News What do you do with a problem like Ahmadinejad?

[Anttech]

Originally Posted by Anttech
The whole system revolves around the participation of taking land from Muslims and giving this to the Jews.

Again, utter ignorance.

Care to tell me how one would go about creating Israel, a Jewish centric country around Jerusalem, without first of all taking land from Palestine's, or rather the people who were living there before Zionism started?

Zionism is neither secular nor communist. It is simply the realisation of the Jewish nation at its historical home.

How can one realize a Jewish nation at it historical home without first displacing the people who were living there before this realisation?

There is a rather LARGE gap between the 1940's and when the Israelites left 'Israel' (You know Exodus and all that) during the old testament era . So you must have gotten the land from someone, who was it?

What an oxymoron. Katalaves?

 

[Yonoz]

Care to tell me how one would go about creating Israel, a Jewish centric country around Jerusalem, without first of all taking land from Palestine's, or rather the people who were living there before Zionism started?

Buying land.
My parents live in a village named after one of the Rothschilds. The Rothschilds bought the land during the early days of Zionism and a small group of Socialist Zionist dried some of the swamps that encompassed the region and settled there. The well-known line "If I were a rich-man" is originally "If I were Rothschild", illustrating the fame and prestige the Rothschilds gained among world Jewry when they became the most eminent patrons of the Zionist movement.
When my grandmother volunteered for a Socialist Zionist movement she was only 16. She had left her wealthy family in Vienna and formed a group. They had some agricultural training in Europe, and then they were sent to Palestine. They had to wait for the land transfer to be authorized and then came to some desolate hilltop between swamps, set up tents and started digging a well, then drying swamps and building community buildings. After a few years the vast swampland had turned into rich fertile grassland, and their few tents had turned into a highly productive agricultural socialist community. Arab villages from the Sumarea mountains who previously used the area only in summer when it was dry, set up permanent residence nearby. They lived peacefully as neighbours until the Arab riots. The tension increased over years and when the war broke out they simply left, probably of fear and confidence that the invading Arab armies would capture the land. This is just my mother's family's tale, but it is quite similar to the tales of every Israeli Jewish family I know. Some were came from Europe, some came from North Africa, Iraq, Iran, India, South America etc. Some where airlifted by Israel when they were at risk, some survived the holocaust only to be penned in a British camp in Cyprus - because all they wanted to do was leave the place they mistakenly thought was their home, and avenge the genocide they survived by building a true national home and raising a successful nation. That is Zionism.

How can one realize a Jewish nation at it historical home without first displacing the people who were living there before this realisation?

Well, at first you can hope they will live with you peacefully. That is what the first Aliyas did. They hired Arab workers and guards. As Arab nationalism began to oppose the peaceful Jewish settlement, and on account of several negative experiences with Arab workers, and most importantly - as the Socialists became dominant -the Zionist movement concentrated on "Hebrew Labour" and Arab workers were no longer needed. Obviously when you stop paying the neighbouring Arab village to "guard" your crops, they like you a lot less. From here, the road to the Arab riots and then to the first stage of the War of Independence - the "civil" war - was quite short.

There is a rather LARGE gap between the 1940's and when the Israelites left 'Israel' (You know Exodus and all that) during the old testament era . So you must have gotten the land from someone, who was it?

Wealthy land owners who had owned the lands from Ottoman times. These owners usually lived in Damascus and Alexandria and cared little for useless neither holy nor hospitable swampland.
EDIT: The Exodus was when the Israelites left Egypt for the Promised Land. You must be talking about the destruction of the second Temple.

What an oxymoron. Katalaves?

I don't quite follow.

 

[Anttech]

When my grandmother volunteered for a Socialist Zionist movement she was only 16. She had left her wealthy family in Vienna and formed a group. They had some agricultural training in Europe, and then they were sent to Palestine. They had to wait for the land transfer to be authorized and then came to some desolate hilltop between swamps, set up tents and started digging a well, then drying swamps and building community buildings. After a few years the vast swampland had turned into rich fertile grassland, and their few tents had turned into a highly productive agricultural socialist community.

Nice story

Well, at first you can hope they will live with you peacefully.

Yeah a bit like when the Ottomans came to Greece, they were hoping to they could live in Greece in peace, perhaps over time they could call Greece, --- Turkey. Do you not see a problem there?
I suppose a Better example would be, the Turks migrating to German as they are doing in there droves right now, and buying land there, over time, perhaps they can call Germany Turkey.

As Arab nationalism began to oppose the peaceful Jewish settlement, and on account of several negative experiences with Arab workers, and most importantly - as the Socialists became dominant -the Zionist movement concentrated on "Hebrew Labour" and Arab workers were no longer needed. Obviously when you stop paying the neighbouring Arab village to "guard" your crops, they like you a lot less. From here, the road to the Arab riots and then to the first stage of the War of Independence - the "civil" war - was quite short.

Seems like Jewish nationalism came to the front also.

Wealthy land owners who had owned the lands from Ottoman times. These owners usually lived in Damascus and Alexandria and cared little for useless neither holy nor hospitable swampland.

In Summary:
Israel was one big swamp that wasnt being attended to by the Palestines. most of the land that is currently under Israeli rule was bought of Rich Ottomens, by rich cartels of Jews.

Hmmmmm. Look Yonzo, I have some experience with being ejected from Land, as I am Greek. My Grandfather is actually from Asia-Minor. During the forced migration he was literally kicked off his land, there was nothing he could do. He was forceably removed by the new Government of Turkey. He was very lucky to live. I am 100% sure, Arabs were also booted off there land. I am not going to dispute that some land was bought, but after the state of Israel was ratified many people would have been ejected, to Lebanon, Palistein Egypt and Jordan.

I don't quite follow.

Its Greek, I was being clever since I had already used a bunch of Greek words in the post.

 

[Yonoz]

Nice story

This land is known by many names. Palestine comes from Philistine. The Philistines are a long-dead non-semitic ethnic group. Palestinians derived their name from the land. They still possesses names such as Al-Mazri (Egyptian) that indicate their decendence. I could also call that territory Eretz-Israel. The name is irrelevant.

