Am I a anti-semitist?

[Kropotkin]

Or, a somewhat more realistic standpoint on nationalism:

"Nationalism is a century old illusion based on ancient lies"

[Ethelred]

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.

You can rephrase it all you want. Its still false. By your definition all Jews that don't think Israel should exist (there a quite a few outside Israel) are anti-semites.

Besides the Arabs are semites too.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by 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.

That was negotiated by the French and Hanoi. The religion was not directly involved.

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

The war never ended.

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?

What the heck does that have to do with Israel. Neither you, I nor the Israelis or the Arabs are French.

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.

Thats nice. I think that is silly at best. The only imperialism involved in this is Englands actions in thinking they had the right to create a Jewish state via the Balfour Declaration.

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.

Which at the moment applies to this mess the Brits started in the Middle East.

Woodrow Wilson was and is right!

Ned

Woodrow Wilson was a racist. And a mediocre President although I suppose some of that was his wifes doing.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Natan
Ethelred:
You know, Texans were also immigrants to Mexico.

Invited by the Mexicans. Then Mexico got nervous about all the rabble rousing rowdies that came from the US.

And many places in the Balkans and throughout eastern Europe have experienced population changes in the last fifty or a hundred years.

Show where I said anything different. I was talking about the founding of Israel.

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.

Not true. The fanatics had caused the problems in the 40's. Without the Brits interference since 1917 the problem would never have arisen. The solution was not partitioning or forming a Jewish state. A democratic state made up of Arabs and Jews would have been the just action AFTER the mess the Brits created had to be dealt with.

The question I have dealt with is ONLY dealing with the idea of a Jewish state in the first place.

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.

They were expelling Jews because the Jews wanted to create a Jewish state in a area the was even then still primarlily Arab.

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.

I suppose that make the Brits the bad guys in this instance. Rubbish. Menachim Begin was a terrorist not much different then the IRA or Hamas. He killed people to create a Jewish state that was unjustifiable. Heck he killed people that helped make Israel possible.

Do not pretend that a warning is justification for the deaths that followed the acts of terrorists.

I note than no one has given a justification for the British high handed efforts to create a state for Europeons on some one elses land.

[Ned]

Ethelred, Your sarcasim is refreshing.

BTW, I am unfamilar with Ethelred, who was he?

As to the Balfour delcaration, have you actual read it? Your characterization of it is contrary to what it says.

Why do you decry Wilson? True, he had a stroke and his wife virtually took over the presidency. However, his ideas on civil government, including the right of "self determination," have become the hope of the world. His is a great achievement!

France's leftist parties clearly still embrace the concept of self-determination. I was only asking where the rest of France stood, if you knew.

The Imperialism in Palestine is to deny either the Palestininians or the Israeli's self goverment. I, as do most Americans, hope and wish for self-government by both -- and peace between each. I find it Frankly (no pun intended) that the Franks er, French, oppose self determination for the Jews, which is the consequence of your position that Israel had no right to exist in 1948.

To say that we must accept Israel today but deny its right to exist then is to say that Israel has no right to exist today. The consequence of these thoughts and positions is that millions of Jews will be killed - for what? Think about it.

Ethelred, your position is without merit and substance as is the position of many of your European co-horts. I can best describe Europe as intellectually effete.

Read Mein Kampf. If you disagree with any of it, let me know.

Ned

[Ethelred]

BTW, I am unfamilar with Ethelred, who was he?

A character I created for an unusual play by mail Diplomacy variant called Slobovia. Ethelred ban Hangyvezenyl AKA Ethelred the Armourer. Not to be confused with Ethelred the Unready one of the last Saxon Kings of England.

As to the Balfour delcaration, have you actual read it? Your characterization of it is contrary to what it says.

I read it. Haven't you ever noticed that both sides in the conflict say it backs them? It was ambigous. Its only a couple of paragraphs. I read it again before I mentioned it. I have seen it many times.

Why do you decry Wilson? True, he had a stroke and his wife virtually took over the presidency. However, his ideas on civil government, including the right of "self determination," have become the hope of the world. His is a great achievement!

He was a racist. Ideas are fine but they aren't the same as being a good President. He didn't actualy achieve that you know. His efforts regarding the League of Nations fell on deaf ears.Self determination has been denied the Arabs in the Middle East including in Israel and Palestine.

France's leftist parties clearly still embrace the concept of self-determination. I was only asking where the rest of France stood, if you knew.

Haven't clue. Ask ZoboZeWarrior he is French. I am from the same place as your profile says you are in. Southern California.

