Apartheid in Israel

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
I don't equate 'civilian' with 'innocent'. (Ironically, if this was true, the ones you label 'terrorists' are also 'innocent').

Nonsense!

Terrorists are not civilians but combatants, since they participate in combat action.

If a civilian decides to go live on stolen land, he has only himself to blame if he is hurt when the rightful owner tries to take the property back.

So you re-affirm that if you steal my purse, I'm justified in killing your wife and children while trying to get it back?

Furthermore, if said civilian decides to take his children with him, said civilian is solely responsible for any harm that comes to them.

So if you cheat me out of my house, and then move in with your family there, then I have a moral right to murder them all?

The majority of your post is basically a bold faced lie.
First off, immigration of an ethinc group does not warrant special treatment of that ehtnic group. Swedes might be the biggest ethnic group of Nebraska, that still doesn't give the swedish decesendants of Nebraska right to ceceede out of the union.

This is nonsense.

Ethnic national states give special treatment to it's ethnic groups.

Germany does to Germans. Russia does to Russians. Poland does to Poles. And Israel does to Jews. And so will Palestine to Palestinians.

Second, only a small portion of Israel was owned by jews in 1948, way less than even the 25% that constituted the population.

But if they lived there, they owned it.

That's the basis of your own claims about the Palestinians owning the rest.

If you say that simply occupying terrain does not constitute owning it, then most of the land Palestinians claim to own, is not at all owned by them.

But since you think that land in which Palestinians lived, naturally belongs to them, then I assume the same for Jewish immigrants who settled in Mandatorial Palestine.

Third, the declaration of Israel was never legal. The arabs who owned the land never agreed to it, and using their opposition to an illegal declaration as a justification as to why it should be legal is a logical leap that can convince only someone dumber than an american politician.

This is again nonsense.

The declaration of Israel was very much legal. It was declared without borders, but only in principle therefore your claim is moot.

Since war was declared immediatelly, Israel had to define it's borders through armed struggle.

Furthermore, if Palestinians owned land in which they settled, so did jews. And if the jews decided to unite their lands and give them to the Israeli state - it's their right.

I enjoyed your 'blatant theft is a murky business, since it was the goveremnt that stole it, not individual people'.

Not sure what it was supposed to prove, though.

Never have I reffered to it as blatant theft.

This 'blatant theft' was perfectly legal under the Brittish laws on which the Israeli law is based.

Tell me, do you also consider tax money which the government legally collects from you as "blatant theft"?

If so, you would prove consistent - for the first time.

[Caligastia]

Moby-


So MLK must have been "misinformed" regarding the israelis underdog status?

Now youre just being foolish.

[Panag]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


I expect he was misinformed at the time, there wasn't Internet at the time for example... I expect he was appealed by the Israeli struggle against 'seemingly insurmountable odds'...

I remember I was when I was young - the underdog had triumphed against all adversity!

Then it all went horribly wrong for me around about the time of Lebanon '82, because it was about that time I started finding out about the fact that Israel wasn't such an underdog after all... I still remember the seemingly indiscriminate sheeling of Beirut and the massacres of Sabra and Chatilla as if it happened yesterday - that and the whole Falklands Campaign happened about the time I started really getting interested in World Affairs, and not just John Craven's 'Newsround...

I can see how if MLK didn't know the whole facts it might have clouded his judgement...

But this is of course hearsay - I will not be judged on the words of one man, when the UN passed a resolution that 'Zionism = Racism"...

So, what about those Canaanites?

hi ,

ahem , intetresting , some 4 veterans from "grapes of wrath" are now siting behind there screen's , ........

as for sabra and shattila , ahem , they was all 4 there , ....

as for the rest , ones again talk from people who where not there

have a nice day

[Panag]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Moby-


So MLK must have been "misinformed" regarding the israelis underdog status?

Now youre just being foolish.

hi ,

"underdogs" , never again , EVER !

if it was up to most people here , we would take all the criminals and put them behind bars , and the pal family's want justice , because a small froup kill's them , mostly people from other countries , without a courtcase or evindence , they just take this or that woman or man , you , you are against yasser , BANG you are death , ...

have a nice day

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by panag


hi ,

"underdogs" , never again , EVER !

if it was up to most people here , we would take all the criminals and put them behind bars , and the pal family's want justice , because a small froup kill's them , mostly people from othe countries , without a courtcase or evindence , they just take this or that woman or man , you , you are against yasser , BANG you are death , ...

have a nice day

hi,

,....i agree ,....

have a nice day

[Panag]

Originally posted by Caligastia


hi,

,....i agree ,....

have a nice day

hi ,

HEY , wait a minute , ....you are not a Jew , or an Israeli , (are you , maybe you are and dont know it )

allas , anyone holding a gun to your head , (?) ......some people start to think that you are going nuts , agreeing with the evil Israeli's , .......

no-one should agree just like that , but at least someone who see's our side , .......at least someone (!)
thank you

or are you afraid that we shall kill you , ....

