Running out of Solutions

[shira]

Running out of Solutions
For Benny Morris the Israeli left isn't where it used to be.


On an overcast afternoon in early April, unsmiling men with big guns and earpieces patrol the sidewalk in front of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's private residence in the upscale Jerusalem neighborhood of Rehavia. A short walk up the road on Azza Street, Benny Morris sits outside a cafe, radiating despair. "Iran is building atomic weapons at least in part -- maybe in large part -- because it intends to use them. The people there are religious fanatics," he says in a rapid staccato. "Israel is under existential threat, and that is how Israel's military and political leaders must see the situation." In a 2007 essay, Morris, a professor of history at Ben-Gurion University, imagined a "second holocaust": nuclear-tipped Iranian missiles raining down on Haifa and Tel Aviv. "A million or more Israelis ... will die immediately," he predicted.

That is not the sort of language one expects from an icon of the left and an intellectual lodestar for supporters of the Palestinians. But Morris, 60, like much of the Israeli left, has grown ever more cynical about the prospects for a two-state solution and for peace. In his new book, One State, Two States: Resolving the Israel/Palestine Conflict, Morris argues that the Palestinian national movement has never in fact reconciled itself to Israel's existence as a Jewish state. His shift from Oslo Accords optimist to embittered pessimist is emblematic of the disappointment and frustration that has ravaged the Israeli left since the second intifada. "Morris is a one-man microcosm of what many Israeli Jews of the Labor-Zionist strain have undergone in the past decade," says David B. Green, opinion editor at Ha'aretz's English edition. "They recognize that we're not on the verge of peace, that this conflict may not be resolvable, and that they were naive to think that was the case."

.....

But Morris's optimism was first shattered in 2000 when Yasir Arafat rejected Ehud Barak and Bill Clinton's two-state proposals. "Not only did they say no, but they launched a terroristic and guerrilla war against both the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and Israel itself, suggesting that they are not just after the territories but want to drive the Jews out of Palestine," Morris says. His dismay was further exacerbated when Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 failed to staunch Palestinian violence. "The moment Israel pulled out from a chunk of Arab territory, as the Arabs have always been demanding, it turned into a base for rocket attacks," fumes Morris, who went to jail for three weeks in 1987 for refusing to serve as an army reservist in the occupied territories. Now he believes that Palestinian irredentism is probably never going away.

.....

And reconciliation with the Palestinians is starting to seem like a dream from a bygone era, even to Morris. "Talk to any Palestinian; they don't know about the Jewish past, and Jewish suffering doesn't interest them," he says. "They believe that Jews have no legitimate right be here. That belief underlines their vision that Palestine must be all Arab and must be regained by them down the road." Morris takes a sip of carrot juice and continues: "The peace camp has been tragically undermined by Arab recalcitrance. When an Israeli politician campaigns on a plan to broker a two-state solution, the Israeli public is no longer interested because they know the other side doesn't want it. So they vote for Netanyahu or someone else who speaks in terms of conflict management rather than solutions."

...cont'd

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4905&page=0

[Donald Ian Rankin]

1. The Israeli left has only ever had one solution.

To say that the Israeli left has run out of proposed solutions is to miss the point. The Israeli left has only ever *had* one proposed solution: withdraw from the occupied territories and allow the establishment of a viable Palestinian state.

That always has been, is, and will remain for the forseeable future, the only *possible* solution.

Unofortunately, it - and the Israeli left - have been largely rejected by Israel, and so - as Morris says - reconcilliation is starting to seem like a dream.

At this stage, the only serious hope for peace is if Obama pressures Israel to do things it doesn't want to. Treating the Israelis as a serious partner for peace with the Palestinians is even less viable than it has been in the past. A forced peace won't lead to reconcilliation, but it could stop the bloodshed.

[Sezu]

2. And it has been rejected by the Pals too it would seem

since a "viable state," seems almost unobtainable at the present or in the near future due to their internal squabbles. Plenty of blame on all sides.

[shira]

3. unilateral withdrawal from the W.Bank invites rockets on Tel Aviv and Jerusalem

Within months, Hamas would control the W.Bank after full Israeli withdrawal. Everyone in the know knows this. Think Gaza rockets on Sderot, only 10x worse.

Israel is not allowed to defend itself properly now - so it certainly would not be allowed to defend itself properly (as any other nation) after a W.Bank withdrawal since Hamas will use human shields again in order to maximize Palestinian civilian casualties once Israel responds. The media will do Hamas' bidding again, as they did Hezbollah, use these civilian shield deaths as PR against Israel - the hypocrites and dupes will become enraged and then Israel will have to stop before finishing off Hamas. Rockets will continue. Rinse and repeat for several more years.