Yeah a bit like when the Ottomans came to Greece, they were hoping to they could live in Greece in peace, perhaps over time they could call Greece, --- Turkey. Do you not see a problem there?

Yeah, the problem is that you picked a bad example. The Ottomans had a national home - incidentally called Turkey, and were commiting an act of conquest. Jews have no home but Israel, and the establishment of the State of Israel was done according to wishes of the UNGC at the time. It was the Arab armies that attacked the nation upon its birth, with expressed wishes to destroy it. Those that supported them quite understandably ended up on their side of the 1947 cease-fire line, be it in refugee camps or with their relatives. To the winner goes the spoils, you sure as hell cannot expect us to allow our enemy through the front gate, regarding the circumstances. The occupied territories will be the home of a Palestinian State or some other entity, it is simply a matter of negotiations. We have shown an absolute commitment to peace and territorial concessions. It is between us and the Palestinians to resolve this, the Iranian leadership is cynically using this as an excuse to promote their interests.

I suppose a Better example would be, the Turks migrating to German as they are doing in there droves right now, and buying land there, over time, perhaps they can call Germany Turkey.

Another bad example, but even so - are the Turkish immigrants doing anything wrong? They simply wish for a better life for themselves. They do not mean to harm anyone.
There have been Zionists that called for various forms of government here. Some dreamt of a Jewish-Muslim Republic or Federation in what is today Lebanon, Syria, Israel and Jordan. Those hopes were abandoned simply because they were not realistic, especially considering the tension between Jews and Arabs at the time.

Seems like Jewish nationalism came to the front also.

Quite understandably. And all we asked was that the Arabs understand this as well as the rest of the world.

In Summary:
Israel was one big swamp that wasnt being attended to by the Palestines. most of the land that is currently under Israeli rule was bought of Rich Ottomens, by rich cartels of Jews.

Nope, I never said Israel was one big swamp. That was mostly just the shallow valleys between the Mediterranean and the ridges of Judea and Sumaria. The south was a desert, as most of it has remained. Other settlements were around the Sea of Galilee, sporadically shelled by the Syrians from the cliffs at the edge of the Golan Heights.

Hmmmmm. Look Yonzo, I have some experience with being ejected from Land, as I am Greek. My Grandfather is actually from Asia-Minor. During the forced migration he was literally kicked off his land, there was nothing he could do. He was forceably removed by the new Government of Turkey. He was very lucky to live. I am 100% sure, Arabs were also booted off there land. I am not going to dispute that some land was bought, but after the state of Israel was ratified many people would have been ejected, to Lebanon, Palistein Egypt and Jordan.

I do not dispute that Arabs have been forcibly removed off their land. I also believe a lot were misled to leave their land - whether by the Arab governments or by Jews. But I believe every nation was born in sin and that the strife caused by the birth of the State of Israel was the end of a chain of completely logical action and counteraction. At the foot of the chain, the fault lies with the Arab world's refusal to accept Israel as an independent Jewish State in their midst.

Its Greek, I was being clever since I had already used a bunch of Greek words in the post.

Care to explain?

 

[Anttech]

Jew comes from a Greek word
Oxymoron comes from Greek:

It was referring to your post, which to me was an oxymoron, ie you were calling me ignorant for asserting the system that powered Zionism was the taking of land from Palistiens, yet you asserted it was the realisation of a Jewish state in Historical Old Testament lands of Jews.

Exodus is Greek

Katalaves is Greek, and means, do you understand?

 

[Yonoz]

It was referring to your post, which to me was an oxymoron, ie you were calling me ignorant for asserting the system that powered Zionism was the taking of land from Palistiens, yet you asserted it was the realisation of a Jewish state in Historical Old Testament lands of Jews.

But why does it have to involve the taking of land? There was plenty of room back then.

 

[Anttech]

But why does it have to involve the taking of land? There was plenty of room back then.

Perhaps there was room for migration, but I don't think there was room to create a new state, without the taking of Land. To realize the Zionist dream, meant taking land from someone. There is a big difference between migrating and creating communities within a state, and migrating and making your own state.

I do not dispute that Arabs have been forcibly removed off their land. I also believe a lot were misled to leave their land - whether by the Arab governments or by Jews. But I believe every nation was born in sin and that the strife caused by the birth of the State of Israel was the end of a chain of completely logical action and counteraction. At the foot of the chain, the fault lies with the Arab world's refusal to accept Israel as an independent Jewish State in their midst.

Glad you accept that. However why is every nation born from sin? Thats not true at all. Italy wasnt born from sin, Neither was spain nor Greece, nor China. Nor a host of other countries

Do you expect the Arab to accept it? Would you accept it, if someone did this to you?

 

[kyleb]

A world leader questions the darkest chapter in human history and that does not ring any bells for our dear Professor? Again, is this the type of person you think should have nuclear weapons - one that constantly speaks as if he's living in the time of the crusades and yet is not too familiar with the 20th century's greatest crime? Someone's overdosing on their SSRIs.

It sounds like you only read the beginning of what I quoted, here is the latter part of again:

This language targets the myth of the Holocaust, not the Holocaust itself - i.e., "myth" as "mystique", or what has been done with the Holocaust. Other writers, including important Jewish theologians, have criticized the "cult" or "ghost" of the Holocaust without denying that it happened. In any case, Mr. Ahmadinejad's main message has been that, if the Holocaust happened as Europe says it did, then Europe, and not the Muslim world, is responsible for it.

http://www.counterpunch.com/tilley08282006.html
But again my point is that, contrary to the myth of Iran, they support a two state solution for Israel and Palestine.

Seeing as the existence of Israel is the embodiment of Zionism, I find it hard to understand your stand.

To exemplify my position; I also oppose Sovietism, but I've always supported Russia's right of existence.

As for the land which became Israel, http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/cf02d057b04d356385256ddb006dc02f/a73996728ba8b94785256d560060cd1a!OpenDocument" .

