Why is Israel the good guys????

Corrected spelling from "Isreal" to "Israel".I also point out the "other" topic, "Israel vs. Palestine". It is currently at message 49, and has been inactive for about 3 months.Adminnemooses------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

Nothing recent, but back in '88 I decided to remedy my ignorance of the region's history and checked a book on the subject out of the library. Since I'm an archivist who puts Richard Nixon to shame I can actually look up the book: One Land, Two Peoples by Harry B. Ellis, Copyright 1972. This is from a summary I emailed out at the time:

1. There has never been an independent Palestinian state.
   ​
2. Arabs ruled the region for only a relatively short while after the time of Mohammed. Turkey ruled Palestine for centuries up till WWI.

This is from a longer email drawing upon the same book: --Percy

While most of what your wrote is true, there are some omissions (I suppose the "complicated" part) which make this history less clearcut.But even given the history you laid out, I am unsure how you arrive at the conclusion that they cannot support their position that Israel has no right to exist.Britain was a foreign "occupying" or better yet "colonialist" power which decided to divvy up the land as it saw fit DESPITE the realities on the ground.It is unlikely that we would have ever had the problems we do if Britain created one state, rather than forcing the Zionist dream onto a land which housed both Arabs and Jews.It is not like the Jews were here and the Arabs were there, with some clean distinction. Britain's move disenfranchised Arabs in both the part that was left a noncountry, and the one's stuck in the new borders of Israel. I mean really do you think its fair when governments redistrict the land around you so that suddenly you have no real voice in the government of your land?Even worse, a redistricting that chops up whole families into different countries (or forces them to abandon their land)?No matter what ancient history jews had with the land, or what aspirations they had to retake the land, or even the amount of land they had bought up and begun converting to farmland... that does not devoid the human rights of Arabs who also live in that region.The country was not created based on any principles of democracy or fairness and so the Palestinians have a very good position that Israel has no legitimate right to exist according to any of the principles that we (and Britain) espouse for ALL OTHER countries.I'm not sure what your position is on this idea, but don't you feel that the best ethical, legal, and regional security action would have been for Britain to create either a single democratic country, or to have worked out the land issues (we are facing now) BEFORE granting any sort of national status to either group?------------------
holmes

quote:

---

No matter what ancient history jews had with the land, or what aspirations they had to retake the land, or even the amount of land they had bought up and begun converting to farmland... that does not devoid the human rights of Arabs who also live in that region.

---

1. That they are there at this time in history when so much other related to Biblical prophecy emerges on the scene attests to the validity of the Biblical prophetic assurances given milleniums ago to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that the land was promised forever to the Jews by Jehovah, God belongs to the Jews and that the God Jehovah's word is standing true as spoken long ago. Naturally and humanly speaking, the Jews should've never made it back as Jews after 19 centuries of dispersion, nor survived the tremendous odds against their survival in the land.2. By the time Israel became a nation in 1948, my understanding is that only about 3% of the land was rightfully owned by whom we know as the Palestinians.3. The reason the Arabs were willing to sell the land to the immigrating Jews in the first place is because before the Jews began to immigrate there was not a tree standing in the land, which was a noman's unproductive desolated wilderness suited only for nomadic herdsmen. The fig tree indeed began to blossom with the advent of the providentially rightful owners, precisely as Jesus had prophesied 19 centuries prior.4. After the Jews began to work the land and render it productive, the Arabs decided it would be nice to have it back. This coupled with the Islamic Ismaelish religious ferver over the Temple Mount significance as to who's descendents would prevail in the end, those of Abraham's handmaid, Ishmael or those Abraham's wife, Isaac has brought the focus of world news to the Middle East and specifically to the land known as Palestine, precisely at the time the Biblical prophets, including Jesus himself fortold. Armageddon will be where it all ends.

