Aahhh, Isn't This Just So Sweet?

[pitchu]

All things aside Pitchu, what would be wrong with lessened US involvement in the region? Not advocating that if the other Arab countries go on the warpath we look the other way, I would think the whole world community would step in if that happened. Just neutrality.

 

I think from my above two posts, you can see why I, personally, could not take a neutral view of the goings-on over there, The-Doctor. "All things aside" include the "women" thing, which I can't put aside.

 

But I think you're trying to find a reasonable solution, which is good.

 

I just wish there were such a thing.

[Vigile]

And how 'effective' is that tactic anyway? T

 

That depends on how you measure effectiveness. Politically it's very effective from their point of view as it gives the masses some small sense of victory in an otherwise hopeless situation. Desperate people resort to desperate measures. I'm not saying it's logical.

 

Again, though, the US military and the Israeli military kill far more innocents, at least 10-1 and probably more, even if unintentionally, than terrorists do. And from the perspective of those on the receiving end I'm sure it seems just as disgusting as the methods they use in retaliation do to us. Just because we try to limit the damage doesn't make us the good guys. We are still causing the damage and isn't that the ultimate measure? The damage?

 

The Israelis can go for long periods of time without attacking the Palestinians.

 

You have no evidence of this.

 

The death count of the combatants is inconsequential.

 

Read what I wrote again, I didn't say combatants. I said non combatants. The US and Israel, whether they mean to or not, kill 10 fold+ more non combatants than the terrorist do. The terrorists would kill more if they could so I'm n

 

ot defending them, but I sure as hell am not going to give US/Israel a free pass for good intentions.

 

This good guys bad guys stuff is silly. It's too biblical for me. The problems over there are much more complex than labels like good guys/bad guys can account for.

 

You are nitpicking at fighting tactics and completely ignoring the wider political socio economic issues that drive all of this to begin with. In those terms there are no good guys here and without good guys I can hardly determine who is really the bad guy in the bunch. Probably all of them if we choose to be that simplistic. I'd rather not.

 

I find defending and/or not condemning terrorists pretty damn screwy.

 

You see, that's just it, I'm not defending the terrorists. I'm just refusing to swallow the line that we or Israel are the good guys. Looking at something by trying to wear their shoes isn't defending it's trying to understand. I don't understand terrorists. I think they are completely illogical. I also don't understand why we don't understand that trying to kill them all is going to stop them. As long as they can have babies they won't be stopped. Perhaps alternative approaches might then be considered.

 

 

And I'm probably going to get filleted for saying this, but isn't the bottom line here that if Israel was never founded and if the US never invaded Iraq in the first place we would not be discussing things like human shields as a reason to dismiss body count? I know those bridges be done already burned. I'm just sayin'.

[pitchu]

Vigile,

 

To me, the "if Israel was never founded" argument is similar to "if we still believed the earth was flat the Titanic disaster wouldn't have happened."

 

The earth is spherical. Jews were always there.

 

"Founding" means officially recognizing that fact.

 

Without "founding" the hostility and massacres (see my post on massacres, above) would have still continued on. "Founding" allowed for internationally recognized borders so that Israelis could defend themselves by international right rather than in random skirmish massacres with occasional ineffective British intervention.

 

The only alternative to "founding" was that the Jews in the area would continue to be subjected to what was then piecemeal extermination, just as they had been in Europe three years earlier, with no country or boundaries to give them international rights of organized self-defense.

 

So, it would have been better if the Final Solution had been ultimately perpetrated by Arabs upon those who had escaped Hitler's Final Solution?

[Vigile]

So, it would have been better if the Final Solution had been ultimately perpetrated by Arabs upon those who had escaped Hitler's Final Solution?

 

Come on Pitchu, you know this is a false dichotomy. You know I'm not suggesting this.

[pitchu]

So, it would have been better if the Final Solution had been ultimately perpetrated by Arabs upon those who had escaped Hitler's Final Solution?

 

Come on Pitchu, you know this is a false dichotomy. You know I'm not suggesting this.

 

I have no idea what you are specifically suggesting should have been done at that time, under those circumstances, considering all factors, Vigile. I'm not being coy.

