West should be more "tolerant" of holocaust deniers...

[sheikyerbouti]

I would just like to step in here for a second and point out that although there may be some concessions towards the Arab population with respect to standard of living, they are still treated as second class citizens in many respects.

Try hitching a ride, employment is curtailed and many arabs are underpaid for the worst jobs they have to perform. The actions of Kibbutzim are of note as they are among the most repressive when it comes to their treatment of Arabs, many of whom provide the cheap labour necessary to conduct their businesses and continue with their economic vision.

Although I have not as yet had the privilege to visit Israel, many of my Jewish friends have gone over to serve or to live on a kibbutz and depending on where you are (urban vs rural), the experiences of the Arab population can be quite dramatic. One of my closest friends was employed as an agricultural pesticide applicator and according to him safety goggles and masks were not provided to the Arab workers who had to work in the clouds of toxic pesticides that followed the tractor along the tree lines. On the same kibbutz, housing was not provided to the Arab workers, many of whom had been lifelong employees, instead they were required to live outside of the confines of the kibbutz as they were deemed undesirable even though guest workers of no religious affiliation were welcomed without question. Arab workers were also required to feed and water themselves even though the other (non-Arab) workers were provided with 3 square a day. In the rural areas there is still, undoubtedly, great hostility towards the Arab.

Israel has problems like everywhere else, they are just compounded by a siege mentality which is counter-productive to achieving peace in their neck of the woods. Once the Knesset gets a better handle on its financial stability we will see many changes for the better as there will be better recognition paid to all economic contributors regardless of ethnicity. In fact peace would be a great boon to their fiscal bottom line as the full productivity of the large Arab labour pool could be effectively tapped. As Bob Marley put it so well... "A hungry man is an angry man".

BTW , just read Shec's post and he represents the transition well. As prosperity increases there is greater potential for effective, sustainable and democratic change.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Israel has problems like everywhere else, they are just compounded by a siege mentality which is counter-productive to achieving peace in their neck of the woods.

Those are good points, and I am in no position to doubt the veracity of the claims made,  but on the issue of "siege mentality" - it seems implicit that Israeli desire for security is very well founded and is in fact not an artificial construct. Perhaps until very recently - the siege was and remains a reality.

Cheers

 

[48Highlander]

I would just like to step in here for a second and point out that although there may be some concessions towards the Arab population with respect to standard of living, they are still treated as second class citizens in many respects.

Try hitching a ride, employment is curtailed and many arabs are underpaid for the worst jobs they have to perform. The actions of Kibbutzim are of note as they are among the most repressive when it comes to their treatment of Arabs, many of whom provide the cheap labour necessary to conduct their businesses and continue with their economic vision.

Although I have not as yet had the privilege to visit Israel, many of my Jewish friends have gone over to serve or to live on a kibbutz and depending on where you are (urban vs rural), the experiences of the Arab population can be quite dramatic. One of my closest friends was employed as an agricultural pesticide applicator and according to him safety goggles and masks were not provided to the Arab workers who had to work in the clouds of toxic pesticides that followed the tractor along the tree lines. On the same kibbutz, housing was not provided to the Arab workers, many of whom had been lifelong employees, instead they were required to live outside of the confines of the kibbutz as they were deemed undesirable even though guest workers of no religious affiliation were welcomed without question. Arab workers were also required to feed and water themselves even though the other (non-Arab) workers were provided with 3 square a day. In the rural areas there is still, undoubtedly, great hostility towards the Arab.

I can't vouch for the accuracy of your claims, however, I'm going to point out the point at which the relevancy of such arguments falls apart.  There is a HUGE difference between a "second class citizen" status which is the result of individual mindsets, and the systematic type of discrimination which exists in many third-world nations.  Picture Jews attempting to live in any Arab state, and try to tell me that they would not be subject to systemic discrimination at all levels.

