Am I a anti-semitist?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
But how is it antisemitic to say the conflict was fed by the Jews? That's just a plain generalization.

Because they are Israelis. There are twice as many Jews in the US as in Israel. The vast majority of the Jews didn't cause this problem.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Eli
I classify people who deny the Jewish right for an independent state in their homeland as anti semites.

I guess that makes me an anti-semite then. Israel is there now and the world has to deal with it but it should never have been created. Its like saying the Gypsie should be able to take over Pakitstan from the Pakastanis because lived in India hundreds or thousands of years ago.

[Ned]

Ethelred, Do you really know anything about the origins of Israel? To say that Israel should never have been created is tantamount to saying that the Jews should have accepted their slaughter in 1948.

Ned

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ned
Ethelred, Do you really know anything about the origins of Israel? To say that Israel should never have been created is tantamount to saying that the Jews should have accepted their slaughter in 1948.
Ned

Yes I do know about the origins of Israel and that statement is nonsense. They weren't being slaughtered in 1948. Not even in Palestine. The First Arab-Israeli War started after the state of Israel was founded. Did they bother to ask the Arabs living in Palestine if they wan't to live in state run by European refugees?

[KrazyHorse]

I classify people who deny the Jewish right for an independent state in their homeland as anti semites

Yeah. You can count me an anti-semite too, if you define it like this. Nice of you to lump me in with the Nazis.

[Natan]

Yes I do know about the origins of Israel and that statement is nonsense. They weren't being slaughtered in 1948. Not even in Palestine. The First Arab-Israeli War started after the state of Israel was founded. Did they bother to ask the Arabs living in Palestine if they wan't to live in state run by European refugees?

The Arabs could have accepted the partition plan which would have given them a state west of the Jordan too, or they could have tried to redraw the borders of the plan and create two states with somewhat more favorable boundaries. Instead, they merely said "it's all ours, including Tel-Aviv . . ." or as Azzam Pasha, head of the Arab League, put it to the UN "This will be a war of great killings and momentous massacres, which will be remembered like the Mongol massacres and the Crusades."

[Ethelred]

The Arabs could have accepted the partition plan which would have given them a state west of the Jordan too, or they could have tried to redraw the borders of the plan and create two states with somewhat more favorable boundaries.

Yes I suppose they could have been that stupid. It was their land. No one had any right to take it from them except might and brass and chutzpah to do that.

Instead, they merely said "it's all ours, including Tel-Aviv . . ." or as Azzam Pasha, head of the Arab League, put it to the UN "This will be a war of great killings and momentous massacres, which will be remembered like the Mongol massacres and the Crusades."

It was all theirs. Why the heck should they give the land to a bunch of Europeans? The Jewish refugees were not Israelites they weren't Paletinians they were foreigners. Purchasing some land from individuals is quite a bit different from taking the whole place and setting a up a state that was designed to keep the Arabs from having any real power in their own land.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Yes I do know about the origins of Israel and that statement is nonsense. They weren't being slaughtered in 1948. Not even in Palestine. The First Arab-Israeli War started after the state of Israel was founded. Did they bother to ask the Arabs living in Palestine if they wan't to live in state run by European refugees?

E, The fighting began in 1947 and continued uninterrupted thereafter. When the English withdrew in 1948, Israel declared a state. The had no alternative but to die. They litterally were given no choice but to defend themselves or be driven into the sea.

In 1917, that was not Arab land. It was Turkish land. The population was even then around 30% Jewish, IIRC. The Arabs had not governed that land for 1000 years.

When the English took the area from Turkey in 1917, they named the land Palestine after the ancient Roman province. It was not Arab land in 1917. It, repeat, had not been Arab for 1000 years.

In 1948, the English withdrew from Palestine. The Arabs neighbors of Palestine then joined the fight. They were trying to kill the Jews and take the land under their control - for the first time in 1000 years. They lost. The Jews survived. But somehow to you, E, this was a mistake. It is clear you believe that the Arabs should have won and killed all the Jews.

I can hardly believe that so many truly believe in ethinic cleansing. I thought Nazism was finished, done and buried in the ashcan of history.

Apparently not.

Ned

[Imran Siddiqui]

I can hardly believe that so many truly believe in ethinic cleansing. I thought Nazism was finished, done and buried in the ashcan of history.

Apparently not.

Yeah, people like Sharon will always believe in genocidal attacks .

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

I can hardly believe that so many truly believe in ethinic cleansing. I thought Nazism was finished, done and buried in the ashcan of history. Apparently not.

Yeah, people like Sharon will always believe in genocidal attacks .