 

[Yonoz]

Perhaps there was room for migration, but I don't think there was room to create a new state, without the taking of Land. To realize the Zionist dream, meant taking land from someone. There is a big difference between migrating and creating communities within a state, and migrating and making your own state.

No, I don't think that too many countries, upon their formation, had zero objectors on their territories. The sovereign entity over that land for the past few centuries simply disappeared, and the League of Nations gave the British a mandate over Palestine. The UN came up with a partition plan, which the Jewish leadership accepted. We could have lived side by side as early as the formation of the State, but those days' Palestinians saw themselves as Arab citizens of the Arab States and their governments chose to destroy Israel. It was when some of them left their homes that they became a unique people - the Palestinians. The ones who remained are today known as Israelis.

Glad you except that. However why is every nation born from sin? Thats not true at all. Italy wasnt born from sin, Neither was spain nor Greece, nor China.

"Roma o Morte"? Reconquista? The Huns vs. the Ming Dynasty?

Do you expect the Arab to accept it? Would you accept it, if someone did this to you?

Well the ones that accepted it are living among us today with full rights and even privileges.

 

[Yonoz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_War_of_Independence" :

In Europe, the Greek revolt aroused widespread sympathy. Greece was viewed as the cradle of western civilization, and it was especially lauded by the spirit of romanticism that was current at the time. The sight of a Christian nation attempting to cast off the rule of a Muslim Empire also appealed to the western European public.
...
On 20 October 1827 the British, Russian and French fleets, on the initiative of local commanders but with the tacit approval of their governments, attacked and destroyed the Ottoman fleet at the Battle of Navarino (Πύλος).

Hmmm...
Sounds to me like you may have upset the Muslims there...

 

[Astronuc]

and creating communities within a state

This a key point in the entire debate about the Israeli state. There was not state in existence prior to the existence of Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine

The Jewish immigrants settled in a 'territory' in which Jews, Arabs and Christians were living. Up until World War 1, it was part of the Ottoman empire. Then until 1948, it was an occupied territory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#British_Mandate_.281920-1948.29

There was never a 'Palestinian State'.

Modern states are relatively recent, and the borders somewhat arbitrary, and many borders were decided as a result of WWI and WWII.

 

[Anttech]

Greece was around before that, it was occupied for 300 years by the Ottomans but before that "Greece" has existed we even had a few empires, really its true

Regarded as the cradle of western civilization and being the birthplace of democracy[1], Western philosophy[2], sports, western literature, political science and drama[3] including both tragedy and comedy, Greece has a particularly long and eventful history and a cultural heritage considerably influential in Europe, Northern Africa and the Middle East. Today, Greece is a developed nation, member of the European Union since 1981 and a member of the Eurozone since 2001.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that Greece was born in the 1800? Stop clutching at straws. The Hellenic Identity, Culture, and states can be found for millennium, its far old than Judaism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece#History

Sounds to me like you may have upset the Muslims there...

And you would be right... The Greeks were occupied by the Turks for 300 years, but we were never conquered. Anyway this is off topic, and rather irrelevant.

 

[Yonoz]

It sounds like you only read the beginning of what I quoted, here is the latter part of again:


http://www.counterpunch.com/tilley08282006.html
But again my point is that, contrary to the myth of Iran, they support a two state solution for Israel and Palestine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Israel_relations" :

Iran does not even formally recognize Israel as a country, and official government texts often simply refer to it as the "Zionist entity."

In January 2004, he spoke to an Israeli reporter who asked him on what grounds Iran would recognize Israel. This was believed to be the first time he had spoken publicly with an Israeli.

To exemplify my position; I also oppose Sovietism, but I've always supported Russia's right of existence.

Sovietism is not about the Russians' right to have a national home in Russia.

As for the land which became Israel, http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/cf02d057b04d356385256ddb006dc02f/a73996728ba8b94785256d560060cd1a!OpenDocument" .

Of course. You're forgetting the Partition Plan also gave Jewish land to the Arabs. Jewish settlements were abandoned so that we may live side by side in peace. But the Arab world could not accept Israel's existence. They were very direct about it.

 

[Anttech]

This a key point in the entire debate about the Israeli state. There was not state in existence prior to the existence of Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine

The Jewish immigrants settled in a 'territory' in which Jews, Arabs and Christians were living. Up until World War 1, it was part of the Ottoman empire. Then until 1948, it was an occupied territory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#British_Mandate_.281920-1948.29

There was never a 'Palestinian State'.

Modern states are relatively recent, and the borders somewhat arbitrary, and many borders were decided as a result of WWI and WWII.

Its only a key point when you are ignoring that fact that the majorty of people living in 'Israel' were actually Arabs. As you stated it was normal in those days so may I ask what are you driving at?

It was someone land wasnt it, and if you look at kyleb link to the UN map, you will clearly see the Demographics

 

[Yonoz]

Greece was around before that, it was occupied for 300 years by the Ottomans but before that "Greece" has existed we even had a few empires, really its true

Empires - nice. They weren't imperialist by any chance, were they?

Are you seriously trying to tell me that Greece was born in the 1800? Stop clutching at straws.

Modern Greece, yes.

The Hellenic Identity, Culture, and states can be found for millennium, its far old than Judaism.

However, Greeks who converted to Islam and were not Crypto-Christians were deemed Turks in the eyes of Orthodox Greeks, even if they didn't adopt Turkish language. On the other hand, this population has played an immense role for the creation of modern Greek culture, as Turkish traditions and customs were learned during the entire occupation period. The most obvious traces of Ottoman influence on Greek culture today is reflected in Greek music and in the Greek kitchen.

Modern Greece was formed by the separation of Greece from the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman occupation shaped much of the Modern Greek nation.

And you would be right... The Greeks were occupied by the Turks for 300 years, but we were never conquered. Anyway this is off topic, and rather irrelevant.

It's funny how there's a nationalist in everyone.

 

[Yonoz]

Its only a key point when you are ignoring that fact that the majorty of people living in 'Israel' were actually Arabs. As you stated it was normal in those days so may I ask what are you driving at?