An argument similar to yours can be made about mexicans living in the US as well as, say, chinese immigrants in Canada.  Certainly both of our great nations have sweat shops and underground prostitution rings.  In many cases, immigrants spend thousands of dollars to get into the country, only to be subject to poor living conditions and forced labour.  However, Canada, the US, and even Israel, provide the same legal and civil rights to all of their citizens regaurdless of race or religion.

Israel has problems like everywhere else, they are just compounded by a siege mentality which is counter-productive to achieving peace in their neck of the woods. Once the Knesset gets a better handle on its financial stability we will see many changes for the better as there will be better recognition paid to all economic contributors regardless of ethnicity. In fact peace would be a great boon to their fiscal bottom line as the full productivity of the large Arab labour pool could be effectively tapped. As Bob Marley put it so well... "A hungry man is an angry man".

Peace has little to do with the way they treat their citizens.  Israeli Arabs might not all feel they are being treated fairly, however, the vast majority of them are quite aware that they're far better off living in Israel than in any neighbouring state.

As far as the seige mentality and the desire for peace go, Israel has repeatedly demonstrated their desire for peace in the way they have dealt with other nations.  At Camp David in 1978, Israel agreed to return a land area about twice the size of present-day Israel to Egypt in return for peace.  Similar deals were made in the past with Syria and Jordan.  The only current problem is the question of Palestine.  Israel has managed to make peace with every neighouring nation EXCEPT Palestine, and that's largely due to the fact that Palestine does not attack through traditional military means, and doesn't have a government capable of controling the terrorist networks which continue to wage war on Israel.  If Palestine weren't in such a wretched state, they would have doubtless reached an agreement with Israel decades ago.  The current problem isn't the mindset of Israelis, it's the inability of the Palestinian Authority to control matters within it's own borders.

 

[Infanteer]

Thanks for the link to the PBS program Infanteer but don't get sucked in by the media hyperbole. The Kahanists are the supporters of the same outlawed Kach party I referenced above.

Yes, but all the social forces in the region need to be considered to get a better picture of what is going on.  Sure, notions like Israel's democratic government and the hope for the Palestinian Authority to move along now that Arafat is gone, but this doesn't change the fact that groups like Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Kahanists have an impact on what goes on in the region.

Can we get some examples of when Israel attacked a neighbour without being threatened or provoked please?

Suez?  The US and the USSR obviously felt that their collusion with France and Britain was a clear-cut case.

Try reading about Beirut.  The siege certainly doesn't strike me as a benign defensive measure.

I would just like to step in here for a second and point out that although there may be some concessions towards the Arab population with respect to standard of living, they are still treated as second class citizens in many respects.

As for the Occupied Territories, my reading of Friedman (a political analysis of the conflict) and Hammes (a military analysis of the conflict), among others, leads me to conclude that there is a degree of culpability in the hands of Israel for todays mess.  Friedman's look at the Shin-Bet's activities at the time seems indicative of this.

Anyways, how did we get to this?  I thought we were flinging mud at that Iranian idiot for denying the Holocaust happened?  

 

[sheikyerbouti]

First off, I was not making a representation of the ostensibly legal situation which is designed to promote and preserve fundamental rights. What I was speaking about was the reality that the Israeli population has made a cultural distinction with regards to their fellow citizens.


My argument is fine provided you realize that the Israeli situation is unique in that it has evolved as the result of some very complicated developments that have compounded themselves over time. You (48th) cannot equivocate the situation of Arab-Israeli's with that of immigrants in North America many of whom have no birth right or legal entitlement to their position. I am not saying that we are above many of these issues, just that we have developed legal mechanisms which dictate our treatment of said illegals. In Israel's case there are concerns over the timely and equal application of justice be it social, human, or economic.