Imran, What makes you believe that Sharon believes in genocide? Ned

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well he didn't seem to mind letting it happen in Lebanon in 1982.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ned
E, The fighting began in 1947 and continued uninterrupted thereafter. When the English withdrew in 1948, Israel declared a state. The had no alternative but to die. They litterally were given no choice but to defend themselves or be driven into the sea.

Fighting began before 1947. Radical Zionist terrorism definitly began before that. One of those terrorists eventually became Prime Minister of Israel.

The King David Hotel terrorist attack
http://www.thetimescrossword.co.uk/a...0-5826,00.html

American-Isaeli site on Menachem Begin
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/begin.html

In 1917, that was not Arab land. It was Turkish land. The population was even then around 30% Jewish, IIRC. The Arabs had not governed that land for 1000 years.

It was Turkish controlled land. Arabs were the main inhabitants. That they had not governed had nothing to do with that. If a vote had been held, in keeping with UN principles, which group would have had control?

The only reason there were a lot of Jews there is because they had moved in to create a state. That is hardly a justification for what followed. How would you like to wake up in Mexican state one day started by immigrants from Mexico? Or Canadians for that matter, I picked Mexicans because there are rather a lot of them in California and the numbers are close to what you say was the case in Palestine.

I don't dispute your numbers but they had changed cosiderably in just a few years. It was rather akin to an invasion aided and abbeted by Britain.

I find it interesting just how much stock Israel puts in that high handed document The Balfour Declaration. Britain had no right except might to say there should be a Jewish state there. It promised that ALL peoples rights would be maintained which did not fit with the idea of a Jewish state in lands there were primarily Arab. Neither Britain nor the League of Nations had any legal or moral justification in assigning that land to European Jews. Indeed such an action would directly violate the later UN orginazation basic concepts of self-determination.

When the English took the area from Turkey in 1917, they named the land Palestine after the ancient Roman province. It was not Arab land in 1917. It, repeat, had not been Arab for 1000 years.

So one oppressor took it from another. I am sure the Brits were better but you will notice they did not allow a vote on it. They promised people rights would be maintained. They did not keep that promise. It HAD been primarily Arab for 1800 years it simply did not have Arab rulers the whole time. There is a considerable difference between your statement and the full truth.

In 1948, the English withdrew from Palestine. The Arabs neighbors of Palestine then joined the fight. They were trying to kill the Jews and take the land under their control - for the first time in 1000 years. They lost. The Jews survived. But somehow to you, E, this was a mistake. It is clear you believe that the Arabs should have won and killed all the Jews.

European Jews had engaged in guerilla warfare and terrorist warfare with the British for a considerable time before that. It IS clear that you like to make things up about people you disagree with. Did you completely fail to notice that I said Israel is there NOW and the Middle East must deal with it?

But that is now. The Arab neighbors started fighting when European Jews declared Israel a state. They simply declared it. They allowed no vote since after all they were the minority.

Fighting started in 1947 because someone decide they had the right to partition land without bothering to have a vote. Are you trying to justify that high handed behaviour?

I can hardly believe that so many truly believe in ethinic cleansing. I thought Nazism was finished, done and buried in the ashcan of history.

I can hardly believe how you are inventing other people thoughts and then attacking for the thoughts you invented.

Apparently not.

Ned

Apparently you aren't being honest. Making up my position like that.

[Eli]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well he didn't seem to mind letting it happen in Lebanon in 1982.

There was no genocide in Lebanon. Only a small massacre. All Arabs states massacred tens of thousands of their own people, yet no one seems to care. It's when the Jews are remotely connected everyone suddenly start screaming.

[Al'Kimiya]

Some links:

http://www.israelmybeloved.com/
http://www.masada2000.org/
http://www.faithfreedom.org/

[Eli]

Warning :
The following links(except the first one, maybe) do not represent neither the opinions of the majority of the Israelis nor their intellegence.

[Sava]

I wonder if the UN would give me Uganda. Then I can start my own Utopia.

[Kropotkin]

My point with this thread was an attempt to see what people thought I was. This of intrest from the current contex where pretty much every anti-Israeli standpoint seems to be labeled anti-semtic. Later (pretty fast actually) it turned into the general Israel/palestine rant but I don't think I expected anything else.

I never doubted my own standpoint as non-anti-semitic but wanted to see if some of the people I often debate with think of me as one. I actually started to get somewhat worried over that.

I'm glad to discover that none that actually said anything about the subject thought of me as an anti-semite.

Now I'm gonna comment some that have been said on the subject:

Eli:
"I classify people who deny the Jewish right for an independent state in their homeland as anti semites. "
Hmm I would think that would be anti-zionism, not anti-semitism. Although I guess many anti-semites have that standpoint but not all, many like the idea as a way to get rid of jews from their own country.

