Fatah official in Gaza holds unity talks with independents

[pelsar]

Ma'an- A delegation of independent Palestinian political figures met with representatives of the Fatah party on Monday to discuss national reconciliation.Fatah leader in Abdullah Al-Ifranji - who arrived in Gaza from the West Bank last week to visit his parents - led the meeting, after inviting the independent personalities for talk
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=381988
http://palestinenote.com/blogs/news/archive/2011/04/25/fatah-official-in-gaza-holds-unity-talks-with-independents.aspx
______

actually this was just an excuse of an article aimed at Douglas Carpenter, putting our previous discussion in its own section...(others are obviously welcome to join)

_______

Given that our perspectives are not just completely opposite we're barely in the same universe. Us israelis see gaza as not just an opportunity for the Palestenians to "show what they can do"...we now see a major unstable threat that threatens both israel and the PA in the westbank. Hizballa and their friends the Iranians are pretty busy there and they do not have nice intentions toward israel nor the PA. Egypts military does not like Hamas, but the MB obviously does, who knows where Egypt is going. (i doubt very much its toward a real western civil rights oriented democracy).

To me its obvious that those aspects cannot be ignored in terms of the westbank...but i dont believe you see it as relevant in terms of the israel and the WB..am i correct?

[azurnoir]

1. 5 months ago Hamas denied Al-Ifranji entry to Gaza

so something has changed in respect to unity

Two senior Fatah officials said they were denied entry to Gaza on Sunday by security officers from the Hamas-led government.

Abdullah Al-Ifranji and Rouhi Fattouh were dispatched to Gaza by President Mahmoud Abbas to meet with Hamas leaders and work on conciliation between the rival factions, Al-Ifranji said.

The officials passed through the Israeli security at Erez crossing, but were refused entry by Gaza security officers, who said they were instructed not to let the Fatah leaders enter the Strip, Al-Ifranji said.

Al-Ifranji and Fattouh were scheduled to visit Gaza in October, but the trip was delayed to avoid disruptions to unity talks in Damascus, Al-Franji said.

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=336828

does this mean unity is closer or is it just a way to quiet demonstrators?

[kayecy]

2. Well, pelsar.........Are you for or against?.........

In view of the recent developments in Fatah/Hamas reconciliation and Netanyahu's statement that " The PA must choose between peace with us, or Hamas..." are you for or against these developments?

In particular are you for or against the planned Gaza/West Bank vote?

[pelsar]

4. am I for or against?

the best conclusion is a cartoon that was in a major Palestinian paper: showed two white gloves shaking (hamas/pa) hands each with an AK-47 within each of the gloves pointed at each other.

that was a PA cartoon.....for those who don't live in the alternate universe and can look at the short history one can see the parallel of the pre Israeli pullout of gaza:
then too there as a working agreement between hamas that won the local election and the PA that was responsible for security...ignoring different political interpretations, the distrust was there and hamas won and took over gaza by force.

those actions have not been forgotten by either the PA nor hamas, hence the cartoon and the reality.
______________

i think the agreement means nothing...its the same kind of agreement that hamas had with the pa previously (non written) that to a certain extent they will work together until one can makes its move and eliminate the other.

Hamas has not given up its dream of taking over the westbank (they remain a religious based organization-i.e. no compromises) and the PA has to attempt to hold together its own definition that it really is the leadership of all the Palestinians.

the agreement will change nothing for the gazans nor the westbankers on the ground and its just a chess move in their local politics-eventually hamas, which has the stronger motivation and more fanatics as well and more aggressive backers in iran and hizballa will make a move, breaking the agreement (politically they will blame the PA and many will agree with them).

the PA will survive only if the IDF backs them up

[kayecy]

9. Thank you for your opinion..........However, if you are wrong?

.....the agreement will change nothing for the gazans nor the westbankers on the ground and its just a chess move in their local politics-eventually ....

A right-wing view but you may be right...However,if your predictions turn out to be wrong, where does that leave Netanyahu?

Let's assume a fair election goes ahead which ends in a minority position for Hamas.

Netanyahu has declared he will not negotiate with a Palestinian Government containing Hamas representatives......A legitimate statement, but only if Israel was not in occupation of the West Bank and blockading Gaza......If he sticks to his statement, does he simply continue the occupation indefinitely?.....What does he tell the rest of the civilised world?......He won't negotiate because he doesn't like some ministers in the Palestinian Government?......Does he expect the world will just sit back and accept the permanent occupation of a new democracy which would almost certainly lead to a new intifada and perhaps worse?.

A long shot perhaps, but a successful Palestinian reconciliation would certainly show Netanyahu in his true colours.

[pelsar]

13. i really dont care much about Netanyahu

i fail to understand what all this fuss is about him...we'll have new elections in a couple of years and new policies may or may not be put into place...depending upon the PA/hamas.

Does he expect the world will just sit back and accept the permanent occupation of a new democracy which would almost certainly lead to a new intifada and perhaps worse?.

Netanyahu is only human and a politician, he doesn't have the ability to arrange the future on a permanent basis...and your "new democracy"...have you redefined the word democracy to NOT include freedom of speech? (in case you missed it, neither the PA nor hamas follow the basic rules of western democracies with basic civil rights). Neither the PA nor hamas are talking about western democracy as a governing style.....not suprising given that both are dictatorships..

however, if hamas somehow decides that god has changed her mind and that its ok to live with israel and the PA's corrupt leadership decides that "honesty is a good policy" and they go for a western democracy together, then we'll see some real changes happening that will directly affect israeli policies...

you tell me, what are the odds?
realism aside....i would be ecstatic, if that were to happen....(and then prepare for a real mess with our own fanatics)

[kayecy]

14. Probably as likely as Israel adopting new policies.......

however, if hamas somehow decides that god has changed her mind and that its ok to live with israel and the PA's corrupt leadership decides that "honesty is a good policy" and they go for a western democracy together,

Probably as likely as Israel adopting new policies.......It all goes back to who first started this conflict, who should compromise the most and the inability of both Israelis and Palestinians to empathise with the other guys injustices.

[pelsar]

16. its not about injustice...

thats an impossible concept to conceptualize/quantify given the different cultures. Anybody who talks/believes that the injustices on each side can be quantified and made amends for hasn't really listened to the two sides.....(or is so ethnocentric that the believe their version of justice is what everyone believes in).

its about national interests and what each side is willing to live with....nothing more than that. The greatest chance of that happening is if the Palestinians get themselves a working STABLE democracy.......it should be clear by now that dictatorships at best are not stable and at worst are willing to murder their own to stay in power...neither is good for the Palestinians nor israelis.

[kayecy]

18. You obviously have difficulty empathising with Hamas's strongly held view........

..thats an impossible concept to conceptualize/quantify given the different cultures. Anybody who talks/believes that the injustices on each side can be quantified and made amends for hasn't really listened to the two sides.

As I said........it all goes back to who first started this conflict, who should compromise the most and the inability of both Israelis and Palestinians to empathise with the other.


You have just provided evidence that Israelis find it difficult to empathise with Hamas's strongly held view that non-Palestinian Jews have no right to come to Palestine.

No doubt Hamas has difficulty in empathising with your view that non-Palestinian Jews have a right to set up a national home in whatever land the Zionists choose.



It is a sad reflection on humanity that both parties have chosen to resort to force rather than debate.

[shira]

21. What's to empathize with? Hamas wants Jews out of Israel or dead.

How should Israelis empathize with that?

What should they DO about it?

[pelsar]

22. the sad reflection is ones owns ethnocentrism

i have no idea why you think "who started it" has any importance (actually since i was born in the US, i actually do know). That particular concept of "who started it" is a western US cultural mentality. It has little to do with the I/P conflict.

that is the sad reflection on humanity...a third party believing that their cultural ideas of justice are in fact universal. Its just a different angle of the colonial mentality of the last century.

i dont have to empathize with hamas (another example of your ethnocentrism), nor do i expect them to empathize with my view...there is no relevance of that to end the conflict. I believe its you who should learn not to be so self centered and learn about how other cultures that are involved in the conflict relate to one another and what they expect out of the other.

your american cultural views are usually just snickered at here from both sides.
-----------------------------
It is a sad reflection on humanity that both parties have chosen to resort to force rather than debate.

you must really live in an alternate universe..debate?....sheesh, life styles, governing styles, upbringing, cultures, national identity are not "debated" as if some judge will declare a winner and then hamas and islamic jihad, settlers, leftest, rightest etc will all just shrug their shoulders, give up accept the verdict. What is it about this conflict that brings out the naivety in people?

[kayecy]

23. Whose ideas of justice are likely to be the more valid?........

... a third party believing that their cultural ideas of justice are in fact universal. Its just a different angle of the colonial mentality of the last century.

Whose ideas of justice are likely to be the more valid - an independent 3rd party's view or that of one of the protaginists?....Don't kid yourself....you may not believe in the concept of universal justice because you have an axe to grind, but the Arab world is beginning to demand it right now......

This conflict continues because both parties have no interest in understanding the other, not because of some 3rd party or their supposed 'ethnocentrism' (LOL)

... i dont have to empathize with hamas (another example of your ethnocentrism), nor do i expect them to empathize with my view...there is no relevance of that to end the conflict.

It is precisely that attitude that has made this conflict the world's longest....Why do you think that you don't need to understand Hammas?...How can you believe that not attempting to understand your enemy will contribute to a solution of this conflcit?

[pelsar]

25. just to clarify

so you believe that your version of justice, that is based on your culture is the ultimate, most correct form of justice?..and others must defer to it?

and other cultures with their version of justice are wrong?


btw, you confuse the definition of empathize with understanding..i understand them, i just don't agree with their god based views of govt nor its social structure. I can feel bad for the seculars who live under hamas thumb, i understand the hardship in theory (never had the experience), but it doesn't mean i excuse the actions taken by the hamas govt,

[kayecy]

27. It is not 'my' version of justice....

.....so you believe that your version of justice, that is based on your culture is the ultimate, most correct form of justice?..and others must defer to it?

It is not 'my' version of justice....I suggest you re-listen to Channel 2's "Universal Justice or Judicial Imperialism" debate, 2nd June 2010......You may like to think Arabs are incapable of knowing right from wrong, rationality or fairness, but don't you think that is rather arrogant?

The Arab street is demanding the same 'version of justice' enjoyed by the west......At Tianamen, the Chinese students demanded the same.....Where are the people seeking those other versions of justice you speak of?

.....btw, you confuse the definition of empathize with understanding..i understand them.

I am sorry if I confused you, I was using "empathize" in the sense of " Seeing things from another persons perspective, and putting oneself into their position."

You say you understand Hamas, but I suggest you are incapable of seeing things from their perspective.

Are you able to understand why Hamas says non-Palestinian Jews had, and have no right to move to Palestine?

[shira]

29. Hamas version of justice - Jews out or dead. What more is there to understand? n/t

[pelsar]

31. wow...are you in the wrong place

You may like to think Arabs are incapable of knowing right from wrong, rationality or fairness, but don't you think that is rather arrogant?

i believe they are very capable of understanding wrong from right, and unlike you i'm not so arrogant as to disrespect them and their cultures and views about what defines fairness.

as i understand it, you believe that the arabs who are involved in and believe in the muslim brotherhood, those people who have fought and died for the hamas version of justice, those who had their revolution and cheered on Ayatollah in Iran, those who have sacrificed for the Hizballa way of life, those who kicked out the secular western govt in turkey and installed a religious (i.e. non western) one that rejects western concepts of justice (yours) are all wrong?

so what you claiming about them?...ignorance, confused, need to be reeducated, brain disorder?....
_____

yes i am capable of seeing things from the hamas perspective just I am from the settlers and from the progressives perspective..i just reject them all as leading to additional war.

[kayecy]

33. Personal abuse and dodging the question again....Shame on you!

...i believe they are very capable of understanding wrong from right, and unlike you i'm not so arrogant as to disrespect them and their cultures

Personal abuse and dodging the question again....Shame on you!

Are you or are you not able to understand why Hamas says non-Palestinian Jews had, and have no right to move to Palestine?....I imagine you will claim that you are, in fact, able to understand that view, but as acknowledging such a view might lead to additional violence, you reject it....Very convenient.....The claim of every dictator and oppressive power!

...as i understand it, you believe that the arabs who are involved in and believe in the muslim brotherhood,..... that rejects western concepts of justice (yours) are all wrong?

Any society that does nothing to terminate a 50 year occupation, that imposes collective punishment, that seizes land, that condones the murder of civilians (whether at Jewish shrines or the Gaza border) is a sick one....Whether they are wrong I leave you to decide.

[pelsar]

34. try again....and I'll ask again

Are you or are you not able to understand why Hamas says non-Palestinian Jews had, and have no right to move to Palestine?.
its a simple question...sorry if you felt i avoided it (see?..that hows a conversation works). Hamas, like others have religion for the basis for their beliefs and they dont hide it. Their religion, their version is very clear about us jews. They reject jewish history and any connection to land, hence immigration by jews is rejected outright. They may be willing to accept jews as a lower class, however, that too they have made clear. So yes i do understand their position, and as you pointed out, i do not accept it as compatible with a modern society.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/world/middleeast/01hamas.html
______

my question was about arab societies......muslim brotherhood, iran, hamas, Hizballa, you seemed to have skipped over to israel to claim we're sick. Whereas i have no problem with your judgement upon us and certainly appreciate the honesty, you seem to have avoided the question:

in your version of universal justice...how do you judge, the member of hizballa, hamas, muslim brotherhood, turkeys population electing a religious muslim party, irans revolution?

are they wrong? do they represent a sick society? are their brains too small to understand "universal justice"?....what is it?
..... (be as brave as you were in passing judgement on israel...can you?)

[kayecy]

37. What a racist question!.....You tell me.......

.... So yes i do understand their position, and as you pointed out, i do not accept it as compatible with a modern society.

A very cryptic answer but hardly likely to lead to a resolution of this conflict.

I too, am disgusted by Hamas's violence, islamic extremism and attacks on civilians...However, I have heard no convincing argument that Hamas is wrong when it says that non-Palestinian Jews should have no more right to immigrate to Palestine and form a state there than they have to immigrate to the USA and form a state......Your argument against their view on this matter is what?

.you seemed to have skipped over to israel to claim we're sick.

I did no such thing.....I defined what I thought was a sick society, whether Israeli or Arab.(Jewish shrines or Gaza borders).......I expected you to add to the definition to show how wrong muslims were and also to show that the definition of a sick society did not apply to Israel.

.... in your version of universal justice...how do you judge, the member of hizballa, hamas, muslim brotherhood, turkeys population electing a religious muslim party, irans revolution?

You seem to be asking how I judge supporters of extremist parties?...What has justice to do with the matter?......They think they are right.....I think they are misguided, foolish and dangerous.....I would like them to insist their parties adopt basic humanitarian values......Does that answer your question?

.... are their brains too small to understand "universal justice"?....what is it?

What a racist question!.....If you wish to reformat your question in a less racist way I will be happy to answer you.

[pelsar]

39. your getting closer...

You seem to be asking how I judge supporters of extremist parties?...What has justice to do with the matter?......They think they are right.....I think they are misguided, foolish and dangerous.....I would like them to insist their parties adopt basic humanitarian values......Does that answer your question?

you have claimed that EVERYONE understands this "universal justice" of yours.... Except that members of hamas, muslim brotherhood etc believe it is you this is misguided, foolish and dangerous. They are in those parties because the all believe in the values of those parties, there is nothing for them to "insist." Nor do they believe they are extremist.

They in fact do not agree with your "universal justice"..so how is it universal? and who are you to even judge them, their culture?

____

it says that non-Palestinian Jews should have no more right to immigrate to Palestine and form a state there than they have to immigrate to the USA and form a state
this will be the short answer:
immigration has been going on since the world began, in my world view, anybody who creates a western civil rights oriented democracy, where none has existed has rights over others who wouldnt create such a society. Hamas today, the Palestinians under the brits, the turks were not creating such an entity. More so the world of the 1940's was one of massive turmoil, injustice, massive people being moved, countries destroyed and built, borders moved, the Arab/jew Palestinians were nothing special in that they too were both participants and victims in that period. Its a shame that unlike all of the others in the world, they never accepted the results and made the best out of it as everybody else did (as far as i know).

[kayecy]

41. How much human suffering your policy will lead to remains to be seen.....

....They in fact do not agree with your "universal justice"..so how is it universal? and who are you to even judge them, their culture?

I think you have the wrong correspondent again......"Universal justice" was something you conjured up......Don't ask me to to explain it.

....anybody who creates a western civil rights oriented democracy, where none has existed has rights over others who wouldnt create such a society.

Thank you for stating your position on this question....If all Israelis think like you, then this conflict will go on for centuries.

The Brits, French and Dutch were equally arrogant in the 1800s...They also felt they had the right to create western societies in foreign lands.....Local nationalists eventually forced them to think again.....You seem very confidant, even in this nuclear age, that Israel need make no accommodation with local nationalists aspirations.

How much human suffering your policy will lead to remains to be seen.

[pelsar]

44. universal justice is from you...

you wrote:
you may not believe in the concept of universal justice because you have an axe to grind, but the Arab world is beginning to demand it right now.

did you forget that you wrote it?....so tell me again how the muslim brotherhood, hamas, hizballa, iran will realize that their beliefs are false and join in your "universal justice"
_________________

us israelis unlike the Brits, French did not come to colonize, but to live freely......and yes, like you, i reject aspirations that are not within the western democratic value system.

oops....did i include you?.....is not your "universal justice" based on western values?....or do you believe hanging homosexuals is a legit legal ruling? (iran) how about stoning women for adultery? gassing citizens (syria 1982), locking women in their homes (taliban)

-----

hmm now you got to explain a bit of your own hypocrisy...this universal justice of yours is culturally specific, specific to the west. Other cultures that aspire to their own country believe in FGM, honor killings, killing homosexuals, multi tiered system of citizenship...so whats your position? defend societies that believe in FGM and defend those practices or declare them "illegal" and those cultures subject to western modification whether they like it or not.

your answer will be very interesting....take your time....

[kayecy]

46. Your concept of basic justice seems to be one of arrogance to local inhabitants......

You first connected 'justice' and 'universal' in your accusation in message (22)...Have you forgotten?

I am quiet willing to discuss with you whether cultural ideas of justice are in fact universal (when you have defined what you mean by that), but when I referred to the injustice done to each party in this conflict I was referring to basics....If Hamas invaded Jewish territory it would be have been responsible for the conflict and Jews would have every right to resist their invasion....As it was, it was Zionists which invaded (for that is what it was) Palestinian territory and it must surely be for Israel to make amends.


Your concept of basic justice seems to be one of arrogance to local inhabitants......Because they are not as civilized as you and do not have the same values, their demands for self-determination can be ignored........In fact, exactly the same view of justice as the old colonials had.


You are right, many Zionists came to live freely in Palestine but you and they knew that that was only possible if they dominated the existing population........That, pelasar, is real hypocrisy.

[shira]

47. Suppose Israel "understands" and wants justice for Palestinians. Explain how they do that.

Do most of the Jews just pick up and leave Israel for America?

Cede power to Hamas?

What is 'justice' in your view? Justice that Hamas, the PLO, and other factions will accept?

Do tell.

[pelsar]

48. yep it came from me.. i got it off your 'who started it"

a very very american cultural mentality...but we'll go with that:

are you really sure about zionists invading the Palestinians territory?

how far back in history do you want to go? and why did you chose that particular date?....and how about those arab immigrants, are you counting them as part of the original Palestinians (in case you don't know an undetermined number came in the 1920-30s as the zionists developed the economy).

in your view are unarmed immigrants to be considered invaders? (this is a question of principle)
___________________

yes i am very arrogant, proud and consistent about the western definition of civil rights being the better way to live.

since i get the feeling you don't agree, i'm waiting to hear you defend, FGM, honor killings, multi tiered citizenship as lawful, selling land to people of other religions equals the death penalty, marriage to underage kids, etc. !

These are a few of the characteristics of the culture of the "locals" I personal do not believe those aspects are compatible with a modern country, but thats just me with my western mentality. You seem to be more opened minded then me, so i guess you would like to defend those practices? GO FOR IT!!

______

You are right, many Zionists came to live freely in Palestine but you and they knew that that was only possible if they dominated the existing population........That, pelasar, is real hypocrisy

actually its reality..especially coming right after the holocaust, jew quotas all filled up by the western countries and the first post WWII program in Poland (i.e. nothing really changed did it? (zionism was a failure pre WWII)

the creation of a western socialistic country required zionist domination, i would have been pretty stupid to come to Palestine to live as second class citizens.

The arabs by attacking really screwed themselves..... The ones who stayed, got themselves citizenship in israel and as per the polls are glad they did.

[kayecy]

50. Now we have identified exactly where we disagree.....

.....how far back in history do you want to go? and why did you chose that particular date?....and how about those arab immigrants, are you counting them as part of the original Palestinians (in case you don't know an undetermined number came in the 1920-30s as the zionists developed the economy).

1. As far back as you like, providing you (or any other immigrant) can show your ancestors came from Palestine.

2. Some Palestinians no doubt were also immigrants in the 1920s, but as far as I am aware, no numbers have ever been verified, nor did they cause the indigenous inhabitants to riot. We do know that some 300,000 Zionists arrived between 1920 and 1937, which, as a proportion of the then Palestine population, was enormous.

.....in your view are unarmed immigrants to be considered invaders? (this is a question of principle)

I was wondering when you were going to come that question....Well, it would all depend on why they were immigrating to my land....You will know that the US congress restricted immigration from 1920 and even went so far as to prevented Jews escaping Hitler from even landing in the USA (The St Louis)....You will know also that at the 1937 Evian Conference, Britain, Australia and Canada also declined to accept Jewish refugees....I think that was morally unacceptable.....However, these immigrants had no intention to create a homeland in the USA, Britain etc.....If I knew, beyond doubt that that was their intention, then I imagine even you would have object to the immigration, particularly if it was in numbers calculated to swamp the indigenous inhabitants......Have I answered your question of principle?......Do you have different principles?

.....since i get the feeling you don't agree, i'm waiting to hear you defend, FGM, honor killings, multi tiered citizenship as lawful, selling land to people of other religions equals the death penalty, marriage to underage kids, etc.

I am sorry to disappoint you, but we seem to be in agreement on this one...I am disgusted with FGM, honor killings, multi tiered citizenship as lawful, selling land to people of other religions equals the death penalty, marriage to underage kids, etc.......And yes, I do think I am more open-minded than you.

.....the creation of a western socialistic country required zionist domination, i would have been pretty stupid to come to Palestine to live as second class citizens.

Thank you for that admission.....I, Hamas, and most other people would be prepared to fight to the death to resist Zionist domination of our cultures

Now we have identified exactly where we disagree.....I seek to dominate no-one....You, on the other hand feel perfectly justified in dominating another culture simply because you judge it not to have western socialist values.........Even you should be able to see which policy is the more likely to lead to violence and war.

[pelsar]

51. not so fast....

I am sorry to disappoint you, but we seem to be in agreement on this one...I am disgusted with FGM, honor killings, multi tiered citizenship as lawful, selling land to people of other religions equals the death penalty, marriage to underage kids, etc.......And yes, I do think I am more open-minded than you.

you skipped over the most interesting part......given that your far more respectful of those kind of cultures...would you be willing to live within one? Your personal feelings aside do you believe that those cultures should be respected (perhaps a UN resolution?) to help preserve them from western influence? Are they on par with western values?


Thank you for that admission.....I, Hamas, and most other people would be prepared to fight to the death to resist Zionist domination of our cultures

and would you be willing to fight to preserve a culture that has those very characteristics that disgust you, and throw in the addition of a religious based govt? Are you aware btw that the vast majority of the arab israelis prefer their present situation from the other options?...(according to the polls?)

btw, you don't have to thank me for the admission, its not "an admission per sea, its simply answering your questions....if you havent figured it out by now...the world of PC disgusts me as does the redefinition of words...both hinder communication.

