Sharon ordered it: Ethnic cleansing in Gaza [Archive]

zenith-nadir

5th February 2004, 04:57 AM

It seems NOT ONE of you is informed about the middle east problem in the slightest.

Lets retrace some FACTS instead of throwing the words "ethnic cleansing" around and then PRETENDING like you are intelligent and actually know what the words mean.

1) Since the Palestinian Authority OFFICIAL POSITION is all jews must be REMOVED from the West Bank and Gaza that is the definition of "ethnic cleansing".

2) While 20% of Israel's 6.6 million citizens are Arabs. Unlike their Palestinian counterparts in the West Bank and Gaza, Israelis Arabs have the right to vote, receive Israeli social services and can work inside Israel.

3) The West Bank was called JUDEA & SAMARIA for 3000 YEARS until it was RENAMED "The West Bank" in 1949 by Jordan.

4) Judea & Samaria was the ORIGINAL kingdom of the jews CENTURIES before the rise of Islam in 640 A.D. In 1003 B.C. King David established Jerusalem as Capital of United Kingdom of Israel. It remained the capital for for some 400 years.

5) The Gaza Strip is Egyptian, and has been Egyptian since BEFORE Christ was born. It was captured from Egypt in the 1967 war.

6)"Palestine" was the name given to the area by the ROMANS after the Philistines who were the enemy of, and defeated the United Kingdom of Israel.

7) When the Byzantine came, Jews lived in Judea-Samaria and Gaza.
When the Caliphate conquered the land in 637 A.D. jews lived in Judea-Samaria and Gaza.
When the Crusaders conquered the land in 1099, jews lived in Judea-Samaria and Gaza.
When the Mamluks conquered the land in 1291, Jews lived in Judea-Samaria and Gaza.
When the Turks conquered the land in 1516, Jews lived in Judea-Samaria and Gaza.
When the British conquered the land in 1918, Jews lived in Judea-Samaria and Gaza.

8) In 1920, the League of Nations made Britain the mandatory power in Palestine, effective in 1922. In 1922 Britain allocated nearly 80% of Palestine to Transjordan. Thus, Jordan covers the majority of the land of Palestine under British Mandate.

Jordan comprises 76.9% of Palestine
Israel comprises 17.8% of Palestine
Judea & Samaria, (now known as the "West Bank"), and Gaza comprise 5.3% of Palestine

9) Yasser Arafat is the successor to Haj Muhammad Amin al Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem.

Husseini was a leader of the 1920 Arab riots where terror against Jews was INTRODUCED into Palestine.

Haj Muhammad Amin al Husseini led the Palestinians during the 1930s into their (abortive) rebellion against the British mandate government and during the 1940s into their (again abortive) attempt to prevent the emergence of the Jewish state in 1948 -- resulting in their catastrophic defeat and the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem.

10) According to documentation from the Nuremberg and Eichmann trials, the German SS helped finance Husseini's efforts in the 1936-39 uprising in Palestine.

11) Yasser Arafat and the PLO, (now the Palestinian Authority), are a TERRORIST organization with a long and well-documented terrorist history that was LEGITIMIZED by the U.N., France and Nobel Peace Prize Committee.

12) Yasser Arafat and the PLO tried to take over Jordan in 71-72 and failed, Yasser Arafat and the PLO tried to take over Lebanon in 75-90 and failed, and Yasser Arafat and the PLO have been ATTACKING Israel and MURDERING jews since thier very first (FAILED) operation on an Israeli water pumping station in 1964.

13) Since 1993 Arafat and the Palestinians have 'agreed' to;

Israel-PLO Recognition (Sept 93), Agreement on the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area (May 94), Agreement on the Preparatory Transfer of Powers and Responsibilities (Aug 94), Interim Agreement between Israel and the Palestinians (Sept 95), The Wye River Memorandum (Oct 98), The Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum (Sept 99), Protocol Concerning Safe Passage between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (Oct 99), Israeli-Palestinian Joint Statement-Taba (Jan 2001), The Tenet cease-fire (Jun 2001), Beirut Declaration on Saudi Peace Initiative (Mar 2002), The Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (Apr 2003).

Under the terms of these MANY AGREEMENTS Arafat and his Palestinian Authority are OBLIGATED to arrest terrorists and dismantle their terrorist organizations, not provide them with safe haven.

Under the terms of these MANY AGREEMENTS Arafat and his Palestinian Authority are OBLIGATED to;

a) undertake an unconditional cessation of violence, b) undertake comprehensive political reform, c) undertake drafting a Palestinian constitution, d) undertake free, fair and open elections, e) undertake an unequivocal statement reiterating Israel’s right to exist in peace, f) undertake official Palestinian institutions to end their incitement against Israel, g) undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere.

NONE OF THOSE OBLIGATIONS HAVE EVER BEEN MET.

__________________________________________________

That is why Sharon is removing the settlements. To stop the Palestinians attacking jews, and to "disengage" from Arafat and the PLO once and for all.

Settlers have every right to live in the West Bank AND Gaza, why does 19 years of Jordanian occupation in Judea & Samaria, (1948-1967), negate 3,300 years of Jewish history?

But the Palestinians WANT TO "ethnically cleanse" all jews from the West Bank and Gaza.

As Dennis Miller said;

For the sake of honesty, let's not use the word "Palestinian" any more to describe these delightful folks, who dance for joy at our deaths until someone points out they're being taped. Instead, let's call them what they REALLY are:

"Other Arabs Who Can't Accomplish Anything In Life And Would Rather Wrap Themselves In The Seductive Melodrama Of Eternal Struggle And Death."

And I highly recommend all of you should look up words, (like "ethnic cleansing"), BEFORE you go public on a message board and use it.

Regards

Zenith-Nadir

Cleon

5th February 2004, 05:55 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
It seems NOT ONE of you is informed about the middle east problem in the slightest.

Lets retrace some FACTS instead of throwing the words "ethnic cleansing" around and then PRETENDING like you are intelligent and actually know what the words mean.

Gladly. Shame you didn't provide any, though. This looks like another regurgitated chain letter someone sent you.

1) Since the Palestinian Authority OFFICIAL POSITION is all jews must be REMOVED from the West Bank and Gaza that is the definition of "ethnic cleansing".

No, that's not the PA's position, "official" or otherwise. They call for the removal of the illegal settlements, true; but they do not call for "all jews" to be removed. There are Jews who live in the WB and Gaza who don't live in the Jewish-only settlements.

2) While 20% of Israel's 6.6 million citizens are Arabs. Unlike their Palestinian counterparts in the West Bank and Gaza, Israelis Arabs have the right to vote, receive Israeli social services and can work inside Israel.

Yep, regurgitated spam. First of all, not even the Israelis deny that Israeli Arabs are subject to widespread discrimination, and the amount that they can work, vote, receive social services is always being modified.

Second, considering that Israel lords over a number of Palestinians (in Israel as well as the WB and Gaza) who they don't give the right to vote, and in fact carefully control how many non-Jews they allow to be citizens, the "democratic" nature of this is suspect.

3) The West Bank was called JUDEA & SAMARIA for 3000 YEARS until it was RENAMED "The West Bank" in 1949 by Jordan.

Half-truth. It was referred to as Judea and Samaria by the West, sure, who called it by its Biblical name. That's not how the residents of the area, predominantly Arab, referred to it.

Second, the oh-so-criminal "renaming" to the West Bank is because it's on the WEST BANK OF THE JORDAN RIVER!

4) Judea & Samaria was the ORIGINAL kingdom of the jews CENTURIES before the rise of Islam in 640 A.D. In 1003 B.C. King David established Jerusalem as Capital of United Kingdom of Israel. It remained the capital for for some 400 years.

Definitely regurgitated spam, or you wouldn't be spewing this drivel on a board full of skeptics.

1. There is some doubt whether "King David" actually existed; there is widespread consensus among archaeologists that if he did exist, he was probably just a hilltop chieftain, not a king of all the land of Israel. In all likelihood, David is simply a myth.
2. There was never any kingdom that ruled all of the WB, or all of Israel, before the Romans.
3. If you really think I have the right to kick someone off their land because my ancestors lived there, please supply your city so I may contact the appropriate Native American nation.

6)"Palestine" was the name given to the area by the ROMANS after the Philistines who were the enemy of, and defeated the United Kingdom of Israel.

(See previous comments about the non-existence of the "United Kingdom of Israel.")

"Palestine" as a name stuck for 2000 years. I have a coin from the 1940s with "Palestine" written on it in English, Hebrew/Yiddish, and Arabic. It was universally referred to as "Palestine," even by the Zionists.

7) When the Byzantine came, Jews lived in Judea-Samaria and Gaza.
When the Caliphate conquered the land in 637 A.D. jews lived in Judea-Samaria and Gaza.
When the Crusaders conquered the land in 1099, jews lived in Judea-Samaria and Gaza.
When the Mamluks conquered the land in 1291, Jews lived in Judea-Samaria and Gaza.
When the Turks conquered the land in 1516, Jews lived in Judea-Samaria and Gaza.
When the British conquered the land in 1918, Jews lived in Judea-Samaria and Gaza.

Of course, the populations weren't so dense; the number of Jews in all of Palestine during the turn of the century numbered in the tens of thousands (compared to close to 2 million Arabs).

8) In 1920, the League of Nations made Britain the mandatory power in Palestine, effective in 1922. In 1922 Britain allocated nearly 80% of Palestine to Transjordan. Thus, Jordan covers the majority of the land of Palestine under British Mandate.

Jordan comprises 76.9% of Palestine
Israel comprises 17.8% of Palestine
Judea & Samaria, (now known as the "West Bank"), and Gaza comprise 5.3% of Palestine

Completely irrelevant to the current situation.

9) Yasser Arafat is the successor to Haj Muhammad Amin al Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem.

Completely untrue in any way, shape, or form. A mufti is a religious leader. Arafat is a political leader. Not a particularly effective one, IMO, but he's not an imam or mufti.

Husseini was a leader of the 1920 Arab riots where terror against Jews was INTRODUCED into Palestine.

Haj Muhammad Amin al Husseini led the Palestinians during the 1930s into their (abortive) rebellion against the British mandate government and during the 1940s into their (again abortive) attempt to prevent the emergence of the Jewish state in 1948 -- resulting in their catastrophic defeat and the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem.

Yes, there were riots against the Jews. As the Zionist immigration project, begun in the late 1800s, began to pick up steam, there were rebellions against the foreign immigrants. It's not something the Palestinians should be particularly proud of, but when you consider that the stated goal of these immigrants was to create a state by and for THEM, you start to understand where the Palestinians are coming from.

If a bunch of Mormons moved into your neighborhood with the intended goal of creating a Mormon state there, including your home, you probably wouldn't be too pleased.

10) According to documentation from the Nuremberg and Eichmann trials, the German SS helped finance Husseini's efforts in the 1936-39 uprising in Palestine.

Not true at all. There was some contact, yes, but it was never very extensive and there was never any transfer of funds.

In fact, the only Jewish groups the Nazis would deal with were Zionists, because their immediate goal was the same; a Jew-free Germany.

11) Yasser Arafat and the PLO, (now the Palestinian Authority), are a TERRORIST organization with a long and well-documented terrorist history that was LEGITIMIZED by the U.N., France and Nobel Peace Prize Committee.

First: PLO != PA. The PLO's a coalition of a number of different Palestinian organizations, the PA is a toothless governing body.

Second: Many "legitimate" movements have been characterized as "terrorist." The African National Congress comes to mind.

12) Yasser Arafat and the PLO tried to take over Jordan in 71-72 and failed, Yasser Arafat and the PLO tried to take over Lebanon in 75-90 and failed, and Yasser Arafat and the PLO have been ATTACKING Israel and MURDERING jews since thier very first (FAILED) operation on an Israeli water pumping station in 1964.

This is why you should never take spam at face value; it gives you this tripe, then you believe it because you want to.

The PLO never tried to take over Lebanon or Jordan. There were some riots in the Palestinian refugee camps in those countries due to the shoddy treatment by their respective governments. There was never any coup attempt.

That is why Sharon is removing the settlements. To stop the Palestinians attacking jews, and to "disengage" from Arafat and the PLO once and for all.

Settlers have every right to live in the West Bank AND Gaza, why does 19 years of Jordanian occupation in Judea & Samaria, (1948-1967), negate 3,300 years of Jewish history?

No, settlers don't have that right. International law expressly forbids it, after Germany set up "settlements" in occupied Poland.

You don't have the right to come in and steal someone else's land, then forbid them from living in your community (the settlements are Jewish-only; Palestinians are not permitted to even use the roads that run between them). You--or more accurately, the spam you're posting--refer to 19 years of Jordan's occupation as if there were only Jews living in the WB and Gaza for the 3300 years before that. That, my friend, is a complete and total misrepresentation of the truth.

As I said, yes, there were always Jews in Palestine, but their numbers were very low (in the tens of thousands), and they lived among their Arab neighbors IN PEACE. There was never any attempt to set up "settlements" where Arabs were forbidden to travel on pain of death.

But the Palestinians WANT TO "ethnically cleanse" all jews from the West Bank and Gaza.

Yes, yes, those evil Palestinians should be wiped out, because they wage an endless war against the Ar--excuse me, the Jews, and they represent a clear danger to the Fatherl--Israel.

As Dennis Miller said;

For the sake of honesty, let's not use the word "Palestinian" any more to describe these delightful folks, who dance for joy at our deaths until someone points out they're being taped. Instead, let's call them what they REALLY are:

"Other Arabs Who Can't Accomplish Anything In Life And Would Rather Wrap Themselves In The Seductive Melodrama Of Eternal Struggle And Death."

Well, that clinches it.

Listen to me very carefully: YOUR INBOX IS NOT A HISTORY LESSON.

Dennis Miller never said any such thing; that email's been making the rounds a long time, it is not something Dennis Miller ever wrote or said.

From those pro-Palestinian anti-Semites at Snopes:

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/miller.htm

zenith-nadir

5th February 2004, 07:35 AM

Oh....I see we are going to have fun today.

Originally posted by Cleon
Gladly. Shame you didn't provide any, though. This looks like another regurgitated chain letter someone sent you.

Well whatever REALITY you need to CREATE to justify your flawed fictional assumption is no concern of mine Cleon.

Originally posted by Cleon
No, that's not the PA's position, "official" or otherwise. They call for the removal of the illegal settlements, true; but they do not call for "all jews" to be removed. There are Jews who live in the WB and Gaza who don't live in the Jewish-only settlements.

I suggest if you are an honest guy Cleon, which you are not, you read up a bit on the Palestinian Authority calls for the "destruction of Israel".

Note: that each Khatib (preacher) is a paid employee of the Palestinian Authority (PA).

Here are the transcripts of PA sermons to the Palestinian people from 2000-2003

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=palestinian&ID=SR2403

Then your "argument" Cleon continues with "zenith-nadir's post is regurgitated spam","Israel continually modifies the amount Israeli Arabs can vote", "israel is non-democratic to non-jews" and a whole bunch of other PROPOGANDA that is laughable.

Originally posted by Cleon
Half-truth. It was referred to as Judea and Samaria by the West, sure, who called it by its Biblical name. That's not how the residents of the area, predominantly Arab, referred to it.

Judea and Samaria PREDATES the rise of Islam by CENTURIES. But only the "West" called it that? The "west" didn't even EXSIST yet Einstein and the place already had it's name, a history and inhabitants.

Then Cleon rambles on about "King David not exsisting", "The Northern Kingdom known as Israel and a Southern Kingdom known as Judah not exsisting".....none of which is based in fact.....Hahahahaha, endless comedy.

Originally posted by Cleon
"Palestine" as a name stuck for 2000 years. I have a coin from the 1940s with "Palestine" written on it in English, Hebrew/Yiddish, and Arabic. It was universally referred to as "Palestine," even by the Zionists..

Hebrew and Yiddish are two entirely SEPARATE languages, there is NO YIDDISH on any coins minted by the The Palestine Currency Board of the British Mandate. That little error EXPOSES your lack of true knowledge about jews or Israel.

The Romans named Palestine, not the Arabs.

Originally posted by Cleon
Completely untrue in any way, shape, or form. A mufti is a religious leader. Arafat is a political leader. Not a particularly effective one, IMO, but he's not an imam or mufti...

Arafat's REAL name is Rahman Abdul Rauf el-Qudwa al-Husseini.....The grand mufti of Jerusalem was Haj Muhammad Amin al-Husseini.

Anyhow I tire of punching holes through your garbage Cleon.

Your ENTIRE post Cleon is made up of unproven assumptions, inaccuracies, easily disproven claims and attempts at changing well-documented history.

zenith-nadir

5th February 2004, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by Cleon
The PLO never tried to take over Lebanon or Jordan. There were some riots in the Palestinian refugee camps in those countries due to the shoddy treatment by their respective governments. There was never any coup attempt.

PERFECT EXAMPLE OF CLEON REWRITING HISTORY TO SUPPORT HIS PROPOGANDA.

Jordanian-PLO Civil War (http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/jay/jordan/fblacksept1970.htm)

Lebanese - PLO civil war (http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/lay/lebanon/flebanon1975.htm)

I rest my case about Cleon's complete lack of integrity.

Otther

5th February 2004, 07:59 AM

No, that's not the PA's position, "official" or otherwise. They call for the removal of the illegal settlements, true; but they do not call for "all jews" to be removed. There are Jews who live in the WB and Gaza who don't live in the Jewish-only settlements. I suggest if you are an honest guy Cleon, which you are not, you read up a bit on the Palestinian Authority calls for the "destruction of Israel" You're both partially right... The PA's doesn't officially hold the "destruction of isreal," these days. They removed that from their charter in the 90s. There is sometimes murmer about the destruction of Isreal, but it's hardly official.

And Zenith, that link is blatently biased against Arabs. Did you see the "cartoons" section? They have three types of cartoons. "Common Antisemitic Cartoons," "Jews and Israelis Controlling the U.S. Government," and "Jews and Israelis as Nazis and Hitler."

Zero

5th February 2004, 08:37 AM

I'm always glad to see someone back up their statements with references to mythology. :D

The land that is currently Israel was under Muslim control for centuries; the Jews have no claim to it. The creation of Israel is something close to the equivalent of the UN deciding to give Texas back to Mexico next week.

Tony

5th February 2004, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by Zero

The land that is currently Israel was under Muslim control for centuries; the Jews have no claim to it. The creation of Israel is something close to the equivalent of the UN deciding to give Texas back to Mexico next week.

Not really. Texas was never in Mexican control for centuries.

Cleon

5th February 2004, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

I suggest if you are an honest guy Cleon, which you are not, you read up a bit on the Palestinian Authority calls for the "destruction of Israel".

Note: that each Khatib (preacher) is a paid employee of the Palestinian Authority (PA).

Not true at all, actually, but completely irrelevant even so.

(snip quotes from MEMRI)

It would be really nice if someone, just once, could post a link to original source material, not MEMRI's "transcripts."

Then your "argument" Cleon continues with "zenith-nadir's post is regurgitated spam","Israel continually modifies the amount Israeli Arabs can vote", "israel is non-democratic to non-jews" and a whole bunch of other PROPOGANDA that is laughable.

Well, gee, with logic like that, truly I am abashed. :p

Of course, your post IS regurgitated spam, as messages containing those spam points virtually verbatim has crossed my inbox before, as has the bogus "Dennis Miller" email.

And it's true, since Israel does lord over people who do not have the right to vote, and Israel does control how many non-Jews have the right to vote, the democratic nature of the state is at minimum questionable.

Judea and Samaria PREDATES the rise of Islam by CENTURIES. But only the "West" called it that? The "west" didn't even EXSIST yet Einstein and the place already had it's name, a history and inhabitants.

I didn't say "Islam." I said "Arab." In case you were unaware, "Einstein," there were Arabs before there was Islam.

And I repeat--the references to the region as "Judaea" and "Samaria" were primarily external, not by the actual inhabitants of the region.

Tell you what--prove me wrong. Show me a link to an Arab source that refers to the region as Judaea or Samaria. Please. Considering the majority of the population until the 20th century were Arab, and you claim that *everyone* referred to the region as Judaea and Samaria, this shouldn't be particularly difficult.

Then Cleon rambles on about "King David not exsisting", "The Northern Kingdom known as Israel and a Southern Kingdom known as Judah not exsisting".....none of which is based in fact.....Hahahahaha, endless comedy.

Of course, there IS no hard evidence that King David existed, beyond his presence in Jewish folklore. And there is even less evidence that there ever was a unifying kingdom across all of Palestine/Israel/Canaan/whateveryouwanttocallit before the Romans invaded.

The first time I've ever done this:

:tr:

Hebrew and Yiddish are two entirely SEPARATE languages, there is NO YIDDISH on any coins minted by the The Palestine Currency Board of the British Mandate. That little error EXPOSES your lack of true knowledge about jews or Israel.

Hebrew and Yiddish are two separate languages, yes, but they use the same lettering. "Palestine" is spelled the same way in both languages.

And while I admire your constant USE OF THE CAPS LOCK KEY to make your uh, points, before you go on about my "lack of true knowledge about jews or Israel" [sic] keep in mind that I myself am Jewish, was Bar Mitzvahed, went through Hebrew School (and all the pro-Israel propaganda that comes with it), and have been to Israel.

Arafat's REAL name is Rahman Abdul Rauf el-Qudwa al-Husseini.....The grand mufti of Jerusalem was Haj Muhammad Amin al-Husseini.

Ah, yes, impeccable logic! Both the Mufti's name and Arafat's name involve "al-Husseini," so *obviously* Arafat is the Mufti's successor! :nope:

Let's follow your logic a second: The king of Jordan, until he died a few years ago, was King Hussein. Saddam Hussein, of course, ran Iraq. Clearly we can see that obviously King Hussein was in cahoots with Saddam Hussein! Their names are the same! No, wait! Clearly you can see the line of thinking--Saddam Hussein-King Hussein-the Mufti-Yassir Arafat!

Dude, seriously, at least brush up against a book on Arab culture and language before you say something so incredibly stupid like that again. Do you have any idea how common the name "Hussein" is?

And, FYI, Arafat was born--and held that name--before the Mufti died. So unless his, uh, "succession" was pre-ordained by his parents, you're WAY off here.

Anyhow I tire of punching holes through your garbage Cleon.

Your ENTIRE post Cleon is made up of unproven assumptions, inaccuracies, easily disproven claims and attempts at changing well-documented history.

:big:

zenith-nadir

5th February 2004, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by Otther
You're both partially right... The PA's doesn't officially hold the "destruction of isreal," these days. They removed that from their charter in the 90s. There is sometimes murmer about the destruction of Isreal, but it's hardly official.

And Zenith, that link is blatently biased against Arabs. Did you see the "cartoons" section? They have three types of cartoons. "Common Antisemitic Cartoons," "Jews and Israelis Controlling the U.S. Government," and "Jews and Israelis as Nazis and Hitler."

Well I beg to differ Otther, Cleon's entire post was fiction, in accurate and full of easily-disproven statements and his counter-argument is that of someone who has little or no knowledge of the middle eastern problem other than what he reads at Snopes.com.

As far as your "cartoon" issue, I suggest you read what newspapers those cartoon are from...they are from A-R-A-B newspapers. How does that make the website "anti-arab"?

Memri.org is one of the few websites that translates arabic media into english for us "kafirs"... ;)

Zero

5th February 2004, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by Tony

Not really, it would be more like the UN giving Texas back to the Indians or the Spanish. Well, I guess you are right, but so am I, since Mexicans are of Indian decent as well.

Tony

5th February 2004, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Well, I guess you are right, but so am I, since Mexicans are of Indian decent as well.

Well, then Mexico should go back to the Indians or Spanish too. In fact, the whole of the New World should go back to the people who colonized it or inhabited it originally. Since the original political entities were conquered and destroyed, I guess that means they go back to the colonialists. Gee, turning back history because some people can’t handle the results today sure is dumb.

zenith-nadir

5th February 2004, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by Cleon
Hebrew and Yiddish are two separate languages, yes, but they use the same lettering. "Palestine" is spelled the same way in both languages.

Now I am being accused of being a Troll.

Hebrew and Yiddish DO NOT USE THE SAME LETTERING.

Yiddish was written in Cyrillic, German, Polish or other Eastern European script.

Hebrew IS WRITTEN IN HEBREW letters.

You Cleon are the troll, a troll that spreads lies, and I refuse to debate any issue with someone who;

a) out and out lies
b) is IGNORANT of the topic at hand
c) and when confronted with your own lies pulls out the old "Troll" B.S.

Bye Cleon the "jew" who doesn't know the difference between Yiddish and Hebrew...have fun lying and calling everyone trolls...

Cleon

5th February 2004, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

Now I am being accused of being a Troll.

Hebrew and Yiddish DO NOT USE THE SAME LETTERING.

Yiddish was written in Cyrillic, German, Polish or other Eastern European script.

Hebrew IS WRITTEN IN HEBREW letters.

Well, thank you for pointing out that Hebrew is written in Hebrew letters, but so is Yiddish. I'm not making this up, dude. Ladino is, too.

Do a google on Yiddish if you don't believe me. And there's no "was"--Yiddish is not a dead language.

In fact, I'll do you one better--Google has a Yiddish version! My mother sent it to me, I was actually rather amused.

Link (http://www.google.com/intl/yi/)
Here (http://cs.engr.uky.edu/~raphael/yiddish.html) you can find some text in Yiddish. I'll let you see for yourself what lettering it uses.

You Cleon are the troll, a troll that spreads lies, and I refuse to debate any issue with someone who;

a) out and out lies
b) is IGNORANT of the topic at hand
c) and when confronted with your own lies pulls out the old "Troll" B.S.
Bye Cleon...have fun lying and calling everyone trolls...

This is the best you can do? Really?

rikzilla

5th February 2004, 09:06 AM

First N-Z,

Welcome to the forum. Your input is greatly appreciated. While it is regrettable that you did not fully research the article you posted, and that indeed it was SPAM....it is an honest mistake. A mistake that many have made before you, and many will continue to make. As skeptics we are here to encourage former victims of fraudulent information to learn from their mistakes and dig deeper in the future. We are not here to question their intelligence and insult them.

That said, it is also a complete and utter logical fallacy to assume that SPAM = lies. SPAM can also contain truth. What Cleon should have done was to point out the suspect nature of your information, and then offer a refutation of the "so-called" facts by providing sourced and reliable facts which dispute the SPAMed info. He did not do this.

So let's take a more honest look at the content of this SPAM:
Originally posted by Zenith-Nadir:
1) Since the Palestinian Authority OFFICIAL POSITION is all jews must be REMOVED from the West Bank and Gaza that is the definition of "ethnic cleansing".
Reply by Cleon:

No, that's not the PA's position, "official" or otherwise. They call for the removal of the illegal settlements, true; but they do not call for "all jews" to be removed. There are Jews who live in the WB and Gaza who don't live in the Jewish-only settlements.

Here's the relevant text:
THE PALESTINIAN NATIONAL CHARTER:
Resolutions of the Palestine National Council, July 1-17, 1968

Article 1: Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.
Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.
Article 3: The Palestinian Arab people possess the legal right to their homeland and have the right to determine their destiny after achieving the liberation of their country in accordance with their wishes and entirely of their own accord and will.

So it's not just that all Jews must be removed from the West Bank and Gaza, they don't say that. What they say is that Israel itself has no right to exist at all.

They do not ever officially say all Jews must be removed. They say this:
Article 6: The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.

So not all Jews, just most of them. They only want to remove ALL JEWS who are Israelis. :rolleyes: A decidedly veiled threat that gives people like Cleon the ability to say what he said above to you.

Well, that takes care of the official PA position? Not really. There's also this:
From the Palestinian National Covenant, Article 21:
"The Palestinian Arab people, in expressing itself through the armed Palestinian revolution, rejects every solution that is a substitute for a complete liberation of Palestine, and rejects all plans that aim at the settlement of the Palestine issue or its internationalization."
From the Palestinian National Covenant, Article 22: [/b]
"Zionism is a political movement organically related to world imperialism and hostile to all movements of liberation and progress in the world. It is a racist and fanatical movement in its formation."

Read between the lines Cleon. They are officially calling for the destruction of Israel, and the removal from Arab lands of all Jews not defined by them as "Palestinian Jews". That's damned near "ALL" if you ask anyone reasonable to interpret the above official proclamations of the Palestinian Authority.

Let's look a little further though, and see what the "unofficial" Palestinian position is. Here's what HAMAS says about Jews and the Jewish state:
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).
The Slogan of the Islamic Resistance Movement
...and this:
The Covenant
of the
Islamic Resistance Movement
18 August 1988
In The Name Of The Most Merciful Allah
"Ye are the best nation that hath been raised up unto mankind: ye command that which is just, and ye forbid that which is unjust, and ye believe in Allah. And if they who have received the scriptures had believed, it had surely been the better for them: there are believers among them, but the greater part of them are transgressors. They shall not hurt you, unless with a slight hurt; and if they fight against you, they shall turn their backs to you, and they shall not be helped. They are smitten with vileness wheresoever they are found; unless they obtain security by entering into a treaty with Allah, and a treaty with men; and they draw on themselves indignation from Allah, and they are afflicted with poverty. This they suffer, because they disbelieved the signs of Allah, and slew the prophets unjustly; this, because they were rebellious, and transgressed." (Al-Imran - verses 109-111).

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

Well, that's fairly explicit. No need to read between the lines there. Now we all know that HAMAS is not an official organ of the PA. But you can see how their message is in complete accord with the "official" message. There is no disagreement between the two.

But since Arafat is essentially the PA it's interesting to see what he thinks, via his own movement; Fateh:
Fateh Constitution:
Article (12) Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.

Well, that's not really very ambiguous either is it? To finish off though, let's look at what an innocent child raised in this barbaric cult of "martyr-worship" has to say:
From a Saudi TV interview with a three-year-old girl:
Anchor: Basmallah, are you familiar with the Jews?
Basmallah: Yes.
Anchor: Do you like them?
Basmallah: No.
Anchor: Why don't you like them?
Basmallah: Because . . .
Anchor: Because they are what?
Basmallah: They're apes and pigs.
Anchor: Because they are apes and pigs. Who said they are so?
Basmallah: Our God.
Anchor: Where did he say this?
Basmallah: In the Koran.

NOTE: I included this Saudi interview to show that "martyr worship" is not just a Palestinian past-time...it is taught all over the Arab world. Remember now, THIS IS A 3 YEAR OLD CHILD!

Conclusion,...only a complete idiot could possibly believe, against all evidence, that the Islamo-fascists of the Arab world (including the PA) mean to welcome Jews into an inclusive Palestinian utopia once the evil "Zionist entity" has been destroyed.

Now...that is a look at the very first part of N-Z's SPAM info with an objective eye toward actual facts. Sure I'm biased in favor of Israel, but the facts inform my bias. The facts are not refutable, they exist independent of my bias.

I believe that most of the "Miller" SPAM is borne out by hard fact, just as it's first assertion is. Just because Dennis Miller did not write it,....and it contains some inaccuracies,...does not mean we can dismiss it out of hand without examination. This is not what skeptics do.

-z
Edited to add:
NOTE: I included no links because I copied easily researched official proclamations and constitutions. I did not rely on a single source such as MEMRI. Google "Palestinian Authority Charter" to see where I went for my posted info.

aerocontrols

5th February 2004, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by Cleon
It would be really nice if someone, just once, could post a link to original source material, not MEMRI's "transcripts."

MEMRI translates Arab (and Hebrew, I believe) media, and the article you question was heavily footnoted.

I would think that if it was naught but a pack of lies, the PA would have little trouble proving it. Did Sheikh Ahmad Abd Al-Razek not give a sermon that was broadcast on October 4, 2002? Did he not say "Allah wreak vengeance on the Jews and the Americans" in that sermon?

Do you know of another organization that translates PA television & radio, and other Arabic media into english? As someone who does not speak Arabic, I could not profit much from a direct link to untranslated streaming video of PA television, but if you would like to watch some, here it is. (http://www.memri.org/video/index.html)

Of course, MEMRI has provided translations. Perhaps some speakers of Arabic here in the forum can expose the lies in their translations.

Perhaps your problem is that you believe MEMRI is only selectively cherry-picking the worst cases. If that is so, the response is for the PA to translate the sermons themselves, or for some other public-interest group to expose MEMRI's deception.

MattJ

Cleon

5th February 2004, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by aerocontrols

MEMRI translates Arab (and Hebrew, I believe) media, and the article you question was heavily footnoted.
Perhaps your problem is that you believe MEMRI is only selectively cherry-picking the worst cases. If that is so, the response is for the PA to translate the sermons themselves, or for some other public-interest group to expose MEMRI's deception.

MattJ

The fact that they cherry-pick the worst sources is beyond doubt; you can go to Al-Ahram or Al-Jazeera and see interviews and quotes that MEMRI doesn't translate, because it doesn't fit in with their desire to portray the Arab world as a bunch of bloodthirsty anti-semites who think of nothing but mass murder.

Even when they translate interviews, they pick and choose the parts that reflect their position. They translate those, and leave the rest out. If they were a legitimate research institute, as they claim, they would provide whole materials with the original Arabic. As it is, they don't.

On the rare occasions that they footnote, they do so only when it's unverifiable; television, for example, which you can't go back and look at online. When they translate newspapers, they rarely give the date and article, and never provide a link to the original material.

Not only do they pick-and-choose, but they ensure that nobody can verify their translations. As I said before, using their methods I can "prove" that the US is made up entirely of Holocaust Deniers and Jehovah's Witnesses, by picking and choosing what I want to translate and ensuring that nobody can verify the accuracy of said translation.

Which is why I constantly wonder why nobody provides links to original material, seeing as how most major Middle Eastern papers do their own translations to English.

zenith-nadir

5th February 2004, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla
First N-Z,Welcome to the forum. Your input is greatly appreciated. While it is regrettable that you did not fully research the article you posted, and that indeed it was SPAM....it is an honest mistake.

Thanks rikzilla for the kind welcome.

I posted 4 lines of "Dennis Miller", at the end of my post, it has really nothing to do with the rest of my post. If it is indeed spam it is still pretty truthful spam.

Also I assure you that the entire post prior to the "spam" is not some article, it is rebuttal that I took care in laying out chronologically.

When posters start playing the "troll" card, like Cleon did, I tend to lose interest in debate with those types of posters.

p.s. I did look up the Dennis Miller quote and found many websites that quoted what I wrote and what I thought were his words....until I found the actual "rant" on the HBO website:

Dennis Miller Rant (http://www.hbo.com/dml/past_rants/20020531.html)

JamesM

5th February 2004, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by Cleon
Even when they translate interviews, they pick and choose the parts that reflect their position. They translate those, and leave the rest out.
Can you provide an example, Cleon?

aerocontrols

5th February 2004, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by Cleon
Even when they translate interviews, they pick and choose the parts that reflect their position. They translate those, and leave the rest out. If they were a legitimate research institute, as they claim, they would provide whole materials with the original Arabic. As it is, they don't.