Chris 62:
"No Kro, your not, but you often take such a postion, intentionally or not. "
That's a kind of ambiguous answer I suppose. I'm gonna interept it in a good natured manner though. Chris 62 has as usual a black and white view of history so possibly i could say about him that he's probably not a anti-arab but often takes such a position, intentionally or not.

As for Ned et al that from my political origins think that the ideology and economic systems of the countries in the ME have decided my viewpoints i do have to disagree. I don't have any fuzzy feeling for any of the countries in the area.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Goingonit


That's the extreme example. If you identify someone with something they didn't do, solely because of their race, you're racist.

5

[Ned]

Ethelred, Assume the U.S., at the end of WWII, took an Island in the South Pacific from Japan near China and finds there natives both of Chinese heritage and also from India. The Chinese are a majority. The Indians, though are a majority in their areas of the Island. Add further that this is the ancient homeland of the Indians, long before the Chinese arrived.

The Indians demand "self determination." The Chinese start butchering the Indians.

Today, you must decided whether to partition between Chinese and Indians, grant independence to the resident Chinese, or give the Island "back to China" that has not ruled the Island for 1000 years.

Your choice.

Assume you choose partition. War errupts and the Chinese army arrives. Are the Indians war mongers? Or are they the victims here that refused to be slaughtered.

Ned

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ned
Ethelred, Assume the U.S., at the end of WWII, took an Island in the South Pacific from Japan near China and finds there natives both of Chinese heritage and also from India. The Chinese are a majority. The Indians, though are a majority in their areas of the Island. Add further that this is the ancient homeland of the Indians, long before the Chinese arrived.

That isn't the case for the Middle East though. The Jews were a minorty in 1948 and a much smaller minority in 1917 when the British began their policy of encouraging Jewish migration to Israel.

In your hypothetical case you know full what would happen. The US would either treat the place a military base with a native population and treat them similar to Somoa or there would be at least an attempt to set up a democratic government with all sides participating. Which is not even close to what the Brits did.

The Indians demand "self determination." The Chinese start butchering the Indians.

The US would just move the troops in and stop the nonsense. The Moslems weren't allowed to pull the crap they are doing now in the Philipines when we were there.

Today, you must decided whether to partition between Chinese and Indians, grant independence to the resident Chinese, or give the Island "back to China" that has not ruled the Island for 1000 years.

I do neither of course because its a false dichotomy. First you arrest the butchers and try them for murder. Then you give the locals an option to move out if they want. Whatever you do you don't go the partitioning route. Millions died in the partitioning of India.

Most likely the US would just hold the place as a protectorate untill the bloodlust settles out over time.

Assume you choose partition. War errupts and the Chinese army arrives. Are the Indians war mongers? Or are they the victims here that refused to be slaughtered.

Ned

That is not what happened in the Middle East. You haven't read what I said. I said the Middle East must deal with Israel NOW. I said Israel never should have come into existence. For once on the forum I can't think of a way to blame the French. This mess is due to British duplicity. Promising two sides their hearts desire and then delivering a mess. The Brits had no business trying to create a Jewish homeland.

Frankly I don't know why the Brits wanted to create a homeland for the Jews anyway. Brittish Jews did well by Britain just as in the US. One of Britain's better PMs was Benjiman Disraeli although I am sure not all Brits will agree with that.

[Al'Kimiya]

Originally posted by Eli
Warning :
The following links(except the first one, maybe) do not represent neither the opinions of the majority of the Israelis nor their intellegence.

A majority doesn't make a truth.

[Eli]

Eli:
"I classify people who deny the Jewish right for an independent state in their homeland as anti semites. "
Hmm I would think that would be anti-zionism, not anti-semitism. Although I guess many anti-semites have that standpoint but not all, many like the idea as a way to get rid of jews from their own country.

I'll rephrase it.
If people think that Jews, unlike any other nation on earth, do not deserve a state in their homeland, they are anti semites.

[Kropotkin]

I might be able to accept that one but I don't think that the core of anti-semitism is about the be or not to be of a jewish state. Anti-semitism is after all something much older than all forms of Zionism.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by Eli
I'll rephrase it.
If people think that Jews, unlike any other nation on earth, do not deserve a state in their homeland, they are anti semites.

Jews isn't a nationality. French jews are french not Israeli even if it does't make Sharon happy.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Eli
If people think that Jews, unlike any other nation on earth, do not deserve a state in their homeland, they are anti semites.

That depends. What nation that hasn't existed for centuries do you think that the UN has the right to resurrect next?

