BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: Nickhere
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 09:02 PM

Thanks for your post John! Also for the list of charities... but I was being sincere when I said I wasn't expecting you to reply, unless you wanted to, and then only by PM. I hope it was clear that I quite understand that the charitable work one does is a private affair unless one wants to make it public.
I must say though that you certainly seem to be doing great work!

As regards the idea of a Jewish homeland: I quite understand this concept, and why it might be so important to anyone of Jewish extraction in particular.

But from a philosophical point of view I find myself perplexed. In the culture and continent where I live, the model of democratic society we are given to understand is the ideal is that of the pluralistic society. For this reason, it would be considered inappropriate for someone to advocate say, a English England (though it might make commonsense). Were they to suggest that England should primarily be for the nominally christian English and that other ethnic groups and religions be either barred or not admitted fully into civil life there, they would probably be accused of racism.

This is a real difficulty, as countries like France and the UK in particular struggle to cope with the crisis of identity and direction caused by the presence of first and second-generation immigrants. In particular, Muslim immigrants pose a conundrum in that they wish to live according to customs in some cases quite unlike those of the Britons they share the island with. This is causing considerable tension. Some people say 'if they want to live like XYZ, let them go back to where they came from, this is England'. On the contrary, other people say 'sure, but when we wanted to reject old tradiotions and authorities we said pluralism was the only way, and that everyine should be free to pursue his or her own course without interference from the state. If we discriminate against these Muslims, we in turn will logically have to suffer discrimination against ourselves from people who don't like OUR particular lifestyle'.

The conundrum is of coure that both sides have a point. If I were to live in Saudi Arabia, certain freedoms I have here would be curtailed (even more so were I a woman). I would be expected to fit in with Saudi culture, no question. So it doesn't seem unreasonable to require immigrants to the UK to do likewise.

The problem is that for so long people have proposed the pluralistic. tolerant model that logically you cannot discriminate against ANYONE's particular lifestyle unless it's damaging to society. That sounds fine in theory, but once you start to argue that XYZ's groups actiosn are damaging to society you soon find similar arguments can be levelled at, and by, all sides.

So far, the 'West' has promoted a 'tolerant' (a much abused word), pluralistic, multi-ethnic and multi-cultural model as the ideal of the civilsed democracy.

I realise many arab nations do not fit this model - indeed some are antagonistic towards it (e.g Saudi Arabia and taliban controlled Afghanistan) - unless by chance they already have ethnically diverse populations (such as Lebanon). But Israel - conceived of as a specifically Jewish homeland where Jews are the dominant force politically, economically and socially, also struggles and fails to fit in this mould. Since it is on occasion presented as being practically the only democratic, 'western-style' model of society in the Middle East, it yet has to reconcile these facts.

I realise that these are philosophical arguments, but they do raise important questions about our cultural assumptions - not just for Israel, but for all Western society. Maybe the pluralistic model is not the ideal one after all. But if we are to follow that conclusion, we could eventually see a repeat of say, Spain under Isabella and Ferdinand in the late 1400s when all non-catholics (and in a sense, non-Spanish) people were forcibly ejected from Spain. This included large numbers of Jews and even larger numbers of Muslims. Those that remained did so very much as kind of 'inferior citizens' always unsure of what the state might decide about their status in future.

Anyway, you've said you wanted to wind up this post, and that's fine by me. I suppose other people might want to continue posting to it, I'll have to leave that up to them. Interesting discussion anyway, thanks!

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 08:36 PM

Add to last post...My comments in the second paragraph do imply that I would agree with his statements or premises even if he used more benign language.

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 08:30 PM

I am not interested in enlarging this discussion beyond what you originally posted, Nickhere,else it can go on forever, and I for one don't have forever.

My point is that Finkelstein is using emotionally charged words to describe events when more neutral terms can convey the same meaning. Of course, after all these years, and all his discussion he wants to blame Jews, Zionists and Israel for all the problems of the immediate area in question, so I understand why he chooses the words he chooses. Perhaps he is not hateful towards Israel, but he has made a near second career denigrating it.

As a Jew, and a human being, I believe that there can and should be a Jewish Homeland within the historic Jewish Homeland. I do not believe that he, either a a Jew or a human being, believes that. I believe that he looks at Israel in a pure academic sense devoid of the humanity of situation.

As a Jew and a human being, I believe that Palestinian Arabs should have a country of their own. They could have had that country prior to 1967...but they didn't for many reasons, most of them discussed at Mudcat over the years. The imperative for a Palestine came only after Israel absorbed the West Bank which had lain fallow (in a political sense) under Jordanian control.

I have said many times (well several times, at least) that I think the only non-negotiable part of a two state agreement is Jerusalem. It will be the Israeli capital, and the Jews will not allow any agreement that has the potential of denying them access to Jewish Holy places, as prior to 1967.

As to the charities we support: The Wiesenthal Center, The Museum of Tolerance (LA), City of Hope Medical Center, National Jewish Hospital and Research Center (which despite its name is non-sectarian), American Diabetes Assn., American Heart Assn., Boy Scouts of America, UCLA Annual Fund, and LA Pet Adoption. Indirectly, through my Synagogue, we provide aid for Darfur and a local Home for emotionally disturbed children. In other years we have supported the US Holocaust Museum, the US Wildlife Federation, the Anti-Defamation League and a few others. In the past we have actively worked to raise money for some of these groups, but not at present. You asked for it you got it! And, as you say, mostly we just read the literature they send out on a regular basis. I give you this list so that you know there is a world for me beyond Judaism and Israel, not to show you how generous we are.