The Imperialism in Palestine is to deny either the Palestininians or the Israeli's self goverment. I, as do most Americans, hope and wish for self-government by both -- and peace between each. I find it Frankly (no pun intended) that the Franks er, French, oppose self determination for the Jews, which is the consequence of your position that Israel had no right to exist in 1948.

Its a consequence of being Froggy. They can't help it. Its the snails and frogs. I am all for the Jews having self-determination. Last I saw they have the right to vote in this country as well as many others. Only some of the Arabs in Israel are allowed to vote. Any that left the area to get out of the way of the shooting have been disenfranchised since they returned to their own homes. Only those that stayed retained voting rights.

To say that we must accept Israel today but deny its right to exist then is to say that Israel has no right to exist today. The consequence of these thoughts and positions is that millions of Jews will be killed - for what? Think about it.

I don't have to think about it since it isn't true. It had no right to come into existance. You haven't come up with one and neither has anyone else that can stand up to reason. Take a look at Israeli sites. They claim a historic right which is no more valid for them then the Arabs. They even claim a that Jehovah gave them the land. Lets see them prove this.

Ethelred, your position is without merit and substance as is the position of many of your European co-horts. I can best describe Europe as intellectually effete.

You sure do make a lot false assumptions don't you? My European cohorts? Where are they? There is a severe shortage of Europeans in Orange County.

My position has merit. I showed it. The merit gives substance. Where is the merit for your position? Where is the justification for a bunch of Europeans and Brits coming into the Middle East and creating a state for Europeans.

Read Mein Kampf. If you disagree with any of it, let me know.

No thanks. How about you do that? You are about as reasonable as Adolf on this. Send the Jews away from Europe. Thats his kind of thinking only less bloody.

This sort of mindless attack shows that your position is short on rational. You are left with implying that I am a Nazi for not agreeing with you.

[Ned]

Ethelred, Thought you were a EU person. Sorry.

On Wilson being a racist, this is the first I have ever heard on that. Is this being taught in schools today?

Since you live in Orange county, you know first had about "immigration." What are your views.

On the Balfour Declaration, it reads as follows:

His Majesty's Government views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object. It being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

This seems to clearly call for Jewish immigration to Palestine. It does not call for a separate Jewish state.

The Arab reaction to Jewish immigration was violence. In counter-reaction, the Jews began to arm and defend themselves. When the Brits formed the intention to leave, the Jews, justifiably, reasoned that they would no longer have the ability to defend themselves as a minority in an Arab state. This is why Israel was carved out of Palestine.

Ned

Ned

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ned
Ethelred, Thought you were a EU person. Sorry.

One of many false assumptions you made.

You are forgiven. For that one. More coming I suspect.

On Wilson being a racist, this is the first I have ever heard on that. Is this being taught in schools today?

You learn slow about making assumptions. I haven't been in school since 1976.

http://tlc.discovery.com/tlcpages/pr...ts/wilson.html

Its not exactly a secret.

Since you live in Orange county, you know first had about "immigration." What are your views.

Decrease the rate. Thats all I care about. Well decreasing the rate of illegal imigration goes along with that. There are too bloody many people in California. It was crowded enough at 19 million. Tell the other states the Big One is right around the corner. Maybe we can at least cut down migration from other states.

The Big One for Southern California really should be right around the corner. Last one was Tehachpi.

Edit: It was Fort Tejon. I knew I should have checked on the name.

On the Balfour Declaration, it reads as follows:

His Majesty's Government views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object. It being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

This seems to clearly call for Jewish immigration to Palestine. It does not call for a separate Jewish state.

It says a national home. A nation is not the same as a nationality. A nation usually entails a state. This is sited by Israelis as one of the legal excuses for the existance Israel. However the Declaration itself has no legal basis so it can't justify any action.

Kind of like the Monroe Doctrine. The only justification is force.

The Arab reaction to Jewish immigration was violence. In counter-reaction, the Jews began to arm and defend themselves.

Actually the Jews bought a lot of land from Arabs. The Arab reaction was to the intent to form a Jewish state.

When the Brits formed the intention to leave, the Jews, justifiably, reasoned that they would no longer have the ability to defend themselves as a minority in an Arab state. This is why Israel was carved out of Palestine.

False. Radical Zionists had intended to form the state of Israel for a long time before that. Israel was carved out of Palestine because some Jews thought they had a birthright from Jehovah to the land even after nearly 1800 years of seperation.

Emma Lazarus who wrote the poem on the Statue of Liberty appears to have been one those that created the idea in the mid 1880's.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by Eli

Quote:

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.

I think that Gypsies came from a region of India. In this case actual people of this region have they world to say too.

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.

We talk about ethny of cultural group. Hardly nation in this case.
We have a lot of nation of this kind in France.