 

If you think nothing should have been done by the international community, then certainly the scenario I depicted would have played out.

[Outback Jack]

That depends on how you measure effectiveness. Politically it's very effective from their point of view as it gives the masses some small sense of victory in an otherwise hopeless situation.

Please read again what you're saying gives these people a sense of victory.

 

"The guys without it [the power] are left with very few options and one of those options that happens to be effective is creating terror by scaring specifically targeting and murdering the civilians with bombs made of nails and rat poison in order to prevent clotting and promote the bleeding to death of the civilian targets."

 

Its more than just illogical. It's sick. It's Depraved. It's disgusting. It's murderous. And it's the reason that Israel has to kick their ass every few years.

 

ME: The Israelis can go for long periods of time without attacking the Palestinians.

 

YOU: You have no evidence of this.

Are you kidding me?! The only evidence I can give you is the years that Israel wasn't attacking the Palestinians. From The History Guy again,

The peace treaty [of 1967]between Egypt and Israel effectively ceded control of Gaza to Israel, but Gaza became a battleground in the Palestinian uprising against Israel known as The Intifada in the late 1980s.

...

In the summer of 2005, Israel unilaterally evacuated its last military outposts in the Gaza Strip, hoping that would ease ongoing tensions with the Palestinian forces in Gaza. On June 25, 2006, Palestinian militants crossed from Gaza into Israel, kidnapping an Israeli soldier. Israel responded on June 29 with an invasion of the Gaza Strip.

So there's about 20 years that they weren't attacking Gaza and another 1 year that they gave the Pales what they wanted. And what did the Pales do with their new land? They started another war.

 

And then there's this. A cease-fire is declared and the Israelis hold to it but the Pales just keep on launching rockets anyway. And what about all of those dead chickens!!! Please, think of the chickens!

 

Again, though, the US military and the Israeli military kill far more innocents, at least 10-1 and probably more, even if unintentionally, than terrorists do.

I'd like to see your evidence for that claim. I think you're just pulling it out of thin air so that you can do the same thing that the poor, oppressed terrorist do, which is to say how evil the Israelis are.

 

Look on the right side of the page linked above. Here's how it really breaks down.

"Total Dead: 1,300 (source Palestinian Ministry of Health)

 

Palestinian Fighters/Military/Police: 800 (source IDF)

 

Civilians: 700 approx. (source Palestinian Ministry of Health)"

 

Just because we try to limit the damage doesn't make us the good guys. We are still causing the damage and isn't that the ultimate measure? The damage?

Just because we and the Israelis try to limit the damage makes us better than them.

 

But what I see you saying here is that Israel is not allowed to defend itself because that causes damage. Is that right?

 

I'll ask this question again. What should Israel do when the fighters are hiding behind the coattails of the civilians? Stop fighting?

 

You see, that's just it, I'm not defending the terrorists. I'm just refusing to swallow the line that we or Israel are the good guys.

Gotcha. Any nation that uses it's military is de facto not a 'good guy'. Even if that nation is trying to stop terrorists from launching rockets at it's civilians. Seems like a pretty naïve view of things to me. It would be nice if you could 'teach the world to sing in perfect harmony' but that's not how the world works. When you're surrounded by people trying to kill you, you have to defend yourself.

 

As long as they can have babies they won't be stopped. Perhaps alternative approaches might then be considered.

So you admit that the Pales will never stop trying to kill Israelis. Thanks.

 

And what alternatives do you suggest? Something like all of the peace treaties that Israel and the Pales sign, which the Pales continue to violate? That hasn't worked well so far.

 

 

And I'm probably going to get filleted for saying this, but isn't the bottom line here that if Israel was never founded and if the US never invaded Iraq in the first place we would not be discussing things like human shields as a reason to dismiss body count? I know those bridges be done already burned. I'm just sayin'.

By jove, yer right! If only we did exactly what the terrorists told us to do, we could have peace in the middle east!! Yes, lets appease them. That's worked well in the past.

[babysealclubber]

There are obviously differences, but Israel's story reminds me of U.S. history.

