Am I a anti-semitist?

[Natan]

The point was that no one was being killed at that time. You are using a future event to justify the action. I did not disagree with the rest of that part. There is a LOT of falacious reasoning going on here and was pointing one falacy in your arguement. You didn't need it to support immigration. You arguement was stronger logicaly without it.

It seems to me that if they avoided being killed by their action, it was good. Most long-term and important decisions, such as movign to another country, are made with the future in mind. German Jews feared for their safety, and their fears were justified by the course of events. But if you agree that the immigration was justified, the point is moot.

On anyone not English or maybe Irish.

Yes. People felt that the mass immigration of the previous century or so had gone a bit too far.

Well not as a state but it did function as an area.

You know, in that sense, mandatory Palestine still functions as an area. The Shouf, the Beka and Baalbek valleyes, Tripoli and the south were only annexed to Lebanon after world war one.

I didn't claim they mixed. Just that they managed to live with each other.

But they didn't. They lasted independently from 1943-1975, with a crisis or two in between and then had a nasty civil war which killed thousands of people.

Well since most of the Jews were imigrants perhaps they should have acted more like guests and less like invaders. Thats what setting up a Jewish state was very much like.

What, precisely, would you have liked them to do instead? The Arab states were quite intent on expelling them.

So far all you have done is shown that the Middle East was not a good choice to migrate to.

It sure beat dying, which was the alternative. It was the only place Jews could go after 1917, when most of them arrived.

What makes that different from the Palestinians then? They have never made peace. They are have been at war with Israel since 1948. They just didn't start fighting till later.

They would be analogous to Begin almost exactly if they didn't make it their policy to attack discos and movie theaters.

quote:
The Intifada would be a normal war if not for the intentional targetting of civillians. I'm not arguing that Palestinians can't kill Israeli soldiers.

All Israeli adults up to a certain age are soldiers. It comes with having a universal reserve system.

Not true, only about half of those eligible serve, and IIRC, women are not eligible for the reserve in most cases.

Intentional targeting of children is wrong. I have never tried to justify the actions of the PLO.

You were comparing them to the Irgun, and I pointed out an important difference between the two. Where did I say that you were trying to justify their actions?

I am not the one trying to justify terrorism. You are trying to justify the acts of Begin.

First person killed was a civilian. I don't call that taking special care.

Do you agree that it is okay to attack the other side's military HQ in a war? And do you agree that there is such a thing as guerilla warfare, distinct from terrorism?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Natan
Yes. People felt that the mass immigration of the previous century or so had gone a bit too far.

Well it did put quite a stress on the country. Thats when most of my ancestors came here though.

But they didn't. They lasted independently from 1943-1975, with a crisis or two in between and then had a nasty civil war which killed thousands of people.

I did say up untill the Palestinian refugees wrecked the balance so you aren't saying anything different from that.

What, precisely, would you have liked them to do instead? The Arab states were quite intent on expelling them.

Why were the Arab states intent on that? Because the Jews wanted to create a Jewish state. What I would have them do is something else instead of what they did.

It sure beat dying, which was the alternative. It was the only place Jews could go after 1917, when most of them arrived.

Again you mention the dying and 1917. Hitler didn't rise to power till the thirties.

They would be analogous to Begin almost exactly if they didn't make it their policy to attack discos and movie theaters.

King David Hotel was not just a military post.

Not true, only about half of those eligible serve, and IIRC, women are not eligible for the reserve in most cases.

The status of Israeli women in the army has changed over time. In the Six Day war they fought for instance.

As for the other I was under the impression that all citizens were obligated to enter the military except for sects that are anti-war. Thank you for clearing that up. I had it in my head that was more like Switzerland only with women as well as men.

You were comparing them to the Irgun, and I pointed out an important difference between the two. Where did I say that you were trying to justify their actions?

I didn't accuse you of it. Look again. I was making my position clear.

Considering how much my position has been created by others I feel the need to speak for myself on occasion. Please also note that is not directed at you but a general comment regarding the testy nature of this thread. Inherently testy but there has been a marked tendency to create positions for me that I have neither expressed nor hold.

Do you agree that it is okay to attack the other side's military HQ in a war? And do you agree that there is such a thing as guerilla warfare, distinct from terrorism?

Yes. However there was no war. Begin was not in a position to declare one. Saying he was is akin to saying the Red Army Brigade has the right to declare war.

I don't consider civil unrest and disorder the equivalent of war. Attack intended to stop negotiations are not the equivalent of war either and that was the intent of the King David attack considering that the Brits were on the side of a Jewish state.

[Ned]

Guys, let's shift focus just a bit -- to the East. There, in 1920, the Brits installed an Arab king, Faysal, as ruler over a land which we now call Iraq. However, included within that land was a separate Indo-European people known as the Kurds, who seem to have ever since struggled for their own separate state.

