Israel vs. Middle Eastern Arab states

[KOYAANISQATSI]

I've also not noticed Tony Blair , that famous middle east peace envoy is nowhere to be seen during this outrageous massacre

 

I think the circumstances focus very much around clear action to cut off the supply of arms and money from the tunnels that go from Egypt into Gaza. I think if there were strong, clear, definitive action on that, that would give us the best context to get an immediate ceasefire and to start to change the situation."

 

Blair, who described the situation in Gaza as "hell", said he had discussed the prospect of a ceasefire with the Israeli foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, and other members of the Israeli government. He insisted that "real ideas" were being discussed within the international community, and between Egypt and Israel, as to how the cutting off of arms into Gaza could be monitored.

 

Suck up is as suck up does - They suck

 

Blair will be presented with the Presidential Medal of Freedom at a White House ceremony on Jan. 13, during President George W. Bush's last week in office.

 

He will receive the award along with former Australian Prime Minister John Howard and Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, "for their efforts to promote democracy, human rights and peace abroad," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Monday.

"Their efforts to bring hope and freedom to people around the globe have made their nations, America and the world community a safer and more secure world," she said, calling all three leaders "staunch allies of the United States, particularly in combating terrorism."

Blair was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal, the United States' other highest civilian honor, in 2003, for his support of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, but he has not collected it yet.

 

Just watching the sky news; here's some snippits they seem to have missed, I wonder if one of these Palestinian familys had been israelis would they have been so negligent in not mentioning it.

 

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cOqe5sNiRrQ

[EM]

When Israel is blamed alone (as it has been in this thread) for the deaths of civilians in this current conflict with no reference to the wider situation

...

I’m compelled to redress the balance a bit by expanding the focus of the current situation to include Hamas’ rocket activities over the past 3 years.

...

I look forward to you pointing out their naivety like you have with mine. Perhaps you would like to do this with Arabia Terra's posted link to pictures of dead Palestinians? Or do you find that simple and unconnected to the wider political and historical context?

I don't find the posts you mention at all naive. Their general point is not that Israel is solely responsible, but rather to highlight the stupendously disproportionate actions. Given that the media is saturated with Israeli apologists going on-and-on about rocket attacks, I think that their motivation in redressing the balance the other way has a much sounder basis than yours.

 

You say that they have blamed Israel alone. I don't see that anywhere in their postings, but you very unambiguously put all the blame for the current situation on Hamas:

The military action in which the Palestinians died is a direct response to quassam (and mortar) attacks. These people would be alive today if these attacks hadn’t happened.

 

Please, by the same token Zionist terrorist strategies is tarring a cultural movement/project with the sins of the extremists. Zionists are not all terrorist extremists any more than Jews as a race, are as you pointed out, to be tarred with the extremist brush.

Simply not true. Zionism is as extremist an ideology as one can conceive. Read their statements and doctrines, they are well documented. In its very early (C19th) years there was a liberal wing. Long before the momentous events of the early and middle C20th this wing had withered and is now statistically insignificant.

 

Could you give the answers to you quiz

 

1. Who said:

Neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat. We are very far from having any moral qualms as far as our national war goes. We have before us the command of the Torah, whose morality surpasses that of any other body of laws in the world: “Ye shall blot them out to the last man.â€

Yitzhak Shamir while leader of the Stern Gang. Israeli Prime Minister (1983-84 and 1986-92).

 

2. Who said:

We actually provided the example of what the urban guerrilla is, we created the method of the urban guerrilla.

Menachem Begin talking about his leadership of Irgun, and their bombing of the King David Hotel. Israeli Prime Minister (1977-83).

 

3. Who assassinated the United Nations Security Council mediator Folke Bernadotte?

It was, again, carried out by the Stern Gang and authorised by Yitzhak Shamir .

 

... and how you feel they relate to Israel.

These guys were terrorists and went on to lead Israel. They did not renounce their actions, nor do their supporters today. Indeed, they even celebrated the anniversary of the King David attack with Bibi attending! How can such people at the same time say that Hamas terrorism is fundamentally different. Pure hypocrisy.

 

I get the feeling you regard Israel as a country born from an extremist ideology. Perhaps not a legitimate country because of this?

Yes I believe it was born from extremism and remains an extremist state. As for legitimacy, I would first have to state that I find the whole field of international law, sovereignty (and so on) far from impressive or remotely consistent. Having said that, Israel is probably the least legal of current states. They like to appeal to the world citing international law when it suits them, while ignoring everything they dislike. Again, the record here is well documented and plain to see.

[Gibber]

I don't find the posts you mention at all naive. Their general point is not that Israel is solely responsible, but rather to highlight the stupendously disproportionate actions.