Adversaries of Israel should also remember that it was Gentile nations like Nazi Germany and their allies who drove the Jews out of Europe so as to need some place to migrate to, somewhat like why the Western hemisphere began to be immigrated into by the Pilgrims. Their survival and freedom depended on migration. It was not like they originally planned to leave their habitats. They were driven.------------------
An eternal creator is as logical as an eternal universe which would be illogical without an eternal creator. buz[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 10-24-2003]

1) (Biblical prophecy) My posts to you on this topic were ignored in another thread and not part of this topic, so I will not address that here. On the topic of this thread, Biblical prophecy is NOT a reason for giving Zionists a country which disenfranchises others.2) (%land ownership) I believe you are talking about the land given to the Zionists? That sounds about right, borders were cut so that Jews would have the majority control of the resulting country. It disenfrachised the Arabs stuck within the border, as well as outside the border. I find this a curious argument since Zionists since that time have been ever encroaching on the rest of the land of "traditional" Israel, which has displaced... thousands? millions? Apparently those first borders were not good enough for them.3) (bibl.proph.#2) Not in this thread. It is true that Arabs sold arid land which Jews successfully cultivated. This is not a reason to disenfranchise Arabs on lands not sold to Jews. However this is a very cool thing that Jews were able to do with the land. I am impressed with the work of Jewish farmers. Not so with Zionist extremists.4) (scary selfulfilling bibl.proph.) Not in this thread. All Arabs were certainly not angels in this scenario. Many did suffer from seller's remorse... which is too bad for them. The drawing of borders to disenfranchise Arabs (and empower Zionists) has nothing to do with this issue. I do agree it has a basis in the insane religious/nationalist extremism which includes the gigantic deathwish of Xtians and the ultimate victory wish of the Jews. And the results show what basing international policy on religious extremist wishes is good for... nothing.------------------
holmes

The region was already not under self-rule and hadn't been for centuries. After WWII both the Jews and Arabs were invited to be part of the decision-making process concerning how to return Palestine to self-rule. While no polls were conducted, it is quite possible that Jews outnumbered Arabs in the region by this time.The process was conducted under the auspices of the infant UN, not Britain. It was proposed that Palestine be divided into two states, one Jewish and one Arab, divided up into non-contiguous regions based upon demographics (I found a map of the proposed boundaries at Partition Plan - apparently not all the shades made it to the webpage format, so I'll just add that the International Zone is just the white region around Jerusalem - the rest of the white areas are Jewish).The Arabs rejected the proposal, they refused to compromise on their position of no Jewish state in Palestine whatsoever, and they gradually withdrew from all processes of discussion, compromise and negotiation.The date for implementation came and the Arab states invaded the newly formed state of Israel. The Arab states lost and Israel took some of the Palestinian land that the UN had given to the Arabs (Jordan got by far the larger portion of the intended Arab region, including Jerusalem).While the facts behind Israel's birth are not what one would hope for in an ideal world, the UN *did* try to conduct a fair and open process that would have satisfied your desire, indeed all our desires, for inclusion of "principles of democracy or fairness." The Arabs decided not to participate. Their position was, in effect, "There will be no Jewish state in Palestine, we will not compromise on this, we will fight if a Jewish state is created." If you doubt this, here is an example of Arab intransigence. These are the words of Azzam Pasha, secretary of the Arab League, in one of his declarations to the UN: While no one would dispute that the Palestinian Arabs were disenfranchised, further back in time the Jews experienced their own disenfranchisement. And the Jews displaced prior inhabitants. Which disenfranchisements are you going to choose to redress and which to ignore? The Jews once had a state in Palestine for centuries, while the Palestinians never did. The Jews owned a great deal of land in Palestine by the end of WWII, probably more than the Palestinians. By what logic can you deny any Jewish claim whatsoever to a right to statehood?--Percy

Seriously, though, Dan, AIPAC is the largest foreign affairs lobby in the US. It has 65,000 members - a staggering number by any count. Most of the US congress has taken quite sizable AIPAC contributions during their election. AIPAC doesn't just work on politicians, either - they have groups which deal entirely with the media as well. Check out their site: Just a moment...------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

