jewish state / Muslim World

[Skeptic]

The title of this thread comes from me reading Richard Dawkins' latest collection of essays, "The Devil's Chaplain".

In his essay about Sept. 11th (well worth reading in general), he says that in his view, the idea of a jewish state seems absurd because judaism (like religion in general) is in effect an imaginary construct. But--adds Dawkins--so is the idea of Muslim Land or a Muslim world; it is no more absurd of the jews to live in a jewish state than of the Arabs to oppose it due to nonbelievers living in "their" land. Dawkins does not dwell on the issue; he states both claims as if they were natural, obvious statements, and more on to other things in his essay.

It is when reading this that the hypocritical, dishonest jew-hating core of the "I am opposed to a jewish state because nationalism is bad" was seen by me most clearly. NEVER have I heard the same argument that Dawkins made about Arab land from those who oppose israel's existence allegedly due to their "principled opposition" to nationalism or religious states. But if the idea of land or a state "being" of a certain nationality really is absurd; if THAT is the real reason they oppose the existence of israel, shouldn't most of these objectors at least mention what, to Dawkins, is so blatantly obvious? Shouldn't they note that if there really is no such thing as jewish land in principle, then there is no such thing as Arab or Muslim or Palestinian land in principle, either?

No; in 99% of the cases, the same people who oppose a jewish state use the alleged absurdity of a "national" land ONLY against the jews' claims. They accept as a given, at least--if not enthusiastically support--the idea of a "Muslim world" or "Arab world", of land that by right belongs solely to Arabs in general or Palestinians in particular, by some sort of divine grace. Never mind that they legally sold it to jews or lost it in a war of annihilation against jews; it's STILL "Arab land" in some mystical way... a consideration that is NEVER extended to jewish land, under any circumstances.

In reality, then, the idea that a national state is absurd or immoral applies by these "moralists" ONLY to tyhe jewish state. jewish land--and ONLY jewish land--does not exist; Arab (or Muslim, or Palestinian) land not only does exist, but is fetishized to a sickening degree. Which shows their real concerns: it is not really "national" land or "national" states they are opposed to; it is solely the jewish land and jewish state which they oppose.

[CBL4]

Is this the article?
http://www.rationalist.org.uk/newhumanist/issue04Winter2001/dawkins.shtml

CBL

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Skeptic
No; in 99% of the cases, the same people who oppose a jewish state use the alleged absurdity of a "national" land ONLY against the jews' claims. They accept as a given, at least--if not enthusiastically support--the idea of a "Muslim world" or "Arab world", of land that by right belongs solely to Arabs in general or Palestinians in particular, by some sort of divine grace. I think they are basing it on an historical presence. The claim of Palestinians, as far as I can tell, is that they are indigenous to the area, and therefore have a "right" to it, and the selling of land they long inhabited but didn't own effectively displaced them as a people. They feel displaced by an "other". In this case, a Jewish other. But I think if a state was established in the same way, with any other religious/ethnic composition, there would be this same conflict. Had it become a Christian state, they wouldn't care that there had always been a Christian minority, or that land was acquired legally; they would still oppose it for being an out-group.

[Hutch]

Originally posted by kimiko
I think they are basing it on an historical presence. The claim of Palestinians, as far as I can tell, is that they are indigenous to the area, and therefore have a "right" to it, and the selling of land they long inhabited but didn't own effectively displaced them as a people. They feel displaced by an "other". In this case, a Jewish other. But I think if a state was established in the same way, with any other religious/ethnic composition, there would be this same conflict. Had it become a Christian state, they wouldn't care that there had always been a Christian minority, or that land was acquired legally; they would still oppose it for being an out-group.

kimiko, you are trying to have a rational argument with Skeptic. This is not likely to work. Unfortunately.

Skeptic is intelligent, at times humorous, well-versed in this topic--and utterly impossible to have a rational discussion with. Prediction is that he will dimiss you, flame me, demon and aup will show up, and the thread will degenerate from there.

We'll see.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by kimiko
Had it become a Christian state, they wouldn't care that there had always been a Christian minority, or that land was acquired legally; they would still oppose it for being an out-group.

Saying that the intolerance would still be addressed at a different out-group is still identifying it as intolerance.

The same intolerance directed at Mormons, Catholics or blue-eyed people is still wrong.

[geni]

It's an old idea. The Norwegians have no particular right to Norway it is just that no one else claims it (classic example). This in itself however doesn't get us very far since it gives no answers about what to do when land is claimed by two or more groups.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Saying that the intolerance would still be addressed at a different out-group is still identifying it as intolerance.

The same intolerance directed at Mormons, Catholics or blue-eyed people is still wrong. It isn't simply intolerance if it is predicated on displacement.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by kimiko
It isn't simply intolerance if it is predicated on displacement.

It's never simply anything, but the displacement happened as a result of a conflict that was a result of intolerance. Not the other way around.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Mycroft
It's never simply anything, but the displacement happened as a result of a conflict that was a result of intolerance. Not the other way around. You'll have to support that assertion with an argument.

[webfusion]

When the Zionist Jews first arrived, they did not displace anyone. In fact, Jewish presence in the land was a constant since the time of the Roman conquest and the destruction of Solomon's Temple. Jews have lived there (in small isolated communities) for millenia.

On the contrary, in the 1880's as the Jews began to re-build their Altneuland (Old New Land -- Herzl), the sparse population of Arabs in the coastal/western part of the land began a renaissance as well. No Jews settled in any part of the eastern lands (the hill country now designated as the West Bank of the Jordan River) There were never any Jews in the Egyptian Gaza district, obviously. As well, no Jews lived in any part of Jerusalem's Old City, and they were excluded totally from approaching the Western Wall of their destroyed Sacred Temples. No Jews were left alive in Hebron after 1929 (Hebron, holy burial site of the Patriarchs, Abraham Issac and Jacob).

It is a lie that Jews 'displaced' Arabs during the 5 decades of Zionist efforts to re-establish a Jewish Home (1890 - 1941)

The truth is, Arabs from throughout the MidEast flowed into the land unimpeded by the British during the entire period of the Palestine Mandate. While severe quotas were enforced against the Jews, free immigration of Arabs was met with a wink and a nod from the Administration in Palestine, and their numbers increased dramatically.

Can it be claimed that Jews 'displaced' Arabs in Gaza or the West Bank or East Jerusalem, when there were no Jews living in any of those places until well after the establishment of Israel (in fact not until 1967)?

The whole idea that Jews came and stole or conquered or somehow 'biffed' the Arabs out of anything is ridiculous.
The pure fact is, 3/4 of the entire Mandate for Palestine ---- which had been specifically designed by the League of Nations to "facilitate the establishment of a Homeland for the Jews" ---- ended up in the hands of some Bedouin sheikh named Abdullah of the nomadic Hashemite Tribe.

Ultimately, Israel, in the desparate throes of survival after the Holocaust, accepted a meager portion of the remaining Mandated lands, and then went one step further and agreed to share a "Partition" of even that meager scrap.

Displaced? Occupied? Don't make me laugh.
The only way you can make that claim at all would be if you suddenly start the entire timeline of the conflict in 1947 (or even more accurately, in June of 1967).

Go ahead, ignore the reality.
At your own peril.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by kimiko
You'll have to support that assertion with an argument.

Webfusion did a great job of that. Thank you, Webs.

But more than that, it's common sense. Immigration and migrations do not cause displacement in themselves. If you find yourself looking at an immigrant and thinking, "You and your kind are displacing me and my kind." well, it takes a special kind of hatred to think that way.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by webfusion
Go ahead, ignore the reality. At your own peril. Thank you for the outline, but could you provide links to substantiate your claims?

And the threat is a little unusual.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by kimiko
Thank you for the outline, but could you provide links to substantiate your claims?

And the threat is a little unusual.

If you're looking for more info, try this site here:

http://www.mideastweb.org/

[webfusion]

"Go ahead, ignore the reality. At your own peril."

This was not specifically directed at kimiko, per se.

It is a warning to everyone ---- we are in a period that could easily get out of control, with nuclear weapons being employed in American cities by Islamic terrorists, the same ones who would then make the claim their nuking of Birmingham was the direct result of "American support of Israeli Occupation"

So long as you believe that Israel is responsible for 'displacing' Arabs and the Jews have no rights to their homeland, then you are ignoring reality and placing yourself in a very dangerous situation, whereby the Islamic Terrorists (and by extension, Islamic nations, such as Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia, etc) would then interpret your weakness and do what they can to try and force you (again, I'm using the collective"you") into totally capitulating and abandoning any support for Israel.

See: 1973
(Arab Oil Embargo, Yom Kippur War)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by webfusion
"Go ahead, ignore the reality. At your own peril."

This was not specifically directed at kimiko, per se.

It is a warning to everyone ---- we are in a period that could easily get out of control, with nuclear weapons being employed in American cities by Islamic terrorists, the same ones who would then make the claim their nuking of Birmingham was the direct result of "American support of Israeli Occupation"

So long as you believe that Israel is responsible for 'displacing' Arabs and the Jews have no rights to their homeland, then you are ignoring reality and placing yourself in a very dangerous situation, whereby the Islamic Terrorists (and by extension, Islamic nations, such as Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia, etc) would then interpret your weakness and do what they can to try and force you (again, I'm using the collective"you") into totally capitulating and abandoning any support for Israel.

See: 1973
(Arab Oil Embargo, Yom Kippur War)

The "'displacing'" was an actual event. There may be disputes about who caused it and why, but a lot of people 'had' homes and then 'didn't' have them.

[Skeptic]

Quick question, AUP: if the Arabs had won the 1948, what would have happened to the 600,000 jews then in "occupied Palestine"?

They would have been butchered to the last baby, that's what.

This is still the Palestinian plan, of course--as you can find out by checking, say, Hamas' web site, or Palestinian textbooks, or PA TV, or the Palestinian charter (constitution) which openly proclaims that only jews who lived in "occupied Palestine" before 1917 would be allowed to remain there. Just be sure to check the original Arabic document, not the cleansed English translation they use for PR purposes.

Actually it's even worse than that: the IDF revealed it is going to disinter the graves of 47 jews buried in the Gush Katif cemetary, since it is obvious that, if left there, they would be desecrated and destroyed by a frenzied mob of Palestinian peace partners, just as they destroyed Joseph's tomb in September 2000, tore the prayerbooks to shread while shouting "death to the jews".

It's not only the the Palestinians want the jews dead, it's that they don't even want dead jews desecrating the holy land of Palestine. Simply put, if the israeli government offered to kill all the jews in israel by itself on condition that their grave, at least, will be a place for jews to mourn, this would be rejected by the Palestinians as totally unaccepatable and not nearly going far enough in concessions for peace.

Which gives you an idea what kind of "peace partner" they are.

Since this is the case--and always WAS the case with the Palestinians--it's hardly fair to complain about "displacement" when your genocidal attempt didn't work out. It's like a rapist complaining that his knife was taken away by the would-be victim, and therefore he is a victim of robbery.

[Skeptic]

Yes, CBL: here is actual point:

I do not intend to get into that argument. But if it had not been for religion, the very concept of a Jewish State would have had no meaning in the first place. Nor would the very concept of Islamic lands, as something to be invaded and desecrated.

Dawkins' point here, it should be noted, is NOT that Christians or jews have invaded and desecrated Islamic lands; but that BOTH Christians believing they must get the "holy land" AND the Muslims believing that their land is "desecrated" by Christians or jews being there would have been absurd without religion.

[Skeptic]

I think they are basing it on an historical presence. The claim of Palestinians, as far as I can tell, is that they are indigenous to the area, and therefore have a "right" to it, and the selling of land they long inhabited but didn't own effectively displaced them as a people. [/QUOTE]

Not a single Palestinian--NOT A SINGLE ONE--was "displaced" by the jews in any stronger sense than you being "displaced" by me if I buy a house that you sell me willingly--before 1948. ALL the land the jews got was sold to them by willing sellers.

In fact, before 1948, not only was there no displacement, but there was a huge INFLUX of Arabs to Palestine, precisely because the jews developed the place and there were better living conditions. In 1880, at the start of the zionist movement, there were perhaps 50,000 or so Arabs in Palestine (mostly Beduin nomads and subsistance farmers). In 1948, there were 750,000--the vast majority of them coming to Palestine to take advantage of jewish reviving of the area.

For a "displacing" movement, zionism it sure as heck didn't do too well, don't you think?

It was only when the war of annihilation against the jews started in 1948--with the enthusiastic support of the later-displaced population--that the displacement occured. The jews had the alternative of choosing between being genocided (again) and displacing the Arabs. Not much of a choice, indeed, but hardly one that could be morally condemned.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Quick question, AUP: if the Arabs had won the 1948, what would have happened to the 600,000 jews then in "occupied Palestine"?