 

First of all, perhaps you could give your idea of what would be a proportional response (if any) from Israel to defend itself against Hamas’ rocket attacks. Arabia Terra has suggested withdrawl from Gaza and West Bank, DamnSaxon has suggested a return to targeted assassinations. Perhaps other contributors to this thread who have touched upon the proportionality issue could add to this also.

 

If there is to be debate in this thread about what is proportionate and whether or not Israel is acting proportionately, if Israel is under any obligation to act proportionately you have to, as you say, consider the wider political and historical context.

 

A link to pictures of dead Palestinians is not considering the wider political and historical context in regards as to whether Israel is acting ‘proportionately’. That post isn’t doing anything to suggest that Israel isn’t solely responsible for these deaths. These are Palestinians who have been killed by Israeli munitions without a wider context and cynically juxtaposed against pictures of quassam rocket strikes.

 

After making a point about the necessity for context when you disagree with one of my posts (the purpose of which I said previously was to provide a more open context in response to Arabia Terra’s post of context-less civilian Palestinian casualties) you abandon the need for context to protect your idea of disproportionate Israeli actions from debate.

 

Feeble homemade quassams against the might of Israel’s military, that’s the whole story now then is it? No intent, no circumstance, no fault. No fundamentalist regime charterbound to genocide deliberately targeting civilians. Just exactly what you see in the pictures and no more, dead Palestinians, no dead Israelis.

 

You have abandoned the following statement because you are unwilling to put your definition of proportionality to debate.

 

Nothing, absolutely nothing, which happens in the Middle East is a direct result of anything. The situation is so complex and the back-stories so convoluted that every action can be (reasonably or unreasonably) justified or denounced due to some other event or situation.

 

And to paraphrase the final part of your statement

 

With the Israeli launched attack though, suddenly you find it simple and unconnected to the wider political and historical context. Naive indeed

 

Wider context when you disagree with something, no context when you regard one of your opinions as objective fact. I would suggest you can’t have it both ways unless you are intent on a course of anti-Israel dogma.…

 

Given that the media is saturated with Israeli apologists going on-and-on about rocket attacks, I think that their motivation in redressing the balance the other way has a much sounder basis than yours.

 

Given that the media is saturated with Hamas and Palestinian terror apologists I think that my motivation in redressing the balance the other way has the sounder basis.

 

….Zionists are not all terrorist extremists any more than Jews as a race…..

 

Simply not true. Zionism is as extremist an ideology as one can conceive.

 

All Zionists are extremist terrorists? Zionism being equated with Nazism (or worse if it can be conceived), please tell me you don’t believe this because I think your contribution to this thread up until now is well reasoned.

 

These guys were terrorists and went on to lead Israel. They did not renounce their actions, nor do their supporters today. Indeed, they even celebrated the anniversary of the King David attack with Bibi attending! How can such people at the same time say that Hamas terrorism is fundamentally different. Pure hypocrisy.

 

Yes, I wouldn’t say that there is a fundamental difference either. I would regard both these groups as fulfilling the criteria of performing terrorist actions. Netanyahu celebrating the Kind David bombing is pretty distasteful.

 

Would you have the same problems with a future Palestinian state’s historical association with terrorism that you do with Israel’s?

 

I do hope that you are remembering though that Hamas is a religious, fundamentalist theocratic militia intent on the destruction of Israel. The terrorists of 1948 were trying to further their ambitions of statehood. The King David Hotel was a military target and warnings were given before the attack. The forthcoming state that was born became a liberal democracy not a religious dictatorship.

 

Strictly fundamental differences no, specific notable differences yes. You would be on stronger ground selecting other Palestinian terror groups who are more focussed on ending the Israeli presence in the occupied territories rather than Hamas and their aim of the destruction of Israel for comparison.

 

Yes I believe it was born from extremism and remains an extremist state.

 

In what more specific ways is it an extremist state? Israel doesn’t have territorial or armed conflict ambitions, it is a secular liberal democracy (albeit with a religious orthodox right), it has a varied demographic in terms of nationality of immigrants and its Jewish/Arab mix. It has laws guaranteeing human rights and the rights of freedom of expression and protest.

 

It is a militarised nation which is an extreme, but then, it has to be if it wants to exist. It may be in an extreme military situation but that hasn’t turned it into an extremist society.

 

Isn’t Israel surrounded by prime examples of far more extremist states?

 

Israel is probably the least legal of current states. They like to appeal to the world citing international law when it suits them, while ignoring everything they dislike. Again, the record here is well documented and plain to see.

 

You can’t single out Israel in this respect. Many countries disregard international laws when it suits them.

 

If Israel has done so more than others then I ask you to reconsider the position you abandoned in your last this post “consider the wider political and historical context.â€

[ArabiaTerra]

Israel doesn’t have territorial.. ..ambitions.

