BS: Israel Moves in.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 May 09 - 05:20 PM

Hamas Charter

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 06 May 09 - 05:36 PM

"Absolutely. When's the last time anyone from Hamas or Hezbollah were grabbed and taken to the headmaster? Seems a certain lady wants only Israelis taken there."

Peace,

Your opinion is as valid as anyone elses.

But compare your assertion above to these quotes from carols posts.

"the government of Israel as well as Hamas and Hezbollah should all be prosecuted at the same time"

"I have already said that Hamas and Hezbollah should be brought before an international court for war crimes"

and

"Nobody on this thread has expressed a pro-Hamas stance. I have even said that I think Hamas should be brought before an international court for war crimes."

And if you keep looking back you'll find the same approach repeated again and again.

There is nobody on this site who thinks Hamas or Hezbollah policy is acceptable.

So there is no discussion happening.

There are different views on Israeli policy.

So thats why that discussion is still alive.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Nickhere
Date: 06 May 09 - 06:07 PM

Teribus, compare like with like. Give Hamas some of the billions given to Israel each year, end the blockade of Gaza, weapons embargoes etc., and I'm sure Hamas would be able to provide far more adequate defence for Gazans than they do. As it is their militants daily risk their lives tunneling across borders and smuggling to get small arms to sustain their efforts. I'm not condoning what they do (nor do I condone what the Israeli Army do) but you are not talking about a level playing pitch here. Maybe Hamas could ask all Gazans to leave Gaza while they conduct their war? Israel would be delighted!

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Nickhere
Date: 06 May 09 - 06:08 PM

But of course... where would they go, except into the sea?

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: C. Ham
Date: 06 May 09 - 06:34 PM

I was just reading a couple of excellent articles about the recent play by Caryl Churchill and was struck by this paragraph from an article in the Wall Street Journal by Bret Stephens:

But logic is not the issue here, nor, really, are the facts: Try arguing either with someone determined to ignore them. The issue is about taboo -- a word easy to mock until you realize it often upholds what is best in society. Racism has become taboo in American society, and that's a very good thing. Anti-Semitism used to be taboo, but that's been eroded by an obsessive criticism of Israel that seems to borrow freely from the classic anti-Semitic repertoire ("tell her they're filth") while adopting the brilliant trick of treating Jewish victimization as a moral ideal from which modern Israel has sadly deviated.

Boy, does that sound like someone familiar.

The whole article by Bret Stephens.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: C. Ham
Date: 06 May 09 - 06:38 PM

The other excellent article I was referring to is from The Independent, a British newspaper.

From the Independent.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Nickhere
Date: 06 May 09 - 07:10 PM

If racism has become taboo, then too, would be anti-semitism, as it is merely a form of racism.

But many forms of racism still persist in the US and elsewhere, it's just the focus of racism has shifted. Once upon a time when it was black people who were margianlised and disenfranchised by white people, those same white people felt threatened that the fellow humans they oppressed would rise up against them. Thus they held racist nations about a 'black threat' or attempted to justify their ongoing immoral behaviour toward their fellow human on various spurious racist theories.

Then for various reasons and slowly over time, the oppression and marginalisation stopped (though many would argue not completely) and black people were absorbed into mainstream 'white' society (i.e the Cosbys rather than Black Panthers) and it became uncool to be racist towards black people.

Then there was the cold war and the Russians were the baddies, and ok, so there were no pogroms against Russo-American shopkeepers etc., There was no long tradition of it unlike against black people.

The cold war ended and the main 'threat' remained from Islamic fundamentalists / or the middle east in general (I'm over-simplifying here, and can't include the reasons for that 'threat' as the scope is too large, but suffice to say it wasn't like Arabs just went mad one day and just decided to go bad)

Then Arabs became the bad guys and especially after Sept 11th it became -if not actually ok - then at least not taboo to express racist attitudes towards Arabs (or Muslims in a wider sense). You don't have to look even too far away from here to see that.

So yes, there has always and probably will always be racism. There were always be people who feel there are other races of people in the world not quite as good - or much worse - than their own 'race'. And, in the end of the day, what is 'race'? Are we not all people? Humans? Germaine Greer, though I find fault with much of what she says, wrote in "The Female Eunuch" that if aliens were to invade we would suddenly find we had much more in common with those people some of us now hold in distaste (her actual words were a lot more biting) than with the life-form from Planet X. Maybe an alien invasion would do us some good!

