The Middle East's asymetric war

[kayecy]

BBC Monday 4th February 2008
By Jeremy Bowen
BBC Middle East editor


"The best way to understand the violence that is washing back and forth between Gaza and Israel is to go back to first principles.

It is the latest episode in a conflict that has lasted about a century. It started because two different peoples wanted one piece of land.

They are still working their way through the consequences of that single fact.

Absolute rights

When you take the long view you realise how hard it will be to stop the killing.

Never leaving an attack unanswered is a basic instinct in a state whose founders believed that they had abandoned centuries of Jewish weakness when they left Europe to build something new and strong in the land of Israel.


Israel believes it is in the front line of a conflict between the western world and Islamic militants, led by Iran.



The Palestinians of Hamas, who run things inside the Gaza strip, say that their right to resist, to defend their people, is absolute.

They believe that their rivals in Fatah, the other main Palestinian faction, were ready to sell their birthright in negotiations with Israel that amounted to surrender. They say that they will not make the same mistake.

What is going on between the Palestinian rocket squads in Gaza and the Israeli army is a classic fight between the strong and the weak - which is known these days as asymmetric warfare.

The thing about it is that the weaker side can exert leverage far beyond the power of its weapons.

That accounts for some of the rage and frustration in Israel's defence establishment.

They are big, they are strong, and they have some of the most sophisticated weapons systems in the world. And they are struggling to stop rockets that are the lowest of low tech.

That is probably why Israeli deputy Defence Minister Matan Vilnai used the word Holocaust last week to describe what would happen to the Palestinians if the rocket fire intensified."


http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7276138.stm

[kayecy]

1. Everyone, including Ms Rice should remember this....

It started because two different peoples wanted one piece of land.

Everyone, including Ms Rice should remember this fact.

[hifalutin]

2. O.K. Here's another silly question.....

why can't the two different peoples all live together and share the same piece of land?

I think of how the USA is shared by many 'different peoples' all living and working together side by side.
My neighbor on one side is Korean and the other side English and behind me Japanese folks.
L.A is a giant melting pot and we like it this way.

What am I missing here?

[pelsar]

3. knowledge of the cultural differences....

western democracy vs eastern arab/islamic culture

[subsuelo]

10. Explain the differences

between western democracy and "eastern arab/islamic culture", in reference to the question.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[ProgressiveMuslim]

39. Remember Doug, in this forum some people are more equal than others. nt

[Vegasaurus]

44. Do you deny that women are oppressed

and homosexuals hanged in Islamic countries?

That is not a broad or oversweeping generalization, is it?

[Douglas Carpenter]

46. listen the Arab world and the Islamic world is simply not the sinister cartoon caricature

that many are imagining it to be.

There are a wide range of Islamic and Arab countries with a wide range of attitudes about everything. And like everywhere else in the world -things change as time marches on. Unfortunately, as it appears to me - the more the Arab world modernizes and liberalizes - the more many in the Western world attempt to paint the people as backward and ignorant - in spite of advances in decades that Europe took centuries to make.

Attitudes in Islamic countries about matters like homosexuality for example are actually quite complicated and they very dramatically from place to place and time to time - ranging from an almost shocking benign acceptance - even by western standards to an almost admittedly shocking intolerance. Its very difficult to explain to someone who has never lived in an Islamic society. But it is certainly not the caricature many imagine in their fantasies.

Attitudes about woman also dramatically very from place to place and time to time. Close to half the university students in Arab countries are woman. I would guess the number of woman doctors in Arab countries is almost certainly higher than the United State. There are vast difference between say urban Palestinian or say Syrian society than say rural Yemen. But I would accept that in spite of rapid and dramatic changes - it still has a ways to go on some matters.

Yes there are indeed bad things in the Arab and Islamic world. And there are very good things in the Arab and Islamic world as well. They don't for example throw away there own parents into nursing homes to sit in rooms all by themselves to stare out the window - until they die - alone and forgotten -- Talk about something cultural shocking.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[LeftishBrit]

28. I think you're oversimplifying the issues here

(1) I think you're equating 'Islamic culture' with 'Islamic theocracy' The two are not the same - any more than 'Christian culture' can be equated with the Inquisition, or Pat Robertson, or the IRA and Ian Paisley. E.g. Turkey is majority-Muslim, but certainly doesn't have the characteristics that you describe.