They would have been butchered to the last baby, that's what.

This is still the Palestinian plan, of course--as you can find out by checking, say, Hamas' web site, or Palestinian textbooks, or PA TV, or the Palestinian charter (constitution) which openly proclaims that only jews who lived in "occupied Palestine" before 1917 would be allowed to remain there. Just be sure to check the original Arabic document, not the cleansed English translation they use for PR purposes.

Actually it's even worse than that: the IDF revealed it is going to disinter the graves of 47 jews buried in the Gush Katif cemetary, since it is obvious that, if left there, they would be desecrated and destroyed by a frenzied mob of Palestinian peace partners, just as they destroyed Joseph's tomb in September 2000, tore the prayerbooks to shread while shouting "death to the jews".

It's not only the the Palestinians want the jews dead, it's that they don't even want dead jews desecrating the holy land of Palestine. Simply put, if the israeli government offered to kill all the jews in israel by itself on condition that their grave, at least, will be a place for jews to mourn, this would be rejected by the Palestinians as totally unaccepatable and not nearly going far enough in concessions for peace.

Which gives you an idea what kind of "peace partner" they are.

Since this is the case--and always WAS the case with the Palestinians--it's hardly fair to complain about "displacement" when your genocidal attempt didn't work out. It's like a rapist complaining that his knife was taken away by the would-be victim, and therefore he is a victim of robbery.

I made one claim, make a quick response to that.

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by Skeptic
NEVER have I heard the same argument that Dawkins made about Arab land from those who oppose israel's existence allegedly due to their "principled opposition" to nationalism or religious states.

It doesn't surprise me that you've never heard it. However, that doesn't mean that no one has ever said it to you.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Skeptic
[B]Not a single Palestinian--NOT A SINGLE ONE--was "displaced" by the jews in any stronger sense than you being "displaced" by me if I buy a house that you sell me willingly--before 1948. ALL the land the jews got was sold to them by willing sellers. We need factual information about the sales, because I've seen the argument you just made, and also the argument that the people who lived on the land weren't the landowners, but poor tenants- the land actually being owned by absentee landlords.

[Cleopatra]

In my humble opinion it's irrelevant whether a specific land belongs to a specific group of people. If we get into such discussion we try to address an actual problem( which is old indeed) with 19th ce terms.

In my opinion the question is whether terms like " Jewish State" and " Muslim World" are compatible with our modern perception of Democracy.

How democratic by definition can a Jewish State be. How democratic a Muslim World can be?

This is the question.

Skeptic, what do you think about that?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
In my humble opinion it's irrelevant whether a specific land belongs to a specific group of people. If we get into such discussion we try to address an actual problem( which is old indeed) with 19th ce terms.

In my opinion the question is whether terms like " Jewish State" and " Muslim World" are compatible with our modern perception of Democracy.

How democratic by definition can a Jewish State be. How democratic a Muslim World can be?

This is the question.

Skeptic, what do you think about that?

I was just explaining to someone in another topic the other day that one of the preconceived notions I had about the White Nationalists on Stormfront was that they hated the existence of Israel. Turns out that preconceived notion was wrong. The White Nationalists think Israel provides an excellent model of how the rest of the world should go. Each race having its own plot of land. Nice and separate.

It is right there in their name: "White Nation"-alists.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I was just explaining to someone in another topic the other day that one of the preconceived notions I had about the White Nationalists on Stormfront was that they hated the existence of Israel. Turns out that preconceived notion was wrong. The White Nationalists think Israel provides an excellent model of how the rest of the world should go. Each race having its own plot of land. Nice and separate.

It is right there in their name: "White Nation"-alists.

And the most ridiculous thing of all is that in reality the creation of a jewish state is the justification of the antisemitic theory that jews are not a religious group but a separate , inferior race!

Also, I need to add here that the term "Muslim World" is a term that we have created and not the muslims while the "Jewish State" is a jewish invention. We have to be just here.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Also, I need to add here that the term "Muslim World" is a term that we have created and not the muslims while the "Jewish State" is a jewish invention. We have to be just here.

I think you're wrong here. Ever heard of the term "dar al-Islam"? Plenty of muslims have been advocating the idea of a "muslim world" for centuries, just as a lot of people used to talk about the "Christian world". The idea of a "muslim world" is not new, and it is not simply externally created. It has deep roots and plenty of present-day advocates within the muslim world itself.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
I think you're wrong here. Ever heard of the term "dar al-Islam"? Plenty of muslims have been advocating the idea of a "muslim world" for centuries, just as a lot of people used to talk about the "Christian world". The idea of a "muslim world" is not new, and it is not simply externally created. It has deep roots and plenty of present-day advocates within the muslim world itself.

Maybe you are right. When I was typing it I thought that I might be wrong, I performed a quick scan of my memory and I concluded that it's a modern western term.

Another good opportunity to open a book.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I was just explaining to someone in another topic the other day that one of the preconceived notions I had about the White Nationalists on Stormfront was that they hated the existence of Israel. Turns out that preconceived notion was wrong. The White Nationalists think Israel provides an excellent model of how the rest of the world should go. Each race having its own plot of land. Nice and separate.

It is right there in their name: "White Nation"-alists.

Years ago I made a hobby of talking to white nationalists and following their literature. Back then the phrase I heard most often about Israel was that Jews should be sent there where the Arabs were waiting for them with open (and loaded) arms.

Yes, they favor seperate countries for different races, but that's just a middle stage, not the end.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The "'displacing'" was an actual event. There may be disputes about who caused it and why, but a lot of people 'had' homes and then 'didn't' have them.

Losing a home isn't the same as being displaced. When people lose homes in war, we don't say they were "displaced" we call them refugees. Displacement implies the first object cannot remain in the same location because the new thing uses the same space. The truth here is that both peoples could have lived in this land, and it was the war that lost these Palestinian-Arabs their homes.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I made one claim, make a quick response to that.

He responded. He said, "The jews had the alternative of choosing between being genocided (again) and displacing the Arabs. Not much of a choice, indeed, but hardly one that could be morally condemned."

[Skeptic]

And the most ridiculous thing of all is that in reality the creation of a jewish state is the justification of the antisemitic theory that jews are not a religious group but a separate , inferior race!

But, of course, before israel, the fact that the jews did NOT have a state was also proof of their inferiority and eternal God-decreed punishment.

Not that the jewish state is a rational reason to hate jews (at most it is a rather obvious rationalization) but, even if it were, it's not like antisemites ever really needed one to hate jews anyway.

Also, I need to add here that the term "Muslim World" is a term that we have created and not the muslims

Oh? Ever heard of the term Dar al-Islam?

(Edited to add: Ziggurat beat me to it).

[webfusion]

I have been renting my apartment for 12 years.

My landlord (who lives in South Africa) decided to sell it.

"I refuse to leave! It is mine! I will not be displaced!"


C'mon kimiko, what are you talking about?

As for a_u_p's question:

Homes are lost by people for one reason or another happens all over the world, all the time ---- hundreds of millions of people have been made refugees for one reason or another over the past 100 years. Some of the events have been natural disasters, some wars, some political upheavals. Yet, the Palestinians are unique? (and we are talking of half-a-million or so in 1948, many of whom were recent arrivals, not really indigenous from time immemorial). Their plight is so unique? Their suffering is so unique? Their loss of some lands is unique?
Their inconvenience is so great and their sorrow is so vast that the world cannot reconcile it, and must demand of Israel to be the sole party to make restitution?

Those are the questions I pose to you and anyone who wishes to claim that the Jews displaced the Arabs in the MidEast, since the 1880's.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by kimiko
I think they are basing it on an historical presence. The claim of Palestinians, as far as I can tell, is that they are indigenous to the area, and therefore have a "right" to it, and the selling of land they long inhabited but didn't own effectively displaced them as a people. They feel displaced by an "other". In this case, a Jewish other. But I think if a state was established in the same way, with any other religious/ethnic composition, there would be this same conflict. Had it become a Christian state, they wouldn't care that there had always been a Christian minority, or that land was acquired legally; they would still oppose it for being an out-group. An over simplification of a complex problem that began with a group of disparate peoples including many who were expatriated Jews and more importantly *nonpatriated Muslims living in an area that did not have a defined State at least since the days of the crusades.

*Yeah, I know but it is the best I could come up with considering there was no Palestinian state that these people came from.

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Losing a home isn't the same as being displaced. When people lose homes in war, we don't say they were "displaced" we call them refugees. Displacement implies the first object cannot remain in the same location because the new thing uses the same space. The truth here is that both peoples could have lived in this land, and it was the war that lost these Palestinian-Arabs their homes.



He responded. He said, "The jews had the alternative of choosing between being genocided (again) and displacing the Arabs. Not much of a choice, indeed, but hardly one that could be morally condemned."



During the War of Independence, many Arabs left their homes. If, at the end of the war, their homes were empty, the homes were confiscated.

Do I have my history correct? Is that not what happened? I'll look it up to make sure, but I think that's what happened.

If a bomb drops on a home during a war, I'll call that "losing a home in a war". When the winners take a home from the losers, I won't call that "losing a home in a war". It wasn't "the war" that lost the Arabs their homes.

If you want to argue that the displacement was justified, I think a reasonable case can be made that it was. However, it makes me suspicious to hear a claim that it didn't happen. Revisionist history is always to be distrusted.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
During the War of Independence, many Arabs left their homes. If, at the end of the war, their homes were empty, the homes were confiscated.

Do I have my history correct? Is that not what happened? I'll look it up to make sure, but I think that's what happened.

Yes, that's what happened. Many of the Jewish refugees fleeing their Arabic homelands lost their homes in the same way in that war.

Originally posted by Meadmaker
If a bomb drops on a home during a war, I'll call that "losing a home in a war". When the winners take a home from the losers, I won't call that "losing a home in a war". It wasn't "the war" that lost the Arabs their homes.

No, there are many ways to lose a home in a war. One way is to become a refugee and discover later that someone else owns your home. This happened to some Holocaust survivors in Europe.

Originally posted by Meadmaker
If you want to argue that the displacement was justified, I think a reasonable case can be made that it was. However, it makes me suspicious to hear a claim that it didn't happen. Revisionist history is always to be distrusted.

I think it's hard to argue that any actions that happen in war are "justified." War is a vile and brutal thing and can't be sanitized even by our best efforts.

I think I'd be satisfied if this "displacement" is simply firmly placed in the context of the war it was a part of. AUP, the Fool and others want it judged on its own, without that context, so it may be used to demonize Israel.

Was it a tragedy? Yes. At the same time, it was a part of a larger tragedy; a war of survival fought by people who had a right to survive, and the moral authority to fight that war. Perhaps in the context of peace such things can be atoned for, but Israel has yet to know peace.

[webfusion]

The statement I made was not revisionist.

The Arabs living in the area that became the Palestine Mandate (after it was taken by force of arms in WW1 by the Allied defeat of the Ottoman Empire) were not displaced by Jews in the interim years of 1890- 1940.

When WW11 started in 1941, there was a LARGER number of Arabs in the British Mandate for Palestine (or what was left of it, since the lopping-off of the 3/4 granted to Bedouin Hashemites in the 1920's) than in the preceeding 5 decades.

It is impossible to claim that Jews displaced the "indigenous population" by settlement activity in those 5 decades, when the evidence shows otherwise.

I refuse to waste my time by dragging up that evidence here to satisfy the posters who say "you must prove it" -- it is all public record and is not in any dispute.

Displaced? Occupied? Don't make me laugh.
The only way you can make that claim at all would be if you suddenly start the entire timeline of the conflict in 1947 (or even more accurately, in June of 1967).

Is that what certain posters here want to do?
Start the timeline in 1947? Or even 1967?

Why?

[kimiko]

Originally posted by webfusion
I have been renting my apartment for 12 years.

My landlord (who lives in South Africa) decided to sell it.

"I refuse to leave! It is mine! I will not be displaced!"

C'mon kimiko, what are you talking about?False analogy- you're an individual who only lived there for 12 years, not a people that's existed there for centuries.

I'm not saying I agree with the argument that inital Jewish immigration displaced anyone, I'm just saying that's what it is, and we have no way to know without detailed sources on demographics and real estate transfers from the time.
Yet, the Palestinians are unique? (and we are talking of half-a-million or so in 1948, many of whom were recent arrivals, not really indigenous from time immemorial). Their plight is so unique? Their suffering is so unique? Their loss of some lands is unique? The Palestinians are not unique; the same claims of indigenous peoples are used all over the world- Australia and New Zealand, throughout the Americas, Tibet, etc.

Some of the Palestinians are indigenous from time immemorial. There being Arab immigrants afterwards doesn't negate that. There was also an indigenous Jewish population, and there being Jewish immigrants doesn't negate that either. The only further question involving the rights of the indigenous would involve whether the land would have to be divided in proportion to the respective populations. Disproportional partitioning is supposedly one of the reasons Arabs rejected UN Resolution 181.

