Why is Israel the good guys????

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

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

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

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

Yes, that was the same for my parent's family.One of the funniest things I have ever seen, was when all of the Protestant members of my family turned out for the funeral of my Catholic grandfather. I think the only catholics in attendance were his widow (my step-grandmother) and the priest.It was like watching a star trek episode where one set of aliens try to understand the rituals of another set of aliens. Hilarity ensues.And yes, this is a funeral I am talking about.------------------
holmes

Oh yeah I forgot to mention... One quick glance at my college roommate dispelled any stereotype that blacks had enormous wangs. Yet the girls kept coming for it, and staying around even after they got a REALLY GOOD LOOK at it.What was bizarre to me is that they did so even though he was clearly hung as well as me (once they got a look) AND he wouldn't go down on them. Then you seriously would have gotten a kick out of that funeral. The priest actually started getting irate and saying very loudly "NOW YOU CAN READ THE NEXT LINE... NOW. PLEASE READ THE LINE... OKAY I'LL READ IT AND YOU READ WITH ME, BUT NEXT TIME..."------------------
holmes

????? Did you miss the part where:1) I said that Arabs who sold their lands had no right to claim them back (much less retake them by force),2) said that Jews had the right to form their own state... including Israel? It was the methods used, not the ends that I am arguing against,3) said that Arabs should not be using violence (ie. arabs that use that method are wrong)?How is this position rabidly pro-Arab? To tell the truth the Israelis have done wonders with the territories that they owned and Arabs ought to (especially at this point) be emulating those things and concentrate on improving the lands they have, rather than putting all their energy into regaining land.However, and this is where my only rabidness comes in, hardline Israelis are continuing encroachments via illegal settlements, and refusing to allow refugees back to their homes. This is not to mention Sharon's dual policy of preemptive assassinations and punishing all Palestinians for the actions of extremists.The US... as the rest of the world has already recognized... needs to put pressure on Israel to change these realities. Is the rest of the world rabidly pro-Arab or something (I get my information from international sources)?Many Israelis say the same things I have (some of my sources)... they are rabid pro-Arab?Moshe Dyan, one of the major Israeli generals who helped form Israel, verbally recognized the things I said. He was rabid pro-Arab?Was it my capitalization of words? I use that as a quick way to emphasize words (there is no one button italics option). If you think I was yelling at you, this was not the case. I use exclamation marks for yelling.Why not address some of the most important points raised by my post:1) In the UN process, was the creation of a Jewish state up for negotiation (ie, were the Zionists willing to accept the creation of a multicultural state)?2) If not, how is that different from Arab unwillingness to accept a solely Jewish state?3) Were the plans for Israel (ie borders, etc) not the work of British officials paying back Jews in the region for their assistance against the turks/germans?4) Did those plans not (by necessity of having to create a coherent national border) involve trapping Arabs as minorities within a Jewish state? This is correct, but that does not mean that there is no objective truth to be discovered as to what methods were used to create the state of Israel, whether these were legitimate methods, and whether methods currently being used to maintain that state are legitimate.The methods currently being used by Arabs to end the state of Israel are wrong. Even that intent (though I may empathize with their feelings) is impractical.I'm rabid pro-Arab?------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 10-24-2003]

Did you read my post #40?I readily admit that there is blame to go around in the Israeli-Palestinian issue.YOU said that Arabs could not claim that Israel had no right to exist. That is a position which concedes nothing.My argument has been that the nature and methods of the creation of the State of Israel (as it stands now) gives Arabs plenty of reason to make such a claim.In my last post I stated that Israelis... including Moshe Dayan... are some of my references to this issue. I cannot fathom how these people are rabid pro-Arab, or using their arguments makes me rabid pro-Arab.Whether there is any use in Palestinians pursuing such claims, and how to go about handling such claims are completely separate issues. In this we can see even greater problems on both sides. Extremists on both sides have cloaked themselves in this situation, and truly anti-Jewish organizations (they want no Jews, not just no Israel) have entered the picture on the Palestinian side.Please address the points I made in #40. They are not extremist positions, but rather points of fact surrounding how Israel was founded. If true then they are grounds for Arab claims that Israel had no rights to its claim... which IS seperate on where to go from there.The US certainly had no rights to claim most of its property, especially everything west of the Mississippi. The Native Americans have real grounds to claim that the US had no right to exist on those lands (especially at that time).Pragmatism means that the way to address such claims now is not another NativeAmerican-U.S. war. Neither does it mean I as a US citizen do not have a right to be a US citizen on this land.I feel the same is true for Israelis.------------------
holmes

