Ahmadinejad, What He Said
Ahmadinejad: We are Not a Threat to Any Country, Including Israel
Believe it, don't believe it, that's up to you. But at least we should know what exactly he said, which is not something our US newspapers will tell us about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech on Saturday:
Kayhan reports that [Pers.] Ahmadinejad said, "Iran is not a threat to any country, and is not in any way a people of intimidation and aggression." He described Iranians as people of peace and civilization. He said that Iran does not even pose a threat to Israel, and wants to deal with the problem there peacefully, through elections:
"Weapons research is in no way part of Iran's program. Even with regard to the Zionist regime, our path to a solution is elections."
Ahmadinejad seems to be explaining what his calls for the Zionist regime to be effaced actually mean. He says he doesn't want violence against Israel, despite its own acts of enmity against Middle Eastern neighbors. I interpret his statement on Saturday to be an endorsement of the one-state solution, in which a government would be elected that all Palestinians and all Israelis would jointly vote for. The result would be a government about half made up of Israeli ministers and half of Palestinian ones. Whatever one wanted to call such an arrangement, it wouldn't exactly be a "Zionist state," which would thus have been dissolved.
The schlock Western pundits, journalists and politicians who keep maintaining that Ahmadinejad threatened "to wipe Israel off the map" when he never said those words will never, ever manage to choke out the words Ahmadinejad spoke on Saturday, much less repeat them as a tag line forever after.
Comments
With regard to the last paragraph it's also worth pointing out what he did say: "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time"
Lost in translation http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathansteele/2006/06/post155.html
The President's trying to catch us off guard while he builds up his nuclear program.
Also, Iran's not just a threat to Israel (and threatened to wipe it off the map, as the above person noted), but it also threatens stability in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
This is problematic, even if you believe Cole's interpretation that the Iranian president wants a one-state solution. No one really wants a one state solution in this part of the world (unless they wield the power either by majority status, or because their minority is propped up).
I truly believe that a two-state solution is the only viable solution, and the only one that the two sides will agree on. In an ideal world, the two populations could co-mingle and co-govern, but not now and not in the near future.
shocking really. iran is not a threat to israel? how to explain hezbollah then? how to explain its nuclear arms program? how to explain the president's constant and insistent declarations that israel is an illegitimate state that should be wiped off the map?
being critical of israel is one thing, being reflexively partisan in favor of the only theocracy in the middle east is an act of cowardice of moral abstention.
One-state solution--let's put that as plan X,2. Right after X,1: go back in time and keep Isrealis from declaring to be a seperate state.
Norm how can you post such one-sided bias? No matter how others wish to interpet Nejad's comments the following fact is irrefutable: "Translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his Web site (www.president.ir/eng/), refer to wiping Israel away."
So Marco, given how well multi-ethnic countries have worked out in the Middle East, how do you imagine a one-state solution mutually benefiting both Palestinians and Israelis alike? We are in fact interested in the well being of all groups here, right. . .?
PS - Since I assume we are dealing in the realms of reality, I'm not going to address Marco's first solution, because wishful thinking, correct or incorrect does not get us any closer to a real sustainable peace.
"No one really wants a one-state solution in this part of the world"
On what basis are you making this statement? A "one-state solution" encompasses everything from an Islamic state in all of Palestine (in which non-Muslims would likely be second-class citizens, but probably not murdered en masse) to a bi-national single democratic state. I'm under no illusions taht the president of Iran favors anything but the first. But that range of alternatives has a lot of adherents.
Those who favor the latter are not insignificant and not necessarily "unrealistic"--they include the late Edward Said and the late Jewish political scientist Daniel Elazar. Is it more realistic to think that Palestinians are going to be able to form a prosperous, stable state on "the best deal Israel is ever going to give them"? It's a piece of territory that has nothing to do with original population distributions, supply of resources, or natural growth of communities within the territories, and everything to do with military history, the development of the settlements, and the current balance of power.
So why do Western negotiators only talk about a two-state solution? One, because it would of course be the end of political Zionism--Jews would still be living in Israel qua citizens but would not have a state qua Jews. And two, because a lot of ordinary people believe the fib that the only alternative to Zionism in Palestine is some other ethinically or religiously defined state along Arab or Muslim lines. I'm for a two-state solution, but if it were more politically likely I might favor a federal one-state solution with Jerusalem as a neutral capitol. I wish everyone living in Palestine right now could be a full citizen of a single democratic state as a Palestinian, not as a Jew, Muslim or Christian.
ahmadinejad never threatened to wipe israel off the map, he merely said he would prefer it to happen. thats really par for the course, and iranian (and other countries) leaders have been saying that for years. he has no intention of attacking israel. why would he? israel and the us are much more powerful and will be much more powerful for the indefinite future. i really dont see why iran would want war. i dont think they do. in fact, the power is so one-sided that its absurd we're even having this discussion. i think we also should not want war, but many in this country do. it would hurt our interests not help them.
at the very least, we need to wait 2 more years before any action against iran is made. bush has used up his benefit of the doubt, and this warmongers should not be allowed to make any more wars.
See, Norm. You want to have reasonable debate on these issues. But you post what cannot be described as anything but political pornography. Ahmadinejad said what he said. Other Iranian leaders have said as much. The fact that we now have to debate that he actually said it is obscene. This is Orwellian beyond belief. Is up down and down up in your world? Truly?
What majority Muslim country has a record of pluralism and equality with respect to its Jewish population? Name one. There isn't any because most Jews have been evicted or fled from persecution years ago. Now you lend credence to a "proposal" from this guy for a 1-state solution? Holy shit.
Zak, I don't think you should jump on Norm, just because he posted an article. Whether or not I believe the author as to the intention that he ascribed Ahmadinejad, is one thing. It was still interesting, and given that Norm hasn't commented directly on the claims made by the author, we should reserve judgement. I have yet to see Norm promote a one-state solution on this blog.
He wants to solve the problem with 'elections', eh?
Is that why he sends $150,000,000+ USD to Hezbollah, a group which seeks the destruction of Israel, every year?
Is that why his Revolutionary Guard forces spend so much time in Lebanon and Syria supporting, training, and financing Hezbollah?
Is that why he calls for the destruction of the state of Israel?
The way I see it, the only elections that he could be referring to would be the ones that would take place once he had removed all of the Jewish voters.
Every speech, every conference, and every interview Ahmadinejad gives is meant to get him more time, and to deflect the eyes of the world from what he is doing with respect to his Nuclear program.
Everytime the west calls him a name, he comes out on western TV and says it isn't true, and that he is a peaceful man, and that his ambitions are that of a peace maker.
Then he travels around the world giving speeches and calling for Israel to be destroyed.
The man actively supports groups who're militant against Israel, then he calls for the destruction of Israel, then he says that he wants a peaceful solution to the problem.
What a bunch of shit.
shocking really. iran is not a threat to israel? how to explain hezbollah then? how to explain its nuclear arms program? how to explain the president's constant and insistent declarations that israel is an illegitimate state that should be wiped off the map?
Apparently, there's a lot of Kool-Aid left over from the Iraq invasion.
how to explain hezbollah then? Hezbollah was formed for the purpose of expelling the occupying Israeli army, which had been responsible for many of the most extreme atrocities during the period of the Lebanese civil war. It is a wholly home-grown organization, although it has received some foreign aid.
how to explain its nuclear arms program? What nuclear arms program? The American president says that Iran is pursuing nuclear technology for military purposes; the Iranian president says that Iran is pursuing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. One of these presidents has lied to us repeatedly: which one? IAEA finds no evidence of a nuclear arms program.
how to explain the president's constant and insistent declarations that israel is an illegitimate state that should be wiped off the map? Ahmadinejad's remarks are better represented by an accurate translation.
everyone's internal BS-detector should be going off at this notion of taking ahmadinejad at his word, given his routine warlike posturing.
when you live in america with access to a variety of "free" media outlets, it's such an ironic choice to buy into a state-controlled sound-bite machine. iran imprisons journalists (and bloggers!) whose words don't match the national rhetoric:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=16&year=2005&country=6756
personally, i take mike wallace at his word. observe how ahmadinejad dodges questions concerning his belligerence: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14547.htm
Great, kes has a new friend named Fred.
Fred, you write: "Hezbollah was formed for the purpose of expelling the occupying Israeli army"
The UN confirmed that Israel ceased occupying Lebanon in 2000. So what purpose did it serve after then except to stir trouble and provoke Israel for its master Iran?
2, "erased from the page of time" doesn't mean "wiped out." ???? What exactly do you think it means? Please check out Iran's press service at http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles2001/dec2001/rafsanjaninukethreats_141201.htm to see what Rafsanjani had to say about this in 2001. Then tell me again we shouldnt worry. You're coocoo.
3, talking about drinking the kool aid, Iran has a nuclear program for peaceful purposes? what purposes might those be? Is Iran strapped for sources of energy? Christ, get real.
This whole discussion is really nuts. Iran is a totalitarian theocratic dictatorship and you guys believe them. If I wondered how people fall under the spell of dictatorships, I now have my answer. Delusional. Truly.
Great, kes has a new friend named Fred.
Fred, you write: "Hezbollah was formed for the purpose of expelling the occupying Israeli army"
The UN confirmed that Israel ceased occupying Lebanon in 2000. So what purpose did it serve after then except to stir trouble and provoke Israel for its master Iran?
2, "erased from the page of time" doesn't mean "wiped out." ???? What exactly do you think it means? Please check out Iran's press service at http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles2001/dec2001/rafsanjaninukethreats_141201.htm to see what Rafsanjani had to say about this in 2001. Then tell me again we shouldnt worry. You're coocoo.
3, talking about drinking the kool aid, Iran has a nuclear program for peaceful purposes? what purposes might those be? Is Iran strapped for sources of energy? Christ, get real.
This whole discussion is really nuts. Iran is a totalitarian theocratic dictatorship and you guys believe them. If I wondered how people fall under the spell of dictatorships, I now have my answer. Delusional. Truly.
Keeping an open mind, I went to the site to which you referred. I found a December 2001 article headlined "RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL", which cited a single quote from Rafsanjani which in no way supported the headline: "If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world."
One interesting line I did find in that same article claimed "While Israel is believed to possess between 100 to 200 nuclear war heads, the Islamic Republic and Iraq are known to be working hard to produce their own atomic weapons" It's worth repeating for emphasis: according to the article's anonymous author, in December 2001 Iraq was known to be working hard to produce atomic weapons.
It's somewhat simple-minded to call www.iran-press-service.com "Iran's press service." It is not produced by Iran. It is not even produced in Iran. One of the interesting things about the internet is that anyone can register a domain name which will suck in all the poor trusting saps.
Naivete again rears its coy head with your remark, "UN confirmed that Israel ceased occupying Lebanon in 2000." Do a little research: there are numerous Israeli violations of Lebanese territorial integrity in the period between the Israeli withdrawal and the start of the recent major confilct. In fact, the Permanent Mission of Lebanon to the United Nations had reported a total of 529 "violations of Lebanese sovereignty committed by Israel" for the six-month period December 1, 2005, through May 31, 2006. Start here: http://www.doublestandards.org/lin1.html
"This whole discussion is really nuts. Iran is a totalitarian theocratic dictatorship and you guys believe them. If I wondered how people fall under the spell of dictatorships, I now have my answer. Delusional. Truly."
the question isnt whether we like iran or ahmadinejad, the question is whether iran is a threat or not. they simply are not a threat. even if they are pursuing nuclear weapons, they arent a threat now. even if they had nuclear weapons i dont think they are much of a threat. who would they use them against? if they gave them to terrorists, the nukes can be traced back to them. its obviously not preferrable for iran to have nukes, but it wouldnt be the end of the world.
why would iran want war? war would mean their destruction. however, anti-israel and anti-american rhetoric does help them politically.
zak, do you align yourself with the reactionary conservatives who believe ahmadinejad is actively trying to destroy the world? thats the only way a war with iran would make sense, and i think its a nutty belief.
most people in power enjoy power and want to stay in power.