When I was younger I often criticised the Soviet regime to my friends -at least those who felt communist Russia to be way superior to the decadent West. While they had some good points, I asked them what about suppression of the press, free speech (on that note: )
the suppression of religious freedom in service of the atheist state, the gulags, etc., we are all familiar with the failings of the Soviet Regime and I doubt anyone here would stick up for it. But neither would anyone say I was 'anti-Russian' or that I hated the Russian people. I think any normal, sane person in full possession of all their faculties would see that criticising the actions and foreign policy of the Soviet State was not an expression of hatred towards the Russian people or a desire to see them all gone from Earth.

No doubt there are some people unable to distinguish between the Soviet State, and the cheerleaders who supported its policies, and the Russian people at large. I have had dealings with many Russian people and I found them to be just like my own people - a mix of good and bad (in my judgement), a truism which hardly needs saying.

But such people are not going to respond to rational argument anyway.

Likewise, I find it tiresome in the extreme when it is suggested that criticism of the State of Israel and its actions or those of its supporters is tantamount to anti-semitism (as seems to be the case above). It also implies that all Jews around the world are complicit in the immoral actions carried out by the Israeli State (as opposed to the moral ones, which no doubt occur too). How in hell are all Jews around the world complicit in the immoral actions of the Israeli State? Just because they are Jewish? Even the ones that disagree with the actions of the Israeli State? Surely that's a racist viewpoint too?

If you disagree with me, you are simply revealing that you're an anti-Irish / pro-British-imperialist racist who probably wishes that we were all killed off during the potato famine and that we are not fit for self-government. That means I don't have to listen to you and you are probably a very disturbed person. Now that's a handy argument that should win them all. If you also happen to be Irish, it's because you hate your own race in addition to the points above.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Nickhere
Date: 06 May 09 - 07:15 PM

I hope the irony / sarcasm in the last paragraph was obvious. Just in case it's not, it was.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Nickhere
Date: 06 May 09 - 07:32 PM

For me the key paragraph in Stephens article was

"In other words, if you're prepared to manipulate history as dishonestly as our vile little "play" about black America does, then it's easy to draw a damning moral. And if you're clever enough to cast the indictment as a story about some blacks or some Jews, or as one of generational decadence, then you might also acquit yourself of charges of racism or anti-Semitism, since you can point to a few Jews or blacks worthy of your considered respect"

This represents the point where Stephens shifted the argument from being a criticism of Israel / the Israeli State (as I understood Ms.Churchill's play to be, from his description of it) to a more familiar old accusation of anti-semitism.

In other words, Stephens leaves us with a stark choice: either admit we are racists or else shut up and let the Israeli Authorities get on with making life hell for Palestinians without comment.

Nice one, Stephens.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Peace
Date: 06 May 09 - 08:30 PM

"Yes Peace, but it seems significant to me also that Hamas will accept a return to 1967 borders. This to me indicates their position is not as extreme as might be thought, and that Hamas have a bargaining point."

Read again that post, Nickhere. Yes, they will accept a return to the '67 borders, but they will NOT agree to a lasting peace--at least the tenor of the article you linked to indicates they would like 30 years, maybe, and no rewrite of the Hamas Charter. That would tell any Israeli government that it's a tactic to rebuild arms supplies and effect a trained army and THEN goodbye Israel.

Please know I am talking about Islam, not Muslims. The vast majority of Muslims on this planet are peaceful people. Toss a few Imams who are loony into the mix, and then go back and look at the invasions of North Africa and Spain. Nope. When religion is used in this manner, I have no use for the bastards. When a Holy book can be twisted so that its believers think it's good to go cut of heads and kill 'unbelievers' and shit like that, they lose any sympathy from me. Much as did the Christians back in the various Crusades (about a dozen of them). That isn't religion. It's insanity, and I ain't buying into it. My neighbour can practise (or not) any faith he/she wants. But when my neighbour begins to tell me I'm worthless because I don't believe as he does, he can go fuck himself. That is a gross MISuse of religion, and I see too much of that in today's world.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Peace
Date: 06 May 09 - 08:34 PM

"But of course... where would they [Palestinians] go, except into the sea?"

Israel's neighbours have been trying to do exactly that to Israelis since 1947.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: robomatic
Date: 06 May 09 - 08:41 PM

They could go where a whole bunch of Palestinians have gone: Jordan, which is basically a Palestinian State in situ.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Peace
Date: 06 May 09 - 08:44 PM

Lox,

Sorry. But she wants a pissing contest with me and now she's got it.

