Know more about Palestine

[ilaughatrightwingers]

Palestine, December 26, (Pal Telegraph) – This side of the story has been blocked within the fence of a grey zone since 1947, and unfortunately, up to this very moment, most of the people in this world still don't know what really happened in the past, what's going on now and what's planned for the future in Middle East. The internationally influential mass media is broadcasting and publishing since decades only what comes in-line with their financial interests, and these happen to have great areas of intersection with the interests of the international Zionism.

In order to deliver a neutral and believable version for this story, there shall be no evaluation or analysis from Palestinians' or Arabs' point of view, we'll 100% rely solely first on the non-debatable part of the ancient history, then on the documented major events took place last century, … after that on the official United Nations Information Center as the source for all the related information below, then we'll have a look at the present situation, and finally we'll come to a simple neutral analysis & a clear undisputable conclusion.

Around 3400 years ago, in 1400 BCE, Moses was born in Egypt "Land of the Pharaohs", some 40 years later he moved with his people to "Land of Palestine" and lived there together with the people who have been living there for thousands of years..

By the year 600 BC the majority of the Jews had to immigrate from Palestine to Babylon, so the natives of the "Land of Palestine" and the few Jews who stayed behind on the Palestinian territory, like all other peoples of this region, had to struggle 100s of years under the various civilizations that occupied and ruled their land for long times, from the Babylonians to the Persians, Romans, Islamic Caliphate, Umayyad, Abbasids and finally the Ottomans until they were overthrown by the British and French Armies during the First World War at the beginning of the 20th century, so Palestine became under the British mandate.

After the liberation from the Ottoman's domination, England & France promised the peoples, the local governments and authorities in the Middle East to grant them independency & sovereignty.

Read more: http://www.paltelegraph.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7803:know-more-about-palestine&catid=60:palestinian-refugees&Itemid=136

[shira]

1. It's stupid essays like these that keep the conflict going...

A few more lines into the OP...

By 1914 the Jews were only 9% of Palestine's population and the rest was spread all over the world.

The leading members of Zionist Federation were not happy with the Jews being parts of International social & political systems like all peoples of other religions, so during the First Zionist Conference in 1897 in Basel, they expressed their intention to establish an own Jewish State on the Palestinian land which was considered by the Jews as their "Promised Land" that they should go back to and rule after 2500 years of being away (they claim to have this mentioned in their Torah & Talmud) !!!!! Is this a sensible reason ?? The majority of the Jews, throughout all the eras of the ancient history, was never a real native part of Palestine's people, the Jewish phase was one of the civilizations who occupied or simply moved into the Palestinian territories, lived and ruled there until kicked out by invaders of another civilization, just like the Babylonians, Assyrians, Pharaohs, Persians and many others who also occupied these lands in different times for hundreds of years. All of them should also have this "Right" to re-establish their lost civilization on these lands because some few thousand years ago they lived and ruled there for hundreds of years.

Right.

A few Jews just weren't happy enough being citizens of other countries like any other people so they just decided go biblical all over the natives of another country they had zero connection with.

It had nothing to do with pogroms or persecution leading to the holocaust and having nowhere else to go.

:eyes:

This article dehumanizes Jews and minimizes/ignores their persecution.

[sabbat hunter]

3. Not only that

but it is full of factual errors, especially in the ancient history area

[Donald Ian Rankin]

62. The irony is that what you present as satire is closer to the truth than you usually are.

"A few Jews just weren't happy enough being citizens of other countries like any other people so they just decided go biblical all over the natives of another country they had zero connection with."

That's a somewhat perjorative summary of what happened - obviously, the Jews weren't being treated like "any other people" in many countries (like many other persecuted ethnic groups who I presume you wouldn't support coming and conquering Israel), their connection to what is now Israel was "irrelevant" rather than "zero", and as I understand it the mandate wasn't technically a country at the time, but other than that you're a lot close to the truth than you usually manage.

There's nothing dehumanising about saying that Jews didn't have the right to conquer and ethnically cleanse Palestine, or that ethnocracy is morally wrong no matter who practices it.

[shira]

67. Persecuted Jews did not come to Israel as conquerers, either during Ottoman rule

...or under British rule.

Every attempt at democratic rule alongside Arabs was rejected by Palestinian leadership of that time period.

[azurnoir]

2. more info on Palestine

http://www.cjpme.ca/documents/En%20Demographics%20Factsheet%20v.1.pdf

[sabbat hunter]

4. a few problems

the area was called Judea by the Romans. The name Palaestina (or actually Philistina to be more accurate) did not come along until about 80 years after the time that Jesus was thought to have been crucified.

The area did not become Arabized (for lack of a better term), until the Arab invasions of ~640AD.

Prior to that time frame above it was not a nation but a whole series of city-states, but none of whom called themselves Palestine. (there was the Philistines but as far as historical and archeological records can find they were most closely related to the Greeks, or more specifically Mycenaeans)


So the article is full of inaccuracies, most of which are easily resolved thru a bit of minor research. But it is obvious that the author of the article is doing this with intent.

Sloppy and slanted journalism. The sort of thing you see from Fox News. Making up 'facts' to try and prove their point.