 

See what you think:

 

First, many settler's came for religious reasons, (although this is less true for the 'States.) After a while, the settlers started aggressively expanding their influence and borders, eventually displacing and killing enough people to start pissing off the native population. Then the natives and the settlers fought openly for many decades. When things got bad enough the settlers corralled the natives onto reservations.

 

The biggest difference is that in this case, the native Arab population is huge. They also have access to large weaponry, courtesy of support from like-minded, oil-rich nations, and an effective religious propaganda machine.

 

I don't see Jews as being remotely innocent. They and the Brits started this mess, and the U.S. sticking it's nose in the region isn't helping. At this point the region is completely ass-fucked, and the only fast solutions I see are an Israeli exodus or dramatic consolidation of their borders. It wouldn't break my heart.

[Vigile]

So, it would have been better if the Final Solution had been ultimately perpetrated by Arabs upon those who had escaped Hitler's Final Solution?

 

Come on Pitchu, you know this is a false dichotomy. You know I'm not suggesting this.

 

I have no idea what you are specifically suggesting should have been done at that time, under those circumstances, considering all factors, Vigile. I'm not being coy.

 

If you think nothing should have been done by the international community, then certainly the scenario I depicted would have played out.

 

I'm betting that at least as many Jews assimilated into other cultures and societies as migrated to Israel post WWII. I suggested this is a false dichotomy because it suggests there were no alternatives between establishing modern day Israel or the gas chamber.

 

Anyway, it was just an offhanded remark. I'm certainly not suggesting Israel pull up roots now that they've firmly been planted or even that it would be a good idea to do so.

 

 

Jack: You make some interesting points. I probably could come up with counterpoints with some, or maybe not, but TBH, I get weary debating Israel so I'm probably just going to bow out for now. Sorry.

[pitchu]

I'm betting that at least as many Jews assimilated into other cultures and societies as migrated to Israel post WWII. I suggested this is a false dichotomy because it suggests there were no alternatives between establishing modern day Israel or the gas chamber.

 

Anyway, it was just an offhanded remark. I'm certainly not suggesting Israel pull up roots now that they've firmly been planted or even that it would be a good idea to do so.

 

I appreciate your writing this last part.

 

I'm afraid you'd lose your bet, though, because the first part assumes two erroneous things:

 

(1) Escaping Jews were looking to assimilate. Assimilation had been what they had done excellently for thousands of years but which inevitably brought about their being singled out in those countries for restrictions, persecution, pogroms, raids, ghetto-ization, massacres and, ultimately of course, mass death. Assimilation, to most European Jews, simply meant there would be more of the same.

 

(2) There were countries willing to take them. The facts are to the contrary.

 

At an international conference on refugees in Evian (on the French side of the Lake Geneva) held in 1938, none of the nations present was willing to accomodate large numbers of refugees and the conference ended without substantial results: "it was not the fate of the persecuted individuals but the threat posed to potential receiving countries by the mass expulsions ... which was the main focus of the agenda." (Independent Commission of Experts Switzerland - World War II, final report, p. 53)

 

Most people fleeing persecution attempt to go where enclaves of people like themselves are already historically established. Jews evidently aren't allowed to behave like most people.

 

Even so, their need was so desperate that some undertook the following...

 

During the war, Spain became an unlikely haven for several thousand Jews. They were mainly from Western Europe, fleeing deportation to concentration camps from occupied France, but also Sephardic Jews from Eastern Europe, especially in Hungary. Trudy Alexy refers to the "absurdity" and "paradox of refugees fleeing the Nazis' Final Solution to seek asylum in a country where no Jews had been allowed to live openly as Jews for over four centuries." [The Spanish Inquisition]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain_in_World_War_II

 

And... if they had the money to do so, they went here:

 

A couple of years before World War II, Europe and the United States turned their back on millions Jews in Europe that tried to escape an increasing persecution. Nations closed their borders after a political meeting between several nations with Germany in the center that led nowhere. Hitler used the result of the meeting as an invitation to increase the intensity of the Jewish persecution. Some Jews were fortunate enough to escape to neighboring countries while many were escorted back to the German border and handed to the Gestapo. However, far away on the other side of the world some fortunate Jews that had the financial means to escape found a loophole - Shanghai.