The fundamental question is one of whether Hamas/Hezbollah will ever prosecute its own members the same way Israel is expected to prosecute itself.

I don't really give a shit about the constant cut and paste histrionics as to whether Israel has a right to exist. My own country voted that it did. Period. Israel exists. I know Israelis would love peace. Where will they find it? I am tired of the anti-Jewish/Israeli bias I see so much of on this site. So fuck it. I will not try to reason with her or anyone else who presents those views. PERIOD.

So maybe you could tell me: who will prosecute the Hamas/Hezbollah leadership? Who? And why would you expect honour from Israel when its enemies have so little of it? Where are the moderate voices from either side? A voice that doesn't say, "We want peace, and as soon as Israel doesn't exist we will have it." !!!!????

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 06 May 09 - 11:53 PM

Hamas is already being shaken and taken to the headmaster. They have been bombed by Israel, subjected to targeted assasinations, kidnapped and jailed by the Israeli government, the Western powers tried to conduct a coup against Hamas in Gaza, the Gaza strip has been completely blockaded, and the Western powers have completely excluded them from any discussions or negotiations.

In the meantime, absolutely nothing whatever has been done to the war criminals in Israel, except to give them more money and more power.

It seems that a certain poster with the ironic screen name only wants those sub-human brown skinned people in Gaza to be taken to the headmaster, while his lily-white European friends a allowed to do whatever they want.

And since, of the two of us, I am the only one who has said that they should all be tried at the same time (brought before the headmaster), it appears that this poster is trying to divert attention away from his own white supremacist racism by telling lies about me. Not a very effective approach, I think, since other people can read what I've said for themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 07 May 09 - 12:04 AM

It wasn't the Jews who were being dispossessed during the period when European Zionists started colonizing Palestine. It was the indigenous people (including indigenous Jews) who were being dispossessed by the European Zionists. And this was the source of the conflict. I have not ever denied that any Jews were killed by indigenous non-Jews. Some were. But the aggressors were the Europeans who were working to get the indigenous people marginalized and dispossessed of their homes and livelihoods, and to deny them sovereignty and their right to self-determination. It was always their purpose to take over as much of that region as they could, and to remove anyone who was not Jewish. This is extremely well documented in the writings of the early Zionists.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 07 May 09 - 12:08 AM

I think everyone should eliminate their nuclear weapons. So when I say that Israel should eliminate theirs, I am holding them to exactly the same standard as I am holding everyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 07 May 09 - 12:13 AM

On the subject of bomb shelters, only Jewish Israelis have bomb shelters that they can go to. The government of Israel provides bomb shelters for Jews, but not for Arab Israelis. Which is very convenient for the government of Israel, since it likes to hold up the numbers of Arab Israelis killed in rocket attacks and say, "look, they're killing Arabs".

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 09 - 12:16 AM

SSDD

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 07 May 09 - 12:35 AM

Some more commentary on Caryl Churchill's, 7 Jewish Children...

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710762124&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


From the Jerusalem Post:

After reading a lot of the pro and (mainly) con about Seven Jewish Children - a play for Gaza, I prepared to write a column saying that while it took an excessively critical view of Israel, it was not anti-Semitic, and that there was a big difference between the two.

Being a responsible journalist, I then set aside 10 minutes to actually read the play, and I found that not only isn't it anti-Semitic, it isn't excessively critical of Israel, either. As far as I'm concerned, it's just critical enough - which is to say very, very critical. More precisely, this short play by Britain's Caryl Churchill expresses moral outrage at Israel - which is what I felt during the war in Gaza, and what lots of other Jews and gentiles who want the best for this country felt as well.

I don't know what Churchill thinks would be best for this country, or for the Jewish people, and I don't know if I'd agree with her if I knew. But what she seems to be saying in this play is that the trauma to the Jews during the Holocaust has, over the years, been twisted into the aggression of the Jews in today's Israel. She's saying that while Jews saw Israel as a sanctuary after the Holocaust, the building of this sanctuary also meant the displacement of a lot of natives, specifically Beduin. She's saying the Six Day War turned us into conquerors, made us callous toward the Palestinians, and that our callousness reached a shocking new extreme during our onslaught in Gaza.

She's saying Jewish victimhood has not been redemptive; that instead, it's fueled Israel's victimization of Palestinians and been used as an excuse for it. She doesn't portray Palestinians as pacifists, noting, in the words of her characters, that they're known to "set off bombs in cafes," that they include "Hamas fighters" and that "they're attacking with rockets." But her view in the play is that Israel exaggerates the Palestinian threat out of all proportion and gives many, many times better than it gets.