On the rare occasions that they footnote, they do so only when it's unverifiable; television, for example, which you can't go back and look at online. When they translate newspapers, they rarely give the date and article, and never provide a link to the original material.

Rare occasions when they footnote? It seems to me that they always do. Please show me some non-footnoted articles from MEMRI. When they translate newspapers, they always give the name of the newspaper and the date, and they provide a link to the material quite often, it seems to me.

Still, a date and a description of the article should be enough for a debunker, shouldn't it? You're right that a particular individual might have problems, but when the media looks into it, they basically end up with "Memri translates accurately, but they're one-sided"

Originally posted by Cleon
Not only do they pick-and-choose, but they ensure that nobody can verify their translations. As I said before, using their methods I can "prove" that the US is made up entirely of Holocaust Deniers and Jehovah's Witnesses, by picking and choosing what I want to translate and ensuring that nobody can verify the accuracy of said translation.

Which is why I constantly wonder why nobody provides links to original material, seeing as how most major Middle Eastern papers do their own translations to English.

It's not possible to ensure that nobody can veryify their translations so long as they say where they got their information. If they could be proven to be liars, they would have been long ago.

Please, Cleon... if MEMRI was translating inaccurately, it would be well-known.

Skeptic

5th February 2004, 10:35 AM

Perhaps your problem is that you believe MEMRI is only selectively cherry-picking the worst cases.

Actually, not so; at the very least, MEMRI has quite a lot of less racidal, and even liberal, writings by Arabs on its web site.

But even if it is "cherry picking", in this case it's almost a technical point. You can "cherry pick" the statements of (say) George Bush all you want, but you won't find there calls to massacre all Muslims. In order to be able to "cherry pick" calls for genoicde, there must BE calls for genoicde.

One might as well claim that a book about nazi atrocities is "cherry picking" because it only includes, say, Goering's orders about the "final solution", and not his orders forbidding vivisection or his anti-smoking campaign.

Mycroft

5th February 2004, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

Now...that is a look at the very first part of N-Z's SPAM info with an objective eye toward actual facts. Sure I'm biased in favor of Israel, but the facts inform my bias. The facts are not refutable, they exist independent of my bias.

I just want to highlight this, it's important.

Some people seem to be of the opinion that to be unbiased you have to avoid forming an opinion at all costs, that you have to dismiss information that is inflamatory, and that you have to give equal weight to information from all sides no matter how absurd it is.

Nonesense. Being unbiased means that in researching a subject, you subject all information to the same standards of critical skepticism. Once you have done that, it's natural to form an opinion. Education leads to opinions.

I am biased in favor of Israel. I earned that bias through self-education. Through researching claims made by anti-Israel critics I have found that so many of them are untrue or greatly exagerated that I have come to expect the same from future claims critical of Israel.

Skeptic

5th February 2004, 10:45 AM

Which is why I constantly wonder why nobody provides links to original material, seeing as how most major Middle Eastern papers do their own translations to English.

The reason is that the English version of Arab papers, proclamations, and so on is often "whitwashed" and "cleansed" of the more disgusting, genocdial, and racist elements in the original arabic paper, based on what the editors of the papers (usually the government) think would be palatable to the west.

To give a notorious example, the "official" translation of the Palestinian charter into Englsh mysteriously "forgot" to translate the part calling for the explusion by force of all "non-palestinian jews". It appears, of course, in the original Arabic, which is the legally binding version as far as the PLO is concerned.

To get an accurate idea of what the Arab press is really saying, you must go back to the original Arabic. The English version is often significantly different; not ALWAYS, of course, but often enough to make reliance on it unreliable, especially when dealing with "sensitive" issues like thegenocikde of the jews.

At any rate, I fail to see your point. If they were deliberately "mistranslating" the arabic, they would not be providing the detailed, exact sources of all of their translations.

davefoc

5th February 2004, 11:06 AM

NZ said:
4) Judea & Samaria was the ORIGINAL kingdom of the jews CENTURIES before the rise of Islam in 640 A.D. In 1003 B.C. King David established Jerusalem as Capital of United Kingdom of Israel. It remained the capital for for some 400 years.

There is just about nothing that you could have said that makes me less sympathetic to your views.

When you were being brainwashed into your views about the reliability of biblical history did you ever even venture forth with the slightest skeptical thought?

King David as part of the justification for a massive influx of Europeans into what is Israel today? And further a justification for Israel expanding via the settlements? At this point I don't know what possible logic would appeal to you on this issue. Clearly years of brainwashing have left you incapable of rational thought about this.

First ,why, even if it were so, would it be remotely relevant to today's situation given the thousands of years that the land existed without any Jewish political control is a mystery to me.

But even if one gets past that, the almost complete lack of archeological evidence for your view might make your thoughts about biblical reliability at least questionable.

Then of course there's the little problem that the relevant Biblical stories were written down hundreds of years after the facts that they were describing allegedly occurred.

But the thing that makes it particularly questionable to me is the political purposes of the people writing down these stories. These weren't unbiased historians. These were people who had a political agenda to unite people around a religion and the idea that they should revolt against the current political authority. Do you think that making up a few good stories of past glory to promote those goals might have been much more important to the writiers than historical accuracy.

Maybe you believe the Noah story and that Moses parted the Red sea? Can you see how a person who hasn't suspended all rational thought might be a little skeptical of that stuff?

zenith-nadir

5th February 2004, 11:19 AM

davefoc and Tony,

The chicken or the egg argument tires me too.

I look at it this way.

In the area between 31 - 33 N Latitude and 34 - 36 E Longitude there has been a recorded Jewish presence since approximately the third century B.C.E. (see: dead sea scrolls)

Therefore a national language and a distinct civilization have been maintained in that area until today.

Then in 638 – 1099 A.D. was the "Arab conquest" of that same area.

So both races have been there a looooooooong time.

Yet after 12 separate agreements with Arafat and the Palestinian Authority the suicide bombers keep coming into Israel....

But all that can stop you say?

Only if we give the serial terrorist leader of the Palestinians a key to a brand new country without free elections, free media or a legal constitution?

Yikes!...bad deal, sayeth I.

Here is an example of Rule under Arafat:

Arafat's Billions....60 minutes...Nov 9 2003 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/07/60minutes/main582487.shtml)

The Palestinians do not deserve Arafat and his "Palestinian Authority"...and neither does Israel.

That is what has to change to alter the current status quo.

JamesM

5th February 2004, 11:29 AM

ZN, I don't see how the character of Yasser Arafat endows Jews with the rights to live in Gaza.

zenith-nadir

5th February 2004, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by JamesM
ZN, I don't see how the character of Yasser Arafat endows Jews with the rights to live in Gaza.

So what you are saying there are places "jews" don't have the "right" to live because they are jewish?

Just so I am clear.:)

davefoc

5th February 2004, 11:41 AM

NZ said:Therefore a national language and a distinct civilization have been maintained in that area until today.

Actually, I'm not sure about the lanquage. I stand to be corrected but I am under the impression that Hebrew as a lanquage of daily use essentially died out by 1 AD. I believe that the common languages of the area were Aramaic and Greek. Hebrew survived as a language of religion sort of like latin survives today in the Catholic church or Coptic survives in the Egyptian Coptic church.

When Hebrew was revived weren't there controversies about how the words should be pronounced because it hadn't been used commonly for hundreds of years?

Tony

5th February 2004, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by JamesM
ZN, I don't see how the character of Yasser Arafat endows Jews with the rights to live in Gaza.

Are you saying Jews dont have a right to live in Gaza? Do you think black people have a right to live in your country, or anywhere? What about white people?

Zero

5th February 2004, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by Tony

Are you saying Jews dont have a right to live in Gaza? Do you think black people have a right to live in your country, or anywhere? What about white people? Try looking at it a different way; imagine Mexicans building settlements in southern Texas, followed by Mexican troopsto protect them. The U.S. government would send in troops to remove them, right?

Tony

5th February 2004, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Try looking at it a different way; imagine Mexicans building settlements in southern Texas, followed by Mexican troopsto protect them. The U.S. government would send in troops to remove them, right?

Thats not what he said, he said "jews". Not "isrealis" or the "isreali government". Perhaps that's what he meant, it's not clear. Why dont we let James speak for himself?

Zero

5th February 2004, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by Tony

Why dont we let James speak for himself? Because I'm impatient?

epepke

5th February 2004, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Hebrew and Yiddish DO NOT USE THE SAME LETTERING.

Yiddish was written in Cyrillic, German, Polish or other Eastern European script.

Hebrew IS WRITTEN IN HEBREW letters.

While Cleon is wrong, you lack the complete picture as well.

New York had at least one Yiddish newspaper printed in Hebrew letter when I was growing up there back in the 60s.

Also, by the way, Yiddish is closer to Bavarian (Bayerisch) than either is to standard German, which is to say awfully close.

Like Bavarian, Yiddish is primarily a spoken language, and people just made do with the alphabets they had at the time. This happens a fair amount. Both Indonesian and Turkish are often written with Roman letters.

zenith-nadir

5th February 2004, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Try looking at it a different way; imagine Mexicans building settlements in southern Texas, followed by Mexican troopsto protect them. The U.S. government would send in troops to remove them, right?

Unfortunately the reverse is true.

Imagine Mexicans demanding all americans who have residences in Mexico leave.

Or the mexicans will not stop suicide bombing cities in Texas and Arizona.

A more rational approach would be to make peace with the "settlers" --- a misnomer --- and benefit economically through tourism, trade and commerce.

Mycroft

5th February 2004, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by davefoc
When Hebrew was revived weren't there controversies about how the words should be pronounced because it hadn't been used commonly for hundreds of years?

Speaking, reading and writing Hebrew has always been an important part of a Jewish education, however with Jews spread out in so many different parts of the world, different dialects did evolve. The controversies were not so much how to pronounce certain words, but which pronounciations to use.

davefoc

5th February 2004, 01:21 PM

Mycroft,

My main question was to what degree was Hebrew an active language when it was adopted by the state of Israel as an official language.

Was I right that by 1AD it was essentially a dead language for day to day use? Were there Jews at the time that didn't at least speak Aramaic or Greek as their day to day language and the use of Hebrew for them was mostly for religious purposes?

What were the principle languages of the Jews living around the world? Had they mostly adopted the native languages of the countries they were in? Did the Jews that spoke Yiddish also commonly speak Hebrew or was the use of Hebrew mostly restricted to the Religious leaders?

Admittedly this is only vaguely related to the topic of the thread but it interested me and NZ had made a claim that there was a national language that had survived. I am asking what the nature of that survival was.

epepke

5th February 2004, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by davefoc
I am not sure exactly what Mycroft's point is and I feel a little bad about my previous post which probably wasn't fair if it even made sense.

I don't know, either. But I do get the impression that in cheerful defiance of what appear to be the de facto rules here, that he does not necessarily see the situation in term of sides and understands that it is replete with irony.

I come from a country with many cities and other areas larger, and in many case more populous than Isreal and Palestine combined. At least two of such areas have more Jews, and at least one has more Palestinians than the Middle East. And while there is bigotry, and there are neighborhoods, and people gripe when the Wrong Sort of People move in, but they're usually referred to as bigots. Nobody gets so emotionally attached to dirt that they are willing to strap bombs to themselves. It is common for people in this country to move several time zone away. Even in the Middle East, there is plenty of evidence of Palestinians going to Israel to work and in some cases vice versa.

A Settlement™ translated to the norms of this country would be about the same size as a development project. At most it would be a neighborhood, like the Southside or Southcentral. There would be a certain amount of inter-neighborhood violence, but what of it? Most of it would be related to the illegal drug trade.

But shift it over to the Middle East, and people who have never known the concept of Homeland and wouldn't know it if it sat on their face always seem to have all the answers. Why? Is it because they're just a bunch of wogs or something?

davefoc

5th February 2004, 02:23 PM

I went searching for a little information about Aramaic as it relates to my question about the continuity of Hebrew. I found this site:
http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/aramaic_language.html

A few quotes from this site:
Aramaic displaced Hebrew for many purposes among the Jews, a fact reflected in the Bible, where portions of Ezra and Daniel are in Aramaic. Some of the best known stories in biblical literature, including that of Belshazzar’s feast with the famous "handwriting on the wall" are in Aramaic.

Although the talmuds contain much material in Hebrew, the basic language of these vast compilations is Aramaic (in Western and Eastern dialects).

Although, again, this is not exactly relevant to the topic, I do think it relates to how people on one side of this issue or the other get into a mode of just repeating the same old stuff over and over to themselves without ever questioning it.

ZN repeats the same old stuff that he's heard over and over about how the Jews have always been there and they've maintained this continuity of civilization there together with the continuity of their language and since they've been there for so long then they have the right to remain.

Of course that argument doesn't make too much sense since the vast majority of people living in Israel are descended from people who moved there in the twentieth century. But even the facts behind the argument are questionable. Hebrew seems to have died out as a day to day language of the Jews and is therefore no evidence at all of a continued presence of the Jews in Israel.

So why does ZN throw this kind of stuff in with his arguments? Maybe it's because both sides of this dispute have broken into a mode where they just repeat the same old stuff often enough that it feels like the truth and it protects them from having to deal with any facts that don't quite confirm their one sided view of the issue.

edited to change NZ to ZN. sorry for the confusion

Mycroft

5th February 2004, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by davefoc
Mycroft,

My main question was to what degree was Hebrew an active language when it was adopted by the state of Israel as an official language.

Was I right that by 1AD it was essentially a dead language for day to day use? Were there Jews at the time that didn't at least speak Aramaic or Greek as their day to day language and the use of Hebrew for them was mostly for religious purposes?

What were the principle languages of the Jews living around the world? Had they mostly adopted the native languages of the countries they were in? Did the Jews that spoke Yiddish also commonly speak Hebrew or was the use of Hebrew mostly restricted to the Religious leaders?

Admittedly this is only vaguely related to the topic of the thread but it interested me and NZ had made a claim that there was a national language that had survived. I am asking what the nature of that survival was.

It’s a great question. I don’t think I’ve ever read anything that directly addresses it, but I think the probable answer is that it was a very active language.

We’re talking about a group of people who have maintained a cultural identity for almost two thousand years of Diaspora. They did that by being very meticulous in passing down their cultural teachings from generation to generation. Teachings that include religion, philosophy and language.

Universal religious education is a characteristic of Jewish culture. Where Christians were taught that it’s okay to just follow the lead of the local priest, Jews were taught that they have to master the language so that they could read the texts for themselves in its original form so that nothing is lost. Learning the language for religious purposes is more than just being able to recite prayers, but mastering the language to the extent that you can read the texts, the commentary on the texts, and discuss and debate what you read with others.

The whole Bar Mitzvah process reinforces that. In the ceremony, the child is required to read in Hebrew from the Torah, and then speak with knowledge about what he has read. In modern Judaism the child might be able to get away with pronouncing the words without really understanding them, but 50 or 100 years ago they wouldn’t have. This tradition made Jews one of the few literate groups (at least among the men) throughout the Dark Ages.

Also consider the existence of hybrid-languages such as Yiddish or Ladino. These languages would not have evolved if Hebrew was not in common usage, instead they would just adopt the common language of the region.

Israel today has three official languages; Hebrew, Arabic and English. It’s reasonable to assume that before Zionism, most Jews that had contact with the greater Arabic community spoke Arabic, but it’s just as reasonable to assume that they spoke Hebrew within their own communities. It’s also reasonable to assume that Jews who did not have reason to deal with the greater Arabic community may not have learned Arabic and spoke only Hebrew.

As I said, it’s an interesting question. If I come across something that sheds more light on the issue, I’ll let you know.

Skeptic

5th February 2004, 02:39 PM

Mycroft,

My main question was to what degree was Hebrew an active language when it was adopted by the state of Israel as an official language.

Try this link for some basic information:

Short history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Hebrew_language#Later_history)

davefoc

5th February 2004, 04:40 PM

Thanks for the link Skeptic. It talked about exactly the things I was asking about with regards to Hebrew.

I think it calls into question this statement by Mycroft a little:

Speaking, reading and writing Hebrew has always been an important part of a Jewish education,

If that statement is meant to mean speaking, reading and writing of Hebrew by the average Jew has always been a part of their education, then based on what that link it appears Mycroft was wrong.

Hebrew was not used as a day to day language for 2300 years and had fallen into enough disuse even at the time that the Talmud was written that another language was used and translation into Aramaic was provided for some of the earlier Hebrew sections of the Talmud.

I think it also completely contradicts ZN's notion that a "national language and a distinct civilization have been maintained in that area until today". The local Jewish population seems to have adopted various languages over time including Aramaic and Arabic.

Skeptic

5th February 2004, 05:36 PM

If that statement is meant to mean speaking, reading and writing of Hebrew by the average Jew has always been a part of their education, then based on what that link it appears Mycroft was wrong.

But it has...

Consider what Latin meant to Catholic. The priest had to know it to perform his duties, of course, but there was no particular requirement that the person who RECIEVES the sacrament understand it. The "non-professional", so to speak, didn't have to know a word.

Contrast this with hebrew to the jew. It is ALL (male) jews who are supposed to study the bible and the talmud--in the original, of course. Unlike Christianity, where faith was central and undertanding was secondary, in judaism study of the bible, for its own sake, was always held in great esteem.

To overstate things a bit, in the same sense that you were not a "real" christian unless you truly believed, you were not a "real" jew unless you studied the bible. And to do this, you needed to know at least some hebrew.

In fact, traditional jewish education that all jews used to have until modern times--the so-called "heder" (literally, "room"--literally, that is, in hebrew, of course!), or grammar school--taught hebrew and the bible almost exclusively. The idea was not to create people who would speak fluent hebrew, but to create those who will know it well enough to speak the bible.

The point was not that study of the bible in the original was necessary to enter heaven--it wasn't--or that it would gain you "salvation points"; the afterlife in general was never nearly as important to jewish thought as it was to Christianity. The point was that studying the bible in the orignal hebrew was central to being a "good jew", in the same sense that hearing mass, going to confession, believing in the resurrection, etc., was central to being a "good Catholic".

It is from this devotion to study that jews got the nickname "am ha'sefer"--"the people of the book" (the bible)--much like Catholics became known as "Papist" or "Maryists" due to their (excessive, in the opponent's view) devotion to those figures.

Hebrew was not used as a day to day language for 2300 years and had fallen into enough disuse even at the time that the Talmud was written that another language was used and translation into Aramaic was provided for some of the earlier Hebrew sections of the Talmud.

The key word here is "day to day". You are right. But it DID continue to be used for religious study. To use your own example, while the scholars of the Talmud probably SPOKE in Aramaic to each other, they were always interpreting the hebrew bible. Whenever a quote from the bible is given in the Talmud, it is always, of course, given in the original hebrew; the Talmud scholars would have considered it sacreligious to translate the holy word of the bible into another language.

For our purposes, you can think of the Talmud as a big collection of conference papers about the old testament. Such a collection today would almost certainly be published in English; the professors who speak in it would be speaking to each other in English; but no scholar worth his salt would be reaching any conclusions based on the English translation of the old testament. Doing so, in fact, would instantly expose the "scholar" as a fake, on par with the wife of one ex-governor of Texas that once said, "if English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!".

The assumption is that all the conclusions are based on the original hebrew, and whenever any key phrase is spoken of, it will be quoted in the original hebrew as well. Regardless of the fact that they speak in English, none of them would be given the time of day unless they knew hebrew very well and based their analysis of the old testament, first of all, on this knowledge.

It is in this sense that knowledge of hebrew remained: every jew was a little bit of an old testament scholar (or at least wished he was), and as such, even if he didn't know hebrew himself, knew very well that it was important; and, if he had any jewish education at all--as most did--he learned, first of all and above all, to read hebrew, without which one cannot understand the prayer book or the bible.

I think it also completely contradicts ZN's notion that a "national language and a distinct civilization have been maintained in that area until today". The local Jewish population seems to have adopted various languages over time including Aramaic and Arabic.

Yes, they have... but the prayer book, the bible, and the other holy writings, no matter what language was used most of the time. And they taught their children hebrew to continue the tradition.

To summarize, think of it this way: imagine a society where, it is true, not everybody (or even a majority) knows physics, but everybody wants to know it; it is popularly taught to children; physicists are held in the highest esteem; and the dream of every mother is that her child will grow up to be a physicist just like 35 world-famous physicists she could name off the top of her head.

Would you say that such a society "abandoned" physics? Of course not--quite the contrary. Just replace "physics" with "hebrew" (and bible study, which presupposes one knows hebrew, of course) and you'd get a rough idea of the place it had in jewish society for the last 2000 years.

davefoc

6th February 2004, 12:24 AM

Thanks for the thoughtful responses skeptic.

I guess this comes down to a semantic disagreement.

What does national language mean in this sentence?
Therefore a national language and a distinct civilization have been maintained in that area until today

I took it to mean a language that was spoken by a large percentage of the population in some political group, for instance a nation or a group of people who aspire to be part of a nation. Hebrew, as a national language in that sense, was clearly not "maintained". In fact it became essentially a dead language except for its use for reading the bible.

But I also suppose it is reasonable to say that Hebrew never became a dead language since there continued to exist people who could read and perhaps speak it in a limited way so in some ways it was maintained.

So is it also true that ancient Egyptian is not a dead language because people in the coptic church have kept it alive? And if at some point in the future Egypt were to return to the use of ancient Egyptian as a national language might it be said that the Egyptions have maintained their national language for thousands of years.

Anyway, given the ambiguity of exactly what is meant by maintaining a national language maybe I should have cut ZN a little more slack and I will conceed tht there are reasonable interpretations of what he said that aren't necessarily wrong.

I think I might quibble over the use of the term distinct civilization a bit in his statement also. But I think I have beat on this long enough and I will now go in peace.

JamesM

6th February 2004, 01:40 AM

Originally posted by Tony
Are you saying Jews dont have a right to live in Gaza? Do you think black people have a right to live in your country, or anywhere? What about white people?
I thought I was being clear: I asked how the character failings of Yasser Arafat gave Jews the right to live in Gaza. ZN was talking about how Jews have lived in Israel for a long time, Davefoc challenged him about it, then ZN followed up with stuff about Arafat. I don't see the connection. Exactly how much of a bad man Arafat is is neither here nor there, with regard to claims of Jews over Gaza. The "yeah, well the Palestinians are worse!" argument doesn't really cut it.

But since you ask, I think you have to be pragmatic about rights to live anywhere. As a Jew living in the UK, I have the "right" to live here for as long as the majority of the population tolerate my presence. If they decide they don't want Jews living in the UK, then, well, it sucks to be me, doesn't it? I don't have to like it or think that it's moral, but there isn't much I could do.

The existence of Israel has legitimacy on the basis that the UN recognises it as a country, and more importantly, the US wields a big stick to protect it. The point about appealing to old books is not that it's historically accurate or not, it's just irrelevant, At any rate, Gaza doesn't have to be Judenrein, Jews could hypothetically live there under a non-Israeli government. Realistically, that ain't never gonna happen with the current regimes, but that just means that most Arab regimes are pretty despotic and unenlightened, something that we knew already and is not exactly a matter of great controversy.

E.J.Armstrong

6th February 2004, 01:57 AM

originally posted by MycroftYou think I should support ethnic cleansing?

I think everyone should support the rule of law.

Are you seriuosly trying to claim that the removal of illegal settlements amounts to ethnic cleansing?

If I came and stole your back garden and the authorities finally decided after prolonged abandonment of their duties and shooting some of your children in the street to protect me that I should be removed, would that amount to ethnic cleansing?

E.J.Armstrong

6th February 2004, 02:05 AM

originally posted by zenith-nadir
It seems NOT ONE of you is informed about the middle east problem in the slightest.

Welcome to the site.

It may be different on other sites but on this one you will find it difficult to be taken seriously if you make sweeping and factually incorrect statements in the first line of a post - especially if you choose to highlight the nature of the false claim with capitals in the same line.

E.J.Armstrong

6th February 2004, 02:14 AM

originally posted by zenith-nadirWell whatever REALITY you need to CREATE to justify your flawed fictional assumption is no concern of mine Cleon.

I ALWAYS feel that the use of CAPITALS always gives my ARGUMENTS more WEIGHT.

E.J.Armstrong

6th February 2004, 02:21 AM

originally posted by zenith-nadir
I suggest if you are an honest guy Cleon, which you are not,...

If you don't like some facts, call someone dishonest. Is this seriously to be your modus operdum?

I do hope not because you cannot be taken seriously when you adopt this approach.

E.J.Armstrong

6th February 2004, 02:29 AM

originally posted by zenith-nadirCleon's entire post was fiction,..

Please take every single comment Cleon made and show that your claim is true. Unless you do so your claim will be shown to be false.

E.J.Armstrong

6th February 2004, 02:34 AM

originally posted by zenith-nadir
Bye Cleon the "jew" who doesn't know the difference between Yiddish and Hebrew...have fun lying and calling everyone trolls...

Does that mean you are leaving already after so much CAPITALISATION and TRUTH and FACTUAL ACCURACY.

I am DEVASTATED.

zenith-nadir

6th February 2004, 04:31 AM

Ok E.J.Armstrong I'll bite at your many posts.

Where to start...Hummmmmm...I'll go backwards.

1) YoU HaVe An IsSuE WiTh ThE UsE oF CaPiTalIzAtIoN...ThEn ThIs SeNtEnCe MuSt Be DrIvInG YoU AbSoLuTeLy NuTs...

Look E.J. they way people type their words does not control how YOU feel, only you control your feelings. Just for the record, how you "feel" about my style of typing, or anyone elses for that matter, is completely irrelevant now, and in the future.

2)Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong Please take every single comment Cleon made and show that your claim is true. Unless you do so your claim will be shown to be false.

So Cleon's entire post refutes my claims without one link, footnote, or any supporting evidence and you attack the truthfulness of my post instead? Is that how the game is played here?

OK, here are just a few examples just for you E.J. -- I refuse to spend my time cataloguing all of Cleon's mistruths just for your benefit.

Originally posted by CleonNo, that's not the PA's position, "official" or otherwise. They call for the removal of the illegal settlements, true; but they do not call for "all jews" to be removed.

I think rikzilla covered Cleon's mistruth very accurately a few posts later E.J.

Originally posted by CleonThe PLO never tried to take over Lebanon or Jordan. There were some riots in the Palestinian refugee camps in those countries due to the shoddy treatment by their respective governments. There was never any coup attempt.

I think I covered Cleon's mistruths accurately with these;

Jordanian-Plo Civil war (http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/jay/jordan/fblacksept1970.htm)

Lebanese Army-Plo Battles (http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/lay/lebanon/flebanon1969a.htm)

Lebanese Army-Plo Battles (http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/lay/lebanon/flebanon1971.htm)

Lebanese Army-Plo Battles (http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/lay/lebanon/flebanon1973.htm)

Originally posted by CleonFirst of all, not even the Israelis deny that Israeli Arabs are subject to widespread discrimination, and the amount that they can work, vote, receive social services is always being modified.

WRONG. 18 percent of the population in Israel are either Muslim or Christian. Arabs and Christians in Israel have equal voting rights to jewish Israelis, it is one of the few places in the Middle East where Arab women may vote -- that has never been "modified". Israeli law prohibits discrimination in employment -- that has never been modified. Arabic, like Hebrew, is an official language in Israel -- that has never been modified.

Israeli Freedom of Occupation Law - Text (http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00hj0)

Israeli Human Dignity and Liberty Law - Text (http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00hi0)

There are three glaring examples of Cleon's repeated mistruths E.J. --- sorry if that bugs you, but three strikes in just one post and you are out.....

3) Originally posted by E.J. ArmstrongIt may be different on other sites but on this one you will find it difficult to be taken seriously if you make sweeping and factually incorrect statements in the first line of a post - especially if you choose to highlight the nature of the false claim with capitals in the same line.

Well lets see, the second post in the thread is yours and it states;

Originally posted by E.J. ArmstrongSharon's belated plan to put right a terrible wrong and get rid of illegal settlements.

The Israeli-Palestinian problem is not about "illegal settlements" E.J., it is about continued Palestinian terrorism since 1969 and 12 failed agreements with many obligations that Arafat has not honored.

I'd say a suicide bomber on a crowded bus in Tel Aviv is a "terrible wrong" E.J. ....not a settlement Mr. amorality.

Originally posted by The FoolJust stop expanding settlements, stop creating new ones.

Same goes for the fool, focused like a laser beam on "settlements" and nary a word about 30+ years of terrorism by the Palestinians.

The problem is continued terrorism perpetrated by Palestinian terrorist organizations that operate in Palestinian civilian areas and are provided safe haven by the Palestinian Authority.

It is not about settlements, it is not about a wall, it is not about green lines, blues lines, or frigging tartan-colored lines!.....it is about the Arab war against the jews in Israel using the Palestinians.

That is why I said what I said E.J.

_____________________________________________

Did I cross all my "T"s and dot all my "I"s enough for you E.J.? Or are there more hoops to jump through yet ?:)

zenith-nadir

6th February 2004, 05:09 AM

Originally posted by davefoc
I think it also completely contradicts ZN's notion that a "national language and a distinct civilization have been maintained in that area until today". The local Jewish population seems to have adopted various languages over time including Aramaic and Arabic.

I think the confusion may be your definition of "maintained" davefoc.

There is only one place on Earth that is synonymous with Hebrew -- current and ancient Israel.

Whether or not historic events altered the 'useage' of a language in a specific culture in a specific area during a specific time period -- the language still remains distinct and can be traced to it's exact origin.

At least that is how I rationalize it.

Tony

6th February 2004, 06:18 AM

Originally posted by JamesM

I thought I was being clear: I asked how the character failings of Yasser Arafat gave Jews the right to live in Gaza. ZN was talking about how Jews have lived in Israel for a long time, Davefoc challenged him about it, then ZN followed up with stuff about Arafat. I don't see the connection. Exactly how much of a bad man Arafat is is neither here nor there, with regard to claims of Jews over Gaza. The "yeah, well the Palestinians are worse!" argument doesn't really cut it.

But since you ask, I think you have to be pragmatic about rights to live anywhere. As a Jew living in the UK, I have the "right" to live here for as long as the majority of the population tolerate my presence. If they decide they don't want Jews living in the UK, then, well, it sucks to be me, doesn't it? I don't have to like it or think that it's moral, but there isn't much I could do.

The existence of Israel has legitimacy on the basis that the UN recognises it as a country, and more importantly, the US wields a big stick to protect it. The point about appealing to old books is not that it's historically accurate or not, it's just irrelevant, At any rate, Gaza doesn't have to be Judenrein, Jews could hypothetically live there under a non-Israeli government. Realistically, that ain't never gonna happen with the current regimes, but that just means that most Arab regimes are pretty despotic and unenlightened, something that we knew already and is not exactly a matter of great controversy.

Thanks for the clarification.

Mycroft

6th February 2004, 07:24 AM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong

I think everyone should support the rule of law.

But not if they disagree with your interpretation of law.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Are you seriuosly trying to claim that the removal of illegal settlements amounts to ethnic cleansing?

I am seriously saying that removing all the people of one ethnicity from a region is ethnic cleansing. If you think it's not, I'd be interested in hearing why.

E.J.Armstrong

6th February 2004, 07:34 AM

originally posted by zenith-nadir
1) YoU HaVe An IsSuE WiTh ThE UsE oF CaPiTalIzAtIoN...ThEn ThIs SeNtEnCe MuSt Be DrIvInG YoU AbSoLuTeLy NuTs... Er no. The use of capitalisation as an apparent buttress to arguments makes me LAUGH. Hope that HELPS.Look E.J. they way people type their words does not control how YOU feel, only you control your feelings. Just for the record, how you "feel" about my style of typing, or anyone elses for that matter, is completely irrelevant now, and in the future. You are entitled to use typography in any way you see fit and I certainly I don't need anyone to share my sense of humour. I just don't think that CAPITALS help establish the TRUTH of any argument, including MINE.So Cleon's entire post refutes my claims without one link, footnote, or any supporting evidence and you attack the truthfulness of my post instead? Is that how the game is played here? It's really very simple. You made a claim about an entire post. It is for you to justify your own claim. No-one else.

You don't have to stand by your claims but if you want to be taken seriously I suggest that you do. YOu don't have to follow anything I suggest at all but perhaps you would like to justify your very first claim that It seems NOT ONE of you is informed about the middle east problem in the slightest.? Is 'NOT ONE' more inclusive than 'not one'?I think rikzilla covered Cleon's mistruth very accurately a few posts later E.J. Really? Let us look at this claim in some more detail. For the record, you actually claimed that Since the Palestinian Authority OFFICIAL POSITION is all jews must be REMOVED from the West Bank and Gaza that is the definition of "ethnic cleansing". Rikzilla actually stated thatThey do not ever officially say all Jews must be removed. Therefore, far from supporting your position as stated, Rikzilla actually tends to support Cleon's point. I think I covered Cleon's mistruths accurately with these;... Really? In none of those posts can I see where it supports the inference that the PLA tried to take over Lebanon. It would help if you could supply a quote that actually supports that inference.

In response to Cleon's claim(amongst other things), that ...Israeli Arabs are subject to widespread discrimination,... you statedWRONG...

Can I refer you to the following site http://www.jfjfp.org/backgroundI.htm where it states, amongst other instances of discrimination, that 'As well as offering limited provisions for equality or political participation to members of the Palestinian Arab minority, the law in Israel subjects them to three types of discrimination: direct discrimination against non-Jews within the law itself, indirect discrimination through "neutral" laws and criteria which apply principally to Palestinians, and institutional discrimination through a legal framework that facilitates a systematic pattern of privileges.' Therefore this latest claim appears to be incorrect in relation to the discrimination against Israeli Arabs.

There are three glaring examples of Cleon's repeated mistruths E.J. --- sorry if that bugs you, but three strikes in just one post and you are out..... It doesn't bug me at all. Everyone has to stand by their own claims. I have just queried three of your claims so far. Under your own analysis, does that make you out?The Israeli-Palestinian problem is not about "illegal settlements" E.J., it is about continued Palestinian terrorism since 1969 and 12 failed agreements with many obligations that Arafat has not honored.