 

Japan and China had been in war, which led to the occupation of Shanghai. The Japanese forces were not checking passports, as people arrived to Shanghai by ships. The Chinese government had been abandoned, as was the passport control. Thus, Jews could leave Germany, even though their passports had been restricted or revoked, to peacefully enter Shanghai.

 

Arrivals were initially shocked by the environment to which they arrived. This culture crash had its foundation in several new experiences such as the extreme humidity, high temperature, different written and spoken language, and new food among many other things. Yet, the 20,000 Jews that arrived found a way to cope in the new society.

 

As the war increasingly intensified the Germans who were allies with Japan pressured the Japanese to create a ghetto in Shanghai for those Jews. The Japanese slowly established this ghetto, but it was very unlike the ghetto in Warsaw, Poland. Nonetheless, food became scarce while starvation and disease made life much more difficult, which even cost several people their lives. Despite the difficulties in Shanghai, the Jews never learned how lucky they were until the end of the war. When the terribly tragic news of the death camps in Europe reached them in Shanghai this moment brought them a heavy sadness, as they realized how lucky they were while reflecting on their relatives and family members' horrific fate.

[edited]

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4360304/Sh..._to_China%5D%5B

 

I wish you could give me the names of the nations issuing open invitations to take in those Jews, Vigile. I've just been searching for almost two hours and I can't find them.

 

Not the U. S. Not Canada. Not Switzerland. And the European nations which featured their own death camps for Jews certainly weren't on anybody's list.

[The-Captain]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Jewish people form independence more or less of their own volition in a land that had been a British mandate? So how exactly did the Palestinian Arabs have any more right to the land? Jews had been living there as well and were a demographic majority in some areas. Someone said it before, wouldn't it have been easier for the Arabs to move into any of the adjacent Arab countries or to peacefully remain in Israel than for the Jews to have nowhere to go?

[pitchu]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Jewish people form independence more or less of their own volition in a land that had been a British mandate? So how exactly did the Palestinian Arabs have any more right to the land? Jews had been living there as well and were a demographic majority in some areas. Someone said it before, wouldn't it have been easier for the Arabs to move into any of the adjacent Arab countries or to peacefully remain in Israel than for the Jews to have nowhere to go?

 

A succinct and rational appraisal, Doc.

 

If only there had been an Arab leader willing to say, "Look, Guys, let me tell ya what would be easier...."

[babysealclubber]

The Doc,

 

The Jews formed a nation in the British Mandate of Palestine with the blessing of the UN.

 

The British cabinet, in the Balfour Declaration, had promised to create a "home" for zionists when Britain was "given" the land by the League of Nations after the break up of the Ottoman Empire. Massive immigration followed, especially during and after WWII. This, among other things, caused lots of tension with the native Arab population. Native Jews were very small minority before this time, and remained so up until the founding of Israel.

 

But yes, there has been a Jewish presence in the area for several millennia. What right that gives them to form a government I don't know. Why did they need a separate country? Why not just keep the entire palestinian state unified like the Arabian population and governments wanted?

 

Because that would have gone against the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the zionist movement, and kept the Jews as a minority group with little political power. Of course with the anti-semitic feelings in the area, it's entirely possible, or even likely, that the Jewish people would be ruthlessly persecuted under the new government when the British removed their ~100,000 man garrison from the region. Who knows?

 

And as for your question of whether it would have been easier for the Arabs to relocate? That's pretty much what happened. Since Israel declared independence, something like a million people have relocated (or become refugees, depending on your perspective.)

[babysealclubber]

Of course, that was a VERY brief and simplified version of what happened, but I think it hits the main points well enough.

[pitchu]

Since Israel declared independence, something like a million people have relocated (or become refugees, depending on your perspective.)

 

Let's look at who the refugees were. Mostly we only hear about Arab refugees. The assessment below shows that the number of Jewish refugees thrown out of Arab nations at that time actually exceeded the number of "Palestinian" refugees. But... the difference is around a mere 150,000 and they were Jews anyway, so who cares?