Seven Jewish Children says this country has become hysterical with fear and aggression, that the more hell we inflict on innocent Palestinians, the more desperate we are to deny any wrongdoing and the more medals we pin on our chests.

Churchill wrote the play in January, while the war was going on. It was a harsh portrayal of this nation, but, in my opinion, a true one.

The play's spirit isn't filled with hatred; it's filled with moral outrage. There's a difference. You don't have to be an anti-Semite or even an anti-Zionist to be morally outraged at our treatment of Palestinians, especially during Operation Cast Lead.

The charge has been made that the play compares Israelis to Nazis. I never thought that for one moment while reading it, rereading it or watching a staging of it on YouTube. The American journalist James Kirchick wrote that by the end of the play, the Jewish child being raised in Israel is a "Baruch-Goldstein-in-training."

Not at all. None of the characters is a murderer or a proponent of murder. None is a sadist. What all of them are is callous about what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, and by turns worried or defiant about how to justify it. No Nazis here, no Baruch Goldsteins, but rather people who've suffered too much and caused too much suffering, and who have become severely coarsened in the process. Read the "worst" monologue, the climactic one:

"Tell her, tell her about the army, tell her to be proud of the army. Tell her about the family of dead girls, tell her the names, why not, tell her the whole world knows why shouldn't she know? tell her there's dead babies, did she see babies? tell her she's got nothing to be ashamed of. Tell her they did it to themselves. Tell her they want their children killed to make people feel sorry for them, tell them I don't feel sorry for them, tell her not to be sorry for them, tell her we're the ones to be sorry for, tell her they can't talk suffering to us. Tell her we're the iron fist now, tell her it's the fog of war, tell her I laughed when I saw the dead policemen, tell her they're animals living in rubble now, tell her I wouldn't care if we wiped them out, the world would hate us is the only thing, tell her I don't care if the world hates us, tell her we're better haters, tell her we're chosen people, tell her I look at one of their children covered in blood and what do I feel? tell her all I feel is happy it's not her."

I heard comments similar to these from some of my relatives during the war. Going back through the 24 years I've lived here, I've heard comments like these from relatives, neighbors, fellow soldiers - I've heard it and read it all over the place. I've heard it from Diaspora Jews too.

Who are we kidding? Does that monologue represent the voice of every Israeli and "pro-Israeli" Diaspora Jew? Of course not. But is it an authentic voice, a view of Palestinians held by many, many Jews here and abroad even if they don't express it publicly? Has that voice not gotten louder? And when push comes to shove with the Palestinians, as it did in Operation Cast Lead, does Seven Jewish Children not echo the inner (and often outer) voice of Israel at war?

I think it does. And I agree - it's an awful echo to hear.


More commentary here...

http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/2009/04/7-jewish-children-play-for-gaza.html

http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/2009/04/guardian-hosts-7-jewish-children-so.html

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 07 May 09 - 12:42 AM

The poster with the ironic screen name has either misunderstood me or is intentionally distorting what I have said.

I don't think either Israel, or Hamas or Hezbollah should police themselves with regard to the war crimes they have committed. No entity who has committed war crimes should be the one to police itself. People who commit war crimes can't be trusted to police themselves.

I have repeatedly said they should be brought before an international court for war crimes. As should the government of the United States, for its war crimes. And it should be a completely impartial international court and not one where some countries have more influence than others.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 09 - 12:45 AM

I have a bet for $5.00 that you'll post at least seven in a row. Count the last two. Goooooooo. I need the fin.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 07 May 09 - 12:58 AM

None of my posts have been concerned with the question of whether or not Israel has a right to exist. They are concerned with whether or not Israel has a right to expand, to wage an illegal military occupation of land outside its internationally recognized borders, to commit genocide and ethnic cleansing, to wage wars of aggression against other countries, and to discriminate against members of its own population, WITH MY TAX MONEY.

Trying to characterize my posts as being about whether or not Israel has a right to exist is a standard hasbara smear tactic that is used for the purpose of silencing dissent. These tactics have been very successful in the past, but they insult the intelligence of most readers, and for this reason, and because of their overuse for so many years, they are quickly losing their effectiveness.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 07 May 09 - 12:59 AM

They might have been had not someone deep in his cups posted in between some of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Teribus
Date: 07 May 09 - 01:02 AM

CarolC, your post of 07 May 09 - 12:04 AM. Please give me examples of instances where Jews dispossessed Arabs in the area formerly known as Palestine between the years 1850 and 1947. The post I refer is a classic example of the ignorance and denial you are in about this period of this areas history.