You stated Jews built communities within a State, but there was no State. It was a territory under British mandate by the League of Nations.

It was someone land wasnt it, and if you look at kyleb link to the UN map, you will clearly see the Demographics

That's why the Plan involved some sort of Partition.

 

[Astronuc]

Its only a key point when you are ignoring that fact that the majorty of people living in 'Israel' were actually Arabs. As you stated it was normal in those days so may I ask what are you driving at?

I challenged the notion that Jews were "migrating and creating communities within a state". They migrated and formed their own state. Now, I have to agree that other people were living in the region which became part of the state of Israel, and that is the current source of conflict between Palestinians/Arabs who want a state and Israelis/Jews who wish to maintain the current state of Israel. Part of that confict is that there are competing claims for control over some the land, e.g. Jerusalem.

And I might ask, what is the point of digressing on ancient history? How relevant is the history of Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East to the current problem?

 

[Yonoz]

One must differentiate between the situation before the formation of a state and the one afterwards. Before the formation of the state there was a British mandate over a territory that was named Palestine. The UN Partition Plan called for the formation of a Jewish and Arab state side by side. The Jewish leadership accepted this solution but the Arabs refused to recognise a Jewish State among them. The UNGC voted in favour and the night the British left, Israel declared independence. At sunrise the next morning Arab armies all around it attacked. Even Iraq sent its military with the clear expressed intention of destroying Israel - not retrieving land, not resettling anyone - everyone was settled right where they had been the night before. They chose to destroy us. When you go to an all-out-war such as this one you should know that if you lose, the enemy will take some form of reparation - it is a completely normal behaviour. If an enemy tries to destroy you, I believe you have every right to hold onto land that you control at the cessation of hostilities, until a peace agreement can be reached - and that was the plan. It was the Arab states that chose, again, not to recognise Israel, not to negotiate with it, and to attack it using the Palestinians on the lands they now illegally occupy. These Palestinian raids on civilians in remote locations and Syrian bombardments were a part of Israeli daily life in the 50's and 60's.

 

[kyleb]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Israel_relations" :

Yep, Iran supports a two state solution for Israel and Palestine. Unfortunately, Israel does not support any solution which Palestine can be reasonably expected to accept. Iran, along with many other nations and people, is not willing to acknowledge Israel's right to exist until that has changed.

Sovietism is not about the Russians' right to have a national home in Russia.

Exactly, it is a movement by which Russians developed their homeland, as Zionism has been to the Jewish people. But as Russians still have a right to their homeland without Sovietism, so do the Jewish people without Zionism.

Of course. You're forgetting the Partition Plan also gave Jewish land to the Arabs.

I'm not forgetting that at all, and the figures for that can be easly derived from http://domino.un.org/maps/m0094.jpg as well.

Jewish settlements were abandoned so that we may live side by side in peace. But the Arab world could not accept Israel's existence. They were very direct about it.

The Zionist were going to have a strong Jewish majority in the land which became Israel, and that continues to be accomplished though varying levels of 'directness' over the years. One long standing example is pointing out land given to the Arabs in the Partition Plan with little regard to the how those figures stand yet questioning those peoples displeasure with being chased off their land. Would you like me to draw you a map?

 

[Anttech]

And I might ask, what is the point of digressing on ancient history? How relevant is the history of Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East to the current problem?

Because Yonzo was attempting to say that Greece was born from Sin. The matter we are talking about IE Hellas, is not so relevent. However History is very relevant to the current problem. Are you contending that it isnt?

 

[Anttech]

Empires - nice. They weren't imperialist by any chance, were they?

Yeap, although I don't think they were called imerialist in Alexanders era.

Modern Greece, yes.

There was absolutely NO break in the Hellenic culture since the Byzantine era. So please do qualify your oppinions with some thought.

Modern Greece was formed by the separation of Greece from the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman occupation shaped much of the Modern Greek nation.

As we shaped them, Ever been to Istanbul? Are you aware of why Mosques are shaped like they are? (off topic)

Still, as I already stated there was no break in the Hellenic culture and especially no break from its birthplace.

It's funny how there's a nationalist in everyone.

You say this because?

 

[Yonoz]

Yep, Iran supports a two state solution for Israel and Palestine. Unfortunately, Israel does not support any solution which Palestine can be reasonably expected to accept. Iran, along with many other nations and people, is not willing to acknowledge Israel's right to exist until that has changed.

Can you provide an example to something the Iranians think the Palestinians can reasonably be expected to accept?

Exactly, it is a movement by which Russians developed their homeland, as Zionism has been to the Jewish people. But as Russians still have a right to their homeland without Sovietism, so do the Jewish people without Zionism.

No, Zionism doesn't describe a social structure or government, it is simply the belief that Jews for whatever reasons have a national home in the Land of Israel. Israel without Zionism is Israel without a right to exist. If you find it difficult, simply replace every instance of "Zionism" with "the belief Israel has a right to exist".

I'm not forgetting that at all, and the figures for that can be easly derived from http://domino.un.org/maps/m0094.jpg as well.

Well great. So are you saying the Arabs were right in their reaction to the Jewish settlement? A reaction that introduced the first round of violence in this conflict?

The Zionist were going to have a strong Jewish majority in the land which became Israel, and that continues to be accomplished though varying levels of 'directness' over the years. One long standing example is pointing out land given to the Arabs in the Partition Plan with little regard to the how those figures stand yet questioning those peoples displeasure with being chased off their land. Would you like me to draw you a map?

We can discuss the Partition Plan in another thread, whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant, as it was recognised by the UNGC at the time. Who's questioning the Arabs displeasure? I'm sure they were very displeasured to have been unable to annihilate us.

 

[McGyver]

I challenged the notion that Jews were "migrating and creating communities within a state". They migrated and formed their own state. Now, I have to agree that other people were living in the region which became part of the state of Israel, and that is the current source of conflict between Palestinians/Arabs who want a state and Israelis/Jews who wish to maintain the current state of Israel. Part of that confict is that there are competing claims for control over some the land, e.g. Jerusalem.

