jews. In 1967 some arabs fled Israel but that was mostly to get out of the way of the arab armies who were attacking. Oh, and during these same years millions of jews fled Arab countries. What about their right of return?
These are the people who today reside as refugees in the occupied Palestinian territories, in Jordan, in Syria, in Lebanon, and in other various places around the world. In short, they've been seriously shafted, and that's what Palestinian solidarity is all about.
They have been shafted, by the Arab nations who told them to flee and then refused to take them in. Maybe it's time the Palestinians realize they have just been pawns in the Arab governments game to control their own people and to destroy Israel.
Unfortunately, this is not what has happened on the ground. On the ground in Palestine, massive numbers of refugees were created and prohibited from returning to their homes
They chose to leave at the behest of the Arab nations who wanted to invade, why should they be allowed to return? Those arab nations told them to come over and then lost the war(s) so they should have to take care of them.
while at the same time Israel accepted (and in some cases used force to terrorize people into emmigrating from their home countries) Jewish immigrants from around the world.
As for the forced emmigration I can't speak, because I've honestly never heard of such a thing (although maybe what the Arab nations did in '48 to force the palestinians out of Israel counts?) But on the other point, should a nation not have the right to accept immigrants? Israel was a legally created nation, and keep in mind the palestinians would have what they are asking for today if they had just accepted the plan in '48 and not invaded Israel.
Something in innately wrong if land is being denied to people who lived there just years ago and given to people whose claim to the land is based on the religion they practice and the fact that 5,000 years ago people who practiced that religion lived there.
Palestine had a large percentage of Jews throughout history, and the Arabs left on their own I can't see why they should have the right to return. My great-grandparents left Ireland 100 years ago, should I now be allowed to return and take back their land? Can I blow up the people living there now?
On the ground in Palestine, those who resided west of the Green Line in 1949 are second class citizens in a state that treats them no better (some would argue worse) than African Americans were treated in the 1950s.
The arabs in Israel still have more rights and freedoms than those in Jordan or Syria. They'd probably have even more if the Israeli population had a reason to stop worrying that every arab was going to blow up a restaurant filled with little kids.
On the ground in Palestine, those who resided east of the green line by the time the conflict was over are forced to live under what amounts to a permanent military occupation while the land they thought they would have soverignty over continues to be given away to ultra-nationalist settlers.
They thought they would have soverignty over the land the UN tried to give them? But they turned down the UN's offer and invaded Israel, and lost. They can't claim "but I thought we would win and have soverignty!" They could have had it, but they chose to take a risk. They lost.
That being said, it is not just to resolve the problem by punishing Jews. Jews should not be kicked out of Israel. I would make the case that a settler in the West Bank not be forced to leave, either. Peace and justice will not happen until people can live as equals WITH A BLIND EYE TO THEIR RELIGION AND ETHNICITY in the land, regardless of what the state they live in is called, and regardless of how power is distributed. There also needs to be some form of resolution to the refugee problem.
I agree 99% with this statement. The only part I don't agree with is the "refugee problem" part, just because I don't see a refugee problem, at least in regards to Israel. We should be demanding to know why Jordan, Egypt, and Syria all turned their backs on people they asked to come to them.
Response to Dan P.
by JonUs
Monday, May. 05, 2003 at 5:43 PM
Dan P,
Regarding the refugee issue, no one can say that there was not a massive flow of refugees from Israel during the wars. One fact that is constantly overlooked is the fact that a ton of Jewish refugees were ejected from Arab contries at the same time palestinain refugees left Israel. The fact is the Palestinian refugees could easily have become members of other contries, much like the Jewish Refugees became citizens of Israel. Other than that I would agree with most of what you said.
I would like to discuss why you think the "Oslo Peace Accords" have not brought peace? Thanks for your thoughts
JonUs
irhdlo
by ~
Monday, May. 05, 2003 at 5:46 PM
well, if someone invaded western pennsylvania and decided to found and "racially pure" jewish state, and started blowing up your houses and deporting you and your neighbors. how would you feel?
I'd be pissed off. Now If the US decided to let PA go, and the UN offerred to divide the state into "Eastern PA" and "Western PA" and the Eastern PA people didn't agree so they attacked Western PA multiple times and funded terrorist organizations who blow up restaurants filled with kids, I'd say "Nuke Eastern PA, they suck."
Guess which situation is closer to the Israel one. They didn't invade (and in most cases they had been living there for generations) and they didn't start deporting Arabs until they got sick of being blown up by terrorists.
what?
by JonUs
Monday, May. 05, 2003 at 5:52 PM
irhdlo,
Although I respect your opinion I think you are vastly misinformed. The jews do NOT want to create a "racialy pure" state in Israel. Propaganda is one of the major problems with the situation in question and what you just said is just that.
JonUs
fairy tale
by ~
Monday, May. 05, 2003 at 6:04 PM
The majority of us tend to bet on the underdog. It's hard to feel bad for the Apache pilot who is getting rocks thrown at him while he is chain-gunning litte kids.
Really? It's hard for me to feel bad for the guys blowing up restaurants and schools. Oh, and you forgot to mention the guys with machine guns hiding behind the little kid throwing the rocks. You know, the ones the Apache pilot was trying to hit because they were spraying fire at a marketplace filled with innocent people?
he only nation in the mid-east allowed to have WMD's,
Uhh...pretty much every nation in the Middle East is allowed to have them. For instance Syria has tons.
attack it's neighbors,
Lots of Arab nations have repeatedly invaded Israel. Hell, in 1948 the palestinians were offerred exactly what they claim to want today, but they turned it down in favor of invading Israel. Whoops, bad decision.
attack US warships,
That was an accident, and we forgave them. FF happens.
spy on the US,
They probably do spy on us, but I highly doubt we "allow" them to.
has broken more UN resolutions than all other countries combined
Ok, those are General Assembly resolutions and mean literally nothing. If you wanted to you could probably get one passed that states "The UN hereby declares the color Red to actually be Blue." But while we're talking about them, why have none of the arab nations called for a resolution denouncing violence on both sides? Why have they vetoed any they felt were too "harsh" towards the palestinians?
and openly conducts genocide.
Yeah, they're openly attempting to kill all murderers and terrorists. How dare they...Maybe if Hamas, Fateh, and Islamic Jihad would stop hiding behind little kids the job would be a little easier.
The whole idea is based on mythological claim to land.
Really? I thought it was based on the jews who have lived there for centuries. I guess the nomadic arab tribes who moved to Palestine after 1920 (when the jews had cleaned up much of the land) have a more pressing "right" to the land they willingly left in '48 out of blind hatred for the jews?
The Irish in the occupied six counties? Fuck 'em. The native Americans? Fuck em. East Timor? Fuck 'em. The Kashmir? Fuck 'em.
Oh, the native americans chose to leave?