I'd like to mention that he left out the things from Israel's early history that don't put it in such a good light, such as the Lavon affair (where the Israeli government was staged terrorist attacks against US interests in Egypt to frame the Egyptians) and the bombing of the King David Hotel.The intent of Zionism wasn't bad. It's practice was. The initial idea, which had limited success, was to buy off what land they could, and to try to arrange for employment for the residents outside of the country. Naturally, this only went so far - most people just didn't want to leave. The inevitable result of attempting to take the rest of the land is violence. If your ideology states that you need to have all of a particular country, and the people there don't want you to take it... well, the results are going to be obvious.It's kind of funny.... the idea behind Zionism is that Jews were a minority wherever they lived, and this minority status led to racism and distrust among the majority populations. By creating an Israeli state, they would be the majority there, and reduce the minority populations elsewhere, thus reducing worldwide anti-Jewish sentiment, and giving Jews a safe place that they can live.By all accounts, it was an utter failure on these fronts.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Percy, do you realize that you're using as a reference an Israeli lobbying group's website (us-israel.org)? The very first line of their About page:The AMERICAN-ISRAELI COOPERATIVE ENTERPRISE (AICE) was established in 1993 as a nonprofit 501(c)(3), nonpartisan organization to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship by emphasizing the fundamentals of the alliance - the values our nations share.Since you've apparently been getting your information from Israeli lobbies, would you in the interests of being fair-minded take some time to listen to the opposing side? Subscribe to the International Solidarity Movement's mailing list for a few weeks; by having both perspectives, you'll have a more balanced look at the present, and through the lens of the present, you'll have a more balanced look at the past.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

I don't deny for a second that there are pro-Israel lobbyist groups, run by Jews. It's this "Jewish Lobby" business that gets my goat, as though the Jews of America are banding together in a shadowy conspiracy.Probably the result of having to explain to people most of my life that no, I don't control the media, and no, I don't control the banks, and no, I certainly don't have fucking horns. (Honestly... had to explain that last one to an especially thick girl once who was meeting her first Jew.)How come black people got the "enormous wangs" stereotype, and we got the horns?Anyway... there's also way too much automatic association of "Jewish" and "pro-Israel" in America. No people, honestly... if you have a problem with Israel, your problem is with Israel. Not with Jews.

All I referenced at their website was the map because that was the only place where I found the map. As I said, the source for my information was a book written in 1972 that I read 15 years ago, and from some archive email I have from 1988. I am already on record several times now as believing both sides are at fault. Apparently I won't be balanced in your view until I start blaming only Israel. If you want to dispute my presentation of the facts go right ahead, but please don't subject us to something as incongruous as someone with your polarized pro-Arab views accusing someone in the middle of lack of balance.--Percy

I am not shedding any tears for you! You got horns? The myth is that Jews have tons of money.So black guys got enormous wangs, and Jews have tons of money. According to stereotypes about chicks, that makes you guys the best babemagnets on the planet.I'm English-German. You know what that gets me? A humorless world domineering beerbellied fatass with bad teeth, who doesn't know how to have sex!Now maybe a couple of these are true but that doesn't make them all right.Well okay, I have to admit having the last name of Holmes does engender an idea I might have an enormous wang, but that's hardly consolation for the other bits. I agree... it's just too bad that the pro-Israel lobby fosters that illusion as much as anti-Jewish bigots do. Actually they do it more so.When the pro-Israel lobbyists lobby our government, they do so by saying they can bring in over 90% of the Jewish vote.And jackasses like Lieberman preach their position like if you have a problem with Sharon, you have a problem with Jews.I have known jews that got picked on and denounced as anti-semitic for not being pro-Israel. One of the biggest targets of course (in media) has been Woody Allen.That poor guy gets it from all sides. Then again he has tons of money and boinked tons of chicks, so I can't feel to bad for him either.------------------
holmes

quote:

---

I am not shedding any tears for you! You got horns? The myth is that Jews have tons of money.

​

So black guys got enormous wangs, and Jews have tons of money. According to stereotypes about chicks, that makes you guys the best babemagnets on the planet.

