In memory: Rachel Corrie (1979 - 2003)

[Informal Logic]

Israel has never once done such a thing. All their occupied territories were won in defensive wars. ...There is no such card.

What were the original borders when the country was formed? After a conflict, does it mean settlement of new areas is okay? What is the reason always given by Israel for their expansion beyond the original borders? To protect their poor little country from all the bad enemies that surround them. What did everyone think would happen when a new nation is plopped in the middle of countries that have been there for thousand years?

The problem with reducing our aid is that it also reduces our influence. I don't understand why people don't see it, but our aid provides us with the leash by which we keep Israel under control.

So the US is imperialistic, and it's a good thing even in regard to Israel?

But Bush II has also been demanding of Israel.

Now that his popularity is failing he is making these efforts, but due to his previous behavior, he has very little credibility in the world.

With who? Based on what would such negotiations have any legitimacy? The terrorists continue to refuse to negotiate despite Israle's unprecidented unilateral concessions.

In an interview, Jimmy Carter stated that the last agreement extended to Arafat was unreasonable. And if Arafat had accepted it, he would have been assassinated. And calling only one group 'terrorists' is why peace has not been achieved.

And there is crime in progress in the ME that we need to deal with.

Right--crimes like the US preemptively invading Iraq.

What?!? Christians shouldn't be allowed to be citizens?! What are you talking about?

I stated examples above, such as Christians in the US sending contributions to Israel for the rebuilding of the Temple Mount. It is an extension of the kind of religious involvement in politics that we currently see domestically. No, they don't have a right to take foreign policy in their own hands.

 

[russ_watters]

What were the original borders when the country was formed? After a conflict, does it mean settlement of new areas is okay? What is the reason always given by Israel for their expansion beyond the original borders? To protect their poor little country from all the bad enemies that surround them.

When a country wins land in a war, the usual thing to do is either to make it a buffer zone or to settle it. Israel settled it. Now, Israel is making the absolutely unprecidented in all of human history move of unilaterally pulling back from its occupied territories. Countries simply don't do things like that. And what does Israel have to gain? - the terrorists aren't even promising to stop this time. But I guess it saves them the trouble of negotiating, then breaking their agreements.

What did everyone think would happen when a new nation is plopped in the middle of countries that have been there for thousand years?

I thought we had already covered this: there was no country on the land that became Israel. It was a territory of the British empire and was theirs to do with as they wished. Before that, it was part of the Ottoman empire. No such country as "Palestine" has ever existed. Palestine could have existed alongside Israel had the arabs chosen to accept a Jewish country and a Palestine in their midst. And now Israel is just plain going to give land away. Bizarre!

So the US is imperialistic, and it's a good thing even in regard to Israel?

Nothing about the US being the world's policeman has anything to do with imperialism. Yeah, it doesn't happen overnight - but ask the Yugoslavians if they think we were being imperialistic when we overthrew Milosevich a few years ago. Heck, ask the Kuaitis if we took them over. Can you tell me the year the US last took a territory?

Now that his popularity is failing he is making these efforts, but due to his previous behavior, he has very little credibility in the world.

Please look up the year Bush first proposed a Mideast peace plan - then tell me what his popularity was like that year. I'll give you a hint: at the time, Bush's popularity was already near the highest in history. Strange for a Christianity-motivated, pro-Israel President to risk his popularity by essentially threatening Israel (he actually said "I challenge Israel...", but followed it up with a threat to reduce our aid)...

In an interview, Jimmy Carter stated that the last agreement extended to Arafat was unreasonable. And if Arafat had accepted it, he would have been assassinated. And calling only one group 'terrorists' is why peace has not been achieved.

Jimmy Carter is a traitor and a coward and calling terrorists terrorists is a reality that biased people all over the world refuse to accept. The word has a definition and that definition fits one side like a glove. With Abbas, that may be changing, but we have yet to see him actually wield any power over the terrorists.

Right--crimes like the US preemptively invading Iraq.

As I'm sure you know, international law holds that if you violate a treaty ending a war, then that war is technically still underway. Hussein violated the treaty that ended Gulf I on a daily basis and the UN itself said so. So the UN made a threat and then refused to follow through - that isn't news: again, ask Yugoslavia about the UN's willingness to act.

I stated examples above, such as Christians in the US sending contributions to Israel for the rebuilding of the Temple Mount. It is an extension of the kind of religious involvement in politics that we currently see domestically. No, they don't have a right to take foreign policy in their own hands.

I really hope you see the irony of complaining about Christians' influence on politics in a thread about Islamic Jihad and theocracy.

Yes, American Christians want the Temple Mount rebuilt. So what? Iraqi Americans wanted Saddam Hussein overthrown. Yugoslavian Americans wanted Milosevich overthrown. Did you read the article in USA Today a few days ago about the American Muslim woman who built a school in Afghanistan in honor of her son who died in 9/11? Just because a group happens to be religious makes no difference - and certainly doesn't make their choice of charity de facto wrong.

 

[Informal Logic]

When a country wins land in a war, the usual thing to do is either to make it a buffer zone or to settle it.

There is the very important difference of being given a country in the first place. That's why I used the term "pushing the envelope."

I thought we had already covered this: there was no country on the land that became Israel. It was a territory of the British empire and was theirs to do with as they wished. Before that, it was part of the Ottoman empire. No such country as "Palestine" has ever existed. Palestine could have existed alongside Israel had the arabs chosen to accept a Jewish country and a Palestine in their midst.

British imperialism is no better than American imperialism, and just because there was not a country formally called "Palestine" at the time, doesn't mean the creation of a new nation in the area is of no consequence to the people already in the vicinity.

Nothing about the US being the world's policeman has anything to do with imperialism. ...Can you tell me the year the US last took a territory?

This is contradictory, and since when does a country have to actually take a country in name to be imperialistic?

Bush's popularity was already near the highest in history. Strange for a Christianity-motivated, pro-Israel President to risk his popularity by essentially threatening Israel (he actually said "I challenge Israel...", but followed it up with a threat to reduce our aid)...