Without question, the result of such a unilateral withdrawal will result in thousands more Palestinian and Israeli civilian deaths.

So is ending the occupation unilaterally and therefore inviting thousands of more inevitable deaths the best 'moral' choice?

[kayecy]

4. Why not minimise the risk of your 'inevitable deaths' by .............

So is ending the occupation unilaterally and therefore inviting thousands of more inevitable deaths the best 'moral' choice?

".....the best 'moral' choice?" implies you have an alternative in mind...What is that?...continued occupation?

Why not minimise the risk of your 'inevitable deaths' by ending the occupation with an agreement that NATO 'polices' those areas presently occupied by Israel?

Admittedly the non-internationally-recognised West-Bank settlements would be a problem but the solution to that is in Israel's hands.

[Vegasaurus]

5. Continued occupation keeps the most Israelis safe

And considering that Hamas considers all of Israel occupied, and says they won't stop their violent resistance until there isn;t a speck of Israel left, I'd say the status quo is a better solution, until Hamas changes its tune.

[kayecy]

6. And be damned to anyone else.......

....I'd say the status quo is a better solution, until Hamas changes its tune....

And be damned to anyone else...I guess you must belong to the "What is good for Israel must be good for the rest of the world" camp.
.
For myself, I am more concerned with relieving suffering and avoiding more deaths - Israelis, Palestinians or any other race.
.

[shira]

8. look to recent history

End of occupation and settlements in Gaza 2005 led to rocket attacks and OCL just months ago. Many dead. Until Palestinian leadership changes, it's very likely the same would happen immediately once Israel retreats behind the 1967 lines of the W.Bank and Hamas takes over there too. If you're truly concerned about relieving suffering and avoiding more deaths, I don't see why you'd want a future OCL in the W.Bank.

[kayecy]

10. Your '..end of occupation & settlements in Gaza 2005' was a sham...

look to recent history

Yes, let's look to recent history...

1. How many innocent Lebanese died during the Israeli bombing?...Were the cluster-bomb-shelling deaths on the last few days worth whatever gains Israel thinks it made?

2. How many innocent Palestinians died in the Gaza attack?...Even the UN has condemned Israel's callous disregard of human life.


Your '..end of occupation & settlements in Gaza 2005' was a sham...How much suffering and death was caused by Israel's continued curtailment of Gaza imports and blockading their sea access?
.

[shira]

17. and an end to occupation and settlements in the W.Bank will lead to peace?

Yes, let's look to recent history...

1. How many innocent Lebanese died during the Israeli bombing?...Were the cluster-bomb-shelling deaths on the last few days worth whatever gains Israel thinks it made?

2. How many innocent Palestinians died in the Gaza attack?...Even the UN has condemned Israel's callous disregard of human life.

More combatants were killed than civilians in both wars that were started by Hezbollah and Hamas and which Israel fought defensively. That's more than can be said about your own UK that kills hundreds of thousands many miles away from its own shores. That the UN focuses moreso on Israel (than the UK, USA) despite a combatant to civilian kill ratio that is much better than the UK or USA, and despite the fact Israel fights for self-defense (as opposed to the US, UK) shows how hostile the UN is towards Israel.

Your '..end of occupation & settlements in Gaza 2005' was a sham...How much suffering and death was caused by Israel's continued curtailment of Gaza imports and blockading their sea access?

No, the question is - if Israel didn't stop Gaza imports, how much MORE death and destruction would there now be on both sides due to Hamas getting all the weapons it desires?

[Ken Burch]

13. Hardline Israeli security policies CANNOT LEAD TO A CHANGE IN THE PALESTINIAN LEADERSHIP

At least not a positive one.

Hardline breeds hardline. It's always been like that in the past, so it will always have to be like that in the future. Any non-Hamas Palestinian leadership making concessions without first getting something real from Israel will be seen as having humiliated itself, and will automatically be discredited.

The Israeli government has to implement a "no-humiliation" policy in its dealing with Palestinians, or there's no hope for any compromise.

[Ken Burch]

14. Continued occupation is what caused the rockets and the suicide bombers

Continued occupation ENDANGERS Israelis. The way to protect them is to stop treating Palestinians as beasts to be beaten with a stick.

[shira]

20. so how's about what Kayecy thinks Obama will do with NATO occupying instead?

Think that will endanger Israelis too, in some forced deal between the sides?

[shira]

7. good idea...I'm all for it but you're now advocating that Palestinians be occupied by NATO

Fat chance their leadership approves of that.