(2) Much Palestinian politics is NOT based on Islam. PLO/Fatah are not 'Islamic' but secular - so are some smaller Palestinian parties. (And it should be remembered that some religious Palestinians are Christians.) While Fatah are less rigidly anti-Israel than Hamas, I cannot imagine them easily entering into a one-state solution where the Jews and Arabs all live together like one happy family.

(3) Israel cannot be characterized as entirely 'Western'. Over half of its citizens - the Arabs, Druze and Mizrahi Jews - are not of Western origin.

(4) While religious conflict plays a part here, I think that territorial conflict is VERY significant. And as I said in another post, sharing territory is not something that human groups are terribly good at.

[hifalutin]

42. Are there any

Christian Palestinians living in Gaza?

[LeftishBrit]

43. Not nearly as many as on the West Bank, but yes, there are some

About 2000, I think.

[pelsar]

65. my impression...

and this comes more from general knowledge...

western democracy has more emphases on the individual and his/her accomplishments.....arab/islamic culture is more personality/clan oriented.

that translates in to individual rights etc being more central to western democracy whereas in the arab/islamic culture you see it as being secondary for the "good of the nation/religion/clan, etc).

[ProgressiveMuslim]

11. Like as in one culture massacres huge numbers to achieve their "security goals"

and the other... what?

[Behind the Aegis]

21. "and the other... what?"

Continues to attack in attempts to destroy a group they see as inferior and having no right to be on the same land. Since they continue to fail on the battlefield, they have taken it to the political arena, where they have had better luck because of ignorance and bigotry.

[Tom Joad]

54. Yes, because of great ignorance and bigotry against Arabs in the US

Israel gets massive aid to continue with its human rights abuses, its continue home demolitions, its continued destruction of farms, its attacks on the Palestinian population. So politically, Israel has been a great success, but i think the tide is turning.
poco y poco

[Behind the Aegis]

56. Well, of course the tide is turning.

Anti-Semitism, the hate that just won't die. Of course, simplistic thinking leads on to believe the "massive aid" Israel gets is simply because of anti-Arab sentiment and Islamaphobia, that must also explain the "massive" amounts of military aid and financial aid Arab nations, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, to name a few. Since the continuous full-on wars, the continued 'low-grade' war continues with the support of Arab nations and "others." Not content with the job the low-grade war is doing, the 'victims' take their battle to the UN, where they do make head-way because of the continued ignorance and bigotry against Israel and Jews.

[LeftishBrit]

31. And the other massacres as many as it *can* to achieve ITS goals!

And seeks more effective weapons for the purpose.

That's what, as it stands right now.

A better solution would be all sides getting involved in SERIOUS peace negotiations.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. I've got a real problem with all this culture talk in the past few posts...

Sorry, not aimed at you, but it's the end of this sub-thread and it seemed a good place to pop in and say I find painting cultures in a negative way and confusing culture and political or ideologies that are based on the extremes of a religion to be just a bit disturbing to see on what's supposed to be a left-wing forum...

[ProgressiveMuslim]

38. I do too Violet. My post was my sarcastic way of pointing that out to Pelsar.

I'm sure his division of western-democracy-loving Israel and Eastern Muslims Arabs is pretty value-loaded.

[Violet_Crumble]

41. Yeah, I knew yrs was sarcastic...

..and I'm giving those that posted after you the benefit of the doubt and guessing they were sarcastic as well, but the ones before yr post weren't sarcastic, and I found the one from Vegasaurus to be really disturbing...

