Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumOn Questioning the Jewish State
I was raised in a religious Jewish environment, and though we were not strongly Zionist, I always took it to be self-evident that “Israel has a right to exist.” Now anyone who has debated the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will have encountered this phrase often. Defenders of Israeli policies routinely accuse Israel’s critics of denying her right to exist, while the critics (outside of a small group on the left, where I now find myself) bend over backward to insist that, despite their criticisms, of course they affirm it. The general mainstream consensus seems to be that to deny Israel’s right to exist is a clear indication of anti-Semitism (a charge Jews like myself are not immune to), and therefore not an option for people of conscience.
Over the years I came to question this consensus and to see that the general fealty to it has seriously constrained open debate on the issue, one of vital importance not just to the people directly involved — Israelis and Palestinians — but to the conduct of our own foreign policy and, more important, to the safety of the world at large. My view is that one really ought to question Israel’s right to exist and that doing so does not manifest anti-Semitism. The first step in questioning the principle, however, is to figure out what it means.
One problem with talking about this question calmly and rationally is that the phrase “right to exist” sounds awfully close to “right to life,” so denying Israel its right to exist sounds awfully close to permitting the extermination of its people. In light of the history of Jewish persecution, and the fact that Israel was created immediately after and largely as a consequence of the Holocaust, it isn’t surprising that the phrase “Israel’s right to exist” should have this emotional impact. But as even those who insist on the principle will admit, they aren’t claiming merely the impermissibility of exterminating Israelis. So what is this “right” that many uphold as so basic that to question it reflects anti-Semitism and yet is one that I claim ought to be questioned?
The key to the interpretation is found in the crucial four words that are often tacked on to the phrase “Israel’s right to exist” — namely, “… as a Jewish state.” As I understand it, the principle that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state has three parts: first, that Jews, as a collective, constitute a people in the sense that they possess a right to self-determination; second, that a people’s right to self-determination entails the right to erect a state of their own, a state that is their particular people’s state; and finally, that for the Jewish people the geographical area of the former Mandatory Palestine, their ancestral homeland, is the proper place for them to exercise this right to self-determination.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/09/on-questioning-the-jewish-state/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
cali
(114,904 posts)I am not posting this because I agree with the author. I'm posting it because it's provocative (in the sense of provoking thought), well written and thoughtful. The author is a fairly well known American philosopher.
I don't think, on balance that I entirely agree with Levine but I do agree that a state where one ethnicity/religion has supremacy over others not in that group, is problematic. Levine points out that merely the fact that Israel is a Jewish state establishes that dominance or supremacy or whatever you wish to call it.
So am I advocating the demise of Israel as a Jewish state? No.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Possibly earlier.
aquart
(69,014 posts)You just think the extermination of Israel is worth discussing. Oh, me, too. Let's also discuss letting more immigration into Saudi Arabia and sharing out that oil money to way more ethnicities.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)Can you please tell me where there exists a state where that ISN'T true? Where is the state without ethnic minorities? Even monolithic North Korea has minorities (how well do you imagine they are treated?). While Jews are a quantitative majority in Israel, you shouldn't interpret that as supremacy. Israeli law holds equal to all citizens, regardless of religion. How often is that true in other states? In Israel, it is easy to live as a Jew, kosher food is plentiful, you can worship openly, you can buy a tallis in a department store. But, there is no penalty at all for not living like a Jew, lifestyle choice is completely individual.
The need for a Jewish state was demonstrated well before the Holocaust -- organized Zionism dates back to the 19th century -- because over and over for two thousand years -- Jewish minorities have suffered at the hands of the majority. Zionism doesn't ask for special preferences for Jews -- it only asks what for what most ethnic minorities already enjoy -- a single, tiny spot on Earth where they can determine their own fate.
There are those -- I don't rank you among them -- who seek to de-legitimize Zionism and Israel by equating it with ethnic oppression (call it ultra-nationalism, apartheid, or whatever buzzword you choose). That is simply not the case.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Whenever I see the term Jewish State I find it ironic that Israel is actually the 75.4 percent Jewish State. 24.6 are non-Jewish. Jewish homeland is more reasonable.
I believe that in at least two instances I had asked some what would Israel be called if the populations of the other groups were to grow: the 50-50 state?
And yes, it is wonderful to see the worriers come out and lament about the Muslims states when the article is a critique of Democratic Israel. They probably missed this with the race to attack and hit post reply.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)The Demise of the Vatican state as a Christian state?
or the demise of any religious state, and there are quite a few?
cali
(114,904 posts)From my post (#1 in this thread)
So am I advocating the demise of Israel as a Jewish state? No.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)a Jewish State, and that Muslims in Egypt and Iran have no right to define themselves as Islamic. Is this a Jihad against religon in politics or is it limited to the people of Israel.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)as a defining factor. I would no more want to live in a Mormon, Muslim, Protestant or Catholic state, that has an ignored minority, as I would in a Jewish state.
Another question that I keep on asking is that since Israel is only 75.5% Jewish how would it consider itself in the future if the minority becomes a majority or at least in parity with the once majority?
America has seen many demographic changes since its original inhabitants were overrun by the Europeans and penned into reservations and IMHO have been treated like shit to this day. That aside the WASPS that took the land were in turn replaced by minorities over time: the largest being from Germanic origin then Irish, Spanish and so on.
Things change, but if America had been known as a Protestant State they would have to accept that label would not last forever.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)We changed only with a great deal of work, effort, blood, conflict and time.
Founding wealthy fathers such as Jefferson, Washington, and Adams did not willingly change that definition, they created it.
Israel is well aware of the demographic time bomb ticking there. IMHO, that is why they encourage the conservative, right wing religious elements in their society. Religious zealots pop out babies like guppies. Stupid way to run a country, IMHO. But saying that merely being aware that their definition can not last is unrealistic. Religious based nation states have a history of long existence. The Roman Empire embraced Theocracy at its inception by deifying their emperors, and with changes in religion lasted longer than any other empire in history. (Religion was also a central feature of their Republic.) The Arabian peninsula has been theocratic from its conquest by the Prophet. Most of the secular governments in the Middle East that succeeded the British Empire have given way to religious states. Most of those governments that took over after the fall of the atheistic Soviet Union in the Middle East are religious based. Religious people view God as the center of the universe and unchangeable. The notion of their Nation evolving is outside of their world view. Changing to a non-religious based stated, to them, is perversion. Not even a pervert wants to be called a pervert. Because religion is built into the power structure, it is not willingly surrendered. The primary imperative of all power structures is to maintain their power.
Here in the U.S., we have a great deal of trouble with religious statists. They have managed to drive the national agenda, and even control, the Republican Party, and, to some extent, the nation. The religious intolerance of the rights of women and gays drove a majority of Republican voters to the polls in 2012. If they had found a way to embrace Hispanics instead of planning to drive them to the Rio Grande and drown them with the government, Republican theocrats would have won. (It would also have helped if they nominated a better figurehead, but they just needed someone to hold the pen, anyway.)
I would prefer to see states around the world pull back from religion, but the inertia is in the other direction. A century and a half of Western, more or less secular nation building has created a counter secular backlash. I think we have at least fifty years of religious turmoil before the tides of history changes.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)
leveymg
(36,418 posts)So, the continuation of the Jewish State has to be the basic assumption, and the basis for any rational policy, including proposals for reform.
The stuff that strays from that is simply unrealistic doctrinal arguments among zealots on both sides.
That is why accusations made by the Right against BDS and other reform movements that they are somehow anti-Israel is simply hostile rhetoric, and can be ignored.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:43 AM - Edit history (2)
Israel doesnt have to be "better" than any of the other democracies....its just has hit the basic standard. That standard in fact is based on racism, perhaps a watererd down version of it, but never the less, every democracy has some form of racism within its liberalism used to preserve its culture (see immigration policies as one example). if one prefers the progressive "self-determination" well that too is well steeped in racism as its very core concept of who gets to make the decisions.
Israels basic foundation laws, again like every western democracy is based on equal rights, so again the basic standard is met. The fact that the jews are a majority is hardly a problem in terms of having a democracy since all social groups, counties, neighborhoods, PTA meetings, countries all have a majority of a certain group be it based on religion, ethnicity, political viewpoints, etc. and they "exploit" that majority to push their own agenda within the confines of the law. This works fine if the country is a western democracy.
so when i see all of these articles, posts decrying israels imperfect democracy, the question that comes up is, if there is a double/triple standard being applied to israel or is the motivation/agenda something else....my conclusion, is that the issue is not israel's democracy, nor its liberalism, nor the individual citizens, soldiers that dont live up to the basic expectations, nor the impersonal bureaucracy, those criticisms are simply the "means to a end" its about a narrow, culturally centric view(s) of 'national justice." (never about end results, never about democratic, liberal values) and this national justice is also based on racism at its base.... but that is another story.....
note: I have not mentioned the west bank, since its occupied and under military rule.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)There's plenty of criticism of US policies heard around the world, too, both from within and without.