[azurnoir]

5. Judea is one area of Palestine

[sabbat hunter]

6. actually on the map you posted

There is no area called Palestine. ;)

[azurnoir]

7. and only a small area called Judea

as I have said the denial of historic Palestine is IMO almost comical

[sabbat hunter]

8. The area was called

Philestina after the Bar Kobcha revolts. It later on became Palestina. So yes there indeed was a historical Palestine, but in no way as early as the OP tries to make it seem.

[azurnoir]

9. actually it was Herodotus, who first used the name Palestine n/t

[mudplanet]

10. Who cares?

The only thing relevant about the entire rant is that around 1900 the Jewish population of the area was less than 10%. After that European Jews began to immigrate and following 1939 that immigration became a flood. There were other people living in the area: self-identified Arabs, Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese, Turks etc. That had been in the area continuously (mostly) for a thousand or more years. The Europeans decided they wanted to establish a "Jewish" state. Some part of that effort was achieved peacefully and fairly, but the majority of it was through violence and intimidation. And that violence and intimidation goes on and is paid for with my tax dollars.

Given what happened in Europe between 1930 and 1945 the desire of European Jews to want to have a "homeland" is understandable, but it doesn't excuse taking someone else's land and taking away their human rights. That's the kind of behavior the Third Reich is famous for. Whether or not there was a defined "Palestinian" state is irrelevant: there were a lot of people living there and they certainly didn't identify as Israeli or speak Hebrew, and they were terrorized into leaving.

If the European Jews want to establish a national identity and a state, and it's built on democratic principals which include secularism, equal rights, and political representation that benefits everyone that lives within it's borders regardless of their racial or religious identity, than OK. But if that's what they wanted, they could just come to the United States.

But if they want a "religious state," whose founding principles include a preference for a specific religious identity and some mythical right to occupy and steal other's lands based upon something the invisible man in the sky supposedly said, then

fuck no, I will not support it, and I don't want my tax dollars supporting it. If they are doing it without my support I'm still against it, but a lot of other countries do the same thing and there's not a lot I have to say about it, but their very existence doesn't depend upon me underwriting their state financially and militarily.

[oberliner]

11. "Given what happened in Europe between 1930 and 1945", what should the Jews of Europe have done?

As you are no doubt aware most were not able to just "come to the United States" during that time period.

What exactly ought the Jewish people attempting to escape the persecution and eventual attempted annihilation in Europe have done given the realities of that time period?

[mudplanet]

12. As I said, it's understanable that they would want to establish a

new country. But it doesn't excuse stealing someone else's land or terrorizing them. And I don't want my tax dollars spent on supporting these activities or propping up a religiously defined state.

If some crazy political force systematically murdered 5 million European Christians it wouldn't justify the remaining European Christians going to Africa or Asia and creating an entirely new nation with a stated identity and goal of making that country "White European and Christian" and everyone that was already living there can like their second class status, leave or suck death.

[henank]

13. You are just displaying

your abysmal ignorance about the history of Israel and the Jews.

[mudplanet]

14. Please explain. I have some knowledge of Judaism and Israel but

I don't claim to be a scholar on the subject.

What about the history of Israel and Judaism justifies taking someone else's land and denying them their human rights?

And, if Israel feels it has a justification for these crimes, why should I be paying for it? Do Israeli human rights count for more than Arab or Palestinian human rights?

I think our disagreement may be in basic premises and not in an ignorance of history.

[oberliner]

15. Why couldn't two independent states have been established?

Why couldn't the aspirations of both people have been accommodated?

[mudplanet]

18. I'm with you there. But from the Arab and Palestinian perspective it's a lot

like wondering why you'd be upset if (assuming you're an American) after the war millions of foreigners arrived in, say, your home town, established a government through terror, and then during the ensuing series of conflicts, after you and your family had fled to a "resettlement camp" in another state to avoid being killed in the fighting, denied you the right to return to your home, and sold your house and your land to some other foreigners that they claimed had "a right to it" because they go to the same church as the rest of the foreigners.

[oberliner]

20. I do not think that is an accurate presentation

We all know that this period in history was a horrendously awful time for a lot of people, among them, of course, the Jewish community of Europe which was almost entirely wiped out during the Holocaust. In addition to that tragedy, there were numerous others; many many people all over the world were forced to become refugees or live under occupation or much much worse as a result of WWII.

While the Partition Plan can certainly be seen as being unfair to the Arab population of Palestinian, it still would have resulted in an independent Palestinian state on much of what is now Israel (including all of the West Bank and Gaza).

Had the Partition Plan been accepted, there would have been no war and the vast majority of Palestinians would have stayed exactly where they were living. For the first time in their history, the Palestinian people would have been free of colonial rule and would have had their own independent state.

[mudplanet]

21. There's the rub. What you describe as "the vast majority" implies

that the rights of those tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands that represent the minority that lived in what is now Israel are an "acceptable" casualty of the agreement. What my post suggests is that it's easy for someone who isn't losing their human rights to declare that someone else losing theirs is acceptable. Why should the Palestinians that were living there have to give up their rights? Wanting to establish a Jewish state in Africa where there isn't one isn't a human right, as much as it's understandable that European Jews wanted a safe homeland. They did it at the expense of someone else's human rights, and relatively speaking they did it yesterday, not in some distant past.