They are french. You're right : the fact that they are jew is their own liberty and concern only other jews but they have to keep it in them as must do catholics or muslims. And you are wrong. : a french citizen is not the only one who decide if he is french or not, but all other french citizen are concerned. France is a republic.

And I think that all people claiming to be french citizen, whatever their culture, must be french before all.

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

You quoted Gypsies, haven't you ?

[Az]

If Gypsies would unite and try to build a homeland somewhere , ( It could be India for example ) , I will be simpathetic.

just know that the jews aren't the only nation depraved of a homeland that tried to build a new homeland to the end of the 19th century. The welsh tried it , as well , in southern Argentina.

They failed , because the land hand no links to them , historically, and that they recieved a personal treatment that was better than the jews, despite the fact, or maybe also because, their culture was more repressed.

I am afraid to think of what would happen if we settled in Uganda.

[Az]

carved out of Palestine

"Palestine" was a poor fringe province in the ailing Othoman Empire. It's population was loosely boud with family ties, certainly no distinct national heritage , or culture to speak of. ( that remains the same today ).

so there was nothing to carve out from.

[Kropotkin]

That's quite a imperalistic and etnocentric retoric you've got the Dal...

[Dry]

Originally posted by Eli
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.

On principle I agree with you, but...
Would you support an American Natives independent state on Manhattan island? Imagine a sharing of the island a la Isr/Pal 1948
Looks a little bit silly to me, but ethically, there is no reason to refuse it.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Give Europa to Italian !

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by ZoboZeWarrior
Give Europa to Italian !

You might even like being under the bootheel of Rome again.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

[Dry]

Originally posted by ZoboZeWarrior
Give Europa to Italian !

errr, can we wait until they get another government... please?

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Ave Berlusconi, Mortiti te salutam !

[Dry]

Panem et circenses.

[Eli]

Originally posted by Dry
Looks a little bit silly to me, but ethically, there is no reason to refuse it.

Exactly.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Haven't clue. Ask ZoboZeWarrior he is French. I am from the same place as your profile says you are in. Southern California.

What the problem ?

France acknoweldge Israel. We acknoweldge the fact that jews have the right to have their own country.

We acknoweldge too that palestinian have the right to have a country too.

Its a consequence of being Froggy. They can't help it. Its the snails and frogs.

Froggy Good argument
Being Froggy is cool... What about being jerk ?

Personnaly I don't see the relation between french cook and Israel.

[Chris 62]

I have been watching the ebb and flow of this, and find some things unusaul, to say the least.
Friend Ethelred is an example of this, he continues on about how Israel has no right to exsist, but if we accept his logic, neither does Palestine.
Talk about a rub!

Originally posted by Ethelred
It says a national home. A nation is not the same as a nationality. A nation usually entails a state.

Nation: A people connected by blood ties, generaly manifested by community of language, religion, customs, ect...From Webster's English dictionary.

This is sited by Israelis as one of the legal excuses for the existance Israel. However the Declaration itself has no legal basis so it can't justify any action.

As Britain was in the process of taking the area from the Ottomans, their rightful and leagal owner, it certainly does have leagality.
Just because YOU don't accept it changes nothing.
It's also interesting to note that the Ottomans, a Muslim state, allowed Jewish immigration, whereas the British often blocked it.

Kind of like the Monroe Doctrine. The only justification is force.

Force is the bases of ALL agreements, it's the basis of real politik, otherwise things like the Kellog Briand pact would actually mean something.
If you don't understand this, you shouldn't discuss politics.

Actually the Jews bought a lot of land from Arabs. The Arab reaction was to the intent to form a Jewish state.

Your statement supports Isrel here.

False. Radical Zionists had intended to form the state of Israel for a long time before that. Israel was carved out of Palestine because some Jews thought they had a birthright from Jehovah to the land even after nearly 1800 years of seperation.

It might be interesting to look at why they wanted such a homeland.
Could thousands of years of opression almost everywhere in the world have played a part?

Emma Lazarus who wrote the poem on the Statue of Liberty appears to have been one those that created the idea in the mid 1880's.

The Zionist movement was given life through the rampent anti-semitism seen in Europe and the USA.

Like many anti-Israelis, you go on about how they have no leagal rights to the land, where is the leagal right that says they don't?
Who does?
It certainly isn't the Palestinians, they wern't even called that untill the 20th century.

The last legal rulers were, let's see....
That would be Israel, in the days before Rome took the place, so spare me the nonsense that they have no right to be there.

By your own logic, every arab there is an invader with no leagal rights.

That's why your argument doesn't hold water, and never will.