Yes it does. The complete annexation of the West Bank and the restoration of Israel's biblical borders. What else are the settlements for? It may not be official stated policy but it is certainly the aim of the religious zealots who dominate the Israeli leadership.

[Gibber]

Israel doesn't have territorial.. ..ambitions.

 

Yes it does. The complete annexation of the West Bank and the restoration of Israel's biblical borders. What else are the settlements for? It may not be official stated policy but it is certainly the aim of the religious zealots who dominate the Israeli leadership.

 

"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."

 

I hope you're not returning to conspiracy theories as an aid to perceiving the world.

 

Explain giving up the Sinai in return for peace with Egypt, look on a map to see how much more greater (as in size) that amount territory would have made Israel. If the existence of settlements is your argument then their demolition in the Gaza strip has to run as proof that Israel at the very least doesn't include Gaza in its territorial ambitions. Perhaps you know why is Gaza excluded from Israel's expansion to biblical geography. How does Israel's withdraw from S.Lebanon in 2000 help its territorial ambitions Northwards?

 

Please tell me who the religious zealots are who dominate the Israeli leadership are and how you know they are trying to restore Israel's biblical borders. The map in the Knesset roof of a greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates?

 

Don't worry, I don't think you are going to be speaking Hebrew in Lerwick anytime soon.

[DamnSaxon]

Ah, good, the thread's still going. It would have been terrible to have a day off and find it had petered out. (Very likely! ) I'll work through the points in Gibber's last post back at mine, there are altogether too many points in total and my posts are quite long enough as it is. (And Gibber seems to be on the numerically thinner side, so has too much work to do as it is. Sorry, mon - like Mark Twain, I never can find the time to write a short post.)

 

As far as the historical question goes, it's probably worth noting that even Tacitus mentioned "King Antiochus' irregulars, a strong force of Arabs, who had a neighbourly hatred for the Jews" (Histories, Book V) - but I think we are all agreed that this is scarcely a new problem. I'll mention also that some of the cleverest, funniest and most aware and compassionate people I've known have been Jewish; Judaism per se is not at all the problem.

 

Modern Zionism, on the other hand, I still find deeply worrying. I quite agree that there was a very egalitarian element in it originally - the principle of Jews, Christians and Muslims living in peace within one state - as, of course, we do, give or take, in so many other places. This only makes it the more tragic that, a century later, the situation is as it is. I have wondered often whether the Romans' "solution" to the problem was the result of the Jews of the time acting with the same sort of chauvinistic arrogance as the present extremist element controlling Israel.

 

Even at the beginnings of Zionism, however, there was the seed of the less tolerant, downright arrogant attitudes of the present leadership: as Gibber correctly observes, a century or so ago, Jews started legally buying farm land in Palestine. It's also worth noting, though, that the Arabs from whom they were buying the land had a pretty tenuous claim to it themselves, having mostly just bought it with their spare cash under the laws of the failing Ottoman empire, and owning it as absentee landlords until the Zionists offered to buy it. It is very well worth mentioning also that the Zionists' typical methodology, even then, was to buy the rights to the land, then kick the Palestinians off it, leaving them homeless and without a means of support. Not a very peaceable approach, however "legal", and certainly not one aimed at an inclusive society. As I commented a few posts ago, no respect.

 

And of course, the condition of the Arabs in the modern world - fragmented into separate squabbling states - is mostly a problem introduced to the area by our very own British occupation. I suspect that the situation would be very different had the Arab world been integrated enough to act in concert over the last century or so without the white man meddling in their affairs. I don't, BTW, try to excuse any of the many errors made by the British Empire - we succeeded in royally screwing up probably more of the world than any empire before us. The Americans seem to be doing much the same now, it's the ol' Anglo-Saxon crew still creatin' mayhem. Alas. And no, my levity of tone is not approval.

 

It is very much incidents such as the Hotel David bombing which unavoidably colour my view of Zionism - along with the wholesale slaughter of the Palestinians to end their General Strike in the 30s (10 Arabs killed for every Jewish death, a figure which doesn't seem to change much), the activities of the Irgun in the 30s and 40s, killing Arabs and Brits whenever there was disagreement, the killing of Lord Moyne - who favoured a Palestinian state - in '44, and the Stern Gang's 1947 "despatch" of Folke Bernadotte, a man who had saved thousands of Jewish people from the camps during WWII but who dared to have (unforgivably) ideas of his own about the next step - and God knows how many others. This is not the history of the compassionate Jewish people (whom we should all support), this is the history of the extremist element who have taken over and mutated those original peaceful aims.