My remark was about Bush's credibility internationally, which has never been good. The stats on popularity domestically, such as how Bush won by more votes in history, is always skewed. He was never had majority support or popularity in the true sense of it except in his own mind and the minds of his supporters.

Jimmy Carter is a traitor and a coward and calling terrorists terrorists is a reality that biased people all over the world refuse to accept.

Carter has had far greater understanding, and respect for his international work. Bush can only look as good as the advisors behind him can try to make him look.

Yes, American Christians want the Temple Mount rebuilt. So what? ?

To begin, this is no charity. To think that adding such religious fuel to the fire is a good thing is to be impervious to the role of religion in conflicts throughout history.

 

[russ_watters]

This is contradictory, and since when does a country have to actually take a country in name to be imperialistic?

Since forever. Perhaps you should define what you mean by "imperialistic".

My remark was about Bush's credibility internationally, which has never been good. The stats on popularity domestically, such as how Bush won by more votes in history, is always skewed. He was never had majority support or popularity in the true sense of it except in his own mind and the minds of his supporters.

Bush's supporters measure Bush's popularity the same way Clinton's measured his. Have both or neither. Frankly, I don't care either way.

 

[stoned]

Perhaps you should look into the definition of the word. It isn't a word you can arbitrarily attach to whatever you feel like attaching it to.

Blowing up houses of innocent Palestinians is not a terrorism ?
then my dictionary must be wrong,tell me if you agree.

Terrorism:
tt unlawfull use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons

 

[Informal Logic]

Blowing up houses of innocent Palestinians is not a terrorism ?
then my dictionary must be wrong,tell me if you agree.

Terrorism:
tt unlawfull use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons

The request for obvious definitions is a lame deflection, and immature jump-through-the-hoop power game.

Since forever. Perhaps you should define what you mean by "imperialistic".

Imperialism is a policy of extending the control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires, either through direct territorial or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, that is just a google away. Try it sometime.

 

[Hurkyl]

It takes a large leap to get from "influence" to "control or authority".

 

[Hurkyl]

The request for obvious definitions is a lame deflection, and immature jump-through-the-hoop power game.

Or, it could be an attempt to remind others what the words they are using mean. Of course, the attempt tends to fail, because people tend to ignore the definition once they quote it.

Not only can I see the potential for a good argument against being unlawful, but I find it difficult to believe that the intention was intimidation, and that the reason was ideological or political.

This is a way in which the appeal to emotion backfires. Not only has the propoaganda attempt failed, but you've managed to avert the discussion away from the point you want to make over to your abuse of the language.

 

[Soilwork]

I know that all Palestinians aren't bad and I sure as hell know that the Jews aren't bad either.
I don't know much about this situation so I can't really comment, but no doubt the Israeli army had a reason for bulldozing the house.
Hasn't the ISM also been found to have sheltered palestinian terrorists??
Anyways I just don't think you can relate the tiananmen square incident to this one.
The situations are completely different.
I think it was a loss of life where there shouldn't have been.
She should have moved.
I mean I think it's good that there are people trying to help, but really I think they should know a little about the history of conflict and what they are standing up for.
I'm am heavily in favour of Israel because the Palestinians partnered with Egypt to try and eradicate the Jews and it seems that they have carried on with their psychotic tendencies.
Obviously not all Palestinians are like this, but the cases where the Israeli military have attacked usually involve hostile Palestinians...that's my point really.
Anyway it was tragic and now there is one less person to help out there, but it was her choice in the end.

 

[russ_watters]

The request for obvious definitions is a lame deflection, and immature jump-through-the-hoop power game.

I argued in a thread, just yesterday, for a scientific, objective approach to politics (and the silence from others in that thread is deafening). Requiring that people stick to the definitions of words is a big, big part of that. In our science forums, we call it "word salad" when people stick words together that sound scientific, but that they don't understand. The same applies here.

I encourage you (et al) to attempt to objectively apply the definitions of those two words. And don't be afraid of the result. I'm letting it go for now, but don't think for a minute I haven't noticed the definition shift game you're trying to play even now. Worse than just changing the accepted definitions, you're changing your own usage of a number of words during the course of the thread.

Too often, people are afraid of showing weakness - afraid of being wrong: its one of the reasons such conflicts persist and it applies to this thread as well. Eventually, as with the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, the reasons for the conflict become irrelevant and both sides just feed on the day to day conflict. The "cycle of violence". Finding a solution requires both sides letting go of their immediate issues and deal with the fact that violence begets violence. Both sides need to drop their posturing and choose peace. In my opinion, the Israelis have shown a willingness to do that (by unilaterally withdrawing from some occupied territories - something that just plain isn't done) and the Arabs have not.

edit: just a little more:

The thing that bothers me most about this issue (objectivity in politics) is that I think everyone is aware of the issue. The thread on a scientific approach to politics generated four responses. People saw it and choose to ignore it. To your credit, you made the only argument against objectivity - at least that shows some consistency. But what bothers me is that even that shows you are aware of the problem and still consciously choose not to attempt to deal with it in your own beliefs. You can't possibly be unaware of the word games you are trying to play. Perhaps you think I'm a fool and don't see the manipulation - heck, I'd accept that. Its devious, but at least it'd mean you aren't consciously choosing not to be objective.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The thing that bothers me most about this issue (objectivity in politics) is that I think everyone is aware of the issue. The thread on a scientific approach to politics generated four responses. People saw it and choose to ignore it. To your credit, you made the only argument against objectivity - at least that shows some consistency. But what bothers me is that even that shows you are aware of the problem and still consciously choose not to attempt to deal with it in your own beliefs. You can't possibly be unaware of the word games you are trying to play. Perhaps you think I'm a fool and don't see the manipulation - heck, I'd accept that. Its devious, but at least it'd mean you aren't consciously choosing not to be objective.