Besides that, there is a significant and powerful minority within Israel that has and continues to advocate for forcing non-Jews out of Israel and the West Bank. It continues to this day on a large scale. And it's done with my tax dollar.

It's a fact that there are nearly a quarter of a million displaced Palestinians living in refugee camps. The name "refugee camp" speaks for itself.

[oberliner]

23. Like I said, it was a horrible time for a lot of people

Ideally, there would have been no World War II, no Holocaust, no persecution of anyone anywhere. Ideally, the Arabs living in Palestine already would have been free, rather than living under colonial rule as they had for the past century. Ideally, there would have been no colonialism, no racism, no oppression.

But sadly, this was not the case.

Instead, there was a situation where Jews around the world were, in many cases, killed or expelled from the countries where they had lived for generations. This was grossly unfair, as I am sure you will agree. As was the fact that most of the people living in the Middle East were living under colonial rule, with limited, if any self-governance.

The creation of two independent states in British-ruled Palestine would have been one the better outcomes to come out of the tragic sequence of events that occurred during that time period.

There need not have been a war in 1948 - no large numbers of Palestinian Arabs leaving their homes, no refugees, no continuing state of aggression.

Instead there could have been a state called Palestine existing today living side by side at peace with a state called Israel.

Would that have been such a bad outcome?

Is that not precisely what the Palestinian people are calling for today?

[mudplanet]

28. I'm ok with some of what you are saying. But maybe it's difficult to walk the

walk on this one. Try to walk away from your life, the orchards you planted, the business your grandfather built and passed down to your father and then you, to your neighborhood or village, have it taken from you by force of arms tomorrow morning and then tell me, "Well, shit happens. Let's forgive and forget and move on." Because that's essentially what you're asking the Palestinians to do.

[oberliner]

30. What you are describing actually did happen to many of the Jews in Europe

In fact, the ones who were able to walk away from their life, their farms, the businesses their grandfathers had built and passed down to them, their neighborhoods, their villages - the ones who had all that taken away from them by force of arms and were expelled from their land - they were actually the lucky ones. Most had all that happen and then were tortured and killed.

I would also point out that countless Jews living in the United States, for example, have done exactly what you are describing. They were forced from their home and had to start a new life in a new land. This happened not only during WWII, but in the decades prior, from Poland, Russia, and elsewhere in Eastern Europe. These hundreds of thousands - millions even - not only had to move on, but had to face continuing prejudices and discrimination in their new homes thousands of miles away.

I only bring this up because my family is one such family so I can personally attest to having an understanding of what "walking the walk" really means with respect to what you are describing.

It is important to note, however, that what happened to the Jews of Europe during WWII did not happen to the Arabs living in Palestine. What did end up happening, with respect to large numbers of Palestinians being forced to move, did not have to happen if the Partition Plan had been accepted.

There were certainly objections to that plan that were more than fair; however, it would have established two independent states - Israel and Palestine - and there would have been no war, no refugees, no seemingly never-ending conflict. Some people would have gotten screwed for sure, but it would have been much better for the Palestinians than what ended up happening as a result of the rejection of the Partition Plan.

[mudplanet]

32. Why do you beleive that that makes it ok for the Zionists to do it to the Palestinians?

It escapes me. A lot of European Jews suffered so now it's the Palestinian's turn?

If only the tens or hundreds of thousands of people that were living in and had been living in Palestine had "accepted partition" then everything would have been okey dokey? What the Zionists did to them wasn't near as bad as what the Nazis did to the Jews so it's not that bad? The Zionists didn't have gas chambers, they only terrorized and otherwise forced these people out of the part of Palestine that they wanted, so they're not as bad as Nazis and that makes it ok?

I've had Zionists try to justify or minimize the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians by complaining that the Syrians or the Jordanians or the Lebanese "wouldn't take them in." The Zionists forced tens of thousands of Palestinians into Lebanon and it destroyed the country as a result. All I see is European Jews going to a place where there are and have been people living and forcing them out of their homes so they can "create a Jewish homeland". Just because I understand why they did it doesn't make it right. It's wrong to steal someone's home and to use terror to do it is very wrong. And I'm against paying for it with my tax dollar.

[shira]

33. What did Zionists do to the Palestinians that is in any way comparable to the Nazis?

There wouldn't be any Palestinian refugees if 7 Arab countries didn't declare war on Israel. In addition, most Palestinian refugees were commanded by Arab leadership to get out of the way.

There would be no checkpoints, security barrier, siege, etc... if it weren't for the 2nd Intifada.

As for your "tax dollars", see my post below as your tax dollars keep the PA, Egypt, and Jordan alive to abuse human rights 1000x worse than anything Israel can be accused of. I'd be interested to see where you've used your "tax dollar" argument WRT these rogue regimes.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shira]

45. Are you aware that most refugees are the result of Arab leadership ordering them to leave?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=311586&mesg_id=311635
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=311586&mesg_id=311631

There's plenty more evidence, if you're interested.

All the rest of your post is exaggerated and slanderous.

And I'm still waiting to see just one post of yours in any forum protesting mass human rights violations committed by Arab dictatorships propped up by the USA and your tax dollars.