[kayecy]

54. If I have now answered you, could I trouble you for a response to my last paragraph?........

.....given that your far more respectful of those kind of cultures...would you be willing to live within one? Your personal feelings aside do you believe that those cultures should be respected (perhaps a UN resolution?) to help preserve them western influence?

I am sorry if I skipped the part you found most interesting, let me try again:
1. It is most certainly NOT a given that I am far more respectful of those cultures.....I thought I made it clear that I am disgusted by Hamas and other Muslim, illiberal cultures.....I have lived in a Muslim culture for several years.
2. Do I believe such cultures should be respected - NO. (You, an Israeli , demanding a non-western culture abide by a UN Resolution!...LOL)
3. Do I believe they should be preserved from western influence - NO.


If I have now answered you, could I trouble you for a response to my last paragraph?

"I seek to dominate no-one....You, on the other hand feel perfectly justified in dominating another culture simply because you judge it not to have western socialist values.........Even you should be able to see which policy is the more likely to lead to violence and war."

[pelsar]

55. the answer

"I seek to dominate no-one....You, on the other hand feel perfectly justified in dominating another culture simply because you judge it not to have western socialist values.........Even you should be able to see which policy is the more likely to lead to violence and war."

first, the western democratic culture does not "dominate"....even in its non perfect form it allows for the greatest freedom of any other kind of government. Hence i disagree with your description of social democracies.

cultural changes (large scale) will inevitably have violence as there will be those that will resist, so the answer is yes, i accept that for a modern western society violence will probably be part of the cost.

I also believe that ALL dictatorships and their variations are illegal and should be "eliminated" (the how has yet to be determined)
___________________________

I don't seek to "dominate" i expect to live in a western democracy with civil rights as its base, and am willing to fight to preserve and protect it. The alternative is not to my tastes.

so you would be willing to fight with hamas to preserve their theocratic dictatorship in order to prevent a social democracy from developing (hamas, a theocratic style of govt obviously rejects western democracy concepts)...with their low level of govt sponsored internal violence for multiple generations?

[kayecy]

58. So why did you leave the US?.....No-one to fight or be arrogant to?.......

first, the western democratic culture does not "dominate"....even in its non perfect form it allows for the greatest freedom of any other kind of government. Hence i disagree with your description of social democracies

I'm confused...What did you mean when you said "...the creation of a western socialistic country required zionist domination."?

...cultural changes (large scale) will inevitably have violence as there will be those that will resist, so the answer is yes, i accept that for a modern western society violence will probably be part of the cost.

Interesting......You do seem to have a very odd notion of western values.......Most people in the west try to avoid actions which are likely to provoke violence and war.

...I don't seek to "dominate" (But you support Zionist domination!) i expect to live in a western democracy and am willing to fight to preserve and protect it.

So why did you leave the US?.....No-one to fight or be arrogant with?
.
.

[shira]

59. Kayecy, how is setting up a free, representative democracy dominating others?

I can see how a totalitarian dictatorship fits that bill, but a democracy in which Palestinians could feel free to participate and have the entire civil rights package?

Can you explain yourself?

[kayecy]

61. Shira...If your are serious, I will reply when pelsar & I have finished our little debate....n/t

[pelsar]

63. why did i leave the US

an aunt that survived the holocaust, two uncles that were interned by the russians, escaped, caught by the nazis and interned, the quotas on the jews pre and post WWII....all left an impression on me, as a jew.

The zionists were the only social democratic movement in the Palestinian area. The land mass controlled by the turks then the brits was not going to be anything near democratic without the zionists who had the motivation, education, social order and knowledge to create a social democratic state. The arabs in the area at best would have been under syrian, egyptian control.

Like i wrote, democracies by their definition dont dominate, since they are based on civil rights for all.

As far as western values going to war.....look at western history, its full of wars for protecting their interests and way of life, israel is no different.
____

however your still not clear:
i need clarification on your 'respect" and disgust with these other cultures.

you would be willing to fight with hamas, with their "theocratic culture" in order to prevent a democracy from developing that was based on immigrants?......did i get that right?

(i'm going to 'disappear " for a while...have to get back to work...tomorrow i'll pick this up)

[kayecy]

65. I am confused again.....How do you reconcile these two statements?......

Like i wrote, democracies by their definition dont dominate, since they are based on civil rights for all.

You also wrote ".....the creation of a western socialistic country required zionist domination.".....I am confused again.....How do you reconcile these two statements?

...you would be willing to fight with hamas, with their "theocratic culture" in order to prevent a democracy from developing that was based on immigrants?......did i get that right?

Well, perhaps not exactly fight with Hamas, but certainly I would be prepared to do everything in my power to have Balfour rescinded and to ensure that the Palestinian representatives had the opportunity to present their concerns at Versailles......Balfour was totally immoral and would never have been accepted today....It has probably been the cause of more violence that all of Hamas's efforts.

(i'm going to 'disappear " for a while...have to get back to work...tomorrow i'll pick this up)

Me too....good night.

[pelsar]

66. to create a new society...whatever type

one group is going to have to dominate to make it happen.....the obvious examples being the zionists in the 40's, iran revolution with the revolutionary guard, (Libya's floundering since no one can dominate.)

Once the new govt is established, then comes the next stage which is how it governs. Dictatorships as in hamas, PA, Iran, etc are obviously the easiest and most common. Their domination is final with little room for improvement. Democracies obviously share their power with all the citizens. One culture does dominate, via the holidays, language, etc But its the best system that we have today with its principle of civil rights for all. (so there a cultural domination but not of freedom or civil rights).

In my mind, democracies are legal governing bodies, and dictatorships no matter what their genes or history is, are all illegal and have no right to exist.
This maybe where we disagree
_______________________________

The removal of dictatorships and replacing them with western democracies takes a tremendous amount of resources and willingness. its always preferred in the long run but difficult to achieve and to preserve.
_______

now to israel, the jews have been screwed for about 4000 odd years throughout the world (including arab countries)-always being screwed by the dominate culture...and they were willing to go to Palestine, based on their culture and make a democratic nation.

and they did, and it was natural for the arabs to resist this foreign culture, and some did......from my point of view neither group was wrong. The arabs did not want to have a foreign culture dominate them, and the jews no longer wanted to be dominated. (with a clear history of why it was enough).

the arabs had the short sighted view, since had they won in 48, syria would have dominated the north, egypt the south and jordan the middle...all foreign cultures to the arabs of Palestine. And of course israeli arabs now, a few generations later appear to disagree with you, as the polls indicate that they prefer their present status as "fighting minority" to the alternatives.
______

its seems that civil rights and democracy is not at the top of your list as the most important, but that genetics are. (i.e landownership via genetics, takes precedent over anything else).

[kayecy]

68. Welcome back............Now where were we.......

....one group is going to have to dominate to make it happen.....the obvious examples being the zionists in the 40's, iran revolution with the revolutionary guard, (Libya's floundering since no one can dominate.
......Once the new govt is established, then comes the next stage which is how it governs

Thank you...I can't accept that a western culture has any right to dominate another of course (even to force on them democracy etc etc), but at least I understand your position.

I believe (as I think most members of other cultures will, including Hamas and Afghan etc) that I have the absolute right to fight, and go on fighting to defend my culture against an incoming alien culture bent on dominating mine in the land of my fathers.

....the jews have been screwed for about 4000 odd years throughout the world (including arab countries)-always being screwed by the dominate culture...and they were willing to go to Palestine, based on their culture and make a democratic nation....and they did, and it was natural for the arabs to resist this foreign culture, and some did......from my point of view neither group was wrong. The arabs did not want to have a foreign culture dominate them, and the jews no longer wanted to be dominated.

I can agree with much of that statement but can I ask you to clarify it?......As it stands, your statement implies that both cultures had an equal right to have their culture dominant in Palestine......Is that correct?

If so, it would seem to follow that you also think the Jews had a right to make their culture dominant in any land they chose?

....its seems that civil rights and democracy is not at the top of your list as the most important, but that genetics are. (i.e landownership via genetics, takes precedent over anything else).

They are near the top of my list, but without life itself, civil rights and democracy are meaningless....Top of my list is to minimize violence, death and suffering, especially when caused by the decision of a western culture bent of forcing the locals to accept their 'superior' culture.

I place no value on genetics.
.
.

[shira]

71. If the top of your list is "to minimize violence, death and suffering"...

...then you have to be against totalitarian fascist rule and all it represents, which is what Palestinians would have been subjected to for generations.

You're making excuses for the fact that Palestinians had a chance to participate in a representative, liberal democracy as far back as the 1920's BEFORE mass Jewish immigration. THAT could have changed everything. Together, the Jews and Palestinians could have accomplished something very special.

You prefer all that goes against progressive/liberal values.

Not that I expect you and I to ever agree on much of anything I/P related. I have the same problem debating birthers, truthers, and now the bin Laden deathers.

[pelsar]

74. then i dont understand..but first

I can agree with much of that statement but can I ask you to clarify it?......As it stands, your statement implies that both cultures had an equal right to have their culture dominant in Palestine......Is that correct?

If so, it would seem to follow that you also think the Jews had a right to make their culture dominant in any land they chose?

in my opinion, For the jews the only geographic option was within the confines of their history and culture and that would be Palestine. That was their only option to get out under the yoke of continual and endless domination..... and since there was not an independent democratic country there and they were willing to put forth the resources, necessary, to develop one that would insure civil rights for all, then yes they had the "more rights" (remember i put establishing a democratic country as the highest long term value) than the locals, who were not going in that direction. More so simply immigration without the intent of establishing a dominant western democracy, but to remain a second class citizen within a dictatorship would have accomplished little in providing jews security and and an ability to defend themselves as jews (WWII made this need rather obvious to many jews)
_____

but this confuses me:
Top of my list is to minimize violence, death and suffering,
non democratic countries depend upon violence, death, suffering, injustice, multi tied citizenship levels to survive. One culture dominates the others without civil rights. And you defend these cultures?....they are far more violent internally, than the western democratic system. And whereas you might be against FGM, hanging homosexuals because your values are against it, at the same time you seem to be more than willing to defend those very same cultures and those very same values.

how about Libya, Rwanda, Sudan and their civil wars...direct results of non democratic values.....my impression is that you believe that to respect them is to simply have a "hands off" policy.

[kayecy]

75. How many more times must I state that I do not, and have never defended these cultures.....

....and since there was not an independent democratic country there and they were willing to put forth the resources, necessary, to develop one that would insure civil rights for all, then yes they had the "more rights" (remember i put establishing a democratic country as the highest long term value) than the locals, who were not going in that direction.

So to paraphrase you, the Jews had a right to 'civilize/democratize' and land they chose but particularly so with Palestine because of the ancient Jewish conection.....Have I understood you correctly?

....non democratic countries depend upon violence, death, suffering, injustice, multi tied citizenship levels to survive. One culture dominates the others without civil rights.

You are probably correct although I have seen no figures to indicate that in the 1800s, violence, death, suffering etc were significantly less in democracies than in non-democracies....The American civil war comes to mind as does the Boxer rebellion and Britain's various colonial wars.

If we take the Zionist intervention in Palestine, what makes you think that since the 1920s, Zionist riots with the Palestinians, Zionist terrorism against the British followed by Israel's six wars against its neighbors, a couple of intifadas and Cast Lead has caused less suffering of the locals than if they had been left to their own devices and the Zionists had stayed out of Palestine?

....at the same time you seem to be more than willing to defend those very same cultures and those very same values.....

How many more times must I state that I do not, and have never defended these cultures.....It is true that I have defended the right of any culture to resist domination by an incoming culture and I was under the impression that you too accepted that even uncivilized cultures have that right.
.
.

[pelsar]

76. whereas people naturally resist change in their cultures...

as that comes naturally, and i accept that to be a natural condition, i do not believe non western, non civil rights societies have a right to exist, let alone be defended. (they should be ostracized from the world community, not aided etc).

that i believe is where we differ.
_____

i also believe that democratic, civil rights oriented countries have the greatest potential for serving their people, whereas the others ones dont.

as far as the potential for suffering and death, its the non democratic countries that lead the way in causing them, be it WWI, WWII, more locally you have the 6 day war (egyptian, syrian intentions were hardly pro Palestinian). You can look at syria wiping out its own city in 1982 (20-40,000 dead), Russian gulags, Chinas great march, Cambodia.....

-----

So to paraphrase you, the Jews had a right to 'civilize/democratize' and land they chose but particularly so with Palestine because of the ancient Jewish conection.....Have I understood you correctly?
almost, as long as you add in that, there wasn't a independent country existing at the time, nor was their likly to be, and that the immigrating jews promised and came through with offering all the inhabitants a democratic society with civil rights as its base. (as per the US, australian, canadian examples)
_____

so if i understand you correctly you defend the right of the non democratic societies to exist....with all of the cultural customs (tossing virgins in live volcanos? :-)

would you have been against the US and others occupying germany and japan, post WWII and essentially changing their culture to a more pacifistic one.

[Recursion]

88. get themselves a working STABLE democracy...

"We'll take our foot off your throat once you have a working stable democracy."

As pleasant as that sounds, you are saying that the occupation will continue forever (and so is an annexation, in case the settlements didn't make that clear already).

[shira]

90. The Zionists got themselves a working stable democracy while the Brits were occupying. n/t

[Recursion]

91. They still don't have a stable working Democracy

So it certainly didn't start way back then.

(Stable working Democracies don't disenfranchise millions of people for 40 years.)

[shira]

92. Nevermind, I thought I was conversing with someone who knew what a stable democracy actually was.N/T

[shaayecanaan]

3. Are the Palestinians entitled to likewise be concerned...

about the rightward drift of Israeli politics, including a government coalition which includes two fascist parties, one of which (the National Union) adopts explicitly anti-Arab sentiments, as well as the increasing Haredi population within Israel and its threat to secular democracy?

or is only Israel entitled to engage in this kind of navel gazing?

If Israel refuses to negotiate with any Palestinian government that includes members of Hamas, are the Palestinians entitled to refuse to negotiate with any Israeli government that includes members of the National Front?

[pelsar]

5. that doesn't work...attempts at the moral equivalent

its so pathetic to have to explain time and time again that one can't equate a democratic govt that has elections on a constant basis with dictatorships or worse, theocratic dictatorships....as if they are on the same moral plane. They are not.

israeli politics go back and forth between right and left depending upon the environment and events...its electoral process mimics events on the ground. Movement towards peace and stability gets a leftward govt, missiles and attacks gets a right govt.

the Palestinians can refuse to do anything they want, as long as they (you) accept that there are consequences for those actions and accept their part of the responsibility...history has shown that its the arabs/ Palestenians that infact have a major influence on israeli politics.

israel doesn't have to negotiate with hamas and hamas can continue to attack israel...or hamas might try to stop trying to kill israelis, return gilad, and perhaps israel might have more open negotiations with hamas....or israel can negotiate with hamas (again) and hamas can then decide if they want to return gilad and stop trying to kill Israelis.

its pretty flexible, each group makes their own decisions with the relevant consequences that follow....

[shaayecanaan]

6. so presumably you wouldn't object to Hamas as long as they were elected?

"the Palestinians can refuse to do anything they want, as long as they (you) accept that there are consequences for those actions and accept their part of the responsibility"

It cuts both ways, though, doesnt it? After all, I'm sure that from time to time you'd like to drive to somewhere thats more than twenty miles away. It must get claustrophobic at times.

If Israel made a better effort to be decent international citizen, you never know, that might change.

Actions and consequences, and all that.

[pelsar]

7. of course it "cuts both ways"

actions and non actions have consequences, both long and short term. Only the foolish pretend they dont.

of course i object to hamas....as far as i understand they're long term goal is my elimination. At the same time, for the sake of "peace and quiet" i have no problem with working out basic deals with them. They do control gaza..which borders on israel.

so......basic negotiations...all based on consequences for ones actions
1)they dont shoot at us, we dont shoot at them.
2)they can import whatever they like via egypt and they're not allowed into israel...including israeli hospitals, no electricity, etc.
3)oh yea..if they attack us, we get to use disproportionate force in return.
____

israel doesn't have to bother with being a "decent international citizen"...since we have no idea what that means...its a bit too subjective its definition for my tastes. (syria being on the human rights council being one of the "decent intl citizens....)
____

and here we go again..the never ending attempt to demonize israel......
After all, I'm sure that from time to time you'd like to drive to somewhere thats more than twenty miles away
i assume you insinuating that israel controls the gaza/egyptian border?...thats my nicest reaction, I really doubt you need a geography lesson.SOOOOO
why did you write it?..

do you not believe the egypt opens and closes its border to gaza whenever it feels like it?
if so, why bother writing what you did?

[shaayecanaan]

8. that wasnt what I mean at all, actually...

1)they dont shoot at us, we dont shoot at them.
2)they can import whatever they like via egypt and they're not allowed into israel...including israeli hospitals, no electricity, etc.
3)oh yea..if they attack us, we get to use disproportionate force in return

Sounds fine to me.

Naturally, of course, Israel couldnt import water from the West Bank acquifer. And Arab waters would be closed to Israeli shipping, including the Straits of Tiran and the Suez Canal. Israel can get whatever they want from Cyprus. Cut off the gas pipeline to Israel as well, of course.

After all, if its good for the goose...

[pelsar]

12. thats how intl relations works....

egypt controls the suez canal..if they believe its in their best interests, with all the implications so be it.

most intl treaties are kept as long as both sides have it in their own interests...when it no longer applicable, they're "torn up". The Palestinians of gaza have a few choices to make, the options and initiative are with them.

in fact now that egypt has opened their border with an egyptian port a mere 20 km (aprox) away, they dont even need israel). They in fact should shut down their borders from the evil entity next door....of course they shouldnt shoot rockets either (israel would probably destroy their port, if they built one anyway if the rockets are flying).

[kayecy]

10. What is your version of the Gaza geography?.........

After all, I'm sure that from time to time you'd like to drive to somewhere thats more than twenty miles away
i assume you insinuating that israel controls the gaza/egyptian border?...thats my nicest reaction, I really doubt you need a geography lesson.

Geography lesson?...Thats a bit rich!

Is or is not Israel blockading Gaza by land, sea and air?......Can Gaza fishermen fish where they want or only where Israel allows them to?.......Does Israel allow international shipping to deliver and take on goods at Gaza?

As for the Gaza/Egyptian border and the Rafah crossing, did or did not the US and Israel negotiate(!) the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access (AMA) with Mubarak and the PA to ensure that Rafah would not be used as a goods importation gateway and that all goods entering Gaza would transit via the Israeli-controlled Kerem Shalom?

What is your version of the Gaza geography?

[pelsar]

11. my version is based on facts on the ground-not paper

egypt has opened and closed its border at will, in cased you having been paying attention.
hamas taxes the tunnel imports and of course its now April 2011 and Mubarak is gone, as is the treaty he signed off on....and the border is now open (see the news)

are you now going to actually claim that israel controls the gaza egyptian border?.......(i'm sure you will, i can't wait for your version of how israel and the mossad controlled the egyptian revolution so that they can control the gaza border....)

[kayecy]

15. Are you now going to claim that the GOI/IDF/Mossad do not control Gaza imports/exports? .........

are you now going to actually claim that israel controls the gaza egyptian border?.......(i'm sure you will, i can't wait for your version of how israel and the mossad controlled the egyptian revolution so that they can control the gaza border....)

What a lively imagination you do have!....Shall we stick to the facts?

1. Contrary to your reading of the news, Rafah is not yet open. ("The Rafah crossing will be permanently opened in 7-10 days Egyptian Foreign Minister Nabil Elarby" - Al Jazeera 29th April).....You must be naive if you think the US and Israel will not pull out all the stops over the next seven days to make sure Rafah will not become a normal point of entry for goods.

2. If, as you seem to believe, Gaza residents can import and export at will, why is Israel bothering to stop shipping arriving at Gaza?.....You can't have it both ways...Either Israel is making every effort to control all Gaza's imports/exports or the IDF is wasting its time trying to stop sea-born gun-runners.


Are you now going to claim that Israel/IDF/Mossad do not control Gaza imports/exports?

[pelsar]

17. i have a poor imagination

do i really have to list the dates when egypt opened and closed the gaza border (despite israelis protests?).

i actually have no idea what was/is imported when egypt opens its border. i do have an idea what the tunnels bring in: grad military rockets, gasoline, food, animals, car parts, etc.
----

israel does what it can, otherwise there would be shiploads of katushas in gaza as per the hizballa model
______

so am i to understand you, that your claiming that the US and israel still control the egyptian foreign policy in terms of gaza? (or is just israel via the US?)

[kayecy]

19. QED....Israel is operating a blockade against Gaza.......

....israel does what it can, otherwise there would be shiploads of katushas in gaza as per the hizballa model...

QED....Israel is operating a blockade against Gaza.


As shaayecanaan said....to be unable to drive to somewhere thats more than twenty miles away must be rather claustraphobic......As far as I am aware, no Gaza resident has been able to do that for many years thanks to Israel's blockade and its ally, Mubarak's connivance....

...so am i to understand you, that your claiming that the US and israel still control the egyptian foreign policy in terms of gaza? (or is just israel via the US?)...

Don't be naive......what was the quid-pro-quo for the US re-arming Egypt?


As for your 'still control', who knows?...Perhaps Egypt will defy the US/Israel and indeed open the Rafah crossing.

[pelsar]

20. that only took 3 posts...

its ally, Mubarak's connivance

at least there is the minimal recognition that egypt is taking an active part in the blockade. It always has to be "pulled out" as if uncomfortable facts should be ignored.

such an attitude does not lend itself to a healthy conversation.

[kayecy]

24. Neither does a ridiculous "It always has to be pulled out as if uncomfortable" claim.....

......Do you, or do you not believe Israel has been using every means possible to impose a selective blockade of goods shipped to Gaza?

[pelsar]

26. but it always has to be "pulled out"

Mr JackRiddler i noticed has the same problem:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=350031&mesg_id=350406

he too only mentions egypt when its "forced out of him".....
__________

israel has been trying very hard to impose a blockade, but israel only controls 3/4 of gazas borders, hence its impossible to be successful with out Egypts also imposing its own blockade.

but this is an obvious fact, it doesn't get any more obvious and yet its ignored....perhaps you can tell me why?

[kayecy]

28. I could also claim the truth has at last been forced out of you..

...... israel has been trying very hard to impose a blockade, but israel only controls 3/4 of gazas borders, hence its impossible to be successful with out Egypts also imposing its own blockade

I could also claim the truth has at last been forced out of you......Why do so many Israelis go to such lengths to claim Gaza is not a prison?

......but this is an obvious fact, it doesn't get any more obvious and yet its ignored....perhaps you can tell me why?

I would have thought the answer to your question was obvious:
1. In International Law, Israel still has responsibility for the well-being of the population of Gaza.
2. Israel created the problem and the west expects Israel to use civilized standards in the treatment of civilians.
3. The US put put pressure on Mubarak to keep the border closed.....You may not have noticed it, but there is little criticism of the US in the west.

[shira]

30. "Prison"? Will Gaza still be a prison when Egypt permanently opens the border?

As to US pressure on Mubarak keeping the border closed, Mubarak had reasons for closing it - namely that he couldn't stand the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas which are a threat to his rule. THAT's primarily why he kept the border closed, not because of pressure by the US and Israel, which as anyone can see is non-existant WRT keeping the border closed.

Your problem isn't with the humanitarian situation, for if it were you would spend more than 5 minutes condemning Egypt for their role in this.

Your goal is only to demonize Israel.

Egypt gets a free pass and can do as they wish to Palestinians, and you have zero problem with that.

[pelsar]

32. but you cant....i easily answer any questions and dont hide info

"gaza as a prison"...is an interpretation of the facts of the bockade. Us israelis definitely see it as a type of prison, confined area, etc.....the Palestenians in gaza are definitely "trapped" but the key is with them.

-----
you asked:
1. In International Law, Israel still has responsibility for the well-being of the population of Gaza.
2. Israel created the problem and the west expects Israel to use civilized standards in the treatment of civilians.
3. The US put put pressure on Mubarak to keep the border closed.....You may not have noticed it, but there is little criticism of the US in the west.