Please don't attribute motives to the people who didn't respond to your post. It's just as likely they looked at it, decided it ws your private hobby-horse, and moved on. Human society is too complex for simple logical discussions to grasp, whether you're talking microeconomics 101, sociobiology, or objectivism.

 

[Bilal]

Could you please show me where Ben Gurion refer to his quote that Palestinian think that not him?

Here the quotes again, I read the quotes again and again ...and I do believe he refer to the facts on ground as he see it, not to Palestinian opinion. I will be grateful if you prove your point, you can also check the original sources ...

Remember , that we do not talk about historian or thinker, we talk about the greatest person in history of Israel who was the leader of independence of State of Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ben-Gurion


(("Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we came here and stole their country. Why should they accept that?" (David Ben-Gurion quoted in "The Jewish Paradox" by Nahum Goldmann, former president of the World Jewish Congress.))

"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population." David Ben Gurion, quoted in The Jewish Paradox, by Nahum Goldmann, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1978, p. 99.))

I think you need to pay attention to the context. It seems crystal clear to me that in the quote, David Ben-Gurion is describing his perception of how Arabs view the situation. I wouldn't've have even thought that one might interpret it differently until I saw that you did.

 

[Bilal]

Dear Soilwork,

I do not blame you because it seems you know little about this issue (as I see from your post). It seems you live in area where people know one side of the story. Please read the summery of this conflict from From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. It is at least accepted source by both sides because most of their information based on documented and international sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

I know that all Palestinians aren't bad and I sure as hell know that the Jews aren't bad either.
I don't know much about this situation so I can't really comment, but no doubt the Israeli army had a reason for bulldozing the house.
Hasn't the ISM also been found to have sheltered palestinian terrorists??
Anyways I just don't think you can relate the tiananmen square incident to this one.
The situations are completely different.
I think it was a loss of life where there shouldn't have been.
She should have moved.
I mean I think it's good that there are people trying to help, but really I think they should know a little about the history of conflict and what they are standing up for.
I'm am heavily in favour of Israel because the Palestinians partnered with Egypt to try and eradicate the Jews and it seems that they have carried on with their psychotic tendencies.
Obviously not all Palestinians are like this, but the cases where the Israeli military have attacked usually involve hostile Palestinians...that's my point really.
Anyway it was tragic and now there is one less person to help out there, but it was her choice in the end.

 

[loseyourname]

I can see how those quotations can be taken either way, Bilal. It isn't obvious that Gurion is saying that he believes the current Israeli population stole the 'Palestinian country.' He is definitely saying that this is the way the Arab world sees it.

 

[stoned]

I know that all Palestinians aren't bad and I sure as hell know that the Jews aren't bad either.
I don't know much about this situation so I can't really comment, but no doubt the Israeli army had a reason for bulldozing the house.
Hasn't the ISM also been found to have sheltered palestinian terrorists??

jews arre destroying homes of innocent Palestinians just to terrorize and humiliate them, and even if somone living there had something to do with any bombing there is more civilized way to solve this problem ie, catching that person, conducting investigation and if found guilty sending to prison.
let me remind you that palestinians live in ghettos where Israeli army has defacto complete controll, they have spies/informants on the ground, surveilance from above they know everything what is going on.
I would not be suprised if israelis know in advance that someone is planing bombing mission and let it happened to gain more compassion from the USA and be able to terrorize Palestinians even more.
some of the so called "suicide bombings "are even staged by israelis , but that exist in the realm of speculation.

 

[stoned]

I can see how those quotations can be taken either way, Bilal. It isn't obvious that Gurion is saying that he believes the current Israeli population stole the 'Palestinian country.' He is definitely saying that this is the way the Arab world sees it.

What you mean ? how they can be taken OTHER way around, it is like black on white ? Isaraelis stole Palestinian Land, and Palestinians are fighting until this very day, show me other group of people with that much honor and courage .

 

[Bilal]

I do believe the second quote make it clear and prove my explanation to first quote. He mentioned the names of well known Israeli towns that built after removal of thousands-years old Palestinian towns? He admitted that these well known Israeli towns are established recently after destruction of origin Palestinian towns.

"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population." David Ben Gurion, quoted in The Jewish Paradox, by Nahum Goldmann, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1978, p. 99.

Please show me the words that in the quote support your views?!

I can see how those quotations can be taken either way, Bilal. It isn't obvious that Gurion is saying that he believes the current Israeli population stole the 'Palestinian country.' He is definitely saying that this is the way the Arab world sees it.

 

[Bilal]

Here interesting quote for russ_watters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menachem_Begin

"The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized ... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for ever." Menachem Begin, the day after the U.N. vote to partition Palestine.

Menachem Begin : one of the most well known Zionist leaders and one of main leaders of indpendanbce war. Additionally, he was former PM in 70s and early 80s.

This proves that Jews also rejected UN partial plan and decided to fight, so why russ_watters claim that only Palestinian who rejected this plan.

Those who claim that Palestinian are the only side who support terrorism, here is information about another great Israeli leader and PM in 80s and early 90s. He was on the top of the list of wanted terrorists for his bloody crimes:

((After Stern was killed by the British in 1942, Shamir escaped from the detention camp and became one of the three leaders of the group in 1943, reforming it as "Lehi". During his tenure, the Lehi was responsible for the 1944 assassination of Britain's minister of state for the Middle East, Lord Moyne, and the 1948 assassination of the United Nations representative in the Middle East, Count Folke Bernadotte, due to their political initiatives for Palestine which clashed with the right-wing views of the Lehi.))

Yitzhak Shamir (born October 15, 1915) was Prime Minister of Israel from 1983 to 1984 and again from 1986 to 1992.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Shamir

In fact most of Zionists leaders who established Israel started their life by terrorism and murdering innocent people.

 

[Hurkyl]

What you mean ? how they can be taken OTHER way around, it is like black on white ?

This is part of the problem. I can understand how you arrive at your interpretation of things, even if I don't agree with it. You can't even understand how we arrived at our interpretation, even after I said how!