[kayecy]

9. Care to put your money where your pen is?.......

...good idea...I'm all for it but you're now advocating that Palestinians be occupied by NATO

Fat chance their leadership approves of that

Care to put your money where your pen is?.......I'm willing to wager you a charity donation, that that is exactly what Obama has in mind and NATO troops (or something similar) will deploy in the West Bank as part of the solution he will force on both the Israelis and Palestinians.


You still haven't told me what your proposal is .....Continued occupation?

[shira]

18. then you're proposing that the Palestinians will have to still put up with occupation

what will the hand-wringing sympathizers who cry "occupation" all day and night say about this? If only Palestinians weren't "occupied", then....

You still haven't told me what your proposal is .....Continued occupation?

That seems to be the proposal you are for, just occupation under non-Jews instead of Jews. So are you for continued occupation, because if you're for NATO coming in then you are.

To answer your question, I don't see a better choice.

[shira]

24. kayecy, are you for NATO occupation of the territories once Israel withdraws?

For that matter, do you believe Hamas is currently occupying Gaza? Consider the coup, their regressive rule of Palestinians, etc.

Do you have big problems with Iran and Syria's occupation of Lebanon?

[shira]

28. kayecy, I notice you hail from Nicosia Cyprus - do you realize how ironic it is of you to be opining

on I/P issues when you are from Turkish occupied Cyprus?

1. Turkey denies the Kurds their national rights and independence.

2. Turkey refuses to withdraw from the Alexandretta Province it grabbed from Syria.

3. Turkey occupies Cyprus where it brought in Turkish settlers and built a separation fence.

4. Turkey is unapologetic for the real genocide it perpetrated in the 20th century.


Are you as critical of Turkey as you are Israel? And let's suppose you are, don't you expect the international community to come down just as hard on Turkey as it does Israel - and if not why not? It's obvious Israel gets at least 100x more attention than Turkey.

Let's be very clear here. I'm not defending Israel by pointing to others. It seems the rest of the world has me beat my miles on that one and they get away with it (like Turkey, Russia, China, France, or the US/UK militaries who get away with far worse while the finger is pointed at Israel - which should make peaceniks like yourself furious, BTW). I'm pointing to the obvious hypocrisy and bigoted singling out of the only Jewish state in the world, that's all, and I believe you recognize this bigoted double-standard as well.

[shira]

44. hello, Kayecy?

these questions should be simple enough to answer in a short post.

Can you please respond?

[Ken Burch]

12. Don't do it as unilateral withdrawal. Do it through negotiating with Palestinians as equal partners

The Gaza thing produced nothing but resentment because it was meant to be a substitution for a real Palestinian state. Sharon was making it clear that the West Bank wouldn't be part of the state and he was committed to building more settlements.

It was never reasonable to expect the Palestinians to regard the Gaza withdrawal as a meaningful concession. The Gaza pullout was meant to be an insult, and it was taken as such.

[shira]

19. rrrriiiiiiight..........so that explains Lebanon 2000 also?

The full 100% Lebanon withdrawal (according to the UN) was not meaningful either? It was meant as an insult and therefore we can't really blame Hezbollah for doing what Hamas does?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

25. How many times do I have to point this out to you?

Withdrawing from some territories while continuing to occupy others will not end the war.

It's like taking "I was standing on both your feet, I got off one and you kept pushing me away" as evidence for "if I get off the other, you'll keep on pushing me".

I've pointed this out to you many, many times, and you keep on making the same mistake.

[shira]

26. the UN recognized Israel's full 100% withdrawal from Lebanon

and yet Hizbullah still attacks...why?

How many times must it be pointed to you that ALL of Lebanon was evacuated by the IDF, not some?

Realize the very same Iran that uses Hizbullah as a proxy against Israel also uses Hamas as a proxy vs. Israel.

What on earth makes you think full withdrawal behind 1948 armistice lines will result in peace when full withdrawal from Lebanon did not? Would you take the same high risk of withdrawal where you live in the small UK and then rely on blind faith that the enemy will not act on their threats of genocide and decide to attack your friends, neighbors, and family once you're in a more defenseless position? Is that high risk, and the likely repurcussions of such an act, "moral" in your view?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

29. Because Israel continues to occupy Palestine, of course.

See, once again, my remarks about 1 foot / 2 feet.

Partial withdrawals - and a "total withdrawal *from Gaza*" or "total withdrawal *from Lebanon*" is only a partial withdrawal - will not make peace between Israel and its neighbours.

Calling the country with the most powerful army in the region and the only nukes "defenceless" or suggesting that the settlements are necessary to prevent genocide is just silly.