I'd say a suicide bomber on a crowded bus in Tel Aviv is a "terrible wrong" E.J. ....not a settlement Mr. amorality.
Let us just study this latest statement. You picked a snippet of what I stated namely:- Sharon's belated plan to put right a terrible wrong and get rid of illegal settlements. Interestingly, I never stated that the Israeli-Palestinian problem is about illegal settlements. I pointed out that the illegal settlements were a terrible wrong. Is making factual observations on certain aspects of the situation in Israel somehow wrong? I note you put the words 'illegal settlements' into quotes. Do you believe the illegal settlements to be legal?

I also said nothing about suicide bombers on a crowed bus in my posts on this thread. For your information, on many other threads I have condemned all terrorism. I don't expect you to have read any of my other contributions so I am happy to condemn terrorism again here. All terrorism is wrong, including that perpetrated by any Palestinians or the Israeli government and its agents or the Russian government or the British or the IRA or Al Quaeda or Islamic Jihad or Hizbollah or whoever.

You see fit to call me names. Now it may be cricket where you come from to engage in peurile name calling and ad hominem attacks as a mechanism for establishing the strength of your arguments but on this site it does not establish the truth of your claims any more than the use of capitals.

That is why I said what I said E.J. Sorry. Not with you here at all.Did I cross all my "T"s and dot all my "I"s enough for you E.J.? Or are there more hoops to jump through yet ? You don't seem to get it. It is for you to justify your own claims. Not me or anyone else. You can believe anything you like. You can use whatever typographic rules you want. When you make a claim however you may be asked to justify it. If you don't or won't then it will tend to be treated with the respect it deserves.

Same goes for the fool, focused like a laser beam on "settlements" and nary a word about 30+ years of terrorism by the Palestinians. Can I just point out that when I discuss physics there is no need to refer to chemistry unless it is relevant. Where did you talk about the suffering of the Palestinians? Perhaps when you castigate others perhaps you might consider it appropriate to do what you are complaining about.

zenith-nadir

6th February 2004, 07:50 AM

Wow, look at that E.J.

If I may use your words to address your last long-winded post.

Quote

"Please take every single comment "you" made and show that your claim is true. Unless you do so your claim will be shown to be false."

Unquote

I played by your rules and posted very clearly 3 huge misstatements by Cleon and all you can do is ignore those facts, twist the intent of rikzilla's post and continue to attack me.

Are you and Cleon an item?...just curious as to your motivations.

Anyhow, bye bye E. J. ...enjoy your zenith-nadir exile with Cleon.

Ignore me, I mean nothing to you. In fact you two can scheme together to invent JREF posting rules and typing standards until the cows come home.

:D

zenith-nadir

6th February 2004, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
You see fit to call me names. Now it may be cricket where you come from to engage in peurile name calling and ad hominem attacks as a mechanism for establishing the strength of your arguments but on this site it does not establish the truth of your claims any more than the use of capitals.

p.s.

E.J.

I never called you a name, find the place I did, I challenge you.

Allthough after that lie E. J. , I can think of a few choice names for you.

Mycroft

6th February 2004, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

I played by your rules and posted very clearly 3 huge misstatements by Cleon and all you can do is ignore those facts, twist the intent of rikzilla's post and continue to attack me.

Welcome to the forum, Zenith.

Arguing with E.J. is a lot like arguing with a tape player. He will keep repeating the same thing over and over without recieving any input.

Tony

6th February 2004, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Welcome to the forum, Zenith.

Arguing with E.J. is a lot like arguing with a tape player. He will keep repeating the same thing over and over without recieving any input.

I've noticed that's how our religiously and politically devout posters operate.

Zero

6th February 2004, 08:23 AM

This isn't a religious or racial issue, really...although it is portrayed that way. When you get down to brass tacks, this is an eviction notice for illegal squatters, plain and simple.

epepke

6th February 2004, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by JamesM
But since you ask, I think you have to be pragmatic about rights to live anywhere. As a Jew living in the UK, I have the "right" to live here for as long as the majority of the population tolerate my presence. If they decide they don't want Jews living in the UK, then, well, it sucks to be me, doesn't it? I don't have to like it or think that it's moral, but there isn't much I could do.

Well, there' one thing that you could do, whether it worked or not. You could make it an issue of citizenship, assuming that you are a British citizen/subject. While this is not guaranteed to make it so that you could stay there, at least it presents a challenge to British law. While it would be a perfectly reasonable thing in modern terms for Britain to deny visas or citizenship to people from certain countries, including Israel, the right to deny visas or citizenship to people of certain religions doe not automatically follow.

The existence of Israel has legitimacy on the basis that the UN recognises it as a country, and more importantly, the US wields a big stick to protect it.

The latter, it must be pointed out, is only since about 1970. I remember as a kid growing up that the sales of AWACS planes to Israel was highly controversial, as there had been a traditional US embargo on sales of weapons to Israel since the Eisenhower days. Before that, Israel seemed to be able to make Uzis and invade Egypt without US help, thank you very much.

Realistically, that ain't never gonna happen with the current regimes, but that just means that most Arab regimes are pretty despotic and unenlightened, something that we knew already and is not exactly a matter of great controversy.

Which only heightens the difference between said regimes and, say, the UK. It seems to me that the idea that said regimes are despotic and unenlightened works a weird kind of cognitive dissonance. To wit: because Edward Said and Noam Chomsky said that we can't think ill of them, there must be some way in which they are Just As Good™. So what would normally be viewed as barbaric, nationalist, racist, and bigoted has to be transformed, becaue making such judgements is disallowed. The upshot of this is that people fluently apply concepts to the Middle East, such as the idea of Ethnic Homelands, that they would not dream of applying to their own countries. At least not in the US, and certainly not in Europe for the past 60 years or so.

The very creation of Israel may have been the last gasp of serious Ethnic Homeland thinking on the part of Europeans, and certainly the world would be easier to manage if all the European jews had just moved to New York, Hollywood, and South Florida, instead of most of them, which is what happened. But Israel exists; it has a birth certificate from the UN, and like it or not, it's not possible to go back to the old diplomatic days of feudalism, stripey trousers, handlebar moustaches, and minuets in gilded ballrooms.

zenith-nadir

6th February 2004, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by Zero
This isn't a religious or racial issue, really...although it is portrayed that way. When you get down to brass tacks, this is an eviction notice for illegal squatters, plain and simple.

My mother lives in Israel. Hence my bias.

But I know from personal experience and being on Israeli soil that Israelis just want peace, they don't want, or have any desire in the slightest way to send their teenagers into the IDF to fight.

But thats the problem, you have several hostile neighbors who are actively supporting terrorist groups in the West Bank and Gaza.

And these terrorist groups operate with the blessing of Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority even after 12 peace agreements which address that specific problem.

Now to lump all the issues onto the shoulders of settlers as the cause or the "injustice" to the Palestinians is buying into sheer propoganda.

If the West Bank and Gaza are "palestinian lands" then why did Gaza belong to Egypt and the West Bank belong to Jordan?

How come Egypt and Jordan didn't build a Palestinian state on those territories when Egypt and Jordan RULED those areas from 1948-1967?

Who really is squatting there? Hummmm...curious question indeed.

Whether the settlers stay or go is irrelevant to the middle east problem.

Even if all the settlers go, do you actually think that after a 30+ year terrorist campaign Arafat and his cronies are going to magically stop trying to drive the jews into the sea?

If you do, I have a bridge in the Sahara to sell you.;)

Zero

6th February 2004, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

My mother lives in Israel. Hence my bias.

But I know from personal experience and being on Israeli soil that Israelis just want peace, they don't want, or have any desire in the slightest way to send their teenagers into the IDF to fight.

But thats the problem, you have several hostile neighbors who are actively supporting terrorist groups in the West Bank and Gaza.

And these terrorist groups operate with the blessing of Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority even after 12 peace agreements which address that specific problem.

Now to lump all the issues onto the shoulders of settlers as the cause or the "injustice" to the Palestinians is buying into sheer propoganda.

If the West Bank and Gaza are "palestinian lands" then why did Gaza belong to Egypt and the West Bank belong to Jordan?

How come Egypt and Jordan didn't build a Palestinian state on those territories when Egypt and Jordan RULED those areas from 1948-1967?

Who really is squatting there? Hummmm...curious question indeed.

Whether the settlers stay or go is irrelevant to the middle east problem.

Even if all the settlers go, do you actually think that after a 30+ year terrorist campaign Arafat and his cronies are going to magically stop trying to drive the jews into the sea?

If you do, I have a bridge in the Sahara to sell you.;) Absolutely none of that matters. THe settlers are there illegally, and Sharon is correcting the situation.

zenith-nadir

6th February 2004, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Absolutely none of that matters. THe settlers are there illegally, and Sharon is correcting the situation.

Show me a place Zero where I can verify you claim that the settlements are illegal?

I am not saying they are... or are not.

I am just asking for the information which you are relying upon.

Zero

6th February 2004, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

Show me a place Zero where I can verify you claim that the settlements are illegal?

I am not saying they are... or are not.

I am just asking for the information which you are relying upon. Check the UN website.

E.J.Armstrong

6th February 2004, 09:08 AM

originally posted by zenith-nadir
I played by your rules and posted very clearly 3 huge misstatements by Cleon and all you can do is ignore those facts, twist the intent of rikzilla's post and continue to attack me.
What rules did you paly by? It certainly wasn't any I recognise.

Oh dear. You have made yet another false claim. I did not ignore the responses you made, I discussed them and pointed out certain issues. If that counts as ignoring them in your world then so be it.

You tell me I have twisted the intent of Rikzilla's post yet all I did was post Rikzilla's own words. Are you calling Rikzilla a liar as well as the others you have called a liar on this site? Oh dear.

You still don't seem to get it. When you come on this site and make claims you may be asked to justify those claims. It is up to you to do so or not. If you regard requests to justify your own claims as an attack then so be it. I just wonder why you have come to a sceptics site.Are you and Cleon an item?...just curious as to your motivations. Sorry - is this meant to be a sensible contribution or characteristic of your modus operandum?Anyhow, bye bye E. J. ...enjoy your zenith-nadir exile with Cleon. I am sorry that you have chosen not to justify all the claims you have made on this site but that is up to you. You are however very welcome to debate with me at any time zenith-nadir and on any subject, now or in the future. I do not operate any exclusion policy.

That you are taking your ball home after such a short presence on this site and in the face of so few simple questions about your claims suggests that you are not interested in fully exploring the topics discussed.

Exile. From what? Ignore me, I mean nothing to you. In fact you two can scheme together to invent JREF posting rules and typing standards until the cows come home. Surely you can do better than this. What scheming? What posting rules? What typing standards?

I notice that you haven't bothered to address any of the material issues raised in my post.

Like I say it is not me doing the ignoring. You are very welcome to debate any subject at any time with me.

E.J.Armstrong

6th February 2004, 09:12 AM

originally posted by Mycroft
Welcome to the forum, Zenith.

Arguing with E.J. is a lot like arguing with a tape player. He will keep repeating the same thing over and over without recieving any input..
Another incisive intervention by Mycroft.

Another false and unsubstantiated claim.

Perhaps you might like to stand by your claim this time Mycroft? Or not. It is entirely up to you.

zenith-nadir

6th February 2004, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Check the UN website.

Where on the U.N. website Zero?

Can you link me to the page or is that to much to ask.

:)

Zero

6th February 2004, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

Where on the U.N. website Zero?

Can you link me to the page or is that to much to ask.

:) It actually IS too much to ask...I was hoping that my difficulties with that site were individual, and everyone else was capable of navigating it...:rolleyes:

E.J.Armstrong

6th February 2004, 09:29 AM

originally posted by zenith-nadir
p.s.

E.J.

I never called you a name, find the place I did, I challenge you.

Allthough after that lie E. J. , I can think of a few choice names for you.

Such a short exile. I thought I was supposed to be in zenith-nadir exile. Perhaps that was not actually true? Hmm.

Now, turning to your latest false claim i.e. name calling. I may be wrong, who knows, but calling someone Mr amorality qualifies in my book as name calling. Let me quote you your very own words back as you clearly seem to have forgotten them.
I'd say a suicide bomber on a crowded bus in Tel Aviv is a "terrible wrong" E.J. ....not a settlement Mr. amorality

Now you called my verifiably true claim, a lie. An honourable person would get a grip on himself, recognise that he had been wrong and apologise.

PS
You can call me any names you like, I really don't mind. It still remains the case that name calling doesn't advance your argument one iota. When you do call people names and they subsequently point out that you have done so, it's a good idea not to claim that you didn't. Anyone can make a mistake but repeated ad homs begin to get a bit boring.

E.J.Armstrong

6th February 2004, 09:44 AM

originally posted by Mycroft
But not if they disagree with your interpretation of law.
I don't want to be boring but perhaps you could explain exactly what you are talking about here?I am seriously saying that removing all the people of one ethnicity from a region is ethnic cleansing. If you think it's not, I'd be interested in hearing why. You are seriously calling Sharon's proposal ethnic cleansing. Wow.

There are however a number of problems with your argument. As I understand it, the proposal is not to clear only people of one ethnicity from the area. The proposal is to clear a group of illegal settlers from illegal settlements. Semites will remain. This is rectifying a wrong. Are you claiming that the settlements are composed 100% of only one ethnic group? If the settlements are only are composed of one religious group, who caused that I wonder?

As far as I am aware, there is no bar to any ethnic group living around and in the land vacated by the illegal settlements, therefore it cannot be classed as ethnic cleansing.

zenith-nadir

6th February 2004, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by Zero
It actually IS too much to ask...I was hoping that my difficulties with that site were individual, and everyone else was capable of navigating it...:rolleyes:

Ok....then lets try it this way....what document at the U.N. website should I search for regarding the illegality of Israeli settlements in the Gaza strip?

Zero

6th February 2004, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

Ok....then lets try it this way....what document at the U.N. website should I search for regarding the illegality of Israeli settlements in the Gaza strip? Try Resolutions 446, 471, 476, 478.

Cleon

6th February 2004, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

Are you and Cleon an item?...just curious as to your motivations.

Truly, your intellectual grasp of logic and reason is astounding to those of us beneath your keen insight. :nope:

demon

6th February 2004, 10:53 AM

The UN doesn`t just consider the settlements illegal, but also an obstacle to peace and economic and social development as in General Assembly resolution 57/126 of 11 December 2002, the operative part of which reads as follows:

quote:
__________________________________________________ __
1.Reaffirms that Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan are illegal and an obstacle to peace and economic and social development;

2. Calls upon Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949,** to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to the occupied Syrian Golan and to abide scrupulously by the provisions of the Convention, in particular article 49;

3. Reiterates its demand for the complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan, including the construction of the settlement in Jabal Abu-Ghneim;

4. Stresses the need for full implementation of Security Council resolution 904 (1994) of 18 March 1994, in which, among other things, the Council called upon Israel, the occupying Power, to continue to take and implement measures, including confiscation of arms, with the aim of preventing illegal acts of violence by Israeli settlers, and called for measures to be taken to guarantee the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilians in the occupied territory;

5. Reiterates its calls for the prevention of all acts of violence by Israeli settlers, particularly in the light of recent developments;

6. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its fifty-eighth session on the implementation of the present resolution."

2. On 10 June 2003, the Secretary-General addressed a note verbale to the Government of the State of Israel, in which he requested, in view of his reporting responsibilities under the above-mentioned resolution, that the Government inform him of any steps it had taken, or envisaged taking, concerning the implementation of the relevant provisions of the resolution.

3. No reply had been received at the time of the preparation of the present report.

http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/a859b6e2b50a14ecc1256daa0044baa9?Opendocument
__________________________________________________ __

"Disputed territories" is nothing more than a piece of lawyer speak. The borders may be open to debate, but when it comes to the homes and property therein that the Israelis stole, there is no dispute.
A couple of pertinent quotes.
Moshe Dayan:

"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahal arose in place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population." (Address to the Technion, Haifa, reported in Ha’aretz, April 4 1969).

David Ben Gurion :

"If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" (quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif [The Jewish Paradox]).

The settlements are an integral part of Israeli Imperial Oppression, maintained because of the resources they yield and for once, heartening as it is, there is a suprising consensus in the world about the illegality of the settlements...with the two obvious exceptions of course.

davefoc

6th February 2004, 10:59 AM

ZN said:But I know from personal experience and being on Israeli soil that Israelis just want peace, they don't want, or have any desire in the slightest way to send their teenagers into the IDF to fight.

ZN, I wish you could step back and listen to yourself a bit. You spout stuff that sounds like it has come straight from a pro-Israeli revival meeting like it somehow is significant to people other than the pro-Israeli fanatics.

What the hell do you think is the significance of that remark? Is it your theory that Palestinians don't want peace? That Palestinians just sit around trying to figure out how to maintain a state of semi war because they love it so much and only the great morally superior Israelis with their noble visions of peace can possibly be right? Or maybe it is your theory that all Israelis want peace even the ones that carry out the unprovoked attacks against the Palestinians.

Here's a thought: if Israelis are so driven by the desire for peace why do they continue to expand the disputed settlements? Or why would they elect Sharon, a man associated with the massacre of hundreds of Palestinians in Lebanon?

Sure this stuff plays great when you sit around with you pro-Israeli buddies convincing each other of how righteous the Israelis are and how evil and disgusting the Palestinians are but it sure doesn't play very well to anybody else

zenith-nadir

6th February 2004, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by davefoc
Is it your theory that Palestinians don't want peace? That Palestinians just sit around trying to figure out how to maintain a state of semi war because they love it so much and only the great morally superior Israelis with their noble visions of peace can possibly be right?

No, my theory dave is that Yasser Arafat controls the Palestinian Authority and he just happens to be the most well documented and well known terrorist next to Osama Bin Laden.

After 12 peace "agreements" there has been no stop to terrorism from the palestinian side.

Originally posted by davefoc
Or maybe it is your theory that all Israelis want peace even the ones that carry out the unprovoked attacks against the Palestinians.

Name an instance of an unprovoked Israeli attacks against the Palestinians dave.

Originally posted by davefoc
Here's a thought: if Israelis are so driven by the desire for peace why do they continue to expand the disputed settlements? Or why would they elect Sharon, a man associated with the massacre of hundreds of Palestinians in Lebanon?

Now you are treading on very thin ice.

Sharon had nothing to do with the killings at Sabra and Shatilla. The person who ordered the killings, was Elie Hobeika, not Ariel Sharon.

The only reason why the Lebanese Christian Militia went along with Hobeika's orders, was to avenge the thousands of Christians, who were killed by the PLO in the civil war, in Damour Lebanon and because the Lebanese Christian President Bashir Gamayel was just assasinated.

On on September 16th 1982 the Lebanese Christian Phalangist militia moved into Sabra & Shatila and committed the massacres that occurred at the two Beirut-area refugee camps.....not Ariel Sharon.

Sabra & Shatila (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre)

Sabra and Shatila 2 (http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=402700)

Originally posted by davefoc
Sure this stuff plays great when you sit around with you pro-Israeli buddies convincing each other of how righteous the Israelis are and how evil and disgusting the Palestinians are but it sure doesn't play very well to anybody else

You know what dave, I have never vilified the palestinian people as a whole in any of my posts, I challenge you to prove that I have.

_______________________________________________

_______________________________________________

Turning to Zero and Demon:

You can quote all the U.N. resolutions you want but the United States abstained from voting on ALL of those resolutions you quoted.

Norway and Britain and the US abstained from voting on 446.

Perhaps those countries understand something you do not.

Secondly not one of those resolutions states that all settlements must be removed to obtain peaceful resolution between Israel and the palestinians.

I am not a settlement freak but you'all are missing the big picture.

If the settlements are key to peace why was there no peace BEFORE the settlements?

Hutch

6th February 2004, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Name an instance of an unprovoked Israeli attacks against the Palestinians dave.

Well, I don't remember the date offhand, but didn't an Israeli citizen (he might have been a settler but I cannot recall for certain) enter a mosque and shoot down a number of Palestinians while at prayer?

zenith-nadir

6th February 2004, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by Hutch
Well, I don't remember the date offhand, but didn't an Israeli citizen (he might have been a settler but I cannot recall for certain) enter a mosque and shoot down a number of Palestinians while at prayer?

I think dave was refering to Israel rather than the work of a deranged immigrant murderer from New York. (Baruch Goldstein)

Cleon

6th February 2004, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

I think dave was refering to Israel rather than the work of a deranged immigrant murderer from New York. (Baruch Goldstein)

Of course, Goldstein was an Israeli citizen. And it's interesting to note that immediately the settler community built a monument to his memory.

davefoc

6th February 2004, 12:31 PM

No, that is exactly the kind of thing I was referring to.

I am well aware of the idea that the Israeli government only mounts attacks in response to provocations by the Palestinian terrorist organizations and only kills Palestinian civilians by accident. Somehow those accidents kill more Palestinian civilians by accident than the terrorists do on purpose, but I absolutely believe (no sarcasm here, truly) that the Israeli government does not intentionally kill Palestinian civilians.

Of course, Palestinian terrorist organizations only carry out their attacks in response to attacks by Israel so this logic pretty much is guaranteed to result in an endless chain of violence.

As far as Goldstein, wasn't he buried with honor like some kind of a hero? Were the Israelis that so honored Goldstein part of the group of Israelis that "just want peace"?

ZN said:You know what dave, I have never vilified the palestinian people as a whole in any of my posts

You may not understand the implications of what you write. When you say that the Israelis just want peace, the implication is that the Palestinians just want something else otherwise why say it?

Once again, you come back to the justification for Israeli's disputed settlements as Yasser Arafat. Except that the building of the settlements has been going on for a very long time so why are you so sure that Israel isn't essentially insuring the existence of somebody like arafat by their intransigence on the issue of settlements?

As far as the US abstaining from those resolutions; does that indicate that the US is driven by some great moral search for justice when it abstains? As a US citizen I am skeptical of that notion. First if the US really thought those resolutions were unfair or wrong why didn't it vote against them? Secondly, the fact is that there is a stronger, more militant, pro Israeli political movement in the US than there is in Israel. Political leaders who take stands against Israel lose more votes than they gain and for the most part political leaders in the US are just like democratic political leaders every place else they make compromises with their conscience to get elected.

demon

6th February 2004, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
"Name an instance of an unprovoked Israeli attacks against the Palestinians dave."

"Three Jewish settlers have been jailed for attempted murder."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3151930.stm

"Israel Unveils Tip of Jewish Terror Iceberg, Embedded with Settlers"
http://www.aljazeerah.info/News%20archives/2003%20News%20archives/August/26%20n/Israel%20Unveils%20Tip%20of%20Jewish%20Terror%20Ic eberg,%20Embedded%20with%20Settlers.htm

"Settlers kill Palestinian girl after Hebron funeral "
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,764903,00.html

!Olive harvesting season brings new risks for
Palestinian farmers"
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/updates/olive_harvesting_season.htm

And on and on and on.

Mycroft

6th February 2004, 12:43 PM

zenith-nadir

6th February 2004, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by davefoc
Of course, Palestinian terrorist organizations only carry out their attacks in response to attacks by Israel so this logic pretty much is guaranteed to result in an endless chain of violence.

Originally posted by Mycroft
Huh? Where do you get this idea?

That is what I am talking about Mycroft.

Alot of people seem to forget who Arafat is and what he did over the past 30 years.

They forget about Black September, Cleo A. Noel, who assasinated Senator Robert Kennedy, The Munich Olympic massacres, the 5 arab-israeli wars.

They seem to forget who the Hamas, Tanzim, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Fatah, Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade and PLFP are... and what they've done and represent.

And somehow it can all magically stop if Israel stops being the "bad guy" with their 'apartheid' wall and 'illegal' settlements.

Amazing stuff.

...And to demon, I could post DECADES of palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians...from reputable news sources....so you can stop digging stories out of palestinemonitor and aljazeera now....

demon

6th February 2004, 01:13 PM

"...And to demon, I could post DECADES of palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians...from reputable news sources....so you can stop digging stories out of palestinemonitor and aljazeera now...."

You asked for an example of Israeli attacks on Palestinians...I provided a few.
If you don`t like getting replies to your questions then don`t ask ok? Simple as that really.

You aren`t very good at this are you?

CapelDodger

6th February 2004, 01:22 PM

from davefoc:

But, I noticed something, about the way Sharon described the plan that did make it sound like ethic cleansing of a sort when he talked about no Jews living in Gaza after the settlements were removed.
It is a striking comment, isn't it? Another example of zionism claiming jurisdiction over all Jews, and apparently a claim by Sharon to be the Emperor of the Jews. But of course any Jew who chose to live in Gaza after a withdrawal and didn't work for Mossad would be anti-zionist and therefore, by zionist definition, not a proper Jew.

from Mycroft:
In theory our foreign aid dollars ... brings stability to regions ...
Not something that has been achieved, or even intended, where Israel is concerned. No rational person has ever thought that the creation and maintenance of a Jewish State where Jews were a minority was ever going to lead to stability. Quite the opposite, and Israel has done great service to the US in testing new US equipment against the Soviet kit.

from Cleon:
Completely untrue in any way, shape, or form. A mufti is a religious leader. Arafat is a political leader. Not a particularly effective one, IMO, but he's not an imam or mufti.
Actually, the position of Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was a political one, used as such by the Ottomans and later the British (who effectively reappointed Haj Amin, as I recall). His actual political power was limited by people's awareness of his appointed status and he was never that influential on the political classes. (He could raise a rabble, though. That's the power a religious title provides.) Arafat is very different - he was never appointed by anyone but became the majority leader of the Palestinians by his own efforts, and by election after Oslo. Haj Amin should be seen as the political pygmy that he was, rather than the inflated Zionist demon. And Arafat should be seen as the (relative) political giant that he is.
Of course, there IS no hard evidence that King David existed ...
There's no reasonable doubt that David existed. He was a warlord who created a minor empire which, in alliance with the Phoenicians - prominently Hyram (possibly Hyrams) of Tyre - took complete control of the Red Sea to Mediterranean trade routes. He captured Jerusalem (a Cannanite city) using his own forces, not the Israeli levy, and the city was his personal possession. He had the Ark brought there to get it away from the priests who opposed him and into the control of his own toadies. Until this point Jerusalem had no significance to the Jewish faith at all, nada, squat. The City of David is exactly that - the personal possession of the Davidic line. Nothing very spiritual about that, but those toadie priests were up to the challenge. Not only did they give David and Solomon (second and last of the dynasty) an entire history, but they scattered Jerusalem with tourist sites - Abraham's this, Joseph's that, Ruth's birthing pool. It's not a recent phaenomenon for this city.

Cleon

6th February 2004, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger

Actually, the position of Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was a political one, used as such by the Ottomans and later the British (who effectively reappointed Haj Amin, as I recall). His actual political power was limited by people's awareness of his appointed status and he was never that influential on the political classes. (He could raise a rabble, though. That's the power a religious title provides.) Arafat is very different - he was never appointed by anyone but became the majority leader of the Palestinians by his own efforts, and by election after Oslo. Haj Amin should be seen as the political pygmy that he was, rather than the inflated Zionist demon. And Arafat should be seen as the (relative) political giant that he is.

Granted. But my point still stands; the idea that Arafat is the "successor" of the Mufti doesn't even come close to making sense.

There's no reasonable doubt that David existed. He was a warlord who created a minor empire which, in alliance with the Phoenicians - prominently Hyram (possibly Hyrams) of Tyre - took complete control of the Red Sea to Mediterranean trade routes. He captured Jerusalem (a Cannanite city) using his own forces, not the Israeli levy, and the city was his personal possession. He had the Ark brought there to get it away from the priests who opposed him and into the control of his own toadies. Until this point Jerusalem had no significance to the Jewish faith at all, nada, squat. The City of David is exactly that - the personal possession of the Davidic line. Nothing very spiritual about that, but those toadie priests were up to the challenge. Not only did they give David and Solomon (second and last of the dynasty) an entire history, but they scattered Jerusalem with tourist sites - Abraham's this, Joseph's that, Ruth's birthing pool. It's not a recent phaenomenon for this city.

As I said, the evidence for David's existence is pretty sketchy. According to this site (http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH01xv0), the only "hard" evidence" is a piece of rock dated about 100 years after David referring to the "House of David."

Ancient Jerusalem was the largest city in an area full of warring city-states and tribes. If David did exist, and it's entirely possible, his actual rule was fairly minor. He certainly didn't create a "United Kingdom of Israel" or anything like that. He was a minor leader that, at best, expanded his rule beyond Judah to take Jerusalem at one point.

CapelDodger

6th February 2004, 02:04 PM

from Mycroft:
Fool recently accused Sharon of planning ethnic cleansing in the disputed territories. At the time I though that was pretty dumb, but it turns out he was right.
I get the impression you're not behind Arik in this.

"Disputed territories". A term applied generally to territory that was not part of Israel before the 1967 incident. Also applied by some to Southern Lebanon, but those are extremists. Since the world community no longer countenances expansion by conquest - something to do with lessons learned by the mid-20th Century - they must, if disputed, have been disputed before their occupation. No dispute arises because of 1967, given said refusal to countenance. So what is the dispute?

Was Sharon planning ethnic cleansing when he greeted the Oslo talks with a call to "take every hilltop!"? Look at the numbers of settlers in Gaza in comparison to the numbers in the West Bank. Planning ethnic cleansing in the "disputed territories" does not imply all of the occupied territories. The Gaza enterprise is clearly untenable, so it goes as a money-saving distraction from the real business in the West Bank. It also sets adrift a lot of Arabs who might otherwise tend toward the one-state solution - if they want one state, they can be part of Egypt again. It may upset some arch-extremists but even the extremists can be sold this by Sharon. Very pragmatic. Have I persuaded you on board?

zenith-nadir

6th February 2004, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by demon
You asked for an example of Israeli attacks on Palestinians...I provided a few. If you don`t like getting replies to your questions then don`t ask ok? Simple as that really. You aren`t very good at this are you?

You're right I'll never be as "good" as you.

Did ya know that people shoot other people in America everyday Demon?. Over 10,000 are killed by guns every year.

The West Bank and Gaza are not exactly Mayberry USA.

People get shot there.

But they do not get blown up in cafes by israeli suicide bombers, they do not get blown up in buses by israeli suicide bombers, they do not get blown up in discos by israeli suicide bombers, they do not get blown up in seders by israeli suicide bombers.

Get the picture yet?

Israel doesn't sponsor israeli terrorists with safe haven in israeli civilian neighborhoods who dress like Israeli civilians and make bomb vests to blow up ON palestinian buses.

And that has been happening for how long now?...5..6 years?

A Fulbright scholarship convoy was blown up in Gaza in October Demon. Three Americans were killed. No one has been arrested.

U.S. Ambassador Cleo A. Noel, U.S. Diplomat George C. Moore, U.S. Ambassador Frances E. Meloy,U.S. Economic Counselor Robert O.Waring, U.S. Embassy - Political Officer William Buckley, US Navy Seaman Robert Dean Stethem, Disabled American Leon Klinghoffer....all killed by palestinian terrorism.

But it's all about the 'illegal' settlements and gun toting "settlers" and has nothing to do with terrorism is that your position?

Tony

6th February 2004, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

You're right I'll never be as "good" as you.

Did ya know that people shoot other people in America everyday Demon?. Over 10,000 are killed by guns every year.

The West Bank and Gaza are not exactly Mayberry USA.

People get shot there.

But they do not get blown up in cafes by israeli suicide bombers, they do not get blown up in buses by israeli suicide bombers, they do not get blown up in discos by israeli suicide bombers, they do not get blown up in seders by israeli suicide bombers.

Get the picture yet?

Israel doesn't sponsor israeli terrorists with safe haven in israeli civilian neighborhoods who dress like Israeli civilians and make bomb vests to blow up ON palestinian buses.

And that has been happening for how long now?...5..6 years?

A Fulbright scholarship convoy was blown up in Gaza in October Demon. Three Americans were killed. No one has been arrested.

U.S. Ambassador Cleo A. Noel, U.S. Diplomat George C. Moore, U.S. Ambassador Frances E. Meloy,U.S. Economic Counselor Robert O.Waring, U.S. Embassy - Political Officer William Buckley, US Navy Seaman Robert Dean Stethem, Disabled American Leon Klinghoffer....all killed by palestinian terrorism.

But it's all about the 'illegal' settlements and gun toting "settlers" and has nothing to do with terrorism is that your position?

You'll have to make allowances for demon, ZN. He is a bomb wearing palestinian himself and is thus heavily biased and brainwashed from a lifetime of muslim propaganda.

zenith-nadir

6th February 2004, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
"Disputed territories"?

Speaking if disputed.

Syria occupies Lebanon—with more than 20,000 troops - since 1976.

When Israel ignores a UN resolution, condemnation, or sanction, they're criticized or worse.

When Syria does so, (see: UN Security Council Resolution 520), it is 'bumped upstairs.' That is, it gets seated on the UN Security Council and then is rewarded with the council presidency.

I just don't get it.

zenith-nadir

6th February 2004, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by Tony
You'll have to make allowances for demon, ZN. He is a bomb wearing palestinian himself and is thus heavily biased and brainwashed from a lifetime of muslim propaganda.

Actually I am having fun Tony...my girlfriend has dubbed me the "Uni-typer"...I dunno why but debating appeals to me here...so many colorful characters...so little time.:D

Nikk

6th February 2004, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

I am seriously saying that removing all the people of one ethnicity from a region is ethnic cleansing. If you think it's not, I'd be interested in hearing why.

Having started a thread about ethnic cleansing I am surprised that you have not provided some sort of definition of the term as the term itself has only come into use relatively recently.

To make up for your omission I offer the following from Wikipedia.......

"Ethnic cleansing defies easy definition. At one end it is virtually indistinguishable from forced emigration and population exchange while at the other it merges with deportation and genocide. At the most general level, however, ethnic cleansing can be understood as the expulsion of an "undesirable" population from a given territory due to religious or ethnic discrimination, political, strategic or ideological considerations, or a combination of these. "

In the context of the war in Yugoslavia it was described as.......

"Ethnic Cleansing is a process in which advancing army of one ethnic group expels civilians of other ethnic groups from towns and villages it conquers in order to create ethnically pure enclaves for members of their ethnic group."

So a proposal to remove your own colonists from an unviable situation is hardly what is normally referred to as ethnic cleansing.

Now this (http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h123002.html) is more like ethnic cleansing............

"What people fail to recognise is that Israel owes its very existence as a Jewish State to massive ethnic cleansing. The overall picture is undisputed: In 1948, there were about 600.000 Jews in Palestine. The number of Palestinians driven out from the territory taken by Israel in 1947-1949 is estimated at 600.000 to 720.000 (says the nationalistic Israeli historian Benny Morris in his authoritative The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem); about 100.000 Palestinians, a.k.a Israeli Arabs, remained. Without driving most of the Arabs out, then, or without prohibiting their return after the war, no Jewish majority could have been established."