[pelsar]

61. of course its value loaded...

thats what defines cultures...and if cultures are different that also means those same differences translate in to "good and bad" depending on your point of view.

for some honor killing is an essential part of that culture..to say its a bad thing is to invade that culture and declare part of it invalid.....i'm a western bigot....i think western democracy based on civil rights is far superior to cultures be they east, north, south that dont have them.

and pretending that all cultures are "equal"....is to defend some interesting practices...burning witches alive was an interesting one.. tossing virgins into volcanos was a nice one....
__

after 50+ years of western democracy..a clan in ramala still practices honor killings....cultural practices can be very difficult to remove (the women in that clan are now rebelling and talking..)

[pelsar]

62. how can you ignore it?

cultures and religion and politics are intertwined.........ask your avg hamasnikim, baruch goldstein follower...their culture and beliefs are all intertwined and if your going to respect the nice avg moderate muslim, jew etc and not the fanatic..

wheres that line between fanatic and moderate? (i'll bet that "line" is based on western values of Human rights)

and i will add that its a minefield when it comes to definitions/bigotry/tolerance etc....

[ProgressiveMuslim]

40. Guess the "Western civilized" and "Eastern Muslim" aren't really so different, are they? nt

[kayecy]

4. Not a silly question at all....Wish I knew the answer!. .n/t

[LeftishBrit]

5. Why can't people in general live together and share the same pieces of land?

Why can't the UK and Republic of Ireland join as one big happy nation?

Why can't the USA and Mexico join as one big happy nation?

Why can't North Korea and South Korea join as one big happy nation (there isn't even an ethnic or language difference there!)

Why can't the whole world be a giant melting pot without a need for borders?

Seriously, I do think that nationalism and tribalism and the inability of different peoples to 'live together and share the same piece of land' are responsible for a LOT of the world's evils - and I wish we could all work to conquer this. But why expect this of Israel and Palestine, when it's not being demonstrated by most other nations?

'I think of how the USA is shared by many 'different peoples' all living and working together side by side'

I wonder if the Native Americans would fully agree? Or African Americans or many other groups?

In the UK - well, it was only very recently that the problems between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland were to some degree resolved, after decades of violence (in fact, 300 years, on and off.)

[hifalutin]

16. LeftishBrit said...

I wonder if the Native Americans would fully agree? Or African Americans or many other groups?

I meant that on the whole we do, especially in L.A., We have ethnic communities such as Koreatown, Chinatown, Japantown, Little Mexico etc., all following their own cultures, speaking their own languages, eating their own ethnic foods (we just love to dine in all of them). They do not go firing rockets at each other nor yearn to kill each other.

So why not Israelis and Palestinians?

Perhaps I am being too simplistic?

[azurnoir]

6. On the latest in this conflict

and how Hamas wound up pulling a "coup" in Gaza last June

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x202490

The sad fact is that most Israeli's and Palestinian's want peace and a 2 state solution, however those with the megaphone(s) do not, or if on the Israeli side feel that solution already exists Israel and Jordan in fact there has been comment to that effect in the past couple of days here. The extremist side of the Palestinians feels that no Israeli or in this case Jew has a right to live in the region. Unfortunately those are the people who get the press, extremists make for better media sales

As for a one state solution, neither side wants it-the Palestinians fear and distrust the Israeli's to the point of believing they would be 2nd class citizens or worse in their own country and the Israeli's fear that because the 2 populations are almost equal in number at present, but the Palestinian birth rate is higher than the Israeli they would be a minority in their own country in a generation or less.

[stranger81]

8. I think what's missing is that in the case of Israel/Palestine,

you don't have a situation where, say, an African-American family, a Korean family and a Japanese family live and work side by side in the same area.

Instead, what happened in this case is more akin to a situation in which generations of one family live in a house, then suddenly another family moves in -- not next door, but into that very house (or bulldozes the house to make room for their own -- many scenarios apply here) -- then insists that the only fair solution is to share it.

When the homeowner refuses, the newcomers claim he had and quandered his chance to share the home in peace, then take the whole property for themselves.

That, in a nutshell, is the Israel/Palestine situation.