[mudplanet]

54. Shira, please don't post links to other posts as evidence in support

of your positions on the Israel/Palestine conflict. I suppose the Arab leadership told the refugees that they couldn't return to their homes?

[shira]

58. Here's a link then...

http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=1102

Arab leaders promised them one thing and have locked them and their descendants up in camps ever since.

And that's Israel's fault?

[oberliner]

36. Had the Partition Plan been accepted none of that would have happened

No Palestinans would have been forced out of anywhere. No hundreds of thousands would have been displaced. No tens of thousands would have gone to Lebanon. All of what you are describing took place due to the rejection of the Partition Plan. They all resulted from a war that could have been avoided if theplan had been accepted - this would have created an independent Palestinian state free of colonial rule for the first time in history.

[mudplanet]

40. That's absolutely correct. If everyone agrees with what you want

then you'll avoid conflict and confrontation.

They just have to agree to give up what they want for what you want. That's fair. Then there's no conflict. If there's conflict then it's your fault for not agreeing with me and giving me what I want. I didn't want conflict. You created it by not agreeing with me.

[oberliner]

43. What is it that you would like to see happen now?

I am curious to know what your vision for peace and/or justice in that region is.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oberliner]

53. I have made none of those assertions

And I am not responsible for any assertions made by any other poster here.

I did correct your false claim about "hundreds of thousands" Palestinians being killed - and you yourself acknowledged the error (I thought).

Since you are interested in facts rather than lies, I would think you'd appreciate my assisting you in getting that right.

My assertion is that accepting the Partition Plan would have led to a better outcome for the Palestinians than rejecting it did. Were it to have been accepted, then there would have been no war, no refugees, no ongoing conflict, etc.

I assert that things did not have to turn out the way that they did. That two states could have been created peacefully, that under the Partition Plan, no one would have had to have left their homes, and that for the first time in history an independent Palestinian state would have been created side by side with a Jewish one.

I have not seen any comments from you disputing any of those assertions - only stating that the Partition Plan itself was unfair to the Palestinian Arabs - which is something I make no argument with.

I definitely do not want you to shut up. However, I do not appreciate the implication that I have presented any lies as truth or any facts as false. If you can provide specific evidence of either of those things, I would appreciate the opportunity to defend myself against such a charge.

I think that Israel is very much in the wrong in maintaining the status quo. I think that they need to withdraw settlements and enter into peace negotiations hopefully leading to something along the lines of what is laid out in the Geneva Initiative. I support two states living side by side at peace with one another.

Again, I ask, what do you support?

[mudplanet]

57. Restricting US aid to Israel on condition that positive actions and progress

be made toward ending existing Israeli policies that discriminate against equal rights for all people regardless of their national, religious or ethnic identity. This of course implies a right to return to their former homes for Palestinians. In general, recognition on the part of Israel of UN authority and of international law.

I can live with giving aid to a country with a stated religious identity if that country has a Constitution and policies that ensure that all people of every religion/ethnicity have the same inherent rights. As I said previously, for me a "state" is a convenient construct to serve the needs of it's citizens. I'm not particular what it is called.

[shira]

70. And what would they have given up if they had accepted the partition plan?

Do tell.

Not one Palestinian would have been evicted from his/her property and could have chosen to stay/leave as they wished.

Also, within the newly partitioned Israeli state, Palestinians could have become part of the democratic process rather than live in fear under a totalitarian dictatorship. So what really would Palestinians - the people themselves not the leaders - have given up?

Seems a win/win situation to me.

[azurnoir]

69. Such a thing is very easy to say 60+ years after the fact

with no proof of other wise
It would be wise to remember who history is written by which in most cases is the victors

[henank]

16. Israel did not steal Palestinian land

There was no Arab state of "Palestine" until Yasser Arafat decided there was in 1964. Before 1948 the land now called Israel was called Palestine. The only Palestinians were Jews. Israel stole nothing.

No one is asking you to pay for anything. America wishes to give Israel grants and loans in order to keep it under the American sphere of influence.

Israeli human rights do not count for more than Arab human rights, but they also certainly do not count for less, and I notice a marked tendency on this board and similar places to disallow almost any Israeli human rights at all.

[mudplanet]

17. This is pure baloney. The US has "forgiven" every loan ever made

to Israel. If you could cite me an example and provide some sort of proof, however flimsy, that Israel has ever repaid any money to the US I'd be eternally grateful.

"The only Palestinians were Jews." This is simply untrue. No, not just untrue. The kind of black lie that forums like this exist to refute.

As I said in my post, no matter the name of the place, there were people living in what is now Israel before the mass wave of European immigration after WWII and overwhelmingly they didn't speak Hebrew and attend temple. Are we talking about the same planet? Maybe in the parallel world of Bizzaro Middle East Palestine was predominantly Jewish.

But you're right no one is asking me to pay for anything. They're requiring me to pay for it by law.

The human rights of an Israeli count the same as any other persons, and I'm not suggesting anything different. But if a state identifies as a religious state and accords members of that religion "special" rights or privileges then it's creating a tiered system of human rights in which some people are "less" than others (see: History of South Africa).

