Re: July the 4th

On Aug 9, 7:18 am, davi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
In article <1186620249.987032.4...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, AEF <spamsink2...@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
On Aug 8, 11:18 am, davi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
In article <1186442318.376946.4...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, AEF <spamsink2...@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
On Aug 6, 11:12 am, davi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
In article <1186363007.921609.27...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, AEF <spamsink2...@xxxxxxxxx> writes:>On Aug 5, 7:55 pm, davi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
In article <1186334184.382451.138...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, AEF <spamsink2...@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

[...]

[...discussion about the document about Israeli "racism" omitted, but
referred to below...]

[...]

Well, if the Wikipedia article is right, even the Soviets (not
normally Jew-friendly, BTW) considered the Arab invasion into the
fledgling Israel to be _illegal_ aggression.

Can you not read - I agreed that it was an agression as defined by the UN
charter. If you want I'll say it's an illegal agression as defined by the UN
charter. Any invasion of a sovereign nation is an illegal agression as defined
by the UN charter unless sanctioned by the UN.

OK, maybe I missed it. But you seemed to be saying it was justified.

Apartheid was legal in South Africa.

My point was that even the Soviets thought it was, in their opinion,
unjustified. Why else would they claim it was illegal?

(You may say that OK Apartheid was legal in South Africa but South Africa was
just one country whereas the legal status of Israel was defined by the "
world community" via the UN. However imagine for a minute that Hitler had won
the second world war and along with Japan and Italy and a few others had
setup his own new league of nations. Would you then be arguing that the Jews
outside his immediate control should meekly submit to rulings against them
because those rules were passed legally by that world community ?)

Of course not.

This is patently absurd. First of all, if Hitler had won WWII he
wouldn't have let the Jews live long enough to fight back. And exactly
how would they have fought back? They'd probably all be dead before
the conquest was finished.

There were many in the British cabinet calling for a peace deal with Hiltler in
1940. Only Winston Churchill's determination to continue to fight kept Britain
in the war. If such a peace deal had occurred Hitler would have had a free hand
on the continent and in his war against Russia later on. That would probably
have satisfied Hitler - He would have had his lebensraum.
However that would have still left Britain's Jews, America's Jews etc out of his
direct control.

Funny you should mention Russia. I believe Hitler and Stalin made a
non-aggression pact, right? We all know how that turned out. Why would
it be any different with Britain? The Nazis were pathogenic liars.

I don't know of any basis for deciding how far around the world Hitler
would have gone to exterminate all the Jews. He might have gone to the
ends of the Earth for all we know. He murdered 90% of all those Jews
he had access to. This is supposed to be an acceptable loss according
to you? I heard once that trains carrying Jews to Auschwitz to be
murdered were given priority over military trains, even when they were
clearly losing the war, but I don't have a reference.

It would be quite difficult to defend yourself without your own
country when all those who surround you want you tortured and then
dead.

You're drawing a parallel between Hitler and the world of 1947?

OK, maybe you're saying that just because "the world" gave a small
piece of land to the Zionists doesn't automatically make it right.

Yes I am saying that in the viewpoint of the Arabs it wasn't right and that
their action in response was based upon that viewpoint. I am further saying
that the viewpoint of the Arabs on this issue is the viewpoint I would expect
any people who have lived in an area for generations to have in the
circumstances.

Well, please keep in mind that the neighboring Arab countries haven't
exactly been helpful to the Palestinians (P's) at any time AFAIK. They
just use them as pawns. So I think they were far more interested in
exterminating Israel than in helping the P's.

I'm frankly amazed that your anti-palestinian bias is so strong that you cannot
see that as a valid viewpoint.

Your opinion.

[...]

Until the British carved up the ottoman empire they were citizens of the
empire. The Arabs wanted the British out but they probably didn't really want
a Palestinian state as such - what they wanted and what lots of Arabs still
want is a single united Arab state, of which Palestine would have been a
province, comprising pretty much all of the Middle East ie the territory of
the ottoman empire. Before the first world war the whole of the Middle East was
the Arab's state as you put it.
Saying the Palestinians didn't have a state is like saying that Yorkshiremen
(those coming from the English county of Yorkshire) don't have a state. It's
true in the sense that Yorkshire is not a state but untrue in that it is part
of a larger entity - England and the UK.
Given the character of Yorkshiremen I can assure you that they would definitely
fight if someone gave half their county away.

And at the same time given them the other half all to themselves, and
the other non-parallel is that I think Yorkshirites have a lot more in
common with Britons than the P's or Arabs do. And why are Yorkshireman
supposed to be the gold standard for what to do in this type of
situation?

What the hell is

"I think Yorkshirites have a lot more in common with Britons than
the P's or Arabs do."

supposed to mean. I was using Yorkshiremen and Britain/UK as an analogy for
Arabs and ottoman empire since you have this fixation that the arabs had no
state on the land of Palestine.

The P's were under the Brits in 1948, not the Ottoman empire.

It means that the situations again weren't analogous.

[...]

The fact that following the first world war the British and French had carved
up the ottoman empire and the British were ruling as an occupying power had
little bearing upon how the Arabs viewed their ownership of land they had lived
on for uncounted generations.

But when Palestine was split between the Jews and Arabs, suddenly it
was a big deal.

In everywhere other than Palestine the same people continued to live on the
land they have lived on for generations. In Palestine you have a new nation
created which isn't for the existing people it is for refugees who have been
coming in ever greater numbers and for all those refugees "relatives" from
around the world.