Is it because you don't try? Are you faking incredulity, because you think admitting you see how we got our viewpoint would be a show of weakness?

show me other group of people with that much honor and courage .

Ted Kaczynski? Timothy McVeigh? Sorry, couldn't resist. Acting in the name of a noble cause does not make honorable and courageous.

 

[Informal Logic]

Or, it could be an attempt to remind others what the words they are using mean. Of course, the attempt tends to fail, because people tend to ignore the definition once they quote it.

I couldn't agree more. I have read many posts over time, and long before becoming a member and/or posting in this forum. For example, the definition of terrorism has been debated and defined repeatedly in other threads, and with regard to how different groups perceive themselves or are perceived, for example 'freedom fighters' versus 'guerillas' etc. The definition provided by stoned I believe was provided verbatim before. So either the request is not of a sincere academic nature, or as you have said, the definition is just being ignored.

Not only can I see the potential for a good argument against being unlawful, but I find it difficult to believe that the intention was intimidation, and that the reason was ideological or political.

When members use patronizing verbiage or take authoritarian positions, especially mentors, it is a form of intimidation and is not conducive to participation in the forum. I have seen this tactic toward many members, and I for one am growing tired of it. Further, though I realize many participants are young, many are older and do not appreciate being patronized by members under the age of 25 who believe they are the ultimate authority on everything. There are some people, such as the person who posted the thread about political objectivity, who obviously are scholars in this area and DO know more than those with other areas of specialty. A little respect and acknowledgment of this sort of thing would be nice to see.

In reference to objectivity and my posts, do you know if I am Arab, or Jewish, or Christian, or American or from another country? If you think you do, I guarantee you you're wrong. I am not the biased one in these discussions.

My apologies to Bilal, but I felt it to be important to respond to this.

 

[Hurkyl]

In reference to objectivity and my posts, do you know if I am Arab, or Jewish, or Christian, or American or from another country?

I have no clue: I care about the argument, not the arguer. In fact, I rarely remember who says what.

BTW, you guessed my age wrong.

I've saved off the rest of my reply -- I think it's digressing too far off topic. If anyone cares to read it, PM me.

 

[sid_galt]

Dear sid_galt,

No need to waste a lot of time to realize that the previous link is Zionist propaganda. Just read such sentences to see the way of writing indicate that the authors work hard to defend Israel, and their views are similar to the right Zionist wing. Usually international and unbiased sources do not use such language:

Example:

((Josef Goebbels, the infamous propaganda minister of the Nazis, had it right. Just tell people big lies often enough and they will believe them. The Arabs have learned that lesson well. They have swayed world opinion by endlessly repeating myths and lies that have no basis in fact. ))

Their sources:

http://www.think- israel.org/background.html

PEACE IS POSSIBLE BETWEEN ISHMAEL AND ISRAEL
ACCORDING TO THE KORAN by Dr. Asher Eder

http://web.israelinsider.com/home.htm
Israel insider- Israel's daily newsmagazine

Arutz Sheva - IsraelNationalNews.com
Who Are the Palestinians? by Yashiko Sagamori November 25, 2002

Do you think I am silly person who do not know that those sources are owned by extremist Zionist wing?

I provided links for UN and international organization, while you want me to get the information about my country from people believe that the ‘’Good Palestinian is only the dead Palestinian?). It is the same as to get information about Holocaust from NAZI sources.

Bilal, I can see that you completely evaded the second point I made. I can guess why.

As I said, what I quoted was a FACT which HAPPENED. The Arab League of Nations initiated war against Israel. Unless you can prove me wrong on this point, my argument still stands.

 

[Yonoz]

-Jews settlers teaching their kids also how to kill the Palestinian in summer camps which organized by Israeli government annually.http://www.world-crisis.com/images/uploads/israeli_settlers_1.jpg

I see no obvious correlation between what you state and that image. What camp is it? Who organises it? For all I know, it could be a picture of father & son in a thousand different circumstances - a military base "open day" or during the independence day displays. Not every Israeli holding a weapon wants to kill Palestinians, and violence as a solution to the current dispute is definitely not in the MoE curriculum, which is more than I can say for the Palestinian education system.

Concerning the collaboration between Mufti Husiani and Nazi, here also from the same source about the Zionists leaders and NAZI. Both NAZI and Zionism agree to kick out the Jews of Europe to Palestine

First, my reference to Hajj Amin el-Husseini had nothing to do with his contacts with Nazi Germany (why do you constantly raise that subject?). Rather, I was following your claim on the origins of terrorism in the Middle-East:

2. How terrorism started in ME

I claim that the peaceful & legal Jewish settlement in Palestine was forced to establish defensive organisations such as the Haganah - who expelled men of extreme views such as Stern - which is why he had to form his own small organisation. I also referred to the Haganah's aid to the British to find and arrest several Irgun and Lehi members. You can see the division between the Haganah and Etzel in the Altalena Affair. Never was it a consensus among the Jewish settlement in Palestine or the Israeli society to use the violent means that you emphasize so much. In contrast, Palestinian society (and the PA) still accepts and even encourages acts of violence against Israel. Don't they understand it's detrimental to all sides?
IMO, the few extremists you refer to and the majority of Palestinian society share one trait: they both accept or turn a blind eye to violence on their behalf, dismiss the perpetrators as "an extremist few", and expect us - the sane majority - to understand it as the result of unfortunate circumstances. It's time the active - and especially the passive - parts on both sides realize everyone has their reasons for creating more violence, and rather than work in a negative way - pointing fingers (and Wiki links) at the other side - start using their energy in a positive way - like helping people understand violence does not solve violence, no matter how much you've suffered.

 

[Yonoz]

The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized ... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for ever.

Menachem Begin, the day after the U.N. vote to partition Palestine.

Menachem Begin : one of the most well known Zionist leaders and one of main leaders of indpendanbce war. Additionally, he was former PM in 70s and early 80s.

