I’m not saying that the Israelis are entitled to that land. But then again, could you blame them? They are always the first group to be persecuted when societies decay, so it was a logical place to settle (however bloody the takeover was). Palestinians are likewise as a group prone to prejudice against Jews and may or may not have welcomed such a large influx of a despised people. — Noah Te Stroete

Palestinian violence against the Jews minority (at the beginnings of the 20th century it was very minority) starts with the proclamation of the State of Israel.In any case you cannot claim for a right that supposes equal violation of the rights of other people.

See my posts above. I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

-

See my posts above. I would like to hear your thoughts on this. — Noah Te Stroete

What would you think if a foreign power forced you to give up half your home to take in a Yemeni refugee family? How would you behave if your child was beaten by Yemenis for protesting? Think about it.

The genocide of the Jews during World War II was one of the most (if not "the" most) horrible genocides of the 20th century. Not only the Nazis but many conservative people collaborated with it. Sometimes with an intensity that surprised the Nazis (the Croatian Ustashi, for example). But nothing like this can be expected in contemporary Europe or America. Zionism was an ultra-nationalistic response that came especially from the refugees of Eastern Europe. It was not in the majority before World War II. And now Zionism has other different roots that must be related to US policy in West Asia. This is not a question of justice, but of power.

Where should the Jews go, though? — Noah Te Stroete

I don't see why they couldn't live in Palestine/Israel. They have lived there alongside other religions in relative peace, until people starting getting funny ideas about who else was allowed to live there.

I did not know all of this. — Noah Te Stroete

I recommend you to read the complete report. I think that AI is one of the most impartial sources of information about Human Rights. I don't say it is perfect, but it is the best in the best of possible worlds.

What would you think if a foreign power forced you to give up half your home to take in a Yemeni refugee family? How would you behave if your child was beaten by Yemenis for protesting? Think about it.

The genocide of the Jews during World War II was one of the most (if not "the" most) horrible genocides of the 20th century. Not only the Nazis but many conservative people collaborated with it. Sometimes with an intensity that surprised the Nazis (the Croatian Ustashi, for example). But nothing like this can be expected in contemporary Europe or America. Zionism was an ultra-nationalistic response that came especially from the refugees of Eastern Europe. It was not in the majority before World War II. And now Zionism has other different roots that must be related to US policy in West Asia. This is not a question of justice, but of power. — David Mo

I understand all of your points, but what about the Anglo-American pact to carve up and take over the Middle East after WWII? Surely they are to blame for just as many atrocities. Perhaps that’s a discussion for another thread, but “don’t point out the moat in another’s eye when there is a beam in yours” and all that.

I don't see why they couldn't live in Palestine/Israel. They have lived there alongside other religions in relative peace, until people starting getting funny ideas about who else was allowed to live there. — Tzeentch

Like I said earlier, most people can live side by side in relative peace; the normal, everyday, working for the man people. It’s only when the demagoguery of the leaders take over does all the shit get fucked up. They are really good at this, viz. fucking shit up for everyone else while hording wealth and power for themselves.

I understand all of your points, but what about the Anglo-American pact to carve up and take over the Middle East after WWII? Surely they are to blame for just as many atrocities. Perhaps that’s a discussion for another thread, but “don’t point out the moat in another’s eye when there is a beam in yours” and all that. — Noah Te Stroete

And what right did the Ottomans have to take over the Middle East?
Or the Muslims before them?
Or the Romans/Byzantines, the Sassanids, the Macedonians, the Persians? Did I forget the Mongols?

What is the convenient culprit for us to blame here?

The one we want to blame?

One thing is what has happened in history and in during wartime.

Another thing is what is happening in peace time and now.

No argument from me.

But you’re not suggesting there is peacetime in the Middle East right now, are you?

I’m not saying that the Israelis are entitled to that land. But then again, could you blame them? — Noah Te Stroete

Sure. One can blame people for what they do, even if others do bad things. And especially since the process simply made them a gathered target. It wasn't even a good choice for their own interests. Treating the already present Palestinians as equals would have saved them untold grief.

Palestinians are likewise as a group prone to prejudice against Jews and may or may not have welcomed such a large influx of a despised people. — Noah Te Stroete

There is general history of arab and Muslim nations dealing much better with Jews than Christian nations have. And note the assumption in your sentence. Of course they should all get to come there. Perhaps this would have caused tensions, but ousting the Palestinians didn't help the safefy of Jews. What gave the newcomers more rights than people already there? (Well, the British did, but that's another story and doesn't make it moral). Of course I have sympathy for the situation the Jews were in, but I don't think their approach there has been good for them, it was certainly not good for the Palestinians and it has continued to create tensions that could lead to world wars. I sometimes wonder if that was not someone's intent. Hey, let's create a permanent tension there where everyone is unsafe cause this is going to piss everyone off forever. This is not meant as a argument, but rather as a reaction to what has really been such a terrible set of ideas

for everyone.