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: Peace
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 07:49 PM

Regardless, Nick, I still would like to know.

I corresponded with the MFA when the war with Lebanon was going on. They talked with me then. I hope they do so now. However, maybe I'm on their poop list. Don't know. Time'll tell just who has fell . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: Nickhere
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 07:37 PM

It seems incredible the Israeli Govt could be so miserly towards the holocaust survivors. But I think governments everywhere are a bit like that. They always have to be pressured hard to give what's due to those who deserve it.

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: Peace
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 07:28 PM

I just wrote to the MFA and will get back if/when they reply.

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: Peace
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 07:22 PM

Has there been anything new on the stipend (read INSULT) offered the Holocaust survivors?

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: Nickhere
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 06:54 PM

Plus here's an interesting take on the Hamas' intransigence story:

Would there be a Peace deal were it not for Hamas?

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: Nickhere
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 06:47 PM

Indeed here's an article from Israeli paper Haaretz which seems to back up what Finkelstein has been saying. And the protest comes this time not from Finkelstein but from the holocaust survivors themselves:

Holocaust survivors angry protest

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: Nickhere
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 06:42 PM

Sure, John. I was paraphrasing Finkelstein. Yes, I suppose the words had negative connotations, but then Finkelstein had something 'negative' - i.e critical - to say about these organisations, and so it's not surprising. If it's pouring rain and freezing cold it's hard to find some way of framing this situation in positive terms, isn't it?

Finkelstein's two main arguments (in "The Holocaust Industry") are that the holocaust of WW2 is being used as a stick to beat any criticism of the zionist project into submission. He argues (as I would, I think) that being critical of zionism is not being anti-semitic (in the same way that being critical of the IRA is not the same as being anti-Irish). He suggests that the holocaust, being an event of such magnitude and suffering, carries an emotional weight that often overrides rational thought. In other words, when people try and criticise the worse apsects of zionism (nationalism in itself is not necessarily a bad thing, but must be with repsect to other nationalisms) the holocaust and the Nazi experience inevitably gets dragged into the frame and their motives are misrepresented as being suspect. The argument goes: If you are critical of zionism, you are anti-semitic, like the Nazis were anti-semitic, and therefore you are either a Nazi or the same as a Nazi. Therefore you - and your argument - immediately become associated with the horror of the holocaust and can be dismissed without further analysis.

As you can see this is an emotional rather than a rational argument (I mean the attempted association of critics of zionism with Nazism). Given the magnitude of the holocaust and its place in our culture it's very difficult once the Nazi tag has been applied, to get a fair hearing. This is Finkelstein's first argument, about the misuse or abuse of the holocaust by some people and on the whole I'd have to say he's on the money there.

His second point is that some holocaust organisations and individuals associated with same are less concerned with holocaust victims than they are in making a career out of representing them, with all the attendant lecture circuits, book publishing etc., plus the right to be regarded as 'an expert' whose opinions need to be consulted.

Of course I cannot be sure of the veracity of that part of his claim, and though he makes a good argument backed with facts and figures, my guess is that to prove or disprove such an argument would be a gargantuan undertaking for any individual. Trying to firmly establish the truth of any matter has never been more difficult depsite the vista of knowledge the internet has brought.

You warmly suggest that I don't just parrot what I hear and do some research into holocaust organisations. That is precisely what I am doing, and I made a start by reading some of Finkelstein's work. When I have more research done, I'll have a more complete picture that may either contradict Finkelstein or confim him.

You say you contribute to holocaust organistaions, but you don't say in what capacity (nor am I asking you to tell me, not in the public arena certainly and only by PM if you wish). I support a number of charities too, such as Plan (sponsor a child) and the Red Cross. But basically I just send them the money and they send me quarterly newsletters with summarised updates on their work. I have to take them on their word that the money I send mostly goes to the child and is not all spent on 'administration' or maybe even something totally unconnected to the charity. It is a fact that some charities in the past were little more than scams to keep a handful of people in all-expenses paid positions. It's not inconceivable that this could be the case with some holocaust organisations. I don't know enough about them at present to say definitively if this is the case, but it is what Finkelstein is suggesting, and perhaps he's telling the truth? That's also possible isn't it?
When I have time I usually try and request an annual report / audit on the charities I support. Though it makes heavy reading at least you get some clearer idea of where the money's going.


Anyone who's interested in reading Finkelstein in his own words can check his site at:

Finkelstein, in his own words

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 09:35 PM

Nickhere, maybe you don't find his words, "all-expenses paid 'eductational [sic] trips' to places like Auschwitz where they are worked into an emotional frenzy until they're ready to do harm to anyone who dares question the zionist project," (as you say the are his) hateful...okay.

But you, who has studied semantics, and he as a linguist surely recognize the negative connotation conveyed in phrases like 'emotional frenzy', 'ready to do harm', 'zionist project' and 'more than willing to vent their anger on the Palestinians." 'Vent their anger,' there's euphemism for you!

These are not the words of a person with an open mind towards Israel or Holocaust institutions. BTW, you say you don't personally know if his assertions (as you say they are his) are true; why don't you do some research into what the Holocaust organizations are about, rather than just parrot things you don't know to be true?

