NEWS: Israeli Settlers Rebuke Sharon's Pullout Plan

I don't justify ANYONE'S deliberate targetting of civilians for death (BTW - that is my definition of terrorism).

The attack on the King David hotel was because it was being used as a command base by the British forces - AND a warning was given before hand. A little different to a Hamas genocide bomber taking out a random pizza house.

They I call them "death cults" because that's EXACTLY what they are - religious cults built around killing people by detonating bombs strapped to themselves. Romantisise and sympathise all you like, but that's what they are and that's what they do.

Perhaps some religious Jews put a God spin on it, but most Jews are fairly secular (especially in Israel). I, am Jewish, but don't believe in God at all. Being jewish is much more than religion. We are a people - a race (or ethnicity if you are going to get picky).

The Irish have a homeland, so do the Italians and now, mercifully, the Jews do too (although people of any race and religion are afforded equal rights there).

For most Jews the establishment and protection of Israel is about the protection & settlement of our race. And after years of persecution by the cossacks, catholics, nazis and (just before the establishment of Israel) the arabs, I think we deserve a homeland.

Would you begrudge Natve Americans a tiny part of America? Because you seem to begrudge Jews having the smallest part of Palestine - even though the Arab Muslim world is fucking HUGE and Israel is the size of Wales.

It is a shame that an innocent person was injured - actually I'm surprised because Hamas often use kids as human shields. They knew Yassin was was probably going to be yassasinated, but still they let him make public appearences near kids. As I say - a great testiment to the IDF that nobody innocent was killed.

I have as much sympathy for human shields as I do for people who take toasters into the bath with them.

I find it ridiculous how people in secure, peaceful western countries tell Israel how it should protect itself from evil death cults who want to murder innocent civilians.

The incidents of sucessful suicide bombings in Israel have dramaticaly decreased and if Israeli bulldozing of houses, building walls and using helicopters to take out Hamas leaders helps protect them, then I don't blame them ONE LITTLE BIT. I'd do whatever it takes to protect my family from people trying to kill them.

Who is to blame for such methods? The terrorists. No terrorism - no terrorism prevention needed.

Indeed - no terrorism, no innocent people killed, no teenage human shields killed, Israel can live in peace and a Palestinian homeland established.

Everybody wins, but before this can happen, the Palestinians need to lay down their arms. In Ulster the IRA laid down their arms WITHOUT the promise of a united Ireland - why is this so difficult for the Palestinians to do WITH the promise of statehood? I genuinely think Hamas WANT the Palestinians to keep living this way.

One argument says that if Israel wasn't so hard on policing the terrorist threat, the violence would die down. This theory has been tried proved wrong so many times, that I can't blame Israel for saying enough is enough. Besides - Israel now has less suicide bombings than ever before, so they must be doing something right.

With the death of Arafat, the ball is in the court of the Palestinians - they can choose the terror route and stay in their present circumstances or they can choose the peace route and get out. Let's see what they decide.

If a couple of million jews turned up in wales and decided they wanted to live there and forced all the welsh people into exile in scotland or northern ireland they wouldn't be too happy.

The palestinian people are an ethnicity as well, they also have an affinity for each other and will fight to protect one another. The 'right' (there are far more fundamental rights as far as rights can be fundamental)) of the jewish people to a homeland does not give them the right to subject another people to inhumane and degrading treatment.

Texas is pretty big, why not move there? it would probably cost the U.S. government (taxpayers) a lot less.

Total bullshit

If the fighting was mainly West of the Jordan, I don't blame people for going East. Many of the upper and middle class Arabs simply relocated to Cairo before the full hostilities got under way. Some Arab civilians were ordered out of there villages by the Arab forces.

In any war people lose land, people flee, people die and borders change.

But you paint this picture of greedy Jews robbing the property of the Goyim (a classic anti-semitic motif)

If the Jews were at all interested in ethnic cleansing and stealing property, why would there be such a sizable Arab population in present day Israel? Why would they have full democratic, social and human rights?