1)International law on gaza has several interpretations...the definition for instance of occupation (look it up) doesn't apply any longer, especially if you consider egypt a sovereign country.
2) hamas created the problem and should act responsibly and stop trying to kill israelis daily, its their call
3) I have no idea what the US did or didnt do, neither do you (links?). As far as the little criticism in the west...good question, why did you for instance ignore egypt as being part of the blockade (just like the "west")
_____

what i don't do is actively ignore relevant information and make excuses if i didn't put it in.....

[kayecy]

35. Israel is what?.....A state on a par with a dictatorship or a western liberal democracy?....

1)International law on gaza has several interpretations...the definition for instance of occupation (look it up) doesn't apply any longer, especially if you consider egypt a sovereign country.

"... it (Israel) continues to be designated the occupying power in the Gaza Strip by the United Nations, the United States, the United Kingdom and various human rights organizations. Israel disputes it is the occupying power in the Gaza Strip"

Now you tell us which countries agree with Israel and have other interpretations.?

2) hamas created the problem and should act responsibly and stop trying to kill israelis daily, its their call

And before Hamas took control?......Remember when Israel had the Philadelphia corridor and completely isolated Gaza?....Remember when the IDF brutalized Gazan protesters under Rabin?....Remember when the Israel 'encouraged' Palestinian to move to Gaza?.....You might see it as "their call", they have a different view........In spite of what you claim, you clearly have little understanding of you enemy's view.

3) ....why did you for instance ignore egypt as being part of the blockade (just like the "west")

Did I ignore Mubarak's role in the blockade?.....Mubarak was an ally of Israel......Israel wanted the border closed.....Mubarak was a dictator.....Israel is what?.....A state on a par with a dictatorship or a western liberal state?

[pelsar]

36. its 2011..remember the date.....

i'm not much into group think or group politics....there is a definition of belligerent occupation, that no longer applies to israel and gaza. It doesn't matter how many countries vote, (wasn't syria just voted in to the Human rights council?) or what a majority believes at any one time. The definition remains what it is until its changed. ....read it.

And before Hamas took control?......Remember when Israel had the Philadelphia corridor and completely isolated Gaza?

not very relevant today is it? Of course they have a different view, thats why they're trying to kill us daily. They might decide to stop and try something different, but its their call.

yes you did ignore Mubaraks independent role in closing gaza, since in fact they opened and closed it during different events over the years....you ignored that fact. BUT you did at least mention egypt (i actually confused you with the previous post, before you entered).

i'm not sure about your last question in terms of if israel is a democracy or dictatorship, i believe that is rather obvious.

[kayecy]

38. My point was that people understand Egypt was a dictatorship .......

yes you did ignore Mubarak's independent role in closing gaza, since in fact they opened and closed it during different events over the years....you ignored that fact. BUT you did at least mention egypt (i actually confused you with the previous post, before you entered)......i'm not sure about your last question in terms of if israel is a democracy or dictatorship, i believe that is rather obvious.

My point was that people understand Egypt was a dictatorship and that Mubarak chose to be 'persuaded' to close Rafah surprised no one.....However, most people think Israel is a western liberal democracy......EXCEPT when it comes to their communal punishment of Gaza civilians and the occupation.

Israelis frequently point to Arab dictatorships as if their disgusting treatment of civilians condones Israel's less disgusting treatment.

[pelsar]

40. egypt is also a sovereign independent country

that makes its own decisions in terms of foreign policy....

western democracies also have communal punishment...its a pretty standard foreign policy tool used by all govts in the intl relations. The only difference is how they apply them and when. It can be as subtle as a tax on certain items from a certain country to reduce their imports and consequently destroy an industry in a country or bombing them when they don't like the actions of the leader, as in Libya today

[kayecy]

42. Which other democracy destroys houses as a collective punishment?.....

...egypt is also a sovereign independent country that makes its own decisions in terms of foreign policy....

And those decisions are subject to bribary and pressure...........You are forgetting that a democracy, especially one claiming to be liberal, western and civilised is expected to live up to those standards......Nothing was expected of Mubarak.....Israel has no such excuse.

...western democracies also have communal punishment

Do you have any examples of other democracies creating so much communal misery on anything like the scale of Israel's Gaza blockade?.........Which other democracy destroys houses as a collective punishment?.

[pelsar]

43. know your history

Britan destroyed houses as communal punishment in Palestine pre 48 and in ireland

the US wiped out complete cities of innocent people in WWII, korea, vietnam, iraq,...drops bombs on wedding parties in Afghanistan.....blocked N.Vietnams ports
France war in algeria?...look it up.

i would say that the US has caused far more communal misery by wiping out cities than israel has even come close to.....
______

you can not agree with israeli policies, just dont go and try to claim that israel is the "worst of the worst"...its far from it. A basic check in history shows you that, but more interesting is that you don't know. If your going to make claims at least do the basic research to back yourself or don't make the claim- you look foolish and your credibility drops, since now i wonder what do you actually know?



i have no idea where your going with egypt and mubarak....it doesnt make a difference what kind of govt they are, they still made their own decisions based on their own needs as do all countries do. I guess they also dont agree to your "universal justice" (seems a lot of societies don't agree)

[kayecy]

45. Do read my posts be before jumping to your own interpretation of the meaning .....

....just dont go and try to claim that israel is the "worst of the worst"...its far from it. A basic check in history shows you that, but more interesting is that you don't know.

Do read my posts be before jumping to your own interpretation of the meaning (and being being gratuitously offensive)......I said "Which other democracy destroys houses as a collective punishment?."....You will note my use of the present tense......I haven't said that Israeli extremists murder civilians, but that claim would be equally valid if you are going to go back 60 years.....Now,can you address the question I put instead of the one you think I put?


Which other democracy destroys houses as a collective punishment?.....I'll accept a reasonable extended interpretation of the present tense, say in the 21st century?



If you know of cases of the US destroying Afghan houses as a collective punishment I would be interest to have your references...Even more so if it was official US Army policy.

[pelsar]

49. the 21st century...

why limit it to western democracies....i get from your other posts that you respect the values of other non western cultures....i'm the colonialist here, your not, hence going by your multicultural value system i should be able to include other cultures to compare....

why not?

(just for the record i'm undecided about house demolition as i've never come across any info to know if it serves to limit attacks or not).

[kayecy]

52. You really only want to answer the questions which you would like me to ask!.......

..why limit it to western democracies....i get from your other posts that you respect the values of other non western cultures...

I suspected it......You really only want to answer the questions which you would like me to ask!

Unfortunately, that is not the way civilized debate works.....Now, which posts of mine said I was anything other than disgusted with Hamas's or indeed any Muslim or illiberal culture?

(just for the record i'm undecided about house demolition as i've never come across any info to know if it serves to limit attacks or not).

Thank you for your implied admission that Israel is guilty of collective punishment.......What troubles me now is that in spite of your much vaunted claim to principles, you seem to think immoral acts are justified if they produce results.

In my moral code (supported I believe by the Geneva Convention) collective punishment of civilians is simply immoral and a war crime......It cannot be justified by claiming there is no other way of achieving the objective. (ie limiting attacks)

[pelsar]

53. collective punishment?...its standard

will you stop with the "Thank you for your implied admission" crap...just ask. Of course Israel is guilty of collective punishment...so too is the whole world. BDS? if they succeed it will hurt little 3 yr old moshe once the factory that his single mom works in gets closed, whats he going to eat?

i've been reading where unions want to boycott stores, industries that donated to walkers election campaign....sure, cause those stores to close, so that little 3yr old sammy is tossed out of his house because his parents can't pay the mortgage.

what do you think sanctions are on iran if not collective punishment?

a bomb that has "collateral damage" which is inevitable of a bomb is punishing the civilians in the area one way or another..
______________

war by definition is immoral....the question that armys face in the western world is how to balance the collective punishment with achieving the objective and protecting their own troops.
_________________

now you've confused me...as far as western vs other cultures....do you or do you not respect them?
(i'll get back to the previous after this is clarified)

[kayecy]

56. But I thought all Israeli wars were 'just wars'? ........

....will you stop with the "Thank you for your implied admission" crap...just ask

I will try an comply with your wishes, but I sometimes find it difficult to understand your statements.

Of course Israel is guilty of collective punishment...so too is the whole world. BDS? if they succeed it will hurt little 3 yr old moshe once the factory that his single mom works in gets closed, whats he going to eat?

Sorry, I do not understand what you are getting at with your references to BDS, 3 yr old moshe, etc.......On the question of Israeli collective punishment, how do you respond to Israel's latest action? ...."Israeli freeze on Palestinian taxes" - Haaretz 01-05-11

i've been reading where unions want to boycott stores, industries that donated to walkers election campaign....sure, cause those stores to close, so that little 3yr old sammy is tossed out of his house because his parents can't pay the mortgage.

And you are saying these actions compare with the Israeli blockade of Gaza? (Oh I forgot, I ought to have addressed the same question to the Egyptians!)

war by definition is immoral....

But I thought all Israeli wars were 'just wars'?
("...Second Lebanon War is in fact a war for the peace of the Galilee ... Israel's forceful response to the attack was morally just, ..YNETNEWS 11-07-2007.)

[pelsar]

57. sorry if i dont follow the PR line...

wars are immoral....thats why they are to be avoided when possible. Not a difficult concept. But when a war starts, over powering force, is the preferred method to end it as quickly as possible. (the second lebanon war was so full of PC crap, that it cost us too many soldiers lives).

Collective punishment is used by every society in the world, be it to boycott israel, or the local store that sell fur coats..and its especially used at the international level to force or influence countries. Israel is no different in using that tool.

as far as the tax issue is concerned....i dunno. I'm only interested if actions produce results and aren't being petty....this sounds like its more on the "petty side".
____

yes i know its difficult to understand some of my statements....i think i'm clear as day, but i've realized over the years, that i'm not. Hence feel free to ask two or three times if you don't get the answer your looking for.

[kayecy]

60. I can't really believe you think violence and domination are acceptable

....wars are immoral....thats why they are to be avoided when possible. Not a difficult concept.

You seem to be saying that wars are to be avoided, but they are inevitable for cultural changes?....cf "cultural changes (large scale) will inevitably have violence..."

The Japs, North Vietnamese and Serbs would no doubt have been pleased to hear your support for their excuses!

....yes i know its difficult to understand some of my statements....i think i'm clear as day, but i've realized over the years, that i'm not. Hence feel free to ask two or three times if you don't get the answer your looking for.

Thank you for your understanding.....I will take up your offer next time I am confused.....My above comment is probably unfair to you, but I do wonder how you can reconcile the various statements you have made.....I can't really believe you think violence and domination are acceptable ways of resolving territorial claims and culture differences.
.
.

[pelsar]

62. fantasy vs reality

WWI was a very good example of avoiding domination of germany since overwhelming force could not be used to stop them and make them surrender. The political maneuverings after that laid the ground work for WWII.

WWII was full of violence..... It took massive violence and then years of domination to change the german culture. So too with Japan.

so yes, violence and domination sometimes have to be used for those cultural changes.
__________

i believe there were a few govt changes from dictatorship to democracy in e.europe that had minimal violence, but i believe they were more the exception than the rule.

and syria and Lybia are the obvious examples of cultural changes being resisted with violence, Egypt, for all its protests isn't changing much, not with the army and the MB quietly making their moves. Iran took power with violence and resists cultural change with violence.

I believe violence is actually the standard for massive cultural change, do you have any examples of the opposite? And didnt you write you would have joined hamas to resist with violence cultural change in Palestine to social democracy that involved jewish domination? (even though the arab israelis now prefer it?)

[kayecy]

64. I'm afraid you still don't understand my principles......

...I believe violence is actually the standard for massive cultural change, do you have any examples of the opposite?

I'm afraid you still don't understand my principles......I may be disgusted with Hamas's violence etc and may even agree with you that the 1920s Palestinians were uncivilized, but I object to anyone using force simply to make them change their culture......They have a right to develop their own culture and values in the same way that the west developed its values over the last few hundred years.

Of course, if a large proportion of, say Afghan women banded together and asked the west for assistance to relieve their servitude, then I might be prepared to use force for that purpose. (Providing, of course, that the force itself didn't result in too much human suffering!)

And didnt you write you would have joined hamas to resist with violence cultural change in Palestine to social democracy that involved jewish domination?

Again, you amaze me......Of course I would fight to the death to avoid domination by any foreign culture..... Domination is anathema to me and judging by the frequent Arab riots, to most Palestinans...Israeli Arabs have a relatively high standard of living and almost political equality with Jews....However, the proof of the pudding will be if, heaven forbid, there is a major 'symmetrical' conflict between Palestinians and Israelis and Israeli Arabs are forced to chose which side to fight on.

[pelsar]

67. i think i got it....

western values, civil rights are not as important as the concept of "cultural independence'/ preservation..... no matter how cruel they are

to be blunt: you accept and defend:
the talibans culture of stoning women adulters
irans hanging homosexuals
saudi arabias beheading
Egyptians FGM tradition

etc etc etc

all in the name of non interference and avoiding foreign domination.......

[shira]

69. You got it alright.

He prefers that to Palestinians actually having the chance as far back as the 1920's to participate and actually be represented in the Jewish State's democracy.

[kayecy]

70. Now, can you tell me exactly where you disagree with my philosophy?.........

to be blunt: you accept and defend:
the talibans culture of stoning women adulters
irans hanging homosexuals
saudi arabias beheading
Egyptians FGM tradition

No, you haven't got it.......
1. I most certainly do NOT defend the Taliban etc etc
2. I accept that, short of war, there may be nothing western cultures can do to change the situation without causing even more suffering and loss of life.

Now, can you try to accept that there is nothing in my philosophy other than what I have written and tell me where you disagree with it?

For instance, do you believe that imposing a democracy on an undeveloped culture is worth any price in terms of suffering?....If not, where do you draw the line?......How do you know your interference will not, even with the best of intentions, cause massive suffering? (Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran?)

[shira]

72. Your philosophy fails b/c there was no such thing as a referendum...

...to see whether Palestinians (before Mufti rule) would have voted for a liberal, democratic Jewish state in which they could freely participate and control their own destiny.

The early Zionists legally arranged everything with those in charge (not the Mufti but moderate Arab/Muslim leadership).

Because the Mufti came into power and destroyed the moderate Palestinian peace camp, your view is that the early Zionists should have tried coming to terms with THAT leadership instead and that the Mufti's influence always represented Palestinian thought, even before he came to power.

I don't expect us to agree on anything, any more than I could ever come to agree with birthers, truthers, and bin Laden deathers.

[shira]

73. I'm still wondering why you have no problem with Hashemites dominating the Palestinians of Jordan

The keys to the kingdom were given to the Hashemites about the same time as Israel was decreed a Jewish state.

I don't see you protesting the complete disenfranchisement of the majority Palestinian population of Jordan to a totalitarian, fascist style monarchy.

[oberliner]

78. Is this discussion going anywhere?

Do you feel progress is being made?

[pelsar]

77. its the principle where we differ..

For instance, do you believe that imposing a democracy on an undeveloped culture is worth any price in terms of suffering?....If not, where do you draw the line?......How do you know your interference will not, even with the best of intentions, cause massive suffering? (Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran?)

the line is the willingness of a people/country to use their resources (foreign or otherwise) to implement a democracy..and we don't know where it will end, and its not always worth the risk.

Afghanistan to me is foolish venture, iraq less so, but the jury is still out yet....
_______________________________

a good example is the "arab spring"....egypt may very well fall in to the hands of the MB, that will not be good for the egyptians or the israelis, so does the west attempt to help out? If so how?...Libya is a poor attempt at helping, It was the wests meddling in gaza that i believe gave way for hamas to take power.

my impression is that to create a democracy, which is always a good thing, one has to invade, take control of the education system (dominate), be prepared to be there for several generations and only then will democratic values take hold.

thats how the US, Canada got theres, how germany, and japan got theres and how the arabs of palestine got theirs....and they made the wise choice of staying in their homes during the 48 war.

a note:
(the israeli occupation post 67 was not complete in that it left the education and judicial system of the westbank and gaza intact, while it kept their culture intact, it also kept democracy from developing)

[kayecy]

79. It is indeed the principle where we differ....

It is indeed the principle where we differ....Let’s see if we can summarize those principles

1 Collective punishment by destroying houses
You believe that if results can be achieved, it is acceptable to subject innocent civilians to collective punishment.

just for the record i'm undecided about house demolition as i've never come across any info to know if it serves to limit attacks or not...

I believe that collective punishment of innocent civilians is never acceptable. The Geneva Convention appears to agree with me.....
(Incidentally, Israel claims that it is not contravening the Convention because the territories do not constitute a state which is a party to the Fourth Geneva Convention......Israel’s claim is an interesting comment on its concept of western civilized values.)


2 The basic right of any culture/society to exist in peace.
You believe that those societies you deem to be non-western or non civil-rights based have no right to exist.

...i do not believe non western, non civil rights societies have a right to exist, let alone be defended.

I believe every society has a right to exist in peace with its neighbors and if necessary, defend itself against domination by a foreign culture...I believe this not only to be a self-evident right, but the only form of relationship between societies that can prevent bloodshed.
(I support the President Wilson’s 1918 declaration of fourteen principles for the preservation of peace including his demand that “....other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development

Incidentally, I supported the intrusion by British force into Sierra Leone in Sept 2000 as this was justified by many of the locals demanding that Britain should intervene to stop the limb-severing etc.... Britain also had no intention of staying their long-term.


3 The limits as to how much death and suffering can be cause by “civilizing” a society.
You believe that, to force a change in culture on an “uncivilized” society, almost any force is justified and for an indefinite period of time, only limited by the willingness of an invading culture to use its resources,

..the line is the willingness of a people/country to use their resources (foreign or otherwise) to implement a democracy..and we don't know where it will end, and its not always worth the risk.

I believe that no foreign culture has the right to use violence simply to force another culture to change its values.....


4 Estimation of the death and suffering resulting from the Zionist invasion of Palestine
You believe that the Zionist colonization of Palestine reduced the suffering of the locals and the deaths resulting from the subsequent Zionist/Israeli wars, intifadas etc would have taken place even if the Zionists had stayed away from Palestine......

I believe that to be patently nonsense.


5 Alternative ways of encouraging an “uncivilized” society to reform itself
You believe one has to invade that society (if necessary, by using extreme violence)

...to create a democracy, which is always a good thing, one has to invade, take control of the education system (dominate), be prepared to be there for several generations and only then will democratic values take hold.

I believe that all societies will, with encouragement and inducements, develop themselves....The Arab Spring may be a quantum jump in that direction, many African societies are a long way down the road of introducing a western-style democracy and even Russia is starting on that journey - all without an invasion by a western democracy.....


Now, to answer your final question:

...would you have been against the US and others occupying germany and japan, post WWII and essentially changing their culture to a more pacifistic one..

Not a very good example to justify Zionist ‘civilization’ of Palestine is it?......Germany and Japan attacked the allies and went on to dominate most of Europe and the Far East.......Palestinians threatened no one.

The allies were left with little alternative but to occupy German/Japan..... Permanent removal of the threat to world peace required the Germany/Japanese culture be changed away from militarism....If a culture change was to be made, obviously the allies favored a system like their own......Palestinians were never a threat to any other nationality.
.
.

[pelsar]

80. close but one aspect is still not clear

Incidentally, I supported the intrusion by British force into Sierra Leone in Sept 2000 as this was justified by many of the locals demanding that Britain should intervene to stop the limb-severing etc.... Britain also had no intention of staying their long-term.

so you do infact support at times what was once known as the "white mans burden" as the brits modified the local culture and states structure. (there was no referendum to decide if the majority of the population agreed, the brits just "did it."

and if Sierra Leone why not Libya, Syria, Iran, ....where are you drawing the line of foreign interference to modify a local culture?
____

On the other hand....
you seem to believe societies like the taliban, saudi arabia, iran all have a right to exist and be left alone and develop as they see fit as per Wilson’s declaration....so with that same principle you accept the violence that they put on their own people as "cultural" and to be respected and not interfered with?

___
and the WWII example of foreign interference was acceptable because of quantity of suffering the germans and japanese caused
________________

i sense a few contradictions. You seem to believe the foreign interference is acceptable on certain conditions..... (as per the examples above) but its perfectly ok to "wack your own people" as long as its within the your own borders (sometimes.....)
____

one last thing:
I believe that all societies will, with encouragement and inducements, develop themselves....The Arab Spring may be a quantum jump in that direction, many African societies are a long way down the road of introducing a western-style democracy and even Russia is starting on that journey - all without an invasion by a western democracy....

the "arab spring" has yet to blossom....your use of the word "may be" is most appropriate since it may in fact be a quantum leap backward as well...

btw any successful examples?..established stable western democracies without violence (I'm not saying it cant be done, i'm just wondering what are the percentages of it happening and not going the direction of hamas and iran? or asking for UN/western help to use their weapons to limit the violence?)

[kayecy]

82. I wonder why you keep accusing me of 'respecting' nasty cultures?.....

..so you do infact support at times what was once known as the "white mans burden" as the brits modified the local culture and states structure. (there was no referendum to decide if the majority of the population agreed, the brits just "did it."and if Sierra Leone why not Libya, Syria, Iran, ....where are you drawing the line of foreign interference to modify a local culture?

Where am I drawing the line?.....For me it is whether a substantial proportion of the locals request such intervention.....If you look back you will see that I said that if, say a substantial number of Afghan women asked the west to intervene to end their servitude, I would probably be prepared to do so, even if it was necessary to use force (providing I was satisfied that this would only result in minimum suffering of the locals).......Of course, any Zionist-type intervention designed to create a permanent foreign majority in the land would be out of the question.....I am sorry I cannot give you a cast iron line, it is but pretty clear nevertheless.

On the other hand....you seem to believe societies like the taliban, saudi arabia, iran all have a right to exist and be left alone and develop as they see fit as per Wilson’s declaration....so with that same principle you accept the violence that they put on their own people as "cultural" and to be respected and not interfered with?

I wonder why you keep accusing me of 'respecting' nasty cultures?.....Since you seem to have difficulty understanding me, let me try once again to clarify my position:
1. I am disgusted by many illiberal, Muslim cultures...I have no respect for them.
2. I do respect the right of all societies, as provided by international law, to exist in peace without suffering invasion and colonization by another culture.
3. I believe that all societies will, with encouragement and inducements, develop themselves....Any violence that they put on their own should be condemned.....However, history has shown that Zionist-style interventions to force culture change can result in much more suffering of the locals than if they had been left alone.

i sense a few contradictions. You seem to believe the foreign interference is acceptable on certain conditions..... (as per the examples above) but its perfectly ok to "wack your own people" as long as its within the your own borders (sometimes.....)

Where is the contradiction?.....Yes foreign interference is acceptable on certain conditions....No, it is not ok to 'wack your own people.....You do not seem to understand that there is a world of difference between saying some thing is not ok and instituting foreign intervention.....There is an even bigger difference if you are contemplating a permanent, colonial-style intervention.

the "arab spring" has yet to blossom....your use of the word "may be" is most appropriate since it may in fact be a quantum leap backward as well...

True, but let us hope for the best.......At least you will admit that the Arab Spring success or failure is unlikely to lead to a 100 years of regional conflict.

btw any successful examples?..established stable western democracies without violence (I'm not saying it cant be done, i'm just wondering what are the percentages of it happening and not going the direction of hamas and iran? or asking for UN/western help to use their weapons to limit the violence?)

Let me see..... The 1986 People Power Revolution, in the Philippines?.......The Revolutions of 1989 that ousted communist dictatorships in the Eastern Bloc?.....The Orange revolution in the Ukrain?.....These democratic revolutions were mainly non-violent and self-generated with no significant foreign intervention.


Let me turn your question round...Zionist-style interference in Palestine has resulted in a 100 years of regional conflict with no end in sight.....Can you supply examples of similar colonial-style interference (say in the last couple of hundred years) that have resulted in the emergence of western-style democracies?
.
.