And you provide little but hyperbole. I simply linked to Juan Coles' post the words are his. He is making the case that that what Ahmadinejad said was translated incorrectly and explained it. Follow the link and read the entire post. Juan Cole is a well respected scholar on the middle east. Neither he nor I made any judgment statements about the practicallity of such a solution, but it is a possible explanation for what erasing Israel from the pages of time could mean short of killing all the jews.
He is not suggesting a one-state solution, he's explaining what he thinks Ahmadinejad meant by his statement.
If you think posting opinions that differ from yours or mine is lending credence to them, well too bad, it is difficult to discuss others' ideas without presenting them.
If he really thinks Ahmadinejad meant anything other than destroying Israel, he's got problems. If you believe him, you've got even bigger problems. Sorry. Even al-Jazeera reported he said it (here: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/15E6BF77-6F91-46EE-A4B5-A3CE0E9957EA.htm ) so I don't understand what games you guys are playing.
Here's the report:
"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.
His comments were the first time in years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for Israel's eradication, even though such slogans are still regularly used at government rallies.
Addressing about 4000 students gathered in an Interior Ministry conference hall, Ahmadinejad also called for Palestinian unity, resistance and a point "where the annihilation of the Zionist regime will come".
You're being disingenuous if you're saying you're just posting opinions differing from your own. You don't qualify the post by saying "This is a goofy interpretation, but get a load of this." You just lay it out there with the header "Ahmadinejad, What He Said". That's garbage.
When Israel farts, you want the UN to conduct a UN inquiry into what it ate for dinner. Iran's President calls for the destruction of a country, it's reported in Western and Eastern news outlets the world over, he denies he said it, and you treat that as a legitimate point of view and a "discuss[ion of] others' ideas."
WTF?
I'm not at all sure the translation issue is as you say a goofy issue as outlined in this article Juan Cole is a serious scholar and finally reasonable people can disagree, without accusing each other of sinister motives. You know Zak perhaps you would be happier somewhere else where everyone agrees with you. You don't like it here go somewhere else. You're my guest here and you've about overstayed your welcome.
Look, wiped off the map, erased from this page in time, it doesn't matter.
If you seriously believe that Iran is willing to work peacefully with Israel, you're just dead wrong. It doesn't matter what the President is saying right now, their actions, including funding Hezzbollah, building nuclear weapons material, and helping to cause further chaos in Iraq prove that it hates Israel and its allies.
Regardless of what translation you look at, all point to Iran wanting to wipe Israel away.
They don't want Israel around anymore, and that's their stance. They'll do it by any means necessary.
Whether or not the Iranese officials are planning to make a bomb, I don't know. However, what is known and is common knowledge is that Israel has nuclear bombs and the potential to target them anywhere in the Middle East. Is it so surprising that Teheren would be threatened into making one as well? Not that I'm saying they have, the only people who can confirm that without lying is the people in charge themselves (and its foolish for people to try and guess on thier own otherwise.) But if they did, it would seem totally reasonable.
Btw, dende blogger makes an erroneous claim.
The one state system of Israel is one where non-Muslims are second-class citizens where Arab civilians are massacred en masse by the Israelis in the last 5 decades.
Examples:
1] [Israeli] High Court Upholds Law Barring West Bank Palestinians From Living With Family in Israel
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1959744
2] Israeli Ministry of affairs started that ONLY 2580 Israeli civilians have been killed by Arab terrorist attacks from 1920-1999. Again Israel was created in 1948, not 1920:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2000/1/Terrorism%20deaths%20in%20Israel%20-%201920-1999?556d482f
Almost ten numbers the number of innocent Arab civilians were killed JUST in 1982 by Israel. Robert Fisk estimates that within the 4 months of June to September 1982, 18,000-20,000 Palestinians and Lebanese were killed, most of them in Israeli air strikes on civilian targets.
Norm is only posting this article for our reference or discussion. And he does not make any statements endorsing Iran's position.
So I find it odd that the pro-Israeli crowd has so much problems with this article.
Especially after they expect us to take Israel at face value claims such as Israel is only bombing areas where Hezbollah are using civilian shields? Claims that are not supported by any credible proof and are disputed by international organisations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch?.
Simply put, how can you take Israel at face value but not Iran, especially when Iran received fewer UN resolutions that denounce Iran's activities?
At least, Iran signed the IPT non-proliferation treaty and until 6 months ago allowed UN inspectors at its nuclear plants.
Compare that to Israel which developed a clandestine nuclear WMD programme in the 1960s without international supervision and without signing the IPT treaty and is a military aggressor in the Middle East whose occupation of Arab lands since the 1960s are not recognised by the world community and the UN?
The pro-Israeli crowd continues to make excuses for Israel while condemning Iran who is a lesser threat to the peace and stability of the Middle East.
Sad to see people who do not want to read both sides of the issues before coming to a conclusion. To them, their personal bias takes precedence over facts, research and a true understanding of both sides of the conflict.
==========
It is quite obvious from the history of anti-Semite smears that Norm will only be spared criticism if he posts a pro-Israeli article.
Unfortunately, the major news media and international organisation has no such news available.
Fred writes: "Keeping an open mind, I went to the site to which you referred. I found a December 2001 article headlined "RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL", which cited a single quote from Rafsanjani which in no way supported the headline: "If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world."
"In no way supports the headline"????? Read what he says. What do you think "application of an atomic bomb", "not leave any thing in Israel" and "just produce damages in the Muslim world" mean?? Seriously? What do you think those words mean?
And the al-Jazeera report about Ahmadinejad's comments? That's nothing either??
And as for your "you're my guest here" post above, Norm, fuck you. No really, fuck you. Let's make one thing clear: I started posting on this site with the best of intentions. I'm left of centre, I'm an atheist, I never see things as black and white. I thought we had a lot in common. I have said repeatedly I am in favour of Israeli withdrawal of the territories, I'm in favour of a Palestinian state, I believe Israel has overdone its response. I believe Palestinians have gotten screwed. But I have gotten nothing in return. All I've gotten is the "Israel has no right to exist and no historical claim" ramblings of kes and your disingenuous "i'm just being fair" bullshit to comments that are clearly and twistedly anti-Israel.
There's a difference between being pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel. You wrap yourself in fairness, but you're a fraud. Just like the religionists you criticize, you hear what you want to hear: Israel is sinister, the Arabs have good intentions, Israel commits atrocities, the Arabs defend themselves, Israel is not a democracy and most Arab countries are not totalitarian dictatorships, Israel's existence is questionable, a 21st Arab state or 2nd Palestinian one next to Jordan is just.
You claim to want to have discussion and debate, but I've never once heard you say "you've got a point" or "kes goes too far" or "both sides are at fault." Israel is the villain and the other side, deathly silence. Even when the other side says "yes, we want to destroy Israel" they're not REALLY saying it. Unbelievable!!!
I thought there was a middle ground for reasonable, fair and open minded discussion. You've proven me wrong. You wonder why Israel hasnt made peace with the Palestinians? Because there's no one to meet them halfway, just people who want it all and bat their eyelashes to the world community and say they're "just being fair."
BULLSHIT. I'm out of here.
Zak, you and the pro-Israeli crowd have resorted to insults and namecalling to attack people who disagreed with you or criticise Israel.
Many of us here took the time to verify our views and reveal our sources to share our knowledge with the rest of the members here.
Never once were we attacked for doing so until you and the pro-Israeli crowd appear in this blog to pass on propaganda, half truths and outright falsehoods to defend Israel while condemning the Arabs for doing the same things Israel first did and was never punished for it.
You are indeed full of BULLSHIT. And Bullshit should stay out of this blog, along with your personal attacks, name-calling and insults.
Good riddance.
Contrary to what Zak claims, Israel is the country doing the nuclear warmongering this week.
Israel buys 2 nuclear-capable submarines. 25 Aug 2006
By RAMIT PLUSHNICK-MASTI, Associated Press Writer Fri Aug 25, 4:52 AM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060825/aponremiea/israeldeterringiran
JERUSALEM - With the purchase of two more German-made Dolphin submarines capable of carrying nuclear warheads, military experts say Israel is sending a clear message to Iran that it can strike back if attacked by nuclear weapons.
The purchases come at a time when Iran is refusing to bow to growing Western demands to halt its nuclear program, and after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."…
The latest submarines not only would be able to carry out a first strike should Israel choose to do so, but they also would provide Israel with crucial second-strike capabilities, said Paul Beaver, a London-based independent defense analyst… Israel, operating on a policy of nuclear ambiguity, has never confirmed or denied whether it has nuclear weapons. It is believed, however, to have the world's sixth-largest stockpile of atomic arms, including hundreds of warheads…
Norm could have posted news of Israel's WMD sabre-rattling on his blog as the big news from Middle East for the last 7 days.
Norm did not do so but opted to pick out an article on Iran's intentions in the Middle East.
Obviously the pro-Israeli crowd is too busy attacking Norm to notice this.
I posted the link to Juan Coles' comments becuase I think it is worthwhile, to not just come to knee-jerk conclusions, but to actually consider the possible motives for Ahmadinejad's contradictory statements. Is some of it just for local consumption. Is he pragmatic or just nuts? I don't see a need to reach a final conclusion at this point. Don't misunderstand I expect my government to be prepared for any eventuallity, but there are no immediate threats to Israel's existence or to ours and we can for the time being refrain from precipitous action or knee-jerk conclusions. It seems clear that Ahmadinejad would at a minimum prefer that Israel cease to exist as it is currently constituted. But short of reading his mind it is not possible to know exactly what he means by that, or what he is willing to do to reach those goals. I don't believe reserving final judgment is unreasonable. I sometimes disagree with others commenting on this blog and think them quite possibly nuts, but I try not to impugn their motives, and I expect others to behave similarly. That is simply being civil. If you can't be civil please don't post here, and that goes for both those I agree with and those I don't. Think about the tone of your comments if they are always or almost always of the in your face variety it is time to make some changes. Everyone gets emotional on occasion and as you can see from what I've allowed in the past I'm not quick to complain. So make your comments as thoughtful as you can. It is not necessary to respond to everything you disagree with, or to try and dominate the disucssion. Take turns and play fair.
I find it interesting that zak posted that the ambulance story was fabricated throughout the media then turns around and won't apply the same skepticism to the translation.
I guess he really doesn't care about truth unless it coincides with his beliefs.
Kes says,
As far as the submarines go, it seems to me the purpose of buying the subs is to give Israel a 'second strike' capability, such that if they were ever struck by an atomic bomb, they could respond afterward.
What use would Israel have for a 'first strike' platform? Do you actually believe that they would use this sort of capability? That they would be the ones firing the opening shots in an atomic war in the middle east?
The purchase of the subs seems to be more defensive, deterrent, posturing, rather than some sort of ominous 'warmongering' as you have labeled it.
Zak has been involved in a lot of the good debate held in this blog. And at times, as Norm noted, people get emotional about the discussions taking place here.
Sometimes emotional people can get frustrated with others.
Given some of the things Kes has said in the past I can fully understand why Zak may be frustrated with him.