[shira]

30. WTF does Hizbullah have to do with the Palestinians?

you think they're justified, after full Israeli withdrawal in 2000, to "resist" Palestinian occupation? If Hizbullah is justified, why not Syria and Saudi Arabia too, right?

Israel would become MORE defenseless going back to 1948 borders, no Golan, etc... and could easily expect ALL the levant to be in range of missiles/rockets and suicide bombers from all around.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

31. Yes, but not by killing civilians.

I think the Palestinians and any and all nations who choose to help them are within their rights in using violence to resist Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories, but only against soldiers and military targets, not against civilians.

All of Palestine is within range of Israel's missiles, and Israel has fired those missiles on a far larger scale than the Palestinians have, into civilian areas, killing many times more innocent civilians than the Palestinians have. That doesn't, of course, rebut your second point, but it's something for you to consider...

And while withdrawing to its own borders would undoubtedly bring more of Israel into range of rocket fire, it would also be a way to stop the rockets being fired.

[shira]

33. begging the question

I think the Palestinians and any and all nations who choose to help them are within their rights in using violence to resist Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories, but only against soldiers and military targets, not against civilians.

okay then....Turkey is occupying parts of Syria and Cyprus. So it's totally okay for foreign militaries, including Israel, to "use violence to resist Turkey's occupation" against soldiers and military targets?

All of Palestine is within range of Israel's missiles, and Israel has fired those missiles on a far larger scale than the Palestinians have, into civilian areas, killing many times more innocent civilians than the Palestinians have. That doesn't, of course, rebut your second point, but it's something for you to consider...

it appears you're equating Israeli responses to Palestinian terror. They're the same to you? If so, since when is killing in self-defense agaist terror equal to the terror itself? No court of law equates killing in self-defense or unintentional manslaughter with deliberate indiscriminate murder. Or is Israel a special case, normal rules don't apply?

And while withdrawing to its own borders would undoubtedly bring more of Israel into range of rocket fire, it would also be a way to stop the rockets being fired.

It would? How do you know? Withdrawal has only emboldened Iran proxies Hezbollah and Hamas to increase terror. Are you basing this assumption on blind faith? What if you're wrong? If you made the call, would you take full responsibility for the repurcussions that would follow a full Israeli withdrawal? Maybe move your entire network of family and friends within Kassam/Grad range since you're so sure of yourself?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

36. No, I'm not equating - Israel kills far more people than the Palestinians.

I'm saying that Israel killing a Palestinian civilian is as bad as the Palestinians killing an Israeli civilian, and Israel does it far, far more. I don't think there's any moral equivalence any more than you do, I just think it's in the opposite direction.

"Firing rockets into a civilian area" is not "unintentional manslaughter", it's "deliberate, pre-medidated, cold-blooded murder of innocents in the cause of military advantage" - if you deliberately undertake an action that you know will kill civilians, the fact that you don't care if it doesn't is not a defence.

[shira]

37. so self-defense is fine so long as civilians are never, ever killed?

and this should be the rule of law internationally for all nations?

I realize you didn't answer the other questions from that last reply, maybe because you have no good responses?

[shira]

34. oh yeah, nearly forgot

Hezbollah is Iran's proxy occupying Lebanon (Syria occupies Lebanon too). But that's okay with you - having an occupier attacking another occupier?

Do you believe Hamas occupies Gaza against Gazans' will ever since the coup (or does that not count since they're from the same gene pool as Palestinians)? Maybe that's how Israel justifies attacking Hamas, according to your logic, since Israel officially ended occupation in Gaza and now views Hamas as an occupying force.

[Shaktimaan]

45. question...

I think the Palestinians and any and all nations who choose to help them are within their rights in using violence to resist Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories,

Who decides what land constitutes "Palestinian territories" in the end? For example, Hezbollah justified its attacks on Israel following Israel's withdrawal by stating that Israel had not withdrawn from Shebaa Farms, and thus still occupied part of Lebanon. However the UN had officially ruled that Israel HAD fully withdrawn. So who gets to decide when Israel has withdrawn from enough land to constitute a "full" withdrawal, especially considering the fact that so much of the land is contested?

For instance, Fatah might consider much less land to be official Palestinian territory than, say... Hamas. How do we decide what land rightfully belongs to whom? If one group considers Israel's withdrawal incomplete then do they retain the right to attack Israel pending a "full" withdrawal?

This problem is especially sticky in super-contested areas, like the Temple Mount/Al Aqsa Mosque. There's a piece of real estate that's holy to both sides, both sides have a very strong case for retaining it themselves. Who decides problematic areas like those?