It's typical that you'd paint this ugly picture of the Jews, but neglect to mention the 850,000 Jews who were forced out of Arab countries after the war (or the persecutions, dhimmitude and enforced conversions of Jews by Arabs in the decades before the war) - but there you go!

ha ha ha - nice try - but I seriously don't think that a few miles makes that much of a cultural difference. You are trying to sell me the impression of a wildly different race evolving in less time than Justin Timberlake has been alive

And this in a region with shifting populations that has never known independent nationhood and has been ruled by everyone apart from the Swiss since before the Jews originally got there.

The whole fucking area was called Palestine a mere 24 years before 80% got renamed "Trans-Jordan", so aside from the issue of Hashemite rule (thanks France) Jordan IS Palestine.

Israel didn't create the refugee situation and the Arabs didn't solve it.

Again your ignorance of the subject is poking out from under your craftily "cut n pasted" paragraphs.

Zionism is many things - for some it is a religious thing, for some a national thing. Some Zionists are left wing, some middle, some right.

I am a left-leaning Zionist who is Jewish but doesn't practice Judaism or believe in God. We all support the protection of the state of Israel but we all have diferent opinions.

I don't believe that all criticism of Israel is conciously "anti-semitic" - but much criticism is informed and skewed by anti-semites.

I also think that a lot of Israel's critics on the left don't actually realise they are being duped by racists. Perhaps they aren't deliberate anti-semites but the effect is the same.

With the anti-Israel left it is a question of bias. They are often obscenely unfair to Israel.

They twist the history with rhetoric that romantasises one side and demonises the other

They ignore the context.

They exagerrate the faults of Israel but Israel's enemies (who often have human rights records that would curl your hair) get a free pass.

Israel - with its full democracy, freedom of religion, free healthcare, human rights regardless of race or religion for all citizens - is labelled a racist state - but what about countries that are hostile to Israel?

Egypt (a random example) has an awful problem of persecuting its Christian population but avoids any left wing criticism.

So why this hypocrisy and one-sidedness against Israel? What (aside from the Jewish thing) is different about the State of Israel?

Perhaps the left just have a thing against countries with blue & white flags. Watch out Greece!

I mean any other RELIABLE site.

Zionists were never exclusivists - it still isn't exclusivist today.

As for this letter - it just looks fishy - even if a document exists, the Germans put out a lot of propaganda. They also backed Husseini which doesn't auger well for rumours about Zionists joining the axis!

Here's a link for you to study - and it's not a Zionist, conservative site or even Wikipedia. The Southern Poverty Law Center does a lot of work tackling racism in society and on the internet. Here's their article about the links between Muslim and NeoNazi extremists:

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=132




[Edited on Dec 24, 2004 by Albion]

Except a) Israel may be the size of Wales, but Palestine was four times as large b) Wales isn't a sparsely populated, baron colonial outpost run by a foriegn superpower from miles away c) The Jews have no historical connection to Wales d)the Welsh weren't aligned to the Nazis and if it was the size of Palestine it would probably find a constructive, non-violent, non-racist way of dealing with Jewish immigrants

Aside from that, your analogy is perfect!!!

Would the Welsh get (for the first time in their history) a self-governed homeland as a result of the Jews visit? Perhaps they could call it Trans-Wales

I'd have thought "Palestinian" was a kind of "nationality" rather than an ethnicity, but perhaps you are right. They are definite group, but isn't their ethnicity "Arab"? Just as a Jewish Israeli's ethnicity is "Jew".

As for their nationality....Palestine doesn't exist anymore and only ever existed for a few decades anyway.

Before partition, did the population ever really see themselves as "Palestinian" nationals? I ask because it was the British who gave the country this name (adapting it from an old Roman label). It was part of the ottoman empire much longer than the British empire, so wonder if they saw their nationality as Ottoman Turkish...or perhaps Syrian.

Palestine was partitioned into Jordan & Israel....so people living there got Jordanian or Israeli nationalities. Except Jordan didn't recognise these people as Jordanian...

I wonder if a multitude of problems could have been if they'd just kept calling Jordan Palestine!

Let's hope it's sorted out when there is a country called Palestine established again...although why they'd want to keep an old British Empire name is beyond me.

Anyway - back to the point - nobody Israeli or Palestinian has any moral right to deliberatly target unarmed civilians for random murder and FUCKING SHAME on you for defending those who do.