By the way, you do of course realise that removing the Gaza strip settlers is the pretext for annexing territory on the West Bank don't you?

More ethnic cleansing anyone?

demon

6th February 2004, 02:33 PM

You said "Name an instance of an unprovoked Israeli attacks against the Palestinians dave. "

I proceeded to name some. It was a simple request and you got a simple answer. If you don`t like that then tough.

Now, if you want to rant about Palestinian terrorism, good for you, go right ahead, but it`s irrelevant to your original statement posted above. It was a simple request and you got a simple answer.

I`m unsure as to what perceptions you came to this forum with, but most of us here aren`t mind readers and I`m not either. For that reason I tend not to answer questions that people haven`t asked. Get the picture yet?

zenith-nadir

6th February 2004, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by Nikk
More ethnic cleansing anyone?

Funny, the article failed to mention these facts.

Over 850,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries between 1948 and the mid 1950s.

During 1950 and 1951, more than 120,000 Jews (95% of the Jewish population) left Iraq for Israel via the airlift known as Operation Ezra and Nehemiah.

Is that ethnic cleansing?

demon

6th February 2004, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by Tony
"You'll have to make allowances for demon, ZN. He is a bomb wearing palestinian himself and is thus heavily biased and brainwashed from a lifetime of muslim propaganda."

"make allowances"? wow, we have progressed!
Normally you`d just call for someone to be killed! Well done!

zenith-nadir

6th February 2004, 02:52 PM

Demon I refer to your latest discharge of plebeian verbiage; in which, you have proven, once again, that there is no such thing as unutterable nonsense.

Tony

6th February 2004, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by demon

Normally you`d just call for someone to be killed!

I would? Really?

Well damn, all I need is a Koran, a diaper on my head and 20 pounds of explosives strapped to my body and I'd be your kind of guy.

Nikk

6th February 2004, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

Funny, the article failed to mention these facts.

Over 850,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries between 1948 and the mid 1950s.

As the article was expressly about ethnic cleansing in Israel of arabs by jews why on earth should it refer to subsequent events in other countries?

During 1950 and 1951, more than 120,000 Jews (95% of the Jewish population) left Iraq for Israel via the airlift known as Operation Ezra and Nehemiah.

Is that ethnic cleansing?

Were they forced out or did they leave at the invitation of the Israeli government who wanted new citizens and offered a new start? I accept that some may have been expelled, but all of them? You will find that jews moved to Israel from the US and the UK. They were ethnically cleansed as well were they?

You seem to have bought into the mentality whereby your sides act of vengeance is justified by the other sides act of retaliation for your previous retaliation for their act of.......etc, etc, etc. Doesn't seem to be leading to a secure future does it?

zenith-nadir

6th February 2004, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Nikk Were they forced out or did they leave at the invitation of the Israeli government who wanted new citizens and offered a new start?

The jews had to abandon everything they owned and were run out of Arab countries.

Immigration to Israel from Arab lands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_refugees)

The Modern Jewish Exodus from Arab Lands (http://www.socialsciencesweb.com/The_Forgotten_Millions_The_Modern_Jewish_Exodus_fr om_Arab_Lands_0826447643.html)

Or simply go to Google and type in "jews forced to flee from Arab countries".

The newly formed country of Israel absorbed a large portion of the refugees.

I have a question for you nikk, why doesn't Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Jordan absorb their 'refugees' after 40 years!....hell most of the palestinian refugees alive today were born in Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Jordan.

Palestinians can't own land in Lebanon (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0F67F0E9-41B6-4A6E-B346-DC3CDC0AF6EA.htm)

Palestinians can't have Syrian citizenship (http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/991119/1999111907.html)

Jordan refuses to let Palestinian refugees settle in Jordan (http://www.jordanembassyus.org/081099004.htm)

Mycroft

6th February 2004, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
I have a question for you nikk, why doesn't Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Jordan absorb their 'refugees' after 40 years!....hell most of the palestinian refugees alive today were born in Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Jordan.

Palestinians can't own land in Lebanon (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0F67F0E9-41B6-4A6E-B346-DC3CDC0AF6EA.htm)

Palestinians can't have Syrian citizenship (http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/991119/1999111907.html)

Jordan refuses to let Palestinian refugees settle in Jordan (http://www.jordanembassyus.org/081099004.htm)

Great question. Lebanon, Syria and Jordan all have Palestinian-Arab "refugee camps".

Imagine living in a country where your father and grandfather were born, a country that shares a common ethnicity, language, culture and predominant religion with you, yet denying you such basic rights as citizenship and land ownership?

There is a certain irony in expecting Israel to provide for the comfort of the Palestinian-Arabs when their own brothers turn their backs on them.

zenith-nadir

6th February 2004, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Great question. Lebanon, Syria and Jordan all have Palestinian-Arab "refugee camps".

Imagine living in a country where your father and grandfather were born, a country that shares a common ethnicity, language, culture and predominant religion with you, yet denying you such basic rights as citizenship and land ownership?

There is a certain irony in expecting Israel to provide for the comfort of the Palestinian-Arabs when their own brothers turn their backs on them.

E-X-A-C-T-L-Y Mycroft.

Palestinians are not allowed to own property in Lebanon, they are not allowed to be citizens in Syria or Jordan.

Even after residing there for 40+ years.

But it's all about Isreal and their 'illegal' settlements...and has nothing to do with the Arab's situational morality and blatant hypocrisy.

Or how about when Kuwait threw out 450,000 Palestinians after Desert Storm?

BBC STORY - 30 May, 2001 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1361060.stm)

www.aljazeerah.info editorial (http://www.aljazeerah.info/Editorials/2003%20Editorials/May-August%202003/Who%20should%20really%20apologize%20the%20Palestin ians%20or%20Kuwaitis,%20Hassan%20El-Najjar.htm)

Suddenly Israel doesn't seem to be at the root of the palestinian refugee problem.

Mycroft

6th February 2004, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I don't want to be boring but perhaps you could explain exactly what you are talking about here? You are seriously calling Sharon's proposal ethnic cleansing. Wow.

Yes. Why would it surprise you that I call clearing a region of one specific ethnicity ethnic cleansing?

There are however a number of problems with your argument. Argument? I was only pointing out what is happening, I wasn’t aware I was making an argument. Are you making an argument? As I understand it, the proposal is not to clear only people of one ethnicity from the area. How is it not clearing only one ethnicity from an area?The proposal is to clear a group of illegal settlers from illegal settlements. Such actions are always rationalized by redefining the terms Semites will remain. This is rectifying a wrong. I’m sure the Hutu’s felt they were rectifying a wrong perpetuated by the Tutsis too. Are you claiming that the settlements are composed 100% of only one ethnic group? Are you saying they’re not? Please document. If the settlements are only are composed of one religious group, who caused that I wonder?

As far as I am aware, there is no bar to any ethnic group living around and in the land vacated by the illegal settlements, therefore it cannot be classed as ethnic cleansing. So you’re saying the Jews will be free to move back in? Then what’s the point of moving them out? Please document that the Jews will be free to move back in after they have been ethnically cleansed from the area.

Skeptic

6th February 2004, 07:23 PM

You got to love "The Fool". His "proof" that the jews are "just like" the Palestinians? Quotes from some jewish leaders... the most RECENT one being from 50 years ago, and the rest as early as the turn of the century and even before! Herzel, which is quoted here repeatedly as "evidence", died in 1904...

And from where? Why, from a web site "palestineremembered"... surely a terribly objective site. At least one of these quotes is, by the way, almost certainly made up: Israel Zangvil, here quoted as fervently for transfering the Arabs, was in fact what was then (ca. 1910, another "modern" quote) called a "territorialist", calling for the establishment of a jewish state in Africa or somewhere else, NOT in israel (or Palestine). This alleged quote from him simply doesn't make sense.

And THIS is supposed to prove "moral equivelancy" between jews and Arabs? Fifty- to 100-year-old quotes as opposed to a constant, continuing calls for genocide? This is like claiming that Sudan and the USA are "equivalent": Sudan practices slavery of its black population today, the USA had people say bad things about blacks in public in 1920, so what's the difference? They're both "racist"...

Actually, "Fool", you're proving my point. The web site in question is, no doubt, not particularly tolerant of israelies. Yet in order to find quotes that are even remotely equivalent to what the Palestinians openly said last week, it has to dig quotes from jews anywhere from 50 to 120 or so years ago! This shows something about the jews, indeed--but not what you think.

Mycroft

6th February 2004, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
It is a striking comment, isn't it? Another example of zionism claiming jurisdiction over all Jews, and apparently a claim by Sharon to be the Emperor of the Jews. But of course any Jew who chose to live in Gaza after a withdrawal and didn't work for Mossad would be anti-zionist and therefore, by zionist definition, not a proper Jew.

You usually have something smart to say, but this statement puzzles me.

Zionism was a political movement to establish a national homeland for the Jews. Now that that’s been fulfilled, how do you define Zionism today?

How do you define anti-Zionism?

Why would a Jew who chose to live in Gaza after a withdrawal be labeled anti-Zionist? Who would make such a clam and why?
Originally posted by CapelDodger
Not something that has been achieved, or even intended, where Israel is concerned. No rational person has ever thought that the creation and maintenance of a Jewish State where Jews were a minority was ever going to lead to stability. Quite the opposite, and Israel has done great service to the US in testing new US equipment against the Soviet kit.

An interesting [i]opinion[/b], but how does that relate to what I said?

Mycroft

6th February 2004, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
I get the impression you're not behind Arik in this.
I think it would be interesting to discuss the matter with him. Since you’re on a first-name basis, perhaps you could arrange an introduction?
Originally posted by CapelDodger
"Disputed territories". A term applied generally to territory that was not part of Israel before the 1967 incident. Also applied by some to Southern Lebanon, but those are extremists. Since the world community no longer countenances expansion by conquest - something to do with lessons learned by the mid-20th Century - they must, if disputed, have been disputed before their occupation. No dispute arises because of 1967, given said refusal to countenance. So what is the dispute?

If the world does not countenance expansion by conquest, then the dispute would arise from 1948, when Jordan and Egypt expanded their territories through conquest.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Was Sharon planning ethnic cleansing when he greeted the Oslo talks with a call to "take every hilltop!"? Look at the numbers of settlers in Gaza in comparison to the numbers in the West Bank. Planning ethnic cleansing in the "disputed territories" does not imply all of the occupied territories. The Gaza enterprise is clearly untenable, so it goes as a money-saving distraction from the real business in the West Bank. It also sets adrift a lot of Arabs who might otherwise tend toward the one-state solution - if they want one state, they can be part of Egypt again. It may upset some arch-extremists but even the extremists can be sold this by Sharon. Very pragmatic. Have I persuaded you on board?

First you try to sell me state-sponsored religious indoctrination, now you try to sell me this plan which may or may not be Sharon’s. Tell me, are you in sales?

Mycroft

6th February 2004, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by Nikk

Having started a thread about ethnic cleansing I am surprised that you have not provided some sort of definition of the term as the term itself has only come into use relatively recently.

That surprises you?! Should I have anticipated that a simple term would be controversial?

Originally posted by Nikk
To make up for your omission I offer the following from Wikipedia.......

"Ethnic cleansing defies easy definition….

Thank you for clearing that up. ;)

Originally posted by Nikk
So a proposal to remove your own colonists from an unviable situation is hardly what is normally referred to as ethnic cleansing.

But it is expulsion of an "undesirable" population from a given territory due to religious or ethnic discrimination, political, strategic or ideological considerations, or a combination of these. So it still fits Wikipedia’s definition.

Originally posted by Nikk
Now this (http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h123002.html) is more like ethnic cleansing............

You made me laugh, Nikk.

First you bash me for not providing a definition to a common phrase.

Then you “remedy” the situation by quoting a site that starts by saying the phrase defies easy definition.

Then you link to a site that accuses Israel of planning ethnic cleansing based on the ravings of such extremists groups as Gamla and ElectronicIntifada.

You are aware this is a skeptics board, right?

Originally posted by Nikk
By the way, you do of course realise that removing the Gaza strip settlers is the pretext for annexing territory on the West Bank don't you?

I heard something like that from Capel Dodger. I haven’t come across anything credible in my reading, but you seem pretty sure of yourself so I expect you can provide some secret memo from the Israeli government or something.

Skeptic

6th February 2004, 10:59 PM

But it is expulsion of an "undesirable" population from a given territory due to religious or ethnic discrimination, political, strategic or ideological considerations, or a combination of these. So it still fits Wikipedia’s definition.

But they said the magic word ("colonialist!") before they kick out the jews! It doesn't count as REAL ethnic cleansing in that case, does it?

Remember: ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing... UNLESS it is ethnic cleansing of jews, in which case, it's "resistance to colonialism", or "ending illegal occupation", or whatever other euphemism du jour applies.

I heard something like that from Capel Dodger. I haven’t come across anything credible in my reading, but you seem pretty sure of yourself so I expect you can provide some secret memo from the Israeli government or something.

Well, to hoist him on his own petard, even if he WOULD post a secret israeli government plan to kill all Palestinians, that shouldn't count, should it?

After all, that, too, would not prove that EVERY SINGLE ISRAELI wants to kick out EVERY SINGLE PALESTINIAN, which, of course, is the standard of proof that's required when discussing such issues. And at any rate, it would only be proof that the GOVERNMENT wants it, which means absolutely nothing--how do we know the people want it?

But I forget: to claim that the Palestinians want to genocide the jews is "racist" unless one shows that every single Palestinian wants to kill every single jew; on the other hand, to "prove" israeli desire for "ethnic cleansing", it is enough to post a rant by anybody who is israeli, or even jewish, once said--even if is from 100 years ago or some obscure extremist group.

Zero

6th February 2004, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
[B]
But I forget: to claim that the Palestinians want to genocide the jews is "racist" unless one shows that every single Palestinian wants to kill every single jew; on the other hand, to "prove" israeli desire for "ethnic cleansing", it is enough to post a rant by anybody who is israeli, or even jewish, once said--even if is from 100 years ago or some obscure extremist group. This should go in that "language war" thread...the proper phrasing should be 'certain extremist Israelis(including but not limited to some members of the Likud Party) seek genocide'.

E.J.Armstrong

7th February 2004, 03:12 AM

originally posted by Mycroft
Yes. Why would it surprise you that I call clearing a region of one specific ethnicity ethnic cleansing Because that is not what is happening. Where has it been said that there is a barrier to semitic people living on the land vacated by the illegal settlements?There are however a number of problems with your argument. Argument? I was only pointing out what is happening, I wasn’t aware I was making an argument. Are you making an argument? Au contraire. Let me help you then. You started this thread did you not? You stated near the start of the thread thatAnother way to look at it is exactly as my thread title suggests: it’s ethnic cleansing. I’d like to know why it’s okay when Jews are the ethnicity being cleansed from a region, but not when it’s other groups.
The Oxford Compact english dictionary defines an argument as amongst other things as 2 a reason advanced... If you believe that you have not advanced a reason for calling it ethnic cleansing are you planning to do so at any time? I believe that you advanced a reason for calling what Sharon plans 'Ethnic Cleansing' when you said that Jews are the ethnicity being cleansed from a region. Perhaps you don't believe that you have justified the title of the thread?

How is it not clearing only one ethnicity from an area? Because Sharon's plan is apparently to clear the illegal settlers from the illegal settlements. Are you saying that there are no people of that ethnicity living nearby and no people of the same ethnicity will not live in the area after the illegal settlers have been evicted? Such actions are always rationalized by redefining the terms Then you will be more than happy to justify this, your latest claim, and specify which terms are in any way invalid. I notice that you have simply made a claim without backing it up or giving any reason whatsoever why any one of my terms are incorrect. I invite you to do so now. Why not say what you mean instead of hiding behind insinuations?I’m sure the Hutu’s felt they were rectifying a wrong perpetuated by the Tutsis too. Are you seriously trying to claim that the removal of illegal settlements and illegal settlers is equivalent to genocide? Is Sharon planning to kill all the settlers? Perhaps he should be de-elected quickly if that is really his intention, as you imply with your frankly ridiculous comparison.Are you saying they’re not? Please document. I don't know - possibly that is why I asked you a question? Are you saying you don't know if Sharon's plan amounts to ethnic cleansing because not all of the same ethnicity will be cleared. Why did you start the thread when you don't know if the supporting evidence for the claim is present? Let me just look at the title of the thread again. Ah yes - 'Sharon ordered it: Ethnic cleansing in Gaza' No ifs, no buts, not modifiers at all. You seemed very definite then. Are you really saying you don't know now?

So you’re saying the Jews will be free to move back in? Then what’s the point of moving them out? Please document that the Jews will be free to move back in after they have been ethnically cleansed from the area. For one thing you have failed to show that the proposals amount to ethnic cleansing. You have asserted it. For another, I really would have thought that the reason would have been apparent even to you. The reason they may be moved out is that the settlements are illegal. I have heard of no plans to erect a barrier to people of any persuasion moving in again of any ethnicity or religion assuming they did so legally or is that part of Sharon's master plan now as well? Please document if it is.

I notice that you have not answered my question as to whether the illegal settlements are made up of only one religion and if so whose responsibility was that? You also seem to be making one of the many invalid assumptions relating to Israel. Israel is not monotheistic. Political leaders are supposed to look after every citizen.

You have insinuated that I have redefined terms. I would like to reiterate my invitation to you to clarify fully and completely exactly what you mean and specify exactly what terms you are talking about. What is it about the word illegal that you don't understand?

zenith-nadir

7th February 2004, 06:36 AM

Ok.

Let's be clear on definitions.

a)Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=ethnic+cleansing&x=12&y=17)

Main Entry: ethnic cleansing
Function: noun
: the expulsion, imprisonment, or killing of ethnic minorities by a dominant majority group

_____________________________________________

1) SYRIA - Following Syrian independence from France in 1946, attacks against Jews and their property increased, culminating in the pogroms of 1947, which left all shops and synagogues in Aleppo in ruins. Thousands of Jews fled the country, and their homes and property were taken over by the local Muslims.

2) EGYPT - In 1945, with the rise of Egyptian nationalism and the cultivation of anti-Western and anti-Jewish sentiment, riots erupted. Between June and November 1948, bombs set off in the Jewish Quarter killed more than 70 Jews and wounded nearly 200. 2,000 Jews were arrested and many had their property confiscated. In 1956: The Egyptian government used the Sinai Campaign as a pretext for expelling almost 25,000 Egyptian Jews and confiscating their property.

3) IRAQ - In June 1941, the Mufti-inspired, coup of Rashid Ali sparked rioting and a pogrom in Baghdad. Armed Iraqi mobs, with the complicity of the police and the army, murdered 180 Jews and wounded almost 1,000. In 1950 the Iraqi parliament made Zionism a capital crime, and between May 1950 and August 1951, the Jewish Agency and the Israeli government succeeded in airlifting approximately 110,000 Jews to Israel in Operations Ezra and Nehemiah.

4) ALGERIA - In 1934, a Nazi-incited pogrom in Constantine Algeria left 25 Jews dead and scores injured. After being granted independence in 1962, the Algerian government harassed the Jewish community and deprived Jews of their principle economic rights. As a result, almost 130,000 Algerian Jews immigrated to France and 25,681 immigrated to Israel.

5) YEMEN - In 1947, after the partition vote, Muslim rioters, joined by the local police force, engaged in a bloody pogrom in Aden Yemen that killed 82 Jews and destroyed hundreds of Jewish homes. Nearly 50,000 traditionally religious Yemeni Jews, who had never seen a plane, were airlifted to Israel in 1949 and in 1950 in Operation "Magic Carpet."

6) MOROCCO - In June 1948, bloody riots in Oujda and Djerada Morocco killed 44 Jews and wounded scores more. That same year, an unofficial economic boycott was instigated against Moroccan Jews. More than 100,000 Moroccan Jews fled to live in Israel.

7) TUNISIA - From November 1942 until May 1943, Tunisia was occupied by German forces. During that time, the condition of the Jews deteriorated further, and many were deported to labor camps and had their property seized. Jews suffered once more in 1956, when Tunisia achieved independence. The rabbinical tribunal was abolished in 1957, and a year later, Jewish community councils were dissolved. In addition, the Jewish quarter of Tunis was destroyed by the government. Anti-Jewish rioting followed the outbreak of the Six-Day War; Muslims burned down the Great Synagogue of Tunis.

8) LIBYA - In 1945 there was a series of pogroms in Lybia which resulted in the deaths of more than 100 Jews in Tripoli and other towns and the destruction of five synagogues. Thousands of Jews fled the country after Libya was granted independence and membership in the Arab League in 1951. When Col. Qaddafi came to power in 1969, all Jewish property was confiscated and all debts to Jews cancelled. Today, no Jews are believed to live in Libya.

All that information is easily found on the web.

Now my question is....are those examples of ethnic cleansing?

Zero

7th February 2004, 06:38 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

All that information is easily found on the web.

Now my question is....are those examples of ethnic cleansing? Doesn't matter...the example in THIS thread is obviously not.

BTW, "poor Jews...awwwwww."

zenith-nadir

7th February 2004, 06:52 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Doesn't matter...the example in THIS thread is obviously not.
BTW, "poor Jews...awwwwww."

Zero, why are you here if all you do is mouth off like a twit?

This is a discussion... not Zero's superior ego hour.

I suggest if you don't like to topic or cannot discuss it like and adult you should head back to your Justin Timberlake message board where you can be as useless and flippant as you wish.

Zero

7th February 2004, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

Zero, why are you here if all you do is mouth off like a twit?

This is a discussion... not Zero's superior ego hour.

I suggest if you don't like to topic or cannot discuss it like and adult you should head back to your Justin Timberlake message board where you can be as useless and flippant as you wish. Speaking of discussing this topic "seriously", Sharon's dismantling of illegal settlements isn't ethnic cleansing. They are on the wrong side of the border, and the leader of their nation is calling them back into Israel.

See how easy that was? It isn't being flippant, it is being concise.

BTW, "boohoo, poor Jewish people...", isn't that the reaction you want?

zenith-nadir

7th February 2004, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by Zero
isn't being flippant, it is being concise. BTW, "boohoo, poor Jewish people...", isn't that the reaction you want?

1) While the Palestinians fled Israel because of the 1948 war, jews were forced by the Arab dictatorships from every Arab country during the same period.

That is an important note when one is discussing topics that cover ethnic cleansing, settlers, palestinians, Israelis and refugees. Period.

2) Therefore I don't require or desire any emotional "reaction" from you. Nor did I ask for "your" emotional reaction. I asked for an opinion based upon a definition.

3) Loose the giant guitar. The fact you like Ibenez guitars is irrelevant and large graphics are an eyesore and waste bandwidth.

('your' guitar is 11543kb...you have posted 974 times....that is 11.2 MB of wasted JREF drive space)

Cleon

7th February 2004, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

1) While the Palestinians fled Israel because of the 1948 war, jews were forced by the Arab dictatorships from every Arab country during the same period.

That is an important note when one is discussing topics that cover ethnic cleansing, settlers, palestinians, Israelis and refugees. Period.

Really? So the fact that Jews were kicked out of Arab countries somehow makes it ok for Israel to do whatever it wants to the Palestinians? Somehow I'm not following why this is "an important note."

3) Loose the giant guitar. The fact you like Ibenez guitars is irrelevant and large graphics are an eyesore and waste bandwidth.

('your' guitar is 11543kb...you have posted 974 times....that is 11.2 MB of wasted JREF drive space)

On the contrary, it's only one image; it's part of his signature, which is only stored in one location. If he ditches the guitar from his sig, the guitar goes bye-bye from all his messages, past and present (likewise, the guitar appears in all his messages even before he added it to his sig). The signature is generated dynamically; it's not stored with the rest of the message in the database.

Of course, it's entirely possible it's simply an "IMG" html tag in his sig pointing to an image offsite, in which case it takes up zero space. In that case, though, I sincerely hope Zero owns the site it points to. :)

zenith-nadir

7th February 2004, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by Cleon
Really? So the fact that Jews were kicked out of Arab countries somehow makes it ok for Israel to do whatever it wants to the Palestinians? Somehow I'm not following why this is "an important note."

That is turnspeak. Turnspeak is achieved when you attack someone but claim, with some success, to be the victim of the attack.

In this case;

Palestinians have led a 30+ year terrorist campaign against Israel. A bus blew up just last week. To deny that is impossible.

Israel has had to defend itself from it's Arab neighbors in 5 different wars and the 30+ year Palestinian terror campaign. To deny that is impossible.

Now Cleon come and says; "

"So the fact that Jews were kicked out of Arab countries somehow makes it ok for Israel to do whatever it wants to the Palestinians?"

So in Cleon's mind, the Israelis are the aggressors and the Palestinians are the victims.

Regardless of the reason why Israeli is in the West Bank and Gaza.

That is turnspeak.

Mycroft

7th February 2004, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong Because that is not what is happening. Where has it been said that there is a barrier to semitic people living on the land vacated by the illegal settlements?

But it is what's happening. A group of people have been deemed “undesirable” based on their religion and ethnicity, and are being singled out for discrimination for political, ideological and strategic reasons, and will be cleansed from a region. How is that not ethnic cleansing?

Also your choice of the word “Semitic” is puzzling. Are you saying we should use the word "Semitic" to define the ethnicity of the area? Can you give a good reason to limit our definitions that way?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong Because Sharon's plan is apparently to clear the illegal settlers from the illegal settlements. Are you saying that there are no people of that ethnicity living nearby and no people of the same ethnicity will not live in the area after the illegal settlers have been evicted?

Are you saying that there are Jews living near the settlements that won't be ethnically cleansed from the area? Are you going to document that?

Are you further saying that if not all people of the same ethnicity are removed from an area that it's not ethnic cleansing?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong I don't know - possibly that is why I asked you a question? Are you saying you don't know if Sharon's plan amounts to ethnic cleansing because not all of the same ethnicity will be cleared. Why did you start the thread when you don't know if the supporting evidence for the claim is present? Let me just look at the title of the thread again. Ah yes - 'Sharon ordered it: Ethnic cleansing in Gaza' No ifs, no buts, not modifiers at all. You seemed very definite then. Are you really saying you don't know now?

You silly child. You’re the one who implied that the settlements might not be 100% one ethnicity. If you think so it’s up to you to document that. Once again you refuse a reasonable request to document your position and fail to answer a question, then have the intellectual dishonesty to blame it on someone else.

Cleon

7th February 2004, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

Palestinians have led a 30+ year terrorist campaign against Israel. A bus blew up just last week. To deny that is impossible.

Haven't tried to.

Israel has had to defend itself from it's Arab neighbors in 5 different wars and the 30+ year Palestinian terror campaign. To deny that is impossible.

More and more historians are questioning just how "defensive" these wars really were.

So in Cleon's mind, the Israelis are the aggressors and the Palestinians are the victims.

This is a classic technique called "changing the subject."

You claim, with absolute certainty, that the expulsion of Jews is an "important thing to note" when discussing the subject of Israel and the Palestinians. Well, why? Why is it an "important thing to note?"

Explain it to me. If Iraq expelled all the Jews in Iraq, why is this relevant to Israel's actions towards the Palestinians? Does it give them the "right" to do whatever they want?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Regardless of the reason why Israeli is in the West Bank and Gaza.

That is turnspeak.

Historically, it's the Palestinians who are getting screwed here. You don't even deny this--you just try to shift the blame to the Arab countries (who are far from innocent, don't get me wrong).

You talk about a 30-year terrorist campaign; how about the 60-year-old terrorist campaign waged against the Palestinians by Israel and the Zionist guerillas? Do you have any idea how much blood the Irgun, Stern Gang, and Haganah have on their hands? And that was just the beginning!

You act as though you're mystified why Palestinians are fighting Israel (and I must note terrorism is only one way; there are non-terrorist military actions and nonviolent resistence as well). Well, because after a bunch of them were expelled, forced to flee, or killed, they've had to face a lifetime of either accepting second-class status or leave their home. Now, the majority of those that avoided expulsion live under an almost 40-year-old military occupation with no democratic rights whatsoever while these lunatic settlers come in, steal the Palestinians' land, and create towns and villages that Palestinians aren't allowed to even go near.

But somehow, the Palestinians are the bad guys here for blowing up a few buses.

zenith-nadir

7th February 2004, 09:02 AM

Palestinian Charter from Palestinian Ministry of Information Website (http://www.pna.org/mininfo/key/charter.htm)

Article 6: Jews who were living permanently in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians. (For the Zionist invasion is considered to have begun in 1917).

Article 15: The liberation of Palestine from the Arab view point is a national duty to repulse the Zionist, imperialist invasion from the great Arab homeland and to purge it from the Zionist presence.

Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of Israel is null and void from the very beginning...

Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the mandate document and what has been based upon them are considered null and void.

Article 22: Zionism is a political movement organically related to the world imperialism and is hostile to all movements of liberation and progress in the world. It is a racist and fanatic movement in its formation, aggressive, expansionist, and colonialist in its aims, fascist and nazi in its means. Israel is the tool of the Zionist movement and is a human and geographic base for the world imperialism. It is a concentration and a way for imperialism to the heart of the Arab homeland, to strike at the hopes of the Arab nation for liberation, unity and progress.

Article 32: To this charter- is attached a law known as the basic law of the Palestine Liberation Organization, in which the organization’s structure is determined, its committees, institutions and the special function of every one of them, and all the requisite duties assigned to them in accordance with this charter.

Yup....sounds like jews are welcome with open arms as far as the official Palestinian position is concerned.

zenith-nadir

7th February 2004, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by Cleon
Blah...blah...blah...blah

Sorry Cleon, I don't respond to your laughable and outdated propoganda.

Cleon

7th February 2004, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

Blah...blah...blah...blah

Sorry Cleon, I don't respond to your laughable and outdated propoganda.

Your skill at debate and your knowledge of history is truly mind-boggling. :rolleyes:

zenith-nadir

7th February 2004, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by Cleon
Your skill at debate and your knowledge of history is truly mind-boggling. :rolleyes:

Some people drink from the fountain of knowledge Cleon but it looks as if you just gargled.

You have no shame just regurgitating old, easily disproven, propoganda....and I'd like to see things from your point of view but I can't seem to get my head that far up my ass.

JamesM

7th February 2004, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by Cleon
But somehow, the Palestinians are the bad guys here for blowing up a few buses.
As futile as this thread has become, I am rather surprised by this statement, Cleon. Given that in the same post you condemn the Zionist terrorists with "blood on their hands", I'm not sure why you then mischaracterise Palestinian terrorism as just "blowing up a few buses". Perhaps there are two bad guys (at least) in this story?

tim

7th February 2004, 10:22 AM

zenith-nadir

7th February 2004, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by JamesM
As futile as this thread has become, I am rather surprised by this statement, Cleon. Given that in the same post you condemn the Zionist terrorists with "blood on their hands", I'm not sure why you then mischaracterise Palestinian terrorism as just "blowing up a few buses". Perhaps there are two bad guys (at least) in this story?

Yes it is futile.

Debating with the likes of Cleon and others who refer to 117 suicide bombings since 2000 as "blowing up a few buses" is like smashing your head against a wall.

Palestinian terrorist organizations are given safe haven from the palestinian authority to operate in the West Bank and Gaza.

Palestinian terrorist organizations hide in Palestinian civilian areas.

Palestinian terrorist organizations do not wear uniforms they disguise themselves like Palestinian and Israeli civilians.

Palestinian terrorist organizations use Palestinian civilian areas for Bases of Operation.

Palestinian terrorist organizations use Palestinian civilian areas for cover from the IDF.

Palestinian terrorist organizations use Palestinian civilian areas for firing positions against the IDF.

Palestinian terrorist organizations "hide" and "bring the fight" into Palestinian civilian areas on purpose because they "know" Palestinian civilian casualties hurts Israel in world opinion.

That is the reality today.

Arafat's and his Palestinian Authority are the ones responsible for the plight of the Palestinians. Not Israel.

If the Palestinians don't want Palestinian civilians to get killed in IDF raids then don't let terrorists use palestinian civilians for cover and concealment.

JamesM

7th February 2004, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Arafat's and his Palestinian Authority are the ones responsible for the plight of the Palestinians. Not Israel.
So, just to be absolutely clear, you don't think Israel can take any responsibility for the current situation in the Middle East?

zenith-nadir

7th February 2004, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by tim
zenith-nadir, don't you think personal attacks on other forum users detract from your argument? Please stick to the point. You may get angry with someone you disagree with, but posts like this reflect badly on you.

I think personal attacks are warranted on occasion.

If one was to make a habit of personal attcks at every turn then you have a valid point.

My attack on Cleon does not detract from my argument.

And in the context of Cleon -- his repeated use of non-truths and propoganda should be, if anything, frowned upon at this skeptic website.

I just happen to be one of the few frowning at him.

davefoc

7th February 2004, 10:39 AM

I guess if somebody wants to call Sharon ordering the removal of some Israeli settlements ethnic cleansing, some kind of case has been made that it is semantically justifiable although if one assumes normal definitions and useage of the term this is just stupid on its face.

If the purpose of using the term in this way is to somehow equate the situation of the Israeli settlers with other groups that have been ethnically cleansed then it is just disgusting. It does not bode well for anything resembling a peaceful settlement in the region that there are people that can seriously make this kind of ridiculous comparison.

The fact that Jews suffered enormously in the twentieth century does not make every situation where Jews suffer another example of the holocaust.

At one point in time the Israeli government as a matter of national policy thought it would be a good idea to promote settlements in land not recognized as Israeli land under international law. The Israeli government now proposes to reverse a small part of that policy and act in a very tiny way to comply with international law. The majority of Israelis seem to agree with this policy, so by the logic of the people that are promoting the ridiculous notion that is the topic of this thread, the Israeli population is supporting the etnic cleansing of their fellow Israeli citizens.

But lets get past all this. I am genuinely interested in what ZN and Mycroft think regarding what should happen with regards to the settlements. Do you think the Israelis should continue to expand them? Do you think that they should just continue to chop up the west bank into smaller and smaller pieces with Israelis settlements sprinkled about? Do you think references to David and other Biblical pseudohistory in some ways justifies this? Do you think the US should keep sending money to Israel so that it can continue to subsidize these settlements?

zenith-nadir

7th February 2004, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by JamesM
So, just to be absolutely clear, you don't think Israel can take any responsibility for the current situation in the Middle East?

I think to understand the answer James one would have to put themselves into the position of a country, (Israel), surrounded by hostile neighbors for 50 years.

Israel is not perfect. But wars are not perfect. They are not neat and tidy with happy endings where everyone walks happily into the sunset.

To dismiss the history of the Arab attempts to destroy Israel while discussing the middle easy issue is impossible. To lump all grievances onto Israel's lap is ridiculous.