Right next to a nation created for them, which they never had before,
then, or since, but could have had numerous times. The Jews had a
country there once. During one period they had two countries there!
The P's never had even one. And they still don't.

[...]

In the international arena, who is
decide how just they are? Yes, people should fight against "unjust"
laws. So they thought the creation of Israel was unjust. That's their
opinion. Doesn't make it right.

Forget right and wrong. In conflicts all that counts is viewpoints !!!
You may agree or disagree (as you evidently do) with their viewpoint but to
solve the conflict everybody needs to understand the others viewpoint.

But they weren't willing to compromise one iota.

If you had setup Israel almost anywhere in the world without the explicit
consent of the local population you would have had the same reaction.

Anywhere else in the world would lose the parallel in that the
inhabitants in the rest of the world have their own country. And I'm
not convinced it would be the same reaction everywhere. Also, I'd like
to point out that perhaps you don't give the S. African blacks enough
credit for not slaughtering all the S. African whites. Many have been
killed "in the spotlight of world attention".

However there were "good" reasons for setting it up in Palestine.

The Jews were being persecuted in Europe and saw settling in Palestine as a
way to escape that persecution. From their point of view Palestine was the
chosen land given to them by God.

Again, it was the SECULAR Jews who fought for the creation of Israel
and the RELIGIOUS ones who fought very hard against it.

But even the secular Jews based their claim on the biblical history of the Jews
in Palestine see the quote below from Weizmann. Otherwise, why as Balfour
asked, must the Jewish homeland be in Palestine.

The events of the Bible correlate well to actual events as far back at
least to the days of Saul [Ref.: Asimov's New Guide to Science
(1984)]. It may not be accurate in every detail, but that doesn't
matter. There is a lot of actual history of the Jews in that area.
(And not so much for the P's and/or Arabs AFAIK.) This is actual
history, not "Biblical fantasy". We're not talking Noah's ark,
creation, or the Exodus here. There was no God argument made by the
secular Zionists, AFAIK.

[...]

And kindly mark the beginning and end of your quotations from
references in the future. And do some snipping. Thanks.

The declaration used the word home rather than state and specified that it's
establishment must not "prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing
non-jewish communities in Palestine".

I believe, in Israel, all religions are allowed freedom to worship as
they wish, as long as it doesn't involve unreasonable things like
killing all the infidels. This was not the case when Jerusalem was
under Arab control. Only Islam was allowed.

Reread your history. Jews have lived under Arab rule all over the world with
much much less persecution from Arabs than they have suffered under Christian
rule. Small Jewish communities have lived in Jerusalem for centuries under Arab
rule and were completely free to practise their religion. (Similarly small
Christian communities lived under Arab rule in Jerusalem and were free to
practise their religion).

I've read that in recent times up until 1948 they weren't (1967 for
the old city). I can't comment on the rest.

[...]
However since they did not agree to it but just had this nation forced upon
them the Palestinians had a rather different point of view and reacted
accordingly.

You conveniently omit the fact that they were offered half for
themselves and turned it down. If all of Palestine were given to the
Jews, you'd have a better case. But you repeatedly keep ignoring that.

Giving someone half of what they already own and claiming that makes it right
for you to take the other half doesn't strike me as a good or equitable deal.

Ownership is not absolute. Consider Eminent Domain, e.g. Also Landmark
Preservation. They "owned" it only because way back they conquered it.
The Arabs have tremendously more land than the Israelis. Isn't that
enough? Hey, it was ruled by Britain at the time, not the Arabs. At
one time the Arabs conquered the area. What about the people they took
the land from?

Both points of view are valid points of view. Noone is going to convince the
Israelis that their point of view is wrong - neither is anyone going to convince
the Palestinians and the surrounding Arab populations.
But to solve the problem both sides need to recognise the others point of view
and work towards a compromise position.

The 1947 partition plan was such a compromise.

No the 1947 deal was something imposed. A compromise has to be agreed by all
parties involved.

The Jews and Arabs both wanted the same piece of land. The partition
plan gave each approx. half. That's a compromise. It wasn't a
compromise agreed to by all parties, but it was a compromise, and I
think a fair one.

I think I'll probably stop now. This discussion seems to be getting nowhere.

David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University

AEF

.

Relevant Pages

  • Rabbi Meir Kahane interview "G-ds law..."
    ... Meir Kahane and the Far Right in Israel. ... Rabbi Meir Kahane, you have been politically active for many ... From the start we have addressed ourselves to the Sephardic Jews. ... These people have lived among the Arabs. ...
    (soc.culture.jewish)
  • Re: Nobel Prize Winners
    ... Israel need to be better neighbors. ... Thank God the Arabs are great neighbors! ... time one of those pesky Jews walked into an Arab coffee ... Israeli jews rarely go on a suicide mission. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: July the 4th
    ... so many P's (or Arabs) NOT expelled? ... Palestine illegal aggression, ... fledgling Israel to be _illegal_ aggression. ... Would you then be arguing that the Jews ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: ARABS HAVE A BETTER HISTORICAL LINK TO PALESTINE
    ... THE ARABS ARE KNOWN SQUATTERS WHO GRABS EVERYTHING WHAT EVEN NOT ... Let us remember that Jews are ... who have a real connection to the land are the Samaritans and a few Jews ... A Jew from Russia has no direct link to Palestine. ...
    (soc.culture.israel)
  • Kahane interview - G-ds law
    ... Meir Kahane and the Far Right in Israel. ... Rabbi Meir Kahane, you have been politically active for many ... From the start we have addressed ourselves to the Sephardic Jews. ... These people have lived among the Arabs. ...
    (soc.culture.jewish)