Am I a anti-semitist?

[S. Kroeze]

Dear Ned,

Thanks for reacting!
You have raised some interesting points and I hope to be able to react soon.

But why do you refuse to answer my quite simple questions?

Perhaps European and American Jews are/were superior to Palestinian Jews?

Who guarantees that Israel will be a safe place for the Jewish people in the long term?

[Ned]

Kroeze, I don't know how to answer your question. Clearly, they had different experiences, education and perhaps languages than those born in Israel, but the term "superior" imposes a value judgment on which of the two is better. That, of course, "depends." But the end result of the question and answer is discrimination. That result is highly undersirable.

America has been built on immigration. The people of California, for example, have no majority of any ethnic background. You will find the average California very tolerant of differences.

Ned

[Ethelred]

The US IS one nation. Everyone that is a citizen of the US IS an American. Its a not nationality based on old ethnic groups as it is a new one. None of the nationalities that are ancestral to me or anyother American are relevant to my nationality. Viet Namese for instance are Viet Namese for maybe the first generation of naturalized citizens but the children grow up as Americans.

It does take a couple of generations for this to take full effect sometimes. Depends on the parents. Some are still stuck in the past and hold on to their mother country. Some adapt quickly even with the first generation.

[Kropotkin]

Sure if we feel that citizenship and accepting the american dream/myth is enough then the US is a nation but that's not the kind of nation Israel is based on at all. If it was that easy there would hardly be a problem as serious as this.

Also, I'm not that sure eveyone in the US feel the same way about it. There's a bunch of minorites strong enough to potentially form their own myth/nation.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Also, I'm not that sure eveyone in the US feel the same way about it. There's a bunch of minorites strong enough to potentially form their own myth/nation.

Who? Except for a small number of Amerinds that choose to live on reservations most Americans desire to be Americans. That is why its a nation.

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Ned
Kroeze, I don't know how to answer your question. Clearly, they had different experiences, education and perhaps languages than those born in Israel, but the term "superior" imposes a value judgment on which of the two is better. That, of course, "depends." But the end result of the question and answer is discrimination. That result is highly undersirable.

Ned

In my view the only correct answer to the question:

"Perhaps European and American Jews are/were superior to Palestinian Jews?"

should be:

NO!, of course not.

That you consistently have refused to answer this question is highly questionable, to say the least.

When you would have read my posts you would know by now

• that ALL Orthodox Palestinian Jews, living in Palestine for many centuries, consistently opposed both Zionist immigration AND the creation of a secular 'Israeli' state

Until ~1920 these Orthodox Palestinian Jews were the majority of 'Jews' in Palestine.

Israel is NOT a Jewish state! It is a European colony, created by Zionist conquistadores for European refugees!

[Kropotkin]

you've got a growing population of latin americans that might take over in some areas. It's hardly a nation without conflicts between groups.

I define a nation-state as a state based on and given legitimacy through a nation. A nation is something that goes beyond the state itself both in meaning and history with links back to the roots of the nation that's older than the state itself. This nation and its history is of cource more or less a myth based on lies. Many of these lies may have been promoted by the state but that's beside the point. The point is that from my perspective a nation-state must be based on the concept of a nation older than the state.

Surely this does not apply to US for example (the US is almost always a useless basis for generalizations about such things). That's my definiton of a nation and that ways the way I used it when this part of the thread debate started (the US was not of interest). Israel does apply since it's based on a number of cultural and religious myths going back for a number of milleniums.

If you feel for a other definiton of nation and nation-state that's something I can accept. After all, there's far from a consensus amoungst leading theorists in this field since nation is something that's very hard to define and pinpoint (possibly due to the culture of theorists not to agree about anything). If they can't agree over the definiton I hardly think we can.

[Natan]

Of course Ashkenazi Jews aren't "better" than Sephardim.