It is hard for me to fathom why an historically persecuted people who now experience some safety and respect would go to the only place on earth where they are violently persecuted.
Again, a large portion of the jews in Israeli circa 1948 had been living there for generations, so it's not like they up and decided to move to a place where they are attacked non-stop for ~80 years. But it's nice to see someone on the palestinians side finally recognizing their actions for what they are, violent persecution.
Perhaps a better question would be why are the proponents of empire backing Israel unconditionally?
Maybe because the same countries so hostile towards Israel are also hostile towards us? Because we recognize the UN's rule in the creation of Israel and we recognize that Israel is a state with rights? Because everyone else seems hellbent on backing the arab terrorists and racists for no apparent reason?
About Israel
by Sam
Monday, May. 05, 2003 at 6:59 PM
Well, I'm sure not everyone in the anti-war movement is against Zionism, though most are, as you've correctly observed.
Palestine -- modern day Israel and the Occupied Territories -- rightfully belongs to the Palestinians. The Palestinians have lived in Palestine for hundreds of years, and are the descendants of the land's original inhabitants.
While under British colonial rule, the Palestinians were promised independence. Zionist terrorists -- who wanted the land all for themselves -- attacked British targets. The British eventually handed control over Palestine over to the UN. A partition plan was formulated and implemented by the UN. The problem with this plan was that the land allocated for the Jewish state had a majority Arab population. Under the Zionist state, these Arabs would be denied representation, their land confiscated, etc. In 1948, Zionist death squads massacred 254 Palestinian civilians in the village of Deir Yassin. They raped, looted, cut off limbs, and dynamited houses. Deir Yassin was one of hundreds of Zionist ethnic cleansing operations (led by a future Prime Minister of Israel, Menachem Begin). 780,000 Palestinians fled the county, fearing for their lives.
Shortly after Deir Yassin, Israel declared independence. You see, both sides fought the partition plan, as both wanted more land. This conflict led to rioting and eventually a war. The Arab forces were badly outnumbered and outgunned by the Zionists. By the time the war was over, Israel had taken three-fourths of Palestine. There was no Arab state. Jordan took possession of the West Bank, Egypt of Gaza.
At this point, it's necessary to clear up a few myths. First of all, the Arabs didn't oppose Zionism on anti-Semitic grounds. Indeed, from the Dark Ages through the Rennaisance, scores of Jews fled Christian Europe for the Middle East. In Christian Europe, they were hunted and burned; in the Islamic Middle East, they were granted many legal protections, and many held positions of high political importance. Palestine accepted more Jews fleeing the Holocaust than any other part of the world, and 13,000 Palestinians volunteered to fight the Nazis in WWII. Rather, they were upset that their land was being stolen and their right to self-determination denied.
Arabs living in Israel faced (and still face) repression. They were prohibited from owning land and from voting. There were (and still are) Jewish-only roads.
Nasser came to power in Egypt at around the same time Sharett did in Israel. Nasser expressed tolerance and respect for Israel. He refused military aid from the U.S., accepting only economic aid. Sharett was on the verge of signing a peace treaty with Egypt.
Then, in 1954, Israeli terrorists attacked American installations in Egypt, trying to rig it so the attacks would be blamed on Egyptians. They got caught, however. This event convinced Nasser that the Israelis couldn't be trusted, so he broke off peace talks and started accepting military aid. It is now known the David Ben Gurion, Israel's first Prime Minister, was, in fact, behind the attacks. He had intended to provoke a war.
In 1956, Israel launched an unprovoked attack on Egypt aimed at demolishing Egypt's growing military. During this campaign (the Sinai Campaign), thousands of Arab Israelis were expelled from the country. After the war, the occupying Israeli Army, slaughtered hundreds of Palestinians and looted their homes in Gaza.
In 1967, Israel launched another unprovoked attack on Egypt. At this time, Israel's military was *much* stronger than that of all the Arab armies combined, so it's probably not true that Egypt had been planning to attack Israel first. In this war, Israel took the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank. Further ethnic cleansing operations following the '67 war expelled half a million Arabs from the conquered territories.
In 1973, during the Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur, Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack on Israeli army encampments in the annexed territories. They did *not* attack Israel, only IDF forces, in an attempt to regain the territories that ha dbeen stolen from them. The attacks came only after Israel had rebuffed several Arab attempts at peaceful settlement, including Sadat's famous 1971 offer, which included better conditions (for Israel) than the one finally accepted in 1979. 15,000 Arabs were killed in the Yom Kippur War. 2,552 Israelis were killed.
130,000 of the Palestinians who had fled from Israel in 1948 went to Lebanon. By then, Ben Gurion and his cronies were plotting an attack on Lebanon. He said that it would be in Israel's best interest to provoke a civil war between the Christians and Muslims there.
So, Israel set up a puppet group, the South Lebanon Army, which massacred thousands and helped provoke a civil war in Lebanon. Ultimately, Israel took from Lebanon the Golan Heights. This came only after the bloody Two Weeks War. At one point during that war, Israeli forces surrounded the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. They met with their allies, the Phalangists. Ariel Sharon told the Phalangists, "I don't want a single one of them left." They proceeded to kill 800 Palestinian refugees.
The first Intifada (lit. "shaking off" -- the Palestinian protest movement) began in 1987. It took the form primarily of nonviolent resistance. 85 Israelis were killed and 900 Palestinians were killed. The new Intifada, which began in 2000, has been more violent. Around 2,000 Palestinians have been killed. Around a third as many Israelis have been killed.
According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, Israel has been deliberately targeting civilians and unnecessarily repressing political expression. Palestinians are tortured, discriminated against, segregated, and profiled. Those in the Occuped Territories have no political representation. Collective punishments are made frequently. Palestinians resources are used for the good of Israelis. The Palestinians have been forced to endure dire poverty. Their homes are bulldozed to make way for Israeli settlements.
Israel is currently in violation of 69 UN resolutions. It illegally possesses hundreds of nuclear warheads, and has an extensive arsenal of biological and chemical weapons.
Israel is also relies heavily on U.S. aid. Therefore, Americans have a special responsibility to demand an end to Israeli human rights abuses. We must also demand Palestinians statehood and the right of return for Palestinians refugees.
Zionism is racism. It is an ideology that professes the superiority of one ethnic group over another. It is an ideology that allows its followers to think of ethnic cleansing as a moral right.
There is nothing wrong with the emigration of Jews (or anyone else) to Palestine. However, they should coexist as equals with the Arabs. There are those within the Israeli right who really want to see the establishment of "Greater Israel", a Jewish state extending from the Nile to the Tigris.
That said, it's a bit much to expect Israel to just cease to exist. But a Palestinian state should certainly be established.