And I might ask, what is the point of digressing on ancient history? How relevant is the history of Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East to the current problem?

Amen Astronuc! These very passionate discussions that appear to go on and on - illustrate the need for a PEACEFUL COEXISTANCE in the Middle East. One should not be so fixed on what was 100, 500, or 2000 years ago. TIME makes allowances for change. Those with interests at stake in the region need to be open to the "favorable prospects" which TIME and ENLIGHTENMENT can bring.

 

[Yonoz]

Yeap, although I don't think they were called imerialist in Alexanders era.

EDIT: Cough, cough.

There was absolutely NO break in the Hellenic culture since the Byzantine era. So please do qualify your oppinions with some thought.
As we shaped them, Ever been to Istanbul? Are you aware of why Mosques are shaped like they are? (off topic)

I'm sure you shaped them. That's not the point. The point is, whichever way you look at it - empire or occupation - nations are born in sin. Nationalism is simply our tribal instinct. To nationalise is to prevent something from everyone who is not a part of the "nation". Nationalism is an ism of negation, of seperation, of conflict. Hence every nation is born in sin. Let's try to remain on-topic. You can start another thread if you like, I'll join in.

Still, as I already stated there was no break in the Hellenic culture and especially no break from its birthplace.

As far as I'm concerned, there was no break in any culture since the beginning of human culture. Except maybe Atlantis.

You say this because?

Because your comments seem nationalist in nature.

 

[Anttech]

As far as I'm concerned, there was no break in any culture since the beginning of human culture. Except maybe Atlantis.

Well that's terrific, great qualification, I am now convinced!

ok yes this is off topic so let's stop.

 

[Astronuc]

Because Yonoz was attempting to say that Greece was born from Sin.

Yonoz was saying ALL nations are born in sin, and to some extent that is true. In a community where there are multiple clans, tribes, ethnic groups, . . . when the dominant group asserts its control over other groups, then that more or less is sin. Nations exist because some dominant group asserted political control over some territory.

The matter we are talking about IE Hellas, is not so relevent. However History is very relevant to the current problem. Are you contending that it isnt?

Yes history is relevant to the human experience, so is perception of history and so is misperception of history. People are very fond of precedent, but then one must ask, "is the information presented as precedent accurate?"

Revision or misrepresentation of history is often a problem.

One should not be so fixed on what was 100, 500, or 2000 years ago.

We cannot change the past. We can only start today and 'chose' a path for tomorrow. We can choose peaceful coexistence, with Liberty and Justice for all, or we can choose conflict. Given such a choice, why would one choose the latter?

 

[Yonoz]

We cannot change the past. We can only start today and 'chose' a path for tomorrow. We can choose peaceful coexistence, with Liberty and Justice for all, or we can choose conflict. Given such a choice, why would one choose the latter?

That is pretty much the essence of what I say to Israelis. IMO it is lacking from Palestinian public discussion.
Sorry, I'm terribly off-topic again.

 

[kyleb]

Can you provide an example to something the Iranians think the Palestinians can reasonably be expected to accept?

That doesn't matter, what maters is that the Israeli's and the Palestinians come to an agreement that both do accept. After that, then Iran and many of the other holdouts will be willing to accept Israel.

No, Zionism doesn't describe a social structure or government, it is simply the belief that Jews for whatever reasons have a national home in the Land of Israel. Israel without Zionism is Israel without a right to exist. If you find it difficult, simply replace every instance of "Zionism" with "the belief Israel has a right to exist".

Zionism is a movement which permeates both social structure and government in Israel and abroad, please take that into consideration when you see people take issue with Zionism isn't of replacing it with the half a dictionary definition you are telling me to.

Well great. So are you saying the Arabs were right in their reaction to the Jewish settlement? A reaction that introduced the first round of violence in this conflict?

I didn't say anything about reaction, but what exactly are you citing as the first round of violence?

We can discuss the Partition Plan in another thread, whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant, as it was recognised by the UNGC at the time. Who's questioning the Arabs displeasure? I'm sure they were very displeasured to have been unable to annihilate us.

They are displeased at being driven off their land. Again, shall I draw you a map?

 

[Hurkyl]

Exactly, it is a movement by which Russians developed their homeland, as Zionism has been to the Jewish people. But as Russians still have a right to their homeland without Sovietism, so do the Jewish people without Zionism.

You're right -- if people have a right to their land, then they have that right whether or not they believe it.

The Zionist were going to have a strong Jewish majority in the land which became Israel, and that continues to be accomplished though varying levels of 'directness' over the years.

"Strong Jewish majority" my foot. Go play around with https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html and compare the homogeneity of Israel's populace with other nations. (I thought to try Greece, Lebanon, Germany, and Iran. France, Italy, and Denmark too, but it doesn't have statistics for them)

You sound like you're accusing Israelis of something -- why not say it instead of hint around it?

 

[Yonoz]

That doesn't matter, what maters is that the Israeli's and the Palestinians come to an agreement that both do accept. After that, then Iran and many of the other holdouts will be willing to accept Israel.

The question is whether what Iran sees as acceptable is totally unacceptable to Israel? What right does Iran have to attack Israel by proxy? Why does the Iranian puppet head of state keep yapping about how much he hates Israel? And is it a good idea to let him become nuclear-capable?

Zionism is a movement which permeates both social structure and government in Israel and abroad, please take that into consideration when you see people take issue with Zionism isn't of replacing it with the half a dictionary definition you are telling me to.

Zionism is a belief. There's a Zionist movement, the members of which, surprise-surprise - are Zionists. You're describing the Zionist movement as some sort of cult or clandestine organisation. There is nothing wrong with being a Zionist - why, I even think it's a good thing.

I didn't say anything about reaction, but what exactly are you citing as the first round of violence?

Well there was some violence as back as the first Aliyah in the last two decades of the 19th century, but the first true battle was the one in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Hai" .

They were displeased at being driven off their land, again shall I draw you a map?