---

One quick glance at my apartment, and any woman will know the stereotype is a vicious lie.

quote:

---

I'm English-German. You know what that gets me? A humorless world domineering beerbellied fatass with bad teeth, who doesn't know how to have sex!

---

At least the English part makes you charmingly befuddled, and the German part makes you intimidating!So that makes you... I dunno, intimidatingly befuddled?If it helps, my mother is Jewish-American, (probably eastern-European descent,) and my father is half-Irish/half-English, half-Catholic/half-Protestant. (He had a delightful childhood.) I don't know where to start hating myself...

quote:

---

I agree... it's just too bad that the pro-Israel lobby fosters that illusion as much as anti-Jewish bigots do. Actually they do it more so.

---

You're absolutely right, and it annoys the crap out of me when people make the anti-Israel = antisemitic argument.[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 10-24-2003]

This is less than totally honest. They were certainly under self-rule, they simply were not under NATIONAL self-rule.Jews did not outnumber Arabs in the region, or should I say didn't "outnumber" them enough to create a Jewish state. Any democratic state emerging from the entire territory would be race neutral.This was not desired by the Zionist groups pushing for Israel to be reestablished as the fatherland of the Jews.England was the nation that wanted to pay back the Jews in that region for their help against the turks/german forces and didn't fancy Jews pouring into England.Thus the focus of planning was driven without ANY consideration of the actual demographics on the ground, except how to best make a Jewish state. The process was conducted under the auspices of the UN and not by Britain, as much as any process against Iraq (accept the recent war) was conducted by the UN and not the US&Britain.Britain formulated the plan along with leading Zionist forces (who had been calling for and planning a Jewish state in that region at the same time Hitler was calling for an Aryan state Northern Europe).The reaction of the Arabs should be understandable to anyone.They were living in a land for a long time. Some people whose ancient ancestors once had a kingdom there start buying up land and converting it for farmland. Not completely known to them is the real intention of buying the land to create a singular political body for just those people.Suddenly a foreign power invites the Arabs living in that region (for generations) to another foreign body to work out the details of reestablishing the ancient state of Israel. This would be a state that is based on religion and back in ancient times persecuted those of the Islamic faith.It would also by necessity (because the Zionist land buyout was not completely "successful") artificially trap family and friends as a religious minority in a Jewish state. Their only way out of this trap... sell the rest of their lands to the Zionist state.It also means that the Arabs who thought they were fairly dealing in land trades, were suddenly disenfranchised from their trade. The lands they sold, and they figured they could buy back later, were off limits forever more.To criticize Arabs for not wanting to compromise or take part in such negotiations is truly to blame the victim. Its like saying a person deserves the bad service they got, because they refused to negotiate during the planning stages of their shotgun wedding.The Jews in that region were not Israelis. They were humans that owned land, just like the Arabs. The process SHOULD have been to find out what was necessary for the PEOPLES of the land, and not in anyway use an a priori filter that views "two states" as some sort of great (or even fair) thing.Honestly, was a Jewish nationalist state ever on the negotiating table? If not, then how can the Arabs be blamed for not wanting to negotiate? Both may have been stubborn, but the Zionists had no RIGHT to a religious state that would BY ITS VERY CREATION disenfranchise Arabs living in the region (who had traded land up to that point in fairness). Just as the Americans fought English forces and its sympathizers who were trying to enforce the colonial structure England had planned for them to live as?Just as Indians fought the colonial rule England placed on them?Just as the Iraqis fought the government England put in place on them (right about the same time mind you).You really have to take a step back, to look at this properly. If a group of people suddenly have their lands cut out from under them by the say-so of some other group, and their friends and family trapped within what they consider an illegal state, what exactly should they do?If it were me, I could definitely understand their anger and willingness to fight (at the time). The first part is a lie, which I hope I have shown to be the case. It was fair and democratic, only to the extent that they were able to pick which consolation prize they would receive.How you can conceive of the tortuous