The "inhumane and degrading" treatment you are talking about are standard security measures taken by most countries at war. They aren't just about the right of the Jews to a homeland, they are about the rights of Israel to defend innocent men women and children from random genocide in nightclubs, restaurants, shopping malls and buses.

They protect Jews, Arabs and Christians equally and the only reason for such extreme measures is the threat. Drop the threat and the extreme measures will be dropped. Continue the threat and the extreme measures continue - at the end of the day, it's a Palestinian decision

Or why not set aside a tiny corner of Texas for Native Americans to call a homeland. Except, if the Texans tried to indescriminately murder them, they'd probably have your blessing.....




[Edited on Dec 24, 2004 by Albion]

I personally regard the settlements as illegal and vaguely immoral. Given the genocide in Sudan, the treatment of farmers and opposition groups in Zimbabwe, the treatment of gay people and women across most of the world, I think that a grotesquely disproportionate amount of hostility is given to Israel over a couple of trailer park villages the wrong side of a fence.

I also have a suspicion that these have been allowed to spring up so that they can be taken down as a bargaining chip in any furture land-for-peace deal:

"If you stop the deathcults we'll remove the settlements and give you autonomy over some cantons"

"okay, we'll stop the terrorists and recognise the State of Israel, if you remove the settlers AND give us fully independent homeland"

"okay - deal, but stage one - you have to start dismatling the terror groups. If you do this we'll dismantle the settlements and we'll take it from there"

"deal - now give us a kiss you sexy Jews"

something like that.......


[Edited on Dec 24, 2004 by Albion]

Like so many other "well-intentioned" people on the left Amnesty can't help but allow itself a little bias against Israel... but give them credit, unlike many they aren't afraid to criticise Israel's neighbours.

Here's their 2004 report on the Palestinian Authority - obviously compiled before Arafat bought the farm (the villa and swanky French apartment for his missus)

I have nothing to say about "the jews" so your backhanded impliciation with anti-semitic thinking is irrelevant. Many jews harshly criticize the Israeli state just as I do. Just as many arabs harshly criticize the Arab regimes they live under.

Again, the predictable manner in which Israel's unquestioning defenders try to change the subject, avoid, minimize and justify the inexcusable actions of their state is nicely illustrated with your complete denial of the roots of Arab exodus in '47-'48.

Essentially the Israeli version of events holds that it wasn't an expulsion because not every Palestinian was forced out of the country. Look, if we have a shootout and the entire room we're in clears of people, that doesn't mean they left "voluntarily."

The reality is this: In 1948, there were about 600,000 jews in Palestine. The number of Palestinians driven out of what was to become Israel was 6-700,000. About 100,000 remained as Israeli citizens. Without driving most of the Arabs out or not letting them return, no ethnic majority of jews would have existed to make Israel possible.

As you point out, many left on their own. As if getting out of the way of a warzone is somehow a legitimate surrender of one's land and property. Israel's goal wasn't a purely military one. It seized Palestinian land and property that was of no "security" interest. If the goal was purely tactical and not in fact the violent birth and territorial extention of an ethnic state, why haven't the refugees been allowed to return at some point in the last 50 years while jews who have virtually no ancestral or historical connection to Israel are by birthright guaranteed citizenship?

See if you can actually deal with this issue without diverting to some tangential related Arab state crime or calling someone a nazi.

Again, it wasn't "the jews" but the right wing of the Zionist movement. I already quoted you one of the most influential of these (Jabotinsky) clearly describing landgrabbing, force and an iron wall between Jews and Arabs as the proper position of the Israeli state. Left-wing/socialist Zionism, which slowly fell out of favor in the decades before '48, was based on the idealistic belief that the the Palestinians had no national aspirations, and they would give up their goals as soon as the Zionists appealed to their economic interests. By '48 there was little dispute about what had to happen.

What is your point anyway? That if any Zionists *at all* wanted to expel the Arabs, they'd all be gone? And since they weren't all expeled it's therefore ok? What kind of warped thinking is this?

Other than your continued equation of Israel with "the jews" your point jives nicely with mine. Founded in '48 as supposedly the only "democracy" in the middle east, Israel acted no better than its neighboring authoritarian regimes. I make no excuse for their actions as you do for Israel's.