I think what you're getting at is the idea of citizenship: who is included as part of the polity allowed to participate in national voting and selection of elected officials. For all its practical limitations on citizenship and the exercise of voting, the United States explicitly has no restrictions based on religion. Israel not so much. There is a difference, and people can criticize that aspect of Israel's system from democratic principle. You can dismiss that as arguing from a position of false moral superiority if you like, but it does not make such criticism invalid.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)criticism of any country is the foundation for a democracy.....its has to have it, it has to change itself as the population changes...and criticism is one of the engines for that
however the criticism from outside groups on israeli democracy is not based on "fixing israel" nor some grand plan of fixing the world and removing all of the sins of every country, israel just being one of them. For some its simply a way to delegitimize israel as some kind of theocratic, anti democratic, anti liberal country....its simply the means to an end.....
using civil right criticisms of a democratic liberal country to help create/support an anti western anti civil rights country.....
that is the part i found rather objectionable
aquart
(69,014 posts)Hmm. Your only "we" is immediate family.
Does the United States of America have the right to exist or should it be handed back to the Sioux and the Navajo? Yes or No.
cali
(114,904 posts)try reading what I said in my post.
aquart
(69,014 posts)Because the Arabs have shown how much they like to share?
What? Not the pretty, dispassionate, mealy-mouthed discussion you wanted?
Too damn bad.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Did the 'Arabs" have a choice when Israel started sharing the West bank at gunpoint?
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... when Jordan took the West Bank and Jerusalem at gunpoint?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Yes. They didn't have to add one illegal settlement unless they had already decided to take the land for empire.
Occupation is one thing, but occupation/colonization is quite another.
But please, edjumacate me on the peace-loving Israel's need to expand into territory that is not Israel.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Consider areas of east Jerusalem that were historically Jewish prior to 1947 like the Jewish quarter. When Jordan took over EJ it systematically destroyed ancient temples and the mt of olives cemetery. Jews were forbidden from accessing their most holy sites.
So if an area has been ethnically cleansed just 20 years beforehand, is it really "colonization" for the "cleansees" to return?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)in the original partition plan?
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... the original partition plan was REJECTED on behalf of the Palestinians by the Arab League. The original plan is moot.
Jerusalem was intended to be an open city -- that lasted just long enough for the UN Representative to grab their bags and run from the Jordanian tanks.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)do you believe that the rejection entitled Israel to the land?
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... depends on whatever is negotiated between Palestinians and Israelis. So far, not much negotiating has taken place. You can blame that on whomever you wish -- Likud hasn't been in charge for forty six years. Those years have seen the most liberal, conciliatory Israeli governments in and out of power but never a change in the Palestinian position. Which is a shame because the waiting game isn't in the Palestinian's favour.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and thanks for reminding us that it is not just Likud that is responsible for the colonization efforts in fact Likud did not exist until 1973 
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... they passed "title" on land they never legally owned so, again, moot point.
The fact remains -- the land -- because of the Palestinian rejection of partition -- was up for grabs. Jordan grabbed it first, Israel second. In '78, '93, and 2000, the Palestinian leadership had the opportunity to take back the lion's share of that land in return for a peace agreement -- that offer was rejected all three times.
Let me ask YOU a question -- do you believe the Palestinians will EVER accept an agreement that doesn't include 100% of existing border settlements and all of East Jerusalem -- including the Wall?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)declared a Palestinian state in the West Bank and no why should the Palestinians accept anything less than 100% of the West Bank, because Israel built what they knew to be illegal settlements? IMO Jerusalem should be jointly held
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)I hope intransigence on your part -- and the part of the Palestinians -- is part of a long-term plan, because it hasn't worked well so far.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)has had a good deal of success in colonizing that same land
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... I envy your lack of historical perspective.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)does that boggle you?
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)thanks for admitting that
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)Any guesses as to whom?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)Is there some other euphemism you'd prefer to see for how Israel treats the Palestinians? I do recall a thread back at the start of DU3 where you accused Palestinians civilians being whiners because they dared complain that Israel destroyed their electricity supply, because apparently power is a privilege when it comes to Palestinians. I would expect someone espousing views like that to be unhappy with anyone daring to point out that Israel does rule the Occupied Territories with an iron fist...
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)36 years of Israeli colonization has gone on during that time. 36 years of ignoring UN resolutions has gone on during that time at the same time that 36 years of crying to the UN has gone on.
You forgot to add how wonderful a democracy Israel is, but how does a modern democracy explain empire and apartheid?
In all honesty why don't you tell DU why Israel believes that it has any claim to land outside of Israel.
The claim is not recognized by the UN or international community. It is not recognized by the US.
The hard truth is that the Palestinian cause is gaining in popularity so it's no wonder why Fibi wants to expand the settlements and add more illegals as residents.
What you miss is that the waiting game actually IS in the Palestinian's favor.
One of the next stops will be to the ICC. Get ready for it.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)That's precious
Have you ever seen a court? Met a lawyer?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)What will be even more precious is the palpable fear of the Israeli colony brigade; knowing that the ICC could rule in favor of the Palestinians.
But if anything is certain it is that it is left to the Israelis they will just ignore any ruling in favor of the Palestinians just as they have ignored international law.
aranthus
(3,385 posts)When the Arabs of Palestine set the stakes of the war at all or nothing, then they are subject to the stakes that they set. Israel was and is entitled to keep all the captured land as its own. Obviously they can't do that and achieve peace, but that is a different argument than that Israel has no right to the land. Israel has a legitimate claim to all of Western palestine and the Golan.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and you believe that due to what happened over 60 years ago Israel has right to the West Bank and the Golan? May I remind you that Israel was conceded lands that went well outside of the original partition in 1949 when the armistice was signed, but now you'll tell us that is not enough?
aranthus
(3,385 posts)I said that Israel has a claim to that land. Obviously so do others. But the fact is that the Arabs chose war, not just in 1947, but again in 1967, and that choice put the land up for grabs. Israel won the wars , and can justly keep the land. Of course, if Israel ever hopes to have peace with the Arabs, it will have to reach an accomodation with them on the land. But that does not nullify the justness of Israel's claim.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)not according to international it is conquered territory period, it was never part of the partition
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Wasn't Jordan in charge before Israel? Did Israel offer to return any part of the land back to Jordan immediately after the war? Had there been any movement supporting an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank between 1948 and 1967?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)however the West Bank was intended to be part of an unnamed Arab state and Jordan is wait for it an Arab state isn't it? I've got news 1967 was 46 years ago and times change.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Indeed they do.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and you seem oh so reliant on that a scattered people did not organize fast enough to be legitimate? or is it something else please be clear?
aranthus
(3,385 posts)I do not understand your reverance for a suggestion by the UN that was rejected by the party now trying to take advantage of it. It's just the UN; who gives a crap? Why do you think it matters so much? As far as Israel's claim, it's stronger than the Arab claim. Jews have been living in Judea and Samaria far longer than Arabs. And the Arabs through the area up for grabs when they intiated war against the Jews.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)or will you claim that there were no non-Jews living in the West Bank
and who gives a crap about the UN? If the UN is so useless why doesn't Israel withdraw from it?
aranthus
(3,385 posts)azurnoir>or will you claim that there were no non-Jews living in the West Bank
[font color=blue]I claim no such thing, as you should know by now. What I said is that there were Jews living there before the Arabs were there. Second, I did not say that the Arabs have no claim, only that the Jews' claim is stronger. They have been there longer, and they didn't initiate the war by which the Arabs lost the West Bank. The Arabs started that war, so they suffer the consequences.[/font]
azurnoir>and who gives a crap about the UN? If the UN is so useless why doesn't Israel withdraw from it?
[font color=blue]Okay, I thought we were talking about the viability of UN opinions. You seem to think that it's important that Judea and Samaria were outside the bounds of the Jewish state suggested in the Partition Resolution. That Resolution can only matter if it has some kind of legal or moral force. Except, according to the UN Charter, General Assembly resolutions have no legal standing. The General Assembly only has the power to make recommendations. So that leaves moral standing; in other words, that the General Assembly's opinion means something. I don't think that it does, and I'm asking why you place such importance on it. Within that framework, whether Israel chooses to remain part of the UN or not is irrelevant. The UN is and does many things. It's a forum where governments can make speeches and meet each other. It's an umbrella organization for state action, including UNICEF, UNESCO, and the WHO. Just because the opinion of the UN is meaningless does not mean that the entire organization has no value. And just because there is value in having a forum, does not mean that we should put much stock in what it says. But you do, so I'm asking why.[/font]
cali
(114,904 posts)and do try reading. I wrote this in my post which is the first response to my thread:
So am I advocating the demise of Israel as a Jewish state? No.