The UN's decade for indigenous people ended without passing a declaration on their rights, largely due to opposition by the US, Australia and New Zealand. Here is a copy of the draft: http://www.usask.ca/nativelaw/ddirplain.html
Originally posted by Cleopatra
How democratic by definition can a Jewish State be. How democratic a Muslim World can be? I think they both could be democratic if there are no preferences or limitations by ethnicity for rights or services, and any reference to religion merely symbolizes historic presence.

I just want to know why religious people feel a need to make explicit recognition within governments. Why isn't practicing their faith enough?

[kimiko]

Originally posted by RandFan
An over simplification of a complex problem that began with a group of disparate peoples including many who were expatriated Jews and more importantly *nonpatriated Muslims living in an area that did not have a defined State at least since the days of the crusades. Why do you place more emphasis on Muslims newcomers than on Jewish ones? Why don't immigrants of both ethnicities have equal rights to live there?

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by webfusion
The statement I made was not revisionist.

The Arabs living in the area that became the Palestine Mandate (after it was taken by force of arms in WW1 by the Allied defeat of the Ottoman Empire) were not displaced by Jews in the interim years of 1890- 1940.


I would agree, although in a different place you referred to "since 1880".

For my part, the displacement I was referring to occurred at the end of the War of Independence.

I think Mycroft is correct that you have to place the whole sequence of events in context. There was a whole lot of displacement going on in those days, not to mention genocide, a word which had been of largely academic interest prior to WWII.

To single out one act that occurred in those times and call it a grave injustice is foolish, so the displacement of the Arabs can't be considered the source of all the troubles in the region.

I just wish that, in these days, the leaders of the region would dedicate themselves to freedom, and equal rights for all ethnic and religious groups. No government in that region of the world is doing that, including that of Israel. The best that can be said about Israel is that it is the best of a bad lot.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Meadmaker

To single out one act that occurred in those times and call it a grave injustice is foolish, so the displacement of the Arabs can't be considered the source of all the troubles in the region.


I think that it would all be gotten over pretty soon if it could be resolved to some extent. That is, the settlement building stops, the best is made of a bad lot, just as many others have had to do. With a relentless process of expansion, resolution is impossible.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by kimiko
Why do you place more emphasis on Muslims newcomers than on Jewish ones? Why don't immigrants of both ethnicities have equal rights to live there? The emphasis had to do with rebuting your statement. In any event I do not believe that one has more of a right than the other. If the emphasis creates a problem for you then I will now withdraw it.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I think that it would all be gotten over pretty soon if it could be resolved to some extent. That is, the settlement building stops, the best is made of a bad lot, just as many others have had to do. With a relentless process of expansion, resolution is impossible.

If that were correct, then the violence would have ended during the 20 years between the Israeli war of Independence and the 1967 war, where there was no settlement building in the territories.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by kimiko
False analogy- you're an individual who only lived there for 12 years, not a people that's existed there for centuries.

How does that make it false? If Rand had been living in an apartment that had been in his family for generations, would it be any different?

In any case, the early Zionists specifically targeted unused land to minimize the kind of "displacement" you’re talking about. Further, if renters were evicted, the moral agent responsible would be the absentee land owner that sold the property, not the new land owner who bought it.

Originally posted by kimiko
I'm not saying I agree with the argument that inital Jewish immigration displaced anyone, I'm just saying that's what it is, and we have no way to know without detailed sources on demographics and real estate transfers from the time.

Or you could just look at it relationally and agree that buying land and building a community is not a crime, even if you’re an immigrant.

Originally posted by kimiko
The Palestinians are not unique; the same claims of indigenous peoples are used all over the world- Australia and New Zealand, throughout the Americas, Tibet, etc.

Now this is a bad analogy. Indigenous people of Australia, New Zealand and America didn’t have the same concepts of land ownership as the Europeans. The Arabs did. They knew what they were doing when they sold their land.

Originally posted by kimiko
Some of the Palestinians are indigenous from time immemorial. There being Arab immigrants afterwards doesn't negate that.

But it does add context. Many of these recent Arab immigrants to the land were later prevented from joining their families in the lands they came from. Can you imagine leaving your family in Damascus to find work near Jerusalem, then fleeing a war, only to be told you can’t go back to your family because you’re no longer Syrian but a "Palestinian?"

Originally posted by kimiko
There was also an indigenous Jewish population, and there being Jewish immigrants doesn't negate that either. The only further question involving the rights of the indigenous would involve whether the land would have to be divided in proportion to the respective populations. Disproportional partitioning is supposedly one of the reasons Arabs rejected UN Resolution 181.

Or, without Arab anti-Jewish incitement, they could have just formed one community with both Muslim and Jewish members. It was the violence that forced partition.

Originally posted by kimiko
I just want to know why religious people feel a need to make explicit recognition within governments. Why isn't practicing their faith enough?

If they were allowed to practice their religion in peace, it would be enough. They are not, so it isn’t.

[webfusion]

"False analogy- you're an individual who only lived there for 12 years, not a people that's existed there for centuries."

The essence of the example was that I have no legal rights to the property, regardless of the length of time the lease was in effect there. Even if my lease was for 99 years, I would still not own it at the conclusion of the term. Just ask the Russian Orthodox Church in Jerusalem, if they feel that Israel "owns" the lands that are currently being leased (most spcifically, the land that Israel's Parliament building, The Knesset itself sits on).

Also, the people who "lived there for centuries" are the Jews. Their historical ancestry dates back thousands of years, as you might have heard.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by webfusion
Also, the people who "lived there for centuries" are the Jews. Their historical ancestry dates back thousands of years, as you might have heard. Funny you say that. When I first came to JREF I was lambasted by several posters who told me King David was just a myth... no kidding.:D

[Cleon]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Funny you say that. When I first came to JREF I was lambasted by several posters who told me King David was just a myth... no kidding.:D

He probably was. Not only that, but the Exodus didn't happen, either. Sorry to rain on your parade.

If it makes you feel better, though, King Arthur was probably a myth, too.

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I think that it would all be gotten over pretty soon if it could be resolved to some extent. That is, the settlement building stops, the best is made of a bad lot, just as many others have had to do. With a relentless process of expansion, resolution is impossible.

I think ceasing of settlement building is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for resolving the problem. There are several other necessary conditions, and Israel can't do all of them. There are necessary steps from other parties as well.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Cleon
He probably was. Not only that, but the Exodus didn't happen, either. Sorry to rain on your parade.

In 1993 archaeologists digging at the ruin (tel) in the ancient city of Dan in northern Galilee found an inscription on a "stele" from the ninth century B.C.E. It refered to the ‘House of David’ and to the ‘King of Israel’". Sorry, my parade has not been rained upon.

I was able to Google that in about 30 seconds. Next I expect you to save face by claiming there is a conspiracy to plant ninth century B.C.E. steles with King David inscriptions on them... :D

[Cleon]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
In 1993 archaeologists digging at the ruin (tel) in the ancient city of Dan in northern Galilee found an inscription on a "stele" from the ninth century B.C.E. It refered to the ‘House of David’ and to the ‘King of Israel’". Sorry, my parade has not been rained upon.

Well, that's great, except it doesn't indicate what you think it indicates. First, it doesn't refer to the "King of Israel." (I've noticed that when it's mentioned it's frequently surrounded by Biblical verses as "historical" context--even the Jewish Virtual Library (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Archaeology/dan.html) does this.) It refers to the "House of David," sure, but the question is whether the Biblical David existed; i.e., a Jewish king that ruled all of Israel. One theory is that David was little more than a hilltop chieftain; a "king" of a city-state, in other words.

Second, the stele itself doesn't mention David, just his house (i.e., royal lineage). That doesn't prove David, it proves that there was a line of rulers that used the name to establish their legitimacy. (It wouldn't be the first time myth became basis of rule; see ancient Egypt.)

[webfusion]

http://www.tomservo.cc/show.aspx/derail.jpg

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Cleon
Well, that's great, except it doesn't indicate what you think it indicates. A few posts ago you said King David was a myth. After I provided evidence that ancient text on a stele refered to the ‘House of David’ and to the ‘King of Israel’ you now claim "well it doesn't mean what I think it means".

Tell me Cleon, what are your qualifications in the linguistic characteristics of Aramaic, archeology and paleography that will convince the JREFers reading this that you are more qualified to tell us what the stele means than the people who found and translated it?

Originally posted by webfusion
Total derailActually I do not think it is a derail. It is laying the foundation for the historical claim that jews have to the area. Consider it a tangent rather than a derail.;)

[Cleon]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
A few posts ago you said King David was a myth. After I provided evidence that ancient text on a stele refered to the ‘House of David’ and to the ‘King of Israel’ you now claim "well it doesn't mean what I think it means".

Right. You think it's proof of historical, biblical David, and I'm saying it's no such thing.

In short--it doesn't mean what you think it means.

I did find a more complete translation than the one I saw first, and I was incorrect--it does refer several times to kings of Israel. (Several simultaneous kings of Israel, which rather reflects the chaos of the period when the stele was inscribed.) It does not, however, refer to David in that regard--interestingly enough, it doesn't even refer to the House of David as being a royal lineage of Israel. Translation here (http://www.israel.org/MFA/History/Early%20History%20-%20Archaeology/Archaeological%20Sites%20in%20Israel%20-%20Dan-%20The%20Biblical)--though it makes the same mistake of referring to the Bible as a historical text.

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

Actually I do not think it is a derail. It is laying the foundation for the historical claim that jews have to the area. Consider it a tangent rather than a derail.;)

This is interesing, because I agree that it isn't a derail. In fact, it is direct to the heart of the thread.

There are some people who think that because their great (fill in more greats if needed) grandfather probably existed and probably lived in a certain place that this gives them a right to live there, even if somebody else happens to be living there now.

Note that the above could apply to Arabs or Jews, because some people have been saying that the Arabs have lived there "from time immemorial". Those guys must be old.

Whatever bad things happened to your ancestors, get over it. They are dead now.

The only way to solve the problems in the Middle East is to stop talking about people as if they were non-existent except when it comes to membership in an ethnic community. Respecting individual rights will solve the problem. Unfortunately, that isn't going to happen any time soon. The Israeli government isn't very good at that sort of thing, and no Arab government is even close.

Maybe Lebanon will turn into a real democracy. Maybe Iraq. Maybe the Palestinian Authority. If that ever happens, maybe it will spread, and people will start thinking about human rights of living people, instead of long dead ancestors. Until that happens, expect more bombs.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
This is interesing, because I agree that it isn't a derail. In fact, it is direct to the heart of the thread.

There are some people who think that because their great (fill in more greats if needed) grandfather probably existed and probably lived in a certain place that this gives them a right to live there, even if somebody else happens to be living there now.


Bingo. Yes, Israel/Palestine is the homeland of the Jewish people (whether David existed or not). It's also the homeland of the Palestinian people. Why this is a point of contention is a mystery to me.

[Cleopatra]

Skeptic started this thread in orderto comment on a specific article, the thread derailed though to the usual , irrelevant argument, to whom this land belongs to.

Since I was born in a village of eastern mediterranean( Jerusalem that is) can anybody explain to me how we can talk about democracy when we have to deal with definitions like "the jewish state" or the " muslim state" or democracy doesn't matter for the jews and the muslims?

Even if any of you holds his breath until he turns blue he won't give an answer to the question " Who is the owner of the land".

Get over the artificial notions and get real.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Mycroft
How does that make it false? If Rand had been living in an apartment that had been in his family for generations, would it be any different? It would be different if they were indigenous residents, in which case, questions of how ownership was established would have to be addressed as well. In any case, the early Zionists specifically targeted unused land to minimize the kind of "displacement" you’re talking about. That's good to hear and completely plausible, as Jews owned only 12-15% of the inhabitable land when UN partitioned the area in 1947. If you have links showing the progression of ownership, settlement and land improvement by Jewish immigrants, I'd be interested in seeing them.Further, if renters were evicted, the moral agent responsible would be the absentee land owner that sold the property, not the new land owner who bought it. I have often wondered why they didn't treat the landowners harshly, but read they mostly lived overseas. Unfortunately, I still haven't come across links to records that establish whether that is true or not.