[oberliner]

22. They are loan guarantees, not loans

The US just provides a guarantee should Israel default on any international loan up to whatever amount the US and Israel agree upon so that Israel can borrow at a lower rate with the backing of the US. To date, the US has never had to pay out anything as a result of these guarantees.

[mudplanet]

24. Again, that's not what my research shows.

[oberliner]

25. What does your research say that a loan guarantee is?

I've never heard of anyone disputing the definition of that term.

Do you dispute this definition of the phrase:

"A loan guarantee is a promise by a government to assume a private debt obligation if the borrower defaults."

If not, can you point to a time where Israel has defaulted on any of those obligations and the US had to cover the debt?

I've not seen anyone make such a claim before.

[mudplanet]

26. In the case of US loans to Israel, loan guarantees are a farce.

Again, I'd be very grateful if you could point me to some evidence, some documentation indicating that Israel has been diligently paying back money it has received from the US.

US military grants alone over the next decade to exceed $30 billion http://www.aidtoisrael.org/downloads/2007israelusmou.pdf

And from the CRS Issue Brief for Congress http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/IB85066.pdf

"Israel is not economically self-sufficient, and relies on foreign assistance and borrowing to maintain its economy. Since 1985, the United States has provided $3 billion in grants annually to Israel. Since 1976, Israel has been the largest annual recipient of U.S. foreign assistance, and is the largest cumulative recipient since World War II. ...

U.S. aid to Israel has some unique aspects, such as loans with repayment waived, or a pledge to provide Israel with economic assistance equal to the amount Israel owes the United States for previous loans. Israel also receives special benefits that may not be
available to other countries, such as the use of U.S. military assistance for research and development in the United States, the use of U.S. military assistance for military purchases in Israel, or receiving all its assistance in the first 30 days of the fiscal year rather than in 3 or 4 installments as other countries do. ...

For FY2005, the United States provided $360 million in economic, $2.22 billion in military, and $50 million in migration resettlement assistance. ...

Haaretz reported on April 20, 2005, that Israeli and U.S. officials were discussing a $3 billion loan guarantee to help Israel develop the Negev and Galilee regions. Other Israeli sources reported in late March that Israel would request $700 million in additional grant aid to pay for redeploying troops, building new military bases, and evacuating the settlers from Gaza. The total cost of the Gaza disengagement was estimated to be $1.6 billion. The President’s budget request for FY2006 included $240 million in Economic Support Funds (ESF), $2.28 billion in Foreign Military Financing (FMF), and $40 million in refugee assistance for Israel."

It's one thing if you believe the US should be, basically, underwriting the nation of Israel's military activities most of which I consider crimes against humanity. It's another to deliberately mislead people about the nature of that underwriting by insisting it's "a loan" only and Israel is going to pay it back. Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining. If you're going to lie, have the decency to lie convincingly.

This research took about 10 minutes to compile. Fortunately for AIPAC, most Americans can't tell shit from shinola.

[oberliner]

29. Loan guarantees are not loans

The US just says that if Israel defaults on any of its loan obligations, then the US will cover it up to the amount agreed upon in the loan guarantee. To date, Israel has never defaulted on these obligations and so the US has never had to cover them.

Grants are another story - they are not expected to be paid back. Much of that money is used for Israel to buy military equipment from the United States. An arrangement that works out well for the US military industrial complex.

In any case, as I mentioned earlier, if you tally up all the aid that the US gives to Israel in all of its various forms, it totals a very tiny fraction of the amount of money that the US has spent and continues to spend fighting two illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But, be that as it may, I certainly can't argue with your claim that the US provides Israel with more aid than any other country outside of Iraq and Afghanistan.

I think, however, that a much more significant priority ought to be reducing the amount that we spend on those two campaigns, and on the military in general, which is absolutely staggering and dwarfs all of the financial aid we give to all countries around the world combined, Israel among them.

[mudplanet]

34. You're obfuscating and Palinizing. Israel exists because the US underwrites it militarily

and economically with my tax dollar. It uses that money to conduct a systematic and ongoing campaign of crimes against humanity, including shooting from tanks little boys for throwing rocks.

Talk about differences between loans, loan guarantees, financial instruments that are used to make the repayment of loans unnecessary but not call it default, etc. is an attempt to redirect the discussion away from the fact that the US has no business underwriting a religiously defined state that is involved in an ongoing campaign of human rights violations. This campaign of crimes against humanity wouldn't be happening if the US wasn't giving Israel billions of dollars a year gratis. And this assertion is proved by reports produced by the same US Congress that gives Israel the money to continue to commit the crimes. No amount of Palinizing alters that fact in the discussion.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mudplanet]

39. I think you may have many problems with seriousness

Israel is not a religiously defined state

Definitions of israel on the Web:

* Jewish republic in southwestern Asia at eastern end of Mediterranean; formerly part of Palestine
* an ancient kingdom of the Hebrew tribes at the southeastern end of the Mediterranean Sea; founded by Saul around 1025 BC and destroyed by the Assyrians in 721 BC
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

"Israel's definition of a nation state differs from other countries as its concept of a nation state is based on the Ethnoreligious group (Judaism) rather than solely on ethnicity, while the ancient mother language of the Jews, Hebrew, was revived as a unifying bond between them as a national and official language." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state#Israel

