8 Children Killed in Israeli Attack

[Eli]

Mass Aliyah to Uganda would've never happened.

[Ned]

Why did you edit my post? The edit is the deletion of the reference to Iran.

This is a Islamic jihad against Israel. On the whole, this is not about the Palestinians getting back their land. It is about the Infidel governing muslim land.

From the Israeli point of view, Israel exists. Regardless of whether Zionism was in part racial - although I have a hard time with that since both the Jews and the Arabs are Semites - to insist that Israel is a colonialist racial conquest that deserves a short and painful deal is to be racist as well.

[Shiber]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze

Dear Shiber,

In my view your are a far more intelligent debater than Sirotnikov. His favourite tactics are insulting and discrediting of professional historical research.
I have asked about a dozen times to recommend a recent professional study that supports his view but he has consistently declined to do so.

My time is limited so I will not react in detail to your arguments. And I agree this discussion does not belong in this thread, but I couldn't resist reacting to your historical survey.
In my view one can only understand the present conflict from a long-term view. It is essentially a colonial war and I believe that in the end the coloniser will lose.

Discussing Zionist ideology is very important to this issue because it shows that it was never a 'nice' doctrine, but essentially a racist theory that thought/thinks that one race has superior rights to some other race. What do you think would happen when ALL people would migrate to that part of the earth where presumably some of their ancestors lived 2,000 years ago?

It is no accident that people like Strangelove will ignore legitimate questions like
Did Zionists ever try to combat anti-Semitism, Fascism, Nazism?
because the sad answer is: NO.
Of course after the Holocaust they tried to hide their shame!

In my view a Jew should be defined by his religion, not by race or ethnicity. I hope you do not subscibe to the concept of 'racial purity'.
There is freedom of religion in the entire Western world. Nor do I think it is agreeable to live in a country -mostly desert- that is at perpetual war.

Sincere regards,

S.Kroeze

Dear S. Kroeze,
You seem to know a lot about the Zionist movement and its history, but not even once have you mentioned that there were factions within Zionism.
There were Zionists that said that Jews must make friends with their arab neighbors by bringing them the word of modernism and helping develop an infrastructure and raise the level of living in Palestine, and there were Zionists that said that Israel should be conquered by force and that Jews and Palestinians absolutely cannot live together.
There were Zionists who insisted on a Jewish state in Israel and there were Zionists for who would compromise, as to them it was more important to create a safe haven for persecuted Jews around the world than to colonize Israel with Jews.
There were Zionists who were helping European Jews as well rather than forcing them to migrate to Israel and there were Zionists who would rather see them die in the hands of the Nazis so they could use them to score points in their political battles.

Many people define themselves as Zionists, but surely you don't think this means that they all share the same ideas and opinions. I'd bet not once you gave your vote to a party even though you objected some of the proposals made by the party's leader or didn't want to see a certain party member become the foreign minister but voted for that party anyway so a different party member which you relate to can become the minister of finance.

People who declare themselves as Zionists have the right to choose what parts of Zionism they like. A person who declares himself as a Zionist cannot be blamed for holding the same opinions as another person who also declares himself as a Zionist. Same goes with Socialism (e.g. in Israel there are several socialist parties, all of which have completely different ways and agendas), as well as Fascism and other movements and ideologies.

Originally posted by S. Kroeze
What do you think would happen when ALL people would migrate to that part of the earth where presumably some of their ancestors lived 2,000 years ago?

This is a ridiculous statement. No Zionist leader has ever even dreamed that one day every Jew would live in Israel. Some wanted as many Jews as possible to come to Israel, others had different views.
According to my views there should be a Jewish state that is is mostly inhabited by Jews, which will serve as a national and a cultural home for the Jewish nation and perhaps a safe haven in case history repeats itself. Not all Jews are expected to live there, just like some Belgians live in Belgium and some live in Holland, etc'. This state does not have to be located in Israel, though I believe the Jewish nation has the rights to claim some of this land.

Btw Siro is spending the weekend in Turkey so he won't be able to answer you soon. He'll probably miss this entire discussion unless you'll contact him directly whe he returns and ask him to tune in.