You find it important enough to show Menahem Begin was a PM during the 70s and 80s but you don't think it's important to state he negotiated the Camp David accords and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize? When that quote was said, during the British mandate of palestine, Begin never had the popular support Ben-Gurion had, because of these views. Israelis can quote Mahmoud Abbas from 30 years ago but we choose to give him the benefit of the doubt that he deserves - after all, a lot of things can change in 3 decades, right? Having agreed on that, why don't you quote this:

"No more wars, no more bloodshed, and no more threats"

-Menahem Begin, Broadcast to the Egyptian People November 11, 1977
You see, even Begin had the moral strength to realize, 3 decades later, that no matter how strongly you feel about the injustice done to you, fighting will get you nowhere.

This proves that Jews also rejected UN partial plan and decided to fight, so why russ_watters claim that only Palestinian who rejected this plan.

Should read "This proves some Jews also rejected UN partial plan". That's all it proves. Here's one Israeli that thinks Israel should pull out of the territories - does that make me a spokesperson for Israel?

Those who claim that Palestinian are the only side who support terrorism, here is information about another great Israeli leader and PM in 80s and early 90s.

Funny, wasn't it Yitzhak Shamir that participated in the Madrid Peace Conference? He also held the IDF at bay as Iraqi scuds landed on Israel - do you think Shamir of 3 decades earlier would have done the same?

Although Shamir had a reputation as a Likud hard-liner, in 1977 he presided at the visit of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and the peace talks; in 1981 and 1982 he guided negotiations with Egypt to normalize relations after the treaty and directed negotiations which led to the 1983 agreement with Lebanon (never ratified by the Lebanese government).

In 1991 the Shamir government took part in the Madrid peace talks and ordered the rescue of thousands of Ethiopian Jews, the Operation Solomon. The Shamir government also decided not to retaliate after the unprovoked Iraqi Scud missile volleys (many of which struck Israeli population centers) during the First Gulf War. The United States urged restraint, saying Israeli attacks would jeopardize the delicate Arab-Western coalition assembled against Iraq. Although long a hard-liner, Shamir left office in 1992, after his government fell amid charges that Likud—by taking part in the Madrid Peace Conference—had effectively agreed to enter negotiations over the West Bank and Gaza.

A PM who allowed his government to fall all for the sake of negotiations for parts of Eretz Israel? Doesn't sound quite like the same man you described.

He was on the top of the list of wanted terrorists for his bloody crimes

Whose list?

In fact most of Zionists leaders who established Israel started their life by terrorism and murdering innocent people.

Can you support that claim?

 

[klusener]

Bilal, I can see that you completely evaded the second point I made. I can guess why.

As I said, what I quoted was a FACT which HAPPENED. The Arab League of Nations initiated war against Israel. Unless you can prove me wrong on this point, my argument still stands.

But it still remains that they initiated the war as an act of defense because the land that they had been living in for thousands of years had been forcefully taken away from them without their opinions being voiced, they had no hand in the matter, so it is only natural and logical that they fight for their land..

 

[Yonoz]

But it still remains that they initiated the war as an act of defense because the land that they had been living in for thousands of years had been forcefully taken away from them without their opinions being voiced, they had no hand in the matter, so it is only natural and logical that they fight for their land..

You must distinguish between the Arab Nations and the Palestinian people. I would love to elaborate on the different meanings, but it seems no one can agree on the meaning of "Palestinian" as there are no definite rules to decide who is and who isn't a Palestinian. It seems there was no definite Palestinian identity prior to the 20th century:

the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations (in Jerusalem, February 1919), which met for the purpose of selecting a Palestinian Arab representative for the Paris Peace Conference, adopted the following resolution: "We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds."

-Palestinians - Formation of the Palestinian Nationality

Israel, in its initial form, was not taken away forcefully from anyone. Most of the land was even bought from the Arab land barons, the majority of which resided in Damascus, Beirut, Cairo and Alexandria - only a few lived in the port towns of Akko and Jaffa. Local Arabs who were not violent remain a part of Israel to this very day - they are Israeli citizens just like myself, though there is an undeniable racial problem (one can argue Palestinians are discriminated against in Arab countries worse than Arab Israelis in Israel). Some communities, who are today's Palestinians, were violent to the Jewish population were treated (understandably IMO) with hostility, and apparently in one circumstance there was unnecessary cruelty (Deir Yassin), though that case is still argued by some of the actions participants, and if you read the article, you'll see that the Haganah, the largest Jewish force that later became the IDF, opposed attacking the village.
The UN Partition Plan was accepted by the de-facto Jewish leadership, but the Arab Nations declared there will be no Jewish State under any circumstances, and the morning after the Declaration of Indedependence unprovokedly attacked Israel, who had not even formed an Army yet. You can read more on the War of Independence.
Until the formation of the PLO in 1964 there was no Palestinian leadership, and they were not viewed as a unique people by Israel or any other country, including the Arab countries. The Arabs countries used them as a means of pressuring Israel, and supplied them with plenty of ammunition and hatred but did little to sincerely assist them. Obviously, they had no real say on anything the Arab countries did.

 

[Hurkyl]

But it still remains that they initiated the war as an act of defense because the land that they had been living in for thousands of years had been forcefully taken away from them without their opinions being voiced, they had no hand in the matter, so it is only natural and logical that they fight for their land..

(1) Not all those involved have been living there for thousands of years. For example, certainly the Egyptians were living in, y'know, Egypt.

(2) As Bilal reminds us, Jews have been living there for thousands of years as well.

(3) Arabs can't even say they've controlled for thousands of years. For example, The Brits controlled the area for a couple decades before the creation of Israel, and the Turks for centuries before that. (And you sure don't see Turkey participating in "reclaiming stolen land")

 

[Joel]

Dear Joel,

I try to compromise by accepting the reality and to be pragmatic. Unfortunately this seems not working with Zionism. Therefore, you will never going to admit what you cause to Palestinian nation.

My question: If you were Palestinian, what you will do?

Before you answer this question read carefully what the Zionist leaders answered:

Dear Bilal,

I also think a pragmatic approach is best. However, you are mistaken if you think that I do not admit what some Jews have done to the Palestinians.