Apparently the entire web and half of all Israelis are anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic.

and it is not committing an ongoing campaign of human rights violations.
God, the amount of material to refute this statement is so voluminous it staggers. But let's cite just the Israeli one: http://www.btselem.org/English/

Your tax dollars are, however, going to rogue regimes like the PA, Egypt, and Jordan where real human rights violations and crimes against humanity are ongoing.
You are correct that there are ongoing human rights violations under the PA and in Egypt and Jordan. But Egypt and Jordan would exist without my tax dollar and would probably be the human rights cesspools they are anyway, while Israel is empowered to do it's crimes solely by my tax dollar: "Israel is not economically self-sufficient, and relies on foreign assistance and borrowing to maintain its economy. Since 1985, the United States has provided $3 billion in grants annually to Israel. Since 1976, Israel has been the largest annual recipient of U.S. foreign assistance, and is the largest cumulative recipient since World War II. ..." http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/IB85066.pdf

Singling Israel out for opprobrium and condemnation - above and beyond all its mideast neighbors - is racist and bigoted. I'm rubber and you're glue. The pot called the kettle black. Me thinks thou dost protest too much.

[shira]

46. There's no point continuing if you truly believe Israel is a religiously defined state...

...or theocracy.

That's batshit crazy.

[mudplanet]

51. So, it's not you, it's the rest of the world. Nowput your fingers in your ears and say "la la la la"

really loudly and you'll never be able to hear anything that contradicts your beliefs.

[shira]

59. It's a Jewish homeland but that doesn't mean it's a Jewish theocracy. There's a difference.

Israel is a secular, liberal democracy that is home to any Jew, religious or thoroughly secular.

[mudplanet]

64. Oh. That makes a difference. Any Jew. Non Jews not welcome.

But don't get the idea we're religiously affiliated. We're not. And just because we're saying being Jewish isn't a religion, don't get the idea that being Jewish has anything to do with race. Cause it doesn't. Zionism isn't racism. Jewishness is an ethnicity. You aren't a Jew unless your mother was a Jew. You aren't a Jew unless you're kosher. You aren't a Jew unless ... I say you are.

You either support current Israeli policies or you're a bigot and a racist. Unless you're a Jew. Then you're a self-hating Jew.

Keep going. It's getting interesting. I'm almost persuaded.

It's not a secular country and government if there's a litmus test for full membership. It's apartheid South Africa.

[Shaktimaan]

65. except the is no litmus test.

Over 20% of Israeli citizens are not Jewish, nor is it a requirement to be Jewish to immigrate, NOR is it even a requirement to be Jewish to get fast track immigration status through the right of return laws.

You either support current Israeli policies or you're a bigot and a racist. Unless you're a Jew. Then you're a self-hating Jew.

Israel actually has a vibrant culture of dissent as evidenced by some of your own links, like b'tselem.

You also seem to be confusing the issue of "Jewish" and "Judaism." One is a nationality, the other a religion. They are certainly not equatable with one another.

You are making judgments on Israeli culture and politics based on faulty information. The reality is that it is a uniquely complex conflict. To simplify it in order to wrongly attribute terms like apartheid to it are, at the very least, intellectually dishonest.

[azurnoir]

66. You also seem to be confusing the issue of "Jewish" and "Judaism." One is a nationality, the other a

so in order to be Jewish one's ancestors do not have to have ever practiced Judaism? Because if in order to Jewish ones ancestors have to have practiced Judaism then it is still a religiously based designation, that only became an "ethnicity" via closed marriage and reproduction recognition whether those things were self imposed or imposed from without
If not it opens a whole new perspective as to who is Jewish and how that is defined

[shira]

68. A Jew can have parents and grandparents who were Jews but never practiced.

They're Jews by birth.

[oberliner]

44. Just wanted to respond here

Don't want you to mix me up with the other poster who responded to your comments. I don't know what you mean by "Palinizing" but it doesn't sound too flattering. In any case, I was just trying to correct what appeared to be a misunderstanding of some terms. No offense or attempt to obfuscate was intended.

I get your argument - you don't support Israel's actions and you don't want the US to continue to give them any money since that money is paid for with your tax dollars.

Would you agree then that you don't want your tax dollars supporting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and have you taken up the fight to see to it that funding is eliminating for those efforts?

If the actions of Israel with respect to the Palestinians constitute "crimes against humanity" as you say, then I can hardly imagine how you would characterize the actions of the United States with respect to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.

And with those conflicts, we are talking about a great deal more of your tax dollars at work to support quite directly the military actions of the United States that has caused countless civilian casualties that dwarf the Israeli/Palestinian numbers and an enormous refugee and humanitarian crisis across the region.

[mudplanet]

52. To Palinize is to avoid answering a question by pretending the questioner

actually asked something completely different. E.g., Question:"If there were no "Palestinians" living in what is now Israel in 1947, who are all those refugees living in the camps?" Answer: "Israel has never received free aid from the US. All aid to Israel has come in the form of "loan guarantees."

Damn straight I oppose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I just don't see so many people on this site lying about those wars. If someone posted on the site that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were legitimate efforts on the part of the US to establish democracies in those states, I'd refute the lie. But I rarely see that on this site. I do see a lot of lies concerning Israel and it's history.

