How to counter zionist propaganda

[Az]

1) Israel is a colonial-settler state.

and who was the colonial power, may I ask? remember , the 'colonization' started during Ottoman turkey. I guess they helped the zionists....

4) Israel is an agressor state, having launched every war it has been involved in: with the exception of 1973.

67', 83' ..


cassus belli.

case closed.

the only war that I condemn Israel of participating in was 56'.

3) Israel denies re-entry of the refugess from 1948 for fear of losing it's Jewish idenity described in #2.

how about us letting all the people that actually were born around here come back? they are the refugees , after all.

*halts*

wait. Must stick to my point. not let it turn to a regular ME thread.

so... how about adressing points in my first post?, and not saying... "Damn, that's bad. "


Who praises arafat?

MOBIUS, and CyberGnu , IIRC. I could be wrong though , and apologize in advance if I am.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
and who was the colonial power, may I ask? remember , the 'colonization' started during Ottoman turkey. I guess they helped the zionists....

The Zionist movement took place during the time that the Ottoman Empire was breaking up. This encouraged Arabs to espouse nationalism for lands that the Turks formally dominated. At the time, the Palestinians believed themselves to be part of Syria, and because the Turks had objected to Jewish settlement, the Palestinians were willing to consider Jewish immigration as an expression of Syrian nationalism. The Zionists were not interested in the offer.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Dalgetti

and who was the colonial power, may I ask? remember , the 'colonization' started during Ottoman turkey. I guess they helped the zionists....

There is a difference between being a colony and a colonial-settler-state. A colony is when one coutrny owns another to exploit it for economic and/military reasons. A colonial settler state is a state where a group of settlers has come in, often displacing the original population. The US and Canada are such states. Sometimes the orginal popualtion is still in ther area, as in Algeria and Palestine. Turkish coonialism in this case is irrelevent to my point.

67', 83' ..

Both launched by Israel. Lobbing a few shells down from the Golan isn't sufficient enough reason for war. Furthermore, Israel had been threatening war for sometime against Syria. Nassar moved his tanks into the Sinai as a threat to Israel not to attack Syria. Had Egypt, Syria, and Jordan been planning war against Israel, it is unlikely that they would have been so open about it and caught so unprepared. Especially consider that Nassar had just spent the previous few years loosing a war to Yemeni tribesman. They were in no war considering war.

There was no causi belli against Lebanon. The PLO cease fire held. That the PLO was launching attacks is a myth believed only by Israelis and Americans.

how about us letting all the people that actually were born around here come back? they are the refugees , after all.

Their chidlren and grand children also have the right to return. They were born in exile because Israel renegged on it's agreement to let the refuges return in 1948. agreement to the retrun was a precondition of Israel's admission to the UN.

so... how about adressing points in my first post?, and not saying... "Damn, that's bad. "

I wasn't addressing your first post.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
What I really fail to understand is that half-bred logic that most of my fellow communist follow. Is it the result of the soviet political line in the region, that was taken due to the fact that Israel has decided to ally itself with US? could be.

So now we see supposed communists/rad. socialists supporting Saddam , and crying wolf in the wrong places. I say that despite the fact that I am opposed to capitalism, the 'western' democracy is still closer to me than anything in Islam.

"Supporting" Iraq and opposing Israel is simple anti-imperialism. One must oppose the United States in its attempt to control the world, destroy democracy, and steal the world's wealth. Thus, if we have to defend a ultra nasty brute like Hussein, then that's what we do. Personally, I'd love to see the bastard overthrown.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Personally, I'd love to see the bastard overthrown.

Wouldn't that require supporting the US?

[chequita guevara]

Not if it was by a truely democratic movement. The US doesn't want democracy in the ME, except in Israel. A democratic Iraq would still be anti-US.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Not if it was by a truely democratic movement.

Are thier any such movements in Iraq that you foresee as having the potential to do just that without US support?

A democratic Iraq would still be anti-US.

What makes you say that?

[Faeelin]

Well, Paik does, but since he's doing it for flame responses, he doesn't really count. I take that back.
here are my comments on this thread:

You ca n't say that just because your ancestors are wronged, what you do is okay. Following that logic, the holocaust was fine because Jewish bankers financed the Hapsburg armies in the 30 years war. We have to dela with here and now. Here and now, the Israeli's have demanded one thing before they begin talks: A ceasefire. An end to bombings of pizzerias, part halls, and night clubs. Palestine can't do that. Irregardless of the fact that Arafat suppots the terrorists, if he cannot control them, he's useless to the peace process.

