EU envoy warns Gaza could become the next Somalia

[bemildred]

---

The EU envoy says that Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip was central to the breach in the border by Hamas.

"The pressure on the population did not cause them to throw Hamas to the sea," he said. "The blockade and its results did not harm Hamas, only made things more complex for Israel and Egypt and created unnecessary tension between the two states."

"It is time for Israel to decide what it wants to do," Otte said. "I believe that Israel needs to agree to the Fayyad plan, because this will put the pressure on Hamas, forcing them to decide whether to continue preventing the opening of the crossings.

"Israel needs to understand that it will not get anything better than Salam Fayyad. I understand that the army and the Shin Bet are worried about security in the short term, but they must look a little forward and this is the role of the leadership," Otte said.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/951917.html

[Fredda Weinberg]

1. No, Hamas needs to decide what it's going to do. Civilized people

everywhere are waiting.

[Tom Joad]

3. why is the burden on the occupied, and not on the occupiers?

If Israel would end its medieval siege on the people of Gaza, i think there would be a chance for progress.

[Fredda Weinberg]

9. Because the problem predates your dark ages. May I remind you

that neither Jews nor Arabs lost the classical teachings? So our culture is different and yes, ruthless. But my people lionize Ruth for her devotion to family, not her humanitarianism, so when we compare values, they're not always the same.

Progress? I've seen plenty recently. Hamas demonstrated to Egypt that it's unmanageable and the EU is concerned. This is a wonderful development if the refugees of '48 will ever see a cessation of hostilities: remember, my people have been in a war zone just as long as the Palestinians have.

[kayecy]

5. You are right - Civilized people ......

Civilized people everywhere are waiting for Israel to come to its senses.

Does it want a Somalia on its borders?

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[kayecy]

13. I am not in the least outraged .......

I am not outraged and it matters not a wit whether you are a Zionist, a Christian fundamentalist or a Hindu guru. No civilized country should want a failed state on its borders.

Israel is apparently different from the rest of the civilized world and doesn't care a damn what its actions create in the way of poverty, misery and hate.

Your people, as you call them, have a lot to answer for.

[Tom Joad]

20. poor canada, it has to deal with a failed state on its borders.

[LeftishBrit]

24. Blimey...

You really think that Israel is uniquely bad? What about Russia's occupation of Chechnya, or China's of Tibet?

As regards 'failed states' on or near one's borders - I believe that the USA was absolutely wonderful in its influence on Latin American countries in the 70s and 80s - NOT!

What about the 'failed states' that Britain and France and other countries helped to create through imperialism?

On the whole, countries would prefer not to have 'failed states' on their borders, out of sheer self -interest. Conflict and violence in a country tend to endanger the neighbours. Despite this, most countries have been surprisingly indifferent at best to the problems in neighbouring countries.

It's one thing to be critical of Israel (most countries deserve lots of criticism); another to treat it as somehow uniquely bad in a way that 'no other civilized country' could be.

[Violet_Crumble]

27. Doesn't the same apply when it comes to the Palestinians?

It's one thing to be critical of Israel (most countries deserve lots of criticism); another to treat it as somehow uniquely bad in a way that 'no other civilized country' could be.


I've seen so many posts from a few people who think that unlike any other people in the world who've lived under a military occupation that the Palestinians aren't victims, posts that make out suicide bombings are unique to the I/P conflict, etc...

[LeftishBrit]

28. Yes. I never said it didn't.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. Just checking coz I haven't seen you say it did n/t

[LeftishBrit]

30. Well, I have often objected to the view that terrorism...

is a specifically Muslim/Arab/Palestinian phenomenon; and pointed out that my country experienced a fair bit of the Christian variety until very recently.

And I strongly objected to an anti-Palestinian remark on this very thread!

[Tom Joad]

33. Look over there!! Do you know there are people being killed on the streets of Los Angeles!!

Catapult the propaganda, brit, we are used to it.

[LeftishBrit]

35. What did I ever say about murders in Los Angleles?

I think you've got me mixed up with someone else here.

And I am not saying 'look elsewhere' as in 'don't bother about the I/P situation as there are other problems in other countries' or 'it's OK for one group to do bad things because others do them too'. I am simply saying that treating either Israelis OR Palestinians as uniquely evil or fundamentally different from other groups of humans is unjust, and not likely to lead to any solutions to the many problems there.

ETA: I was responding in that post very specifically to the statement, "Israel is apparently different from the rest of the civilized world".

[Violet_Crumble]

19. 'these people need to be penned in.'

Disgusting...

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[ProgressiveMuslim]

22. Can you imagine somehere posting that Israelis deserved to be penned in?

That post would disappear so fast your headwould spin, and the poster would justifiably be tombstoned.

[Tom Joad]

32. well yeah. that's true. But the above prescription for Palestinians is a mainstream view,

and your right, the poster wouldn't get past 6 posts, and rightfully so.

but hey, what is being said here may sound unpleasant, but it is Israeli policy, in that sense there is no "extremism" being expressed here that is outside what most Israeli politicians support and what most US politicians support. supported by the Bush administration. supported by the major candidates in the Democratic Party. This is current policy.

The "consensus" is that Palestinians must be punished, must be collectively punished for stubbornly saying they not only should have some "concessions" from Israel, but really insisting on full human and national rights.

Support for justice, support for human rights, that is outside the mainstream.
The mainstream is shopping.

[Tom Joad]

34. current Israeli/US policy is "keep Palestinians penned in and hungry"

Fredda is more of a liberal. She says nothing about keeping them hungry.

[pelsar]

47. did you forget the egyptians again?

how much more proof do you need?....or maybe it ruins the israel/US narrative and you just cant get around that?

[Douglas Carpenter]

60. AMEN!!! YOU GOT THAT RIGHT!

but that would require certain persons accepting that Palestinians are not just the unfortunate - but actual human beings with equal human worth.

[pelsar]

25. Fredda...consider yourself...

officially "disowned" from "your people"....

these people need to be penned in.......helluva of viewpoint

[ProgressiveMuslim]

31. Yes Pelsar. Too bad the mods don't share your view. nt

[LeftishBrit]

26. Here's one Zionist who emphatically disagrees with you!

'Need to be penned in' - is that a way to speak of human beings, even 'enemies'??!

And 'bringing in Somalia because it's *chic*' - CHIC? The problems of Somalia are being shamefully neglected and ignored, not treated as chic!

[subsuelo]

78. "these people need to be penned in"

Wow.

The fact that a line like is remotely acceptable here is, frankly, shocking.

I will not soon forget it.

[pelsar]

16. actually...

we're kinda waiting for the Hamas/IJ etc in gaza to come to their senses and stop sending over rockets and trying to kill innocent people every day.......

civilized israelis in sederot, ashkelon, and the surrounding areas are waiting for that......israel just might respond in kind......
___

i take it your from the viewpoint that stopping the kassams has to high a price, hence its better to let the israelis be terrorized?

[kayecy]

36. Nothing is too high a price to stop the killing.........

I think we have been over this ground before. NOTHING is too high a price to stop both the Kassams and the targeted killing, blockades and inhumanities.

Why must either side wait for the other to come to its senses? Both sides are uncivilized, but as Vegasaurus and others are so fond of saying "Israel is a sovereign state." That gives it additional responsibilities towards a 'stateless people' on its borders.

[pelsar]

37. you avoid the consequences....

your clear about your viewpoint:...but you avoid writing the consequences of it...what will be the results tomorrow of your policy?

let me summarize and you can tell me where i am wrong:

israel is is the stronger state, and therefore should not stop the electrictity, fuel etc in to gaza. Nor should israel respond to the kassams in any way that might hurt civilians.....did i get that right?

conclusion: the hamasnik etc will be able to shoot their kassams without interference from the IDF
(just a historical note, when israel doesnt respond, the kassam are still launched).

as i've written before and you seem not to want to respond to it: your preference is for israel not to respond, and for the kassam shooters to shoot without interference (I realize you may not like that conclusion, but that is consequence of your logic)

[kayecy]

38. Nope, you did not get it right..........

israel is is the stronger state, and therefore should not stop the electrictity, fuel etc in to gaza. Nor should israel respond to the kassams in any way that might hurt civilians.....did i get that right?

Nope,you did not get it right. As I have said before, what is needed is some original thinking. 50 years of occupation, blockades, inhumanities have achieved what?

In a previous thread, I put my suggestion to you, but you declined to respond.

...your preference is for israel not to respond, and for the kassam shooters to shoot without interference (I realize you may not like that conclusion, but that is consequence of your logic)

See above for the response I gave you last time, and it still stands. Israel, Abbas and Hamas have to do something to get out of the tit-for-tat killing.

Let me make another suggestion:
How about a change of IDF policy like has just occurred in the US army? They have just come to the conclusion that it is more important to win hearts and minds than kill militants. Now there is an original thought for you!

[pelsar]

39. make it simple

what is your suggestion...that lets say will stop the kassams within a few days.....

i failed to see an actual suggestion...one that can be applied....got any (or just vague proclamations?)

[kayecy]

40. Why can't my suggestion re the IDF and winning hearts & minds be applied?

what is your suggestion...that lets say will stop the kassams within a few days.....

I have no suggestion to fix the kassams and the tactical mess you have got yourselves into. I doubt there is a simple way, but there isn't a simple way the Palestinians can get rid of the occupation either. What both of you have to do is look beyond the present. You are both suffering and you seem to agree that the IDF have achieved nothing in 50 years, so why not start thinking 'out-of-the-box?

I have made my suggestion for a long term 'road-map'.


Meantime, how about a response to my IDF winning hearts and minds suggestion?

If the US are producing a new operations manual to learn by their Iraq & Afghanistan experiences, why wouldn't something similar work for the IDF?

It couldn't be worse than the present IDF policy of strangling a million people into submission.

[Vegasaurus]

41. How's that working out for the US?

Seems there are still suicide bombings and roadside bombs every week.

Terrorism is a bitch.

[kayecy]

42. Give the US a chance - Their change of policy was only announced today!

[Vegasaurus]

43. Should I laugh now? nt

[pelsar]

44. now were getting down to it....

I have no suggestion to fix the kassams and the tactical mess you have got yourselves into.

...but at the sametime you think israel should not shoot back....correct?.....which means in the meantime, the jihadnikim should be able to shoot without being disturbed (as i''ve written before....)....that is precisely what your saying for the short term, or do you believe israel should return fire?

__________

what would be an example of "winning the hearts and mind"?...

[kayecy]

45. Not correct. Wherever do you get your assumptions from?

...but at the sametime you think israel should not shoot back....correct?.....

Not correct, wherever do you get your assumptions from? Let me express my own opinions, don't try and second guess me.

As I said before, I have no solution for the short term. What seems obvious though, is that you have got to get beyond the present day-by-day rocketing, killing and occupation or you will still be in this mess in another 50 years.

Now instead of asking me for a short term solution, why not ask your commanders why they are not thinking out-of-the-box? Surely, after 50 years of conflict, someone in the IDF could come up with an original proposal, one that would not increase the Palestinian anger and desperation, one that is a win-win solution for both sides?


As for what would be an example of "winning the hearts and minds", well, I am not a military man. You can read a military manual. Why not get hold of the latest US proposals and try them out? Anything would be better than this killing and multiplying of militants.

[pelsar]

46. but but...

havent you said that israel shouldnt shoot back if it means civilian casualties?

[kayecy]

49. That is what I would do as an IDF commander, but .........

That is what I would do as an IDF commander. I don't believe anyone has the right to kill civilians simply to meet a military objective. Don't forget that I also said that I have no solution for these short-term problems. You, on the other hand, seem to think that after 50 years of killing and maiming 5 Palestinians for every Israeli, the solution is simply to go on doing more of the same.


Can we look beyond this tit-for-tat killing and see what action the combatants could take to reduce the violence, occupation and inhumanities? How about giving us you thoughts on moving forward? As I said:

"....why not ask your commanders why they are not thinking out-of-the-box? Surely, after 50 years of conflict, someone in the IDF could come up with an original proposal, one that would not increase the Palestinian anger and desperation, one that is a win-win solution for both sides?"

[pelsar]

55. the actual answer is simple...

someone has to break the cycle of violence....

oh gosh, israel left gaza.....broke the cycle and did something dramatic..and what was the result?.....kassams almost everyday.

the Palestinians simple have to put a bit more energy into building a society and a bit less in trying to kill israelis...as we say in english, the 'balls in their court now"

[kayecy]

57. Come on pelsar - get real!

Gosh, Israel left Gaza! ....Ha, ha

A test of hearts and minds? Gaza seemed more like a case of a desperate prison authority removing the warders and then locking the prison gates. Sharon didn't even attempt to negotiate with the Gazans and made it perfectly clear that the quid pro quo for Gaza was 'no retreat' in the West Bank.

Come on Pelsar, get real. Stop trying to fix a 50 year problem by saying the other side has to do something. You both have to do something dramatic.



I asked you for a long term action plan. I suggested Israel make a more-than-fair offer, I suggested the IDF try winning over hearts and minds and what have you proposed that Israel does? - nothing!

[pelsar]

58. history...its important...

israel left gaza....gazans had access to egypt with an agreement with the EU/israel and egypt remember? (thats called negotiation btw)....Gaza had the opportunity to sell to israel its produce as it had in the past....and what happened? A little history......

the very day israel left the kassams started flying over the border...as well as at the very border stations where israel brought in supplies.....meaning at the very first opportunity the various groups in gaza started trying to kill israelis.

perhaps leaving gaza and uprooting settlements wasnt "dramatic for you...but it was enough for israel...cant get more dramatic than that in our book. The problem is not only didnt the Palestenains return the move, they infact used to increase attacks on israeli...dumb move on their part.


whatever sharon plan about "quid pro quid" is irrelevant..hes not the prime minister is he?

you ask for a long term plan?....it starts with the Palestenains....since pre 48 israel has been under attack from its various borders: Egypt said no more war, and got peace and their land, Jordan said no more war and got peace (they didnt want the westbank).....we're waiting for the others

so what is your suggestion for the Palestinians for their "dramatic move"....just out of curiosity

----
I asked you for a long term action plan. I suggested Israel make a more-than-fair offer, I suggested the IDF try winning over hearts and minds and what have you proposed that Israel does? - nothing! .....actually your short on "details"...what does your suggestion actually consist of?

[kayecy]

59. .......it starts with the Palestinians? - You must have a short memory.

...it starts with the Palestinians? - You have a short memory.

you ask for a long term plan?....it starts with the Palestenains....since pre 48 israel has been under attack from its various borders: Egypt said no more war, and got peace and their land, Jordan said no more war and got peace (they didnt want the westbank).....we're waiting for the others

Since you say history is important, and I agree with you, but why start in 1948? My history books say it started in 1917 with the massive inflow of Jewish immigrants that the Palestinians most definitely did not want and did everything they could to resisted this British-sponsored 'invasion'.

What the Palestinians wanted, and continued to demand even after 1948, is the same rights as other ex-Ottoman empire peoples. They simply wanted the right of self determination.

What would you have done if you had been subject to such a massive inflow of immigrants? Simply said '..no more war, and please could we have peace and our land back'?



Before asking anything of the Palestinians, don't you think Israel should do something to compensate or at least apologise for the 1917 'invasion'? Why must Israel always be '...waiting for the others'?

[pelsar]

62. i was giving the abridged version.....

it started way before 1917 if you want to get "picky"..about it...

more so....there was palestenian immigration happening as well...all throughout that period and more during the brits.....(the jews btw bought the land..something that is considered acceptable throughout the world..or is this a jewish thing?

but that is all beside the point now....the UN did the partition thing, one side took a risk by not accepting it and went for it all....they lost...and they simply havent accepted that loss...thats a large part of the problem (and if they have they have a hard time expressing it)

[kayecy]

63. Nope, it is not a 'Jewish thing', but what is a Jewish thing is ...

more so....there was Palestinian immigration happening as well...all throughout that period and more during the brits.....(the jews btw bought the land..something that is considered acceptable throughout the world..or is this a jewish thing?

Nope, it is not a 'Jewish thing', what is a Jewish thing is to assume that buying land confers sovereignty on the buyers. Also, if you look at a map of 1948 you will see that Jewish-owned land was about 5% of Mandate Palestine!

the UN did the partition thing, one side took a risk by not accepting it and went for it all....they lost...and they simply haven't accepted that loss...thats a large part of the problem (and if they have they have a hard time expressing it)

Mmmmm ... I think Shamir the terrorist/Prime Minister was the last person I heard state something like that. Are you by any chance a fan of his?

More to the point is that you have not yet given us your answer to the question I asked. ie "What would you have done if you had been subject to such a massive inflow of immigrants post 1917? Simply said '..no more war, and please could we have peace and our land back'?

You seem to be more keen to ask questions than answering them so let me suggest an answer for you: You would have resisted this 'invasion', just as any nationalist would have resisted it. So why are you surprised that the Palestinians, to use your words '...simply haven't accepted that loss.'

OK, so they didn't collaborate with the invaders and agree to a truncated Vichy state like the French. Is that what you would have done?

[pelsar]

65. what massive invasion?

i believe the jews came in small groups and individuals, bought land, developed factories, employed many of the locals.....

and to answer your question...when an individual or small groups enter my neighborhood/city that is not of my race/religion/color to live peacefully with me....i welcome them to the neighborhood as i would anyone who enters lawfully.

people who dont welcome others because of their race/religion etc are usually called racists and are not looked favorably upon


___

seems to me you believe the jews invaded.....perhaps you might define your version of if (please do some research first as to the number, intentions and how they acquired the land they lived on....)

[kayecy]

67. What do you call 66,000 olim in one year?

...seems to me you believe the jews invaded.....perhaps you might define your version of if (please do some research first as to the number, intentions ....
Text

Thank you for the suggestion that I do some research. I have in fact been doing just that for some years. Here are some of the results:


1. During WW1, the Jewish population of Palestine declined to approx 55,000. (ie about 10% of the 500,000 total population)

2. Between 1919 and 1935, a total of 308,020 olim arrived in Palestine – 60% of Palestine’s 1918 population. (In one year, 1935, 66,472 olim arrived!)


You may not call that an ‘invasion’ of foreign-born immigrants but I suggest any people made to suffer it would consider the term appropriate.


As to the intentions of these ‘invaders’, well, it clearly wasn’t to learn the local language or to integrate with the local culture. Don’t get me wrong, the immigrants were no different to other immigrants, they wanted a better life than they could get in the country of their birth. It was their leaders who facilitated this massive immigration and who planned to deprive the Palestinian inhabitants of their right to self-determination. I offer two examples:

First a 1904 extract from the writer Israel Zangwell:
“We must be prepared to expel (the country’s non-Jewish population) from the land by the sword, just as our forefathers did to the tribes that occupied it.”

And from Zabotisky’s 1923 ‘Iron Wall’
“...Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population. This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through.”

and to answer your question...when an individual or small groups enter my neighborhood/city that is not of my race/religion/color to live peacefully with me....i welcome them to the neighborhood as i would anyone who enters lawfully.

You would welcome them to create a new state in your neighbourhood? Come on Pelsar, even you don't believe that!


I await your response with interest.

[pelsar]

71. that suffering....

I suggest any people made to suffer it would consider the term appropriate

and how exactly did the locals "suffer".... (pre 48 during the immigration)

some lost the land they were working on... as those lands were sold to others, something considered very legal.....that happens all over the world, others found employment with jews who brought in new industries (zichron yaacov for example) and added to the economy which required additional help from the locals.....

Your picking a few quotes out are more than telling of what you want to believe....Zabotisky was not one of the majority.....you might try some others, given that most of the aliya was socialistic oriented and very aware of the workers and locals....you might want to find some of those or if you've done research you no doubt found them.....


on a side note....
funny thing about the arabs who stayed.....all polls show that they prefer israel over the future Palestinian state...(sometime 70% at Ulm el Facham I think it was something like 90%)

[kayecy]

74. So I take it you would have sympathized with the Palestinians if ...........

1. I do the research you asked for and you make no comment as to whether 300,000 olim constituted a 'massive immigration'.

2. I suggest you would have resisted this immigration if it had the object of creating a state in your neighborhood and you don't deny it.


Can I take it then that you sympathize with the Palestinians in the 1920s?

To be more exact, you would have sympathized with them if they had been citizens of a STATE, but as they were not, then everyone in the world had the 'legal' right to immigrate to Palestine in whatever numbers they chose. (or rather, the Brits allowed), in spite of the Palestinians express wish that this immigration be drastically reduced.

[pelsar]

77. i asked for the research..

so that your numbers would be accurate....there is a lot of hyperbole going on, within this forum. 300,000 where as is a large number given the population of the area, however, given the area involved it did not effect all of the inhabitants...more so much of it was concentrated in the coastal plane.(if i recall correctly)

would i have resisted?....like most of the population at the time, the answer is no. The jews did not threaten the arabs, did not attack them, etc In fact because of the jews, arabs immigrated themselves for the work-but then you would already know this since you did the research on the population numbers..correct?


......There was no general uprising of the arabs at that time (sporadic attacks). If you did your research you will realize that the situation changed in 1936 with the muslim brotherhood and Grand Mufti, Huseini...a vocal anti semite.....and the instigation began...without the mufi and the muslim brotherhood, it seems there wouldnt have been the violence of 1936 and on.

...it was simply manufactured

____

the area was controlled by the turks and brits...as such they controlled the immigration, that made it legal....some arabs didnt like the jews coming...so?.....a lot did as it gave them employment and a higher standard of living, something not to toss aside so easily as you seem to.

[kayecy]

79. Are you being honest with yourself?......

.....the area was controlled by the turks and brits...as such they controlled the immigration, that made it legal....some arabs didn't like the jews coming...so?

I think this is the crux of our disagreement. The British occupation forces said the Jewish immigration was ‘legal’, and therefore you say the 1920 Zionist immigration was legal. I’m not a Lawyer but legal or not, it was certainly immoral to force a massive immigration on a people that didn’t want it. To take advantage of an occupied people simply because their occupiers decided to encourage immigration would be considered immoral by most people. A similar situation exists today: World moral opinion condemns the settlements. Israel, the occupier says they are 'legal'



You say “There was no general uprising at the time.” Have you forgotten the Arab riots of 1929 in Tel Aviv, Haifa, Safad and Hebron when some 250 Jews and Arabs were killed?

.”....would i have resisted?....like most of the population at the time, the answer is no.”

I think you are not being honest. Why would you not have resisted a massive immigration of foreign-born aliens who wanted to carve out a state from your country?

[pelsar]

80. facts...

Why would you not have resisted a massive immigration of foreign-born aliens who wanted to carve out a state from your country?...so where was this resistance?.....outside of a few incidents pre 36?

most of the arab population did not resist the immigration......did they?....and like i wrote and assuming you did your research should know that after the jews arrive more arabs arrived, and they came looking for work, that was because of the jews.....so why do you ignore that?.....


did you actually write this?
To take advantage of an occupied people simply because their occupiers decided to encourage immigration
....the brits encouraged jewish immigration?....really, when exactly was that?

[kayecy]

81. Facts with documentary support..............

?...so where was this resistance?.....outside of a few incidents pre 36?

I suggest you read the US King-Crane Commission report of 1919. The members admitted to a bias towards Zionism but stated that:

"The Peace Conference should not shut its eyes to the fact that the Anti-Zionist feeling in Palestine and Syria is intense and not lightly to be flouted. No British officer, consulted by the Commissioners, believed that the Zionist program could be carried out except by force of arms. The officers generally thought a force of not less than fifty thousand soldiers would be required even to initiate the program. That of itself is evidence of a strong sense of the injustice of the Zionist program, on the part of the non-Jewish populations of Palestine and Syria. Decisions, requiring armies to carry out, are sometimes necessary, but they are surely not gratuitously to be taken in the interests of a serious injustice. For the initial claim, often submitted by Zionist representatives, that they have a "right" to Palestine, based on an occupation of two thousand years ago, can hardly be seriously considered."

After 90 years of conflict, I think the British officers were very prescient - don't you?

after the jews arrive more arabs arrived.....so why do you ignore that?.....

I don't ignore it, but the actual numbers are unclear. There is also a difference. I have seen no evidence that Arab immigration was resented by the locals. This is not surprising because as far as I know, the Arab immigrants were not planning to carve an alien state out of Palestine.

[pelsar]

82. yes the numbers are unclear...

but those arabs came for work...to an economy that was growing because of the jews.....so coming to the area to work and be employed by jews...at the sametime they also wanted them out?

[kayecy]

83. Most peoples prefer self-government to riches ...if given a choice!

It is a strange thing but most peoples prefer self-government to riches ...if given a choice!

The point is they should have been consulted before their right to self-determination was removed. Israelis object to Arab immigration into Israel on the grounds that the present dominant culture would become a minority, and yet you seem to believe that the majority of 1920 Palestinians didn't object to being forced into becoming a minority. It just doesn't seem a realistic scenario.


We shall have to close this debate before too long, but let me tell you why I am pursuing this Zionist morality thing with you:

I think you are reasonable sort of guy who might just think the unthinkable one day. I don't expect the clocks can ever be put back to 1917, but I do believe that if most Israelis could agree that the 1920s Palestinians were unjustly prevented from exercising their right to self-determination, then it would not be too difficult to persuade them to issue an apology.

You will no doubt scoff at this but just think. What would it cost Israel to make a formal apology? What effect might it have on moderate Palestinians?

I may be wrong of course, but I have just seen the effect of today's apology to the Aborigines by the Australian Prime Minister. Everyone, and I mean everyone in Sydney was cheering. It was a fantastic sight. It was a real win-win dramatic move. Every white Australians I could see was cheering it.



Meanwhile, back in Israel/Palestine, Hamas is working on longer-range rockets and Barak is deciding whether to invade Gaza.

[pelsar]

84. apologies will come

when both people have their own state and no longer feel threatened by the other.....and the apologies can be traded.

the jews did nothing wrong by immigrating to a place where they could defend themselves..... subsequent events made that pretty clear. The arabs of palestine were hardly a society that was ready to define itself as a country, nor were the brits and turks ready to let go in the 20's....i dont recall any attempts that were "pevented"....since you mentioned it, i expect you have some information of an aborted attempt a statehood?

[kayecy]

85. I think we are not going to agree on the morality of Zionism, but.........

...the jews did nothing wrong by immigrating to a place where they could defend themselves..... subsequent events made that pretty clear

Mmmm....I've heard this claim before. Many Zionists seem to think it is the 'killer' answer, but they never explain why it was so essential for them to emmigrate to Palestine and not to some other country with a lower population density.

As my Palestinian friends say. The Jews had a right to a homeland somewhere, but why did it have to be in Palestine and not Australia, Canada, Argentina or the USA, all of which had plenty of space and with cultures much closer to that of the European Jews.


I think we are not going to agree on the morality of Zionism, so perhaps this is a good point to end our debate.
Thank you for your responses.


PS: You may be interested in reading the paper "Zionism, Nationalism, and Morality" by Elias Baumgarten, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Michigan.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~elias/zionism.htm

[pelsar]

86. is nationalism immoral?

is a cultural identity immoral...because thats all what zionism is...

to place a moral value on zionism is to do the exact same to those who live in england and call themselves british....


if zionsim is immoral so is being british, american, austrailian, etc...is there a difference in your eyes?

___

you ask why palestine?...the answer is part of the jewish identity...or do you also question the values/history of that identity as well?
________

what I see your doing is placing the jewish identity and subsequent values and actions as different from other cultures/religions........

[kayecy]

87. Is a cultural identity immoral......because thats all what zionism is?

is a cultural identity immoral...because thats all what zionism is...

I can't let that statement go unchallenged. Zionism, having succeeded in carving out a state in Palestine, may now have metamorphosed into a mainly cultural identity, but culture identity was not what Zionism was about pre 1948.

The First Zionist Congress in 1897 made it clear what Zionism is by its opening sentence: "The task of Zionism is to secure for the Jewish people in Palestine a publicly recognized, legally secured homeland.'

No mention of cultural identity.



Sorry, Pelsar, if you really think Zionism is all about cultural identity, there really is no point in discussing further the morality of Zionism.




PS: I have just noticed their use of the phrase "publicly recognised". Were the local inhabitants not considered "public"?

[pelsar]

88. part of the culture.....

here is where is gets tricky for you...either you have a single standard for all.....or you dont:

I realize that to make zionism racism or whatever you have to disconnect it from the jewish culture....except that would be removing part of the jewish culture/identity....

zionism as part of the jewish identity saw/sees Palestine as part and parcel of the jewish history.....and its historical homeland.....in the prayers, in the jews living there throughout history. In the 1800's herzel put some more emphases on it...thats all.


so heres the question...if you can removed part of the cultural identity of the jews....can i do the same to the Palestinians?

for instance...i dont recall E. Jerusalem ever being a capital of the Palestinians.....so what gives?..why should they be demanding it?

[kayecy]

89. Where have I tried to make Zionism racism?

I realize that to make zionism racism or whatever you have to disconnect it from the jewish culture....except that would be removing part of the jewish culture/identity....

I really don't understand what are getting at. Where have I tried to make Zionism '...racism or whatever'?

1. Zionism's task was to increase the small Jewish minority in Palestine by immigration until it became a majority. I maintain that without the consent of the residents of Palestine, such a task was immoral.

2. You say Zionism also had a cultural identity. OK, I won't argue with that.

so heres the question...if you can removed part of the cultural identity of the jews....can i do the same to the Palestinians?

for instance...i dont recall E. Jerusalem ever being a capital of the Palestinians.....so what gives?..why should they be demanding it?

A. I haven't to my knowledge tried to remove part of the cultural identity of the Jews.

B. Jerusalem is no big deal as far as I am concerned, but as both the Jews and Arabs seem to want it for their capital, it seems reasonable that they split it between them.

[pelsar]

90. i was extrapolating ....i apologise

Where have I tried to make Zionism racism? ..... past experience is usually that when one makes zionism as more than a simple nationalistic movement based on jewish identity...the next step is calling zionism racism....

_____________________

Zionism's task was to increase the small Jewish minority in Palestine by immigration until it became a majority. I maintain that without the consent of the residents of Palestine, such a task was immoral

can we place that "rule" of yours and check out the rest of the world?......how about when blacks move in to a neighborhood in the states...and soon enough more follow changing the dynamics and culture of that neighborhood...all without asking the original inhabitants (who themselves probably chased out the italians, etc who were before them.)

how about muslims moving in to a predominately christian neighborhood and within years the christians are gone....."chased out" by the muslims?....all wilthout asking permission first?

perhaps you want to say that the brits or turks had no right to let the jews buy land?....that has nothing to do with the jews being moral or immoral. They bought their land legally according to the laws of the time, nothing immoral with people buying land is there?...or are you suggesting that some people cant buy land depending upon their political viewpoint?

I understand you have a problem with the jews planning on making a state where none was....but thats the point isnt it...there wasnt a state at the time, the population of jews and arabs was in flux. It turns out that the arabs who are now part of that jewish state are satisfied with their fate.....to the point of not wanting to go the future Palestinian State...I would say that certainly means a lot about the choices made at the time.

[kayecy]

92. Comparing blacks/italians moving into a neighborhood with Zionists carving out a state?

Thank you for the apology.

can we place that "rule" of yours and check out the rest of the world?......how about when blacks move in to a neighborhood in the states...and soon enough more follow changing the dynamics and culture of that neighborhood...all without asking the original inhabitants (who themselves probably chased out the italians, etc who were before them.)

You seem to be comparing blacks (or anyone else) moving into neighborhood with a well-financed movement that from the start wanted to create a state in another land and knew it would not get the approval of the local residents.

That is immoral



I notice you don't say "...how about Arabs immigrating to west of the Green line." .....Israelis don't want to become a minority in Israel. The Palestinians did not want to become a minority in Palestine.

[pelsar]

93. lots of assumptions there...and some weird accusations...

You seem to be comparing blacks (or anyone else) moving into neighborhood with a well-financed movement that from the start wanted to create a state in another land and knew it would not get the approval of the local residents.

when neighborhoods change its the very same principle, as one group moves in they have every intention of bringing in their kin as the expense of the locals....happens ALL of the time. I assume you have no problem with that, even though their intentions are what they are...

first off is being well financed a bad thing?... immoral? actually the jews werent well financed they used their limited resources wisely.

and yes they intended to create a state where no state existed....is this too immoral?

and now we get to your third assumption...."where it knew it wouldnt get approval of the locals"....hmm interesting...where did that info come from?...the general uprising of the locals that never actually occurred? The arabs that immigrated to work FOR the jews? The fact that the present arab population prefers the jewish state?

______

i assume you believe that the creation of Pakistan was also immoral since they had massive immigration.....which the locals were not even asked if they wanted....

[Vegasaurus]

94. It seems clear that it is only immigration of Jews that bothers this poster

the world is filled with legal immigration of other ethnic groups,but I don't see her getting her panties all in a wad about any of those, even though you are right, Pelsar, that neighborhoods, areas and yes, even states, have changed dramatically as the result of new ethnic groups moving in.

I wonder why it is only Jewish immigration that is so irksome.