I find it a little confusing that people are attacking Zak for making 'personal insults' against people on the blog, while no one questions the things Kes has said.
Kes routinely labels people as being 'liars' and 'dishonest' when he does not agree with what they say, even when many of these things are documented facts.
As someone who has been the target of Kes' remarks, I can testify to the fact that it can be very frustrating [and personally insulting] to be labeled a liar, or a dishonest person, every time I try to express a point of view that does not line up with Kes' opinions.
Cut Zak a little slack folks.
I never really understood some things: who would want a nuclear wepon if not to be used as a deterrent? (besides the rapture guys)
It's quite obvious to me that Iran is so much a threat to the US as Irak was and as Cuba is.
If i had to guess the real military threats to the US, they would be China and Russia, not Iran... (the latter is not even a threat to Israel, which has the capacity to respond)
I really don't see what the fuss is about.
Iran has a crazy president, well that reminds me of this: "bring it on" :/ (sarcasm intended)
Valkesh,
You make some good points. I would encourage all not to attribute motives to others that you have no way of knowing. Lying requires knowing that what you are saying is false. The charge of lying requires both that the information is false and that the person knew the information was false. Unless you can provide such proof you should use less extreme words. Mistaken is a good choice.
I hope that Zak does not stop posting. I have learned a lot about this debate from his posts. I just ignore the insulting comments made by both Zak and Kes and read the meat of what they have to say.
As for being emotional, this is an emotional topic for Zak and I can perfectly well understand that.
Also, it can really upset a person to be called a liar. That is a grave insult impuning one's moral integrity
ODE TO THE UNDERDOG there are only 3 possible positions to take on the arab/israeli issue. there are those who see only the arab side as having any legitimacy, those who see only the israeli side as having any legitimacy, and those who see both sides as having legitimacy. of the 3rd kind, there are those who pick a side, based on their reading of the evidence and their personal sense of justice and fair play (lets call them type 3a.) and those who don't choose a side, approaching the issue like a rubiks' cube, impersonally just trying to understand the respective positions and how, as a whole, it might be made to work (3b). these last, admittedly, are rarer than hens teeth and you won't find them on this blog. (in my imagining of what the group of bloggers here might really be like, i like to think that joanne might fall into this category, but i haven't seen enough of her posts to judge. the majority of responders fall into the 3a category, which is in line with their numbers in the world community, i think, closely followed by type 1- those who only see legitimacy in the arab position. myself, zak, valkesh, lev, average joe, duffer, dar, zahid (where you been, buddy? we miss you) and norm himself seem to me to be 3a types. so why do we disagree w/each other so strongly? because there are two subcategories of 3b-pro-israel and anti-israel. why do i say anti-israel instead of pro-arab? well, take norm. he's said himself that he sees arab/muslim fanaticism as just about the greatest danger the world faces today, and he sees israels actions, if not its existance, as the major cause/catylist of this. so he's not pro arab, he's anti israel. i see a lot of this in the 3a/anti israel side. being liberal, feminist,pro-homosexual rights, pro-choice, etc., they just can't claim to have much in common with,or indeed sympathy for, arab/muslim thinking. they've just come to the conclusion that israel is in the wrong, for reasons ranging from simple anti-semitism (not on this blog, god forbid) to a sense of justice and fair play, to norms' stated reason (which im sure doesn't exclude a sense of justice and fair play). type 1 people are represented here by kes, and a few others who, because of kes's verbosity and steroidal documentation skills, will unfortunately always be in his formidable shadow. now, can anyone guess which type is not represented here AT ALL? thats right, type 2- the uncompromising, unapologetic jewish nationalist position. when i suggested to norm that i bring one in, he declined my offer, saying that zak and i were more than enough trouble for him. theres one more place you can find the type 1 argument on this blog- in norms posted articles, the catylist for all this discussion. hence my title. who's the underdog here? think about it, all you liberal underdog lovers-and i include myself. i hold that in world opinion, on this blog, and in the arab/israeli conflict itself, the jews, and those who take their side, are the underdogs. the conflict has been very cleverly framed by the anti-israel side as "israeli/palestinian", instead of its true nature, jewish/arab, in order to make it look like the jewish state is the stronger party, in order to enlist the support of the underdog loving liberals of the world. and look how effective they've been. now zak, a dyed-in-the wool leftist/liberal by any definition, including on the topic of the jewish/arab conflict, has been bounced out of this forum. to be fair, i think it was his emotionalism that got under norms skin, but i understand his frustration. when you're the underdog, under constant attack, and still treated like the big bully by your own team (theoretically-i mean the liberal left) it can get to you sometimes. the jews are very emotional people-we share this with the italians and, for that matter, the arabs- and being constantly attacked and rebuked by norm and kes, who often sound for all the world like a couple of uptight, pursed-lipped old white ladies (no disrespect to white ladies intended)i guess just made him crazy. i, for one, will miss him and hope you can all work it out. the blog wil be the poorer for his absence.
"It is quite obvious from the history of anti-Semite smears that Norm will only be spared criticism if he posts a pro-Israeli article". that'll be the day. never happened, never will. reasons discussed above.
"Unfortunately, the major news media and international organisation has no such news available." thanks for making my point, kes. i understand the point you were making is that there ISNT anything positive to say about israel, but that's just ridiculous. i thought you claimed to have thouroughly researched BOTH SIDES of the issue. guess not.
I have been reading these postings for a while now, and have never felt the burning need to write until now.
Kes disgusts me. It's been getting worse and worse on a daily basis.
Norm, your unfailing defense of Kes and his obvious narrow-minded and thinly veiled anti-semetic in the guise of anit-Israel postings (note I say postings here - I am not calling the man an anti-semite though I am usually known for calling a spade a spade I am strongly resisting that urge) is disappointing to say the least.
I secong Zak's motion: this is bullshit and I'm outta here.
Jonathan becker, can I kiss you? loved your analysis. Fantastic. Your comment on how this has been reframed from an Arab/Jewish to Palestinian/Israeli issue is right on.
I'll still be lurking. But I'm done with Norm's passive bullshit and kes' active version.
And thanks Rebecca.
Alex Zhao wrote: "Look, wiped off the map, erased from this page in time, it doesn't matter."
No what matters is that he said he wishes the Israeli "regime" to vanish. There is a big difference between that and saying he wants "Israel" to vanish.
Jonathan Becker,
I am someone attempting to discover what the truth is in this sea of information, this overwhelming sea of information. I got to know Kes before this discussion of Israel and its neighbors. I got to know a man who I related to. Zak is someone who I only know as far as his posts concerning this conflict go, that is, the conflict between Israel and its neighbors. No doubt, I feel more comfortable with the Israelis and Jews from other countries than I do with hijab and sharia-law-imposing fundamentalists.
Still learning. Still reading. Still way too ignorant on this topic to decide.
I feel for the Palestinians. I feel that their way of defense is too often referred to as terrorism. When a country is not recognized and has no standard army, then how else so classify their way of defending their country and their way of life? A way of life that I want nothing to do with. I also understand that the Israelis are stuck with no country amidst a sea of peoples who want nothing to do with them, and they have no real country based upon the belief with so many that they have no right to exist, situated as they are amidst Arabs, and Persians, etc. This situation seems to have no solution. Not now. Not ever. So sad for all of those involved.
jo anne, your honesty, open mindedness and desire to learn without an agenda are humbling. you may be the only person on the blog who's ever admitted ignorance of anything (norm might be an exception, though it usually sounds like bragging, somehow, when he does it) showing a level of natural wisdom that i, for one, would never want to fuck with. looks like you are representing for "type 3b". :) pleasure to meetcha.
Still labeling people I see.
Answer me this, when people talk about do you immediately assume they are talking about the entire population or the government of those countries and it's actions? I don't approve of my government's actions so does that make me anti-American? I know there are many Israelis that don't approve of what their country did also. Refusing to even entertain the possibility that he was talking about Israel regime change instead of genocide is pretty close minded IMO.
Jon don't assume you can simplify people's opinions as easily as 1,2,3.
p.s. as far as kes being a man you could relate to: well, i can relate to him, too, in a way you may or may not find surprising: i used to do the same thing he's doing-no quarter, facts up the wazoo- to my own parents, who were ideological zionists. i felt just the way he does, until i moved to israel and discovered that zionists are people too. :)
dar, i only "labeled" you very generally as a person who realizes that there are legitamate points on both sides,and had chosen a side.i put myself in the same category. i didn't mention which side you had chosen, although since you bring it up i think its pretty clear. i don't think there's anything wrong with this (if you care what i think). i hope i'm not wrong- maybe you are "type 1". if you object to being categorized at all, i apologize, although i think this is unreasonable-its just the way the human mind works. and i didn't say anything about the meaning of the statements by the honorable president of iran. if you want to know, i DID entertain the possibility, and concluded he WAS talking about regime change. a change from a jewish regime, to an arab regime.
dar makes an interesting point. i realize that categorization is a tricky, and potentially offensive thing. if anyone can show me a position on the arab/israeli conflict that doesn't fall into one of the categories i mentioned, i'd be very interested to see it.
Dar, I would say that Jon's categories are broad enough that they don't pin anyone to a single opinion. His categorization is more about an approach to the conflict.
I think a refreshing approach would to have a reporter with the balls to ask Nassrallah or Ahmadinejad straight up, "Would you accept an Israel that exists with the pre-1967 war borders that has a Jewish majority?" Plain and simple. Then there would be no confusion about his beliefs and we could see if he is truly a partner that could help secure the two-state solution that is necessary to allow self-determination for all parties involved.
zak (speaking of norm): " You claim to want to have discussion and debate, but I've never once heard you say "you've got a point" or "kes goes too far" or "both sides are at fault." "
actually just a couple posts down i saw norm say just that. http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/08/linkswithyour_379.html#comments
as for israel in general, yes i suppose they more closely reflect my values than the arabs do, but i am not able to support them when they commit human rights abuses. israel could easily win my support, but i think its dangerous to support a country while they are commiting atrocities. support has to be won.
i think there are concrete ways israel could descalate the conflicts. hamas implicitly recognized israel's right to exist just before the fighting broke out earlier this year, but israel does not recognize hamas' right to exist. they refuse to even negotiate.
israel is not the underdog. it seems to me that israel's position is that they have all the power, so they get to unilaterally decide everything. they are the winner.
how do settlements protect them against terrorism?
i realize that even if israel was a model citizen of the world, anti-semitic terrorism would still exist, and there are groups (like islamic jihad) who dont recognize israel's right to exist. however, it would be more manageable that way.
i think israel takes a similar view as america when it comes to terrorism.
it doesnt work to just kill all the terrorists, or just dominate the area or whatever. you have to legitimize the faction's you're warring against, you have to bring them into the mainstream. hamas is a perfect example.
so briefly, israel would win my support if they did all they could to bring about reconcilliation. if they did that i would support their anti-terrorism actions against the factions that that is impossible for.
Whatever, put a number on my head, makes no difference to me. I guarantee you're wrong though.
That's a good question, why hasn't anyone pursued clarification? Could it be because the US and other countries are acting like children and refuse to even talk to Iran?
Rebecca, you are the one who is disgusting if you and the pro-Israeli are still engaging in the gisgustylabelling and attacking people who crticise Israel as anti-Semite.
All I did was to share my readings on the Arab-Israeli conflict from credible sources such as the United Nations, international media and international organisations.
If you have a problem with these sources, kindly address the facts and issues I raise directly, rather than attacking me to avoid addressing them as you lack the facts and sources to debate this issue properly.