That's unequivocal.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)unless of course you believe the US has a right to exist as the Christian state or Caucasian state?
aquart
(69,014 posts)Good justification. If the No Irish Need Apply signs were still up, THEN we'd have to hand the USA back to the Algonquins and Mohawks?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)seems a difficult concept for some though but there are sites where such thoughts are more embraced and accepted but this isn't one of them
shira
(30,109 posts)
shira
(30,109 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)be my guest my self a would wish for a more modern secular state 
shira
(30,109 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)but as usual do not allow that to get in your way
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Fair question, no?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)seems that's a really difficult concept for some though 
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)not Palestinians.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)are really Mizrahi or Jews from Arab countries or that both are Israeli Arabs or Palestinians with Israeli citizenship as the poster I was replying to chas called them in fact it was that poster whp 'corrected' me on calling them Israeli Arabs
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)however my reply was tailored to the poster I was replying to
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Can't you be a Serbian citizen of Bosnia but not call yourself a Bosnian?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)are considered somehow different than Jewish Israeli's ?
aranthus
(3,385 posts)in the same way that the United States has a right to exist as an American state. Or France has a right to be French; Japan Japanese, etc.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Last edited Tue Mar 12, 2013, 06:01 PM - Edit history (1)
without realizing pointed it out here
what I have said is that Israel has the right to exist as a state for Israeli's meaning every Israeli citizen regardless of their ethnic/religious heritage, calling it the Jewish state narrows that down to one group only, something none of the countries you mention do
aranthus
(3,385 posts)Of course the countries I mentioned have an ethnic preference. the US is American, not Chinese. Ask Arabs in France if there isn't an ethnic preference. What about Japan?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)yes and Israel would have preference Israeli see it's quite similar
Behind the Aegis
(53,979 posts)It is just a fancy-smancy way of saying anti-Semitic shit and trying to make it sound "progressive." Gee, that is oh so familiar. Jews have every right to self-determination. A state which is solely "Jewish" is not capable of being totally democratic in nature, so it is understandable why when some hear "Jewish state" they think "exclusive." I try to use "Jewish homeland" as to be reflective that while it is a homeland for Jews (I don't always remember to do so), it does not exclude the possibility it can be a homeland for others. And, for someone who is supposedly as intelligent as he is, when his first paragraph starts with an idiotic notion:
The general mainstream consensus seems to be that to deny Israel’s right to exist is a clear indication of anti-Semitism (a charge Jews like myself are not immune to), and therefore not an option for people of conscience.
if, by this time, wit his education, he is not capable of understanding that Jews can be anti-Semitic, then the 'notion' of the 'Jewish state' is well out of his league of understanding in its complexities because the other thing, anti-Semitic Jews, isn't complicated nor requires heavy thinking.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And argue that certain demographics need to be "managed" in order to prevent a shift in ethnic majorities. It's the whole reason Zionists oppose the notion of the Right of Return, because the idea of Arabs returning to the Jewish state is abhorrent to them.
Jews do have the right to self-determination. But you and so many others who post here clearly believe that Jewishness entitles a person to more, not just self-determination but also the god-given right to strip the self-determination from others. Thus the unending support for the occupation, land theft, ethnic cleansing, and segregation.
Zionists are for "self-determination" in exactly the same way the Confederate states were.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... a state with an identifiable ethnic Identity -- like England, Ireland, France, Germany, Japan, China, etc ... is OK.
But, a JEWISH state with an identifiable ethnic identity is (and I quote)
"..unending support for the occupation, land theft, ethnic cleansing, and segregation. "
Thank goodness you're not anti-semitic or anything, because that would be terrible.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Given its past with ethnocentrism. While I'm not surprised that you would support German racial supremacism, I am surprised that you would give voice to it
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... all ethnicity equals racial supremacy? Or is it just for ethnicities you don't like?
An interesting, but contentious, world it is in which you live.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I do not believe that any ethnic group has any right to impose ethnocentric rule over others. History shows that it doesn't work out very well, unless paired with wholesale genocide (which no, I do not think Israel is perpetrating)
To say Germany has a German ethnic majority and historically German culture is a very different thing from labeling it the "German state" and espousing, basically "Germany for Germans." Which may be why such rhetoric doesn't fly very well in Germany these days.
Israel as a state with a Jewish majority is just fine. Israel as a state with Jewish traditions, again no problem. As you say, many nations fall into this rubric. But setting in stone, "this is the Jewish state" ignores and excludes the nation's non-Jewish population, smacks of ethnic chauvinism, and ignores the reality that every nation goes through demographic shifts.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... wishing it weren't so is fine by me. If wishes were horses we'd all be eating steak. But actively seeking to replace the Jewish majority by forcing Israel to accept millions of new citizens who never lived in Israel in their lives is a poorly-veiled attempt to destroy the nature, and the very reason for the Jewish State to exist.
We all know why that effort is important to some and what the envisioned end-state result would be (even if some won't openly acknowledge it).
What is the US position on giving citizenship to anyone of Mexican heritage whose ancestors happened to live in pre-annexation Texas? How would Italy react to a global effort to repatriate to Italy anyone who had ancestors who were citizens of the Roman Empire? We can take this argument as far back as we like -- but, if we do, the Olduvai Gorge is going to be REALLY crowded.
Look, I get that many people want to see Israel destroyed. I can imagine the thought of a Jewish people who don't meekly submit to slaughter as uncomfortable or even frightening. But, all I ask of those people is to be open and honest in their desires and don't cowardly couch them in pro-diversity rhetoric.
Response to holdencaufield (Reply #57)
Post removed
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... I wonder (although I'm pretty sure I know) where you acquired it.
Do you believe that there were no Jews in Israel for the past 3,000 years? That one day in 1948 they just showed up and started building kibbutzim and dancing in circles?
Do you believe that Jews are occupying ALL of Israel, or just the settlements? Do Jews have any right to have a country anywhere in the world?
Did Israel "sweep their Muslim and Christian descendants from the land" or are there 2 million Muslims and Xtians living in Israel as equal citizens with Jewish Israelis? NOTE to Scoot: 25% ethnic minority population makes Israel one of the MOST diverse countries on the planet -- certainly not the HQ for racial superiority you imagine.
I get what motivates you to hold these beliefs, I truly do.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)Why? Where are you sure Scoot acquired their view of history?
In case you missed that moment in history when Israel was created and around 750,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled from their homes, that was a case of ethnic cleansing and nothing for you to be proud of. Homes owned by Palestinians were taken and given to immigrants to Israel, who suddenly had much more right to be there than the people who'd been living there before.
shira
(30,109 posts)...in order to attain a Jewish majority. That's not history, it's hate speech and propaganda.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)Palestinians were forcibly expelled both prior to and after the creation of Israel and only someone completely deluded would deny that a motivating factor was to attain a Jewish majority, seeing as how without a Jewish majority the whole point of Israel being created was kind of moot...
That's not 'hate speech' and propaganda. That's what any halfway decent book on the history of the area and of Zionism will tell you...
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Tue Mar 12, 2013, 10:51 AM - Edit history (1)
The Economist, reported on October 2, 1948: "Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit....It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades."
Time Magazine (May 3, 1948) reported: "The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by orders of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city....By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa."
Edward Atiyah, the secretary of the Arab League Office in London, wrote in his book, The Arabs: "This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to reenter and retake possession of their country."
According to Near East Arabic Radio, April 3, 1948: "It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees to flee from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa and Jerusalem, and that certain leaders . . . make political capital out of their miserable situation . . ."
Nimr el Hawari, the Commander of the Palestine Arab Youth Organization, in his book Sir Am Nakbah (The Secret Behind the Disaster, published in Nazareth in 1955), quoted the Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said as saying "We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down."
Habib Issa wrote in the New York Lebanese daily newspaper Al Hoda on June 8, 1951, " The Secretary General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and of Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade... He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean. -- Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes, and property and to stay temporarily in neighbouring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down."
"The Arabs did not want to submit to a truce... They preferred to abandon their homes, belongings and everything they possessed."
On September 6, 1948, the Beirut Daily Telegraph quoted Emil Ghory, secretary of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee, as saying:
"The fact that there are those refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously..."
The Jordanian daily Falastin wrote on February 19, 1949:
"The Arab states... encouraged the Palestinian Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies."
On April 9, 1953, the Jordanian daily al-Urdun quoted a refugee, Yunes Ahmed Assad, formerly of Deir Yassin, as saying:
"For the flight and fall of the other villages, it is our leaders who are responsible, because of the dissemination of rumors exaggerating Jewish crimes and describing them as atrocities in order to inflame the Arabs... they instilled fear and terror into the hearts of the Arabs of Palestine until they fled, leaving their homes and property to the enemy."
Another refugee told the Jordanian daily a-Difaa on September 6, 1954: "The Arab governments told us, 'Get out so that we can get in.' So we got out, but they did not get in."