Of course, ultimately EVERY area is merely a matter of someone's opinion. Which makes your idea of having a "right" to violently resist contingent on the opinion of the person who is willing to resist. In virtually every situation.

[shira]

27. questions for you

looking back 4 years ago to the Gaza withdrawal, and knowing what you know now (and of course this is hypothetical but please indulge me), if you had the power to change what happened 4 years ago would you nix the Gaza withdrawal of 2005? Think of what has happened ever since with Hamas, their coup, their treatment of Gazans, rockets on Israel, the crippling "siege", and Operation Cast Lead.

Would you take the withdrawal of 2005 "back" if you could - and that would mean 4 additional years of occupation and settlements. Yes or No?

Additionally, were you "for" the withdrawal in 2005 as it was happening?

[Ken Burch]

11. On the question of "suffering":

Here's what you aren't getting, shira. To most Palestinians, the experiences they have with most Israelis are going through checkpoints and being humiliated by IDF soldiers, being stopped from going through those checkpoints even when they are obviously facing a medical emergency(people have been left to bleed to death)seeing those troops destroy everything in their homes, seeing homes bulldozed, seeing their olive groves destroyed for no reason, things like that.

How, given that experience, can you actually expect them to see people on the other side as the victims? If the response to that earlier suffering had been that the Israelis had decided not to inflict collective punishment on the Palestinians, it might have been different.

If you want someone to recognize YOUR humanity, you have to respect theirs. You can't expect the occupied to weep for the occupiers.

[bemildred]

15. So he's gone downhill as he got older.

A lightweight. So what?

[kayecy]

16. shira - i have copied here your two messages from the sub-thread I was having with pelsar...

shira - I have copied here your two messages from the sub-thread I was having with pelsar...It gets very confusing when you have more than two correspondents..If you wish, I am quite happy to answer all your questions here.

Your Message 129

what choices did they have? Where in the world could 2-3 million Jews, out of 6 million about to be killed, go? No way the UK or USA takes them all in. Forget which other countries "should" have taken them in....they didn't, they all failed....so should 2-3 million Jews have just stayed in Europe and died (is that the moral choice) or go to Israel which was already designated over 20 years earlier as the Jewish homeland? Was there any other choice? In fact, which is the more "moral" choice...die in Europe or flood Israel with millions more immigrants who wished to live?


Your Message 128

Count the number of civilian casualties the UK is responsible for since the Kosovo/Serbia war from 15 years ago. Add in Iraq and now Afghanistan and compare the atrocious numbers of civilians killed that the UK is responsible for in foreign lands thousands of miles away to Israel's in both Lebanon and Gaza combined where the civilian to combatant kill ratio was around 1:1 (in Gaza more militants were killed than civilians)...see here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

You believe the UK has done better than that recently in just Iraq and Afghanistan where hundreds of thousands have been killed? I think it takes quite a bit of nerve for any westerner from the USA, UK, France (check out their role in Rwanda alone) to point to Israel's military record while under direct threat to its own civilians. Forget how Israel compares to the 3rd world countries that you believe are retarded; the fact is Israel fights more ethically than any other western military as well.

on edit:
It takes a lot of nerve for any Europeans to want to rehash Israeli history from the last 100 years, considering Europe's role in defining the mideast, to its silence while 6 million Jews were murdered, and to its present where they kill hundreds of thousands many miles away from their own homeland. What right does any European have to lecture or preach to Israel considering the last 100 years of history? If anything, it should be the other way around. IDF troops aren't going thousands of miles away to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians and they're certainly not assholes who'd do that and then turn to a lesser country and lecture them on ethics.

...what choices did they have? Where in the world could 2-3 million Jews, out of 6 million about to be killed, go? No way the UK or USA takes them all in.

I know rhe European Jews pre 1940 were in a terrible dilema, but that was not what Pelsar said...He was referring to German Jews....Do you know what percentage of 1933 German Jews tried and failed to get out of Germany?

....Count the number of civilian casualties the UK is responsible for since the Kosovo/Serbia war from 15 years ago. Add in Iraq and now Afghanistan and compare the atrocious numbers of civilians killed that the UK is responsible for in foreign lands thousands of miles away

I can see you have strong feelings on the matter... Can you let me have the reference as to the number of people killed in 48,57,67,73, Lebanon, Gaza and the intifada conflicts?

[shira]

21. thanks.......this will do just fine

I know rhe European Jews pre 1940 were in a terrible dilema, but that was not what Pelsar said...He was referring to German Jews....Do you know what percentage of 1933 German Jews tried and failed to get out of Germany?