[oberliner]

56. Thanks for clarifying

I did not mean to be "Palinizing" - and I certainly do not claim that all aid to Israel has come in the form of loan guarantees. Most of it has come in the form of direct grants, as I believe I had mentioned.

In this particular sub-thread, I was just pointing out that loan guarantees are not in and of themselves actually loans - they just provide backing so that Israel can borrow money at a more favorable rate since the lenders are protected from default by the US.

[sabbat hunter]

19. Actually

the mandate of Palestine was filled with people (Jews, Muslims and Christian) all who claimed Palestinian nationality.

Are their no Kurds, because there is no independent nation of Kurdistan?


At the same time since there was no independent nation of Palestine, its borders need to be determined, most logically they are Gaza and the west bank (with the exception of Jerusalem, since that was never intended to be part of an independent nation of Palestine. IMHO the best solution for Jerusalem is to leave the old city as status quo (Israeli political control and various religions control the various holy sites). The future Palestine should be allowed a section of eastern Jerusalem to be their capital if they so choose to make it there.

[mudplanet]

27. If we're playing "if I were king" I'm ok with that. To me, a 'state'

is a political convenience as much as anything. Call it whatever you want as long as it functions to serve it's all its citizens fairly and justly.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

61. Fled abroad and lived as refugees or immigrants, not as conquerors. N.T.

[shira]

71. Fled abroad where? And up until the 1948 war that the Arabs started, they conquered nothing. n/t

[oberliner]

72. Fled abroad - on the SS St. Louis perhaps?

Or maybe fled to Switzerland?

BERN -- In 1942, a 19-year-old Jew identified as "Leo H." attempted to enter Switzerland three times to escape the Nazis.

Each time, Swiss borders guards denied him haven in Switzerland. During one of his tries, they robbed and beat him.

In October 1943, a 15-year-old Jewish girl seeking refuge was sexually molested by drunken Swiss soldiers. Swiss police in Geneva later determined she did not deserve asylum and handed her over to Nazi officials at the border with France. She was sent to Auschwitz.

She and Leo were but two of the 24,500 Jews -- including thousands of children -- who were denied refuge in Switzerland between January 1940 and the war's end in 1945, according to a long-awaited report of an international panel of historians.

Many of those turned away at the border were given directly to the Nazis, making Switzerland an accomplice in the Holocaust, the panel said.

http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/12279/report-says-swiss-turned-away-thousands-of-refugees/

[shira]

31. Your "tax dollars" argument is lame, as are most of your others WRT the Arab/Israel conflict

It's your US tax dollars keeping the PA and Hamas afloat these many years. Do you object to the way they've used your tax dollars?

Your tax dollars also go to Egypt and Jordan, whose human rights record is about 1000x worse than Israel's.

You should try to at least be consistent.

------

As to your other arguments, quoting you in bold...

The Europeans decided they wanted to establish a "Jewish" state.

Why did these Europeans want to establish a Jewish state during Ottoman rule?

Some part of that effort was achieved peacefully and fairly, but the majority of it was through violence and intimidation.

Really? What violence and intimidation did these Europeans carry out before 1947-48? FYI, I had a conversation based on this recently here...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=338130&mesg_id=338311

And that violence and intimidation goes on and is paid for with my tax dollars.

Hamas and the PLO do far worse with your tax dollars but that doesn't seem to bother you. Why?

Given what happened in Europe between 1930 and 1945 the desire of European Jews to want to have a "homeland" is understandable, but it doesn't excuse taking someone else's land and taking away their human rights.

No land was taken away, nor human rights if Palestinians accepted the Peel plan or Partition plan.

The biggest human rights tragedy is that of the Palestinian refugees and their ongoing suffering as pawns under Arab regimes, keeping them and their descendants in camps for 62 years that is mostly paid for by your tax dollars to UNRWA.

That's the kind of behavior the Third Reich is famous for. Whether or not there was a defined "Palestinian" state is irrelevant: there were a lot of people living there and they certainly didn't identify as Israeli or speak Hebrew, and they were terrorized into leaving.

Most left due to being commanded by Arab leadership to leave and get out of the way. They were promised they would return very soon after the Jews were killed. Arab regimes are at fault for that.

If the European Jews want to establish a national identity and a state, and it's built on democratic principals which include secularism, equal rights, and political representation that benefits everyone that lives within it's borders regardless of their racial or religious identity, than OK. But if that's what they wanted, they could just come to the United States.

Israel is already a liberal democracy and in most ways more liberal than the USA.

But if they want a "religious state," whose founding principles include a preference for a specific religious identity and some mythical right to occupy and steal other's lands based upon something the invisible man in the sky supposedly said, then

Who is they? Religious nutballs? Every country has them.

fuck no, I will not support it, and I don't want my tax dollars supporting it.

But your tax dollars already support rightwing totalitarian Islamist regimes that abuse their citizens. Where have you ever, in any forum, spoken out about this?

If they are doing it without my support I'm still against it, but a lot of other countries do the same thing and there's not a lot I have to say about it, but their very existence doesn't depend upon me underwriting their state financially and militarily.