[kayecy]

96. Careful, you are getting close to calling me a racist again.........n/t

[Vegasaurus]

97. I am trying to figure out why this Jewish immigration thing bothers you so

on edit: If I waxed on about how much I didn't want Muslims or Asians or Mexicans moving into my neighborhood, because they would change the overall composition, someone might consider that to be a bit racist. In fact, I am sure of it. And in fact, that IS a racist statement.

So, if one is opposed to making statements about other groups coming in and upsetting the ethnic balance, I think we ought to include Jews as well. That's all.

[kayecy]

98. Race, ethnicity or culture has nothing to do with it .....

Just to make it quite clear for you.

If the Zionists had been any other alien culture, Asians, Mexicans or Chinese, and were flooding into Palestine in such massive numbers and with the intention of carving out an alien Zionist state, I would still say they were immoral.

The race, ethnicity or culture had nothing to do with it. The Zionists were not wanted by the indigenous population, the Palestinians were under occupation, the Zionists took advantage of this and therefore it was immoral.



Israelis do not want Arabs immigrating to west of the Green line, because they do not want to become a minority in Israel.

Similarly, the 1920 Palestinians did not want the Zionist immigration because they did not want to be made a minority in Palestine.

[pelsar]

99. alien state?

how does immigrating to a place where ones ancestors once lived...where ones religion and customs got started "alien"....maybe those who came after the jews are the "aliens"....do you have some kind of time line when one becomes an "alien" to where ones history began?.

i would say that the Palestenians, 2nd and 3rd generation no longer living in Palestine, if they were to return would now be the aliens....having little real knowledge of the present day culture of israel...would you agree with that?

you neglected my question about Pakistan/India...given the population transfers and that they didnt ask the locals....arent they too both immoral countries?


____

to sum up your viewpoint...it seems what upsets you is that the jews did everything legally, took advantage of the what they could, used their resources to make a state where none existed, and did so well within the morality of the times.....and your using some "moral values" of 2008 to judge the happenings of over half a century ago, ...seems to me thats really the summary of it.

[kayecy]

100. Your ancestors lived in Palestine?

how does immigrating to a place where ones ancestors once lived.....

True if you mother, grandmother, great-grandmother, or great-great-grandmother once lived there. If they did, I apologize but I suspect you have no evidence, like most of us, of where your ancestors once lived.

you neglected my question about Pakistan/India...given the population transfers and that they didn't ask the locals....arent they too both immoral countries

Not intentional I assure you, but I can't find where you asked me that.

to sum up your viewpoint...it seems what upsets you is that the jews did everything legally

Not a very good summing up, I have never mentioned legality. I simply maintain that Zionism was immoral.


Now a question for you:
Most Israelis think they have a right to stop Arab immigration west of the Green line, they do not to want to become a minority in Israel. Why did the Zionist not give Palestinians the same right?

[pelsar]

101. so I'll ask again...

Pakistan and India: given the population transfers and that they didn't ask the locals....arent they too both immoral countries (or have immoral nationalistic movements)....and i shall add to that the US, Austrialia, Crotia, Russia, Japan, Algeria, England, Canada, etc......all either have or are on lands in which they did not ask the "locals" for permission.....
________

Most Israelis think they have a right to stop Arab immigration west of the Green line, they do not to want to become a minority in Israel. Why did the Zionist not give Palestinians the same right?

the zionists worked with those who had the power on the land, on the political level. When one circumvents those in power, for whatever the reason, the usual result is, if not chaos, then violent reactions from those in power.....thats how civilization works.

but since your claiming "21st century morality" supersedes the rules of civilization of the past, i then ask for an answer to my first question in this post.

[kayecy]

102. My apologies, I thought I was answering Vagasaurus.

Sorry pelsar, Vegasaurus has been chasing me on the same subject, hence my question on her ancestors! The board is very difficult to navigate when you have two members asking similar questions.

Pakistan and India: given the population transfers and that they didn't ask the locals....arent they too both immoral countries (or have immoral nationalistic movements)....and i shall add to that the US, Austrialia...

Pakistan & India had appalling population transfers but I don't quite see the similarities with Zionism. As regards the US & Australia, yes the colonization of these lands was immoral. Not as bad as the Zionist colonization because the number of natives and the population density was so much smaller. I think you will also find there are large numbers of Americans and Australians who will agree that their colonization was immoral.

the zionists worked with those who had the power on the land, on the political level. When one circumvents those in power, for whatever the reason, the usual result is, if not chaos, then violent reactions from those in power.....thats how civilization works.

How very convenient for the Zionists that there was a friendly occupation force in power in Palestine. Of course the Zionists forgot your rule when it came to circumventing British laws restricting immigration to Palestine in the 1939-48 period.

Moral values are normally based on fairness and universal justice. Israelis demand one right for themselves but were not prepared to give the same right to the 1920 Palestinians. Therefore Zionism is immoral. QED

[pelsar]

103. so all countries are therefore immoral...

Pakistan & India had appalling population transfers but I don't quite see the similarities with Zionism. As regards the US & Australia, yes the colonization of these lands was immoral. Not as bad as the Zionist colonization because the number of natives and the population density was so much smaller

either you have one set of rules or you dont......if you have one set then stay with that:

what i see your doing it "changing the standards your judging by to fit your "zionism is the worst" belief.

how about this: list this fairness and universal justice values of yours (i dont know what a universal justice is)...and then we can compare countries using a single set of values.....i would bet israel/zionism is pretty far low on that list compared to other countries....and then at least we'll have the proper perspective.


__
btw whats the 1920 Palestinians?....were they a society with a single identity demanding something?....i dont know why you mention them.

[kayecy]

104. Universal justice and the first generation of Israeli leaders.........

....(i dont know what a universal justice is).....

The following quotes may help you:
1. "Likewise, the concept of universal justice is at the core of Jewish religious thinking. Israeli critics of the messianic argument argue that by retaining the entire land, Israel is creating an injustice for the Palestinian Arab population of the territories."

2. “.....it is almost heartening to look back at the first generation of Israeli leaders, who openly confessed that their claims to the land of Palestine cannot be grounded in universal justice, that we are dealing with a simple war of conquest between two groups where no mediation is possible. Here is what David Ben-Gurion wrote:

Everyone can see the weight of the problems in the relations between Arabs and Jews. But no one sees that there is no solution to these problems. There is no solution! Here is an abyss, and nothing can link its two sides … We as a people want this land to be ours; the Arabs as a people want this land to be theirs."



The first generation of Israeli leaders would have agreed with me. Zionism is immoral.

[pelsar]

105. YOUR version of universal justice...

as i see it your main 'complaint" is the the zionists are like "super evil and immoral for what they did to the Palestinians....

i would like to know what this standard is....so that we can apply it to the rest of the worlds countries and see where israel fits......is israel and its zionists beginnings so evil or were they in fact far less destructive and sensitive than the brits, americans, french, Croats vietnamese, algerians,,etc when they were forming their own countries and taking over other lands where no state existed before.

you choose the moral standard.....

(spare me the quotes be they from Ben Gurion, Jabotinsky, Herzel, Arafat, the Grand Mufti or my father in law......they are not relevant to your accusations)
________
you state zionism is immoral....as far as i can tell using your criteria every nationalistic movement is immoral...every govt decision that changed boundaries without asking the inhabitants is immoral according to your definition....if you disagree, please explain why..use examples it will help clarify the differences.

[kayecy]

106. If you cannot accept contemporaneous documents ...........

(spare me the quotes be they from Ben Gurion, Jabotinsky, Herzel, Arafat, the Grand Mufti or my father in law......they are not relevant to your accusations)

I disagree with you.
They are provide incontrovertible support for my statement that Zionism is immoral... Without evidence, documents, quotations, and authoritative opinion, we are merely generating hot air.



If you cannot accept contemporaneous documents, it really is pointless to discuss the matter further.

[pelsar]

107. what i see is avoidance.....

i am simple asking you for your definition of this "universal justice"...thats all. YOUR DEFINITION or a learned opinion of it, that you agree with.....as its your opinion that states zionism is immoral.

i dont believe you want to define it, since once you do that and we apply your definition of this universal justice we shall find others far more guilty, including your own country...that i believe is why you refuse to state it clearly


or perhaps you have another reason... because i still dont know what it is.........

[kayecy]

108. So we give Zionism a mark of x out of 10, and Iran y out of 10 - where does that get us?

I have supplied what I consider are good illustrations of what I mean by Universal Justice. You are at liberty to disagree with me. I really don't know what more I can offer.

The dictionary gives this definition which I accept:
Universal - Applicable to all cases.
Justice - That which is morally right, giving everyone his or her due, fair,unbiased.


As to you finding others more guilty than Israel, I am sure you can. We could run through the whole gamut of countries from Sweden to North Korea and mark them for their degree of immorality, and find that Zionism has a score of x out of 10. Fine, but where does that get us?

We are discussing the morality of Zionism in the 1920s. I maintain Zionism was immoral because it connived with the occupier to take advantage of the occupied. The result of this immoral action was bitterness, anger and a desire for revenge amongst the occupied people.

If you can show me that the residents of Palestine were 'unfair', 'demanding more than their due' or in some other way deserved to lose their right to self-determination, then that is another matter.

[pelsar]

109. now were getting somewhere...

your using the date of 1920 for your moral compass...correct?.....that means we look at civilizations at that time and look at the norms of the societies to decide what was and wasnt moral.

to give you a better idea: we dont say that "neanderthals were immoral" for killing their neighbor who was stealing his food/wife etc since those were the norms of the time.

or do you want to use the moral values of the 21st century to decide what was and wasnt moral almost a century ago?
________

or there is the other route....it seems the zionists were quite right when they said the europe was not the be trusted....and it was time for them to go "home" to their roots.....so your putting a non existent Palestinian nationalism (they were not yet a society...or are you claiming they were?) above saving lives?..thats your version of "morality and justice?

[kayecy]

110. "...working with those in power on the land" is no defense.

or do you want to use the moral values of the 21st century to decide what was and wasnt moral almost a century ago?

As I have said, I believe morality should be based on fairness and universal justice. These do not change with time.


You have dismissed my comparison of (21st century) Israeli objections to Arab immigration with (1920s) Palestinian objections to Zionist immigration but the comparison is valid. Your statement that " ...the zionists worked with those who had the power on the land, on the political level." is no defense.

During the 1950s British occupation of Cyprus, there was a company which legally mined asbestos and then left the workers suffering asbestosis. They were "....working with those in power on the land" but their actions were nevertheless immoral.

[pelsar]

111. so i understand that...

your universal justice is "time immoral"...which means that every country, every society on the face of this earth is immoral in your eyes...as i am 100% sure i can find injustice within every society....and the zionists are neither the exception nor the rule...they were just "run of the mill" people...as immoral as the brits are today.

name a society and i will find where its injust to some of the people within....

[kayecy]

114. I am sure most societies have done things they are now ashamed of.

I am sure most societies have done things they are now ashamed of.

....and the zionists are neither the exception nor the rule...they were just "run of the mill" people...

I wouldn't put it quite like that but its not worth arguing about.


You seem to be missing my point...Whether Zionism was more or less immoral than some other group outside Palestine is immaterial.

Zionism was immoral because it connived with the occupier to take advantage of the occupied and destroy their right to self-determination... The Zionist sense of fairness and justice-for-all did not extend to them allowing the Palestinians the same rights as they demanded for themselves.... The result of this immoral, unfair action was bitterness, anger and a desire for revenge amongst the occupied people.


Let me be clear, do you believe that the residents of Palestine were equally immoral and unfair? - that they deserved to lose their right to self-determination?

[pelsar]

115. yes the Palestinians were immoral....

the killed jews simply because they were jews (jews had been living in safet and hebron for hundreds of years.)...More so the Palestinian state that may have been developed was to be immoral to the many of the inhabitants (jews) of the same geographic area. furthermore if we are to extrapolate just a bit and look around at the traditional arab style of government, we find them at best to be a dictatorship and worse a fanatical theocratic regime that stones people to death as punishment, not to mention gender apartheid-(Lebanon being the exception....a country that is split into fiefdoms).

such govts are so immoral that they have no right to exist period, they are immoral not just to 'the other' but to those of their own as well.

Having the advantage of the future we can look and see israel built on zionism that gives it citizens full rights within the law....and the ability to fix and change with time. This includes the jew, the arab, the bedouin, the druze, the christian, the pagon, the bahai, the homosexual etc...We can assume that the Palestinian govt (hamas?) would not be democratic would not give the citizens basic civil rights and in fact be far more immoral as a governing body. (especially that of the 1920s)

that said one must wonder what would avg citizen ahmed chose? a dictatorship based on people with his own genetic code and religion and customs or a democracy with civil rights with a govt based on "the other".

the answer?....polls indicate the israeli arabs overwhelming prefer the jewish zionistic govt..and that includes arabs in E.Jerusalem who do not want to be part of the PA.
______

so your view point is interesting...i understand you prefer nationalism over individual civil rights.....

[kayecy]

116. Zionism was justified in depriving the Palestinians of their right to self-determination because.......

the killed jews simply because they were jews (jews had been living in safet and hebron for hundreds of years.)...More so the Palestinian state that may have been developed was to be immoral to the many of the inhabitants (jews) of the same geographic area. furthermore if we are to extrapolate just a bit and look around at the traditional arab style of government, we find them at best to be a dictatorship and worse a fanatical theocratic regime that stones people to death as punishment, not to mention gender apartheid-(Lebanon being the exception....a country that is split into fiefdoms).

You obviously have a poor opinion of 1920s Palestinians. Are you saying Jews were superior and therefore Zionism was justified?

....such govts are so immoral that they have no right to exist period, they are immoral not just to 'the other' but to those of their own as well.

An interesting statement. If you believe it reasonable to make such a statement because of what you believe to be true, I can't see how you can object to Hamas making a similar statement about Israel having no right to exist, because of what they believe to be true.

...that said one must wonder what would avg citizen ahmed chose? a dictatorship based on people with his own genetic code and religion and customs or a democracy with civil rights with a govt based on "the other".

I don't know, and you don't know but that is exactly my point. The Zionists deprived them of their right to choose their form of government.



To sum up, you think the the Zionists were justified in depriving the 1920s Palestinians of their right to self-determination, because:
They were murders and the Zionists could assume that a future Palestinian govt would not be democratic and would not give the citizens basic civil rights. Moreover, it was reasonable for the Zionists to extrapolate and assume that a future Palestinian government of the same race as people who stoned other people to death and practiced gender-apartheid would do something similar.

Have I got that correct?

[pelsar]

117. actually no...your summary is incorrect...

i was actually just taking what you explained...which is that all govts do immoral things...and then making value judgement of which would be the less immoral.

my opinion about govts right to exist is based on a simple moral principle: those that believe in civil rights for the individual have a right to exist, those that dont....dont. Nationality and genetic makeup have no value in that. (Hamas is a theocratic dictatorship....to my western liberal values system, they have no right to govern anything).

I have yet to hear from you about the Palestinian movement for independence in the 1920s...will you please explain to me, perhaps with some links who was behind it, who was supporting it?

i'll explain more after i get that information......

[kayecy]

119. You don't need an independence movement to claim the right of self-determination...

...my opinion about govts right to exist is based on a simple moral principle .......

I'm sure Hamas could say the same about Israel- their opinion is based on a simple moral principle that organisations that take away someone's right to self-determination should have no right to exist.
I think both views are extremist positions, but then I'm not one of the parties to this conflict.

I have yet to hear from you about the Palestinian movement for independence in the 1920s...will you please explain to me, perhaps with some links who was behind it, who was supporting it?

I didn't claim there was a Palestinian movement for independence in the 1920s. All I said was that Zionism destroyed the Palestinians' basic human right to exercise self-determination at some time in the future.... A people should not need an independence movement to retain that right.

[pelsar]

123. wow!

I didn't claim there was a Palestinian movement for independence in the 1920s. All I said was that Zionism destroyed the Palestinians' basic human right to exercise self-determination at some time in the future.

i have to admit for a second i was quite speechless......so zionsim is immoral for "destroying" something that may or may not have occured .....reminds me of those movies that arrest people for something they might do in the future that might have an affect on something.

so lets take this general principle of yours and perhaps apply it to lets say: EVERWHERE!. I'm sure you dont want to apply this principle just to the jews correct?....i'm mean it should be applied to everyone

The principle is:
Its is immoral to destroy any group of peoples, right to self determination that one day may occur to them to demand. Well that certainly covers a lot of ground doesn't it. What other groups have had this potential right take away?...hmm, the scots? the immigrant muslims from Pakistan in England, the "eskimos" of Alaska, and Canada, the Kurds, the Druze in Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, the Jews in Germany, the jews in Norway, the Christians of Gaza, the Christians of India, jews in india....i could go on and on and on and on.

back to the rest of the world....i take it you then agree that once again every single country on the face of the earth has some group within whos right to self determination has been "destroyed"....

[kayecy]

125. Wrong again ..............

....so zionsim is immoral for "destroying" something that may or may not have occurred

Wrong! Zionism is immoral because it destroyed the right to eventual self-determination. That right existed.... When it was exercised is immaterial.

I do not claim that the right to self determination should be applied to every group of people. Each situation must be examined and considered on its merits. For example:

1. 1920s Palestinians: They were an indigenous people living in a reasonably defined area. There was no risk of civil war. Therefore they should have had an absolute right to self-determination.
2. Scotland: The Scots will be granted independence if they vote for it. Residents of the rest of the UK will be given no vote on the matter.
3. Alaska: As for the Palestinians.
4. Kurds: As for the Palestinians
5. Druze in Syria, Lebanon, Turkey: As for the Palestinians.
6. Jews in Germany: In this case there was a complicating factor... I believe the Jews were spread out all over Germany so there was the practical problem of what geographic area would be granted self-determination. If you have a solution to that problem then they should have had the right to self determination.
7. Jews in Norway: As for Germany.
8. Christians of Gaza: As for Germany but with the additional practical problem that Gaza is too small for even one viable state.
9. Indigenous minorities everywhere: As for Germany/Gaza.
10. British Moslems: As for Germany, but most Moslems are not indigenous to Britain. Like the Zionists, they are immigrants in a foreign land.

However, since I believe only the Palestinians, Scots and Kurds have claimed a right to self-determination there is not much point in looking at other groups.


To get back to Palestinian self-determination:
You would be the first one to claim that the 1948 Jewish residents of Palestine had a right to self- determination, so why do you think 1920s Palestinians should not have had the same right?

[pelsar]

126. which Palestinians?

a muslim based Palestine of the 1920's would destroy the right of the druze for self determination. The druze were/are living in a defined area, and they really dont like the muslim arabs, so i'm assuming that this Palestinian state should really be divided into two: druze and muslim.

but wait, The Circassians are non-Arab Sunni Muslims who comprise about 3,000 people concentrated in two northern Israeli villages


Bedouin Arabs belong to 30 tribes and Living primarily in the Negev desert, dont they deserve self determination as well?....they never did identify themselves as Palestinians....

seems to me you just drew a line in the "sand" like all the colonialists and decided which geographic group should be a country, totally ignoring the indigenous people and what they might want.

However, since I believe only the Palestinians, Scots and Kurds have claimed a right to self-determination there is not much point in looking at other groups.

you made it clear that a group doesnt have to claim a right to self determination...remember?

I didn't claim there was a Palestinian movement for independence in the 1920s. All I said was that Zionism destroyed the Palestinians' basic human right to exercise self-determination at some time in the future.... A people should not need an independence movement to retain that right.]

we want to be consistent dont we?

...they're might be some groups that disagree with you...The celtics, The Goidels, or Gaels (who are still found in Ireland and in the Highlands of Scotland), ..I"m sure many of their ancestors are rather pissed and want their self determination back... if not now, then in the future.....you wrote:

When it was exercised is immaterial.

Should we look at Europe and check out the forced borders and destruction of the various self determinations there, i'm sure we can finds hundreds...i guess we can start with Belgium and then switzerland, we'll be using your criteria...

and a fun fact:
you agree that the scotts should get their independance from england if they chose...what about the ancestors of those within scotland....do they get their chance at self determination as well?
Caledonia The name represents that of a Pictish tribe, the 'Caledonii', one amongst several in the region, though perhaps the dominant tribe...

[kayecy]

127. Yes, we do need to be consistent....

...seems to me you just drew a line in the "sand" like all the colonialists and decided which geographic group should be a country, totally ignoring the indigenous people and what they might want

Not true, They are the examples you provided. I will consider others if you like, but only if you show evidence that they have demanded the right of self determination.

...you made it clear that a group doesn't have to claim a right to self determination...remember?

Not true again.....Look carefully at what I wrote. "A people should not need an independence movement to retain that right".
In other words, the basic human right of the Palestinian people (providing they met a set of conditions) was just that - a basic right that was not dependant on independence movements, Zionist aspirations or anything else.

If other groups have demanded the same basic human right, and you wish to discuss their demand and be consistent, then all we have to do is apply the same set of conditions.



So, I ask you again:

1948 Jewish residents of Palestine demanded to be allowed the right to self- determination. To be consistent, the Zionists should have allowed the 1920s Palestinians the same right..…They did not, and never planned to do so. Ipso facto the Zionist movement was immoral.

[pelsar]

128. you've made the claim...

that all groups of people (that have not immigrated) living in single geographic area have the right, whenever they decide to act upon it, to have self determination....is that not correct? and to prevent them is "immoral"

i have not made that claim nor will i.

lets just make sure were on the "same page" with that value statement.

[kayecy]

131. You are almost right, but stick to my exact words..

that all groups of people (that have not immigrated) living in single geographic area have the right, whenever they decide to act upon it, to have self determination....is that not correct?

You are almost correct, but stick to my exact words:

I do not claim that the right to self determination should be applied to every group of people.... Each situation must be examined and considered on its merits. For example:
1. 1920s Palestinians: They were an indigenous people living in a reasonably defined area. There was no risk of civil war. Therefore they should have had an absolute right to self-determination.

I also said there were practical difficulties for small groups in small geographic areas. I might add that any proposed self-determination demand should be examined on the basis of the likely economic viability of the new state and its likely fairness to all the residents of the proposed by the area. (ie a potential dictatorship of the majority culture should not be acceptable - I am thinking of the Cyprus situation.)

I don't want to waste time with your Celts, Goidels, or Gaels and can we limit the discussion to last 100 years or so?


Now you can spring your 'killer' question!

[pelsar]

132. you sure have added lots of subjective values....havent you

economic viability (who decides that?)...

a potential dictatorship of the majority culture should not be acceptable....potential dictatorship?

and you dont see the Palestinians as having a potential dictatorship?...i believe that is what Hamas has in gaza today.... and given the arab/muslim culture in the area i certainly would say its a distinct possibility. Add to the fact that the Palestinians of 1920 had no education towards democracy, any independence would have led directly to a dictatorship...not to mention the blood libels against the jews as evidence of a potential civil war.

your've certainly made your point.......your conditions rule out the Palestenian of 1920 as having the right to independence.

plus you do have a time limit:
don't want to waste time with your Celts, Goidels, or Gaels and can we limit the discussion to last 100 years or so? after 100 years the people who have not claimed "independance" lose that right?

so all israel has to do is stay put for 12 more years and then you will switch and back israel for being as moral as britan, the US etc. A country that has made some mistakes in the past, but nothing more than that?.....maybe you should pick 1,000 years. This way you just have to break up most of the middle east, parts of Europe, all of North and South America,,,but britan might be able to remain as is (with out scottland)

[kayecy]

134. We are talking about a right to self-determination which may or may not be exercised in the future

economic viability (who decides that?)...and you dont see the Palestinians as having a potential dictatorship?...

All such matters should sensibly be discussed between the parties concerned, when, and only when the group demands immediate self-determination.....Whatever the economic viability or potential political problems are they can never negate the basic right to self-determination at some time in the future. The Zionists did destroy that right, that is why their action was immoral.

...your conditions rule out the Palestenian of 1920 as having the right to independence

You will have to provide support for that statement if you want me to take it seriously.

....plus you do have a time limit: ..... after 100 years the people who have not claimed "Independence" lose that right?

I don't have a time limit. My suggestion was for the purposes of this discussion only - so that we didn't waste time.


Now, for the third time I ask you for your answer to my question:
The 1948 Jewish residents of Palestine demanded to be allowed the right to self- determination and were given it... The Zionists did not allow the 1920s Palestinians the same right... What is your moral justification for them not doing so?

[pelsar]

136. i needed more background...before i answered your question....

The 1948 Jewish residents of Palestine demanded to be allowed the right to self- determination and were given it... The Zionists did not allow the 1920s Palestinians the same right... What is your moral justification for them not doing so?

in 1948 both the jewish and arabs were allowed the right to self determination... remember the UN? the partitian plan?....one group acted upon it (jews) the second group didnt. At least lets get our facts straight. So the Palestinians in fact were allowed the right for self determination.

You claim here that the zionists did not allow the 1920 Palestenians the same right.....strange accusation. In 1920 the zionists had no control to allow or not allow the Palestinians to do anything (am i reading it correcty?). The zionists didnt not control the land. So how did they "not allow" that right. Furthermore there was nothing to "allow" as there was no movement for independence upon the part of the Palestinians? How can one disallow something that doesnt exist?

I didn't claim there was a Palestinian movement for independence in the 1920s. All I said was that Zionism destroyed the Palestinians' basic human right to exercise self-determination at some time in the future....

perhaps explain how exactly the zionists destroyed the Palestenians right for self determination in the future....How did they actually do it? (i really dont know how its done-since whatever those zionists did to break their will, it must have been very powerful as it went through several generations of Palestinians).
_____

wait a minute...perhaps what your talking about is that since the jews/zionists moved in, they disrupted the "native population, destroyed the "balance" and consequently destroyed what could have been a Palestinian state from the Mediterranean to iraq, north to lebanon and south to egypt...is what your talking about? and that was very immoral of them.

[kayecy]

138. Massive immigration followed by partition, followed by the Law of Return....simple.

You claim here that the zionists did not allow the 1920 Palestinians the same right.....strange accusation. In 1920 the zionists had no control to allow or not allow the Palestinians to do anything (am i reading it correctly?).

Not true, the Zionists had a choice. They could accept that Palestinians residents should determine their own future or they could connive with the occupation authorities to change the demographic balance of the land.....Turkey did the same in 1939 when it invaded the Syrian province of Iskenderun (Alexandretta)........ At least the Turks didn't claim their action was moral.

....perhaps explain how exactly the zionists destroyed the Palestinians right for self determination in the future....How did they actually do it?

I am sure you know, but for the record here is my understanding:....The Zionists changed the demographic balance of Palestine by flooding the land with immigrants until there were enough Jews to demand self-determinaton.... In fact, even with massive immigration, the Zionists still did not have a majority by 1948. Had they demanded self-determination for the whole of Palestine it would have resulted in an Arab majority government.....The Zionists overcame this problem by agreeing to partition (Israel)and then immediately passing the Law of Return to ensure there would never be anything other than a Jewish majority government in Israel.


Perhaps I have misunderstood Zionist intentions?

[pelsar]

141. now its clearer....

everything done was basically a zionist plot/plan or some kind of political manipulation that got them what they wanted. They manipulated the turks, the brits, the UN and everybody else...The Palestenians and the arabs on the other hand were obviously incompetents who were simply victims of the zionist plots....

They could accept that Palestinians residents should determine their own future or they could connive......is that not precisly what the zionist did....they accepted that fact that the Palestenians might one day in the future want their own state, hence when the UN split the country, the zionists accepted it as a morally acceptable solution. Two states one for the jews, one for Palestinians.

this is the fun part however....you wrote:

a potential dictatorship of the majority culture should not be acceptable

you asked for "support" of the statement that they would not make a democractic country....well their history is pretty clear:
the Palestinians in 1970 tried to take over jordan after forming a mini dictator state...that failed, they then went to S.Lebanon where they took it over and terrorized the locals, now they have a dictatorship in gaza....that is your support....seems your own values negates giving the Palestinians statehood.
____

outside of that, you do seem to have a problem with people moving around the world and developing new societies.....if i understand correctly people moving to a new place are not "allowed" to change the culture of that place nor establish new norms, as it might negate the rights to self determination of the locals.

i.e. Lets see, America is obviously immoral as the euros came with the full intention of kicking out the indians and making a new country....so too obviously are the Australians and new zealanders, tribes from japan took the islands (okinawa), i could go on and on about people moving to different lands and having various intentions of causing change..to you i understand they are all immoral. Now that i understand your viewpoint, you seem to think the zionists are the "worse"...what criteria are you using?

[kayecy]

142. You seem to have some difficulty in understanding me......

.....is that not precisly what the zionist did....they accepted that fact that the Palestinians might one day in the future want their own state, hence when the UN split the country, the Zionists accepted it as a morally acceptable solution. Two states one for the Jews, one for Palestinians.

A morally acceptable solution!.....If I enter your house without your permission, and occupy it with my family for 20 years, and the local council suggest a good plan would be to split the ownership of the property, one half for me and one half for you, you would consider that morally acceptable?

....you asked for "support" of the statement that they would not make a democratic country.......seems your own values negates giving the Palestinians statehood.

Not true. Neither you nor I can say what might have happened if the Zionists had had a sense of fairness and justice-for-all in the 1920s. The Zionists actions produced bitterness, anger and a desire for revenge.(See the Peel Commission Report)..... What the Palestinians were driven to do after 50 years of unfair treatment, is little indication of what they might have achieved if they had been allowed to move to self-determination without being threatened by a flood of immigrants.

.....if I understand correctly people moving to a new place are not "allowed" to change the culture of that place nor establish new norms, as it might negate the rights to self determination of the locals.

No, you misunderstand me. I said “... immigrants to a country should not have an automatic right to demand self-determination.” .....and yes it does apply to Australia, New Zealand and the USA.

....you seem to think the Zionists are the "worse"...what criteria are you using?

Again you misunderstand me. The Zionist colonization enterprise was no ‘worse’ morally than others of the time. Where the Zionists are at fault is, instead of admitting that their colonial enterprise was immoral and leaving like the others, they stayed in Palestine and made no attempt at reconciliation with the locals.

The Brits, French and Spaniards eventually left most of their colonies......In Australia, New Zealand and the USA, the natives were mollified with apologies, favourable treatment, financial investment etc to such an extent that they now have no desire for self-determination.....Compare this with the Israel/Zionist frequent use of force, expropriation of private land etc and it is not difficult to see why the Palestinians might feel so desperate.

[pelsar]

144. you really like excuses.....

The Brits, French and Spaniards eventually left most of their colonies......In Australia, New Zealand and the USA, the natives were mollified with apologies, favourable treatment, financial investment etc to such an extent that they now have no desire for self-determination.

actually no...the "natives" were just beaten so badly so overwhelmed, that they accepted their defeat. However they're are in fact movements within the US for independence with mexicans and indians...i understand you believe that they should be given their rights....and break up the US?

this I like:
The Zionists actions produced bitterness, anger and a desire for revenge.(See the Peel Commission Report)..... What the Palestinians were driven to do after 50 years of unfair treatment, is little indication of what they might have achieved if they had been allowed to move to self-determination without being threatened by a flood of immigrants.

yes those zionists were so incredibly evil that the Palestinians just HAD to try to take over jordan, and they just HAD to terrorize the residents of Lebanon and of the gaza strip..... So since the actual actions of the Palestinians as a governing body arent acceptable to you as evidence of their governing style...what indications would you accept as proof that a "people" wont make a democracy......

and just out of curiosity:
If I enter your house without your permission.....whos permission should the immigrants have asked?

and i understand then that you agree that the St Louis (1939) should have been forced back to germany given the jewish cargo and their intentions..

and the new state of kosovo....does it fit your criteria or not for a morally acceptable state?

[pelsar]

146. 2000 yrs vs 50.....the hypocrisy...an additonal note....

inevitably one has to find an excuse for the Palestinians for their actions:

The Zionists actions produced bitterness, anger and a desire for revenge.(See the Peel Commission Report)..... What the Palestinians were driven to do after 50 years of unfair treatment, is little indication of what they might have achieved if they had been allowed to move to self-determination without being threatened by a flood of immigrants.

so lets pretend that the zionists were so horrible to the Palestinians..that even those who never met one were so traumatized by what was done to their parents they just had to terrorize those jordanians and lebanese....but we want to be consistent...we've already agreed on that.

so whereas the Palestinians had a mere 50 years of of unfair treatment, the jews had over 2,000 years in almost every country throughout the world. Obviously using your "people psychology" the jews were in much worse shape...and as you have shown that the Palestinians are to be excused for their behavior, i would suggest that you also must excuse the jews

or are you saying that the jews history of "unfair" treatment wasnt as a bad? (pogroms, blood libels, being kicked out, and ultimately genocide....-)

[kayecy]

147. The Jews had over 2,000 years of unfair treatment...........

.....the jews had over 2,000 years in almost every country throughout the world.

At last! Something we can agree on. The Jews were indeed treated unfairly by virtually every country in the world.

.....Obviously using your "people psychology" the jews were in much worse shape...and as you have shown that the Palestinians are to be excused for their behavior, i would suggest that you also must excuse the jews

Yes, we should excuse the Zionist Jews their actions as well as the Palestinians their actions.

