8 Children Killed in Israeli Attack

[S. Kroeze]

Dear Shiber,

Is it a favourite Israeli debating strategy to point out that your opponent is ignorant?
Are you afraid you would lose a debate when you would forgo insults?
Thank you for those nice words!

Fortunately you also provided some useful information. Thank you!

But to explain that secular marriage does not exist in Israel is not identical to vindication; this is still discriminating policy.

When did Ahad Ha'am publish his theories? Before or after the Holocaust?
Nevertheless, you evade the central issue.

Jews were seen as an abnormal state and an enemy of nationalism which bloomed throughout Europe

For an anti-Semite a Jew can never be a loyal American, German, British citizen, BECAUSE he is Jewish!
On this central issue I see no essential difference between Ahad Ha'am, Hashomer Hatzair, other Zionists, or Nazism: in their view a Jew -religious or not- will always be an 'Alien'.
This was the central issue of the Dreyfus case. It explains why most Jews, liberals and socialists defended Dreyfus, while conservatives, the Church and the army attacked Dreyfus, and the Zionists just stood aside and watched.

I completely disagree with this line of thought, as every right-minded person should!
There are/were just atheist Germans, Catholic Germans, Jewish Germans etc. So the victims of Nazism were not only Jewish victims, but ALSO their fellow Germans, who had loyally fought in the German army in World War I.

In the civilised part of Europe (the Western democracies) after Dreyfus citizens of Jewish faith were never considered 'Aliens' -apart from some rabid xenophobics and Christian extremists. Some discrimination unfortunately occurred, but the statutory rights of Jews were never under attack.

When in my country someone would suggest that Muslims should be forbidden -or just would try to hamper mixed marriages- to marry Christians (or other Dutchmen) by law, he could be thrown into jail almost immediately for a considerable period of time.

Sincerely,

S.Kroeze

[Shiber]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze
When did Ahad Ha'am publish his theories? Before or after the Holocaust?

HAHAHAHAHA!!! OMG, you actually never heard of Ahad Ha'am have you? He's only the founder of a very distinctive and important faction of Zionism. He lived and died BEFORE the Holocaust, btw. Of course now you'll probably run off to the library and pull out all the books you can find about Ahad Ha'am and then analyze my sentence thoroughly and try to find even the slightest inaccuracy. Well, at least some good will come of it, as you
This shows how far your selective knowledge goes.
As for your arguments, I won't bother refuting them as they are either too unlearned or too stupid to bother replying to.
I expect the casual "you refuse to answer me because you can't refute my arguments!". Don't bother, I really don't give a damn enough about you to bother replying.

P.S. Wasn't Hertzel first motivated to start the Zionist movement by the Dreyfuss case? AFAIK he was a reporter covering the story and seeing the injustice done to Dreyfuss has motivated him to write 'Altnoi Land' and establish the Zionist movement.
If so, how could the Zionist movement do anything about this case if it didn't even exist? No, don't bother answering. I don't respect any of your sources anyway.

[Shiber]

Regarding mixed marriage:
Let's settle this once and for all: mixed marriage is _not_ prohobited by Israeli law. There's no law against mixed marriage, meaning that mixed marriage is possible. Jews and Muslims or Christians can get enlisted as a married couple, only they can't have an Orthodox marriage because this is against the Halacha, which forbids mixed marriage*. An Orthodox Rabbi simply won't agree to conduct the ceremony as it is against the Halacha, and as a Rabbi he must comply with the Halacha.
So in other words, it is not Israeli law that forbids mixed marriage. It is rather the Halacha that does, but mixed couples can still get enlisted as married couples.
* The Halacha forbids mixed marriage not for racist reasons but rather than as a form of keeping the Jewish religion and culture unaffected by Paganism. In the old age some Jews married neighboring Pagans which resulted in them being affected by their spouse's pagan ways. The Halacha is outdated but as you know the Orthodox refuse to modernize it or change it in any way (while other sects such as the reformist sect do).

In response to the following: "Yet is still surprises me that the legislator(parliament) did NOT decree by law";
Kroeze, you obviously didn't take law. If you did you would have known that in a Democratic regime citizens are allowed to do anything that is not forbidden by law. Law doesn't grant people the right to do things, it rather forbids them. Therefore there is no need to make a law that says mixed marriage is allowed because there is no law that forbids it.