Former Prime Minister of Syria, Khaled al-Azem, in his memoirs, published in 1973, listed what he thought were the reasons for the Arab failure in 1948:
"The fifth factor was the call by the Arab governments to the inhabitants of Palestine to evacuate it and leave for the bordering Arab countries... We brought destruction upon a million Arab refugees by calling on them and pleading with them to leave their land."
In the March 1976 issue of "Falastin a-Thaura," then the official PLO journal, PLO spokesman Mahmud Abbas ("Abu Mazen"
wrote:
"The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live."
British Foreign Office Document #371/75342/XC/A/4991 records:
"Following a visit to refugees in Gaza, a British diplomat reported the following: 'But while they express no bitterness against the Jews... they speak with the utmost bitterness of the Egyptians and other Arab states: 'We know who our enemies are,' they will say, and they are referring to their Arab brothers who, they declare, persuaded them unnecessarily to leave their homes."
Go on and try denying the above.
Dazzle us with your bullshit and innuendo in response - from crank websites or pseudo-scholarly books that make Jihad Watch's ranting paranoia seem scholarly in comparison.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)I for one have come to expect you to outright misrepresent everything through omission, cherry pick from articles (yes you have admitted that in the I/P group - thanks for that), and create strawmen arguments to knock them down.
You have no credibility with me. As to anybody else? Well, they will have to chime in on that themselves.
As to the above post, you have not provided a source, and what that usually means is that it was cut from a single place the source is as disreputable as you have become IMHO.
Now about your source. Care to link to it?
delrem
(9,688 posts)(edited to complete my last sentences!)
The first several quotes through "Habib Issa wrote" can be found at
http://www.mideastweb.org/refugees1.htm
The rest are at the Hasbara site:
A collection of historical quotations relating to the Arab refugees
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/quotes.html
So all can be found from just these two sources. But these quotes are listed at numerous hasbara sites and are meant to be used as standard "gotcha" talking points to shut down discussion, so I wouldn't doubt that they can all be found at one such site.
Who knows whether the quotes are made up, or verbatum, or from what context they are derived, or even given the best of readings to what extent the people quoted can to be believed. The sheer number of cites for the quotes gives them sufficient "validity" to serve hasbara's purpose.
It's rare for this poster to cite anything but material found in such lists at hasbara source material sites - and after decades of multitudes of hasbarists compiling such lists, there's really no end to them. I don't even bother about it because the point of the lists is to divert attention from an OP when that OP presents an argument that's very hard to outright reject on grounds of enlightened reason. Thus as Cali says in posting the OP, it isn't that everything about it should be agreed/disagreed with at first sight, it's that the author Joseph Levine, a prof of phil at U of Mass, distills some issues down into very basic principles. So while acknowledging that not every civilized and enlightened state that honestly promotes principles like equality before the law etc goes about implementing those principles in the identical way, nevertheless a state that sets in law systems of legislation designed to prefer one religion/sect/race/etc. as *sovereign* over the land, as distinct from all other religions/sects/races/etc. which are *not-sovereign*, contradicts those principles.
shira
(30,109 posts)http://standwithus.com/pdfs/flyers/ArableaderstellPalestinianstoFleein1948.pdf
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/quotes.html
If you can find one example of me misrepresenting, lying, etc... then bring it. Otherwise, you should apologize.
I don't see any reason to lie from a pro-Israel POV. But I think I do speak for others here who are fed up with the anti-Israel lies and misrepresentations, anti-Jewish hate speech, and outright slander. It's so bad, it's as if none of you are even capable of getting any story right. Anytime. Ever.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)That's my opinion, and what I have read from other posters echos that.
shira
(30,109 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)If you move away from those extremely zealoted 'Israel is right 110% of the time!' Crap that you rely on (btw where's the link to where you copied that from?) you'll find real historians that don't share yr antipathy to Palestinians who have done actual research that goes into detail on the expulsion of Palestinians. Lashing out and accusing anything that doesn't fit into the vision of a faultless and perfect Israel as not being real scholars might make you feel good but it's a feeble tactic. Crack open some books on the expulsion of Palestinians by starting with Benny Morris's birth of the Palestinian refugee problem revisited.
Also do you view anything else other than jihad watch as being bigoted against Muslims? It's just that while you have a never ending toilet roll of sites people and DUers you claim are antisemitic, jihad watch is the only thing you ever (and then only mildly) claim is anti muslim
shira
(30,109 posts)The quotes prove you wrong, as well proving wrong all the crackpot pseudo-scholars you read.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)You managed to reply twice to my one post but totally ignored the request for a link. I don't know what warped idea you have of how historians do their research but they don't do it from pulling possibly out of context and unverified quotes from zealoted sites set up to provide frenzied and irrational zealots with fodder to booster their vision that Israel is perfect and blameless while Palestinians are evil and similar to nazis.
shira
(30,109 posts)Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)Where is it? If your copying and pasting things you need to supply a link
shira
(30,109 posts)...in order to attain a Jewish majority. That's crackpot antizionist lunacy.
Here's Morris:
http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=27156
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)Try reading his book. It'd help with the knowledge levels.
What next? After equating him and other historians with jihad watch and incorrectly labeling them antizionists, what can you pull out to top that?
shira
(30,109 posts)21 February 2008
Israel haters are fond of citing – and more often, mis-citing – my work in support of their arguments. Let me offer some corrections.
The Palestinian Arabs were not responsible “in some bizarre way” (David Norris, 31 January 2008 ) for what befell them in 1948. Their responsibility was very direct and simple.
The UN's partition plan of 1947
In defiance of the will of the international community, as embodied in the UN General Assembly Resolution of November 29 1947 (No 181, the partition plan) they launched hostilities against the Jewish community in Palestine in the hope of aborting the emergence if the Jewish state and perhaps destroying that community. But they lost; and one of the results was the displacement of 700,000 of them from their homes.
How did the Arabs come to be displaced?
It is true, as Erskine Childers pointed out long ago, that there were no Arab radio broadcasts urging the Arabs to flee en masse; indeed there were broadcasts by several Arab radio stations urging them to stay put. But, on the local level, in dozens of localities around Palestine , Arab leaders advised or ordered the evacuation of women and children or whole communities, as occurred in Haifa in late April 1948. And Haifa 's Jewish mayor, Shabtai Levy, did, on April 22, plead with them to stay, to no avail.
Most of Palestine 's 700,000 “refugees” fled their homes because of the onset of war (and in the expectation that they would shortly return to their homes on the backs of the victorious Arab leaders). But it is also true that there were several dozen sites, including Lydda and Ramleh, from which Arab communities were expelled by Jewish troops.
The displacement of the 700,000 Arabs who becames refugees – and I put the term in inverted commas, as two thirds of them were displaced from one part of Palestine to another and not from their country (which is the usual definition of a refugee) – was not a “racist crime” (David Landy, 24 January), but the result of a national conflict and a war, with religious overtones, from the Muslim perspective, launched by the Arabs themselves.
Plan D….
There was no Zionist plan or blanket policy of evicting the Arab population, or of “ethnic cleansing”. Plan Dalet (or Plan D) of March 10 1948 (it is open and available for all to read in the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) Archive and in various publications) was the master plan of the Haganah – the Jewish military force that became the IDF – to counter the expected pan-Arab assault on the emergent Jewish state. That's what it explicitly states and that's what it was. And the invasion of the armies of Egypt , Jordan , Syria and Iraq duly occurred, on May 15 1948 (the date of Israel 's declaration of independence).
It is true that Plan D gave the regional commanders carte blanche to occupy and garrison or expel and destroy Arab villages along and behind the front lines and the anticipated Arab armies' invasion routes. And it is also true that mid-way in the 1948 war the Israeli leaders decided to bar the return of the refugees (those “refugees” who had just assaulted the Jewish community), viewing them as a potential fifth column and threat to the Jewish state's existence. I for one cannot fault their fears or logic.
The demonisation of Israel , and Arab propaganda
The demonisation of Israel is largely based upon lies – much as the demonisation of the Jews during the last 2000 years has been based on lies. And there is a connection between the two.
I would recommend that the likes of Norris and Landy read some history books, and become acquainted with the facts, not recycle shopworn Arab propaganda. They might then learn, for example, that the ‘ Palestine war' of 1948 (the War of Independence, as Israelis call it) began in November 1947, not in May 1948. By May 14, close to 2000 Israelis had died – of the 5800 dead suffered by Israel in the whole war (ie almost 1 percent of the Jewish population of Palestine/Israel, which was about 650,000).
Yours sincerely
Prof Benny Morris
http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com/2008/02/benny-morris-on-fact-fiction-propaganda.html
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)Though it is amusing that you labelled Morris and other historians as being the same as jihad watch (btw despite yr belief that its the only anti Muslim site there's many others) and antizionist
shira
(30,109 posts)...for themselves what he wrote:
Most of Palestine's 700,000 "refugees" fled their homes because of the flail of war (and in the expectation that they would shortly return to their homes on the backs of victorious Arab invaders). But it is also true that there were several dozen sites, including Lydda and Ramla, from which Arab communities were expelled by Jewish troops.