In summary, you are claiming:
1. Palestinians were unfairly treated by the Zionist Jews. Jews were unfairly treated by the rest of the World.
2. If the Palestinians are be excused their actions, then the Zionist Jews should also be excused their actions.



Fine, I agree....... So the first thing to do is for both the Israelis and Palestinians to stop treating each other unfairly. Then, in order to arrive at a solution that is consistent and applying justice and fairness to all parties:

The Palestinians should receive apologies, compensation etc from Israelis and Israelis should receive apologies compensation etc from the rest of the World.



Do you have any objection to such a solution if it can be arranged?

[pelsar]

148. in principle its a fine idea

but that wont get us anywhere in the conflict: The world may have "wronged the jews"...but the Palestinians do not see that as any reason why they should be made to suffer....and in that respect they are correct.

The jews will not trust the world to remove anti semetism and therefor want/need "israel"....the Palestinians are in no mood to trust the israelis....and/or want what is theres.

___

which puts us in to reality: justice is not the issue, its too subjective. What is required is first, elimination of that world from the solution and the realization that there will be no justice...only a solution that both sides can live with.

[kayecy]

149. Wow!...Another statement we can agree on!

....The world may have "wronged the jews"...but the Palestinians do not see that as any reason why they should be made to suffer....and in that respect they are correct.

Wow! Another statement we can agree on!

.....which puts us in to reality: justice is not the issue, its too subjective. What is required is first, elimination of that world from the solution and the realization that there will be no justice...only a solution that both sides can live with.

I can agree the final solution should be one both sides can live with, but without some consideration of justice it will be a chimera.

Lets take your above statement:
"The Palestinians do not see that as any reason why they should be made to suffer."...... Why are they being made to suffer? .... You will, I am sure answer something like, '...because they threaten and carry out acts of terrorism against Israel'..... Why do Palestinians carry out terrorist acts against Israel?....... Because Zionist Jews took away their right to self-determination in their homeland and moreover continue even now to threaten (via settlements & the 'security barrier') their right to a viable state in what little of Palestine is left east of the Green line.

Without justice, '..a solution that both sides can live with.' will remain just wishful thinking.

I still say that an apology by Israel would cost nothing and could make all the difference between real peace negotiation and the present playing-for-time by both sides.

[pelsar]

150. but there is a principle i do not agree with....

the zionists did not "take away" their right to self determination.....no one can take away "a right". The fact that they failed to act upon that right previously or that their present attempts are integrated with violence is and was their choice.

your eliminating their own responsibility in the past and present......they have been just as much a player in the events as israel has and its been their choices along with israeli ones that have led to the present situation.

they have just as much to apologies for as does israel.....and not just to israel, but to jordan, egypt, lebanon, germany, and every other country they have used to attack israel with....

[kayecy]

151. And there we shall have to agree to differ........

.....the zionists did not "take away" their right to self determination.....no one can take away "a right".

And there we shall have to agree to differ. If you think 300,000 unwanted Zionist immigrants and enforced partition did not take away the Palestinians' right to self-determination, then I give up....Not once did the Zionists pre-1948 suggest independence for Palestine be based on universal sufferage....If the Brits had insisted on it in 1930, 1940 or even 1945, do you think the Zionists would have agreed?

....The fact that they failed to act upon that right previously...

You said no one can take away "a right". Now you seem to be saying that because Palestinians failed to act upon that "right" at the start of Zionist immigration, they couldn't exercise it later. I'm confused!

...they have just as much to apologies for as does israel

Individual Palestinians perhaps, just like individual Israelis......However, the Zionists had governing authorities from the 1920s, their successor being The Government of Israel..... There was no governing authority for the Palestinians until the PA came along....You have agreed that Palestinians were treated unfairly by the Zionists.....Which Palestinian authority are you blaming for whatever wrongs were done to the Zionists?

[pelsar]

152. you speculate too much.....

Not once did the Zionists pre-1948 suggest independence for Palestine be based on universal sufferage....If the Brits had insisted on it in 1930, 1940 or even 1945, do you think the Zionists would have agreed?

actually we all know what happened in 48..dont we.....an attempt to remove the jews. Most likly it would have been the arabs who didnt accept a single state with the jews...there is more than enough history in the area to prove that...isnt there? Whereas there are arabs within israel living as citizens...not too many jews living as full citizens in any arab state...ever!! So what evidence do you have that the Palestinians would have been different from the syrians, egyptians, jordanians, saudis, etc

and the Palestinians get to exercise their right to self determination...gaza and the westbank...eventually. It might help if they stop trying to kill the jews though....
___

and this is the part where once again you show just the slightest bit of hypocrisy:
the zionists had a quasi govt until israel..and you believe israel should apologize for their 'crimes"

the Palestenains had the PLO...a quasi govt before the PA......samething (but you think not?)....and then you write "whatever wrongs"..am i to assume that killing people in cold blood, taking over countries, terrorizing the locals is not a wrong in your view? and that the PA has nothing to apologize for?

[kayecy]

153. "..taking over countries.." - Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

....actually we all know what happened in 48..dont we.....an attempt to remove the jews. Most likly it would have been the arabs who didnt accept a single state with the jews...

The 1948 civil war was a result of the UN partition proposal.... I repeat my question, if the Brits had insisted on universal suffrage any time before the Peel Commission partition proposal (1937), would the Zionists have agreed to it? The answer is no, no, never....The Zionist were not fools, they wanted a Jewish majority area, as large as possible and cared not a fig what happened to the local residents.

....the Palestenains had the PLO...a quasi govt before the PA......samething

Same thing, I agree but not relevant..... All my statements on the morality of Zionism have referred to the pre-1937 period..... The PLO was formed by the Arab League in June, 1964....Prior to that date you can only talk of groups of Palestinians...Tell me which group you are referring to and I may agree with you..... Individual groups of Zionist immigrants were like Palestinian groups, some criminal, some innocent. The responsibility of the Zionist organizations which planned the break-up of Palestine, is a totally different matter.

.....and then you write "whatever wrongs"..am i to assume that killing people in cold blood, taking over countries....

Killing in cold blood is a crime....If you can refer to me a document which shows Jews have killed less Palestinians than Palestinians have killed Jews I would like to see it....As for "...taking over countries.." - Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

[pelsar]

154. you talked of apologies...

are you saying that the PLO/PA has nothing to apologize for?

(whatever the jews/israelis did has nothing to do with it...or are you saying that israel made the PLO kill the athletes in Munich, the Palestinians simply couldnt help themselves?)

[kayecy]

155. Both the PLO/PA and Israel have a lot to apologize for.

....are you saying that the PLO/PA has nothing to apologize for?

I think the PLO/PA have much to apologize for.....Are you saying Israel has nothing to apologize for?

(whatever the jews/israelis did has nothing to do with it...or are you saying that israel made the PLO kill the athletes in Munich, the Palestinians simply couldnt help themselves?)

The PLO, like Hamas have carried out many despicable actions.....Israel too has carried many despicable actions....We can argue about who has carried out the most or worst atrocities, but what is clear is that only Israel is a sovereign state, a member of the UN and has signed the human rights declarations and the Geneva Convention.

[pelsar]

156. not signing a HR declaration....does not excuse them.....

Israel, the country and its citizens had done many things that are illegal and cross the line of the HR and can apologize for many things....but you are hinting that by not being s sovereign state the PLO/PA doesnt have any responsibility for the acts they financed, planned and were carried out in their name. Furthermore you hold the zionists yishuv responsible for immoral acts before they signed any document or were any sovereign state...in fact thats what this whole discussion is about. Your holding a group of people who had a similar philosophy, but were not a state, responsible for immoral actions.

i would say using your criteria, fatah/PLO/PA/Hamas etc are responsible for incredible immoral acts, period. no buts, no maybes, nothing.....just full responsibility for the violence/immorality that was committed in their name by their members.

remember your "universal justice"....one size fits all

[kayecy]

158. You are seeing 'hints' when they are not there .......

....i would say using your criteria, fatah/PLO/PA/Hamas etc are responsible for incredible immoral acts, period. no buts, no maybes, nothing.....just full responsibility for the violence/immorality that was committed in their name by their members

I agree with you, they are responsible for those acts....Universal justice applies to all.

..but you are hinting that by not being s sovereign state the PLO/PA doesnt have any responsibility

Not true....I am simply stating the obvious.....Israel is a sovereign state and a member of the UN which gives it a enormous advantage over PLO/PA/Hamas in the court of world opinion...One should be able to hold sovereign states to higher standards than national groups.

.....Israel, the country and its citizens had done many things that are illegal and cross the line of the HR and can apologize for many things..

I'm glad to hear you say so.....Why do you find it so difficult to say something similar about Zionism and its diabolical scheme to disenfranchise Palestinians by demographic engineering?

[pelsar]

159. because the zionist were quite right-they accuraty read the future

I'm glad to hear you say so.....Why do you find it so difficult to say something similar about Zionism and its diabolical scheme to disenfranchise Palestinians by demographic engineering?

i believe that human lives are more important that mere nationalism....which is a rather primitive human need after all. (your "rights to self determination is no more than a primitive need to separate people).

the zionists of the 1800's were quite correct in understanding that europe and what the jewish future was to be there....anti semitism and genocide. and the history of jews in the arab worlds was hardly any better....their concept and subsequent planning for a future state was in fact justified by the events that were to take place. And what of the resident Arab Palestinians?....they would have many choices as the years passed and the area developed.......there is no such thing as absolute justice. For those jews who didnt got to Palestine from Europe, they ended up dead...was that just?

and then comes the diabolical plot with the arabs...again the zionists were quite right in that a Palestine with an arab muslim majority would put them in their traditional position of being at the mercy of the powers that be. How can we surmise this?....just be looking around......Arab states in the middle east are all muslim dictatorships, with the exception of Lebanon which is hardly a stable state. However the zionists infact didnt do anything wrong. By going to Palestine many lives were saved, the fact that demographics were changed means nothing, as thats been happening since time immoral. The actual problem of an arab majority was solved by the UN with its partion plan...a good solution to a problem that had no single just solution. Its a shame that the arabs of the area wanted to continue the genocide of hitler instead of "making the best out of the situation.".

i'll take a "diabolical scheme" that works within the laws of the time to an attempt to violently destroy a people/country any time.There are levels of morality....the zionists chose and acted on one that was the best of the options.....and the one thing you have difficulty addressing is the present israeli arab population. They too have made it clear that they prefer the zionist state over the arab palestenian one.....seems they dont need that primitive nationalism when they have rights within a democracy.

[kayecy]

161. And I agree with you, lives are more important than mere nationalism ........

...i believe that human lives are more important that mere nationalism....which is a rather primitive human need after all. (your "rights to self determination is no more than a primitive need to separate people).
Text

And I agree with you, lives are more important than mere nationalism....By engineering a demographic change in Palestine, Zionist nationalism started a conflict which has cost thousands of lives....If Zionism had adopted your humanitarian principle on lives they would not have claimed that their nationalism over-rode that of the Palestinians.....Zionism started this conflict.....If you don't believe that just consider what the situation would be now if the Zionists had accepted the 1908 proposal for Uganda as their homeland....There would have been no conflict between the Zionists and the Palestinians.

There are levels of morality....the zionists chose and acted on one that was the best of the options....
Text

You are getting there - "The Zionists chose and acted on the one that was best" for them!....I think that sums it up.... Zionism did not care a fig who else suffered so long as they gained their objectives. You call that acting morally?




For Douglas: Those poll figures you quote in your Post 160 are very interesting, particularly the ones referring to a Zionist state....Combine that with Jewish-Israeli attitudes towards Palestinian-Israelis and Israel looks to have a major long-term internal problem.

[Shaktimaan]

163. How would have

immigrating to Uganda been any different morally from immigrating to Palestine? Wouldn't the Zionists then have just been disenfranchising the native Ugandans, instead of Palestinians, according to your argument?

[kayecy]

164. There would have been no difference morally.....

....immigrating to Uganda been any different morally from immigrating to Palestine? Wouldn't the Zionists then have just been disenfranchising the native Ugandans, instead of Palestinians, according to your argument?

No difference at all.

My point is, that it was the Zionists' decision to select Palestine (or Uganda) for their homeland. The Palestinians had no say in the matter.

Now, if the Zionists had decided to negotiate with a sovereign power for an area of land in which they could create a homeland for the Jews, the situation would have been completely different. The 1917 Jews had the sympathy of Britain and they had finance and expertise, both of which were in short supply in the New World.

[pelsar]

168. your claim is actually not just hypothetical....

history has shown just how wrong you are.

the whole zionist enterprise was based on the history of jews being persecuted throughout the world for over 2,000 years. If they went to Palestine invited the local arabs to join in (assuming they would accept) and made a new country....the jews would then be placed in the exact situation they were trying to correct....being a minority in a country where they will inevitably will be persecuted again.

and that is your version of morality?

[kayecy]

169. I am a bit confused here, can you explain please?

If they went to Palestine invited the local arabs to join in (assuming they would accept) and made a new country....the jews would then be placed in the exact situation they were trying to correct....being a minority in a country where they will inevitably will be persecuted again.

and that is your version of morality?

What you say above is a reasonable satement of probabilities at the time, but I do not understand your reference to "...and that is your version of morality?".


I may be a bit confused by Shaktimaan entering our debate just now. Which "claim" of mine are you refering to?

[pelsar]

170. i'll summarize....

the jews had 2000 years of various degrees of discrimination...the zionists "read the map" and decided it was time to "go home and defend themselves as jews in their own country.....2000 years of history as a minority in all kinds of states showed that none of them protected them.

your theory 1: the jews should have manipulated other countries to establish for them a state on their own land.......
that is probably one of the more absurd theories that i have heard. No country in the world would have done such a thing, not then and not now.

theory 2: the jews shouldn't have immigrated to palestine
sure, they could have stayed in europe and let themselves be killed in the Holocaust (immigration quotes through out the world..remember?)

theory 3: the jews should have (somehow) made a democratic state with the arabs of palestine and be a "happy minority."
being a minority negates the whole concept of zionism and puts the jews in the antisemitic anti democratic islamic middle east. Not only is there no evidence whatsoever that the arab Palestinians would/could make a democratic state, there is ample evidence to suggest that given the chance they would make one more arab/islamic dictatorship...assuming that Syria or Egypt wouldn't invade and take it over.
______

those three represent the choices the jews of the 1800s-1900's had:
be killed
leave for palestine, do the "correct moral thing" and make a state where they will be the minority and subject to anti-Semitism

or make a democratic state, where the jews are the majority and all the minorities have civil rights under the law.
____________

whats most interesting is that israeli arabs (those very Palestinians you mention), have made it clear that they prefer being a minority in a jewish state than a majority in a Palestinian state. I think that speaks very clearly as to what the "people prefer.".....they prefer the morals that the jewish state has, as opposed to that which they have seen with the PA/Hamas etc....and these are people who dont live in a hypothetical world, but one of stark reality.

I understand you prefer no 2, that the jews live continually as a minority subject to never ending anti semitism in, what would be a typical arab muslim dictatorship...and call that the moral choice.

[kayecy]

171. Should the Zionists have explored other alternatives for the creation of their homeland?

....your theory 1: the jews should have manipulated other countries to establish for them a state on their own land.......
that is probably one of the more absurd theories that i have heard. No country in the world would have done such a thing, not then and not now.

Not a theory, just what one would expect of an organization claiming to be moral. Did the Zionists even try to negotiate for a homeland in the USA or Australia etc? If not, why not?

...theory 2: the jews shouldn't have immigrated to palestine
sure, they could have stayed in europe and let themselves be killed in the Holocaust (immigration quotes through out the world..remember?)

If the Zionists tried to negotiate a piece of land for their homeland and failed, then this statement is relevant and we must then consider whether the Jewish situation in 1917 was so desperate as to justify the Zionists demographically engineering Palestine. We can probably agree that for many Jews it was.

...theory 3: the jews should have (somehow) made a democratic state with the arabs of palestine and be a "happy minority."

I do not believe I have proposed such a situation. If you look carefully at what I wrote, I was merely showing that the Zionist never had any intention of allowing the Palestinians to have self-determination.


So, before we go any further, can we agree that the Zionists should first have explored all possibilities for creating their homeland in such a way that it would not disenfranchise the locals?

[pelsar]

172. and what were zionist options?

in "not disenfranchising the locals`?

as far as i can see, the zionists, who understood that the state required a jewish majority to eliminate anti semitism, which was its reason for being, had a limited amount of choices. The "locals" who stayed wihin the state: the druze, the bedouin, the muslims where in fact NOT disenfranchised as we see by their own actions:

volunteering for the army...and the latest pole of the muslim arabs shows 70% want to do national service.....
___________

perhaps you should ask why didnt the zionists negotiate for a state on the moon?.... established states (especially those with jew quotas) arent likly to give away land to jews to make a state (and uganda, etc was considered)....more so...thew jews were returning home.....to the place they were "disenfranchised" from ....

___

in case you not up to date: the Palestinians do have self determination in a place called gaza and one day in a place called the westbank, thats far more than the jews ever got. More so...those arabs living in israel have no intention of moving to those places where the Palestinian have self determination....they dont seem to like the arab version of it and prefer the jewish version...and its morals. You seem to constantly skip over that little fact.

[kayecy]

173. So you admit that Zionists cared not a fig for the inhabitants of their 'target' land?

....perhaps you should ask why didnt the zionists negotiate for a state on the moon?.... established states (especially those with jew quotas) arent likly to give away land to jews to make a state....

So you admit that the Zionists did not look for a sovereign state which might sympathize with their aspirations?... In fact they did: they used their influence with the British Government and surprise, surprise, the Brits were prepared to give away part of their empire!....If the Brits were prepared to let Zionism create a Jewish-majority state within the Empire, what makes you think the US (which already had a Jewish population of a million or more) or Australia would not have been prepared to do the same?


Here we have the crux of Zionism's immorality...They cared not a fig for the concerns of the inhabitants of their 'target' land...They were only concerned about what was best for Zionists..... That is immoral.


Had the Zionists even discussed the foreseeable effect on Palestinians at any of their congresses, had they even tried to weigh their need for a homeland against the cost to the Palestinians, you might have a case to argue.....As it was, they did not even pretend to be concerned.

[pelsar]

174. thats it?...thats your argument?

Had the Zionists even discussed the foreseeable effect on Palestinians at any of their congresses, had they even tried to weigh their need for a homeland against the cost to the Palestinians, you might have a case to argue.....As it was, they did not even pretend to be concerned.

you really should have studied a bit more about the history of zionism. It appears you first had your opinion, and then look for the information that fits your opinion, regardless of the facts.

as per one example: I assume that you've never heard of Weizman and Emir Feisal, their talks and agreements? They show just the opposite of what your wrote.

here i'll save you some time:
Weizman also attempted to achieve cooperation and peaceful relations with Arabs living in Palestine who, he felt, would benefit economically from the Zionist enterprise. Weizmann met with the Emir Feisal, then the undisputed leader of awakening Arab nationalism. Feisal promised to recognize Zionist aims in Palestine, as long as the aims of Arab nationalism were achieved in Iraq and Syria. Unfortunately, this agreement was short-lived
___

the fact is, that your above statement is simply wrong. and since you've made it clear that your opinion is based on that statement you're now faced with a dilemma..... you either have to change your opinion or (and i'll write out what I'm guessing you'll write)..decide that Weizmans opinion and agreement with the local leadership doesnt really represent zionism, or some variation on that theme.....

[kayecy]

176. No Zionist has shown any concern that Zionism would inevitably disenfranchise the Palestinians.

I meant to say:
“They cared not a fig for the political concerns of the inhabitants of their 'target' land.. ...

....Weizman also attempted to achieve cooperation and peaceful relations with Arabs living in Palestine who, he felt, would benefit economically from the Zionist enterprise.

Weizman was a clever man, note the words “..Arabs living in Palestine would benefit economically.” No mention of them benefiting politically.
This is not surprising because he believed that: “Arab nationalism was exclusive and there could be no accommodation with it in Palestine unless Zionism was prepared to abandon its dream of an independent Jewish existence...”....You yourself have said: "....being a minority negates the whole concept of zionism."

In summary, some Zionists showed concern for the economic situation of Palestinians. No Zionists, not even you, have showed any concern that Zionism would inevitably disenfranchise the Palestinians.

So you admit that the Zionists did not look for a sovereign state which might sympathize with their aspirations?... In fact they did: they used their influence with the British Government and surprise, surprise, the Brits were prepared to give away part of their empire!....If the Brits were prepared to let Zionism create a Jewish-majority state within the Empire, what makes you think the US (which already had a Jewish population of a million or more) or Australia would not have been prepared to do the same?

Can I take it that you do accept that the Zionists should have approached the USA to avoid the need to disenfranchise Palestinians?

[pelsar]

177. seems you forgot part of the paragraph...

Weizmann met with the Emir Feisal, then the undisputed leader of awakening Arab nationalism. Feisal promised to recognize Zionist aims in Palestine, as long as the aims of Arab nationalism were achieved in Iraq and Syria. Unfortunately, this agreement was short-lived

that meant the Weizmann was quite aware of the importance of the nationalistic concerns of the arabs.....and was counting on Feisal to "divert the political needs of the arabs" to iraq and syria. Agree or not agree with the Weizmanns and Feisals agreement, it mean that both were very aware of the politics of the inhabitants and their needs.

perhaps you want to modify what you meant to say again?

(i have not even mentioned my opinion here yet.....we're busy trying to clarify historical facts vs fiction and trying to figure out on which facts your opinion is based-because it sure isnt the "fact" that arab nationalism wasnt a factor that wasnt considered by the zionists.).

[kayecy]

178. We are talking of Palestinian disenfranchisement .

Feisal promised to recognize Zionist aims in Palestine, as long as the aims of Arab nationalism were achieved in Iraq and Syria......it mean that both were very aware of the politics of the inhabitants and their needs.

You are perfectly entitled to interpret those words how you wish, but let me quote an authoritative historian:
"Although he (Faycal) had told the Jews frankly of his insistence that Palestine be part of the independent Arab kingdom he sought to establish, he had accepted that they might make of the country "a Jewish subprovince".......Rather different to your interpretation!.....Remember what you said: "....being a minority negates the whole concept of zionism."


All this is irrelevant however, one Zionist, be it Weizmann or anyone else did not make Zionist policy. You have yet to show me whether the subject of Palestinian disenfranchisement or political development was ever discussed at the many pre-war Zionist conferences.


You have also yet to explain why the Zionists chose not to approached the USA for a homeland.

[pelsar]

179. why am i not surprised?....

All this is irrelevant however, one Zionist, be it Weizmann or anyone else did not make Zionist policy

You have yet to show me whether the subject of Palestinian disenfranchisement or political development was ever discussed at the many pre-war Zionist conferences

i guess you dont know who weizman was then?... president of the World Zionist Organization (if you didnt know that, i think we can assume your knowledge of zionism, its history etc is pretty nil.

I'll clue you in, he was one of the architects, the mover and shaker of the establishment of israel. So the question that comes up is how many articles/letters to weizman and others that talk about the arab palestenains do you want that will then force you to admit that the arabs living there were in fact discussed and what a jewish state meant to them etc?..How many?..give me number (i've already given you one...so heres two......)

http://www.mideastweb.org/macdonald1930.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_and_Palestinian_Arab_attitudes_before_1948#Weizmann
In 1918, Weizmann toured Palestine as head of the Zionist Commission and met with Arab and Palestinian-Arab leaders, including the future mufti al-Husseini. He preferred to negotiate a political solution primarily with the British, and sometimes with non-Palestinian Arabs, but he opposed negotiating with the Palestinians themselves.<66>

just the act of negotiating and the choices made shows how wrong you are. (do you think he was acting on his own?)


actually its easier to just go to the Palestenains Post and read the articles......
http://jic.tau.ac.il/Default/Skins/PalestineP/Client.asp?Skin=PalestineP&GZ=T&AW=1203794504609&AppName=2

____

the US?...had jew quotas.....that made their attitude pretty clear. learn about the S. S. St Louis: The US promised more of the same

[kayecy]

180. The 1917 Jews already had a safe homeland........

In 1918, Weizmann toured Palestine as head of the Zionist Commission and met with Arab and Palestinian-Arab leaders, including the future mufti al-Husseini. He preferred to negotiate a political solution primarily with the British, and sometimes with non-Palestinian Arabs, but he opposed negotiating with the Palestinians themselves.

Let us examine this quotation of yours: “...he opposed negotiating with the Palestinians themselves”....That nicely makes my point I think. Even the Head of the Zionist Commission admitted he preferred to negotiate with anyone but the Palestinians!

Here are some more incriminating facts from the same web-site:
“According to Reinharz, he (Weizmann) focused his efforts on the Pan-Arab leadership of the Hussein family because they were (initially) willing to reach an accommodation in return for Zionist support while he failed to reach any understanding with Palestinian Arab leaders.”

And another:
‘According to Gorny, Weizmann "did not regard the Palestinian Arabs as partners in negotiations on the future of Palestine’

And just in case anyone was in any doubt:
“...the mainstream Zionist movement never doubted its 'historical right' to impose a Jewish state through the 'Right of Return' on the indigenous Arab population of Palestine", and in fact claimed for the Jewish people a prevalent right to Israel, their historical homeland, and acceded the Arabs only rights as incidental residents.”

It seems clear that Weizmann, the wealthy British scientist, was concerned only with the political ambitions of his movement. The fact that Palestinians would not be able to achieve self-determination if his project was successful was of no concern..... He was clearly immoral.

the US?...had jew quotas.....that made their attitude pretty clear. learn about the S. S. St Louis: The US promised more of the same

The S.S St Louis was a disgusting episode, I agree, but it took place 20 years after 1917. Of much more relevance is that between 1900 and 1924, some Two Million Jewish immigrants arrived in the USA. ....The truth of the matter is that the 1917 Jews already had a safe homeland – the USA!...The Zionists of course were much more interested in gaining political power and cared not a wit who might suffer because of it.

Again, my point is proved...The Zionists had alternatives but they decided they wanted Palestine and to hell with the Palestinians.



PS: I’m working on your other references, I’m sure there will lots more interesting quotations!

[Shaktimaan]

181. the usa?

If the US could be considered a safe Jewish homeland then why did it refuse to accept any Jewish refugees during the Evian and Bermuda conferences? Your point is absurd, the US was point-blank unwilling to accept Jewish refugees... as was every other nation represented at the Evian conference.

Chaim Weizmann was quoted in The Manchester Guardian as saying: "The world seemed to be divided into two parts – those places where the Jews could not live and those where they could not enter."

All you've shown is that the 1917 Zionists understood the importance of self-determination. Had they gone the route you are proposing instead, then hundreds of thousands more would have perished in Europe. You are criticizing them for not accepting an option that would have ended in their deaths.

The Zionists of course were much more interested in gaining political power and cared not a wit who might suffer because of it.

If you believe that then you truly know nothing of the Zionist movement.

Your argument is that because the US was amenable to Jewish immigration in 1917 the Zionists could have just accepted America as their foil for anti-semitism. What the Zionists understood though was that viewpoints, politics and laws can change on a dime. The only sure solution to the problem of persecution is self-determination. Otherwise they would always have to rely on the "good-graces" of their host country. Hertzl himself saw this happen in France, it was not out of a lust for power that Zionism was born but from direct experience proving your solution to be deeply flawed. It was the failure of your exact proposal in France that gave rise to Zionism. The history of the Jews is one of a people trying exactly what you suggested over and over again, without it ever working for long. Yet you find it unbelievable that they could have predicted facing the same results yet again?

Not only that, but they were RIGHT! How can you propose this as a solution knowing what happened afterwards?!

[Vegasaurus]

182. You cannot possible be serious

The "safe homeland" for Jews...the US? As in "homeland"? As in "place for self-determination and no persecution"?

Were the US to have been that "safe homeland" that the Zionists chose, many (we have no idea what percentage, but the SS St Louis gives us an idea) more Holocaust survivors and refugees would have perished.

Zionism kept many Jews safe (relatively speaking...six million still were murdered) before, during and after the war.

If you think that the Jews had "alternatives" and that their goal was "to hell with the Palestinians", you have a few holes in your understanding of history. The Jews chose self=preservation, and there is certainly morality in that.

[pelsar]

185. you just "moved the goalposts"....

your original accusation was that the Palestenians and their political aspirations were never discussed by the zionist, that the Palestenans were a "non entity"...

you were now shown to be wrong. The Palestenians, the arabs, the world with the options were discussed quite bit.


so i understand now that its time to change your accusation to find something else to fit your belief.....It does go to show however that first you have your belief and then you go to find the info that backs it up as opposed to the more western version of critical thinking.

we prefer to look at the events and facts first and come to a conclusion after we've reviewed them.

________

i think i can help you make a decision, you have to decide what is more important, the jewish lives that were saved by going to palestine or Palestinian political aspirations, because that is what it came down to...you seem to think that jews attempting to survive and being helped by other jews is an immoral act...and to some it is.

[kayecy]

186. Not true! ...You are trying to put a slant on my words. Please read them carefully.....

Not true. You are trying to put a slant on my words.

...your original accusation was that the Palestenians and their political aspirations were never discussed by the zionist,

Please don't misquote me. What I said was..."Had the Zionists even discussed the foreseeable effect on Palestinians at any of their congresses, had they even tried to weigh their need for a homeland against the cost to the Palestinians, you might have a case to argue."...If you believe the Zionists did try to weigh their need for a homeland against the cost to the Palestinians, please show me, and you may have an arguement...All you have shown to date is Wiezmann talking with anyone, anyone but the Palestinians.

....you were now shown to be wrong. The Palestenians, the arabs, the world with the options were discussed quite bit.

I am shown to be wrong???....I saw no mention of anyone discussing the Palestinian right to self-determination!...You seem to be imagining things.


My statement still stands. Zionism was immoral - it cared nothing for the Palestinian right to self-determination.


The Zionist could easily have taken a moral course of action...Instead of helping a few thousand Jews to go where they were not wanted, they could have encouraged them to join the two million Jewish immigrants already in the USA...The Zionists of course were much more interested in their grand political design and cared not a wit who might suffer because of it.

...we prefer to look at the events and facts first and come to a conclusion after we've reviewed them.

Are you insinuating that I have not done the same?...If so, I challenge you to show me.

[pelsar]

187. no you havent done the same....far from it...

for instance:

The US Immigration Act of 1924...have you even heard of it?
______

furthermore, you havent even studied the concept of zionism....which is obvious by your posts, so how can you even pass judgement on it?

[kayecy]

188. Yes, but the 1917 Zionists new nothing of it did they?

The US Immigration Act of 1924...have you even heard of it?

Yes, but the 1917 Zionists new nothing of it did they?...All they had to go on was the fact that the USA was taking in enormous numbers of Jewish immigrants, whilst the Palestinians had made it clear they didn't want any more Jewish immigrants.

Now tell me, with the information available to the Zionists, which was the moral course of action?

Why didn't the Zionists take the moral course of action? - simple - they wanted to proceed with their grand political design in Palestine and to hell with what the Palestinians wanted.

[pelsar]

189. do you even understand...

why the political zionistic movement got started? (I dont think you even know that)

as far as the US immigration act and others like it.....that was precisely the reason the zionist chose palestine and not the US or Uganda etc.....2,000 years of changing laws that effected them taught them well.....and they were right as history has shown.

---

and the US closed its doors in 1924...so once again you've shown that you seem to believe that having the jews killed (those that didnt make it to the US before 1924) was a more moral solution than them moving to Palestine......

[kayecy]

190. I think this is perhaps an appropriate point to terminate our debate....

...as far as the US immigration act and others like it.....that was precisely the reason the zionist chose palestine and not the US...

The 1924 US immigration act was irrelevant to any Zionist decision made in 1917...Whatever eventually happened in 1924, 1939 or 1948 had no bearing whatsoever on their choice...The Zionists wanted the right to self-determination in Palestine...The Palestinian inhabitants wanted the same right...The Zionists decided to circumvent that by massive immigration...ipso facto, Zionism was immoral.

...so once again you've shown that you seem to believe that having the jews killed (those that didnt make it to the US before 1924) was a more moral solution than them moving to Palestine...

That is an insulting insinuation and not worthy of you...I realize you were brought up to believe that nothing but good has came from Zionism...I was brought up to believe the same about Imperialism...I now know better...Both Imperialism and Zionism had high ideals but were immoral because they deprived the natives of self-determination.


I think this is perhaps an appropriate point to terminate our debate...You have given me an insight into the Israeli thought process, and for that, I thank you.

[pelsar]

191. why stop now......

were just now getting down to where it gets interesting...... were now getting down to the core of what you either dont want to understand or prefer not to:

the 1924 US immigration act was irrelevant to any Zionist decision made in 1917

Its exactly the opposite...the 1924 immigration act was precisely what zionism was all about...as was the SS St. Louis and countless other example both pre and post 1917. As i see it, you're having a hard time accepting that zionism which came out of institutional anti semitism, read correctly the near future and decided to act upon it and save jewish lives, at the expense of Palestenian nationalism.

another thing you "dont get" is that zionism isnt imperialism....

it was designed and succeeded in giving the jews for the first time in 2,000 years the ability to live with their own self determination, in the land they were kicked out of, More so, you keep skipping over the fact that so many of the arabs actually prefer jewish rule.

that brings up probably the most interesting part of your view.....your constantly ignoring what the "natives" prefer, those who have the choices.....to me its your view that strikes me of the classic "imperialistic" point of view. As if you know more than those live in the area what it good for them. The polls are consistent, arab israelis dont want to live under the Palestinian self determination that your saying they "missed out on"...maybe you should listen to them?