In the middle east, it's not a question of who's right. Both sides have done their fair share of wrongs. But the same applies to any conflict. You have to look at the goals of both sides, and who has done less wrongs to achieve them. (As well as whether the goals are moral). The Israeli government wants peace. The Palestinian people probably want peace as well, but they're being deluded by the government into believing war is the only way to achieve it. Until Arafat's removed, peace has a very small chance.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Are thier any such movements in Iraq that you foresee as having the potential to do just that without US support?

What makes you say that [the democratic Iraq would be anti-US]?

First question, not really, but then again, these things can spring out of nowhere overnight. Maybe if the Kurds stopped their sectarian bull**** and worked together.

Second: because the US is held responsible by the Iraqi people for their misery.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Faeelin
Until Arafat's removed, peace has a very small chance.

Hamas is the only alternative to Arafat. Israel is stupid to think otherwise. Of course, with Arafat gone, and only Hamas serving as an opposition to Israel, Israel will be forced to stay even longer, which is just what Sharon wants.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Second: because the US is held responsible by the Iraqi people for their misery.

Ok, that makes since. I can definately see where the effects of Hussein's propaganda would have some lingering effects on the population even after his ouster.

Edit: Assuming for a moment that we wanted Hussein overthrown more than we cared about the pro or anti-US government that rose to take its place as long as they didn't persue a nuclear weapons program, who would you like to see the US support?

[chequita guevara]

It's largely only Americans who belive that America isn't responsible for Iraq's problems.

Scott Ritter, former chief of the inspection team in Iraq now says that Iraq was disarmed by 1994. What they thought was non-compliance was actually security issues around Hussein's whereabouts. Obviously the Iraqis were very cagy about this stuff, and would go to great lengths to hide it, hich made UN team suspicious, so they would go track it down. According to Ritter, Iraq is in compliance with the UN's demands. (Ritter resigned his position after learngin that his team was compromised by the CIA and that the US was using his team to gether infomation on Hussein).

Denis Halliday, former cheif of the oil-for-food program in Iraq says that the problems in Iraq were not of Hussein's doing. Most of the deaths (1.5 million now) were caused by water born diseases. Water treatment material is banned from Iraq because clorine can be used to make chemical weapons. Furthermore, he says that the UN distributed the food, so it wasn't a matter of Hussein keeping the money for himself.

Salon interviewed both gentlemen, but they are only for subscribers, so I shan't give a link.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Edit: Assuming for a moment that we wanted Hussein overthrown more than we cared about the pro or anti-US government that rose to take its place as long as they didn't persue a nuclear weapons program, who would you like to see the US support?

I don't know enough about the Iraqi National Congress to say them. They have no support what-so-ever in Iraq. They were pretty cool in the early 90s, but after the CIA tricked them into getting themselves all killed in an attempted overthrown, I don't know what tendencies have asserted themselves. I like the Kurds, but they'd seperate from Iraq and get invaded by Turkey, who has vowed to stop the appearance of a Kurdish state.

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
30,000? what is this figure? the percentage of the settlers that is crazy?

That's the most used figure (as I've seen it at last) to estimate the number of settlers that are supposed to be ideological supporters of a greater Israel, ie they want to get rid of the pals and keep the settlements in one way or the other.

[GeneralTacticus]

The US doesn't want democracy in the ME, except in Israel.

Why would it want democracy in Israel and not elsewhere?

5) Israel has nuclear weapons.

So do the US, France, China, Russia and Britain. Do you dislike them too?

11) Israel is an agent of American imperialism in the ME.

Why?

4) Israel is an agressor state, having launched every war it has been involved in: with the exception of 1973.

I'm surprised you didn't say they started Yom Kippur as well. There would n't have been any war in 1948 if the Arabs hadn't invaded. In 1967 the war occured because the Arabs were threatening they would destroy Israel and were moving soldiers on it's borders. If the Israelis were doing that to one of the Arab states, would you condemn the Arabs as aggressors if they struck first?

9) Israel uses torture.

Can't be denied. Mind you, so does everyone else in the ME, and the Israelis don't do it to their own people.

2) Israel is racist state, in that it is self-describes Jewish state.

Then Palestine is also a racist state, in that it is a Palestinian state.