NO , oh sjee , watch out man , we kill all the people who dont agree

of course we dont , .....

have a nice day

[BeBro]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
I will not be judged on the words of one man, when the UN passed a resolution that 'Zionism = Racism"...

Nice thread. My simple question is: How exactly does is help to solve the entire middle east conflict when we all start shouting "Racists!" towards Israel?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by panag


hi ,

HEY , wait a minute , ....you are not a Jew , or an Israeli , (are you , maybe you are and dont know it )

allas , anyone holding a gun to your head , (?) ......some people start to think that you are going nuts , agreeing with the evil Israeli's , .......

no-one should agree just like that , but at least someone who see's our side , .......at least someone (!)
thank you

or are you afraid that we shall kill you , ....

NO , oh sjee , watch out man , we kill all the people who dont agree

of course we dont , .....

have a nice day

hi,

I am a New Zealander,..... and nobody is holding a gun to my head ,....

I just get sick of the anti-jew posts ,....

have a nice day

[Panag]

Originally posted by BeBro


Nice thread. My simple question is: How exactly does is help to solve the entire middle east conflict when we all start shouting "Racists!" towards Israel?

hi ,

true , but how is it our fault that the entire middle east is a place full of problems , we dont invade countries , we dont blow ourselves up , we dont start with fundamentalism , we dont start with shelling other countries , ...

oh yes we do invade , and we do bomb other places , but only and only as a act of self-defense , and only if aproved by all the members in the Knesset , our government , including the palestinian members (!)

have a nice day

[Az]

This is weird. I think someone has hacked panag's account. I can see an actual structure in his posts. Eli, stop, please.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
This is weird. I think someone has hacked panag's account. I can see an actual structure in his posts. Eli, stop, please.

hi ,

, so you see a "structure" in the post's , .....what are people smoking nowadays ( ) , man , ya went to the bekaa again or so , .....

so , care to add your say , .....

have a nice day

[Az]

you're back! Watch out for Eli. He's an evil hacker.

oh and :

[Panag]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
you're back! Watch out for Eli. He's an evil hacker.

oh and :

hi ,

never left , .....

allas , only two days , .....then back to a very cold place , ....

allas , Dal , stay on topic , please

have a nice day / night

[Az]

hi,

that post of yours was really tidy and orderly ,...

unlike others that you make,,..... .

It looks really silly. could you stop ?

please?

have a nice joint.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
hi,

that post of yours was really tidy and orderly ,...

unlike others that you make,,..... .

It looks really silly. could you stop ?

please?

have a nice joint.

hi ,

Dal , you start to see things that are not there , watching al-jazeera again , ......

so what , let stay on topic (!)

have a nice day

[Az]

hi

stay on topic?

what?

have a nice joint.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
have a nice joint.

[CyberGnu]

Well, Ned, I must admit that it is relieving to see that there is at least one pro-Israeli with a sane mindset towards the peace process.

Just keep in mind that the one person most vehemently opposed to the peace process is Sharon (well, I guess Bibi and some others might be worse, but there are not currently in power). To get anywhere the US MUST pressure Sharon... There is no way around that. Looking at todays NYT, however, this seems increasingly unlikely...


The one thing we seem to differ in though is the role of Arafat. Two points:

From a practical standpoint, there is no alternative. There just isn't.

Secondly, do you actually believe that Arafat 'unleashes' the terror attacks? I could buy him being indirectly responsible, since he could have cracked down much harder (and most likely lost control of palestine, but hey, who needs a leader in a nice peaceful place like the ME), but directly responsible? Come on, you know as well as Sharon does that this is nonsense. Most of the terrorist acts are carried out by Arafats political rivals!

[S. Kroeze]

Here is some more about the Histadrut:

"Of the various organizations formed to generate self-sufficiency within the Yishuv (the name of the Jewish community in Palestine before 1948), the most important was Histadrut, the Federation of Jewish Labor. Founded in 1920 to promote Jewish trade unionism, Histadrut gradually expanded its role during the interwar years and came to engage in an extensive range of entrepreneurial activities and to exercise a decisive influence on the ideology and politics of both the Yishuv and the futere state of Israel. In order to provide employment for its members, Histadrut created public work projects and founded companies that by the 1930s included such enterprises as shipping, agricultural marketing, road and housing construction, banking, and insurance. Since one of its objectives was to ensure the self-sufficiency of Jewish labor and produce, Histadrut instituted a boycott of Arab workers and Arab products.