Rebecca, your insults does not scare me one bit.
What is disgusting is the pro-Israeli crowd condemning the Arabs for the same things that Israel first done, is still doing at a larger scale and which Israel is not punished for it.
And the pro-Israeli crowd accuse me of being one-sided.
: >
Rebecca, you are the one who is disgusting if you and the pro-Israeli are still engaging in the gisgustylabelling and attacking people who crticise Israel as anti-Semite.
All I did was to share my readings on the Arab-Israeli conflict from credible sources such as the United Nations, international media and international organisations.
If you have a problem with these sources, kindly address the facts and issues I raise directly, rather than attacking me to avoid addressing them as you lack the facts and sources to debate this issue properly.
Rebecca, your insults does not scare me one bit.
What is disgusting is the pro-Israeli crowd condemning the Arabs for the same things that Israel first done, is still doing at a larger scale and which Israel is not punished for it.
And the pro-Israeli crowd accuse me of being one-sided.
: >
Valkesh, you are not being honest here and I’ll prove it.
When I say you or Zak or anyone of the pro-Israeli crowd as lying or misleading people, I provide proof immediately.
One example is an article that Madsen and Valkesh used to JUSTIFY Israel's bombings of a UN position and killing of 4 innocent UN observers, which he claimed was not seen as a mistake on the part of Israel.
However, the second page of the article CONDEMNED condemned the Israeli's direct hit on the United Nations outpost on the second page:
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=37278180-a261-421d-84a9-7f94d5fc6d50
Here’s the thread where this happens:
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/07/a_myth.html#comments
Under Norm's definition, I can claims that Valkesh and Madsen are lying or misleading the people here with their use of this article, which does not support their pro-Israeli claims even though they claimed they did.
=============
Another example is Zak FALSELY claiming to have refuted my claim that article 51 of the UN does not allow Israel to occupy and hold Arab lands, even on claims of self-defence.
Zak clearly lied as I was the one who have refuted Zak's claim in detail at this thread, to which Zak has no response either:
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/08/linkswithyour_379.html
I have exposed Zak’s lies in response to his other claims that he had refuted my other statements at my post on August 29, 2006 12:45 AM at this thread:
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/08/warcrimes4.html
My conscience is clear.
While the pro-Israeli crowd here who does their best to portray their stands and positions without facts or sources in 90% of their posts, I back up my positions against Israel, which is a rogue state which received 22 United Nations resolutions against its activities, 7 more than Saddam’s Iraq.
So why not also claim that the world community and the UN are anti-semite? Especially when many countries don't recognise Israel and its territorial claims based on military conquests?
Why not investigate if Israel deserves those resolutions? Are the truths and facts so inconvenient to the pro-Israeli crowd?
I've read for months on this issue before coming to any conclusions on Israel.
I focused my readings on the United Nations archive, which is a torture to read, because Israel has often legitimised its existence by UN's Partition Plan while denouncing the Plan as well as the 22 UN resolutions against it.
For that, I'm smeared with the title anti-semite by Zak and the pro-Israeli crowd.
These people do not read my posts and yet have the cheek to claim what I wrote or did not wrote such as Zak’s false claims that I did not mention that 800,000 Arab Palestinians were expelled by the Israelis from their lands in 1948. I have made quite a few posts with this reference before Zak accused me of omission here
So who is the one showing basic courtesy here?
The people who read and backs up their comments? OR those who don’t read but smear?
========================
By the way, I call people who support Israel as pro-Israeli.
On the other hand, the pro-Israel crowd insult people who criticize Israel with derogatory terms like Anti-Semite, even though I use both international and Jewish sources like the Jews for Peace in the Middle East:
www.cactus48.com
Who’s the name caller here?
=======
The task here is simple.
If you feel strongly for something, just prove it.
Don't just attack people like me just because my facts and informed analysis hurts your case.
TYPO: Under Norm's definition, I can say that Valkesh and Madsen are lying or misleading the people here with their use of this article, which does not support their pro-Israeli claims even though they claimed THE ARTICLE did.
=====
After all, they were the one who brought up or showcased the article to support their points, which in reality it does not support their points at all.
sorry im posting so much tonight, just bored i guess. not trying to take over your site, norm, but its like with music- when theres nothing out there, i write and record my own. so, anyway, i'm pretty familiar with the many jewish groups and websites that are pro-palestinian. ive said it before-show me the arab equivalent. but i hadn't heard of the one that kes likes to use to prove that "some of his best friends are jewish"-cactus48.com. just for yuks i decided to go there. told you, got nothing else to do tonight. so it turns out its a website run by pro-palestinian american CHRISTIANS. after i finished laughing, i saw that it directs you to a book published by a group called jews for peace in the middle east. the book is just a series of quotes-no analysis at all- by many different anti-israel authors, some jewish, some not. the interesting thing is that many of these quotes refute points that kes has made repeatedly here. i'll just mention one example:one quote states that the kingdom of david and solomon DID in fact exist. now, i'm not here to argue that point for or against, but talk about cherry picking! i suspect, based on kes's complete refusal to admit to any legitimacy at all for israels position/existance, that he cherry picks from most,if not all, of the sites he uses to support his positions. i bet i could go to almost any link he provides, even the most visciously anti-israel ones, and find tidbits of information or positions that conflict with his. but i ain't THAT bored.
sorry, typo, mine AND kes's. it jews for JUSTICE in the middle east. which reminds me of the conflict between peace and (absolute) justice in classical jewish thought. hey, i know the typekey thing is a hassle, im trying to find a way to make this computer do it, but earlier i sent responses to dar and jo anne. hope you didn't delete them.
right, got it, thanks. edolfedol, you make some valid points. israel has some major tweaking to do before it becomes morally acceptable to a nonpartisan viewpoint. in its defense (that seems to be my job here, and i admit that israel doesn't make it easy sometimes)its pretty hard to do that kind of tweaking under constant fire. you know, "occupation" may be pretty tough to put up with, but it could give you plenty of breathing space and time to think if you'd let it. constant physical attack is a different thing entirely. israel is, for better or worse, trying to even the odds and not give its enemies time to think. your comment about bringing the terrorists into the mainstream was interesting. at first i was nodding my head, thinking of the irish and irgun models. then i thought, hell, they already ARE in the mainstream-the ARAB mainstream. unless you believe this crap about "a few extremists who don't represent islam".
Jonathan’s bias against sources critical of Israel’s policies can be seen when he refuses to criticise the pro-Israeli sources that Zak uses, which include www.palestinefacts.org.
This www.palestinefacts.org is so secretive about its origins that it does not mention which organisation runs it in a shallow attempt to maintain an appearance of objectivity.
However, a simple check on Jewish and pro-Israeli websites clearly shows www.palestinefacts.org as an Israel adviocacy website:
Proof:
http://www.comsyn.org/israel.php
http://www.lambo.ca/barzel/Links.html
I mentioned it many times but as I pointed out, jonathan has no problems with half-truths, falsehoods and propaganda as long as it’s pro-Israel.
By the way, jonathan, have you located which one of my post did I say Israel is “the source of all evil”.
You falsely claimed that I said this in your post on August 27, 2006 10:52 PM at this thread: http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/08/warcrimes4.html#comments
Where did I say it in any of my posts?
Either point out where I said this.
Or apologise for misleading people about the facts and issues I raise.
Unlike the pro-Israeli crowd here, I have no problems apologising, and I have done so if I get any facts or sources wrong.
www.cactus48.com position is against Zionism, not Israel.
And jonathan has the cheek to tell people here that you gone through the website?
The American Christian webmasters of www.cactus48.com criticise the excesses of Zionism, not Israel as jonathan claims.
That’s why they showcase an online book for the organisation called “Jews for Peace in the Middle East”, a group of Hartford-area Jews who feel called by conscience to speak out, as Jews, against policies of the Israeli government that undermine the cause of peace and contradict Jewish principles of justice.
Their position against Zionism are clearly stated on their website and in their book under the Introduction section:
http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html
“In short, Zionism was based on a faulty, colonialist world view that the rights of the indigenous inhabitants didn't matter. The Arabs' opposition to Zionism wasn't based on anti-Semitism but rather on a totally reasonable fear of the dispossession of their people.
We do not believe that the Jews acted worse than any other group might have acted in their situation. The Zionists (who were a distinct minority of the Jewish people until after WWII) had an understandable desire to establish a place where Jews could be masters of their own fate, given the bleak history of Jewish oppression. Especially as the danger to European Jewry crystalized in the late 1930's and after, the actions of the Zionists were propelled by real desperation.
But so were the actions of the Arabs. The mythic "land without people for a people without land" was already home to 700,000 Palestinians in 1919. This is the root of the problem, as we shall see.”
==========
The book by the Jews for Peace in the Middle East is written by Jewish writers critical of Israel, where many of my SECONDARY sources come from.
As I'm using Jewish sources to support my critique of Israeli policies, how can the pro-Israeli crowd call me Anti-Semite?
: >
TYPO:
www.cactus48.com position is against Zionism, not Israel.
And jonathan has the cheek to tell people here that HE HAS gone through the website?
By the way, Zionism is repugnant to many Jews, not just because of Israeli atrocities under its direction.
Zionist Jews were partly responsible for the Jewish Holocause as they help put the German Jews into the hands of the Nazis.
Despite threatened annihilation of the Jews as proposed in Hitler's Mein Kampf and The Protocals of Zion, the Zionists in the 1930s were hoping that Hitler would deport 500,000 German Jews to Palestine and even signed an economic agreement called The Transfer Agreement with Hitler's Germany to help promote the deportation of German Jews. Edwin Black has written a very good book about this little known agreement that has been redacted from the American and Israeli history books.
Kindly note there is thus a difference between anti-Zionism and anti-Israeli and both should not be equated with being Anti-Semite.
The moment you do that you are misleading people about your knowledge of the context of the issues.
dear kes, sounding particularly shrill today, old buddy. meds wearing off? (in memory of zak). ok, here we go. kindly show why it should be my job to critize the sites zak used, or any sites? if you read my post you'll see i didn't even critisize cactus 48. i do think its fair to categorize sites (or books, in this case) as being pro- or anti-israel, as per my lengthy analysis above which i assume you read. this is not critisizm. again, i never said you claimed israel was the source of all evil. i used it as a (hopefully)ludicrous exaggeration to illustrate that israel has a right to exist no matter the extent of its crimes. if countries lost their right to exist because of the crimes involved in their formation, we'd be looking at a fairly empty globe right now. israel may still be considered to be in formation, as it has been under existential attack, both physically and from the likes of you, since 1948. kindly show us how you can be against zionism and not against israel. note that, as far as critisizm of israels actions, the two terms are interchangeable. israels enemies use them interchangeably- "the zionist state, crimes of the zionists," etc. zionism is just jewish nationalism. kindly show us how it is impossible to be both jewish and anti-semitic. "Despite threatened annihilation of the Jews as proposed in Hitler's Mein Kampf and The Protocals of Zion,..." point: the protocals do not contain any call for the annihalation of the jews. it is supposedly a call by the jews themselves for world domination. and the fact that your source uses it as a factual account alongside mein kampf (which, though repugnant, is actually a real book with a real author and doesn't claim to be anything its not) speaks eloquently for the insanity of you and your source. i don't accept your differentiation between zionism and israel, just because some zionists engaged in repugnant acts before the formation of the state of israel. the fact remains that the two terms, as used today, are interchangable EXCEPT in scholarly discussions of their respective and historical ideologies, which are mostly congruent anyway. i doubt you'd be qualified to join such a discussion, kes, since these are mostly internal jewish matters and you have shown your ignorance of the other sides positions many times here. and thats the LAST time im going point-to-point with you, kes, as you have repeatedly denied me the same courtesy, ignoring 90% of my points and misinterpreting a good percentage of the rest.
kes writes: "Kindly note there is thus a difference between anti-Zionism and anti-Israeli and both should not be equated with being Anti-Semite."