My family is selling a farm that has been owned by my family for generations, and lived and worked by another for the same amount of time. They were always charged less than the going rate for renting, and far less for the last 15 years. The family now has no one in the younger generation who wants to be a farmer, and the dad working it is old enough to retire, so when the rent was raised, they just decided not to renew the lease. Had they been part of an indigenous group, and still wanted to maintain their traditional way of life, we would have been morally culpable for destroying their way of life if we raised the rent beyond what they could pay or sold out it from under them. Or you could just look at it relationally and agree that buying land and building a community is not a crime, even if you’re an immigrant. Individuals cannot be responsible for societal trends, but societal inequities must be addressed. Now this is a bad analogy. Indigenous people of Australia, New Zealand and America didn’t have the same concepts of land ownership as the Europeans. The Arabs did. They knew what they were doing when they sold their land. Was Palestine the semi-feudal society I've seen it described as? And if so, how did the landowners acquire ownership? But it does add context. Many of these recent Arab immigrants to the land were later prevented from joining their families in the lands they came from. Can you imagine leaving your family in Damascus to find work near Jerusalem, then fleeing a war, only to be told you can’t go back to your family because you’re no longer Syrian but a "Palestinian?" That's wrong, and obviously so. Or, without Arab anti-Jewish incitement, they could have just formed one community with both Muslim and Jewish members. It was the violence that forced partition. There were violent Jewish organizations too. Are you saying the Jewish population was entirely amenable to a joint, a-religious state? If they were allowed to practice their religion in peace, it would be enough. They are not, so it isn’t. Both parties claimed to need religious states. As it is, only one party got it, which isn't what the UN had planned. Nor is it fair to the people who lost their homes, because they weren't all conspirators in the wars; they left so they wouldn't die in the conflict. That's an inequity that must be addressed.

[demon]

Never ceases to astound me that for people who have the Holocaust looming large in their knowledge of history, they are quite happy to deny the reality of The Nakba.
They happily deny the deportation of the native Palestinians from their land, the massacres they endured and the destruction of numerous Palestinian villages and livlihoods.

Just a couple of sources who don`t:

"During May [1948] ideas about how to consolidate and give permanence to the Palestinian exile began to crystallize, and the destruction of villages was immediately perceived as a primary means of achieving this aim...[Even earlier,] On 10 April, Haganah units took Abu Shusha... The village was destroyed that night... Khulda was leveled by Jewish bulldozers on 20 April... Abu Zureiq was completely demolished... Al Mansi and An Naghnaghiya, to the southeast, were also leveled. . .By mid-1949, the majority of [the 350 depopulated Arab villages] were either completely or partly in ruins and uninhabitable." Benny Morris, "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949.

and

"That Ben-Gurion's ultimate aim was to evacuate as much of the Arab population as possible from the Jewish state can hardly be doubted, if only from the variety of means he employed to achieve his purpose...most decisively, the destruction of whole villages and the eviction of their inhabitants...even [if] they had not participated in the war and had stayed in Israel hoping to live in peace and equality, as promised in the Declaration of Independence." Israeli author, Simha Flapan, "The Birth of Israel."

The Nakba is very well documented and to pretend that the Palestinians somehow just got up and took in the face of friendly law abiding Zionists is an insult.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by demon
Never ceases to astound me that for people who have the Holocaust looming large in their knowledge of history, they are quite happy to deny the reality of The Nakba.
They happily deny the deportation of the native Palestinians from their land, the massacres they endured and the destruction of numerous Palestinian villages and livlihoods.

Just a couple of sources who don`t:

"During May [1948] ideas about how to consolidate and give permanence to the Palestinian exile began to crystallize, and the destruction of villages was immediately perceived as a primary means of achieving this aim...[Even earlier,] On 10 April, Haganah units took Abu Shusha... The village was destroyed that night... Khulda was leveled by Jewish bulldozers on 20 April... Abu Zureiq was completely demolished... Al Mansi and An Naghnaghiya, to the southeast, were also leveled. . .By mid-1949, the majority of [the 350 depopulated Arab villages] were either completely or partly in ruins and uninhabitable." Benny Morris, "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949.

and

"That Ben-Gurion's ultimate aim was to evacuate as much of the Arab population as possible from the Jewish state can hardly be doubted, if only from the variety of means he employed to achieve his purpose...most decisively, the destruction of whole villages and the eviction of their inhabitants...even [if] they had not participated in the war and had stayed in Israel hoping to live in peace and equality, as promised in the Declaration of Independence." Israeli author, Simha Flapan, "The Birth of Israel."

The Nakba is very well documented and to pretend that the Palestinians somehow just got up and took in the face of friendly law abiding Zionists is an insult.

And how exactly this will help in the establishment of the Palestinian State?

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
...can anybody explain to me how we can talk about democracy when we have to deal with definitions like "the jewish state" or the " muslim state" or democracy doesn't matter for the jews and the muslims? I already made a reply to this in a previous post.

Get over the artificial notions and get real. The cultures, including religions, of the indigenous population is a real, historic reality. If we accept that democratic states can recognize religion, then the question is whether the state or states must be in proportion to the religious character of the indigenous populations.

As it is, there isn't a single state in the region that fits the description in my previous reply in being only symbolic. They are all biased in concrete ways.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by kimiko


As it is, there isn't a single state in the region that fits the description in my previous reply in being only symbolic. They are all biased in concrete ways.

Please don't get personally what I will say.I read the posts in the thread as I usually do. The problem is that you as others approach " the affaire Israel" intellectually.

Although I am an Israeli, I don'y have any problem declaring to an honest conversionalist that the establishment of my beloved country was an accident. In the same time though I would have great difficulty in ignoring the historical neccessities that dictated the establishment of this weird country.

It's easy to critize from a distance but when you are asked to give or propose potential alternatives, the silence is defeaning.

For me the things are really simple. If the Europeans didn't hate so much the Jews , the later wouldn't need a country of their own and they would need to return to Palestine. If the Arabs weren't that spoiled they would take the UN offer and they would have a state for the Palestinians the same day that Jews had their own state.

Instaed, they chose to play in the international chessboard knowing that although chess wasn't invented by the Jews, it was mastered by them.

Personally I am not moved by mottos like " justice" " displacement" " ownership of land" and stuff like that.

I tend to be practical.

[webfusion]

Jews owned only 12-15% of the inhabitable land when UN partitioned the area in 1947

What land? Define the boundries. Show your maps of how many thousands of dunams/acres/square kilometers were wrenched from the holdings of the Ottomans/Arabs by Jewish armed forces, or by occupation, or even by proper purchase. Show us the maps indicating from exactly where the Arabs were displaced during the 'Zionist invasion', from 1880 to 1940.
Up until the eve of the Holocaust, I would like for anyone of you here to illustrate with maps the extent of the Arab displacement, the loss of lands, the terrible "national disaster" and uprooting of Arab life in Palestine that befell the indigenous population at the hands of the Jews, during a period from just before WW1 right up until the lighting of the crematia ovens in Europe.

http://www.modjourn.brown.edu/mjp/Image/Dugdale/AroundTelElFul.jpg
An illustration of how the land appeared in the early part of the 20th century, by British artist Thomas Cantrell Dugdale.

At the breaking up of the Turkish Empire by the victorious Allies in WW1, both Jews and Arabs requested independent states. The world powers were generous in the extreme to the Arabs by granting them twenty-two independent Arabs states - encompassing 5,414,000 square miles (five-and 1/2 million). The Jews asked for less than one percent of that in order to realize their dream of rebuilding Israel, which at the time of the various regional Mandates being granted, included the lands on both sides of the Jordan River. The Allies agreed to this request in the 1917 Balfour Declaration and the 1920 San Remo Conference of World Powers.


===================================
"Not because we were here two thousand years ago are we entitled to be here today, but because it has taken us two thousand years to win our freedom."
-- Claude Ranel, Moi, Juif palestinien Laffont, Paris


I want to take this opportunity to wish all those who are following the JREF discussions of Israel:
A heartfelt "Happy Independence Day"
Peace.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Please don't get personally what I will say.I read the posts in the thread as I usually do. The problem is that you as others approach " the affaire Israel" intellectually.
...
Personally I am not moved by mottos like " justice" " displacement" " ownership of land" and stuff like that.

I tend to be practical. How is dealing with something intellectually not practical? I think it is the only way to be practical. For me the things are really simple. If the Europeans didn't hate so much the Jews , the later wouldn't need a country of their own and they would need to return to Palestine. Why wasn't a Jewish state carved out of Europe then? It's easy to critize from a distance but when you are asked to give or propose potential alternatives, the silence is defeaning. If you are asking what I think should be done, I can say. If you mean this generally, in why the international community is not more involved in seeking a resolution, I don't know.

My proposal: Looking at the original partition by the UN, it is clear Arabs do not have the amount of land the international community alloted them. We all know they don't have a state. This must be remedied. Israelis are terrorized by deadly attacks; this must be stopped. Since occupation by Israel causes innocent deaths that are viewed as deliberate even when they may be accidental, the Israelis should not have to shoulder that burden. Because the Palestinian Authority either cannot or will not stop terror groups, responsibility for policing should fall to someone else, but not the Israelis for the reason stated above. The UN should provide a peacekeeping force that maintains order in Palestinian areas until not needed. Forever if it is needed. Land should be repartitioned similar to the 1947 plan, but with fewer cantons so as to more easily maintain peace and implement government. Jerusalem should be the corpus separatum it was originally meant to be, under permanent UN administration. Israel continues as a state; no revoking statehood to repartition, only ceding land to make the division between the states equitable. Palestianians granted statehood. International sanctions against all Arab countries that do not grant citizenship to Palestinian refugees living in their borders. A physical barrier should demarcate the borders between the two countries, with a buffer zone of equal size on both sides of the borders. Customs and immigration checkpoints at all border crossing areas.

So, could it work?

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Skeptic started this thread in orderto comment on a specific article, the thread derailed though to the usual , irrelevant argument, to whom this land belongs to.


This is somewhat true, so let me relate my own thoughts to the original post.


Skeptic said
"It is when reading this that the hypocritical, dishonest jew-hating core of the "I am opposed to a jewish state because nationalism is bad" was seen by me most clearly. NEVER have I heard the same argument that Dawkins made about Arab land from those who oppose israel's existence allegedly due to their "principled opposition" to nationalism or religious states."

I, for one, am opposed to any state that is [blank]ish. I've read a lot of posts from other people who are also opposed to [blank]ish states, whether [blank]ish is an "arab state" or an "islamic republic" or a "christian nation" or a "jewish state". I've also read lots of posts from other people who feel the same way.

So how has Skeptic missed these posts and thoughts? He has NEVER heard that argument. My suspicion is that any criticism of Israel makes one a "hypocritical, dishonest, jew-hating" person. I think there are a lot of people who are willing to yell anti-semitism whenever anyone criticizes Israel. And if they have the audacity to ever post a message in which they suggest that Israel does things that are bad, and they do not include in the very same sentence a note that says Arabs are worse or the bad things are justified, then their antisemitism is confirmed.

I suppose that I am not exactly in the category that Skeptic was describing, because I don't exactly oppose the existence of Israel. I agree with you, Cleopatra, that events of the first half of the twentieth century made the state of Israel necessary, and since it's there and people live in it, it really ought to stay where it is.

On the other hand, if a "Jewish state" means a state where non-Jews are second class citizens without equal rights to Jews, as is the case in Israel today, then I am opposed to the existence of a "Jewish state". Temporarily, I think some, but not all, of the inequities between Jews and Arabs in Israel is excusable, and even necessary, but if it will never be different, then I'm against the existence of such a state. If that makes me a hypocritical, dishonest, Jew hater, then so be it.

But please don't tell my kid's principal. I'm filling out an application so he can attend Hillel Day School next year. It will cost me a lot of money, so I would hate them to know that his dad was an antisemite.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by webfusion
What land? Define the boundries.If you would reread the argument, you would realize the statement of mine you quoted is in support of how it is likely there was little to no displacement. If Jews constituted 30% of the inhabitants in 1947, but owned only 12% or so of the land, the likelihood of displacement is small, but still unknown.

I've already said I'm not arguing that anyone was displaced- that is simply an argument I've read, and I can concieve of how it could be true. I was hoping people here who so frequently argue about Israeli issues would already be familiar with where I can find factual information. You say it exists, but refuse to provide it. So I'm left not knowing what to think until such time as I stumble upon it myself. You claimed it is at the "peril" of Westerners not the accept the reality you outlined earlier, yet you won't help us accept it by demonstrating how you know these things to be true. Mycroft listed one general link, which I appreciate, and am digging through now. At the breaking up of the Turkish Empire by the victorious Allies in WW1, both Jews and Arabs requested independent states. The world powers were generous in the extreme to the Arabs by granting them twenty-two independent Arabs states - encompassing 5,414,000 square miles (five-and 1/2 million). The Jews asked for less than one percent of that in order to realize their dream of rebuilding Israel, which at the time of the various regional Mandates being granted, included the lands on both sides of the Jordan River. The Allies agreed to this request in the 1917 Balfour Declaration and the 1920 San Remo Conference of World Powers. What were the proportional ethnic populations of Arabs and Jews in the Middle East? Showing how much the Arabs got alone doesn't indicate whether that was exceedingly generous, as you seem to imply, or not.