In response to the following: "Is it a favourite Israeli debating strategy to point out that your opponent is ignorant?";
I was actually explaining to CyberGnu why suicide bombings are carried out by the Palestinians not in response to Israeli attacks but rather in response to Israel's continued existence, and that stopping Israeli counterattacks won't cause the Palestinians to stop suicide bombings, and would rather give them the advantage over us, as they would be able to attack us all they want without fearing that we might haunt down those responsible for the attacks and hurt the terrorist infrastructure.
It is thanks to Israeli counterattacks that Palestinian terrorists no longer walk the streets but rather have to hide. It is thanks to Israeli counterattacks that Palestinians have a harder time creating proper bomb charges as most of their experts are now either dead or in custody (an evidence of this is the rising number of "work accidents", aka the rising number of bomb labs that have exploded because of accidents made by the Palestinians in recent years). It is thanks to Israeli counterattacks that Palestinian terror organizations are less organized than they were before (because we either arrest or kill, when we can't arrest, their key figures) and their suicide bombings are much less effective. In their prime, the Hamas and the PLO carried out attacks that took the lives of over a hundred Israelis. Now roughly 29 out of 30 suicide bombers are stopped before they ever make it past the borders and successful suicide bombings are not as deadly as they were a couple of years ago.

[orange]

Originally posted by Shiber
Orange, which post were you referring to and what was so funny about it?

The first post I quoted, about Israel being a free and democratic society.

P.S. Is that the Metroid logo there? Hey, another Metroid fan! How're ya doing!

Oh yeah I'm doing well. How about you?

[Shiber]

-- edited --
(double posting)

[Shiber]

Orange, Israel is a Democratic country. Maybe not as Democratic as Britain because it does not guarantee some civil liberties which Britain does when it comes to religion (e.g. people, even non-Jews and non-Muslims are not allowed to raise pigs in Israel or sell wheat products during Passover which limits the freedom of profession, etc'. Non-religious Jews compromise on some issues with the religious ones) but it's still Democratic.
Could you perhaps explain why you think Israel is not to be considered a Democratic state?

[CyberGnu]

The British mostly feared the immigration of Jewish extremists who at that time concluded that Jews and arabs cannot possibly exist together.

?

I think the british reason for limiting immigration a tangent without real significance, however, so I would just let it drop... As I said, I just wanted to disprove your statement that there was lots of undeveloped land just waiting to be tilled.

As for the conclusions made by the British, I wouldn't give them too much credit as they obviously weren't impartial on this case.

Pray tell, who should we believe? AFAIK, the only other sources from this ear are jewish or arab, neither of which is even remotely believable compared to the british official studies.

But, as Kreuze has asked a few dozen times now, if you don't agree with the british white paper, feel free to post something you consider supporting your view. If you can't find a source that does this, you should face the reality that you are in fact wrong....

[CyberGnu]

Somehow it seems the modren jews has gone from believing in the Torah to believing in the infallability of israeli text books.

It doesn't matter how well we prove that statements such as 'there was plenty of land available in palestine' or 'prior to 1950 there was no such thing as a palestinian' are patently false, the reply is always 'your source is biased/wrong/anti-semitic, and our textbooks are right because it says so in our textbooks'.

The paralells to say, creationists, are quite striking. Nothing we say will ever be accepted, because they know 'the truth'.

Of course, there are always dissenters. In the old days they were burned as heretics. In modern Israel they are merely shunned, branded as 'self-hating jews'.

But you can break out of it. Be critical. Don't accept statements without a proper source, barring a reductio in absurdum. And train your mind to accept the fact that when reality and preconceptions clash, reality wins every single time...

[orange]

Originally posted by Shiber
Orange, Israel is a Democratic country. Maybe not as Democratic as Britain because it does not guarantee some civil liberties which Britain does when it comes to religion (e.g. people, even non-Jews and non-Muslims are not allowed to raise pigs in Israel or sell wheat products during Passover which limits the freedom of profession, etc'. Non-religious Jews compromise on some issues with the religious ones) but it's still Democratic.
Could you perhaps explain why you think Israel is not to be considered a Democratic state?