Regarding Ben-Gurion's words and Israel's creation, I think they - along with other historical events - must be put into their context, as you said yourself in a previous post. However, since that time, much has changed, and I will try to answer your question as if I where a young Palestinian today.

I would first accept that all people have suffered injustice in their history and that their responses have varied from seeking revenge, to assimilate with the people who have wronged them, to just forget and move on. Then I would ask myself how I could achieve a life where me and my family could live properly. If I had the luxury, I would study social sciences to understand the past injustice and the future possibilities. Finally, I would decide to work for two separate states, by trying to solve a variety of problems*, while avoiding negative perceptions of my intentions**.

* http://home.birzeit.edu/dsp/phdr/2002/

For a more theoretical approach: Theory of human development: a cross-cultural study

**I think the idea of a 'clash between civilizations' has its origin in this paper: the clash of civilizations, by Samuel Huntington He published a book with the same title in 2002 after the terror attacks in America 2001.

 

[Bilal]

I see no obvious correlation between what you state and that image. What camp is it? Who organises it? For all I know, it could be a picture of father & son in a thousand different circumstances - a military base "open day" or during the independence day displays. Not every Israeli holding a weapon wants to kill Palestinians, and violence as a solution to the current dispute is definitely not in the MoE curriculum, which is more than I can say for the Palestinian education system.

Israeli Textbooks Incite Racism, Hatred

From the Israeli newspaper Haartz:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=560441&contrassID=1&subContrassID=9&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=

((A majority of Jewish Israelis believe that the state should encourage Israeli Arabs to emigrate, according to a survey conducted by the Dahaf Institute on behalf of Madar, the Palestinian Center for Israel Studies.))

((The survey also found that only 34 percent of Jewish Israelis support a peace deal that entails a full withdrawal to the 1967 borders, while 65 percent oppose it.))

The Israeli Arab live in peace in Israel since 1948 and many of them are working in the Israeli army, so why the Jews hate them and want them to leave the land of there forefathers since thousands of years? Surely, it has something to do with Jews/Zionism culture ….which based on superiority of Jews and racism against the native people.


Israeli education system:

http://www.turks.us/article.php?story=20050312073310134

This is the result of Egyptian research by Safa Abdel Aal, an education expert, about Israeli education system. She work with several International organizations and her reports:


((Israel’s education curricula aim at psychologically mobilizing youngsters for war, inciting “hostility, grudge and hatred” against Arabs and tarnishing the Arab image, according to a new study.))


“Israeli school textbooks aim at implanting the desire for war in the souls of students as a sole means for defending what they believe legitimate and historic rights with the objective of mobilizing the Israeli public opinion for a constant state of war,” Safa Abdel Aal, an education expert, was quoted by Reuters as saying Thursday, March 10.))


((Young Israelis are educated about the army as early as the 11th grade, with five days of training that includes learning how to shoot.

A year later, school students receive counseling from a young soldier about draft procedures.

Serving in the Israeli army, which comprises 190.000 elements and 450.000 reservists, is mandatory.

Graduating from high schools, Israeli males serve three years while females serve a year less.))

Hatred & Enmity


((“The main tasks of the Israeli education system are meant to implanting the seeds of hatred and fear from the other in the Israeli youngsters and tarnishing the image of Arabs in the eyes of the current and future Israeli generations,” she stressed.

She further noted that the gravity of such an Israeli racist education system lies in the fact that the Israeli children, since their prime years, are being fed with hatred, grudge and superiority against Arabs, in particular, and others, in general. ))


“The Arabs are given mean descriptions in the Israeli textbooks such as thugs and thieves,” she said, citing two examples of anti-Arab sentences in the Israeli textbooks to prove her case.

One such clause speak about the “sacrifices” made by early Jewish generations, “despite a harsh climate and an environment full of the Arab embezzlers, thieves and terrorists”.

A second refers to the city of Taparia as a place which is suffering from insecurity and fear from the Arab killers.

The Israeli textbooks also include anti-Arab sentences such as “Arab thieves”, “Arabs are bastards thirsty for the Jewish bloods”, and “underdeveloped Arabs”.))


Palestinian education system:

I do not, need sources because I completed my school studies in Palestine, so my personal experience is enough, there are two stages of Palestinian education system, before and after 1994:

1967-1994

- All our textbooks and all the books in Palestine, whether school books or general books, should be signed by the military Israeli ruler in my region. The Israeli military leader have the right to ban any book or publication without even mentioning the reason.

- In all our school books, it is not allowed to mention the world ‘’Palestine or Palestinian’’. Even on the maps, they replaced it by Israel. All the Palestinian names are deleted and replaced by Hebrew names. This includes Atlas, geography and history books. (In that moment, we used to buy the Jordanian Atlas from black market because it was banned for mentioning Palestine)

- Not allowed to study anything about modern history or geography of Palestine. We used to study about geography and history of all ME and Europe, but not our country!

- Every teacher mention the name ‘’Palestine’’ or talk about Palestinian problem will be expelled immediately, and in some cases he will be send to the jail for 6 months.

- If the Israeli military ruler visits our school, all the students and teachers should stand near the road for reception. Any teacher do not join the reception will be expelled and the students will be punished.

From my personal experience:

((In forth class of elementary school , the teacher of Arabic language asked us about the name of our country …. Only 3 students among 30 answered ‘’Palestine’’, while the rest answered ‘’Jordan or West Bank’’ (This show how the Israeli regulations were strict to delete ‘’Palestine from the memory of people). The teacher told us that our country called Palestine, but the Zionist occupied it. After one week later we never see that teacher again! ))

((In 1982, an Israeli military leader decided to visit our town. In that time many people were sad because of Sabra and Chatila massacre. They sent ordered that all the students (kids) should stand near the main street for reception of the Israeli leader by using different music instruments. During that horrible day, we had to stand under the sun from morning till after noon without rest, food or drink. Five teachers who did not join the reception are expelled or transferred to very far schools as punishment))

After 1994:

As result and support of Oslo agreement, EU decided to print all the school textbooks. They mentioned for the first time ‘’Palestine” beside Israel. They deleted all Koran verses or any comments could disappoint the Jews. These school texts follow the European standard.