No idea. Do you know?

There were about 500,000 German Jews but could you blame many of them if they had decided to go to Israel rather than trust another country to protect them?

I can see you have strong feelings on the matter... Can you let me have the reference as to the number of people killed in 48,57,67,73, Lebanon, Gaza and the intifada conflicts?

About 60-70 thousand total last I saw. Here's one source:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/casualties.html

[kayecy]

22. I merely felt you both did not have sufficient data to support Pelsar's claim.....

shira:

Do you know what percentage of 1933 German Jews tried and failed to get out of Germany?
No idea. Do you know?

A maximum of 30%...However, of that 30%, many chose to stay in Germany and take their chances...How many, I guess we shall never know...My point is that for the majority of German Jews in the period 1933-40 there were choices and emigrating to Palestine was simply one of them.

About 60-70 thousand total last I saw. Here's one source:

Thank you...A total of 60,000 deaths of all the combatants, more or less what I would have guessed....Excluding the Lebanese wars, Gaza and the intifada.

Compare that with the following total of all combatants in uk conflicts:
Sinai - 3,260
Cyprus - Not available
Malaya - 704
Falklands - 910
Kosovo - 500
Gulf 1 & 2 - No data available
This adds up to a total of about 6,000 + Gulf 1&2 since 1948.

I think we are getting off the subject with here, but it was Pelsar who made the claim " Actually the US and the UK have killed and maimed far more people than israel has...the UK actually sunk a WWII battleship in the atlantic during the Falklands war (how many killed?)....." and you chose to support him...I merely felt you both did not have sufficient data to support Pelsar's claim.

[shira]

23. but we do have the data

1. Knowing what we now know of Europe 60-70 years ago, can you blame MILLIONS of Jews for wanting to go to Israel, which at the time was the recognized Jewish homeland (since 1922), and take their chances there rather than ANYWHERE else where they would have had to have relied on their host country to "protect" them? Europe completely failed back then to protect their Jews. Pogroms were still happening in Russia as well as in Muslim lands. At least in Israel, they weren't so much at the mercy of their host country's whims.

2. As for the UK, their actions in Iraq and Afghanistan alone amount to way more than 60,000 deaths.

[kayecy]

Let me be clear..I do not blame any Jew for wanting to leave Germany during 1933 - 1940.....

...but we do have the data...As for the UK, their actions in Iraq and Afghanistan alone amount to way more than 60,000 deaths

Good...Where can I access the data please....60,000 due to the UK alone, seems rather high to me I shall be very interested to see who collected the data.

...Knowing what we now know of Europe 60-70 years ago, can you blame MILLIONS of Jews for wanting to go to Israel...rather than ANYWHERE else where they would have had to have relied on their host country to "protect" them?

Leaving aside the fact that 60-70 years ago 'Israel' was under the control of the British, my discussion with Pelsar concerned German Jews...

Let me be clear..I do not blame any Jew for wanting to leave Germany during 1933 - 1940...I don't even blame them for going to Palestine...I only state that if I had been one of those German Jews, I would have done my best to achieve a fair deal for Palestinians.

Having succeded in landing in Palestine in 1933-40, I hope I would realise I probably owed my life to the Palestinians who, unlike the US, did not have a navy to turn back my boat. I would feel morally obliged to do whatever I could to help them...Employ them on the land the early Zionists had kicked them off..... Explain how the Jews could negotiate on their behalf with the Brits to achieve a representative democracy...A Representative democracy in which the Arabs would continue to be in the majority.
.
.
If I could not get my fellow Jews to support me in such actions I would feel obliged to emigrate as soon as it was possible to do so....I would certainly take no part in carving a Jewish state out of Palestine.
.
.

[shira]

35. let's be realistic

...the UK in its 2 Iraq wars and Afghanistan is VERY likely responsible for over 60,000 kills.

History shows that Jews 70-80 years ago tried to achieve a fair deal with Palestinians. There weren't "referendums" back then where all Palestinians could vote one way or another and have their voices heard (back then referendums in many parts of Europe may have condemned Jews to death). Jews went through legal means according to the laws of those days. I see nothing immoral in the tactics they used to create the Jewish state.

I would certainly take no part in carving a Jewish state out of Palestine.

When, which year? 1910 under Turkish rule? 1920 under British rule? 1940? 1946?

Do you understand it was VERY REASONABLE for Jews to believe they had nowhere else to go back then - that living anywhere else in the world as "guests" (even in Palestine under Arab rule) only invited hostility as it did the previous 1900 years? No one was offering a homeland. Israel was the obvious choice for reasons already explained (past history, continuous presence in the land, they were the majority in Jerusalem since at least the mid 19th century, etc). Jews would have been thrilled to receive HALF the land they were allotted in the partition plan of 1947 (where Jews were the majority in those areas).