And now, to head off the inevitable questions about terrorism. First of all, it's worth noting that Israelis, too, have a history of terrorism, and that Palestinians didn't resort to terrorism until long after the Israelis. The first politically-motivated plane hijacking related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was done by Israelis. Indiscriminate bombing campaigns, wars of aggression, and the deliberate targeting of Palestinian civilians (and now, foreign peace activists) easily qualify as terrorist acts.
The killing of Israeli civilians for political purposes is not justified. These acts, however, are not endorsed by the majority of Palestinians, and are not carried out by any group in the PLO (Hezbollah is not part of the PLO). Also, these acts must be seen as acts of futility. Palestinians have been trying to negotiate peacefully for decades, but to no avail. They continue to endure soul-crushing poverty and repression.
The Palestians do have the right to resist foreign occupation by means of violence, however. This right is recognized by the UN. Therefore, actions targeting the IDF and adult settlers in the Occupied Territories --even suicide attacks -- cannot, in that context, be rightly called terrorist acts.
Not defensive wars
by Sam
Monday, May. 05, 2003 at 7:36 PM
JonUs, you're accepting uncritically the assertion that Israel's wars were offensive. This myth has been repudiated even by many Zionist historians. Even Hitler claimed his attack on Poland was defensive.
Menachem Begin: "The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approached do not prove that Nasser was about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."
Yitzhak Rabin [IDF Chief of Staff in 1967]: "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into the Sinai on May 14 would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it."
General Peled: "The thesis that claimed genocide was suspended above our heads in June 1967, and that Israel was fighting for its very existence was only a bluff."
Just prior to the war, the U.S. State Deparment evaluated the situation between Egypt and Israel. It reported that Israel was looking for an excuse to attack the Arabs, that Israel's army was much stronger than that of all the Arab nations combined, and that Israel would win such a war within a week.
An attack on Israel would've been suicidal. As Nasser's conversations with the CIA and U.S. ambassadors reveal, he had absolutely no interest in attacking Israel, only in defending Egypt.
Also, another poster mentioned that only Israel (in the Middle East) is "allowed" to WMDs. You dismissed this claim as a lie. The fact is that Israel alone in the Middle East has nukes -- illegally, but no one does a damn thing about it. Other countries have biological and/or chemical weapons -- but these countries have not agreed to treaties banning these weapons. In other words, Israel is the only country that violates international law in possessing these weapons and gets away with it. Similarly, Iraq has violated many UN resolutions, and everyone knows it. But Israel has violated many more than even Iraq, and most people don't even know about it, let alone demand compliance.
Furthermore, getting rid of Israel's WMDs is a key component of any substantive attempt at disarmament. Certain Arab states have WMDs as a deterrence to Israel, and Israel as a deterrence to Arab states, and other Arab states as a deterrence to them both. Any effort at disarmament that could be successfully implemented must be an attempt to disarm the entire region.
Also, about an Israeli attack on an American ship: yes, it did indeed happen. On June 8, 1967, Israeli planes attacked the American electronics ship Liberty on international waters. They lied and said it was an accident, but it couldn't have been -- they attacked again and again of a period of hours. They even shot lifeboats out of the water. They killed 34 American crewmen and wounded 171. The State Dep't acknowleges that the attack was deliberate.
Response to no-name
by Dan P.
Monday, May. 05, 2003 at 7:49 PM
No-name, in the future, please adopt a monkier so I don't have to call you 'no-name.' :)
Anyhow, as for the points you raise.
In 1948 Israel begged the Arabs to stay and work with them to form a new country. Those arabs "fled" because Trans-Jordan and Iraq told them to get out of there so they could kill the Jews. In 1967 some arabs fled Israel but that was mostly to get out of the way of the arab armies who were attacking. Oh, and during these same years millions of jews fled Arab countries. What about their right of return?
There's no documented, verified evidence of any Arab state calling for people to flee, but there is evidence of them calling for them to stay put. It's widely believed now that many of these radio broadcasts were put out by the Haganah. What reason would an Arab state have for encouraging people to leave? At what time in history has an army in the process of entering a land encouraged people to flee out towards the direction they're coming from? The Arab states wanted people to stay put, precisely because they didn't want to give up land and they didn't want to have to deal with the traffic on the roads to Palestine. Regardless, even if these accusations were true (and that's a huge leap of faith), it does not change the fact that as soon as hostilities end you should be allowed to return. When you're scared into leaving due to war, no matter who is scaring you, you are a victim and if you are a civilian and not a threat you should be allowed back in when the war is over. It doesn't matter why they left.
As for Jewish refugees, they too should be permitted to return to their country of origin if they so desire. There aren't many who do desire, however. I'll address this and the forced immigration together- there is plenty of evidence from both Arab and Israeli historians that some of the first actions of Mossad were to spread propoganda and stage attacks on Jews in Arab states to encourage Jews to leave. David Ben Gurion did not look upon Jews of Middle Eastern descent (Sephardim) very well and instead wanted to get them to Israel to bolster the state's numbers and provide cheap labor.
That being said, there were indeed anti-Jewish actions in many Arab states after the founding of Israel, many of them reprehensible, but it should be noted that Mossad was indeed acting in these countries, and the Arab fears of Zionist spies were not totally unfounded.
They have been shafted, by the Arab nations who told them to flee and then refused to take them in. Maybe it's time the Palestinians realize they have just been pawns in the Arab governments game to control their own people and to destroy Israel.
I don't disagree with you that they've been shafted by the Arab governments as well, but considering Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, etc. are *not* home for the Palestinians, to expect any of those countries to willingly accept them (in some cases- Lebanon- to do so would have grave consequences on stability) or to expect the Palestinians to want to live there (would you want to live in Kentucky because you were kicked out of Pittsburgh?) over Palestine is unfair. Palestine is their home.
As for the forced emmigration I can't speak, because I've honestly never heard of such a thing (although maybe what the Arab nations did in '48 to force the palestinians out of Israel counts?) But on the other point, should a nation not have the right to accept immigrants? Israel was a legally created nation, and keep in mind the palestinians would have what they are asking for today if they had just accepted the plan in '48 and not invaded Israel.
Another factual fallacy here. The UNSCOP majority report gave 56% of Palestine to the Jewish state, whereas Jews only owned 6 to 8 percent of the land in Palestine, representing approximately 20% of the arable land. It would make absolutely no sense for the Palestinians to accept a plan in which they gave up 50% of Palestine that was in Arab hands and got nothing in return. Also, it should be noted that David Ben-Gurion most likely would not have accepted the partition had he felt that the Arab states would have accepted it; there is plenty of good literature to suggest that Zionists were not about to settle for the partition as the UNSCOP report suggested.
Palestine had a large percentage of Jews throughout history, and the Arabs left on their own I can't see why they should have the right to return. My great-grandparents left Ireland 100 years ago, should I now be allowed to return and take back their land? Can I blow up the people living there now?