CarolC, your post of 07 May 09 - 12:13 AM. Please give sources and proof regarding the bomb shelters only being for Jewish Israelis. I find this rather difficult to imagine having seen those shelters down in the south of Israel. They are rather similar to large sections of concrete drain pipes with blast walls protecting the open ends. You couldn't "prevent anybody getting into them if you tried. The warning times only allow you to run into these things before the rocket or mortar lands and explodes, there is no time to check anything. Warning times are so short these shelters are all over the place.

Nickhere, no group of so called refugees has been given more in aid than the Palestinians. All the Palestinian "leadership" has ever done has been to squander it to keep themselves in power.

Since 1947 the people of Palestine both Jew and Arab have been like two people arguing over something. First they are given the opportunity to share it, the Jews accept the Arabs reject the proposal so they decide to cut a pack of cards for it. The Arabs lose, so they say best of three, they lose again and suggest best of five, they lose again and demand best of seven. They lose yet again and now want to accept a lesser share than they originally turned down. If you elect to decide something by force of arms then losing has its consequences, that has been constant throughout the history of the human race, the Arabs of Palestine elected to fight and they lost. It is high time that they accepted that fact and lived with it, because if they do not and adhere to the Charter of Hamas, they will surely die and it will be by their own chosing.

Level playing fields do not enter the equation Nickhere, in 1948 the newly created Jewish State of Israel was given aid, the Palestinian Arabs were given aid, the playing field was fairly level. The Jews did something constructive with theirs, the Arabs funded pipe-dreams with theirs and allowed themselves to be used as political pawns in the game known as the "Cold War". As time went by this continued and "playing field" got distorted as happens when one side acts sensibly and other continues to pursue the impossible.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 07 May 09 - 01:13 AM

During the Ottoman period peasants had leases on farms and homes that they and their families occupied and worked for hundreds of years. When the European Jews showed up, they conducted back room deals with absentee landlords to take those homes and farms away from the families who had been living in them for all those many years.

The bomb shelters are built in Jewish neighborhoods and not in Arab neighborhoods. It doesn't matter if a bomb shelter in a Jewish neighborhood would allow an Arab in it (and I think it's an open question whether or not it would), if the bomb is falling in an Arab neighborhood. This problem extends far beyond the question of bomb shelters, though. The government of Israel also discriminates against Arab Israelis in the delivery (or lack thereof) of all public utilities and infrastructure.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28489020/

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 09 - 02:09 AM

"I don't really give a shit about the constant cut and paste histrionics as to whether Israel has a right to exist. My own country voted that it did. Period. Israel exists."

Good words from that poster!

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 09 - 02:16 AM

Regarding "WITH MY TAX MONEY".

If I reimburse you, will you kindly stfu? Your share is likely in the area of $50. Complain about the health care system for a change. (Are there Jewish doctors in the US? If so, forget I said that.)

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 09 - 02:38 AM

Good night, Ralph.

Sam

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 07 May 09 - 02:57 AM

I'll still be complicit, and I will still have the blood of innocent Palestinian children on my hands, regardless of whether or not my money is reimbursed, because it's my money that has enabled the government of Israel to do what it's been doing. So instead of reimbursing me, I would suggest waging a campaign to end US taxpayer money being given to the government of Israel. Once the government of Israel can no longer to afford to do what it's been doing to the Palestinians (because the US taxpayers are no longer providing them with the means to do it), I will be happy to shut up about it. Although I would still counter any racism I see being expressed towards Palestinians, Muslims, and Arabs (as I also do when I encounter racism being expressed towards other groups, including Jews).

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 07 May 09 - 03:16 AM

I would also continue to speak out when my government enables the government of Israel to do what it's been doing to the Palestinians (and also its neighbors) in other ways as well, like for instance through its use of its UN veto. So I guess the only way to shut me up is to persuade the government of Israel to give up its hegemonic and imperialist ambitions altogether.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 May 09 - 10:55 AM

Are the Jews using Israel for a staging area to take over the world?

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 07 May 09 - 11:11 AM

No, I don't think so.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: GUEST,C. Ham
Date: 07 May 09 - 11:14 AM

Are the Jews using Israel for a staging area to take over the world?

Absoloutely. We already control the U.S. government, the Canadian government, the European Union, NATO, etc.