Kindly note, you're all three.
Thus endeth the lesson.
You're equating Zionism with Israel nationalism?
That's like saying Neoconservatism is American nationalism.
I doubt you'd be invited to any scholarly discussions either.
NEWSFLASH TO DAR
Oxford English Dictionary:
Zionism n. A movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel.
Zionism = Israel nationalism.
I guess we're just going to over simplify things. Let's ignore that there are many different types and interpretations. This is why I can't agree with you, Jon, or Kes.
for the record: i don't consider myself a zionist. i am, in principle, against ALL forms of nationalism. i would like to see a world without borders of any kind. however, i also believe strongly that the jews should be able to live freely, with no restrictions, in their historic homeland, and btw, those who argue that the land formerly known as palestine is NOT the historic homeland of the jews can kes my jewish ass. if i thought the british or the turks or the international community or, indeed, the arabs, would do a better job of insuring this right than the present, zionistic (barely) state of israel, than i would support them. they have all proved dismal at the job of protecting jewish rights in the Land of Israel. thats right, kes, the Land of Israel. look it up. history didn't start 60 years ago, or even 1400 years ago, and the jews, as a people dispersed, have preserved their memories of and longing for this land in a way that the recently created "palestinian people" can have no understanding of.
dar, i never thought i'd find myself defending kes, but of all the foolishness he can be accused of, oversimplifying things is not one of them. his basic POSITION may be simplistic, but that's the nature of all positions, including mine and yours. his JUSTIFICATIONS for his position are anything but simplistic. they are, in fact, so twisted in his attempts to find only the information that supports him as to be virtually unintelligable.
norm, im glad you haven't blocked zak from commenting, it speaks well of you as far as im concerned. but where are you? your moderating voice is missing from this discussion, to its detriment. you just "busted and disgusted"? stick with it , buddy, we're working on something important here. be back in a few hrs.
" at first i was nodding my head, thinking of the irish and irgun models. then i thought, hell, they already ARE in the mainstream-the ARAB mainstream. unless you believe this crap about "a few extremists who don't represent islam". "
you're only choice is to kill off the mainstream arab populace, or to try and negotiate/de-escalate/legitimize. there really is no other option. if you reject negotiations, the only sensible solution is genocide. any other option means no solution.
Jonathan Becker said // if countries lost their right to exist because of the crimes involved in their formation, we'd be looking at a fairly empty globe right now. //
My sentiments exactly.
Definitions of Zionism on the Web:
Movement founded by the Viennese Jewish journalist Theodor Herzl, who argued in his 1896 book Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) that the best way of avoiding anti-Semitism in Europe was to create an independent Jewish state in Palestine. Zionism was named after Mount Zion in Jerusalem, a symbol of the Jewish homeland in Palestine since the Babylonian captivity in the 6th century BC. The movement culminated in the birth of the state of Israel in 1948. www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/browse/glossary.html
The movement dedicated to establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine. www.pbs.org/daringtoresist/tgglossary.html
There are many "Zionisms"-religious, political, and cultural-all of which have in common the desire to see Jews from around the world settled permanently in a homeland in Palestine, the historical land of Israel. Religious Zionists believe that the gathering together of world Jewry into the land of Israel will fulfill biblical prophecy and bring on the millennium. ... www.afsc.org/israel-palestine/learn/glossary.htm
Political and cultural movement calling for the return of the Jewish people to their Biblical home. www.chgs.umn.edu/EducationalResources/Curriculum/WitnessAndLegacy-TeacherR/GlossaryTeacherResourceBoo/glossaryteacherresourceboo.html
The nationalistic movement of the Jewish people. In modern times, it referred to the establishment of a Jewish state in what is now the modern State of Israel. www.remember.org/eichmann/study5.htm
(Mount) Zion is an ancient Hebrew designation for Jerusalem, but already in biblical times it began to symbolize the national homeland (see eg, Psalm 137.1-6). In this latter sense it served as a focus for Jewish national-religious hopes of renewal over the centuries. Ancient hopes and attachments to Zion gave rise to Zionist longings and movements since antiquity, culminating in the modern national liberation movement of that name. ... www.theisraelproject.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp
philosophy of Theodor Herzl, late nineteenth-century German Jewish author of Der Judenstaat (1896). Herzl theorized that growing hatred of Jews in Europe and the slow assimilation of Jewish culture into wider European culture could only be stopped by the establishment of a Jewish homeland. faculty.juniata.edu/tuten/islamic/glossary.html
was a political movement, founded in the late nineteenth century by Theodor Herzl, aimed at fostering Jewish identity and nationalism. Its eventual goal was to found a Jewish homeland state in Palestine. Many Jews in Nazi Germany identified with the movement. Since the establishment of Israel in 1948, the world Zionist movement has led the effort to support it financially and morally, and encourages Jews to emigrate there. dhrc.wright.edu/faces/glossary.htm
Belief in the centrality of Israel in Jewish historical & religious experience. http://www.jajz-ed.org.il/100/index.html www.jafi.org.il/education/hasbara/glossary.html
Idea to establish an autonomous Jewish home in Palestine. In modern times it was resurrected by Hungarian journalist Theodor Herzl (1860-1904). The Balfour Declaration of 1917 promised the British would hand over Palestine to the Jews. At the time many Jews viewed Palestine as their spiritual home only, but Hitler's prosecution changed their minds and the modern state of Israel came into being in 1948. ... www.embassy.org.nz/encycl/z1encyc.htm
A movement formerly for re-establishing, since 1948 for supporting, the Jewish national state of Israel. www.connections-exhibition.org/index.php
Jewish nationalist movement to establish a homeland in Palestine. This movement began in the late 1800s, as anti-Semitic feelings intensified in Europe. The main leader of this movement was a journalist by the name of Theodor Herzl. Herzl's dream of a homeland for Jewish peoples was realized in 1948 with the creation of Israel. regentsprep.org/Regents/global/vocab/topic_alpha.cfm
Early proto-Zionists (Hovevei Zion... "Lovers of Zion") were Jewish settlers in Palestine in the late-1800's. The father of "Political Zionism" was the Viennese journalist Theodore Herzl (1860-1904). The first Zionist Congress being convened in 1897 in Basle. www.datarat.net/DR/Lex-Z.html
Movement originating in Eastern Europe during the 1860s and 1870s that argued that the Jews must return to a Middle Eastern Holy Land; eventually identified with the settlement of Palestine. (p. 973) occawlonline.pearsoned.com/bookbind/pubbooks/stearnsawl/medialib/glossary/glossZ.html
Movement whose goal was the return of Jews to Eretz Yisrael, or Zion, Jewish synonym for Jerusalem and the Land of Israel. The dispossession and expulsion of a majority of Palestinians were the result of Zionist policies planned over a thirty-year period. Fundamentally, Zionism focused on two needs: to attain a Jewish majority in Palestine; to acquire statehood irrespective of the wishes of the indigenous population. ... www.eathalal.org/glossary.htm
The movement that has encouraged the creation and support of the nation of Israel. Listen (42.0K) highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072835060/studentview0/chapter8/keyterms.html
Jewish nationalist movement advocating establishment of a Jewish nation-state. www.comune.venezia.it/atlante/documents/glossary/nelson_glossary.htm
a policy for establishing and developing a national homeland for Jews in Palestine a movement of world Jewry that arose late in the 19th century with the aim of creating a Jewish state in Palestine wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Zionism is a political movement among Jews, although supported by some non-Jews and not supported by some Jews, which maintains that the Jewish people constitute a nation and are entitled to a national homeland. Formally founded in 1897, Zionism embraced a variety of opinions in its early years on where that homeland might be established. From 1917 it focused on the establishment of a Jewish national homeland or state in Palestine, the location of the ancient Kingdom of Israel. ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism
As Jo Ann posted Zionism is more complex than just Jewish Nationalism and there are even more than what was posted. That is what the over simplified statement applied to. As for not being able to agree, relate would be a better word, the reason for that is your unwavering irrational desire to be unequivocally "right". It’s more of a shouting match than a discussion with Kes pouring out a deluge of information and links to prove he’s right on the one hand and you and Zak’s unwavering defense of the actions undertaken by Israel’s government and military.
Being critical of the action of a county’s government/military actions is not the same as being against the people of that country. Just like the US the Israeli government has shown a complete lack of respect for human life in their actions. I find that unacceptable no matter what country does it, even my own. You want to believe Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map because it fits nicely into your beliefs and become defensive when shown that it might not be the case. The lack of desire to truly understand the opposing point of view makes no sense to me. This unwavering refusal to even entertaining a peaceful resolution and coexistence is not in anyone’s best interest IMO. You guys can continue with your “They want to destroy Israel so we must destroy them first” mentality but I don’t see that coming to a good conclusion. It doesn’t matter though, Israel will continue to do what they want and only time will tell what the outcome will be. What I find unfortunate is that the ones paying the highest price in all this nonsense are the civilians of the countries not the politicians and military who create these disasters.
crunching information into usable form is absolutely necessary to facilitate understanding, not to speak of wisdom. jo anne could have completely shut down the site, if she had chosen to, with information overload-THATS how much has been written on zionism. nothing in the definition(s) she posted conflicts with my, more simple one. works like this: go through the post, ignore all the history/biography and focus on any statement having to do with the goal, idea, or point of zionism. you'll see its just jewish nationalism, people, nothing to be afraid of. this of course assumes you know what nationalism is. edolrfedol, i agree with you, and of course i don't reject negotiations, but i'm a nobody on a blog. dar, of course i want to be right, don't you? but im certainly not shouting. you sound petulant. disagreement with government policies may or may not imply disagreement with the people of the country- it obviously depends on whether the people, as a whole, support the government.my research on iran shows me that the people of iran overwhelmingly support their govt. on at least 2 issues: their right to develop nuclear capability for whatever purposes they please (can you blame them?) and their "wish to see israel, as currently constituted, disappear" or whatever you want to call it. the people of israel also overwhelmingly supported this stupid little war in lebanon, at least at the beginning. there's no accounting for the madness of crowds when they feel threatened, and the peoples of iran and israel, rightly or wrongly, do.
and dar, please read more carefully before simplistically equivacating. i do NOT "unwaveringly defend" the actions and policies of israels government. i unwaveringly defend its right to exist and be treated fairly by the world community-purely ideological positions.
and dar, please read more carefully before simplistically equivacating. i do NOT "unwaveringly defend" the actions and policies of israels government. i unwaveringly defend its right to exist and be treated fairly by the world community-purely ideological positions.
jonathan, I have addressed your points many times, while you mislead people on what I say.
You have never acknowledged this, even after I pointed out clear instances where you are misleading people on what I have said. Such as you falsely claiming that I said this in your post on August 27, 2006 10:52 PM at this thread:
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/08/warcrimes4.html#comments
Besides misleading people on what I have said, jonathan has repeatedly insulted me With baseless and unfounded comments such as:
"dear kes, sounding particularly shrill today, old buddy. meds wearing off? (in memory of zak)."
August 30, 2006 02:30 AM
“his JUSTIFICATIONS for his position are anything but simplistic. they are, in fact, so twisted in his attempts to find only the information that supports him as to be virtually unintelligible.”