[shira]

83. Mideast regimes will not become liberal democracies on their own anytime soon

That would be capitulating to Zionist pressure and siding with the Zionist enemy.

The few liberal Arabs who exist in the mideast (who fear voicing their opinions) would be branded as Zionists, or worse, Jews - and either imprisoned or killed for their views.

Dictators in the mideast have absolutely nothing in common with western liberals/progressives other than forming common alliances with fringe leftists and rights who share a common enemy living in Zion.

[pelsar]

84. the confusion is

I do respect the right of all societies, as provided by international law, to exist in peace without suffering invasion and colonization by another culture.
i dont get that...iran, saudi arabia are all lawful countries...the tabliban are considered lawful..yet these are the worst of the worst of cultures that i can image, yet they are lawful and though you don't agree with their cultural traits, you do believe they should be protected by intl law.

in case you missed it, they have developed, just not in the direction that you prefer......and they are attempting to spread their development beyond their own borders to other societies and those lead to various levels of war be it local civil wars or low level intl war....and they are protected by your intl law. Whereas i don't believe invading them as per the german and japan models are possible today, calling them legal countries/societies is absurd, protecting their anti civil right societies with the law is inviting conflict and war. (they as are you, are interested in expanding their version of a rightful society).

_____

Where am I drawing the line?.....For me it is whether a substantial proportion of the locals request such intervention
so the iranians, syrians that begged the US wasn't enough, were the Libyans enough, bosnians?....how about some concrete examples of where you would interfere, there are more than enough examples today......

btw which of the people in sierra leone actually asked for help or did the brits do it on their own?.....
________

Yes foreign interference is acceptable on certain conditions....No, it is not ok to 'wack your own people.....You do not seem to understand that there is a world of difference between saying some thing is not ok and instituting foreign intervention.....There is an even bigger difference if you are contemplating a permanent, colonial-style intervention
i infact agree....there is a world of difference between saying something is "not ok" (note how syria is really worried about being told it "not ok to wack their people) and doing something about it and meaning it.

it takes a lot more to do something about it and a huge amount to revise a society. Few will actually do it as its extremely difficult.

the arab spring, though i hope for the best, can easily lead to 100yrs of conflict.... Just imagine the muslim brotherhood controlling egypt, hooking up with iran, hizballa and hamas The regional middle east frictions/conflicts that started more than a 100 years ago continue and have nothing to do with israel. If they create democracies only then will things change for the better. Democracies fighting each other are rare vs dictatorships fighting democracies or other dictatorships being far more common. The solution is more democracies and protecting those that exist, not protecting dictatorships.


_________________

Can you supply examples of similar colonial-style interference (say in the last couple of hundred years) that have resulted in the emergence of western-style democracies?
no, out side of israel, nor do i believe will there be. Those that "move in" have to be willing to go to war to make that new society. I don't believe that that kind of willingness/need exists today in the west. (people were willing to cross oceans, to escape tyranny and to make a new society where non existed).


and your examples are correct in that some revolutions to democracy had minimal violence others were extremely violent and still others failed completely to produce anything near a democracy. (iran)

the conclusion is that its pretty specific to each case and all are gambles. Some like mubarak will go quietly with western pressure,, others like syria will kill their own and the west won't touch him (that you probably agree with), same with iran, whereas libya gets bombed which probably only extends the war and bosnia gets bombed which had results.

....sometimes you do agree to western interference in foreign cultures....your criteria is just a bit vague (which i have no problem with given the complexity)

skipping over the us zionists, you won't find an example like us...a people tossed out of their land, demonized by the world at various stages, living as second class citizens, blood libels that dont go away, quotas on immigration world wide and finally industrial genocide....and then given the chance actually developing a social democracy where non existed. And of course the irony is that the locals that stayed put are glad they did, as they prefer the democracy that the jews developed, to the other options that were and are available in the region.

that is in essence where your argument fails in my eyes. the israeli arabs PREFER israel to the other options, they prefer to live in the freedom that israel offers them. Some Arab Israelis are now joining the IDF.....

its seems ridiculous to help promote and develop a society (Palestinian) that actually rejects democracy and is intentionally vague on whether or not it is willing to live in peace with israel or make a new war....is that the western interference that you agree with?
_______________

The Palestinians ironically who have very good knowledge of western democracy have been going backwards and losing their rights ever since oslo. Abbas is no longer the elected leader but continues to lead, hamas a theocratic fanatical group now controls gaza....democracy, is no longer on the horizon for the Palestinians....Thats a result of the lack of western pressure and commitment and interference by the west. The west might have been able to produce a western democracy out of the Palestinian society. Such a society would have ended the conflict over night.... (no guarantees but the chances would have gone up).

but as i understand it, you would have been against such interference...even if it did produce a stable democratic society......

[kayecy]

85. Yes, and so does the first article of the UN Charter:..........

..i dont get that...iran, saudi arabia are all lawful countries...the tabliban are considered lawful..yet these are the worst of the worst of cultures that i can image, yet they are lawful and though you don't agree with their cultural traits, you do believe they should be protected by intl law.

Yes, and so does the first article of the UN Charter:

1.To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2.To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.

..so the iranians, syrians that begged the US wasn't enough, were the Libyans enough, bosnians?....

I haven't studied all your examples but I don't think I would object to the US intervening........Did anyone beg the Zionists to intervene in Palestine?

..it takes a lot more to do something about it and a huge amount to revise a society. Few will actually do it as its extremely difficult

But in spite of all those difficulties, the stalwart early Zionists felt duty-bound to save the poor 'uncivilized' Palestinians from their fate........How altruistic and magnanimous of those Zionists!.....

..The regional middle east frictions/conflicts that started more than a 100 years ago continue and have nothing to do with israel.

Excluding Israel's six wars, two intfadas and Cast Lead of course!

..no, out side of israel, nor do i believe will there be. Those that "move in" have to be willing to go to war to make that new society

So there we have it...Your previous claim "my impression is that to create a democracy, which is always a good thing, one has to invade, take control of the education system (dominate), be prepared to be there for several generations and only then will democratic values take hold." is based on only one example....the Zionist paradigm......That this lead to a 100 year conflict seems to leave you not only unmoved, but convinced of its righteousness!

......sometimes you do agree to western interference in foreign cultures....your criteria is just a bit vague (which i have no problem with given the complexity)

Yes, but nothing, absolutely nothing can justify a Zionist-style intervention....You have not even attempted to show that the Zionist intervention reduced regional suffering.

......that is in essence where your argument fails in my eyes. the israeli arabs PREFER israel to the other options, they prefer to live in the freedom that israel offers them. Some Arab Israelis are now joining the IDF.....

Some Israeli Arabs prefer minority status in Israel, some not......There are presently some 1.6 million Israeli Arabs and some 4.1 million East Jerusalem/Westbank/Gaza Arabs, giving a total of about 5.7 million.....Have you any evidence that your great Zionist enterprise has convinced a majority that it is better to live in a Jewish state than any other option?.......If Zionists really believed their enterprise was to civilize the locals, they would have offered equality-before-the-law and universal suffrage to everyone west of the Jordan......Did they ever do that?

......its seems ridiculous to help promote and develop a society (Palestinian) that actually rejects democracy and is intentionally vague on whether or not it is willing to live in peace with israel or make a new war....is that the western interference that you agree with?

I would not dream of promoting a Palestinian Muslim society, nor of encouraging western interference.....Zionists have already caused them enough misery and suffering........Of course, if a majority of Palestinians asked the west to recognize a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, to pressurize Israel into ending its occupation and to remove its settlers then interference could be justified.....

......democracy, is no longer on the horizon for the Palestinians....Thats a result of the lack of western pressure and commitment and interference by the west.

And again, we must disagree.....Democracy has receded for the Palestinians because of the corroding effects of Israeli occupation and the indifference of the west to Israeli arrogance.

......The west might have been able to produce a western democracy out of the Palestinian society.

Western interference started this conflict.......Had Balfour never made his declaration, the region would probably not yet be democratic but many wars, death and destruction would have been avoided.
.
.

[pelsar]

86. you miss the whole point of the zionism...

it was not to help the Palestinians, it was not to create world peace, it was nothing of the sort.....just as the american immigrants did not go to "help the indians" etc. The zionist went to israel to save their own skins, to stop being dominated by other cultures and living as second class citizens.

the fact that zionism included social democratic values is what gave it its validation to enter an area that was not yet a country and develop one. Its inhabitants seem to agree.

----
.Have you any evidence that your great Zionist enterprise has convinced a majority that it is better to live in a Jewish state than any other option?

yes....(is that a serious question?)
Israeli Arab weekly Kul Al-Arab polled the Arabs of Um al Fahm to ask what they thought of their city joining a Palestinian State. Only 11% were in favour; 83% said they preferred to remain Israeli
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Lieberman_Plan

the city Um al Fahm was considered the most "anti israeli" city amongst the arab cities
___

and you use the wrong word "convinced" the zionists didn't have to convince the arabs of anything...the ones who stayed simple prefer living in a stable democracy and modifying their culture to live there. (duh)

no more proof is needed, than the lack of uprising in israel or even talk of it during the "arab spring."

the arabs tried in 48 to keep israel from forming, they lost....those who stayed apparently made the right decision, modified their culture to fit and now live in freedom...(and it appears are the envy of the arabs in egypt, syrian iran, jordan, etc as they all attempt to get what israeli arabs now have.)

those that left their homes (various reasons), became refugees, unlike the millions of other refugees of that same decade for political reasons were not allowed to resettle and continue with their lives.

and that should have been the end of the violence as it was in europe...except that the regional countries and friends just couldn't accept that new country in their midst...and that is the core reason why the violence has been continuing. (i'm ignoring the "tit for tat" that exists today an other political complexities that have resulted)


_____
and a few notes......in reference to your comments
your wrong here:
.Democracy has receded for the Palestinians because of the corroding effects of Israeli occupation and the indifference of the west to Israeli arrogance.

an interesting report: Post Oslo and done all on their own...i.e. israel has nothing to do with their removing rights.....
"The Palestinian Authority–administered territories’ political rights rating declined from 5 to 6 due to the expiration of President Mahmoud Abbas’s four-year term in January 2009, the ongoing lack of a functioning elected legislature, and an edict allowing the removal of elected municipal governments in the West Bank......

Hamas has significantly restricted freedoms of assembly and association in Gaza"


http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2010&country=7964

The PA and hamas have their own culture, make their own decisions....i thought you were for respecting their culture and non interference?....

and how about respecting israeli arabs/bedouin, druze for their own decisions in deciding that they prefer living within israeli culture than the other alternatives?

you dont seem to respect decisions of others that disagree with you...

________________________

i didn't ask if the UN protects facist dictatorships...i asked you why you believe their are lawful and should be protected
_______________________
my impression is that to create a democracy, which is always a good thing, one has to invade, take control of the education system (dominate), be prepared to be there for several generations and only then will democratic values take hold." is based on only one example

the obvious examples (and they are so obvious i'm almost embarrassed to write them). is the americans in the 1700's. and germany and japan post WWII. Whether a country/people/society is willing to do that today, i believe the answer is no for a multitude of reasons, but it doesnt invalidate the fact that it does work. (and other "solutions" are more risky as in the arab spring today/europe's versions)

[kayecy]

87. We all know why the Zionists invaded Palestine....

The zionist went to israel to save their own skins, to stop being dominated by other cultures and living as second class citizens.

We all know why the Zionists invaded Palestine.... What I am looking for is evidence that this invasion, was not illegal and immoral...It certainly resulted in untold death and suffering for the locals in the region.

Are you claiming that dominating the locals, and forcing second class citizenship on them was an ethical way to solve the Jewish problem of being dominated and living as a second class citizen?

My Question: “There are presently some 1.6 million Israeli Arabs and some 4.1 million East Jerusalem/Westbank/Gaza Arabs, giving a total of about 5.7 million.....Have you any evidence that your great Zionist enterprise has convinced a majority that it is better to live in a Jewish state than any other option”.
Your Answer:....yes....(is that a serious question?)

If you had bothered to read the whole of my question you would have seen I was referring to the whole 5.7 million Palestinian population....Why do you think that the results of the July, 2000, Um Al-Fahm poll indicate that a majority of the Palestinian population would prefer to live under Israeli jurisdiction?

The actual results of that poll are, however, quite interesting...Whilst it is clear that a majority of those polled wished to continue under Israeli jurisdiction, is this surprising considering that the alternative was Arafat’s corrupt jurisdiction?......Also, you will note that only 18% of the respondents were satisfied with their situation under Israeli rule.....Not much of a support there for your claim that "..the israeli arabs PREFER israel to the other options."

The Um Al-Fahm poll was 11 years ago in Arafat's time, have you a more recent survey?

....and how about respecting israeli arabs/bedouin, druze for their own decisions in deciding that they prefer living within israeli culture than the other alternatives?
....you dont seem to respect decisions of others that disagree with you.

Not true.......Please don't make false accusations.... I believe everyone has the right to make their own decisions......You, on the contrary think that any culture not meeting your standards has no right to exist.

....Whether a country/people/society is willing to do that today, i believe the answer is no for a multitude of reasons, but it doesnt invalidate the fact that it does work.

But it doesn't work, does it?.......The only example of permanent colonial occupation you can find is the Zionist invasion of Palestine....I am still waiting for you to show me how this invasion resulted in less death and destruction than if the Zionists had stayed out.
.

.

[pelsar]

89. your asking if its legal and moral?

Intl law as its stands in the past and today is political and cultural based with multiple standards....i give it little credit....it didn't and wouldn't have stopped anti jew pogroms, the holocaust, the anti jews laws, anti jew blood libels, jew quotas etc...hence to us israeli jews it doesnt mean a whole lot.

morally? finally after 2000 odd years the most demonized group in the world goes to a region with no country, develops a social democracy, that includes the present residents, of the region...and your wondering if that was moral?

the fact that your even asking such a question is precisely why we did it.....dont bother asking again, your question is why i came to live here and why I continue to serve.
______

your also confusing freedom with "suffering and death"..i get the impression that you don't realize the people are willing to suffer and die in order to live free. That was the essence of the US immigration of zionism and what some of the Palestinians are fighting for, what some of the syrians are etc. even when it means suffering and dying. You should get with the program and get a better understanding of whats really important to people-freedom.


Short history lesson:
Democracies dont promised less suffering in the short run, they do in the long run. When democracies are surrounded by or next to dictatorships, wars and suffering may follow. The chances are reduced when there are more democracies. Hence the wars and suffering will be reduced when jordan, egypt, syria etc become democratic...in the meantime little will change. Dictatorships on the other hand only promise instability, suffering, no freedom with no chance of real improvement until they are removed....thats why people prefer democracies.
______

in your "figures" about the Palestinians you include the arabs living under the PA and hamas dictatorship/occupation-since they presently involved in a low level war with israel, they are not part of the equation.

------

this is patently false:
I believe everyone has the right to make their own decisions
your for intl law, which is western value based, your for western invasions (sierra leone) given certain conditions...i.e. your not letting every individual make their own decision...how about the occupation of japan and germany, i believe you were also pro that as well....

but given that you believe that everyone should make their own decision...what about E.Jerusalem/environs residents?
seems more prefer israeli citizenship over Palestinian...so should e jerusalem stay in israel if that is what the majority of its residents want? and will you back them up..Publicly?
http://pechterpolls.com/?p=317 Poll taken Jan 12 2011

will you even answer this one?...it seems to me any way you answer your going to have to break a taboo...(what the majority may want- to live in a zionist controlled country vs PA Nationalism)

how about 2010?
http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/2010/December11/1124.html
58% of Israeli-Arabs are against the annexation of Arab cities to a future Palestinian state
again despite their multiple identities, they still prefer to live in israel.

how about 2009
64% israeli arabs do not want to have their homes transferred to the "new Palestinians state"
Christians are 79% opposed
Druze 84% opposed
http://www.brookings.edu/events/2009/1001_israel_arab_opinion.aspx (download the ppt on the right side)
again you will note many disagreements with israel..but that is the essence of democracies, the freedom to disagree.
_______________


so...since you're clear that people should get to decide, i guess its pretty clear, that despite the problems arab, muslim, druze, christians have with israeli rule, they still prefer it to any future Palestinian State.

so, i guess with this new knowledge, even if israel is an illegal immoral state, most of it citizens want to live in it.....you're going to go against their opinion?


_____

you missed this:
i didn't ask if the UN protects facist dictatorships...i asked you why you believe their are lawful and should be protected
________

[kayecy]

93. Now we are getting to the crux of the matter........

Now we are getting to the crux of the matter.

Intl law as its stands in the past and today is political and cultural based with multiple standards....i give it little credit....it didn't and wouldn't have stopped anti jew pogroms, the holocaust, the anti jews laws, anti jew blood libels, jew quotas etc...hence to us israeli jews it doesnt mean a whole lot.

In other words, you don’t accept that states and peoples should conform to a rule-based system.........There were no rules before the 1920s and the result was anarchy...The strongest people did what they wanted....European and Colonial wars flourished......192 states have since decided that it is safer to have a rule-based system, imperfect though it may be.

You dismiss international law as irrelevant and not applicable to Israel....I have no objection with Israel staying outside international law but it can’t have it both ways.......It has voluntarily become a member of the UN and does not hesitate to use it whenever convenient.....For you now to claim that “..to us Israeli Jews it does not mean a lot.” is disingenuous to say the least.

....morally? finally after 2000 odd years the most demonized group in the world goes to a region with no country, develops a social democracy, that includes the present residents, of the region...and your wondering if that was moral?

Yes, I am asking you to provide evidence of the morality of Zionism.....Is the Zionist moral code so selfish that it is indifferent to the suffering of non-Jews?.... In the Zionist moral code, does a family that has had its jewels stolen by a thief have the right to go and steal similar jewels from a neighbor?

Zionism stole the Palestinian right of self-determination....Zionism, as a permanent form of colonialism, was and is simply immoral.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Now to rebut some of the misunderstandings and false accusations you made in your previous message:

.....the fact that your even asking such a question is precisely why we did it.....dont bother asking again, your question is why i came to live here and why I continue to serve.

I was wondering if you could resist the temptation to accuse me of anti-semitism......What, in my question (or in any of my previous posts) has reduced you to making such a baseless accusation?

.....your also confusing freedom with "suffering and death"..i get the impression that you don't realize the people are willing to suffer and die in order to live free

Why don’t you try getting the right impression for a change?....Nothing, but nothing is more dear to me that my freedom.....I told you before, if the Zionists had immigrated to my land bent on dominating me and imposing their culture on mine, I would have fought them to the death.

.....Democracies dont promised less suffering in the short run, they do in the long run. When democracies are surrounded by or next to dictatorships, wars and suffering may follow.

So, in the short term (I like your idea of ‘short run’....a 100 year conflict with no resolution in sight!) death and suffering are inevitable because Israel is located next to dictatorships.........I agree with you.......If the Zionists had not gone to Palestine, even your ‘short run’ deaths, suffering and wars would have been avoided.

.....seems more prefer israeli citizenship over Palestinian...so should e jerusalem stay in israel if that is what the majority of its residents want? and will you back them up..Publicly?.. ?...it seems to me any way you answer your going to have to break a taboo.

How little you understand my principles.....Break a taboo?......Don’t make me laugh..... I see no reason why east Jerusalem residents should not be allowed to take up whatever nationality they want.... However, the question of whether the East Jerusalem territory should be in Israel or the putative state of Palestine is a political matter.....History has shown that disputes over land have been the cause of many wars and it is best to try and avoid such border changes in the interests of world peace.

.....how about 2010?
58% of Israeli-Arabs are against the annexation of Arab cities to a future Palestinian state
again despite their multiple identities, they still prefer to live in israel.

True, but being a democrat, I am sure you would expect the majority opinion to prevail.....Do you have evidence that a majority of the 5.7 million Palestinians would object to living in the state of Palestine?....

.....you missed this:
i didn't ask if the UN protects facist dictatorships...i asked you why you believe their are lawful and should be protected

No, I did not miss it........I thought it was just another case of you not reading my answers.
Your original question was “... yet they are lawful and though you don't agree with their cultural traits, you do believe they should be protected by intl law.”
I replied “Yes”........And I then quoted the UN Charter to show that the UN agreed with me......What more do you want me to say?
.
.

[pelsar]

94. sorry for the slow response....

In other words, you don’t accept that states and peoples should conform to a rule-based system
___

i do accept its basic rule based system (the principle), its does have some relevancy…but its imperfections in regard to israel are so absurd that it credibility in many israelis eyes, mine included is very low. One may like to the israeli/egyptian peace treaty. It has its uses but its not living up to its original intentions or potential.

----
Yes, I am asking you to provide evidence of the morality of Zionism.
Its rather self evident to the citizens of israel, the illegal immigrants from sudan that keep on coming, the arab israelis who stayed. The homosexuals/transexuals who live openly, with country wide health care, etc etc etc.
and of course the jews who finally live in a feeling of security.

few countries in the world exist as a social democracy and that by definition is moral.
----
Zionism stole the Palestinian right of self-determination
------
actually Zionism defined it. Realistically, if the jews had lost in 48, egypt, syria, lebanon and jordan would have divided up the land and there would have been no "Palestenians" (as it was in the westbank when Jordan controlled it). The Palestenians simply keep making the wrong decisions in their attempt at getting a state-killing israelis isn't working out very well, and never has. They may have the right to self determination, but getting there will take more intelligent decisions
http://palestinenote.com/blogs/blogs/archive/2011/05/10/israel-vs-palestine-them-and-us.aspx


I was wondering if you could resist the temptation to accuse me of anti-semitism
------
i'm not accusing you of anti-semitism, never crossed my mind. You just don't understand our mindset. The fact that your calling zionism immoral makes that pretty clear to me.

If the Zionists had not gone to Palestine, even your ‘short run’ deaths, suffering and wars would have been avoided.
----
probably, dictatorships see democracies as a threat, and obviously a jewish democracy within the arab region is even more so. (spare me the story that the arab states were fighting for the Palestenians). Freedom can be costly, but its always worth it... even arab israelis, as some join the IDF realize thats it worth the price.

____

I see no reason why east Jerusalem residents should not be allowed to take up whatever nationality they want.... However, the question of whether the East Jerusalem territory should be in Israel or the putative state of Palestine is a political matter.....History has shown that disputes over land have been the cause of many wars and it is best to try and avoid such border changes in the interests of world peace.

so lets be clear, in the interests of "world peace" you believe that the residents of E. Jerusalem against their will, should be force to live as residents of Palestine and not per their choice in israel.

hmmm….what happened to the majority opinion?
----
True, but being a democrat, I am sure you would expect the majority opinion to prevail.....Do you have evidence that a majority of the 5.7 million Palestinians would object to living in the state of Palestine?....

don't be coy, the Palestenians in the westbank are not citizens, nor will they be, and hopefully they will get their own state…. As you pointed out, the majority opinion does not always prevail when it comes to other interests….

-----
yet they are lawful and though you don't agree with their cultural traits, you do believe they should be protected by intl law.”
I replied “Yes”.....
--

and your questioning if zionism is moral? China murders millions, Russian murders freely in Chechniya with real carpet bombing and napalm
Syria in past and present murders its own using tanks, Egypt gasses the Palestinians, Morocco occupies western sahara and builds settlements and doesn't even bother with democracy…..etc etc etc and your defending those countries and cultures as "legal" to be defended and question zionism, that created a social democratic country where none existed and question its morality?

...so in your eyes, its moral to protect the govts of syria, Libya, China, Moroccan, Iran, despite their actions.... but not israel.

[kayecy]

97. The refuge of every scoundrel.......”I accept the law except when the law doesn’t suit me!”.....

...i do accept its basic rule based system (the principle), its does have some relevancy…but its imperfections in regard to israel are so absurd that it credibility in many israelis eyes, mine included is very low.

Ahhhhh..The refuge of every scoundrel.......”I accept the law except when the law doesn’t suit me!”.......That is the same argument used by every commissar and corrupt official since time began.