[kayecy]

9. Exactly, that's it in a nutshell. n/t

[aranthus]

14. Here's what your missing

Assuming that all of you are United States citizens, then you are Americans. You all speak English more or less. You all abide by US law. There is a single national culture that you are a part of despite your different ethnicities. Suppose we put Germany and France together. Do they use French law or German law? One side or the other is going to be disadvantaged because of it. There's a reason that different nations have separate states; they do things differently. So do the Jews and the Arabs. There's no reason for them to share a country.

[Shaktimaan]

18. well put. np

[Violet_Crumble]

22. I think you missed spotting over a million Israeli-Arabs...

There's a reason that different nations have separate states; they do things differently. So do the Jews and the Arabs. There's no reason for them to share a country.

But...but...aren't Jews and Arabs sharing a country called Israel already?

[hifalutin]

23. Are the Arabs

living in Israel Muslim?
If yes, then the two cultures can live together, can't they?
Can you tell me of any other country where they live together?
If not, why not?

[Violet_Crumble]

24. Yep, about 80% of them are Muslim... n/t

[hifalutin]

25. O.K. then so they are mostly Muslim

but that still does not answer my question.....

Are the Arabs living in Israel Muslim

If yes, then the two cultures can live together, can't they?

Can you tell me of any other country where they live together?
If not, why not?

[Vegasaurus]

27. The arabs living in Israel are Muslim

There are no Jews living in any of the many Muslim countries (or very few, in comparison to the hundreds of thousands that lived there, as dhimmi, before the state of Israel existed).

Jews aren't allowed to live in Musliim countries. In many cases they can't even visit, and certainly not with an Israeli passport, and sometimes even a stamp indicating one has visited Israel.

Muslims live in Israel because they are the minority. When they are the majority, Jews have been expelled or persecuted.

Kind of obvious why a "one state" solution is no solution. Jews would like one place on earth where they can have self-determination. Just one place. Considering that there are 22 muslim countries (that don't allow Jews) it would seem that one tiny country for Jews could be allowed.

But people refuse to allow it.

[hifalutin]

32. But this is where I am lost

The Jews were living in Israel before the time of King Solomon, so where does this quote 'before the state of Israel existed' come from?

[Violet_Crumble]

30. I just told you 80% of Israel Arabs are Muslim...

So I don't get why yr saying yr question hasn't been answered. You asked if Israeli-Arabs are Muslim. I think I've answered yr question...

[hifalutin]

33. Sorry, this is my question

If yes, then the two cultures can live together, can't they?

Can you tell me of any other country where they live together?
If not, why not?

[Violet_Crumble]

35. They seem to be doing it in Israel...

Jews and Arabs co-exist here in Australia. Just in the little microcosm that's my workplace, there's both Jews and Arabs, and unless they're being sneaky and trying to kill each other when I'm not looking, no-one, least of all them, actually gives a shit whether they're a Jew or an Arab or anything else for that matter...

[hifalutin]

37. If only it could

be that way everywhere!

Thank you for that.

[aranthus]

48. No I didn't

Israeli Arabs live in Israel as Israeli citizens, under Israeli law, as part of the Israeli national culture. What people mean when they talk about the Arabs and Jews "sharing" the Holy Land is to have an Arab dominated state where the Jews have to live under Arab/Muslim law and culture. That's assuming they are allowed to remain or remain alive. Even if they would not be subject to persecution, why should the Jews be expected to give up sovereignty over their part of the land just so that the Arabs can have sovereignty over all of it?

[Crunchy Frog]

49. No reason for them to share a country...

except for the fact that they already are. Different peoples are populating the same land, it's just that some of those people have no citizenship and almost no rights. I think that peace would be more likely to develop if everybody living in the same area at least had the same rights.

[Vegasaurus]

50. Except that history proves that where there is a preponderance of Arabs

Jews do not have the same rights.

Take a look around at every Arab or Muslim country. You will find almost no Jews, because they were all persecuted and mostly forced to flee (without compensation or right of return). There are handfuls, at most, of jews in any Arab/Muslim country, whereas there used to be a thriving Sephardic community of Jews in those countries or on those lands.

No way do Jews want to return to that dhimmi status again. They will control their own country and be the masters of their own fate.

Hamas and its many many followers just refuse to allow a Jewish state in their midst. They are clear about their goals.