 

I recall hearing years ago (from a lovely Jewish lady, now deceased) that, shortly after the 1967 war, David Ben Gurion (who could also be a devious beggar when he wanted to) had flown over the newly occupied lands with some of the then Israeli leadership. "Of course," he is reported as saying, "we shall have to give all this back." This seems the perfect illustration of the difference between the compassionate and the extremist wings of Zionism - and 40 years later, we're still waiting. My Jewish friend grieved over the dichotomy - she was one of those I mentioned, who feel horror and despair at what Israel has become.

 

I entirely agree that an EU-style union in Arabia would be an excellent idea, if the Arabic countries could but bury their differences long enough to form one. The condition of much of Africa (now we Europeans have pulled out and left another grim mess) suggests that that continent would equally benefit enormously from something similar, certainly something a good deal more effective than the current AU. I also feel bemused by the continuing story of Turkey trying to join the European union, given its historical position in the Arab lands (and its own internal friction between secularism and Islam). To me, it would make a lot more sense, politically and geographically, for them to work with, and try to unify, the Arab lands, and then try to act as a mediator between them and the EU, but there you go - politics (especially international) frequently seems composed of strangely inexplicable positions driven by some obscure historical fact.

 

BTW, I wasn't trying to imply that historical conflict lines are immutable, so much as making the point that almost none of the present day conflicts is at all new. I would love to be able to support *a* New World Order of peace and international government, were it not for the fact that everything you hear about "the" NWO suggests a rule closer to an intolerant militarism than an inclusive peacefulness. And I certainly don't think that Britain is anywhere near the vanguard of enlightened internationalism - just the opposite. There's far too much frustrated imperialism in the British leadership, and little if any enlightenment in any of its pronouncements.

 

Whether Israeli Arabs share the same legal status and freedoms as Israeli Jews is something of a moot point, to put it maximally kindly. Since the inception of Israel there has been tension within the double definition of the state as, first, democratic and second, Jewish, which has led to much of their law, not least land ownership law, being significantly asymmetric. For all the fine egalitarianism found in Israel's Proclamation of Independence, there are plenty of laws, on citizenship, land ownership and other fundamental matters which remain heavily biased in favour of Jewish citizens in a way not found in, say, our own "Christian" country in favour of Christians.

 

Might not the growth of swivel-eyed "Muslim fundamentalism" be largely a response to the appearance in their midst of a band of swivel-eyed Zionist fundamentalists? (Egged on by the no less swivel-eyed Christian fundamentalists in the US, for their own bizarre apocalyptic ends?)

 

Surely, too, there's a valid distinction to be drawn between a (Jewish/Christian/Muslim) "nation" and a (Jewish/Christian/Muslim) "homeland". Let's face it, if there is one true Christian homeland, it is one and the same as the Jewish "homeland" and the Muslim "homeland", since all three "Abrahamic" faiths derive from the same roots. Okay, Israel wasn’t created based on the elimination of everyone else - but that was because they'd already started buying up land and chucking the Arabs out - the elimination was already going quite nicely. (And I think I've already mentioned my own sentiments about so very, very much of British (/English) history. ) Poor old Abraham must have been rotating uncomfortably in his grave for centuries at the atrocities carried out by his namesake religions, often, if not exclusively, against each other.

 

Is a Shetlander's love of Shetland - or the littlest Englander's of England - based merely upon whether or not it is part of an "officially approved" country? Or is it a warm attachment to the place, the "feel" of day-to-day life, the pleasant feeling that your parents and grandparents probably felt a lot of the same sort of love for a lot of the same sort of things? The Palestinians who have been so summarily dispossessed of their land and living would surely feel very similarly about their land. As far as I'm concerned, the way Britain got out smartish when the Zionist extremists started taking too much of a toll on us was shameful. We should have dealt with the extremists then, but absolutely failed to.

 

I'm under no illusions that our own peaceful existence is not a rare luxury in history. Only recently, I was chatting with a friend about the fact that we (in our 50s/60s) are the first generation of Brits for a long time who haven't been conscripted to fight this or that war, and wondering whether it might be the resultant lack of self discipline over the last two or three generations which has given us some of the more depressing aspects of modern society. (Conclusion: Very likely.) It is, surely, the attainment of such peace which results in us having the leisure to sit at our boxes of tricks discussing the sorry goings on elsewhere, enjoying the pleasures of setting the world to rights without having to fight for our survival.

 

Of course I would expect my government to do something about people who wanted to blow us up for whatever reason - as, of course, they do, wrongheaded as I find a lot of their actions. However, on finding that some of our own dear fundamentalists come from, say, Yorkshire, the gov't doesn't find it necessary to reduce Yorkshire to a pile of stones as Israel does to Gaza (etc.) ...

 

"Israel doesn’t control the Gaza Strip"? What??? So who is it, then, keeping the place down to mediaeval standards with their iron control over its borders impeding aid, supplies and everyday movement of the suffering inhabitants? Oh, dear Gibber ... (sound of tearing hair) ... oh, yes, they do. Oh, yes, they do. In spades ... no, make that no trumps.