I'm sure they were, but they nonetheless took some part in the attempt to destroy Israel, and as such they cannot be allowed to return. Had they not been a threat they would have stayed like the countless Israeli Arab communities. Had their leadership chosen to accept the Partition Plan, they would not even have had to make that choice. They chose all out war, and they bore the consequences of defeat.

 

[Astronuc]

. . . what maters is that the Israeli's and the Palestinians come to an agreement that both do accept.

Agreed. Is that possible?

 

[Yonoz]

Here's a famous one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre" . It was quite a brutal massacre, the severly traumatised and tortured survivors abandoned what had been their home in a peaceful coexistence with their neighbours for centuries.
Here's how Human Rights Watch describes it:

On August 23 1929, amid anti-Jewish riots in much of Palestine, sixty-seven Jewish residents of Hebron were brutally murdered by Palestinian Arabs, with some of the victims being raped, tortured, or mutilated. Other Palestinian Arabs sheltered their Jewish neighbours; today the Zionist Archives preserve a list of 435 Jews who found a safe haven in twenty-eight Palestinian Arab homes in Hebron during the carnage. Jewish residents left Hebron in the years following the 1929 massacre, and for today's Israeli settlers in Hebron it remains a potent symbol: in November 2000, a large sign could be seen near the Palestinian market next to the Avraham Avino settlement in central Hebron: "This market was built on Jewish property, stolen by Arabs, after the 1929 massacre."

 

[Anttech]

I'm sure they were, but they nonetheless took some part in the attempt to destroy Israel, and as such they cannot be allowed to return. Had they not been a threat they would have stayed like the countless Israeli Arab communities. Had their leadership chosen to accept the Partition Plan, they would not even have had to make that choice. They chose all out war, and they bore the consequences of defeat.

Nice... I suppose after the last great war in Europe we should have just thrown the germans to the lions, cut up there country and given it to the allies, because hey they started it. Come on quite the right wing rhetoric. They were not happy with the plan the Zionist had in stall for them, it was UNFAIR... Should they have just bowed and said, "yes master"

 

[Evo]

Nice... I suppose after the last great war in Europe we should have just thrown the germans to the lions, cut up there country and given it to the allies, because hey they started it. Come on quite the right wing rhetoric. They were not happy with the plan the Zionist had in stall for them, it was UNFAIR... Should they have just bowed and said, "yes master"

What about the redistribution of land after WWI as a result of the Treaty of Versaille?

 

[Yonoz]

Nice... I suppose after the last great war in Europe we should have just thrown the germans to the lions, cut up there country and given it to the allies, because hey they started it.

First of all, you did bomb the **** out of the country, cut it up, and, well, serving half of it to Stalin is not so much better than throwing them to the lions. But I don't blame you - they did really bad things. Except, what was done to Germany was not in punishment for all those bad things --- it was simply done to serve every victorious leadership's interest. Europe's lucky America thought what was good for Europe was good for them and carried out the Marshal Plan.
I think it's quite acceptable not to allow people who have fought to destroy a country right back into the country, en masse.

Come on quite the right wing rhetoric. They were not happy with the plan the Zionist had in stall for them, it was UNFAIR... Should they have just bowed and said, "yes master"

No but there were enough attempts to reach a peaceful settlement, and they all failed. Seeing this, a UN committee drew a Partition Plan which was accepted by the General Assembly. The Jewish Leadership fully accepted this plan and declared independence in full accordance with it. It's mentioned right there on our Scroll of Independence. This new State was attacked the very next day, from both within and out. With the exception of Deir Yassin, no expulsions are recorded - at least, not ones that have no serious doubts about their authenticity. It is relatively agreed that Arab Leaders called villagers to leave their homes until the Arab armies capture them, we certainly won't find any supporting evidence that will satisfy you so you don't even have to ask.

 

[Astronuc]

Nice... I suppose after the last great war in Europe we should have just thrown the germans to the lions, cut up there country and given it to the allies, because hey they started it. Come on quite the right wing rhetoric. They were not happy with the plan the Zionist had in stall for them, it was UNFAIR... Should they have just bowed and said, "yes master"

Umm, after WWI, eastern parts of Germany (E. Prussia) were merged into Poland, which had lost land to the Soviet Union.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany#Weimar_Republic_.281919_.E2.80.93_1933.29


After WWII, Germany was partitioned! East Germany was under Russian occupation, and West Germany was partitioned among US, France and UK, but eventually the Germans were given political control.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany#Division_and_reunification_.281945_.E2.80.93_1990.29

 

[Yonoz]

BTW post-war Germany was not at all similar to wartime Germany. The German public confronted a very bitter, hard to swallow truth. In some sense, they underwent a national catharsis. Today Germany is a flagship welfare state with a unique, truly selfless foreign policy.
The newly-defined Palestinian people were manipulated by the Arab states in the occupied territories (occupied by the Arab states, in violation of the UN resolution).

 

[Anttech]

The war I was referring to was ww2 (the 'last' great war). German was annexed I know this, however the people were not 'removed' were they? Why not attempted to look at the point I am trying to make, rather than look for holes in the content? If that is where we are at with this thread I am out!..

 

[Bystander]

How about something even more recent? SE Asia --- people were definitely "removed" from Cambodia, ejected, or forced to leave Laos and the former S. Vietnam. Where's your sense of outrage on those events?

 

[Yonoz]

The war I was referring to was ww2 (the 'last' great war). German was annexed I know this, however the people were not 'removed' were they?

Well, putting up a wall through the capital and preventing passage between two parts of what was a single country, overnight, without a warning, is very much like removing people. Some people were simply trapped on the wrong side of the border and could not pass. Families were split. Both halves of the capital city were now in a new country, with many dying while trying to cross.
I remember watching the news that night [EDIT]the wall fell[/EDIT]. I did not grasp the historical magnitude and could not help but feel the bittersweetness of it all.

Why not attempted to look at the point I am trying to make, rather than look for holes in the content? If that is where we are at with this thread I am out!..

I apologize if I've been offensive in some way.