[Shiber]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Shiver, I got swamped at work, I'll try to get back to you. (btw, remember one of my first remarks to you? Well, the accusation of anti-semitism took a few pages to appear, but appear it did nonetheless.... It always does. )

Feminists are quick to blame others for being shovinists. This is just the same IMHO. (no hard feelings about feminists btw)
90% of all people are often quick to judge others. Why would you expect Jews to be the same?

Originally posted by CyberGnu
muxec, think about the terracts that would be avoided by killing Sharon.

I can say the exact same about Arafat, you know.

Originally posted by CyberGnu I agree comepletely that jews should have a nation of their own. But refusing an offer of one because it isn;t good enough (like the zionist movement did with Uganda) takes the argument from 'we need on because we are persecuted' to 'we want one because we're greedy'.

It is obvious that if the Zionist movement ever accepted the Uganda proposal the Jews would never have had a chance to reestablish their religious, historical and cultural home in Israel. Doing so was one of the goals of the Zionist movement and they didn't want to give it up completely.

[Shiber]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Shiber, there were no jews in palestine for 500 years. Then a small contigent moved to Jerusalem, and has stayed every since. Clearly, it was possible to move and live there. Furthermore, as Kreuze pointed out, persecution of jews was less in arab lands than in Europe.

Yet no other jews moved back. If Israel was so important, why did they elect to stay in europe?

Basically, the jewish people gave up their claim on Israel a long time ago. Just mumbling a 'next year in jerusalem' on holidays does not impart an ownership of land that other people have toiled for hundreds of years.

Most Jews still elect to live outside Israel, e.g. in North America and Europe since the standards of living are higher there and it's much more dangerous to live in Israel than in N. America or Europe.
However, I'd like to remind you that there were times when Jews weren't free to wander. Even when the Zionist movement was established and Europe was relatively liberal (considering its past attitude towards Jews), the movement still had to work hard to persuade many countries to allow the movement to set up training camps and to send Jews to Israel.
As for the part about "mumbling" 'next year in Jerusalem', I'd like to point out that you actually misquoted the original saying, and the way you referred to it shows a complete misunderstanding of this Jewish tradition.
It was actually started after the 2nd temple was destroyed and Jews were once again thrown by force from their home land. I won't explain the tradition or what it means because this isn't really of any relevance, but my point is that you should not speak of what you don't understand.

Originally posted by CyberGnu
That is what the arabs wanted.

Oh really, they did? Was that why armed attacks were constantly made against Jewish settlements (much before any declarations of intentions for granting independent states).

Originally posted by CyberGnu
The palestinians fought the Ottomans because of a british promise for independance in a democratic state. But after the Balfour declaration it was clear that the zionist movement intended to have their own, jewish, state.

Both declarations were released by the British minister Balfour at the same time.

Originally posted by CyberGnu
The white paper (I think it is from 1928-29, but I might be wrong. I could try to dig it up again) says the arable land will not support more people without displacing arabs. It doesn't mention jobs.

Yes it did. This was the main reason the Brits limited Jewish immigration: lack of available jobs. Perhaps you should read the paper before you quote it. I have.

[CyberGnu]

Ned, I think you are right. The British offer to the sherif of Mecca was a reinstatement of the caliphate. I confused it with a statement by the Mufti of jerusalem from 1915, where he envisioned a palestine ruled by palestinians, whether they be muslims, christians and jews.

It is sometimes used to illustrate how zionism created the mess that was palestine 1920-??, as this muft was one of the strongest proponents of allowing jews to settle in palestine until the Balfour declaration, after which he instead became one of the most outspoken anti-zionists.

(BTW, who is 'you' in 'why did you edit my post'?)

[CyberGnu]

Shiber,

Why would you expect Jews to be the same?

Is this supposed to read 'why would you expect Jews to be different'?

I can say the exact same about Arafat, you know.

Well, since my response was in direct response to musex, it wouldn't make much sense...

It is obvious that if the Zionist movement ever accepted the Uganda proposal the Jews would never have had a chance to reestablish their religious, historical and cultural home in Israel. Doing so was one of the goals of the Zionist movement and they didn't want to give it up completely.

and I refer to the following posts.

[Shiber]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze


Dear Ned,

I agree that on the 'Palestinian/Arab' side race is not the issue. These Arabs (Muslims and Christians) have lost their land and hope to win it back.

But how much Zionist literature did you read?
When you would have read my posts carefully you would acknowledge that the Zionists define a Jew not by religion, but by origin.