I get the intent. But it was terrible on practical and moral terms. Yes, there was also a positive moral intent. Also.

And I am not naive enough to think there was some perfect solution. But this was a terrible one and admitting some portions of that terrible side might help. But just as in marriages telling the truth often feels like it just gives the other person power.

That idea has not saved a single marriage.

Israel isn't in a war, like in 1973, in 1982 or in 2006 with it's neighbours.

What I've stated is that Israel is in a permanent low-intensity conflict with the Palestinians, in a state of Peace with aspects of permanent war. And that this is the reason, which then makes norms that otherwise you would only find under martial law and at war time present in Israel.

Benkei argues that this is because of Zionism. I argue that Zionism is a minor issue (as the state of Israel already exists) and that the implemented policies are driven by the security viewpoint, not by an ideology. It is putting the carriage before the horse, but that's as like in the US where it was decided that the country would go to war against a method (the War on Terror).

Palestinian violence against the Jews minority (at the beginnings of the 20th century it was very minority) starts with the proclamation of the State of Israel.In any case you cannot claim for a right that supposes equal violation of the rights of other people. — David Mo

The victims of the 1929 Hebron massacre would like a word with you.

Hundreds of arabs walked down a residential street with knives and tools and went from door to door murdering the jewish families - men, women, and children. the women were raped. it was deliberate and encouraged by the grand mufti of jerusalem, but i guess who really cares i mean they were zionists right?

The victims of the 1929 Hebron massacre would like a word with you.

Hundreds of arabs walked down a residential street with knives and tools and went from door to door murdering the jewish families - men, women, and children. the women were raped. it was deliberate and encouraged by the grand mufti of jerusalem, but i guess who really cares i mean they were zionists right? — BitconnectCarlos

The 1929 massacre is indeed a very popular incident which people refer to to justify Zionism. It has been notoriously exploited in pro-Zionist propaganda, and has been used ever since to drive a wedge between Jews and Arabs.

Zionism is much older than that, however, and in 1929 Zionist paramilitary organizations like the Haganah were already operating in Palestine. The shape Zionism took in that period is exactly what caused old tensions to reignite.

While the murder of innocents is a horrible thing, it is misleading to refer to this incident as a standard for Jewish-Arab relations during the period, nor should it be regarded as an act of random violence.

I argue that Zionism is a minor issue (as the state of Israel already exists) and that the implemented policies are driven by the security viewpoint, not by an ideology. — ssu

It's a foolish argument.

International law often leaves room when it comes to military necessity. As such, whenever Israel breaches international law, and it makes quite a habit of it, it claims there is such a necessity. They used to put forward other arguments, such as claiming sovereignty over territories that weren't theirs (like the West Bank), but these were taken apart over the years and military necessity is all that they have left.

These attempts at using military necessity as an excuse for human rights violations and breaches of international law have also been dismissed by the International Court of Justice on numerous occasions.

The Israeli government (the right-wing parts, of course) isn't concerned about security. They are concerned about painting Israel/Palestine in the colors of the Israeli flag. That's why they continually expand the West Bank Barrier to encompass more territory that isn't theirs. That's why they do not take action against the illegal Jewish settlements and instead use them to claim more pieces of the West Bank. Laws that discriminate against Palestinians and allow the Israeli state to put them in chains for however long it wants, without having to file any sort of charges and without giving them an opportunity to talk with a legal representative or even their own family, does that sound like a security measure to you, or does that sound like systematic oppression?

They make every effort to make life impossible for Palestinian communities, only to resettle those areas when they finally leave.

This is the policy of Likud, Netanyahu and his ilk. What happened when their enemy, Rabin, finally managed to take steps towards peace? They offed him.

The victims of the 1929 Hebron massacre would like a word with you. — BitconnectCarlos

You are right. I should have included the period of the British mandate when the Zionist "national home" begins to be substantiated.

Incidentally, your description of the massacre gives a partial picture of the 1929 conflict in which 133 Jews and 110 Arabs died (source: Wikipedia.es). The main leaders on both sides were condemned by the British authorities. The Arabs for incitement to hatred and the Jews for possession of arms. It is more complicated than a pogrom. None of this prevents us from condemn the Hebron massacre of 1929.