The displacement of the 700,000 Arabs who became "refugees" - and I put the term in inverted commas, as two-thirds of them were displaced from one part of Palestine to another and not from their country (which is the usual definition of a refugee) - was not a "racist crime" (David Landy, January 24th) but the result of a national conflict and a war, with religious overtones, from the Muslim perspective, launched by the Arabs themselves.
There was no Zionist "plan" or blanket policy of evicting the Arab population, or of "ethnic cleansing".
Why deny what Morris wrote?
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)And where's the link to the. quotes you copied and pasted? I'm wondering why yr ignoring every request for you to post the link
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Maybe you have the posters who posted them on ignore?
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)Could you point me to the post the link was supplied in? Appreciate yr help on this!
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Here it is again:
http://www.mideastweb.org/refugees1.htm
Edit to add the other one that was posted twice:
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/quotes.html
Posted both in Reply 80 and Reply 81.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)I wasn't surprised
shira
(30,109 posts)Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)And I'm not in the habit of 'refuting' unverifiable and probably completely out of context snippets that come direct from zealoted extremist websites. I'm pretty sure yr not even sure what it is yr trying to argue at this point. I'll suggest yet again that you attempt to develop a balanced view of the conflict instead of the one dimensional Israel is faultless/Palestinians are evil one you hold, and to do that you have to discard those made for zealots who don't like to think websites and go and find a few good books on the conflict to read...
shira
(30,109 posts)Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)Was there some part of what I said that yr not understanding? Just because you post stuff that's unverified and from a very stinky source doesn't mean DUers have to be performing seals at yr command and 'refute' crap. As I said before, I'm sure you've got no idea what it is yr actually trying to argue.
shira
(30,109 posts)Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)You label just about every source that doesn't toe the pro-Israel line as extremist, yet offer up extremist sources like one of the links that were provided when you were asked for sources. Now you switch over to an extremely partisan pro-Israel source that I know from experience isn't particularly interested in factuality, as I pointed out something on their site that was incorrect a few years ago and they didn't bother correcting it. We weren't talking about an error that would have made one side or the other look bad, it was a factual error when it came to a statement that was made about the Peel Commission. So credibility wise, yr sources stink to high heaven.
I'm still not sure why you think I need to 'try' anything. Especially when you appear to not know what it is yr attempting to argue or why yr arguing it in the first place...
shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)...to deny, ignore, or explain away that which you are uncomfortable with.
Take just one quote and try refuting it.
The point being that the vast majority refugees who left did so w/o being expelled by Israel for the purpose of ethnically cleansing Palestinians who posed a demographic threat. Some were expelled for purposes related for war. All were not allowed to return due to the war. But claiming that Israel tossed them out due to racist policy is nothing but ugly, anti-zionist bullshit.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)I think you need to settle down a bit and take a deep breath, Shira.
It is amusing though to see you, who labels everything you don't agree with as bigoted and extremist, getting upset because it gets pointed out to you that one of the links given as a source for those quotes you copied and pasted is extremist.
Take just one quote and try refuting it.
Refute what? Seriously, you make absolutely no sense at all...
The point being that the vast majority refugees who left did so w/o being expelled by Israel for the purpose of ethnically cleansing Palestinians who posed a demographic threat.
So this is yet another case of you saying something and then backpedalling and claiming you said something else like when you claimed that there were never any Nazi comparisons when it comes to China and Tibet, and then claimed you meant 'rarely' when people starting giving you examples to show you were yet again wrong? Because you claimed totally incorrectly that (and I'll quote) 'The crackpot claim is Israel forcibly expelled Arabs in 1948 in order to attain a Jewish majority.' But the fact is that Israel did forcibly expel Arabs in 1948, and that a Jewish majority in the new state was a factor involved in it. How on earth do you think Israel was going to be a Jewish state with the Arab majority that was there with the territory allocated to Israel by the Partition Plan? Magic and nice fuzzy thoughts?
While it appears to send you into a rage, pointing out that Israel and early Zionists did, and still do, engage in some racist and/or bigoted practices isn't bigoted. Pointing out that Hamas engages in bigotry isn't bigoted, so it's idiotic to try to give Israel special treatment and hold it to a different standard than other countries.
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:54 AM - Edit history (1)
...Israel expelled Palestinians, thereby ethnically cleansing them, in order to attain a Jewish majority. Crime against humanity! A War crime! Bad Israelis!
That's bullshit.
There was nothing racist about it. Most Palestinians left of their own volition. Benny Morris explains this in the letter you're ignoring. Israel did expel (due to war) some of the refugees, but not most.
Now maybe you don't believe what Israel did was racist. Maybe you don't believe that most Palestinian refugees left w/o Israel expelling them forcefully. But that's the false accusation anti-Zionists and their fellow anti-Israel brigadiers make.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)just decided one morning to get up and leave their homes and villages just because it would be so much nicer to let the future Israelis have it all.
The future Israelis never did anything bad in order to force any Palestinians to flee or anything bad like that. They never tried their hand at ethnically cleansing or massacres during Operation Dani, Operation Hiram and Operation Yoav. So what if the future Israelis killed 800 civilians and prisoners of war? It didn't mean that the other Palestinians in villages had to flee, right?
Israel has always had the best of intentions with the Palestinians: going so far as to help improve the value of their real estate by building colony after colony after colony in the West Bank and Gaza.
So what if the Israelis were playing the part of the Romans this time, and the Palestinians were playing the tribes of Israel?
Haven't the Israelis deserved the right to be the ones committing atrocities this go around?
shira
(30,109 posts)...to achieve a Jewish majority vs. Palestinians leaving as a result of war that the Palestinians themselves started in November 1947.
Most left in order to get out of the way of what they thought would be a slaughter once the Arab nations joined in May 1948 to get the Jews.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Which does not give the future Israelis any more right to steal their land than a passing Egyptian or Englishman.
But thanks for clarifying your position on the land grab.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)You have repeatedly insisted that anyone who's antizionist is antisemitic, so you need to be careful where yr flinging yr flood of accusations of bigotry.
Unlike you, I actually have read books specifically about the creation of the refugee problem. Unlike you, I don't attempt to whitewash things to make Israel blameless. Unlike you, I've read the book by the historian by trade/Islamophobic extremist by nature who you keep on peddling.
Of course I don't believe what Israel did was racist. What was done by the fledgling state happened out of a mix of several things - a desire for a Jewish state where the majority was Jewish, the cover of war, and dislike of the Palestinians living there because they weren't Jewish and were taking up valuable demographic space. If the opportunity hadn't arisen in the way it did, it's doubtful the demographic balance would have changed at all or that Israel would have made any attempt, organised or not at 'transfer'. And if it had never happened, there would be no Jewish majority in Israel, which is the entire idea of Israel being a Jewish state, at least that's what 'supporters' of Israel have always told me. Maybe they were wrong all this time?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)If my neighbor leaves his or her house, in fear of my neighbor across the street, it does not give the neighbor who stays any right of ownership of the property of those who have fled.
The neighbor across the street has no justification for stealing any of the former neighbors belongings, land or house. The neighbor has the right to own their own property, and not the other house; even if their tenth great grandfather lived there.
To assume possession of that house is theft.
To "make up any excuse" for the neighbor's theft is immoral.
Please proceed, Shira.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)The second one, yes.
Though I daresay you yourself have posted from virulently zealoted sites yourself from time to time.
Response to oberliner (Reply #163)
R. Daneel Olivaw This message was self-deleted by its author.
shira
(30,109 posts)Or sympathetic to those views. Of course, that's not extremist...
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)You tried this same routine of making silly and false accusations about other DUers to divert attention away from the fact that you'd not only posted a link to, but were supporting the writing of an extremist anti-Muslim bigot. I'll go back and dig up the link to that one if you've forgotten. Just say the word....
Just so you know. The last couple of links I remember posting in this group were to horrifically extremist anti-zionist Free Tibet organisations. The nerve of those folk wanting to destroy Israel and slander, *froth*, demonise *spit*, lie, *rant*, delegitimise *spittle lands all over computer monitor* her by pretending to want to free Tibet!
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)And, yes. I've posted OPs from Arutz Sheva and GAMLA in the past. Not sure what that's got to do with anything, but there ya go.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)You falsely claimed in this thread that most Palestinian refugees left voluntarily. Putting aside the fact that fleeing from war is not considered by decent folk to be 'voluntarily', Morris has very clearly shown in Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited that many more Palestinians were forcibly expelled by Israel than he'd orginally thought. So that claim of yrs that most left voluntarily is blatantly false. This is why I've been suggesting to you that you need to stop surfing the net to grab bits and pieces of things, and actually read books if yr going to take it upon yrself to say what's written in them.