I never mentioned the Palestinian issue as it is separate from the treatment of ostensibly Israeli citizens' hence my assertion that there is truly a second class of citizen which has been created. These people are given certain rights which are ignored or abrogated in the face of a legal environment which presumably prevents such conduct. I was careful to make said distinction as the treatment of Arabs is generally better in Urban environs when compared with that of rural areas


With specific respect to the Palestinian question, it is irresponsible to assert that the Israeli position is legally grounded. The have been numerous abrogations of duly negotiated agreements by both sides. The Palestinians, in my personal opinion, are justified in their pursuit of sovereignty by any and all means necessary. This doesn't mean that Israel is not entitled to retaliate but rather that both sides in the dispute are justified according to their current ideologies to pursue a largely militant tangent which is counter-productive towards achieving peace.

True reconciliation will only be achieved through mutual recognition of both sides' legitimate and illegitimate arguments for their cause.

On a side note I suggest that you informally approach any and all Jewish or Israeli brethren you may be fortunate to know and ask them if Israel is under attack. You may be surprised to find how deeply ingrained the siege mentality truly is. This is an inevitable conclusion reached by many who have had their history tempered by such ideas as the Diaspora,Sykes-Picot, the holocaust, or even subsequent battles since the war for independence. This mentality is only further strengthened by the 3 intifadeh and a barrage of political intervention in Israeli determinations. An excellent recent example would be the fracas generated by the Syrians vis a vis the Red Cross' adoption of a new symbol which is sensitive to Jewish belief.

Good discussion, let's keep it going and let reason prevail. In the interests of healthy debate, I hope this thread is not locked.

 

[48Highlander]

Agreed, good points, and I'm glad to see you make the distinction between government policy and social influence.  I don't doubt that there is a level of discrimination against Arab citizens - the Israelis would have to be almost inhuman for there not to be.  After 9/11, voilence against muslims, arabs, and even hindus in north america increased almost overnight.  Ignorance truly knows no bounds, and those members of our society who are xenophobic by nature don't need much of an excuse to mistreat others.  I can only imagine what would happen if we were subject to a decade of almost daily attacks.  I can't justify such behaviour, but I can entirely condemn it either.  I suppose the same could be said of the Palestinian situation, except that the actions of the Palestinians are even more self-destructive.

Also, I won't argue that a seige-mentality didn't exist in Israel, but rather, that it isn't limited to the standard dig-in-and-fight mindset.  Considering their treatment over the last century, you certainly can't blame them for thinking they're under attack by most of the world; especialy considering that the highly vaunted UN has passed more resolutions against Israel than the total resolutions against ALL other nations, and that even supposedly democratic and civilized nations such as Canada regularily vote for such resolutions.  They are however actively seeking solutions, whether they be military, political, economic, or whatever.  It seems that after a few decades of "seige-mentality" they learned to try new methods to defend themselves.

 

[GO!!!]

Can we get some examples of when Israel attacked a neighbour without being threatened or provoked please? I'm really quite interested in where you think Israel attacked people on a 'regular basis'.

So we are able to invade sovereign nations for the purpose of killing their political leaders on the basis of being 'threatened or provoked'?

Since the six day war in 1967, Israel has launched pre-emptive strikes against such major targets as the Osirak reactor in 1981, right up to the assassinations of various religious and political leaders as recently as yesterday, usually with missiles, and massive associated collateral damage.

I suppose the attacks on camps like Jenin and Ramallah are justified as long as Israel is sufficiently threatened as well.

The fact of the matter is that the only way nations today can guarantee the inviolability of their borders is with a nuclear deterrent, and a will to use it. Iran and Syria will no longer be candidates for intimidation if they have the ability to incinerate Tel Aviv at the first sign of the violation of their borders.

Additionally, the President of Iran brings up a good point when he suggests that Israel be moved to Canada, the US or Europe. If the rest of the world was so keen to have a Zionist homeland, why did they not give it to them out of their own land, instead of carving it from existing nations?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Additionally, the President of Iran brings up a good point when he suggests that Israel be moved to Canada, the US or Europe. If the rest of the world was so keen to have a Zionist homeland, why did they not give it to them out of their own land, instead of carving it from existing nations?