In addition to its control over traditional union activities, Histadrut also had interlocking ties with the kibbutz workers in the agricultural sector. The kibbutzim were collective agricultural settlements in which all property belonged to the community and all responsibilities were shared equally by the members. They became a symbol of the cooperative communal order that many of the early Zionists hoped to build in Palestine. Together, Histadrut and the kibbutz movement also represented the ideal of Jewish rejuvenation through the dignity of labor and working the land. This was a significant impulse within the Yishuv and imparted to the community a socialist economic orientation and a glorification of the new Jewish self-image in which the passive and oppressed ghetto dwellers of Europe gave way to the self-confident, physically active workers, farmers, and soldiers of Palestine capable of determining their own destinies."
(source: W.L.Cleveland: 'A History of the Modern Middle East',1994)

"The immigrants of the Second Aliyah(1904-1914) immediately launched a struggle against the comfortably settled people of the first for the replacement of Arab by Jewish labor on their farms. The struggle was long and bitter because Arab labor was cheaper and better than the inexperienced newly arrived youth, and because the latter considered that on its issue hinged not only their immediate livelihood but the future of their dreams of turning the country into a self-supporting Jewish homeland resting on a Jewish society built from the bottom up. Their eventual victory was crucial for the entire Jewish endeavor in Palestine."

"Today the distribution of income in Israel shows a very considerable measure of inequality. A recent study indicates that the lowest tenth of the urban Jewish families received only 2.2 percent of the total income, while the highest tenth received as much as 27.5 percent. Between these two extremes, income rises or falls gradually. Reliable comparable figures for the period around 1948 are not available, but all existing indications point to a very substantial increase in inequality. A remarkable thing is that this spreading of the income structure took place even though the natural resources of the country, including most of the land, are publicly owned and despite the fact that the government and the Histadrut own and operate almost half the country's industry and control very large portions of every other aspect of its economy."

"Occupationally nearly 7.5 percent of Israel's working population is engaged in agriculture, 34 percent in industry and construction, 25 percent in public services, 7 percent in transportation and communications, and 26 percent in commerce, banking, and personal services. This structure is still heavily weighted on the side of traditional Jewish occupations, but there can be no doubt that the founders of the Yishuv and the leaders of Israel have accomplished the Zionist dream of creating a "normal" structure for Jewish society in its homeland resting on a broad new base of farmers and workers. That this real revolution has been achieved without compulsion or violence and largely through self-sacrifice makes the accomplishment all the more impressive."

"Two decades later, in 1973, only the wildest of wishful thinking could possibly expect Israel to break down under economic strain. Going about the country, one was struck by signs of vitality and affluence everywhere. Hundreds of new villages and factories dotted the countryside; new towns had grown like a mirage in desert landscapes; scores of thousands of buildings rising at any one time made the entire country look like one single construction site. No trace remained of the depressing immigrant camps, and the tens of thousands of new arrivals in each of the previous few years from the Soviet Union and the West were almost immediately housed in comfortable, fresh, monotonous developments of a quality and size that many veterans deemed luxurious. Despite the addition of some 370,000 people to the labor force in the previous five years -an increase of more than 20 percent- and the employment of some 70,000 Arabs from the occupied areas, there were more jobs available than people to fill them."

"Of the 43 percent of the working population engaged in the goods-producing sector, one-fifth more or less is engaged at any time in construction. This, again, is an exceptionally high rate, but it is understandable in view of the pressing need for housing to meet the large immigration and rising standards of living, and for plants and roads to meet the demands of an expanding economy. As a matter of fact, construction is one of the fields that has suffered recurrent shortages of workers, particularly skilled ones, and this has sometimes led to the suspension of licenses for building projects deemed "unessential". One consequence of the manpower pressure has been that construction made considerable improvements in technique and productivity at least in the years before 1967, and that it has since drawn upon Arab workers from the occupied territories in very large numbers. These two reasons account for the fact that in 1973, for example, construction contributed 12.9 percent of GNP while employing only 8.8 percent of Israel's labor force."
(source: N.Safran: 'Israel, the Embattled Ally',1978)

"The loss of agricultural land radically altered the social and economic structure of the Israeli Arab community through changes in occupational distribution and landholding patterns. During the mandate, 76 to 80 percent of Palestine's Arab community had made their living from agriculture, but after the founding of Israel the proportion declined to 40 percent. As a result of diminishing agricultural employment, large numbers of former villagers worked in Jewish urban sectors of the economy. The shift from agricultural to urban pursuits changed consumption patterns and lifestyles."