 

I'm sorry if I have appeared only to be paying "lip service" to denouncing Britain's imperial past when I am perfectly serious about it, or saving my "real vitriol" for Israel as though I found it uniquely - rather than generically - vile. No. My aging hippie instincts are still that the root cause of most of these problems is the ease with which the average human being can be persuaded to denigrate, attack, kill anyone perceived - usually not even by the individual, but by someone with "authority" - to be of a different race, religion or whatever, allied to the ever-present stream of hate-filled people ready to do the persuading.

 

I scale my condemnation of the parties in any conflict according to the relative counts of the dead - not the very best or most scientific measure, maybe, but it serves well enough as an indication of the warring parties' relative inhumanity. On that basis, most of Israeli history - going back to the birth of Zionism - earns them my disapproval in, as I mentioned above, about a ten-to-one ratio. I agree that the founding ideals of Zionism as presented contain much that is admirable, but there's a very uncomfortable and very obvious dichotomy between the pacific ideal and the ever-violent reality.

 

Do I "approve" of targeted assassinations? I don't "approve" of assassination or death-dealing generally, but count the bodies that way, count the bodies they've arranged over the last week or so and work out which represents the more effective solution and minimises "colateral damage" (or "slaughter of civilians", if we may use a less euphemistic phrase). And it's not as if Israel hasn't considerable expertise in that sphere. If I thought that there was any possibility of its happening, I'd say that the perfect solution would involve the re-introduction of the peaceful aspects of early Zionism and the re-integration of all the residents of the area, but realistically the swivel-eyed ones aren't going to let that happen.

 

Re. accusing EM of equating Zionism with Nazism ... 1941, wasn't it, when the Stern gang were planning a Jewish state “on a nationalist and totalitarian basis, which will establish relations with the German Reich†and protect German interests in the Middle East? What lovely people. As my Mum used to say, "you can tell a man's character from the company he keeps". And it's these loonies, not the relaxed and agreeable Jew in the street, who run the Israeli show now.

 

And now we have some of the lads in Lebanon putting in their two penn'orth of big bangs and instant death. It makes you despair. Okay, guys, we know you hate 'em, but you really aren't helping anyone.

 

An archaeological friend reckons that humanity's first error was the invention of the city, for which read, the state. When you look at the torrent of blood which has been shed over the ages for no more than "control" or "ownership" of land, it's hard to disagree. When you add the trivial ease which modern technology brings to that vile business, and the fervour with which "national borders" must be maintained, it's hard even to feel any optimism for the human species.

 

Gibber, I'd cheerfully buy you a drink and settle down for a good wrangle if we were in the same bar, but I still think you're arguing completely the wrong side.

[JAStewart]

http://www.moiz.ca/coffin2.htm

 

Besides all this religious idiocracy that we can debate about, real people are dying.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

Besides all this religious idiocracy that we can debate about, real people are dying.

 

You ain't seen nothing yet.

[EM]

... ...

What a clear and well presented post. No naivety here either in my opinion. Top marks.

 

... when the Stern gang were planning a Jewish state “on a nationalist and totalitarian basis, which will establish relations with the German Reich†and protect German interests in the Middle East?

Exactly so, but it went a bit further than just planning such an alliance. They prepared a specific proposal and sent it to the Reich. It seems to have landed in the junk mail folder, no response is recorded. Such an alliance may seem bizarre for those who see Jews and Nazis as being, by definition, at completely opposite ends of a spectrum. Apart from being (inconveniently) racially problematic to the Reich's theorists, otherwise many Zionists were (and remain) ideologically close to such groups. The Italian Fascists were particularly popular with many Zionists. The whole concept of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is, of course, the main factor at work here. Something with a long history and still a key basis for what's going on all over the globe.

 

On a side note related to this, there is the incredibly weird (but just as understandable) case of the Indian Legion who were part of the Waffen SS. I once heard a tale about them which does not seem to be substantiated. Someone told me that during the final push into Berlin the Red Army encountered pockets of turban wearing Waffen SS! As I say, although they did have some engagements in France, I don't think there is evidence that they were in Berlin. Would have been quite a surprise for the Red Army.

 

And it's these loonies, not the relaxed and agreeable Jew in the street, who run the Israeli show now.