[Dry]

Originally posted by Eli
There was no genocide in Lebanon. Only a small massacre. All Arabs states massacred tens of thousands of their own people, yet no one seems to care. It's when the Jews are remotely connected everyone suddenly start screaming.

Democracies have always reacted violently when other democracies have behave 'wrongly' and less violently when it was dictorship.
There has been some bad accusations about the Netherland army in Bosnia those days. Why those accusations? Ex-yougo states massacred tens of thousands of their own people, yet no one seems to care. It's when the Dutchs are remotely connected everyone suddenly start screaming.
Well, no.
It is more that when the good guy hits the innocent, it is bad. When the bad guy does the same, it's normal.

[only teasing, but...]
Are you anti-semite Eli, that you look at people first by their ethnical/religious belonging, before looking at their thoughts/values? [/only teasing, but...]

I could rephrase the question:
I am anti-semite, if in this conflict I disagree with the behaviour of the democracy, if I fear for the image of democracy, if I think that this behaviour will lead more and more people to hate democracy... if I #$%$#@& don't care if they are jews, muslims, christians, budhists, black, white or Michael Jacksons.
I always thought that Israel's army (Tzahal?) was not composed exclusively by jews... but I may be wrong. Do you need to be Jew to be in Tzahal?
I always thought Pals were not exclusively muslims but 30% (not sure) are christians.

Am I anti-semite, if I think the democratic aspect is more important than the jewish/muslim/christian aspect ?

Am I anti-semite if I deny a people (any people) to call itself a democracy and to slaughter civilians?

[Ned]

Ethelred, If one thinks of France, one thinks of Vietnam. When the French left, they divided the country so that the Catholics would have their own country and the communists would have theirs. All were Vietnamese.

War resulted. America, not France, lost a lot of lives trying to preserve the South.

I noticed that the French Trotsky candidate is in favor of "self determination." Has France, outside the left, largely abandoned this concept as an ideal?

I have heard here that Israel is an Imperialist state. However, the Imperialists are Empires that deny the right of self-determination to peoples within their borders. I believe your denial of Israel's right to exist (as of 1948) is Imperialist in concept.

On the partition of India: I think the UK did the necessary thing. Even though one would like everyone just to get along, at times, this is impossible.

Woodrow Wilson was and is right!

Ned

[Adalbertus]

Jews isn't a nationality. French jews are french not Israeli even if it does't make Sharon happy.

The usual French way to whitewash their imperialism

[Natan]

Ethelred:
You know, Texans were also immigrants to Mexico. And many places in the Balkans and throughout eastern Europe have experienced population changes in the last fifty or a hundred years. You have to base present borders on present conditions. The only real option besides partition in 1948 was expulsion of the Jews, with no country willing to take them in. I don't think that was a realistic option. The Arab armies were not just trying to prevent Israel from declaring independence, they were expelling all Jews from the area. I don't see how another option was available besides partition.

As for the King David Hotel, it was the HQ of the British military in Palestine, and the Irgun even sent a warning 30 minutes before the explosion, which the British ignored.

[Eli]

That depends. What nation that hasn't existed for centuries do you think that the UN has the right to resurrect next?

Any ethnic group that still yearns for independence should get it(and yes, it includes the Palestinians).
If the Gypsies had felt connection and wanted to return to wherever they originally came from I would've supported them just as I support Israel.

Of course that you dont need to revive some European mini-state that existested for a decade or two in the middle ages.

Originally posted by ZoboZeWarrior
Jews isn't a nationality. French jews are french not Israeli even if it does't make Sharon happy.

That depends on your definition of nationality.
dictionary.com says :

na·tion·al·i·ty Pronunciation Key (nsh-nl-t, nsh-nl-)
n. pl. na·tion·al·i·ties
1. The status of belonging to a particular nation by origin, birth, or naturalization.
2. A people having common origins or traditions and often constituting a nation.
3. Existence as a politically autonomous entity; national independence.
4. National character.
5. Nationalism.

na·tion Pronunciation Key (nshn)
n.

1.A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.
2.The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out.
The government of a sovereign state.
3. people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality: “Historically the Ukrainians are an ancient nation which has persisted and survived through terrible calamity” (Robert Conquest).
4. a. A federation or tribe, especially one composed of Native Americans.
b. The territory occupied by such a federation or tribe.

So you can define "nation" by your French standarts, using citizenship. Or you can use the second definition and the one that fits the case.

Since the Jews, not you, are the ones who decide on whether they are nation or not, you'll have to accept it.

Btw, the thing that confuses many people is the lack of analogies. So dont bother looking for one. In this case, Jews are unique.