"Ethnic distinctions between Arabs and Jews are still reinforced in Israel through economic and social differences that place Arabs in a lower social stratum. In 1994 the net income of a wage-earning Arab family was about half that of a Jewish family; eight years earlier the figure was 53 percent.(34) Thus, whereas the Sephardi Jews were closing the economic gap with the Ashkenazim, the relative Arab position worsened. Part of the reason for this inability of Arabs to close the gap was the Arab disadvantage in the labor market relative to new Jewish immigrants who came in the early 1990s. For example, in 1991 the percentage of unemployed Arab males was 10.4 percent; in 1992 it was 12.4 percent. Only 8.6 percent of Jewish males were considered unemployed in 1992.(35) As a group, the Arabs were less educated than Jews; most tended to complete their formal education after ten years, and only about 9 percent continued to study in higher institutions, compared to one-third of the Jews. This educational disparity has affected occupational opportunities. Over 80 percent of Arabs were employees, of which almost half worked in low-paying construction, agriculture, and industry jobs. Less than 4 percent held scientific and academic positions. Less that 3 percent were recorded among Israeli university graduates in 1990.(36) One major disincentive that could account for Arabs' failure to pursue advanced higher education has been the lack of available work once they graduate. There are under a score of Arab professors among the several hundred faculty members of Israeli universities, for example."

"The Histadrut is important not only as a labor federation; it is also Israel's largest social organization, its largest single economic entrepreneur and employer, and a major influence on cultural and educational life. In 1977 more than half of all Israeli workers were members of Histadrut or one of its affiliates. Ninety percent of the country's organized workers belonged to one of the Histadrut trade unions. More than two-thirds of the population was insured by the federation's health fund (Kupat Holim). Nearly a quarter of the total labor force was employed by one of the Histadrut enterprises.

By 1992 over 1.5 million people were affiliated with the Histadrut. This number combined with the vast range of its activities made the Histadrut Israel's most influential organization, more important than any single political party. Histadrut affiliates include professional unions, workers' councils, a social insurance program, consumer groups, and Na'amat -a semi-independent women's organization. Various departments deal with labor legislation, working women, professional training, Israeli Arabs and Druze, neighborhood and community activities, regional integration, social welfare, and international relations. Four agricultural movements -the Moshavim (agricultural cooperations), the Alliance of the Kibbutz Movement, the United Kibbutz Movement, and the Kibbutz Ha-artzi- are Histadrut affiliates."

(source: D.Peretz and G.Doron: 'The Government and Politics of Israel',1997)

(34) Statistical Abstract of Israel (Jerusalem: Government of Israel, Central Bureau of Statistics, 1994) pp. 328-329.
(35) Statistical Abstract, 1993, p. 361.
(36) Ibid., p. 360.

Dalgetti:

and that, of course , has nothing to do with the fact that arab-Israelis never were much of Industry workers , i.e. never worked in big Industries, that have trade unions , before and after the creation of the "evil apartheid " state.

Before the creation of Israel the Histadrut had organised a boycott of Arab labour:
"Since one of its objectives was to ensure the self-sufficiency of Jewish labor and produce, Histadrut instituted a boycott of Arab workers and Arab products."(Cleveland)
The studies of Safran and Peretz, based on data from the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, suggest that -contrary to your impression of things- Arab Israelis did work on a large scale in construction and industry, while Jews had the luxury to make a choice for other professions:
"Over 80 percent of Arabs were employees, of which almost half worked in low-paying construction, agriculture, and industry jobs."(Peretz)
"Occupationally nearly 7.5 percent of Israel's working population is engaged in agriculture, 34 percent in industry and construction, 25 percent in public services,..."(Safran)

Sirotnikov:

I have no idea what is your problem with the Histadrut.
It's a simple worker's union. It is not under government control. Infact, it causes the government many troubles when it goes on strike.
I fail to see how the Histadrut has discriminated against Israeli Arabs in the 50s, when they were under Martial Law until 1966.
Ever since, they are slowly integrating into the Histadrut.

I am curious to know when the boycott of Arab workers and Arab products was ended.
"Not until 1959 did it fully open its doors to Arab-Israelis labor."(Thomas)

As far as Luski's comment about Histadrut firms and factories, has he looked at those arab villages? Has he checked what would be the profitability of such factories and firms? Has he checked how receptive are the arab citizens to the idea of working for the Histadrut?

I have not (yet) read Ian Lustick's study. Yet the information I collected suggests that many Arabs were eager to work in low-paying industrial jobs, perhaps even for lower wages. Why institute a labour boycott when no one is willing to work anyway?
And for assembly line production, one doesn't need a Master's degree for it.
"The struggle was long and bitter because Arab labor was cheaper and better than the inexperienced newly arrived youth...."(Safran)
"Despite the addition of some 370,000 people to the labor force in the previous five years -an increase of more than 20 percent- and the employment of some 70,000 Arabs from the occupied areas, there were more jobs available than people to fill them."(Peretz)

Is he aware that until the late 70s the traditional arab profession was agriculture? Is he aware that only during the 80s Arabs began slowly changing and moving towards free professions? There were no conditions to set up such factories.