Who Are the Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries

The expulsion and exodus of over 850,000 Jews from Arab countries is among the most significant yet little known injustices against humanity of the past century. For hundreds of years, and in many cases for millennia, Jews lived in countries such as Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia, Iran, Iraq and Yemen. In fact in several of these countries the Jewish population was established long before what has become today’s local population or over 1,000 years before the advent of Islam. From the seventh century on, special laws of the Dhimmi (the “protected”), later known as the Covenant of Omar, subjected the Jews of the Middle East and North Africa to prohibitions, restrictions and discrimination and the harsh conditions of inferiority. Many Jews did manage to prosper despite these circumstances including occupying high government positions.

 

Discrimination against Jews in Arab countries took a dramatic turn for the worse in 1948 after the birth of the State of Israel. Between the 1940s and 1980s, the Jews of Arab countries endured humiliation, discrimination, human rights abuses, organized persecution and expulsion by the governments of the countries of their origin.

During this time, Jewish property was seized without compensation, Jewish quarters were sacked and looted, and cemeteries were desecrated. Synagogues, Jewish shops, schools and houses were ransacked, burned and destroyed, and hundreds of Jews were murdered in anti-Semitic riots and pogroms. Of the over 850,000 Jewish refugees who left Arab countries, approximately 600,000 sought refuge in the State of Israel and were resettled there at great expense. Arab states have refused to acknowledge these human rights violations and provide relief to the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were forced to abandon their homes, businesses and possessions as they fled those countries.

 

In fact, as a result of the creation of the State of Israel, official records indicate that approximately 700,000 Palestinian Arab residents fled in order to escape the attacking Arab armies that promised to wipe Israel off the map.

http://www.americansephardifederation.org/...sh_refugees.asp

[The-Captain]

Thanks BC, didn't know about the Balfour Declaration.

 

The Jews formed a nation in the British Mandate of Palestine with the blessing of the UN.

 

Created by a UN resolution that many Arab countries refused to recognize, right? What I meant by them creating the state of their own volition is that they moved there before and after the Holocaust, worked for the support to create a state then fought for it after. Reiterating what I said before, what gave anyone the "right" to form a state in Palestine?

 

 

Btw for everyone involved, you may find this interesting.

 

http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm

 

Yes, I get my links from wikipedia

[babysealclubber]

Allow me to interpret that information from a contrarian perspective:

 

'Not only did the founding of Israel force hundreds of thousands of Arabs to relocate, it increased anti-semitism in Arab states to the point that hundreds of thousands of Jews to flee to Israel.'

 

The point being that none of this occurred in a vacuum. In the same way, it seems a bit biased to attribute the emigration of 700,000 palestinians to the Arabian armies. It also ignores the fact that Israel has aggressively expanded beyond their original alloted territory more than once.

 

This map shows what the UN originally granted Israel with a blue line.

 

.

 

EDIT: And in my defense, I chose not to specify which population was the one forced to emigrate when I gave the 'over a million' figure. I was aware that both sides were affected.

[pitchu]

Why not just keep the entire palestinian state unified like the Arabian population and governments wanted?

 

Well, bsc, maybe because those massacres of Jews since 1920, which I detailed in an earlier post in this thread, would'a kept on a'comin'.

[babysealclubber]

Created by a UN resolution that many Arab countries refused to recognize, right? What I meant by them creating the state of their own volition is that they moved there before and after the Holocaust, worked for the support to create a state then fought for it after. Reiterating what I said before, what gave anyone the "right" to form a state in Palestine?

 

Yup, Arab nations didn't recognize their country, but they were involved in the discussion of what to do after the British rescinded their control. The Jewish community wanted their own state, and pointed to the promise made to them by the British government. No one can deny that, generally speaking, they worked and fought hard for the formation of the state and their continuing independence. Arabs, locally and internationally, were opposed to splitting the region in two. From what I understand, their proposal was to have a single state with some protection for religious and cultural minorities. I don't know if that would have actually happened, or even if the protections were supported by the people in the region, but that was the 'official line.'