Yes, this a key point. Every movement has its nutters and fringe extremists. These "embarassing individuals" tend to be down-played, initially as just over-zealous, and in time as being people "of their time" but not how things would be done today. That just will not wash with the Zionist terrorists. The current Zionist players in Israel revere the Irgun and Stern Gang patriots. Shortly the election will be held (the true reason I think behind the recent massacres) and there is a likelihood that either Bibi or Livni will become Prime Minister. As I already pointed out, Bibi made his position clear by celebrating the King David Hotel anniversary. As for Livni? Her father Eitan Livni died as recently as 1991. He had been an Irgun commander and instructed that a carving be made on his gravestone based on the Irgun logo:

The whole biblical Land of Israel with a gun and bayonet cutting through the center and the words “Only Thus!â€

Apologists may squeal "but that's just her father!" Squeal away, but you'll find she is no dove.

 

I would suggest that a state where two of the candidates likely to win (not just contest, but to win) the highest office have such backgrounds, must be classed as extremist.

[EM]

http://www.moiz.ca/coffin2.htm

And remember four of the Israeli casualties were killed by their own troops.

[Gibber]

As far as the historical question goes, it's probably worth noting that even Tacitus mentioned "King Antiochus' irregulars, a strong force of Arabs, who had a neighbourly hatred for the Jews" (Histories, Book V)

 

I’m not the one taking indigenous to mean the residents of the area who were there first. Where’s the right of return for the cavemen?? ïŠ

 

I have wondered often whether the Romans' "solution" to the problem was the result of the Jews of the time acting with the same sort of chauvinistic arrogance as the present extremist element controlling Israel.

 

You mean being driven out of their homeland by an occupying empire because they resisted the occupation. Because they didn’t want to assimilate with an occupying culture? Is there no end to the historical arrogant extremism of the Jews in your mind?

 

Feel free to keep wondering often about the Roman’s solution to what you obviously regard as a Jewish problem, nothing I can say will change this attitude of yours.

 

It is very well worth mentioning also that the Zionists' typical methodology, even then, was to buy the rights to the land, then kick the Palestinians off it, leaving them homeless and without a means of support...

 

I would be well worth mentioning some kind of unbiased citation for this claim of the Zionists typical methodology.

 

. …… along with the wholesale slaughter of the Palestinians to end their General Strike in the 30s (10 Arabs killed for every Jewish death, a figure which doesn't seem to change much), ..

 

You seem to have accidentally omitted, by the British or by Jews under British army command in response to Arab terror acts during the revolt. And please tell me what the wholesale slaughter was.

 

the activities of the Irgun in the 30s and 40s, killing Arabs and Brits whenever there was disagreement, the killing of Lord Moyne - who favoured a Palestinian state - in '44, and the Stern Gang's 1947 "despatch" of Folke Bernadotte, a man who had saved thousands of Jewish people from the camps during WWII but who dared to have (unforgivably) ideas of his own about the next step - and God knows how many others. ..

 

I’m not in favour of these actions either, you cannot say that these actions took over the whole Zionist movement or were a product of an extremist Zionist movement.

 

BTW, I wasn't trying to imply that historical conflict lines are immutable, so much as making the point that almost none of the present day conflicts is at all new.

 

It looks like you were when you said this

 

well, the fact that there hasn't been peace in that region all my life rather makes my point

in the context of this

a heavily armed thug with a seriously bad attitude

in an aim of proving that there can be no peace until there is no Israel because of its (unqualified by you) unending “heavily armed thug[gish tendancies]â€.

 

Even if you were only saying historical conflict lines are not new, what is this bringing to your argument?

 

Whether Israeli Arabs share the same legal status and freedoms as Israeli Jews is something of a moot point, to put it maximally kindly. Since the inception of Israel there has been tension within the double definition of the state as, first, democratic and second, Jewish, which has led to much of their law, not least land ownership law, being significantly asymmetric. For all the fine egalitarianism found in Israel's Proclamation of Independence, there are plenty of laws, on citizenship, land ownership and other fundamental matters which remain heavily biased in favour of Jewish citizens in a way not found in, say, our own "Christian" country in favour of Christians.

 

Indeed there are mechanisms in place to retain the Jewish demographic, mechanisms required to ensure a Jewish homeland that ensures a sovereign state where Jews can live without being murdered. Does Britain need mechanisms such as these to retain its cultural presence and safety from being slaughtered? If Britain were as small in area as Israel and surrounded by hostile nations, and the British as a people had been persecuted throughout history on the scale that the Jews have then perhaps Britain would have mechanisms such as these. It’s only a recent fact that the mechanism of class has been relaxed enough to permit land ownership to anyone without a plummy accent and a love of foxhunting.

 

How much land and wealth does the monarchy and the landed gentry still own and pass on through the mechanism of inheritance? Enough to ensure the continued Britishness of this country for a long time to come.

You can bet your pennies that if it ever looks like a land owning, power wielding class of Arabs, Russians or Spanish seems likely Britain will introduce its own ways of stopping this.