Again my sources tell a different story: actually the Arabs -having lost most of their land, I hope you remember- were forced into other sectors of the economy. And Lustick speaks about industry, not about 'free professions'!
"The loss of agricultural land radically altered the social and economic structure of the Israeli Arab community through changes in occupational distribution and landholding patterns. During the mandate, 76 to 80 percent of Palestine's Arab community had made their living from agriculture, but after the founding of Israel the proportion declined to 40 percent."(Peretz)

Why haven't the Arabs set up an "Arab Agency"?

Because the Muslim/Arab world was weak, divided and colonized. Most Arabs were indeed living in mediaeval conditions. They had hardly any influence in Washington, London, Paris or Berlin, where decisions were taken. On the other hand the Zionist leadership was of one purpose, well-educated and with considerable financial support.
Answering this question also makes it clear why the Zionists conquered Palestine, while the Arabs were expelled and their land was expropriated.
It truly surprises me you ask this question. It suggests lack of imagination on your side.

Arabs are not represented in the Histadrut since they hardly participate in the parts of the industry controlled by the Histadrut.
Arabs were traditionally farmers, and later became workers in "black works", and now have moved on to either indepenent bussinesses or academic proffessions.

What are "black works"?
So you are suggesting that though Arab Israels were for about 40% employed in industry and construction, none of them worked for Histadrut, which employed a quarter of the labout force?
"Over 80 percent of Arabs were employees, of which almost half worked in low-paying construction, agriculture, and industry jobs."(Peretz)
I do not believe you, but when it would be true this suggests the labour boycott is/was still active!
And how many Arab Israelis are directors of Histadrut-controlled agriculture?
Probably a lot....

A factory has to earn money to exist. It has to have workers. To build a factory in a small village, of several hundred people, none of whom are industry workers, seems absurd to me.

Basically you are saying that while ALL Arab villages were small, ALL Jewish villages had many inhabitants. Extremely unlikely! We seemed to agree that Arabs generally preferred not to live in the cities. So there are relatively more Arab villages.
The availability of cheap labour would have made these industries highly profitable. They should at least have tried! Have you any source that suggests the Histadrut (or some other organisation) did try ever?

[CyberGnu]

Siro,

Terrorists are not civilians but combatants, since they participate in combat action

And civilians who decide to go live on occupied land aren't combatants? BTW, the settlers are more heavily armed than even the most advanced palestinian terrorist... I think by your own definition you have eliminated all civilians from the occupied territories, not to mention the vast majority of israelis inside the green line as well.

So you re-affirm that if you steal my purse, I'm justified in killing your wife and children while trying to get it back?

Actually, not only do I think so, the US legal system agrees with me. If I steal my purse, and wile try to get it back my wife and kids are killed, I am guilty of not only theft but also of murder.

Of course, you can't hold my wife hostage and threaten to kill her unless I hand the purse back. The ME equivalent would be to, say, fly a jetliner into a tall building or two. This is not justified, and would be terrorism.

BTW, what are you doing with a purse, anyway?

So if you cheat me out of my house, and then move in with your family there, then I have a moral right to murder them all?

If a court has ruled that I didn't indeed cheat you out of it,and that you should turn it over, yes. (well, the police can use any amount of force to dislodge me from the house, and if my wife is killed I am again guilty of murder. Since there is no police system around, we have to assume that you have the moral right to do the same).

You really have a hard time understanding the concept of human shields, don't you? It is not the fault of the person FACING the human shiled if innocents are killed. It is the fault of the person who PLACED them there.

And I must say, I don't think there is any group on earth that disgusts me as much as the settlers, who bring their kids to be killed so global opinion will stay on Israels side... These are the people you should be assassinating for the good of mankind...

[S. Kroeze]

Ned:

"The English, IMHO, are even today a highly bigoted and racist country, as withness by our good friend Morbius who calls the Jews who settled in Palestine prior to '48 "theives" when in fact they were refugees fleeing oppression and death."

Here is proof of the 'boundless love' of Americans and Zionists for Jewish refugees; even the survivors of Auschwitz were not allowed to live in a peaceful environment:

"The Anglo-American Committee issued its report on 1 May 1946. With regard to the future government of Palestine, the report was vague, but it urged that 100,000 Jewish immigrants be immediately allowed into the country. It is ironic that the United States government strongly urged the British to allow large-scale immigration into Palestine, but only 4,767 Jewish refugees were permitted to enter the United States in the first eight months of 1946. There were many reasons why the United States permitted so few DPs into the country, not least of which was the apathetic attitue of the American Jewish community leadership to a liberalization of US immigration law.