The answer to your question is no, I don't think Israel is responsible for Arab terrorism and the calls for the Arabs to "drive the jews into the sea".

JamesM

7th February 2004, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
To dismiss the history of the Arab attempts to destroy Israel while discussing the middle easy issue is impossible. To lump all grievances onto Israel's lap is ridiculous.
I agree. But lumping all grievances onto the Palestinian's laps is also ridiculous.

The answer to your question is no, I don't think Israel is responsible for Arab terrorism and the calls for the Arabs to "drive the jews into the sea".
Ok, are the two things you mention, in your view, the only two problems in the Middle East with regard to Israel? Are none of Israel's actions questionable?

zenith-nadir

7th February 2004, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by JamesM
I agree. But lumping all grievances onto the Palestinian's laps is also ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous?

In 1948 the U.N. passed resolution 181.

The Arab/Palestinian response was war not peace.

In 1956 the Arab/Palestinian response was war not peace.

In 1967 the Arab/Palestinian response was war not peace.

In 1973 the Arab/Palestinian response was war not peace.

In 1978 the Arab/Palestinian response was war not peace.

In 1982 the Arab/Palestinian response was war not peace.

In 1988 the Arab/Palestinian response was war not peace.

In 2000 the Arab/Palestinian response was war not peace.

The Arab/Palestinian response has always been war.

Only Jordan and Egypt have signed peace treaties with Israel.

No people or country gained territory after losing a war...let alone losing several wars. If you can prove otherwise I am all ears.

You cannot blame Israel today for the way it acts or the way it deals with Arabs/Palestinians. Especially since Arabs and Palestinians have been trying to kill every jew since 1948.

That would be like saying America's actions to get Osama Bin Laden are questionable without taking into account what Osama Bin Laden has done in the past.

Israel is not perfect. Some of it's actions are questionable. But to try to rationalize Israel's current actions without taking into account 50+ years of Arab/Palestinian war and terrorism is not honest.

JamesM

7th February 2004, 12:23 PM

Arabs and Palestinians have been trying to kill every jew since 1948.
The use of such hyperbole without modifiers is not advisable. How can you prove that Arabs and Palestinians (some? all?) want to kill every Jew? Do you mean in Israel or in the diaspora?

to try to rationalize Israel's current actions without taking into account 50+ years of Arab/Palestinian war and terrorism is not honest.
I'm not asking you to do that. You acknowledge that some of Israel's actions are questionable, and yet you say the responsibility for the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians lies entirely with the Palestinians. I don't get it. But I think we'll be going round in circles if I take this any further.

zenith-nadir

7th February 2004, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by JamesM
You acknowledge that some of Israel's actions are questionable, and yet you say the responsibility for the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians lies entirely with the Palestinians.

Here is a perfect example of the difficulty Israel has dealing with the Palestinians.

____________________________________________

The Palestinian Charter & State of Palestine Declaration of Independence (http://www.pna.org/mininfo/key/charter.htm)

"The Palestinian Charter"

Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of Israel is null and void from the very beginning, whatever time has elapsed because it was done contrary to the wish of the people of Palestine and their national right to their homeland and contradicts with the principles embodied in the charter of the UN, the first of which is the right of self- determination.

"State of Palestine Declaration of Independence 1988"

Despite the historical injustice inflicted on the Palestinian Arab people resulting in their dispersion and depriving them of their right to self-determination, following upon U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 (1947), which partitioned Palestine into two states, one Arab, one Jewish, yet it is this Resolution that still provides those conditions of international legitimacy that ensure the right of the Palestinian Arab people to sovereignty.

____________________________________________

So on one hand James, the official Palestinian position is U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 is null and void.

On the other hand James the official Palestinian position is U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 provides international legitimacy that ensure the right of the Palestinian Arab people to sovereignty.

In plain english.

Palestinians get to pick and choose what parts of U.N. Resolution's they like. They like the Palestine part but consider the Israel part null and void.

And then Palestinians stand on every hilltop and demand Israel adhere to every U.N. Resolution to the letter.

I hope I am clearly illustrating the difficulty Israel has dealing with the Palestinians.

Common sense does not apply.

When you start to research the issue it becomes clearer that if the Palestinians would get their s**t together after 50 years of trying to destroy jews things would turn around for both peoples.

Israel is not perfect..it makes mistakes...it does things people can't understand...but there will never be peace in the Middle East until Palestinians accept Israel.

It is a Palestinian problem.

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=4 bgcolor=#660066 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=#660066><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#ffffff size=1>Posted by Pyrrho:</font></td></tr><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=black size=2>Edited for language.

As always, this decision may be appealed to Hal Bidlack (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/private.php?s=&action=newmessage&userid=1753)[/i]</font></td></tr></table>

davefoc

7th February 2004, 12:57 PM

ZN said:You cannot blame Israel today for the way it acts or the way it deals with Arabs/Palestinians. Especially since Arabs and Palestinians have been trying to kill every jew since 1948

What does this mean? If it means all Arabs have been trying to kill all Jews since 1948 it is patently false.

If it means some Arabs have been trying to kill some Jews since 1948 it is obviously true.

If it means that Arabs resisted with military force the immigration of a large number of Europeans to what they had previously considered their land, would you have done otherwise if you had been Arab?

Many of us see great moral issues with the mass immigration of a non-native population into what is today Israel and with the founding of Israel. However today most of us believe that the most good for the most people is for Israel to continue to exist as a country. But we continue to sympathize with the people that suffered as a result of the founding of Israel. For some reason, and perhaps I am inferring something that isn't true, you seem to have no ability to empathize with the people who suffered as a result of the founding of Israel.

You justify this by citing irrelevant Biblical pseudohistory and exaggerations with respect to the continuity of Jewish civilization and culture in the area. You show no ability to understand that actions that defy international law by Israel with respect to the settlements could serve as a basis for sustaining enmity on the part of the Palestinians towards Israel. The only possible motivation on the part of the Palestinians that you seem to be able to see is that they are filled with evil and hate all Jews.

You claim that Israeli extremists don't exist and then when you're shown that they do exist instead of admitting that you were wrong you list examples of Palestinian extremists, like murder by Israelis is justified because there are Palestinian murderers.

For a moment, instead of fighting so hard to win this debate, I would ask you to pull back and make an honest attempt to see that there are two sides to this issue. There is no one that has taken part in this thread that wants to see Israeli civilians massacred by suicide bombers or that wants to see Israel cease to exist as a country. What we have advocated is that Israel conform to international law and remove the settlments from the land that the UN has determined to Palestinian.

Mycroft

7th February 2004, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by davefoc
I guess if somebody wants to call Sharon ordering the removal of some Israeli settlements ethnic cleansing, some kind of case has been made that it is semantically justifiable although if one assumes normal definitions and useage of the term this is just stupid on its face.

Many terms are used in dialogue about the Arab-Israeli conflict that are semantically justifiable (or at least arguable) yet are stupid. I recommend you apply the same degree of critical thinking to all of them.

Originally posted by davefoc
If the purpose of using the term in this way is to somehow equate the situation of the Israeli settlers with other groups that have been ethnically cleansed then it is just disgusting. It does not bode well for anything resembling a peaceful settlement in the region that there are people that can seriously make this kind of ridiculous comparison.

There are many kinds of moral equivalencies made in regards to the Arab-Israeli conflict that are disgusting, and that people make such ridiculous comparisons does not bode well for anything resembling a peaceful settlement. Is a suicide-murderer killing a busload of people the moral equivalent of a soldier defending his country? I don’t think so, yet many would say that it was.

Is Sharon evicting Israelis from the Gaza Strip the equivalent of Iraq evicting its Jewish Population in 1947? I don’t think so, but to the family losing its home of 40 years, it’s still a hardship, and there is something wrong with the person who disregards this sacrifice made in the name of peace.

Originally posted by davefoc
The fact that Jews suffered enormously in the twentieth century does not make every situation where Jews suffer another example of the holocaust.

Where does this come from? I don’t think anyone said every example of Jewish suffering was another example of the holocaust. I will say that the holocaust does not invalidate every other example of 20th (or 21st) century Jewish suffering just because it pales by comparison. I will also say that the fact of the holocaust does not mean that other examples of Jewish suffering that are unrelated to the holocaust should not be talked about.

Originally posted by davefoc
At one point in time the Israeli government as a matter of national policy thought it would be a good idea to promote settlements in land not recognized as Israeli land under international law. The Israeli government now proposes to reverse a small part of that policy and act in a very tiny way to comply with international law. The majority of Israelis seem to agree with this policy, so by the logic of the people that are promoting the ridiculous notion that is the topic of this thread, the Israeli population is supporting the etnic cleansing of their fellow Israeli citizens.

There is nothing in the article that says the purpose of the removal of Israeli citizens from the Gaza Strip is to comply with international law. That the settlements are in violation of international law is a position adopted by Palestinian-Arab supporters, and is not accepted by Israel. That you accept this as a given is a measure of the success of the anti-Israel propaganda campaign.

Originally posted by davefoc
But lets get past all this. I am genuinely interested in what ZN and Mycroft think regarding what should happen with regards to the settlements. Do you think the Israelis should continue to expand them? Do you think that they should just continue to chop up the west bank into smaller and smaller pieces with Israelis settlements sprinkled about? Do you think references to David and other Biblical pseudohistory in some ways justifies this? Do you think the US should keep sending money to Israel so that it can continue to subsidize these settlements?

I don’t claim to be smart enough to know the one magic “correct” solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, but if you want my thoughts I’ll give you some.

In a perfect world, Jews and Arabs should be able to live together in peace. Jews should be able to live in Arabic territories (not just the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, but in Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, and any number of other countries where Jews have been expelled) just like Arabs live in Israel. This is not a perfect world, however, and unrealistic idealism does not solve problems. It is worth noting that the idea that Jewish “settlements” in the disputed territories presumes that Jews could not be citizens of a potential future Palestinian state, and that this presumption is exactly the kind of racism that critics of Israel accuse Israel of.

Should the settlements be expanded? Well, I don’t have a personal opinion on that, but there are arguments for it that are overlooked. Such arguments include but are not limited to:

1) The disputed territories are an important part of Israeli defense. Without the West Bank, Israel is only about ten miles wide at its most narrow point, and a sudden Arab offensive (such as the Yom Kippur war) could easily split the nation in two making a counter-attack problematic if not impossible. Geographically, the area on the East side of the West Bank (near the border with Jordan) is high ground, a natural defensive border and ideal for the radar installations that give Israel critical advance notice of an Arab offensive. The Gaza Strip would make an ideal entrance point for an invasion from the south, and historically has been used for exactly that in other military conquests of the region.

2) As a negotiating tactic, expanding settlements does put pressure on the Palestinian-Arabs to make peace and act towards the establishment of their own country. The idea that the longer they delay the less they have to negotiate for is reasonable when you consider they still enjoy concessions granted them at Oslo despite having done nothing to fulfill their end of the agreement.

3) There are resources in the West Bank that are important to Israel. While critics call this “stealing Arab resources” I think that accepting the right of Israel to exist implies that it has a right to exist as a viable nation.

References to David an Psuedohistory….

I personally focus on political arguments and avoid religious ones when it comes to Israel. When it comes down to it, religious arguments are a matter of opinion, and it’s pointless to discuss them unless the person you’re discussing them with shares a common set of assumptions with you. However, there is a real historical and cultural connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel, and any attempt to deny that is historical revisionism or “psuedohistory” as you call it.

Do I think the US should keep sending money to Israel so that it can continue to subsidize these settlements?

Well, the question presumes that the US sends Israel money for the purpose of subsidizing the settlements, and that’s a logical fallacy. Israel does receive foreign aid as do many other nations, and if you’re interested in seeing how that money is spent, there are records available through the State Department where you can do some research.

To make an analogy, if my daughter goes to college, supports herself with student loans, a scholarship and a part-time job plus I send her a $500 cheque every month, and she buys a car with a $500 monthly car payment, I am not sending her money for the purpose of subsidizing that car. I am contributing to her total monthly budget, and she is choosing to use a portion of that budget for the car. If I were to withdraw my monthly stipend, she may keep the car and either increase her income through other means, or cut her budget in other ways.

We could expand this analogy further by saying that the $500 figure that I send my daughter every month was a figure we arrived at based on our assessment of her needs, the money needed in addition to her grant money and student loans to provide for her basic living expenses, and that the part-time job was agreed on to provide for extras.

zenith-nadir

7th February 2004, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft
There is nothing in the article that says the purpose of the removal of Israeli citizens from the Gaza Strip is to comply with international law. That the settlements are in violation of international law is a position adopted by Palestinian-Arab supporters, and is not accepted by Israel. That you accept this as a given is a measure of the success of the anti-Israel propaganda campaign.

That is the hypocrisy I adressed in my post moments ago.

The Palestinians reject U.N. Resolution 181.

Yet Israel has to adhere and follow every following U.N. Resolution.

And public opinion fails to accept that.

In a nutshell it is wide-spead situational morality.

Pyrrho

7th February 2004, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Some people drink from the fountain of knowledge Cleon but it looks as if you just gargled.

You have no shame just regurgitating old, easily disproven, propoganda....and I'd like to see things from your point of view but I can't seem to get my head that far up my ass.
<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=4 bgcolor=#660066 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=#660066><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#ffffff size=1>Posted by Pyrrho:</font></td></tr><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=black size=2>This post has been reported. I've looked at the entire thread and find nothing that violates Forum rules.

As always, this decision may be appealed to Hal Bidlack (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/private.php?s=&action=newmessage&userid=1753)[/i]</font></td></tr></table>

Zero

7th February 2004, 02:44 PM

Mycroft

7th February 2004, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by davefoc
If it means that Arabs resisted with military force the immigration of a large number of Europeans to what they had previously considered their land, would you have done otherwise if you had been Arab?

I think we should start by removing that if you had been Arab qualifier. Arabs should be judged by the same standards as are everyone else, to do otherwise is anti-Arab racism.

So the question becomes, What would you do in their place?

That’s a great question. What would you do?

Pretend that you are who you are, and twenty miles away a bunch of people of a different culture who practice a different religion buy a chunk of land and start building a community.

Forget Jew and Arab, pretend these other people are Mormons and you’re not.

What would you do about it? Would you think your rights are being violated? Would you want to kill them? Would you want to stop them through legal means? Would you withhold judgment and see what happens? Would you try to get along with them and make friends? Would you do nothing at all?

There are a lot of ways you could react. Why should we assume that what did happen was inevitable?

Originally posted by davefoc
Many of us see great moral issues with the mass immigration of a non-native population into what is today Israel and with the founding of Israel. However today most of us believe that the most good for the most people is for Israel to continue to exist as a country. But we continue to sympathize with the people that suffered as a result of the founding of Israel. For some reason, and perhaps I am inferring something that isn't true, you seem to have no ability to empathize with the people who suffered as a result of the founding of Israel.

Personally I feel a great sympathy for the Palestinian-Arabs. These people have been screwed, manipulated, impoverished and driven to violence. The difference between me and the likes of Cleon, AUP, E.J.Armstrong and others is that I recognize the role that their own leadership and their brethren Arabs have played in this process, and I don’t believe that their suffering justifies terrorism.

CapelDodger

7th February 2004, 04:11 PM

from Mycroft:
Zionism was a political movement to establish a national homeland for the Jews. Now that that’s been fulfilled, how do you define Zionism today?
The desire to see the continued existence of the Jewish State. You can extrapolate "anti-zionist" from that.
Why would a Jew who chose to live in Gaza after a withdrawal be labeled anti-Zionist? Who would make such a clam and why?
Imagine a Jew living peacefully with Arab neighbours in Gaza, thus giving the lie to "they all just want to kill Jews". Damaging to the Zionist argument, something an anti-Zionist would do. (Like Neturei Karta, perhaps.) The very fact that it could be anti-Zionist would be sufficient for many Zionists to claim that it is - I'm thinking particularly of the settlers here, who are a rabid bunch.
I think it would be interesting to discuss the matter with him. Since you’re on a first-name basis, perhaps you could arrange an introduction?
Everybody calls him Arik in my experience.
If the world does not countenance expansion by conquest, then the dispute would arise from 1948, when Jordan and Egypt expanded their territories through conquest.
An agreement was made between King Abdullah and a delegation from the Yishuv led by Golda Meir, on 17th Novenmber 1947: Jordanian would expand into the West Bank territory allocated to the Arabs by partition and Israel would be formed in the Jewish zone. There was thus no dispute before 1948. The territory wasn't "conquered" - the political classes elected to be part of Jordan as a Palestinian state was clearly a non-starter. And if one had been formed it would have been at the mercy of Haj Amin the rabble-rouser, which nobody wanted. The Egyptians were also accepted in Gaza, since the alternative was being demonstrated in Jaffa and Haifa (amongst others). So, no dispute.
First you try to sell me state-sponsored religious indoctrination, now you try to sell me this plan which may or may not be Sharon’s.
In that discussion I was the one opposed to indoctrination. You defended the pratice of indoctrinating children. I would like to see it stopped. Please don't make me waste time by misrepresenting me.

CapelDodger

7th February 2004, 04:14 PM

from Cleon:
As I said, the evidence for David's existence is pretty sketchy. According to this site, the only "hard" evidence" is a piece of rock dated about 100 years after David referring to the "House of David."

Ancient Jerusalem was the largest city in an area full of warring city-states and tribes. If David did exist, and it's entirely possible, his actual rule was fairly minor. He certainly didn't create a "United Kingdom of Israel" or anything like that. He was a minor leader that, at best, expanded his rule beyond Judah to take Jerusalem at one point.
David is dealt with extensively in two separate threads of the Bible with remarkable consistency. The history described is fully compatible with what we know of Egypt, the Philistines and the Phoenicians. There is nothing unlikely in the story, either militarily, economically or politically. Egypt was in a state of turmoil for the two centuries involved, and there was no powerful Hittite or Mesopotamian empire at the time, so the formation of a small empire in Palestine and Syria was quite feasible. Alliance with Tyre, chief town of the Phoenicians, as mentioned repeatedly in the Bible, along with David's reported conquests of Moab and Edom would give almost complete control over the trade from the Red Sea to the Med. Which would explain the wealth of Solomon. We know that from this time Jerusalem became an important town - which it wasn't before. It's only advantage is its defensible nature, which is no doubt why it was still Canaanite by David's time. As the personal capital of a warlord it was ideal. (I recommend "A History of Israel" by John Bright as a good source.)

Cleon

7th February 2004, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from Cleon:

David is dealt with extensively in two separate threads of the Bible with remarkable consistency. The history described is fully compatible with what we know of Egypt, the Philistines and the Phoenicians. There is nothing unlikely in the story, either militarily, economically or politically. Egypt was in a state of turmoil for the two centuries involved, and there was no powerful Hittite or Mesopotamian empire at the time, so the formation of a small empire in Palestine and Syria was quite feasible. Alliance with Tyre, chief town of the Phoenicians, as mentioned repeatedly in the Bible, along with David's reported conquests of Moab and Edom would give almost complete control over the trade from the Red Sea to the Med. Which would explain the wealth of Solomon. We know that from this time Jerusalem became an important town - which it wasn't before. It's only advantage is its defensible nature, which is no doubt why it was still Canaanite by David's time. As the personal capital of a warlord it was ideal. (I recommend "A History of Israel" by John Bright as a good source.)

Well, the Bible's the Bible--a collection of fables and stories. It's not a history book. The fact that it talks about David is not evidence for or against his existence.

I'm more interested in physical evidence; as I said, the closest anyone's been able to come to hard contemporary evidence dates to a full century after David was supposed to have lived.

Yeah, Jerusalem as a capital would be ideal due to its growing importance--but that would got for any warlord, not just David.

Personally, I don't think it's really relevant, like the existence of Jesus; the evidence is sketchy, but it wouldn't surprise me, due to the fact that oodles of similar figures existed at the time. But I think we can agree on this much; if David existed, he hardly created a "Unified Kingdom of Israel" and he was a much more minor figure than the Bible claims.

Nikk

7th February 2004, 05:10 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mycroft

That surprises you?! Should I have anticipated that a simple term would be controversial?

Thank you for clearing that up. ;)

But it is expulsion of an "undesirable" population from a given territory due to religious or ethnic discrimination, political, strategic or ideological considerations, or a combination of these. So it still fits Wikipedia’s definition.

You made me laugh, Nikk.

First you bash me for not providing a definition to a common phrase.

Then you “remedy” the situation by quoting a site that starts by saying the phrase defies easy definition.

Then you link to a site that accuses Israel of planning ethnic cleansing based on the ravings of such extremists groups as Gamla and ElectronicIntifada.

You are aware this is a skeptics board, right?

OK Mycroft I see we are going to have to go through this very, very slowly.

1.) You start a thread about ethnic cleansing but without using any definition of the term. You purport to suggest that for an occupying power to remove its own settlers (colonists to me) from territory not internationally recognised as part of Israel constitutes ethnic cleansing.

2.) I thought that this was merely a whimsical device to start a debate but no, you claim to believe it. So lets quote that definition again which you have not disputed. Oh, and lets not split it up into little bits. That can be soo misleading and we wouldn't want that now would we?

3.) The definition is ........."Ethnic cleansing defies easy definition. At one end it is virtually indistinguishable from forced emigration and population exchange while at the other it merges with deportation and genocide. At the most general level, however, ethnic cleansing can be understood as the expulsion of an "undesirable" population from a given territory due to religious or ethnic discrimination, political, strategic or ideological considerations, or a combination of these. ...........

So:

3.a) The phrase defies easy definition in so far as ethnic cleansing can range from measures which force people to emigrate to mass murder. Why you should find this hard to understand or indeed humourous escapes me, although I am of course happy to bring a little joy into your life.

3.b) At the core of the definition is the concept of an "undesirable population". How you can imagine that Israel considers jews undesirable beats me. Must be that wonderful sense of humour of yours.

4.) At this point I must confess to an error of omission. I did not quote the whole entry relating to ethnic cleansing. I paid you the compliment of assuming that you were sufficiently knowledgeable and sufficiently honest to recognise the ethnic cleansing was SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE DID TO THEIR ENEMIES. The assumption was unmerited and I withdraw it.

So just to clear things up this is the entry and it carries on to say (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing) The term "ethnic cleansing" entered the English lexicon as a literal translation of the Serbo-Croat phrase etnicko ciscenje. During the 1990s it was used extensively by the media in Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia in relation to the wars in the former Yugoslavia, and appears to have been popularised by the international media some time around 1992. The term may have originated some time before the 1990s in the military doctrine of the former Yugoslav People's Army, which spoke of "cleansing the territory" (ciscenje terena) of enemies to take total control of a conquered area. The origins of this doctrine are unclear, but may have been a legacy of the Partisan era.

This originally applied purely to military enemies, but came to be applied to other ethnic groups as well."...........

5.) So I hope it's now clearly established that removing your own people from a zone occupied 28 years ago is not ethnic cleansing.

I heard something like that from Capel Dodger. I haven’t come across anything credible in my reading, but you seem pretty sure of yourself so I expect you can provide some secret memo from the Israeli government or something.

6.) Oops, nearly forgot.

Sadly even such a transparently trustworthy individual as yourself cannot share such information. However worry not, its all in the public media. See...haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/391645.html) in which it says
"......Sharon wants U.S. approval to expand W. Bank settlement in exchange for removal of Gaza settlements.

Sharon wants U.S. approval to expand large West Bank settlement blocs that are intended to be annexed once a permanent peace agreement is reached in exchange for evacuation of most settlements in the Gaza Strip and a few others in the West Bank.
Sharon will justify the request due to the need to move some of the settlers from the evacuated areas to Ma'aleh Adumim, Ariel and Gush Etzion. The prime minister is to present his plan to the Americans during an upcoming visit to Washington.................

........intended to be annexed eh.

epepke

7th February 2004, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by davefoc
If it means that Arabs resisted with military force the immigration of a large number of Europeans to what they had previously considered their land, would you have done otherwise if you had been Arab?

That's a fair question, and it deserves to be answered directly. If a large number of, I don't know, say Australian Aborigones or African Bushmen immigrated to Fullerton, CA, would you even consider resisting this with military force? Would you join the Fullertonian Liberation Army?

What concept do you have of your land other than the bit of it that you own if you own a house? And if you do have a concept of Fullertonian land, with a concept of Fullertonians as ethnic enough that many people would call it a "race," how do you expect to be taken more seriously than the John Birch society?

There may be many good reasons why one would view the Israelis as treating the Arab inhabitants in the area badly and judge them negatively for this, but this notion of European Jewish immigration as inherently a racial affront is so divorced from Western experience that it boggles.

It's one thing to grumble, "There goes the neighborhood," but it's quite another to consider military action not only justified but perfectly natural.

davefoc

7th February 2004, 11:13 PM

There are a variety of things that people brought up that I was interested in and might have commented on but I selected this quote because it goes to what I think is the most legitimate justification for the founding of the state of Israel.

Pretend that you are who you are, and twenty miles away a bunch of people of a different culture who practice a different religion buy a chunk of land and start building a community.

Forget Jew and Arab, pretend these other people are Mormons and you’re not.

What would you do about it?

I am aware that land was purchased both from the local inhabitants and perhaps from other Arabs with varying degrees of authority over the land. I don't know to what degree that this went on, but I assume that there was a significant amount of this activity by the Zionists who were attempting to establish Israel.

Epepke also touched on this idea with his previous post.

I think there are complicated moral issues involved in this kind of situation and the truth is I don't feel well enough acquainted with the situation to comment any further right now.

Mycroft

7th February 2004, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by Nikk
OK Mycroft I see we are going to have to go through this very, very slowly.Yes. Type slow, I don’t read very fast.

1.) You start a thread about ethnic cleansing but without using any definition of the term. You purport to suggest that for an occupying power to remove its own settlers (colonists to me) from territory not internationally recognised as part of Israel constitutes ethnic cleansing. Because it cleanses a region of an ethnicity, yes, go on.

2.) I thought that this was merely a whimsical device to start a debate but no, you claim to believe it.I don’t think those are contradictory, but go on. So lets quote that definition again which you have not disputed. Oh, and lets not split it up into little bits. That can be soo misleading and we wouldn't want that now would we?

3.) The definition is ........."Ethnic cleansing defies easy definition. At one end it is virtually indistinguishable from forced emigration and population exchange while at the other it merges with deportation and genocide. At the most general level, however, ethnic cleansing can be understood as the expulsion of an "undesirable" population from a given territory due to religious or ethnic discrimination, political, strategic or ideological considerations, or a combination of these. ...........

So:

3.a) The phrase defies easy definition in so far as ethnic cleansing can range from measures which force people to emigrate to mass murder. Why you should find this hard to understand or indeed humourous escapes me, although I am of course happy to bring a little joy into your life.

3.b) At the core of the definition is the concept of an "undesirable population". How you can imagine that Israel considers jews undesirable beats me. Must be that wonderful sense of humour of yours.I’m quite sure Israel doesn’t consider Jews undesirable in general, but they have certainly decided that these specific Jews are undesirable in their current locations. Since Israel has decided to relocate them, apparently they are desirable somewhere else.

4.) At this point I must confess to an error of omission. I did not quote the whole entry relating to ethnic cleansing. I paid you the compliment of assuming that you were sufficiently knowledgeable and sufficiently honest to recognise the ethnic cleansing was SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE DID TO THEIR ENEMIES. The assumption was unmerited and I withdraw it. I think that’s a reasonable assumption and perfectly valid in most cases. It just so happens that Israel is very innovative and is the first nation to think of ethnically cleansing it’s own population. If it works out, maybe it will catch on and we will see other countries conducting experiments in ethnically cleansing their own non-enemy populations too.

So just to clear things up this is the entry and it carries on to say (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing) The term "ethnic cleansing" entered the English lexicon as a literal translation of the Serbo-Croat phrase etnicko ciscenje. During the 1990s it was used extensively by the media in Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia in relation to the wars in the former Yugoslavia, and appears to have been popularised by the international media some time around 1992. The term may have originated some time before the 1990s in the military doctrine of the former Yugoslav People's Army, which spoke of "cleansing the territory" (ciscenje terena) of enemies to take total control of a conquered area. The origins of this doctrine are unclear, but may have been a legacy of the Partisan era.

This originally applied purely to military enemies, but came to be applied to other ethnic groups as well."...........And now it’s applied to one nation’s non-enemy population

5.) So I hope it's now clearly established that removing your own people from a zone occupied 28 years ago is not ethnic cleansing. [b]And yet, a region is still being cleansed of an ethnicity. [/i]

6.) Oops, nearly forgot.

Sadly even such a transparently trustworthy individual as yourself cannot share such information. However worry not, its all in the public media. See...haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/391645.html) in which it says
"......Sharon wants U.S. approval to expand W. Bank settlement in exchange for removal of Gaza settlements.

Sharon wants U.S. approval to expand large West Bank settlement blocs that are intended to be annexed once a permanent peace agreement is reached in exchange for evacuation of most settlements in the Gaza Strip and a few others in the West Bank.
Sharon will justify the request due to the need to move some of the settlers from the evacuated areas to Ma'aleh Adumim, Ariel and Gush Etzion. The prime minister is to present his plan to the Americans during an upcoming visit to Washington.................

........intended to be annexed eh.

And the same article also said:

The sources said the previous U.S. administration had agreed that Ma'aleh Adumim, Ariel and Gush Etzion would be included within Israel as part of the Clinton framework for a permanent agreement.

So while they are in the West Bank, they are regions which where slated to go to Israel in a negotiated settlement anyway. That’s hardly annexing territory.

epepke

7th February 2004, 11:55 PM

Originally posted by davefoc
I think there are complicated moral issues involved in this kind of situation and the truth is I don't feel well enough acquainted with the situation to comment any further right now.

Man, that's the best thing I've heard about the issues in the Middle East in a month of Sundays!

I don't live in the Middle East. If I did, I'm sure I'd have a lot of great, scintillating anthropological insight.

I live in what is laughingly called the West, and what I am pretty sure of is that most or all of the commentary from Western pundits is just so much pablum down the bib. It doesn't even matter which "side" it's on.

In particular, all of it seems to require switching back and forth from "Palestinians/Israelis are basically like Westerners" to "Palestinians/Israelis are totally different from Westerners" so fast that it seems unlikely that anyone but a rapid-cycling bipolar could manage it.

Since I'm pretty sure that most pundits aren't rapid-cycling bipolars, I get the distinct impression that there's a lot of ex post facto reasoning going on, and that a lot of the arguments are just empty rhetoric to support a preconceived party line.

Cleopatra

8th February 2004, 12:51 AM

Originally posted by CapelDodger

The desire to see the continued existence of the Jewish State. You can extrapolate "anti-zionist" from that.

Could you be more specific with this please? In what way you don't want the continuance of Israel? How do you imagine the end of the existence of Israel to occur, I mean with which process?

zenith-nadir

8th February 2004, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by Pyrrho

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=4 bgcolor=#660066 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=#660066><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#ffffff size=1>Posted by Pyrrho:</font></td></tr><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=black size=2>This post has been reported. I've looked at the entire thread and find nothing that violates Forum rules.

As always, this decision may be appealed to Hal Bidlack (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/private.php?s=&action=newmessage&userid=1753)[/i]</font></td></tr></table>

So that is how the game is played here, can't take the heat so you go crying home to mommy.

I apologize for using the word "ass".... and for making some baby bother the Admins with their infantile complaints.

Cleopatra

8th February 2004, 07:09 AM

Hello zenith-nadir and welcome to the forum.

As a veteran of those Middle East battles I have a request.

Would you be kind enough as to turn the volume down a bit and BTW I haven't realized who are you defending. Not the country ( Israel) a proud citizen of which yours truly is, I presume.

zenith-nadir

8th February 2004, 07:44 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Hello zenith-nadir and welcome to the forum.

As a veteran of those Middle East battles I have a request.

Would you be kind enough as to turn the volume down a bit and BTW I haven't realized who are you defending. Not the country ( Israel) a proud citizen of which yours truly is, I presume.

Thanks Cleo.

In order to understand "volume" could you define it?

I am defending the rights of Israeli and palestinians to live together in peace. I envisage both races living side by side raking in the tourist dollars hand over fist. With no war. Palestinians in Israel, Israelis in Gaza and West Bank.

No one can deny that the Palestinians have chosen the wrong guy to lead them for the past 30 years.

Case in point....a short list of people who have had to negotiate with Yasser Arafat.

Madeline Allbright
Jimmy Carter
Mahmoud Abbas
Hosni Mubarak
Bill Clinton
Ahmed Maher
Ehud Barak
Benjamin Netanyahu
Shimon Peres
Yitzhak Rabin
Yitzhak Shamir
Ariel Sharon
George Shultz
James Baker
Philip Habib
Michael Gorbachev
George Mitchell
John Major
Jose Maria Aznar
Colin Powell
King Abdullah of Jordan
Yasser Abed Rabbo
Anthony Zinni
Anwar Sadat
George W Bush
George Bush Sr.
Tony Blair

Not one of those people have been able to convince Arafat to stop the terrorists and negotiate in good faith once and for all.

So are all those people incompetent?....or is Arafat?

Cleopatra

8th February 2004, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

Thanks Cleo.

In order to understand "volume" could you define it?

Yes. Chill out a bit. This is a discussion board that we come to debate in a relaxed way. Don't become like those who live in remote places of the world, in fact they see they world upside down and yet they hate the Israelis as if they live in a Palestinian refugee camp and they call the hatred they spew here criticism and skepticism.

On the other hand the majority of people here are smart and they can detect what constitutes an opinion and what official propaganda.

Don't take wrong what I will say.I do not wish to offend you but to give you an idea about how your posts look.

When I started reading your posts I thought that you were somebody who came here to parodize a supporter of Israel, something that explaimed the posts about the continuous existence of Jews in the area, the Jewish Language, references to the mufti of Jerusalem etc.things that are a joke.

Then I thought that you are an Israeli that belongs to the extreme right, one of those who refuse to serve the army for religious reasons but criticize if the rest of us serve it succesfully. But no, it's obvious from your posts that you don't live in Israel.

Maybe you are young and passionate. I choose to keep this last one.:)

Just a couple of hints because I don't want to participate in the discussion I just want to discuss this detail with Capel Dodger.

It's a contradiction to suggest that you want Israelis and Palestinians live together in peace and talk about Judea and Samaria and our ancestors who lived there thousands of years ago the same time. The terms Judea and Samaria do not refer only to the geographic area but to a policy that some people want the Israel to follow.

The policy of Judea and Samaria has nothing to do with peace.