"Several Supreme Court decisions, however, forced Israeli policymakers to redefine the Law of Return on March 10, 1970. Accordingly, rights of citizenship could now be awarded to 'a child or a grandchild of a Jew, to his or her spouse and to the spouse of a child and grandchild of a Jew, except for a person who was Jewish and willingly converted to another religion.' The 'Jew', according to this redefined law, need not be alive and was not required to have had any connection to Israel. Moreover, if he or she was born to a Jewish mother or had been converted to Judaism by any rabbi and was not a member of another religion, then he or she was legally Jewish. To obtain citizenship, non-Jews who did not qualify according to Jewish religious law (halacha) could be naturalized."

(source: D.Peretz and G.Doron: 'The Government and Politics of Israel',1997)

note for Sirotnikov: 'The Government and Politics of Israel' is not identical to 'How Israel Was Won' by B.Thomas; it was written by another author and has a different title; nor was it published by Neturei Karta

What strikes me, is how easy it is with these law to become considered a Jew. Only for religious Christians and Muslims is it actually impossible to become a true citizen. So the 'natives' are kept out!

Religion defines 'Jewishness' in Israel only in a negative way: to become a Jewish citizen one should not profess some other religion. Yet an apostate or atheist is still considered a Jew.
Nor do I think -but I am uncertain about it- that someone born in Israel as a Jew will lose his Jewish identity for the law by conversion to some other religion.

So it is not accidental that the Orthodox -and the ultra-Orthodox do still today- opposed Zionism.
This is strange because only for someone believing in the 'Torah' as the word of a Supreme Being, does it make sense to migrate to the Holy Land.
Hardly any of the founders of Zionism was religious at all. Originally Herzl didn't care where a Zionist state was created.

When you would read more of pre-Holocaust Zionist literature I guess you would be truly appalled by its racist character. It is often both highly anti-Semitic AND anti-Arab. 'Racial purity' is generally considered a desirable quality.

And when 'race' wouldn't be an issue at all, why is there so much systematic discrimination against Israeli Arabs?

Sincerely,

S.Kroeze

Dear S. Kroeze,
Perhaps all the academic articles you've read have made you over confident, which is what made you post something that was riddled with mistakes.

First of all, the _religious_ definition of a Jew is one whose mother is Jewish. According to this Jews are essentially judged by origin, but this goes hand in hand with the bible which says Jews are the chosen people who have come from the sperm of Abraham, Yitzhak and Jaacov, the three fathers of the Jewish nation.

Moving on:

Do you think it's easy becoming a Jew and getting rights to migrate to Israel? You have to study for years, and then you Rabbi still has to decide whether you can become a Jew or not.
According to Halacha, one who expresses will to become a Jew shall undergo a long and often tiring process to determine his seriousness, as well as for other reasons. I'm not going to add to this subject since I've run across some trouble translating several Halacha texts and excerpts. You could ask a Rabbi who is a native speaker of the English language and he could fill in the blanks for you.

As for the law of return, I'm afraid religion often gets mixed with politics in Israel. This is all really a very complicated subject, which you can't even begin to understand as you'll need to either read hundreds of papers out of the thousands that were written on this topic just in Israel, as well as live in Israel for a long period of time and understand Israeli politics.
In other words, drop the topic. You only think you understand any of this, while you obviously don't judging by several remarks you've made. I'd rather not explain to you why you are wrong, as this would take me several hours of sitting in front of my computer and typing and I'd rather go outside, so please take my word for it and drop the subject.

Regarding the issue of the Orthodox people abolishing the state of Israel: haven't you been listening to what I'm saying? The Orthodox abolish the state of Israel because in their opinion, it is wrong for man to create a Jewish state because one may only be given by god in the 'Aharit Hayamim' when the Messiah will come and the 3rd temple of Jerusalem will be built.

P.S. There are many other reasons for a Jew, even an atheist Jew, to want to migrate to Israel, mostly cultural, but you wouldn't understand as I take it according to this remark that you haven't read much Jewish literature other than texts about history and Zionist manifests and suchlikes.

Regarding: "When you would read more of pre-Holocaust Zionist literature I guess you would be truly appalled by its racist character. It is often both highly anti-Semitic AND anti-Arab. 'Racial purity' is generally considered a desirable quality."

Some is, some isn't. No movement is free of hatred. Refer to my other post about factions within the Zionist movement.