[Saint Marcus]

Actually I think it is because Israel reminds them of a colonizer. If there is one thing Commies hate more than globalization it is colonialism

funny that you say that, you're on of the few. And you're right.

[Ned]

Ethelred, just so we are all on the same page, below is a link to a US Army manual on the history of Palestine.

According to the Army manual, the Arabs rioted in Jerusalem in 1920, killing numbers of Jews. The riots were responsive to the election of Faysal as king of Syria which included the British mandate of Palestine. The rioters believed that the election of Faysal as king would end the Belfour declaration.

One Vladimir.Jabotinsky apparently was a Jewish hero in the defense against the rioters. He began to call for the formation of a Jewish state. However, the majority of the Jews of Palestine did not at that time agree. Later, after the Arab revolt of 1936, even they changed their views.

This is Army manual incorrect?

Ned
http://hem.passagen.se/gs/Palestine.htm#_Toc346295317[/url]]link

[Imran Siddiqui]

On Wilson being a racist, this is the first I have ever heard on that.

You are kidding?! The whitewashing of our Presidents' flaws are shocking. He was even more racist that TR, and that is saying something .

Wilson would have been at home in the ole' CSA.

[Boris Godunov]

Woodrow Wilson was an unbelievable bigot. He set back race relations in the USA 30 years, and to this day his effect is felt. Prior to his administration, blacks had been integrated into the federal government. He kicked them all out. He was a Virginian Democrat, which at the time was the legacy of Southern racism left over from the Civil War.

Wilson also, to this day, holds the record for a US president sending military expeditions abroad. He was constantly invading places (sent troops to eastern USSR to fight the Reds on behalf of the Whites). Congress finally, in a bipartisan manner, smacked him down and told him he had to stop.

[Natan]

Invited by the Mexicans. Then Mexico got nervous about all the rabble rousing rowdies that came from the US.

Invited by Mexico's military dictator, to be specific.

Not true. The fanatics had caused the problems in the 40's. Without the Brits interference since 1917 the problem would never have arisen.

"The problem" would never have arisen because the Jews would have stayed in Europe and been exterminated by the Nazis. With hindsight, we see that the Balfour declaration saved hundreds of thousands of people from being murdered.

The solution was not partitioning or forming a Jewish state. A democratic state made up of Arabs and Jews would have been the just action AFTER the mess the Brits created had to be dealt with.

I disagree. Firstly, both parties opposed the idea thoroughly. Secondly, the history of multi-ethnic states forged out of warring parties is not a happy one. If Czechs and Slovaks couldn't stick together except under the Soviet jackboot, I doubt Israelis and Palestinians could set aside twenty years of low-level warfare and fifty years of nationalism to create a democratic state.

They were expelling Jews because the Jews wanted to create a Jewish state in a area the was even then still primarlily Arab.

And the Jews were expelling Arabs because the Arabs wanted to create an Arab state even in areas primarily Jewish.

I suppose that make the Brits the bad guys in this instance. Rubbish. Menachim Begin was a terrorist not much different then the IRA or Hamas. He killed people to create a Jewish state that was unjustifiable. Heck he killed people that helped make Israel possible.

Do not pretend that a warning is justification for the deaths that followed the acts of terrorists.

You are defining them as terrorists because you disagree with their goals, even though the attack was on a military target and a warning was given beforehand to prevent both civillian and military casualties. In short, people who disagree with you are terrorists. That definition someone detracts from the meaning of the term.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

On Wilson being a racist, this is the first I have ever heard on that.

You are kidding?! The whitewashing of our Presidents' flaws are shocking. He was even more racist that TR, and that is saying something .

Wilson would have been at home in the ole' CSA.

I guess I never heard of it because I went to Catholic schools, and as you may guess, they have (had?) a very pro-Democrat view of the world.

Obviously, any modern Democrat would be ashamed of that Wilson was a Democratic president.

Ned

[Imran Siddiqui]

Obviously, any modern Democrat would be ashamed of that Wilson was a Democratic president.

Not really. They should be, but some really aren't.

Hell, I think any modern American should be ashamed that Wilson was our President.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ZoboZeWarrior
France acknoweldge Israel. We acknoweldge the fact that jews have the right to have their own country.

We acknoweldge too that palestinian have the right to have a country too.

Well actualy both of those are opinions not facts.

Froggy Good argument
Being Froggy is cool... What about being jerk ?

I wouldn't know. I leave that to others. However sometimes a joke is misinterpreted as being a jerk. Sometimes jerks hide by pretending to make jokes.

Personnaly I don't see the relation between french cook and Israel.

It wasn't intended to show a relation. Perhaps french cooking has effected Jewish cuisine in some way.