[kayecy]

192. Why stop now?....I would have thought the answer was obvious.

why stop now?

I would have thought the answer was obvious....I am not into clairvoyance.

I have said that the 1917 Zionists wanted the right to self-determination in Palestine...That Palestinian inhabitants wanted the same right and that by circumventing the Palestinian right with massive immigration, Zionism acted immorally.

You have claimed that 1917 Zionists were able to read the future and have produced 21st Century poll results as evidence that the Palestinians did not want self-determination. That is ridiculous. If you insist on quoting events after 1917 to support your case, then the discussion stops right here.

If, on the other hand, you want to show me why, with the evidence available, Zionists wanted self-determination and why their salvation lay only in Palestine, I am prepared to continue.



The ball is in now your court – are you prepared to limit your evidence to pre-1917?

[pelsar]

193. you miss the whole point...

you want to show me why, with the evidence available, Zionists wanted self-determination......i assume your not serious about that statement.


this took 5 seconds to find:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=A&artid=1603

anti semitism through modern europe...all before 1917: austria, germany, hungry.....but why am i even writing this...if you dont know about then i would suggest that you have a bit of history to catch up on...and if you do know about it, then your question is absurd.

[kayecy]

194. What a strange guy you are....I did not ask a question...

What a strange guy you are...I did not ask a question!...I merely said "if you want to show me why, with the evidence available, Zionists wanted self-determination and why their salvation lay only in Palestine, I am prepared to continue."

I know why Zionists wanted self determination, and I have a good idea of why they chose Palestine. What I do not accept is that this justified circumventing the Palestinians right to self-determination.



I did say that unless you were prepared to limit your evidence to pre-1917, this discussion was at an end.

You do not seem willing to do that, so you have the answer to your earlier question "..why stop now"



Good night

[pelsar]

195. i have no idea why you keep choosing 1917...

the actual date has no real meaning in the history of zionism........at least as i can see.

its like discussing hitlers rise to power and limiting it to 1930.....

I know why Zionists wanted self determination, and I have a good idea of why they chose Palestine. What I do not accept is that this justified circumventing the Palestinians right to self-determination

if that is true than i would assume that you at least understand that Arab Palestinian self determination and the zionist goals were incompatible....in conflict with one another and only one group gets the have the self determination.

You obviously have chosen the Palestinians and claim the zionists were immoral...it can be just as easily claimed that the jews have been victimized for 2000 years and it was just as immoral to keep them from returning home and seeing their own self determination.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

197. 1917 has no meaningin the history of Zionism? [thunk]

Have you heard of a little thing called the Balfour Declaration?

[pelsar]

201. misunderstanding....

the argument is the morality of zionism.....british political decisions have nothing to do with the principle behind the zionistic movement.

[kayecy]

198. You have no idea why I keep choosing 1917?...We really must thrash this one out as it is fundamental

...i have no idea why you keep choosing 1917...the actual date has no real meaning in the history of Zionism........at least as i can see.

According to my reading of Zionist history, the 1917 Balfour Declaration was one of the most significant events for Zionism....In support of this, I quote the official opinion of the GOI:
"Today, the Government of Israel marks the 90th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration. The Balfour Declaration constitutes one of the basic milestones in the establishment of the State of Israel - the right of the Jewish people to a national home.”

We really have to thrash this one out as it is fundamental to my arguement...I challenge you to show authoritative evidence that the 1917 Balfour Declaration has no meaning for Zionists.


I will comment on your other points as soon as we have cleared this one up.

[pelsar]

200. the political decision of the british govt...

has nothing to do with the morality of zionism. (that is what i meant when is wrote that it has no real meaning)

The actual balfour declaration, like the declaration of independence, or the first Zionist Congress or jabotinskys last words are all part of the history and are milestones..but have nothing to do with whether the zionism and its declared aims were moral or not. Without the balfour declaration political zionism would still have existed and would have kept up the pressure on getting jews to Palestine.....

your argument, as i understand it, is that zionism as a movement is immoral.....for that you have to go back to 1897.

[kayecy]

202. 1917 was the point at which the Zionists were able to instigate massive immigration..

...the political decision of the british govt.. has nothing to do with the morality of zionism. (that is what i meant when is wrote that it has no real meaning).

I accept that was what you meant to say...However, 1917 was not just a political decision...It was, thanks to the British, the point at which Zionists could realistically hope to create their state...Zionists managed to get into Palestine 60,000 immigrants in the 30 years between 1882 and 1913 compared with 80,000 in the first seven years after Balfour.

In other words, the Zionists took their immoral decision to instigate massive immigration in 1917. Before that, they were indulging in mere wishful thinking....They only achieved a trickle of immigrants which would have been unlikely to have started a conflict.

...your argument, as i understand it, is that zionism as a movement is immoral.....for that you have to go back to 1897.

You have misunderstood me...I have nothing whatsoever against Zionism as a movement until it decided its right to self-determination was superior to that of the Palestinians and connived with the British in 1917 to achieve that end by massive Jewish immigration...1917 was the point at which the Zionists started this 90 year conflict.

[pelsar]

203. got it...but why

do you think, as i understand it, that Palestinian self determination was superior to that of jewish/zionist self determination.....

[kayecy]

204. Native-Palestininians did not have a superior right over native-Jews.

..got it...but why do you think,..as i understand it, that Palestinian self determination was superior to that of jewish/zionist self determination.....

As far as I am concerned, the 50,000 native-Jewish residents (1917) had as much right to self- determination as the 500,000 native-Arabs of 1917 Palestine if that is what they wanted....Native residents everywhere have a superior right to self-determination over recent immigrants.


The Zionists, being recent immigrants had no right to claim self-determination in Palestine.

[pelsar]

205. when do recent immigrants..

become "natives"....one generation? two? an what other rights should recent immigrants "not get" until they are considered "natives"....

[kayecy]

206. There is no clear demarcation point when an 'immigrant' becomes a 'native', but...

...when do recent immigrants become "natives"....one generation? two?

First of all, let us get your position clear...Do you believe indigenous minorities living in clearly defined geographical areas should have a right to self-determination?...Take for example the native-Jewish population of Palestine in 1917.


Now to answer your question: If, like me, you think minorities should have a right to self determination (subject to practical difficulties being resolved etc) then I think we would not be in any real disagreement as to when a 'recent immigrant' becomes a 'native...There is obviously no clear demarcation point, but in my view, for the purpose of determining a right to self-determination, one can't become a 'native' in one or two generations...Between that point and a 100 years one could make a case either way. After a hundred years I guess you have the same right as any other inhabitant.

...and what other rights should recent immigrants "not get" until they are considered "natives"....

Off-hand, I can't thing of any...What did you have in mind?

[pelsar]

207. my position....

Do you believe indigenous minorities living in clearly defined geographical areas should have a right to self-determination?.

no definitely not......the only social organization that has the right to define itself as a "community" are those that have civil rights in their foundation as per western democracy. The make up of such organizations be it religious, cultural etc come in second dependant upon a host of subjective reasons (political/economical/historical)

i have absolutely no idea what defines a indigenous minority population......the arabs themselves were at one time immigrants...the bedouin are nomadic and claim large clearly defined areas as their own, that conflict with the immigrant arabs, american indian tribes were a varied bunch, some were cannibal, some warlike, some peaceful...and yet they all will claim overlapping geographic areas as their own...will it be the white man that defines who gets what?...and where is that western "white immigrant" during these process. One point to consider: probably all of the indigenous populations did not have a western version of civil rights,so are you willing to forgo that for the preservation of the "species"?

____

my comment about the generations should be clear: if the jews keep the Palestinians out for lets say 100 years....and the jews are then considered "indigenous" that makes the Palestinians the immigrants...will you "switch sides' and claim the its now the Palestinians that are immoral for attempting to immigrate to israel and take over the country from the indigenous jews with massive immigration?...(via the right of return?)

__

what i am saying is that position is impossible...it may feel good to say the indigenous population gets "favorable rights"...because its "just"...but your going to run into a host of contradictions that negate any "justice' that your looking for. Whats more important to you" preservation of culture or western civil rights?

furthermore....differentiating community groups only intensifies the differences and can only lead to further conflict.....not a good goal to shoot for.

[kayecy]

208. Do you believe the 1917 Palestinians had no right to self-determination?

...no definitely not......the only social organization that has the right to define itself as a "community" are those that have civil rights in their foundation as per western democracy.

Fine. Thought that might be your answer...Just wanted it to be clear.

...my comment about the generations should be clear: if the jews keep the Palestinians out for lets say 100 years....and the jews are then considered "indigenous" that makes the Palestinians the immigrants...will you "switch sides' and claim the its now the Palestinians that are immoral for attempting to immigrate to israel and take over the country from the indigenous jews with massive immigration?...(via the right of return?)

Of course not, my argument is based on moral principles...I don't have 'sides', and I don't 'switch sides'.

...what i am saying is that position is impossible...it may feel good to say the indigenous population gets "favorable rights"...because its "just"...but your going to run into a host of contradictions that negate any "justice' that your looking for.

I don't understand what you mean by 'that position is impossible'...At any one point in time, in this case 1917, the indigenous inhabitants of any area, be it Syria, Lebanon or wherever, had a right to self-determination...In these lands, there was no problem with immigrant wishes because they were such a small number...That would have been the case in Palestine too were it not for the massive Zionist immigration...To force massive immigration on the locals against their wishes was immoral...We can argue as to whether the recent immigrants into Palestine, be they Arab or Jew, had a right to self-determination if you wish, but it is irrelevant to my contention:

The 1917 Zionists wanted the right to self-determination in Palestine...The Palestinian inhabitants wanted the same right...The Zionists decided to circumvent the Palestinian right by massive immigration... That was Zionism being immoral.


So far you have failed to explain how the Zionist massive immigration could possibly be considered moral...Let me understand you clearly, do you believe the indigenous inhabitants of 1917 Palestine had no right to self-determination?

[pelsar]

210. morality....very subjective...

is a kid stealing some gum on the same "morality plane as the guy who kills 5 people in the same store in cold blood?

most of use would say that though stealing candy may be immoral, killing is the greater crime.
______

who had a greater need for self determination?..the jews who had 2,000 years of discrimination across the globe or the arabs of palestine who were not in fact even a definitive culture? Your solution means realistically that the jews shall never get the self determination that they had 2,000 years earlier...is that just?

_____

as far as "switching side" i just assume that after 100years of whatever the time date is, it will be the Palestinians who will then have the immoral movement to return to Palestine...is that not following your values?

[kayecy]

211. So you really believe that the 1917 Palestinians had no right to self-determination!

....as far as "switching side" i just assume that after 100years of whatever the time date is, it will be the Palestinians who will then have the immoral movement to return to Palestine...is that not following your values?

You are in the realms of pure speculation...Palestinians are in Palestine now....As far as I am aware Israel does not have a plan to expel them...If it did, I hope the US/Europe would force Israel to re-think its expulsion....If no one intervened, and the Palestinians were exiled for a 100 years then I guess you would be right...I repeat, your statement is pure speculation.

.......who had a greater need for self determination?..the jews who had 2,000 years of discrimination across the globe or the arabs of palestine who were not in fact even a definitive culture?

So you really believe that the 1917 Palestinians did not and should not have had the right to self determination!...Can you explain why the Palestinians should not have had that right but the 1917 Syrians, Lebanese, Jordanians etc did have that right?...Perhaps you think that only Zionists should have that right because of their ‘definitive culture’?

[pelsar]

212. i never said the Palestinians....

should not have the right to self determination...i said the jews also have that very same right....i believe it was you who said the jews should have gone to live in america and forgo their right to self determination.

im asking why you believe the Palestinians right is morally greater than the jews-in this case it was the jews or the arabs of palestine that get self determination ...why do you think the jews shouldnt have it?

or perhaps, why do you think their case was morally less justified, they did after all have 2000 years of persecution, whereas the arabs of Palestine had none.

[kayecy]

213. Can say that both the Jews and the Palestinians had an equal right to self-determination?

...i never said the Palestinians should not have the right to self determination...i said the jews also have that very same right....

Correct, but you never said they should either!....So I am still in some doubt.

......im asking why you believe the Palestinians right is morally greater than the jews-in this case it was the jews or the arabs of palestine that get self determination ...why do you think the jews shouldnt have it?

If you look back at my posts somewhere you will find I said that I believed the Jews to have an equal right to self-determination as any other national movement - somewhere in the world...What they did not have, is a right to seek self-determination at the expense of another national group.


Are you too, prepared to say that both the Jews and the Palestinians had an equal right to self-determination?

[pelsar]

214. be realistic.....

in the perfect world both had equal rights to self determination as do the kurds, the serbs, the the hassidic jews, the christian arabs, the bedouin, the muslim arabs, the native american indians, the mexican americans etc....except by giving them their self determination not only will social structures be destroyed, you are setting the seeds for future conflicts.

now the jews had realistically no where to go....anti semitism was quite strong in the 1900s and it no one was going to give them *empty land* of which there was no prior indigenous people that had a claim on it. Even the falklands, is considered colonialism by the Argentineans...

your left with conflict....who has the morally superior right?....

and of course there is the more interesting moral argument...self determination to make a dictatorship to me is far more immoral, l than living in a democratic country as a minority....i place civil riights over nationalism anytime....i dont think you do.

[kayecy]

215. In any conflict, the innocent side, always has the superior right.

...be realistic....in the perfect world both had equal rights to self determination as do the kurds, the serbs, the the hassidic jews, the christian arabs....

I am being absolutely realistic...This debate is about the Palestinians and massive Jewish immigration to Palestine. If you think any of your above examples have the same characteristics, I will be happy to discuss its merits.

....now the jews had realistically no where to go....anti semitism was quite strong in the 1900s and it no one was going to give them *empty land* of which there was no prior indigenous people that had a claim on it.

The 1900s Jews really did have a dilemma, I agree. ..Had they decided to fight for a homeland in the Pale or Poland or wherever Jews where most numerous , they would have had a perfect moral right to do so...However, they chose to impose themselves on a people, less than 50,000 of whom were Jews...That was immoral....It would have been less immoral had they chosen to fight for a homeland in the USA with its two million Jews...The Zionists of course were not stupid, they knew they would probably lose a fight with Russia or the US so they chose a land where the people were not as developed as themselves and even worse, a land that was under military occupation...Their deliberate choice to force conflict on an innocent people was totally immoral.

. ...your left with conflict....who has the morally superior right?

I don’t believe that is a serious question!...In any conflict, where one side instigates offensive action (in this case massive immigration) without provocation from the other side, the innocent side always has the superior right.


Extract from Article 1 of the UN Charter:
“To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;”

You may not have a high opinion of the UN, but in determining whether an action is moral or not that seems to be a useful guide.

[pelsar]

216. poland?.....

wherever Jews where most numerous...yea right...the poles would have let the jews carve out some of their country for a new country...and then let jews from all over enter....right in the heart of anti semetic europe....just in time for Hitlers war machine.....


Your whole argument about the immorality of zionism rests upon two parts:

one that the jews had other peaceful options
two, that the zionists reading of the future based on the past is not to be accepted.

____

both are wrong.....

how about some other places?...Alaska?....Mexico?...South Pacific?.....name one country in the history of the world that willingly gave part of their own country to another culture without a violent fight?

and the zionists were correct in their assessment of europe..why ignore it?

but at least we are clearing somethings up, that your belief that the Palestinians had the moral superior right to self determination and the jews did not. And you believe this even after the events of WWII, knowing full well that if the immigration was closed off as you believe it should have thousands more of jews would have died......

[kayecy]

217. Well?....Are you prepared to say it or not?

Your whole argument about the immorality of zionism rests upon two parts:.....one that the jews had other peaceful options

The Zionists in 1917 may have had no peaceful options but they never attempted to negotiate with any government except Britain, so we shall never know...However, you are wrong that that is my whole arguement...Let us assume the Zionists had no peaceful options if they were to create a Jewish state...What right did they have to chose a land where the people were not as developed as themselves, moreover a land that was under military occupation?...Their deliberate choice to force conflict on an innocent people was totally immoral.

...but at least we are clearing somethings up, that your belief that the Palestinians had the moral superior right to self determination and the jews did not.

You have claimed that that was my ‘belief’ several times...Repeating the claim does not make it true...Please read my posts before you make completely unfounded allegations.....I stated quite clearly that: “I believed the Jews to have an equal right to self-determination as any other national movement - somewhere in the world...What they did not have, is a right to seek self-determination at the expense of another national group.”

As soon as the Zionists chose to force a conflict on the Palestinians, the situation changed, they became the agressor....As I said before, any conflict, where one side instigates offensive action (in this case massive immigration) without provocation from the other side, the innocent side always has the superior right....If you do not believe this to be so, I challenge you to show me an example where it is not true.


You on the other hand, seem to have a fixation about the Jewish right to self-determination being superior...You appear to be reluctant to answer the simple question I asked: “Are you too, prepared to say that both the Jews and the Palestinians had an equal right to self-determination?

[pelsar]

218. you misunderstand me....

not only jews and Palestinians, by zygotes, hasidic jews, Sioux indians, polar bears, little green men, hare krishnes, jews for jesus, even communists all have same right, the principle of self determination....and thats where it ends.

Practically the polar bears are not going to get it, nor are the hare krishnes....and probably not the Sioux.
----
Let us assume the Zionists had no peaceful options if they were to create a Jewish state...What right did they have to chose a land where the people were not as developed as themselves, moreover a land that was under military occupation?...Their deliberate choice to force conflict on an innocent people was totally immoral.

which means for you the more "moral choice" was what the jews had been choosing for the previous 2000 years...not just no self determination, but in the particular period-death. (there were no real estate parcels open for country building)

Its not that the jews as jews had a superior right, it was what the environment offered them and what they offered in return:
The world offered the jews closed doors and death, that is immoral.......going to Palestine the jews, saved themselves, and offered the inhabitants to live in a democracy.

saving lives and making a democracy where the minorities could live securely is morally superior to having 1000s killed and have yet another dictatorship be developed.
_______

dictatorships in the arab world reign.....and they are also immoral, way beyond any self determination...

[kayecy]

219. There you go again telling me what I believe!...

...which means for you the more "moral choice" was what the jews had been choosing for the previous 2000 years...not just no self determination, but in the particular period-death. (there were no real estate parcels open for country building)

There you go again telling me what I believe!...Look, we all have choices to make...We can choose to ignore moral values and cause an innocent party to suffer or we can do the moral thing and try to resolve our problems in an ethical way, without anyone suffering... Instigating a conflict is not moral, period.

Let us assume that the Zionists tried and exhausted every possibility for achieving a Jewish state prior to 1917....Let us assume that a Jewish state was a matter of life-or-death....If this was the situation, then, I believe any of us in that position might be forced into doing what the Zionists did...We would be forced into doing it, but it would still be immoral and we would have an obligation to compensate the innocent party.

Does that make sense to you or are you determined to continue to claim that instigating a conflict can be moral if it is done by persecuted Zionists?

[pelsar]

220. yes thats the bottom line...i get it.....

If this was the situation, then, I believe any of us in that position might be forced into doing what the Zionists did...We would be forced into doing it, but it would still be immoral and we would have an obligation to compensate the innocent party.

yes i can agree that it was 'immoral"....but it would have been more "immoral" had they not...... as long as the zionists produced a democracy that provided civil rights for all, they're choice was the more moral one. That was from the zionists point of view. Obviously some Palestinians didnt see it that way and made their own immoral choices-trying to stop refugees fleeing from persecution and what turned out to be genocide is very very immoral.

[kayecy]

221. Good, I'm glad we can at last agree that by instigating this conflict the Zionists were immoral..

...yes i can agree that it was 'immoral".

Good, I'm glad we are getting somewhere at last.

"....but it would have been more "immoral" had they not...... as long as the zionists produced a democracy that provided civil rights for all, they're choice was the more moral one.

Now you are losing me again...Translate that into simple english will you?

...That was from the zionists point of view. Obviously some Palestinians didnt see it that way and made their own immoral choices-trying to stop refugees fleeing from persecution and what turned out to be genocide is very very immoral.

Hey, why are you picking on the Palestinians?....All the world was guilty!..You said awhile back that no country in the world would accept a Jewish state...You seem to be expecting the Palestinians to have a greater sense of moral responsibility than all those democratic states with civil rights you keep talking about.

Besides, instigating a conflict is not moral - we have agreed on that....Once you have a conflict then both sides tend to do immoral things, but it was the Zionists that instigated this conflict in Palestine, not the Palestinians and therefore the Zionists have a responsibility to compensate the innocent party.

[pelsar]

222. the actual instigation...was not the zionists...

it was anti semitism.....without that there would have been no need for zionism...so from that immoral position we move on to a series of events that in themselves were immoral....including moving to palestine and the Palestinian reaction. The question is really what was more immoral and what was less.

----
Hey, why are you picking on the Palestinians?....All the world was guilty!..You said awhile back that no country in the world would accept a Jewish state...You seem to be expecting the Palestinians to have a greater sense of moral responsibility than all those democratic states with civil rights you keep talking about.

not really, you mentioned absolute justice....it doesnt matter what the islanders in the south pacific did or didnt do...it was the Palestinians that rejected the refugees that came to their shores to be saved.....and were rejected...that was immoral......
________

you mentioned that the Palestinians wanted self determination...that the zionists took away from them. That self determination would no doubt have produced a dictatorship...which i see as immoral. So for the Palestenians still in israel, they became a minority in a democracy...which i see as a far more moral society.

[kayecy]

223. The actual instigation was not the Zionists?????

....the actual instigation...was not the zionists...it was anti semitism.....without that there would have been no need for zionism...so from that immoral position we move on to a series of events that in themselves were immoral....including moving to palestine and the Palestinian reaction. The question is really what was more immoral and what was less.

Not so fast.....We really must get this one clear....By ‘instigate’ I meant ‘started the conflict in Palestine.’...Clearly, anti-semitism, although driving the Jews to despair, did not start the conflict in Palestine...The Palestinians had an insignificant role in the despair of the Jews...Without any provocation on the part of the Palestinians, the Zionists started the massive immigration, not anti-semitism....You are surely not claiming that Zionists, being abused by ‘X’ made it moral for Zionists to abuse ‘Y’?

..it doesnt matter what the islanders in the south pacific did or didnt do...it was the Palestinians that rejected the refugees that came to their shores to be saved.....and were rejected...that was immoral......

You seem to be claiming that the Palestinian action was more immoral than the rest of the world!...Let us assume the US etc refused to allow Zionists to create a state in America in 1917...Had the Zionists attempted to do so, the US would have used force to stop them... Can you explain to me what the moral difference is between that US action and the Palestinian action?

[pelsar]

224. remember..one set of" justice" rules...

the jews went to palestine to be saved.....if you had your way (and the Palestinians)..those jews would not have been allowed in, more so there were in fact attempts to reject them and kill them....those values and subsequent actions were immoral.

and yes every other country that closed their doors to the jews were also immoral..... The Palestinians simply get the "immoral prize" for actually acting upon those values and killing the jews who came (remember your view of zionism, it wasnt immoral until they did something about it....)

______

By ‘instigate’ I meant ‘started the conflict in Palestine.’...Clearly, anti-semitism, although driving the Jews to despair, did not start the conflict in Palestine...The Palestinians had an insignificant role in the despair of the Jews...Without any provocation on the part of the Palestinians, the Zionists started the massive immigration, not anti-semitism....You are surely not claiming that Zionists, being abused by ‘X’ made it moral for Zionists to abuse ‘Y’?


The conflict in Palestine in the 1900's was simply the original battlefield of the same war the jews had been losing for 2000 years.....Remember, thats where it actually started when the jews were kicked out, and the Palestenians moved in.

I agree the Palestinians "paid the price" for anti-Semitism throughout the world in the 1900's......a good part of the reason is that life simply isnt fair. Was life fair to those jews who were victimized by antisemetism?...of course not, what did they do to deserve their fate?...who did they "piss off (besides the entire world? ) The solution of jewish self-determination, like everything else would have a cost.....

the real question is not one of what appears to be your 'black and white version of morality but the more realistic gray versions....which of the options available were the more moral vs less moral and the same goes for the reactions....which of those were the more moral vs less moral?...i get the impression you dont want to go there.

[kayecy]

225. Silly me,..why didn't I think of that?...It was all the Palestinians fault!

.. yes every other country that closed their doors to the jews were also immoral..... The Palestinians simply get the "immoral prize" for actually acting upon those values and killing the jews who came (remember your view of zionism, it wasnt immoral until they did something about it....)

Silly me, why didn't think of that...every one was immoral but the Zionists!
To claim that Palestinians get the “immoral prize” is nothing but a shameful attempt to deflect the arguement....It is ridiculous to claim that whoever the Zionists chose to invade with immigrants, and resisted, were “immoral”!......You claim Palestinians were immoral simply for exercising their basic right of self-defense!!!!!

Let me explore your logic step-by-step: Prior to 1917, the Palestinians had virtually no part in causing the World Wide suffering of Jews....Prior to 1917, the Palestinians in no way provoked or were in any way, a threat to Zionists........Is that true?

....The conflict in Palestine in the 1900's was simply the original battlefield of the same war the jews had been losing for 2000 years

And were the 1917 Palestinians in any way responsible for the Jewish 2,000 year-old war?

I agree the Palestinians "paid the price" for anti-Semitism throughout the world in the 1900's......

So, since they were totally innocent of any provocation or threat prior to 1917, then they should be compensated for having “paid the price”....Remember...one set of justice rules for all.

...and the same goes for the reactions....which of those were the more moral vs less moral?...i get the impression you dont want to go there.

On the contrary, I will be happy to explore your ‘gray morality” any time you wish, after we have clarified where you stand on fundamental values....There is no point in discussing ‘grey’ values if you really think it was moral of the Zionists to subject Palestinians to massive immigration simply to avoid further persecution by Russians, Poles etc...In simple terms, people 'X' persecuted Jews...Zionists Jews solved their problem by abusing a vulnerable people, 'Y'...If you cannot see that people 'Y', should be compensated for this abuse, you have a strange set of moral values.

[pelsar]

226. the immorality of the world

i already mentioned that the Palestinians weren't responsible for 2000 years of persecution from countries across the globe....that was the immoral aspect of zionism. Who should pay the Palestinians for compensation?...why the world of course. if it wasnt for the worlds reaction to the jews, zionism would have never gotten started in the first place.

as far as the Palestinians and their reaction to people fleeing persecution....i would say that is very immoral. Moral people dont kick out people or refuse entry to those who have been persecuted everywhere they go..so that they can be even more persecuted and killed.

or perhaps you think that was the moral thing to do?
(the Palestinians dont get a carte blanch to resist the invasion of the persecuted.....do you believe they do?_

----
Silly me, why didn't think of that...every one was immoral but the Zionists!
i think we're beyond that sort of hyperbole by now.....

[kayecy]

227. And you really believe that resisting a massive invasion of immigrants was immoral?

Who should pay the Palestinians for compensation?...why the world of course. if it wasnt for the worlds reaction to the jews, zionism would have never gotten started in the first place

So we are now agreed that the 1917 Palestinians were the totally innocent party, (except for resisting Zionist ‘invaders’ of course)...All we have to decide now is who is going to apologize to them for their resulting disenfranchisement....You will say the world...OK, I’ll go along with that, but what about the Zionists who actually carried out the ‘invasion’? - don't they carry any responsibility?

Palestinian reaction to people fleeing persecution...i would say that is very immoral. Moral people dont kick out people or refuse entry to those who have been persecuted everywhere they go..so that they can be even more persecuted and killed.

Don't distort history - no Zionist was ever kicked out or even refused entry by the Palestinians - they couldn't - they were under occupation - remember?...It is despicable to try and blame the innocent victims of an invasion.

......(the Palestinians dont get a carte blanch to resist the invasion of the persecuted.....do you believe they do?_

Do you give Israel carte blanch to resist desperate Palestinians trying to get back to their home village?.....Unlike Israel, the 1917 Palestinians had done nothing to deserve being 'invaded' by Zionist immigrants.

[pelsar]

230. lets clear this up the Palestinian moral issue

do you believe the Palestinians get a 'carte blanch" to do whatever they feel is right to resist the occupation?

a good example are the missiles that have been launched at israeli cities over the last 8 years

the 1917 Palestinians had done nothing to deserve being 'invaded' by Zionist immigrants.
no they didnt, that still did not give them the right to try to kill the zionists.......or maybe you do believe it was justified.....do you?



-----------
’ll go along with that, but what about the Zionists who actually carried out the ‘invasion’? - don't they carry any responsibility?

I dont thing the actual actions of the zionists were immoral: convincing the powers that be that a world wide persecuted people can "return home" as long as they do it legally. It was the least immoral of the options available. Perhaps the Brits/UN/World should be the ones to apologize to the Palestinians for creating such a situation in the first place?

The Palestinians were definitely victims....but so too were the jews.....




___
just a side note:
I'm just playing by your rules here... remember we have one set of rules;

Dont distort history....no Zionist was ever kicked out or even refused entry by the Palestinians

but the Palestenians wanted to...so by playing by your rules, the groups involved are guilty of things that never happened (as in the non existent Palestinians independence movement that the zionists "prevented")

[kayecy]

231. So 'invading' an innocent people is moral so long as you can get the occupation forces to agree?

do you believe the Palestinians get a 'carte blanch" to do whatever they feel is right to resist the occupation?

Using the term “carte blanch” is confusing...In a conflict situation immoral acts are often committed by both sides....I believe that once the Zionists ‘invaded' Palestine in 1917, there was a conflict situation....Since then, immoral acts have been committed by both sides....It is debatable which side has been the worst...In any case, it makes no difference to the question of the morality of the Zionist ‘invasion’ which started the conflict.

the 1917 Palestinians had done nothing to deserve being 'invaded' by Zionist immigrants.......no they didnt, that still did not give them the right to try to kill the zionists.......or maybe you do believe it was justified.....do you?

The Zionist ‘invasion’ gave Palestinians as much, if not more right to kill Zionists than Israel today has the right to kill Gaza civilians.

I dont thing the actual actions of the zionists were immoral: convincing the powers that be that a world wide persecuted people can "return home" as long as they do it legally

So invading an innocent people is moral by your standards so long as you can get a third party to say it is OK?......The 1942 round-up of Jews by the Vichy authorities was also approved by the occupation authorities....Was that immoral?

[pelsar]

232. your avoiding the question...

its simple....do the Palestenians have the right to kill zionists, anywhere in israel, anytime?.....you very early on mentioned you believe in absolute justice....that means its irrelevant what anybody else does....

simple question about the Palestinians...nothing to do with zionist/israeli actions or who was the worse or who wasnt.
____________________

we're back to one of the original moral problems that you still didnt answer:

had the jews stayed in europe they would have been killed....they had single option that went via Britan to Palestine that saved their lives.....i understand from your point of view, these jews, who obviously had enough of being persecuted should have taken the "moral" standing ...and stay persecuted and eventually killed for being jews?..i dont see a third option here.

again you seem to take nationalism over lives..more so...whereas i believe any Palestinian state would have been some variation on the typical arab dictatorship?...you seem to think not...why not?..was there any talk of civil rights amongst the arab population?

[kayecy]

233. I am not avoiding any question...

I am not avoiding any question...

its simple....do the Palestenians have the right to kill zionists, anywhere in israel, anytime?.....you very early on mentioned you believe in absolute justice....that means its irrelevant what anybody else does....

I assume you are referring to 1917 and the 1920s when Palestinians were in the process of being ‘invaded’ by Zionists who were bent on disenfranchising them....In this case, of course they had the right to resist that ‘invasion’ and if killing Zionists was necessary then, like any other people, they would do what was necessary to defend themselves.....The point you are avoiding, is that this killing of Zionists took place after the Zionists started the conflict by ‘invading’ Palestine... The Germans started WW2 by invading Poland: were the Poles immoral for killing the invaders?

we're back to one of the original moral problems that you still didnt answer:.. had the jews stayed in europe they would have been killed....they had single option that went via Britan to Palestine that saved their lives.....i understand from your point of view, these jews, who obviously had enough of being persecuted should have taken the "moral" standing ...and stay persecuted and eventually killed for being jews?..i dont see a third option here.

I gave you the answer to this question in my Post 219....I will repeat it for you....

“If this was the situation, then, I believe any of us in that position might be forced into doing what the Zionists did...We would be forced into doing it, but it would still be immoral and we would have an obligation to compensate the innocent party.”

[pelsar]

234. your not being clear.....

Lets take your perspective: the zionists were immoral for invading palestine.....almost 100 years ago:
this is a yes and no question:

is is morally acceptable to you for the Palestinians to shoot missiles at israeli cities today. (i.e. is that your definition of defense)


________

given the moral dilemma of the zionists (about staying or leaving europe...) you mention that the palestenians should be been compensated:
the Palestenians have been given billions of dolllars, representative in the UN, an option for their own state....if that was not enough, what would have been enough? (wrong timing?)