A state founded on the idea of a nation for one group of people or religion is ethnic fascism, if you ask me. Mandatory military service for males...Palestinian second class citizenship across the board...i was actually commenting more on the 'free' part of your statement though.

Sharon and his actions alone, however, make a case against Israel as a free and democratic state

[CyberGnu]

As for Jews having 1,400 yrs to migrate to Israel and choosing not to, most of them didn't really choose to you know. First of all, there were times when Jews weren't allowed to leave their towns or special zone (such as the Russians' 'Thum Hamoshav').
Second of all, before the European rulers became more open towards Jews they weren't allowed to integrate with the christian society and were limited to several professions (you may recall that the church gradually forbade Jews from entering various professions until all they had left to do was loaning with interest, and then blamed the Jews for robbing Christians of their wealth when they loaned them money with interest). Therefore most Jews lived in poverty, which meant they couldn't even fund the trip.
Third, Jews could not own land either because they couldn't afford it or because the authorities wouldn't allowed them. As a result of this, they had absolutely no agricultural background and couldn't possibly support themselves in Israel, so there was no point of them migrating before Zionist training camps were established in Russia and parts of west Europe.
Fourth, nationalistic desires have a tendancy to be pushed aside by more pressuring matters. Only when Jews could become professionals (e.g. journalists, bankers, lawyers, accountants etc') in the modern age and many Jews left poverty and became wealthy did they began thinking seriously about establishing settlements in Israel.
Finally, in order to establish a large movement such as the Zionist movement a monetary base wasn't enough. You had to convince people to join your movememt, and this was made possible only as a result of the 'Summer of Nations', where many nations demanded independence and self-definition and Jewish thinkers decided that this is what the Jews needed as well to cease to be an abnormal nation.

My friend, I think you are grasping at straws.

First of all, there were times when Jews weren't allowed to leave their towns or special zone (such as the Russians' 'Thum Hamoshav').

I don't know what you are trying to prove with this. That jews were forbidden to move during one period of time does not mean they couldn't have moved before or after... Furthermore, jews were actualy forced to move at different periods, such as the expulsion of jews from France in the 14'th century or from Spain in the 15'th. The majority of jews who were forced to leave went not to palestine, but to Italy, Northwestern africa and Turkey. As most people know, the Ottoman empire had no selective repression of jews but treated them as any other non-muslim religion.

And one would wonder, if they could move from France to Turkey, why not go the extra few miles to settle in palestine, if it is religiously important? Other religious groups have endured far worse hardships in order to fulfill their religious convictions... The first batch of piligrms in northern america had a huge fatality rate, but that didn't stop them.

The only conceivable answer is that a higher standard of living was far more important than returning to the 'promised land', which, as we already establishes, invalidates any claim modern judaism has on palestine.

Second of all, before the European rulers became more open towards Jews they weren't allowed to integrate with the christian society and were limited to several professions (you may recall that the church gradually forbade Jews from entering various professions until all they had left to do was loaning with interest, and then blamed the Jews for robbing Christians of their wealth when they loaned them money with interest). Therefore most Jews lived in poverty, which meant they couldn't even fund the trip.

Well, this is first off a really broad generalization. If we only concern ourselves with jews in medieveal europe (ignoring that jews in the muslim world were quite well off, many of them high ranking officials in places such as Spain and Morocco), the policy towards jews underwent huge changes in both time and geography. There were times when christian scholars learned Hebrew to better interpret the Old testament. There were times when jews were forced to live in ghettos. And there were everything in between.

The one social restriction that is perhaps most important was not actually imposed on jews, but on christians. For hundreds of years, the vatican forbad christians to make money by handling money. Interest on loans, currency exchange, pretty much everything a modeern bank does was inaccesible for a christian (as well as a muslim, who if orthodox observes this practise to this day). Along came the jews, who didn't have this restriction. With the rise of the merchant class a need was created that only jews could fulfill, and so they did.

Unfortunately, people making money on money are traditionally not well liked by the working class... Even today this is true. Religious differences between jews and christians were exarcbated by christians being forced to borrow money from jews and of course paying them interest, giving rise to (irrational) resentment. The first jewish ghettos (in 16'th century Italy) were created from these social factors much more than any religious idea...