So, there is no one state for both people. Not happening.

[Crunchy Frog]

51. So why did Israel choose to settle the West Bank then?

I would have thought that demographic concerns would have prevented them from de facto annexing that territory, but they chose to do it, even with the demographic realities. I don't think a situation can be maintained indefinitely where you have two peoples living in the same area and only one of them having citizenship and rights. If it were not for the settlements I would not be in favor of a single state, but with the choice of the Israelis to settle the area, I don't see any alternatives in the long run.

[Vegasaurus]

52. I think the settlements are the biggest blunder in Israeli history

or at least the continued expansion.

I don't think the situation can be maintained indefinitely either, but I foresee a land swap, and some dismantling of the smaller settlement blocs.

Would you be open to Jews living in the West Bank in a new Palestinian state? That is another option (not a viable one, probably, but I am throwing it out as a possibility).

[Crunchy Frog]

53. Well, of course it wouldn't be up to me, but

I would hope that eventually a situation could be worked out where all the people of the region could live together in peace and mutual respect, with people living in the same area being subject to the same laws that are enforced fairly.

I don't have the impression that most of the people in the settlements actually want to live among Arabs. I'm actually aware of only two Israeli citizens, Amira Hass and Susan Nathan, who are choosing to live in Arab communities. However, if more Jews actually wanted to live in among Arabs in an Arab state, I would hope that would be possible.

I have the impression that most of these people wish to live in Jewish only communities unless, like the Hebron settlers, they are in a position of complete domination over the Arabs. I would not think that would be acceptable in a Palestinian state. Also, I don't think that having religious fanatics who think that they "own" other people's land there would be a good idea. Unfortunately, those would be the most difficult to remove from the area.

Good luck sorting that one out. I personally think it would be a better idea to leave everyone where they are and make a single state.

[aranthus]

13. This is a simplistic analysis

The claim that, "It started because two different peoples wanted one piece of land," makes it sound as if the issue is ownership. That isn't the real issue. The war is about sovereignty. It's about who gets to rule the land instead of who owns it. The Jews and the Arabs are two different nations. There is no more reason to have them live in the same country than there is to have the Germans and the French live in the same state. Unfortunately, the Arabs have been opposed to any Jewish sovereignty in any part of the Holy Land. That's why they started the war, and that's why the war goes on.

[kayecy]

19. That's why they (the Arabs) started the war???

Can you explain how a massive unprovoked 'invasion' by Zionist immigrants can be construed as Arabs starting a war?

[Behind the Aegis]

20. So, legal immigration is equivalent to "invasion?"

Does this mean if "undesirables" start moving into my neighborhood, I can gather up fellow neighbors, as well as support from people from other locales, and attack, kill, maim, and destroy those "immigrants?"

[kayecy]

26. And the Vichy government 'legally' sent Jews to Auschwitz.....

So, legal immigration is equivalent to "invasion?"

The Vichy government 'legally' sent Jews to Auschwitz.....they had the full approval of the occupation authorities...I don't suppose you think Vichy's actions were legal, and neither were the Zionists' actions.

..Does this mean if "undesirables" start moving into my neighborhood, I can gather up fellow neighbors, as well as support from people from other locales, and attack, kill, maim, and destroy those "immigrants?"

So if "undesirable" Palestinians try to move west of the Green line with the intention of creating an Arab majority in Israel, you would not prevent them by the threat of lethal force?...The Palestinians would at least have the excuse of trying to get back to the their homes, or the homes of their grandfathers.

[Vegasaurus]

29. Great logic

Could all the expelled people across the globe just barge in and try to reclaim the homes of their ancestors?

Let's apply this prospect more globally. Think it's feasible? Why?

[azurnoir]

47. That street has a "one way" sign n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

36. Another example of a rather warped form of legality...

That'd be the 'legal' transportation of convicts to Australia, followed by British settlers. Oh, and the legal declaration that Australia was Terra Nullis, which of course made the 'legal' European settlement all fine and above board as far as the British were concerned. The thing is that the Aboriginals don't call the day celebrated nationally when the First Fleet landed 'Australia Day. They call it 'Invasion Day' and though using Vegasaurus' logic, they weren't invaded and the British were very legal in moving British citizens in, I think it's understandable why they'd refer to early European settlement as an invasion...