Palestine has been predominately Arab for millenia. The Arabs left under fear of attack and death, and it is accepted as fact that the Haganah, Stern Gang, and Irgun spread word of attacks similar to Deir Yassin (which, regardless of its actual scope, was exaggerated by the Irgun) to encourage people to flee. Your great grandparents left on their own volition. You haven't spend the past 55 years living in a refugee camp, clinging to the keys of your old home and wondering when you can return.
And nobody has the right to blow anyone up. I'm not supporting terrorism.
The arabs in Israel still have more rights and freedoms than those in Jordan or Syria. They'd probably have even more if the Israeli population had a reason to stop worrying that every arab was going to blow up a restaurant filled with little kids.
This is the same argument used against the civil rights movement- that they're better off here than in Africa. Palestinian Israelis are not Jordanian. They are not Syrian. Why compare them to these states? They should be treated as equals where they are.
Why does Israel feel that by spending less on housing, schools, and general social services for Palestinian communities in Israel that they'll be safer? When did this idea come about, that by shafting a group they're less likely to be mad at you?
I agree 99% with this statement. The only part I don't agree with is the "refugee problem" part, just because I don't see a refugee problem, at least in regards to Israel. We should be demanding to know why Jordan, Egypt, and Syria all turned their backs on people they asked to come to them.
Firstly, Jordan, due to her (now defunct) territorial claims to the West Bank, has treated Palestinians compartively well (they can get citizenship and leave the camps) in an attempt to bolster their claim. I'm surprised you didn't point that out, given the whole "Jordan is Palestine" campaign. But the Palestinians are people who have homes on Palestine as defined as the west of the Jordan. If Israel wants to be the state in that land, it needs to be home to everyone who hails from there. It's just not reasonable to expect people to move because you're creating a new government.
I think I've addressed all of the points you've raised. Let me know if I've missed anything.
Response to JonUs re: Refugees
by Dan P.
Monday, May. 05, 2003 at 8:07 PM
Regarding the refugee issue, no one can say that there was not a massive flow of refugees from Israel during the wars. One fact that is constantly overlooked is the fact that a ton of Jewish refugees were ejected from Arab contries at the same time palestinain refugees left Israel. The fact is the Palestinian refugees could easily have become members of other contries, much like the Jewish Refugees became citizens of Israel. Other than that I would agree with most of what you said. I would like to discuss why you think the "Oslo Peace Accords" have not brought peace? Thanks for your thoughts
Lots to address here. First, the fact that some Jews were forced to leave their homes (although, as I say above, there is evidence to suggest that Mossad 'encouraged' some of this) has no affect on whether or not Palestinians should have been forced to leave their homes, or what justice is in the Palestinian scenario. Also, Jordan accepts Palestinians living in Jordan as citizens, if they want it.
There is something seriously wrong with suggesting that there is a close parallel between the Jewish refugee issues and the Palestinian refugee issues. The Jewish refugees, while many of them were wronged, in the end had to leave their homes because they were accused of being loyal to another state (Israel), and they then had Israel to go to. The Palestinian refugees left because they were too afraid to stay in their homes, and went off to refugee camps in UN tents. Israel is a much nicer home than a refugee camp. I've seen pictures of Israel, and I've seen pictures of the refugee camps. They're not the same. Don't pretend that they're the same.
Think of it this way: Jews were made refugees from Zionism and the founding of Israel. Palestinians were made refugees from Zionism and the founding of Israel. Everyone who left their home when they wished they could stay was wronged, but the Jews who were made refugees did at least get to benefit from Zionism and Israel, whereas Palestinians never benefited at all from Zionism and Israel. There isn't a large anti-Zionist movement in Israel coming from people who made aliyah in the early 1950s because they left Arab countries. Most are pretty happy where they are.
As for Oslo, Edward Said has written on the subject thorougly and I highly recommend what he has to say. Some of my opinions (borrowing from Said) follow
Oslo wasn't in a great position to do well because what it did was establish autonomous areas for Palestinians living in the territories, but not statehood or soverignty. It, combined with other factors I'll dicuss, failed to improve the lives of Palestinians as well as it could have, but at the same time Palestinians believed (in many ways correctly) that the party at fault was Israel, not the PA.
Oslo essentially did nothing more than transfer maintenance of the territories to the PA from Israel. The PA ended up guarding Israel's prison. The corruption of the PA just made things worse.
Oslo failed to answer questions such as the status of Palestinian Israelis, or refugees who wished to return. It's this problem that will make most two-state solutions very difficult to implement.
Also, Netanyahu was elected on a campaign of fighting Oslo, and when Likud came to power he made it clear that the state of Israel would recognize Oslo only to the bare minimum obligations, and would not go any further than that. The Israeli government was not carrying on in the spirit of Oslo. In this light, perhaps Yigal Amir's assassination of Yithzak Rabin ruined any chance that Oslo had (albeit an extremely slim chance) at ending violence.
Settlement growth continued, in fact, peaked, under Oslo. If you were a Palestinian, what Oslo meant for you was that the PA would be the forces keeping you from returning home, that the IDF would be still be running checkpoints, and that the land you thought would become your state would still be taken up by settlements.
Where did Oslo fail? I ask you, where was Oslo a success? What did the average Palestinian gain from Oslo, real or on paper?
The only success of the whole Madrid-Oslo process is that it, ever so slightly, brought the parties closer together. And now, it seems like much of that has been undone. And that's not easy to watch.
Racial purity in Israel
by Dan P.
Monday, May. 05, 2003 at 8:16 PM
JonUs, you're correct in saying that there's no significant Israeli sources calling for racial purity in Israel. That's because Judaism is not a race. It's not an ethnicity, either. That's not a political stance (the political stance is whether Jews are a nation or not, and I won't even go into it because it's inconsequential to me), it's a religious and a scholarly science. Jewish ethnic groups in Israel are Sephardi, Ashkenazi, Mizrahi, Ethiopian. Nobody in the Israeli establishment is calling for ethnic purity.
Religious purity, however, is something that is very important to the Israeli psyche and establishment. Israel is very considered about the "demographic threat" that non-Jews pose to the state, and it fuels talk, some even inside the establishment, of deporting non-Jews. Israel is not a country in which you can be Christian or Muslim and feel very welcome. The reason groups like the JNF hold events like Birthright Israel is to encourage aliyah, which is done for the purpose of keeping the Jewish population of Israel high (Jewish birthrates are lower than non-Jewish birthrates in Israel). Read up on the demographic threat and Israel, it's rather interesting.
Racial purity, no. Ethnic purity, no. Religious purity? Of course. If religious purity were not a concern, they'd annex the territories, make Israel a secular state, and give everyone equal citizenship under law (with a constitution!) and probably end the conflict.