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: Nickhere
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 08:24 PM

John, I have read some of Finkelstein's books and I must say I haven't found them to be 'hateful' although he does reserve opprobrium for what he describes as misappropriated monies.

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: Bill H //\\
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 08:04 PM

It brings us to the song from "South Pacific"---"You Have To Be Taught". Amazing how that show can be interpreted (and happily revived after 60 years) in many generations.

I know not the intent of the Auschwitz visits but can understand animosity that might follow it. I do, however, know that the kids in the Gaza area (and I suppose in the West Bank as well) are taught to hate and to, someday, do away with these terrible Israelis---not teaching love or brother (sister)hood at all. I don't hear that from Israeli schooling.

Brings us back once again to that prescient piece of music from some 60 yrs ago---seems like some people are doing just that------"...you have to he taught"


Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 07:48 PM

Nick here re your comment from Finkelstein.

I contribute to two organizations which deal with the Holocaust and genocides (amongst the several medical, educational and animal charities I also support).

As the Holocaust survivors are fewer and fewer--time being what it is--- less of the donations are used for support of those folks. A large portion of the monies collected is earmarked for Holocaust education so that future genocides become unthinkable, and some money is used to create awareness about genocides in places like Darfur.

I think the term 'emotional frenzy' fits Finkelstein's hateful discussions about Israel far more than the sending students and adults on trips to Auschwitz. I know of many young people who have gone on trips such as these. Some go on to Israel (mostly for visits), the vast majority return home with a greater understanding of 'man's inhumanity to man.' Some do emigrate.

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: Nickhere
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 06:38 PM

Guest (whoever you are), I looked at that link, and if it's true, it's fairly sad. I can understand a nation wanting to restore itself to glory, but I hope it won't be through killing. Of course we don't know what either Mickey Mouse or the girl are actually saying as I can't speak Arabic (is there anyone here on mudcat who can? maybe they can help). The subtitles could themselves be discrediting propaganda, I just don't know.

On the other hand Norman Finkelstein has written how money supposedly collected for victims of the holocaust is being used to bring young Jews (teenagers) who are considering emigration to Israel on all-expenses paid 'eductational trips' to places like Auschwitz where they are worked into an emotional frenzy until they're ready to do harm to anyone who dares question the zionist project. Unsurprisingly when they arrive in Israel they are more than willing to vent their anger on the Palestinians. Now this is what Finkelstein says, i don't personally know if it's true.

But in both cases, if such things are indeed true, it's deeply sad that people should be taught to hate each other from an early age. There isn't much hope of them living together later in life unless they have exceptionally strong charcters to see through all the b******t.

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: robomatic
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 09:56 PM

John OTSSC:
I endorse your last message in full, except in my case it's more like 96% of the time!

Nickhere: I endorse your last post also ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 06:26 PM

Teribus, with tongue firmly in cheek, I would prefer to see more 'tit' and a lot less 'tat-tat-tat'   ;-))

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 03:59 PM

"You are one reasons I think everyone posting here should have to be registered and use a consistent screen name so the rest of us know who we're dealing with."

THAT will fall on deaf ears . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 03:53 PM

For Guest at 11:59

I disagree with CarolC about 97.5% of the time, and I often chastise her for her methods of argumentation,or her interpretation of issues. But at least she puts herself out there.

You, sir or madam, are an anonymous coward who is attacking her through innuendo. If you have information, you should make it clear...else shut up!

You are one reasons I think everyone posting here should have to be registered and use a consistent screen name so the rest of us know who we're dealing with.

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 10:37 AM

Well said, biLL. Guest's post, to which you responded, is truly un-American...and apparently mis-informed.

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 10:19 AM

I should also add carol and Jack prefer to live in the U.S. ... that's their choice. They also have the right to protest their concerns of specific inadequicies of U.S. policie and politics of the country in which they choose to live.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 10:14 AM

Guest .... correction ... being married to a Canadian does not grant the right to live in Canada.

biLL (a Canadian)

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 07:25 PM

"those kind of tit-for-tat comparisons could go on endlessly without much being achieved by anyone"

Those tit-for-tat comparisons, well Nick without the "tit" there would be no "tat", and that is where such as yourself and the likes of CarolC like to start all these threads decrying what happened in the period 1947 to 1949. What about what went before?

In 1920, 1921, 1929 and during the Arab Revolt of 1936 to 1939, no "Palestinian" Arab land had been taken, no "Palestinian" Arabs had been driven from their homes. The boot was very much on the other foot wasn't it? "Palestinian" Arabs rose up without warning or cause and murdered, raped, robbed, looted, burned and drove Jews from their homes and property. Property Nick that they held perfectly legally, in the case of the Jews of Hebron for over 800 years. Do you seriously put forward the case that the cause of the "Palestinian" Arabs must be championed because what happened to them only happened in 1949 whereas the cause of the Jews of Hebron must be ignored and consigned to history (A history that you and CarolC appear at worst to ignore and deny, at best conveniently forget) because it happened in 1929? Sorry that doesn't wash, violence was introduced to Palestine by the Palestinian Arabs in 1920 and in 1921, base all "tit-for-tat" comparisons with that as you baseline.

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: Nickhere
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 06:28 PM

John On Sunset Coast - I understand that you are saying that the 1994 and 1929 cases need to be compared on the basis of numbers, support within the community and so on. Yet those kind of tit-for-tat comparisons could go on endlessly without much being achieved by anyone, just as tit-for-tat killings go on in real life and don't seem to make things any better for anyone.