August 30, 2006 11:44 AM
He has to even distort my sources as I have clearly stated in my post on August 30, 2006 01:25 AM
=========
Oh yeah, if you can criticise one of my sources as pro-Palestinian, even though it’s run by US Christians for the Jews for Peace in the Middle East, why don’t u also criticise pro-Israel sources such as the Israeli advocacy website that Zak uses?
I’m simply pointing out your bias.
P.S. jonathan, thanks for your concern but I don’t needs the drug prescriptions when I'm making cold factual arguments. Those who believe in heated argument with no cause or grounds MAY need them more.
My post on August 30, 2006 01:25 AM makes it very clear on how to differentiate positions against Zionism and against Israel based.
I will repeat it here again:
"In short, Zionism was based on a faulty, colonialist world view that the rights of the indigenous inhabitants didn't matter. The Arabs' opposition to Zionism wasn't based on anti-Semitism but rather on a totally reasonable fear of the dispossession of their people."
This is the view of Jews who believed that the Arab Palestinians have the right to return to their homes and lands in Palestine and Israel.
These Jews do not believe in Zionist claims, which is to colonise the Middle East for the jews by dispossessing the land of the Arabs.
Examples of Zionist claims by past Israeli Ministers:
"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many (Palestinian) hilltops as they can to enlarge the (Jewish) settlements because everything we take now will stay ours... Everything we don't grab will go to them." Ariel Sharon 15 November 1998.)
"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country." -- David Ben Gurion, pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle.
"Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial." -- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 25 March, 2001 quoted in BBC News Online
The settlement of the Land of Israel is the essence of Zionism. Without settlement, we will not fulfill Zionism. It's that simple." -- Yitzhak Shamir, Maariv, 02/21/1997.
"This country exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy." -- Golda Meir, Le Monde, 15 October 1971
jonathan becker is trying to mislead people here with this claim on August 30, 2006 02:30 AM:
False claim: “if countries lost their right to exist because of the crimes involved in their formation, we'd be looking at a fairly empty globe right now.”
The case against Israel’s statehood is one against Jewish colonisation of the Arab region of Palestine by a Jewish minority that compost mostly of illegal Jewish immigrants from Europe or overseas with no ancestral ties to the Middle East.
The largely Jewish immigrant minority formed only 14% of the total population in Palestine with only 6% land ownership there, compared to the local Arab majority of over 80% with more than 50% ownership of the lands in Palestine and these Arabs had lived in the region of Palestine continously for 1400 years.
The case against Israel is the case against colonisation, which champions foreign rule and dispossession of the rights of the local majority in their own lands.
Many nations in the world today achieved democracy and the right of self-determination by overthrowing or repudiating colonial rule of foreign countries and people.
kes, i don't understand why you don't get this simple point: im not trying to defend israels' ACTIONS, im trying to defend its RIGHT TO EXIST. this is why i don't argue, or even relate to, most of the "facts" you bring. as for the links, categorization is not critisism. cactus48 states clearly that their very purpose is to argue for palestinian rights and against zionism. so i call it pro-palestinian. this is not a critisism! i'm sure you're quite right in calling zaks site an israel advocacy site. none of this makes any difference to the substance of my argument, which being ideological/philosophical can not be documented simply by posting links. it runs roughly as follows: the state of israel has a right to exist NO MATTER the extent of its crimes. kes, you seem like a reasonably intelligent guy, who i happen to disagree with strongly. why is it so hard for you to understand this simple point?
ah, so i see in your 1:30 post you did finally, sort of adress the issue. now was that so hard? don't have time right now, but ill be back for more fun and games after work. at least it seems like we're finally on the same page.
Palestine is the historic homeland of the Arabs and their Canaaite ancestors, who lived in the Arab region of Palestine EVEN BEFORE Moses led the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt as stated by religious texts.
Here are the key points and facts that refute Israel’s claims to Palestine based on religious claims and not historical proof .
I have made them many times here but the pro-Israeli crowd keeps avoiding them:
1] The Arabs in Palestine are direct descendants of the Cannaite civilisation that existed BEFORE the Jews first immigrated to the Middle East:
Sources:
"Between 3000 and 1100 B.C., Canaanite civilization covered what is today Israel, the West Bank, Lebanon and much of Syria and Jordan...Those who remained in the Jerusalem hills after the Romans expelled the Jews [in the second century A.D.] were a potpourri: farmers and vineyard growers, pagans and converts to Christianity, descendants of the Arabs, Persians, Samaritans, Greeks and old Canaanite tribes." Marcia Kunstel and Joseph Albright, "Their Promised Land."
"But all these [different peoples who had come to Canaan] were additions, sprigs grafted onto the parent tree...And that parent tree was Canaanite...[The Arab invaders of the 7th century A.D.] made Moslem converts of the natives, settled down as residents, and intermarried with them, with the result that all are now so completely Arabized that we cannot tell where the Canaanites leave off and the Arabs begin." Illene Beatty, "Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan."
2] Before the Jews first came into the Middle East, the Canaaite forefathers of the Arabs were based in Jerusalem, predating the first Jewish presence by 800 years. - "Recent archeological digs have provided evidence that Jerusalem was a big and fortified city already in 1800 BCE...Findings show that the sophisticated water system heretofor attributed to the conquering Israelites pre-dated them by eight centuries and was even more sophisticated than imagined...Dr. Ronny Reich, who directed the excavation along with Eli Shuikrun, said the entire system was built as a single complex by Canaanites in the Middle Bronze Period, around 1800 BCE." The Jewish Bulletin, July 31st, 1998.
3] There is no established historical and archaeological proof for any Jewish kingdom to have been geographically located in the region of Palestine.
Archaeologists and historians have not been able to find concrete proof out side religious texts of the extended kingdoms of David and Solomon, on which the Zionists base their territorial demands:
Sources: Time Magazine’s Expose on Jerusalem
http://www.time.com/time/2001/jerusalem/juda.html “To Jews, the most important moment in this reverent progression occurred in about 1000 B.C. That is the date believers assign to the biblical description of King David's unification of the Israelite tribes and his choice of Jerusalem as his capital. The Bible's book of Samuel also recounts David's inducing his God to accept the location for his earthly seat, the Ark of the Covenant. It tells of David's purchase, for 50 shekels of silver, of a "threshing floor" on the mountain. And finally the book of Kings tells of David's son Solomon, who built upon it a splendid temple to the Lord, composed of successive courtyards, each one more holy than the next, with the innermost containing the Ark. Or did he? Outside of the Bible, there is only the scantest evidence of either King's existence….” 4] The word, “Israel”, was first used in the Middle East to denote a people. It did not refer to a kingdom in the Arab region of Palestine. Kindly refer to the earliest mention of Israel, which was the Merneptah Stele:
“The stela does point out that Israel, at this stage, refers to a people since a hieroglyphic determinative for "country" is absent regarding Israel (whereas the other areas had the determinative for "country" applied to them). However, after that there is not much else that can be concluded about Israel at this time.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Stele
I’ll say this again. The largely immigrant population of the Jews in Palestine in the 1940s have no legitimate or historical claims to Arab lands in Palestine.
The Jews had no right to dispossess the Arabs of the lands where they and their ancestors have lived continually for thousands of years, before the Jews first came to the Middle East.
Why kiss jonathan’s or any Jewish ass for pointing out the lack of historical legitimacy for Israeli claims to Arab lands in the Arab region of Palestine?
Let’s kick ass instead with the facts : >
===========
As a Jew, Jonathan shows his one-sidedness with his comment that “however, i also believe strongly that the jews should be able to live freely, with no restrictions, in their historic homeland, and btw, those who argue that the land formerly known as palestine is NOT the historic homeland of the jews can kes my jewish ass.”
He forgot to mention that the Arabs are unable to live freely with no restrictions on their historical homeland, thanks to Israel’s occupation, racist policies and land grabs.
Examples:
Israel preventing Arab families in Israel to unite with family members outside Israel: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1959744
Israel’s security wall that occupied Arab lands illegally and infringes on the rights, freedom and mobility of the Arabs.
Israel's "separation barrier" in the occupied West Bank: Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law consequences [A Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper , February 2004]
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/02/20/isrlpa7581.htm
So people, kindly note that what distinguishes a Zionist from a Jew is the Zionist belief that Zionists can do whatever they want to the Arabs and their lands.
Last time, I check, there's no such mention of such beliefs in the Jewish tradition.
just to deal with kes's last point (time constraints): 1. there is nothing in zionist ideology dealing at all one way or the other with the arab residents of palestine. what do do about the arabs was the subject of heated internal debate, as a matter of state policy. we all know how things have worked out till now. kes's sources are looking with hindsight on what actually happened and saying "well, looks to me like the zionists didn't give a damn about the arabs, or even executed a policy to get rid of them." this, true or not, does not imply that "doing whatever they want to the arabs" was, or is, part of zionist ideology. its like saying that the building of a national water carrier or a road system was part of zionist ideology. these things are state matters for which policy must be formulated, but have nothing to do with zionist ideology. the early zionist treatment of the arabs (which was FAR from an agreed upon policy) had more to do with their european mindset than with their zionist ideology. as i said, these are mostly internal jewish matters (who else would be interested?) but if you insist... 2. as ive said before, kes doesn't seem to know very much about the other sides' positions. now he wants to talk about jewish tradition? o.k. can we all agree that the bible is part of jewish tradition? the israelites were in fact commanded by their god to commit genocide upon the caananites and the 6 other peoples inhabiting the land of canaan at the time.men, women and children. thank god weve come a long way since then, but don't try to lecture me about jewish tradition. ask nicely and i may enlighten you. can we all agree that the talmud is part of jewish tradition? the making of war is discussed in extensive detail there. without going into boring detail, suffice it to say the modern state of israel behaves like good christians compared to what the rabbis of 2000 years ago would have advised them to do. so again, simply put: in its most basic form, zionism simply states that it is incumbent upon the jews to take control of their own destiny, in their own state. it didn't, at the beginning, even say where that state should be. herzl himself had to be convinced that palestine was the best place. he was thinking uganda might be nice.
"Zionism embraced a variety of opinions in its early years on where that homeland might be established. From 1917 it focused on the establishment of a Jewish national homeland or state in Palestine, the location of the ancient Kingdom of Israel. ..." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism the ancient kigdom of israel. did you get that, kes?
Sorry, I can't help myself.
Dar writes: "Zak’s unwavering defense of the actions undertaken by Israel’s government and military."
You sir, are either an ass or an idiot. If you've read anything I've ever posted here (can someone please back me up?) you'd know this is not true. I have been critical of Israeli actions and asked Israel to withdraw so many times that the fact you still think otherwise tells me you certainly must be an ass or an idiot.
As for KES.... HOLY CRAP. Kes writes in his last post that there is no such mention of ZIonist beliefs in Jewish tradition.
LISTEN, because I'm only going to say this once. Jonathan or any other Jew on here can back me up. Every Passover holiday for the last 2000 fucking years ends with the prayer "next year in Jerusalem." Jews have been longing to return -- yes return, you ass -- to Jerusalem and Israel for 2000 years. Where do you get off telling ME that the last time you "checked" Zionism was not part of the Jewish tradition? It's been part of the Jewish tradition and every Jew's bread and butter for 2000 fucking years.
So cut and paste whatever shit you want from whatever moronic sites you want. But do not tell me that Zionism and Judaism are not related. I am your firsthand fucking source here. And I tell you you dont know what the hell you're talking about.