As for your rosy portrait of Israel's Arab subjects. 1 million of the native population that didn't flee or wasn't forced out have citizenship. What is this supposed to prove? That Israel is willing to selectively grant rights so long as it's not enough to actually make a difference in its policies. 1 million against 3 million second class subjects living under apartheid isn't much of a "democracy." Comparing yourself to neighboring monarchist regimes doesn't make you a "democracy" anymore than standing next to a really fat guy makes you skinny.

Why do you insist on equating the modern idea of "nations" with cultural and ethnic identity. There have been completely distinct Arab cultures in the middle east for thousands of years. What British imperialists and their Zionist allies choose to call them, for their own political convenience, makes no difference.

Wrong. Jordan is the only country that has been reintegrating its refugee popuation since the beginning. In '54 they declared every Palestinian national residing in their country since 1949 a citizen.

Belief in Israel's right to exist is not Zionism. At least not anymore. Anyone with any sense recognize's that right at this point (even the former PLO).

Zionism pre-40 odd years ago was a discrete political movement. If Zionism still means anything today, it's a belief in the philosophical justification for the origin of an ethnically defined state. Something which, in my opinion, should have been less tolerable after WWII, not more.

It isn't exactly what it used to be, though. Today's most fervent Zionists are in fact Christian Zionists who want to see the second coming of Christ, the prerequisite for which is a complete reunification of Biblical Israel. Most Israelis and certainly most jews, on the other hand I think recognize Israel's rather messy and questionable origins (as Americans do for America) and just want a practical solution so they can live in peace.

[Edited on Dec 25, 2004 by Pav]

I think you understate the position of many settlers who believe that they are there by divine right, the frontline of Judaism confronting the heathens. I would suggest that they do not see themselves as bargaining chips in the conflict, but rather as shock troops on the frontline of an expansionist battle.

I would pay to see this moment in history. Please, let it happen soon.

Ah screw it! I say fire a MIRV to cover the entire state. Then see who wants it.

[double post]

[Edited on Dec 25, 2004 by Pav]

You have nothing to say about the Jews, Pav? - again, a nice try but you forget that anyone reading this board can go back a page a see what you said - in fact I'll save them the bother. You said:

"non-Jews living between the River Jordan and Med were driven out of their homes and robbed of their property just because they were not Jewish."

Yes - there was no ethnic cleansing. I am not denying that people fled the fighting, but your shit about Jews robbing people because they weren't Jewish is evil and demonstrably untrue.

Many Arabs fled to the vast proportion of the former Palestine that was set aside exclusively for Arabs. Others fled to other Arab countries.

People flee and lose land in wars.

Serbs lost lands after the establishment of Bosnia.

Even without a war, Jordanian Jews had their property, money and businesses seized and were kicked out of Jordan.

The anti-Israel left don't bemoan the creation of Bosnia and they certainly don't describe the Jordanians as property theives...that's just the Jews, you see (not that they are biased against the Jews or anything, you understand).

By the way - has anyone seen the huge Jewish population of Baghdad? Where could they have gone.....

If Israel was practicing the kind ethnic cleansing used by the neighbouring Arab states against jews, they WOULD all be gone. The fact that Israel didn't and in fact gave the Arabs full equality and democratic & human rights shows the gaping holes in your warped thinking.

wow - that's funny - I haven't noticed you mention it so far...I mean amid all your duff accusations about Jews driving out the Arabs and stealing their property. Maybe I need new reading glasses.

The "native population", also includes Jews, Christians, Druze and others for have lived there for years.

I don't know whether there are any tribes left who were there before the Jews originally arrived in the region from Egypt, but I know that many Jews had emigrated there throughout the 19th Century and there has always been a Jewish presence of varying size in the area.

Yes, many Jews were new - so were many Arabs who arrived in Palestine from Syria and other parts of the Ottoman Empire.

So at what point does someone become a "native"?

Having a predominantly Jewish State will come in handy the next time some regime decides its time to tackle "the Jewish problem" again.

Okay - yes - former-Palestinian Arabs are a minority, but since Arabs were given exclusive population rights of the by-far largest chunk of partitioned Palestine ("Jew-Free Jordan" I don't feel too bad about it.