It appears if it were up to you, Jews would have had nowhere to go before, during, and after WW2. Even if invited elsewhere, why should they have trusted their hosts to protect them? Surely you must see the reason for a Jewish national homeland. Say what you will that it should have been almost anywhere else (and no one was offering) but you can't blame masses of Jews for not trusting anyone else to protect them. Also realize that the singular focus and hypocritical double-standards that the UN and other groups have regarding Israel only leads other Jews to realize even more today that Israel is as much the right choice for Jews now as it was way back then. I'd like to see you finally admit there is a hypocritical and bigoted international hostility and bias towards the Jewish state. Being from Cyprus and knowing what you should know regarding Turkey, let's admit that Turkey doesn't receive 1/100th the amount of time, energy, and condemnation Israel receives.

Can't remember if I ever asked - hypothetically if you had the power to send 2-4 million Jews from concentration camps into Israel, would you have done so to save them? If so, would you have told them to GTFO of Israel soon after the war?

[kayecy]

38. Forgive me but I'm an awfully skeptical sort of person....

...
...the UK in its 2 Iraq wars and Afghanistan is VERY likely responsible for over 60,000 kills.

Forgive me but I'm an awfully skeptical sort of person....Do you, or do you not, have data to back up your claim?

History shows that Jews 70-80 years ago tried to achieve a fair deal with Palestinians

They did?....Do you have historical facts to support your claim?

Jews would have been thrilled to receive HALF the land they were allotted in the partition plan of 1947 (where Jews were the majority in those areas).

You seem to forget that is exactly what the Peel commission did offer the Jews of Palestine in 1937...and what did the 20th Zionist Congress declare?..."..the scheme of partition put forward by the Royal Commission is unacceptable."

Surely you must see the reason for a Jewish national homeland.

Of course I do...Just not in Palestine which was poor and over-crowded already.
You should be damning the US, Argentina, Australia etc which had far more space than Palestine...Instead you pick on defenseless Palestinians under military occupation.

The US alone, could have taken in all the European Jews that wanted to emigrate, they could have offered them a homeland...Why are you not demanding that the US or even Australia (with a minuscule population density) cuts off just a small chunk of its vast hinterland for use as a Jewish homeland?

[shira]

39. not skeptical enough

Forgive me but I'm an awfully skeptical sort of person....Do you, or do you not, have data to back up your claim?

with 3 conflicts for the UK within the last 2 decades, easily over a million dead, and you have reason to believe the UK is not responsible for at least 60,000 deaths?

no, I don't have data and neither do you (convenient for the UK, huh) but consider that the UK sent troops thousands of miles from their own shores to fight people who were no threat to UK citizens. Compared to Israel who fights an enemy that has been a CONTINUOUS threat to Israeli citizens, you think the damage, death, and destruction the UK has wrought in the past 20 years (and is still meting out with cluster munitions and white phosphorus in Iraq/Afghanistan) qualifies people of the UK to lecture and preach ethics to people of Israel?

By the way, are you in the UK or Cyprus?

They did?....Do you have historical facts to support your claim?

Sure, during the Ottoman days Jews did nothing illegal when purchasing land and immigrating. The Faisal-Weizmann deal was made with the internationally recognized leader of that region who succeeded the Turks. Of course if your argument is that the Ottomans and Faisal did not really represent the Palestinians, what would you have had Jewish leadership do in those days, call for a referendum - and who would participate (maybe all Arabs in Jordan)? Should Jews have called for some bogus Palestinian elections? There was no recognized Palestine then.

You seem to forget that is exactly what the Peel commission did offer the Jews of Palestine in 1937...and what did the 20th Zionist Congress declare?..."..the scheme of partition put forward by the Royal Commission is unacceptable."

They were divided - ben Gurion for example was for it.

Of course I do...Just not in Palestine which was poor and over-crowded already.

Palestine was over-crowded before 1948? The population in that area now (Israel, Gaza, W.Bank) numbers around 10 million and it was just a fraction of that then. If it was over-crowded then, what does that make it now?

You should be damning the US, Argentina, Australia etc which had far more space than Palestine...Instead you pick on defenseless Palestinians under military occupation.

The same problem would exist according to you. Let's say all Jews could have moved into Montana and made that the Jewish state. Would Montana residents have a say in that decision 60-70 years ago? What if they voted like much of Europe who also hated Jews?