I seem to have drifted off the topic somewhat... Point is, jews as a group were better off than christians were, as they benefited from the rise of teh merchant class. Yet, no relocation to Palestine, even by the moneylenders who were very well off.

Third, Jews could not own land either because they couldn't afford it or because the authorities wouldn't allowed them. As a result of this, they had absolutely no agricultural background and couldn't possibly support themselves in Israel, so there was no point of them migrating before Zionist training camps were established in Russia and parts of west Europe.

Well, neither did the pilgrims. Or the brazilian germans. Or the mormons. Yet they all opted to travel far away, city folks trying (and often failing) the farming life.

And quite frankly, looking at the jewish settlers today, one must wonder, where were they during these 2000 years? If they are willing to risk their lifes so Israel can expand their borders, why weren't there similar groups between 100AD and 1900AD?

Fourth, nationalistic desires have a tendancy to be pushed aside by more pressuring matters. Only when Jews could become professionals (e.g. journalists, bankers, lawyers, accountants etc') in the modern age and many Jews left poverty and became wealthy did they began thinking seriously about establishing settlements in Israel.

Which is exactly what I've been saying. But it also means the jewish people have abdicated their claim to Israel for a higher standard of living.

Finally, in order to establish a large movement such as the Zionist movement a monetary base wasn't enough. You had to convince people to join your movememt, and this was made possible only as a result of the 'Summer of Nations', where many nations demanded independence and self-definition and Jewish thinkers decided that this is what the Jews needed as well to cease to be an abnormal nation.

And they were offered Uganda, which they turned down. 'The jews need a nation of their own' is not sufficient reason to displace the arabs who already lived in palestine.

[S. Kroeze]

It is interesting that many Mexicans migrate to the US year in and year out. So many, that they now comprise one third of the population - maybe more if we had an accurate account. As a result, we have all government forms in both English and Spanish. Schools are taught in both languages. Most Californians who grew up here in the last few decades speak Spanish.

When they get here, they settle mostly in large Mexican-American communities where only Spanish is spoken. They buy land – they don’t steal land – just as the Jewish settlers of Palestine did prior to 1948.
California was once Spanish territory, so there is “some” analogy with the situation in the ME.

Do you accept the concept of 'national sovereignty'?
If so, do you agree it is the prerogative of the American people and its more or less democratically elected government to decide whether this mass immigration is tolerated or prevented?
Do you also agree with me that the U.S. government -when the decision would be taken to admit no more Mexican immigrants- can close its borders and evict illegal immigrants?

It is also my view that a sovereign democracy -like the U.S.- can pass laws to restrict the acquisition of property by foreigners without U.S. citizenship.
Nor would I regard it as unreasonable when the U.S.government expects those immigrants who are legally admitted to the country to learn English, to respect U.S. law and honour American/local customs and traditions.

Of course there is resistance to further immigration from Mexico. It seems the entire population of Mexico wants to flee and live in the United States. This is why many Americans support NAFTA and anything else that can help build the Mexican economy and political institutions.

I presume you agree with me that every country can only absorb only a limited amount of immigrants/refugees. So it is a wise policy indeed to try to solve such problems by the roots.
I guess you will agree with me that anti-Semitism in Europe was the main cause of migration to Palestine.
So because Jews were treated better by Muslims than by Christians -being more civilised human beings- their country became a place of refuge for Jews.
I also hope it is known to you that Palestine (even combined with Transjordan) is a rather small and infertile country. Compared with the U.S. it can absorb far less foreign fortune-hunters.

But, what differs about the situation here in California, and indeed across the Southwest, is that we do not have armed bands of Anglos attacking Mexicans, openly threatening to drive them into the sea or back to where they came from. This is the real point of departure with the ME.