____

btw this is interesting:
In this case, of course they had the right to resist that ‘invasion’ and if killing Zionists was necessary then, like any other people, they would do what was necessary to defend themselves..

so in your view...killing people who are moving in to "your neighborhood"...who do so non violently can be killed...seems like your saying that massacring unarmed people for non violent actions is perfectly acceptable...

[kayecy]

235. Let me be very clear then .........

... is morally acceptable to you for the Palestinians to shoot missiles at israeli cities today. (i.e. is that your definition of defense)

Every national group has the right to resist invasion....For 90 years, the Palestinians have resisted the Zionist ‘invasion’ with small-scale revolts, large-scale revolts, gun-fire, sabotage, mines and now rockets....The Zionist ‘invasion’ was not acceptable to me, the continued occupation is not acceptable to me and the missiles on both Gaza and Israeli cities are not acceptable to me.

There you have your clear yes/no answer, but it is irrelevant....What matters is what action can be taken by either party to bring this conflict to a fair, just and honorable conclusion.

You have agreed that:
1”.. it (the Zionist invasion) was 'immoral"
2’.... the Palestinians "paid the price" for anti-Semitism throughout the world in the 1900's...”

Any fair, just and honorable organization would see the need to make amends to the Palestinians for that immoral ‘invasion’ and for forcing them to pay for European anti-semitism....The subsequent Palestinian resistance, killings etc and the Israeli occupation, killings etc are the result of that unprovoked ‘invasion’....No matter how brutal both sides have been since, it does not reduce the responsibility of those who carried out the invasion, to make amends.

..... you mention that the palestenians should be been compensated:
the Palestenians have been given billions of dolllars, representative in the UN, an option for their own state....if that was not enough, what would have been enough? (wrong timing?)

Compensation is normally agreed after discussions and negotiations....Have I missed something?...When did Israel ever discuss compensating the Palestinians for anything, let alone their disenfranchisement by the Zionists?

....so in your view...killing people who are moving in to "your neighborhood"...who do so non violently can be killed...seems like your saying that massacring unarmed people for non violent actions is perfectly acceptable...

So if the Palestinians want to cross the Green line and move into “your neighborhood non-violently” with the intention of producing an Arab majority in Israel, you will not offer any resistance?...not use deadly force?....Remember we must be consistent - you can’t have it both ways.

[pelsar]

236. still need clarification.....

So if the Palestinians want to cross the Green line and move into “your neighborhood non-violently” with the intention of producing an Arab majority in Israel, you will not offer any resistance?...not use deadly force?....Remember we must be consistent - you can’t have it both ways.

...if the Palestinians move across the green line and "move in" the IDF will not have the moral right to kill them..and if they make a settlement, the IDF will not be allowed to shell it. (they can use tear gas when they cross the border to prevent it.... but no bullets, bombs etc)

i get the impression you seem to believe that such actions are acceptable, should the Palestinians simply killed the "zionists" as they disembarked from the boat?-machine gunned them down?

______

i have agreed that:
zionism was the better moral choice given the immoral choices they had
the Palestinians paid the price for world wide anti semitism.

and that the Palestinians reaction both past and present were and are very immoral.

we're now working on that aspect.....i believe you have already agreed that "some" of the Palestinian actions were immoral (i think...), thats now what i am trying to discover.

[kayecy]

237. You still need clarification?........Read Barak's open-fire order.

...if the Palestinians move across the green line and "move in" the IDF will not have the moral right to kill them..and if they make a settlement, the IDF will not be allowed to shell it. (they can use tear gas when they cross the border to prevent it.... but no bullets, bombs etc)

Haaretz , Feb 24th 2008, quoted Barak as giving specific instructions:
“IDF troops on the border have been issued special open fire orders in order
to stop even a small number of protesters from crossing the fence, and the
army has demarked especially sensitive areas.”

... i get the impression you seem to believe that such actions are acceptable, should the Palestinians simply killed the "zionists" as they disembarked from the boat?-machine gunned them down?

You do easily get the wrong impression....What I said was “ ....and the missiles on both Gaza and Israeli cities are not acceptable to me.....If you like I will add that neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians should simply kill people...There is a difference however, the Zionist were intent on demographically engineering Palestine to their advantage...I get the impression that you think the Palestinians had no right to resist the Zionist 'invasion'...Am I correct?

... we're now working on that aspect.....i believe you have already agreed that "some" of the Palestinian actions were immoral (i think...), thats now what i am trying to discover.

I have said several times that after the Zionist ‘invasion’, both sides committed despicable acts against the other...I no more condone Palestinian acts of violence than Zionist/Jewish acts of violence...You on the other hand seem to think that only Palestinians committed violence....You seem to be trying to prove that if the Palestinians killed Jews after 1917, it somehow absolves the Zionists from making amends for their unprovoked 1917 ‘invasion’....The Germans have accepted responsibility for the 1939 invasion of Poland,..the Americans have invested many billions of dollars into Iraq as compensation for their invasion...What did the Zionists do?...declared a Jewish State and washed their hands of any responsibility for the local inhabitants.

[pelsar]

238. stick to the question....

you claimed early on that there is a single absolute justice...nothing to do with the environment and time:

you have claimed that the zionists were immoral for their invasion...my question is simple as it is direct:
_____


Were/are the Palestinian reaction to the zionist "invasion" moral? this is a simple yes and no question.

...i'm talking about Palestinian morality, that is all.
to be specific, it would include the missiles on sederot and the various attacks on civilians, farmers etc (all zionists)
___

i have and will continue to answer all of your questions....directly, but you seem not be giving me the same in return.
____

this one is a yes or no.(morality has grays as in stealing gum vs killing someone, both are immoral, but one is worst than the other)

[kayecy]

239. I agree....stick to the question....

I agree.....stick to the question.....

.. this is a simple yes and no question. ...i'm talking about Palestinian morality, that is all.

And I am talking about Zionist morality, that is all.

To progress with this debate, I suggest we consider the two questions separately.

A) The original question was whether the Zionist ‘invasion’ and deliberate demographic engineering of Palestine to deprive Palestinians of their right to self-determination was moral or not.

So far your responses have included such clear statements as ’yes i can agree that it was 'immoral"....but it would have been more "immoral" had they not’ and ”zionism was the better moral choice given the immoral choices they had....As you are so insistent on getting yes/no answers, I must ask you to give one to the original question.


B) Your new question is...”Were/are the Palestinian reaction to the zionist "invasion" moral?”
I thought I had given you a clear enough answer to this, but if you insist on a yes/no answer, I must first be sure what your question refers to...ie Can you tell me what you mean by ‘Palestinian’?....do you mean an individual, a particular group of individuals, some nation organization or simply all the Arabs living in Palestine?

[pelsar]

240. the participants.....

definition of the Palestinian moral response to the zionist invaders:

that would all that were activity involved in repelling the invaders in any form that included violence: This would also include those that aided in preparing the ground work for future attempts at violently repelling the zionists(education, speaches, story telling, etc), those that agreed with the violent response, but did nothing to participate, those that told false stories to their kids to incite, those that listened to and agreed to the radio broadcasts that spoke of "repelling the zionists invader"...etc...
____

but now your trying to play the "definition" game....so when you include zionists do you include the little jewish children that came along with their parents?...
____

my question relates to the general violent response...was it moral to kill the unarmed zionists?...and is it moral today to kill them for their invasion?

i'll make it even simpler: do you believe it was morally justified to kill the unarmed invading zionists...lets start with that.


i am not for instance referring to the Palestinians in Pharadese that not only worked in the zionist winery but when the war in 48 started, they made it clear that they have no intention of participating and preferred to work with the jews and live within the jewish state

[kayecy]

241. Go on.....steel yourself!

Question B

- do you believe it was morally justified to kill the unarmed invading zionists...lets start with that..

Good, that is a clear question..... I will give you a yes/no answer to it as soon as you have given me a yes/no answer to the original question.


Question A - Was the Zionist ‘invasion’ and deliberate demographic engineering of Palestine to
deprive Palestinians of their right to self-determination moral or not?

Go on, steel yourself!

...so when you include zionists do you include the little jewish children that came along with their parents?...

I don’t see where Jewish children come into this....I have said quite clearly that the individual Jewish immigrants were no different to any other immigrants....It was Zionism and its leaders that took the immoral decision to invade Palestine.

[pelsar]

242. your funny...."answer me first and then i 'll answer you..." no problem

people (including zionists) moving to a land to create a new society at the expense of those living there is immoral.
_______
your turn:
was and is the Palestinian violent response to the invading zionists justified?

________

i can tell you where I"m taking this (if its not obvious by now)
assuming your answer is clear and that the violent response to the zionists was immoral we shall than have to discuss the shades of morality and the real implications of creating a democracy for the persecuted vs the Palestinian alternative.....


BUT, you answer might be that the Palestinian response (violent) was and is justified and that you believe that nationalism, self determination, the most probable creation of a dictatorship based on nationalism is far more moral than the zionist invasion. In which case we shall have a far more interesting discussion on the values of nationalism vs individual civil rights....

[kayecy]

243. I congratulate you on giving an honest answer...

people (including zionists) moving to a land to create a new society at the expense of those living there is immoral.

Since you are so insistent on a yes/no answers, I take it that these words are in fact a 'yes' to my question:

“Yes - the Zionist ‘invasion’ and deliberate demographic engineering of Palestine to deprive Palestinians of their right to self-determination was immoral.”

I congratulate you on giving an honest answer!... I don’t think insisting on a yes/no answer actually helps the debate but it was interesting to see how you would answer.


Now for your yes/no question....I will not attempt to use ‘fudgy’ words.

No...it was not moral to kill the unarmed Zionists and No... it is not moral today to kill them for their invasion.

I have said the same thing on many occasions but it is meaningless to condemn the individual actions of Arabs over 90 years without applying the same ethical standards to the Zionists/Israelis over the same 90 years.


Now we have got over this yes/no business, let’s see if we can agree on the circumstances leading up to the conflict.

1. European Jews prior to 1917 were made to suffer so much that many of them decided to emigrate from the land of their birth.

2. In the period up to 1923, the majority chose to seek safety in the USA, without any real intention of trying to create a Jewish state there...A few, chose to go to Palestine...Zionist leaders encouraged this because they felt the only way to secure their long-term safety was to make Palestine a Jewish state, and they had no real hope of achieving this in the USA, Canada etc

3. The Palestinians saw this as disenfranchisement and preventing their eventual self-determination... They resisted this immigrant invasion in the only way they could...they rioted and began shooting etc at individual Zionist immigrants...This developed into a general conflict with both sides killing civilians.


Can you agree that that is a reasonable summary of the events around 1917?

[pelsar]

244. in general sounds reasonable.....

i dont know the numbers of no 2 but dont see it as relevant

no 3..i would question if violence is the "only way"..but that too is irrelevant

as now we have finally come to real dilemma:

which morality is "more moral"....
_______________

we've agreed that invading and making a new country was immoral....and that the world was not too excited about taking in jews (all having quotas).

at the sametime the zionist were quite correct in their reading of events (though i would doubt they could have imagined in their wildest nightmares what was yet to take place.).

Was it more moral for the jews to stay in europe/US and the arab countries and live with anti semitism or go make a democratic country in palestine?
Was 2000 years of discrimination, etc enough?....or is it "more moral" for them to continually be the people not just without self determination but at the receiving end of continued discrimination?

shouldnt the jews also get to have "self determination?" i think the question is: at what cost?

[kayecy]

245. Has any Zionist leader ever acknowledged the price Palestinians were forced to pay?

....we've agreed that invading and making a new country was immoral.... and that the world was not too excited about taking in jews (all having quotas)

Not all countries had quotas....Before 1923 there was almost no limit on immigration to the USA (Over 1,000,000 people emigrated there in 1907 alone)....For 26 years after the First Zionist Congress, most Jews chose to migrate to the USA rather than Palestine...Zionists had the moral choice of encouraging migration to a democratic, safe USA, where they would have full equality under the US Constitution, a USA which in 1862 offered free land to immigrants, a USA where there was even the possibility of self-determination within the Federation.... For political reasons the Zionists turned their backs on the USA and insisted on Palestine.

No, Pelsar, the Palestinians were not sacrificed for Jewish self-determination or even to remove Jews from persecution....They were sacrificed for a dream by Weizmann & co...the dream of Political Zionism ...the dream of re-creating Eretz Israel.

.... shouldnt the jews also get to have "self determination?" i think the question is: at what cost?

For the sake of argument, let us assume that there was no option of migrating to the USA, that the Zionists had good reason to assume they would be massacred if they stayed in the lands where they were born and that whatever the cost to Palestinians, a Jewish state had to be created......Would you not expect Weizmann or some other Zionist leader with a sense of honour, a sense of fairness to at least have made some acknowledgment of the price being paid by the Palestinians?....Could they not have made good-will gestures such as providing schools and enhancing employment opportunities?....Could they not have called on Britain and the USA, to join with them to offer Palestinians training and investment?

[pelsar]

247. you constantly ignore the basics.....

For the sake of argument, let us assume that there was no option of migrating to the USA, that the Zionists had good reason to assume they would be massacred if they stayed in the lands where they were born and that whatever the cost to Palestinians, a Jewish state had to be created

there was anti semitism in the states...the jews who did stay in the lands they were born were massacred (hence the zionist did have good reason to assume what they did)..and the history of the jews in various lands, including the US was a constant ping pong of acceptance and anti semitism ...its not even a matter of "for arguments sakes...its just historical facts.
____

you ask if they could not have made the good will gesture such as providing schools and enhancing employment opportunities?....do you really think they were 'superman"?....they had their hands full trying to keep the jews alive economically, forge a new "jew" who would work that land as a "worker"......more so they were hardly the ones in power..that would be the turks and brits. Your expecting the zionists to be far more then mere humans....

but in fact, they did employ the locals when they couldnt do it themselves, whos standard of living did rise as the enterprises were successful..but that was just a consequence of a successful society...something that exists today.
______

but your actually avoiding the main issue: the morality: I'll summarize it for you and leave you with a simply but direct question to answer:

we've established that the brits though the power in the area, in fact had no moral right to let the jews immigrate and make a new country in Palestine.
the world was morally wrong for its anti semitism (and genocide), which gave rise to active zionism
the zionists had no moral right to establish a country where the locals would lose their self determination
the Palestenians had no right to use violence on the not armed jewish immigrants (which was the case until the riots of 1930)
the Palestinians had no moral right to attempt to refuse entry to refugees and victims of discrimination;

_____

who had the greater moral right and why?

this makes no sense to me...nothing at all:
the Palestinians were not sacrificed for Jewish self-determination or even to remove Jews from persecution....They were sacrificed for a dream by Weizmann & co...the dream of Political Zionism ...the dream of re-creating Eretz Israel.

Eretz israel is a religious term, the zionist movement was secular...your obviously ignoring the core of zionism...do you even know about Dreyfus? Herzel?

but i see where your going....somehow you have to declare zionism some kind of immoral movement at its core, not as movement to save jews and give them self determination. The only problem with that, is that, all evidence points toward the opposite, that it was a secular movement based on anti semitism.....

[kayecy]

248. Please explain why the 2,500,000 Jews who chose to go to the USA pre-1923 got it wrong.

.....and the history of the jews in..... the US was a constant ping pong of acceptance and anti semitism......its just historical facts.

Go on then, give me some historical facts about this “constant ping-pong” in the USA prior to 1923....Why do you think Palestine looked so much more attractive than the US to pre-1923 Jews?....2,500,000 of them seemed to think it was the other way round.

you ask if they could not have made the good will gesture such as providing schools and enhancing employment opportunities?....do you really think they were 'superman"?

You do not need to be a superman to acknowledge the price another people have been forced to pay for your choice of salvation.....You just have to be honorable, decent and fair-minded....Was that too much to ask of Weizmann & co?

who had the greater moral right and why?...............

Who had the greater moral right?...I would have thought it was self-evident....You have agreed that the Zionists had no moral right to establish a country where the locals would lose their right to self-determination....End of story.

The killings carried out by both sides after this event are regrettable but would not have happened had the Zionists not chosen Palestine.

You might as well try and compare the immorality of the European pogroms etc to the immorality of the Zionist attempt to create a state in Palestine....There is no comparison.... Without the pogroms there would have been no need for Jews to seek a new land...End of story.

Eretz israel is a religious term, the zionist movement was secular

Thank you for your definition of Eretz Israel....I was using the dictionary definition:
"Eretz Yisrael refers to the land making up the ancient Jewish Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The term has been used by Jews and Christians throughout history"
It is not only a religious term... It was used in a secular context in the 1948 Proclamation of Independence.

[pelsar]

249. i see we have to go back to the basics....

zionism was the ideal that jews dont have to live with anti semitism....

anti semitism in the US was alive and well in the 1900's...if you must ...look up in google: anti semitism US 1920
-----

are you kidding?.
Who had the greater moral right?...I would have thought it was self-evident....You have agreed that the Zionists had no moral right to establish a country where the locals would lose their right to self-determination....End of story.

and you have agreed that the Palestenian reaction of murder was also immoral.......

...since the Palestine reaction was to murder the jews....and yes it was the arab riots of the 1920's when the killings began. You've already agreed that murdering the jews was immoral....so why is it that you feel that murder is somehow less moral than people escaping discrimination to live free and not kill anybody?

because that is precisely what you are saying:

more so, you seem to think that the jews should have stayed in europe for not just more discrimination but for genocide as well.......as the moral choice

[msmcghee]

250. I don't understand part of your argument.

I don't mean to interrupt your discussion but could you explain why you say that it was immoral for European Jews to emigrate to the stateless territory of Palestine to establish a homeland there for Jews (Zionism).

What moral principle do you believe they were violating?

[pelsar]

251. let me help...

the jews by making a country where there were "locals" (the muslim Palestinians) lived, took away the option that one day they perhaps might have their own self determination...... This of course is a big if, given the ambitions of Syrian, jordan, and Egypt. More so, we havent even got to the morality of a dictatorship that most likely would have been the definition of any self-determination vs the jewish democracy....

[msmcghee]

252. It would seem that whatever nation was eventually established . .

. . there, as long as it was a democratic state that guaranteed equal rights in a representative form of government to all citizens including minorities, that those people, whether minorities or majorities, were given self-determination. Therefore, establishing a truly democratic state is a moral act by definition because it provides self-determination to all citizens and is the only truly moral form of self-determination.

Self-determination does not mean the right to exclude any minority ethnic or religious group from full benefits of citizenship. That's not self-determination. That's racism and/or religious bigotry. Self-determination through democracy means sharing sovereignty and responsibility equally among all citizens regardless of religion or ethnicity and according to the rule of law. The Jewish state of Israel does that. It's still the only state in the region that provides true self-determination to its citizens.

Some may say that Saudi Arabia is a Muslim / Caliphate form of self-determination. I'd simply call it a theocratic dictatorship. Perhaps a few hundred billionaire sheiks there enjoy a form of power-wielding self-determination. So did the elite of the Third Reich. But that is not really self-determination in the democratic sense.

At least that's how I understand it at this time.

[pelsar]

253. we havent gotten there yet....

once we've established that "morality" is a series of grays and not black and white, the plan was to establish a hierarchy of morality...and that would include the democracy of many vs a dictatorship representing self determination of the few.....

[msmcghee]

254. Sorry, I was jumping ahead. Please proceed. n/t

[kayecy]

255. "Achievements of Zionism - Zionism is the ideological success story of the twentieth century...."

...anti semitism in the US was alive and well in the 1900's...if you must ...look up in google: anti semitism US 1920

I have spent some time reading up on US Jewish history....Yes, there was a degree of anti-Semitism in the US, but nothing I have read suggests that it was significant.....Yes, both sides in the civil war accused the Jews of helping the enemy....Yes, there was the infamous 1862 order of General Grant to expel all Jews from Tennessee (later rescinded)...and Yes there was the “American Dreyfus affair” in 1913 against engineer Leo Frank, but there is very little else recorded.... Is this any more than you would expect of any group of locals when faced with a flood of 3 million immigrants with a strange religion?

I know one can always quote selectively, but I get the impression that the following extract from Wikedia’s “History of the Jews in America” just about sums it up:
”Although there was anti-Semitism, the surprising thing to many Jews was that when they got to America they actually met very little anti-Semitism, and were a big part of life in the west. In other places they had been they had seen a lot of anti-Semitism, and when they arrived in the west, they were more embraced as part of the culture. The Jews were able to go around doing their business and not get bothered by other people. The reason for this was that although there was prejudice there, everybody still wanted to expand the western frontier and to do this they required all possible men and women and that included Jews. In the places that the Jews were before they came to America such as Europe there were many people who were anti-Semitic and who did not like Jews. When the people came to America they were not expecting to get such a warm welcome, and they were pleasantly surprised when they blended quite nicely into the western American society.”

The important thing in all this is that prior to 1923, persecuted Jews had a relatively safe destination country available to them and the vast majority chose it....Those that chose Palestine did so, not because there was less anti-Semitism there or because it was safer than the USA , but simply because there was a better chance there (Thanks to the British) of furthering the Zionist dream of re-creating Eretz Israel.

You've already agreed that murdering the jews was immoral....so why is it that you feel that murder is somehow less moral than people escaping discrimination to live free and not kill anybody?

You are now trying to show that furthering a Zionist ideological dream can in some way be compared with individual immoral acts by Palestinians after Zionists had ‘invaded’ Palestine....There is just no comparison.


If you insist that the two actions are comparable, we have first to agree on how necessary was the Zionist ‘invasion’ of Palestine... Creating a Jewish State in Palestine rather than accepting a safe haven in the US was obviously attractive to Zionists, but it was not an act of desperation, it was not an act of self-defence.... it was simply the realisation of an ideological dream....What is more, it was a huge gamble which could have turned out to be a disaster for the Jewish immigrants....Not even Zionist publications claim the USA was more risky than choosing Palestine....If you doubt that Zionism was an ideological dream, the following extract from www.zionism-israel.com may convince you:
“Achievements of Zionism - Zionism is the ideological success story of the twentieth century, overcoming seemingly insuperable obstacles to realize an impossible dream. The story of Zionism challenges the imagination. Zionism revived a dying people and brought them back to their land. Zionism changed the image of the land and of the people.”


Over to you to explain why you think Zionism, had more at stake than just an ideological dream....I will then explain what Palestinians had at stake when they resisted the Zionist invasion and committed individual immoral acts.

[pelsar]

256. sorry you cant do that....

your avoiding what zionism was all about....its was about living without anti semitism and no longer as second class citizens....or even the potential to be second class citizens. Many countries at one point in time promised the jews a good life..the US was just one more in a long line: France, Spain, Iran, etc.....and soon or later anti semitism came up...or they were kicked out etc. Zionism was about no longer trusting the good graces of host countries.....(spain and germany being good examples)

the jews chose palestine because those that went believe the future would lie in their own hands and not some "foreign power"...thats simply the way it was and why some jews chose that route, the far more difficult one.

and yes zionism was an ideological dream for self determination.....perhaps explain to me why the jews didnt deserve self determination? and instead be "sentenced" to the variations and uncertainty of anti semitism found throughout the world? 2000 years of history is a lot of time being exposed to various degrees of anti semitism and enough time to learn the lesson of the vulnerability of being a "guest" and never having self determination.

[kayecy]

257. Palestinians were disenfranchised to allow Zionists to chose British protection vice US protection?

..Many countries at one point in time promised the jews a good life..the US was just one more in a long line.

Are you proposing to compare the morality of the Zionists’ decision to choose British protection over US protection with the Palestinian decision to resist disenfranchisement?

....the jews chose palestine because those that went believe the future would lie in their own hands and not some "foreign power"...

Let us be a little more precise....A few Jews chose Palestine.... What do you think made those few Jews (less than 70,000 prior to 1923 compared with 3,000,000 who emigrated to the USA) trust the foreign power Britain rather than the foreign power USA?....I suggest that neither self-determination nor trust of Britain came into the Zionists' decision to go to Palestine....They were encouraged to go there by Weizmann & co in order to try and re-create the ideological dream of Eretz Israel.

... and yes zionism was an ideological dream for self determination.....perhaps explain to me why the jews didnt deserve self determination?

How many more times do I have to say it.....Of course the Jews, like the Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese, Kurds etc all deserved self-determination.....but not at the expense of any other national group.

[pelsar]

258. and to be realistic....

How many more times do I have to say it.....Of course the Jews, like the Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese, Kurds etc all deserved self-determination.....but not at the expense of any other national group.....your missing the 2nd half...since there was no empty land that had no people that perhaps one day would want their own self determination...and no country was going to give the jews their own country

your indirectly saying that the jews do not get the self determination.....at least be realistic and honest about it.

______________

What do you think made those few Jews (less than 70,000 prior to 1923 compared with 3,000,000 who emigrated to the USA) trust the foreign power Britain rather than the foreign power USA

Its not difficult to understand: the US as did Australia, Canada promised the immigrants an existing modern country, where one could much easier get a "good life"....palestine only promised hard physical labor, and no promise of anything, but a dream of self determination....its pretty much human nature to go where its easier, following an ideal is not for everyone.

you seem to be saying the Weizmann and co had some diabolical plan to recreate israel....first you should include Herzl in the plan since it was his original idea...secondly why was it so diabolical?...weizman and Herzl in fact were more than 100% right about the future of the jews in europe as events were to show.

[kayecy]

259. I am directly or indirectly saying nothing of the sort!....

.....your indirectly saying that the jews do not get the self determination.....at least be realistic and honest about it.

I am directly or indirectly saying nothing of the sort!....Jews had the same right to self-determination as any other national group...Unfortunately, Jews were not in a position to exercise that right in the land where they were born...Faced with that reality, the majority of Jews settled for constitutional democracy in the USA....Only a small minority of Jews seem to have wanted the Zionists’ idea of ‘Jewish’ self-determination ......and were prepared trample on the rights of a poor impoverished people to get it.

..... you seem to be saying the Weizmann and co had some diabolical plan to recreate israel....first you should include Herzl in the plan since it was his original idea...secondly why was it so diabolical?

First – I have no objection to including Hertzl in the the phrase “Weizmann & co”
Second – “Diabolical” is your word, not mine.

Its not difficult to understand: the US as did Australia, Canada promised the immigrants an existing modern country, where one could much easier get a "good life"....palestine only promised hard physical labor, and no promise of anything, but a dream of self determination

You are saying that the Palestinians had to be disenfranchised so that Zionists could avoid the good life.....so they could become pioneers, suffering hard physical labour with no promise of anything but a dream!

I guess that just about sums up the morality of Zionism.

[pelsar]

260. where then?

I am directly or indirectly saying nothing of the sort!....Jews had the same right to self-determination as any other national group...Unfortunately, Jews were not in a position to exercise that right in the land where they were born

where should they have gone to exercise this right?________ (this is a fill in the blank....)



.......your saying that they may have the right...but realistically they cant/wont/ ever see it..and must accept their "fate."...(and the unique world wide phenomena of anti semitism, as past history and present events have shown)

or perhaps you dont see the jews as a unique social/religious/cultural group that is constantly identified/vilified/praised by others?

[kayecy]

262. I wish there were simple “fill-in-the-blank” solutions to all life’s vicissitudes

...where should they have gone to exercise this right?________ (this is a fill in the blank....)

I wish there were simple “fill-in-the-blank” solutions to all life’s vicissitudes...Unfortunately, in real life we often have to accept compromises... Making do with the US, should have been an acceptable compromise for that small minority of Jews that felt strongly about self-determination.

No matter how persecuted my ancestors had been, I hope that, in the prevailing conditions at the start of the 20th Century, I would have shrunk from seeking self-determination for my family at the expense of another people.....You, no doubt feel differently.

.....or perhaps you dont see the jews as a unique social/religious/cultural group that is constantly identified/vilified/praised by others?

I see the Jews as a people who were uniquely selected for extermination by the Nazis and subject to pogroms in the 19th Century, a people who have suffered terribly over a long period of history.....I see individual Jews as human beings like the rest of the world, neither better nor worse....Most of us, including Jews, have no idea who our ancient ancestors were, where they lived during the last 2,000 years or how they suffered.
.
.

[pelsar]

265. the compromise.....now were getting somewhere....

Making do with the US, should have been an acceptable compromise for that small minority of Jews that felt strongly about self-determination.

....telling a people that becuase of certain circumstances they dont get self determination.... (do i get to choose a people and tell them, that they should accept the compromise as well?.....)

so why cant you tell the Palestenains the same thing?...they have to compromise and live with the jews who were leaving europe because they were no longer secure there?

and that they were bringing with them social ideas that would let everybody live in democracy? I would say the democracy that the jews made is far more acceptable than the inevitable dictatorship the arabs would have made (if they werent taken over by syria jordan or egypt)

[kayecy]

266. I would not suggest that anyone compromise with an unprovoked 'invasion'........

.....so why cant you tell the Palestenains the same thing?...they have to compromise and live with the jews who were leaving europe because they were no longer secure there?

European Jews were in a fix because of the actions of their governments and their fellow citizens in the lands were they were born.... They had to make some choices....some suicidal, some moral and some immoral...90% of them chose to make the moral choice of migrating to the USA.

I was not telling the Zionist what to do...I merely said that, personally, no matter how persecuted my ancestors had been, I hoped that, in the prevailing conditions at the start of the 20th Century, I would have shrunk from seeking self-determination for my family at the expense of another people.


The Palestinian situation was completely different....They were being subjected to an unprovoked ‘invasion’....Their problem was not with their fellow citizens or even with the Occupying power....It was with a flood of foreign immigrants attempting to achieve a majority by demographic engineering....They were being ‘invaded’....The Palestinians made a perfectly moral choice to resist the invasion.....Admittedly, some individual Palestinians killed and injured innocent Jews which is inexcusable, but the principle that resistance to such demographic engineering is moral, is surely unarguable.

What would I have done personally in such conditions?...Certainly not compromise with the ‘invader’.......I would probably have done the same as the majority of Palestinians did....I would have seethed with anger and resentment at losing my chance of achieving self-determination....I would have supported anyone who was willing to challenge the unprovoked ‘invasion’.

[pelsar]

268. suicide as the moral option.....

I hoped that, in the prevailing conditions at the start of the 20th Century, I would have shrunk from seeking self-determination for my family at the expense of another people

the prevailing conditions of the 20th century was not that anti semitism was alive and well, but that it was going to take on monsterous proportions and in fact no one was really going to stop it...that was the real character of the 20th century, these "prevailing conditions that you mention included anti semitism...and the zionists were actually quite right in their prediction (you seem to ignore that little fact)

so, yes the European jews were in a real fix.....some "woke up late" after 1923 (perhaps they at first agreed with your version of the "prevailing condition") ....are you suggesting that in the real world they should have stayed put and let themselves be killed?....that was the better moral choice?
______________________

The Palestinians made a perfectly moral choice to resist the invasion.
how did they "resist" this invasion?...... your saying that only individuals were violent, so what evidence was there of this general "resistance". (Was it their support of the violent ones?)

[kayecy]

269. You think the 1921 Jaffa riot was a welcoming party for Zionists?

......the prevailing conditions of the 20th century was not that anti semitism was alive and well, but that it was going to take on monsterous proportions

But it was not going to take on monstrous proportions in the USA.

....and the zionists were actually quite right in their prediction (you seem to ignore that little fact)

Are you proposing we discuss the fortune-telling skills of the pre-1923 Zionists?

....so, yes the European jews were in a real fix.....some "woke up late" after 1923 (perhaps they at first agreed with your version of the "prevailing condition")

By 1923, Zionists had been making an immoral choice for 30 years....After that date, one could argue that they had no choice....However that still does not negate my claim that Zionism was immoral and was the main cause of the conflict.

....how did they "resist" this invasion?

The Palestinians resisted this immigrant invasion in the only way they could...they rioted and later began shooting etc at individual Zionist immigrants...This developed into a general conflict with both sides killing civilians....

......... your saying that only individuals were violent, so what evidence was there of this general "resistance". (Was it their support of the violent ones?)

Are you claiming that there was no general resistance to the Zionist ‘invasion’?....You think the 1921 Jaffa riot was a welcoming party?

[pelsar]

270. so it wasnt "individuals" that were violent

You think the 1921 Jaffa riot was a welcoming party
glad we cleared that up...the response to the zionists immigration was in fact violent as per the riots...and you've already declared the immorality of violence to the immigrants...so we'll have to get back to that a bit later.

you seem to ignore a basic block of Zionism ....it was based on history, that anti semitism was not going to go away and that it was about time that the jews defend themselves as is the right of every "people'. You have agreed that the jews also had this right.

i doubt the US would have taken them all in...history shows that in fact the US wasnt willing to, hence the laws in 1923 (even after WWII, they had a quota). And even if they did what happened to Self determination?...you've made it clear that the jews shouldnt get it......(being realistic):

and an interesting development:
pre 1923 zionism was immoral...if it had started post 1923 then zionism would have been "moral?"

______________
so far you seem to be saying the following:

jews dont get self determination (realistically)
morally they should have stayed in europe and let their fate be what it would be (certain death), since no one else would take all of them in.