This is biased thinking. The Jews certainly cultivated the land (making it good to farm on) but this makes it sound like the land was of no worth at all to anyone. As poverty stricken as it was, people lived there and it was their home.This is like saying, see what a waste those Native Americans were to the US? Now we have factories, townhouses and Las Vegas!Or perhaps more appropriate today, excusing the excesses of corporations in 3rd world countries, just because they had more money than the people living in that country to polish it up.The needs of the Arabs on that land were not the same as the needs for westernized people. The Jews in that region brought in technology and knowledge to turn the land into what they desired. They were also able to do this with money unaccessible to the Arab population (which had little ties to western nations, much less bankrolls).This is one reason Arab farmers became a bit upset. Jewish farmers were getting help they could not get, and being pretty cliquish about it too. This is not to say that gave them any right to do anything about that anger other than try and raise money themselves.I dislike the culturally biased rhetoric which views the achievements the Jews managed to accomplish, as some sort of sign they were working harder than Arabs, or have more rights or investment in the land than the Arabs.To repeat, the needs of the Arabs were different (they were not western style farmers), and so were their assets. Personally, I would prefer to live on the Israeli cultivated land, but hey I like oranges and apartments and not goats and tents!After the war(s), Israelis have not let all displaced people back onto their lands. This is one of the major issues/obstacles. They do not do so because it will eventually lead to Jews not being a majority (or a clear majority) in the government. This is stated by the hardliners who are ruling Israel right now.Moderate Israelis have come out on this issue, admitting the people are getting screwed and that Israel should let them back in.If this were any other country in history we would call it like it is... it was a purge. Even the US can admit it screwed the Native Americans in a purge.This is not to say Palestinians aren't being a bit overdramatic and extending claims of the problem beyond what they really are, or trying to sneak in people that don't have real claims. That is also an issue.But Sharon and other hardliners, under the guise of war, did take land and removed the rightful owners from the state of Israel. Moshe Dayan not only helped in this purge, but admitted this is what was happening and vocalized his sympathy for them.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 10-25-2003]

To say that the UN process was fair to the Arabs, when it was approached with an a priori-nonnegotiable point that a state of Israel (whose gov't had to be Jewish dominated, but by necessity of borders include nonJews) is less than intellectually honest. I stand by this statement.To say that the UN process was fair to the point that it upheld democratic principles, especially in the way I had discussed, is either a lie (to yourself or me I cannot say) or based on a totally misunderstanding what I meant. If it was a misunderstanding then I apologize.I admit that I get heated about this subject. And that heat may lead to hyperbole on my part. For this I also apologize.HOWEVER, in every case... including the other thread... if the heat is removed there are clear factual statements which must be addressed and they happen to support the position I hold. They cannot be dismissed because of the heat and hyperbole which might accompany them.I have removed the heat and hyperbole and I wish you would address my points. I will grant that you are much more diplomatic and less hyperbolic in your language. But not taking sides is not truly being a centrist. There is enough evidence to figure out which side has better claims. A centrist at that point should take a side.An extremist would say the "right" side gets everything it demands. A centrist would mete out justice within a boundary of pragmatism. I grew up with the vision that Arafat was some looney bent on killing Jews. I grew up being taught that Israel was a nation (like it had a contiguous existence from ancient times) and the Jews had a special right to the land. I was also fed (as people still are today) propaganda that Arabs are unreasonable and only listen to force.It was only within the last... 5 years (a little more or less)... that I began researching the facts at all, and even more so since 9-11.I went in with a bias against Arabs (on the issue of Israel).The evidence is shocking, and it is solid. It is so solid that I find myself getting redhot because of the casual dismissal most people in the US have toward the profound amount of evidence out there.Rather than saying I am the extremist with an a priori agenda, you may want to consider why most of the entire world holds the same opinion I do, and why if not for the Veto power of the United States, Israel would already be dealing with the issues I have mentioned.Is the rest of the world extremist and anti-Jewish? Or necessarily anti-Israel?The moderates in Israel voice the same things I do. They are some of the sources I used to come to my opinion I hold now. Even some hardline pro-Israelis as Moshe Dayan have given this evidence.The VIOLENCE is horrible and both sides clearly have blood on their hands. This will probably never get worked out as "who is most guilty of killing" (although Sharon as a singular murderer is clear).But the evidence of whether Arabs have proper claims that the founding of the state of Israel (as it was) was unjust, as well as current practices that disenfranchise palestinians are also unjust... the rest of the world has voted on the matter several times within the UN and the vote is over 90% on my side.While I believe 90% of people can be swept up in a furor and extremism so as to miss evidence, I do not believe this is the case here. There are many nonProArab states which hold the same opinion on this matter.My opinion was formed a posteriori and unless you address me with evidence or logic... such as addressing the points in #40, what am I left with as counterevidence? I did not use the word puppet and I would hesitate to use that word. GB at that time had immense power within the UN to address the "Jewish situation". The Zionists had the ear of GB and the US, as well as the sympathy of much of the world, after the treatment of Jews by Nazis in WW2.GB was the major player in what is now Palestine/Israel. They were the ones allowed to make major policy there, or should I say what they wanted went a very very very long way.GB helped devise the plans according to wishes of Zionist leaders, with payback in mind for Jewish help in that very region. The US supported the plans because Zionist groups heavily lobbied the congress and the president.This information is not only pretty readily available on the internet, you can watch it on History Channel documentaries regarding the formation of Israel... I would hope you agree this is not a biased source.I don't believe the mindset of GB or the US was "screw the Arabs". I believe it was the same MO they have practiced in that region forever, and why we have the problems today... blatant disregard for the situation on the ground to formulate "feel good" or "look good" decisions for public consumption at home, or immediate security desires with little longterm thinking.My entire criticism... if it is to be viewed properly... is a scathing indictment of English/US/Western meddling/colonialism in that region. In the specific case of Israel, Zionist extremists have so far brilliantly used this meddling to their advantage and so the great disadvantage of Arabs in that region.Islamic extremists did the same thing in Afghanistan and then blew it by biting the hand that fed them.I think it is high time to reevaluate strategic thinking in that entire region, including Israel. I think it is also hightime to change UN rulemaking so that the plans of powerful members don't continue being the a priori frame other nations (or people) MUST work within or be called intransigent.Hopefully all of this was more light, less heat. And next time you see pure hyperbole from me, feel free to chastise me on it. I am trying to use debates on this forum to clean up my act.------------------
holmes