I am defending the rights of Israeli and palestinians to live together in peace. I envisage both races living side by side raking in the tourist dollars hand over fist. With no war. Palestinians in Israel, Israelis in Gaza and West Bank.

You see, this is a kind of paragraph makes me suspicious about your motives. Those who talk about Judea and Samaria do not want the Palestinians anywhere in Israel not even in the OT that they want them to be annexed.Also, Palestinians and Israelis are not different races, this term is outdated and I suggest we avoid it.

I hope you are not here to parodize us. I will be watching you but this is not necessarily bad. :)

Zero

8th February 2004, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Could you be more specific with this please? In what way you don't want the continuance of Israel? How do you imagine the end of the existence of Israel to occur, I mean with which process? You don't mind if I answer this one, do you? Huh? I knew you wouldn't...

We drug all the Israelis while they are sleeping, load them and all their buildings and stuff onto boats, and ship them to...Australia! Stick them somewhere in the outback, and they'll never know the difference. :g1:

CapelDodger

8th February 2004, 02:25 PM

Hi Cleopatra:
Could you be more specific with this please? In what way you don't want the continuance of Israel? How do you imagine the end of the existence of Israel to occur, I mean with which process?
Not my problem, fortunately. But the whole horrible situation isn't going to end while the Jewish State exists. It was received as a dangerous, mad idea over a century ago and nothing has shown that reception to be misconceived.

(Where've you been, working for Kerry? That would explain it.)

Mycroft

8th February 2004, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Not my problem, fortunately. But the whole horrible situation isn't going to end while the Jewish State exists. It was received as a dangerous, mad idea over a century ago and nothing has shown that reception to be misconceived.

Wow, that really is pessimistic. I personally have more faith in human nature than that.

epepke

8th February 2004, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Wow, that really is pessimistic. I personally have more faith in human nature than that.

Well, of course, he could be right. However, I can't imagine anybody seriously saying the same thing about, say, the Quebecoi, let alone dismissing it as a "not my problem" default.

Mycroft

8th February 2004, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
The desire to see the continued existence of the Jewish State. You can extrapolate "anti-zionist" from that.

I would agree with that definition. A Zionist is one who supports the continued existence of Israel (and presumably its well being too) and an anti-Zionist wants the end of Israel. I asked because with that definition in mind, the following statement is puzzling:
Originally posted by CapelDodger
It is a striking comment, isn't it? Another example of zionism claiming jurisdiction over all Jews, and apparently a claim by Sharon to be the Emperor of the Jews. But of course any Jew who chose to live in Gaza after a withdrawal and didn't work for Mossad would be anti-zionist and therefore, by zionist definition, not a proper Jew.

I’m a Zionist and I don’t believe that at all. The other Zionists that I know of and converse with are of the opinion that Jews and Arabs living together in Gaza would be a good thing. When I talk to people who have visited Israel, I hear stories of bad things, but I also hear stories of hope; Israelis and visiting Jews who have made friendships among the Palestinian-Arabs. Granted, I can think of a number of fellow Zionists that are skeptical, but few if any that wouldn’t want it.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Imagine a Jew living peacefully with Arab neighbours in Gaza, thus giving the lie to "they all just want to kill Jews".

Wouldn’t that work both ways? Jews and Arabs living together in peace would also damage the credibility of Arafat, Hamas and other militant Palestinian-Arab groups, wouldn’t it?

Originally posted by CapelDodger
An agreement was made between King Abdullah and a delegation from the Yishuv led by Golda Meir, on 17th Novenmber 1947: Jordanian would expand into the West Bank territory allocated to the Arabs by partition and Israel would be formed in the Jewish zone. There was thus no dispute before 1948.

That sounds very nice, but the Arab rejection of the partition plan and that the Israeli declaration of independence started a war indicates that these issues were not resolved at all. It seems many of the parties involved felt that there were still issues of territory that were unsettled and sought to resolve these disputes through force of arms.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
In that discussion I was the one opposed to indoctrination. You defended the pratice of indoctrinating children. I would like to see it stopped. Please don't make me waste time by misrepresenting me.

The way I remembered it you were opposed to parental indoctrination of their own children, favoring a system where the state would teach children about all religions upon reaching a certain age and then allowing them to pick one. I suppose “indoctrination” was a poor word choice, but the point was you tried to sell me. If you’re sensitive about that, don’t bother answering. It was just a moment of curiosity.

Mycroft

8th February 2004, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by epepke

Well, of course, he could be right. However, I can't imagine anybody seriously saying the same thing about, say, the Quebecoi, let alone dismissing it as a "not my problem" default.

I think the "not my problem" attitude is the most common one, he's just being more honest than most by saying it openly.

epepke

8th February 2004, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft
I think the "not my problem" attitude is the most common one, he's just being more honest than most by saying it openly.

I think that you are correct that the "not my problem" attitude is very common, and it is a bit more honest than most.

However, I notice that some things tend to become my problem, whether I like it or not.

On my more bitter and cynical days, I wonder what it would be like if the people who advocate simplistic solutions (e.g. US get out of the Middle East) were simply granted their way.

On the other hand, I suspect the fallout (both figurative and literal) would likely become my problem anyway.

davefoc

8th February 2004, 06:28 PM

CapelDodger said:... example of zionism claiming jurisdiction over all Jews, and apparently a claim by Sharon to be the Emperor of the Jews. But of course any Jew who chose to live in Gaza after a withdrawal and didn't work for Mossad would be anti-zionist and therefore, by zionist definition, not a proper Jew.

CapelDodger said this in response to what I had said about Sharon's statements regarding the removal of settlements from the Gaza strip. CD expressed how I felt about Sharon's wording and why I was troubled by it. Sharon represents a country that has Christians, Muslims and Jews in it. The wording of that statement made it seem like what he was concerned with was the Jews and Jews that lived in Palestinean territories couldn't be Jews.

I actually think that is very much how Sharon views the world. I do not think he wants to be the secular head of a multi ethnic, multi religion country. He wants to be the Jewish leader of a Jewish country that successfully expands Jewish territory.

Although I am neither Palestinian nor Israeli, my country (the US) has taken a very active role in the region and as such, I think that I can't say "not my problem" with regard to the situation because my government is so intent on keeping the US involved. And I think it is becoming more clear all the time that the nature of that involvement is bad for the US, bad for the Palestinians and bad for the Israelis.

epepke

8th February 2004, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by davefoc
I actually think that is very much how Sharon views the world. I do not think he wants to be the secular head of a multi ethnic, multi religion country. He wants to be the Jewish leader of a Jewish country that successfully expands Jewish territory.

CapelDodger's claim seemed to me stronger than that, essentially that Sharon considers himself some sort of Pope O' Jewry.

It's an interesting idea, though of course, the US still has more Jews than Israel (5 million and change versus 4 million and change). Below this, the closest country is France, with 600,000, ten times that of Germany, which is a tribute to German engineering and efficiency.

Cleopatra

9th February 2004, 12:30 AM

Hello Capel Dodger.

Moi? For Kerry? Nah. I am Eurocentric and I don't interfere in elections of people who pasteurize their eggs. Also, I would vote for the Republicans as you know so why bother about the others?

I am particuarly interested and devoted in the election of Michael Howard though. I would very much like to see a conservative Welsh as a PM. He is freaking smart, I like him very much, the great unwashed of your island hates him, this is a reason for me to adore him. His election won't be easy though and we have to lobby. Can you imagine how many different hidden stoas and conspiracies we must organize? He is Welsh, Jewish and a Cambridge graduate, it will be the biggest concpiracy of modern times and maybe of post-modern too. The cats are with us of course. :c1:

Now let's get to our topic that I wished to avoid but you always know what to do to drag me in the mud.

Originally posted by CapelDodger

Not my problem, fortunately. But the whole horrible situation isn't going to end while the Jewish State exists. It was received as a dangerous, mad idea over a century ago and nothing has shown that reception to be misconceived.

(Where've you been, working for Kerry? That would explain it.)

You are playing with words Capel Dodger because you want to have your back covered. I asked you a question about the State of Israel and you replied again about the Jewish state. So, I have to ask you again, I am sorry if I sound as an inquisitor but I want to clarify things before we have any misunderstandings.

By insisting to use the term Jewish State I pressume that the reason why you think that Israel was a bad idea and it caused many problems ( apart from the usual reason for you=that it was a national state) is the "exclusive character" of the country, something that especially Ariel Sharon want to keep.

So, do you suggest that if Israel wasn't a Jewish State it would't cause so many problems?

First of all, now it's too late to change the jewish character of the state but second you seem to forget why the state was established and what Zionism was about( even if you disagree with it and you find the reasoning of Zionism unfounded).

So, even if you will be not asked to solve the problem(you will be asked only to pay it as a tax payer) you might have an idea how Israel could be abolished and then if Israel goes what measures would you take to protect the Palestinians from a certain massacre by their brothers the Arabs?

The Fool

9th February 2004, 04:48 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
if Israel goes what measures would you take to protect the Palestinians from a certain massacre by their brothers the Arabs?
Congratulations, you are the first person I have ever known that thinks Israel protects palestinians from being massacred by thier brother Arabs....which Arabs in particular?

Thanks for including me in your sig line, I'm honored. I didn't think I needed to describe in detail why I asked that question, it seems I was wrong. The thread was about the absurdity of such a question, was it over your head?

Mycroft

9th February 2004, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by davefoc
CapelDodger said this in response to what I had said about Sharon's statements regarding the removal of settlements from the Gaza strip. CD expressed how I felt about Sharon's wording and why I was troubled by it. Sharon represents a country that has Christians, Muslims and Jews in it. The wording of that statement made it seem like what he was concerned with was the Jews and Jews that lived in Palestinean territories couldn't be Jews.

You mean this statement?

"I am working on the assumption that in the future there will be no Jews in Gaza," Sharon added.

That seems like an awful lot to extrapolate from this simple sentence.

Demographically, Israel is approximately 80% Jewish and 20% Muslim, with a smattering of Druse and Christians. In the context of this specific issue, using the word “Jew” seems correct, unless one can show that Israeli-Arabs are also among the settlers (and one could only imagine the apoplexy that would inspire in Arafat and Hamas! Can you imagine pushing this Right of Return for 60+ years only to see Arabs voluntarily moving out of “Historic Palestine”?)

One could certainly argue that he should have said Israeli, but I can’t see reading very much into his saying Jew instead.

I see nothing at all to imply that Jews who continued to live in Gaza wouldn’t be considered Jews. Capel Dodger’s speculation that certain Zionists would not like it may have a foundation in truth, but the assertion their Judaism would recieve official denial is pure fantasy.

Cleon

9th February 2004, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Demographically, Israel is approximately 80% Jewish and 20% Muslim, with a smattering of Druse and Christians. In the context of this specific issue, using the word “Jew” seems correct, unless one can show that Israeli-Arabs are also among the settlers

The settlements are limited to Jews only. No Arabs need apply.

davefoc

9th February 2004, 09:04 AM

Mycroft said:That seems like an awful lot to extrapolate from this simple sentence.

That is a reasonable enough view. I didn't like the sound of the sentence and I wasn't quite sure why. CD more or less expressed how I felt about it. I think you are right that I may have read more into the sentence than is there. Still, what Sharon proposes is to eliminate Israeli government protected Jewish settlements in most of Gaza. He doesn't propose to round up every Jew in Gaza and ship them out and that is what can be inferred from the sentence.

I am not sure about the Gaza strip, but in parts of the west bank aren't there areas where Jews and Palestinians live side by side with few problems between the two groups? Or at least few problems until the last round of violence? Are there Jews living in the occupied territories that aren't in settlements?

On a different topic:
How does the Israeli government distingusih between Jew and Muslim? Do you carry a religion card? Maybe there's a mark on you driver's license specifying you religion? Who decides what ethnic group you belong to? Do you get to choose? What is the criteria to decide if you are Jewish or not. Are you Jewish if your parents were Jewish regardless of your religion? Are you Jewish if your religion is Jewish regardless of your parents?

I know the current government is trying to stop marriage between Jews and Muslims. Can Jews and Muslims marry if they are both Israeli citizens or are there government barriers to that also?

Cleopatra

9th February 2004, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by davefoc
On a different topic:
How does the Israeli government distingusih between Jew and Muslim? Do you carry a religion card? Maybe there's a mark on you driver's license specifying you religion? Who decides what ethnic group you belong to? Do you get to chose? What is the criteria to decide if you are Jewish or not. Are you Jewish if your parents were Jewish regardless of your religion? Are you Jewish if your religion is Jewish regardless of your parents?

I know the current government is trying to stop marriage between Jews and Muslims. Can Jews and Muslims marry if they are both Israeli citizens or are there government barriers to that also?

When you are born you get a tattoo with a number and they install you a microchip with all the essential information. Do you think that we do it like other countries that have ID cards? I hope you didn't think such a thing about the Nazi State of Israel.

davefoc

9th February 2004, 10:22 AM

Hi Cleopatra,
Hmm, I think I detect a little sarcasm in your answer. ;)

I was just noticing that in almost every one of these threads there is at least some discussion of the differences between a Jewish and non-Jewish citizen's rights in Israel.

I had never seen any discussion of how the difference is actually implemented. One of the differences seems to be that Jews are subject to the draft and non-Jews aren't. OK, so when the Israeli army comes looking for a few good men and it thinks you're one of them, can you just say that you're not Jewish and they go looking someplace else? What is the official Israeli definition of Jew? I assume there must be one otherwise how would they know who is subject to the draft and who isn't.

Are there other official government restrictions or benefits that are based on whether you are Jewish or not? Does the government make other distinctions than Jewish or non-Jewish? For instance, legally are there distinctions between Christians and Muslims with regard to the draft or other things?

davefoc

9th February 2004, 10:54 AM

Earlier in this thread the fact that land was purchased for and by Jews from the local Palestinian inhabitants and possiblity their leaders was alluded to.

This led to me to think about several questions regarding this time frame.

When the Palestinians left what is now Israel after and during the 1948 war, what happened to their real estate? Was it claimed by the Israeli government or did squatters just move in and claim it?

Were the people that left Israel allowed any control over the property that they had left behind? Could they attempt to sell it? Was it Israel's view that you leave it, you lose it?

Suppose that the Palestinians hadn't left. How would a Jewish state have been founded if the land was still occupied by a majority non-Jewish population? Was the expulsion of enough Palestinians to give the Jews a majority position in Israel always the goal of Israel's founders? If it wasn't how did they intend to deal with the fact that they would be a minority population?

To what degree was the exodus of Palestinians voluntary?

How soon after they had left was the policy of non-return implemented?

I truly don't know the answer to these questions and ask them in good faith without a particular agenda. However, please feel free to make sarcastic or insulting replies, but I would appreciate it if the response also included some information regarding my questions.

Cleopatra

9th February 2004, 10:58 AM

Davefoc

I am sorry to say so but you have so many basic questions regarding this issue that I am surprized that you actually have an opinion on the matter and you participate in discussions expressing opinions. How have you formed your opinions about Israel if you don't know these issues?

Anyway.

Your questions need a lot of time to be answered although some googling would be of some help.

davefoc

9th February 2004, 11:05 AM

Cleopatra,
I think that is a fair response.

Mycroft

9th February 2004, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by davefoc
That is a reasonable enough view. I didn't like the sound of the sentence and I wasn't quite sure why. CD more or less expressed how I felt about it. I think you are right that I may have read more into the sentence than is there. Still, what Sharon proposes is to eliminate Israeli government protected Jewish settlements in most of Gaza. He doesn't propose to round up every Jew in Gaza and ship them out and that is what can be inferred from the sentence.

This is just a theory, but try it on for size:

You had that reaction to that sentence because you’re an American raised in American culture. In that culture, it’s taboo for a white male to use terms that bluntly describe race and ethnicity because you can never be sure when something like that could lead to the perception of racism with the accompanying severe consequences.

Further, being raised in American culture you have absorbed the idea of equal treatment of ethnic groups under the law, so that government action that targets one ethnic group, even if it’s to the detriment of a small portion of the majority ethnic group, makes your skin crawl.

What do you think?

Originally posted by davefoc
I am not sure about the Gaza strip, but in parts of the west bank aren't there areas where Jews and Palestinians live side by side with few problems between the two groups? Or at least few problems until the last round of violence? Are there Jews living in the occupied territories that aren't in settlements?

Well, now you’re stretching the limits of my knowledge. I’m an American, I’ve never been to Israel. There is only so much of the culture that can be easily learned from reading newspaper accounts and history books.

My impression is that for the most part Jews and Arabs live separately in separate towns, which is a cultural artifact left over from the days of pre-Zionism, but that there are also some areas where Jews and Arabs are integrated. How common that is, I don’t know.

The bombing at the Maxim restaurant was, by news accounts, in an integrated area, and the business itself was an Israeli/Palestinian-Arab partnership. It was speculated that it may have been targeted for specifically that reason, to drive a wedge between Jews and Arabs in areas where they are getting along.

Originally posted by davefoc On a different topic:
How does the Israeli government distingusih between Jew and Muslim? Do you carry a religion card? Maybe there's a mark on you driver's license specifying you religion? Who decides what ethnic group you belong to? Do you get to choose? What is the criteria to decide if you are Jewish or not. Are you Jewish if your parents were Jewish regardless of your religion? Are you Jewish if your religion is Jewish regardless of your parents?

I don’t know the answer to this either, but I’m sure that if it makes Israel look bad Cleon will pop in with it soon enough. I’m sure it’s done in some way that’s similar to how other nations distinguish between ethnic groups. My driver’s license, for example, identifies me as white.

Originally posted by davefoc I know the current government is trying to stop marriage between Jews and Muslims. Can Jews and Muslims marry if they are both Israeli citizens or are there government barriers to that also?

That’s a misnomer. The law prevents immigration and citizenship through marriage. It doesn’t prevent the marriage; it’s just that marriage to a citizen is no longer a free pass to citizenship.

Portraying the law as preventing Jews and Muslims from marrying is making the mistake of confusing Jews with Israelis. The target of the law is not to Jews and Arabs who want to marry, but Palestinian-Arabs who want to marry Israeli-Arabs and thus gain access to Israel they wouldn’t have had before.

I am not aware of any Israeli law that would prevent an Israeli-Jew from marrying an Israeli-Arab.

Cleopatra

9th February 2004, 11:48 AM

All the Israeli citizens when they become 18 years old take an Identity Card that has a number and it mentions name, date and place of birth, name of the parents and gender.

My ID card mentions my nationality too but the new ID cards have removed this field so the nationality is not indicated any more on the Id cards.

The ID is used moreover the way we use it in Greece. You use it in bank, in elections,when you use your credit card and you have to carry it wherever you go with it.

Greece which is a country that many of its citizens live abroad as immigrants used to have until recently the same system with Israel. On the ID there were two fields. Nationality and citizennship. The Greeks that were born in the States for the Greek state for example have the American citizenship but they have the Greek Nationality if one of their parents is Greek.

So, I have two Identity Cards. For Israel I am a Jewish citizen of the State of Israel. I am a full citizen with full legal rights and obligations and for the Greek State I am an Israeli citizen ( my second citizenship is Greek) and my Nationality is Greek because my father is Greek.

I have an Israeli friend who was born in Greece and now lives in Israel.

For the Greek State he is a Greek of Greek nationality and for the Israeli State he is a Greek/Israeli of Jewish nationality( because his mother is a jew).

So, you see for some countries it was the endless issue of nationality that we have overcomed legally, meaning in papers.

The Israeli State accepted three nationalities: Jewish, Arab and Druize. It doesn't accept Palestinians as nation and I think that this is understandable for the moment.

When the Israeli Army finds you in the street and wants to identify you it asks you for your ID card. In my card the indication is clear to the new cards the indication is not clear but there are many things to make who is who distinguishable.

As for who is Jewish. We consider that everybody who has a jewish mother belongs to the Jewish nation. In order to be citizen you have to comply by some other rules. I will find a site of the government to post.

Are there any discriminations? Yes there are I have posted them a couple of weeks ago and I will try to find my post to attach it here in order I don't have to re-type things again. There are because Israel as every other country votes for unfair or harsh laws. But this happens to the States too. I remind you of the Patriot Act.

I am sorry for my previous comment but I am kind of fed up with people complaining about the discriminations in Israel and not being able to name at least a couple.

It's kind of unfair.

Mycroft

9th February 2004, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by Cleon
The settlements are limited to Jews only. No Arabs need apply.

Would you like to discuss this, Cleon?

Have any Israeli-Arabs attempted to create settlements in the West Bank? If so, what was the result? If not, why not?

What do you think the reaction of Hamas would be? What do you think the reaction of Palestinian-Arabs in general would be?

Cleopatra

9th February 2004, 12:20 PM

Don't go very far away Mycroft, ask a simple question. Why Palestinians live still in refugee camps although they have received millions in order to dismantle the camps?

Cleon

9th February 2004, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Would you like to discuss this, Cleon?

Have any Israeli-Arabs attempted to create settlements in the West Bank? If so, what was the result? If not, why not?

What do you think the reaction of Hamas would be? What do you think the reaction of Palestinian-Arabs in general would be?

To my knowledge, this hasn't been attempted, but you have to ask the question, why? What would be the point? Palestinian Israeli citizens can and do move freely into the Palestinian communities. (They frequently face a song and dance when trying to come back across the green line, but that's a separate issue.) There's no point to establishing "settlements" in the same sense of the Jewish settlers.

The settler movement isn't some secular movement to build new neighborhoods. This is a religious, ultra-orthodox movement of people who really believe that God gave Israel, the WB, and Gaza to Jews and Jews alone. The settlers aren't there "just because." The settlers are there to make the WB and Gaza part of Israel.

Given that, what would be the point of Israeli Arabs doing the same thing? To make the WB and Gaza part of Israel? Hell no. To live in the WB and Gaza? They can do that already.

My guess is, the reaction of Hamas and the rest would be similar to mine: "Huh?"

davefoc

9th February 2004, 12:44 PM

Cleopatra,
I have never been offended by one of your posts so you have no need to apologize to me. I thought the point of your comment was reasonable.

I took your question about how I could have formed opinions about Israel when there is so much basic stuff that I don't know as rhetorical, but I thought about it anyway and here is my answer:

I have not studied the Palestinian/Israel conflict in detail. I have read literally hundreds of articles and been involved in many discussions of the situation. Despite this, I realize that there is a substantial difference between my depth of knowledge on the issue and somebody that has made a disciplined study of the conflict. For one thing, as evidenced by my questions there are areas where there are substantial holes in my knowledge, as evidenced by my questions concering the exodus of Palestinians in and around 1948.

I did, at your suggestion, go a googling and found out a number of interesting things, none of which went directly to my questions so I do appreciate your responses.

One of the things that I probably knew at one time but had forgotten was that Israel drafts women. So can we say G.I. Cleopatra here? I have a picture of you with your bayonet clinched between your teeth, firing away with your ouzi charging a machine gun nest. Maybe with your right breast bared like that de la croix painting of the woman during the French revolution?

Mycroft

9th February 2004, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra Don't go very far away Mycroft, ask a simple question. Why Palestinians live still in refugee camps although they have received millions in order to dismantle the camps? [/B]
Well, normally I prefer to let others take the conversation off-topic and only follow where they lead, and normally I’d be specially inclined to do that in my own thread, but today I find myself in the mood to be a good crocodile and do as you ask. :)

Cleon, Why do so many Palestinian-Arabs still live in refugee camps even though they have received millions to dismantle them?

Frankly, I don’t see any meaningful dialogue to come from it. He’s going to say that he’s aware that the Palestinian-Arabs are not perfect and that he’s only concerned with Israeli injustice, which is somehow the cause of all Palestinian-Arab injustice. He might add that if only Israel would just go away, the Palestinian-Arabs could get busy solving their problems, or not, as without Israel, Palestine would just be another third world country who’s poverty and misery can be safely ignored by the rest of the world.

Wow, I think I channeled Skeptic for a moment. Do you think Randi would take this thread as proof and award me the million?

Cleopatra

9th February 2004, 01:23 PM

Nobody is obliged to know in details what happens in every country in order to have an opinion but when we decide to debate an issue it's better to learn as many things as possible.

Very few threads about this topic are informatory mainly because people tend to fight like crazy about.... I really don't know about what they are fighting :)

Now that we are talking in Africa there are at least 45 civil wars with thousands of dead people and I that mention that I don't know everything in details. I cannot help them so I feel that the least I can do for them is to learn about them. It's like a moral debt. They are getting killed and nobody knows why.I am a religious person and those things matter to me.

The same stands for Israel and Palestine. People get passionate about this issue and they don't know why, it's tiring and above all is disheartening. Only ousiders can help us and instead of helping they have the two nations in the arena beating each other while they get passionate and drunk in the tiers.Sometimes I feel that some people are amused with this drama.

Yes I have served the Army but not as a figure of Delacroix that was flattering though. The Army is not fun though. Not fun at all.

Cleon

9th February 2004, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft
Cleon, Why do so many Palestinian-Arabs still live in refugee camps even though they have received millions to dismantle them?

Large question, many possible answers, ranging from corruption in the PA to Israel tightly regulating new home-building. End result, I frankly don't know, as I don't have the data.

Frankly, I don’t see any meaningful dialogue to come from it. He’s going to say that he’s aware that the Palestinian-Arabs are not perfect and that he’s only concerned with Israeli injustice, which is somehow the cause of all Palestinian-Arab injustice. He might add that if only Israel would just go away, the Palestinian-Arabs could get busy solving their problems, or not, as without Israel, Palestine would just be another third world country who’s poverty and misery can be safely ignored by the rest of the world.

Wow, I think I channeled Skeptic for a moment. Do you think Randi would take this thread as proof and award me the million?

It's rather difficult to conduct "meaningful dialogue" when you take such a condescending attitude.

Mycroft

9th February 2004, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Cleon
To my knowledge, this hasn't been attempted, but you have to ask the question, why?
What would be the point? Palestinian Israeli citizens can and do move freely into the Palestinian communities. (They frequently face a song and dance when trying to come back across the green line, but that's a separate issue.) There's no point to establishing "settlements" in the same sense of the Jewish settlers.

Do you mean why would they want to or why they haven’t tried it?

I can think of any number of reasons why they might want to.

1) If they included themselves in a Jewish settlement, they could become an object lesson of Jews and Arabs living together in peace. Wouldn’t that be a goal everyone could agree on?

2) They may just want to assert their rights as Israeli citizens by taking advantage of a program that is available, but normally only used by Jews.

3) If they object to the settlements, it could be a form of protest by taking funds away from Jewish settlements or by forcing a challenge of the system in Israeli courts.

4) Maybe they would like to make their Israeli-Arab settlement near Jerusalem to strengthen Arabic cultural ties to that city.

5) Maybe they might like a new house with a nice view.

I could go on, but you get the idea. You throw out that this is a Jewish only program that Arabs “need not apply” as though it were some form of discrimination against Israeli-Arabs, but that’s not really honest, is it? To say “Arabs need not apply” is to say that they couldn’t do it if they wanted to, and we don’t know that.

Originally posted by Cleon
The settler movement isn't some secular movement to build new neighborhoods. This is a religious, ultra-orthodox movement of people who really believe that God gave Israel, the WB, and Gaza to Jews and Jews alone. The settlers aren't there "just because." The settlers are there to make the WB and Gaza part of Israel.

I’m sure that’s true about some of the settlers, but is it fair to say about all of them? Isn’t it true that many of the “settlers” are not religious fundamentalists but are there because you can get more house with the same money than you can in Israel proper? Isn’t it also true that many of these settlements are suburbs of Jerusalem and represent natural growth of that city?

And isn’t it true that the best way to stop settlement growth is to get busy with a land-for-peace two-state solution to the conflict that insures everyone’s security?

Originally posted by Cleon My guess is, the reaction of Hamas and the rest would be similar to mine: "Huh?"

That may be their first reaction. My guess is their second would be bloodshed.

E.J.Armstrong

9th February 2004, 01:53 PM

originally posted by Mycroft
But it is what's happening. A group of people have been deemed “undesirable” based on their religion and ethnicity, and are being singled out for discrimination for political, ideological and strategic reasons, and will be cleansed from a region. How is that not ethnic cleansing?
Ah, it's both religion and ethnicity now.

Firstly - some illegal settlers are being removed from their illegal settlements. If I removed some squatters from your back yard would that be ethnic cleansing?

Secondly who has said that they could not live there legally?

In what way is that ethnic cleansing unless you were to claim that every single one of those squatters were of the same religion and of the same ethnicity and that no person of the same ethnicty would be allowed to remain legally afterwards? Perhaps that is what you are claiming?

Also your choice of the word “Semitic” is puzzling. Are you saying we should use the word "Semitic" to define the ethnicity of the area? Can you give a good reason to limit our definitions that way? Are you going to answer my questions now? I'll take that as a yes.

What is puzzling about the word semite? It includes a variety of people, some Palestinians as well as many Israelis. Do I need a good reason to use the word semite? I don't know of any reason why not - do you? How do you use the word ethnic - monotheistically?Are you saying that there are Jews living near the settlements that won't be ethnically cleansed from the area? Are you going to document that? I don't know. Do you? It seems that you still don't understand the way it works. Let me remind you. You made the claim that Sharon's plan amounted to ethnic cleansing. You have to justify it - not me. Let me repeat my question to you again. Are you claiming that there will be no Jews left in or around the illegal settlements after Sharon implements his plan? AAre you further saying that if not all people of the same ethnicity are removed from an area that it's not ethnic cleansing You really don't like answering questions do you?
When the removal of people, who presumably could be of a variety of ethnic groups including Palestinian Arabs, Catholics, Muslims of various hues, Buddhists and Outer Mongolians for all I know and who could apparently choose to remain in the site by legally paying for it, like all good citizens should, then it does not amount to ethnic cleansing.

If the intent was to ethnically cleanse then you do not have to finish the process for it to be happening. The intent here is however fundamentally different in that it's purpose is only to remove illegal settlers, not legal settlers, therefore there is no intent to ethnically cleanse the area. It's quite simple really.
You silly child.

Thank you. It warms the cockles of my heart to be called names by the likes of you and zenith-nadir (who interestingly has gone awol after I showed he was - how can I put this gently - factually challenged), Rikzilla and Skeptic. The fundamental logic of your argument and your case is really enhanced by the devasting tactic of calling people names.You’re the one who implied that the settlements might not be 100% one ethnicity. I asked if they were? Are you saying they are? Or don't you know?If you think so it’s up to you to document that. Let me just give you a reality check. Unless I am very much mistaken you asked ''I’d like to know why it’s okay when Jews are the ethnicity being cleansed from a region, but not when it’s other groups.'
Now, unless my english comprehension has suddenly deserted me that means you believe that only illegal Jewish settlers are being expelled from the illegal settlements. I asked you to confirm that. You won't. That suggests that you made a claim without the evidence to back it up.
Once again you refuse a reasonable request to document your position and fail to answer a question, then have the intellectual dishonesty to blame it on someone else.

Boy oh boy. Just like zenith-nadir and Rikzilla you really do seem to have difficulty with your own words. Let me try and help you a little bit. Who made the original claim of ethnic cleansing. Ah yes. A person called Mycroft. Remember him? Let's examine more closely some claims of Mycroft. After all, it's all there on the thread.

Now what did Mycroft claim? He claimed 'Sharon ordered it: Ethnic cleansing in Gaza'. He was asked 'Are you claiming that the settlements are composed 100% of only one ethnic group?'

One might have thought that the person called Mycroft would have been happy to defend his claim and answer the question. Funnily enough, he didn't. He avoided the question and instead asked another one. He asked 'Are you saying they’re not? Please document.' Despite his own reluctance to answer a simple question about his own position did he get an answer? Yes he did. The answer was 'I don't know - possibly that is why I asked you a question?'

So there we have it Mycroft making a claim. Mycroft being asked to support his claim. Mycroft declining to answer the simple question but asking a question in return. Despite not giving an answer himself, Mycroft is given an honest answer but what does Mycroft do then? Why he claims that the the person who supplied the answer didn't answer, when it was him who declined to answer a simple question about his original claim. He then has the brass neck to call other people names! We must bow to a master of brass neckedness.

It's not a pretty sight but at least we now have the Mycroft modus operandi fully exposed to public view.

PS He was also asked 'You have insinuated that I have redefined terms. I would like to reiterate my invitation to you to clarify fully and completely exactly what you mean and specify exactly what terms you are talking about.'
Did he answer this simple question about his own claim? You've guessed it -no he didn't. Seems he likes making accusations but doesn't like being asked to justify them.

Cleon

9th February 2004, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Do you mean why would they want to or why they haven’t tried it?

I can think of any number of reasons why they might want to.

1) If they included themselves in a Jewish settlement, they could become an object lesson of Jews and Arabs living together in peace. Wouldn’t that be a goal everyone could agree on?

As I said, non-Jews are not permitted in the settlements. They get shot at.

2) They may just want to assert their rights as Israeli citizens by taking advantage of a program that is available, but normally only used by Jews.

It's not "normally only used by Jews." It's exclusive to Jews.

3) If they object to the settlements, it could be a form of protest by taking funds away from Jewish settlements or by forcing a challenge of the system in Israeli courts.

Israel doesn't have equal opportunity laws, Mycroft, the settlers are free to do what they like.

4) Maybe they would like to make their Israeli-Arab settlement I could go on, but you get the idea. You throw out that this is a Jewish only program that Arabs “need not apply” as though it were some form of discrimination against Israeli-Arabs, but that’s not really honest, is it? To say “Arabs need not apply” is to say that they couldn’t do it if they wanted to, and we don’t know that.

Seriously, Mycroft, you're the first person I've ever heard--and this goes back to when I was a Zionist, even--who's ever questioned the idea that the settlements do not permit non-Jews to live or travel there.

Really--I'm not making this up. Non-Jews are not permitted to live in the settlements, and Arabs are forbidden from even visiting.

I’m sure that’s true about some of the settlers, but is it fair to say about all of them? Isn’t it true that many of the “settlers” are not religious fundamentalists but are there because you can get more house with the same money than you can in Israel proper? Isn’t it also true that many of these settlements are suburbs of Jerusalem and represent natural growth of that city?

To my knowledge, the settler movement is 99% driven by ideology. The settlements near Jerusalem are no different; they have a parade every year through the Arab quarter in order to make it clear to the Palestinians that they're not welcome.

Cleo, would you mind commenting? He's not going to believe me on principle.

zenith-nadir

9th February 2004, 03:01 PM

Lie #1

Originally posted by Cleon
As I said, non-Jews are not permitted in the settlements. They get shot at.....Really--I'm not making this up. Non-Jews are not permitted to live in the settlements, and Arabs are forbidden from even visiting.

Go to Google and type in "palestinians working in settlements".

You will see Cleon "is" making it up.