Egypt, Jordan, and the PA's very existence depends on your tax dollars. The reasoning is that as bad as they are, if the US doesn't support them it could be far worse.

Where's your outrage?

[mudplanet]

38. You are "full of it" and here are a number of reasons why -

Hamas and the PLO do far worse with your tax dollars but that doesn't seem to bother you. Why? - All terrorism and violations of human rights bother me. Why don't you give some figures on US aid to Israel compared to US aid Hamas and PA? Because those figures would show that Israel is the single largest recipient of US aid and has been for over a half century. It couldn't exist without my tax dollar. Israel is conducting an ongoing campaign of crimes against humanity with my tax dollar.

What violence and intimidation did these Europeans carry out before 1947-48 - I'm not sure, but I think an organization that requires a person to prove their commitment to the cause by garroting a British soldier or placing a bomb in a crowed cafe would be called a terrorist organization today. To quote Fox News: Just sayin'

No land was taken away, nor human rights if Palestinians accepted the Peel plan or Partition plan. - Yes, if the Palestinians had just walked away from their own national aspirations and, in many cases their homes and businesses and villages, there would have been no conflict, no violence.

The biggest human rights tragedy is that of the Palestinian refugees and their ongoing suffering as pawns under Arab regimes, keeping them and their descendants in camps for 62 years that is mostly paid for by your tax dollars to UNRWA. Under this plan, the human rights crime is that Jordan and Syria won't resettle two hundred refugees from present day Israel in new homes in Jordan and Syria instead of allowing them to return to their homes in what is now Israel. This makes sense. I think. Not.

Why do reactionary Zionists always return to this argument? "If the Arabs and the Palestinians had only agreed to what we wanted there would have been no trouble." If banks gave bank robbers the money when they asked for it, then everybody would be happy.

Israel is already a liberal democracy and in most ways more liberal than the USA. You know, that's partly right. As evidenced by the fact that there is a strong human rights movement in Israel that agrees with most of the points I make in these posts. And I admire the state of Israel for that. A nice liberal democracy (if you go to the right house of worship), except for the apartheid. And the theft of other people's homes.

Who is they? Religious nutballs? Every country has them. Not every country is run by them. Are you suggesting that Israel isn't defined by it's leadership as "a Jewish state?"

But your tax dollars already support rightwing totalitarian Islamist regimes that abuse their citizens. Where have you ever, in any forum, spoken out about this?

And from the CRS Issue Brief for Congress http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/IB85066.pdf
"Israel is not economically self-sufficient, and relies on foreign assistance and borrowing to maintain its economy. Since 1985, the United States has provided $3 billion in grants annually to Israel. Since 1976, Israel has been the largest annual recipient of U.S. foreign assistance, and is the largest cumulative recipient since World War II. ..."

Those aren't Apache helicopters and F16s that the Arab dictators are using to torture and murder people. But while I'm at it, let me say that all dictators suck and I'm opposed to all governments, including my own, that engage in crimes against humanity. Fuck fuedal Arab fiefdoms and all their leaders. I get the impression that that you believe I'm applying a double standard. I'm not. Wrong is wrong. I don't want to pay for it.

Egypt, Jordan, and the PA's very existence depends on your tax dollars. This is complete bullshit, and you know it.

[shira]

47. Again, I'm waiting to see where you've ever protested Arab dictatorships taking your US tax dollars.

You've never done so anywhere, have you?

The regimes of Egypt, Jordan, and the PA - without US assistance - would have fallen to more reactionary, extreme Islamist forces by now.

For example, Egypt has its Muslim brotherhood and the PA has Hamas. Your US tax dollars have been going to Sadat and Mubarak since Egypt's peace accord was signed with Israel 30 years ago. How else do you think Mubarak stays in power? Same for the PA and the US forces (under Dayton) helping them avoid a repeat of Gaza from 2007.

[mudplanet]

49. It could be you don't see me protesting it because I don't see people

on DU claiming it isn't true.

[mudplanet]

55. I'm wondering if you'd be satisfied if I stated that I loved or hated Arabs and Jews equally

I'm not refuting lies about US aid to Arab countries or about the history or policies of Arab countries because I don't see them on this site.

I don't often see people on DU posting defenses of Egyptian domestic policies, or the practices of the Jordanian secret police, or officially supported anti-Semitic activities in Arab countries. If I did, I'd refute them.

[shira]

60. But it obviously doesn't bother you that your tax dollars are used to support rogue Arab regimes

...since you cannot be bothered to ever protest that anywhere, whether on DU, another forum, blog, etc....

Only tax dollars to Israel concerns you.

:eyes:

You're singling out Israel.

And this has nothing to do with humanitarian concerns.

[mudplanet]

63. This is simply untrue.

[LeftishBrit]

41. 'if that's what they wanted they could just come to the United States'

Yes, because the United States of the 1930s was *always* prepared to take in all who might wish to immigrate. :sarcasm:

If the USA - and UK and a variety of other countries- had had open doors to all immigrants, the Holocaust might have involved far fewer people.

[mudplanet]

42. I argee that US immigration policy regarding European Jews in the

1930s and 1940's was wrong.

[shira]

48. So where else could Jews of the 30's and 40's go, if not Israel? n/t