[Dick Dastardly]

55. There is a big difference

between gassing somone and allowing them to buy land and settle.

There was no invasion. Arabs were not displaced by the immigrants as the Peel report showed. The Zionist immigrants actually improved the living standards which increased Arab immigration much higher than Jewish. Why do you only claim a Jewish "invasion" but ignore the Arab "invasion" that was many times higher

[kayecy]

58. No 'invasion'?............What do you call 36,000 immigrants in one year?

...there is a big difference between gassing somone and allowing them to buy land and settle.

True, and there is a big difference between Israel stopping Arabs from returning to their homes west of the Green Line and Palestinians stopping aliens entering a land with no ancestral connections - aliens, moreover bent on removing the inhabitants right to self-determination.

...There was no invasion. Arabs were not displaced by the immigrants as the Peel report show

No 'invasion'? - What do you call 300,000 immigrants between 1917 and 1938 - 36,000 in 1936 alone?

[Behind the Aegis]

57. Stick to the topic.

So, legal immigration is equivalent to "invasion?"

The Vichy government 'legally' sent Jews to Auschwitz.....they had the full approval of the occupation authorities...I don't suppose you think Vichy's actions were legal, and neither were the Zionists' actions.

Has nothing to do with legal immigration prior to the establishment of Israel. So again, do you equate legal immigration with "invasion."

..Does this mean if "undesirables" start moving into my neighborhood, I can gather up fellow neighbors, as well as support from people from other locales, and attack, kill, maim, and destroy those "immigrants?"

So if "undesirable" Palestinians try to move west of the Green line with the intention of creating an Arab majority in Israel, you would not prevent them by the threat of lethal force?...The Palestinians would at least have the excuse of trying to get back to the their homes, or the homes of their grandfathers.

Again, nothing to do with the question I posed. This is called "avoidance." The question I posed dealt with legal immigration, purchasing of land, and no mention of "reason." So, again, if gays decided to purchase vast tracks of land here in New Orleans, should the good straights rise up and start killing us because they don't want "our kind" here?

[kayecy]

59. Not avoiding your question at all....what was legal about the Zionist 'invasion' of Palestine?

Again, nothing to do with the question I posed. This is called "avoidance." ......The question I posed dealt with legal immigration

Thank you for explaining to me what you think the term "avoidance" means ...Now perhaps you could explain to me why the massive Zionist flood of immigrants into Palestine was 'legal'.

As far as I can see, it was only granted 'legality' by the occupying power.....Vichy expulsion of Jews was also only granted 'legality' by the occupying power.

[Behind the Aegis]

60. Stop avoiding the questions.

Perhaps you can explain how the "massive Zionist flood of immigrants into Palestine" was illegal? Point to something specific that would make the immigration of Jews to the area illegal.

So, legal immigration is equivalent to "invasion?"

Does this mean the likes of Pat Robertson, David Duke, etc., are correct when they say the US is being "invaded" by "illegal" immigrants? What about those immigrants that have come legally to this country? Are they, too, "invaders?"

Does this mean if "undesirables" start moving into my neighborhood, I can gather up fellow neighbors, as well as support from people from other locales, and attack, kill, maim, and destroy those "immigrants?"

Seems some think this is their "right" in regards to Mexicans crossing our border. Seems even more agree with this when one looks at the gentrification happening in the US, and most of the people affected by that are legal US citizens.

[kayecy]

63. A whole people has been denied self-determination and you say "Stop avoiding questions"!..

Point to something specific that would make the immigration of Jews to the area illegal.

Any massive immigration, specifically designed to demographically engineer an ethnic majority where there was not one before, is illegal and immoral....Is that specific enough?...Show me any other situation where such massive immigration is legal.

It would be illegal in the USA and any other land. It is illegal in Israel now.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[kayecy]

66. Here you are.........Oh!..you have been deleted.... I guess you upset the moderator......

Please, show where the immigration by Jews to the area was "specifically designed to demographically engineer an ethnic majority.