The only thing we're having trouble with is the United Nations and Mudcat Cafe. That'll come though.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Teribus
Date: 07 May 09 - 11:22 AM

"During the Ottoman period peasants had leases on farms and homes that they and their families occupied and worked for hundreds of years. When the European Jews showed up, they conducted back room deals with absentee landlords to take those homes and farms away from the families who had been living in them for all those many years." - CarolC

I now know what the C stands for - CRAP

The Ottomans only ever sold the Jewish immigrants useless land. I believe I've given you examples dating back to the 1870's before. Detailing land and what the Jews accomplished with that land through drainage and hard work.

Even given your example above - the absentee landlords selling land and property which lets face it those landlords owned to someone prepared to pay the asking price - It would appear that if the peasants from the Ottoman period have got a beef with anyone it would be the landlord who has sold the property not the person that has bought it. But Oh wait!! The absentee landlord was probably a Turk or an Arab whereas the person who purchased the property perfectly legally was a Jew - Must be the Jews fault - Your logic smacks of racism and bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 07 May 09 - 11:22 AM

While I think that comment was made in jest, I think it's also important to point out that as with Muslims, there is no monolithic entity of Jewishness. Take a look at the people in the links I've been providing. The vast majority of them are Jewish, and they are fighting just as hard for the rights of Palestinians and for an end to Israeli aggression as I am, and some of them are fighting a lot harder, and making huge sacrifices.

For Jews, the consequences for doing this kind of work often includes being ostracized from family and the Jewish community, which can be an incredibly painful thing. In the Mondoweiss blog, one of the owners and contributers, Philip Weiss, was blacklisted for doing this work, and his successful career as an investigative journalist has been effectively ended.

These people deserve our gratitude and not our contempt, even if it's only in jest.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 07 May 09 - 11:26 AM

The Mudcat Cafe is anything but kosher.

Too much conflict between those with an hasidic wit (arf arf) and those who do nothing but swine ...

... besides - the dominant fait here is the church of the flying pig ...

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 07 May 09 - 11:26 AM

I should have used the term "alienated" rather than ostracized in my last post.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 07 May 09 - 11:32 AM

Calling me names doesn't change the facts. What the peasants (fellahin) experienced was that strangers from Europe were suddenly showing up and taking their homes and farms. This is a fact, and is a big part of the reason for the conflict. That was their experience and no amount of legalese type of arguing will ever change that, and trying to sweep it under the rug by obscuring it under a pile of legalese language, while at the same time denying the existence of these people, not only smacks of racism and bigotry, it is actually quite racist and bigoted.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 May 09 - 12:39 PM

"Absoloutely. We already control the U.S. government, the Canadian government, the European Union, NATO, etc.
The only thing we're having trouble with is the United Nations and Mudcat Cafe. That'll come though."


                I suppose anything is possible, once the media is thoroughly under control.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 07 May 09 - 01:09 PM

This is why it's not going to happen...

At the AIPAC Policy Conference

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Teribus
Date: 07 May 09 - 02:07 PM

Carol you wouldn't know a fact if it jumped up and bit you.

"What the peasants (fellahin) experienced was that strangers from Europe were suddenly showing up and taking their homes and farms. This is a fact, and is a big part of the reason for the conflict."

No Carol what the fellahin experienced and witnessed was that strangers given useless land by the Ottomans made that land productive, either by turning it to agriculture or by transforming it into communities that prospered through trade and industry. No Arabs were thrown out of their homes and farms, in fact quite the reverse was the case in 1920; 1921; 1929; 1936 - 1939 & again in 1947 but in that year the Jews started to fight back having been offered a nation by the UN they accepted the UN's 1947 plan and the State of Israel came into being in May 1948 when the old League of Nations Mandate expired.

Now the Arabs want to turn the clock back to 1947, but they still will not offer the State of Israel peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 May 09 - 02:33 PM

But T, don't you know that Jews are not allowed to fight back when attacked?


BTW, why is it no-one addresses the fact that Ramallah, which is now the seat of the (Moslim) Plaestinian government was a Christian town back in 1948, when my (past) neighbors were driven out of the West Bank ( for being Christian)?

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 May 09 - 04:32 PM

"For Jews, the consequences for doing this kind of work often includes being ostracized from family and the Jewish community, which can be an incredibly painful thing."

And for Moslim Palestinians who work for the rights of the Israelis the consequences are torture and death.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 May 09 - 05:41 PM

Frankly, it doesn't sound like a very pleasant place!