Originally posted by S. Kroeze
The Orthodox Jewish pietists of the Old Yishuv, living on haluka, predominated in Palestine until after World War I, when Zionist-sponsored immigration created a majority of the New Yishuv. Whenever they arrived, Jewish immigrants were not met with an easy life in Palestine. Between 1881 and 1914 as many as 50,000, one of two, left Palestine for the West. Despite these departures, Jewish population increase had a dramatic effect on Jerusalem. In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, Jews achieved a majority there, in 1914 numbering 45,000 in a city of 80,000.(34)

Not so. Jews were recognized as the majority in Jerusalem since the 1840s.
Maybe you mean "new Jews?"

From its inception the Zionist movement in Palestine exacerbated relations among Jews in the country. Traditional tensions between Ashkenazim and Sephardim, and between Hasidim and Perushim continued. But now there was a new layer of contention. Orthodox pietists opposed the often outspoken secular nationalist ideology of Hovevei Zion. In 1888-1889 the pietists tried unsuccesfully to force the Zionist agricultural pioneers to observe the biblical edict of Shemmitah, which allows the earth to lie fallow every seventh, sabbatical year. The pioneers resisted religious pressure, knowing that observance of Shemmitah meant the ruin of their farms.(35)

The gulf between religious and secular Jews widened further when Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, the architect of the modern Hebrew language, criticized traditional Ashkenazi-Sephardi factionalism for undermining Jewish national unity. The pietists struck back by slandering Ben-Yehuda as a revolutionary and in 1894 arranging his imprisonment by Turkish authorities. Ben-Yehuda took sweet revenge by using his time in prison to begin writing the first comprehensive dictionary of the modern Hebrew language, one of the major achievements of the Zionist movement.(36)

The main Zionist-sponsored settlement of the land occurred on the coastline and in the lower Galilee, not in Zion itself or in Jerusalem, a stronghold of pious orthodoxy. The factional strife between Orthodox Jewry and secular Zionists continued through the twentieth century and abated only when both sides faced a common Arab threat."

Yes

"Allenby's entrance into Jerusalem(1917) was welcomed by Jerusalem's local church prelates -Greeks, Latins, Russians, Syrians, and Armenians- who were gladdened at the sight of the first Christian ruler to enter Jerusalem since the medieval Crusaders. But Sephardic Jews, who spoke Arabic and got along with the Turks, were none too pleased to see the passing of the old order.

What evidence is there of that about the Sephardic Jews? I've heard the reverse.

Their contentious brethren, the Ashkenazim, were of two minds: they could not cheer the arrival of a new gentile conqueror, but had not this conqueror defeated the wicked empire of Turkey, thus hastening (as the Prophet Daniel foretold) the day of the Messianic Redemption? The more secular-minded Zionists were, of course, elated by Allenby's entrance. News traveled fast among Jews. They had been led to believe that with the publication of Balfour's letter, Britain intended to establish a Jewish commonwealth in Palestine.

Muslims were cautious. Many were thankful to be rid of the imperious and venal Turks. The country had been bled white by the war. Much was expected from the British, who were known for their generosity. To those who had long memories, the sight of the British military was a reminder of the coming and going of conquerors. The British too would go in time. This land was not theirs. Muslims would tolerate Britain's trusteeship of the land as long as it served a useful purpose and as long as their own sense of ownership was not violated."

"London politicians had decreed their pro-Zionist policy, but the military officers in Palestine, responsible for administering that policy, determined that vigorous support of Jewish immigration and land purchase would only inflame Arab passions and make the job of government more difficult. They knew that resentment of Zionist activity predated the Balfour Declaration. In the late 1870s Arab villagers had complained about the new Jewish agricultural settlers who purchased land at high prices, evicted Arab peasants, refused to allow free grazing on their land, kept to themselves, and generally acted as if the country belonged to them.