[webfusion]

"Why wasn't a Jewish state carved out of Europe then?"

Oh, the horror.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\

I was hoping people here who so frequently argue about Israeli issues would already be familiar with where I can find factual information. You say it exists, but refuse to provide it.


Factual information is at a premium.
The best source I have run across is the Samuel Katz work "Battleground" (http://www.ourjerusalem.com/series/story/battleground001.html)
This website has the entire series of chapters, but you must type in each one by hand in the URL itself: 001-041. I have tried to write the webmasters to get them to link each page to the next, but they have ignored me. Maybe you can write yourself and offer them this advice and see if they pay attention?

The first edition of that book was published in the early part of 1973, but within months, it required revision already, as the brutal events of Yom Kippur in October '73 transpired. Chapter 10 (part 041) covers that period in detail.
Especially poignant is this passage:
"Accommodation in the West to the desires of the oil-rich and population-rich Arab states was strongly in evidence before the Yom Kippur War. In the war's aftermath, it became a dominant feature of policy in nearly all the Western nations. Perhaps they had recovered from the trauma of the oil embargo, but they were now enmeshed in the revolutionary, even cataclysmic, consequences of the four-fold, and later fivefold, rise in oil prices. [[[NOTE: This is 1974-75 !!! ]]]] The unprecedented drain on their financial resources threatened, in one degree or another, to disrupt their economies. Indeed, present chaos, or near-chaos, and a lurid apocalyptic vision of the future, dominated the thinking of a generally nerve wracked and bewildered leadership in the Western nations."

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\

The UN should provide a peacekeeping force that maintains order in Palestinian areas until not needed. Forever if it is needed. Land should be repartitioned similar to the 1947 plan

UN forces forever? Why not partition according to the Peel plan (http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/maps/hist_peel.html)?

Cool. Write up your protocol and submit it, in triplicate, to:
http://www.pna.gov.ps/contact_us.asp
PNA eMail:
Mofaweb@gov.ps

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Although I am an Israeli, I don'y have any problem declaring to an honest conversionalist that the establishment of my beloved country was an accident. I disagree.Dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=accident&x=0&y=0)

Pronunciation: 'ak-s&-d&nt, -"dent; 'aks-d&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin accident-, accidens nonessential quality, chance, from present participle of accidere to happen, from ad- + cadere to fall -- more at CHANCE
1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of intention or necessity : CHANCE <met by accident rather than by design>
2 a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance b : an unexpected and medically important bodily event especially when injurious <a cerebrovascular accident> c : an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which legal relief may be sought
3 : a nonessential property or quality of an entity or circumstance <the accident of nationality>Main Entry: ac·ci·dent The creation of Israel was not an "accident". It was the result of U.N. resolution 181 which was democratically voted upon by 56 nations. Unless that democratic vote by 56 nations can somehow be established that it happened by "accident" I would say that the establishment of Israel was not an accident. And that is why you continue to mystify me Cleopatra, you say things that just don't add up for an Israeli.

I feel that the Arabs - led by The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, President of the Supreme Muslim Council & Nazi-conspirator Haj Amin al Husseini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haj_Amin_al-Husseini) - set the tone for relations between Arabs and Jews, not some bizzare notion that the establishment of Israel was somehow "an accident".

[Cleon]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
I disagree. The creation of Israel was not an "accident". It was the result of U.N. resolution 181 which was democratically voted upon by 56 nations. Unless that democratic vote by 56 nations can somehow be established that it happened by "accident" I would say that the establishment of Israel was not an accident. And that is why you continue to mystify me Cleopatra, you say things that just don't add up for an Israeli.


I find it amusing that when the vote is for the establishment of the state of Israel, it's "democratic," but when the same institution criticizes that state, it's a veritable conspiracy of anti-semitic thought.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleon
I find it amusing that when the vote is for the establishment of the state of Israel, it's "democratic," but when the same institution criticizes that state, it's a veritable conspiracy of anti-semitic thought.

The irony works just as well the other way around. The same people who point to anti-Israel UN resolutions to demonize Israel also ignore the role the UN and its predecessor the League of Nations played in its creation.
.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Mycroft
The irony works just as well the other way around. The same people who point to anti-Israel UN resolutions to demonize Israel also ignore the role the UN and its predecessor the League of Nations played in its creation.
.

Odd that I haven't seen a single person point out Israel's violations of UN resolutions just to "demonize Israel." Oh, right, I forgot, that's anyone remotely critical of Israel for any reason.

Edited to add: That doesn't even make any sense. Those who point out Israel's violations aren't the ones claiming anti-Semitic conspiracies in the UN.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleon
Odd that I haven't seen a single person point out Israel's violations of UN resolutions just to "demonize Israel." Oh, right, I forgot, that's anyone remotely critical of Israel for any reason.

That's because you have severe blind spots in your perception. Blind spots you have to put in some effort to maintain.

For example, recently you attempted to refute the claim that the Palestinian Authority was not serious in stopping terrorism by linking an article where where they arrested a suspect in a bombing, but had no response when it was shown he "escaped" a short time later. Later when asked to produce any example where the Palestinian Authority ever arrested, charged, and convicted a man for terrorism, you ran away rather than deal with the simple truth of the Palestinian-Arab revolving-door justice system.

If you want evidence of my position, simply ask Demon his opinion of the legitimacy of the League of Nations Mandadte for Palestine and the subsequent UN resolution creating Israel. Then ask his opinion of UN resolutions condemning Israel.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Cleon
I find it amusing that when the vote is for the establishment of the state of Israel, it's "democratic," but when the same institution criticizes that state, it's a veritable conspiracy of anti-semitic thought. The U.N. today is not the U.N. of the 1940's. The U.N. today has Syria as president of the Security Council, Lybia chairing committees on human rights and conferences against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia plus related intolerance which basically turned into a trash Israel and zionism free-for-all in Durban.

Hell, the US had to veto a United Nations Security Council resolution in March 2004 condemning the killing of the leader of Palestinian militant group Hamas....a terrorist organization! So the U.N. has changed dramatically from the U.N. of post-WW2. Anyhow, 56 nations voted, UN resolution 181 was passed, and that was no "accident".

[Cleon]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
The U.N. today is not the U.N. of the 1940's.

:rolleyes: That's the best you can do?

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Cleon
:rolleyes: That's the best you can do? I see your flippancy is unparalleled. In case you haven't noticed the U.N.'s actions speak for themselves. Have you ever stopped to wonder why the U.N. would even attempt to pass a Security Council resolution over the killing of well-known terrorist leader in a post-911 world? A guy who sent women and children to blow up other women and children had a Security Council resolution written, tabled and voted upon in a scant few days, the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands in Sudan took over six months for the Security Council to react. It doesn't take a MENSA member to add 2+2.

The U.N. is not the same U.N. it was post-WW2.

[webfusion]

...recently (Cleon) attempted to refute the claim that the Palestinian Authority was not serious in stopping terrorism by linking an article where where they arrested a suspect in a bombing, but had no response when it was shown he "escaped" a short time later.

That is not 100% accurate, Mycroft.
My statement saying the escape was a euphamism for "being let go" elicited several responses from Cleon.
(see: Cease-Fire thread. Pg.3)

He asked for my evidence at first. Of course, you are correct in pointing out that when I tried to show that the PA routinely lets guys go, with evidence specifically of the cases of Ahmed Saadat and Fuad Shubaki, (since he complained that "webfusion provides an extremely questionable claim"), it was only then that he disappeared away from that thread.

I'm a little confused, actually.
In the thread ('million') with IinC you mentioned that Cleon was Jewish. If that is the case, where does he come off spouting specious arguments and attacking the posters who are attempting to place some valid perspectives into this forum, postings which try to explain things in context and offer support for Israel? Has he ever come into a discussion and proposed that Israel is correct in any actions it takes?

Just wondering...

[Cleon]

Originally posted by webfusion

I'm a little confused, actually.
In the thread ('million') with IinC you mentioned that Cleon was Jewish. If that is the case, where does he come off spouting specious arguments and attacking the posters who are attempting to place some valid perspectives into this forum, postings which try to explain things in context and offer support for Israel? Has he ever come into a discussion and proposed that Israel is correct in any actions it takes?


Why are you confused? It's very simple.

"Jewish" and "Zionist" are not, never have been, and never will be, synonyms. One can be Jewish, as I am, and not be pro-Israel.

Regarding the rest of your post, if it's wrong to demand you provide evidence of your claims, I apologize. Perhaps I should find a skeptics' board instead.

No, Israel does not get the benefit of the doubt in my book. You can provide a supposedly "valid" context all you like, but in the end, you have one of the most powerful military forces in the world trying to snuff out a civilian population. Twist it, turn it, spin it however you like--no, I will not support that.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by kimiko
How is dealing with something intellectually not practical? I think it is the only way to be practical.
Obviously, I didn't make myself clear.
When you lose your time wondering " whose land is that" and you have to go as far as King David to justify or reject an opinion, something is wrong.

Whose land is that? The answer is very simple.

The land belongs to the stronger player and to the player that is useful to the "big guys". Therefore, the land belongs to Israel.

Can we proceed now?

The International Community wasn't unfair to the Arabs though. They got a piece of land. Not as big as they wished but a piece of land for sure. When Greece was established got the 1/3 of today's land. But the Arab leaders were the spoiled kids and thought that " the westerns wouldn't dare to ignore us".

Wrong! That's life.

This is what I call practical thinking.If Kind David existed or not and whether Jews lived in Palestine since the year 1.000.000 is irrelevant.

Israel-- like sex-- is here to stay and it will.

Why wasn't a Jewish state carved out of Europe then?

Nope. Unlike other Israelites I won't apologize for that. Please don't address this question to me. I don't care to answer it. Our people wanted a land to be safe. They were dreaming to take the biblical land--because even the wildest of dreams are based on some events. They got it. You cannot blame us. We even negotiated to go to Africa but we got what we wanted, not everything that we wanted though. But guess what. We negotiated we didn't explode ourselves in the streets of Europe and note something else please:

The world has made a hude mistake when it was stereotyping the Jew as a money thirsty individual . Jews have never been money and power thirsty, they always have been very poor. They were thirsty for education and knowledge and people are wrong to believe that jews collected money. Wrong. They were collecting degrees and since now we live in an era where knowledge and education are appreciated that's why they are winners.

So don't ask me why Israel wasn't carved out of Europe. I don't care and I consider this question irrelevant.

My proposal:

<snip>

Look. I accept the criticism regarding the Occupation and the violation of Human Rights. What I don't accept though is discussions about the creation of Israel.
I have posted in this forum that the whole issue can be resolved in half an hour, once the two parts decide to respect each other's needs.

The Palestinian Terrorism destroys the future of the Palestinians and not the future of Israelis. I won't pretend that I care about the future of the Palestinians more than I care about the future of Israelis although our happiness is strongly connected. I care about the future of Israel more that's why I find the notion of " Jewish State" very problematic.

Chacun son tour!

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Cleon
You can provide a supposedly "valid" context all you like, but in the end, you have one of the most powerful military forces in the world trying to snuff out a civilian population. And there is your answer Web.;)

[webfusion]

Cleon, I am myself an Israeli and I have a lot of issues with what my nation does, as you will find most Israelis are always striving for a better balance and sit around a lot complaining about things that are screwed-up in our tiny country. Political expression is a hobby.

What I don't get is your perpetual failure to enter these discussions with some amount of empathy, some grasp of the realities the Jews face, and yes, even a bit of 'yiddishkeit' allowing yourself to take a step back and acknowledge that you don't have to be a Zionist in order to empathize with the severe conditions Israel faces in a part of the world dominated by Muslims.

ZN calls you a "troll" and I'm doubtful that's accurate.
However, let's see some actions on your part to place things in proportion, instead of constant derision & lack of truthfulness on your part.

Comments like this are not useful to the positive tone of a discussion:
you have one of the most powerful military forces in the world trying to snuff out a civilian population.

Please, Cleon, that is an outrageous bit of incitement, and would be something I expect to read on a website sponsored by Islamic Jihad, not coming from a skeptic, a Jew, and a person who purports to be knowledgable.


------ eta ----- And once I presented the evidence, would you still characterize my statements about the "escape euphamism" as an extremely questionable claim?
You disappeared, and retreated into this thread, taking a snipe at ZN in regards to King David!

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by webfusion
That is not 100% accurate, Mycroft.

I stand corrected.

Originally posted by webfusion
If that is the case, where does he come off spouting specious arguments and attacking the posters who are attempting to place some valid perspectives into this forum, postings which try to explain things in context and offer support for Israel?

Cleon is Jewish. From previous statements, he is active in his community and affiliated with a synagogue.

He is also anti-Zionist. While I have a number of Jewish friends who have varying opinion on Zionism, he's the only Jewish person I know of who condemns the whole project from start to finish without ever showing any sympathy for the needs and goals of the participants.