However, respected US and European research institutes found Palestinian textbooks free from any incitement to hatred, The International Herald Tribune reported December 18, 2004.

 

[Bilal]

First: Jews immigrants after 1897 (Zionism) are different than those who came to Palestine in 1860-1882 and built Beteh Teqwa and Hudaira by the help of the native people. If the native people hate the Jews, they can simply kicked them out in first wave of Russian Jews immigration in 1860-1882 bacuse the military and political leadership in the hand of Palestinian in that time (Jazzar in North-Acca and Zahir Omari in Middle, while the South under control of Ibrahim basha). They welcomed the Jews refugees as they did with Bosnian (Bushnaq - Yugoslavia)), Armenian (Turkey), Bahae (Iran), Chechen (Russia).

Second: Jews immigration after 1917 is part of the Anglo-.Zionism strategy of creation of Jews national homeland in Palestine, ignoring the rights of native people or their feelings. Therefore , it is logical that Palestinian (Muslims , Christian, atheists, liberal, right wing , left wing …) to fight back to protect their country. You can call it terrorism, but the reality it is defensive war against horrible imperialist project. Those who decided to fight Zionism and English occupation are heroes in the eyes of every Palestinian, the same as you consider Ben Gurion or Golda Maer hero in the eyes of every Zionists.

Third: Palestinian are living under occupation, so they are the victims. Even the resistance does some mistakes, they still high morally than the occupation authority who force complete nation to live under horrible conditions for generations.

First, my reference to Hajj Amin el-Husseini had nothing to do with his contacts with Nazi Germany (why do you constantly raise that subject?). Rather, I was following your claim on the origins of terrorism in the Middle-East:I claim that the peaceful & legal Jewish settlement in Palestine was forced to establish defensive organisations such as the Haganah - who expelled men of extreme views such as Stern - which is why he had to form his own small organisation. I also referred to the Haganah's aid to the British to find and arrest several Irgun and Lehi members. You can see the division between the Haganah and Etzel in the Altalena Affair. Never was it a consensus among the Jewish settlement in Palestine or the Israeli society to use the violent means that you emphasize so much. In contrast, Palestinian society (and the PA) still accepts and even encourages acts of violence against Israel. Don't they understand it's detrimental to all sides?
IMO, the few extremists you refer to and the majority of Palestinian society share one trait: they both accept or turn a blind eye to violence on their behalf, dismiss the perpetrators as "an extremist few", and expect us - the sane majority - to understand it as the result of unfortunate circumstances. It's time the active - and especially the passive - parts on both sides realize everyone has their reasons for creating more violence, and rather than work in a negative way - pointing fingers (and Wiki links) at the other side - start using their energy in a positive way - like helping people understand violence does not solve violence, no matter how much you've suffered.

 

[stoned]

You must distinguish between the Arab Nations and the Palestinian people. I would love to elaborate on the different meanings, but it seems no one can agree on the meaning of "Palestinian" as there are no definite rules to decide who is and who isn't a Palestinian. It seems there was no definite Palestinian identity prior to the 20th century

it is even harder to define who is jewish and who just took on jewish religion and had absolutelly nothing in common with hebrews who lived in m.east.
90 % of you are ancestors of people from russian steppes who took on judaism as their official religion.
for example in 1991 your government evacuated black jews from Ethiopia yes black, that is almost same story as with jews from russia. Ethiopians in ancient times took on judaism, outside of that zero similarity with ancient hebrews.
so you see each and every palestinian has 1000 X more right to that land than all of you combined, "jews" today are modern day squatters living on stolen land, what is keeping you still there against all odds is unfortunatelly naivitee and dumbness of Americans who as you must well know give billions of $ to the state of Israel.

 

[Bilal]

- Lihi and Itzel rejected UN plan and decided to occupy Jordan and to kick the two nations to Iraq. You can read again about these two groups. Zionism are represented by three groups ; Hagnah, Itzel and Lihi ... so two among them used terrorism and ethic cleansing (e.g. Dair Yassin) as public strategy , while Haganah used to ''kill and to apologies'' .

- No doubt that Begin and shmire (Itzel and Lihi) were big terrorists. Begin did peace agreement with Egypt, because he wanted to declare more wars in the East, so it is good chance to make Egypt neutral. His comments about peace during signing the agreement are very logical. Or you want him to say we should kill all the Arab?
Shamir admitted in 1994 that his intention was not to sign peace agreement but to win the time for building more settlements for Russian Jews in WB and Gaza.

- Except Shimon Peres, could you mention one Zionist leader who his hands are clean from Palestinians blood?

- Arafat awarded also Nobel prise , and the zionists call him terrorist.

You find it important enough to show Menahem Begin was a PM during the 70s and 80s but you don't think it's important to state he negotiated the Camp David accords and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize? When that quote was said, during the British mandate of palestine, Begin never had the popular support Ben-Gurion had, because of these views. Israelis can quote Mahmoud Abbas from 30 years ago but we choose to give him the benefit of the doubt that he deserves - after all, a lot of things can change in 3 decades, right? Having agreed on that, why don't you quote this:
-Menahem Begin, Broadcast to the Egyptian People November 11, 1977
You see, even Begin had the moral strength to realize, 3 decades later, that no matter how strongly you feel about the injustice done to you, fighting will get you nowhere.


Should read "This proves some Jews also rejected UN partial plan". That's all it proves. Here's one Israeli that thinks Israel should pull out of the territories - does that make me a spokesperson for Israel?


Funny, wasn't it Yitzhak Shamir that participated in the Madrid Peace Conference? He also held the IDF at bay as Iraqi scuds landed on Israel - do you think Shamir of 3 decades earlier would have done the same?