If you disagree with a law passed by the Knesset, do you think that you (or any other citizen) should be free to disregard it if you consider its ‘imperfections are so absurd?’

Its rather self evident to the citizens of israel, the illegal immigrants from sudan that keep on coming, the arab israelis who stayed. The homosexuals/transexuals who live openly, with country wide health care, etc etc etc.

Morality applies to your treatment of members of other cultures.......The fact that a family or culture looks after its own does not make it moral.......The way it interacts with outsiders is the true measure or morality.

You have not answered my question..... “In the Zionist moral code, does a family that has had its jewels stolen by a thief have the right to go and steal similar jewels from a neighbor?”

few countries in the world exist as a social democracy and that by definition is moral.

Social democracy is merely a political ideology.....It may very well be applied in such a way as to be ethical and moral....Let’s see how the Zionists applied it:

For all the reasons you have given the Zionists were desperate to have their own state....They decided that Palestine, with its ancient connection to Judaism was worth all the danger, and hard-work that creating a homeland would incur....They also accepted that they would have to dominate the locals before they could create a “social democracy”.....Was that moral?.....In the Zionist moral code, does the end justify the means?.......


If the early Zionists were truly moral, they would have accepted that colonialism was not ethical under any circumstances and resolved to seek their homeland elsewhere.....Many in fact emigrated to the US.......Do the Jews in the US not have total equality?....Are they discriminated against when it comes to welcoming new immigrants of their culture?

Even the modern ‘Jewish’ state of Israel is a state that discriminates against some of its citizens as part of its legal structure....How can you claim such a state is moral?

....if the jews had lost in 48, egypt, syria, lebanon and jordan would have divided up the land and there would have been no "Palestinians" (as it was in the westbank when Jordan controlled it.

There may have been no Palestine state but the Zionists too, never intended any Palestinians should have self determination or that there should be a Palestine state.....Zionism claims to be a liberal democracy and moral movement, and yet it too dominated the indigenous people and divided up their land.........At least the Arab states involved made no claim to be “liberal democracies” or to behave in a moral way to others....You seem to have no idea what true freedom is....True freedom is the ability for a people to decide their own development path and not to be compulsorily ‘saved’ by some arrogant colonial power.

i'm not accusing you of anti-semitism, never crossed my mind.

Thank you for that assurance.

You just don't understand our mindset. The fact that your calling zionism immoral makes that pretty clear to me.

That is exactly why I am pursuing our little debate....I am trying to understand your ‘mindset’....In many ways Israelis are no different to other citizens of liberal western democracies except that they are citizens of a state that came about from an immoral invasion that disenfranchised the locals.....Their state has attacked its neighbours ( with varying degrees of justification) and after 100 years is still in a state of conflict and occupation.

If I were an Israeli, I would be asking myself why so many Palestinians hated me.......Why they were prepared to wage asymmetric war on me at so a high cost to themselves.....Why they were prepared to riot and fire useless but dangerous rockets across the border......I would be asking myself if perhaps Zionism was rather more responsible for this conflict than generally accepted by Israelis.

My Question: - If the Zionists had not gone to Palestine, even your ‘short run’ deaths, suffering and wars would have been avoided.
Your Answer: - probably

Thank you for that admission

..so lets be clear, in the interests of "world peace" you believe that the residents of E. Jerusalem against their will, should be force to live as residents of Palestine and not per their choice in israel.
hmmm….what happened to the majority opinion?

First of all, who do you mean by E Jerusalem residents?...The pechter poll you sited gave the following results:
10% Definitely Preferred to become citizens of Israel
29% Probably preferred to become citizens of Israel
30% Don’t know.

So which residents are we talking about?....The 39% Definites and probables?....Is that what you call majority opinion?

Secondly, are you suggesting that any village or locality in Israel, where a majority of residents wanted to become part of a Palestine state should be allowed to do so?....Where do you draw the line?.

i just came across a harvard study that puts over 70% of the arab israeli citizens preferring to live in israel more than any other country in the world.... (page 3 of the pdf)....

Many people prefer to stay where they are, stay in the same locality, even the same house....Is it surprising that 70% of Arab Israelis prefer to stay where they are?

..since israel is a country based on zionism, something you have called immoral...and yet the majority of the arab citizens of israel, those that you believe had their self determination 'taken away"...obviously disagree with you, are they too immoral for preferring the live in such an immoral country?

Why do you say "obviously disagree with me"....What evidence have you that even Arab-Israelis think Zionism was a moral enterprise?...Were all Germans immoral for continuing to live in an immoral Nazi state?
.
.

[pelsar]

98. You basic question is zionism moral….

to begin with there is no definitive limit test for morality…its a very gray area. just as in your "majority rules, except when majority may not rule…(residents of Jerusalem may have to live under Palestinians rule against their will)

they also accepted that they would have to dominate the locals before they could create a “social democracy”.....Was that moral?

Zionism claims to be a liberal democracy and moral movement, and yet it too dominated the indigenous people and divided up their land


In many ways Israelis are no different to other citizens of liberal western democracies except that they are citizens of a state that came about from an immoral invasion that disenfranchised the locals.
------------

Actually most western democracies were built on invasion and disenfranchisement of either the locals or other minorities, this includes the newer democracies in eastern europe as well. (minority problems are simply a part of all societies-and they simply don't get what they want).


in that respect zionism is neither more, or less moral than the US, Austrialia, Canada, etc . And as we see now, with israeli arabs joining the IDF, the few protests against israel by israeli arabs during naqba day, they are embracing the social democracy that is israel. Just as american indians did and some still don't.

whereas they may be some differences in the last 200 years, in terms of morality, its not worldwide (ask the taliban, iranians, hamas, or the US, europe as they attempt "nation building" (the white mans burden") in iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or via more subtle methods via the UN.-they are all blowing up innocent people (or modifying cultures) in an attempt to advance their own version of the advanced superior culture.


You seem to have no idea what true freedom is....True freedom is the ability for a people to decide their own development path and not to be compulsorily ‘saved’ by some arrogant colonial power.

no, your version is abstract and means little if your living in a dictatorship as in iran, egypt, syria, etc.....true freedom is living where you have freedom of speech, freedom of security, freedom to effect change in your society and create your development path, with civil rights enshrined in law. Only western democracies provide those freedoms, and it should be obvious to the most blind that dictatorships be they china, syria, egypt, libya, etc do not always yield to demonstrators....and so there is no "ability for the people....."


If I were an Israeli, I would be asking myself why so many Palestinians hated me.......

thats obvious, their education and their living conditions in the arab world has been well designed to hate us…..we also look around and see how israeli arabs are glad to live in israel (the 70% is more about than its just their home, read the whole poll). We compare how the same people (the Palestinians), have such different views about us, the ones living with us, prefer us, and those that dont, hate us. Hmmm,

thats where your disrespect for the Palestinians, the israeli arabs, comes in to play. Your whole perspective is based on ignoring their views, their opinions.

why do you down play their views? their preference for living in israel?

---

Secondly, are you suggesting that any village or locality in Israel, where a majority of residents wanted to become part of a Palestine state should be allowed to do so?....Where do you draw the line?.
thats actually a mute point, since no poll has shown that any of them want to, the problem is the exact opposite. The israeli arabs simply don't want to become a part of Palestine, even if its for 'world peace"….you seem to be more than willing to ignore them....again a definitive disrespect for their views.

look i get it, if you accept that they prefer israel, prefer israeli democracy, prefer to adjust their culture...what have you got left? how can zionism be so immoral if the very people they disenfranchised actually prefer the country that they built?

hence you can't accept, cant respect, that israeli arabs, druze bedouin, christian arabs, buddhist, prefer to be living in israel than other places and simply dont want to live under a Palestinian ("native") rule. The polls and their very actions, their participation bear this out.....no matter how you look at them, they have rejected your abstract version of "freedom" and prefer to live where it actually exists, and thats in israel.

[kayecy]

99. We are talking principles here....Let’s apply your ‘disrespect’ principle to the settlers .........

1. First let me ask you for clarification of your ‘freedom’ statement:

.....true freedom is living where you have freedom of speech, freedom of security, freedom to effect change in your society and create your development path, with civil rights enshrined in law..

So there we disagree.......Without freedom to chose your own development, and your own culture, the rest is meaningless............By your ideas of ‘freedom’, Israelis should be happy to accept an invasion and domination by an alien culture providing only that the invaders thought their culture more free, secure and democratic than your social democracy?




2. Now let me dismiss your claim that because possibly 70% of Arab-Israelis wish to continue under Israeli rule, that means Zionism must somehow be a moral enterprise

And as we see now, with israeli arabs joining the IDF, the few protests against israel by israeli arabs during naqba day, they are embracing the social democracy that is israel..

What the 20% of Palestinians that are Arab-Israelis do is one thing, what the majority of Palestinians think and do is another......They don’t join the IDF!.......As for the Arab-Israelis’ few protests against the Nakba.......I guess you have forgotten the new Israeli law designed to stop them doing just that.... It authorizes the Minister of Finance to withdraw budget funds from any body which has made any payment towards an event undermining the “existence of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state,” or marking the date of Israel’s establishment as a day of mourning.....If there were so few protesters, why did the Israel Government feel it necessary to consider banning Nakba protests?.

Is it not a clear indication of Zionist moral values that such a law could be passed by the Knesset? ....Where is this social democratic freedom you talk about?

if you accept that they prefer israel, prefer israeli democracy, prefer to adjust their culture...what have you got left? how can zionism be so immoral if the very people they disenfranchised actually prefer the country that they built?

But ‘they’ don’t do they?....Less than 700,000 might prefer Israel, but the vast majority of Palestinians most definitely do not wish to live under Israeli rule.......That is how Zionism is immoral.......First it invaded the land against the wishes of its inhabitants....Then it tried to achieve a majority by flooding the land with its supporters......Then, when achieving dominance was taking too long, it agreed to partition of someone else’s land (providing it produced a Zionist majority) and having achieved a de-facto majority after partition, it agreed to give voting rights and some privileges to the few Arab inhabitants caught up in that partition......You call that moral?

hence you can't accept, cant respect, that israeli arabs, druze bedouin, christian arabs, buddhist, prefer to be living in israel than other places and simply dont want to live under a Palestinian ("native") rule..

Please don’t jump to conclusions.....Of course I respect their views.......I just give more respect to the majority.....How can you can call yourself a democrat and at the same time fiddle the Arab ‘constituency’ so you can refer to 70% beats me....Have you no respect for majority opinion?

thats actually a mute point, since no poll has shown that any of them want to, the problem is the exact opposite. The israeli arabs simply don't want to become a part of Palestine, even if its for 'world peace"….you seem to be more than willing to ignore them....again a definitive disrespect for their views.

We are talking principles here....Let’s apply your ‘disrespect’ principle to the settlers in the 26 Jordan Valley settlements..... Do you propose to respect their desire to remain part of Israel in any two-state solution?.....If you do, perhaps you would indicate how a state looking like a Dutch-cheese can work.




3. Let us examine your spurious claims as to the frequency of disenfranchisement by western-democracies:

Actually most western democracies were built on invasion and disenfranchisement of either the locals or other minorities, this includes the newer democracies in eastern europe as well.

Most western democracies?.......You need to substantiate that claim......I’ll list out for you some of the ones that were not built on invasion:
UK....France...Holland.....Spain ....Portugal....Sweden....Denmark....Norway....Finland.....Poland......Estonia.....Latvia...Lithuania etc etc..... Now, can you substantiate your ‘most’ claim?

I know some of these democracies were invaded and occupied in WW2, but in none of them did the invaders stay and colonize them permanently....Zionism is near the bottom of the list when comparing it to the morality of other 20th century colonial enterprises (I will agree that it is above the German, Japanese and Italian colonization attempts.)

in that respect zionism is neither more, or less moral than the US, Austrialia, Canada, etc .

No less moral!.....The US colonization of an almost unpopulated land started some 300 years ago, similarly with Australia & Canada ...The Zionists chose to colonize a land that was already heavily populated.....There is also the small matter of timing.....The Zionists started their colonization less than 100 years ago, and needless to say, their colonial conflict still goes on........In what way do you compare Zionism to the colonization of America, Australia or Canada?



4. A little history of Arab rejection of Zionism:

My statement: If I were an Israeli, I would be asking myself why so many Palestinians hated me.......
Your response: ....thats obvious, their education and their living conditions in the arab world has been well designed to hate us..

The first Arab-Zionist riots took place in the early 1920s.....How had the Palestinians been subjected to education etc designed to hate Zionists?.......I suggest the Arab hatred of Zionists came about because of the expropriation and ethnic cleansing proposals of Herzl, together with the flood of Zionists entering their land, bent on dominating them with a foreign culture.





5. And now to your missing response:
I’m sure it is not a deliberate omission, but you have still not answered my question..... “In the Zionist moral code, does a family that has had its jewels stolen by a thief have the right to go and steal similar jewels from a neighbor?”

[pelsar]

100. colonialist

i've been ignoring your use of the world colonialist…but i see its become an essential part:

jews were in fact returning to israel, not as a foreign country or element to extend control over a foreign element, but returning home after begin kicked out. It took a few years, but it took the holocaust to actually make it real….the world went a bit too far that time with its anti Semitism....call it right of return to use the expression in vogue.

thats part of our culture-israel as our home land…..(i guess your suppose to accept that as per respecting our culture?). Obviously we only get part of it, but thats been accepted as well.


that applies to your question:
“In the Zionist moral code, does a family that has had its jewels stolen by a thief have the right to go and steal similar jewels from a neighbor?”

we have the "right" to steal them back from those who are holding them, and provide compensation in terms of "fixing" the house they broke into and making it a mansion (if you want to stay with the inexact metaphor)


your definition of freedom isn't complete
"Without freedom to chose your own development, and your own culture, the rest is meaningless"

Your argument doesn't make sense….. without a democracy, you don't have freedom to develop your own culture. Dictatorships have a rather narrow view of what defines their version of "development" and it doesn't include freedom of choice and its restricts the minorities in the land as well

is that what your arguing for?… a Palestinian government? as in Hama's style or the PAs?


and my concept also fits israels. If israel was not a democracy i would infact deem it illegal….but in todays world, only democracies allow for that freedom that you have defined for individual cultures to develop as they can together.
_____________________

the 70% and this is what you don't want to admit, because its the core:

I just give more respect to the majority.

your adding apples and oranges to get to your "majority" why not add the Palestenians of lebanon as well?


you keep confusing Palestinians who are not israeli citizens with those who are. Those who are, who have lived the israeli experience obviously now prefer it. Those who have a different education, different experiences and though they may admire it, do not want it.

let me repeat that: israeli arabs prefer israeli democracy over the other options. They are the only Palestinians arabs who have actually experienced israeli democracy, the others have not, hence cannot be asked the same questions.

so your asking if israeli democracy is moral, with its jewish majority, obviously the majority of its minorities with their cultures believe it is.
that goes directly against your version of 'freedom"…the actual inhabitants of israel disagree with you.

The conclusion is that they shouldn't have attacked in 48 with the consequence of its refugees…at least that seems to be the opinion of those arab israelis who stayed.

The first Arab-Zionist riots took place in the early 1920s.
yes people don't like change especially change of their cultures (and economics were involved, etc). And they had every right to get pissed (well not those who actually immigrated to work with the jews…). However once educated in the ways of democracy that did require a change in their culture, seems they prefer it. It simply took time and experience. The locals in the 1920s, 30s, 40s, weren't interested, nor did the zionists have the resources to educate them all, some arab villages did realize the advantages of the zionists and kept out of the fight.

Implementation of democracy is not always easy…..this is a prime example.

-----------------------

You have made it clear that the some people in the interest of "world peace" will not get their way. I agree with that. Hence whatever the agreement is be it settlers or arab israeli citizens some may lose out. The "majority" of any given section of geographic land may in fact be over ruled by a larger dominating culture. It would just be a shame in the interest of cultural purity to send people away from living in a democracy to a dictatorship……(that does define the PA/hamas today).
--------------------------

israel has a basic civil rights laws for all of its citizens so this sentence has no real meaning in the way its written
it agreed to give voting rights and some privileges to the few Arab inhabitants caught up in that partition......You call that moral?

its just a waste of band width to respond to poorly written sentences like that.-its more propaganda than anything else.
-------------
Nakba law,
And of course you will find bad laws in israel, immoral laws…imperfection and improvement and change are the characteristics of a democracy.

again you attempts to dismiss both israeli democracy and its arab citizens misses the point. Yes there is a Nakba law, i personally haven't decided if its good idea or bad, since i believe that liberal states also have to use illiberal methods to defend themselves and create a cohesive society….some cultural aspects have to be illegal (such as FGM, honor killings, etc). And of course the arab israelis who are very aware of what a democracy is did in fact have some Nakba protests in jaffa, being careful to skirt around the law. Such is the beauty of democracies, where freedom of expression is paramount.
----------------

Most countries have bloody histories…just go back enough in time to find them one way or another, that was what i meant when i wrote most democracies were built on invasion etc. And all cultures today have frustrated minorities that don't get everything they want. Yea we got a late start, i guess we should apologize for believing the other countries when they said they would protect their jewish minorities, until they changed their minds and enacted anti jew laws…..guess zionism should have started 300 years ago and then we could have massacred at will….

and aren't those american indians STILL on reservations?.you know the ones that that weren't massacred (last massacre 1890s a mere 120 years ago-Wounded Knee Massacre)

zionism is more moral then some and less than others depending upon the subject......
_____________________
What is clear, an what you don't want to accept is that the arab israelis and other minorities believe living in israel is better, more moral than the alternatives…and they actually have some of those alternatives breathing down their neck and they don't want them.

and in your world point of view…as far as i can see, that is immoral…..(and i see that as incredibly disrespectful of their new culture that they have embraced).

[kayecy]

101. You can’t be serious....Had any of the Zionist immigrants ever been kicked out of Palestine?......

i've been ignoring your use of the world "colonialist"…but i see its become an essential part:

I thought you were against all that PC nonsense?......If "colonialist" was good enough for the early Zionists, why are you so sensitive about it?

jews were in fact returning to israel, not as a foreign country or element to extend control over a foreign element, but returning home after begin kicked out.

"Returning home"!....You can’t be serious....Had any of the Zionist immigrants ever been kickerd out of Palestine?....How many of them could claim ANY connection to their ‘home’ other than an ancient cultural connection?

we have the "right" to steal them back from those who are holding them.

How can you steal back “freedom from domination” and “living as second hand citizens”?

You said awhile back:
"The zionist went to israel to save their own skins, to stop being dominated by other cultures and living as second class citizens."

The ‘jewels’ I was alluding to were "the freedom from domination" and of "not living as second-class citizens"...The very same ‘jewels’ that the Zionists stole from the indigenous Palestinians.....Now, how can that possibly be moral?......Do Zionists have a right to steal something back when the victim has never stolen it from them in the first place?

If israel was not a democracy i would infact deem it illegal….but in todays world, only democracies allow for that freedom that you have defined for individual cultures to develop as they can together.

If our mythical invading force thought their culture superior to that of Israel’s, then I presume you would have no objection to them pouring into Israel, dominating its culture and removing your rights?..... Or does that only apply if it is Zionists doing the invading and the culture being dominated is Palestinian?.....You can’t have it both ways.....Either invaders are immoral or they are not....The ethics of the matter can hardly depend on whether you personally are part of the invading force or the victim.

you keep confusing Palestinians who are not israeli citizens with those who are.

You are the one confused....This conflict is between Israelis and Palestinians....I am referring to Palestinians...All Palestinians...Not a sub-set defined by Israel.

so your asking if israeli democracy is moral, with its jewish majority, obviously the majority of its minorities with their cultures believe it is.

No.....I am asking if Zionism is moral.

.....its just a waste of band width to respond to poorly written sentences like that.-its more propaganda than anything else.

You must be losing your touch....Can't you think of a better excuse than that for dodging the question?....I asked you: “.......First it invaded the land against the wishes of its inhabitants....Then it tried to achieve a majority by flooding the land with its supporters......Then, when achieving dominance was taking too long, it agreed to partition of someone else’s land (providing it produced a Zionist majority) and having achieved a de-facto majority after partition, it agreed to give voting rights and XXXX privileges to the few Arab inhabitants caught up in that partition......You call that moral?”.

I have removed the word ‘some’ as it upsets you so much.....Now can you consider the main body of my question?...Is it badly written?.....Untrue?....Or just embarrassing for you?

.....Yes there is a Nakba law, i personally haven't decided if its good idea or bad, since i believe that liberal states also have to use illiberal methods to defend themselves and create a cohesive society….

Mmmmm.....”that liberal states also have to use illiberal methods”......That doesn’t say much for your social democracy does it?

However, it is your naive statement “...and create a cohesive society.” that really stands out.......I suppose the insistence on recognising Israel as the "Jewish" state, the Law of Return, the state selling land to the JNF so that it can be sold to racist developers, the disproportionate sums spent on Arab and Jewish students are all designed to promote a cohesive society?

What is clear, an what you don't want to accept is that the arab israelis and other minorities believe living in israel is better, more moral than the alternatives…and they actually have some of those alternatives breathing down their neck and they don't want them.....and in your world point of view…as far as i can see, that is immoral…..(and i see that as incredibly disrespectful of their new culture that they have embraced).

There you go again, claiming I have the opposite view to that which I hold.....Let me repeat it for you...I am quite prepared to accept that a sub-set of Palestinians (some 70% of Arab-Israelis) believe that living in Israel is better than the alternatives.
.
.

[pelsar]

102. back to morality

"Returning home"!....You can’t be serious....Had any of the Zionist immigrants ever been kickerd out of Palestine?....How many of them could claim ANY connection to their ‘home’ other than an ancient cultural connection?

the Jewish culture and history has the connection. That was why that piece of land was chosen for the zionism. If we use your argument then all we have to do is keep the Palestinians out for a set amount of years and then as per your argument the "lose the connection. I guess that would be about 4 generations?

but i see you reject the jewish connection, why?…and why do you feel you have to right to reject such a cultural trait of the jewish people?

----------------------------------------------------

is zionism moral?…morality is a subjective term, based on western values. As a nationalistic movement its better than most of the worlds cultures. I would says it more moral than the syrian culture as they gun down their own, better than the present iranian culture that hangs homosexuals, or sends children to clear mines, probably better than the american culture that massacred indians, invades other countries, uses unmanned aircraft to pulverize children (or is that NATO?) Russias culture? Chinas?. ... Creating a democracy is a moral act, stopping it is an immoral act (as what were witnessing in syrian, what happened in iran, etc).

no, i'm not at all embarrassed about how zionism created a western democracy where none existed. Western democracies are difficult to create and maintain (the arab "spring" being a good example of just how difficult). The zionist did a great job of balancing politics and their limited military resources to create a small democracy where non existed. They had the same divisions as do the Palestinians today, but they obviously made wiser decisions to accomplish their goals.

Its clear that zionism created a place where people do want to live, where they can live in freedom within their own culture. You just dont find that anywhere in the middle east no matter how much others may want it. Nothing to be embarrassed about, quite the contrary.

thats the part you dont like....it worked.

Given the preferences of israeli arabs..and that is the actual proof that living in a western democracy is the preferred place to live in the middle east. You can make a long list of its imperfections, a list that was much longer 30 years ago, but that is in fact why its the preferred place to live, since as a western democracy it can improve itself, change via its citizens and get better. That too is recognized by its citizens.
-------------

Mmmmm.....”that liberal states also have to use illiberal methods”......That doesn’t say much for your social democracy does it?

You should do some reading about liberal societies and how they use illiberal methods to preserve themselves. Its nothing new, and they all do it….the argument is how far do they go, not if they use them or not.

---------------------

your basic complaint, it seems to be, is one based on a genes…..that it should be those who lived there before the immigrants arrived that should have the right to govern. And the only way we would know who those people are is via the genealogy. (i assume you'll disagree with my description, as bringing up genes has some bad connotations, yet, that is the physical description of the "locals").