 

[Anttech]

How about something even more recent? SE Asia --- people were definitely "removed" from Cambodia, ejected, or forced to leave Laos and the former S. Vietnam. Where's your sense of outrage on those events?

Last time I looked this thread was regarding Iran and Israel and ME problems. Not Cambodia, do you want to start another thread so you can vent your rage regarding that? If so I would be happy to contribute.

Yonzo, don't worry you haven't offened me... And I hope I have offended you either

 

[Bystander]

Last time I looked this thread was regarding Iran and Israel and ME problems. Not Cambodia, do you want to start another thread so you can vent your rage regarding that? If so I would be happy to contribute.

Nor, is it about Germany --- the OP has to do with Ahmadinejad, "period," not a gunnysack full of whines about the "Palestinian Problem."

All wars have losers --- some have winners --- it's something to think about before starting a war --- the Palestinians joined the Arabs in starting a war in 1948 --- they lost. That's that.

The Iranians appear to be preparing to start a war today --- how does the rest of the world handle the situation?

 

[Anttech]

Nor, is it about Germany --- the OP has to do with Ahmadinejad, "period," not a gunnysack full of whines about the "Palestinian Problem."

Do you always insult everyone?

 

[Yonoz]

The Iranians appear to be preparing to start a war today --- how does the rest of the world handle the situation?

As von Clausewitz said:

War is merely the continuation of policy by other means.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4078254699358348828" kyleb linked to.

 

[kyleb]

You're right -- if people have a right to their land, then they have that right whether or not they believe it.
"Strong Jewish majority" my foot. Go play around with https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html and compare the homogeneity of Israel's populace with other nations. (I thought to try Greece, Lebanon, Germany, and Iran. France, Italy, and Denmark too, but it doesn't have statistics for them)

You sound like you're accusing Israelis of something -- why not say it instead of hint around it?

You are most certiantly acucsing me of something here; please, have out with it.

Beyond that, of couse you have the right to believe in your land; again, it is the ideology by which it conteues to be annexed which much of the world takes issue with. Also, by 'a strong majorty' I am talking about the intentions of the Zionist movement to have a Jewish democarcy, not the current demographics. However, at just over 80% they line up quite well with that often spoken intent. Why are you bring up the Factbook though, surely you are aware of that intent?

The question is whether what Iran sees as acceptable is totally unacceptable to Israel? What right does Iran have to attack Israel by proxy? Why does the Iranian puppet head of state keep yapping about how much he hates Israel? And is it a good idea to let him become nuclear-capable?

Again, Iran has plainly stated that they will accept what the Palestine accepts; so what is acceptable to both Israel and Palestine is what Iran needs to accept Israel. Understanding that and making it happen the only thing that is going to move us towards the peace you are asking for in the rest of your questions.

Zionism is a belief. There's a Zionist movement, the members of which, surprise-surprise - are Zionists. You're describing the Zionist movement as some sort of cult or clandestine organisation. There is nothing wrong with being a Zionist - why, I even think it's a good thing.

Such things are matters of perspective, as is also exemplified in my Sovietism example.

Well there was some violence as back as the first Aliyah in the last two decades of the 19th century, but the first true battle was the one in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Hai" .

I'm sure they were, but they nonetheless took some part in the attempt to destroy Israel, and as such they cannot be allowed to return. Had they not been a threat they would have stayed like the countless Israeli Arab communities. Had their leadership chosen to accept the Partition Plan, they would not even have had to make that choice. They chose all out war, and they bore the consequences of defeat.

They chose not to agree to be transferred out of what was to become Israel, and they resisted being driven out. The choice to create a democracy of strong Jewish majority in a region which was predominately owned and populated by non-Jewish people was the choice for war.

Agreed. Is that possible?

Good question, and I'll defer to a man who has far more experience in this situation than any of us here:

Q: So what's the solution?

Avnery: The solution is perfectly clear. All parts of the conflict have been amply debated and discussed. Many plans have been put on the table--hundreds. And everybody knows by now exactly the parameters of a peace solution. We at Gush Shalom have published a draft text of a peace agreement, and I am fairly certain that when peace comes about, it will be more or less on these lines.

The solution is this: There will be a state of Palestine in all of the Occupied Territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The Green Line, the border that existed before 1967, will come into being again. Jerusalem will be the shared capital--East Jerusalem will be the capital of Palestine, West Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel. All settlements must be evacuated. The security must be arranged for both people, and there must be a moral solution and a practical solution.

On these lines, there will be peace. And if you ask me, they could make peace in one week. The trouble is that both people find it very difficult to come to this point. And when I say both people, I don't want to establish a symmetrical situation. There is no symmetry here; there are occupiers, and the occupied. And as the occupier, we have the responsibility to lead this process. This is what I, as an Israeli patriot, tell my own people.

I highly recommend reading the whole interview.

 

[Yonoz]

You are most certiantly acucsing me of something here; please, have out with it.

Beyond that, of couse you have the right to believe in your land; again, it is the ideology by which it conteues to be annexed which much of the world takes issue with. By a strong majorty I am talking about the intentions of the zionist movement to have a Jewish democarcy rather than the current demographics. However, at just over 80% they line up quite well with that often spoken intent. Why are you bring up the Factbook though, surely you are aware of that intent?

That is no different than any other country's immigration policy. Come on, do you think Australia shouldn't have been full of Asians by now? And Europe by Africans. Every nation wants to perpetuate its existence. It is in Israel's demographic interests to withdraw from the occupied territories and reach an agreement with the Palestinians.

Again, Iran has plainly stated that they will accept what the Palestine accepts; so what is acceptable to both Israel and Palestine is what Iran needs to accept Israel.

That is not the question. The question is whether or not there is solution that both Iran and Israel can agree upon? And currently the answer is "no".

Understanding that and making it happen the only thing that is going to move us towards the peace you are asking for the rest of your questions.

O&S. Opinion and Speculation.

Such things are matters of perspective, as is also exemplified in my Sovietism example.

Well I think if you want to grasp the concept of Zionism the best way to do it is to look at it from a Zionist's perspective.