Regarding: "And when 'race' wouldn't be an issue at all, why is there so much systematic discrimination against Israeli Arabs?"

The fact that they many Israeli arabs were actively collaborating with Jordan and Syria (aiding them in breaching the border and espionage etc') greatly contributed to this.
Until this very day Pal suicide bombers are often aided by Israeli arabs with intelligence or transportation.

[Shiber]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Shiber,

Is this supposed to read 'why would you expect Jews to be different'?

Yeah, 'twas a typo.

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Well, since my response was in direct response to musex, it wouldn't make much sense...

I only realized you were talking to him after I posted that.

[Shiber]

Dear S. Kroeze,
I have to note that I am not surprised you read so many so-called academic texts which contain so many blunt mistakes or holes.
Many self-proclaimed researchers rely heavily on Hebrew texts and/or quotes from various Jewish figures that were put out of cultural and/or religious context by the translator, the researcher's source(s) or the researcher himself (though often unintentionally).
Since you do not come from a cultural or religious Jewish background, I advise you to double-check your facts and conclusions with those who do before you bring them here.

[CyberGnu]

Most Jews still elect to live outside Israel, e.g. in North America and Europe since the standards of living are higher there and it's much more dangerous to live in Israel than in N. America or Europe.
However, I'd like to remind you that there were times when Jews weren't free to wander. Even when the Zionist movement was established and Europe was relatively liberal (considering its past attitude towards Jews), the movement still had to work hard to persuade many countries to allow the movement to set up training camps and to send Jews to Israel.

When was it that jews weren't free to wander? All of the years 600-1900AD?

Look, the point is that leaving the land for almost 2000 years effectively kills all claims you had to it, even though you managed to keep some traditions regarding it. Whether 'next year in jerusalem' is a new or old custom is not the issue (and quite reminiscent of Siro's style of arguing... Avoiding the actual issue while refuting a minor detail).

As several people have pointed as regarding Uganda, however, it is apparently a question of standard of living, which turns it inot a questoin of greed.

Oh really, they did? Was that why armed attacks were constantly made against Jewish settlements (much before any declarations of intentions for granting independent states).

Could you be more specific? What time periods are you referring to?

Yes it did. This was the main reason the Brits limited Jewish immigration: lack of available jobs. Perhaps you should read the paper before you quote it. I have.

The actual passage:
The Administration of Palestine is required, under Article 6 of the Mandate, "while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced," to encourage "close settlement by Jews on the land," and no restriction has been imposed hitherto on the transfer of land from Arabs to Jews. The Reports of several expert Commissions have indictaed that, owing to the natural growth of the Arab population and the steady sale in recent years of Arab land to Jews, there is now in certain areas no room for further transfers of Arab land, whilst in some other areas such transfers of land must be restricted if Arab cultivators are to maintain their existing standard of life and a considerable landless Arab population is not soon to be created.


I'm guessing you are referring to the 1922 white paper where immigration was limited to 'what the economic capacity can handle'.

Perhaps you should read more carefully before you oppose a quote... I did

[orange]

Originally posted by Shiber
No, because they are politicians, not militants. They may make horrible racists remarks but after all, it's a free country.

No, it's not.

[Shiber]

CyberGnu:

1. I was relating to that minor detail because it is important to me. I am somewhat sensitive about misunderstandings of Jewish traditions (I can't quite explain to myself why... nevermind, drop the subject).

2. Regarding: "..however, it is apparently a question of standard of living, which turns it inot a questoin of greed.".
Oh, would you have liked to be a hard-working pioneer and live in a swamp with a very good chance of dying out of Anopheles? Or would you rather have lived in Europe or N. America?

It's getting very late. I'll address the rest of your arguments tomorrow.

[Shiber]

Originally posted by orange


No, it's not.

I was referring to Israel and Israeli politicians. I was saying that some Israeli politicians, especially right-wing extremists make racist remarks but that doesn't make them viable targets for assassination as Israel is a free and democratic society which promotes free speech.

[CyberGnu]

Shiber
1) OK, I can undertand that. You understood my point though, that is all that matters.

2) And that is exactly what I'm saying. I'd rather live in Europe than in the ME, but if I take the easy choice I can't claim the other land back at a later date. It now belongs to the people who DID make the tougher choice (even though it might not have been a choice for them at all).