I understand that United States has reached the deal with Turkey to restore Kurd lands to Turkish sovereignty in exchange for their support in the coming war against Iraq.

I would presume that those here who supports Israel should think that both the British and now the American actions vis-a-vis the Kurds are wrong, and that we should instead support an independent Kurd state. However I might be wrong. I have no clue as to what the supporters of the Palestinians would believe on this issue except that an invasion of Iraq by United States and Turkey was to be opposed.

I suspect the Kurds, who long looked to the United States for support, now feel betrayed.

Ned

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ned
I understand that United States has reached the deal with Turkey to restore Kurd lands to Turkish sovereignty in exchange for their support in the coming war against Iraq.

I don't understand this. The Turks ARE sovereign over Kurds in Turkey allready. Is this some sort of plan for the Turks to take the Kurdish lands in Iraq? The Turks have enough problems allready.

I suspect the Kurds, who long looked to the United States for support, now feel betrayed.

Ned

Well it sure will get Bush in trouble. Its a really bad idea to go around trying to rearange borders without a really darn good reason.

Carving new nations out of present states is balkinzation. What it really does is increase the power of large integrated states. I would expect this aspect of it make a lot people really paranoid.

[Natan]

Originally posted by Ethelred
I did say up untill the Palestinian refugees wrecked the balance so you aren't saying anything different from that.

So what you're saying is that it worked very well for five years. Somehow, I don't think that shows anything. And in fact, if the Palestinian refugees "wrecked the balance," I think that's proof that multi-ethnic states can be dangerous.

Why were the Arab states intent on that? Because the Jews wanted to create a Jewish state.

I think it's because the Jews wanted to create a non-Arab state. I don't think a bi-national state was ever considered by the Arab states.

What I would have them do is something else instead of what they did.

That's not very specific or helpful.

Again you mention the dying and 1917. Hitler didn't rise to power till the thirties.

Those who didn't leave in the twenties or thirties mostly died in the Holocaust. Saying that they shouldn't have left is saying that they should have taken a worse than 1 in 2 chance of survival.

King David Hotel was not just a military post.

Right, and that's why the Irgun issued a warning before hand. But I think the British do have to bear some responsibility for placing their HQ there; you can't complain if someone hits the mixed civillian/military installation you set up.

I didn't accuse you of it. Look again. I was making my position clear.

You said something to the effect of "how is this different from the PLO" three pages back.

Considering how much my position has been created by others I feel the need to speak for myself on occasion. Please also note that is not directed at you but a general comment regarding the testy nature of this thread. Inherently testy but there has been a marked tendency to create positions for me that I have neither expressed nor hold.

Yeah, that would annoy me quite a bit were I in your place. I hope I haven't contributed to much to it.

Yes. However there was no war. Begin was not in a position to declare one. Saying he was is akin to saying the Red Army Brigade has the right to declare war.

I don't consider civil unrest and disorder the equivalent of war. Attack intended to stop negotiations are not the equivalent of war either and that was the intent of the King David attack considering that the Brits were on the side of a Jewish state.

The Brits were not on the side of a Jewish state until monthes after the attack when they voted for UN resolution 181; before that they were running the area as a colony and were actually forbidding Jewish immigration. The goal of the Irgun attack was not to stop negotiations but to prevent the British from using the documents they had seized in an earlier raid on the Hagana (Ben-Gurion's group's) HQ to arrest every Irgun and Hagana operative in the country. That's why the Irgun issued a warning, they wanted to blow up the documents, not the people.

[CyberGnu]

natan:

I think it's because the Jews wanted to create a non-Arab state. I don't think a bi-national state was ever considered by the Arab states.

for someone who has read so much israeli history, I'm surprised you missed that one. Until 1918 (+- 2 years or so, don't remember exactly right now), jews were enoucraged to come live in palestine by the arabs. They had grand visions of a democratic state where everyone was equal, and most importantly, not under the rulership of an imperialist power. The turning point came when it became apparent that the jews didn't intend to share...

you can't complain if someone hits the mixed civillian/military installation you set up.

So you have finally conceeded that palestinian attacks on settlements are OK?

[Natan]

1) Both sides were at first interested in a bi-national state because they thought it would help them throw of European rule. But as Arabs and Jews developed distinct nationalisms, interest in a bi-national state faded to the point that no one was even proposing it in 1948.

2) Most settlements do not have army bases on them.

3) Maybe you'd like to continue your previous debate at http://64.246.32.51/~admin1/forums/s...&postid=889855 ?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Natan
So what you're saying is that it worked very well for five years. Somehow, I don't think that shows anything. And in fact, if the Palestinian refugees "wrecked the balance," I think that's proof that multi-ethnic states can be dangerous.