Jews have more of a historical claim to ground in Jerusalem than on Madagascar (which is where Hitler and co. briefly considered exiling the European Jews) or Baffin Island, I should think.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Gee, relocate Israel.  How would you pitch that?  Hey guys, I know you have a nice Mediteranean beach side spot here, and you have fought day in and day out to retain what is arguably yours, but we have this GREAT available spot just a day north of Medicine Hat all for YOU!  What a prize!  And even if they were dumb enough to go (and they don't seem too dumb) as soon as they got there you can bet New Tel Aviv was built on a native burial ground and there would be a land claim.  Next thing you know, the Oka gang is shooting at them, and we have a war.  Of course, the Indian Act requires us to pay for and coddle our precious indiginous persons, so heres the Canadian military fighting against the Israelis.  Whose armoured corp do you think would prevail?
If you put aside who is right and wrong, think about who you would rather support.  Israel is far closer to a Western country than Palistine, and they are not trying to purge all elements of our society from the planet.  Remember the aim of Islam;  to work endlessly until the world is a perfect Islamic state.  Anybody other than me have a problem with that?  The Israelis are not going anywhere, so the world has to accept that. 
Whoever made the point about Palistine having to get their $h_t together before they can hope to go forward was bang on (sorry for the credit drop).  Unfortunately, all politics is the same in that if there is something that gets people worked up, if you flog it, people with clamour to you and you will get support.  Anyone in Palestine that wants to be in power pretty much has to be an Israel hater, regardless of how much that holds their country back.  Until Palistine sucks back a whole bunch of "this is how it is, get over it" they can look forward to continued bull dozer drive through windows and sidewinder missle/mercedes tag games.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Israel is far closer to a Western country than Palistine, and they are not trying to purge all elements of our society from the planet.

You post this as if "western countries" have more of a "right" to exist than others.  Gee, why do the Islamics feel threatened?

 

[zipperhead_cop]

"We" dont seem to have a problem with "them".  "We" are all about appologizing for the British Empire, and being politically correct, and "they" seem to need to tear down everything that is not Islamic.  I could really care less how Islamic states conduct themselves.  And if the people there don't like it, do something about it. 
If Islamics are somehow threatened by us mearly existing, what are we supposed to do about that?  Remember when Communism was just trying to "exist"?  We were all pretty ramped up about that and ready to go kill Ivan the red commie dog.  We have never done anything to these people, other that just exist.  And please dont trot out the Crusades.  If it happened a thousand years ago, its time to get over it. 

 

[sheikyerbouti]

Let's get one thing straight.

The palestinians are not threatening anyone other than Israel. They may have conducted some extra-territorial actions but they were by and large, targeted at Israeli's.

A clear and concise distincton must be made between radical Islamists and their muslim brethren. If every muslim is our perceived enemy then we have a very large problem on our hands.

On a side note, the Palestinian question might have been solved a long time ago if it wasn't for fervent nationalists on both sides who have contorted the issue to keep themselves in power. Anyone who is seemingly proactive either gets assassinated or alienated by their power base thus rendering them impotent to effect change.

 

[GO!!!]

What we need to get clear is the idea that Israel is anything but a present day white settler regime.

"We" (as in the western world we) installed the Zionists in Israel for a variety of reasons. They are surrounded on all sides by the locals, who were displaced.

If the western world was really finished apologising for the British empire and the holocaust, we would allow the Israelis and Arabs to duke it out once and for all, without western support for either side. There will never be peace in the Middle east without a clear victor, which will result in the death or displacement of one group.

Israel has become too much of a liability for the western world. We need to make peace with the Arab world more than we need Israel as an ally, and this peace with a billion of the world's inhabitants will not be possible while the west is propping up a settler regime in Israel.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Israel has ATTACKED it's neighbours on a regular basis for the last thirty years!