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 May 09 - 05:42 PM

"After the partition, Transjordan remained part of the Palestine Mandate and its legal system applied to all residents, both East and West of the Jordan River, who all carried Palestine Mandate passports. Palestine Mandate currency was the legal tender in Transjordan as well as the area West of the river. This was the consistent situation until 1946, 24 years later, when Britain completed the action by unilaterally granting Transjordan its independence. Thus the British subverted the purpose of the Palestine Mandate, partitioned Palestine and created an independent Palestine-Arab state with no regard for the rights and needs of the Jewish population.

According to Sir Alec Kirkbride, the British representative in the area, Transjordan was:

... intended to serve as a reserve of land for use in the resettlement of Arabs once the National Home for the Jews in Palestine, which [Britain was] pledged to support, became an accomplished fact. There was no intention at that stage of forming the territory east of the River Jordan into an independent Arab state.
In 1925, the British added 60,000 sq. km. of desert to eastern Transjordan forming an "arm" of land to connect Transjordan with Iraq and to cut Syria off from the Arabian Peninsula. The British continued to favor exclusive Arab development east of the Jordan River by enacting restrictive regulations against the Jews, even when Arab leaders sought Jewish involvement in the development of Transjordan."

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 May 09 - 05:48 PM

From the 1922 Mandate:

"ART. 6.
The Administration of Palestine ... shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes. "


So who is being displaced???

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 07 May 09 - 06:05 PM

Muslims who fight for the "right" of Israelis to commit genocide on the Palestinians and wage a brutal military occupation of their land, yes, just as Jewish resistance fighters (notice how we call them "resistance fighters" rather than terrorists) did to collaborators during World War II.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 09 - 06:32 PM

Makes a guy want to puke.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 07 May 09 - 06:58 PM

Clearly I'm not the one in this discussion who wouldn't know a fact if it jumped up and bit me.

The land was far from useless, since it included much fertile land as well as grazing land, and it was the homes and livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of fellahin.

Blaming the Victims


When the European Jews started colonizing Palestine, they adopted the approach of removing the felahin from the land they had lived on and farmed (and/or grazed) for hundreds of years, and after dispossessing them of their homes and livelihoods, they also completely squeezed them out of being able to make a living in other ways.


http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/halbrook.html

In the latter part of the nineteenth century, while title to land traditionally held by Arab peasants was being transferred to Arab and Turkish landlords, another force emerged which was to have the most significant influence on the distribution of land, namely, the Zionist movement which began to support immigration of Jews to Palestine. While reliable statistics do not exist, it has been estimated that Palestine in the second half of the nineteenth century consisted of a population of more or less a half million, of which some 80% were Muslims, 10% Christians, and 5 to 1% Jews. In 1882 Jews owned 22,500 dunums of land out of the 26,323,000 dunums which were to make up Mandate Palestine, i.e., .09% of the land. By 1900 there were 50,000 Jews in Palestine, mostly in Jerusalem and Jaffa, although twenty-two settlements existed by then, and Jews owned 218,000 dunums, or .8% of the land.6

The increase in Jewish ownership was largely prompted by the founding of the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association (PICA) by Baron Edmond de Rothschild, the "Father of the Yishuv" (the Jewish settlement in Palestine) who for decades was to be the largest Jewish landowner in Palestine and Transjordan. Rothschild "bought land from the feudal Effendis, sometimes by bribing the Ottoman administration, and drove the fellahin off the land."7 Some of the same fellaheen were hired to work the land they once cultivated as their own.

A different approach was taken by Zionists of a more purist position than the classic colonialist policy held by Rothschild. "When we occupy the land...we must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us," wrote Zionism's founder Theodor Herzl. "We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own countries."8 In 1907 the World Zionist Organization incorporated the Keren Kayemeth Leisrael (Jewish National Fund), which was dedicated to purchasing land exclusively for Jews and refusing employment to displaced Arabs. Beginning a year later with the building of a suburb outside Jaffa which came to be known as Tel Aviv, Keren Kayemeth was destined to be the major landowner in Palestine.