 

Might not the growth of swivel-eyed "Muslim fundamentalism" be largely a response to the appearance in their midst of a band of swivel-eyed Zionist fundamentalists? (Egged on by the no less swivel-eyed Christian fundamentalists in the US, for their own bizarre apocalyptic ends?)

 

Are these the Zionists who “bombed there way into the country as part of their planned invasion eliminating all others†as you put it? The way you describe this is far from correct.

 

Surely, too, there's a valid distinction to be drawn between a (Jewish/Christian/Muslim) "nation" and a (Jewish/Christian/Muslim) "homeland". Let's face it, if there is one true Christian homeland, it is one and the same as the Jewish "homeland" and the Muslim "homeland", since all three "Abrahamic" faiths derive from the same roots.

 

Sure share the land. I’m sure the people practicing their own updated versions of Judaic monotheistic worship within the millions upon millions of square miles of Christian and Muslim countries are feeling very cramped. Just let me know when Christian anti-semitism and Muslim Jihad is pencilled in to come to an end and I’ll cut the ribbon at the Ben Gurion arrivals lounge myself.

 

Is a Shetlander's love of Shetland - or the littlest Englander's of England - based merely upon whether or not it is part of an "officially approved" country? Or is it a warm attachment to the place, the "feel" of day-to-day life, the pleasant feeling that your parents and grandparents probably felt a lot of the same sort of love for a lot of the same sort of things? The Palestinians who have been so summarily dispossessed of their land and living would surely feel very similarly about their land.

 

I imagine escaping the gas chambers of Europe would give a feeling of warm attachment to the land of your forefathers too rather than a desire to move back to being homeless, destitute a persecuted in dear old Berlin. And the pre-war Zionists, it looks like their attachment to the land and the place (not to mention the history) that you are talking of was strong enough to start the movement that eventually gained statehood. Who are you to deny them this? Hence Palestine became the place where Israel was created and not Shetland. If you want to talk about a people dispossessed of their land then I imagine the Jews of the Diaspora had that same feeling for that land also.

 

As far as I'm concerned, the way Britain got out smartish when the Zionist extremists started taking too much of a toll on us was shameful. We should have dealt with the extremists then, but absolutely failed to.

 

Are you including Arab terrorist extremists at the time in this also? Are you including the thousands of Zionist holocaust survivors who arrived in Palestine. Britain tried to deal with these ‘extremists’ (and anything apart from your “initial liberal intentions of Zionism†is being branded extreme in you posts) by turning their ships back to Europe. You’re saying more of that kind of action was in order?

 

Of course I would expect my government to do something about people who wanted to blow us up for whatever reason - as, of course, they do, wrongheaded as I find a lot of their actions. However, on finding that some of our own dear fundamentalists come from, say, Yorkshire, the gov't doesn't find it necessary to reduce Yorkshire to a pile of stones as Israel does to Gaza (etc.) ...

 

You’re not being fair here. A closer comparison would be Israel ‘doing a Saddam’ and bombing the town/province Rabin’s assassin came from.

 

What if Yorkshire were a semi-state, run by a fundamentalist militia with its own fundamentalist laws and genocidal credo directly backed by an equally fundamentalist nation with a level of nuclear capabilities? I’m sure Yorkshire wouldn’t have been firing rockets into the rest of Britain for years, enjoying the kind of restraint Israel has shown.

 

Yorkshire would be in a far worse state than Gaza today and a lot sooner. Look at how quickly Britain rushed to attack Iraq because of a perceived/invented threat to the West. How much faster and more decisively would your government act in the same situation that Israel finds itself in?

 

"Israel doesn’t control the Gaza Strip"?...So who is it, then, keeping the place down to mediaeval standards with their iron control over its borders impeding aid, supplies and everyday movement of the suffering inhabitants? .

 

Almighty Allah controls Gaza now through Hamas who have him exclusively on speed dial. I don’t want to turn this discussion into an exchange of links but to save a bit of space I’ll link to this rather than pasting it in. Mediaeval standards indeed.

 

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1229868840606&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

 

I scale my condemnation of the parties in any conflict according to the relative counts of the dead - not the very best or most scientific measure, maybe, but it serves well enough as an indication of the warring parties' relative inhumanity. On that basis, most of Israeli history - going back to the birth of Zionism - earns them my disapproval in, as I mentioned above, about a ten-to-one ratio. I agree that the founding ideals of Zionism as presented contain much that is admirable, but there's a very uncomfortable and very obvious dichotomy between the pacific ideal and the ever-violent reality.

 

Sorry? Are you taking the Holocaust out of an account of Israeli history. Add six million dead Jews to your bizarre utilitarian system of morality and then tell me what ‘inhumanity ratio’ you end up with.