How often is "regular basis"?  Daily? Monthly? Yearly?  Once a decade?

 

[enfield]

allow the Israelis and Arabs to duke it out once and for all, without western support for either side. There will never be peace in the Middle east without a clear victor, which will result in the death or displacement of one group.

If we did that, Israel would have owned Egypt, Syria, and Jordan in 1956. It was outside intervention that saved those countries in every war - it was US, Russian, and UN pressure that kept Israel from occupying Cairo and Damascus.
Only recently has Israel been a large recipient of foreign military aid. For 1948-1972, the Arab states received far more weapons, equipment, and advisors (from the USSR) than Israel. There was a massive US donation of weaponry in the Yom Kippur War, but I believe it came after the tide had turned.

For better or worse, Israel's position has demanded an aggressive stance and a first-strike defence policy. Israel is so small that the first war it loses, it will cease to exist, so it can't afford to risk anything and can hardly afford to allow it's enemies to choose the time and place of war. This doesn't excuse or justify everything Israel has done, but I think it explains it. The 1956 War had very dubious justification, and the Lebanon War was quite dubious as well; the 1967 War was entirely justified as a pre-emptive measure. 

I say the problem is 50-50, both sides (Arabs and Israelis) have made both antagonistic and peaceful moves. In a meaningful way, the problem of Arabs states vs. state of Israel is solved - no Arab state would dare attack Israel, despite the rhetoric. I think the Israeli issue is kept alive by Arab leaders as an issue to inflame and unite their people, and as a unifying force in the region.

Regarding the Palestinians: Israel cannot absorb the Palestinians. That would mean the end of Israel, period. Palestinians do (or will) outnumber Jews, and would swamp the Jewish state. Whether morally right or wrong, Israel can never accept the Palestinians.
The Palestinian issue has largely been artificially created by the Arab states: Arab states refuse to grant citizenship to Palestinian refugees, refuse to absorb them into their states, and purposeful keep them in massive refugee camps that ensure they continue to be a festering problem. The Palestinians are the only refugee group from the 1940s that has not been resettled and absorbed - everyone else managed to find a home. The Palestinians are certainly victims, despite the misguided and disgusting way in which they fight for their freedom. They are victims of international relations and of Arab political policies as much as Jewish policies.

In the end, I support Israel (despite its flaws) because it is the only democracy in the Middle East. It is the only place in the Middle East where an elected Arab sits in a real legislative body. It is the only state in the region with a meaningful Supreme Court and Constitution.

 

[Shec]

, we would allow the Israelis and Arabs to duke it out once and for all, without western support for either side. There will never be peace in the Middle east without a clear victor, which will result in the death or displacement of one group.

What a brilliant and incisive piece of strategic thought -  the final solution to the Middle East problem.  I commend you on your grasp of the situation.

Infanteer was bang-on when he wrote above "this one is as tribal as it gets."   The essential historical fact is that this has been going on since Cain slew Abel which in turn means it isn't going to stop any time soon.    So the challenge is one of containment rather than escalating tbe conflict.   The ME is the cradle of civilization and letting powers armed with NBCW go at no holds barred means the ME   will be the tomb of civilization.    So a viable alternative is one of diplomatic brokering and possibly classic peacekeeping which I would like to think  is a value that a veteran of the world's pre-eminent peacekeeping army would subscribe to.

In that vein, pursue the 2 state solution and if need be send in a buffer force.  UNEF worked for 10 years until Nasser kicked them out.   UNDOF has been keeping the Israelis and Syrians apart for over a generation now.  Not a perfect solution but I think one that is preferable to a mass bloodbath, regardless of where one's sympathies lie.

 

[enfield]

Let's get one thing straight.

The palestinians are not threatening anyone other than Israel. They may have conducted some extra-territorial actions but they were by and large, targeted at Israeli's.