The shape Zionism took in that period is exactly what caused old tensions to reignite.

oh thanks, yeah got it, it was zionism that was the cause behind those families being murdered with blunt objects in their homes around dinner time. ya know for a second i thought it might have been the virulently anti-semitic arab political leadership in jerusalem at that time as well as the actual perpetrators who had no qualms about killing their neighbors with household tools but thanks for clearing that up for me; damn zionism... igniting tensions again. i mean how many more jewish children does zionism need to murder with a tire iron to the head before we just be done with the idea forever?

it is misleading to refer to this incident as a standard for Jewish-Arab relations during the period

oh no, there were no other riots. no other anti-semitic attacks during that period. you've clearly read your history here.

but seriously go back and read about the grand mufti of jerusalem and the numerous riots and killings he is responsible for. he's an extremely ugly figure.

The main leaders on both sides were condemned by the British authorities. The Arabs for incitement to hatred and the Jews for possession of arms. It is more complicated than a pogrom.

if it's not a pogram or a massacre then would you mind enlightening me as to what it actually was when hundreds of arabs murdered jews in their living spaces with household tools? i like that you're trying to keep it "fair and balanced" here; go on, keep telling me how awful those zionists are for... possession arms. when those nice arab men come to your home how could those dirty jews zionists dare even think about grabbing a firearm! the proper thing to do is welcome them in and politely ask where they would like to murder you and your family.

but yes, both sides are to blame here. the situation is very complicated.

Now you are just ranting.

Here is why you are wrong in the way you frame the problem.

Firstly, you assume the violence was anti-Semitic in nature, while politics played a much larger role in it than you care to admit. Zionism was a large factor in the shape those politics took on, because it was clear that Jews were immigrating to Palestine with the intention of claiming it. Moreover, large amounts of weapons were being smuggled into the country and armed paramilitary organizations like the Haganah were operating to turn that dream into a reality.

Secondly, you assume that this must mean that Jews and Arabs hated each other during this period, which is false. There was unrest, but it was mainly the political leadership that used every incident as a way to vilify the other side. This was necessary, because they were preparing for their power plays. The Zionists wanted to claim Palestine and the Arab leadership obviously had their own plans for filling up the power-vacuum the Brits and French left behind.

You are playing the same game as the Zionists did during that time:
1. There is an incident.
2. That incident is labeled by the political elite as being ethnically/religiously motivated.
3. According to the political elite that proves coexistence is impossible and Jews need their own state.
4. That legitimizes Zionism.

if it's not a pogram or a massacre then would you mind enlightening me as to what it actually was when hundreds of arabs murdered jews in their living spaces with household tools? — BitconnectCarlos

I have not denied that a massacre took place in Hebron. But to speak of a pogrom, one must assume that it is a massacre of a defenseless Jewish population, like were usual in Czarist Russia. If the figures given by Wikipedia and the response of the British authorities are correct, there was a conflict between two communities and the Jewish community seemed to have good offensive capacity, as the small difference in casualties shows -only about twenty. In these conditions it seems more correct to speak of a conflict between communities in which there was a terrible massacre in Hebron. This does not diminish the responsibility of the Palestinian authorities, the sinister mufti of Jerusalem specially, any more than it diminishes the responsibility of the Jewish authorities for the massacres and ethnic cleansing that took place later. Whether or not you want to call them "sinister" is a matter of personal taste. The facts were similar.

That legitimizes Zionism. — Tzeentch

Indeed, every colonial power justifies its policy of occupation by the fact that the settlers are attacked by the local population. This was the usual strategy against the Native Americans, for example. And this was the strategy of colonization in Palestine.

Violent anti-Jewish riots were directly provoked by the growing colonization movement, from the Balfour declaration onwards. Of course, racist prejudices played their part, but these prejudices had been dormant before the British Mandate and the initial pro-Jewish policy of the colonial power. Moreover, the riots were executed by displaced farm workers. The Zionist policy of "Jewish workers only" had something to do with this situation of displaced Palestinians. Although it was not the only cause, it was the most visible and was used by the Palestinian elites against the Jews.

Another thing is that the unrest covered the entire Palestinian population. This is not true. I will leave this for another time.

It's a foolish argument.

International law often leaves room when it comes to military necessity. As such, whenever Israel breaches international law, and it makes quite a habit of it, it claims there is such a necessity. — Tzeentch

Foolish or not, that is the line.

You could argue that it's also foolish to occupy a country, because a financial backer of a terrorist strike lived there (but otherwise the country's regime had no involvement in the terrorist attack). That only the numbers of killed made an otherwise police matter so different that the country eagerly went to war and later invading another country that had absolutely nothing to do with the terrorist strike (and no WMD project whatsoever). Yet that's the reality.

The Israeli government (the right-wing parts, of course) isn't concerned about security. They are concerned about painting Israel/Palestine in the colors of the Israeli flag. — Tzeentch

One has to remember that the Likud has just a quarter of the seats in the Knesset. And there is a non-religious faction there too. Of all the excesses, shootings, demolitions of homes and etc. in the Occupied Territories, there still are Jews killed by Palestinians.