Lie #2

Originally posted by Cleon
Israel doesn't have equal opportunity laws, Mycroft, the settlers are free to do what they like.

Here is the Israeli equal opportunity laws from the Israeli Govenment website.

Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation - Israel (http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00hj0)

Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty - Israel (http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00hi0)

No need to continue pointing out facts from fiction....

;)

Mycroft

9th February 2004, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Ah, it's both religion and ethnicity now.What was it before?

Firstly - some illegal settlers are being removed from their illegal settlements. If I removed some squatters from your back yard would that be ethnic cleansing? Maybe. Is a region being cleansed of an ethnicity?

Secondly who has said that they could not live there legally? It’s your issue. Document it or drop it.

In what way is that ethnic cleansing unless you were to claim that every single one of those squatters were of the same religion and of the same ethnicity and that no person of the same ethnicty would be allowed to remain legally afterwards? Perhaps that is what you are claiming?If you have trouble understanding what I’m claiming, go back and read my previous posts. If you see me making these assertions there, then yes I am claiming it. If you don’t see me making these assertions, then no I am not claiming it. I’d save you the trouble and just tell you, but by past experience I know that wouldn’t help your understanding any.

Are you going to answer my questions now? I'll take that as a yes.Which question was that?

What is puzzling about the word semite? It includes a variety of people, some Palestinians as well as many Israelis. Do I need a good reason to use the word semite? I don't know of any reason why not - do you? It’s your choice to say Semite or not, but previously you used the term ethnic-cleansing to describe Israeli actions against Palestinian-Arabs. If you want to say that this action is not ethnic-cleansing because Semitic people will be left in Gaza, just keep in mind that the same logic can go both ways. How do you use the word ethnic - monotheistically? I believe Muslims are also mono-theists. Or did you mean something else?
I don't know. Do you? Again, it’s your issue. Doccument it or drop it, I don’t care, but don’t ask me to do your research for you. It seems that you still don't understand the way it works. Let me remind you. You made the claim that Sharon's plan amounted to ethnic cleansing.Because it cleanses a region of an ethnicity, go on. You have to justify it - not me.I did. Repeatedly. It cleanses a region of an ethnicity, that’s my justification. Let me repeat my question to you again. Are you claiming that there will be no Jews left in or around the illegal settlements after Sharon implements his plan? If you have trouble understanding what I’m claiming, go back and read my previous posts. If you see me making these assertions there, then yes I am claiming it. If you don’t see me making these assertions, then no I am not claiming it. I’d save you the trouble and just tell you, but by past experience I know that wouldn’t help your understanding any. You really don't like answering questions do you? I love answering questions. It’s just that after answering your questions over and over again with you re-phrasing and re-stating the same question over and over again, I have learned that answering your questions does not advance a dialogue. It’s just you.
When the removal of people, who presumably could be of a variety of ethnic groups including Palestinian Arabs, Catholics, Muslims of various hues, Buddhists and Outer Mongolians for all I know and who could apparently choose to remain in the site by legally paying for it, like all good citizens should, then it does not amount to ethnic cleansing.If you believe these ethnicities are represented in the settlements, please document. It is not up to me to document the truth or falsehood of your speculation.

If the intent was to ethnically cleanse then you do not have to finish the process for it to be happening. The intent here is however fundamentally different in that it's purpose is only to remove illegal settlers, not legal settlers, therefore there is no intent to ethnically cleanse the area. It's quite simple really.Please provide a reference that supports your definition of ethnic cleansing and also document that there are no alternative definitions that would apply. Also, document that the settlements are illegal.

Thank you. It warms the cockles of my heart to be called names by the likes of you and zenith-nadir (who interestingly has gone awol after I showed he was - how can I put this gently - factually challenged), Rikzilla and Skeptic. The fundamental logic of your argument and your case is really enhanced by the devasting tactic of calling people names. I asked if they were? Are you saying they are? Or don't you know? Let me just give you a reality check. Unless I am very much mistaken you asked ''I’d like to know why it’s okay when Jews are the ethnicity being cleansed from a region, but not when it’s other groups.'
Now, unless my english comprehension has suddenly deserted me that means you believe that only illegal Jewish settlers are being expelled from the illegal settlements. I asked you to confirm that. You won't. That suggests that you made a claim without the evidence to back it up. There are no rational guidelines for debate that would require me to document your speculations. If you believe some of the settlers being expelled may be non-Jewish, that Jewish citizens might remain behind or any other absurd extrapolation of my ideas, then document it yourself. Until then, I won’t waste my time with you.

Boy oh boy. Just like zenith-nadir and Rikzilla you really do seem to have difficulty with your own words. Let me try and help you a little bit. Who made the original claim of ethnic cleansing. Ah yes. A person called Mycroft. Remember him? Let's examine more closely some claims of Mycroft. After all, it's all there on the thread.

Now what did Mycroft claim? He claimed 'Sharon ordered it: Ethnic cleansing in Gaza'. He was asked 'Are you claiming that the settlements are composed 100% of only one ethnic group?'

One might have thought that the person called Mycroft would have been happy to defend his claim and answer the question. Funnily enough, he didn't. He avoided the question and instead asked another one. He asked 'Are you saying they’re not? Please document.' Despite his own reluctance to answer a simple question about his own position did he get an answer? Yes he did. The answer was 'I don't know - possibly that is why I asked you a question?'Exactly, you didn’t know. You raised the issue without knowing the answer and expected me to do your work for you. It’s your issue, you brought it up, you do the research. That’s how it works with grown-ups.

So there we have it Mycroft making a claim. Mycroft being asked to support his claim. I supported my claim with the simple assertion that cleansing a region of an ethnicity is ethnic cleansing. If you think that definition should not apply, then it’s up to you to demonstrate how or why. You have not done that.Mycroft declining to answer the simple question but asking a question in return. Despite not giving an answer himself, Mycroft is given an honest answer but what does Mycroft do then? Why he claims that the the person who supplied the answer didn't answer, when it was him who declined to answer a simple question about his original claim. He then has the brass neck to call other people names! We must bow to a master of brass neckedness.Wow, you’re making me dizzy.

It's not a pretty sight but at least we now have the Mycroft modus operandi fully exposed to public view.

PS He was also asked 'You have insinuated that I have redefined terms. I would like to reiterate my invitation to you to clarify fully and completely exactly what you mean and specify exactly what terms you are talking about.'
Did he answer this simple question about his own claim? You've guessed it -no he didn't. Seems he likes making accusations but doesn't like being asked to justify them. whatever.

CapelDodger

9th February 2004, 03:13 PM

from Mycroft:
Wow, that really is pessimistic. I personally have more faith in human nature than that.
I don't do faith, or any other form of wishful thinking. I depend on an extensive knowledge of history, observation of what human nature actually is, the history of Palestine over the last century, the current situation and any but the most fanciful medium-term prospects. Human nature gives us Hamas and Kach in this man-made disaster zone and it was always obvious that it would. Halifax predicted "a century of conflict" in 1920(?) so there's not much time left to find him wrong.

from epepke:
Well, of course, he could be right. However, I can't imagine anybody seriously saying the same thing about, say, the Quebecoi, let alone dismissing it as a "not my problem" default.
Are you seriously trying to equate Quebec and Palestine? How wierd is that? Partition of India - now there we do have some sort of analogy. Conflict from the first, still going on, immediate prospects not good.

Israel is not my problem. I wasn't born there, my parents didn't drag me into a war zone and I haven't dragged myself there. Therefore I have avoided living in an artifical world wasting large parts of my life (or more) on military service to serve some crazy nationalist fantasy.

Mycroft

9th February 2004, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger I don't do faith, or any other form of wishful thinking. I depend on an extensive knowledge of history, observation of what human nature actually is, the history of Palestine over the last century, the current situation and any but the most fanciful medium-term prospects. Human nature gives us Hamas and Kach in this man-made disaster zone and it was always obvious that it would. Halifax predicted "a century of conflict" in 1920(?) so there's not much time left to find him wrong.

On the bright side, if he's right we only have another 16 years of conflict left.

epepke

9th February 2004, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Are you seriously trying to equate Quebec and Palestine? How wierd is that? Partition of India - now there we do have some sort of analogy. Conflict from the first, still going on, immediate prospects not good.

Quite the opposite, actually, and that is pretty much my point. People wouldn't use these kinds of standards with respect to Quebec or Los Angeles, or Northern Ireland. Even the history of the genocide of the Native Americans doesn't get treated this way. It's only when cases become, well, sufficiently Eastern that people are prone to assume concepts like group ownership of land which they would never apply locally.

It's as if, when talking about the Middle East or India or even China, people just sort of automatically go back in time and start thinking in terms of corporate personality and such concepts.

Mycroft

10th February 2004, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by Cleon
As I said, non-Jews are not permitted in the settlements. They get shot at.

The only source I’ve seen this is from the ISM. Frankly, I don’t consider that a credible source. Is there hostility between Jews in settlements and Palestinian-Arabs? In the current climate of the Intifada, I can’t imagine there wouldn’t be.

Originally posted by Cleon
Seriously, Mycroft, you're the first person I've ever heard--and this goes back to when I was a Zionist, even--who's ever questioned the idea that the settlements do not permit non-Jews to live or travel there.

The issue was if Israeli-Arabs would have the right to form a settlement. If the issue is as bad as you describe (and maybe it is) then don’t you think that Israeli-Arabs exerting their rights to live in settlements would go a long way to change things?

Originally posted by Cleon
To my knowledge, the settler movement is 99% driven by ideology. The settlements near Jerusalem are no different; they have a parade every year through the Arab quarter in order to make it clear to the Palestinians that they're not welcome.

Or to make it clear to the Palestinian-Arabs that they’re staying?

CapelDodger

10th February 2004, 10:19 AM

from epepke:
Quite the opposite, actually, and that is pretty much my point. People wouldn't use these kinds of standards with respect to Quebec or Los Angeles, or Northern Ireland. Even the history of the genocide of the Native Americans doesn't get treated this way. It's only when cases become, well, sufficiently Eastern that people are prone to assume concepts like group ownership of land which they would never apply locally.

It's as if, when talking about the Middle East or India or even China, people just sort of automatically go back in time and start thinking in terms of corporate personality and such concepts.
The Arabs expelled from their homes and businesses were individuals and it's that which causes the conflict. The "group ownership" concept was the one taken up by the nationalist Zionists who sat in rooms in Europe drawing lines on the map and declaring the result a "country" that belonged to their group not the families that lived there. They were the ones who discussed "transfer" of "The Arabs" as a de-humanised block, not people like me. Of course nobody talks about Quebec like this because there are no parallels.

epepke

10th February 2004, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
The Arabs expelled from their homes and businesses were individuals and it's that which causes the conflict. The "group ownership" concept was the one taken up by the nationalist Zionists who sat in rooms in Europe drawing lines on the map and declaring the result a "country" that belonged to their group not the families that lived there. They were the ones who discussed "transfer" of "The Arabs" as a de-humanised block, not people like me.

Yes. I feel sorry for them, but that was in 1948. I don't even know exactly where my parents lived in 1948, although I think it was somewhere in Michigan. Although I do know that at one point my father lived in Dearborn, Michigan, which by a strange twist of irony, has become almost a suburb of Arab Palestine. Yet nobody really seems to get terribly upset about that.

Of course nobody talks about Quebec like this because there are no parallels.

Of course there are no parallels! That's the whole point.

Hardly anybody would really care what happened to the ethnic makeup of a fingernail-sized piece of land in this hemisphere almost 60 years ago. Not that it didn't happen. The "diaspora" of WWII veterans massively changed the ethnic makeup of many cities, including New York, Detroit, and Los Angeles, affecting areas that are larger by far than the total size of Israel plus all settlements and disputed territories, affecting populations that are larger by far. Furthermore, the ethnic and cultural divisions are significantly greater. You think Islam is different from Judaism, and Arabs are ethnically different from Israelis? Try putting a Black Santerian and a White Mormon side by side.

And, sure, there has been violence associated with this cultural mishmosh. Possibly a lot more than ever happens in the Middle East, when you include gang warfare and all that.

But, and this is pretty much my point, you don't get people digging up 60 years of history in an attempt to explain or justify it, and for the most part you don't get people who are not an actual part of it taking sides. Hardly anybody generates the kind of explanation that goes back in history to find some justification, save perhaps for a few crotchety old white Southerners.

Yet, all of a sudden, when people kill each other in an exotic land, all of a sudden such explanations not only become acceptable but actually de rigeur.

CapelDodger

11th February 2004, 03:07 PM

from epepke:
Yes. I feel sorry for them, but that was in 1948. I don't even know exactly where my parents lived in 1948 ...
If they'd been forced from there at the point of a gun they'd have told you. More than once. If you were born and brought up crammed in a shanty town populated by families with an identical history you wouldn't be about to forget it. When every aspect of your waking life is dominated by the reality of the rolling Zionist invasion of the past 80 years it would be a major part of your world view. Are you so completely lacking in empathy that your only response is "Get over it. You're actually just one of a relatively small number of people, some of whom have made it to the States anyway"?
The "diaspora" of WWII veterans massively changed the ethnic makeup of many cities, including New York, Detroit, and Los Angeles
Beyond spurious. The make-up of those cities has changed just as much in any ten-year period of the last hundred or more. Did I miss the influx of Russian veterans driving the Lithuanians out of Queens? The Irish vets driving the Poles into New Jersey?
And, sure, there has been violence associated with this cultural mishmosh. Possibly a lot more than ever happens in the Middle East, when you include gang warfare and all that.
The Zionists are creating a Jewish State. This is not a cultural mishmash. This is something entirely alien to the local history and culture, and allows no compromise (with Jew or Gentile). Israel is a European invention, created by Russians, Germans and - overwhelmingly - Americans, with no roots in the region. By the people that regarded the local Jews as needing "re-education" because they rejected Zionists as ignorant foreigners. Palestine would indeed just be a "fingernail of land" if it hadn't become the fetish of this bunch and their Christian Zionist supporters.

epepke

11th February 2004, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
If they'd been forced from there at the point of a gun they'd have told you.

And if I were a Vulcan, I'd have green blood. But I'm not a Vulcan, and I don't.

Look, there is no point in arguing point by point, because you apparenly have a basic misconception of what I am trying to say.

So, I'm going to summarize the argument so far:

Me: What is happening in the Middle East is different from what happens here.
You: No they're not, you idiot! It's different, not the same.
Me: That's what I said. It different.
You: Stop saying it's the same, you moron! It's different! There are no parallels!
Me: This is going nowhere, so I'm going to summarize the argument.

Would you like to continue along this vein? I can do that, although it would be boring. On the other hand, you could decide to try to understand what I'm saying, if you like.

zenith-nadir

11th February 2004, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
The Zionists are creating a Jewish State. This is not a cultural mishmash. This is something entirely alien to the local history and culture

You mean that silly bible thingy, Christ, and all those archaeological ruins in Israel are faked and part of a

Originally posted by CapelDodger
European invention

Hahahahaha.....

Mycroft

11th February 2004, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger

If they'd been forced from there at the point of a gun they'd have told you. More than once. If you were born and brought up crammed in a shanty town populated by families with an identical history you wouldn't be about to forget it. When every aspect of your waking life is dominated by the reality of the rolling Zionist invasion of the past 80 years it would be a major part of your world view. Are you so completely lacking in empathy that your only response is "Get over it. You're actually just one of a relatively small number of people, some of whom have made it to the States anyway"?

Yeah, Grandma told me the story of how they lost the farm in the great depression. She also told me stories about how they were able to rebuild and recover after. I have no idea where that farm is, but I sure am glad nobody kept them in some shanty town telling them they had no hope of ever making anything worthwhile unless it was getting that specific farm back.

Nobody told Grandma to “get over it” she did that on her own. By looking forwards instead of backwards, she graduated college, started a business, and sent her kids to college after Grampa died of an early heart attack.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Beyond spurious. The make-up of those cities has changed just as much in any ten-year period of the last hundred or more. Did I miss the influx of Russian veterans driving the Lithuanians out of Queens? The Irish vets driving the Poles into New Jersey?

I don’t think it’s spurious to point out that immigration can cause the ethnic make-up of a region to change. In some parts of the world this is justification for murder, in others it hardly gets a second glance.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
The Zionists are creating a Jewish State. This is not a cultural mishmash. This is something entirely alien to the local history and culture, and allows no compromise (with Jew or Gentile).

I think the “no compromise” part comes with being slaughtered. It’s so much easier to be reasonable with someone who isn’t trying to kill you.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Israel is a European invention, created by Russians, Germans and - overwhelmingly - Americans, with no roots in the region. By the people that regarded the local Jews as needing "re-education" because they rejected Zionists as ignorant foreigners. Palestine would indeed just be a "fingernail of land" if it hadn't become the fetish of this bunch and their Christian Zionist supporters.

Or if this miserable strip of worthless land hadn’t become the fetish of the Arab world.

CapelDodger

12th February 2004, 10:18 AM

from Mycroft:
I don’t think it’s spurious to point out that immigration can cause the ethnic make-up of a region to change. In some parts of the world this is justification for murder, in others it hardly gets a second glance.
What, in your opinion, is a Jewish State? What does that phrase actually mean? Immigration has defined the basic nature of US cities, but when has an influx arrived in a US city with the express intention of creating a new form of State there, one defined in some way by their ethnicity? If we were to look at the early history of immigratiion to the US - when a new form of state was being created - the effect on the people already living there was somewhat drastic. Including the application of massacre and conflict. So yes, spurious and shallow.

Cleopatra

12th February 2004, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by CapelDodger

What, in your opinion, is a Jewish State? What does that phrase actually mean?

I have asked you before but you haven't replied exactly to that question. Why you use this term, why you use the term Jewish State instead of Israel and why is the Jewish State that you want to go and not the State of Israel?

CapelDodger

12th February 2004, 10:37 AM

from epepke:
On the other hand, you could decide to try to understand what I'm saying, if you like.
Well, the whole Quebec thing went right past me. On the one hand you "can't imagine anybody seriously saying the same thing about, say, the Quebecoi" but then "Of course there are no parallels!", making the former point less than surprising. So a clear statement of your point would be helpful. As to the idea that the creation of the Jewish State was simply another example of immigration (if that's what you're trying to convey), how often does this immigration involve the explicit intent of "tranferring" the resident population out of the area?

As (I assume) an American you may have a sanguine attitude to immigration, it being a national motif and all, but in WW2 there was plenty of tension caused between local young men and Yanks who were paying attention to "their" women. Immigration as a source of violence is not that rare, humans being the tribal creatures they are, and if you look into the history of some US cities you'll find examples there. You could also look at the Chinese experience in California.

Cleon

12th February 2004, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

I have asked you before but you haven't replied exactly to that question. Why you use this term, why you use the term Jewish State instead of Israel and why is the Jewish State that you want to go and not the State of Israel?

If I may butt in, because I think CD are of a similar mind on the subject:

When talking about "Israel," phrases like "right of Israel to exist" and "call for the destruction of Israel" invariably come up. It's a language thing. Those of us who call for a single, united, democratic, secular state are accused of "calling for the destruction of the State of Israel." And in a sense, we are--we favor the dismantlement of the Jewish State of Israel and the creation of a new state that represents all the people in Palestine/Israel/Israelistine/whateveryouwanttocallit. By using language like "destruction of the state of Israel," defenders of Israel are (intentionally, IMO) trying to link this view with calls for mass slaughter, expulsion of the Jewish population, etc.

By specifying "Jewish State," CD is trying to explicitely point out that the inherent problem isn't a state called Israel, nor is it the Jewish population; the problem is a state that represents the interests of Jews above others.

For there to be true peace, the Palestinians and Israelis have to live on truly equal terms--individually as well as collectively.

Mycroft

12th February 2004, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
What, in your opinion, is a Jewish State? What does that phrase actually mean? Immigration has defined the basic nature of US cities, but when has an influx arrived in a US city with the express intention of creating a new form of State there, one defined in some way by their ethnicity? If we were to look at the early history of immigratiion to the US - when a new form of state was being created - the effect on the people already living there was somewhat drastic. Including the application of massacre and conflict. So yes, spurious and shallow.

I’ll give some thought to the definition of “Jewish State.” It’s an interesting question.

At the same time, I’ll point out that your comparing Zionism to 16th century American settlement of the New World is also spurious and shallow. That the native populations got the short end of the stick is beyond question, but attributing that to the creation of a new form of state instead of the interactions between modern (comparatively) European culture with an indigenous Stone Age culture doesn’t make much sense. If you want an American comparison, perhaps a more apt one would be the Mormon state of Utah.

Cleopatra

12th February 2004, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by Cleon

If I may butt in, because I think CD are of a similar mind on the subject:

When talking about "Israel," phrases like "right of Israel to exist" and "call for the destruction of Israel" invariably come up. It's a language thing. Those of us who call for a single, united, democratic, secular state are accused of "calling for the destruction of the State of Israel." And in a sense, we are--we favor the dismantlement of the Jewish State of Israel and the creation of a new state that represents all the people in Palestine/Israel/Israelistine/whateveryouwanttocallit. By using language like "destruction of the state of Israel," defenders of Israel are (intentionally, IMO) trying to link this view with calls for mass slaughter, expulsion of the Jewish population, etc.

By specifying "Jewish State," CD is trying to explicitely point out that the inherent problem isn't a state called Israel, nor is it the Jewish population; the problem is a state that represents the interests of Jews above others.

For there to be true peace, the Palestinians and Israelis have to live on truly equal terms--individually as well as collectively.

I aprreciate your answer but I want Capel Dodger to answer to that I have my reasons. After and IF he replies I will post my opinion on what you said. Thank you.

Mycroft

12th February 2004, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by Cleon
If I may butt in, because I think CD are of a similar mind on the subject:

When talking about "Israel," phrases like "right of Israel to exist" and "call for the destruction of Israel" invariably come up. It's a language thing.

I don’t think it’s as much a language thing as you make it out to be. When every single defensive measure Israel adopts receives widespread international criticism and condemnation, after a while you get the idea that the real issue isn’t any specific policy, but that Israel defends itself at all. If you want Israel to annex the disputed territories and the people on them, fine, but a reasonable first step to that would be a cessation of Palestinian-Arab violence. The refusal to condemn that combined with constant criticism of every measure to defend against it is hypocritical and one sided.

Also, suggesting that this one-state solution is the real goal of Hamas and other terrorist organizations is irrational. There is nothing in the method of suicide-terror that would advance that. You don’t create a single unified people who can come together in a single unified state by having one group of those people kill the other in the most spectacularly terrifying way imaginable.

Originally posted by Cleon
By using language like "destruction of the state of Israel," defenders of Israel are (intentionally, IMO) trying to link this view with calls for mass slaughter, expulsion of the Jewish population, etc.

Well, I, for one, am guilty as charged. I link the ideas because they are a real possibility. These populations have been in conflict for a century now and it’s irrational to think they could live together without bloodshed by just waving a magical wand.

If the real goal is an integrated state for an integrated population, then a realistic way to reach that goal is with some intermittent steps. Such steps would have to include a cessation of terrorism. Other intermittent steps might include the two-state or bi-national state solution.

CapelDodger

12th February 2004, 02:29 PM

Hi Cleopatra:
Why you use this term, why you use the term Jewish State instead of Israel and why is the Jewish State that you want to go and not the State of Israel?
If nationalist Zionism has a Bible, it's surely Herzl's "The Jewish State". The Balfour Declaration referred to the "Jewish Homeland" which Weizmann defended as an obfuscation, not an abandonment of the aim of a Jewish State. He did so loudly and publicly. Ben Gurion's evidence to the Peel Commission? The communications and deliberations of the Jewish Agency? Much is made of the openness and democracy of Israel vis-a-vis the Arab states but that openness provides all the evidence - it's just that most people don't look in there, they look to some propaganda sheet to save them the trouble.

So why the Jewish State? Because of its implications. Israel has no Constitution, as you know, and a good part of the reason is the difficulty of defining a "Jewish State" in terms which are acceptable to modern Western ears. A Jewish State, if democratic - and ben Gurion insisted that the Western powers the zionists depended on could support nothing less - implies a solid Jewish majority. There was no such majority within the intended boundaries of the Jewish State (which were hardly secret, since it was thrashed out entirely publicly and again, ben Gurion's evidence to the Peel Commission). Nor was there any prospect of achieving one through Jewish immigration. Not because of limits - which applied only to indigents and were not achieved anyway - but because Jews preferred the West (particularly the US) if they were going anywhere, rather than this very foreign land of Palestine. So "transfer" - dispossession - of non-Jewish people became the only option, recognised at least as early as the 1920's. People resent dispossession, and resentment leads to bitterness and often violence.

So, as you can see, I regard the "Israel" tag as a decoy from the crucial point, which contributes so much to understanding what has gone on and goes on over there.

Further to the "openness" point, it seems to me that people such as ben Gurion and Golda Meir have been promoted to almost divine status, and their papers, diaries, letters and such gathered up like holy relics - but hardly anybody ever looks at what's in them. You know Israel far better than I: do you have a take on that?

CapelDodger

12th February 2004, 02:39 PM

from Cleon:
By specifying "Jewish State," CD is trying to explicitely point out that the inherent problem isn't a state called Israel, nor is it the Jewish population; the problem is a state that represents the interests of Jews above others.
I didn't read that before I posted, but we are indeed of like mind on this. The whole subject is littered with examples of the power of language - the term "regugee" is a glaring instance, instead of "expellee" - and gets lost in minutiae. I may be asked to prove (providing links, references and Polaroids) that what I've posted is the case as if somebody actually thinks "Israel" isn't meant to be a Jewish State. And that a Jewish State isn't meant to mean exactly what we all know it means. Which is whatever you want at any particular time.

And in some cases, that the idea wasn't invented in Europe. (You're still wrong about David though.)

epepke

13th February 2004, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from epepke:

Well, the whole Quebec thing went right past me. On the one hand you "can't imagine anybody seriously saying the same thing about, say, the Quebecoi" but then "Of course there are no parallels!", making the former point less than surprising. So a clear statement of your point would be helpful.

That's fair enough, and thank you. Perhaps this can be salvaged.

I assert that there isn't anything in the West nowadays that corresponds to the Middle East.

I also assert that there is a reason for this. Some stuff that happened between 1914 and 1945. Things blew up rather a lot, and the last two things that blew up over Hiroshima and Nagasaki were quite impressive.

I further assert that some things have changed in the West due to this. It isn't complete, but there are brakes. The conclusion that the West came to was that there are some human luxuries that could no longer be afforded.

You asked, rather accusingly I thought, whether I had any empathy or sympathy for Palestinians. I have a hell of a lot. But yet, I am a product of Western culture, and so I feel the cultural brakes against following it to the normal human conclusion and declaring suicide bomings, e.g., perfectly understandable and cool. Because there is something in me, which results from seeing movies of the trenches and gas chambers and mushroom clouds, that prevents me from making the connection.

Yet I am frequently called upon to dismiss all of the brakes when talking about the Middle East. I am called upon to make an exception, and I am called a variant of "bad" when I don't. Somehow, it's like OK to substitute a variety of clannish revenge-based model, but only when appying it to the Middle East, or some other points East.

Primarily, I am simply trying to point this out.

Secondarily, being a child of the West, I just can't do it. I can't get the Israeli arsenal of nukes out of my mind. I can't pretend that everything would be hunky-dory if the US would just withdraw their combination of support and a very short chain. I can't just pretend that I'm a person of 1900 only when it comes to the Middle East.

But mostly, that's due to my conscience and memory. I think that in the future I'll still have a memory and conscience. I don't regularly smoke dope, and I don't have the concommitant ability to forget something that's two weeks old that I see in the American left.

As to the idea that the creation of the Jewish State was simply another example of immigration (if that's what you're trying to convey), how often does this immigration involve the explicit intent of "tranferring" the resident population out of the area?

Which is not really my position. As I pointed out, perhaps the creation of Israel was the last gasp of European "racial homeland" thinking.

The most obvious instance of this, for me, is the exile of the Seminoles from Ohio to Florida. Of course, there's also the issue of, if you're in Florida, who the hell would want to go back to Ohio?

In retrospect, I think that the creation of Israel was probably totally stupid. If there needed to be a Jewish homeland, it should have been around Berchtesgaden in Bavaria. But Israel exists, and it does have a birth certificate from the UN, and I wish there were a way of dealing with it that does not inevitably lead to the deployment of Israel's nuclear capability.

If I had a time machine, I would probably change a lot of things, but I don't, so I can't.

As (I assume) an American you may have a sanguine attitude to immigration, it being a national motif and all, but in WW2 there was plenty of tension caused between local young men and Yanks who were paying attention to "their" women.

I'm a Floridian. That's what I tell people. Florida is about the size of most European nations. I'll take flak for the current Floridian system, which is not a problem, because I hate Jeb Bush. I'll also take flak for the 2000 Presidential election, which I'll partially deflect by pointing out that I was in Georgia at the time, but still in retrospect, I think I should have put in an absentee ballot.

Until and unless people in Europe actually develop a coherent pan-European, EU identity, I won't try too hard to discuss what American means to Europeans, because there are no analogues.

I do have to point out that at least with respect to England, Amercian servicemen were uniformly greeted with posters that said "KEEP YOUR PECKER UP!" This may be one of the tragedies of a lack of linguistics.

E.J.Armstrong

13th February 2004, 04:58 PM

originally posted by Mycroft
What was it before?
The title of the thread is
'Sharon ordered it: Ethnic cleansing in Gaza'
You appear to be equating ethnicity with religion. If some of the settlers were from Russia and some from America I do not believe that makes them the same ethnicity.
Maybe. Is a region being cleansed of an ethnicity? As I understand it, it isn't. Settlers are being cleared from some illegal settlements. It’s your issue. Document it or drop it. It's your claim that Sharon's plan equates to ethnic cleansing. If the illegal settlers could live there legally after the illegal settlements were removed, then I believe that it would not qualify as ethnic cleansing, hence the question. If you have trouble understanding what I’m claiming, go back and read my previous posts. If you see me making these assertions there, then yes I am claiming it. If you don’t see me making these assertions, then no I am not claiming it. I’d save you the trouble and just tell you, but by past experience I know that wouldn’t help your understanding any.
I hope that it is OK for others to ask you questions about the accuracy of your claims.Which question was that?Correction - questions.
The question of mine you posted in the section immediately above this.
The question 'Perhaps you might like to stand by your claim this time Mycroft?'
The question 'Are you claiming that the settlements are composed 100% of only one ethnic group?'
The question 'If the settlements are only are composed of one religious group, who caused that I wonder?'
The question 'Are you saying that there are no people of that ethnicity living nearby ...'
In regard to your insinuation of redefinition of terms I asked 'I invite you to do so now. Why not say what you mean instead of hiding behind insinuations?'
After you made the comparison that 'I’m sure the Hutu’s felt they were rectifying a wrong perpetuated by the Tutsis too.' I asked 'Are you seriously trying to claim that the removal of illegal settlements and illegal settlers is equivalent to genocide? Is Sharon planning to kill all the settlers?'
The question 'I have heard of no plans to erect a barrier to people of any persuasion moving in again of any ethnicity or religion assuming they did so legally or is that part of Sharon's master plan now as well?'
The question 'I would like to reiterate my invitation to you to clarify fully and completely exactly what you mean and specify exactly what terms you are talking about. What is it about the word illegal that you don't understand?'

I do not expect an answer to every question but surely you see a point in addressing at least some of the above questions about the factual accuracy of your claims?It’s your choice to say Semite or not, but previously you used the term ethnic-cleansing to describe Israeli actions against Palestinian-Arabs. If you want to say that this action is not ethnic-cleansing because Semitic people will be left in Gaza, just keep in mind that the same logic can go both ways. YOu might have a point if there were not so many fundamental differences between the two situations. Many people in Israel talk about the transfer of Palestinians. Let me quote you this line from an article on the GAMLA website
'But since it is impossible to remove this influence, there is no other solution except transfer.' Is this group in power? No. Is anything happening in practice? Let me refer to a law of Israel
'Israel's parliament passed a measure Thursday that would force Palestinians who marry Israelis to live separate lives or move out of Israel.' From http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/israel-palestine/2003/0731newlaw.htm Looks like it to me.I believe Muslims are also mono-theists. Or did you mean something else? Muslims are indeed monotheistic. Muslims are not a country. Israel however is a democratic state and is not monotheistic. Again, it’s your issue. Doccument it or drop it, I don’t care, but don’t ask me to do your research for you. It is not me making the claim and I do not have any data. You claim is that one ethnic group will be removed. Please support your claim with evidence that only one ethnic group occupies the illegal settlements involved. If you can't, your claim fails. If you won't, your claim will be assessed in the same light as those who can speak tothe dead.If you have trouble understanding what I’m claiming, go back and read my previous posts. If you see me making these assertions there, then yes I am claiming it. If you don’t see me making these assertions, then no I am not claiming it. I’d save you the trouble and just tell you, but by past experience I know that wouldn’t help your understanding any. Let me add this to the list of questions you refuse to answer. I love answering questions. Can I ask then why you did not answer all the questions listed above?It’s just that after answering your questions over and over again with you re-phrasing and re-stating the same question over and over again, I have learned that answering your questions does not advance a dialogue. It’s just you. This claim is false. Please see the above list of questions you haven't answered.

If you imagine that your claim is true you will no doubt be happy to demonstrate that you have answered every single one of my questions over and over again, as claimed. You will no doubt want to do so if you have any regard for the accuracy of your claims on a sceptics site.If you believe these ethnicities are represented in the settlements, please document. It is not up to me to document the truth or falsehood of your speculation. I do not know that they are there or not. That is precisely my point. If you do not want to answer questions that support your claim, which forms the title of this thread then don't. It is entirely up to you. Please provide a reference that supports your definition of ethnic cleansing and also document that there are no alternative definitions that would apply. Also, document that the settlements are illegal. The definition of Ethnic Cleansing that I feel is most appropriate is the following 'The term ethnic cleansing refers to the elimination by the ethnic group exerting control over a given territory of members of other ethnic groups'. This may be found in 73 UN Doc. A/47/666 and S/24809 of 17 November 1992.

There are indeed many other definitions. I however fail to see on what basis I should document that there are no alternative definitions that would apply. For example, I have absolutely no idea what definition Ariel Sharon uses for ethnic cleansing. Should I? Do you?

With regard to the illegal status of the settlements, can I refer you to http://www.fmep.org/documents/opinion_OLA_DOS4-21-78.html which draws the following conclusion regarding the illegal settlements by the Legal Adviser of the Department of State to the Congress.
Conclusion

While Israel may undertake, in the occupied territories, actions necessary to meet its military needs and to provide for orderly government during the occupation, for the reasons indicated above the establishment of the civilian settlements in those territories is inconsistent with international law.