The following is hardly exhaustive (I just got tired of copying and pasting from http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm) but I think Palestinian terrorism has gone international a few times...

Attack on the Munich Airport, February 10, 1970: Three terrorists attacked El Al passengers in a bus at the Munich Airport with guns and grenades. One passenger was killed and 11 were injured. All three terrorists were captured by airport police. The Action Organization for the Liberation of Palestine and the Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine claimed responsibility for the attack.

Munich Olympic Massacre, September 5, 1972: Eight Palestinian "Black September" terrorists seized eleven Israeli athletes in the Olympic Village in Munich, West Germany. In a bungled rescue attempt by West German authorities, nine of the hostages and five terrorists were killed

Attack and Hijacking at the Rome Airport, December 17, 1973: Five terrorists pulled weapons from their luggage in the terminal lounge at the Rome airport, killing two persons. They then attacked a Pan American 707 bound for Beirut and Tehran, destroying it with incendiary grenades and killing 29 persons, including 4 senior Moroccan officials and 14 American employees of ARAMCO. They then herded 5 Italian hostages into a Lufthansa airliner and killed an Italian customs agent as he tried to escape, after which they forced the pilot to fly to Beirut. After Lebanese authorities refused to let the plane land, it landed in Athens, where the terrorists demanded the release of 2 Arab terrorists. In order to make Greek authorities comply with their demands, the terrorists killed a hostage and threw his body onto the tarmac. The plane then flew to Damascus, where it stopped for two hours to obtain fuel and food. It then flew to Kuwait, where the terrorists released their hostages in return for passage to an unknown destination. The Palestine Liberation Organization disavowed the attack, and no group claimed responsibility for it.

Entebbe Hostage Crisis, June 27, 1976: Members of the Baader-Meinhof Group and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) seized an Air France airliner and its 258 passengers. They forced the plane to land in Uganda. On July 3 Israeli commandos successfully rescued the passengers.

TWA Hijacking, June 14, 1985: A Trans-World Airlines flight was hijacked en route to Rome from Athens by two Lebanese Hizballah terrorists and forced to fly to Beirut. The eight crew members and 145 passengers were held for seventeen days, during which one American hostage, a U.S. Navy sailor, was murdered. After being flown twice to Algiers, the aircraft was returned to Beirut after Israel released 435 Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners.

Achille Lauro Hijacking, October 7, 1985: Four Palestinian Liberation Front terrorists seized the Italian cruise liner in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, taking more than 700 hostages. One U.S. passenger was murdered before the Egyptian government offered the terrorists safe haven in return for the hostages' freedom.

Egyptian Airliner Hijacking, November 23, 1985: An EgyptAir airplane bound from Athens to Malta and carrying several U.S. citizens was hijacked by the Abu Nidal Group.

Airport Attacks in Rome and Vienna, December 27, 1985: Four gunmen belonging to the Abu Nidal Organization attacked the El Al and Trans World Airlines ticket counters at Rome's Leonardo da Vinci Airport with grenades and automatic rifles. Thirteen persons were killed and 75 were wounded before Italian police and Israeli security guards killed three of the gunmen and captured the fourth. Three more Abu Nidal gunmen attacked the El Al ticket counter at Vienna's Schwechat Airport, killing three persons and wounding 30. Austrian police killed one of the gunmen and captured the others.

Aircraft Bombing in Greece, March 30, 1986: A Palestinian splinter group detonated a bomb as TWA Flight 840 approached Athens airport, killing four U.S. citizens.

Kidnapping of William Higgins, February 17, 1988: U.S. Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel W. Higgins was kidnapped and murdered by the Iranian-backed Hizballah group while serving with the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organization (UNTSO) in southern Lebanon.

Bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Argentina, March 17, 1992: Hizballah claimed responsibility for a blast that leveled the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina, causing the deaths of 29 and wounding 242.

 

[48Highlander]

What we need to get clear is the idea that Israel is anything but a present day white settler regime.