[kayecy]

271. Yes it was very much “individuals” who were violent....Have you evidence to the contrary?

...the response to the zionists immigration was in fact violent as per the riots...and you've already declared the immorality of violence to the immigrants...

You are reading too much into a simple facetious comment which was in response to your equally facetious request for evidence of a ‘general resistance’ to Zionist immigration...

The 1921 Haycraft Commission investigating into Jaffa riots reported that there was acute anti-Jewish feeling and that although a large part of the Moslem and Christian communities condoned the riot, they did not encourage violence..... As far as I am aware, although there was general resistance among Palestinians to the Zionist ‘invasion’ as can be seen from both the 1921 Haycraft and the 1920 Palin reports, there was no Palestinian national movement advocating violence in 1921......Have you any evidence to the contrary?

Contrast the above individual criminal acts of violence carried out in the heat of acute anti-Zionist feeling, with the Zionist national leaders deciding, over a period of time and without any provocation, to ‘invade’ Palestine....There is no moral equivalence.

......i doubt the US would have taken them all in...history shows that in fact the US wasnt willing to, hence the laws in 1923 (even after WWII, they had a quota).

You think the US authorities would even have noticed 300,000 Jews on top of the 3 Million that migrated there without hindrance between 1890 and 1923?

And even if they did what happened to Self determination?...you've made it clear that the jews shouldnt get it......(being realistic):

I have said no such thing....What I said was that the pre-1923 Jews were forced to chose a destination....Either:

1. The USA, which offered democracy and full equality under the constitution but not Jewish self-determination, or
2. British Colonial rule in Palestine which did not offer democracy or Jewish self-determination.

Most reasonable people would say that was a no-brainer....Not surprisingly, that was also the conclusion of 90% of pre-1923 Jews.

...and an interesting development:
pre 1923 zionism was immoral...if it had started post 1923 then zionism would have been "moral?"

An interesting hypothetical question....I will give it some thought.

[pelsar]

272. your "fudging"...

the choices werent

1. The USA, which offered democracy and full equality under the constitution but not Jewish self-determination, or
2. British Colonial rule in Palestine which did not offer democracy or Jewish self-determination.

the choices as the zionists saw it...as was either non self-determination or self determination in palestine: Self determination was the plan, the dream and eventually the reality.

your "no brainer" up to 1923, may even have been correct..except that in 1923, the zionists were proved to have been correct. No country could be trusted to protect the jews. 1923 was in some respects a death sentence to the jews of europe. Some jews realized that earlier, some later..some only at the gas chamber.

i think the biggest hurdle you have is to acknowledge that the zionists of the 1800's were correct in their assessment of the jews in relation to the their host countries.....they simply couldnt be trusted

__________

but to clarify...your saying that the resistance to the zionist was a few local individuals....in fact almost as if there was no real resistance?

[kayecy]

273. You haven’t yet said why the Zionists thought they could trust Colonial Britain.....

...... the choices as the zionists saw it...as was either non self-determination or self determination in palestine: Self determination was the plan, the dream and eventually the reality.

Please enlighten me....What did the Zionists see in British Colonial rule as offering them a better chance of self-determination than in post-Colonial USA?....Britain, after all, had already promised all Arabs independence and then signed Sykes-Picot agreement splitting the Arab lands between France & Britain....Britain was hardly the most trustworthy power.

The Mormons did not start migrating to Utah until the late 1800s and yet by 1910 they had a Mormon-majority state.....The total Utah State population in 1910 was only 0.5 Million...There were already some 2 Million Jews in the US by then....Zionists could easily have formed a Jewish-majority state had they wanted self-determination....Of course, this would not have been the same as the Zionist dream of re-creating Eretz Israel but then, many more lives might have been saved.

....your "no brainer" up to 1923, may even have been correct...

So since we are debating Zionist morality prior to 1923, you accept that Palestinians were denied their right to self-determination just so that Zionist could fulfill their dream.....You must surely now accept that the local inhabitants are due at least an apology?

...i think the biggest hurdle you have is to acknowledge that the zionists of the 1800's were correct in their assessment of the jews in relation to the their host countries.....they simply couldnt be trusted.

With the benefit of hind-sight, the Zionists were right not to trust some governments .....With the benefit of hind-sight, there were some governments they could have trusted.....With the benefit of hind-sight, several wars and conflicts could have been avoided if Zionists had not insisted on pursuing their dream at the expense of the local inhabitants.
.
.

[pelsar]

274. the mormons?

they do not have self determination...they live as citizens in the US and in fact they are a home grown US movement. Comparing the jews need for self determination to the mormons is comparing apples and oranges.

So since we are debating Zionist morality prior to 1923, you accept that Palestinians were denied their right to self-determination just so that Zionist could fulfill their dream.....You must surely now accept that the local inhabitants are due at least an apology?

I see absolutely no significance to the 1923 nor 1917...zionism was based on 2000 years of anti semitism. Whereas the zionist can apologies for disrupting the lives of some of the local arabs, the local arabs who rioted and organized the riots owe a huge apology for not being moral enough to see the plight of the jews and welcome them in....More so i would say that quite a few of the local arabs who stayed with the zionists owe the zionists a huge thank you for creating a democracy in a sea of dictatorships and ensuring that their children grow up in an environment where they actually do have freedom of speech, civil rights etc..something not found within the Palestinians society, nor in most of the surrounding arab states.

which brings us to real question:
whats better morally and practically:

______________________
live in dictatorship based on "self determination." for the select few (which would have been the better fate of the Palestinians in the 1920-30s (if syria, jordan and egypt didnt move in)

or


living as a minority in a western democracy that is now israel?

[kayecy]

275. You really don't understand the concept of self-determination, do you?

.....the local arabs who rioted and organized the riots owe a huge apology for not being moral enough to see the plight of the jews and welcome them in

Quite a joke that really....when did you ever hear of an Israeli saying that about the other peoples who “ were not moral enough to see the plight of the jews and welcome them in”?.....In fact, far from condemning Americans for not letting Jews take over the USA, Israelis now fall over themselves to accept subsidies and protection from them.

Anyway, are you seriously asking for an apology from individual criminals?...There is no moral equivalence between individual Palestinian criminals and Zionist leaders deciding over a period of time to demographically engineer a Jewish majority in Palestine.

.....live in dictatorship based on "self determination." for the select few (which would have been the better fate of the Palestinians in the 1920-30s (if syria, jordan and egypt didnt move in)

You really don’t understand the concept of self-determination do you?.....No one who understood it would ask a question like that....It is not a question of what you are I think is better, it was up to the Palestinians themselves to decide.....you know, themselves as in self-determination.
.
.

[pelsar]

276. its more than self determination...its morality....

i believe its you who is confusing to two..at least when its convenient.

Your main claim is that the jews had options...and therefor didnt really need self determination....at least not if it cost the Palestinians there self determination...... Meaning, the jews dont get it, no matter what the world does to them, but the Palestinians do.

Much earlier you mentioned that there is also the question of morality of the self determination an immoral self determination is not justified...and heres where i see you have a real problem:

i doubt anyone would claim the Palestinians would have developed a democracy with their self determination, even if the syrians didnt invade...so the moral question is:

is self determination moral when its a dictatorship vs living as a minority within a democracy?

for the individual Palestinian where would life be better? and consequently more moral. free speech, civil rights as a minority ....or tribalism as a majority...because that is what is comes down to doesnt it?
_____

I realize the need to claim it was only individual arabs that were rioting, so as to avoid the moral dilemma of their violent response to the immigration...but do you really expect any one who know some history of the arab communities and dynamics to really believe that?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

277. why would you assume palestinians would not have developed a democracy? nt

[pelsar]

278. history..culture....tradition

in principle they could have...however given the difficulties of changing a culture (even today there are pockets within israel where honor killings still go on....), which would have been required of them to create a democracy the realistic chances of such thing happening at best was zero. There was no democratic movement in the 1900's amongst the Palestinians for a democracy, not even a hint of one. Furthermore do you really think syria would have sat on the sidelines...."greater syria' is part of their history as well and that includes much of the area.

and the mufti of Jerusalem (and his ties to syria) not exactly a supporter of democracy......the Palestinians didnt have a chance....it was to be either syria or israel

[ProgressiveMuslim]

279. history, culture and tradition haven't kept them from developin a democracy:

Israel and the US have prevented them from implementing one though.

[kayecy]

280. What can possibly be immoral about choosing the form of government you wish to live under?

......i doubt anyone would claim the Palestinians would have developed a democracy with their self determination, even if the syrians didnt invade

Anyone???........Rather a strong statement isn’t it?........I think you will find many people would say your claim was nonsense.

......so the moral question is:.....is self determination moral when its a dictatorship vs living as a minority within a democracy?

I believe that self-determination is an absolute right of all peoples......However, when it is pursued at the expense of the right of self-determination of another people, it is immoral.

I would not be prepared to live under a Likud government or a Hamas government but I respect the right of the residents of Israel and Gaza to chose their own form of government.......Anyone using their right to self-determination to chose a dictator must be mad, but not immoral....What can possibly be immoral about choosing the form of government you wish to live under?

......for the individual Palestinian where would life be better? and consequently more moral

Since when has morality had anything to do with a better life?

......I realize the need to claim it was only individual arabs that were rioting, so as to avoid the moral dilemma of their violent response to the immigration...but do you really expect any one who know some history of the arab communities and dynamics to really believe that?

I am always open to persuasion.........What makes you believe that the individual Arabs who were rioting in 1920 were organised.......Have you any names of organisations?......leaders?......reports?.......My beliefs are based on facts and universal justice..... What are yours based on?

[pelsar]

281. the Palestinian "democracy"

the creation of a democracy takes first and foremost a democratic movement to sell the idea and get the people educated and involved...i do not know of any such movement within the arab population of the Palestenian area...you have claimed that many would disagree with me.....names? more to the point, which arab leader was proposing democracy?

anyone using their right to self-determination to chose a dictator must be mad, but not immoral

Dictators for one are not "chosen" they grab power, either by circumventing the process (hitler) or doing it outright (stalin, mao, khomeni etc)....since they do not represent the people, do not allow for civil rights, freedom of speech, they cannot possibly represent the will of the people and their self determination (without freedom of speech, freedom to protest there is no way one can know what the people want)..... they are by definition immoral.

that remains the real option the arab Palestinians had, which would have been to the detriment of the indigenous jewish and druze populations-who would not have self determination.
___

and the riots?...Riots in multiple cities on the same day, either there were lots of criminal elements, which as individuals did not represent the arab voice who just happen to riot on the same day????

The Palestinian Post of that period shows a different picture:

The Falastin in addition to a photograph of the departed leader reprinted a number of pictures taken during the Jaffa riots in which the late President of the Arab Executive had been involved and also of the demonstration in Jerusalem which he headed.....

Palestinian Post March 28, 1934
http://jic.tau.ac.il/Default/Skins/PalestineP/Client.asp?Skin=PalestineP&GZ=T&AppName=2 (do a search for: Falastin and riot)

so we can dispense with the nonsense the arab riots in different cities on the very same day was the result of mere individuals and just coincidence?

(i believe this is an example of one of the facts you base your opinion on....)


_________
btw i do like this sentence My beliefs are based ...... and universal justice. Out of curiosity, since some cultures believe in honor killings, FGM, tossing virgins into volcanos....does your "universal justice" support those cultural traits or are your "universal traits" actually western values?... i think iran, saudi arabia, the taliban might disagree with you.....(are you saying their cultures have a justice system that is not "universal in character?....i'm assuming that hanging homosexuals, stoning women for adultery, gender apartheid isnt one of your "universal traits)

[kayecy]

282. You may think the 1920 riots were organized but the evidence shows otherwise

.........you have claimed that many would disagree with me.....names?

I was merely pointing out that your use of “I doubt anyone would claim...” was pure hyperbole.....”Progressive Muslim” immediately jumped in to prove my point.

.........Dictators for one are not "chosen" they grab power, either by circumventing the process (hitler)

“Not chosen”?....Hitler became a dictator, mainly by the democratic process... Goering announced before the 1932 elections that they “...could be the last in Germany for a very long time”..... In 1933 the Reichstag voted 441 to 84 to give Hitler the power to suspend the German constitution.

.........so we can dispense with the nonsense the arab riots in different cities on the very same day was the result of mere individuals and just coincidence?

Nonsense???.....Let us look at the evidence:
1. The Palin Report into the 1920 riots stated:
“ That the Zionist Commission and the official Zionists by their impatience, indiscretion and attempts to force the hands of the Administration, are largely responsible for the present crisis.”

2. The Haycroft report into the 1921 riots stated:
“There was "no evidence worth considering" that the Jaffa riots were planned; "had that been the case, we hesitate to conjecture what the consequences would have been".

3. The Mandatory Report to the League of Nations,1934, stated:
“Musa Kazem Pasha ..... He earned the esteem of all sections of the population by his personal integrity and disinterestedness.”

4. In 1934, the Palestine Post reported that:
“The Falastin (newspaper) in addition to a photograph of the departed leader reprinted a number of pictures taken during the Jaffa riots in which the late President of the Arab Executive had been involved and also of the demonstration in Jerusalem which he headed.....”


You may think the 1920 Arab riots were organized, but a fair reading of the above, admittedly incomplete, evidence would indicate otherwise.....I see nothing that implies any Palestinian organization planned to murder Jews.... There is plenty of evidence that the far-better organized Zionists planned to disenfranchise a whole people....That decision by the Zionists eventually lead to the present conflict in which thousands have died.



_______________________________________________________
I do love your little side-questions!

.............does your "universal justice" support those cultural traits or are your "universal traits" actually western values?... i think iran, saudi arabia, the taliban might disagree with you.....(are you saying their cultures have a justice system that is not "universal in character?

Universal Justice has nothing to do with cultural traits per se....Some cultural practices are clearly unfair and morally wrong, particularly those concerning women....Such practices should be condemned by everyone....Yes, you are correct in thinking that many of the laws in the Saudi Arabian, Iranian and Taliban justice systems are unfair, immoral and non-universal.....Saudi Arabia et al would probably disagree.

Now, having explored what my beliefs are based on, can you tell us what your beliefs based on?......Do you have a moral code or simply a nationalist/cultural creed?
.

[pelsar]

283. a side point....

Some cultural practices are clearly unfair and morally wrong

really?...then why do the those in iran, saudi arabia believe that YOU are wrong?....perhaps they have the real code to your "universal justice' and it is you that have cultural practices that are clearly unfair and morally wrong.

what makes your culture so superior to that of irans or the taliban?

[pelsar]

284. a good comparison is the 1920 riots vs intifada I

reading through the Palestinian post one finds tons of articles, editorials how the arabs must stop the jews, mini riots and killings of jews based on "rumors" of arabs being killed etc. No there was not a 'central command" throughout this period, what there was the incitement of the arab population against the jews by the arab leadership.

as far as the riots go?..compare intifada 1...a real grass roots uprising, starting in gaza city and quickly spreading ....it spread. it didnt happen in 5 different cities all at the sametime...whats even funnier is the defining the participants as "individual criminal elements" when the local leadership was involved. Face it, those "individuals" the thousands of arabs were not "criminal elements" but just regular residents who were incited, by the many articles, editorials, speeches by the local leadership. There reaction/opinion etc was clear by the many violent actions by the arab residents throughout the period and it involved thousands of them, not a few "individual criminal elements"...really that is such a ridiculous description (by the way...how many is a "few", perhaps thats the problem, 10? 100? 10,000?)

[kayecy]

285. You have not yet shown that the Palestinians as a people did anything immoral

No there was not a 'central command" throughout this period, what there was the incitement of the arab population against the jews by the arab leadership.

Thank you for acknowledging that there was no central command.....Is it surprising that there should have been random incitement against a flood of alien immigrants?.......In the last decade or so there has been incitement against immigrants in Britain, France and many other countries.

......many violent actions by the arab residents throughout the period and it involved thousands of them, not a few "individual criminal elements"...really that is such a ridiculous description (by the way...how many is a "few", perhaps thats the problem, 10? 100? 10,000?)

How many Jews were murdered?........You tell me......Let’s assume it was a few hundred that were murdered in criminal actions which should have resulted in prosecutions....You have not yet shown that the Palestinians, as a people, did anything immoral in spite of them being aware they were being disenfranchised by the mass immigration....Even the 1920 riots were reported as being largely the responsibility of the Zionist Commission.


_____________________________
Your little side interrogation:

...then why do the those in iran, saudi arabia believe that YOU are wrong?....perhaps they have the real code to your "universal justice' and it is you that have cultural practices that are clearly unfair and morally wrong.

Do I have to spell it out?......If a Taliban law says a woman committing adultery is to be stoned to death but a man committing adultery is only fined.....How can that possibly be Universal Justice?...... The Taliban makes no claim that their laws are equal or fair, merely that they conform to Sharia law.....Sikhs, Buddhists, Hindus and even communists claim their ideology is based on Universal Justice........What point are you trying to make?

Now, are you ready to explain your own moral code or is this a one-way interrogation?
.

[pelsar]

286. back to universal justice...

the taliban believe that their justice is not just universal, fair but given by god which is the ultimate in justice..far beyond your "man defined universal justice. What you find perhaps to be "not fair"..they will very clearly explain how fair it is (ask a religious muslim). You ask how can that be universal justice (what they believe)?..it is to them. What i dont understand is why you think your version is better?...the point is your values are western democratic oriented....and you obviously look down upon those who have a different set of justice values, since they dont conform to your "universal justice."

my values? western oriented civil rights takes precedent over everything and that includes self determination as well as cultures that dont agree to western civil rights. Dictatorships by their very definition are illegal and have no right to exist. I believe in liberalism, not progressive. I believe one has to take responsibility for ones actions, regardless of your situation. I also believe that there is no such thing as "universal justice" since values will differ amongst different cultures and their views of "justice" will conflict. I am "ethno centric liberal" i believe that the western version of democracy and civil rights and justice is a far superior system to all others.

_________________
the short of the conflict was that the jews who had few options brought with them civil rights and democracy....the Palestinians, whether the new immigrants or older ones, left to produce a govt would have developed a dictatorship that would have negated the civil rights of most. Given that there was not a democratic movement amongst the arabs, none would have been produced.

___

if the riots were only by a few criminals....what signs were there the the Palestinians didnt want the jews immigrating? (i always assumed the riots were significant "sign"). I dont recall reading about peaceful demonstrations, that involved the people. So how do you know?

[kayecy]

287. What does it matter what the Taliban believe when they treat women as they do?

....the taliban believe that their justice is not just universal, fair but given by god which is the ultimate in justice..far beyond your

For goodness sake Pelsar, what does it matter what the Taliban believe when they treat women as they do.....Universal means treating everyone the same, man or woman, white or black, Moslem or Jew.

and you obviously look down upon those who have a different set of justice values, since they dont conform to your "universal justice."

As I said before, not just ‘my’ Universal Justice, but also that of Sikhs, Buddhists, Hindus, and even communists.....What is so ‘Western’ about them?



Now we come to the interesting bit of what your values are....

my values? western oriented civil rights takes precedent over everything and that includes self determination

Except, it seems, when it comes to Zionist self-determination.....I seem to remember you saying that Zionist self-determination was more important than living as a minority in the USA in spite of the USA's commitment to western oriented civil rights values.....Can you explain how you reconcile that aspect of your values?

I believe in liberalism, not progressive.

Can I ask what you mean by ‘not progressive’?.....I am familiar with its use to describe Teddy Roosevelt’s administration but I presume you are using it to mean something different.

....I also believe that there is no such thing as "universal justice" since values will differ amongst different cultures and their views of "justice" will conflict

So you don’t believe in fairness for all?....You don’t believe that men and women should be treated equally?....You don’t believe that Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews should expect fairness and equal treatment from the Government of Israel?

I am "ethno centric liberal"

Ethnocentric (...an adjective meaning based on the belief that one’s own ethnic group is superior.).....Now where have I come across such beliefs before?....If anyone accused me of being an ethnocentric liberal, I would be insulted.
.

[pelsar]

288. some definitions.....

my ethnocentrisim is western liberalism...that is my overriding culture (actually its a poor use of the word ethnocentrism-sorry)

i believe civil rights takes precedent over all types of nationalism, be it religious, ethnic etc. The Zionists of the 1800 and 1900s and even the 2000s have every right to believe that their civil rights were/are to be violated simply because they are jews. In fact you keep skipping over the fact that the zionists were more than 100% right in their view, that their future in europe was not going to be good, and there were violations of jewish civil rights in the US as official policy in many places...i.e. more of the same.

for many of the jews of europe it was simply a matter of life or death: zionism or death....6 million attested to this fact..and nobody was going to take them in...not even the US pre 1923 (6 million!!). Zionism would have fallen flat if there was no gross continuous violation of the jews civil rights throughout history, hence the need for zionism arose. If the zionists produced a dictatorship...that would have than, in my eyes, disqualified zionism as a legit movement. They didnt, they developed a democracy, a country that included the locals of different faiths, hence the legitimacy of the movement. (and the probability of saving the world from yet another dictatorship)

back to your "universal justice". Universal equality I agree with. Justice is a subjective word. The difference is huge. One mans justice is another mans murder (honor killings). Universal equality means everyone is equal, everyone lives under the same set of laws.

(i think you've confused the two)

[kayecy]

289. Some definitions, but where did you get them from?

...Justice is a subjective word. The difference is huge. One mans justice is another mans murder (honor killings).

What idiosyncratic definitions you do have!...’justice’ is NOT a subjective word, and has nothing to do with honor killing:
On-line Websters Dictionary:
“ the quality of being just, impartial, or fair”
Oxford English Dictionary:
“Conformity to moral right or to reason. truth, or fact”

Except possibly for a Taliban or Islamist dictionary, can you show me where I can find a definition of ‘justice’ that could possibly be so subjective as to include honor killings?

‘Universal Justice’ is quite clearly the act of applying the same justice to all. eg, one could consider that sentencing men and women to be stoned to death, for adultery, complies with ‘Universal Justice’ (no matter that this is barbaric custom), since both men and women are sentenced by the same courts for breaking the same law and suffer the same punishment for the same crime.....

Amongst western democracies, only Israel blatantly ignores the concept of ‘Universal Justice’....It applies Military Law and uses Military courts to sentence West Bank Palestinian residents but not Jewish settlers.....Israel doesn’t even practice the “Universal Equality” or the “civil-rights” that you claim is such an important part of your values.


It is not I who am confused, it is you that lacks rigor in your values:

1. You claim to be a believer in “Universal Equality”, to believe that everyone should be subject to the same laws but then betray this exalted ideal by claiming that Zionist immigration was legal because it was allowed by the temporary colonial law of the British.

2. You claim Zionists developed a democracy but neglect to mention that they were very careful not to develop their democracy until they had engineered an ethnic majority for themselves

3. You believe ‘civil-rights’ takes precedent over all forms of nationalism, which sounds very high-minded until one realizes that what you really mean is that ‘civil-rights’ takes precedence over ‘political-rights’.....Do you think that voters in most democracies would agree with you?....Political-rights are a sine quibus non condition for democracy - even for Zionists.
.
.

[pelsar]

290. you answered your own question....

Except possibly for a Taliban or Islamist dictionary, can you show me where I can find a definition of ‘justice’ that could possibly be so subjective as to include honor killings?

hence your "universal justice"...isnt so universal is it? (and how many muslims are there?.....are you so easily going to discount them and say "they dont count"?)

___

amongst western democracies, only Israel blatantly ignores the concept of ‘Universal Justice’
....just israel?....do i really have to list the unjust laws in the US, in theory and in practice?

minor detail:
.It applies Military Law and uses Military courts to sentence West Bank Palestinian residents but not Jewish settlers.
....Palestenians arent citizens of israel....i believe that is the standard used in the whole entire world, that only citizens of a country get the full extent of the law.

You claim Zionists developed a democracy but neglect to mention that they were very careful not to develop their democracy until they had engineered an ethnic majority for themselves
...otherwise there would have been a dictatorship with the jews being in the minority and quite probably slaughter by those "individual criminal elements"....

guilty as charged:
you believe ‘civil-rights’ takes precedent over all forms of nationalism, which sounds very high-minded until one realizes that what you really mean is that ‘civil-rights’ takes precedence over ‘political-rights’.

because your "political rights" is nothing more than nationalism dressed up as tribalism or some other form....i.e. the majority tribe gets to make the dictatorship. I believe civil rights takes precedent over tribalism, nationalism, "political right to make a dictatorship based on a select gene pool.

[kayecy]

291. OK, I give up...You seem to be determined to prove something, but I’m damned if I know what it is...

....hence your "universal justice"...isnt so universal is it? (and how many muslims are there?.....are you so easily going to discount them and say "they dont count"?)

OK, I give up...you seem to be determined to prove something, but I’m damned if I know what it is......OK, most peoples in the world try to follow the principle of ‘Universal Justice’ but not the Taliban or Islamists....So?...Does that make ‘Universal Justice’ invalid or a western-only concept?

....It applies Military Law and uses Military courts to sentence West Bank Palestinian residents but not Jewish settlers.
....Palestenians arent citizens of israel....i believe that is the standard used in the whole entire world, that only citizens of a country get the full extent of the law.

“..only citizens of a country”...True, but you may think the West Bank is part of the country of Israel, most states do not agree, even Israel, I believe doesn’t claim the West Bank to be part of the country of Israel....Anyway, call it occupied, disputed or what you like, it is not Israel....So what right have the Israeli occupation forces to treat Arab residents any differently from Jewish residents in this occupied/disputed territory?.....Even occupation forces are supposed to obey international law you know!

...otherwise there would have been a dictatorship with the jews being in the minority and quite probably slaughter by those "individual criminal elements"....

So at least you don't claim that Zionists developed a democracy as soon as possible.

...guilty as charged:
you believe ‘civil-rights’ takes precedent over all forms of nationalism, which sounds very high-minded until one realizes that what you really mean is that ‘civil-rights’ takes precedence over ‘political-rights’.

Well thank goodness for that admission.....

[pelsar]

292. your illusions.....

, most peoples in the world try to follow the principle of ‘Universal Justice’ but not the Taliban or Islamists....So?...Does that make ‘Universal Justice’ invalid or a western-only concept?

reallly?..who are "most people".. You've admitted that it doesnt include the "islamists"..well thats about 2 billion out of 6.6 billion...so at least a third dont agree with you and i have no idea what the people of africa think...you know those who practice FGM...they probably dont agree with you either....how about those in india who believe in the caste system....probably a billion or so there as well that dont agree with your "universal justice.".....in fact perhaps find a non western country that believes in it...that should prove interesting.


so whats a "political right?"...does that supersede civil rights? and how is it different from nationalism, tribalism?

you've confused citizenship with occupation:
Anyway, call it occupied, disputed or what you like, it is not Israel....So what right have the Israeli occupation forces to treat Arab residents any differently from Jewish residents in this occupied/disputed territory?.....Even occupation forces are supposed to obey international law you know!

the westbank is not part of israel, the Palestinians are not citizens of israel and hence do not live under the same laws as israelis.....a standard of the world.

[Shaktimaan]

261. I am enjoying this discussion very much.

And I don't wish to disrupt it by interjecting, but I would like to make a single point. You asked earlier how the Jews who chose America "got it wrong." I think you're missing the essence of what Zionism is about. You seem to believe that it is basically born of a romantic idealism as opposed to pragmatic realism. This really just isn't the case. At it's heart Zionism relies on the same basic principle that drives any kind of nationalism, or to be more brutally honest, tribalism, which is that you can only really rely on your own people to give a shit about whether you live or die. For the Jews, this principle has been proven over and over again.

The issue is not whether the Jews who chose America got it wrong, (as opposed to the Zionists), because we are not merely discussing the interests of the Jews who immigrated, but that of ALL Jews as a whole. In that sense the Zionists did not necessarily choose Israel because they thought it would be the best choice for themselves but because it was needed to guarantee the rights and safety of Jews everywhere. While America never engaged in the kind of anti-semitism as Europe did they also had no reason to consider the problems that Jews who were not their citizens faced. So when European Jews were desperately seeking refuge from the Nazis, America closed its doors, as it has done and still does to many refugees seeking entry. Since then almost no one but Israel has concerned themselves with the plight of Jews facing anti-semitism the world over; for many refugees Israel was the only available option when they were forcibly expelled from their native lands.

THAT is the main reason for Zionism's creation. For the Jews who came to America, (who COULD come to America), it has worked out well, it was not a mistake. Sure, the idea of living somewhere that didn't impose quotas on how many Jews could go to a university or work in certain industries sounds great. The idea that someplace exists where discrimination against Jews doesn't happen is awesome, but it wasn't the impetus behind Zionism. Evidence that Zionism's greatest concern is to act as a foil for anti-semitism, more than self-determination for Jews, can be seen in Israel's Law of Return. If Zionism was just a fulfillment of some nationalist fantasy then they probably would have restricted automatic citizenship to Jews alone. But Right of Return is based on anti-semitism, not whether the person in question is actually Jewish. Just as the Nazis rounded up practicing Christians for having a single Jewish grandparent, Israel extends ROR to those who meet a much looser standard than that which defines who is actually Jewish.

Self-determination was a means to an end, not the end in itself. I think it's really crucial to understand the driving philosophy behind Zionism if you want to discuss the ethics of it. If Zionism truly was the nationalist pipe-dream-made-reality that you seem to think it was then your arguments about its lack of morality would be accurate. But if not then it makes your point far more circumspect, people have a right to ensure their own survival, a basic right, sometimes even when it comes at the cost of another people's non-basic rights.

[kayecy]

263. Well, thank you for the compliment Shaktimaan....

Thank you for the compliment Shaktimaan....As I hope you have gathered, my objective in pursuing this debate is not merely to show that the pre-1923 Zionists were immoral, but to develop that to its logical conclusion...A freely-made apology by Israel for the disenfranchisement of the Palestinians....Such a Sadat-like gesture would cost nothing and could, just possibly, undo the Gordian Knot of the stalled peace-process....No doubt a grandiose objective, but one can only try!


Your comment raises many interesting points which I would be very happy to explore with you if you wish...However, I would like to be clear on some of your facts:

Evidence that Zionism's greatest concern is to act as a foil for anti-semitism, more than self-determination for Jews, can be seen in Israel's Law of Return....But Right of Return is based on anti-semitism, not whether the person in question is actually Jewish

Are you sure about this?...I can find no mention that the Right of Return is based on anti-semitism in either the 1950 document or in the 1970 Amendment No 2...The text refers to no one but “Jews” and their families.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/whojew1.html goes into some detail as to who is a Jew but again there is no mention of anti-semitism.

......people have a right to ensure their own survival, a basic right, sometimes even when it comes at the cost of another people's non-basic rights.

Whoooo...I can’t let this one go....Let’s follow your statement through and see the difficulties.....”At the cost of another (innocent) people’s non-basic rights” sounds fine except when the people concerned object....You might then have to use military force to get them to give up their ‘non-basic’ rights....Are you happy with that?

And what happens when the innocent party resists the use of force by the ‘survival’ party?.....You end up in a conflict where the ‘innocent’ party is subjected to an unprovoked attack in which the ‘survival’ party becomes the aggressor party......Are you happy with that?

Your statement seems to require a re-write of Article 51 of the UN Charter!

[Shaktimaan]

264. you're welcome.

Are you sure about this?

Yes, the idea is that if you were Jewish enough for the Nazis to persecute then you're Jewish enough to qualify for instant citizenship to Israel.

Originally, the Law of Return was restricted to Jews only. A 1970 amendment, however, stated that, "The rights of a Jew under this Law and the rights of an oleh under the Nationality Law...are also vested in a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew" (Law of Return).

The Nuremberg parallel

One explanation for this amendment is that the Law of Return attempts to provide sanctuary as a citizen in Israel to anyone who would be persecuted under the Nuremberg Laws. As the Nuremberg Laws did not use a halakhic definition in its definition of Who is a Jew, the Law of Return definition for citizenship eligibility is not halakhic, either. The Law of Return merely provides citizenship for anyone covered under the Nuremberg Laws, but does not necessarily denote Jewish status to those granted citizenship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return

Whoooo...I can’t let this one go....Let’s follow your statement through and see the difficulties.....”At the cost of another (innocent) people’s non-basic rights” sounds fine except when the people concerned object....You might then have to use military force to get them to give up their ‘non-basic’ rights....Are you happy with that?

You're right, my statement is problematic. I would answer that there are not any hard and fast rules; there rarely are in ethical paradoxes like these. All we can do is weigh the two sides in any given situation. My argument against Zionist immorality is based on us not examining the events within a vacuum but within the context of the time. For example, stealing is immoral. But is stealing food to avoid starving to death immoral? We weigh the right of the shop-owner to be paid for his goods versus the right of the thief to live and most agree that when stealing is the lesser evil between two stark choices it isn't immoral to do so. But what if the store owner resists and the thief must use force to steal the food? All I can say is that it significantly changes the terms of the comparison. For that reason I'd rather deal with the facts of Zionism's history and not extrapolate on how long its morality holds up once we start changing variables.

Your statement seems to require a re-write of Article 51 of the UN Charter!