But that still does not detract from what I was saying. So, do you, for example, think the killing of the Muslims at the Hebron mosque was an atrocity / an outrage or similar; or simply 'an act'?

As you guessed, the question is of course rhetorical since it'd be nonsense to describe it as anything other than something equivalent to an outrage or an atrocity. The description of it as 'an action' is telling, as the label carries no judgement. Brushing my teeth, eating my dinner, dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, the 'killing' (to use a more neutral term than 'murder') of Jews by Arabs in 1929 are all 'actions' but obviously this neutral term does nothing to address the moral values and implications of these actions, which is the basic question here.

Describing what happened in 1994 as 'an action' tells me that the speaker / writer does not see the killing of these human beings by a fellow human being as something reprehensible enough to merit a more value-laden label. He is not totally neutral in his judgements (or both 1929 and 1994 would be 'actions') but he is less outraged by, or more sympathetic to, the killing of some human beings by other particular human beings.

I'd still be interested to know anyway if you think what happened in 1994 was an outrage or an atrocity.

GUEST - in Israel it's hard to see where self-defence ends and terrorism starts on both sides. I know at least some Palestinians denounce Hamas as unrepresentative and a hate group. But on the other side there are Israeli Jews who are fed up with the callousness of their army and the hate-filled Jewish settlers and who stand (for example) by road blocks to try and ensure basic human rights are upheld by the IDF (the settlers are a law unto themselves). All due credit to them.

Hamas of course have no business firing rockets randomly into civilian areas - it is an outrage. The IDF and Jewish settlers are no angels either. The settlers are well-armed and not at all afraid to murder, rob, extort, and violate when it suits them. The IDF, if recent revelations are anything to go by, are not far behind either. These deeds are carried out not against Hamas but against innocent Palestinian civilians trying to go about their 'normal' lives (as if life could be considered normal in either Gaza or the West Bank).

So, do Palestinians have the right to resist the illegal military occupation of their country, the ongoing harrasment, intimidation and even murder of their innocent civilians by the IDF and Jewish settlers? If Israel has that right, by implication so too, does any Palestinian who wishes to exercise it.

Israeli fighter planes fire a few missiles to kill a few Hamas militants and they kill a dozen or so civilians, women and children included. "So what", they shrug their shoulders. "we can't guarantee 100% accuracy with any weapon" (maybe it'd be better not to use the weapons so). Hamas fire rockets randomly into Jewish towns, they kill civilians - women and children too. On the law of averages they are bound to kill a few members of the IDF or else Jewish settlers, if they fire enough rockets. Since all Israeli Jewish adults are required to do military service, there's a good chance of killing a member of the IDF if you kill enough adult civilians. Then you won't have to meet them at gunpoint later elsewhere.

That's not necessarily MY viewpoint, but I guess that's how both camps could easily rationalise it. And so the killing and suffering will go on.

Wouldn't it be better for everyone to try and back up a step or two?

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: Nickhere
Date: 15 Jun 08 - 09:19 PM

Robomatic, I accept of that land has changed hands over the centuries through conquest and so on. The point is of course that we are trying always to 'improve ourselves' so to speak, to find more humane ways of doing things and settling our differences. We (especially in the West) like to think of ourselves as being a bit more moral and rational than our ancestors, though that is very debateable.

For this reason we see certain steps taken to limit our wickedness, such as the Geneva convention on treatment of POWs, the banning of certain weapons of war and so on. These are just drops in the ocean of our wickedness of course, since not only do many nations find ways to circumvent these, but most wars seem to end up in one point anyway - win, however you do it, and rules go out the window.

Actually 'rules of war' have existed in the past, such as notions of chivalry. It was one of the reasons the French kept losing in the Hundred Years' War. The French knights refused to let their archers and footsloggers soften up the English first as it was considered very un-knightly to hang back. So they usually charged - straight into a hail of arrows and were mown down like new hay. They were after personal glory, whereas the English sensibly realised the object was to win.

But a further difference has occured in more recent years, under the auspices of the UN. Since the end of WW2 it has been a crime, for example, to seize land by conquest or to commit genocide. For example, the crime of genocide was not recognised as such prior to that though it certainly existed as a fact. [One of the first genocides of the 20th century was by Turks against at least 1 million maybe more Armenians. The Turks refuse to acknowledge it as such and ironically Israel (an ally of Turkey) is one of Turkey's staunchest defenders of the 'No-Armenian holocaust' claim].

The difference for Israel is that their particular conquest of land for living space is occuring at a time when such actions are deemed internationally to be a crime. Israel has in fact been censured by the UN for this on several occasions.

On a separate moral aspect, the frequency of an action historically is of course no moral justification in itself. Jews arriving in Palestine of course needed somewhere to live, but that didn't give them the right to seize the property of the people who were already living there for their own use. Nor did the anyone have the right to tell them they could take that property insofar as we accept the concept of private property. Obviously we do, or the actions of the nazis in seizing Jewish property would be acceptable and there would be no cases of stolen art etc., being returned to descendants of the robbed. [Legal title deeds and documents of ownership held be Jews of course play a major role in this repatriation of stolen goods, so there is a precedent for Palestinian Arabs to claim what is theirs by right of title deed also].