During the last years of Turkish rule in Palestine, the lands seized from Arab peasants by Arab absentee landlords were in turn being sold to Zionist settlers whose policy increasingly was to deny employment to Arabs. Only 144 Arab landlords owned a total of 3,130,000 dunums in Palestine—in the Jezreel Valley alone the Sursuk family of Beirut and Egypt held title to 230,000 dunums—and "the great majority of land bought by Jews in the period of Turkish rule, and later under the British Mandate,... was acquired from proprietors of large estates."9 By 1914 Jewish ownership of land amounted to 418,000 dunums or about 1.6% of Palestine, and Jews constituted 84,660 (12%) out of a population of 689,275.10

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people," wrote British Foreign Secretary Lord Balfour to Lord Lionel Rothschild in November 1917, adding that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine," i.e., the overwhelming majority of the population consisting of Moslem and Christian Arabs. Palestine was a land without a people and for a people without a land according to Zionist leader Israel Zangwill, who wrote in 1919:

The power in every country...always resides in the landowning classes. Yet over 30,000 Arab landlords and some 600,000 fellahin are to continue in possession of the bulk of the Holy Land.... [To remedy this situation] measures of race redistribution...will be carried out in Palestine as elsewhere. Thus the Arabs would gradually be settled in the new and vast Arabian Kingdom.... Only with a Jewish majority...can Israel enter upon the task of building up that model state....11

Before October 1920 Jews held 650,000 dunums and land sales quickly increased under the British Mandate. The first significant Keren Kayemeth purchase of seven Arab villages was a factor in the 1921 Arab uprising which led Britain to enact the Transfer of Land Ordinance (1921), whereby the landlord was required to see that tenants uprooted by sales retain land elsewhere. Landlords evaded the ordinance simply by evicting tenants before sale. Comparable acts to protect cultivators passed in the following two decades were also evaded, increasing the number of landless Arabs.12 In any case, the first real census of Palestine, taken in 1922, indicated that Jews numbered 83,794 out of a total population of 757,182. Thus Jews, about three-quarters of whom lived in the Jerusalem-Jaffa area and about two-thirds of whom were European immigrants, constituted 11% of the population.13 Estimates respecting distribution of land indicate that in the same year, excluding freehold fellaheen, three million dunums of the land of Palestine were held by only 120 Arab families.14 By 1927 Jewish land holdings more than doubled from the start of the war to 865,000 dunums— still only 3.3% of Palestine.

A year after the 1929 revolt in which fellaheen and especially bedouin played a major role, the Simpson Report estimated that about 30% of Arab villagers were landless. Unlike the Jews, who had favorable, long-term leases, Arab tenants held land on a yearly basis, terminable at the landlord's will. The economic condition of the fellah was desperate, for scarce capital, heavy debts, rising rent, overtaxation, and high interest were crushing this class. One study showed the average fellah family in possession of about seventy-five dunums, while double that amount would have been required for a decent standard of living.15 Peasants borrowed at 30% interest or more, or sold their land, in order to pay the tithe (which might be a fourth of a fellah's income) and other taxes, debts, and subsistence expenses. Cultivators without land were required to give the landlord whose land they worked about half the produce. The fellaheen were literally bankrupt㬼% of the families in one subdistrict had execution proceedings pending against them, a family's whole crop could be attached for taxes, and imprisonment for debt was extensive. The condition of the fellah was hardly better than under the Turks.16

While the Jewish Agency pressed its claim to all lands owned by the government, considerable areas over which the government had de jure claims had been occupied and cultivated by Arabs for very many years. Not only were areas available for Jewish settlement "negligible," but already Jewish settlements were interfering with the rights of grazing and cultivation of bedouin, the majority of whom wandered in Beersheba as in ancient times. Fellaheen who were evicted from their lands in the countryside, on emigrating to the cities, found that the Histadrut (Jewish Labor Federation) excluded them from employment in Jewish industry and commerce, resulting in serious unemployment.17

Zionist policies faced Arabs with discrimination based on race, religion, or national origin at every turn: Kibush Hakarka (Conquest of the Land) took the Arab tenant's land, Kibush Ha'avoda (Conquest of Labor) prevented the hiring of Arabs as employees, and T'ozteret Ha'aretz (Produce of the Land) imposed a boycott of Arab produced commodities.18 The Constitution of the Jewish Agency (1929), Art. HI, declared: "Land is to be acquired as Jewish property... [and] held as the inalienable property of the Jewish people. The Agency shall promote agricultural colonisation based on Jewish labour, and in all works or undertakings carried out or furthered by the Agency, it shall be deemed to be a matter of principle that Jewish labour shall be employed...." The Keren Kayemeth lease contained the restrictive covenant based on race that the holding shall never be held by any but a Jew and that only Jewish labor could be employed in connection with cultivation of the holding. Jewish lessees who hired or attempted to sell rights to Arabs were to have their own leases terminated.19

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 09 - 06:59 PM

Latte again . . . .