According to Walter Laquer (I'll get you ISBN, page numbers, etc. if you like) the number of Arab peasants evicted from their land was always quite insignifigant. The reason Jews settled in the coastal plain and the Galilee is that they wanted to avoid the main Arab population centers of the West Bank. How buying land and then wanting to secure one's use of it constitutes "acting as if the country belonged to them" I don't know.

When asked about their tensions with the Jews, Arabs were quick to point out that they had no quarrel with the community of traditionalist Jews which had lived in Palestine for generations;

Because they hid their identity and were submissive to Muslims.

"Ben-Gurion may have believed that the Jewish national home could be developed without harming a single Arab child; but others, a small minority, took the view that Jewish immigration, land purchase, and national independence inevitably would lead to domination of the Arab society.

Which would harm the children how?

This sounds most sympathetic, BUT
Muslim Arabs living in Palestine did NOT determine to be overrun by mass immigration of Europeans and to be expelled from their land

You know, Jewish Arabs didn't determine to have the same thing happen to them all over the Arab world, but it did.

Jewish Arabs -the Sephardim- living in Palestine since time immemorial did NOT determine to be overrun by mass immigration of Europeans and to be forced to live in a secular state controlled by Europeans

Ask some Sephardi Jews about it - they seem rather happy about it now. And they did then too, the Irgun claimed that "only" 40% of its members were Sephardic, while their enemies claimed it was closer to 100%.

Other Orthodox Jews -Hasidim and Perushim- living in Palestine since the nineteenth century did NOT determine to be overrun by mass immigration of Europeans and to be forced to live in a secular state controlled by Europeans

Again, they seem rather happy about it now. What you have to remember here is that although Sephardi and Orthodox Jews do now have to live in a "secular" (actually, many ritual laws are enforced by the police) state, what they have now is a secular Jewish state whereas before they had a religious Muslim state. Jews don't have any particular interest in maintaining a religious Muslim state.

Jews in Europe did NOT determine to be persecuted and murdered or to flee to a desertlike war zone
Instead decisions were taken by the British, U.S. and other European governments -ALL dominated by Christians- and by a small, well-educated, secular European-Jewish minority that legitimized their conquest of Palestine on some ancient book they had brushed aside themselves

So you think that the British engineered anti-Semitism to give them an excuse to settle Jews in Palestine to make Arabs angry?

PS: Another important question which you didn't answer:
Who guarantees that Israel will be a safe place for the Jewish people in the long term?

There are no guarentees. But it seems fairly self-evident to me that you have a better chance of survival against your enemies if you have a citadel and armaments than if you do not.

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Natan
Of course Ashkenazi Jews aren't "better" than Sephardim.

Not so. Jews were recognized as the majority in Jerusalem since the 1840s.
Maybe you mean "new Jews?"

When I am quoting verbatim from a respected historical study -adding ALL footnotes- you are making yourself completely ridiculous and untrustworthy by calling in question hard facts.

The only respectable strategy would be to search for an equally respectable historical study that disproves my source.
I have shown NOT to be lazy. I have searched for reliable literature and have stated all my sources.

I know historians are generally disrespected, but one can overstep the limit too far!

[Natan]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze
When I am quoting verbatim from a respected historical study -adding ALL footnotes- you are making yourself completely ridiculous and untrustworthy by calling in question hard facts.

The only respectable strategy would be to search for an equally respectable historical study that disproves my source.
I have shown NOT to be lazy. I have searched for reliable literature and have stated all my sources.

I know historians are generally disrespected, but one can overstep the limit too far!

I'm basing my claim on what Karl Marx wrote when he visited the city. So it's Karl Marx (regarding Jerusalem) and Walter Laquer (regarding displacement of Arabs) against your guy; do you have any evidence that the latter is more reliable than the former?

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Natan
I'm basing my claim on what Karl Marx wrote when he visited the city. So it's Karl Marx (regarding Jerusalem) and Walter Laquer (regarding displacement of Arabs) against your guy; do you have any evidence that the latter is more reliable than the former?

You couldn't have demonstrated your contempt for professional historical research MORE adequately!