[Ameen]

I don't want to get into politics. I really have studied the politics of the various Middle-East mandates and the creation of Israel in depth, and all I see is atrocities committed by everyone. It's like using the Bible to try to prove reality. With the right quotes, bias, and application or misapplication of logic, you can prove any side is "right."

 

Atheist, Muslim, Jew, Christian... They all have the right to live in peace and security as far as I am concerned. (Yes, there has always been war and always will be war in the Middle East, but that won't stop me from saying what I believe.) I am an Arab-American with relatives in Lebanon, Syria, and Dubai, and my family has been victimized by the various insane wars in the region. I am friends with the Arab-American descendents of Palestinians, and I am friends with the Jewish-American descendents of Holocaust survivors.

 

What you don't get in the American Press is how many average Israelis and Arabs want peace and don't want to hate. Unfortunately, hatred and bigotry run equally high everywhere, and wacky religious groups populated by alarming numbers have a dangerous level of power and influence, particualrly among poor youth that has nothing to lose.

 

There are Arabs in my family who hate Jews. I also know many Jews who hate Arabs. I get yelled at for standing up to relatives and not accepting their anti-Semitism, and I get called all sorts of names when I challenge anti-Arab Jews.

 

I can still remember Rabbi Meir Kahane calling all Arabs dogs; he spoke at my university when I was in graduate school. I also remember the "dollar kills an Arab" campaigns right here in New York when I was a child holding his Arab mother's hand. I felt such rage that I really wanted to kill. So yes, I know what it is like to feel so angry--and I know that it will never lead anywhere productive.

 

Today I take my music lessons from my Jewish/Zionist vocal coach, whom I love. I teach university-level English as a Second Language classes here in New York, with Israelis and Arabs in the same room. In fact, last semester an Israeli, a Moroccan, and a Spaniard in one of my advanced classes became very close friends, and the three women still go out to eat and then go shopping together. They all come from physically demonstartive cultures, and they hug and touch each other regularly. That's all three of the Middle East's major religions, you know. If only posters of the three in an embrace could be hung in major Israeli and Arab cities...

 

Arabs are Semites, just like Jews. Basically, when Arabs and Jews hate each other, they are really just seeing world events through the eyes of extremist religion and hating themselves.

[Outback Jack]

Well, I've gotta go to work for a few days, so you guys have fun without me!

 

But before I go, I just found out that casualty numbers might have been exaggerated just a little bit.

 

'Maximum 600 Palestinians died in Gaza'

The number of Palestinians killed in Operation Cast Lead did not exceed five or six hundred, Lorenzo Cremonesi, a correspondent for Italy's Corriere della sera reported on Thursday.

 

Cremonesi based his report on tours of hospitals in the Gaza Strip and on interviews with families of casualties. He also assessed the number of wounded to be far lower than 5,000, the number quoted by Hamas and repeated by the UN and the Red Cross in Gaza.

 

"It is sufficient to visit several hospitals [in the Gaza Strip] to understand that the numbers don't add up," he wrote.

 

and Gazan doctor says death toll inflated

Physician at Gaza's Shifa Hospital tells Italian newspaper number of dead in Israeli offensive 'stands at no more than 500 or 600, most of them youths recruited to Hamas' ranks'. Senior Palestinian Health Ministry official denies claims, IDF estimate on 1,200 casualties in Strip remains unchanged

[pitchu]

Allow me to interpret that information from a contrarian perspective:

 

'Not only did the founding of Israel force hundreds of thousands of Arabs to relocate, it increased anti-semitism in Arab states to the point that hundreds of thousands of Jews to flee to Israel.'

 

It was hardly possible to increase the level of anti-Semitism. The founding of Israel simply justified the Islamic version of the "Final Solution" (with which they sympathized). Your formulation is the same kind of reasoning which justified Hitler's actions due to "the Jewish ruination of the German economy."

The point being that none of this occurred in a vacuum. In the same way, it seems a bit biased to attribute the emigration of 700,000 palestinians to the Arabian armies.

 

Please explode my "bias" with facts to the contrary. It is certain that some Palestinians were rounded up and sent out by Jews preparing to battle seven Arab armies; a procedure, however regrettable, not uncommon to all peoples facing invasion from nations sharing the objectives of the rounded-up. As the quote below indicates, my position is hardly biased.