I've been left troubled by this whole thing.If someone acts irate in a post, and then is told they are irate, why should they be made to look bad for having corrected that error in their next post? It seems to me a correction of tone and an outlining of real points of discussion should be commended and rewarded, not made to look like further bad behavior (and more reason to end discussion).I realized I was being hot and have apologized for this.Having read through my posts I still do not see why I should be considered rabid pro-Arab. My TONE may seem that way, but my actual points of argument have not been. And certainly the facts that I presented (which come from Israeli sources as well as other nonArab international sources) cannot be proArab, or proIsraeli.I pose this question to you. On any highly controversial subject, how can you tell a person who has properly reviewed the evidence at hand and made a valid decision, from a person who never reviewed the evidence in order to validate an a priori position?Especially on controversial subjects, I do not believe it can be from tone, or the fact that they start an argument from one position.The latter will always be true for someone who has made a decision before the argument starts, but that does not mean the person did not have meaningful research prior to that particular argument, nor that they will be unreceptive to new information.The former problem--- tone--- if unable to be stripped from the argument, may be an indication of some bias, but does not necessarily indicate bias during the early stages of argument.Israel is a hot button issue for me, and so sometimes I adopt much stronger tones than necessary for argument, because I am used to extreme personal prejudice against ME just for trying to find facts. It has been my experience that this has happened to others as well. Because I started looking I was called anti-semitic. Because I found evidence that was pretty solid and asked for a response I was called anti-semitic (not by you but by others).When this has not occured then I have also faced a wall of silence as people wave their hands and say "it can't be figured out." Just raising questions gets shut down with this argument.To my mind it is as irritating as being surrounded by people that don't believe the holocaust happened. You start to ask questions and they say its just the Jew's word against the German's. It was a long time ago. How can we really know anything?Then when you start to look at the evidence yourself, which isn't hard to find, it becomes pretty obvious. Yet you are still faced with that attitude. And worse they say you must hate Germans, or be some "Jew lover" to have simply come to a conclusion based on the facts.It is very upsetting and eventually one vents along with delivering the info. This is what happens with me on this subject.So when reminded I am yelling I calm down and repeat the facts. Are the facts wrong? Don't they merit discussion among rational people, rather than just with rabid people of the opposing side? I would hope so.I read through my posts and as I said I did not find anything beyond tone, to consider my position rabid anything. Was it my use of the term Zionist? I know crackpot Nazis use that term all the time... the vast Zionist conspiracy. But then they are referring to Jews. That is not what I am trying to talk about, or how I use the term.Jews are simply Jews, and Israelis are simply Israelis, and I want to avoid lumping moderate and liberal Jews or Israelis with the hardcore extremists determined to found a National Jewish Homeland. It is the hardcore extremists that I term Zionists. And I do not think this is an unfair term, since this is what they call themselves. Sharon frequently refers to Zion in both this poetry/writings and in his public statements.If you think it would make my position more palatable to use another term, I would be open to any and all suggestions.I dunno why I cared to post this. I guess I just hate to see a debate end so miserably, and would like to understand what is wrong or extremist for having the opinion that the evidence is conclusive... and presenting evidence along that line.------------------
holmes

Just to let you know I tried this but gave up when I realized the only people reading what I wrote (or responding to it), were members of the choir.If you have the time and energy, then go for it. If so, maybe you should open your own thread so people know what's going on there by the title itself.------------------
holmes

Being an admin, do you think it should be in a new thread somewhere?------------------
holmes