"Put most bluntly, the Jews moving to Israel took land, land they needed in order to live, and land they have an arguable right to. They did not kill beyond the actual wars, and they killed enemies"

I do have a bit of difficulty with this sentence as it seems to suggest Jews 'only killed when they had to'! I'm sure you can immediately see how it could be applied any number of ways to justify just about any side murdering anyone else on the other side in order to find a place to live and a livelihood. Palestinian Arabs could easily take that argument and make it their own. Plus 'war' is a vague term. If group A attacks group B to take what they have and group B defends themselves, we have a war. That would not make group A's attack morally acceptable.
   I'm glad to hear Jews only killed their 'enemies' as I would be worried if they killed their friends also!!

Yes, I know the Nazis were murdering so-and-sos. True, only some Jews they killed were combatants. They encountered Jews in the armies of Poland, the US and Russia and of course during the Warsaw Uprising. That last especially, proves a point: simply being armed and a combatant doesn't mean you don't have a just cause, and that somehow you are more deserving of death.

But this sentence "Almost all civilian lives, noncombatants lives. Their existence was their crime. The property, possessions, lands, were de-facto expropriated" could just as well apply today to Palestinian Arabs.

Finally, I quite agree with you on the issue of compensating Jews who were displaced since 1947. Fair is fair, and if Palestinian Arabs should receive compensation or be allowed return to their homes, so of course should Jews who fled Jordan, Iraq or wherever (though I doubt many will want to return to Iraq just now, but that's not their fault).

But further on compensation, I know of no other group of victims in history that have received so much compensation for their woes, both collectively and individually: a country and trillions of dollars. If we were to be fair about it, trillions should be paid to the various Native American Tribes (including those in South America) for the losses they have incurred over centuries of colonisation, Africans for slavery (notwithstanding the complicity of some Africans themselves in same) and of course, the IRISH!! We should get paid something for the natural resources stolen by England - whole forests of oak, gold and copper mined and taken away, the million dead in the potato famine, the money squeezed out of the peasants by absentee landlords so they could get gout with their lifestyles of excess.

How do we quantify misery? How do we put a price tag on suffering? On the loss of the people you love? I don't think we can, we can only work towards a better society and try and ensure these things happen less, and less often. Sometimes that has to mean censuring people, leaders and countries even when we'd prefer not to. We try to undo the past damage and right wrongs as far as we are able. That is part of the rationale behind compenstaing Jews for the holocaust. Is it too much to ask that Palestinian Arabs be treated fairly in the same way, or are they somehow less human? I think before God we are all the same [yes, I know about Israel being the chosen people, but since the time of Jesus that has been extended to the gentiles as well, so it no longer washes]

Sorry about the length of that post. I'm taking coures at present on how to write short posts, but it's not rubbing off yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: GUEST,Hugo
Date: 15 Jun 08 - 05:17 PM

To Nickhere,
The Holocaust was conducted against the Jewish people by European nazis.It had nothing to do with the Palestinian people who had lived alongside their Jewish Palestinian neighbours in relative peace for centuries.
The Zionista have conducted massive crimes against the Palestinians that have been going on for decades.They have tried to smash the very notion that the Palestinians are an indiginous people who have lived on their land for centuries if not thousands of years.The Zionists tried to convince the world that it was an "empty land" somehow ordained by the word of God for a chosen few.
Actually what happened was ethnic cleansing on a grand scale,mass murder,occupation,land grab, the demolion of thousands of Palestinian homes and the destruction of their towns, farms,orchards and villages, illegal armed colonies on the West Bank, the mass imprisonment of Palestinian males, hundreds of checkpoints,the building of a monstrous apartheid wall on Palestinian land, the theiving of Palestinian property by guntotin' armed zionists thugs, the closure of Palestinian schools and colleges, the bantustanisation of Palestinian land, the building of hundreds of checkpoints and roadblocks that torment daily Palestinian life,the siege and destruction of Gaza,the death squads that kill at will,the killing this week of a new born baby by a tank shell,the denial of urgent medical treatment to seriously ill patients in Gaza which has led to the deaths of dozens,the pauperisation of the Palestinian people,the destruction of the Gaza power plant, the collapse of the water supply and the creation of sewage lakes in that beseiged city and the countless other petty and not so petty acts of daily humiliation intended to break the Palestinians.
Israel is not a nazi state but it is a deeply oppressive , thuggish and militaristic one.....and it is a state with a deeply damaged present and a dead end future....
Hugo

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 15 Jun 08 - 01:35 PM

Thank you,Bobad, for making the clicky thing; I tested it and it works.
So Nickhere, who requested it, Guest Hugo, Guest Zack, CarolC, and others who blame Israel first, last and always can see the amity [being ironic here folks] that is the official Hamas position.

While there are some individuals or groups that on the Jewish side who hold similar views vis-a-vis a Palestinian state, I know of no official Israeli document espousing that position...and certainly not since the Clinton, Arafat, Rabin summit.

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: bobad
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 10:23 PM

http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: robomatic
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 10:22 PM

Nickhere:

Thank you for your thoughtful responses. I do not mean to denigrate the folk living in then Palestine who lost their homes because, frankly, they ended up living in a war zone and they quite sensibly fled it. And as you say the Ottoman Empire, which was established by force of arms (as are all empires) lasted for quite some time. When it lost, it lost big-time, and Great Britian took on that part of the world.