Worse, you put democracy/civil rights as less important than the genes (Palestinians) of those who have the "right' to govern, irregardless of how they govern. And given their past and present state i would say we can safely say that democracy was not part of the "plan."

and THAT is immoral..very very very immoral, from a philosophical point of view and as well as a practical one for those who would have to live in such a country. Iran i suspect is the kind of country that you would defend as is saudi arabia as being run by the "right people" because they have the "right genes"

[kayecy]

104. Should new immigrants have the right to govern simply by claiming their culture is superior?....

A quick riposte to your statements:

......but i see you reject the jewish connection, why?…

Wrong!.....I do not reject the Jewish connection to Palestine......I just think that those Palestinians who were born on the land, whose fathers and forefathers were born on the same land have a greater connection....That you can even think of accusing me of rejecting the Jewish ‘connection’ when you totally reject the much greater Arab ‘connection’ is amazing.....That Palestinians should be prevented from returning to their homes by a western-style democracy is disgusting.

......since (Israel) as a western democracy it can improve itself, change via its citizens and get better.

So why is Israel denying the same western democratic rights to West-Bank Palestinians? ......Why should not West-Bank Palestinians be allowed to choose who governs them?........Why should they be subjected to military courts and military occupation?.....Is the preferential status accorded to Jewish settlers your idea of Zionist democracy?

…..that it should be those who lived there before the immigrants arrived that should have the right to govern.

Yes.......Should new immigrants have the right to govern simply by claiming their culture is superior to the local one?

your basic complaint, it seems to be, is one based on a genes…..that it should be those who lived there before the immigrants arrived that should have the right to govern. And the only way we would know who those people are is via the genealogy. (i assume you'll disagree with my description, as bringing up genes has some bad connotations, yet, that is the physical description of the "locals").

I don’t see what you are getting at.......Genes don’t have any ‘bad connotations’ as far as I am concerned and ‘genealogy’ is merely the study of ancestors.

The right of people to govern themselves is derived from long-term residency, not genes..........How many Israelis can claim multi-generational residency in Palestine?

those who have the "right' to govern, irregardless of how they govern...................
and THAT is immoral..very very very immoral,.

I hope and expect every people will eventually govern themselves using western liberal and democratic principles....The western democracies took centuries to reach this ideal form of governance......The important thing is that they achieved it without any intervention by a foreign ‘superior’ culture .......Why weren’t the indigenous residents of Palestine allowed to do the same?........


And now to examine some of the basic fallacies in your defense of Zionism:
You have argued on the lines that, although destroying the Palestinians hopes of eventual self-determination could be considered immoral, this was more than counter-balanced by the Zionists intention to bring democracy to the Palestinian Arabs....However, Sharon reportedly said - “Our forefathers did not come here in order to build a democracy but to build a Jewish state,”.

True or not, this report exposes the first fallacy in your defence of Zionism....Contrary to your claims, the early Zionists do not seem to have attempted to justify their invasion of Palestine on the grounds of bringing democracy to the indigenous Arabs......In fact, Hess, Herzl, Smilansky, Ruppin, Zangwill and Barzilay all but ignored the very existence of Palestinian Arabs in their writings and speeches.


The second fallacy is exposed by your claim that the Zionists were “...willing to go to Palestine, based on their culture and make a democratic nation.”

Even if you can show that the early Zionists intended to bring democracy to the Palestinian Arabs, you still need to show that the ‘democratic nation’ you speak of was intended to be a western-style democratic nation......ie a state for all its people irrespective of their ethnicity or cultural identity

I suggest the early Zionists simply wanted to create an ethnic Jewish state......Many of them openly espoused “population transfer” to achieve this.
.
.

[pelsar]

105. you have to ignore information and reality to make your point....

your write:
And now to examine some of the basic fallacies in your defense of Zionism:

and then you go on to print a few chosen quotes that support your view and then write:

Even if you can show that the early Zionists intended to bring democracy to the Palestinian Arabs, you still need to show that the ‘democratic nation’ you speak of was intended to be a western-style democratic nation......ie a state for all its people irrespective of their ethnicity or cultural identity

i guess it must be a surprise to you that the israel is in fact a democratic nation for all of its people- imperfect as it is. And since such things do not happen by accident, it can be confidently assumed that the zionists designed it as such (i'm sure if you look hard enough you find the appropriate quotes, judicial rulings etc).

actually i found your quotes a bit amusing, given the wide variety of opinions and parties that made up the zionists-from mapam to herut. The question I have is, if you are really educated in the zionism why attempt to throw out a few limited quotes and ignore the whole socialistic side of the political spectrum? did you think i wouldn't notice?

anyway i'm not big on quotes proving anything anyway, i prefer the actual events on the ground, and here you have to close your brain and pretend that israel is not an existing working, thriving, improving social democracy to claim that that zionism created an immoral democarcy.

as far as the Palestinians in the westbank, in case you missed it, they've rejected israeli democracy and israel doesn't have the manpower nor the will to force them to accept israeli democracy.They now have their own culture and identity that is different from israeli arabs and as such want their own state. i personally believe the occuapation is immoral and we have to leave, (but not at the expense of reliving the gaza experience along the length and breadth of israel).

_____

as far as the argument of "who has greater rights"-its has no answer......
.I just think that those Palestinians who were born on the land, whose fathers and forefathers were born on the same land have a greater connection.
unless of course we wait a certain amount of generations and, as in the case of the jews, who also go back generatins, the Palestenians then lose those "greater rights" and the jewish israelis then have the greater connection.....(how many generations must we wait?)

thats why its an argument that doesn't have a "right answer" both can claim "rights"

_______

you ask:
Why weren’t the indigenous residents of Palestine allowed to do the same?.
because life isn't fair, ask the jews and their history, the iranians today, the sudanese, the egyptians, the Libyans, the jordanians, etc etc etc and of course the 100,000 jews left in DP camps after WWII after all the other countries of the world closed off their borders to additional concentration camp immigration. ....... for some residents of Palestine that was a good thing for they get live in a democracy, and for others it wasn't, and i'm sure many are pretty pissed at their grandparents for making the stupid decision of leaving. (for those that did voluntarily-percentages unknown)

and just to emphise the point, the Palestinians in Lebanon and Syria are planning on sunday a major march to the israeli borders and asked that the israeli arabs join in on the israeli side..guess what? the israeli arabs said no.

funny how that works....Arabs living in israel prefer israel, protect israel and reject to aid in the attempts to destroy its democracy....and it all started with zionism (I guess they didn't want to wait centuries as per your claim to live freely....who would have guessed they would forgo hundreds of years of living under dictatorships by their brethren just to live freely under a democracy started by zionists?....shocking!

[kayecy]

106. I must have missed it....When did Israel offer the West Bank Palestinians ‘Israeli democracy’?.....

i guess it must be a surprise to you that the israel is in fact a democratic nation for all of its people

Doh! ......‘for all its people”?.......Non-Jews must recognize the “Jewish State”?...The Law-of-return?.....The state selling land to the JNF?......Discriminatory education budgets?.......Perhaps you meant to write "a democratic nation for one of its people"......Come to think of it, is there such a thing as the Israeli nation?

And since such things do not happen by accident, it can be confidently assumed that the zionists designed it as such (i'm sure if you look hard enough you find the appropriate quotes, judicial rulings etc).

......”it can confidently be assumed” has been the standard politicians defense and the downfall of gullible people since time began......You can’t seriously expect any thinking person to take your assumption as factual support for your argument?......

(i'm sure if you look hard enough you find the appropriate quotes, judicial rulings etc).

But that is just the point.......I have looked, and very hard .......Surely, you, a committed Zionist, holding the morality of Zionism as a given, must have researched what in fact the early Zionist intended by their project?......Or perhaps you simply believe everything that you are told without asking for evidence?

why attempt to throw out a few limited quotes and ignore the whole socialistic side of the political spectrum? did you think i wouldn't notice?

Did I fail to give a complete list of the early Zionists I have read up on?”........ I’m sorry, I thought a few would be sufficient......Let me give you a more complete list..... Alkalai, Kalisher, Yehudi, Lilienblum, Pinsker, Nordau, Ha’am, not to mention your left-wing Zionists Syrkin, Yellin, Belkind, Epstein, Luria, Malul, Thon, Weizman, Ben-Zvi, Sprinzak, Ben-Gurion, Zerubavel, Nachman, Syrkin, Borochov and Blumenfeld.......Tell me, which of these early Zionist wrote in support of your claim?..... In fact let’s not limit it to Zionists, has ANYONE but you claimed that the invasion of Palestine was justified on the grounds of bringing democracy to the indigenous Arabs?

That is the difference between us....I have no axe to grind......If I discover facts or am presented with a valid argument that Zionism was a moral enterprise.....that Palestinian Arabs had no right to self-determination, then I, too, will be a supporter of Zionism.....You, on the contrary, do have an axe to grind.....As a socialist you have too much to lose to base your judgment on facts.......Like Jabotinsky, you have already made up your mind that Zionism is moral and just.

as far as the Palestinians in the westbank, in case you missed it, they've rejected israeli democracy

I must have missed it....When did Israel offer the West Bank Palestinians ‘Israeli democracy’?

.... i personally believe the occuapation is immoral and we have to leave,

I am pleased to hear you say that.....I am puzzled though........What, in your opinion makes Jewish rule over the West-Bank immoral?......Is it the fact that “..... israel doesn't have the manpower nor the will to force them to accept israeli democracy.”?.....’manpower’ and ‘will’ are strange factors to consider in the matter of a moral judgment!

.... unless of course we wait a certain amount of generations and, as in the case of the jews, who also go back generatins, the Palestenians then lose those "greater rights" and the jewish israelis then have the greater connection.....(how many generations must we wait?)

Mmmmm....You asked me that before and I couldn’t see what you were getting at.....Let me see if I understand you correctly.....You are asking how many generations we must wait before there can be no practical connection to the land?

Well, if you kept Palestinians out of Palestine for the next 2,000 years, then they would certainly have no connection and they would have no ‘right of return.......If you kept them out for 500 years they would have a minimal connection but still a better claim to a right-of-return than the Zionists......

Tell me....... in what way do the Israelis have greater connection to Palestine than the indigenous people?....How many Israelis can prove they have ANY connection to that part of the world?...You, yourself have said your family became immigrants to Israel because of family suffering and quotas post WW2.........You did not say they left because they felt a great ‘connection’ to Israel.

Why weren’t the indigenous residents of Palestine allowed to do the same?......
because life isn't fair,

When the decision to be fair or not to innocent people is in your hands, the decision itself becomes a question of morality.....If I decide to become a squatter in someone else’s house, then by your argument, life is unfair and the owners should just move on and leave the house to me....Would my decision be immoral?....Of course it would........The Zionist decision to ‘squat’ in Palestine and remove Palestinian Arab rights was similarly immoral.
.
.

[pelsar]

107. shucks israel isn't a perfect democracy....

so..that means its immoral and has to be destroyed?
Perhaps you meant to write "a democratic nation for one of its people".
seems the israeli arabs, bedouin, druze etc all seem to understand this aspect and prefer to stay and help fix the imperfections. Funny how you constantly feel you can speak for the minorities of israel and yet they disagree with you...


.If I discover facts or am presented with a valid argument that Zionism was a moral enterprise.
perhaps you should do the research as to why they prefer to live in israel.....have you? You might want to research why they volunteer for the IDF as well, or perhaps why they told the Palestinian organizers of the march for June 5 to the borders of israel, that they aren't participating. They might know more than you about israels democracy.....

____

n fact let’s not limit it to Zionists, has ANYONE but you claimed that the invasion of Palestine was justified on the grounds of bringing democracy to the indigenous Arabs?
i think your confusing zionism with some conception that the jews have to save the world. Zionism was first and foremost designed to save the jews within a democratic environment, the arabs who stayed received the benefits of such enterprise, thats why it was a moral movement. It would have been immoral if it had a legal apartheid style govt.

as far as the Palestinians on the westbank, the events are pretty clear as to their preference as well as the events on the ground...hence its a foolish question given the world events since WWII.

you ask me why is the occupation immoral in my mind?....only because they wont be given citizenship for a variety of reasons. Hence, the immorality.


Tell me....... in what way do the Israelis have greater connection to Palestine than the indigenous people?....How many Israelis can prove they have ANY connection to that part of the world?

they don't....thats the point, both groups have the connections, the jews being the indigenous people before the arabs were the indigenous people (the archeology/culture is pretty clear about this)... Given the arab immigration to Palestine you could also ask what right did they have to immigrate and all of a sudden give claim...many are not indigenous but recent immigrants themselves. (if the Palestinian immigrants are kept out for 5000 years, then the newer israeli immigrants will now be the indigenous people and have greater rights- just as the jews "lost" their rights to the newer Palestinians...)
--------------

as far as "fair' goes.....i would say its more "fair" to be living in a democracy as a minority then living in a dictatorship as a minority....as per the druzes or the christian arabs, or the Bedouin, or the Muslim arabs from the village of Jisr al Zarqa who are looked down upon by other israeli arabs because of their sudanese roots...Had the jews lost in 48, fairness would not even be subject to discuss, though 2nd and 3rd class citizens would be ingrained in the culture. For reasons that are not clear to me, you totally ignore the governing style of egypt, the PA,hamas, jordan, syria.....all of which provide clear examples of what was in store for the people of Palestine had the zionists not brought with them a democracy.

what is clear to me, that on a priority list of whats important to people, you don't believe that living in a democracy with civil rights for all, is the most important....i just wonder if those who dont live in a democracy but live in a dictatorship with members of their own tribe as minorities agree with you....israeli arabs (druze/bedouin) sure dont and they actually have not just the experience but an option to join their "brethren" in the westbank and gaza- you just don't like to hear what they have to say or what they believe via their actions...

[kayecy]

108. Help me to understand where you are coming from:...................

.... seems the israeli arabs, bedouin, druze etc all seem to understand this aspect

You keep banging on about how Israeli-Arab, Beduin and Druze are different from West-bank Palestinians, how they are satisfied with living in Israel, etc....Help me to understand where you are coming from:

1. In your experience of Arab-Israeli opinion, have you discovered what percentage of them claim to be Zionists?.......ie approve of the Law-of-return?.....happily sing the Israeli national anthem words?

2. I’m sure there are some West-bank Palestinians who would also be satisfied with living in Israel... Israel has not offered to let them return.......Why differentiate between Israeli-Arabs and West-bank Arabs simply on the basis that in 1948, some Arabs thought it safer to stay whilst others thought it safer to leave ( and had the opportunity to do so).....After all, even you will admit that some West-bankers were forced to go by the Haganah, and had no choice in the matter...Why discriminate against them?

3. In what way is Israel NOT practicing a legal apartheid style government?....There is one law for the West Bank Arabs and another for the settlers.

4. In what way do you think the 1920s Palestinian Arabs had less civil or political rights than today’s Arab-Israeli’s?

5. Doha residents too, prefer to live in Doha rather than any other state and are happy with their life.....Apparently a high standard of living is more important to them than democracy....Could that account for why a majority of Arab-Israelis prefer to live in Israel?

.... Zionism was first and foremost designed to save the jews within a democratic environment,

Save Jews – Yes.......But you have admitted that you have no evidence that democracy was uppermost in Zionist minds.......I suggest all your claims about ‘democratic environment’ are just wishful thinking to salve your socialist conscience.

.... they don't....thats the point, both groups have the connections (to Palestine)

True....but you imply the connection is comparable......A Jew born in the USA, may in fact be a descendant of an East European Jew whose ancestors converted to Judaism centuries ago......Does such a modern Jew have a connection to Palestine comparable with that of an Arab who can show that his ancestors lived in the same village for a century or more?

.... (if the Palestinian immigrants are kept out for 5000 years, then the newer israeli immigrants will now be the indigenous people and have greater rights- just as the jews "lost" their rights to the newer Palestinians...)

Correct.......But we are in the present now, and it is the indigenous people that have "lost" their rights.... The Israeli immigrants are not indigenous but nevertheless they have demanded greater rights than the indiginous Arabs........I think you are beginning to accept my point...ie that long term residence on the land should be the deciding factor.

.... For reasons that are not clear to me, you totally ignore the governing style of egypt, the PA,hamas, jordan, syria.....all of which provide clear examples of what was in store for the people of Palestine had the zionists not brought with them a democracy.

Allow me to help you to understand.....Unless the Zionists were clairvoyant, the modern governing style in Egypt, Jordan and Syria was irrelevant to the morality of Weizmann’s decision to ask Britain to give Palestine to the Zionists.....
.
.

[pelsar]

109. one doesn't have to be a zionist to prefer israeli democracy

arab israelis, even those that vote for the zionist parties by no means have to be zionists.....they just prefer to live in a democracy, the one provided by israel. As far as the division of westbank non citizens of israel vs israeli citizens....it actually took the arab israelis quite a few years of israeli education to learn to accept and appreciate democracy. The arabs of the westbank have not had that education, and in fact have had one that is very much anti democratic.

hence the difference....and yes as in life, random events, luck and bad luck put people on different sides of political lines that affect their lives (think of e germany vs w.germany). The arabs of the westbank have a different culture/education of israeli arabs today. How they got there is the result of the war and all of its various events, as you noted.

as far as israeli arabs...its not just their living in israel, its their participation that makes the difference. The most glaring today being their refusal to participate in the marches on the border that were planned for sunday (lebanon and syria decided to stop them).

Save Jews – Yes.......But you have admitted that you have no evidence that democracy was uppermost in Zionist minds.......I suggest all your claims about ‘democratic environment’ are just wishful thinking to salve your socialist conscience

actually I'm not a socialist...but in your attempts to prove zionism immoral by claiming that democracy was not an aspect, i find rather absurd. you claim your educated in the early zionists...then i assume your familiar with the early kibbutzim movements and all of their different philosophies of govt, your familiar with the paper called Davar and Merchav whos articles were filled with socialist philosophies pre/post 48, the structure of the knesset which is a multi party system that had a very low threshold for entering so that citizens of all types get a say in the government. i mean the evidence of discussions of the type of communities goes back to the Moses Hess in the 1800's.

the type of govt, workers rights, etc were every day discussions within the zionist circles....im surprised you actually brought it up
here i'll help you in your research, but if you put the word socialism or democracy in you'll get over a 1000 results:
the Palestenian Post:
http://www.jpress.org.il/Default/Skins/TAUEn/Client.asp?Skin=TAUEn&enter=true&sPublication=PLS&Publication=PLS&Hs=advanced&AW=1307215016234&AppName=2

____

e that long term residence on the land should be the deciding factor.

as far as the connection to the land, your formula is way too simple:
a jew from poland, whos culture and religion is connected to israel, whos relatives in russia died in pogroms, other relatives died in germany and then suffered through another pogrom on poland post WWII.......who decides to go where other jews are to be able to defend themselves, vs the arab from sudan who is an economic immigrant from the 1930's

i dont believe that long term residence is the deciding factor.....its just one of many.....but by no means do i buy the "indigenous people" as having some kind of super right, when the governing style is not democratic.

you miss the point again:
the arabs of Palestine were not going to be living in a democracy if it weren't for the zionists. One look at israels neighbors makes that clear..and that to me is more important that historical land connection, religion, indigenous people etc. Today syrians are dying for that very democracy, Iranians died in their attempts, Same for egypt.


-------

In what way is Israel NOT practicing a legal apartheid style government?....There is one law for the West Bank Arabs and another for the settlers.
its is.....however there is also a reality to look at: there is a good possibility that once we leave the westbank, we'll find ourselves at the receiving end of kassams from the westbank in another war (abbas is a very weak leader in a very unstable govt.) and or with a hamas doing a redo of gaza in westbank as per their plans.... So were stuck in a very bad situation with only immoral choices to make, in the meantime the govt of abbas and mess of rules and laws is the less of the immoral choices.

and i should add the obvious.....israel is based on being a jewish democratic country....right there in that definition you'll find a contradiction and within israel there is a constant political fight between the jewish laws the state has adapted vs secular laws that a democracy demands. You might have noticed that in your research that zionism was a failure until post WWII, where even the most ardent anti zionists were face with a harsh ugly reality: for some unknown reason the world seems to have a problem with jews....so out of this imperfect immoral world, came israel, an imperfect democracy to fight the worlds own immorality. Morality is very subjective and dependant upon its environment: (killing a person wearing a certain clothes in a war can be moral, killing someone in a street not in a war, wearing the same clothes is immoral).

so if your trying to prove zionism is immoral, your going to have to prove that the world is in fact moral and anti semitism doesn't really exist-good luck with that.

[kayecy]

110. West-bank Arabs have been under Israeli rule for 40 years...Why hasn’t Israel ‘educated’ them?......

...it actually took the arab israelis quite a few years of israeli education to learn to accept and appreciate democracy. The arabs of the westbank have not had that education, and in fact have had one that is very much anti democratic.

West-bank Arabs have been under Israeli rule for 40 years...Why hasn’t Israel ‘educated’ them?......With Israel failing in its responsibilities as the occupying power, are you surprised they didn’t get the ‘democratic message’ after their lives were made a misery by settlements, intimidation, road-blocks and Jew-only roads?

as far as israeli arabs...its not just their living in israel, its their participation that makes the difference. The most glaring today being their refusal to participate in the marches on the border that were planned for Sunday

Their refusal to participate in the marches?

05-06-2011 YNet news – Israel Police on Saturday prevented members of the United Arab List Ta'al party, including MK Talab El-Sana, to hold a march in a Druze village adjacent to the Syrian border

05-06-2011 NPR - Residents of Majdal Shams, ...........watched the protest from rooftops, booing each time the military tried to speak and cheering on the protesters. When troops fired tear gas, a crowd of residents some holding Syrian or Palestinian flags began to scream and hurl stones from rooftops at the nearby forces

31-03-2011 AL-ARAQIB, Israel — Arab Israelis and Bedouins marked “Land Day” on Wednesday, saying the Jewish state still maintains a discriminatory policy of trying to force its minorities off their land ...... Several thousand people also gathered in the northern Galilee town of Arrabeh for a protest attended by Arab Israeli MPs
29-03-2011 Jewish Journal – Some 1,500 Israeli Arabs protested in Lod on Tuesday against government policies which affect Israel’s Arab sector, launching the events of Land Day, to be marked on Wednesday.

...then i assume your familiar with the early kibbutzim movements and all of their different philosophies of govt, your familiar with the paper called Davar and Merchav whos articles were filled with socialist philosophies pre/post 48

Davar was founded in 1922, sometime after Zionism took its fateful decision to invade Palestine.....Merchav, I know nothing about......Why chose to use such obscure publications to defend Zionism?......There are more than enough prominent Zionists to refer to......It is true that not all Zionists ideas on democracy were mono-ethnic, but most were.

Herzl.....(Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly.......),
Zangwill....(We cannot allow the Arabs to block so valuable a piece of historic reconstruction....)
Weltz, head of the Jewish national Fund....(...we shall transfer all the arabs out of Eretz Israel)

The fact that even today, senior Israeli politicians are advocating ‘population transfer’ is an indication of what Zionist concepts of ‘democracy’ were.

....... the evidence of discussions of the type of communities goes back to the Moses Hess in the 1800's

Are yes, Moses Hess, (1812-1877), the friend of Karl Marx and the guy who converted Engels to communism?.......What did he have to say about democracy?!

a jew from poland, whos culture and religion is connected to israel, whos relatives in russia died in pogroms, other relatives died in germany and then suffered through another pogrom on poland post WWII.......who decides to go where other jews are to be able to defend themselves

Yes, such a Jew would indeed have a valid claim to be given some unpopulated land in where he could be safe and defend himself.

vs the arab from sudan who is an economic immigrant from the 1930's

Yes, in your illustration, the Sudanese had a lesser need.....But that is not what I asked......You admit that most Jews have only a cultural connection to Palestine but nevertheless these same Jews insist they have a right to immigrate there....Some Arabs have ancestors who have lived in Palestine for centuries, have a cultural connection and religious connection and yet they have been kicked out ....In such an illustration, who has the greater right to immigrate/return?

the arabs of Palestine were not going to be living in a democracy if it weren't for the zionists

1. I’ll ask you again......In what way do you think the 1920s Palestinian Arabs had less civil or political rights than today’s Arab-Israelis?

so if your trying to prove zionism is immoral, your going to have to prove that the world is in fact moral and anti semitism doesn't really exist-good luck with that.