That's about all I can say from a neutral point of view. Anything else I might add on the subject would be inflammatory.

Originally posted by webfusion
Has he ever come into a discussion and proposed that Israel is correct in any actions it takes?


No, not that I remember.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by webfusion
Cleon, I am myself an Israeli and I have a lot of issues with what my nation does, as you will find most Israelis are always striving for a better balance and sit around a lot complaining about things that are screwed-up in our tiny country. Political expression is a hobby.

What I don't get is your perpetual failure to enter these discussions with some amount of empathy, some grasp of the realities the Jews face, and yes, even a bit of 'yiddishkeit' allowing yourself to take a step back and acknowledge that you don't have to be a Zionist in order to empathize with the severe conditions Israel faces in a part of the world dominated by Muslims.


I empathize with the majority of Israelis, sure. They're ordinary folks caught up in a nasty situation. Many fled to Israel to escape their own persecution and to seek a better life.

And contrary to what zenith-nadir would have you believe, I'm not pro-terrorist. But I differentiate between the terrorism of the oppressed and the terrorism of the oppressor.

Those I do not empathize with are the lunatics who have decided that God has promised the land of Palestine/Canaan/Israel to Jews and Jews alone, who build monuments to cold-blooded racist killers, who build their homes on other people's land, and who have no regard for human rights.

Further, I don't empathize with the goal of a state that puts the rights of Jews ahead of non-Jews--especially in an area that has been majority non-Jewish for most of its history. Yes, it's our homeland, but what gets lost in the shuffle is that it's the homeland of other peoples as well.


Comments like this are not useful to the positive tone of a discussion:
you have one of the most powerful military forces in the world trying to snuff out a civilian population.

Please, Cleon, that is an outrageous bit of incitement, and would be something I expect to read on a website sponsored by Islamic Jihad, not coming from a skeptic, a Jew, and a person who purports to be knowledgable.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but that remains my analysis of the situation. The very existence of the Palestinians is now, and always has been, an obstacle for the Zionist movement and (later) the State of Israel, and I think Israel's eventual goal is to get rid of them.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Cleon
The very existence of the Palestinians is now, and always has been, an obstacle for the Zionist movement and (later) the State of Israel, and I think Israel's eventual goal is to get rid of them.

Cleon you are very wrong in that. Zionism was never, NEVER based on the extinction of other people. Eevery idea might start inflated by in the process people realize the boundaries. It's absurd to suggest that. Zionism doesn't even exist as an idea today since its cause has been fullfilled the day Israel was created.

[webfusion]

Cleon, if you are between the age of 18-26 you are eligible for a free trip to Israel. (http://www.birthrightisrael.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=HomePage)

I urge you to contemplate going to visit.

A brief stay there will do wonders for your outlook on Israel.
I am not saying you will change your mind, but I am sure it will allow you to have a greater appreciation of a land that is important to the 3 major monotheistic religions, where the people are free, the economy is robust, the politics are democratic to an extreme, and the food is exquisite.

Even the Palestinians (both Israeli citizens and those living in the PA Autonomous Zones) realize they have much to gain by emulating the Jews! Sure, many problems exist, but there are very brilliant people trying to overcome and resolve things, as best they know how.
http://www.malkiya.co.il/

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Cleon you are very wrong in that. Zionism was never, NEVER based on the extinction of other people. Eevery idea might start inflated by in the process people realize the boundaries. It's absurd to suggest that. Zionism doesn't even exist as an idea today since its cause has been fullfilled the day Israel was created.

It's simple logic, Cleo. You want to create a country based on one ethnicity in a region already largely populated by another, you have to get rid of the already existing one.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Cleon
It's simple logic, Cleo. You want to create a country based on one ethnicity in a region already largely populated by another, you have to get rid of the already existing one.

A simple word does all the job. THIS must make you suspicious.

"Largely" populated? The area was hardly largely populated but the approach to the issue is determined by the use of one single word.

There is something wrong in that. You must choose another way to approach the matter.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by webfusion
Cleon, if you are between the age of 18-26 you are eligible for a free trip to Israel. (http://www.birthrightisrael.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=HomePage)

I urge you to contemplate going to visit.

A brief stay there will do wonders for your outlook on Israel.
I am not saying you will change your mind, but I am sure it will allow you to have a greater appreciation of a land that is important to the 3 major monotheistic religions, where the people are free, the economy is robust, the politics are democratic to an extreme, and the food is exquisite.


Heh. I've been there. Not on Birthright, but I was there with the "Israel Discovery" program through Hashachar (Young Judea--Hadassah's youth group). Six weeks in Israel--and a huge helping of Zionism. (And schnitzel, but that's another matter.) I was a good Zionist kid, believe it or not. I've been there--literally and metaphorically. (I haven't brought it up until now because I find few arguments as condescending as "I once thought like you did." Christians do it all the time, it pisses me off, so I try not to employ it. But you brought it up--it's your own fault. :D )

Incidentally, it was that trip--and seeing the reality of Israel that wasn't taught in Hebrew school--that taught me skepticism. Of Zionism, among other things.

In fact, the very name of the program you suggest--"Birthright"--is exactly why I find Zionism so distasteful.

Ironically, my younger sister did Birthright a couple years ago, and came to a similar conclusion. She no longer considers herself a Zionist, either.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleon
It's simple logic, Cleo. You want to create a country based on one ethnicity in a region already largely populated by another, you have to get rid of the already existing one.

Herzl described a utopian paradise where Muslims, Jews and Christians all lived together, each worshipping in their own way, forming friendships among each other and participating in socialistic collectives for their mutual financial gain. I don’t understand how anybody can read that and come to the conclusion that genocide is part of "the plan."

A rational approach would be to identify what you think the faults in the state are, and advocate for their improvement, not to just give blanket condemnation to everything.

[Cleopatra]

Cleon. you were born in USA so you don't really know what Zionism is about and why Zionism was created. You haven't experienced the european contempt towards the Jews that loved Europe more than anything else in their HIstory.

You don't know what it is to speak 5 or 6 European languages ( as most european jews before WWII did), worship the european culture --especially literature- and be treated as an inferior creature by this very society.

If Jews weren't extinct from Europe, today we wouldn't have debates for the Constitution.

This is all I have to say and I feel very sad from your comment. I don't ignore your feelings, not at all but I have great difficulty in tolerating that attitude.

Do you think that the majority wanted to leave and go to Middle East and play the cops for the Americans? NO they didn't but they had to. The whole Zionist project reflects one of the greatest tragedies in History.

This is all I have to say on the matter.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
A simple word does all the job. THIS must make you suspicious.

"Largely" populated? The area was hardly largely populated but the approach to the issue is determined by the use of one single word.

There is something wrong in that. You must choose another way to approach the matter.

Cleo, this area has been continuously occupied since the Neandertals were around. The vast majority of the population at the time the Zionists decided to colonize it were not Jewish. That's the reality of the situation. The Zionists, sooner or later, would have to deal with that "problem." Even now, Israeli politicians are trying to deal with the fact that the birthrate will once again make Jews a minority (even in Israel proper).

I do want to clarify something; I don't think Israel's goal is to massacre the Palestinians, or start up gas chambers or anything like that, but I maintain that Israel wants (needs, really, if it's going to survive as a "Jewish state") to get rid of them.



(Edited to add; huh, I hit "edit," I wonder why it posted again.)

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Cleon. you were born in USA so you don't really know what Zionism is about and why Zionism was created. You haven't experienced the european contempt towards the Jews that loved Europe more than anything else in their HIstory.


Ah, the second most condescending argument after "I once thought like you did." "You don't know."

Actually, Cleo, I do. And hard as it may be to imagine, Zionists were not a majority in the European Jewish community--were those who weren't Zionists ignorant of what it was like to live in Europe too?


You don't know what it is to speak 5 or 6 European languages ( as most european jews before WWII did),

English, Spanish, Yiddish, and Russian--four isn't good enough for you? (Also Arabic, but it isn't European.)


If Jews weren't extinct from Europe, today we wouldn't have debates for the Constitution.

This is all I have to say and I feel very sad from your comment. I don't ignore your feelings, not at all but I have great difficulty in tolerating that attitude.

Do you think that the majority wanted to leave and go to Middle East and play the cops for the Americans? NO they didn't but they had to. The whole Zionist project reflects one of the greatest tragedies in History.

This is all I have to say on the matter.

I do not deny the existince of anti-Semitism in Europe--far, far, from it. My own family suffered through pogroms, the Holocaust, the whole nine yards. So, for what it's worth, I really resent your "you don't know what it's like" attitude.

But for all a people suffers, that doesn't give them the right or the excuse to make others suffer.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Cleon
And contrary to what zenith-nadir would have you believe, I'm not pro-terrorist. Since day one you have come into threads where I have participated to specifically attack me. You even make ridiculous comments about me in posts to other people. Your latest "zinger" is I called you pro-terrorist.

Please provide the quote whereby I condemned you for being pro-terrorist.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Since day one you have come into threads where I have participated to specifically attack me.

Demonstrably untrue. First, the first post I responded to of yours was a day after your first post on the forum. In other words, Day Two, not day one. Second, I refuted a number of so-called "facts" that you regurgitated from a chain letter.

Your post can be found here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870301261#post1870301261), which will also have my response, which didn't have a single insult thrown at you. Attitude, yes; personal attacks, no. However, your response had these lovely tidbits:


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



I suggest if you are an honest guy Cleon, which you are not...


This isn't the same post, but I include it here for humor value:


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...


In other words, zenith-nadir, quit playing the victim. And for the love of Hashem, grow up.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Cleon
And contrary to what zenith-nadir would have you believe, I'm not pro-terrorist. Originally posted by Cleon
Demonstrably untrue. Once again. Please provide the quote whereby I condemned you for being pro-terrorist.

[webfusion]

Cleon, it was a really amazing post, about Young Judaea.
Would you believe, I also was a member, and found the entire "take" on Israel to be hypocritical, too.

I moved to Israel in the 1980's and established my life there (came back to the USA 2 years ago on assignment for my Israeli employer).

Thank you for placing that reply in the thread. Very valuable to me, seeing that you aren't just blasting Israel for sport, but actually have some serious misgivings and are trying to reconcile them.

I think we all are in the same boat, by the way, in seeing that Israel isn't the "light unto the nations" that our Jewish upbringing led us to believe. Some of us are more skeptical than others, however!

===========================
FWIW, in my home, all the Yiddish papers and books were written in HEBREW letters. I was not aware of any other method.
http://www.shoshke.net/uyip/bbsh.htm
I am relieved to see that you, Cleon, have retained a fair measure of yiddishkeit. You had me worried! It's always useful in life, to have a sense of humor and be a bit sarcastic at the same time. As it should be.
Just ask KRAMER!

[Cleon]

Originally posted by webfusion
Cleon, it was a really amazing post, about Young Judaea.
Would you believe, I also was a member, and found the entire "take" on Israel to be hypocritical, too.

Wouldn't surprise me in the least--Young Judea and BBYO pretty much have the market cornered on Zionist youth in the US. :D

When/where were you a member?


I moved to Israel in the 1980's and established my life there (came back to the USA 2 years ago on assignment for my Israeli employer).

Thank you for placing that reply in the thread. Very valuable to me, seeing that you aren't just blasting Israel for sport, but actually have some serious misgivings and are trying to reconcile them.

I think we all are in the same boat, by the way, in seeing that Israel isn't the "light unto the nations" that our Jewish upbringing led us to believe. Some of us are more skeptical than others, however!


Fair 'nuff. ;)


===========================
FWIW, in my home, all the Yiddish papers and books were written in HEBREW letters. I was not aware of any other method.
http://www.shoshke.net/uyip/bbsh.htm
I am relieved to see that you, Cleon, have retained a fair measure of yiddishkeit. You had me worried! It's always useful in life, to have a sense of humor and be a bit sarcastic at the same time. As it should be.
Just ask KRAMER!

Dank. ;) And yes, Yiddish has always been written in Hebrew letters--when I pointed that out to ZN during my first exchange with him, he produced that love piece of prose. I just find it funny and ironic. :)

I have an interest in languages; politics aside, one of the great tragedies of Zionism is that we've lost a lot of linguistic heritage. Yiddish, Ladino, Judaeo-Arabic, other Jewish tongues--they're not dead by any means, but they're certainly not thriving either. And, as that quote from ZN shows, people definitely don't know much about them. Not too long ago I was explaining to my sister (the same one who went on Birthright) what Ladino is. *sigh*

[zenith-nadir]

Sorry to break up the UJA meeting, but for the third time Cleon please provide the quote whereby I condemned you for being pro-terrorist. Either you can do it and make me look really bad, or you were being untruthful.