Sam
by JonUs
Monday, May. 05, 2003 at 9:08 PM
Sam,
I have never seen any documentation stating that the british promised the "Palestinians" an independent country of their own. Although I'm sure you've heard of or read the Balfour Declaration. In which the British declared their desire for an independent Jewish state.
Also in your writing about the events of 1948 i think you forgot to mention a few things. Like the fact that the palestinians, turned down having an independent state of their own. Also you forgot to mention the fact that Israel was attacked by about 670,000 troops from 4 different foreign nations.
Also in the Dir Yassin event it has been confirmed even by Palestinian researchers(Bir Zeit University ) that only about 110 - 120 arabs were killed. Also the population was warned the night before to leave the city. Iraqi soldier were actually begining to fortify the city and snipe at Israelis from within the city. It doesn't seem like so much of a "Massacare" under those circumstances does it?
You seem to portray Israel as the aggressor in the war that happened after Israel declared independence. It was not, Israel was attacked and defended itself.
I honestly do not have much knowledge on Ben Gurion so if you have some links to websites or book recomendations please let me know.
Zionism is in fact not racism. See Dan P. remarks on the topic.
On another note, the Palestinians do have political representation. They have the Palestinian Authority. Which was elected in 1996. In 1999 before the the 2000 infitada 95% of the occupied terretories were under PA control.
About terrorism you stated that palestinians have a right to commit suicide bombings and the like. That has not been true since 1993 when the PA agreed to provide security in the areas that they controled.
Sorry for ignoring a lot of you post but i'm running short on time.
JonUs
Dan P. I'm short on time
by JonUs
Monday, May. 05, 2003 at 9:15 PM
Running low on time(housework), I will address one point in your responce to the refugees issue and then will get to the dishes :)
You Stated "The Palestinian refugees left because they were too afraid to stay in their homes, and went off to refugee camps in UN tents. Israel is a much nicer home than a refugee camp. I've seen pictures of Israel, and I've seen pictures of the refugee camps. They're not the same. Don't pretend that they're the same."
Why were they afraid? Because Israel was INVADED by 4 foreign countries. It was by no fault of Israels.... You honestly can not blame Israel for being invaded can you?
JonUs
"racially pure"
by Sam B
Monday, May. 05, 2003 at 10:19 PM
Israel is not supposed to be "racially pure" at all. It is simply supposed to function as a safe Jewish homeland. Although I am pro-Israel, I am STRONGLY anti-settlement and pro-Palestinian state, so don't take me as some right-wing idiot. Also, if anything in the world is "racially pure," it is the Muslim holy city of Mecca, which is, by penalty of death, of limits to any non-Muslim. While there are some foolish and ideologically-backwards Jews in settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, most people in major Israeli cities such as Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and Chaifa do not support these fringe-Jews and do not support killing of Arabs. And on a final note, while Israel is being careless and somewhat cruel in occupying the pre-1967 territories, there is no "systematic-genocide" of Arabs. If there was, there would be no more Palestinians, as Israel army is often regarded as second only to America's, and Palestine has neither an organized state nor an organized army.
Questionably history...
by Dan P.
Monday, May. 05, 2003 at 10:43 PM
I have never seen any documentation stating that the british promised the "Palestinians" an independent country of their own. Although I'm sure you've heard of or read the Balfour Declaration. In which the British declared their desire for an independent Jewish state.
This is simply inaccurate. I quote the Balfour declaration: "His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people... it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." It's of note that Balfour was not authorized to say "Jewish state." It's also of note to say that under the Jewish national home nothing could be done to infringe the rights of the indigenous population (Palestinians).
On another note, the Palestinians do have political representation. They have the Palestinian Authority. Which was elected in 1996. In 1999 before the the 2000 infitada 95% of the occupied terretories were under PA control.
This is inaccurate as well. First, the body that Israel and the rest of the world has officially recognized as the political representative of the Palestinian people is the Palestine Liberation Organization. The Palestinian Authority is the elected body which represents the Palestinians living inside of the Gaza and the West Bank. There is a difference. Your figures are also off. By the end of 1999, 64% of the West Bank fell under full Israeli control (Area C- note that Oslo officially reads this as outcome to be determined, but what this amounts to is settlers have essential free reign), 26% of the West Bank fell uner PA civil control and Israeli military control, and just 10% fell under PA security and civil administration. My source for this is the Amnesty International Report 2000: Palestinian Authority. It's available online.
It is the right of a people under occupation to resist occupation. The Fourth Geneva convention is THE document to read on this. And again, note that the PA never had security control of more than 10% of the West bank.
Why were they afraid? Because Israel was INVADED by 4 foreign countries. It was by no fault of Israels.... You honestly can not blame Israel for being invaded can you?
This is revisionist history. First, in April 1948 Zionists had 30,000 armed men and women (15,000 were "online"), 10,000 for local defense, 25,000 as a home guard. In addition, there were 2,000 paramilitarists (terrorist would be an accurate term) in the Irgun and 800 in the Stern Gang. Compare this to 40,000 Arab forces total. (Source: A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Bickerton, Clausner). You seem eager to blame the creation of the refugees on the Arab states, but you should compare the 1949 Armstice lines to the UNSCOP partition plan, and note the lack of significant Palestinian fighting in the region, largely because they didn't know if they could trust any of the Arab regulars.
The fact is, Israel knew full well that it was declaring war on the Arab states when it declared independence. It did not declare her borders, it made it clear that they at least included what the UN General Assembly RECOMMENDED should go to the Jewish State- which included a significant amount of Arab-owned land, and in fact, it has never declared her borders or territorial ambition since. To sum up the 1948 conflict as being purely the fault of the Arab states and not the fault of Israel is silly. It's just not accurate. Arab armies did not simply walk into Palestine one day for the hell of it.
sam on settlers, etc.
by david
Tuesday, May. 06, 2003 at 12:42 AM
sam writes, While there are some foolish and ideologically-backwards Jews in settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, most people in major Israeli cities such as Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and Chaifa do not support these fringe-Jews and do not support killing of Arabs.
1. if "most people" don't support the settlers or the killing of palestinians, why have they elected a party that does?
israeli military & occupation policy has been to use overwhelming force. that force has caused the deaths of thousands of palestinians. "most people" have supported that brutal policy. therefore, "most people" support the killing of palestinians.
sam's only rebuttal, as far as i can see, would be to argue that the isreali government does not represent "most people". that could very well be true -- and i certainly hope it is true. however, that doesn't absolve "most people" of the moral responsiblity to change a goverment that is committing acts (in their name) that are morally wrong.
in the same way, those oppose the war on iraq have a moral responsibililty to take action against our government's policy.
Thank You
by JonUs
Tuesday, May. 06, 2003 at 11:40 AM
Thank you Dan and others for your feed back. I understand that we disagree and that is fine. I appriciate your opinions. I would now like to move onto the period from 1993- now and why the peace process has not worked. Any thoughts?