No, because we aren't discussing an armed attack against a member of the UN. We are talking about a people immigrating to a stateless land with peaceful intentions, usually as refugees. If Palestine already existed as a state with a government and an army to repel the unwanted immigrants then it would have been an entirely different situation. If the Zionists would have had to invade a sovereign state to settle Palestine then it would have changed everything. Heck, if the Arabs had merely chosen to refrain from selling their land to the Jews then it would have changed everything. But we shouldn't waste our time discussing what might have happened if this or that was different.

One final argument I'd make is that it is unfair to compare the right of the Palestinians' versus the Jews' right to self determination as they are in different categories. The Palestinians are a part of larger Arab culture, and many Arab states were already in existence. But for the Jews we aren't discussing the right for just Persian Jews or even Sephardi to self determination. We are talking about the Jews as a whole. So the question becomes distorted as we are really comparing the right of the Jews to a single state versus the right for every Arab sub-sect to their own states. Basically, since the Arabs already had 20-something states, is it really fair to argue that the Arab right to (all of the land for) their 23rd state supercedes the right of the Jews to their first state? Especially if the Jews would be happy with only part of the land?

[kayecy]

267. Thank you for clearing that up...........

.....The Law of Return merely provides citizenship for anyone covered under the Nuremberg Laws,

Thank you for clearing that up... I read some reference to the Nuremberg Laws but I couldn't believe Israel would use something as emotive as those laws as a basis for its own!

For example, stealing is immoral. But is stealing food to avoid starving to death immoral?

No, stealing food in such circumstances is acceptable but it can only be considered moral if the thief, when he is in a position to do so, offers an apology and compensation to the shop-owner....Have the Zionists and/or Israel done that yet?

One final argument I'd make is that it is unfair to compare the right of the Palestinians' versus the Jews' right to self determination as they are in different categories.

They are indeed in different categories, the Palestinians were claiming no more than the Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis etc were claiming, ie a right to self determination in the land they were born....The Zionist were claiming a unique right to chose a land and then demographically engineer it to provide a Jewish majority.

That is a totally different category and totally immoral.
.
.

[kayecy]

228. I assume you have now retired from our little debate.....

I assume you have retired from our little debate...In view of the following comments you wrote in previous posts, don't you think it would have been courteous to at least say why you were giving up?

"why stop now......"

"this is the point when you find you have something urgent to do and never come back .."

"At least be honest if you don't want answer......."

"yes i would like to continue..."

[pelsar]

229. still here....

just a bit busy....

[Vegasaurus]

209. What makes you choose 100 years?

Would you state that immigrants need 100 years to state claim to their new homeland?

Most of us who are children of immigrants would find that statement very distasteful.

Most immigrant would like to feel welcome in their new home countries quite a bit sooner, especially since most immigrants have left situations in their former countries which were either dangerous, violent, financially difficult, or some combination of the above.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

196. Pelsar, you are wrong on this.

Palestine was ultimately selected out of several options because the religious Zionists (mostly Russian) would have split the movement had another location been selected.

Palestine was chosen as the locale of the Jewish homeland at the Basel conference in the early 1900s.

To suggest that as late as 1924 the location of the Jewish homeland was up for debate, or that US immigration policy played any role in the selection of Palestine, is beyond misleading.

[pelsar]

199. the location....

fit the various requirements: anti semitism took various forms throughout the ages attacking secular, religious, assimilated jews, hence the location for this jewish homeland had to fit all.....

the geographical areas of palestine fit: it had the historical roots, the religious roots and it was not yet defined as a state. (you misunderstood about the choosing of the place and the US immigration policy-that was just to show further proof of the instability of jewish assimilation in a "liberal country in the 1900s, and that the zionists were correct in that anti-Semitism was not going away..even in the more enlightened countries.
_____

just on the side...sometimes this argument reminds of me of a dozen sci fi movies...when the people in the spaceships are looking for their "home world"....(usually earth) after being away for a zillion years...of course they never actually get there and if they did, and it was inhabited by the "zygo people".....what then?

[Douglas Carpenter]

160. some opinion polls of Palestinian-Israelis:

76 percent described Zionism as racist -- interesting anaylsis of the confliction
"Among the Arab respondents, 76 percent described Zionism as racist.

But more than two thirds said they would be content to live in Israel as a Jewish state, if it existed alongside a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=839029

-----------

actually polls of Israeli-Arabs tend to show rather conflicting results.

"Only 3.4% of the 500 Arab citizens of Israel polled by phone felt that the Israeli government treats them as equal citizens. Some 49% said the government treats them as second-class citizens and 24% as hostile citizens who don't deserve equal rights."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395572629&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

"Two-thirds of Israeli Arabs were pleased with Hamas's win but even more believe the State of Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state, according to a survey presented at a conference Thursday about the trends of the Arab voters at the University of Haifa.

But despite their claims of support for a Jewish state, "What they don't agree to is a Zionist state, meaning a state which has the right to preserve its Jewish majority," Prof. Sammy Smooha, one of three sociologists who made the poll, told The Jerusalem Post. "They accept there is a Jewish majority but not that the state has a policy and law of return to preserve and increase the majority."

---------------------------------------------------------------
___

Polls of Israeli attitudes toward Palestinian citizens of Israel

"The poll showed that 75 percent of Jewish students believe that Arabs are uneducated people, are uncivilized and are unclean.
On the other hand 25 percent of the Arab youth believe that Jews are the uneducated ones, while 57 percent of the Arab's believe Jews are unclean."

This was poll was actually based on 1600 students at 22 high schools within Israel.

""The data was presented at a bi-lingual conference held in Haifa. The study, titled "Perception of 'the Other' among Jewish and Arab Youth in Israel" included 1,600 students studying in 22 high schools around the country.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3350467,00.html

-----

In another poll - Remembering both these polls refer to Palestinians who live inside Israel and hold Israeli citizenship -- people commonly refereed to as "Israeli-Arabs". A people who have certainly not been in a state of rebellion for most of the past 60 years:

"The poll presented Wednesday showed that 68 percent of respondents said they do not wish to live next to an Arab neighbor, compared with 26 percent who said they would agree.

Responding to a question about Arab friends, 46 percent said they would not be willing to have Arab friends who would visit them at their home.

Some 63 percent of the Jewish public sees Arab civilians as a security and demographic threat, and 34 percent of the Jewish public sees Arab culture as inferior compared to Israeli culture. Half of the population, according to the poll, is anxious and uncomfortable when hearing Arabic on the street.

link: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3231048,00.html

.

[Shaktimaan]

162. Excuse me for jumping in but I had some comments.

I repeat my question, if the Brits had insisted on universal suffrage any time before the Peel Commission partition proposal (1937), would the Zionists have agreed to it? The answer is no, no, never....The Zionist were not fools, they wanted a Jewish majority area, as large as possible and cared not a fig what happened to the local residents.

Well, that's not really true. The Peel Proposal was an attempt at solving an existing problem, violence between the two groups. (Initiated and primarily, at this point, perpetrated by Arabs onto Jews.) It wasn't the cause of the conflict as much as an attempt at an equitable solution. The Balfour Declaration itself said, "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country". So the Zionists agreed to more than mere suffrage, they agreed to universal rights. There was no action taken to disenfranchise any of the Arab population until the large scale uprising of 1936 made defensive and reprisal attacks a matter of course. As far as large scale expulsion, the Zionists did not undertake anything of the sort until well into the war of independence, when Jerusalem was under siege and it became necessary for military, and then later, logistical reasons.

The responsibility of the Zionist organizations which planned the break-up of Palestine, is a totally different matter.

What plan to break up Palestine existed? Palestine itself was at that point, and arbitrarily defined piece of land. There was no such thing as a unified nationality attached to the people living there. At this point in time the grand plan in the Arab world was pan-Arabism and unification into a single state. So rather than looking at this from a 21st century perspective where Zionists pushed Palestinians off of their only homeland, try seeing it as it was viewed at the time.

It seems that one of your biggest issues with Israel's creation has to do with Jewish immigration happening without the approval of the existing residents. Once they were there, they surely had a right to stay... your problem is with the very fact that they went there to begin with, as this act alone demographically disenfranchised the existing Arab population. Is this correct?

I would argue that morality is not absolute, it is a series of compromises. In the case of the zionists, they were people who were for the most part fleeing persecution, war, death, or they were forcibly expelled and had no choice but to go somewhere. As most other avenues were closed to them, Palestine was, for many, the only viable possibility. (My girlfriend's grandfather captained a ship that ferried refugees from Europe to Palestine during WWII.) In these cases, their right to live outweighed any collective issues that local Arabs may have had, especially since the founders made every effort to establish their national home by way of negotiations and treaties. This was also during a time of incredible flux in geopolitics and demographics, the entire middle east was established with similar treaties and agreements brokered with the global powers at the time. Blaming immigrants for the subsequent Arab violence aimed at cleansing the area of Jews would be saying that Palestinian refugees in Lebanon deserve the pogroms and wretched treatment they experience.

The Palestinians did not become disenfranchised or expelled because the Jews arrived. Their violence towards these immigrants, and the existing Jewish population caused it. Bear in mind the limited options of the Jews at this time as well as the fact that they sought to found a national home as legitimately as possible. Morality is relative to the options available to us. Zionism can only be immoral if there existed other, fairer alternatives. In the end, there are now 22 Jew-free Arab states and only one Jewish one, which has a large minority of Arab citizens. (Though many places, like Iraq, were inhabited by Jews before the Arabs.) How is it that Israel is singled out as being unethically created?

[kayecy]

165. Well, it depends whether you think massive immigration (300,000) by 1938, is "no action"

There was no action taken to disenfranchise any of the Arab population until the large scale uprising of 1936 made defensive and reprisal attacks a matter of course

Well it depends whether you think massive immigration (300,000 by 1936) constitutes "no action"!

What plan to break up Palestine existed? Palestine itself was at that point, and arbitrarily defined piece of land

Are you claiming that planning to carve out a state was not planning the break up of Palestine? (whatever its borders were.)




Got to dash. I will respond to your other points in a few hours.

[kayecy]

166. To continue from my last post........

Shaktimaan, to continue from my last post:

... your problem is with the very fact that they went there to begin with, as this act alone demographically disenfranchised the existing Arab population. Is this correct?

You are correct.

Bear in mind the limited options of the Jews at this time as well as the fact that they sought to found a national home as legitimately as possible. Morality is relative to the options available to us. Zionism can only be immoral if there existed other, fairer alternatives.....

This statement raises two issues:
1 What alternatives to Palestine/Uganda did the Zionists consider? Did they, for instance, approach the USA? If so, what was the result?

2. If all possible alternatives had been explored without success, then we have to consider whether the Zionist need for a homeland justified the demographic engineering of an occupied people.


PS: Can we stay on this sub-thread if you want to pursue the matter further? I answered your Post163 assuming it was made by Pelsar. This board can be very confusing when two people are discussing the same subject!

[Shaktimaan]

175. response

Are you claiming that planning to carve out a state was not planning the break up of Palestine? (whatever its borders were.)

The break up of Palestine? I don't understand, Palestine only existed as a bureaucratic entity at that point, basically invented by the British. The entire middle east was "broken up" into modern nation states, sectioning Palestine into two parts was no different than when Trans-Jordan was sectioned off earlier, or, even earlier... sectioning land off from Syria to create Palestine. Zionism actually pre-dates Palestine's existence as a distinct entity.

Which leads us to a question. You believe that the Zionists should have asked the local population before immigrating to Palestine. So then, who was that exactly? As no state existed, and it wasn't known if the Zionists would create their own state or if the Jewish homeland would be a part of something else, how would they determine who it would affect? Who should they have asked? When immigration began the entire area belonged to the Ottoman empire and Palestine was considered part of Syria. Arab nationalism took the form of an Arab unity philosophy, not dreams of separate nation-states based on local cultures.

1 What alternatives to Palestine/Uganda did the Zionists consider? Did they, for instance, approach the USA? If so, what was the result?

The USA? That makes no sense. The USA was already an established nation. What reason would they have for giving any of it away? The US was unwilling to even accept Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany during the war, (just like everyone else.) Besides, it is an absurd request. Palestine at that time was not a state nor was it aiming to be one; it was a sparsely populated backwater, undeveloped, without any natural resources. Zionism occurred during the time that the modern middle east was still undefined. Plus, it was where the Jews were from themselves. If they wanted a state for themselves in their homeland, this was an ideal time as it was actually possible.

Here's the thing. The Zionists did not see this as moving in to someone else's neighborhood. For them, it was going home. And there is a strong case to be made there. Judaism is as much a nationality as it is a religion. Why should they have to ask anyone's permission to return to their homeland? It would have been one thing if they took away people's land by force. But why should they need their neighbor's permission to buy land from the state and develop it? Why should the entire region be considered "Arab-land" by right? Jews live there too, would Arab immigrants have had to ask their community's permission before moving in?

we have to consider whether the Zionist need for a homeland justified the demographic engineering of an occupied people.

Demographic engineering of an occupied people? Maybe it would help if you thought about this in terms of Zionism's beginning, when the Ottomans were in control. The Arabs had plenty of land. The Jews were merely moving back to their ancient homeland, not taking over another people's country. It only looks nefarious if you think it relative to the Palestinian people. But there was no such thing as a Palestinian identity then, there were merely Arabs.

Anyway, I think that history speaks for itself in this department. Firstly though, Jewish immigration to Palestine was nothing but good for the region and its inhabitants. The problem was not that Zionism hurt Palestinians so much as that it changed their environment. Xenophobia played a large role, the violence wasn't a reaction to oppression but to fear. And it wasn't against the Zionists but the native Jewish population. So when you ask whether it was worth the cost to Palestinians, I would ask you what that cost would have been assumed to be. Had there been no violence, the Palestinians would have greatly benefited from Zionism.

Next, if you look at a map of Jewish population density worldwide 100 years ago vs. today, I think the case for Israel's necessity for Jewish refugees becomes clear. If the choice was between ensuring an Arab majority in Palestine and the lives of hundreds of thousands of Jewish people from all over the world, I side with Zionism.

[kayecy]

183. What a lot of questions you have posed. Let me try to explain:

What a lot of question you have posed. Let me try to explain:

1. The break up of Palestine? I don't understand, Palestine only existed as a bureaucratic entity at that point, basically invented by the British. The entire middle east was "broken up" into modern nation states, sectioning Palestine into two parts was no different than when Trans-Jordan was sectioned off earlier, or, even earlier... sectioning land off from Syria to create Palestine

Very true, and if the 1917 Jewish Palestinian inhabitants (approx 15,000) wanted to claim self-determination for their small area of Palestine, then I believe that was their right. The Zionists decided to demographically change Palestine in order to claim a much larger proportion. That was immoral.

Which leads us to a question. You believe that the Zionists should have asked the local population before immigrating to Palestine. So then, who was that exactly? As no state existed, and it wasn't known if the Zionists would create their own state or if the Jewish homeland would be a part of something else, how would they determine who it would affect? Who should they have asked?

The Zionists knew full well what the answer would be but they didn’t want to know. The 1919 US King-Crane commission made it clear what the Palestinians did not want. They did not want more Zionist immigration!

2. The USA? That makes no sense. The USA was already an established nation. What reason would they have for giving any of it away? The US was unwilling to even accept Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany during the war, (just like everyone else.)

You are confusing historical dates... The Zionist decision to demographically change Palestine took place in the period 1900 to 1917... Why at that time did emigrating to the USA make no sense?...Two million Jews chose to immigrate to the US between 1900 and 1924... A few thousand chose to go to Palestine...I would have thought that choosing the US was a far more sensible bet, irrespective of the morality of the decision.

3. Here's the thing. The Zionists did not see this as moving in to someone else's neighborhood. For them, it was going home

Going home eh? Certainly if they had ancestors which they could identify as having lived in Palestine, I will agree with you...However, you and I know that most Jews, like the rest of us have no idea where their ancestors lived 2,000 years ago...The Zionist may have seen it as ‘going home’, but there was already another people in residence who, in many, cases could prove they had lived there for generations.

4. we have to consider whether the Zionist need for a homeland justified the demographic engineering of an occupied people.

Can we leave this one please until we have explored (1) (2) & (3)?

[kayecy]

184. Reply to your post 181........

Shaktimaan - give me a break!...Stay on this sub-thread, its awfully confusing...Herewith my answers to your Post 181: (I've already replied to your Post 175)

If you believe that then you truly know nothing of the Zionist movement.

A trite statement...Zionism may have had many worthy intentions but when it comes to promoting massive immigration into Palestine against the wishes of the locals, it was immoral...Lots of religious/cultural/national movements have an immoral element, but in this case, the Zionist insistence on taking over Palestine started a 90 year conflict.

Your argument is that because the US was amenable to Jewish immigration in 1917 the Zionists could have just accepted America as their foil for anti-semitism. What the Zionists understood though was that viewpoints, politics and laws can change on a dime. ......... Not only that, but they were RIGHT!

They were RIGHT???....Well one thing is clear, the two million plus immigrant Jews who chose to go to the US pre-1924 seem to have chosen wisely....There is no comparison between their experiences in the US and those Jews who chose Palestine...Half a dozen wars and an unending conflict with the locals is your idea of RIGHT?

The only sure solution to the problem of persecution is self-determination.

But that is exactly my point...The Palestinians felt that way too but the Zionist leaders were not Honorable enough acknowledge it...The Zionists had an alternative (apparently two million preferred it) but they didn’t care what happened to the Palestinians so long as they achieved self-determination.


I have shown you why Zionism was immoral and why I believe they started this conflict...If you believe the Palestinians started the conflict in 1917, give me your reasons.

[Dick Dastardly]

145. Many false premises

All such matters should sensibly be discussed between the parties concerned, when, and only when the group demands immediate self-determination.....Whatever the economic viability or potential political problems are they can never negate the basic right to self-determination at some time in the future. The Zionists did destroy that right, that is why their action was immoral.


The 1948 Jewish residents of Palestine demanded to be allowed the right to self- determination and were given it... The Zionists did not allow the 1920s Palestinians the same right... What is your moral justification for them not doing so?


Not true, the Zionists had a choice. They could accept that Palestinians residents should determine their own future or they could connive with the occupation authorities to change the demographic balance of the land.....Turkey did the same in 1939 when it invaded the Syrian province of Iskenderun (Alexandretta)........ At least the Turks didn't claim their action was moral.


I am sure you know, but for the record here is my understanding:....The Zionists changed the demographic balance of Palestine by flooding the land with immigrants until there were enough Jews to demand self-determinaton.... In fact, even with massive immigration, the Zionists still did not have a majority by 1948. Had they demanded self-determination for the whole of Palestine it would have resulted in an Arab majority government.....The Zionists overcame this problem by agreeing to partition (Israel)and then immediately passing the Law of Return to ensure there would never be anything other than a Jewish majority government in Israel.

You continually talk about the native population. Jews were also part of it. The Arabs also moved immigrated in far greater numbers than Jews. The Zionists stopped no ones self dertermination. Many Arabs welcomed Jewish immigration as shown on post 118 and 124

The Jews did not connive with the authorities. Most of Palestine was split off and eventually formed Jordan. No Jews were allowed to move there. The Authorities also limited Jewish immigration while allowing unlimited Arab immigration. Jews were eventually banned from coming there

See posts 118 and 124 also

MYTH

"The British allowed Jews to flood Palestine while Arab immigration was tightly controlled."

FACT
The British response to Jewish immigration set a precedent of appeasing the Arabs, which was followed for the duration of the Mandate. The British placed restrictions on Jewish immigration while allowing Arabs to enter the country freely. Apparently, London did not feel that a flood of Arab immigrants would affect the country's absorptive capacity.

During World War I, the Jewish population in Palestine declined because of the war, famine, disease and expulsion by the Turks. In 1915, approximately 83,000 Jews lived in Palestine among 590,000 Muslim and Christian Arabs. According to the 1922 census, the Jewish population was 84,000, while the Arabs numbered 643,000.4 Thus, the Arab population grew exponentially while that of the Jews stagnated.

In the mid-1920s, Jewish immigration to Palestine increased primarily because of anti-Jewish economic legislation in Poland and Washington’s imposition of restrictive quotas.5

The record number of immigrants in 1935 (see table) was a response to the growing persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany. The British administration considered this number too large, however, so the Jewish Agency was informed that less than one-third of the quota it asked for would be approved in 1936.6

The British gave in further to Arab demands by announcing in the 1939 White Paper that an independent Arab state would be created within 10 years, and that Jewish immigration was to be limited to 75,000 for the next five years, after which it was to cease altogether. It also forbade land sales to Jews in 95 percent of the territory of Palestine. The Arabs, nevertheless, rejected the proposal.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf2.html#a

[Douglas Carpenter]

157. not quite

First of all Transjordan was formed in 1922..under Emir Abdullah and had been only nominally under the British Mandate of Palestine for less than two years from 1920 when the Mandate was established by the League of Nations until 1922 when Tranjordan was established.

Only the area immediately around the East Bank of the Jordan river would have ever been considered by historians as part of ancient or biblical Palestine; certainly not the vast dessert region than makes up the vast majority of what become Transjordan and later Jordan. Although the majority of Jordanian citizens of today came from or descended from those who came since 1948 from what now comprises Israel, and the Occupied Palestinian Territories of the West Bank ...within Jordan - Jordanians and Palestinians consider themselves and have for always considered themselves a different people with pronounced differences in culture, identity and political perspective. There is certainly no doubt among anyone familiar with Jordanian society that the indiginous Jordanian people and the Palestinians who now reside there are a different people and very strongly consider themselves so.



Even the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement had Jordan/Transjordan totally separate from what not comprises Israel and the West Bank:



link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/html/british_control.stm

----------

Regarding the notion put forward by some in the far right of the Israeli settler movement that the British Mandate had already been partitioned in 1922...allow me to quote Professor Bernard Wasserstein, University of Chicago Professor of History specializing in Israeli history:

"Palestine, therefore, was not partitioned in 1921-2. Transjordan was not excised but, on the contrary added to the mandatory area. Zionism was barred from seeking to expand there -- but the Balfour Declaration had never previously applied to the area east of the Jordan. Why is this important? Because the myth of Palestine's "first partition" has become part of the concept of "Greater Israel" and the ideology of Jabotinsky's Revisionist Zionist movement. Long after the establishment of Israel, the Revisionists' political heirs, the Herut Party (core elements in what became Likud) led by Manahem Begin, still dreamed of a Jewish state the would include Transjordan. Their catch-phrase was "The Jordan has two banks: one is ours and the other too. Most Revisionist conveniently forgot that their ideological hero, Jabotinsky, had, as a member of the Zionist Executive, endorsed the arrangements in 1922 that explicitly prohibited settlement in Transjordan. More recently, advocates of Israeli annexation of the West Bank have asserted the proper home of Palestinian Arabs is in Transjordan: hence the slogan "Jordan is Palestine".

The creation of Transjordan, then has nothing to do with the partition, properly understood, save for the purposes of some propagandist."

from page 105 (bottom) to page 106 of "Israelis and Palestinians: Why Do They Fight? Can They Stop?"

Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/Israelis-Palestinians-They-Fight-Second/dp/0300105975/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-8701952-4352901?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174895894&sr=1-1

------

The issues of demographics get a little more complicated - But here are some figures that are about as reliable as they can come from:

Fred M. Donner
Professor of Near Eastern History
The Oriental Institute
The University of Chicago
Chicago, Ill.

link:

http://www.princeton.edu/~paw/web_exclusives/more/more_letters/letters_doran.html

"The population of Palestine (west of the Jordan river) in 1880 was under 590,000, of whom 96 percent were Arabs (Muslim or Christian); roughly 4 percent of the population was Jewish.

By 1914, the population of Palestine was about 650,000. Of this, the Jewish population was about 80,000, or a little over 12 percent. Of the 88 percent remaining, 570,000 people, Israeli and non-Israeli scholars estimate that at least 550,000 were Palestinians (Christian or Muslim) who were descendants of families in Palestine already in the 1840s — or almost 85 percent of the total 1914 populaton of Palestine. The great majority of them, in other words, were not recent immigrants.

There was a lot of immigration to Palestine between 1880 and 1948, of course, but most of it was by European Jews, who came in several well-defined aliyot ("waves"), drawn to Palestine by the Zionist dream or fleeing economic hardship and persecution in Europe. The first aliya (up to 1903) brought 25,000 new Jewish immigrants, roughly doubling the Jewish population of Palestine.

The second aliya (1904-1913) brought another 35,000 Jews. The third aliya (1919-1939) saw the arrival of 350,664 Jewish immigrants, according to British Mandate statistics.

In 1945, the Jewish population of Palestine stood at about 554,000, or about 30.6 percent of the total population of Palestine at that time, which was 1.8 million. Mr. Schell is absolutely right: Some Jewish communities have existed in Palestine for hundreds of years. But, as the figures above make clear, most Jews in Israel today are, in relative terms, newcomers — descendants of people who arrived during the past three or four generations; to call them "colonists," as Professor Doran did, is not inappropriate.

On the other hand, Mr. Schell is absolutely wrong to hint that Palestinians are generally newcomers: As we see, most Palestinians of today can trace their ancestry to families who have been resident in Palestine for hundreds of years. The debate over immigration figures is, of course, merely part of the broader effort by Palestinians and Israelis to delegitimize each other by claiming the other side to be interlopers. Mr. Schell's evident desire to cast doubt on the historical roots of the Palestinians' claim to their land suggests that he has been taken in, like many other people, by such works as Joan Peters's tract "From Time Immemorial," which popularized for obvious political purposes the myth that many Palestinians were descendants of recent immigrants.Such a view is simply not supported by the evidence. "

http://www.princeton.edu/~paw/web_exclusives/more/more_letters/letters_doran.html

.

[kayecy]

167. I'm very impressed with your research Douglas!

I'm very impressed with your research Douglas!...History can be boring for most folk, but when you add it like this to expand a subject under discussion, it really is helpful....I've taken a copy for my 'reference' file!

[Vegasaurus]

112. Hate to interrupt

since you and Pelsar are having such a good dialogue, but it seems that you would agree that current populations of most modern countries are immoral, correct? Since there has been conquest and national movements across the globe since the beginning of modern history, I assume you don't single out Zionism as your only example of "immorality", correct?

[kayecy]

113. I will answer you question , but ......

Vegasaurus - As you have not responded to my questions in Post 76 and Post 98, I must be crazy to respond to you now. However, being the sort of guy I am, I will answer your question but I have a favor to ask:

I have twice responded to Pelsar thinking I was responding to you. This board is awfully confusing and it would help me if you could copy your message to a 'dummy' response to say Post 7 (at the bottom of the posts tree) I think this will then start a new clearly identifiable thread which we can use to argue on.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

130. There were other members of the Yishuv

such as Judah Magnes, and Ahad Ha-am,who identified themselves as cultural zionists, who were clear about the issues of morality related to political zionism.

This is to say that in pre '48 Israel, there was plenty of discussion about the morality of the political zionist enterprise.

Currently, there is a blogger who calls himself the Magnes Zionist, who is clear about the issues brought about by Israel's realization of political zionism.

http://themagneszionist.blogspot.com/

[kayecy]

133. Many thanks for the info.....

PM - Many thanks for the info. I have read something about cultural Zionism and Political Zionism but not a lot. I have come across Ahad Ha-am but Judah Magnes is new to me.

I've looked up http://themagneszionist.blogspot.com/ and I must spend some time there... Have you any other references? .. I'm no expert, but there seems to be little modern discussion of 1917 morality.

I appreciate that most Palestinians, even educated ones are primarily concerned with getting by day-to-day, but have you any idea how they view the subject?.. Is Balfour etc any more than a boring historical fact to most of them?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

137. Here's what I'd recommend: (Douglas C., please weigh in!)

I'd check out Bernard Avishai's The Tragedy of Zionism.

He recently started a blog. i think it's interesting to read a scholar's blog.

http://bernardavishai.blogspot.com/

From the Palestinian side, there has been so much written. When I was in a research mode, it was 20 years ago, so I'm less up to date on current stuff.

I'm just now beginning "The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian struggle for statehood" by Rashid Khalidi.

http://www.amazon.com/Iron-Cage-Palestinian-Struggle-Statehood/dp/0807003093/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203266698&sr=1-1

One of the best folks on this forum to recommend scholarly stuff is Douglas Carpenter. Hopefully he'll weigh in soon).

Are you asking about Palestinian-focused sites and/or blogs?

[kayecy]

139. Again manty thanks....

Again many thanks, I will check them out when pelsar gives me a moment to do some research!.....My main interest was accademic type discussions, ideally from 'neutral' organisations.

I never thought to ask Douglas...I was very impressed with a map showing the Ottoman government administartion arrangements he posted some time ago.

[Douglas Carpenter]

140. well thanks....

I suppose I have to agree that Rashid Khalidi's - "The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian struggle for statehood" is one of the best and critical thinking books from the Palestinian perspective. Dr Khalidi is certainly committed to the Palestinian cause and comes from one of the leading historic Palestinian political families. However, that doesn't stop him from writing critically and brilliantly. Also his book, "Palestinian Identity" is a must read. This book explores the question of when and how Palestinians as a people developed a distinct national identity. Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/Palestinian-Identity-Rashid-Khalidi/dp/0231105150/ref=sr_oe_4_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203282408&sr=1-4

Another must read book which like the ones mentioned above that avoid excessive polemics and explores Palestinian history critically and thoughtfully is "The Palestinian People: A History". This book is written by American historian Joel S. Migdal and Israeli historian and sociologist, the late Baruch Kimmerling.

Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/Palestinian-People-History-Baruch-Kimmerling/dp/0674011295/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b

As far as Palestinian websites - I find MIFTAH founded by Dr. Hanan Ashrawi to be one of the best:

http://www.miftah.org/

.

[kayecy]

143. Many thanks Douglas.....

Many thanks Douglas, looks the sort of thing I was looking for....... By the way, it was seeing Dr Hanan Ashrawi on TV protesting that Arafat was about to give too much away at Camp David that first got me looking into this conflict....
'She must be crazy' I thought, '...why doesn't she want to accept Barak's offer, '....doesn't she want to get rid of the Israelis and their settlements!'

Well, I guess she knew what she was talking about.

[kayecy]

95. So comes down to whether the Palestinians welcomed Zionist immigration.

when neighborhoods change its the very same principle, as one group moves in they have every intention of bringing in their kin as the expense of the locals....happens ALL of the time. I assume you have no problem with that, even though their intentions are what they are...

Your comparison not mine. I have no problem.

first off is being well financed a bad thing?... immoral? actually the jews werent well financed they used their limited resources wisely.

Not a bad thing if you were an immigrant, but a disaster if you were a Palestinian peasant. With Rothschild's support, I would say the Zionists were definitely well-financed.

and yes they intended to create a state where no state existed....is this too immoral?

Yes - unless it at least attempted to get the approval of the locals. Do you have any evidence that they did?
I cited the King-Crane Commission as evidence that the Zionist immigration was not wanted in 1919 and the Arab riots and revolts as evidence that Jewish immigration was increasingly being resented right up to 1948. Even the British eventually realized the massive immigration was having a disastrous effect on the locals and had to be restricted.

I think you now have to support your contention that the Palestinians welcomed the Zionists with something more concrete than 'general uprising' and 'working for the Jews'. A few quotes from a reputable historian will do.

[Dick Dastardly]

118. Jews were always in Palestine too

Jews were always in Palestine too, it seems you say that only the Palestinians should have the right of self determination.
Many of the Palestinians immigrated when the Jews did do to Jobs and developement
It was a barren backward land. The land was owned by absentee landlords and the state Ottomans then British
Jews purchased land and were invited to immigrate by the Ottomans. Jewish success brought more Arab immigration as well as Jewish
All Arabs did not oppose Jewish immigration
Self determination was not taken away by the Partition. The area partitioned for Israel was majority Jewish.
The British restricted Jewish immigration and restricted them from 95% of Palestine(includes Jordan). No restrictions on Arab Immigration
A common misperception is that the Jews were forced into the diaspora by the Romans after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem in the year 70 A.D. and then, 1,800 years later, suddenly returned to Palestine demanding their country back. In reality, the Jewish people have maintained ties to their historic homeland for more than 3,700 years. A national language and a distinct civilization have been maintained.


Here are some qoutes




Mark Twain, who visited Palestine in 1867, described it as: “... desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds-a silent mournful expanse....A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace with the pomp of life and action....We never saw a human being on the whole route....There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of the worthless soil, had almost deserted the country.”


The Report of the Palestine Royal Commission quotes an account of the Maritime Plain in 1913:

The road leading from Gaza to the north was only a summer track suitable for transport by camels and carts...no orange groves, orchards or vineyards were to be seen until one reached Yabna ....Houses were all of mud. No windows were anywhere to be seen....The ploughs used were of wood....The yields were very poor....The sanitary conditions in the village were horrible. Schools did not exist....The western part, towards the sea, was almost a desert....The villages in this area were few and thinly populated. Many ruins of villages were scattered over the area, as owing to the prevalence of malaria, many villages were deserted by their inhabitants

Lewis French, the British Director of Development wrote of Palestine:

We found it inhabited by fellahin who lived in mud hovels and suffered severely from the prevalent malaria....Large areas...were uncultivated....The fellahin, if not themselves cattle thieves, were always ready to harbor these and other criminals. The individual plots...changed hands annually. There was little public security, and the fellahin's lot was an alternation of pillage and blackmail by their neighbors, the Bedouin.