By 1946 most American Jewish organizations had been converted to Zionism. As such they viewed the immigration of the Jewish DPs to the United States or anywhere else besides Palestine as a diversion from their goal to establish a Jewish state in the Holy Land. The Jewish DPs in their detention camps in Europe were subjected to intense propoganda by Zionist agents. But according to General Frederick Morgan who ran the camps for the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Agency (UNRRA), if the Jewish displaced persons had been allowed to make their own decision, few 'would have gone elsewhere that to the USA.'(51) But the Zionists used the Jewish refugees as propaganda for their cause and as cannonfodder in the struggle to create a Zionist state in Palestine. After the horrors of the Holocaust, these unfortunate survivors deserved a better fate.

During this period, Palestine was suffering as a result of Jewish terrorism perpetrated by the Irgun and Stern Gang, which directed their attacks against British installations. The terrorists hoped to persuade the British, who had 100,000 troops in Palestine, that continued occupation would be too costly. Both the Irgun and the Stern Gang came out of the right wing of the Zionist movement.

The Stern Gang had originally been formed early in the Second World War by Abraham stern, who like Jabotinsky, greatly admired Mussolini. Stern had studied classics at the University of Florence and had been influenced by the extreme Anglophobia of Italian Fascism. Stern believed that no effort should be spared to drive the British out of Palestine. Indeed in 1941, the Stern Gang even contacted Otto von Hentig, the German emiisary in Syria, in the hope of making a Nazi-Zionist alliance against the British. In their proposal the Stern Gang (which included as one of its leaders the current Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir) offered to co-operate with the Nazis on the formation of a Jewish state, 'on a national and totalitarian basis which will establish relations with the German Reich'(51) and protect Nazi interests in the Middle East. The Jewish terrorists also proposed to recognize the Nazi 'New Order in Europe' which was then planning the murder of millions of Jews. These overtures were ignored by the Nazis but do no credit to the Stern Gang."

(source: M.Palumbo: 'The Palestinian catastrophe',1987)

(51) Frederick Morgan, Peace and War, p. 245.
(52) Lenni Brenner, Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, p. 267.

Sirotnikov:

I study history and politics and israeli history and law in school.

No offence meant, but since your are studying History -I suppose at some university- it surprises me highly you cannot mention the books you studied and read about Palestine/Israeli history. I suppose and hope they are not all in Hebrew.
When I was studying myself, it was most common to read for just one examination -mediaeval history for example- a list of eight or more prescribed books and several articles besides.

Ned:

They state they are against terrorism while in the same breath they justify it.

I might be too modest, but I do not harbour illusions about my influence on the use of terrorism by Arabs or Zionists.
To me it seems you approve of terrorism practised by the Irgun, the Stern Gang and the Israeli state.

[CyberGnu]

Gnu:
The majority of your post is basically a bold faced lie.
First off, immigration of an ethinc group does not warrant special treatment of that ehtnic group. Swedes might be the biggest ethnic group of Nebraska, that still doesn't give the swedish decesendants of Nebraska right to ceceede out of the union.


Siro:
This is nonsense.

Ethnic national states give special treatment to it's ethnic groups.

Germany does to Germans. Russia does to Russians. Poland does to Poles. And Israel does to Jews. And so will Palestine to Palestinians.

I'm assuming that 'this is nonsense' referred to your following sentences? They certainly don't seem to have anything to do with my post...

This is again nonsense.

The declaration of Israel was very much legal. It was declared without borders, but only in principle therefore your claim is moot.

Since war was declared immediatelly, Israel had to define it's borders through armed struggle.

Furthermore, if Palestinians owned land in which they settled, so did jews. And if the jews decided to unite their lands and give them to the Israeli state - it's their right.

No siro, declaring a nation without borders is not legal either...

If you want to legally declare a nation on land belonging to someone else, you nede their permission to make it legal. The arabs most vehemently did NOT give their permission. Israel is not legal. Learn to live with it.


And what does british law have to do with it?

[Ned]

CyberGnu, One thing that is obvious by even a casual inspection of the posts here, is that neither side trusts the other. If the pro Israeli side is forced to deal with Arafat then similarly the pro Palestinian side should be forced to deal with Sharon, Bibi and the others.