You made the claim and I am calling you on it.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Sorry to break up the UJA meeting, but for the third time Cleon please provide the quote whereby I condemned you for being pro-terrorist. Either you can do it and make me look really bad, or you were being untruthful.

You made the claim and I am calling you on it.


Can you spell hypocricy? ;)

demandng a quote?

You don't provide this service to people who ask it of you (to support your lies)....Yet you have the hide to demand it of others.

[demon]

Well, well, well, Israel tells the truth about the "peace process"...it won`t come as any suprise to some of us though.

This article, from the BBC news website, reports an interview that Shaul Mofaz gave to an Israeli newspaper in which he was brutally honest about the thinking behind Sharon's Gaza plan. It provides a pretty effective rebuttal, I think, to any claim that there is any such thing as a peace process. It`s a clear statement of Israel`s expansionist dynamic...Eretz Israel anybody?


quote:
Mofaz: Gaza plan 'to save W Bank'

Israeli Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz has said the withdrawal of Jewish settlers from Gaza will allow Israel to extend its borders into the West Bank. He also said the pullout would enable Israel to maintain Jerusalem as the unified capital of a Jewish state.

Mr Mofaz warned that destroying the settlers' home in the Gaza Strip after evacuation was unnecessary and could endanger the lives of soldiers.

Palestinian officials want Israel to raze the settlements before leaving.

They say the suburban-style, detached houses with gardens - which take up about 20% of the Gaza Strip - are unsuitable for the overcrowded territory, which is home to 1.3m Palestinians.

About 8,500 Jewish settlers and the soldiers who guard them are to leave Gaza and parts of the West Bank as part of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's unilateral disengagement plan.

Israel will continue to control Gaza's external borders, coastline and airspace.

'Enemy territory'

Mr Mofaz said the pullout would allow Israel to keep hold of its large West Bank settlements - which are viewed as illegal under international law - extending its future borders deep into Palestinian territory.

"In fact, the settlers of [the West Bank] and Gaza will be able to say in years to come that they helped establish the eastern frontiers of the state of Israel," he told the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot.

Speaking on Memorial Day when Israelis remember fallen soldiers, he repeated his opposition to the demolition of the settlers' homes.

"After we evacuate the settlers we would have to maintain military forces, security guards and forces to destroy the houses in the middle of enemy territory and there is no assurance that there wouldn't be terror attacks," he said.

The defence ministry has estimated it could take months and cost millions of dollars to destroy the houses and remove the rubble.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat strongly denounced the statements by Mr Mofaz, Voice of Palestine radio reported.

He said he "believed the statements were in line with the Israeli practices that seek to abolish negotiations and replace them with dictates", the radio reported.

Mr Mofaz also revealed he has decided to reduce the length of mandatory military service for Israelis.

The length of service is set be cut by between five and seven months.

Israeli men over the age of 18 currently serve three years in the army whilst women serve two-and-a-half.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4537229.stm

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Herzl described a utopian paradise where Muslims, Jews and Christians all lived together, each worshipping in their own way, forming friendships among each other and participating in socialistic collectives for their mutual financial gain. I don’t understand how anybody can read that and come to the conclusion that genocide is part of "the plan."



That notion went out the window years ago.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55860&highlight=demographics



Sharon also commented on the demographic problem - whose existence he has denied in the past - saying that it had played a decisive role in the route of the separation fence.

"Had we wanted to build the fence on the border of the security zone, known today as Area C, the fence would have been a lot further to the east," he said. "But such a move would have left hundreds of thousands of Palestinians inside the fence, and these Palestinians would have eventually joined forces with Arab Israelis, and then it would certainly have been a major problem."

[demon]

AUP:
"That notion went out the window years ago."

And again a few days ago! Get with the plan AUP;)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4537229.stm

Read it and weep!

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I care about the future of Israel more that's why I find the notion of " Jewish State" very problematic. Is it your opinion that democratic states can recognize a particular religion while being fair to non-members? There are European states that have an official religion, but that has no influence on the religiousity of the people or their rights.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
That notion went out the window years ago.


Sure it did, was it the 1920's or 30's when the first anti-Jewish riots were organized? That was a long time before Sharon.

Edited to add:

It's typical of your dishonest propagandists tricks to compare words and deeds more than a century apart. The world we live in today is very different from the world of Herzl.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by kimiko
There are European states that have an official religion, but that has no influence on the religiousity of the people or their rights.

In what way is that different from Israel.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
That notion went out the window years ago.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55860&highlight=demographics

How fair is to drag conclusions about Zionism by referring to a political sttement that was made to the Press and is a bout a political decision that wasn't actually realized?

[demon]

Cleo:
"Personally I am not moved by mottos like " justice" " displacement" " ownership of land" and stuff like that.
I tend to be practical."

How nice for you.

OK Cleo, we have been over similar stuff before, one more time for old times sake. You just cannot negate "justice" as you do, to do so allows contemporary injustices.

The importance of justice in any comprehensive peace agreement and/or process has been clearly identified in other areas of conflict including the north of Ireland and South Africa. Just as there can be no peace without justice, there can be no justice without equality both under the law and in the hearts and minds of the population.
This is not easy to achieve and may take several generations to make significant progress, but the first step in this long and drawn out process must happenn.


OK, I accept you work within the "Law"....you must know that criminals want forget justice, every criminal does, getting away with it for a few generations doest make it any better.

Honestly, I`m suprised at you sometimes!

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by demon
Cleo:
"Personally I am not moved by mottos like " justice" " displacement" " ownership of land" and stuff like that.
I tend to be practical."

How nice for you.

OK Cleo, we have been over similar stuff before, one more time for old times sake. You just cannot negate "justice" as you do, to do so allows contemporary injustices.

The importance of justice in any comprehensive peace agreement and/or process has been clearly identified in other areas of conflict including the north of Ireland and South Africa. Just as there can be no peace without justice, there can be no justice without equality both under the law and in the hearts and minds of the population.
This is not easy to achieve and may take several generations to make significant progress, but the first step in this long and drawn out process must happenn.


OK, I accept you work within the "Law"....you must know that criminals want forget justice, every criminal does, getting away with it for a few generations doest make it any better.

Honestly, I`m suprised at you sometimes!

Justice has nothing to do with the ownership of land, demon. When it comes to this matter the just is that the Palestinians take their country. Whose land is that has been resolved by the Internation Community more than once. The Land belongs to two people that are fighting for the borders.

[demon]

Well, we disagree.


What`s new?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
How fair is to drag conclusions about Zionism by referring to a political sttement that was made to the Press and is a bout a political decision that wasn't actually realized?

A fair point, but I think it illustrates that the concept of what all the fighting is about is still not clear. It is a lot of pain and effort to go to, and no-one knows just what Zionism is hoping to achieve, and if it is even going to last any length of time.

[epepke]

Originally posted by kimiko
False analogy- you're an individual who only lived there for 12 years, not a people that's existed there for centuries.

Wow! They must eat an awful lot of yoghurt!

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by demon
The importance of justice in any comprehensive peace agreement and/or process has been clearly identified in other areas of conflict including the north of Ireland and South Africa.


Exactly how would you define "justice" in this conflict?

[Bjorn]

Mycroft,

Clean up your inbox. :(

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
A fair point, but I think it illustrates that the concept of what all the fighting is about is still not clear.

How does it illustrate that, exactly?

[geni]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Exactly how would you define "justice" in this conflict?

And idea that does not map to anything existing in reality.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Mycroft
In what way is that different from Israel.
I wasn't making an argument, I was asking her opinion, since she said she finds "the notion of " Jewish State" very problematic".
I'm interested in knowing what problems she sees. Religiousity and rights are the two issues I can see where problems may arise.

But you can find some related info here:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27929.htm

[demon]

So Kimiko, looks like everyone is avoiding the obvious...can I ask what you make of it the light of the Zionists here?

Here is a pretty obvious statement of Israeli intent, the kinda` thing that gets reported in the press sometimes and no one looks at...well ,it has Eretz Izrael written all over it, is no one interested? Kimiko?

I mean serious players? Cleo go back to sleep...you probably have a cam grilling.
Well, well, well, Israel tells the truth about the "peace process"...it won`t come as any suprise to some of us though.

This article, from the BBC news website, reports an interview that Shaul Mofaz gave to an Israeli newspaper in which he was brutally honest about the thinking behind Sharon's Gaza plan. It provides a pretty effective rebuttal, I think, to any claim that there is any such thing as a peace process. It`s a clear statement of Israel`s expansionist dynamic...Eretz Israel anybody?


quote:
Mofaz: Gaza plan 'to save W Bank'

Israeli Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz has said the withdrawal of Jewish settlers from Gaza will allow Israel to extend its borders into the West Bank. He also said the pullout would enable Israel to maintain Jerusalem as the unified capital of a Jewish state.

Mr Mofaz warned that destroying the settlers' home in the Gaza Strip after evacuation was unnecessary and could endanger the lives of soldiers.

Palestinian officials want Israel to raze the settlements before leaving.

They say the suburban-style, detached houses with gardens - which take up about 20% of the Gaza Strip - are unsuitable for the overcrowded territory, which is home to 1.3m Palestinians.

About 8,500 Jewish settlers and the soldiers who guard them are to leave Gaza and parts of the West Bank as part of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's unilateral disengagement plan.

Israel will continue to control Gaza's external borders, coastline and airspace.

'Enemy territory'

Mr Mofaz said the pullout would allow Israel to keep hold of its large West Bank settlements - which are viewed as illegal under international law - extending its future borders deep into Palestinian territory.

"In fact, the settlers of [the West Bank] and Gaza will be able to say in years to come that they helped establish the eastern frontiers of the state of Israel," he told the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot.

Speaking on Memorial Day when Israelis remember fallen soldiers, he repeated his opposition to the demolition of the settlers' homes.

"After we evacuate the settlers we would have to maintain military forces, security guards and forces to destroy the houses in the middle of enemy territory and there is no assurance that there wouldn't be terror attacks," he said.

The defence ministry has estimated it could take months and cost millions of dollars to destroy the houses and remove the rubble.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat strongly denounced the statements by Mr Mofaz, Voice of Palestine radio reported.

He said he "believed the statements were in line with the Israeli practices that seek to abolish negotiations and replace them with dictates", the radio reported.

Mr Mofaz also revealed he has decided to reduce the length of mandatory military service for Israelis.

The length of service is set be cut by between five and seven months.

Israeli men over the age of 18 currently serve three years in the army whilst women serve two-and-a-half.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4537229.stm

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Mycroft
It's typical of your dishonest propagandists tricks to compare words and deeds more than a century apart. The world we live in today is very different from the world of Herzl. You may also have noticed that some never reference the deeds of Haj Amin Husseini, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Abu Nidal, Yassir Arafat, Muhammad Abbas, Hafez al-Assad, Ahmad Jibril, Marwan Barghouti, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, The House of Saud, The PLO, Black September, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, PFLP, DFLP, PFLP-GC, Hizbollah, Izz al-Din al-Qassem Brigades....It's all "the zionists", bad old Hertzl or the war criminal Sharon...

It find these middle eastern themed threads are like debating about Iraq and never bothering to reference Saddam, his 30+ years of tyranny, the invasion of Kuwait, the gassing of the Kurds, the war with Iran, rewarding suicide bombers $25,000, the rapes, murders, mass graves, etc....everything starts and ends with the American invasion and 'occupation' of Iraq. ;)

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Mycroft
In what way is that different from Israel.

For now nothing but if the notion of jewish state takes an official form somebody like me for example that was born in Israel from a Jewish mother but I am not jewish won't be an Israeli citizen.

[Cleopatra]

Cleon and others, this is the last time I get into trouble to clarify myself for the sake of an old regular of this forum when it comes to discussions about Middle East.



Originally posted by Cleon
Ah, the second most condescending argument after "I once thought like you did." "You don't know."

I find his insulting. How could you think that this is what I meant? How could you think that _I_ of all people would put you in the position to "apologize" by referring to your family's past?

I didn't refer to our generation Cleon but to our ancestrors.

Actually, Cleo, I do. And hard as it may be to imagine, Zionists were not a majority in the European Jewish community--were those who weren't Zionists ignorant of what it was like to live in Europe too?
Please, I have claimed that in this forum more than once. For example the Greeks were really antizionists and Zionism flourished in areas of Europe where Jews were not welcomed and they were expected to leave.

English, Spanish, Yiddish, and Russian--four isn't good enough for you? (Also Arabic, but it isn't European.)

....

and snip the rest.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by demon
So Kimiko, looks like everyone is avoiding the obvious...can I ask what you make of it the light of the Zionists here?

Here is a pretty obvious statement of Israeli intent, the kinda` thing that gets reported in the press sometimes and no one looks at...well ,it has Eretz Izrael written all over it, is no one interested? Kimiko?