Surprisingly, many people who were not sympathetic to the Zionist cause believed the Jews would improve the condition of Palestinian Arabs. For example, Dawood Barakat, editor of the Egyptian paper Al-Ahram, wrote:
"It is absolutely necessary that an entente be made between the Zionists and Arabs, because the war of words can only do evil. The Zionists are necessary for the country: The money which they will bring, their knowledge and intelligence, and the industriousness which characterizes them will contribute without doubt to the regeneration of the country."


Even a leading Arab nationalist believed the return of the Jews to their homeland would help resuscitate the country. According to Sherif Hussein, the guardian of the Islamic Holy Places in Arabia:

The resources of the country are still virgin soil and will be developed by the Jewish immigrants. One of the most amazing things until recent times was that the Palestinian used to leave his country, wandering over the high seas in every direction. His native soil could not retain a hold on him, though his ancestors had lived on it for 1000 years. At the same time we have seen the Jews from foreign countries streaming to Palestine from Russia, Germany, Austria, Spain, America. The cause of causes could not escape those who had a gift of deeper insight. They knew that the country was for its original sons (abna'ihi­l­asliyin), for all their differences, a sacred and beloved homeland. The return of these exiles (jaliya) to their homeland will prove materially and spiritually an experimental school for their brethren who are with them in the fields, factories, trades and in all things connected with toil and labor.

As Hussein foresaw, the regeneration of Palestine, and the growth of its population, came only after Jews returned in massive numbers.



Emir Faisal, son of Sherif Hussein, the leader of the Arab revolt against the Turks, signed an agreement with Chaim Weizmann and other Zionist leaders during the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. It acknowledged the "racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people" and concluded that "the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations is through the closest possible collaboration in the development of the Arab states and Palestine.” Furthermore, the agreement looked to the fulfillment of the Balfour Declaration and called for all necessary measures “...to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil.”


Emir Faisal also saw the Zionist movement as a companion to the Arab nationalist movement, fighting against imperialism, as he explained in a letter to Harvard law professor and future Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter on March 3, 1919, one day after Chaim Weizmann presented the Zionist case to the Paris conference. Faisal wrote:

The Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement....We will wish the Jews a hearty welcome home....We are working together for a reformed and revised Near East and our two movements complete one another. The Jewish movement is nationalist and not imperialist. And there is room in Syria for us both. Indeed, I think that neither can be a real success without the other




In 1913 The Arab Congress proved to be surprisingly receptive to Zionist aspirations. Abd-ul-Hamid Yahrawi, the President of the Congress, summed up the attitude of the delegates:

All of us, both Muslims and Christians, have the best of feelings toward the Jews. When we spoke in our resolutions about the rights and obligations of the Syrians, this covered the Jews as well. Because they are our brothers in race and we regard them as Syrians who were forced to leave the country at one time but whose hearts always beat together with ours, we are certain that our Jewish brothers the world over will know how to help us so that our common interests may succeed and our common country will develop both materially and morally


Jews were helping and working with Arabs

“Our settlers do not come here as do the colonists from the Occident to have natives do their work for them; they themselves set their shoulders to the plow and they spend their strength and their blood to make the land fruitful. But it is not only for ourselves that we desire its fertility. The Jewish farmers have begun to teach their brothers, the Arab farmers, to cultivate the land more intensively; we desire to teach them further: together with them we want to cultivate the land -- to 'serve' it, as the Hebrew has it. The more fertile this soil becomes, the more space there will be for us and for them. We have no desire to dispossess them: we want to live with them. We do not want to dominate them: we want to serve with them.....” Martin Buber






links to quotes

[Lithos]

124. Not quite

when neighborhoods change its the very same principle, as one group moves in they have every intention of bringing in their kin as the expense of the locals....happens ALL of the time. I assume you have no problem with that, even though their intentions are what they are...

What is your take on Arab/Muslim immigration into Europe?

Not a bad thing if you were an immigrant, but a disaster if you were a Palestinian peasant. With Rothschild's support, I would say the Zionists were definitely well-financed.

Simplistic. Rothschild's finances were primarily employed in buying land, improving the infrastructure (wells, draining swamps), administrative support, technical education, and printing Hebrew text books. He also supported a very limited immigration policy and was extremely keen on integration with the existing Arab population even to the point of making sure new buildings were built so as to not be seen on the roadway. While he did support a Jewish centric policy of benefit, such could be said he was countering the biased support the Ottoman and local leaders took to their Jewish citizenry. At the time, most of the Jews who immigrated took Ottoman citizenship and were Ottoman citizens.

Yes - unless it at least attempted to get the approval of the locals. Do you have any evidence that they did?
I cited the King-Crane Commission as evidence that the Zionist immigration was not wanted in 1919 and the Arab riots and revolts as evidence that Jewish immigration was increasingly being resented right up to 1948. Even the British eventually realized the massive immigration was having a disastrous effect on the locals and had to be restricted.

I think you now have to support your contention that the Palestinians welcomed the Zionists with something more concrete than 'general uprising' and 'working for the Jews'. A few quotes from a reputable historian will do.

Your knowledge of King-Crane is limited without recognizing that King-Crane was a position paper whose generation was extremely flawed and did not represent either a complete nor unbiased view of the situation. Dr. Stephen Sizer, whose book concerning the "Christian Zionism" is considered a classic (and one used frequently to point out the poor theological and historical basis of the post-millenial christians who form the core of modern Christian Zionism) had this to say in his doctoral thesis:

In 1919, aware that the British and French were undermining his goal of self-determination in Syria, Woodrow Wilson sent Charles Crane, a wealthy American Arabist as head of the King-Crane Commission to investigate the wishes of the indigenous people. Reservations expressed by Arab leaders and expatriate Americans led Cranes Commission to recommend the abandonment of American support for a Jewish homeland, that further Jewish immigration be severely restricted and America or Britain govern Palestine.

While Crane went on to help finance the first explorations for oil in Saudi Arabia and the Yemen, his admiration for Hitler's Germany 'the real political bulwark of Christian culture', and of Stalin's anti-Jewish purges in Soviet Russia, led his biographer to describe his later life as dominated by,

...a most pronounced prejudice...his unbridled dislike of Jews.' Crane 'tried...to persuade ...President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, to shun the counsels of Felix Frankfurter and to avoid appointing other Jews to government posts.' Crane 'envisioned a world-wide attempt on the part of the Jews to stamp out all religious life and felt that only a coalition of Moslems and Roman Catholics would be strong enough to defeat such designs.' In 1933 Crane actually proposed to Haj Amin Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, that the Mufti open talks with the Vatican to plan an anti-Jewish campaign.

It is significant that The Arab Awakening by George Antonius was funded by and dedicated 'To Charles R. Crane, aptly nicknamed Harun al-Rashid affectionately.'

http://www.christchurch-virginiawater.co.uk/articles/history.html

The 1922 Churchill Whitepaper gave the following analysis:

The Secretary of State for the Colonies has given renewed consideration to the existing political situation in Palestine, with a very earnest desire to arrive at a settlement of the outstanding questions which have given rise to uncertainty and unrest among certain sections of the population. After consultation with the High Commissioner for Palestine the following statement has been drawn up. It summarizes the essential parts of the correspondence that has already taken place between the Secretary of State and a delegation from the Moslem Christian Society of Palestine, which has been for some time in England, and it states the further conclusions which have since been reached.

The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned, are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917.

Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." HMG regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab Delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded in Palestine. In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at the meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

Which indicated much of the problem was based on ignorance, mistrust and apprehension, not any genuine disfavor of the other party. It also indicates at least at some level an official desire to work together. I assume this meets with the requirement of a reputable historian. If you want someone of a more mundane level, then perhaps you might read Amy Dockser Marcus's book, Jerusalem 1913 or Abd al-Wahhāb Kayyālī's Palestine: A Modern History and read about Albert Antebi who was probably one of the most influential and forgotten Jewish moderates during the critical time period from 1880 to mandate. He was in a unique position of representing the pre-Aliyah Jewish society and bridged between the Zionists (which he was not) and the Ottomans and Arabs. He also wrote very eloquently and his writing speak directly at the core issues of the effects of land sale and the ignorance in the interactions between the new Jewish settlers and the existing Arab peasants and worked hard to avoid problems. Even so, problems included:

- The large profits made by distant land-owners selling to Jews which many of the Arab peasants felt was made at their expense and livelihood.
- The incompatible traditions of land-usage between the new Jewish settlers and Arab peasants. This includes not only European ideas of trespass versus common usage, but also farming, irrigation and water rights.
- The difference in Occidental and Oriental traditions which neither side understood which ultimately engendered significant amounts of fear/xenophobia. Ruppin proposed prohibiting the settlement of non-Arabic Jewish settlers in areas which had seen no previous settlement in order to bridge this problem.

The fear, resentment, ignorance and xenophobia were there at an early stage and provided the fuel for a fire. The rise of Nationalism, British impotence and ignorance, long-running familial politics (Hussayni/Nashashibi/Khalidi), and the hurried dis-interest by Britain at the end of the Mandate made the conflagration inevitable.

It didn't need to happen, but it did. Many people on both sides tried very hard to stop it, and came close at various times. However, the rise of political opportunists such as Jabotinsky and the Mufti, latter who sought to make himself ruler over Palestine countered their hard work.

1948 was just a train wreck whose end results and roles could easily have been reversed. Instead of Deir Yassin being synonymous with the nakba, Gush Etzion could have easily served as the model of an alternate, and equally black, history.



L-

[ProgressiveMuslim]

129. Just as Crane was criticized for his bias

I can't wait until this current crop of "experts" writing reams about the Arab world, Islam, Islamic radicalism and the I/P conflict are similiary excoriated for their anti-Arab, anti-Muslim bias.

[Lithos]

135. Some will be

Some currently are. Daniel Pipes is one such example.

L-

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

70. You won't get an answer...

..but my experience has been that sometimes it's best not to alert on posts as the poster has a habit of going on to deny they ever said what was in the deleted post/s :)

[kayecy]

72. I think I will get a reply .....I am sure Vegasaurus is an honourable person.....n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

73. Oh-kay. I'll leave you to it then n/t

[Vegasaurus]

75. Nice dodge

Do you oppose legal immigration? If so, why?

(whether I feel that opposition to legal immigration is bigoted or not is no longer germane)

[kayecy]

76. Is that an apology? ............

If so, I accept it.

Do I oppose legal immigration? Mostly not. I do, however think Britain is too crowded already.


To get back to the subject. By using the term Jewish 'legal immigration' you seem to be implying that Zionism would have been immoral and illegal if the Palestinians had been citizens of a STATE.

Since they were not citizens of a State, just ordinary human beings, then I assume you believe everyone in the world had the 'legal' right to immigrate to Palestine in whatever numbers they chose(or rather, the Brits allowed), in spite of the Palestinians express wish that this immigration be drastically reduced?

[Violet_Crumble]

69. There's nothing progressive about labelling Australian Aboriginals as bigots and racists...

Which is what you've just done with that very poorly thought out post. Did it even cross yr mind for just one second that European settlement in Australia happened in a very similar way and it was the existing population that lost out in a huge way? How incredibly ignorant or dishonest it is to talk about the sort of immigration that happened in places like pre-state Israel or early Australia as though it's the same as a bunch of modern day conservatives carrying on about there being too many Asian immigrants etc...

I figure you of all people yelling intolerance and bigotry accusations at kaycey means kaycey is doing something right, coz you of all the people here right now have no clue as to what either word entails...

[Douglas Carpenter]

121. If I may quote I quote the great Israeli historian Avi Shlaim of Oxford University

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/It%20Can%20Be%20Done.html

(I might add that Avi Shlaim is definitely a Zionist. He was actually born in Baghdad, Iraq in 1945 and immigrated to Israel with his family as a small child of five years in 1950. He makes it quite clear in his books that he strongly believes establishing the Jewish state was a historic necessity and a great accomplishment. However he also acknowledge the grave injustice this project brought upon the Palestinian people):

"The history of Zionism, from the earliest days to the present, is replete with manifestations of deep hostility and contempt toward the indigenous population. On the other hand, there have always been brave and outspoken critics of such attitudes. Foremost among them was Ahad Ha'am (Asher Zvi Ginsberg), a liberal Russian Jewish thinker who visited Palestine in 1891 and published a series of articles that were sharply critical of the aggressive behaviour and political ethnocentrism of the Zionist settlers. They believed, wrote Ahad Ha'am, that "the only language that the Arabs understand is that of force." And they "behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly upon their boundaries, beat them shamefully without reason and even brag about it, and nobody stands to check this contemptible and dangerous tendency." Little seems to have changed since Ahad Ha'am penned these words a century ago.

That most Zionist leaders wanted the largest possible Jewish state in Palestine with as few Arabs as possible inside their state is hardly open to question. As early as 1919, at the Paris peace conference, Chaim Weizmann called for a Palestine "as Jewish as England is English." And Chaim Weizmann, the uncle of Israel's current President, was one of the moderates. "

snip:"Zangwill's slogan about "a land without a people for a people without a land" was useful for propaganda purposes, but from the outset the leaders of the Zionist movement realized that their aim of establishing a Jewish state in a territory inhabited by an Arab community could not be achieved without inducing, by one means or another, a large number of Arabs to leave Palestine. In their public utterances the Zionist leaders avoided as far as possible any mention of transfer, but in private discussions they could be brutally frank. "

link to full article:

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/It%20Can%20Be%20Done.html

.

[Douglas Carpenter]

122. and to quote David Ben Gurion

"Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but 2000 years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we came here and stole their country. Why should they accept that?"

David Ben-Gurion as quoted in "The Jewish Paradox" by Nahum Goldmann, former president of the World Jewish Congress:

.

[Dick Dastardly]

48. They actually did try the out of the box when they left Gaza

They got more qassams because of it.



Before the suicide bombings I was a bigger supporter of the Palestinians even though I believed much of their predicament was due to their and their fellow Arab brothers constant aggression and incitement against Israel. With the peace between Israel and Egypt and Jordan later as well as the lessening military invasion threat level against israel by the Arab states I felt Israel was strong enough to work and take a chance for peace, the onus was on them, but they were not doing so. Then came Oslo and hope, things looked better, deals were being made and Camp David came along. I was actually in the ME on business then in Israel and Egypt. Unfortunately I only spent 1 day in Egypt and had to go back home but I did see many people expressing hope. I was in Israel for 10 days and the Israelis were radiant with hope for peace that they have not known. I also met some Palestinians who were a bit more reserved than Israel about peace but hopeful just the same. There were some Palestinians who were not supportive but they were the minority by far. When Camp David failed and Arafat launched his terror war rather than continue to negotiate as they were so close to a deal, I new it was over. No country in there right mind would negotiate and compromise more under fire, especially from terrorist and suicide bomber fire, I know I wouldn't. From that point on I was more understanding of Israel especially when they left Gaza and got more quassam attacks and the election of Hamas. I believe the Palestinians had a golden opportunity to show Israel they want peace and co-existence but blew it with more attacks and electing Hamas. If they had not done this it would have castrated the Israeli far right instead of energizing them and showing them correct. Regardless of how you feel about Sharon, I think he wanted to make a peace and because of his warrior credentials had the ability to do it just as Begin did.

This brings us to your out of the box and hearts and minds comment. They tried it with Gaza and it didn't work, they got increased rocket attacks. Appeasement of fundamentalists such as Hamas and IJ is not viewed as magnanimity, but ridiculed as weakness it, in fact, encourages further killing. It takes all parties in a conflict to make peace and if some of them dont want peace there is absolutely nothing you can do except live with it and do your best to protect yourself. Some problems are beyond your control and all you can do is make the best of it, go on living and hope one day the Palestinians themselves deal with the radicals such as Hamas and IJ. This realization and reality of a perpetual threat against them does not mean they can attack and slaughter indiscriminately even though to do so would eliminate the threat but they also don't have to sit idly by. They are well within there right to take retaliatory, preventative or preemptive actions to protect themselves regardless of civilians being hurt or killed. Now there are rules, limits and principles of international law such as the jus ad bellum and jus in bello which are 2 parts of the Laws of War that come in to play to govern actions and whether its for good or bad or fair or not to the individual in certain situations it matters not. The law concerning acceptable practices while engaged in war is jus in bello. The law stipulating the allowable reasons for armed force is called jus ad bellum.If the population does stop the rocket and terror attacks against Israel then Israel has a right and a duty to respond and defend itself, its people within reasonable limits that the situation demands regardless if its fair/not fair or right/wrong to the individual not directly responsible. . There is also a principle that comes into play here of a national or collective responsibility of all nations. As far as Palestinian civilians go they are collectively responsible(not collective guilt or collective punishment) for electing their leaders and their actions to some extent. It is also their responsibility if that is their desire to rid themselves of them. When we were at war with Japan I am sure some of them were against the war but suffered just the same because of their collective responsibility for their Government and people. Part of nationhood,especially in a democracy is collective responsibility for the actions of your government and people good or bad in relation to another nation. Collective responsibility is not to mean collective punishment. If you are not familiar with the various principles I mentioned I am posting a couple links that will explain much better than me.


This governs Israels actions

Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,<1> even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).

Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are "clearly" excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:
(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
(c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).

combatants that use protected people or property as shields or camouflage are guilty of violations of laws of war and are responsible for damage to those that should be protected








Links on the principles


This is an excellent explanation of National or collective responsibility, it is quite interesting Pages 132 to 141 are the pertinent
The Ethics of Assistance: Morality and the Distant Needy By Deen K. Chatterjee
http://books.google.com/books?id=G4dC1CRXJCoC&pg=PA132&...


Just War Theory
The Jus Ad Bellem Convention
The Principles Of Jus In Bello
http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm




more on war and collective responsibility
The International Law of Propaganda: The Ideological Instrument and World Public Order. By B. S. Murty.

http://books.google.com/books?id=wYURwLp1WlUC&pg=PA185&...


Liberals and romantics at war: the problem of collective guilt.(The Storrs Lectures)
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-1845079/Liberal...


General Theory of Law and State By Hans Kelsen
http://books.google.com/books?id=D1ERgDXEbkcC&pg=PA356&...

[kayecy]

50. An interesting view of how we got here.

Thank you for your thoughts and the attached International Law references. It is interesting that if you truly were a "bigger" supporter of the Palestinians before the suicide bombings, your journey is more or less the exact opposite of mine.

I was marginally more supportive of Israel during the six-day war and right up to the break down of Camp David. It wasn't until then that I realized Israel really intended to keep and expand the settlements - they really were on a land grab.

We have different views on the reasons for the second intifada, the Bantustan generous offer, Arafat, Sharon and Taba.

As for Gaza being a test of hearts and minds, well, it seemed more like a case of a desperate prison authority removing the warders and then locking the prison gates. Sharon didn't even attempt to negotiate with the Gazans and made it perfectly clear that the quid pro quo for Gaza was 'no retreat' in the West Bank. It was an original action, yes, but do you really think Sharon's objective was to win over hearts and minds?

What is needed is something that will start to reverse the anger, desperation and inhumanities of 50 years of conflict and occupation, something that is a win-win solution for both sides.

If you are interested in pursuing this, lets start by listing the objectives of each side.

Hamas/Abbas war objectives:
I believe Hamas's war objectives are the restoration of Palestinians to their homes both sides of the Green line and a single Israel/Palestine state government which represents the majority. (I am sure you disagree with this statement but since we don't seem to have many Hamas members in this forum, let's assume it is correct for the sake of argument)

Israel's war objectives:
I believe Israel's war objectives include:
The annexation of as much as possible of the West Bank but excluding Palestine residential areas.
A 'pliant' Palestinian state with limited soverignity, which will allow Israeli over-flights, and the stationing of Israeli troops in the Jordan valley.
De-militarisation of the new state.

I am not an Israeli, so I may have got it wrong. If so, please state what the Israeli war objectives are in your opinion.


I am looking forward to an interesting debate!

[Lithos]

51. I disagree

As far as Palestinian civilians go they are collectively responsible(not collective guilt or collective punishment) for electing their leaders and their actions to some extent. It is also their responsibility if that is their desire to rid themselves of them. When we were at war with Japan I am sure some of them were against the war but suffered just the same because of their collective responsibility for their Government and people.

Collective responsibility/punishment is not fair when liability differs. Such a stance of uniform punishment assumes equal liability which is not the case for a variety of reasons and as such does not meet the fairness standards for a sense of justice. Erin Kelly talks about it in the footnotes of the section you cited in Chatterlee's book.

The general international laws concerning War are based on the idea that those who actively engage in war (the militants) are to be accorded different and significantly increased levels of liability (military code, etc.) and social responsibility than those who are involved in war by luck and/or circumstance. Yes, there are cases where civilians will suffer due to bad luck, but the militants share the responsibility to minimize this wherever feasible. Your article on the Principles of "Jus in Bello" also talks at length of about discrimination and proportionality which again does not support the idea of collective punishment, particularly when levied on non-combatants.

[Dick Dastardly]

52. I stated I am not talking about collective guilt or punishment.

I posted Dr Chatterjee's article to better express what I am talking about.

[Lithos]

54. I will still disagree about collective responsibility

Especially when applied to an ethnicity and/or nationality. Again, most of the people involved lack any power to act differently and are not contributing directly to the problem. In fact, most of the people of Gaza are acting with civility and are for the most part disenfranchised from the process (and lacking any effective power).

The idea of collective responsibility in philosophy concerns itself more with self-identified and elected participation, such as a corporation (or Hamas, Fatah, etc.), than with birth derived nationality and ethnicity.

L-

[Dick Dastardly]

56. We have seen the principle in operation many times

Such as

German reparations

Wars-its not a crime if nationals who were against the war are killed in the war

IMF sanctions for trade violations

treaties between nations

NATO- A collective responsibility to defend each other

The collective responsibility to aid famine stricken nations by those who are not

[Violet_Crumble]

53. Close to a deal at Camp David?

When Camp David failed and Arafat launched his terror war rather than continue to negotiate as they were so close to a deal, I new it was over.

They weren't close to a deal at all at Camp David. Not unless you think a take it or leave it right now 'offer' that no Palestinian leader in their right mind would have accepted is being so close to a deal.

For an analysis of both the Israel/US and Palestinian narratives about Camp David, here's a good one:

http://www.samed-syr.org/CampDavidAndTaba.pdf

As for Arafat launching a terror war. No, he didn't...

[Dick Dastardly]

61. I actually meant both Camp David and Taba but I think you understood that.

I didn't say they had one I said close to and while I don't agree with much of your article but they too acknowledge it was close. Your article does not say it was a take it or leave it either. Your article acknowledges that Sharon was not the cause of the intifada and that Arafat supported the intifada and could have reigned it in if he wanted to. While I think your article is wrong it does not support the claims you made

They were most definitely close to a deal and were still in negotiations but no country is going to continue to negotiate under fire. Instead of resorting to violence and terror the Palestinians should have kept negotiating, the talks went farther than ever and the issues could have been worked out. The terror war also had the affect of bringing down Barak and his government and giving Sharon the push he needed to be elected. I put more validity into what a respected diplomat, Dennis Ross, who was the most involved and knowledgeable in the talks and personally headed the mediation for Clinton than some uninvolved 3rd party with 3rd or 4th hand knowledge. I believe Arafat started the terror war which in his mind would give him more leverage in negotiations,it was a massive blunder that backfired. Whether he planned and OKed it himself or his sub organizations, Tanzim, al-aqsa etc etc did without his knowledge it really does not matter, the fact is he supported it and could have reined it in if he wanted to. If it were not for that damn terror war I think the issues could have been worked out and we would have a Palestinian state right now.

On a separate note, regardless of what one feels about Sharon I think in time he could have made a deal because of his hardline history such as Begin's history and the political capital it gave him. If Hamas would stop its rockets and terror attacks as well as announce it is willing to negotiate a full peace deal(not a phony hudna)for a two state solution,they would have the same capital to make a deal stick and accepted. Until they do that there is little hope, as even if a deal is made while rockets and bombings continue, they and the other radicals will continue to launch attacks making a real peace with prosperity impossible

[Douglas Carpenter]

64. Actually IDF Gen. Zvika Fogel: "IDF actions led to the confrontation (second intifada)"

from Haaretz: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=936744

""The constellation of preparations we made actually led to the confrontation - there was no other choice," says Fogel,"....

The massive preparations undertaken by Southern Command were in fact based on an intelligence assessment that the Palestinians were bent on a confrontation, but that assessment was the subject of controversy even within the IDF, and in any event did not maintain that a confrontation was the only possible outcome or was inevitable. Fogel, who refers briefly to this in Moish Goldberg's film "A Million Bullets in October," which was broadcast earlier this month on Channel 8, now says that the assessment was a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In contrast to other critics of the IDF, who emphasize the army's role in the escalation of the confrontation in its first few days, Fogel focuses on the decisive impact that Israeli activity in the Gaza Strip at the beginning of 2000, and more particularly that summer, had on the Palestinian inhabitants and the Palestinian Authority. That activity occurred even before the Palestinians fired a bullet. "

snip: " Fogel analyzes - in military present tense - the developments in the months that preceded the eruption of the second intifada. "The conceptual sequence is that we are creating the conditions for a confrontation by the very fact of our preparations," Fogel says. "It is clear to everyone that this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. We want to decide which event would foment the explosion. All we have to do is say what will launch it and then behave as we have planned."

Even if that was not the Palestinians' intention?

"Exactly."

Was the course the IDF embarked on a one-way street?

"I am afraid that I have to say yes. I don't see a situation in which, in July-August, someone says, 'Dismantle the forward posts, we are going back to joint patrols.' People would have looked at you like you were tipsy."

full article from Haaretz:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=936744
___________________

It is also a bit far out to imagine that Mr. Sharon who vowed on a campaign promise to block Mr. Barak's compromises and stop the talks with the Palestinians and was more than willing to provoke violence for that political end, and Mr. Sharon who's settlement expansion programs over decades were designed to make the two-state solution non-viable would have continued talks.

this from the Mitchell Commission Report: ""The Sharon visit did not cause the “Al-Aqsa Intifada.” But it was poorly timed and the provocative effect should have been foreseen; indeed it was foreseen by those who urged that the visit be prohibited. More significant were the events that followed: the decision of the Israeli police on September 29 to use lethal means against the Palestinian demonstrators; and the subsequent failure, as noted above, of either party to exercise restraint." http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/mitchellreport.html

At the time of the Taba talks Ariel Sharon was at least 16 point ahead in all leading Israeli opinion polls to become the new Israeli Prime Minister. And the election was only days away. However, Mr. Sharon made it absolutely clear that he would not honor any such treaty with he Palestinians:

Sharon calls peace talks a campaign ploy by Barak
Likud leader says he won't comply with latest agreements
January 28, 2001
Web posted at: 1:42 p.m. EST (1842 GMT)

"Sharon leads Barak by 16 to 20 percentage points in opinion polls that have changed little in recent weeks." link:

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/28/mideast.01/index.html

"Ehud Barak is endangering the state of Israel to obtain a piece of paper to help him in the election," Sharon said at a campaign stop Saturday. "Once the people of Israel find out what is in the paper and what Barak has conceded, he won't get any more votes." link:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/27/mideast.01/index.html

--------

STILL it does appear however that progress was made at Taba, Egypt in January 2001. However, Israel unilaterally broke off the talks on the Eve of their upcoming election. --- "Beilin stressed that the Taba talks were not halted because they hit a crisis, but rather because of the Israeli election."

link to the European Union notes which have been confirmed by the Israeli and Palestinian delegation as being an accurate record of what happened at Taba in January 2001:

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html

"This document, whose main points have been approved by the Taba negotiators as an accurate description of the discussions, casts additional doubts on the prevailing assumption that Ehud Barak "exposed Yasser Arafat's true face." It is true that on most of the issues discussed during that wintry week of negotiations, sizable gaps remain. Yet almost every line is redolent of the effort to find a compromise that would be acceptable to both sides. It is hard to escape the thought that if the negotiations at Camp David six months earlier had been conducted with equal seriousness, the intifada might never have erupted. And perhaps, if Barak had not waited until the final weeks before the election, and had instead sent his senior representatives to that southern hotel earlier, the violence might never have broken out."

link to European Union Notes:

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html

.

[totodeinhere]

120. Since Israel is a sovereign state,

it also has a responsibility to defend itself against rocket attacks being carried out against it's territory from Gaza.

[breakaleg]

11. I assume you count Israel among the civilized people. There is nothing civilized about what Israel

is doing to the people of Gaza. Instead this is a rot that will one day destroy their society from the inside out. I realize this sentiment will be lost on you as you are so engrossed in your righteousness that you either can't see it or don't care.

[Vegasaurus]

12. Again, the Palestinians are not victims

who have things "done to them".

They could turn things around, and could have for the past 60 years. They have chosen violence and terrorism over getting on with their lives and improving their situation. They have a government of terrorists that have made their lives much more miserable.

They need to stop being victims and their lives would improve.

[Violet_Crumble]

18. In that case neither are Israelis...

Of course there's both victims and aggressors amongst both the Israeli and Palestinian populations. But what you seem to want to ignore is that it's the Palestinian people who have lived under a brutal military occupation for so long now. You want to go tell the parents of a child shot by settlers in the West Bank that they and their child aren't victims? They and any other person with a shred of compassion would disagree with you if you thought that...

[Englander]

15. Please, do keep up.

One on One: 'Control creates responsibility'

What Israel cannot do is prevent everyone in the world from trading with Gaza, and then cut the amount of supplies that enter through its border," asserts attorney Sari Bashi, protesting the government's policy of withholding fuel and electricity from the Hamas-ruled Strip as a "punitive measure."

The director of Gisha - Legal Center for Freedom of Movement, Bashi is the epitome of a person who speaks softly yet carries a big stick. Indeed, her easy eloquence belies the ardency of her human rights activism and legal advocacy - the kind more associated with anger than affability. And her youthful good looks and gentle manner contrast with the content of her scathing critique of the military's method of combating Kassam fire on Sderot. She even goes as far as to accuse the IDF of deliberately targeting innocent civilians.

"We are not talking about closing a border to prevent militants from entering Israel," says the 32-year-old Yale Law School graduate, who teaches a course in international law at Tel Aviv University and translated former Supreme Court president Aharon Barak's book, Purposive Interpretation in Law, into English. "We are talking about applying pressure on a civilian population... because the army doesn't have a better response."

In protest, a group of 10 Israeli and Palestinian human rights organizations, among them Gisha, petitioned the High Court of Justice to put a stop to such "illegal collective punishment." Last week, the petition was rejected.

During the interim between the last court hearing and final decision, Bashi met with The Jerusalem Post at Gisha headquarters in Tel Aviv to articulate her organization's legal and ideological position vis-a-vis the treatment of a population most of whom, she claims, oppose Hamas and favor finding a peaceful solution with Israel.

As for her personal view, Bashi (the daughter of an Iraqi-born Israeli father and an American mother) - who moved to Israel from New Jersey 10 years ago - says: "As a lawyer, I would say is illegal. As an Israeli, I would say that I expect something better from my elected representatives."

What was the content and purpose of the January 27 High Court hearing?

It was a hearing in the context of a petition , that 10 Israeli and Palestinian human rights groups filed together, challenging the punitive measures taken against Gaza's civilian population. On September 19, the security cabinet decided to cut the sale of fuel and electricity supplies to Gaza. We argue that this is illegal collective punishment. Under international law, one is allowed to target militants, but not to intentionally harm civilians. This is why the Kassam fire on Sderot is illegal. And though Israel has a right to defend itself against the rockets, it may not respond by deliberately harming innocent civilians in Gaza.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1202246335288&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[Englander]

2. An interview with Otte from a couple of years ago -

The EU in the Middle East
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/hardtalk/4534672.stm

[ProgressiveMuslim]

4. "Civilized" Israel has made its intention to ghettoize and starve millions crystal clear. nt

[Fredda Weinberg]

7. The Italians invented the ghetto and it was a prosperous place.

It would be nice to hold an educated conversation, but you insist on language designed to hurt and antagonize. I don't play games w/such children.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

8. That's pretty funny Fredda.

Your post above was pretty polemical.

I was not addressing your post and in fact would prefer not to interact with you at all, so by all means, please feel free to ignore me.

[Fredda Weinberg]

10. You butt in, you get a dismissive response. Just as any annoying

child deserves.

[Englander]

14. Most 3-yr olds are better behaved than yourself.

Please, get a grip.

[Violet_Crumble]

17. She was replying to the OP. Since when has that been 'butting in'? n/t

[ProgressiveMuslim]

23. Psst. I don't think MyFriendFredda likes progressive Muslims! nt

[Sit-rep]

91. No one cares about Gaza

Let us be clear Gaza or Hamasistan is a failed state run by terrorists. The Palestinian Authority no longer exists there. Spain and other European nations have been attacked by Hamas.... so no one will care what happens there.

This is a political and military opportunity for Israel to redraw borders and re-settle Gaza.

[bemildred]

246. Damn. Almost 250 posts. I had no idea this was such a hot topic. nt