A PM who allowed his government to fall all for the sake of negotiations for parts of Eretz Israel? Doesn't sound quite like the same man you described.

Whose list?

Can you support that claim?

 

[Bilal]

Those who are interested to know more about Israeli Education system from Human Rights Watch

New York · Washington · London · Brussels
Copyright © September 2001 by Human Rights Watch.
All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
ISBN: 1-56432-266-1
Library of Congress Control Number: 2001095949

SECOND CLASS
Discrimination Against Palestinian
Arab Children in Israel's Schools
PDF Version (550kb) [beta]

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/israel2/

 

[Bilal]

First: Any Jews should be allowed to buy land in Palestine, but you can not create State from these lands! If I have enough money I can buy large Areas in USA … but this not means it is legally to created ‘’independent Bilalian State’’ in USA soil!

Second: Here is from the UN site. Official secret English report show the reality of the problem and the lands owned by Jews:

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/561c6ee353d740fb8525607d00581829/aeac80e740c782e4852561150071fdb0!OpenDocument

(((On 17 April 1974, The Times of London published excerpts from a secret memorandum prepared by the Political Intelligence Department of the British Foreign Office for the use of the British delegation to the Paris peace conference. The reference to Palestine is as follows:

"With regard to Palestine, His Majesty's Government are committed by Sir Henry McMahon's letter to the Sherif on October 24, 1915, to its inclusion in the boundaries of Arab independence ... but they have stated their policy regarding the Palestine Holy Place and Zionist colonization in their message to him of January 4, 1918."))

((Similarly, a number of Jewish organizations such as the Colonisation Department of the Zionist Organization, financed by the Keren ha-Yesod, were actively engaged in acquisition of land both for individual immigrant families as well as for the Yishuv or Jewish settlements. Several of these organizations had been operating since the nineteenth century, notably the Palestine Jewish Colonisation Association (PICA)*. With the British occupation of Palestine in 1918 all land transactions were suspended. The registers were reopened in 1920, at which time it was estimated that Jewish land acquisitions stood at about 650,000 dunums** or 2.5 per cent of the total land area of 26 million dunums). 71/ By the end of the decade this figure had nearly doubled to 1,200,000 dunums,
just below 5 per cent.))

((If Palestine had remained under Ottoman Turkish rule, or if it had become an independent Arab state in 1918, Jewish immigrants would never have been admitted into Palestine in large enough numbers to enable them to overwhelm the Palestinian Arabs in this Arab people's own country. The reason why the State of Israel exists today and why today 1,500,000 Palestinian Arabs are refugees is that, for 30 years, Jewish immigration was imposed on the Palestinian Arabs by British military power until the immigrants were sufficiently numerous and sufficiently well-armed to be able to fend for themselves with tanks and planes of their own. The tragedy in Palestine is not just a local one; it is a tragedy for the world, because it is an injustice that is a menace to the world's peace." ))

Israel, in its initial form, was not taken away forcefully from anyone. Most of the land was even bought from the Arab land barons, the majority of which resided in Damascus, Beirut, Cairo and Alexandria - only a few lived in the port towns of Akko and Jaffa. Local Arabs who were not violent remain a part of Israel to this very day - they are Israeli citizens just like myself, though there is an undeniable racial problem (one can argue Palestinians are discriminated against in Arab countries worse than Arab Israelis in Israel). Some communities, who are today's Palestinians, were violent to the Jewish population were treated (understandably IMO) with hostility, and apparently in one circumstance there was unnecessary cruelty (Deir Yassin), though that case is still argued by some of the actions participants, and if you read the article, you'll see that the Haganah, the largest Jewish force that later became the IDF, opposed attacking the village.
The UN Partition Plan was accepted by the de-facto Jewish leadership, but the Arab Nations declared there will be no Jewish State under any circumstances, and the morning after the Declaration of Indedependence unprovokedly attacked Israel, who had not even formed an Army yet. You can read more on the War of Independence.
Until the formation of the PLO in 1964 there was no Palestinian leadership, and they were not viewed as a unique people by Israel or any other country, including the Arab countries. The Arabs countries used them as a means of pressuring Israel, and supplied them with plenty of ammunition and hatred but did little to sincerely assist them. Obviously, they had no real say on anything the Arab countries did.

 

[Bilal]

1. Current nations of ME are mixture of all ancient nations from Sumarian /Pharons till Arab and Turks. Genetically, people belong to different races (Semite, African, European and Asian). People of this region, never annihilated, but they were under attacks of new invaders and then mixed together.

2. Jews are part of ME and as I mentioned before about Jews history in the East. They had great contributed in Islamic civilization in middle ages. Also they have long history in old ages. We have many families in Palestine from Jews origin (e.g. Aun = Gedeon). In fact, we in the Arab world (especially in Iraq) admire this contribution. In our historical books they refer to Jews as skillful people, intelligent and well educated (you can read Arabian nights) . even they reach the highest level in political system by appointing Jacob Iben Kalaf (Egyptian Jews) to be the first Minister during Fatimid Sate in 11 century. He also built one of the most well known mosques in Islamic world (Al Azhar mosque – Cairo)

3. There is big difference between to control and to be citizen ... Beside that Ottoman Empire is not just Turks occupation. It was last Islamic Empires and it was exist officially in Palestine. It was similar to USSR, many nations were united together and created large State, but they were dominant by Turks, the same as USSR was dominant by Russian. People of Palestine were part of (Great Syria) and they had three provinces in their country (Acca - Beirut, Nablus and Jerusalem).

Any country in the world could lose its independence (e.g. Iraq), but surely the nation do not change... it is the same history of all world countries.

(1) Not all those involved have been living there for thousands of years. For example, certainly the Egyptians were living in, y'know, Egypt.

(2) As Bilal reminds us, Jews have been living there for thousands of years as well.

(3) Arabs can't even say they've controlled for thousands of years. For example, The Brits controlled the area for a couple decades before the creation of Israel, and the Turks for centuries before that. (And you sure don't see Turkey participating in "reclaiming stolen land")