Over and out.
The problem with your "condemnation" of Israel's military actions is justification clauses. "They were a little excessive but they have no choice insert justification citing the past, inflammatory rhetoric or talking points. To me this is the same thing lawyers do to get guilty clients off by playing on the sympathy of the jury. I'm not that naive and that's why I'm not buying your justifications and your “condemnations” seem insincere IMO.
As for this topic. I find it irrational that you refuse to even entertain the possibility that just maybe the other countries in the region would be willing to coexist if Israel would compromise and address some issues. The problem is someone would have to be mature enough to talk to them, sadly both government, US and Israel, have shown to be lacking.
Other than rhetoric what do you have? Who has Iran attacked? The actions of the US and Israel speak louder than the rhetoric demonizing Iran IMO.
"False claim: “if countries lost their right to exist because of the crimes involved in their formation, we'd be looking at a fairly empty globe right now.” wow, quoting kes quoting me.weird. so i said i was going to get back to this issue, which is and has been my main point. kes, you quote me correctly, call the statement false, and then go on to address a completely different issue having to do with jews being completely foreign to palestine. while i think this is ridiculous, and will be happy to spar with you some other time, will you stick to the issue, please? show me how that statement is misleading, other than pointing out that SOME countries were created by "native" peoples throwing off the yoke of "foreign" oppression. while this may be true, it certainly doesn't preclude the most horrific crimes against humanity by the "native" peoples. just look at zimbabwe.not to mention what the palestinians are doing in the name of gaining independance and self-rule. are you saying crimes against humanity are ok if perpetrated by native peoples? sounds like the kkk or something.(they considered themselves the "native" americans fighting "foreign" influence on their "pure" culture.)oops, sorry, got off the point. do as i say, not as i do.:)
zak, back from the dead! listen, i love your stuff and i'll certainly back you up on your passover point, but you gotta tone down that emotionalism,bra! it makes norm uncomfortable. just imagine that he's an old white lady and your sitting at his dinner table. remember, no matter how offensive the things kes says may be, he keeps his place at the dinner table by bein' all poindextery an' stuff. use your training as an american. if you wanna scream and shout, come live in israel with the rest of us. civil discourse doesn't exist here.(or anywhere in the mideast, to be fair.) as it is i gotta do this all by myself.
Zak, point out where the Jewish Torah say that it is ok to dispossess 8 million Arabs of their ancestral lans in the Middle East?
Where they and their ancestors have lived there for thousands of years before the Jews first came to the Middle East from EGYPT??
Provide facts to ack up your case.
Your insults and personal attacks won't scare me from bringing up the facts, research and consensus from the historical and the world community about the empty claims of Israel.
Where are your facts (from credible international sources) to back up your case, Zak?
I have been asking them since you have been sprouting pro-Israeli propaganda for the last 6 weeks at this blog.
Dar raised some good points in his last 2 posts i.e. pointing out that the pro-Israeli crowd keeps justifying Israel's indiscriminate killing of Arab civilians while condemning Arab killings of Israeli civilians.
On the topic of Iran, Dar made it even clearer.
Since when is Iran a rogue state?
Since when has Iran attacked and occupied the lands of other countries?
It has not received 22 United Nation resolutions against its activities like Israel.
Iran also allows UN inspectors to check up its atomic programme and has signed the nuclear non-proliferation policy
On the other hand, Israel did not sign the treaty and has secretly developed an arsenal of nuclear WMDS since the 1960s to the tune of hundreds of nuclear bombs.
=======
I am not a Jew like jonathan or Zak, whose objectivity is thus in doubt.
My only concern are the facts and research regaring the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Dar,
Zak has been critical of Israel. It is just not his favorite thing to do. I suspect it is rather human to emphasize one's strong points in an argument and minimize the weak ones. I've yet to see anyone post here that didn't have a point of view and presented it in the best light.
hi norm, welcome back. how can you "not have a point of view and present it in the best light"? whats the "it"? very alice-in-wonderland of you.
Jonathan, Your posts are fun to read.
Kes, you said, "Palestine is the historic homeland of the Arabs and their Canaaite ancestors".
The United States is the historic homeland of the Native Americans. Does this mean that the United States has no right to exist?
And if you believe that Israel has no right to exist, then what do you propose for all of the Israelis currently living there? Do you think they should leave?
I just don't get this argument going on here. It really really bothers me. I hope that you will clarify what it is that your driving at by stating that Israel has no right to exist - i mean, what are the ramifications of this line of thought? And should the same principles be applied to the United States and other places, such as the Caribbean Islands?
thanks jo anne. i consider myself a pretty good writer (tho my spelling suks) but i don't want the writing to detract from the substance of the arguments. also, i'm totally unused to anyone saying anything nice to me here (or anyone else, for that matter. liberals are a hardnosed bunch). it totally makes me blush and distracts me. you're 6000 miles away and i'm sure i'll never meet you, so cut it out. :)
whoa, jo anne, you sure know how to cut through the shit and get to the point. i was getting there, i was getting there! hats off.
jonathan, as long as you don't acknowledge your deliberate misrepresenting of my posts, I don't think I'll bother with acknowledging anything you say from now on.
quid pro pro.
Most of Asia, India sub-continent and the African continent were colonized by foreign powers.
MANY countries, not a few as jonathan claimed, were created by throwing off the colonial yoke after WW2.
The idea of democracy and nation-states are a relatively modern idea that really kicked off in the late 1800s and became a standard fixture of the United Nations and the world order after WW2.
Israel was formed in 1948 in the 20th century with the indirect input of the UN and the prevailing world order at that time, especially Israel claims its legitimacy as a state based largely on its state membership to the UN.
At that time, colonisation was recognized as undesirable to a new world order after WW2 where each nation state will have a voice, which is supported by a government that is popularly elected by the electoral majority.
Israel’s creation was thus illegal in this light as the government was formed by a small minority Jewish group, which comprised mostly of illegal immigrants from Europe and overseas with no ancestry or ties to the Arab lands of Palestine.
Based on the new order and to qualify as a democratic state, any state in the region of Palestine must have the consent of the democratic majority, which are the local Arabs which formed more than 80% of the population with more than 50% ownership of the lands in the region of Palestine.
Israel also has no legitimacy in that the Jews while agreeing to abide by the UN’s decision on the partition of Palestine occupied 77% of the lands in Palestine by pre-emptive military strikes and illegal occupation of such lands, which were owned or were designated for the Arabs.
Most importantly, the statehood of Israel has utterly no legitimacy as Israel has refused to fulfill the condition of its membership to UN, which is to allow the Arab Palestinians to return to their ancestral lands and homes.
Simply put, by the 1940s, colonization and rule by foreign powers of local lands and peoples are considered illegal, repugnant and dangerous to a stable world order of nation states.
In the light of this historical context, Israel lack of legitimacy as a state in 1948 is compounded by the atrocities of the Jews in the Arab region of Palestine, which violated the UN charter and all agreements between the UN and Jews in the late 1940s.
=============
Sad to note that the pro-Israeli crowd are still resorting to name calling of those people who take the time to research their views about Israel and its atrocities.
Sad to note that this group of people is still unable to find facts or credible sources to defend Israel, which is why they are resorting to personal attacks and insults with no proof instead.
Really sad : >
If Israel's statehood is legitimate, care to find out how many countries recognise Israel?
Or should I say how few?
kes, i never deliberately misrepresented your posts. the thing about "the source of all evil" was so clearly (i thought) a humorous exageration, i can't believe you harped on it as long as you did. whaddya want, an apology? you don't wanna play anymore? fuck off and good riddance.
you wanna say your ideas dont apply to the native americans because they were unforunate enough to have their genocide before nationalism became popular? don't make me laugh.
care to find out how many people think evolution is legitmate? or athieism? big fat SO WHAT.
see what happens when i get distracted for a minute, jo anne? i get napalmed by this guy who can't stick to one point at a time. now help me clean this mess up. :) just kidding, really.
My take on the whole "existence" controversy is that it's been confused and simplified. Wipe them out of existence or they have a right to exist seems like a disingenuous framing of the question. There are some that will take an extreme stance on the issue but I don't see that as being in the majority opinion or productive.
Should it exist as it does currently or should it change it's ways when dealing with others in the region? Is the way I see the issue.
Israel the country and it's people aren't going anywhere and if people are looking at it rationally they would agree. What I see is the real question is how it should exist not if it should exist.
The US had to deal with this issue also and resolved it by giving Native American portions of land where they could, for the most part, govern themselves. This was not a perfect solution for the Native Americans and there were many injustices that the US executed against Native American but by compromising both sides came to an agreement they could live with.
Framing the discussion on whether Israel should be "wiped off the map" leaves little room for discussion but if you entertain the possibility that what they mean is the conduct and philosophies then you can have a discussion.
Zionism has changed like any ism and there is a wide range of interpretation ranging from the extreme to moderate. Which one is currently driving the political decisions of Israel and what are they doing that would create animosity and resentment in the region?
dar, you think "they have a right to exist" is an extreme position? thats a "back against the wall position", dude, and i hope for your sake you never find yourself there.
dar, other than the point i mentioned, i don't have any problems with your post, which on this blog constitutes a remarkably calm and balanced set of ideas. well done.
I get really tired of this notion that Israel's formation was a completely colonial endevour. This is to say that one morning a bunch of Jews, set out intentially to subjugate a land soley for their economic benefit. Kes might like to imagine the Jews as some smaller version of the British, French, etc, but the reality of Jewish immigration (illegal or not) was one in which they were fleeing murderous persecution (You know, that whole 2000 years of European anti-semitism thing that culminated in the Holocaust). This for the most part was a matter of survival, not economic glorification.
I'm not going to pretend like they didn't do some bad things once they got there, and that mistakes have been made along the way, but let's stop with this ugly misrepresentation of history (and if Kes asks me for a citation to prove European anti-semitism or the Holocaust is a historical fact, I'm seriously going to flip my shit).
Here is what I believe is one of the clearest portraits of the situation in Israel and Palestine.
i've got plenty of problems with lerner and his politicking over the years, but that post seems pretty right on to me. thanks, lev. of course, none of this is an excuse for israeli or palestinian excesses, but at least it ameliorates the perception of jews as jackbooted colonialists who mirror their oppressors that SOME PEOPLE are trying to flog here.
If you're interested in more of what Michael Lerner has to say, check out section 4 of his 'core principles': http://www.tikkun.org/core_vision
If people aren't familiar with Rabbi Michael Lerner, he is one of the main voices of reason in this conflict. Although he was also an active anti-war advocate, International ANSWER blocked him from speaking at their rallies because he was too 'Pro-Israel'. This incident clarifies for a lot of Jews why they feel betrayed by the progressive left in this country and around the world.
DAR WRITES: "As for this topic. I find it irrational that you refuse to even entertain the possibility that just maybe the other countries in the region would be willing to coexist if Israel would compromise and address some issues."
What does Palestine have to do with Iran? Canada has diplomatic relations with Cuba, the US treats Cuba as its arch-enemy. The US has yet to send rockets into Canada because they dont like Canada's policy on Cuba. So I ask you again, what does Palestine have to do with Iran other than both are possessed by violent rantings of Islamic fundamentalists. Well, there's your answer.
Israel has compromised and tried to address some issues. But negotiating itself out of existence is not on the table. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Speacking of arch-enemies, Kes claims I do not back up what I say with facts. I've on numerous occasions lately backed up by claims with facts, especially on what 242 really says and what the UN Charter says with regard to right to self-defense when attacked. He chose to simply ignore what I posted. In fact, it was blessedly the only time he actually shut up.