I mean serious players? Cleo go back to sleep...you probably have a cam grilling.


I don't grill cams. Only steaks.

You know sometimes you put me in despair. If you that you live miles away from the area cannot forgive and give us a break what the natives think about us?

Amos Oz in his book says something very true. Jews and Arabs have something in common. Both have been humiliated by the Europeans and yet the Arabs see the Jews as the spies of the Europeans in Middle East and the Jews see the Arabs as the reincarnation of Hitler.

You don't wish the existence of Israel. I realized that when you talked about a one state solution.How can you imagine a one state solution is a mystery to me,it's impossible under the current circumstances.

Ok Let's talk about Art instead or about cooking.

Demon, you have to learn to forgive. You have to forgive and let the past go.If you don't, your people will keep on living like the animals. Without knowing the beauty of a poem or of an artifact. Do you call this a life?

[webfusion]

If you want to see how Israel is such an amazing nation, take a look at what was invented there ---

The Upside-Down Strawberry Plant

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/575448.html

"...Of the yield from ground-creeping plants, only between 800 kilograms and one ton are export quality. In contrast, 3 to 3.5 tons of the hanging strawberries are export quality - and that is where the big money is."


I post this to contrast with the ongoing talk of military and political, and to bring an 'upside-down frown' to everyone's face at the ingenuity and brilliance of such a simple solution.

Gotta love those Israelis!

[a_unique_person]

Australia has only invented something to hang your clothes on to dry.

http://www.abc.net.au/dimensions/dimensions_in_time/Transcripts/s785953.htm

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
For now nothing but if the notion of jewish state takes an official form somebody like me for example that was born in Israel from a Jewish mother but I am not jewish won't be an Israeli citizen.

You may know something about Israeli politics that I don't but I can't see anyone passing a law that makes that distinction when Hitler didn't.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Mycroft
You may know something about Israeli politics that I don't but I can't see anyone passing a law that makes that distinction when Hitler didn't.

I don't know anything you don't know but you worded better why I think the notion of "Jewish State" problematic. First of all because of that we don't have a Constitution. How can you phrase that without making it appear as an apartheit law?

Second and most important? What a Jewish Nation mean in practice? If it's not expressed in the constitution or in the legislation, what does it mean and how must affect the lives of israelis.

For all these reasons I see a problem in such terms.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Second and most important? What a Jewish Nation mean in practice? If it's not expressed in the constitution or in the legislation, what does it mean and how must affect the lives of israelis. There is bias towards Orthodox Judaism. From the 2004 US human rights report on Israel:Under the Law of Return, the Government grants citizenship and residence rights to Jewish immigrants and their immediate family members. In May, the High Court held that non-Jews who immigrate to the country and then convert according to Orthodox requirements are eligible to become citizens pursuant to the Law of Return. The court let stand the State's practice of not recognizing conversions to Judaism performed in the country by non-Orthodox rabbis.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41723.htm

The 2003 one specifies:Under the Law of Return, the Government grants automatic citizenship and residence rights to Jewish immigrants and their families; the Law of Return does not apply to those not officially recognized by the Orthodox establishment as Jews or to persons of Jewish descent who have converted to another faith (see Section 2.d.). Persons qualifying under the Law of Return as Jews may, nonetheless, fail to meet stricter criteria defining who is a Jew by some government organizations. Other incidences of bias towards Orthodox Judaism, from the 2004 report:Many citizens objected to exclusive Orthodox control over religious aspects of their personal lives. Approximately 300,000 citizens who immigrated under the Law of Return are not considered Jewish by the Orthodox Rabbinate. These immigrants cannot be married, divorced, or buried within the country. A 1996 law requiring the Government to establish civil cemeteries has not been implemented adequately. Non-Jews and Jews who wish to marry in Reform, Conservative, or secular ceremonies must do so abroad. The law provides for freedom of religion, and the Government generally respected this right. The Basic Law and Declaration of Independence recognize the country as a "Jewish and democratic state," establishing Judaism as the country's dominant religion. Civil rights NGOs have accurately charged the Government with the discriminatory allocation of state resources favoring Orthodox Jewish institutions. Non-Orthodox Jews faced greater difficulties than Orthodox Jews in adopting children. According to IRAC, the budget for Jewish religious services, institutions, and schools for the year was approximately $450 million (1.9 billion New Israeli shekels (NIS)), and virtually none of this went to non-Orthodox institutions. Also according to IRAC, the budget for the non-Jewish population was approximately $9 million (40 million NIS)--2 percent of the budget for 18 percent of the population.

[zenith-nadir]

Adoption of a constitution has been extremely controversial in Israel because many human rights in a democratic constitution contradict the religious sensibilities of orthodox Jews, Muslims and Christians. Therefore the drafting of a constitution has been highly problematic for the Israeli government. Such is the unique nature of Israel.

Currently there are 11 basic Israeli laws that serve as the foundation of a constitution. The problem is deciding who gets to decide what's constitutional and what isn't. That is why there is no current Israeli constitution. So far it has been the responsibility of the Israeli supreme court to uphold the 11 basic Israeli laws. The ultra religious public - jews, muslims and christians - feel the court has no right to rule in matters they feel are questions of religious law, which is obviously a problem in a democratic society like Israel.

At least Israeli women can vote, go to school, dress like they want, drive cars and go out in public without a male chaperone. There are worse places to live...;)

[webfusion]

to Kimiko's last posting, about the 'undue influence' of the ultra-orthodox in matters pertaining to civil life.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/575455.html
A story of the efforts made to change the status-quo.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

I find his insulting. How could you think that this is what I meant? How could you think that _I_ of all people would put you in the position to "apologize" by referring to your family's past?


Well, Cleo, because that's what you said. "Cleon. you were born in USA so you don't really know what Zionism is about and why Zionism was created. You haven't experienced the european contempt towards the Jews that loved Europe more than anything else in their HIstory."

I'm sorry, that's condescending bull@#$% and I don't appreciate it.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Mycroft
You may know something about Israeli politics that I don't but I can't see anyone passing a law that makes that distinction when Hitler didn't.

If memory serves, Israeli law regarding what is a Jew is based, deliberately, on the Nuremberg laws. (The logic being, "if they're Jewish enough for the gas chambers, they're Jewish enough for Israel.") I have no idea why Cleo wouldn't be considered Jewish by Israeli law.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleon
If memory serves, Israeli law regarding what is a Jew is based, deliberately, on the Nuremberg laws. (The logic being, "if they're Jewish enough for the gas chambers, they're Jewish enough for Israel.") I have no idea why Cleo wouldn't be considered Jewish by Israeli law.

Hang on, I had assumed Cleopatra's mother was Jewish, she has done her time in the IDF. Is Cleo claiming she can't get Israeli Citizenship?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleon
If memory serves, Israeli law regarding what is a Jew is based, deliberately, on the Nuremberg laws. (The logic being, "if they're Jewish enough for the gas chambers, they're Jewish enough for Israel.") I have no idea why Cleo wouldn't be considered Jewish by Israeli law.

She was speaking hypothetically. A future definition of "Jewish state" might include a definition that could exclude her as a citizen.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Hang on, I had assumed Cleopatra's mother was Jewish, she has done her time in the IDF. Is Cleo claiming she can't get Israeli Citizenship?

No. See above.

[zenith-nadir]

Cleon I find your act a little hard to swallow, you are one of the most condescending posters who frequent JREF.

Lemme give you an example, you claimed I called you "pro-terrorist", I asked you three times to provide the quote, ironically your response was not to provide any quote but to say;In other words, zenith-nadir, quit playing the victim. And for the love of Hashem, grow up.Maybe take a play out of your own book hero.:D

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Hang on, I had assumed Cleopatra's mother was Jewish, she has done her time in the IDF. Is Cleo claiming she can't get Israeli Citizenship? If you were born in Israel you are automatically an Israeli citizen. If your parents are not Israeli citizens yet you are born in Israel then you are an Israeli citizen unless you renounce your citizenship. If you are born abroad you may not be an Israeli citizen automatically unless you parents are Israeli government/company employees on official Israeli business. That is my best understanding.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Cleon I find your act a little hard to swallow, you are one of the most condescending posters who frequent JREF.


Pot, kettle. See my quotes of your early posts to me.


Lemme give you an example, you claimed I called you "pro-terrorist"

Actually, I claimed no such thing. I said you'd have webfusion believe that I was. I stand by that, whether or not you've said that I'm pro-terrorist.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Cleon
Actually, I claimed no such thing. I said you'd have webfusion believe that I was. I stand by that, whether or not you've said that I'm pro-terrorist. Originally posted by Cleon - 05-12-2005 03:02 PM
And contrary to what zenith-nadir would have you believe, I'm not pro-terrorist.

So you claim I would make Web believe you were pro-terrorist eventhough I actually never did at any point have a conversation with Web whereby I tried to make him think you were "pro-terrorist".

Well then, I accept that as your final - if not bizzare - answer. Have a nice day.

Sidebar concluded.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
So you claim I would make Web believe

Not "make," "have" him believe. As in, you would like him to believe that. I don't think you could make him do, believe, or say squat.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by kimiko
There is bias towards Orthodox Judaism. From the 2004 US human rights report on Israel: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41723.htm

The 2003 one specifies: Other incidences of bias towards Orthodox Judaism, from the 2004 report:

You know Kimiko, you present "Jewish State" as being a problem for non-Orthodox Jews, not anyone else. I'm sure the various branches of Christianity and Islam don't have any trouble getting married with the ceremony of their choice?

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Cleon
Not "make," "have" him believe. As in, you would like him to believe that. I don't think you could make him do, believe, or say squat. This will be my last reply to you regarding this sidebar. You made up something and badmouthed me to look superior, that is exactly what you did. You just don't have the balls to admit it.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
This will be my last reply to you regarding this sidebar. You made up something and badmouthed me to look superior, that is exactly what you did. You just don't have the balls to admit it.

:rolleyes: Sure, whatever makes you feel better about yourself.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Mycroft
You know Kimiko, you present "Jewish State" as being a problem for non-Orthodox Jews, not anyone else. I'm sure the various branches of Christianity and Islam don't have any trouble getting married with the ceremony of their choice? http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41723.htmReligious communities are conferred recognition under the law, enabling them to exercise legal authority over their members in personal status matters, such as marriage and divorce. These communities included the Eastern Orthodox Church, several Catholic orders, Maronites, and Jews. Three additional communities have been recognized–-the Druze, the Evangelical Episcopal Church, and the Baha'i. Several religious communities are not recognized, including Protestant groups. Unrecognized communities may practice their religion freely and maintain communal institutions, but are ineligible to receive government funding for religious services. From the International Religious Freedom Report of 2004. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35499.htmEach recognized religious community has legal authority over its members in matters of marriage and divorce. For so-called "unrecognized religions," there were no local religious tribunals that had jurisdiction over their members in matters of personal status. Putting personal status questions in the hands of religious institutions can lead to discrimination. Under the Jewish religious courts' interpretation of personal status law, a Jewish woman may not receive a final writ of divorce without her husband's consent. Consequently, thousands of women, so-called "agunot," are unable to remarry or have legitimate children because their husbands either have disappeared or refused to grant a divorce.

Rabbinical tribunals have the authority to impose sanctions on husbands who refuse to divorce their wives or on wives who refuse to accept a divorce from their husbands. At least one man, a U.S. citizen, had been in jail for over 2 years because he refused to grant his wife a writ of divorce. He was released approximately 1 year ago. In some cases, rabbinical courts have failed to invoke sanctions. In May, a rabbinical court decided for the first time to jail a woman who refused to accept a divorce from her husband. Rabbinical courts also may exercise jurisdiction over, and issue sanctions against, non-Israeli persons present in the country.

Some Islamic law courts have held that Muslim women may not request a divorce, but that women may be forced to consent if a divorce is granted to the husband.

Members of unrecognized religious groups (particularly evangelical Christians) sometimes also face the same problems obtaining marriage certificates or burial services as do citizens not considered Jewish by the Orthodox establishment. However, informal arrangements with other recognized religious groups provide relief in some cases. From the UN Declaration of Human Rights, http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html:Article 16.(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.Other:The Government discriminates against non-Jews, the vast majority of which are Arabs, in the areas of employment, education, and housing. The Orr Legal Commission of Inquiry, established to investigate the 2000 police killing of 12 Israeli-Arab demonstrators, issued a final report in September 2003 noting historical, societal, and governmental discrimination against Arab citizens.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Hang on, I had assumed Cleopatra's mother was Jewish, she has done her time in the IDF. Is Cleo claiming she can't get Israeli Citizenship?

Of course not! I am a citizen. I was wondering what my position would be in an official jewish state and on what basis a jewish state could be established without violating basic notions of democracy.

What is a Jewish State in papers and who is included in a jewish or muslim state?