I said NOTHING about five years.

I think it's because the Jews wanted to create a non-Arab state. I don't think a bi-national state was ever considered by the Arab states.

It wasn't considered by the founders of Israel either.

That's not very specific or helpful.

Its really hard to help things that happened in the past. I see no value to creating a solution that is inherently moot.

Those who didn't leave in the twenties or thirties mostly died in the Holocaust. Saying that they shouldn't have left is saying that they should have taken a worse than 1 in 2 chance of survival.

You are obsessed with evading the obvious by bring up what were at the time unforseeable events. In the twenties no one new the future. Does this get through yet? Hitler had not one thing to do with Jews going to the Middle East in the twenties.

Right, and that's why the Irgun issued a warning before hand. But I think the British do have to bear some responsibility for placing their HQ there; you can't complain if someone hits the mixed civillian/military installation you set up.

Again a warning does not justify the actions. I certainly could complain if I was a Brit. They had every right to call it a terrorist act.

You said something to the effect of "how is this different from the PLO" three pages back.

You are mixing things up. I repeat I was not accusing you of justifying anything there.

Yeah, that would annoy me quite a bit were I in your place. I hope I haven't contributed to much to it.

Not that I have noticed. There is a difference between a misunderstanding and just plain inventing.

The Brits were not on the side of a Jewish state until monthes after the attack when they voted for UN resolution 181; before that they were running the area as a colony and were actually forbidding Jewish immigration.

Well that is one way to put it. Another is that the Brits had got cold feet due to the fighting and decided leaving and more immigration right then was a bad idea.

It doesn't help that the Brits were pretty much bankrupt at the time from WWII and they were in the process of giving up India.

The goal of the Irgun attack was not to stop negotiations but to prevent the British from using the documents they had seized in an earlier raid on the Hagana (Ben-Gurion's group's) HQ to arrest every Irgun and Hagana operative in the country. That's why the Irgun issued a warning, they wanted to blow up the documents, not the people.

Well I don't see anything there that changes it from terrorism.

[CyberGnu]

1) you are basically saying the same thing as me, but you won't admit the cause.

2) they ARE army bases... but OK, for the sake of argument, you have nothjing against palestinans attacking the heavily fortified settlement in hebron, for example?

3) sure. i'll try to get some time later.

[Natan]

1) No; you're claiming that the Arabs would have been happy to have a bi-national state if only the Jews would have agreed. I think that's quite false.

2) If they attack an army base, that's fine. Of course, if they decide to shoot a girl hiding under her bed simply because there happens to be an army base nearby, that's not okay. But if they attack the army base with mortars or with firearms and a stray bullet hits a child, that's an accident, not a murder.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Natan
1) No; you're claiming that the Arabs would have been happy to have a bi-national state if only the Jews would have agreed. I think that's quite false.

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.

What is wrong with this statement?

[Natan]

1) The offer was made by King Faisal, not "the Palestinians," who at any rate had no agreed upon representative at the time.
2) Many Zionists were quite interested in it
3) The Turks had allowed Jewish immigration for a number of years
4) Arab nationalism was not just a response to Zionism. In fact, it was always stronger outside Israel/Palestine than within. Were Zionism the cause of Arab nationalism, Palestinians would be the staunchest of Arab nationalists (in fact they resent other Arabs for what they see as abandonment of the Palestinian cause), while nations further away from the area, like Iraq and Libya, would have little interest in Arab nationalism. But that it is not so.

[Ned]

I just saw a report on CNN concerning the election struggle in France. The report stated that the growing support for Le Pen was centered on French reaction to the immigration of large number of Arabs into the country. The left in turn has embraced the Arab immigrants causes, including support for the Palestinians. The report also stated that the primary source for the current wave of anti-Semetic violence were the immigrant Arabs. The report noted that the French right has long been strongly anti-Semetic, but with the growing support by the left of Palestinian causes, there's no one left in France to stem the tide of anti-Semitism.

Ned

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Gosh that was so insightfull.

My eyes are brown with green.

How did I know that?

That was brilliant. You can't support yourself so I must be a Nazi. Sad that anyone would be so appallingly hot headed and full of hate.

I hate a man like you more then any other.
A bigot that hides and pretends to be reasonable.

Do yourself a favor and keep your word for once. You are not doing yourself any good with these hate filled rants of yours.

The only thing I hate is jerks like you.

All jews are theives, eh?
All jews have no rights, eh?

Sorry Adolph, your not getting off that easy.

[whosurdaddy]

I just wanted to add that Muslims conquered Palestine BY FORCE from the majority Christian population that ruled the area under the Eastern Roman Empire. So they aren’t the original inhabitants either. So all this nonsense about who was here first and that the Muslim Palestinians were in Palestine first is complete nonsense. That is all