The Jews suffered anti-semitism, persecution and murder on a grand scale...That was wrong, immoral and disgusting.......I would support any Jewish claim for compensation or a demand that the world supply Jews with an empty land for them to develop.
However, the fact that no such offer was made does not excuse Zionism asking Britain to ‘give’ them a populated land like Palestine and then to swamp the place with Zionist immigrants against the wishes of the inhabitants.

The fact that many Zionists knew there would be resistance from the Arabs, knew there would be conflict, death and suffering and still went ahead is disgusting......So much for the liberty and fraternity of social democracy!
.
.

[pelsar]

111. usually your pretty good with your knowledge but not here.

for some reason your trying but failed to claim that zionism is/was not concerned with democracy. I assuming its your attempt to claim that zionism is immoral. The only way you can do that is ignore and i mean really really really ignore history.

Start with the initial false and i assume its out of ignorance, the davar was some kind of

obscure publications to defend Zionism

even wikipedia gets it right as one of the major newspapers of the labor party with very famous and influential writers with one president becoming its editor and the reverse also happening.

kibbutizim split in two, based on philosophical differences on how to govern best..

to claim that:

It is true that not all Zionists ideas on democracy were mono-ethnic, but most were.

is a broad generalization.

what is true is:
The "arab question" given the two objectives of homeland for the jews and a democracy...but to claim that democracy was not a major aspect of zionism is astounding in the least. The question of how best to govern simply started with Hess and continues today....

this is not even a philosophical question of morality of right or wrong...your just wrong here, flat out wrong, black and white wrong...wrong wrong wrong. (you didn't click on my link.....too much to read perhaps).
__________________________________________________

In what way do you think the 1920s Palestinian Arabs had less civil or political rights than today’s Arab-Israelis?

are you referring to the Palestinians in gaza and the westbank? The gazans now with egyptian declared independence on their border have vast options to take advantage of their situation...those in the westbank have been screwed by the PA/UN/israel over and over again. i dont think you can do a comparison given the stronger identity as Palestinians today while iiving under the PA's dictatorship and israeli occupation. They would have some "more rights and some "less rights."

as far as the Palestinians in the west bank and gaza....i do believe that the israeli govt failed when it let them have their traditional judicial systems (jordans for the westbank and egypt for gaza) as well as the same for the education system. Unlike Israeli arabs that were under the authority of the israeli judicial and education system, that brought democracy to their lives, the arabs of the occupied territories were not.

I believe it was a political decision and the wrong one at that, though for others preservation of their "traditional values" (as much as using jordans new system and egyptians mixed bag of british and egyptian system can be considered "traditional"- LOL).....such education might have change history.
__________________________________________________


you confused land day with the "6 day war protests" Israeli arabs were "invited" to protest with the Palestinian from Syria. You might have noticed the difference. During land day the arabs protest in jaffa and other cities. For the 6 day war "protest" that didn't happen......
(on any given subject there will always be protestors, thats the beauty of democracy, the question is the quantity to get an understanding of how important it is-the 6 day protest was virtually non existent) and land day was also extremely small and limited
__________________________________________________

Some Arabs have ancestors who have lived in Palestine for centuries, have a cultural connection and religious connection and yet they have been kicked out ....In such an illustration, who has the greater right to immigrate/return?

Unlike other forced population transfers of that period, they really didn't have to be kicked out.....there were other options, such as accepting the jews and making the best of the new population and western democracy and disruption of their culture, as per the UN mandate. (Granted it could be that the arab states are the one that "decided" for the Palestinians what was to be)

so heres the formula:
refugees, facing world wide anti semitism for thousand of years and even industrial genocide had two realistic options: stay refugees/outsiders and continue to be helpless in the face of anti semitism or go to Palestine, their original land, and their agreed upon destination and develop a state where they they can live freely as jews.

The arabs of the land now had two options....they could accept the jewish refugees, and their "right of return" and work together to build a democracy or not, some chose not to.

If they had won in 48, i would claim that the following massacres, anti jew laws, arab dictatorships that would have controlled Palestine would have been far more immoral than the democracy that jews put together.

that is the real question given the realities of post WWII-of which was "more moral" for the jews
1) continue to be refugees, half citizens, helpless victims of anti semitism, additional years in DP camps
2) potentially another massacre for the jews in Palestine as the war is lost..... and/ elsewhere as a pogrom in poland post WWII
3) democracy for the arabs in Palestine with the jews

those were the moral questions the zionist had. (the refugees of the arabs was not their decision to make).



--------

I would support any Jewish claim for compensation or a demand that the world supply Jews with an empty land for them to develop.
However, the fact that no such offer was made does not excuse Zionism

good point....even after the industrial genocide of WWII, the world was still not going to do anything to let the jews live securely as jews. That infact does excuse the nationalistic movement of zionism. Being "beat up" forever" is not a good way to live, nor is it moral. Eventually you have to stand up and fight back....an when you do fight back its not immoral to win.

[kayecy]

112. Calm down!........You would have a much more effective argument if you produced a few hard facts....

Start with the initial false and i assume its out of ignorance, the davar was some kind of
obscure publications...

As I said before, Davar started in 1925, 8 years after Balfour...You will have difficulty explaining how it could influenced pre-Balfour Zionist policy.....As to my use of the adjective ‘obscure’......Well perhaps I should have said ‘minor’......Davar was the journal of the Zionist Labour movement which was only supported by some 30% of world Zionists....In 1939, Davar had a circulation of 15,000...The Al Hamishmar, Haboker, Hamashkif, Hatzofeh, Hamodia and Kol Ha’am had similar circulations..... The Ha’aretz circulation was about 50,000.

I suggest you reserve your assumption of my ignorance until you have some harder evidence than showing I chose an inappropriate adjective.

The question of how best to govern simply started with Hess and continues today....
this is not even a philosophical question of morality of right or wrong...your just wrong here, flat out wrong, black and white wrong...wrong wrong wrong.

Calm down!.......Don’t get so excited......You would have a much more effective argument if you produced a few hard facts to support your claims........Do you have evidence that starting from Hess, the pre-Balfour Zionists thought about democracy in anything but mono-ethnic terms?......Did they, for instance, consider how a Jewish-dominated government could be democratic before the Jews achieved a majority in Palestine?

(you didn't click on my link.....too much to read perhaps).

I ALWAYS check your links.....I searched for ‘democracy’ on the site and I certainly got 1000 results....1000 mainly irrelevant articles , starting with:
“Democracy and German Youth”, “ICA Up in Arms”, “The World Economic Conference Again” etc, etc....Most dated about 1940 and with no reference to pre-Balfour discussions as far as I could see.......I searched for “social-democracy” and this time got only 5 articles........If time-wasting links like that are all you can produce, forget it...I don’t have the time to follow your red-herrings.......Just give me the reference to a couple of articles that support your claims and we can then discuss them.

I’ve followed and commented on most of your links and now I would like to hear your comments on the following very-readable academic paper.....Even though first published in 1947, it seems to analyze the rights and wrongs of the Palestinian situation very succinctly.

The Zionist Illusion, W.T. Stace.
http://www.princeton.edu/paw/web_exclusives/more/more_letters/letters_stace.html

The 24th paragraph of this paper is particularly relevant: “The last argument commonly put forward for Zionism is the fact that Jewish immigrants into Palestine have already enormously improved the country, and that further immigration will result in further benefits to it.”

Unlike other forced population transfers of that period, they really didn't have to be kicked out.....there were other options, such as accepting the jews..

There were many Arabs kicked out by the Haganah at gun-point......My illustration was referring to one such Arab, so can we forget about what options they had?

The arabs of the land now had two options....they could accept the jewish refugees, and their "right of return" and work together to build a democracy or not, some chose not to.

But as I have explained, some Arabs had NO choice.....Those that had no choice, do they, or do they not have a better right-of-return than someone, say, like yourself.

I’m sorry to be personal, but this really is a matter of principle....I want you to be clear which sort of Arab and which sort of Jew I am asking you to compare.

...which was "more moral" for the jews
1) continue to be refugees, half citizens, helpless victims of anti semitism, additional years in DP camps
2) potentially another massacre for the jews in Palestine as the war is lost..... and/ elsewhere as a pogrom in poland post WWII
3) democracy for the arabs in Palestine with the jews

You have me lost....Can you try again?....Are your choices referring to 1946 Europe or the 1948 partition of Palestine?

good point....even after the industrial genocide of WWII, the world was still not going to do anything to let the jews live securely as jews. That infact does excuse the nationalistic movement of zionism. Being "beat up" forever" is not a good way to live, nor is it moral..

I am using ‘morality’ as described by Chomsky: “...one of the, maybe the most, elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something's right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow.”

The Jews were suffering and did not want it - That was WRONG.......The people forcing the suffering on the Jews were therefore ‘immoral’.........Likewise, the Palestinian Arabs were made to suffer and did not want it – That too was WRONG .....The people forcing the suffering on them were also immoral.

The World caused the Jews to suffer much more than the Zionists did the Palestinian Arabs.....However, the World in general has acknowledged the wrong done to the Jews and tried to rectify the matter.......Zionists (and Britain, the US etc) have never acknowledged the wrong they did to the Arabs and are continuing to make them suffer.......If it was wrong of the world to dominate the Jews and make them live as second class citizens, it was also wrong of the Zionists to dominate the Palestinians and make them live as second class citizens.

How can Zionism not be immoral?
.
.

[pelsar]

113. this is kind of messy...so i'm just going to stick to a few points

btw, on a personal viewpoint in all of my years here, you are the only one who not only has not "disappeared" during a discussion but has avoided the usual "bullet points" and has forced me to rethink, reexamine and re research much of my thoughts....you've even forced me to ask my inlaws about Davar (they're over 70...the history of israel and its politics are very much tied in to their personal lives,
___________________________

the philosophy of the zionists in terms of how they were govern was an ongoing process....it never stopped being examined and modified starting from the 1800's including today as the minimum of entry in to the knesset is changed and the prime minister is elected separately.... I suspect your zeroing in on the arabs, were there discussions about the arabs and how would they be involved? They were a secondary issue, mainly because it was recognized that a democracy for the arabs would require a cultural change for them and that would take time....for a democracy to exist and for democracy to insure that the jews are equal citizens it was essential for a jewish majority... The gazans voting in hamas is a good example of what can go wrong as is the PA's abbas still ruling even after his term was over.

and your link?...i had to laugh, the guys basic premise is wrong

Nevertheless it seems to me that the principle that a people have a right to force an entry into another country if they can show they are improving it — which is the real basis of the Zionist contention

the zionist contention is that the world is immoral and anti semitism exists for some strange reason and that the world has proven to us that we cant trust the world to treat us "fairly" hence we need our own little country to live in where we don't have to worry about anti semitism in our every day lives. The morality of zionism is that while taking care of ourselves we offered the locals a chance to live with us as equals (after the war ended....). It has nothing to do with "improving the conditions or the economy" to justify zionism. The locals were offered to live as equals because that was the moral thing to do. Morality is relative, for the jews to continue to live with the constant fear of anti semitism was immoral...and for us israelis, it remains immoral. His contention that "improvement of conditions is used to justify zionism shows poor research or an agenda..i suspect its more of an agenda to show the immorality of zionism. It appears he didn't talk to my inlaws or their friends. Which brings me to Davar, which was the heart and soul of the labor party, its writers, it editors etc. Its influence, like the kibbutzim was beyond its numbers.
-----------

.I want you to be clear which sort of Arab and which sort of Jew I am asking you to compare.

What are we comparing? the jew born in palestine living in jerusalem that goes back 10 centuries? vs the arab whos been in hebron for 9?, the holocaust survivor vs the economic arab immigrant who was starving in sudan 5 years earlier? How about the arab from Pharades (arab village) that has 4 centuries, that helps the hagana since they prefer the jews over the brits, turks, syrians, egyptians? Or maybe its because the people of that arab village work in the near by kibbutzim and like the economic improvement. How about the jews of Safed who had to live through an arab pogrom in 1834 vs the arabs who did the rioting. How about the Druze, they were pretty clear about preferring the jews, i'm sure they did the comparison of living as a minority under the arabs or jews...guess who they chose, and im sure they had their reasons.

i don't see how one can compare the real variety of histories and stories to get a "moral picture" there is simply way too many variations.....

as far as the definition of morality:

If something's right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow.”

that floored me, words fail me....i cant think of a more ethno centric definition of morality than that.

if something is right for me...i.e, killing my sister for going out with the wrong person, thats right for you?
_____

If it was wrong of the world to dominate the Jews and make them live as second class citizens, it was also wrong of the Zionists to dominate the Palestinians and make them live as second class citizens..

in all courts of law and as far as i know, all systems of justice in the western world, intention plays an important part.The "world" intentionally treated the jews as second class citizens, the zionists as per the democracy that exists in israel, do not (again the Palestenians in the WB have their own 'sort of govt with the PA, on the way to their own state one day.....)

that is the difference between the immorality of past and present anti semitism
(interesting poll here
http://barkgrowlbite.blogspot.com/2011/02/glue-that-binds-arab-societies-is.html)
vs democratic zionism.

I get the impression you believe there is a single definitive definition of morality that transcends people experiences, cultures, history, religions ......do you believe that?

[kayecy]

114. If it is RIGHT for you to kill your sister, then it is also RIGHT for her to kill you (or me) .....

.....and has forced me to rethink, reexamine and re research much of my thoughts....you've even forced me to ask my inlaws about Davar

Thank you for the complement.......You too, have made me re-study my notes and check my references more than any Zionist has done in the past.



Is living in constant fear immoral?

......for the jews to continue to live with the constant fear of anti semitism was immoral..

On the contrary......Had the Jews decided to live with constant fear it would be a supremely moral decision........A likely fatal decision for many, but nevertheless moral one......Of course, those forcing them to do so were totally immoral.

The leaders of a truly moral enterprise would have accepted living with the constant fear if the only alternative was to save themselves at the expense of an altogether innocent people.

A man who sacrifices his life by giving his life-jacket to another is supremely moral......A man who saves himself by taking a weaker man’s life-jacket is immoral.
.
.



Who has a greater right to return?

What are we comparing?

I’m sorry....I thought I had made myself clear.....The comparison is simple.......Take a Jewish immigrant, such as yourself with no connection to Palestine except for an ancient cultural one, and compare him(yourself) to a Palestinian Arab, presently living in the West Bank, but who retains title to property within Israel, was a long-term resident and is connected to the land via culture, ancestors and religion......In this specific case, who do you consider has the greater right to return/immigrate to Palestine?

I am quite happy to discuss other Jews (Jerusalem born, holocaust survivors etc etc) as well as Sudanese Arabs or whatever, but first I am trying to get you to state what you really think on the above specific comparison......Is that too much to ask?



The Zionist Illusion – Dr W T Stace

His contention that "improvement of conditions is used to justify zionism shows poor
research or an agenda

Stace stated “...The last argument commonly put forward for Zionism is the fact that Jewish immigrants into Palestine have already enormously improved the country”....You claim that that argument is not used by Zionists but offer no evidence to support your claim.....Without any justification, you say it shows poor research,........You accuse him of having an agenda, but again you offer no evidence........Is that how you normally attempt to counter an argument you read in an academic paper?

Moreover, you yourself have put forward a very similar claim when defending Zionism.....You claimed the Zionist movement was moral because it ensured that the locals received the benefits of the enterprise.....Isn’t that the same as ‘improving the country’?

To dismiss Stace’s paper on such a flimsy pretext as the above indicates an amazing arrogance on your part........If, on the other hand, you can argue against Stace logically, or better still produce a study, paper or whatever by a disinterested academic that concludes Zionism was in fact a moral enterprise, then that would indeed be interesting..... Are you aware of such a document?

Let me press you further....Stace states in paragraph 5 that:
...the main principle of international justice is that which was laid down in the Atlantic Charter. - Nations should have the right of determining their internal affairs without aggression from outside nations. This is nothing new, invented by Roosevelt or Churchill. It was implicit in Wilson’s policy and pronouncements. It was the idea on which the League of Nations was supposed to be built. It has always been, for that matter, the fundamental idea of democracy. For the self-determination or democracy of a nation means that its affairs are governed by the wishes of its own people

Do you disagree with the principle that the affairs of a nation should be governed by the wishes of its own people without aggression from outside nations?



Chomsky’s definition of morality and Pelsar’s ethno-centric claim.

as far as the definition of morality:
If something's right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow.” .....that floored me, words fail me....i cant think of a more ethno centric definition of morality than that......if something is right for me...i.e, killing my sister for going out with the wrong person, thats right for you?

You appear not to have understood your own illustration:

If it is RIGHT for you to kill your sister, then it is also RIGHT for her to kill you (or me) .....Likewise if it is WRONG for you to kill your sister, it is WRONG for her to kill you (or me)....’I/me’ does not come into the moral dilemma of you and your sister anymore than the Palestinians came into the moral dilemma of the Zionists and the World......We are both just innocent third parties.

You are going to look ridiculous if you can’t find a better justification than that for calling Chomsky’s definition ethno-centric!

Chomsky’s definition of morality is not only not ethno-centric, it is a statement of the obvious:
If it was WRONG of the world to dominate the Jews and make them live as second class citizens, it was also WRONG of the Zionists to dominate the Palestinians and make them live as second class citizens.....Ipso facto, Zionism was immoral.



And now to answer your last question:

I get the impression you believe there is a single definitive definition of morality that transcends people experiences, cultures, history, religions ......do you believe that?

No, I do not believe there is a single definition of morality....However there is a commonly used definition which fits out discussion......I was using 'moral' to describe the Zionist decisions/judgments with the meaning shown in 1a in the below extract from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
Definition of MORAL
1a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments>
1b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem>
1c : conforming to a standard of right behavior
1d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation>
1e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>

2: probable though not proved : virtual <a moral certainty>

3: perceptual or psychological rather than tangible or practical in nature or effect <a moral victory> <moral support>


Is there a dictionary definition you prefer?

[shira]

115. Kayecy, since you think 1948 was so unjust would you say you're against a 2-state solution?

After all, that would be rewarding or justifying what you see as a racist colonialist immoral enterprise - right? Why should Palestinians accept that, and even if they do, isn't that something they can always hold forever over Israel? Maybe leading to future conflict? Making a 2 state deal with immoral, colonialist, racist thieves? Regretting it? Doing something about it later...?

If you're against 2 states and for only one state - with a Palestinian majority that could possibly put Hamas in power and make life miserable for Jews - isn't that WORSE than what you accuse early zionists of doing? That would put Jews into the same situation they were in prior to 1948, which you admitted earlier was immoral.

What are you for?

[kayecy]

116. Pelsar......I see you are on-line today....Would care to continue our little debate?..

[shira]

117. It's not much of a debate when you refuse to answer questions, deflect, evade... n/t

[pelsar]

118. starting with the simple...

If it was WRONG of the world to dominate the Jews and make them live as second class citizens, it was also WRONG of the Zionists to dominate the Palestinians and make them live as second class citizens.....Ipso facto, Zionism was immoral.Text

thats way too simple an argument, your claiming that "wrongs" are equal, no justice system in the world accepts that: The world had 2000 years to correct their "wrong" of anti semitism, they failed, hence it zionism was/is the "lessor wrong".

now the more complex

Take a Jewish immigrant, such as yourself with no connection to Palestine except for an ancient cultural one, and compare him(yourself) to a Palestinian Arab, presently living in the West Bank, but who retains title to property within Israel, was a long-term resident and is connected to the land via culture, ancestors and religion......In this specific case, who do you consider has the greater right to return/immigrate to Palestine?

i return to my original concept: democracy, those that bring it, support it, and strengthen it have the moral superiority over lands governed by a "lessor government". Whereas it will be immoral for me to take his private land without compensation, no matter what i'm bringing with me, the right to immigrate, and change the ruling structure/customs of the dictatorship/occupation is with the one who brings democracy. Furthermore, ensuring that the democracy will survive, will no doubt involve using illiberal methods. I 'm not a nationalist, in that land ownership by a certain group is the "highest level" (which appears to be your opinion), its the group that governs using a democracy that always has the moral high ground. (usually when people write about improvement that mean economics, i don't)

that means, as far as i'm concern, china has no right to govern china, hamas the PA, Libya, Syria etc are all illegal governments and can be attacked and overthrown by any group that will install a democracy.

I dont totally disagree with Stace since the Palestinians area was in fact not a nation, which is why the zionist chose it, had it been a nation, it would have been out of the question...

Nations should have the right of determining their internal affairs without aggression from outside nations.

apparently Obama and NATO disagree with their Libyan adventure as does Saudi Arabia, Russia, infact interference has always been the norm, and nothing has really changed.....

_______________________________
Chomsky is saying; If its good for me, then its good for you...for instance if i like to eat live wolf, than its good for you as well. Thats why its ethnocentric It assumes that we all agree on what is good. The arab culture says its good to kill ones sister if she 'steps out of line" so therefore you can do it too. (according to Chomsky). I reject that, a better viewpoint is the opposite: I will not do to you what i would not like done to me, that allows for cultural freedom. (that was my actual point)

But this is just a side argument
_______________________

The definition of morality by the western dictionary fits my view, but neglects to mention that morality is relative and not static, hence all justice systems recognize the difference between first degree murder, pre meditated murder and man slaughter. So when applying that to the I/P conflict we discover that the zionists of the 1800's may not have been able to read the future but they guessed that staying in europe was to 'invite immoral" events on the jews, hence its was 'more moral" to go to a place where at least they could defend themselves and protect their families which was the moral thing to do.

and that is the question for you:

would have it been more moral for there to be no zionism, have no immigration to Palestine, additional jews as victims of the holocaust (those that left for Palestine) not to mention the additional 100,000+ that were stuck in DP camps after WWII (the 100,000 were only released to israel after israel declared independence and they had a place to go...

as well as the jews in the arab countries to continually live as second class citizens?

that to you would have been the better "moral" choice for the jews?

[kayecy]

120. Thank you for being willing to take up this subject again....

Thank you for being willing to take up this subject again...It is in fact the essence of my position on the IP conflict……If the Zionists were morally right to impose immigration on Palestine then the Palestinians were not justified in resisting it, not justified in refusing partition, resisting Israel, instituting intifadas etc etc…..To date, no argument and nothing I have read has lead me to that conclusion.

If it was WRONG of the world to dominate the Jews and make them live as second class citizens, it was also WRONG of the Zionists to dominate the Palestinians and make them live as second class citizens.....Ipso facto, Zionism was immoral.Text

thats way too simple an argument, your claiming that "wrongs" are equal, no justice system in the world accepts that: The world had 2000 years to correct their "wrong" of anti semitism, they failed, hence it zionism was/is the "lessor wrong".

I am not claiming that “wrongs” are equal…As you say, the world had 2,000 years of anti semitism and that was a big wrong…..However, I believe that in general the world has accepted it was wrong and although it cannot change 2,000 years of history, it can and does ensure that Jews today, have a high proportion of representation in government…… at least as far as the USA/UK/France are concerned.(eg 13% US Senators are Jews but only 1.7% of the US population, 3.7% of UK MPs are Jews but only 0.5% of the UK population)

You have now sated that Zionism was/is the lesser wrong…..Fair enough, but as you say, it was/is a wrong and if you really mean that, I salute you…..However, if you accept Zionism was/is a wrong, then surely you should be doing your utmost to rectify that wrong, however insignificant it was/is compared with 2,000 years of anti-semitism?

....i return to my original concept: democracy, those that bring it, support it, and strengthen it have the moral superiority over lands governed by a "lessor government".

Ah yes…..I had forgotten your ‘superiority’ version of the rights of democratic nations….The western democracies and Israel don’t seem to agree with you, at least when it suits them....Remember Israel’s support for the Shah?...And even this year it continues to support King Abdullah and sided with Mubarak against the democratic revolution.