I have cited Idinopulos ('my guy') verbatim, and will also give you the page number: 133-134
In the footnote -which I had given before- Idinopulos gives chapter and verse: the study by Israel Kolatt, "The Organization of the Jewish Population of Palestine and the Development of Its Political Consciousness Before World War II", in Ma'oz, Studies on Palestine, 211

You may depend upon the fact that I.Kolatt -before writing this article- has spent several months (maybe even years) collecting sources and considering as much evidence as possible relative to this subject.

You dare to equate this extensive historical research with one casual remark noted by K.Marx after a visit to the city!
The least you could have done is quoting Marx verbatim and adding his footnotes, though I doubt he will have given them.
Marx is by the way a rather unreliable source anyway, much of his writings is chiefly propaganda. Do you have indications that Marx did ANY research before writing down this remark?
Source-criticism has developed greatly since the nineteenth century.

Since I am NOT lazy I will try to find the article by Kolatt.

And I will repeat my former statement:
"The only respectable strategy would be to search for an equally respectable historical study that disproves my source."

[Natan]

Yes, and there are conflicting historical studies and legitimate disagreements. http://freespace.virgin.net/donovan.hawley/jerhis.htm
I don't think the critical issue is whether the Jewish majority was achieved in 1840 or 1890 though. I take issue with the claim that a Jewish majority was only achieved sometime around 1914, but I don't really see how it relates to your claim that Israel is a colonialist enterprise set up by the British against the will of Sephardi Jews and somehow through British manipulation of Ashkenazi Jews. I'm surprised you've decided to home in on Jerusalem while ignoring the rest of the issue, since it's so tangential to the main dispute.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
I define a nation-state as a state based on and given legitimacy through a nation. A nation is something that goes beyond the state itself both in meaning and history with links back to the roots of the nation that's older than the state itself. This nation and its history is of cource more or less a myth based on lies. Many of these lies may have been promoted by the state but that's beside the point. The point is that from my perspective a nation-state must be based on the concept of a nation older than the state.

By that standard the US is a nation. The nation has 200 years of history prior to the revolution.

The Latin-Americans are mostly either native to the US for generations or imigrants from Mexico. They are mostly Americans. Those that don't think that way mostly weren't born here. They came here to work and will go home to Mexico if they don't get married and have a family. If they a family those children will mosty grow up thinking of themselves as Americans.

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Natan
Yes, and there are conflicting historical studies and legitimate disagreements. http://freespace.virgin.net/donovan.hawley/jerhis.htm

Giving a link to some silly internet page WITHOUT acknowledgement of its sources does not prop up your position about Jerusalem at all. I hope this is generally not the basis of your understanding?

I don't think the critical issue is whether the Jewish majority was achieved in 1840 or 1890 though.

Here I agree. Let me please remind you that you chose to discuss this issue!

I take issue with the claim that a Jewish majority was only achieved sometime around 1914, but I don't really see how it relates to your claim that Israel is a colonialist enterprise set up by the British against the will of Sephardi Jews and somehow through British manipulation of Ashkenazi Jews.

You should read better:
"In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, Jews achieved a majority there, in 1914 numbering 45,000 in a city of 80,000.(34)" (Idinopulos)
I hope you have read ALL my posts in this thread carefully?

Last quarter of the nineteenth century = somewhere between 1875 and 1900

I'm surprised you've decided to home in on Jerusalem while ignoring the rest of the issue, since it's so tangential to the main dispute.

Again I agree that the rest of the issue is far more important and interesting.
Yet when people for some reason decide to throw doubt upon the integrity of my sources -written by professional historians, complete with chapter and verse- I feel obliged to defend my colleagues.
Of course historians sometimes do make mistakes, but the only fair strategy is to search for an equally respectable historical study that disproves my source. Even better would be to do the historical research oneself. Claiming to possess 'superior revealed knowledge' does not win my respect!