As I said, I believe there is a deal between Bush and Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia that will lead to a peace agreement. In order that this work, the US will pressure Israel to make concessions. The Saudi's will pressure Arafat. But Sadaam and the Iranians remain wildcards. They can still interfere in a large way by financing independent terrorists groups both inside and outside Palestine. Thus the need for a ongoing international security force. The PA's may or may not be good guys, but certainly some of the opposition parties are clearly more interested in continuing the violence and destroying Israel than seeing peace for their Palestinian brothers.

The Saudi's may even be trying to pursuade Sadaam to become a good guy, by calling off his support of terror in Israel and by accepting WoMD inspectors. If they are successful in both these efforts, I am sure that the US would not invade Iraq - at least until Sadaam again starts acting up.

The momentum towards peace in the ME is today large, IMHO. I am more hopeful than I have ever been that peace is at hand. But there are people out there that do not want peace, OBL being one of them, that will do everything in their power to disrupt the peace process. We must recognize this and plan for it

[CyberGnu]

Ned, I wish I could be that optimistic... But have you read the results of Sharons visit to Washington? It is unclear who Bush lied to, Mubarak or Sharon, but the statements regarding US involvment in the ME peace process and the speed it should be carried out with were vastly different...

[Ned]

CyberGnu, I believe Bush has endorsed the concept that there must be Palestinian elections before there can be any serious negotiations. Bush apparently has finally agreed that Arafat either cannot or will not negotiate seriously. Arafat seems to want one-hundred percent of 1967 Palestinian territory with no compromise possible. This position is unacceptable, and because of its inflexibility, cannot lead to peace anytime soon. There probably have to be another war between Arabs and Israel first

IMO, Arafat must go and he replaced by elected leadership from the Palestinian territories -- a leadership that is motivated to achieve peace and a Palestinian state rather than being fixated on achieving total and complete victory over the Israeli enemy.

Mubarak and other Arab leaders also seem to believe that the promise of a Palestinian state sooner rather than later is the only viable choice for the Middle East. I can only hope that their call for return to 1967 borders is not as inflexible as Arafat's position. I assume that this is only an opening position subject to compromise.

Bush indicates that he will come out with this Middle East peace plan in the new future. Hopefully is a roadmap for comprehensive peace and not a plan for a series of immediate steps to that only postpone the hard negotiations on a permanent peace that Oslo avoided.

I understand that the Saudi foreign minister is on his way to Washington to discuss these matters with Bush. As I said, the matter of Arafat will be on the table. I would not be surprised if the result is a private Saudi request to Arafat's that he step aside voluntarily in favor of new leadership.

[CyberGnu]

Ned, if there was an election today Arafat would still win. Hey, I doubt anyone would dare run against him...

Claiming that 'Arafat won't negotiate' is quite false, since there hasn't been a serious offer since the Oslo accords. He did negotiate during the Oslo process, and accepted several painful choices (such as acknowledging Israels 'right' to the 1967 territory).

Arafat is also on record saying that he would accept less than 100% of the 1967 territory, but it has to be VIABLE. The result of the Camp David negotioations was one of the greatest victories for the Israeli propaganda machine... The oft-repeated lie that 'Arafat got 95% of what he wanted', when he in reality was offered a bantustan...

Give him a serious offer of a viable palestinian state, and then come back and claim that you can't negotiate with him.

[MOBIUS]

On thread stuff first – this thread is about Israeli Apartheid, S. Croeze is doing an admirable job of exposing this whole sordid chapter…!

1) The local population was forced from their land and had it stolen!

2) Enough of the local population was exiled so as to ensure a Jewish majority in nation in which they only represented about 11% of the population before the Balfour Declaration handed the Zionists the pretext they needed for their wholesale invasion/colonisation of Palestine.

3) Those that remain inside Israel are treated as 2nd class citizens

4) Those in the occupied territories are treated no better than animals in large open plan cages…

5) That anyone with the merest hint of Jewish ancestry is automatically allowed in no questions asked and people who were chased out of their homeland and had their land stolen – people WHO LIVED THERE! Are not allowed back!!!

6) The local population will never have tangible power in Israel’s govt.

7) Israel and Apartheid SA had a close relationship of co-operation.

Question: Are there any beaches, buses, buildings etc where Palestinians are not allowed?

You have to be blind not to acknowledge that Israel is a grossly discriminatory country and therefore by definition, an ‘Apartheid’ State…

Moby-

So MLK must have been "misinformed" regarding the israelis underdog status?

Now youre just being foolish.