Here you are:
Moshe Smilansky 1907 - separator was a prerequisite for the attainment of a Jewish majority in Palestine.
Israel Zangwell 1904 - We must be prepared to expel (the country's non-Jewish population) from the land by the sword.
Weizmann 1923 - If, as I hope, there will be a Jewish majority in Palestine,....
Vladimir Jabotinsky 1923 - ....all the other moderate Zionists have long since understood that there is not even the slightest hope of ever obtaining the agreement of the Arabs of the Land of Israel to “Palestine” becoming a country with a Jewish majority.

Now a question for you.....Zionism was democratic....How do you think Zionism intended to achieve a democratic Jewish majority in Palestine other than engineering an ethnic majority?

[Behind the Aegis]

67. I can guess why my post was deleted.

So, I will leave out the awful truth and return to the original questions, which you have still not answered.

So, legal immigration is equivalent to "invasion?"

You can tap dance all you want, but you have yet to answer this question. Do not equate the immigration of Jews to the ethnic cleansing of Jews from France. Do not equate the immigration of Jews to the area with immigration into an already sovereign state.

Does this mean if "undesirables" start moving into my neighborhood, I can gather up fellow neighbors, as well as support from people from other locales, and attack, kill, maim, and destroy those "immigrants?"

You have any examples of such mass immigration declared illegal?

Now, for your post, you have provided examples of some who specifically wanted to design a "demographically engineered ethnic majority" all the while leaving out that those people were separatists, and in some cases, not popular in the mainstream Zionist movement. You also failed to include those who were willing to integrate into the population and share power, as well as those willing to be a part of an ethnic minority, as long as they had a voice in their own governance.

As for your question, I never said Zionism was democratic, therefore your question is null and void because you are asking based on something I never said nor indicated. Furthermore, I don't know I have ever seen the early Zionist movements as having "democratic majority" as one of their goals.

[kayecy]

68. Why don't you state why you think it was legal for Zionists to chose Palestine?

As for your question, I never said Zionism was democratic

You are correct, you did not say Zionism was democratic, I apologize....I must remember to quote you when next I'm told Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East!...However, I'm still awaiting your answer to my question as to how Zionism intended to create a (non-democratic) state in Palestine?

You can tap dance all you want, but you have yet to answer this question. Do not equate the immigration of Jews to the ethnic cleansing of Jews from France. Do not equate the immigration of Jews to the area with immigration into an already sovereign state.

So you don't like me comparing the legality of the massive Zionist immigration into Palestine with other examples of occupied peoples or even Israel itself.....Why don't you state why you think it was legal and moral for them to chose Palestine where the inhabitants had made it clear they did not want anymore Jewish immigration...Don't native inhabitants have a right to self-determination in the land where they were born?

[Behind the Aegis]

69. Just can't answer those questions, can you?

Instead, you insert red herrings into the fray.

"I must remember to quote you when next I'm told Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East!"

What an absurd comment. Israel's being a democracy is not contingent on Zionism's original missions. You asked a nonsensical question, then created a false conclusion. BTW, I already answered the question. Perhaps it was too subtle. I gave you three versions on how Zionists intended to create a state in Palestine.

• Now, for your post, you have provided examples of some who specifically wanted to design a "demographically engineered ethnic majority" all the while leaving out that those people were separatists, and in some cases, not popular in the mainstream Zionist movement. (separatists)
  
• You also failed to include those who were willing to integrate into the population and share power...(integrationists)
  
• as well as those willing to be a part of an ethnic minority, as long as they had a voice in their own governance.('liberals')

So you don't like me comparing the legality of the massive Zionist immigration into Palestine with other examples of occupied peoples or even Israel itself.....Why don't you state why you think it was legal and moral for them to chose Palestine where the inhabitants had made it clear they did not want anymore Jewish immigration...Don't native inhabitants have a right to self-determination in the land where they were born?