I still hope to react to your other points but my time is limited. And you may have noticed that I tend to read and select historical evidence before posting, so this will take some time.
The history of the Middle East in modern times is definitely not my speciality.

[Kropotkin]

Oh well that's a hard issue to say much about. There was a brief debate here a week or so ago where someonw said that the latin american minority had stopped learning english even amoungst second generation immigrants. I do belive he was a bit over-pessimistic but it might be a potential divide in the long run. however highly speculative.

As for US as a nation. My definiton is made for a european context and is thus hard to apply elsewhere. It's not enough with a history in itself it must also hold a meaning for the nation. A few things like the rememberance from the independece struggle and the Mayflower with the tradition of thanksgiving (possibly also the meanings founds in the civil war applies) are exampels of what a nation is about.

There's a problem since a nation also usually have ethnic implications and that's not really the case with the US (even if a few african-americans might disagree with me), instead the common idea is based around an ideal. It's problematic to call the US as a nation, it's an a-typical nation at best, but then there's often problem applying a theoretical model on reality.

[Ned]

S.Kroeze, Regardless of labels, is it your position that the Jews of Palestine in 1947-8 had no right of self-determination -- that they had to accept Arab sovereignty imposed by armed force? How the two sides got into the position they found themselves in 1947-8 is largely irrelevant. If predecessor leaders or government's made "mistakes" that lead up to the circumstances as they then existed does not mean that it was a "mistake" to create Israel. By that time, the power to make decisions concerning "Israel" was no longer in the hands of Great Britain or the United Nations. It was in the hands of the Jews of Palestine themselves who chose not to live in an Islamic state. There was no "mistake."

It is time for all "Arabs" to accept Israel. The lack of acceptance leads to a guarantee of continued aggression. This is the very reason why Israel is wary of ceding all of the West Bank back to the Arabs. Arab aggression, virtually alone, is the obstacle to a permanent peace.

My attitude on this issue would be entirely different if the Arabs were peaceful and were not demanding the destruction of the state of Israel. But that is not where we are in this conflict.

Ned

[S. Kroeze]

Dear Ned,

I will try to show you how ridiculous your position is:

Ned, Regardless of labels, is it your position that the Arabs of Palestine in 1947-8 had no right of self-determination -- that they had to accept Zionist sovereignty imposed by armed force? How the two sides got into the position they found themselves in 1947-8 is largely irrelevant. If predecessor leaders or government's made "mistakes" that lead up to the circumstances as they then existed does not mean that it was a "mistake" to establish a independent Palestinian state. By that time, the power to make decisions concerning Palestine was no longer in the hands of Great Britain or the United Nations. It was in the hands of the Arabs of Palestine themselves who chose not to live in an secular European colony. There was no "mistake."

It is time for all Israelis and Zionist colonials to accept an independent Palestine. The lack of acceptance leads to a guarantee of continued aggression. This is the very reason why Palestine is wary of ceding all of Galilea, Sharon, Pleshet, Negev and Araba to the Zionists. Zionist aggression, virtually alone, is the obstacle to a permanent peace.

My attitude on this issue would be entirely different if the Zionists were peaceful and were not making impossible the foundation of an independent Palestine. But that is not where we are in this conflict.

It seems to me, you consider 'Arabs' to be some sort of animals, without human rights.
Most British and Zionists thought so too!

I could summarise your position in a few words: MIGHT is RIGHT!

When I have time, I hope to react in a more serious way.

Sincerely,

S.Kroeze

[Kropotkin]

(I'm starting to think that it would be nice if this thread died sometimes. After all I misspelled the title and it implies to everyone that don't care to read a long thread that I'm a uneducated anti-semite )

[Ecthy]

Well Kropotkin, it came close to a "Giancarlo-out-of-the-closet"

[Ethelred]

Well the thread will eventually get closed. The more you post the sooner it will nit 500 posts and then if anyone notices it will get closed.