Minority or non-minority nobody gets exactly what they want from an election, and no democracy gives disproportionate voting rights to minorities to "balance things out a bit".

Yes - Jordanian Palestinians can't vote in the land of their fathers, but is Jordan offering the vote to all the Jews they kicked out?

1 million living perfectly normal lives with full rights - most in better conditions than many ethnic minorities in the outskirts of Paris, Detroit etc. etc. etc.

I am trying to think who was the first person to call Israel an apartheit state. I think it was that demented child-murdering haridan Winnie Mandela.

Under South Africa's Apartheit regime

Black people were not allowed to travel with White People. In Israel Jews and Arabs can travel together.

Black people were not allowed to marry white people. Jews can marry Arabs in Israel (although in some Middle Eastern countries they would be severely punished possibly for having a relationship with a Dhimmi...).

Jews can even have gay Arab partners (I dread to THINK what the punishment for that would be in Israel's un-criticised neighboring partners).

Other facts that turn the "Israeli apartheit" argument to pure shit:

Arabs can vote,
stand for parliament,
lay next to Jews on beaches,
play for the national football team,
serve in the armed forces,
live in the same areas as Jews,
work with Jews,

there has even been an Arab women crowned "Miss Israel" (lucious, pouting Rana Raslan from Haifa, below).



And although Israel was created as the world's only national safe haven for Jews, persecuted throughout the world throughout history, it's Proclamation of Independence states that Israel:

Now was any thing like that written into the constitution of the Apartheit regime in South Africa?

For that matter is anything like that written into the constitutions of Israel's enemies who somehow don't get labeled as "apartheit states" (even those who keep non-Muslims as "Dhimmis" with far fewer rights that Muslims?

Don't let the facts get in the way of your hypocrisy and grotesque hyperbole...

Quite true - but allowing everyone in the country to vote and be voted for DOES make Israel a democracy.

You started it...

My point was that, contrary to your implication, a separate, wildly different culture couldn't have really evolved in 24 years because some civil servant in Whitehall drew a line on a map.

Quite right (applause and shock)

But Jordan, as *you noted*, DIDN'T immediately give the fleeing West Palestinians citizenship, but yes - they did eventually recognise them as Jordanians...which they are...morally, historically and legally. Jordan is the new name for the bulk of the former Palestine, so it is quite right that most "former Palestinians" are Jordanians.

Exceptions:

1) Jordan does not allow citizenship to around 150,000 Palestinians originating from the Gaza area, but I guess that's Egypt's responsibility.

2) Jordan booted out the former East Side Palestine's Jewish population.

3) Many former West Side Palestinians are now enjoying the full benefits of Israeli citizenship.

It was other Arab countries that didn't accept fleeing Arabs as citizens - thus making them into "refugees".

It's a bit weird that Palestinians in Jordan are STILL referred to "refugees" rather than just...er.."Jordanians"? But I guess that's another example of politics prolonging the problems.

The reality is, Jordan is effectively the new name for all but a small part of the original Palestine and the people still calling themselves "Palestinians" are citizens of it...case closed in my book...moveon!

Incidentally, I believe that should the Arabs on the West Bank ever successfully tackle terrorism, Israel should withdraw and return the land to Jordan. If the Jordanians want to create a new state called Palestine, that's up to them - it's their land.

I said Zionists support the protection of the state of Israel. The hallowed oracle dictionary.com says that modern Zionism is "is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel". I go along with this.

Here (for those that missed it) is a link to a large leftwing Zionist group.



[Edited on Dec 25, 2004 by Albion]

and yes - I'm having THAT sort of Xmas

sure - every country has their hardliners

In the end it's down to what the government does with the land, not the views of the settlers. Sure they can stay if Israel withdraws....but they'd probably be barbequed.

Albion, Israel have been openly recruiting Jewish peiople from around the world to come to israel to act as settlers and to provide the critical mass necessary to terraform a society into one that did not exist before. The British did the exact same thing when they were colonising Ireland, they took Irish land and basically advertised for English nationalists to travel to ireland to turn ireland British. Cromwell was the Protestant version of a right wing Zionist.