I was attempting to make the following point: I think a lot of people come to these arguments pre-ordained, and typically they will not compare apples with apples, oranges with oranges. They will take the traditional 'illegal occupation' argument against the 'right of conquest' when it suits. Few nations throughout history either were created or expanded by negotiation, pursuasion, or purchase. (One recent exception seems to be The Slovak Republic). The United Nations attempted to negotiate a partitian plan, I think against the odds, and it did not work out. Force of arms prevailed, and it was by no means a sure thing. The Israel Independence war of '48 was a hard won conquest. I had a Hebrew teacher who lost her sister in the battle for Jerusalem.

Populations were uprooted, Jews from Arab countries were displaced in addition to the severe European Jewish displacements post-war. Arabs who'd been living in the former Palestinain were uprooted. Many of them and their descendants now live settled lives in Jordan. Others live encamped in the West Bank, Gaza, and Lebanon. There has always been a militant sense of re-possession and re-occupation amongst them. This has been nurtured in the education they have given their children, once done with a 'communist cast', in the wake of later times, it has shifted to an Islamic cast. All in the service in recovering their perceived losses.

If one looks at the overall case symmetrically, one acknowledges that both sides have rights, both sides have losses. I take the view that the Israeli Jews have quite literally nowhere else to go. They have within their society not only a great variety of once displaced Jews from Europe, as you mentioned, but a substantial number of Muslim and Christian Arabs and Druze, and even some Bosnians from the late unpleasantness in Yugoslavia. The Arab nations around Israel have attempted to maintain the refugee Palestinians in a stateless life, purely as a means of threatening Israel. For all intents and purposes Jordan is already a Palestinian state within a state, Lebanon has suffered greatly at the hands of Syria with Palestinians in the mix, and Egypt, while making official peace with Israel, has kept a tight seal on Gaza. The only state that has tried to negotiate a way out is Israel, but because Israel has refused to negotiate her own existence away, this has not yet got anywhere.

If there were an overall fairness, then any negotiator who insisted on recompense for displaced Arabs would also look for recompense for displaced Jews. This is conveniently overlooked in so many of the anti-Israel arguments that Israel and her partisans have very little motivation to pursue or even argue into such lopsided tactics.

Even worse is the comparison of Israelis to Nazis. Put most bluntly, the Jews moving to Israel took land, land they needed in order to live, and land they have an arguable right to. They did not kill beyond the actual wars, and they killed enemies. There are a ton of alleged Palestinians around to lay claim to well, whatever they want. The Nazis took lives, every Jewish life they could. Almost all civilian lives, noncombatants lives. Their existence was their crime. The property, possessions, lands, were de-facto expropriated, after the Nazis had eliminated the owners. That this has to even been made clear is rather hideous. Those who make equivalences between Israel and the Nazis are giving way to an intellectual laziness in order to make a cheap point, but again, they make it not worthwhile to argue, because they demean the argument itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 10:20 PM

Nickhere, you asked for a link to the Hamas Charter. Here it is.

http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html

[maybe somebody can clicky it for you, or you can paste it into your browsers address bar]

The most cogent sections, perhaps, are Part III, Articles 11-15, and Part IV, Articles 27 & 28. There, I've done your research for you. Go forth, read, and learn

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 10:03 PM

"So, the killing of Muslims at Hebron was 'The 1994 act' while what happened in 1929 was 'an atrocity'. Interesting."--Nickhere

Let's have some understanding here. Yes, The killings of Muslims at prayer in 1994 was an act of terror by the lone gunman, Baruch Goldstein, a member of the outlawed Kach Party. He, in turn, was killed by survivors of the massacre; I think justice was done.

His singlular action is similar to the to scores, if not hundreds, of Palestinian suicide bombers of Israelis and foreigners inside Israel.
The difference is that the Israeli government apologized to the wounded victims, and the murdered victims' families. And, too, the Israeli government paid reparations to said victims. Cohen is anathema to Israelis, save for a minute group of Kahanists. On the other hand, Palestinian murderers are 'heroes' whose families are often paid bounties by Muslim groups for the murderous act.

Now how does the 1929 Hebron massacre differ? It was not the act of a single person; it was urged and agitated for by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Thousands of Arabs participated in the killings and riots. Some Arab families did protect some Jews from harm--a blessing on them. When it was over, the surviving Jewish families were forced to relocate to Jerusalem; Hebron was then Judenfrei for nearly forty years.

Even Nickhere, I think, can see a difference in action, degree and response to Hebron 1929 and Hebron 1994.

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: Nickhere
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 09:05 PM

Robomatic, re "the failure to acknowledge Jews as Palestinians"

I'm not sure whose failure you ahve in mind, but I did make the point a few posts back that Jews had been living in the area for ages and lived in relative peace with their other semitic neighbours (Palestinian Arabs) - UNTIL the zionist project of an Israeli state began to take shape. I venture to suggest that Palestinian Arabs had accepted Palestinian Jews as their neighbours (even if they had different religions and didn't intermarry much etc.,) but the creation of Israel brought a huge influx of immigration into the region, especially from Europe, America and Russia. These Jewish immigrants were NOT Palestinian anymore than I am French though my more recent ancestors are supposed to have come from France or indeed African just because my distant ancestors were supposed to have come from the Rift Valley.