It is not a matter of my "liking" or "disliking" your comparison, it is a matter of your comparison being illogical, 'apples and oranges.' First, you gave no example of "massive immigration" of occupied people, you likened ethnic cleansing to Jewish immigration to the area. Secondly, like it or not, "Palestine" was not a sovereign nation at the time of the immigration. It was a territory of various other states. So, to compare it to a massive influx of self-determined immigrants into a sovereign state, such as Israel, is a false choice. That is simply the historic reality of the situation.

It was legal immigration. You have failed to prove it was anything but. Everything I have read states the majority of the immigration was legal and fell with the parameters set by those "in charge." There was some illegal immigration, but that wasn't limited to the Jews and wasn't as voluminous as the legal migration. I have said nothing of the morality of the situation. And, why should it matter, one way or the other, if the people "want" the immigrants or not? Are you saying that a neighborhood that doesn't want blacks moving in should be within their right to actively, even violently, disrupt blacks moving into their neighborhood?

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[Behind the Aegis]

79. This is tiresome.

It is abundantly clear you cannot answer the questions, you have no interest in a real discussion, nor do you keep the goalposts firmly in-ground. The incredibly sad fact you can't see the three reasons, one in paragraph form, and since the subtly was lost on you, re-written in list form, yet you still can't see it.

Your absurd bullshit comparison of the ethnic cleansing of French Jews and the Jews immigration to Palestine is offensive on many levels.

True, Palestinians, like the Zionists did not have a sovereign state, does that mean they didn't have the human right of self-determination?...Did the Zionists have a right to self determination?.

More absurdity. The Palestinians had every right to self-determination, but unlike the Jews, chose not to petition the occupying powers for their own area.

And who were those 'in charge' who gave this 'legality' to massive Zionist immigration?...Do use a bit of logic...you can't say Zionist immigration was made 'legal' by 'those in power' and then say Vichy action was not made 'legal' by 'those in power'.

Your continued comparison of the Jewish immigration to Palestine to the ethnic cleansing and genocide of French Jews is absolutely disgusting. Since you seem to have trouble understanding basic concepts, let me help you...

The French Jews did not willingly move. They, the "immigrants", had no choice in the matter. The Jewish immigrants to Palestine, however, had full-choice as to where to move.

Now, how's about you use some logic...the Jewish immigration to Palestine was 'approved' by the controlling powers of the region, the Ottoman Empire and, later, the British. You may not like that historic fact, but it doesn't change the reality of it. The Jewish "immigration" to the Nazi death camps aren't even remotely close to a reasonable comparison!

[hifalutin]

80. There is nothing,

nor will there ever be, anything that can compare with the Nazi death camps.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

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

[bemildred]

7. A useful piece.

One seldom see a spade called a spade in this way. We've come a long way from Taba, have we not?

[Disturbed]

70. The biggest mistake that some Palistenians continue to make is

the suicide bombings. These acts took away any sympathy for the plight of the Palistenians.

[bemildred]

71. I'm sure they regret the loss of your sympathy every day. nt

[ProgressiveMuslim]

72. The world ignored their "plight" from day one. nt

[hifalutin]

73. I am new to DU but I am

trying to enlighten myself with regards to the ME as I feel it is so important to peace in the rest of the world.

I seem to get the idea that the feeling here is that all the misery in Gaza is self inflicted by Hamas and, for some unknown reason, they want to keep the Palestinian people as perpetual victims, am I wrong?

[breakaleg]

74. Yes. You are summing up one side of this argument only. Surely you don't honestly think

that viewpoint sums up the feeling here at DU?

[hifalutin]

75. It is in that

I keep reading here and elsewhere that if Hamas would just stop firing rockets at Israel there would be more stability and far less suffering for the innocent Palestinian people and Israel would help them in their daily lives.

So if it is that simple, why not stop with the rockets?

[breakaleg]

76. when you read a thread, do you read only every other post or do you read them all?

Because that is the only way you can come to the conclusion you have.

[hifalutin]

77. I must admit

I tend to skip from here to there but from what I did read it appeared the consensus by most, by both sides of the argument, was that things would be better if the rockets stopped.