The US alone, could have taken in all the European Jews that wanted to emigrate, they could have offered them a homeland...Why are you not demanding that the US or even Australia (with a minuscule population density) cuts off just a small chunk of its vast hinterland for use as a Jewish homeland?

Jews have zero claim to the USA. The last sovereign nation that existed within the Palestine region was Israel 2000 years ago, and that little part of the middle-east has always had a Jewish presense (sometimes many Jews, sometimes less due to pogroms, crusades, etc.). Jews have a rightful claim there. Of course, the Arabs who lived there also have as good a claim to the land. I don't see why you think Jews have zero claim to any part of what is now Israel.

Let me ask you: Should the USA, in your opinion, give some states to native Indians, to do as they wish with them for their own homeland? Yes or No?

And are you going to attempt to answer me in other parts of these threads here?

[kayecy]

40. Utter rubbish!...."easily over a million dead in the last 2 decades!.".....

...with 3 conflicts for the UK within the last 2 decades, easily over a million dead

Utter rubbish!...either you have been brain-washed or been living on another planet...."easily over a million dead"!...If you are prepared to believe that sort of thing without any evidence, there really is not much point in continuing this conversation.

And are you going to attempt to answer me in other parts of these threads here?

See above....When you show indications of wishing to discuss this subject based on historical facts, I shall be happy to answer all your questions.

[shira]

41. Iraq 1 and 2, sanctions against Iraq, Afghanistan....Brits knee-deep in responsibility for all this

Over a million dead total on the other side in all 3 conflicts including sanctions imposed by the UK, but you don't believe the UK is responsible for at least 60,000 of what certainly amounts to more than one million total deaths and chaos 10x worse than anything seen in the I/P conflict?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War#Iraqi_deaths
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions#Casualty_Estimates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)#Aggregation_of_estimates


Sure, the USA is mostly responsible, but even if we agree that the UK is not directly responsible for 60,000 civilian deaths due to their role in combat, do you believe Israel the past 60 years is worse than the UK, considering the extent of UK involvement the past 20 years in all their activity thousands of miles away from safe and unthreatened British citizens?

Sanctions on Iraq in the 90's, due in part to UK influence in the UNSC, were at least 10x worse than any occupation and oppression by Israel on Palestinians. Have you seen just the casualty figures from Iraq sanctions? Not that the UK alone is responsible (split the difference 5 ways between the UNSC if you'd like) but they are nonetheless still accountable - and this alone is far worse than everything Israel has been a part of the past 60 years.

[kayecy]

42. You have gratuitously included deaths due to UN sanctions...Was not Israel also a UN member?...

Casualty estimates from your references:
Gulf War 1
Combatants:
20,000 to 35,000 fatalities.
Civilians:
2,300 to 200,000

Deaths due to sanctions
170,000 to 350,000

Gulf War 2
150,000 to 1,000,000

Afganistan
2,118 Afghan civilians were killed by armed conflict in 2008


1. Your references hardly support your claim of ‘easily over a million dead’ and you have nothing more than your ‘belief’ to support your figure of 60,000 for the UK.

2. You have gratuitously included Iraqi deaths due to UN sanctions...Was not Israel also a UN member and together with other UN members applied sanctions to Iraq?


It really is impossible to have an intelligent discussion with you if you are going to exaggerate facts and speciously throw in figures like the Iraq sanction deaths.

[shira]

43. the UN Security Council was responsible for the Iraq sanctions

and it was the USA and UK who fought hard to keep the sanctions going when countries like France and Russia tried to ease them. Israel has never been on the UN Security Council, but nice try in attempting to partially blame them for the sanctions on Iraq.

Taking just the average of low vs. high casualty estimates in Iraq 1 and 2, the sanctions against Iraq, and Afghanistan - the number of dead easily exceed 1 million.

Do you think it's unreasonable to go with a number somewhere close to the middle for total casualty estimates?

Do you think it's unreasonable to assume that out of those 1 million dead, the UK is responsible for at least 6 percent (or 60,000)?

It really is impossible to have an intelligent discussion with you if you are going to exaggerate facts and speciously throw in figures like the Iraq sanction deaths.

:eyes:

If you're going to use my lines against me, you'll have to do better than that.

I'd hardly call using numerical figures in the middle of high and low estimates of civilians killed an "exaggeration". But if you're going to do so, then kindly and intelligently exlain why my numbers are unrealistic.

And what's specious about the UK's major role in the UN Security Council's rulings to continue harsh and inhumane sanctions (collective punishment) against the Iraqi people that were at least 10x more crippling and deadly than anything Israel has attempted against Palestinians?

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.