They were European, Amercian and Russian, whatever about their Jewish religion, and they brought a different cultural outlook with them, with a different outlook on what kind of political entity the region would be: one with Israeli Jews as the primary citizens and all others as secondary citizens. That, plus the pressure on living space brought about by the influx of numbers, and the manner in which this problem was 'resolved', was bound to lead to conflict.

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: Nickhere
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 08:45 PM

Peace, re Hamas Charter. Where can I find it? Is there a site / link?

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: Nickhere
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 08:44 PM

Robomatic, about those title deeds. I'm fairly sure actual paper title deeds are a relatively recent invention. Prior to that, ownership was mainly done through oral agreement (you'll find many examples of that in the Old Testament, for instance). There were ways of marking out boundaries, even simply using natural landmarks. But in recent centuries some more official documentation was probably required. I don't know that the Ottoman Empire was a housebreaker as such - the Seljuks had established a kingdom in the region as far back as the late 12th or 13th century, and various Muslim tribes (eg. the one under Sal-ad-Din) had held power there for one or two hundred before that.

In one sense, none of us are entitled to anything, if we were to take the Christian message to heart everything would be held in common for the good of all humanity. As Marx said, private property is theft.

The second part of your post "Title deeds ... may my right hand wither..." echoes Teribus' post and suggests you also believe 'might is right' In other words, legal title deeds mean nothing, since so many people have passed through the region, a kind of chicken-and-egg conundrum. The land simply belongs to whoever can take it and hold it.

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: Peace
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 08:34 PM

Hamas Charter. Anyone actually read it? If not, please do.

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: Nickhere
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 08:31 PM

Teribus, that was a most interesting post "People, nations, races, religious or political groups do not by right own anything on this earth other than by nature of what they can control, purchase or hold"

What I understand you are saying is 1) you think that the idea of Jews having some historical claim to Palestine because they originated from the area is not a valid argument and 2) you believe 'might is right'

The Palestinian Arabs are not anywhere near as well-armed, well-funded or well-supported as Israeli Jews, and therefore the Palestinians are wrong.

Well, Ok, that's very honest of you, I can't argue with that.

Pdq:

So, the killing of Muslims at Hebron was "The 1994 act" while what happened in 1929 was "an atrocity". Interesting.
Also, usually when anyone posts anything here even remotely critical of Israeli actions or policies they are innundated with demands for proof, dates, names, places etc., so I'm not sure what to make of the sweeping generalisation "the vast majority of Moslems still think is [Hebron 1929] was a great day for Islam"
I presume you also know that the vast majority of the world's Muslims live in Indonesia?

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: robomatic
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 06:48 PM

Nickhere wrote:

In the case of the Palestinian arabs, things are altogether different. Those who fled in the Nakba, or were driven out, took the title deeds of their property with them, and some even their house keys. That was almost exactly sixty years ago (Israel celebrates this fact this year) and so well within living memory of the displaced Palestinians.

CarolC then wrote:
The people whom the government of Israel is expelling are the descendants of the original people to live in that area. They have the older claim. Jews ruled the area for a few hundred years, and then some of them left.

So can we put these together and posit the question: "If they are the descendants of the original people, then from whom did they procure these 'title deeds'"?

The answer is that the prior claims arguments of both the above are without merit. Title deeds of even Turkish origin are like the permission of one house breaker to another. If one wants to selectively pick an original inhabitant, one of course may, and I'm allowed to selectively pick the one who wrote down thousands of years ago "If I forget thee Oh Jerusalem, may my right hand wither..."

And again I make the point that the failure to acknowledge Jews as Palestinians by right has led to much of this blundering about in violence on the part of the Arabs and their co-opts.

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 05:52 PM

I do believe that the spin on the carousel has now broken the sonic barrier.

BH

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 03:04 PM

By the way, as I have pointed out many times before, the "Arabs" did not opt for war. The Arabs in every case except for 1972 were in the defensive posture, and in 1972 they were taking back land that had been taken from them illegally by conquest.

Every single military action that the government of Israel has engaged in, with the exception of 1972, was for the purpose of taking land from its neighbors, and the settlements are for the purpose of taking land. When people resort to using the defense (as people invariably do when all of their other arguments are shot down), that Israel took the land by conquest so that makes it ok, they are essentially admitting that it's for the purpose of taking land that Israel fights with its neighbors, and they are attempting to justify this practice.

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 02:57 PM

I'm sure the "Arabs" would still prefer to have all of what they originally lost. But at this point they understand that this is not possible and they are willing to compromise for less than 40 percent of what they originally had. They are willing to compromise - the government of Israel is not.

Since shortly after World War II it has been illegal under international law to take land by conquest. It is illegal under international law as well as the Geneva Convention and the UN Charter to take land by conquest. Taking land by conquest is a war crime under international law. If people are going to be using the UN as their validation, they need to make sure they aren't doing so selectively, otherwise they have no validity at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: pdq
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 02:38 PM

"crazed mass killer is now regarded as some kind of hero by many of the present day thugs"

The 1994 act was done by a single gunman armed with one gun and 140 rounds. The 1929 massacre by Arabs was an act of genocide and was done to drive all Jews from the city of Hebron. The 1994 atrocity was condemned by all by 3.8% of Israeli Jews. In the 1929 atrocity at least 60 Jews were killed and the vast majority of Moslems still think is was a great day for Islam. The two atrocious events, and the reactions to them, are not equal.

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: Peace
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 01:01 PM

Little bit of fact, little bit of fiction, little bit of opinion. GREAT post, Hugo.