 

"The most potent factor [in the flight of Palestinians] was the announcements made over the air by

the Arab-Palestinian Higher Executive, urging all Haifa Arabs to quit... It was clearly intimated that

Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades."

-- London Economist October 2, 1948

 

 

It also ignores the fact that Israel has aggressively expanded beyond their original alloted territory more than once.

 

When did Israel ever expand territory for any reason other than winning a war against Arab aggressors? And what about Israel giving back territory when it was approached in true peace and reconciliation [sadat returned territory to his country but paid for it with his assassination at the hands of the non-peace-loving]?

 

[babysealclubber]

Why not just keep the entire palestinian state unified like the Arabian population and governments wanted?

 

Well, bsc, maybe because those massacres of Jews since 1920, which I detailed in an earlier post in this thread, would'a kept on a'comin'.

 

I mentioned that possibility. I don't doubt that they would have continued to face (and I quote) 'ruthless persecution' in a hypothetically unified palestinian state.

 

It's my opinion that Zionism, whether religious or secular, has left a large scar on the psyche of the Arab world. And the mere maintenance of Israel is enough to continuously breed new generations of violent anti-semites.

 

But it's all speculation on my part. Maybe I'm wrong.

[pitchu]

It's my opinion that Zionism, whether religious or secular, has left a large scar on the psyche of the Arab world. And the mere maintenance of Israel is enough to continuously breed new generations of violent anti-semites.

 

But it's all speculation on my part. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

You may be right. But you would also be right to attribute, among other things, cartoon drawings of Mohammed, a film about abuse of females under Islam, dancing, drinking, short skirts and the building of two financial high-rise buildings in New York City as incentives to Islamic violence.

[pitchu]

Gotta back off this thread for awhile. Too draining.

[babysealclubber]

Allow me to interpret that information from a contrarian perspective:

 

'Not only did the founding of Israel force hundreds of thousands of Arabs to relocate, it increased anti-semitism in Arab states to the point that hundreds of thousands of Jews to flee to Israel.'

 

It was hardly possible to increase the level of anti-Semitism. The founding of Israel simply justified the Islamic version of the "Final Solution" (with which they sympathized). Your formulation is the same kind of reasoning which justified Hitler's actions due to "the Jewish ruination of the German economy."

The point being that none of this occurred in a vacuum. In the same way, it seems a bit biased to attribute the emigration of 700,000 palestinians to the Arabian armies.

 

Please explode my "bias" with facts to the contrary. It is certain that some Palestinians were rounded up and sent out by Jews preparing to battle seven Arab armies; a procedure, however regrettable, not uncommon to all peoples facing invasion from nations sharing the objectives of the rounded-up. As the quote below indicates, my position is hardly biased.

 

"The most potent factor [in the flight of Palestinians] was the announcements made over the air by

the Arab-Palestinian Higher Executive, urging all Haifa Arabs to quit... It was clearly intimated that

Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades."

-- London Economist October 2, 1948

 

 

It also ignores the fact that Israel has aggressively expanded beyond their original alloted territory more than once.

 

When did Israel ever expand territory for any reason other than winning a war against Arab aggressors? And what about Israel giving back territory when it was approached in true peace and reconciliation [sadat returned territory to his country but paid for it with his assassination at the hands of the non-peace-loving.]?

 

 

Yikes. Okay.

 

I'm not condoning the persecution of Jews in those Arab states. And I'm not saying that Jews bear sole responsibility for creating refugees. Both sides are insane to fight over a scrap of land, and there's plenty of blame to go around. I hadn't heard of the over-the-air announcements, and it is certainly an interesting part of the equation, but it doesn't change my perspective much. And I would be surprised if the information changed the minds of many Palestinians.

 

When has Israel ever expanded their territory other than to win a war? I don't really know how to respond. Yes, the expansions always occurred after a war had already started. But I don't see how the capture of say, East Jerusalem was critical to winning the Six Day War, or the Golan Heights for that matter. But whatever. If taking over foreign territory is an acceptable part of war then it doesn't really matter what the justification was.