JonUs
More on the failure of Oslo
by Dan P.
Tuesday, May. 06, 2003 at 1:54 PM
JonUs, I addressed this above, but I'll summarize key points.
Oslo failed because it bought nothing for the average Muhammed on the ground. All it did was shift civil responsiblity from Israel to the PA for 36% of the West Bank and nearly all of Gaza (don't have figures for Gaza) and security responsibly from Israel to the PA for 10% of the West Bank (and nearly all of Gaza). They gave the PA administration of the people, but no land. They gave the PA autonomy, but soverignty. It was a treaty to continue occupation, and not end it. It failed to address any Palestinian grievances or acknoweldge any Palestinian rights.
The Oslo process failed because of incompetent leadership: elements of corruption in the PA, and Netanyahu and the Likud rising to power (on a platform of going against Oslo) in Israel. It failed because the negotiations in 2000 were rushed (prenegotiations were still being fruitful yet the date was rushed for a final summit, along the lines of Barak's whole all-or-nothing philsophy), in part due to Clinton's desire to be the man associated with a lasting peace in Israel. It failed to address refugees. It failed ot address the rights of Palestinian Israelis. It failed to halt settlements, or otherwise explain that the settlements would not be a threat to a Palestinian state.
The Oslo process failed because it was a process, and with Rabin killed by a Jewish extremist and just months later Netanyahu in his place, personalities between leadership started to conflict far more than they had before. The Oslo process failed because, in the end, it was nothing more than an agreemend to ease the cost of Israeli occupation.
Tell me, why do you think Oslo failed?
On Israel's electoral system
by Dan P.
Tuesday, May. 06, 2003 at 1:58 PM
A friend of mine and myself have long discussed a theory that the proportional representation system in Israel allows fringe elements to exert more control than they would be able to if elections were district based with first past the post representation.
In other words, it's very possible that the actions of the coalitions differ from the will of the majority more in Israel than they do in say, the United States.
There IS plenty of evidence out there to suggest that most Israelis would be in favor of dismantling settlements in exchange for peace. The real question is who moves first and how is peace guaranteed, etc. Try to understand the Israeli mindset: fear is the name of the game and trust is to be given to nobody. It certainly complicates things.
Some resons for failure
by JonUs
Tuesday, May. 06, 2003 at 2:50 PM
Dan,
Thanks again for your response. I feel there are a ton of reasons for the Oslo Accords not working. I feel it was not specific in its steps. I have read it over and over again and other than a few peices of the document it just says basicly "this will happen" and gives no time line. It did not address return of refugees. I would argue that it did give something to the average "Muhammed " on the street. It gave them territory that was controled by the PA, it gave them a chance for peace, it gave them elections to elect the people in power over the PA controled lands(haven't taken place since 1996 from what I've read), it gave them the first steps towards an independent state. I eel it didn't work because the Palestinian National Covenant(PNC), basicaly the charter for the PLO, has to this day never been changed. The PNC still says that Israel is an illegal state and the only means of force can deal with it.
Gaza and Jericho were completly handed over to the PA on May 14 1994. Those cities were free of Israeli Defence Forces and should have been the foothold of a new Palestinian state.
The fact that just 1 year after the signing the average Israeli felt they could not trust the Palestinian because of increased terrorism against them. Palestinian action have not been conducive to peace with Israel. Look at some of the comments made by PA leadership about the peace process.
�Had the U.S. and Israel realized, before Oslo, that all that was left of the Palestinian National movement and the Pan-Arab movement was a wooden horse called Arafat or the PLO, they would never have opened their fortified gates and let it inside their walls�
This effort [the Intifada] could have been much better, broader, and more significant had we made it clearer to ourselves that the Oslo agreement, or any other agreement, is just a temporary procedure, or just a step towards something bigger... We distinguish the strategic, long-term goals from the political phased goals, which we are compelled to temporarily accept due to international pressure. � [Palestine] according to the higher strategy [is]: �from the river to the sea.� Palestine in its entirety is an Arab land, the land of the Arab nation.�
Faisal Husseini, Palestinian Authority Representative for Jerusalem Affairs
[Al-Arabi' -Egypt, 24 June 2001]
There are many more comments like this which state that any peace with Israel is just temporary. I don't see how the Israeli's could trust Palestinians knowing what they do.
I think that the lose of Rabin was probably one of the most important things to happen to the peace process in the 1990's.
There are obviously more reasons (enough for books), but I feel these are some of the bigger ones. What say Ye?
JonUs
Electoral Systems
by JonUs
Tuesday, May. 06, 2003 at 3:04 PM
Dan,
I had not really thought about the electoral system of Israel and perhaps you are right about that. It is definitly something to think about.
While we are on the subject of electoral systems though why not look at the PA's? The PA is made up by a 84 member congress correct?(forgive me i have not official numbers easily accessible) With Yassar Arafat as the head of the PA government. These members were elected in 1996. And have yet to be re-elected 7 years later. That is a pretty substantial amount of time, especially with no general elections in site.
Also do you feel as though Abu Mazen being appointed prime minister will have any substantial effect on the current situation?
Jonus
(Hopefully) Final Thoughts
by Dan P.
Tuesday, May. 06, 2003 at 4:53 PM
We seem to agree on many points on why Oslo failed. However, I think you need to consider the following:
The Palestinian people are not the PA, and in fact the PLO (of which Fatah is a faction, Fatah being the predominate party of the PA) was not headquartered in Palestinian territories at the time of Madrid/Oslo. It's said that Arafat and his gang are referred to as "Tunisians" by many on the ground in Palestine.
As part of the Oslo process, Arafat gave up claims to 78% of Palestine (as defined after 1922 by Britain) but in exchange his claim to 22% was not acknoweldged by Israel.
The politics of the PA are not very important at this point in time. What we have is not a war between states, or between a war and terrorist groups, but rather a war between two peoples, one of them (Palestnians) almost entirely civilian. Peace is in the hand of those with power, and as it stands now, that would be Israel. There is no parity in this conflict.
My (hopefully) final thoughts and a short reply to yours
by JonUs
Tuesday, May. 06, 2003 at 5:52 PM
Dan,
In reply to your final thoughts. I understand that the palestinian people are not the PA but they did elect the PA. Which I honestly do not understand since Arafat is not even technically a Palestinian, he is an egytian.
Also the PA does have a "Police Force" about twice the size of what it is allowed to have(allowed 20,000 have 39,000) and equiped with more weaponry than it is allowed to have so please don't act like they are defensless.
I think I see the difference in our opinions about the situation. You feel as though the responsibility is on Israel soley to bring peace and I feel as though it should be 50/50. At least that is how I understand it from your last statement.