The second part of yr claim was that a state with a Jewish majority wasn't a factor in what happened to the Palestinians. That's so completely off-the-wall and ignoring reality that I wonder who you think actually believes that nonsense. Basic logic dictates that in order for Israel to exist as a Jewish state, the Zionist leaders needed a state where the majority was Jewish. The UN Partition Plan gave them a state where there was an Arab majority. That's why there was talk of transfer amongst Zionist leaders.
And that you label any bit of history that doesn't suit yr agenda as 'hate' just shows that you have no idea at all as to what 'hate' is. It's not someone disagreeing with yr constant attempts to portray Israel as perfection. Hate is something dark and nasty, for example that of someone who constantly tries to equate the Palestinian people with Nazis and who has rarely, if ever, done anything but portray them as somehow less capable of reason and human emotion than Israelis or Americans.
shira
(30,109 posts)Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)I went into some detail in my post, and all you could come back with is the same one-line nonsense that you trotted out before. Go back. Read the post. Try to digest what I said in it. Hit that reply button if you must and type something that shows that yr actually trying to engage in discussion.
As I've said several times, and you've ignored several times, if yr going to make false claims about what a historian has said when he's written a critically aclaimed book about it, it does help to actually read the book itself.
shira
(30,109 posts)That's what Benny Morris says.
Wait. What? Just b/c there were more refugees expelled than Benny Morris originally thought doesn't mean most Palestinian refugees were forcibly expelled by Israel. Just more than what was though originally.
Make a logical statement or two and then you should feel free to preach. Until then...
First of all, if Israel did that it would be racist. Benny Morris said in his letter to the Irish Times (have you read it yet?) that what happened wasn't racist and most refugees were a result of the war.
Israel isn't perfect. Some refugees were expelled by Israel for reasons pertaining to war, not necessarily for racist reasons. The hateful anti-zionist contingent claims most were forcibly expelled by Israel for racist reasons unrelated to war. The reason they do that is to demonize Israel and its Jews. The mass production of outright lies and slander demonizing Israel and its Jews is w/o question a form of hate whether you want to admit it or not.
Portraying the Palestinians falsely (whether the leadership or people in general) or demonizing them using lies is an indication of hate. No one here does that. However, that is routinely done vs. Israel and its Jewish population. I'd go into this further, but that would require you knowing full well the difference b/w legit criticism and demonization.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)Now I'm going to correct you on some things you've got wrong.
1. Benny Morris the Islamophobic extremist would of course be credible to you as opposed to Benny Morris the historian who wrote some amazing books on the conflict. That you think some letter to a rather RW newspaper somehow trumps one of his historical works doesn't come as any real surprise...
2. I'm pretty darn good on the logic side of things, but thanks for playing. Also, correcting you on just a few of yr flood of false claims in this group isn't 'preaching'.
3. The Zionist leadership pre-Israel did indeed discuss 'transfer' of the Arab population, and a Jewish majority in the new state of Israel was definitely a factor in what happened. So if you insist that makes Israel racist, so be it. You can't change history. After all, the whole point of Israel is to have a Jewish majority, and I doubt there'd be many people who'd deny that. That you think the premise behind Israel as a Jewish state is racist is a bit on the bizarre side...
4. Israel isn't perfect according to you? That's not how you carry on about it. Yr the first to defend everything Israel does to the Palestinians. Things that you shriek about other countries doing are given a pass when Israel does it, and most who dare criticise are accused of being hate-mongers, Jew-haters, demonisers, blah blah blah.
5. I AM NOT AN ANTI-ZIONIST. And I am telling you that many Palestinians were forcibly expelled by Israel and a factor in what happened was to create a Jewish majority in the territory allocated to the Jewish state. Those who weren't forcibly expelled fled mainly due to rumours of massacres and forced expulsions that were happening.
6. Why say no-one here demonises the Palestinians, when you yrself has equated them with Nazis, and potrayed them as being rabid antisemites? Oh, I get it. Because you reckon it's true! That's the exact same justification people who make bigoted comments against Jews use to justify what they say.
shira
(30,109 posts)...were forcibly expelled by Israel (rather than leaving on the orders of Arab leadership) then provide some quotes. The false claim being made by anti-zionists and those who use anti-zionist arguments is that most refugees were forcibly expelled by Israel. I'm not even sure those people can admit any Palestinians left due to being ordered out by Arab leaders.
The Zionist leadership discussing transfer vs. actually doing it - in order to attain a Jewish majority - is 2 different things. When you're able to prove the latter, let me know before you argue again "that many Palestinians were forcibly expelled by Israel and a factor in what happened was to create a Jewish majority in the territory allocated to the Jewish state." Wait...upon reading that again, it appears you're saying "many" Palestinians were forcibly expelled, but not necessarily most? Do you believe it was most, or not?
Finally, no one here demonizes Palestinians. Saying Palestinian society is sick isn't demonization. Comparing Hamas or PLO genocidal incitement to that of Germany in the 30's is not demonization. Neither is it demonization to bring up polls showing that over 70% of Palestinians agree with the Hamas hadith about the need to kill Jews. When you find actual lies, slander, and defamation then you'll have a point.
http://www.nakbainhebrew.org/en
shira
(30,109 posts)denying the Nakba is on a par with Holocaust denial shira
my kibbutz is built on the ruins of an Arab village
you want the truth then come see the truth for yourself
have you ever been here ?
shira
(30,109 posts)....being involved with or apathetic to the mass production of hate literature and slander directed at Israel and its Jewish people is beyond the pale.
Israeli
(4,159 posts)could be my english ?
try again
shira
(30,109 posts)...aimed at Israel and its Jewish people, as well as those who are indifferent or don't care about that, are bigots and racists.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Some call that criticism, UN resolutions and condemnation by the international community while others can't handle the truth.
Please proceed, Shira.
I'm trying really hard to understand you and I still dont .
Who exactly is " participating in slander and hate speech .............. " ?????
BTW you never answered me , have you ever been here ?
shira
(30,109 posts)...Haaretz' portrayals of:
a) Most Israelis being in favor of an apartheid state
b) Segregation buses in the W.Bank
c) Israel trying to sterilize and control the Ethiopian birthrate
All vicious slanders based on partial truths, relying on lies by omission. All these lies stoke anger and hatred vs. Jews.
And yes, I've been to Israel before.
Israeli
(4,159 posts)Dern Leftist propaganda .... should shut it down together with 972 , right shira ?
and rely on our news coming from Sheldon Adelson's free Israeli newspaper Israel Hayom
and the settlers mouthpiece Arutz 7 .
Then we will have the truth ...
or just your version of the truth ?
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:55 PM - Edit history (1)
Seriously?
Would you have a problem with defamatory, bigoted slander posing as "news" that demonizes the Palestinian leadership or its people? Imagine the most rabid hateful Kahanists writing these pieces.
You'd have just as little problem with that as you do with the vitriol aimed at Israel and its people?
Israeli
(4,159 posts)then the solution is simple shira ... don't read it .
Its an Israeli publication and none of your concern , I don't concern myself with the American press .... none of my dern business .
shira
(30,109 posts)If against Palestinians, then you have a problem.
Very revealing.
And I'll bet you consider yourself an anti-racist.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)Because that would be really, really pathetic to try that...
Y'know, Shira. I wish you'd care about ALL Israeli citizens, and not do it depending on what ethnicity or religion they are.
Israeli
(4,159 posts)I really dont care what a Right wing American thinks or says about me or my politics , never have .
" Y'know, Shira. I wish you'd care about ALL Israeli citizens, and not do it depending on what ethnicity or religion they are. "
Dream on .
shira
(30,109 posts)I would think that rightwing lying slander vs. Palestinians or their leadership is bad in your opinion. It's bigoted and hateful. Am I right? If so, we both agree there.
So why isn't the same lying slander bad when it's against Israeli Jews or their leadership?
shira
(30,109 posts)...whether they're Jews, Muslims, Christians, or whoever is wrong. I have a problem with all that, as should any decent human being. It doesn't appear, however, that our new Israeli friend is bothered by that when directed at Israelis (in particular Jews). I could be wrong but that's why I keep asking - just to make sure.
FarrenH
(768 posts)A state for English people, like, oh, say.... Amjad Khan, the English cricketer?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amjad_Khan_%28cricketer%29
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Last edited Tue Mar 12, 2013, 11:51 AM - Edit history (1)
occupation, land theft, ethnic cleansing, and segregation as well as an ethnic minority to practice it on. In all historical instances they were terribly and completely wrong. In most instances they have been resolved. In modern historical context there is no excuse to revisit or continue such practices elsewhere with either chants of "we're chosen" or "we were here first thousands of years before."
Also, if you just want to label somebody an anti-Semite then either shit or get off the pot. You could easily call them a bigot and leave it at that, but to insinuate that one is an anti-Semite is so much more sinister: not for the accused, but for the accuser. It is meant IMHO to shut down debate and silence the accused.
Behind the Aegis
(53,979 posts)You don't like it when others do it to you, don't do it to me.