But to speak of a pogrom, one must assume that it is a massacre of a defenseless Jewish population, like were usual in Czarist Russia. If the figures given by Wikipedia and the response of the British authorities are correct, there was a conflict between two communities and the Jewish community seemed to have good offensive capacity, as the small difference in casualties shows -only about twenty. In these conditions it seems more correct to speak of a conflict between communities in which there was a terrible massacre in Hebron.

David, most of those arabs were killed by the british, not by any sort of significant jewish security apparatus. there was no battle here, no struggle between two sides. I'm tired of being your history teacher David, please do your own research.

Foolish or not, that is the line.

You could argue that it's also foolish to occupy a country, because a financial backer of a terrorist strike lived there (but otherwise the country's regime had no involvement in the terrorist attack). That only the numbers of killed made an otherwise police matter so different that the country eagerly went to war and later invading another country that had absolutely nothing to do with the terrorist strike (and no WMD project whatsoever). Yet that's the reality. — ssu

I'm not sure what you're getting at. In both cases things haven't worked out. The US has been humiliated in its failure to bring two third-world countries (Iraq and Afghanistan) to their knees, and Israel has been struggling with conflict ever since its independence, forcing it to take evermore draconian measures against its own population and the Palestinians.

It seems reality has a way of getting the last laugh.

Of all the excesses, shootings, demolitions of homes and etc. in the Occupied Territories, there still are Jews killed by Palestinians. — ssu

And there are Palestinians killed by Jews.
Every innocent killed in an act of violence is terrible, certainly. Keeping tabs with an 'eye for an eye' mentality will surely never result in a solution.

Firstly, you assume the violence was anti-Semitic in nature, while politics played a much larger role in it than you care to admit.

This particular incident was caused by lies spread by the mufti of jerusalem. I don't really care that internal arab politics likely played a role, but to blame it on zionism is absurd victim blaming and immigration levels were at a relatively low level during that time (1929). there are plenty of massacres of jews that occurred before zionism even took force. the idea that the jews were pretty much safe and good until zionism started is just a blatant falsehood.

I'm not interested in pinning arabs against jews or making all arabs out to be jew haters. I never said that all arabs hated jews during this period. the relationship between the two groups of people is complex.

Ultimately, what the jews need is security. they will not find this if they simply rely on arab powers and hope that the arabs treat them nice. it's not just a matter of the arabs either; the same could be said for the europeans. jews ought to be done with "hoping" or "depending" at this point when it comes to national security.

immigration levels were at a relatively low level during that time (1929). — BitconnectCarlos

Compared to when?

there are plenty of massacres of jews that occurred before zionism even took force. the idea that the jews were pretty much safe and good until zionism started is just a blatant falsehood. — BitconnectCarlos

Incidents occur anywhere, between all kinds of societies. Again, it is the game that you play where you consider this sort of thing unique to Jews to justify Zionism.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. In both cases things haven't worked out. — Tzeentch

Hasn't worked out for Israel? How so?

The low intensity conflict solution has actually worked out quite well. Israel has had better economic growth than the US. Unemployment is low, social mobility is high. In the Human Development Index Israel ranks above Spain, France and Italy. Netanyahu has stayed in power. Things are quite OK for Israel.



A low intensity conflict is totally different from a conventional war. You don't have the military on a wartime footing, which would be a severe strain on the military.

Just like the US has now been at war since 2001. Where do you see this in every day life? Do people notice it? No.

Things are quite OK for Israel. — ssu

Have you ever been to Israel?

David, most of those arabs were killed by the british, not by any sort of significant jewish security apparatus. — BitconnectCarlos

The intervention of Jewish armed groups led by Zeev Jabotinsky and the British army against the Palestinians are two elements that you will not find in any pogrom.

The third element, which in my opinion is a determining factor in the deterioration of relations between the two communities - Jews and Palestinians - is the Zionist project to occupy Palestine and the support of the British authorities through Balfour declaration. Under these conditions, the fact that the British army acted against the Palestinians to defend the Jews led the former to believe that expulsion from their land was agreed. As it turned out to be true later on.

You'll forgive me if I don't go any further, but I am tired too of arguing with the Zionists about the same obvious things.

You'll forgive me if I don't go any further, but I am tired too of arguing with the Zionists about the same obvious things. — David Mo

Why are you so up in arms about the Jews? I’m not a Zionist, but I think it’s disingenuous to say the Palestinians are so innocent.

If the Palestinians had the military and police force that the Israelis have, you’d better believe they’d be doing the same if not worse.

Where was your outrage when the Americans killed two million Vietnamese?

Or when the Nazis killed twenty-seven million Russians?

My point is that war is terrible, but war is basically the status quo in human history. People are and always have been awful.

Best to get a hobby.