I really appriciate your response to this topic and would like to keep in contact with you, if you want. If you do please give me your email, since I would be the most likely to recieve hate mail from this site. :(
Either way nice talking to you.
JonUs
Contact me...
by Dan P.
Tuesday, May. 06, 2003 at 9:57 PM
I'm reluctant to link indymedia posts with personal information now, but if you email me at bugg42@hotmail.com I'll email you my actual email address. (Of course, this alone has been enough to link me to a million other things... oh well)
Talk along the lines of Arafat not being Palestinian but Egyptian are rooted in rejectionism of Palestinian nationality. Arafat's mother hails from Jerusalem and he has spent his life living with fellow Palestinians, living in places like Gaza, etc. He is of the al-Husseini clan, which is perhaps the most notable Palestinian family of the 20th century. His culture is distinctly and uniquely Palesitnian.
dan
by fisch
Tuesday, May. 06, 2003 at 10:23 PM
He is of the al-Husseini clan, which is perhaps the most notable Palestinian family of the 20th century. His culture is distinctly and uniquely Palesitnian.
Ah, the al-Husseini clan. It's amazing to me that a group with such a longstanding history of Nazi support, genecide, and terrorism hasn't been wiped off the face of this planet. Even Arafat had to change his name to avoid being associated with it (his real name is Abd al-Rahman abd al-Bauf Arafat al-Qud al-Husseini.) Another infamous al-Husseini member is Haj Amin al-Husseini. He was from Palestine and was appointed 'grand mufti' of Jerusalem by the British after he organized a jewish massacre in 1920. He also moved to Berlin during WW2 and was instrumental in organizing the Bosnian Muslim legions of the Waffen SS. During all of this he openly pushed for the elimination of all Jews around the world. In 1936 he created the "Arab Higher Committee" which existed solely to target Jews and political enemies. Several members of this Committee later went on to form something called Fatah. Looks like Arafat's apple didn't fall far from that tree. I wonder if the jews Arafat had killed in the '72 olympics were related to the jews his ancester killed in 1920?
No apologies...
by Dan P.
Tuesday, May. 06, 2003 at 10:57 PM
I will not apologize for al-Husseini allying himself with Hitler, but it should be noted that 1. there are plenty of early Zionists who aligned themselves with Hitler, believing that a worsening of the Jewish situation in Europe would prompt immigration to Palestine, and 2. the factor that motivated any cooperation (and the overwhelming majority of it- if not all of it- was not materially substantial, rather political) was the rise of Zionism leading to the dispossession of Arabs, not an innate hatred of Jews.
Just putting it into context. But yes, it's still wrong to ally yourself with Nazism, in any way, but it's important to put it into perspective... and not to hold Arafat responsible for what his relatives did, and judge him solely on what he has done.
Dan P. - Well done
by Mike
Wednesday, May. 07, 2003 at 2:14 AM
mrossimc@yahoo.com
Dan P.
I have just read all of the above postings and would like to commend you on a debate well-played. As an objective observer I found your arguments to be far better sourced, articulated, and responsive than Jonus'. The civil mannor of the discussion is to be admired, but I hope that Jonus can bring him/herself to re-think many of her/his beliefs, especially since you dispelled about 90% of them as myths to which he/she had no response (the response to his post about the Balfour declaration was BRUTAL, among other).
Well done. Keep the truth rollin.
a bit of levity
by JONAS M.
Wednesday, May. 07, 2003 at 2:27 PM
First of all, "jonUs"-- is a bit close to my name. when I click "search" on Indymedia for "jonUs", the only items I find are recent-- in this "dicussions on israel" link. Due to this fact, I assume that "jonUs" is a mere tactic you are using to create a bit of chaos. Please, if it is your intention to mix your "name" with mine, in order to create disorder and confusion, refrain from doing so next time. If I am completely mistaken, and "jonUs" is legit, then I will refrain next time from using my real name "JONAS", but something close to, in order not to confuse myself with you and your views on the issue around the Palestine-Israeli conflict. I have had a couple people ask me why I am commenting in such ways on Indymedia as "jonUs" has been because they know my stance on this issue.
Thanks.
And for anyone out there who may be questioning this same thing, please do not be fooled.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The following is a song by "The Iron Sheik", a Palestinian American hip hop artist that is coming to Pittsburgh to perform at the Shadow Lounge on June 12th. This event is organized by the PSC (Pittsburgh Palestine Solidarity Committee) and OPTICS (Organizing Pgh To Increase Communit Solidarity). More info is soon to be posted and distributed.
OLIVE TREES
>
>Trouble began before 1948
>When Zionists founded the Israeli state
>Zionism called for a Jewish homeland
>But they picked Palestine as a land with no man
>One major flaw with all of this:
>They forgot the indigenous populace!
>Native Arab Muslims and Christians
>Didn’t they notice that something is missing?
>They left native Arabs all out of their view
>Zionism’s goals were heavily skewed
>Newcomers settled up in the country-side
>In separation just like Apartheid
>Jewish roads, schools, and hospitals
>But also paramilitary patrols
>
>These are the seeds of 48’
>From colonial control to the Jewish state
>It’s not a mistake, though
>It’s not a mistake, no
>Life in exile, is that our fate?
>Life in exile, that’s our fate?
>Life in exile, that’s our fate?
>
>CHORUS:
>
>They exiled us and stole our homes
>Now all we have are old keys and new poems
>They turned us into refugees
>And uprooted us like our olive trees
>…olive trees.
>
>REFRAIN
>
>In 1917 the British gave away our nation
>With Lord Balfour’s stupid declaration
>They had no right to give it away
>But guess what?
>They did it anyway!
>And once again the natives had no say
>You know the British acted like they ruled the earth
>And the Israelis think they got it by birth
>Yeah right man!
>Who lived on the land?
>And who had to use force with their hand?
>I’m surprised by this, they should know better
>Then to move on our land as a settler
>I mean that word says it all
>Some say it’s not their choice, that it’s God’s call
>But to me that’s called manifest destiny
>I thought that went out of style in the last century
>Now we’re held captive to their public opinion
>As a Palestinian I feel more like an Indian
>Driven into reservations
>Living under occupation
>As a shattered nation
>A western creation
>
>CHORUS
>
>Last time, I went jogging in the park
>But now we can’t go outside
>Cuz we’ll get shot
>Or as Benjamin Netanyahu might like to put it:
>we jumped in front of that Israeli bullet.