Here our opinions begin to diverge, because I see many other differences.
But, let's start with those "armed bands of Anglos attacking Mexicans".
In all your posts you repeat time and again that the 'poor Jews' were constantly attacked, almost like a mantra.
I do not deny there was some violence. The main outburst of Arab violence occurred during the so-called 'Great Revolt':

"However, Palestinian Arab discontent would not vanish as easily as a commission report. Upon the announcement of the Peel Commission's proposals in July 1937, Arab violence was renewed. As with the general strike of the previous year, it was spontaneous and locally led rather than premeditated and nationally organized. When the British district commissioner for Galilee was murdered in October, Britain responded by dissolving the Arab Higher Committee and arresting and deporting its members. The mufti escaped to Damascus, where he attempted to reconstitute the committee and to direct the uprising, but his influence over events in Palestine was on the wane. The Arab rebel bands, composed mainly of peasants, concentrated their attacks on railroads, bridges, and British police stations but also destroyed Jewish property and killed Jewish settlers. Although the rebels probably never numbered more than 5,000, they were supported by the bulk of the rural population, and by summer 1938 much of the countryside and several of the major towns were in their hands. Government services came to a virtual halt, and even portions of Jerusalem fell under rebel control.

In addition to its anti-British, anti-Zionist thrust, the revolt contained elements of a peasant social revolution against the established notability. In villages under rebel control, rents were canceled, debt collectors were denied entry, and wealthy landlords were coerced into making "donations" to the rebel cause. Local resistance committees banned the tarbush, the headgear of the Ottoman administrative elite, and insisted that men should wear the kaffiya, the checkered headcloth that has become a symbol of Palestinian national identity.

In an attempt to put down the uprising, Britain poured 20,000 troops into Palestine and adopted harsh measures of collective punishment on villages suspected of harboring rebels. Jewish forces also engaged in military action against the rebels as well as in retaliatory terrorist attacks against noncombattants. Despite the numerical superiority of their military forces, the British did not manage to restore order until March 1939. The revolt took a heavy toll: More that 3,000 Arabs, 2,000 Jews, and 600 British were killed; the economy of Plestine was in chaos; and the Arab leaders were in exile or under arrest."

(source: W.L.Cleveland; 'A History of the Modern Middle East',1994)

note for Sirotnikov: 'A History of the Modern Middle East' 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
Nevertheless this knowledge is of dubious sources and factually incorrect or misleading. True specialists do not need to go to the library and search for quotes proving that this is bull; they prove their right by repeating it a zillion times.
The fact that person after person, who studied Israeli history and Israeli law for final tests in Israel does not agree with this information, proves that this information is most probably wrong.
No one should bother much for one misleaded professor of history at a Canadian university with an alt.history book

I hope you will not apply the contemptuous strategy to discredit my sources without being able to recommend one study that supports your view.
First I would like to point out that the main target of the revolt were not Jews, but the British coloniser. It seems to me, you deny non-Europeans ALL fundamental human rights, but there are many people -and I am one of them- who think that revolt to colonial rule is legitimate, though violence is regrettable.
Apart from this 'Great Revolt' there were some violent attacks on Jews and Jewish property between 1917 and 1947, but nothing comparable to the Reichskristallnacht, the countless pogroms in Russia and Poland, or the Holocaust. In the years after the 'Great Revolt' it was mainly Zionist terrorism that destabilised Palestine.

When I read your mantra 'the Jews were constantly attacked', I always wonder which history books you read on this issue. Please list them, and please also list at least some of these 'constant attacks'!
You have probably never considered the possibility that some violent outbursts were provoked by Jabotinsky and his Revisionist followers?

Now returning to the comparison with Mexicans in the U.S./Zionists in Palestine:
How did the Zionists behave in Palestine?
Did the Arab -Muslim, Christian AND Jewish- population have any influence on Zionist immigration and acquisition of land?

There was no democratically elected government in Palestine, nor where the British eager to promote it. In the '30s the British considered to experiment with democratic self-government, but because the Zionists opposed it, nothing was accomplished.
Do Mexican immigrants in the U.S. also oppose democracy and self-government?