"We" (as in the western world we) installed the Zionists in Israel for a variety of reasons. They are surrounded on all sides by the locals, who were displaced.

If the western world was really finished apologising for the British empire and the holocaust, we would allow the Israelis and Arabs to duke it out once and for all, without western support for either side. There will never be peace in the Middle east without a clear victor, which will result in the death or displacement of one group.

Israel has become too much of a liability for the western world. We need to make peace with the Arab world more than we need Israel as an ally, and this peace with a billion of the world's inhabitants will not be possible while the west is propping up a settler regime in Israel.

Sorry GO, you're RTFO on this one.

"We" didn't just one day decide, hey, there's this great spot full of brown people, let's kick them all out and throw the Jews in there.  If you know your history, you'll realize that Jerusalem and the surrounding area have always had a significant Jewish population.  And they've fought over the area for centuries, just as Christians and Muslims have.  If there's one thing the Christians and Muslims have in common, it's that during the Crusades they all had a wonderfull time slaughtering Jews.  So the whole area has been a shit-pit for centuries.

So, along comes the second world war, with it's millions of displaced jews.  Where do we put them?

Well, you can stick them somewhere in Europe....where there's a pretty good chance they'll get slaughtered again.

I suppose China or Japan could have been considered, but we would have had to fight another war just to get them to allow it.

You can try and relocate them to North America, but shipping millions of people over the ocean isn't exactly a quick procedure.

OR, you can stick them in the middle-east.  Where they've had some sort of a claim to the land for a while, and they ALREADY have their own communities set up.


So that's what they did.  Keep in mind that at the time the whole REGION was called Palestine, and was a protectorate of the Brits.  Jordan, Israel, and Palestine didn't exist as individual entities.  When the Brits finaly got sick of Jews and Arabs killing eachother, they turned the problem over to the highly-vaunted UN.  It was the UN which decided to partition the land in order to solve the problem.
  80% of that land went to the arabs.  Actualy, more accurately, 90% went to the arabs.  80% was used to make jordan, 10% to make palestine.  You remember how "we" partitioned Yugoslavia?  UN did the same thing when they created Israel - they took the areas which had the highest Jewish population, and made them into a Jewish state.

As to the idea that it's a "white settlers regime", do you have any idea how silly such a statement is?  For one thing, a I've already pointed out, some 20% of the country is Arab.  For another thing, as I've ALSO already pointed out, the vast majority (and I mean VAST) of the land they'e captured has been returned to the states they captured it from, in return for a promise of peace.  A settler-oriented government would hardly return land, especialy when Israel is so small that on a clear day you can stand on the roof of a tall building and see three of it's borders.

I'd love to know where you're getting these ideas man.

 

[GO!!!]

Sorry GO, you're RTFO on this one.

"We" didn't just one day decide, hey, there's this great spot full of brown people, let's kick them all out and throw the Jews in there.   If you know your history, you'll realize that Jerusalem and the surrounding area have always had a significant Jewish population.   And they've fought over the area for centuries, just as Christians and Muslims have.   If there's one thing the Christians and Muslims have in common, it's that during the Crusades they all had a wonderfull time slaughtering Jews.   So the whole area has been a crap-pit for centuries.

Interesting analysis since Russian Jews were far more numerous than ME Jews, and there were more Jews in eastern europe even after WW2.

So, along comes the second world war, with it's millions of displaced jews.   Where do we put them?

Well, you can stick them somewhere in Europe....where there's a pretty good chance they'll get slaughtered again.

I suppose China or Japan could have been considered, but we would have had to fight another war just to get them to allow it.

You can try and relocate them to North America, but shipping millions of people over the ocean isn't exactly a quick procedure.

How did we know they would have been slaughtered in Europe? And who made the brilliant call that the Arabs would welcome them with open arms?