Who knows? That’s the point – he saw a connection between the struggle of the Israelis and the struggle of the Blacks in America. Maybe he thought an attack on the Israeli movement (Zionism), was also by connection an attack on him…

I don’t know and frankly it’s irrelevant. Sure he’s held up as a paragon of human virtue/civil rights etc… What I know of him I admire. But that is not to say that he did not make mistakes – he was only human. Just like Kennedy is revered by the masses, but you only have to poke around a little to realise just what a questionable character he really is… (Waits for obvious reply from Cal)

Basically you’re just acting like a two bit politician who knows he’s losing his arguments and has resorted to an unfounded smear campaign…

Just because I don’t agree with what the state of Israel is about – means I have to be an anti-jew/semite whatever. It’s reactionary name calling like that that never gets anything solved!

But, congratulations on yet again avoiding the question of just why Israel is an Apartheid state… Keep squirming, and continue your personal assault or turn round and justify how the Jewish population of more than quintupled in less than 20 years!?
Just to remind you of YOUR figures…

from 83,790 in 1922 – to 445,457 in 1939

The answer as you well know is illegal immigration – that is why Jewish terrorists (apparently it’s OK for Jewish terrorists to kill civilians, but not Palestinian ones!) were fighting the British…

Also, when are you going to address your blatantly hypocritical stance as a New Zealander about the Maori issue in New Zealand???

And assuming we go with your 1,000+ year ‘We were there first’ argument – what about the Canaanites? They were there before the Israelites!

Nice thread. My simple question is: How exactly does is help to solve the entire middle east conflict when we all start shouting "Racists!" towards Israel?

Unfortunately it doesn’t because Israel doesn’t care about the opinions of anyone other than themselves.
What it does do is bring this crime against humanity to the attention of people like you and I, who can then find out whether it’s really true or not…

It challenges accepted thought.

I just get sick of the anti-jew posts ,....

I just get sick of the Anti-Palestinian posts…

* note * there aren’t any as such from either side as far as I can tell – unless the mere act of disagreeing with someone from a different culture can be construed as such, as Cal seems to claim…

[Ned]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Ned, if there was an election today Arafat would still win. Hey, I doubt anyone would dare run against him...

Claiming that 'Arafat won't negotiate' is quite false, since there hasn't been a serious offer since the Oslo accords. He did negotiate during the Oslo process, and accepted several painful choices (such as acknowledging Israels 'right' to the 1967 territory).

Arafat is also on record saying that he would accept less than 100% of the 1967 territory, but it has to be VIABLE. The result of the Camp David negotioations was one of the greatest victories for the Israeli propaganda machine... The oft-repeated lie that 'Arafat got 95% of what he wanted', when he in reality was offered a bantustan...

Give him a serious offer of a viable palestinian state, and then come back and claim that you can't negotiate with him.

I agree about Arafat being re-elected if he runs. That is why he must be convinced to step asided by his Arab brethern.

On upcoming negotiations, I suggest the Palestinians present a offer, not Israel. They want a State, purportedly. What are they willing to give up to get one? What is it that they want to make the new state "viable?"

AFAIK, Arafat has never presented a serious offer or counter-offer. If I am wrong, please let me know.

The Arab position seems to be full implementation of 242 and 337, no negotiations. Their interpretation of 242 is 100% of the '67 territories. If they give up some of the '67 land, they want compensating land elsewhere - in Israel!

All this borders on the riduclous given the fact that the Arab people on both sides of the Jordan are one people and should be united. Ditto the people of Gaza who have Egypt right next door with land aplenty. There was nothing, nothing at all, in 1967 that suggested that one should draw a line dividing the people on the West Bank from the people on the East Bank in any eventual settlement. If there is any lack of viability in a new Palestinian state, this artificial construct is part of the problem.

As I pointed out in other posts, this issue of whether Israel had to give ALL the land back was the very point debated at the Security Council in '67. The contemporaneous statements by Johnson and the UK and US ambassadors refute the Arab position that ALL the land must be returned. 100% was never required. As Johnson noted, Israel needed safe and secure borders and could negotiate on this basis. As well, there are important issues regarding Jerusalem and the holy places.

Back to viability, what does this mean? What more does Arafat need to make the new state "viable?"

If one of the things Arafat wants is full economic integration with Israel, well I think Arafat has blown that opportunity for a very long time with his terror campaign. There will probably be some kind of international force between Israel and Palesitine. The Israeli's will probably also erect a fence.

Olso disengaged Jordan from the conversation about a overall settlement. It seems that they sould be re-engaged. A possible solution would be to re-united the West Bank and East Bank into one state - Jordan.

[Caligastia]

Mobius-

Quite frankly, Im shocked at your bigotry. You would rather see jews die in death camps in germany than allow them a country of their own.

Moby, you are remarkable in your ability to ignore fact, truth, and suffering in this discussion. A stone has a higher learning curve then you sir!

MLK was "misinformed"

[CyberGnu]

Caligastia, I am shocked at your inability to entertain a debate.