 

Do I "approve" of targeted assassinations? I don't "approve" of assassination or death-dealing generally, but count the bodies that way, count the bodies they've arranged over the last week or so and work out which represents the more effective solution and minimises "colateral damage" (or "slaughter of civilians", if we may use a less euphemistic phrase). And it's not as if Israel hasn't considerable expertise in that sphere.

 

The collateral damage in targeted assassinations is felt by Israel’s civilians because they are self evidently ineffectual against Hamas firing rockets over the border.

 

If I thought that there was any possibility of its happening, I'd say that the perfect solution would involve the re-introduction of the peaceful aspects of early Zionism and the re-integration of all the residents of the area, but realistically the swivel-eyed ones aren't going to let that happen.

 

Your solution means returning Jews to statelessness through demography.

 

So its just the swivel eyed (and no I don’t know what that means) Zionists losing sight of their liberal inception that is to blame for the conflict? For all your wildly inaccurate talk of planned invasion and bombing their way into the ‘country’ you haven’t proven that Zionism is an extremist ideology.

 

Re. accusing EM of equating Zionism with Nazism ... 1941, wasn't it, when the Stern gang were planning a Jewish state “on a nationalist and totalitarian basis, which will establish relations with the German Reich†and protect German interests in the Middle East? What lovely people…..And it's these loonies, not the relaxed and agreeable Jew in the street, who run the Israeli show now.

 

You appear to have accidentally omitted the Stern Gang’s aim of getting Jews out of Germany and into Israel when you mention this. The result of this omission being that you portray this episode as proof that the Stern gang (an extremist offshoot of mainstream Zionism) were allied to the Nazis on an ideological level. There is also of course the shared enemy of Britain.

 

I take it that the Northern Ireland Assembly (and perhaps the whole of NI as a result) is too your distaste as well with people like Gerry Adams in positions of power instead of the (how patronising!) relaxed and agreeable Catholic/Protestant/Irishman in the street.

 

Zionism is as extremist an ideology as one can conceive

 

I’m taking this as an allusion to Nazism (or strictly speaking calling Zionism worse than Nazism) in the classic anti-semitic way. This is regarded as a hate crime in Europe.

 

Like you I don’t regard the Stern gang as acting morally in a lot of their actions but this doesn’t relegate the rest of Zionism to being immoral.

 

And now we have some of the lads in Lebanon putting in their two penn'orth of big bangs and instant death. It makes you despair. Okay, guys, we know you hate 'em, but you really aren't helping anyone.

 

Is this your new suggestion for a proportional defence from Israel? “Okay, guys, we know you hate us, but you really aren't helping anyone.†Thanks very much DamnSaxon! Any vitriol for “these guys†or “those lads†who are running the risk of this Gaza conflict being played out in S. Lebanon once ahem “the boys†from the IDF get the green light to respond?

 

You might not want to refer to the people who did this as if they are some chaps down the pub you are vaguely acquainted with, if you want to keep objectivity in your posts.

 

An archaeological friend reckons that humanity's first error was the invention of the city, for which read, the state….and the fervour with which "national borders" must be maintained, …..

 

Yes I see where the nation state is responsible for global historical conflict.

 

And yet what do we see when a race of people are without a state. Without a sovereign state of Israel you have Auswitch. Please excuse Israel’s “fervour†to defend itself against this happening again even if current events in Gaza look bad on your humanity ratio balance sheet.

 

You would be in favour of returning the Jews of Israel to statelessness because you see the country as being run by extremist loonies. I think this is essentially your argument, albeit coloured by some dodgy thoughts like you voiced about the Roman occupation, trying to equate Zionism with Nazism by selective omission and a system of moral reckoning based on adding up dead bodies.

 

I’m sure you will understand, I still think you're arguing completely the wrong side.

 

Yes I’ll gladly have a couple of bottles of Gold Star with you sometime.

 

Ps Nice to see a quote from the most famous Zionist of all time in your signature.

[JAStewart]

I don't agree with an all-Jewish state - but only because I disagree with an all-Christian state, all-Islam state or anything.

[Gibber]

I don't agree with an all-Jewish state -

 

Of which there is one.

 

but only because I disagree with an all-Christian state, all-Islam state or anything.

 

Of which there are many.

[JAStewart]

Name an all-Christian state.

[Gibber]

Name an all-Christian state.

 

Are you talking culturally or strictly religious?

 

Bear in mind that Israel is a secular state and you don't have to be religious to be Jewish. If you are talking about a Jewish state as in a religious nation, that is governed by basic religious principles, that beleives the yip yap about having a home in Israel because "god gave it to them" then I share your disagreement with that definition of an all Jewish state and an all Christian or Muslim state.

 

Thats not to say that there isn't a religious element in politics and laws and even secular traditions in Israel. Perhaps you like many people in Britain celebrated Xmas with a tree and presents while not beleiving that Jesus is your saviour or that God exists.