bordering necessary to create a Religious natione state as fair and democratic (especially for the resulting Arab minority within Israel) is beyond me.In all fairness the Zionist position was that there will be a Jewish state, there is no compromise on this and there will be a fight if it is not created.To my mind the creation of a racially "pure" nation state (which by definition will always keep other races a pawn minority) through force of arms is much more atrocious and uncompromising, than the prevention of one being created.That no major player in the UN could see this fact in the light of their war against Nazi germany is troubling.Your "intransigent" example is kind of pitiful. Was the guy hotheaded? Yeah. Was the guy stubborn? Yeah. Was he only willing to fight at that point? Yeah. Would I want him as MY rep? No.But do I understand that the negotiations the Arabs were forced into were unfair and not worthy of being attended, and their a priori conclusions fought? Yeah.I'm sure you could find similarly "intransigent" material among the Jews refusing to deal with Nazis and government officials working on behalf of the Nazis, especially with respect to the limited negotiations they were allowed on redistricting and disenfranchisement.Have you read anything by the Zionists at that time (or even earlier)? Maybe you should read some of the stuff they said before negotiations had started, or the comments made today by the "winners" about how they felt back then.Sharon himself is an amazing read.They square well with the writers wanting to "negotiate" the creation of an Aryan state. The only ones I can, the ones of today.This has to be the most intellectually dishonest/insulting statement I have ever heard from you. It's a pretty big let down.We are having the discussion on this issue TODAY, because the ramifications of that choice by many who are still alive TODAY, continue to have the deleterious affect they had since that choice was made.Personally I believe VIOLENCE is no longer appropriate (they lost on the battlefield) and should move on to finding some way of existing and thriving next to what began as an unfair/racist state. How does any more killing help? It is not like they have a chance of winning.This does not mean I have to stick my head in the sand and say well everyone gets screwed sometime, so I shouldn't recognize the Arabs were totally screwed with the creation of Israel, the whole process was biased, and that the people in the WRONG in this situation are the Israelis.You glossed over the fact that when the Israelis grabbed more land (in reprise for the Arab invasion) they also enacted horrible atrocities and created a vast number of refugees (who happened to be noncombatants).One of the largest holdups to peace negotiations right now is that ZIONIST ISRAELIS refuse to negotiate on captured territories (which the rest of the world recognizes as illegal) and most importantly the right of civilian noncombatants to return to their homes.The reason for the latter is that Israelis fear that if Arabs are allowed to return, given demographics and birthrates, Israel will eventually NOT BE A JEWISH STATE. They wish to preserve the nondemocratic system they currently enjoy.Their refusal to negotiate on these points for these reasons are just as intransigent and less defendable than the positions of Arabs opposed to a Jewish state in 1948.This even it happening NOW. It is in my generation. Thankfully I am neither an Israeli or a Palestinian so I am not the one getting screwed or doing the screwing. But as an American I do have the duty to pressure my government to address the intransigent, undemocratic, and despotic rule of Israel over their internal and external Arabic populations.Please be honest with me. Israel's refusal TODAY, for not allowing the right of return. Does that not mean that the hostilities they waged from the 40's through the 70's were nothing more than a racial purge? Is this not reinforced by the reasoning leading Israelis give today? I never said Jews did not have a right to own or continue to trade in lands. Neither have I said that they couldn't decide to form a state on their own.This is not what happened and you know it.They required a rebordering to create an artificial "country" to fit their ends of a Jewish nationstate. This prevented any future land trades with Arab neighbors, essentially locking up the lands the had been buying. As well as trapping, and punishing all those who had not sold their lands as the Zionists had wanted (to create the solid contiguous border they would need for a state).They did this by getting a deal from Britain which wanted to pay them back for their help in the war. The UN process had a priori filters and conclusions. Arab a priori demands were treated as "intransigence."I never said Jews, even Zionists, should not be able to create their own nation. I only said that they had no RIGHT to get the one they did the way they did. The claim they pursued was illegitimate.------------------
holmes