"Zionists are for "self-determination" in exactly the same way the Confederate states were."
As a bigoted statement, if there ever was one. Almost as bad as:
But you and so many others who post here clearly believe that Jewishness entitles a person to more, not just self-determination but also the god-given right to strip the self-determination from others. Thus the unending support for the occupation, land theft, ethnic cleansing, and segregation.
You find where I ever supported any of the things you claim I support.
And, you are also wrong about RoR, at least with most, there are some, undoubtedly who do fear it for that reason.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)You endorse the idea of use of military force against Arabs to impose a European Jewish state upon them, which relied on the use of ethnic cleansing to create a Jewish majority. That's what Israel is, an imposition by use of force of a non-native state against the wishes of the local inhabitants. If you are a Zionist - and if you're not, feel free to correct me - this is what you stand for. The self-determination of Israel unquestionably came at the expense of the local non-Jewish population, and the preservation of that situation is the modern goal of Zionism.
You really can't say "I'm a Zionist" and not endorse the very core of Zionism, BtA.
Behind the Aegis
(53,979 posts)It explains your continued bigoted remarks against Zionists. Like many things, it was progressed over time as to its meaning. Others have explained this to you ad nasuem and it is clear you cannot/will not understand, so to "discuss" this is pointless with someone like you, because you will always associate anyone who advocates for a Jewish homeland as a "bigot."
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Because they're advocating not a Jewish homeland, but rather a Jewish homeland that comes from wholesale expulsion of non-Jews in that territory.
perhaps you're a believer in the notion that hundreds of thousands of Arabs just left their keys under the mat and "Welcome Zionists!" notes on their doors?
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)It's nice when someone drops all the politically-correct rhetoric and lets people know precisely how they feel about Jewish Israelis.
While I appreciate your honesty, I question your logic. How do you explain the fact that over the last 70 years, the Jews of Israel have failed to expel 2 million non-Jews? That they not only don't expel them, but embrace them as citizens of Israel? Do you believe they're just lazy and haven't got 'round to it yet?
shira
(30,109 posts)Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)
King_David
(14,851 posts)But you wouldn't expect it on a progressive site such as DU
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)It's a real shame that it was ever allowed to get this bad.
King_David
(14,851 posts)I agree with you.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)If people express bigoted viewpoints it doesn't matter what political ideology they cloak themselves with. Sorry you think there's no such thing as a Zionist with bigoted views
King_David
(14,851 posts)As other posters have pointed out...
Sickening to read on DU!
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)Btw Jews and zionists aren't interchangeable dave
King_David
(14,851 posts)Antisemitism and antiZionism sometimes are interchangeable Vi.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)They're sometimes interchangeable in the same way that being a Zionist is sometimes interchangeable with being an anti-Muslim bigot.
But you've spent much energy telling us that there's no difference between antizionism and antisemitism. There's no sometimes anywhere in those posts...
King_David
(14,851 posts)I agree .
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)At first you said 'sometimes', now you've switched back to the ridiculous claim that they're the same thing. What yr doing is just as nasty and untrue as equating Zionism and anti-Muslim bigotry and insisting there's no difference...
King_David
(14,851 posts)As well as the far left and extreme right loonies.. There is no difference between antisemitism and antiZionism.
It's not "silly" it's very real.
And dangerous ... Check out the thread on Swedish Jews.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)That's strange. I tend to notice that tendency more in those self described Zionists who condone and justify bigotry against Muslims. If you want to continue the game where you insist that all antizionists are antisemitic and then rush round this forum accusing other DUers of being antizionists, don't expect to be taken seriously at all when you rush round getting upset at any DUers who might decide to do the same thing when it comes to Zionists and Islamophobia.
King_David
(14,851 posts)aranthus
(3,385 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)aranthus
(3,385 posts)I realize that not everyone on the Left believes this bunk, but outside of Right Wing antisemitic crazies, you only see this on the Left, and not necessarily even the extreme Left. Of course some Leftist academic would dream up this nonsense. Of course the Times would print this.
ann---
(1,933 posts)an apartheid state - disgraceful. Soon they'll be making Palestinians wear yellow crescents to identify them as Muslims and who knows WHAT else will follow. Israel is becoming what it says it hated.
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2013/03/20133974953205808.html
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Frightening really.
shira
(30,109 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)Could be a chicken or the egg situation.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Such a post used to be against DU rules.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)There are at least three different aspects to this: what is a right, what is a state, and what is an ethnicity/race?
In my opinion, anything that exists solely within the imagination is strictly imaginary.
Rights do not exist in nature, even human-made nature. They are an abstract concept invented by humans for the purpose of rhetoric. Rights exist solely within the imagination, and so they are strictly imaginary. Outside of our imaginations, there are no rights.
States are the same. Laws and borders only exist in our imaginations. Laws may be written on paper, but the laws don't disappear when the paper is destroyed. Police may arrest people who break the law, but that behavior is not law. States and laws only exist in our imaginations.
Ethnicity/race is an issue a biologist may have a better grasp on, but I don't think there are really different ethnicities/races in the way we think of them. Generally speaking, when we speak of ethnicity/race, we think of identity, either the identity we give to ourselves or the identity others have given us. Identity exists only within the imagination.
Does the United States, or any other country, have the right to exist? Only if our imaginations compel us to think so.
In my opinion, the conflicts in the ME are just people hurting people.
I hope no one here finds this offensive.
aranthus
(3,385 posts)That is the part of the homo sapiens that can think, reason, hold to concepts and ideas. They aren't just imagination. They are real even if they aren't material things. In fact, they are the things that make us human. Without them, we would be mere animals. By the way, your attitude, assuming I am correct about it, is something I have seen only in people on the Left. Getting philosophical for a minute, why do you think that might be?
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)For example, any time we do something for the future, such as deciding who to vote for or where to work, we are basing our decision on a perceived future. The future only exists in the imagination, so we must use our imaginations to determine a course of action. We also think about the past to help determine a course of action, or to wonder where we went wrong when things go badly. The past doesn't exist anymore, except in our memory, which is an aspect of our imagination, especially since we don't generally remember things accurately.
Some thinking is automatic, such as driving, so the imagination isn't used very much, if at all, but I imagine many drivers are thinking about other things while they drive, which is usually an act of the imagination.
The imagination is real, but the things we imagine are not real. For example, I can imagine my car, which is a real collection of objects, but my image of my car is strictly imaginary. They're two different "things." My car exists both within my imagination and outside of my imagination. States, identity, laws, and ethnicity do not exist outside of our imaginations.
I'm not really sure what my attitude is, or what you think it is.
I just enjoy categorizing my thoughts as "subjective" and "objective," and this is the shit I come up with.
For example, I identify as a human, so I ask myself, "is that a subjective thought or an objective thought?" Biology says I'm human, but what objective reason do I have to consider biology? When I get sick, I go to a doctor, which is a type of biologist, because their science has a great track record, and I want to get better. That seems like a subjective reason to me, is there another reason to consider myself human? So on and so forth. It's fun for me to think about this stuff. I love trying to figure out what is subjective and what is objective.
aranthus
(3,385 posts)This guy's a professor? Yeesh. Okay, here are the problems with what he writes. First, his argument is based on a false definition of "right to self determination." He claims it means, "full political participation in the state under whose sovereignty they fall." That's not true. What he has described is civil rights for citizens, not a right to self determination. The right to self determination is the right of a national group, a people, to have a state of their own. It is the very right he is trying to deny to the Jewish people. If Jews have a right to self determination, then by definition that means that they have a right to a Jewish state. Second, it is not true that the national character of a state precludes full political participation by citizens of a different ethnicity. that's the difference between civil rights and national rights. Third, even if he was correct, then his argument is one against all existing nation states, except he only applies it to the Jewish state. If this nonsense is at all thought provoking then the thoughts are along the lines of how to get this idiot fired for his well demonstrated intellectual incompetence.
I have serious moral reservations about my tax dollars propping up any theocracy.
I have the same reservations about my taxes being used to enforce at gunpoint so called democracy on any other peoples.
I don't give a damn if it exists or not once its not at my expense.
I was stationed there in 73/74 with the UN and still have the awful sense of dread and doom that I felt there. It reminded my of only something I had read of in books by Leon Uris.
As for historical homelands maybe the 6/7 billion of us should slink off back to Africa.
As charges of antisemitism seem to get tossed about like lies at a RNC convention, on with it I dint give a crap about that either.
shira
(30,109 posts)Saudi Arabia would've been attacked for its oil long ago w/o Israel's presence there. Israel saved Jordan from being taken over from Syria. The US would've been stationed out there at the tune of many more billions per year to prevent all that from happening.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Good to have you back posting in this forum.
cali
(114,904 posts)I'm conflicted about posting in this forum. I don't seem to fit in with either of the two clear sides here. I'm firmly against the Occupation, as you know, but I don't see Israel as an evil entity.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)That's exactly why I think it's great that you are posting here again.