"Everywhere the movement for independence and democratic institutions had made great progress. The Arabs in the neighbouring backward Transjordan enjoyed a large measure of independence and had received in 1929 representative institutions. Iraq, like Palestine, originally a mandated country under Great Britain, had seen the mandate terminated in 1932 and was admitted to the League of Nations. In Syria, a territory under French mandate, negotiations between France and Syria for the early independence of the country resulted in the treaty of Sept. 9, 1936. The complete independence of Egypt was recognized by Great Britain in the same year. Under these circumstances, tension in Palestine between the Jewish and Arab elements was steadily mounting; Arab discontent was voiced, for the time being, in strongly worded demands for independence and self-government. The government announced at the end of Dec. 1934 its intention of establishing a legislative council 'to secure the advice and assistance of the people of the country in carrying on the government of the country.' While the Arabs expressed dissatisfaction with 'the insufficient representation of the Arabs,' they were nevertheless willing to work it; on the other hand, the Zionists rejected it uncompromisingly, and skilfully organized British parliamentary opposition to the proposals. Thereupon all the Arab parties united in Nov. 1935 and presented to the high commissioner a memorandum demanding the establishment of democratic government, the prohibition of the transfer of Arab lands to Jews and stoppage of Jewish immigration until the absorptive capacity of the country had been determined. These demands were not accepted."

(source: "Encyclopaedia Britannica',1964; article on 'Palestine')

note for Sirotnikov: the 'Encyclopaedia Britannica' 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
Nevertheless this knowledge is of dubious sources and factually incorrect or misleading. True specialists do not need to go to the library and search for quotes proving that this is bull; they prove their right by repeating it a zillion times.
The fact that person after person, who studied Israeli history and Israeli law for final tests in Israel does not agree with this information, proves that this information is most probably wrong.
No one should bother much for one misleaded encyclopaedia with an alt.history book, definitely not the Britannica

What is your opinion about democracy in Arab/Muslim countries?
Do you think it is legitimate to demand your government to ask for the establishment of democratic government, the prohibition of the transfer of land to foreigners and stoppage of immigration? How would you react when some influential foreign lobby would thwart the wishes of the vast majority of the population?
Probably Arabs and Muslims -inferior human beings- do not deserve equal treatment?
Could a democratically elected government in Palestine have decided to prevent mass immigration?
Or do you perhaps agree with me that even an government of Arab Jews, Christians and Muslims could have decided to close its borders and evict illegal immigrants?

Could a sovereign democratic government in Palestine have passed laws to restrict the acquisition of property by foreigners without citizenship?
Is it unreasonable to expect immigrants admitted to the country to learn Arabic, to respect traditional/Muslim law and honour Palestinian customs and traditions?

Sincerely,

S.Kroeze

[CyberGnu]

Gnu, some jews (not many at all, very few in fact) did migrate to Israel. To give you one example:
You are a doctor/merchant/whatever in Muslim Spain. Suddenly, another, much more radical sect of Islam/christianity comes along, invades the city you live in, and says 'convert or die'. Now before this happens, you live a great life, with higher taxes to pay, but hey, who cares? You've got a great house, great life, you read all that torah and talmud stuff and become learned and all that, why leave to some backwards country where you might die drom bedouins and disease and terrible weather? Now the sect comes along (or in a modern case: Nazi Germany) come along, it suddenly seems a good idea to go back to your ancestral homeland, where you might be safe-craphole that it may be. Btw, Moses Maimonides is the doctor in question-he did move to Palestine, but couldn't support himself because the place was a craphole.
Additional reasons:
The Crusaders.
Radical Islam.
Israel at the time was wasteland, and was in economic recession (no jobs, little food, etc).
Basically, why leave a country when your rich/middle class and have few problems in life? The Golden Age in Spain wasn't called that because life was ****, you know.

Zevico,
I mentioned the jews returning to jerusalem in the 7'th century a few pages back, as I think they prove part of my point here: Jews could have returned to palestine at any time between 200AD and 1900AD, but decided not to do so for various reasons, most likely standard of living.

And as I've told Shiber, accepting the easy choice of a higher standard of living invalidates all further claims on the land of palestine in favor of the people who took the hard choice, i.e. ekeing out sustenance out of the palestinian soil.

[Kropotkin]

"Jews could have returned to palestine at any time between 200AD and 1900AD, but decided not to do so for various reasons, most likely standard of living. "

There's also the obvious results of the emergence of a new ideology that followed as the result of the idea of nationalism and a number of instances like the Dreyfus-scandal. From the traditional viewpoint the jews should return to the promised land with the messiah etc. A mostly secular ideology like Zionism changed that.

[Kropotkin]

( or maybe that has been mentioned a million times here alreadt, I'm just jumping into the thread as there's nothing on TV)

[CyberGnu]

musec, what on earth are you talking about?