Having now answered your questions, is there any point in me asking you to reciprocate?
There are no rational guidelines for debate that would require me to document your speculations. Are you referring to the fact that Zenith-Nadir made a false claim and wouldn't justify it? If you believe some of the settlers being expelled may be non-Jewish, that Jewish citizens might remain behind or any other absurd extrapolation of my ideas, then document it yourself. Until then, I won’t waste my time with you. Let's just recap.
You started a thread with a claim.
For that claim to be true, certain things have to be true.
You were asked if those things were true.
You declined to demonstrate that they were.

Instead of providing a simple answer to a simple claim you answered a question with a question. You don't have to justify your claims.

Quoting from the link you provided, Sharon reportedly said '"It is my intention to carry out an evacuation - sorry, a relocation - of settlements that cause us problems and of places that we will not hold onto anyway in a final settlement, like the Gaza settlements," the prime minister added.'
THis suggests that his plan relates only to illegal settlements. The article goes on to say 'Gissin said there were three plans, but none of them called for removing all of the settlements. ' Gissin is Sharon's spokesman. Apparently none of the three plans even include the removal of all the illegal settlements.
Later in the report you quoted as evidence for your claim Sharon is reported to say
'"I am working on the assumption that in the future there will be no Jews in Gaza," Sharon added.' You claimed he ordered ethnic cleansing in Gaza. Is an assumption an order? Exactly, you didn’t know. You raised the issue without knowing the answer and expected me to do your work for you. It’s your issue, you brought it up, you do the research. That’s how it works with grown-ups. Can I just remind you what you actually claimed. You claimed that 'Once again you refuse a reasonable request to document your position and fail to answer a question, then have the intellectual dishonesty to blame it on someone else.' I have demonstrated that I have answered your question. The answer given was completely clear an unambiguous. I answered by saying that 'I don't know - possibly that is why I asked you a question?' That demonstrates conclusively that your claim was false. But hey ho.

Generally speaking, in the real world most people ask questions when they don't know an answer - that is one recognised way to get answers. If you don't want to answer simple questions designed to test the truth of your claims - don't. I supported my claim with the simple assertion that cleansing a region of an ethnicity is ethnic cleansing. Sharon has actually ordered the removal of some illegal settlements from some of Gaza.If you think that definition should not apply, then it’s up to you to demonstrate how or why. You have not done that. To do that I would have to see a definition. Have you provided your definition of ethnicity to me? Is an American Catholic of Native American extract the same ethnicity as an African Catholic?Wow, you’re making me dizzy. I assumed it must be something like that. whatever. Should we take that as demonstrating the true level of your regard for the accuracy of your own claims?

Mycroft

14th February 2004, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
The title of the thread is
'Sharon ordered it: Ethnic cleansing in Gaza'
You appear to be equating ethnicity with religion. If some of the settlers were from Russia and some from America I do not believe that makes them the same ethnicity.

One ethnic label does not exclude another. There are many ethnic labels that could apply to me, for example.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
It's your claim that Sharon's plan equates to ethnic cleansing. If the illegal settlers could live there legally after the illegal settlements were removed, then I believe that it would not qualify as ethnic cleansing, hence the question.

That’s very interesting speculation, but speculation doesn’t make an argument. If you want to do some research and come back with some facts, I’ll be all ears.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I do not expect an answer to every question but surely you see a point in addressing at least some of the above questions about the factual accuracy of your claims?

No. They are all either rhetorical questions, or questions you should answer yourself. If you wish to dispute my claims, you need to do your own research.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
YOu might have a point if there were not so many fundamental differences between the two situations. Many people in Israel talk about the transfer of Palestinians. Let me quote you this line from an article on the GAMLA website

Nice try changing the topic like that. If you wish to use the term Semite to prove this is not ethnic cleaning, go ahead. Just remember the logic goes both ways. GAMLA is a fringe group that represents none but themselves.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I do not know that they are there or not. That is precisely my point. If you do not want to answer questions that support your claim, which forms the title of this thread then don't. It is entirely up to you.

Questions don’t support claims, facts do. I’ve presented all the facts I need to support my claim. If you want to refute my claim, it’s up to you to provide your own facts, not to ask me to do it for you.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
There are indeed many other definitions. I however fail to see on what basis I should document that there are no alternative definitions that would apply. For example, I have absolutely no idea what definition Ariel Sharon uses for ethnic cleansing. Should I? Do you?

It’s very simple: We’ve already established that the term is hard to define and has many definitions. If you wish to dispute my use of the term, it’s not enough that you demonstrate that it doesn’t fit one specific definition of your choosing, you must also demonstrate that there is no definition of the term that fits my usage.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
The answer given was completely clear an unambiguous. I answered by saying that 'I don't know - possibly that is why I asked you a question?' That demonstrates conclusively that your claim was false. But hey ho.

This is really funny! You’re actually saying that your own ignorance proves my claim is false!
:dl:
I'm sorry, you're ignorance does not prove anything. If you have a hard time understanding that, ask your Mom or Dad to help you.

E.J.Armstrong

14th February 2004, 06:39 AM

originally posted by Mycroft
That’s very interesting speculation, but speculation doesn’t make an argument. If you want to do some research and come back with some facts, I’ll be all ears.
This is absolutely fundamental to your claim. If you are not prepared to provide proof of your own claim why should I or anyone else do it? By not supplying the evidence that after the supposed act of ethnic cleansing there will be no people of that ethnicity remaining your claim cannot stand. No. They are all either rhetorical questions, or questions you should answer yourself. If you wish to dispute my claims, you need to do your own research.
You are making yet another false claim here. Do you not understand how this is making you look?

Let me just demonstrate why this is yet another false claim. You stated that my questions were all either rhetorical or questions I should answer. On of them was 'After you made the comparison that 'I’m sure the Hutu’s felt they were rectifying a wrong perpetuated by the Tutsis too.' I asked 'Are you seriously trying to claim that the removal of illegal settlements and illegal settlers is equivalent to genocide? Is Sharon planning to kill all the settlers?'

You made an implied comparison between Sharon's plan and what the Hutu's did to the Tutsis. That was a question of fact about your own words. Your repeated refusal to answer simple question demonstrates your lack of regard for the necessity to support yor own claims. You have demonstrated that time and time again. Do questions shake your world?

For the claim that 'I’d like to know why it’s okay when Jews are the ethnicity being cleansed from a region, but not when it’s other groups.' to be correct you have to be able to answer this question
'Are you claiming that the settlements are composed 100% of only one ethnic group?' You refuse to do so therefore your claim will be treated with the respect it deserves.

Do you understand the relationship between a claim and the truth?
Nice try changing the topic like that. If you wish to use the term Semite to prove this is not ethnic cleaning, go ahead. Just remember the logic goes both ways. GAMLA is a fringe group that represents none but themselves. I clearly stated that GAMLA were not in power and proceded to show an actual law that discriminates against Palestinians.Questions don’t support claims, facts do. I’ve presented all the facts I need to support my claim. If you want to refute my claim, it’s up to you to provide your own facts, not to ask me to do it for you. Sorry. You haven't demonstrated the facts to support your case. In fact you won't even answer simple questions. If you don't understand the need to support your claims then don't. We don't even know for sure how many illegal settlements will be affected. We don't even know if the proposals will take place, You won't even say if person from different ethnic backgrounds can be considered to be of the same ethnicity.

Let us have a look at your methodology again: -
You make a claim as the title of a thread
You are asked questions to establish the truth of your claim
You don't answer the questions.
This is pointed out to you.
You ask, what questions?
The questions are listed for you again.
You won't answer the questions

Why do you come to a sceptics board?
It’s very simple: We’ve already established that the term is hard to define and has many definitions. If you wish to dispute my use of the term, it’s not enough that you demonstrate that it doesn’t fit one specific definition of your choosing, you must also demonstrate that there is no definition of the term that fits my usage. Where have you defined your use of the term? I have asked you to do so but as far as I can see you have refused to do so.This is really funny! You’re actually saying that your own ignorance proves my claim is false!

I'm sorry, you're ignorance does not prove anything. If you have a hard time understanding that, ask your Mom or Dad to help you.

Like some of your other claims on this thread this is this is mendacious nonsence. Let us examine this latest false claim.

You made the claim that ''Once again you refuse a reasonable request to document your position and fail to answer a question, then have the intellectual dishonesty to blame it on someone else.' I demonstrated that I had answered the question.

You say you love answering questions yet continue to address even simple questions of fact about your claims. As you have done once again. I look forward to seeing more threads that you start with claims you won't answer questions about.

Mycroft

14th February 2004, 11:42 AM

E.J.Armstrong

15th February 2004, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong blah, blah, You won't answer the questions, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, provide proof of your own claim, blah, blah, blah, another false claim here, blah, blah, blah, an implied comparison, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Let us have a look, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah You say you answered, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, You make a claim, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah questions to establish the truth, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah You don't answer the questions, blah, blah, blah, not prepared to provide proof, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah Where have you defined your use of the term? Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and my ignorance proves your claim to be false.

If this represents your respect for accuracy, no wonder you have so much difficulty with simple questions.

Sorry E.J., I’ve already responded to all this. You've responded to what? Something you made up? Good for you.

What about actually answering the questions?Repackaging it and putting it forth again doesn’t change anything. If you want to bring some new information into the discussion, I’ll be happy to talk about that with you. Can I suggest you simply have a look at the thread. It's all there. Your repeated refusal to stand by your own claims.
If you don't want to justify your claims - don't - but don't pretend that you did.Somewhere you got the idea that all you need to do to refute an argument is to ask questions until the other person gets tired and goes away. I’m not going to try to correct you here, but I will suggest you take a class in debate, or at least read up on the subject. Somewhere you got the ideas that you can make claims and refuse to support them. Do you actually understand the difference between a claim and the truth?

E.J. I feel bad for you. I know I’m the only one who responds to any of your messages, and I can only imagine how that makes you feel, but I’m not going to rehash the same crap over and over again for three months. What impression that leaves in your mind doesn’t concern me.
If this represents your regard for accuracy then I really do feel sorry for you.

Why not try at some stage to stand by your own claims instead of taking up space not answering them.

Just like zenith-nadir, Skeptic and Rikzilla you boys have a habit of making claims then running away from justifying them. I think that habit is worth demonstrating from time to time. Pip pip.

CapelDodger

15th February 2004, 10:29 AM

from epeke:
If there needed to be a Jewish homeland, it should have been around Berchtesgaden in Bavaria.
I've always favoured Austria as the Jewish Homeland, but most people think I'm joking. And given the way that Kurt Waldheim's popularity went up the more his Nazi past become public, and Haider's recent career, I'd have nothing against it now. The IDF right next to Switzerland and Bavaria does appeal.

CapelDodger

15th February 2004, 11:02 AM

from Mycroft:
Yeah, Grandma told me the story of how they lost the farm in the great depression. She also told me stories about how they were able to rebuild and recover after. I have no idea where that farm is, but I sure am glad nobody kept them in some shanty town telling them they had no hope of ever making anything worthwhile unless it was getting that specific farm back.
Grandma, of course, lost the farm in a country that was still rich and full of resources, was continental in scale with few internal barriers, and was about to enter the boom-times of re-armament (US and European) and the Keynesian expansion of the 50's to 70's. The Palestinian expellees were thrust into a poor region with many internal barriers. Some of them did manage to emigrate and have settled in the US (as epepke points out), Europe and the Middle East. The majority were prevented from taking advantage of the opportunities in the US by legal restrictions on immigration. Those that did manage to settle elsewhere were the educated and those with some capital, but the majority were destitute. The idea that they could simply have wandered off and started a new life in a place of their choice is laughable. The only sensible location would have been where they had just come from, which had been able to sustain them previously, but they hadn't been expelled from Israel just so they could return.
Nobody told Grandma to “get over it” she did that on her own. By looking forwards instead of backwards
The implication being that your Grandma was better than all those Palestinians, who have chosen to look backwards rather than forwards. Ignoring the advantages that she had. Why do you assume that? Why haven't you considered instead why the Palestinians haven't been able to do as well for themselves?
I think the “no compromise” part comes with being slaughtered. It’s so much easier to be reasonable with someone who isn’t trying to kill you.
It wouldn't have mattered a brass fart if the Palestinians hadn't tried to resist expulsion. They weren't expelled for resisting the creation of a Jewish State over their heads, they were expelled because they weren't wanted. In fact, a democratic Jewish State couldn't exist if they remained. The "no compromise" comes with the nationalist policy. We know what happened to Rabin and why.
Or if this miserable strip of worthless land hadn’t become the fetish of the Arab world.
To the Arab regimes criticising Israel is just cheap meat for the street, not something that they put much real effort into. The problems the Israelis have now are with the Palestinians themselves, and have been since 1973. The problems wouldn't have arisen if the Jewish State hadn't become such an obsession for a small group of influential 19th Century European Jews.

CapelDodger

15th February 2004, 02:14 PM

from Mycroft:
At the same time, I’ll point out that your comparing Zionism to 16th century American settlement of the New World is also spurious and shallow. That the native populations got the short end of the stick is beyond question, but attributing that to the creation of a new form of state instead of the interactions between modern (comparatively) European culture with an indigenous Stone Age culture doesn’t make much sense.
The US settlement which I referred to took place (in the main) later than the 16thCE and involved the deliberate removal of people from land that was desired by the new society (and subsequently state) that was being formed. Massacre and conflict resulted. This is what makes the situation analogous to the creation of the Jewish State. In both cases different cultures met and one overwhelmed the other. The Palestinians came up against a modern European state apparatus, well-armed, with a unified leadership and defined strategic aims. The Palestinians had no experience of the nation-state or what it could achieve against a scattered and uncoordinated opponent.

epepke

15th February 2004, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from epeke:

I've always favoured Austria as the Jewish Homeland, but most people think I'm joking. And given the way that Kurt Waldheim's popularity went up the more his Nazi past become public, and Haider's recent career, I'd have nothing against it now. The IDF right next to Switzerland and Bavaria does appeal.

I'd have picked Bavaria, expecially around Berchtesgaden, becaue a) Hitler had a home there, b) there was the Biergarten Putsch, after all, c) Germans already hate Bavarians anyway, and d) Bayerish-speakers and Yiddish-speakers can understand each other pretty easily.

Mycroft

15th February 2004, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Grandma, of course, lost the farm in a country that was still rich and full of resources, was continental in scale with few internal barriers, and was about to enter the boom-times of re-armament (US and European) and the Keynesian expansion of the 50's to 70's.

I’ll point out that the Middle East is also continental in scale, that its internal barriers were artificial constructs, and had it’s own analogues of the boom-times experienced by the States.

However, my overall point in bringing my Grandmother into the discussion was to point out that wide scale catastrophic loss in the early part of the 20th century was not unique to the region within a few hundred miles of Jerusalem.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
The implication being that your Grandma was better than all those Palestinians, who have chosen to look backwards rather than forwards. Ignoring the advantages that she had. Why do you assume that? Why haven't you considered instead why the Palestinians haven't been able to do as well for themselves?

Considering why the Palestinian-Arabs have not done as well for themselves is exactly what I’m doing. While my Grandmother is indeed a remarkable woman, chief among her advantages was that she didn’t have a bunch of fellow Christian-Americans confining her and her progeny to refugee status until such time as they could get that specific farm back. The Palestinian-Arabs didn’t choose to look backwards, they were compelled to.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
It wouldn't have mattered a brass fart if the Palestinians hadn't tried to resist expulsion. They weren't expelled for resisting the creation of a Jewish State over their heads, they were expelled because they weren't wanted. In fact, a democratic Jewish State couldn't exist if they remained. The "no compromise" comes with the nationalist policy. We know what happened to Rabin and why.

Where you commit the logical fallacy of taking the attitude of one lone assassin and applying it to an entire people from the previous generation.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
To the Arab regimes criticising Israel is just cheap meat for the street, not something that they put much real effort into.

Correction; they do put real effort into it. MEMRI and Al-Jazeera are not the only indications of this.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
The problems the Israelis have now are with the Palestinians themselves, and have been since 1973. The problems wouldn't have arisen if the Jewish State hadn't become such an obsession for a small group of influential 19th Century European Jews.

Yes, if you eliminate one side of any conflict, then there is no conflict. :con2:

Originally posted by CapelDodger
The US settlement which I referred to took place (in the main) later than the 16thCE and involved the deliberate removal of people from land that was desired by the new society (and subsequently state) that was being formed.

Then perhaps it would help advance the dialogue if you narrowed down the time frame some?

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Massacre and conflict resulted. This is what makes the situation analogous to the creation of the Jewish State. In both cases different cultures met and one overwhelmed the other. The Palestinians came up against a modern European state apparatus, well-armed, with a unified leadership and defined strategic aims. The Palestinians had no experience of the nation-state or what it could achieve against a scattered and uncoordinated opponent.

The Arabs had no experience with a nation-state???

a_unique_person

15th February 2004, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

The Arabs had no experience with a nation-state???

There was an indiginous population that lived in their traditional lands, (as in, actually lived there, in houses and farmed the land). They had been ruled by the Ottoman empire before it's collaps. There were moves to create a sovereign nation, but these moves were overwhelmed by the more politically savvy Zionists and the interference of GB, who reneged on their promise to the Arabs for true indepenence after the Ottomans were defeated.

Mycroft

15th February 2004, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
There was an indiginous population that lived in their traditional lands, (as in, actually lived there, in houses and farmed the land). They had been ruled by the Ottoman empire before it's collaps. There were moves to create a sovereign nation, but these moves were overwhelmed by the more politically savvy Zionists and the interference of GB, who reneged on their promise to the Arabs for true indepenence after the Ottomans were defeated.

Oh this is absurd. Both you and Capel Dodger are arguing that this indigenous population was just too simple to understand such concepts as government and nations when this same population had been governed previously and was in the process of building nation-states to the North, East and South.

Where is the Fool on this one? Shouldn't he be squawking at this unfair characterization of Arabs as being more primitive than other peoples?

davefoc

15th February 2004, 07:30 PM

AUP said:...and the interference of GB, who reneged on their promise to the Arabs for true indepenence after the Ottomans were defeated.

Yes, technically true AUP, but I think blaming GB for that is not completely fair. It is my understanding that the British resisted efforts to allow the free flow of refugees to Israel. The US at the end of the war basically said you want our money, then open up Palestine to Jewish immigration. Eventually with reluctance GB complied.

This site more or less backs up this idea:
http://www.al-bushra.org/America/ch8.html

This site makes the case that not only were the zionists working to open up Palestine to immigration at the end of the war but they were also working to prevent the US from increasing the immigration it was allowing from Jews in the European Jewish refugee camps.

My sense of it is that the British with their middle east experience had a pretty good idea of the problems that would follow from the establishment of a Jewish state in the area and opposed it. My sense of it also is that the Americans understood that less well and that for a combination of religious, political and moral reasons backed the founding of a religious state. Kind of surprising in that one of the things that Americans are indoctrinated with from a fairly early age is the importance of the separation of church and state.

Skeptic

15th February 2004, 09:02 PM

The problems wouldn't have arisen if the Jewish State hadn't become such an obsession for a small group of influential 19th Century European Jews.

The murder wouldn't have occured if having a baby hadn't become such an obsession with the victim's parents 25 years ago.

a_unique_person

15th February 2004, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Oh this is absurd. Both you and Capel Dodger are arguing that this indigenous population was just too simple to understand such concepts as government and nations when this same population had been governed previously and was in the process of building nation-states to the North, East and South.

Where is the Fool on this one? Shouldn't he be squawking at this unfair characterization of Arabs as being more primitive than other peoples?

Not primitive at all, in the sense that they are lesser. The Zionistsm, however, tended to come from the most advanced areas of the world, the US and Europe. That is, these were well educated and motivated people, with money to back them. One of the tragedies of the holocaust was that some of the best and brightest of Europe were sacrificed.

The people of these areas, were, however, after centuries of colonialist domination, moving to the creation of sovereign states. Jordan, for example, was created when one particularly forceful King pursuaded GB to hand over the reigns of power. Many other countries around the world, after the end of WWI&II, and the end of the colonial era, were also moving to create independent states. As time has passed, these states have succeeded or failed to varying degrees.

The Fool

15th February 2004, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Oh this is absurd. Both you and Capel Dodger are arguing that this indigenous population was just too simple to understand such concepts as government and nations when this same population had been governed previously and was in the process of building nation-states to the North, East and South.

Where is the Fool on this one? Shouldn't he be squawking at this unfair characterization of Arabs as being more primitive than other peoples?

Squawk,squawk,squawk, Careful mycroft you might start to sound like "skeptic".

I can't see anywhere in there CP or A_U_P saying that palestinians are too simple for anything... those are your words.

Palestine has always been a nation divided, ever wondered why they form so many resistance groups? One day, they will stop arguing among themselves (maybe).

Easy pickins for a zionist organisation with a pocket full of venture capital.

Those Nation states to the northy east and south were not formed from a movement of the people as you describe....It was simply handout time from the British...If you were a favored powerful family, bingo....instant nation. Unfortunately, If there was only 10 Palestinians left on earth they would still manage to form 3 political parties. If there had been a strong Palestinian family with vast wealth and influence in london it would have been all over red rover....bingo, instant palestine. Probably would have still been invaded by zionists but at least the old myth "A land with no people for a people with no land" would have not got so much air time.
OOPS, am I critisizing palestinians? that'll make the straw men harder to assemble eh "skeptic"? (on second thoughts, probably not).

CapelDodger

16th February 2004, 06:51 AM

from Mycroft:
... that its internal barriers were artificial constructs ...

... and was in the process of building nation-states to the North, East and South.
What do you think national borders are, other than artificial constructs? There are no internal boundaries in the US which prevent the passage of citizens, although in pratice they did exist during the Depression in the form of vigilantes, state troopers and county sherriffs keeping out the Okies and other unwanted immigrants. (This analogy has legs.) The people of the states surrounding Palestine were no more keen on having hundreds of thousands of destitute people surging in and depressing wages, taking up housing and being a charge on the public purse. Rhetoric - "We feel your pain!" - is cheap.
and had it’s own analogues of the boom-times experienced by the States.
And, as I have pointed out, many Palestinians did move to the Gulf and Iraq when jobs became available. Why, otherwise, were there so many Palestinians in the Gulf to be ejected when Arafat backed Saddam over Kuwait? Zionists try to paint a picture of Palestinians simply sitting in camps refusing to move, or being refused the opportunity. The truth is that the numbers involved in the expulsions of 1947-49 could not have been absorbed by the surrounding region at any point. Nor were it any more obliged to than, for instance, the US (which missed the opportunity of solving the problem by absorbing the expelled). The only obligation was on those who prevented them from returning to their homes and businesses. The camps developed into towns with their own working economies, but were starting from a very low base in unpromising circumstances. The actual achievements of the Palestinians in the last 50 years is what is remarkable.

CapelDodger

16th February 2004, 07:14 AM

from davefoc:
Yes, technically true AUP, but I think blaming GB for that is not completely fair. It is my understanding that the British resisted efforts to allow the free flow of refugees to Israel. The US at the end of the war basically said you want our money, then open up Palestine to Jewish immigration. Eventually with reluctance GB complied.
You will be unsurprised I find that more than a little simplistic. The British did attempt to prevent a wholescale influx of destitute refugees from Europe, but they had an extremely delicate situation on their hands and they would have been responsible for feeding them during a world food shortage. In Europe they could be provided for both by local production and by supplies from the US. Money alone could not have solved the problem given the world-wide transport shortage (which resulted from a destructive war and the supply of massive armies far from home, plus feeding the Japanese). The British Government - along with everyone else - was also faced with the Zionist demand that all the refugees be relocated to Palestine whatever their own desires. To allow unrestricted immigration could have been interpreted as an acceptance of that.

CapelDodger

16th February 2004, 07:18 AM

something peurile from Skeptic:
The murder wouldn't have occured if having a baby hadn't become such an obsession with the victim's parents 25 years ago.
I might start referring to the Jewish State as Herzl's Baby after that.

Skeptic

16th February 2004, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
something peurile from Skeptic:

I might start referring to the Jewish State as Herzl's Baby after that.

That doesn't answer my point, CapelDodger.

You seem to claim that if israel never existed it wouldn't be in war as some sort of evidence that the war is israel's fault.

By the same reasoning, if a murder victim had never been born, he could not have been murdered; does that mean being murdered is his fault?

Cleopatra

16th February 2004, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic

That doesn't answer my point, CapelDodger.

Apart from the capels he dodges the questions as well. Welsh! Rotten clan!

CapelDodger

16th February 2004, 08:41 AM

from davefoc:
My sense of it is that the British with their middle east experience had a pretty good idea of the problems that would follow from the establishment of a Jewish state in the area and opposed it.
It has often been said of the British policy during the Mandate that it would have been a good idea to have one. The people on the ground and with the experience - the Foerign and Colonial Office and the armed forces - regarded the Jewish State as a complete non-starter. However, Zionism, and particularly Weizmann, had great influence in London via Lloyd George and other influential figures, mostly Christian Zionists. In the US Brandeis had a similar role to Weizmann's, and influence in the US was carefully noted by Whitehall. So London was constantly imposing policies that the men on the ground found crazy and/or impracticable. For instance, London put Weizmann in charge of the Jewish Agency to oversee the affairs of all Jews in the Mandate even though he was regarded as a nobody by local, established Jews.

CapelDodger

16th February 2004, 08:48 AM

Hi Cleopatra:
Apart from the capels he dodges the questions as well. Welsh! Rotten clan!
Watch who you're calling Welsh. But you can slag off my clan all you like, after all I do often enough. And ... questions? You have questions? Skeptic is questionable, but he didn't ask a question. But, as you know, I would agree that if Israel had not been created there wouldn't ever have been any war involving Israel. Israel and the war are the fault of the people who determined on creating a Jewish State (whatever that is).

Cleopatra

16th February 2004, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by CapelDodger

Watch who you're calling Welsh. But you can slag off my clan all you like, after all I do often enough.
I had in mind just for the joy of teasing you to call you many things instead of Welsh--not negative things-- but I thought to choose the most innocent of the things I could call you.:)

if Israel had not been created there wouldn't ever have been any war involving Israel.

Oh stop it Capel Dodger!

CapelDodger

16th February 2004, 10:34 AM

Hi Cleopatra:
Oh stop it Capel Dodger!
No chance.

I haven't answered your question "What is a Jewish State", but then, I don't know. The answer is not obvious. Not a theocracy, obviously, but "Jewish" refers to a religion. Sharon vows to defend the "Jewish nature" of the State but that explains nothing. I'm interested in what formulations Zionists can come up with. If there was an Israeli Constitution it would presumably be defined there, but maybe that's why there's not an Israeli Constitution. Well, one reason.

Cleopatra

16th February 2004, 11:09 AM

Ok I will bite that.First of all I didn't ask you what is a Jewish State but how you use the term.

Jewish State is many things in theory.

Jewish State is a place where if you are a jew you will have the right to own land, you won't be accused every other month and trialed for murdering little kids in order to knead this bread that the rest of the world wonders how you eat. Jewish State is the place that if you are a jew you will be safe, none will accuse you for being the murderer of Christ , none will blame his misfortunes on you because everybody will be the same as you are.A Jewish State is a place that if you are a jew you will be able to organize a common future exactly because you will be safe and none is threatening you. Jewish State is a place for the Jews to be safe. Safe. Safety was always the issue.

This is a Jewish State if you choose to see things with the eyes of your enemies though. I don't know how it is to see things in a way other than that. A great deal of the jewish physiognomy was created by the way the others saw them.This applies for everybody but especially for the Jews.

I have said it before at least twice in this forum. Israel didn't turn out to be a good idea not because of the reasons you believe ( = it didn't turn out to be a safe place for the jews) but because the mess that wa created is really big and now we can't live with the Arabs so we have to live separated.

I have difficulty to imagine a democratic and "separated" state. Maybe our grandchildren will resolve this problem.

As for what you say about the constitution I agree. One of the reasons that we do not have a constitution is not that we can do without it the way Great Britain does ( as the idiots of the extreme right dare to claim) but because you cannot put together a Constitution while you are in War.

Maybe our grandchildren will have a constitution.My generation fights for other things, the constitution is a luxury we will not enjoy but it's ok.

As I said to demon we can't have it all.

Skeptic

16th February 2004, 12:07 PM

Israel and the war are the fault of the people who determined on creating a Jewish State (whatever that is).

I see. So, when someone is murdered, both his existence and his murder are really the fault of his parents, who were determined to create him.

Perhaps they should be put on trial for murder? After all, if they hadn't insisted on making him, the murder would never have occured!

CapelDodger

16th February 2004, 12:59 PM

Ok Skeptic, let's go back to your childhood ...
The murder wouldn't have occured if having a baby hadn't become such an obsession with the victim's parents 25 years ago.
No, it wouldn't. That is obvious. You try to draw an analogy, equating a murder with the war, Israel with a baby and the obsession of the parents with the obsession of the Zionists. Then you claim that I'm blaming the baby - the Jewish State - when I'm clearly blaming the Zionists which equate to the parents. In only 20 words you get yourself into a fearsome tangle. Sorry to do this to you in front of all these good people, but you leave me no choice.

Cleopatra: My first observation is that the US fits your description, since sovereignty is not, for you, an issue. More later.

Cleopatra

16th February 2004, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger

Cleopatra: My first observation is that the US fits your description, since sovereignty is not, for you, an issue. More later.

I negotiate with what I have not with what I wish I had.Don't say anything that you will regret later. :)

BTW Check this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35182&perpage=40&pagenumber=1). Your extravaganzas are missed there. :)

CapelDodger

16th February 2004, 02:44 PM

Hi Cleopatra:
BTW Check this thread. Your extravaganzas are missed there.
A solution is not my problem, remember? But I've followed it a little. I don't spend as much time on this site as some but it's only polite to follow up on responses so I limit myself. This is Mycroft's thread so let's not have this become one of those C v C things, but that said:
I have said it before at least twice in this forum. Israel didn't turn out to be a good idea not because of the reasons you believe ( = it didn't turn out to be a safe place for the jews)
My reasons are legion, but would have been no different if the Jewish State had turned out to be safe. That could only have happened with the total subjugation of the Palestinians. I find the whole mind-set that conceived this self-glorifying national project objectionable. I find the way they conscripted others to sacrifice in their cause objectionable. I hate the way people like Herzl dismissed the fears of others because they might obstruct their dream. Safety was not the issue for Hertzl and his ilk - their concern was that with emancipation would come assimilation and a loss of "national" identity. Its right there in The Jewish State. They had to deny any danger to the Jews of Europe to counter the argument that claiming Jews as a separate nation would make their position as European nationals vulnerable. Herzl claimed that civil rights and emancipation could not be withdrawn, and it happened within 40 years. Not necessarily post ergo propter, but Herzl was wrong. Those who predicted that the project would lead to inevitable conflict were also proved right. The whole thing was scabrous from the get-go.

You know about the old zionist movement, the one without nationalism. I met a woman from an old Russian settlement of the 1880's in London once, a charming, gentle woman who, frankly, stole my heart. We spoke of gardening and the beauty of Israel and food and many fine things. At the same dinner-table we had a Manchester-born Israeli, visiting after two years of subsided splendour East of Jerusalem and going on and on about the lazy, thieving Arabs and the real situation and the great opportunities we were missing out on. We tried to turn him off it, but he was an accountant to boot: where do you go? It seemed the only conversation he had. The worst kind of dinner-guest, but he was related to someone so what you gonna do. To me it encapsulated the whole situation. On the one hand someone born in the land she knew and loved, the other a boorish European turning up to tell the natives how things were in a proper, modern world. When Raisa had finally had enough she just looked at him and said "My grandfather would weep to see what Israel has become". That's one reason why I have a problem with the word "Israel", I associate it with that other dream which was steam-rollered by nationalism just like everything else.

Cleopatra

17th February 2004, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by CapelDodger

A solution is not my problem, remember? But I've followed it a little.

I have read that you posted that three times so far and every time I read it I found it quite ironic, a British declaring that ME is not his problem. From the other hand, you are right. Can you imagine how many problems the average British would have to solve if he spent time thinking about the misery his fathers have created all around the world?

But I insist. Come-on Capel Dodger, after all you honor us by sharing your original ideas about the past do us the honor to post an idea about the future.

My reasons are legion, but would have been no different if the Jewish State had turned out to be safe. That could only have happened with the total subjugation of the Palestinians. I find the whole mind-set that conceived this self-glorifying national project objectionable. I find the way they conscripted others to sacrifice in their cause objectionable. I hate the way people like Herzl dismissed the fears of others because they might obstruct their dream. Safety was not the issue for Hertzl and his ilk - their concern was that with emancipation would come assimilation and a loss of "national" identity. Its right there in The Jewish State. They had to deny any danger to the Jews of Europe to counter the argument that claiming Jews as a separate nation would make their position as European nationals vulnerable. Herzl claimed that civil rights and emancipation could not be withdrawn, and it happened within 40 years. Not necessarily post ergo propter, but Herzl was wrong. Those who predicted that the project would lead to inevitable conflict were also proved right. The whole thing was scabrous from the get-go.

First all don't start again. You are the only person on the planet that believes that Herzl was not concerned about safety. The great agony of Herzl and his generation was safety but let us not start again and again. Second. What you describe doesn't concern only Israel but many countries that were created in 19th ce and yet you ask only for Israel to go.

You know about the old zionist movement, the one without nationalism. I met a woman from an old Russian settlement of the 1880's in London once, a charming, gentle woman who, frankly, stole my heart. We spoke of gardening and the beauty of Israel and food and many fine things. At the same dinner-table we had a Manchester-born Israeli, visiting after two years of subsided splendour East of Jerusalem and going on and on about the lazy, thieving Arabs and the real situation and the great opportunities we were missing out on. We tried to turn him off it, but he was an accountant to boot: where do you go? It seemed the only conversation he had. The worst kind of dinner-guest, but he was related to someone so what you gonna do. To me it encapsulated the whole situation. On the one hand someone born in the land she knew and loved, the other a boorish European turning up to tell the natives how things were in a proper, modern world. When Raisa had finally had enough she just looked at him and said "My grandfather would weep to see what Israel has become". That's one reason why I have a problem with the word "Israel", I associate it with that other dream which was steam-rollered by nationalism just like everything else.

You are more fond of lady gardeners obviously. When I was living in England I was invited for dinner once and one of the British guests after drinking a couple of whiskies suggested that Greeks would be more civilized if they have been part of the British Empire like the Cypriots. In the paragraph above you described a typical British mentality and not a typical jewish mentality.