I hope you keep it up!
delrem
(9,688 posts)I'm starting a new subthread here because I'm lost trying to follow others.
The name "Benny Morris" has come up as some kind of authority, and I have some quotations of his that might seem disturbing to some.
From: Survival of the Fittest? An Interview with Benny Morris,
with Ari Shavit
http://www.logosjournal.com/morris.htm
/quote/
BM:
...
The worst cases were Saliha (70-80 killed), Deir Yassin (100-110), Lod (250), Dawayima (hundreds) and perhaps Abu Shusha (70). There is no unequivocal proof of a large-scale massacre at Tantura, but war crimes were perpetrated there. At Jaffa there was a massacre about which nothing had been known until now. The same at Arab al Muwassi, in the north. About half of the acts of massacre were part of Operation Hiram [in the north, in October 1948]: at Safsaf, Saliha, Jish, Eilaboun, Arab al Muwasi, Deir al Asad, Majdal Krum, Sasa. In Operation Hiram there was a unusually high concentration of executions of people against a wall or next to a well in an orderly fashion.
That can’t be chance. It’s a pattern. Apparently, various officers who took part in the operation understood that the expulsion order they received permitted them to do these deeds in order to encourage the population to take to the roads. The fact is that no one was punished for these acts of murder. Ben-Gurion silenced the matter. He covered up for the officers who did the massacres.
Q:
What you are telling me here, as though by the way, is that in Operation Hiram there was a comprehensive and explicit expulsion order. Is that right?
BM:
Yes. One of the revelations in the book is that on October 31, 1948, the commander of the Northern Front, Moshe Carmel, issued an order in writing to his units to expedite the removal of the Arab population. Carmel took this action immediately after a visit by Ben-Gurion to the Northern Command in Nazareth. There is no doubt in my mind that this order originated with Ben-Gurion. Just as the expulsion order for the city of Lod, which was signed by Yitzhak Rabin, was issued immediately after Ben-Gurion visited the headquarters of Operation Dani [July 1948].
Q:
Are you saying that Ben-Gurion was personally responsible for a deliberate and systematic policy of mass expulsion?
BM:
From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer. There is no explicit order of his in writing, there is no orderly comprehensive policy, but there is an atmosphere of [population] transfer. The transfer idea is in the air. The entire leadership understands that this is the idea. The officer corps understands what is required of them. Under Ben-Gurion, a consensus of transfer is created.
Q:
Ben-Gurion was a “transferist”?
BM:
Of course. Ben-Gurion was a transferist. He understood that there could be no Jewish state with a large and hostile Arab minority in its midst. There would be no such state. It would not be able to exist.
Q:
I don’t hear you condemning him.
BM:
Ben-Gurion was right. If he had not done what he did, a state would not have come into being. That has to be clear. It is impossible to evade it. Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here.
/unquote/
This quote responds to a subtext in this subthread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113435004#post150
/quote/
Violet_Crumble:
The second part of yr claim was that a state with a Jewish majority wasn't a factor in what happened to the Palestinians. That's so completely off-the-wall and ignoring reality that I wonder who you think actually believes that nonsense. Basic logic dictates that in order for Israel to exist as a Jewish state, the Zionist leaders needed a state where the majority was Jewish. The UN Partition Plan gave them a state where there was an Arab majority. That's why there was talk of transfer amongst Zionist leaders.
shira:
First of all, if Israel did that it would be racist. Benny Morris said in his letter to the Irish Times (have you read it yet?) that what happened wasn't racist and most refugees were a result of the war.
/unquote/
Quite clearly Benny Morris makes Violet_Crumble's case.
delrem
(9,688 posts)Now the interview turns to Benny's "justification" for his ... opinion.
/quote/
Q:
Benny Morris, for decades you have been researching the dark side of Zionism. You are an expert on the atrocities of 1948. In the end, do you in effect justify all this? Are you an advocate of the transfer of 1948?
BM:
There is no justification for acts of rape. There is no justification for acts of massacre. Those are war crimes. But in certain conditions, expulsion is not a war crime. I don’t think that the expulsions of 1948 were war crimes. You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs. You have to dirty your hands.
Q:
We are talking about the killing of thousands of people, the destruction of an entire society.
BM:
A society that aims to kill you forces you to destroy it. When the choice is between destroying or being destroyed, it’s better to destroy.
Q:
There is something chilling about the quiet way in which you say that.
BM:
If you expected me to burst into tears, I’m sorry to disappoint you. I will not do that.
Q:
So when the commanders of Operation Dani are standing there and observing the long and terrible column of the 50,000 people expelled from Lod walking eastward, you stand there with them? You justify them?
BM:
I definitely understand them. I understand their motives. I don’t think they felt any pangs of conscience, and in their place I wouldn’t have felt pangs of conscience. Without that act, they would not have won the war and the state would not have come into being.
Q:
You do not condemn them morally?
BM:
No.
Q:
They perpetrated ethnic cleansing.
BM:
There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide—the annihilation of your people—I prefer ethnic cleansing.
Q:
And that was the situation in 1948?
BM:
That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.
/unquote/
delrem
(9,688 posts)Now Benny explains that Ben Gurion expelled too few Arabs, and he supposes that the complete eradication of non-Jews from Israel will likely be necessary:
/quote/
Q:
You went through an interesting process. You went to research Ben-Gurion and the Zionist establishment critically, but in the end you actually identify with them. You are as tough in your words as they were in their deeds.
BM:
You may be right. Because I investigated the conflict in depth, I was forced to cope with the in-depth questions that those people coped with. I understood the problematic character of the situation they faced and maybe I adopted part of their universe of concepts. But I do not identify with Ben-Gurion. I think he made a serious historical mistake in 1948. Even though he understood the demographic issue and the need to establish a Jewish state without a large Arab minority, he got cold feet during the war. In the end, he faltered.
Q:
I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that Ben-Gurion erred in expelling too few Arabs?
BM:
If he was already engaged in expulsion, maybe he should have done a complete job. I know that this stuns the Arabs and the liberals and the politically correct types. But my feeling is that this place would be quieter and know less suffering if the matter had been resolved once and for all. If Ben-Gurion had carried out a large expulsion and cleansed the whole country - the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan River. It may yet turn out that this was his fatal mistake. If he had carried out a full expulsion - rather than a partial one - he would have stabilized the State of Israel for generations.
Q:
I find it hard to believe what I am hearing.
BM:
If the end of the story turns out to be a gloomy one for the Jews, it will be because Ben-Gurion did not complete the transfer in 1948. Because he left a large and volatile demographic reserve in the West Bank and Gaza and within Israel itself.
Q:
In his place, would you have expelled them all? All the Arabs in the country?
BM:
But I am not a statesman. I do not put myself in his place. But as an historian, I assert that a mistake was made here. Yes. The non-completion of the transfer was a mistake.
Q:
And today? Do you advocate a transfer today?
BM:
If you are asking me whether I support the transfer and expulsion of the Arabs from the West Bank, Gaza and perhaps even from Galilee and the Triangle, I say not at this moment. I am not willing to be a partner to that act. In the present circumstances it is neither moral nor realistic. The world would not allow it, the Arab world would not allow it, it would destroy the Jewish society from within. But I am ready to tell you that in other circumstances, apocalyptic ones, which are liable to be realized in five or ten years, I can see expulsions. If we find ourselves with atomic weapons around us, or if there is a general Arab attack on us and a situation of warfare on the front with Arabs in the rear shooting at convoys on their way to the front, acts of expulsion will be entirely reasonable. They may even be essential.
Q:
Including the expulsion of Israeli Arabs?
BM:
The Israeli Arabs are a time bomb. Their slide into complete Palestinization has made them an emissary of the enemy that is among us. They are a potential fifth column. In both demographic and security terms they are liable to undermine the state. So that if Israel again finds itself in a situation of existential threat, as in 1948, it may be forced to act as it did then. If we are attacked by Egypt (after an Islamist revolution in Cairo) and by Syria, and chemical and biological missiles slam into our cities, and at the same time Israeli Palestinians attack us from behind, I can see an expulsion situation. It could happen. If the threat to Israel is existential, expulsion will be justified.
/unquote/
And enough said. My head is exploding from the *honesty* of the man, confronting the facts as he knows them in terms of his Zionist dream and agenda.
But even in face of that admirable blunt honesty, I read from his responses that he's conflicted. Through the first few Q's and A's he seems to be straightforward in telling it how he thinks it is. But after that he appears conflicted, and appears to be projecting (in citing the "existential" magnitude of the threat) in ways that somewhat contradict his earlier straightforward accounts. So although he clearly asserts that Zionism is an ultimate good in itself and brooks no opposition, and to fulfill the Zionist dream crimes against humanity had/will-have to be done, he still he tries to justify it by projecting a threat that wouldn't exist if Zionism, and the crimes against humanity that BM think it necessitates, didn't exist.