Consider this one more on the way to your being rescued from the infamy of mispelling anti-semite.

[Kropotkin]

Thanks

I'm however afraid that my reputation at this site is forever scourched by that unfortunate incident.

[Ecthy]

The misspelling or the admission to being anti-semitic?

[Ned]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze
Dear Ned,

I will try to show you how ridiculous your position is:

Ned, Regardless of labels, is it your position that the Arabs of Palestine in 1947-8 had no right of self-determination -- that they had to accept Zionist sovereignty imposed by armed force? How the two sides got into the position they found themselves in 1947-8 is largely irrelevant. If predecessor leaders or government's made "mistakes" that lead up to the circumstances as they then existed does not mean that it was a "mistake" to establish a independent Palestinian state. By that time, the power to make decisions concerning Palestine was no longer in the hands of Great Britain or the United Nations. It was in the hands of the Arabs of Palestine themselves who chose not to live in an secular European colony. There was no "mistake."

It is time for all Israelis and Zionist colonials to accept an independent Palestine. The lack of acceptance leads to a guarantee of continued aggression. This is the very reason why Palestine is wary of ceding all of Galilea, Sharon, Pleshet, Negev and Araba to the Zionists. Zionist aggression, virtually alone, is the obstacle to a permanent peace.

My attitude on this issue would be entirely different if the Zionists were peaceful and were not making impossible the foundation of an independent Palestine. But that is not where we are in this conflict.

It seems to me, you consider 'Arabs' to be some sort of animals, without human rights.
Most British and Zionists thought so too!

I could summarise your position in a few words: MIGHT is RIGHT!

When I have time, I hope to react in a more serious way.

Sincerely,

S.Kroeze

S. Kroeze, Both houses of the U.S. Congress just voted to support Israel and to condemn Arafat. It looks like the whole of the United States, save for a few posters here on Apolyton, disagree with the view that supporting Israel is racist.

Israel never sought to impose Zionist rule on Palestinians. It has been under attack virtually since 1920 with interludes of peace.

From your statement, I can only guess that you would view the colonization of the New Worlds as a racist war against the Native Americans by the Europeans! My God, Kroeze, you have a real hatred of Europeans. This view distorts everything you say.

Ned

[Eli]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
(I'm starting to think that it would be nice if this thread died sometimes. After all I misspelled the title and it implies to everyone that don't care to read a long thread that I'm a uneducated anti-semite )

You also made a grammar mistake.

[Eli]

Originally posted by Ned
S. Kroeze, Both houses of the U.S. Congress just voted to support Israel and to condemn Arafat.

They are more Pro-Israeli than the Knesset.

[Eli]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze
Who guarantees that Israel will be a safe place for the Jewish people in the long term?

The Israeli Defense Forces.

[Ethelred]

What about my reputation? Lets see I am now:

A Nazi
An Anti-Semite
A liar
An idiot
A moron
A bleeeeep
A CENSORED

About the only thing I haven't been called is a Goy. Which I am but its not nice to call people that.

I did better argueing with Zylka and Faded Glory about Civ III.

[Ethelred]

They are more Pro-Israeli than the Knesset.

Well they do have more Jewish voters. Plus they have a bunch of wackos that hope this mess in the Middle East is the start of Armeggedon so they think they are helping bring about the Second Coming of Jesus.

[Natan]

Implying that your opponents are against you because you're not Jewish is a bit silly when the people insulting you aren't either. (might I add that you're a go. . . )

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Natan
Implying that your opponents are against you because you're not Jewish is a bit silly when the people insulting you aren't either. (might I add that you're a go. . . )

Well I didn't say that. In fact I chose not to point out that it is highly unlikely that Chris is a Jew considering the thoroughly christian name he has. I typed it up and then decided to leave it out.

I can see it now, Christopher Goldblum, Rabbi extraordinaire.

If you ever heard my fake New York Jewish accent god forbid you should call me a goy. I do some really good british accents too.