They chose not to agree to be transferred out of what was to become Israel, and they resisted being driven out. The choice to create a democracy of strong Jewish majority in a region which was predominately owned and populated buy non-Jewish people was the choice for war.

TRANSFERRED? Do you know what that means?! Are you accusing the Zionist movement of planning a crime against humanity in 1920? Get your facts straight.

Good question, and I'll defer to a man who has far more experience in this situation than any of us here:
I highly recommend reading the whole interview.

Avnery's a good man and I completely agree with what you quoted. Unfortunately this is not never-never-land and such a final solution can only be implemented when both sides trust each other. It is up to the negotiators to start contructing a progressive solution, and that requires that both sides actually meet to discuss it.

 

[Astronuc]

kyleb, thanks for that link. Interesting interview!

Avnery . . . I am against violence on both sides. But I understand people who believe that without violence they will not achieve anything at all. It is our responsibility as the stronger party, as the occupying power, to convince the Palestinians that they can achieve their basic national aims, their just national aspirations, without violence. Unfortunately, the behavior of the Sharon administration, and before this of the Barak administration, has shown the Palestinians the opposite: namely, that they will achieve nothing without violence.

Q: According to the United States and Israel, it is the Palestinians--more specifically, Arafat--who must take the initiative in ending the "cycle of violence." Edward Said once said: "Since when does a militarily occupied people have responsibility for a peace movement?" Is it the responsibility of the Palestinians to end the violence?

Avnery: Violence is part of the resistance to occupation. The basic fact is not the violence; the basic fact is the occupation. Violence is a symptom; the occupation is the disease--a mortal disease for everybody concerned, the occupied and the occupiers. Therefore, the first responsibility is to put an end to the occupation. And in order to put an end to the occupation, you must make peace between the Israeli and Palestinian people. This is the real aim, this is the real task.

So what has the Bush administration has demonstrated to the world? That the way to may change, to get what one wants, a la Iraq, is to use violence?

I don't necessarily agree that Iran is preparing for war. They are developing ballistic missiles and possibly nuclear weapons, although the case for nuclear weapons is largely circumstantial. The question then, is whether or not Iran would use nuclear weapons as a deterrent or would they use them offensively.

Isreal's immediate concern is that Iran is supporting groups like Hizbullah, and in the longer term, if Iran will become more aggressive toward Israel, either indirectly through groups like Hizbullan, or more directly.

Certainly, the militant rhetoric from Ahmadinejad does not ease the concerns of Israel or the US.

 

[Yonoz]

BTW Here are some bits from the http://www.knesset.gov.il/docs/eng/megilat_eng.htm":

Accordingly we, members of the People's Council, representatives of the Jewish Community of Eretz-Israel and of the Zionist Movement, are here assembled on the day of the termination of the British Mandate over Eretz-Israel and, by virtue of our natural and historic right and on the strength of the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly, hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel.

...

The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

The State of Israel is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel.

We appeal to the United Nations to assist the Jewish people in the building-up of its State and to receive the State of Israel into the community of nations.

We appeal - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.

We extend our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.

In the absence of a constitution, the Proclamation of Independence is a type of supreme legal document. Laws that clearly collide with some part, such as "[The State of Israel] will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations" are actively annulled by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court may challenge the Executive Authority without requiring an appeal.

 

[Yonoz]

Isreal's immediate concern is that Iran is supporting groups like Hizbullah, and in the longer term, if Iran will become more aggressive toward Israel, either indirectly through groups like Hizbullan, or more directly.

Actually, Israel's immediate concern is the Iranian nuclear program. This is not new to us, we've been following it for years. This is a critical point for Israeli foreign policy. This is the strongest existential threat Israel has ever faced, and if necessary I believe military action will be taken. It is a red line for us.
BTW Avnery's great but he's not a realist. When it comes to finding a solution his view becomes very egocentric. You cannot convince the people of Israel to jump into a peace treaty just like you cannot convince Palestinians to do the same.

 

[Yonoz]

Here's a good article about Zionism's land deals, http://www.ismi.emory.edu/JournalArticles/MESapr84.html" :

Before an area of land was considered for JNF purchase, the Agricultural Settlement Department of the Palestine Zionist Executive Jewish Agency conducted geographic, topographic and hydrographic studies. In addition, a series of recommendations was usually made about a land's suitability for growing certain kinds of crops. Estimates were made about the cost of an amelioration program and the time necessary to prepare the land for actual settlement. Time was of the essence, but attention had to be paid to the availability of drinking water, road building needs, access to main highways or the railroad, possible swamp drainage, and other costs associated with the establishment of a moshav or a kibbutz if rural areas were under consideration.10 Sometimes, the land to be acquired was considered so desirable that the plans for its future use were drawn up while the contracts were in various stages of negotiation. A simple land purchase took anywhere from one to six months or more to complete. But evaluations, negotiations, purchase and transfer sometimes took years, even decades to complete as in the cases of the Sursock, Wadi Hawarith, and Huleh area purchases.
...
Not only could land purchase negotiations last for years, but the payments made for a particular area of land also stretched over a period of time. In most cases, payment to a seller was fixed in installments. Initial sums were usually paid to lubricate the selling motive. Local village notables, tenants in occupation, mukhtars, intermediaries, brokers, short-term squatters, and land registry officials often received persuasive sums. The owner or owners also received a sum of money prior to signing the contract. This could mean paying several similar or different sums to members of one family who owned portions of a large land area. A subsequent payment was sometimes made when all the title deeds available were collected and condensed into one large parcel. Another payment was made when a portion of the land was legally transferred or prior to the land being considered free of tenants and agricultural occupants. Still another sum was paid when possession was taken (this to avoid squatting by transient fellaheen), and then periodically as stipulated in a contract.11 The duration of the financial connection between the JNF and the Arab seller(s) gave the JNF leverage over the seller in effecting certain obligations such as registration, tax payments, compensation to agricultural occupants, and assurances that the land would be delivered free of fellaheen occupants.