All we did here was pick a group of people unable to oppose us, and take a big slice of their land for the Jews to call home. I think this was the most anti-semitic move of all - here you have the west being so tolerant that they were willing to export all of the Jews somewhere else, where, coincidientally, the locals are too weak to fight them off.

OR, you can stick them in the middle-east.  Where they've had some sort of a claim to the land for a while, and they ALREADY have their own communities set up.

Good to hear that only the Jews had a claim to Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Nazareth and Judea.

I suppose the fact that Arabs far outnumbered the Jews in Palestine, that they also had "some sort of claim" and that three major religions hold this area as a "holy land", and that there were and are Arab communities already set up is of no importance because the UN said so.

So that's what they did.   Keep in mind that at the time the whole REGION was called Palestine, and was a protectorate of the Brits.   Jordan, Israel, and Palestine didn't exist as individual entities.   When the Brits finaly got sick of Jews and Arabs killing eachother, they turned the problem over to the highly-vaunted UN.   It was the UN which decided to partition the land in order to solve the problem.

The brits were turned off palestine by the fact that they had a crushing war debt to the US, and that they could no longer control their colonial posessions, and by the presence of a ruthless and bloodthirsty Jewish terrorist organisation called the Irgun who bombed and killed british administrators and their families a la Hizbollah until they got what they wanted. The problem was deposited in the UN's lap.

Keep in mind that the UN was composed of the Security Council and little else in 1948, so Israel was created by the Allies (US,UK,USSR,China, France) The UN was not some amorphous identity making random assertations - it was the west.

80% of that land went to the arabs.   Actualy, more accurately, 90% went to the arabs.   80% was used to make jordan, 10% to make palestine.   You remember how "we" partitioned Yugoslavia?   UN did the same thing when they created Israel - they took the areas which had the highest Jewish population, and made them into a Jewish state.

The argument here is "quality vs quantity" Jordan was landlocked, and only egypt was permitted access to both the Med and Red Sea. Control of Lake Tiberius and the Jordan river was also instrumental in the control of water rights.

As to the idea that it's a "white settlers regime", do you have any idea how silly such a statement is?   For one thing, a I've already pointed out, some 20% of the country is Arab.   For another thing, as I've ALSO already pointed out, the vast majority (and I mean VAST) of the land they'e captured has been returned to the states they captured it from, in return for a promise of peace.   A settler-oriented government would hardly return land, especialy when Israel is so small that on a clear day you can stand on the roof of a tall building and see three of it's borders.

So?

According to the 2001 census, 23% of Canadians are visible minorities, does that make us any less of a colony? The majority of Israelis who reside in Israel were born elsewhere -  49.3% in fact.(http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html#top) which means that they moved there to settle. Since they did'nt create any new land, or bring it with them, it must be taken from someone else.

And imagine that, the people that that land was take from are mad - who'd a thunk it?

I'd love to know where you're getting these ideas man.

Surprisingly enough, my own reading. Several years ago, I was dumbfounded by the consistent level of carnage the Middle East brought to my television screen, and I resolved to study it for myself, in an objective manner, if possible. I soon found that there is no objective reporting from the Middle East, but that the facts were readily available, if only one could look past the lies and half truths perpetuated by both sides of the conflict.

My conclusion was that Israel is a white settler regime. It was created by force and is maintained by force, the previous residents of the area are treated like second class citizens, and any possibility of the ethnic composition of an area of the country being changed in favour of the previous residents is quashed, either through encouraging more settlers to move in, Torah and Uzi in hand, or by giving portions of it back, and calling it a "concession for peace".

The same type of regime existed in South Africa for a time, but it was condemned and sanctioned by the west. Why is Israel so different?

 

[48Highlander]

Alright, sure.  There's plenty of inaccuracies in what you've written, but this debate has already been gone over too many times for me to bother with it again.  In the end I have just one question for you:

When will you be emmigrating out of Canada in order to give the Indians their land back?

Untill then, most of the comments you're making about Israel are hypocritical in the extreme.