Cuba and Canada? Could you please be more obtuse about what I wrote? I do know that Iran has ties to Lebanon which Israel invaded again recently so yes they do have an interest in the actions of Israel. I never said Palestine, which is a whole different mess but it does affect other countries in the region. You don't think the actions of one country in the region affects others directly or indirectly?
Back to the "out of existence" rhetoric. You don't seem to want to have a discussion about it, but what exactly are the terms that would put Israel "out of existence" from the negotiations?
Anyone who is not either Palestinian or Jewish should be doing all they can to find a way to resolve this conflict and not place themselves as an advocate for one side or the other.
Zak and Jonathan. Why, oh why, did Israel decide to kill so many innocent Lebanese? This has done nothing but result in more people upset at the antics of the Israeli government, and has resulted in the death of too many innocent civilians.
Kes, you have yet to address what you think the solution is. Should the Israelis leave Israel?. Where should they go?
Dar said, "Back to the "out of existence" rhetoric."
Dar, this is not rhetoric. I read this a lot, and I mean a lot, on various blogs from around the world. And otherwise reasonable people on other issues, state flat out that Israel has no right to exist. If you don't believe me, I'll provide you with some links. The liberal left has indeed turned against Israel and the Jews. And they just haven't turned against them as to how they are treating the Palestinians, and as of lately the Lebanese. They flat out state that Israel has no right to exist. The way that Kes feels is quite common around the world.
PS If anything I just said is totally stupid, I won't be the least bit surprised. I'm completely befuddled by all of this and a few cold beers, ok three cold beers, didn't help any.
Rhetoric means very little me and yes it is rhetoric. The reason I think it's rhetoric is that I find it very hard to believe that everyone denies Israel's right to exist when they came pretty close to establishing a foundation for coexistence in the Oslo, Camp David and Taba Summit. You can't have negotiations when the two points of view are "you have no right to exist" and "yes we do".
I honestly hoped they would continue talks and work out an agreement both sides could live with. Sadly there was no leadership to keep the process proceeding.
jo anne, i have yet to see you write anything stupid. when palestinian suicide bombers blow themselves up on buses, they are inarguably deciding to kill innocent people. i'm well aware that kes, in his hatred, and norm, in his quest for balance and equivalency, have posted articles claiming that the israeli army deliberately targets civilians. i'm well aware that sometimes the numbers seem to point to this conclusion. its hard to see things like "half ton bomb" and "28 dead, all civilians, mostly children" without being moved to tears and anger at the war makers who do these things. but i also know that the writers of these articles don't know the specific strategic thinking behind the actions that lead to these horrors, any more than i do. unlike the suicide bombers, who actually leave videos where they brag of their intentions to kill jews, not for any strategic purpose or to protect their own people, but for revenge and the glory of allah. although of course i can't be100% percent sure, not knowing the inner workings of the military minds who make these decisions, i just don't believe israel deliberatly targets civilians. i don't believe it a., because of my bias (which kes has correctly pointed out, being such a smart and observant guy)-i know my people, and the overwhelming majority of them find this abhorrent and unacceptable, as i do, and b. it just wouldn't make any sense. for the palestinian bombers, on a "democratic"-or populist level, they know that their actions are overwhelmingly supported by their people, and, on a strategic level, they show the extent of their desperation to the world, leading to sympathy. (as perverse as that may be). for the israelis, on a democratic level, if the israeli public knew their leaders were targeting civilians, they would simply vote them out of office (after the huge demonstrations,etc.). on a srategic level, it makes no sense either militarily (what do you gain) or in the forum of world opinion. i just don't think the israeli leaders, as stupid as they are, are stupid enough to shoot themselves in the foot, time again, by INTENTIONALLY targeting civilians. but with the damning evidence provided by norm, maybe when all is said and done what i really mean is not that i don't believe it isn't so, but that i PRAY it isn't so. in any case, if it were proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that it WERE so, you better believe i'd be at those inevitable demonstrations. i urge you and norm and all his guests to compare all this with the behavior of the palestinians and their bombers and, in fact, any other army in the world in time of war. for whatever thats worth. bottom line:WAR SUCKS.
DAR: You write: "Back to the "out of existence" rhetoric. You don't seem to want to have a discussion about it, but what exactly are the terms that would put Israel "out of existence" from the negotiations?"
That's an easy one. When Yasser Arafat says he wont sign an agreement with Israel unless Israel allows all Palestinian "refugees" to return to Israel, that's negotiating Israel out of existence. 5 million Palestinians in Israel = Palestine, not Israel.
Zak:
It is strange that you claimed before Palestine has nothing to do with other countries in the region like Iran. Where do you think all those refugees are now if not in other countries?
You’re right Israel should keep fighting maybe they'll finally kill enough of those who they think want to destroy them that they will finally be safe.
Or maybe the Arabs will finally kill enough Jews that they will finally be safe. What the hell does that mean?
Jihaaaaddddd!!!!
"The US had to deal with this issue also and resolved it by giving Native American portions of land where they could, for the most part, govern themselves. This was not a perfect solution for the Native Americans and there were many injustices that the US executed against Native American but by compromising both sides came to an agreement they could live with."
the problem with the comparison to america is that 90% of the natives were wiped out when the europeans arived. if native americans threatened to be a majority in this country, and the invasion had happened less than a century ago, i doubt the solution wouldve been so peaceful. especially with people like leonard peltier still locked up.
Exactly Jo Ann see how ridiculous that line of thinking is. There is nowhere a discussion can go from there.
Edol: It didn't happen less than a century ago and yes it is happening with immigration. That is one of the reasons I don't see what the values the US has in common with Israel. One of the founding values of the US is tolerance. From zak's last post it's obvious to me that's not one of his. He could have pointed out that the region doesn't have the resources to accommodate that many people but instead he made the comment he did yet throws the term anti-Semite around. I can’t stand hypocrites.
You kids have fun.
Dar, allowing Palestinian refugees "back" to Israel has nothing to do with resources. It has to do with what Israel is and what it wants to continue being -- a democratic, progressive, secular Western Jewish state. Israel was created so that Jews, persecuted everywhere else in places like Germany, Poland, Russia, Iran, Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia, could have somewhere to go. 5 million Palestinians "returning" to Israel by definition transforms Israel into an Arab Palestinian state (and based on the current record -- 0 for 21 -- of Arab national achievement, a totalitarian or theocratic one at that), not a Jewish Israeli democratic one.
You will call that a racist notion, but you're the hypocrite, not I. You seem to have no problem with Jordan and Arabia being Jew-free by law, or Egypt, Syria and Yemen being Jew-free by threat and intimidation. You have no problem with Armenia being majority Armenian or Germany being majority German. You can be sure that when enough "others" start popping up in any of these states, laws get written to "preserve" the character of those states. Look at the US. Enough Mexicans come in and states start passing English-only laws. All immigrants to Quebec must go to French school. German Turks are still not considered German nationals. Every country on earth has some sort of laws that would be considered racist by the standard you would set for Israel. But there's a difference between burning crosses on people's lawns or not hiring someone because he's this race or that, and trying to preserve the character of what you deem your homeland because others' homelands have screwed you so many times in the past.
Israel is 20% Arab and by most fairminded accounts (ie, not kes's) Arabs are treated fairly and equitably. Like blacks in the US, Israel does not have a perfect society or record in relation to its minorities, but Arabs have full rights, they vote and elect who they like to parliament and there's an Arab on the Supreme Court of the country. People like to lump in Palestinians in the 'occupied' territories with Israeli-Arabs. Israeli-Arabs are Palestinians who chose to remain in Israel and make a go of it, and they have faired a lot better than their cousins elsewhere. Perfect, no. Better, yes.
As for your claims that i'm intolerant, as kes would say, document that with facts. Because if I have to repeat another time my openness to a Palestinian state, i'm going to rip my hair out. You confuse tolerance with stupidity. I can invite strangers into my house for tea, but I'm not letting them take over my house. And I'm not letting strangers who have a long record of disrespect or worse toward my family, take over my house. I'm hospitable, I'm not an idiot.
"You will call that a racist notion, but you're the hypocrite, not I."
The difference between you and I is that I apply my standards to all not just the ones I choose. You have no clue what my position is on the other country's policies you cited. You will never catch me justifying an action and condemning another for the same actions.
Hypocrite is one thing you'll never be able to prove about me.
I was actually hoping this would be an insightful conversation about the topic yet it keeps getting sidetrack. I was done with my last post but I can't let an unfounded blatant lie about my morals go without a rebuttal so again you kids have fun.
You know, Dar, I don't think that any of us are as objective and clear headed as we would like to think.
I just wish that everyone could continue the conversation, notwithstanding the personal insults, which are only natural, particularly for Zak and Jonathan for whom this is a very emotional and personal topic. At least Jonathan injects some humor into all of this.
I was recently listening to the BBC 4 radio program, Uncovering Iran. One interesting point that was made was the fact that Iran has not attacked any of it's neighbors for 200 years. Interestingly, during this same period, Iran has been continuously invaded by foreign oppressors, eg US, GB, and USSR. All of whom have violated Her rights. At the same time their news organizations aired propagandist messages of savage Iranians- BBC Radio 4 actually aired a recording of such propaganda. The question is, who should be afraid of whom? Their ultimate fear is of the return of those early days. So before you go and accuse them of being a threat, remember, they have more to fear from you than you of them!
Hi Bob, thanks for injecting a much needed dose of lucidity to this discussion on the Middle East affairs.
Like you said, it is a bit funny for former invaders of Iran to claim that Iranians are aggressors in the Middle East when Iran has not invaded any other country for the last 200 years.
Similarly, it is ludicrous for Zak to claim that the 5 million Arab Palestinians have no right to return to their ancestral lands in Israel while claiming that Jewish immigrants from Europe and overseas have the right to set up a state in the region of Palestine even though these Jews and their ancestors have never lived in the Middle East.
As Bob noted, this is just pure propaganda that is not based on history, facts and logic. Such as Zak’s claims that Israel was meant to be a Jewish state, which was to be set up on some, not all of the lands in Palestine as dictated by the United Nations. After all, the Jews only owned 7% of the lands in Palestine legally in 1948.
However Israel ignored the original agreement and terms on a how a Jewish state is to be created by occupying all of Palestine, West Bank Gaza Strip and Jerusalem, which was never supposed to be part of a Jewish state, thus creating a 5 million Arab Palestinian problems and a total Arab refugee problem of 8 million. That is hardly taking into consideration of the rights and interests of the native majority which the Balfour Declaration of 1917 stated in return for the setting up of a Jewish state.
So Bob, thanks again for injecting lucidity in this discussion in this thread, along with the comments by Dar and Jo Ann.
Btw, I know you are not commenting on Israel but your mode of analysis is relevant to the discussion of Israel at this thread : >
c'mere, ill give you a lucidity injection you prick. oops, guess i'm not getting that posted...:)hi norm
I doubt Norm did that as I myself had problems posting for 3 weeks.
And no worries. Just email me your post at my generic email address:
tshtsh@hotmail.com
Before you do that, it would be great if you have finally stopped equating Israeli aparthied and miltarism with democracy.
Seriously.
Let's have a real debate based on premises that any sane, logical and objective person can agree on.
norm, i can't believe you posted that. a direct personal attack with no argumentative value. i was counting on you not to! can't a guy just vent? what? you want me to vent WITHOUT hitting "post"? but i want to have my cake and eat it too! i'm a what? a moron? listen, buddy...
Post a comment