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: GUEST,hugo
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 12:19 PM

Teribus mentioned Hebron in an above posting.....that is the town where an armed Zionist walked into a mosque and shot dead dozens of Palestinian worshippers.
This crazed mass killer is now regarded as some kind of hero by many of the present day thugs, shooters and club wielding fanatics that make up the Zionist settler population on the illegally occupied West Bank.
hugo

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 02:47 AM

1937, 1947, 1949, that makes three times that the Palestinian Arabs were offered and rejected precisely what are fighting for now. 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 four times instead they have opted for war as a solution, each time they have lost. Throughout the British Mandate era (1920, 1921, 1929, 1936-1939, 1947) the Arabs of Palestine proved conclusively that they were incapable of living peacefully and co-existing with the Jewish population of a unified Palestinian state.

People, nations, races, religious or political groups do not by right own anything on this earth other than by nature of what they can control, purchase or hold. If right to land or resource is put to the test of war, the side that loses can only expect to pay a price, especially if they are the ones who opted to fight when a perfectly workable compromise was proposed beforehand. A great line from "Crocodile Dundee" something to the effect of - getting worked up about who owns what on earth is as ridiculous as two fleas fighting about who owns the dog.

By the bye it is a precondition set by the United Nations that Israel must be granted "Secure Borders", nothing to do with the Protocols of Zion or the Elders of Zion.

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 10:29 PM

There's nothing creative about it. It's what happened.


All of the indigenous Jews who were displaced should be able to return to their homes as should all of the non-Jewish Palestinians who were displaced. Of course, the ones who return to Hebron should be living as Jewish Palestinians along with the other Palestinians, and not as Israelis in apartheid, Jewish-only settlements.

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 07:03 PM

Would that include the Jews of Hebron CarolC, who had lived there quite peacefully for at least 800 years, but were murdered and driven from their homes by Arabs in 1929? Do they have a right of return? Are the Arabs going to compensate them? their descendents? people who worked for them for some period in the two years before they were driven out? While we are on about those people how about the estimated 820,000 Jews deported from Arab lands after having all their goods and property confiscated, anything to say about them?

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: Peace
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 05:11 PM

Creative history. How novel.

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 04:33 PM

While there were Jews living in what is now Israel and Palestine all that long while ago (some of whom left the area and went elsewhere), it is certainly not true to say that Jews were the first people who lived there. The people whom the government of Israel is expelling are the descendants of the original people to live in that area. They have the older claim. Jews ruled the area for a few hundred years, and then some of them left. The non-Jewish indigenous people, and the descendants of the Jews who didn't leave have the greater claim to the land. The descendants of the Jews who left do not have the greater claim to the land, and they have no right to expel or displace the descendants of the non-Jews who were there originally and who never left. Nor do they have a right to come back to the land of the Jews who never left, create political institutions against the will of those indigenous Jews, and then proceed to discriminate against those indigenous Jews. Which is what was done.

This is a typically European supremacist way of doing things, but it has no legitimacy whatever.

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: Nickhere
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 11:46 AM

Robomatic: "
A good deal of the problem is the refusal to see the Jews of Israel as Palestinians, too.

To get into the Indian/Colonist analogy, it's as if the Indians after over a thousand years reclaimed a portion of their original lands, displacing the descendants of Colonists.

The blind refusal to see the Israelis as Jewish Palestinians of an earlier vintage leads to the perception of them as occupiers when in fact they displaced the descendants of squatters."

That's an interesting thought. I mentioned earlier that there were Jews living in Palestine prior to the formation of the Israeli state. These particular Jews had been living in the area for centuries or longer. But there are other Jews living in Israel who have no such connection with Palestine. They, and their ancestors, had been living elsewhere in the world (in places such as Europe) for hundreds if not thousands of years. It can hardly be said they have some kind of ancestral 'squatters' rights'. They would indeed be a bit like Indians claiming back their lands after not one, but two thousand years.

Present day Indians might indeed have a better claim to their ancestral lands - 1) they have been displaced relatively recently, in some cases only a little over a hundred years 9as opposed to thousands, as in the case of European and Russian Jews) and 2) their title to their land was guaranteed to them in a series of treaties with pale faces, which the pale faces subsequently broke when and how they felt like it. For example, the Black Hills and the lands around were guaranteed to the Sioux for a s long as the sun shines and the rivers flow. Obviosuly the sun stopped shining a few dozen years later when first gold and later uranium were found there.

In the case of the Palestinian arabs, things are altogether different. Those who fled in the Nakba, or were driven out, took the title deeds of their property with them, and some even their house keys. That was almost exactly sixty years ago (Israel celebrates this fact this year) and so well within living memory of the displaced Palestinians. There are still some alive today who fled at that time. It is not a question of thousands of years as in the case of the European Jews. Yet these refugees are not being allowed back. The reason is as obvious as it is simple: Jewish Israelis now occupy the housesd farms and shops of these refugees, and for them to return and claim what is legally theirs would mean displacing these latter day colonists.

That is why there is a 'problem' in Palestine.

Subject: RE: BS: Israeli Jews/Israeli Arabs
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 10:12 AM

"To get into the Indian/Colonist analogy, it's as if the Indians after over a thousand years reclaimed a portion of their original lands, displacing the descendants of Colonists."


                  That's kind of where the Nation of Aztlan comes from:

                               http://www.aztlan.net/