>But who can believe what that sucka say
>He gotta be the biggest yoohoo alive today
>So I searched yahoo for who’s the most sinister
>It came back with Israel’s current prime minister
>Ariel Sharon, a real cabron
>I’d like to meet him in a dark alley and it’s on
>He’d be the Penguin and I’d be Batman
>My flurry of fists would sink that fat man
>Like the Titanic
>it’s time to panic
>I can’t stand it
>cuz’ we’re heading for the bottom of the Atlantic
>Israel and America’s a sinking ship, if we don’t change it soon we’re
going
>down with it.
re:
by irhdlo
Wednesday, May. 07, 2003 at 4:30 PM
If "the jews" didn't want a "racially pure" Jewish state then why the 2 state solution? if this wasn't about creating a decidedly <i>Jewish</i> state then why is there even a conflict in Israel right now? "they" want a state seperate from the Palestinians, if that isn't and attempt for "racial" purity, then what is?
Jonas M.
by JonUs
Wednesday, May. 07, 2003 at 5:54 PM
It is no mere tactic to create disorder or to ruin your name. I hardly post here(as I actually live in Albuquerque now) and didn't know you posted here. I use the same signature on a lot of message boards, sorry to have caused the confusion with your freinds but they must realize your not the only Jonas :)
JonUs
"seperate"
by paper
Wednesday, May. 07, 2003 at 6:16 PM
If "the jews" didn't want a "racially pure" Jewish state then why the 2 state solution? if this wasn't about creating a decidedly Jewish state then why is there even a conflict in Israel right now? "they" want a state seperate from the Palestinians, if that isn't and attempt for "racial" purity, then what is?
Er, I think maybe if you actually read up a bit it's the palestinians who are screaming for a separate state. Israel would probably be quite content with taking all of it. It's also very important to remember that the Palestinians were offerred their own separate states 3 times now. The first 2 they turned it down and attacked Israel instead, the last time they took the deal and attacked Israel anyway.
As for the rest of your post, Israel has a lot more than just Jews, including a sizable Arab population (both Muslim and Christian) so you're argument doesn't really hold, since what *is* considered Israel isn't anywhere near "racially pure"
Bad history...
by Dan P.
Thursday, May. 08, 2003 at 12:46 AM
Er, I think maybe if you actually read up a bit it's the palestinians who are screaming for a separate state. Israel would probably be quite content with taking all of it. It's also very important to remember that the Palestinians were offerred their own separate states 3 times now. The first 2 they turned it down and attacked Israel instead, the last time they took the deal and attacked Israel anyway
Again, faulty history here. The PLO from its inception in 1964 until 1988 had always, always, always called for a single secular state. The PLO has always held that Jews can be Palestinians- and as time progressed from 1964 to 1988 that slowly changed from "Those living in Palestine prior to the Zionist invasion" to pretty much all Israelis; as Israelis stayed and it became clear they were no longer immigrants, it became clear to all but the craziest of Palestinians that in a single Palestine that they too would be Palestinian.
What caused the PLO to eventually endorse the two state solution? Pressure from Israel and the United States. And they weren't able to do so without significant resistance from many of their own people, who feel (arguably correctly) that unless everyone is in one state, that they're going to get screwed with a canton or a reservation and be far from equals. What does Hamas, the PLO's largest opponent, envison? A single state with religious rulers, a la Iran. And that doesn't necessairly imply persecution of religious minorities, look at Iran- a quarter million Iranian Jews all get by without having it all that bad (granted, that's relative).
If Israel wanted an immediate end to the severity of the conflict as their only goal, they would annex the West Bank and Gaza and make Palestinians equal Israeli citizens. This would have the end result of appeasing most Palestinians (who could now travel freely, find work, etc.) and those who continued to advocate violence resistance would quickly become a fringe element.
But, Israel does have demographic concerns and would never do this. Demographic concerns aren't "racial purity" because Jews are not a race, but it does entail religious purity. I challenge anyone to seriously argue that the Israeli establishment is not concerned with religious purity; I'll counter with a handful of editorals from places like Arutz Sheva about how important religious purity is in the state, etc. Parties like Shas and NRP actually do something, you know.
As for what the Palestinians have been offered, please share when the Palestinians have been offered a state that was a reasonable deal. 1948 original partition plan: Offered a state on a fraction of the land that they owned (i.e. offered a chance to give up a ton of land) 2000: Offered a state with serious soverignty issues (limited military, no foreign policy- this alone means it isn't soverign according to a political scientist) and annexed settlement roads, dividing the West Bank into cantons, etc.
Why No Jewish State?
by Sam B.
Thursday, May. 08, 2003 at 10:18 AM
Okay this is slightly off track but it has some relevence.....
Many of you claim that no religion should have its own state. You say that the Jewish people should not have a state, and that Israel should become entirely secular. But how many of you are actually as anti-Muslim state as you are anti-Jewish state? No one seems to be complaining about the multitude of Muslim states in the Middle East. I do not want to imply that many of you are anti-Semites, but I find it strange that you seem to voice your anti-Israel sentiments much more loudly than you do your anti-Muslim state sentiments, that is if you have any.
Jewish State versus Muslim State
by Dan P.
Thursday, May. 08, 2003 at 12:08 PM
Firstly, I have no objection to a Jewish state for being a Jewish state any more than I have to a Muslim state being a Muslim state. Want to make that clear. I think that neither is ideal in a perfect world, but both are acceptable in our not-so-perfect world.
What isn't acceptable, however, is when that state does anything to severely limit the rights of those who do not follow that religion, and in the case of Israel-Palestine, non-Jews are the majority in the land that Israel controls. That's not a problem in and of itself, the problem is that the non-Jews are either second class citziens or non-citizens living under occupation. If Israel wanted to declare her borders such that it contained a majority of Jews and this majority wasn't dependent on dispossession (i.e. massive chunks of land weren't filled with empty homes, etc.) and the religious minority was treated well, then I would not only not have a problem with it, I'd support it.
In short, the difference between Iran and Israel is that Iran became an Islamic state out of a popular movement, Iran did not create hundreds of thousands of refugees (who now have descendants in the millions) when it became an Islamic state, Iran doesn't deny citizenship to a large number of people who fall under their control on the basis of religion, and Iran isn't seeking to permanently dispossses a people in order to maintain their Muslim majority.
If in whatever solution to the conflict comes about, there is a state with a legitimate Jewish majority, there is absolutely nothing wrong with those people choosing to elect a religious government.
settlers
by spence
Monday, Apr. 19, 2004 at 2:48 PM
treerollin@yahoo.com
I honestly feel more so that the palestine is being threatened by Israel and not the other way around.It is my understanding that what is called Israel was already inhabited by arabs. Someone prove this false someone prove that there was not more arabs on this land than jews by a longshot before 1948. The bottom line is that. the u.s. backs israel's powerful military. Theres is second only to the u.s. itself. palestine won't easily share the fate the original inhabitants of america. the times are different,information is too easily shared. so perhaps israel will one day wipe out 90% of the palestinians like the u.s. did the natives of america. but it will be seen by the entire world. and though it is the victors of war who write history. and history is just the lie that is accepted. those that do this that kill and steal for there own greed will pay dearly in this life or the next.
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)