You keep insisting that 'Arab' is a satisfactory way of classifying the palestinian ethnicity as if 'european' or 'caucasian' would be a suitable category for the entire european continent. There are significant differences in culture, ideology and empathy amongst the different parts of the region. you are suggesting that all palestinians who used to be settled in the occupied lands should be perfectly happy to leave and settle in jordan or syria ir Iran and they would fit in there perfectly and feel right at home. Would you expect the entire population of arizona to move to tenassee because the iranians decided they wanted to move in and build new homes there and fit in without any severe conflict?


Refugees who flee an area are left with nothing to trade that they can use to rebuild their lives somewhere else.

You also didn't answer my highly hypothetical point about setting up a israeli homeland in an relatively unused part of texas. You say you don't blieve in god, and that most zionists are rational people who just want a safe homeland. It would be a lot safer in america than in israel, and texas could spare a small piece of land, about the size of wales perhaps, for the jewish people. (I'm sure the people who live on that land wouldn't mind or selling some of it so that the israelis could build houses)
It would be cheaper financially for the people of the United states who bear the financial burdon of sustaining israel at present so it seems like a perfect solution....


Oh except for a few points, Zionists want to live in the middle east because they are in general religous fundamentalists who wish to fulfil prophesies.
and the people of texas would never allow their land to be taken away from them. they would probably resist violently if it was imposed on then (even through market forces)

That's not a statement about "the Jews" but about Israeli policies! I see no reason to identify one with the other. Yes, Israel used force to help clear its territory of Arabs, aka non-Jews, so that a majority could be established. If this didn't happen there would be no state. That's pretty indisputable fact.

There's really only two possiblities. You either peacefully buy land from people or you take it from them at gun point. Before 1948, about 7% of British Palestine was bought by private citizens or jewish organizations. The rest was landgrabbed.

Ok, let's make this clear once and for all. It wasn't "the Jews" but the (pre) Israeli military, the Haganah. That it targeted civilians, terrorized and cleared out Arab villages means that people were targetted for being non jews. This happened so that an ethnic state could be created. Pretty straightforward claim.

I'll clarify what I mean by ethnic cleansing. It does not, obviously, mean packing Arabs onto buses in an organized fashion and removing them (as in Qalqilyah in 1967). This is simply unnecessary when sheer military force and terrorist acts inflicted on the Arab population (by the army, the Irgun, etc) are enough to guarantee "voluntary" evacuation. This is a rhetorical propagandist move, not a real distinction.

If you want to know the roots of the Palestinian refugee problem, look no further than Israel's warplan in 48, entitled Plan D. Here's what Israeli historian Benny Morris wrote about it:

In other words, use violence to turn the natives into hostiles, and then expel them for being hostile. How is that not ethnic cleansing again?

{source}

Alright. Show me one other "democracy" that has conquered territory, expeled or allowed its population to flee and then *not* allowed them to return after it confiscates the land and property.

This is a pretty cynical argument. First of all, expulsion of jews from Arab countries happend *after* the Palestinian expulsion. Jews had been living in Arab countries for millenia, in certainly less than ideal conditions, but there they were.

Secondly, how completely hypocritical of a claim is this when Zionists were the ones travelling the globe telling every country, from the USSR to Syria to "let my people go."

I have no doubt that if Israel keeps on going in its current direction, this is exactly what will happen. Funny how the cycle of victim to perpetrator will have passed itself along. From Fascist Europe to Fascist Israel to Fascist Arabia.

I see, so if apartheid South Africa had granted a quarter of its black population rights, then it wouldn't be apartheid anymore. This is clearly what you're saying isn't it?

Granting one vote for every 4 Arabs under your control is pretty swell too. Didn't the US having something like that? I think it was called the three fifths compromise.

Ok, you stumped me. If the West Bank and Gaza aren't "in the country" where are they? Outer space perhaps?

She's pretty cute. So are the total hotties of the IDF.

I think we should abolish Palestine *and* Israel and just rename it Babesville.

Pav & Akrasia - I acknowledge your posts - and of course disagree, but we could go round in circles like this until SuicideGirls runs out of server space.

My last reply took up about 14 screen lengths on its own, so as we are starting to retread old ground I'll draw a close to my responses in this thread.