There is at least one person who agrees with your ‘superiority’ version of the rights of democratic nations – My wife!.....She thinks the UN should be replaced by the UDN (United Democratic Nations).

....china, hamas the PA, Libya, Syria etc are all illegal governments and can be attacked and overthrown by any group that will install a democracy.

Just so that I am absolutely clear on this, can you confirm that, in your view, a democracy has the right to attack and democratize, say China, even if there is a possibility that the majority of Chinese prefer to be ruled by the existing non-democratic communist government?

....I dont totally disagree with Stace since the Palestinians area was in fact not a nation, which is why the zionist chose it, had it been a nation, it would have been out of the question...
Nations should have the right of determining their internal affairs without aggression from outside nations.

Again, can you clarify this for me?….We are debating the morality of Zionism…..You claim that it would have been out of the question for the Zionists to chose Palestine for their homeland if Palestine “had been a nation”….That may be true….However, I fail to see how the morality of the Zionist decision is affected by whether Palestine was a nation or not……Surely, as a democrat, you must accept that it is the will of the majority of the people that matters and there is little doubt that the majority of Palestinians did not want Zionist immigration?

....Chomsky is saying; If its good for me, then its good for you...for instance if i like to eat live wolf, than its good for you as well. Thats why its ethnocentric It assumes that we all agree on what is good.

What Chomsky actually said was “If something's right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow.”……You have produced a ridiculous analogy and then claimed it shows Chomsky was ethnocentric!.......I would remind you that we are discussing the morality of Zionism, not Islam or Communism whose ‘moral’ values, if they exist at all would be entirely different from western values.

Zionists did not eat wolves or kill their sisters but they did invade Palestine in order to dominate the Palestinians and make them second class citizens……If it was not morally wrong of the Zionists to do that, then it was not morally wrong of the Western world to dominate the Jews and make them live as second class citizens!..... The two action were carried out by western civilizations……Is that being ethnocentric?

....would have it been more moral for there to be no zionism, have no immigration to Palestine, additional jews as victims of the holocaust (those that left for Palestine) not to mention the additional 100,000+ that were stuck in DP camps after WWII (the 100,000 were only released to israel after israel declared independence and they had a place to go...as well as the jews in the arab countries to continually live as second class citizens?
......that to you would have been the better "moral" choice for the jews?

Unfortunately, when Zionists (or other cultures) make choices the future is unknown……..Their decision must, by necessity, be based on the best information available….In 1900, the holocaust, DPP camps etc were all future events….. The Zionist’s decision whether to invade Palestine and make the natives second class citizens was presumably based on their reasonable fear of continued persecution….Had I been a Jew in those circumstances, I hope I would have declared that I wanted nothing to do with a scheme which perforce made an innocent people second-class citizens…….As a Jew, I would be well aware of how unpleasant that position could be.

....doesn't that mean, that if only germany had kept the industrial genocide limited to its own borders than it would have been none of anybodies business?

An interesting question…….To be fair to Stace and the UN, the ‘rule-book’ was being written at a time when Stalin was at least as powerful as the western democracies….Stalin would not have joined any organization that infringed his sovereignty, even the mild form of embodied in the present concept of liberal interventionism…..Without Stalin as a member the UN would have been irrelevant……..Having said that, your question does invite other questions:

Of course industrial genocide should be everyone's interest, and universal support for international protests, sanctions and anything short of declaring war....However, would the potential killing of 6 million Jews alone be justification for the Allies to declare war on Germany?……WW2 resulted in the deaths of some 50 million people……Should the possibility of saving 6 million outweigh the possibility of causing the death of 44 million?
.
.

[pelsar]

121. listen to your wife....

First off let me congratulate you on marrying an obviously very intelligent women, one who you should probably listen to more:

There is at least one person who agrees with your ‘superiority’ version of the rights of democratic nations – My wife!.....She thinks the UN should be replaced by the UDN (United Democratic Nations).

ok so we agree that "wrongs" are not equal…that i would say is one of my base arguments… (zionism being the "lesser wrong")

I believe that in general the world has accepted it was wrong and although it cannot change 2,000 years of history, it can and does ensure that Jews today, have a high proportion of representation in government

but thats nothing new…this anti semitism thing comes and goes in waves in different geographic areas. Germany was one of the "enlightened" countries, Spain was also doing great before it dumped "its jews". Your claiming that "things have changed" has zero proof, its just belief….a belief that jews after so many times being fooled have a right not to believe.

Ah yes…..I had forgotten your ‘superiority’ version of the rights of democratic nations….The western democracies and Israel don’t seem to agree with you, at least when it suits them....Remember Israel’s support for the Shah?...And even this year it continues to support King Abdullah and sided with Mubarak against the democratic revolution.

your confusing the superior governing morality of a govt based on civil rights etc vs the reality of politics in a very nasty world. It was right to work with Stalin in WWII against hitler, hitler was the "worser" of the two, I would argue that the shah had better potential for reform and support from iranians and made for a safer world than khomeni today. Democracies have to live in this world and using illiberal methods to protect themselves is simply a reality.

Just so that I am absolutely clear on this, can you confirm that, in your view, a democracy has the right to attack and democratize, say China, even if there is a possibility that the majority of Chinese prefer to be ruled by the existing non-democratic communist government?

yes…..dictatorships can never have the "will of the people" for no longer than a single generation, hence there is no choice but the democracy if once is concerned with the "will of the people."

dictatorships, do not have real representation, their "voting" is pretty much a joke, if at all. So if there is a revolution and leader K takes over. When generation 2,3 ,4 grows up, they may not want to keep K (or his son) and may want a change. However revolutions do not come easy and when they start they don't always succeed. hence our youngsters in Generation 2,3,4 because of the dictatorship that they parents put in to place, will not get the chance for the change they want. If your recall, the iranian attempt failed, syrias is now failing, Egypt is now getting an army dominated version.

There is no "will of the people" in a dictatorship, there is only the power grab and the restriction of the those people.

so even if one group in a population prefers a dictatorship/strong man, they cannot be accommodated because it creates a situation where its very difficult to accommodate changes in the will of the people.

(and just to put some realism-the west may have the "right" to force a change, obviously in the real world, its not always a good idea to even try...).

Surely, as a democrat, you must accept that it is the will of the majority of the people that matters and there is little doubt that the majority of Palestinians did not want Zionist immigration

no the majority does not get automatic rights to create civilizations/societies based on taking away minority rights, etc…simply no. The majority has a single right and that is to create a society that provides equal rights. The Palestinians were not going in that direction, to say the least-creating an additional dictatorship or adding to the syrian/egyptian/jordanian ones was/is not a moral right.

The land mass that made up Palestinian was nothing more than a space between other arbitrary lines in the sand, that unlike other areas had a decent chance to produce a democracy since those that those who would come (the zionists) to create that democracy were going to stay (vs the US army that will leave iraq and afganistan in their failed efforts)

“If something's right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me

…If it was not morally wrong of the Zionists to do that, then it was not morally wrong of the Western world to dominate the Jews and make them live as second class citizens!..... The two action were carried out by western civilizations……Is that being ethnocentric?

first off, obviously i'm ethnocentric…believing that democracy has no equal in our world..but now i understand what your getting at with Chomsky. its definitely ethnocentric to say what is good for me is good for you, if we limit it to western democracies it works under the moral code, but its limited to democracies. The chinese will probably disagree with what Chomsky thinks is good.

but Zionism does not regulate lawfully its citizens to second class, so i'm not sure how it fits.

Had I been a Jew in those circumstances, I hope I would have declared that I wanted nothing to do with a scheme which perforce made an innocent people second-class citizens…….As a Jew, I would be well aware of how unpleasant that position could be.

that choice was made by many….hence the 6 million…..commiting your children to be gassed could easily be claimed to be an immoral decision.

Of course industrial genocide should be everyone's interest, and universal support for international protests, sanctions and anything short of declaring war....However, would the potential killing of 6 million Jews alone be justification for the Allies to declare war on Germany?……WW2 resulted in the deaths of some 50 million people……Should the possibility of saving 6 million outweigh the possibility of causing the death of 44 million?

well lets at least start with throwing out the window the concept that Stace puts forth of "Hands off other countries" your sanctions already affect the citizens of the country your "protesting against." the next question is simply how far are you willing to go in interfering in a "countries business"

after its been discovered that sanctions don't work….what next? (as Hitlers engineers start with the different concepts of industrial genocide....). Realistilcy you don't have a whole lot of options, short of invading to produce a change. Don't forget the "people" were behind hitler...that majority who were exercising their rights as a sovereign nation (to kill their own).

so if you do act to stop that industrial genocide, your violating the sacred rule of majority rules (and their choice) and the sanctity of the "nation". If you don't act to stop industrial genocide do you really have the moral authority to tell those that survived that they dont have the moral right to create a nation where they can defend themselves?

[kayecy]

122. You spent so much time on your theory that you forgot the most important question.......

1. The application of your ‘superior rights’ theory
You have produced an interesting dissertation on your theory of the ‘superior rights” of democracies...Let’s look at two of the applications you have chosen to show how your theory applies in practice.

It was right to work with Stalin in WWII against hitler, hitler was the "worser" of the two,

Stalin murdered between 20 and 40 million before the start of WW2...Hitler was democratically elected as Chancellor in 1933.....In spite of that you somehow manage to twist your ‘superior rights’ theory so that it supports the industrial-scale murderer Stalin!

I would argue that the shah had better potential for reform and support from iranians and made for a safer world than khomeni today.

Neither Khomeni nor the Shah were democratically elected......More relevant is the comparison of the Shah with Mosaddegh......Mosaddegh was democratically elected........He was overthrown by western democratic governments (the US & UK) who then replaced his Democratic government with the Shah’s dictatorship.....That action is a good illustration of how important, western democracies value democratic government in other peoples.

Having shown that even your own examples of ‘superior rights’ do not make sense, I suggest further discussion on your theory would be unproductive.

However, for this discussion, and to avoid future distractions, I am prepared to accept that those Zionists who believed in your theory of ‘superior rights’ would have had an excuse for invading any land which was clearly not going to develop into a democracy of its own accord.


2. The validity of your claim that Zionism was a moral movement.

....the majority does not get automatic rights to create civilizations/societies based on taking away minority rights, etc…simply no.

The first Palestinian riots took place in 1920 in protest against the implications of Zionist immigration.....Prior to that time there was little tension between the (mainly) indigenous Palestinian Jews and the Palestinian Moslems....What evidence have you that the Arabs were taking away minority rights prior to 1920?

.The majority has a single right and that is to create a society that provides equal rights. The Palestinians were not going in that direction, to say the least

Ormsby-Gore, UK Colonial Secretary stated in 1936 after visiting Palestine with the Royal Commission of Inquiry:
“The Arabs demand a complete stoppage of all Jewish immigration, a complete stoppage of all sales of land, and the transfer of the Government of Palestine from the present constitution to what they call a National Government responsible to an elected democratic assembly. Those are their three demands, and, quite frankly, those demands cannot possibly be conceded.”

Is this not an indication that the Palestinian Arabs did wish to introduce democracy?.......Even worse, it indicates the three Arab demands apparently could not be conceded because to do do would require Britain going back on its (immoral) promise to the Zionists.......Britain and the Zionists were actually stopping democratic development of the Arabs!

...now i understand what your getting at with Chomsky. its definitely ethnocentric to say what is good for me is good for you, if we limit it to western democracies it works under the moral code.

But Zionism claimed to be a western democracy so we can apply Chomsky’s simplified morality test.....If Zionists thought it moral to dominate and make the Arabs second-class citizens, then how could they complain that the world had done the same to them?

If you don't act to stop industrial genocide do you really have the moral authority to tell those that survived that they dont have the moral right to create a nation where they can defend themselves?

Since in my opinion, acting to possibly save 6 million lives at a possible cost of 50 million is not being moral, your question is meaningless.

However, I have always believed that Jews did have a right to create a nation where they could defend themselves......I just think they had no right to create a nation in Palestine in defiance of the wishes of the indigenous Palestinians........The Jews had great influence and extremely good contacts in both the UK (Weizmann, Rothschild, Samuel, Morgenthau) and the USA – (Brandeis, Baruch, Schiff, Gottheil, Hass, Wise, Frankfurter)....In 1913, the FED was literally owned by the Jewish banks of Rothchilds, Lazards, Israel Seif, Warburgs, Lehman, Kuhn Loeb, Rockefeller and Goldman Sachs.....Had these well-connected Jews attempted to use their power and influence to bring about a homeland in the US, the Argentine or Australia I am quite sure they would have succeeded.....Australia in particular, was short of labor, had plenty of wide-open spaces and might have welcomed the money, and superior scientific and financial skills that Jewish immigration would have brought had they been approached in the right way by the UK/US governments.....The fact is, that from 1905 (the Seventh Zionist Congress), all alternatives to Palestine were dismissed by the Zionists.


3. Zionism was the lesser wrong but as you said, it was a wrong.
You seem to have spent so much time expounding on your ‘superior rights’ theory that you forgot to respond to the most important question in my last post......Let me remind you what I asked:

“You have now sated that Zionism was the lesser wrong…..Fair enough, but as you say, it was a wrong and if you really mean that, I commend you…..However, if you accept Zionism was a wrong, then surely you should be doing your utmost to rectify that wrong, however insignificant it was compared with 2,000 years of anti-semitism?”


You will, no doubt wish to make a final contribution to your ‘superior rights’ theory, but I am more interested in hearing from you why you think the Arabs had no right to resist, and to go on resisting even the ‘lesser wrong’ of the Zionist invasion of Palestine?

[pelsar]

123. the imperfection of zionism and western democracies

and their applications within the world, does not discount their advantages over dicatorships.

Having shown that even your own examples of ‘superior rights’ do not make sense, I suggest further discussion on your theory would be unproductive.

what you have shown is that western politics is far from being a science, like all political movements it has its own selfish interests at heart to protect itself and its resources….

its just a better system than dictatorships or other systems based on genetics/landownership that you seem to be promoting….it is the only system that allows for the "majority wishes for more than a single generation".

which, if your promoting both majority rule as well as dictatorships as an acceptable ruling method, i would like to know how you combine the two to create an acceptable government system. Do you really believe the Chinese prefer to live in a society where they do not have the freedom to say what they think? and how would you know anyway?

more so, this view of yours is similar to your views that the moral thing for the jews of europe to do was to stay there pre WWII and not leave for Palestine…i.e. get killed rather than live, survive and make a democratic country.

your expectations for the jews and western democratic politics are simply not realistic, you seem to be expecting perfection of politics and foresight where non exists , moral perfection where death is the moral choice rather then moving to a new land….

What evidence have you that the Arabs were taking away minority rights prior to 1920?……
...transfer of the Government of Palestine from the present constitution to what they call a National Government responsible to an elected democratic assembly.
Is this not an indication that the Palestinian Arabs did wish to introduce democracy?

you have got to be kidding…an "indication"? you're going to have to show a little more than a wish for a racist, "elected assembly" (demands one and two were anti democratic with two being simply racist).

be realistic, if not for the jews the arabs living in israel were not going to be living in a democracy, assuming they would not have been swallowed up by jordan, greater syria and egypt.. (note the PA and gaza have actually take away individual freedom rights that arabs had under the occupation)

your argument is simple: landownership based on genetics (those who were here "first") get to decide the government system without outside interference no matter how cruel or kind to its inhabitants. (whats with the "non interference doctrine" of Stace, does that still work with you?)

But Zionism claimed to be a western democracy so we can apply Chomsky’s simplified morality test..

i said i understood what you meant, i still disagree with Chomsky. I simply prefer the negative, its provides for freedom and is not related to culture.

anyway your comparison doesn't even work, 2000 years of pogroms, anti jew laws ending with the holocaust, hardly compares to the arab citizens of israel or even the Palestinians under the PA.

I have always believed that Jews did have a right to create a nation where they could defend themselves
…..Had these well-connected Jews attempted to use their power and influence to bring about a homeland in the US, the Argentine or Australia I am quite sure they would have succeeded

i will give you credit for recognizing the problem that jews had, but to suggest that sovereign country would give them land?

Austrialia wouldn't even let the aborigines have their own separate country, the US..the indians are stuck on reservations, without their own country (the 1920s in the US was strongly anti Semitic). Argentina? they fought the Brits for the Falklands not even willing to give up those islands to somebody else….

even after WWII, nobody wanted the jews as they all had their quotas, and your claiming countries would willing give up their hard fought borders to give to millions of jews?…this is really just grasping at straws.

but I am more interested in hearing from you why you think the Arabs had no right to resist, and to go on resisting even the ‘lesser wrong’ of the Zionist invasion of Palestine?

on the contrary, the arabs had every right to resist, people were coming to their area and were changing the culture. (that can always be defined as "wrong") Its a very basic human nature to resist change especially change in culture where those in power will lose that power and prestige, so i don't fault the arabs at all. There were however some Palestinian arabs who were a bit smarter (a village called Fureidis for example), where the local leadership realized that what the jews were offering in terms of political security and economic advancement was more important than arab nationalism, hence they stayed out of the fight.

which is why zionism more than made up for changing the culture…it offered and granted political freedom to the inhabitants of the land. Which, according to various polls, the arab citizens will not give up for mere arab nationalism…and that is the crucial fact which negates your whole philosophy: when given choices between nationalism and western democracy, the preference is for the democracy. The people are even willing up to give up parts of the culture for that very freedom. It may not be the first generation, who resist the change (as is natural), but generation 2, 3 realize the what its all about and don't want to go back.


i just want to clarify ...do you or do you not believe in interfering in a sovereign nations business, be it an extreme like Pot Pol/hitler a less "sin" as per Hussain and his gassing the kurds and others, Libya (to secure the oil as far as i can tell), Sudan for its massacres? stop the jew immigration of the 1930's.....

where do you stand on all of that?

[kayecy]

125. Are we getting close to changing the IP dynamic?.........

1. You are making unwarranted assumption again!

I said I did not wish to pursue your “superior rights’ argument, but you have made several assumptions about my beliefs which need to be corrected.

...its just a better system than dictatorships or other systems based on genetics/landownership that you seem to be promoting

I am promoting no such thing........I would encourage every state to become a liberal democracy......What have I ever said that has lead to you to make such ridiculous assumption?

Do you really believe the Chinese prefer to live in a society where they do not have the freedom to say what they think? and how would you know anyway?

I have never expressed such a belief.

your argument is simple: landownership based on genetics (those who were here "first") get to decide the government system without outside interference no matter how cruel or kind to its inhabitants.

I have never argued on the basis of landownership based on genetics.....My argument is that the will of the indigenous people should be the paramount consideration.


From the above, it would seem you have a habit of making unwarranted assumptions without considering the evidence......I wonder if that is also true of your assumptions with regard to the morality of the early Zionists?


2. The early Zionists had alternatives to Palestine.

....this view of yours is similar to your views that the moral thing for the jews of europe to do was to stay there pre WWII and not leave for Palestine…i.e. get killed rather than live, survive and make a democratic country.....your expectations for the jews and western democratic politics are simply not realistic, you seem to be expecting perfection of politics and foresight where non exists

On the contrary, I know politics is not perfect......Pre-WW1 Zionism had a few simple decisions to make:
.....Zionist are being persecuted in Europe, do we stay or leave?
.....If we leave Europe do we emigrate to Palestine or the USA/Argentine/Australia/Brazil/Chile?
.....The indigenous Palestinians don’t want us..... Do we risk conflict and force ourselves on them or do we acknowledge that they, too, have nationalist ambitions to achieve self-determination?
......Pre-WW1, the US is still open to immigrants and 2 million Jews have gone there already.
......Canada is open to immigrants due to the 1880 Canadian Government and Canadian Pacific Railways efforts to develop the country.
......The Argentine Government welcomes immigrants as evidenced by Article 25 of the 1853 Argentine Constitution specifically welcoming immigrants from Europe....Some 4 million immigrants arrived between 1895 and 1914, including 300,000 Jews.
.......Brazil is open to immigrants....4 million immigrants arrived between 1870 and 1953.
......Chile is open to immigrants.

The early Zionist leaders didn’t need perfection in politics or foresight to make the morally right decision...All they needed was not to be blinded by the idea of re-creating Eretz Yisrael.


3. Were Arabs taking away minority rights?

you have got to be kidding…an "indication"? you're going to have to show a little more than a wish for a racist, "elected assembly" (demands one and two were anti democratic with two being simply racist).

You originally claimed Arabs were taking away minority rights.....I said the first riots took place in 1920 and asked you what evidence you had that the Arabs were taking away minority rights prior to WW1?……Your response was what?

Enlighten me please..... What evidence have you got that in 1936, a National Government responsible to a democratic elected assembly would have been racist?

Why were the Arab demands racist?......True they were directed against Zionists, but they were the only immigrants entering Palestine and buying up land.....They were also the only immigrants openly declaring their intention of taking over the land and making it as Jewish as English is English.

Was the early Zionist insistence on using only Jewish labor on the land they purchased racist?


4. I am always happy to answer your questions

....i just want to clarify ...do you or do you not believe in interfering in a sovereign nations business, be it an extreme like Pot Pol/hitler a less "sin" as per Hussain and his gassing the kurds and others, Libya (to secure the oil as far as i can tell), Sudan for its massacres? stop the jew immigration of the 1930's.....where do you stand on all of that?

It depends on the individual situation and the form of the ‘interference’ proposed........My criteria for the justification of military interference are as follows
1. How many people are dying/suffering in the target nation?
2. Have all non-military means been exhausted?
3. Do I think the residents of the target nation would welcome intervention?
4. What are the chances of a successful intervention and a successful aftermath?
5. How many people are likely to be killed/injured as a result of the intervention and its aftermath.

Such factors are never likely to be clear cut, but to take North Korea for example....It clearly satisfies my Criteria 1, 2 and probably 3 for intervention but possessing nuclear weapons means Criteria 4 & 5 probably make military intervention unacceptable.

The Zionist (and British) interference in Palestine, on the other hand did not fulfill any of my Criteria except possibly No 4.... Criteria No 5 alone should have ruled out Zionist interference.


6. Are we getting close to changing the IP dynamic?

...on the contrary, the arabs had every right to resist, people were coming to their area and were changing the culture. (that can always be defined as "wrong"....... so i don't fault the arabs at all.

So far you have accepted that the Zionist intervention in Palestine was wrong and now you accept that the Arabs had a right to resist and you don’t fault them for it.

I believe the whole dynamic of the IP conflict would change if an Israeli Prime Minister were to state openly what you have said...Just imagine the effect on most Arabs if Netanyahu were to stand up and declare something like:

“The world had 2000 years to correct their "wrong" of anti semitism, they failed. Zionism has also committed a wrong against the Arabs, albeit causing fewer deaths...The G.O.I, unlike the rest of the world, would like to do all in its power to correct this historical wrong.....The Arabs had every right to resist Zionism and I do not fault them for doing so.”

Impossible?......Perhaps, but Sadat didn’t think so......Is it too much to ask of an Israeli leader?

[pelsar]

126. what do they say about fools

….doing the something over and over again and expecting a different result.

Zionist are being persecuted in Europe, do we stay or leave?…..

your solution for jews of europe was simply to do the same thing again, move to land that 'welcomes them" until the next anti Semitic wave occurs there …and the survivors can then stay or emigrate once again…….

what you basically claiming is that it really wasn't so bad to be discriminated against as a jew or at least not "too immoral", since your "solution" is exactly what the jews had always been doing. more so your list is not complete…..you've ignored their quotas…. so all of the jews in fact couldn't even leave europe even if they wanted to.

that leaves your "solution" of jewish emigration as in fact no solution at all…and that was the whole point of zionism…after 2000 years of the "same solution" to stop being the eternal victim.


INDIGENOUS

My argument is that the will of the indigenous people should be the paramount consideration.

this brings up a whole host of questions……

First of all: why? what makes the indigenous people so special that you are more than willing to give them the right to treat the various minorities and others within their land area as "lesser human beings" if they so chose? You are clear that their legal right to govern is not based on civil rights or anything that relates to western morality…merely that they were born there. (this is in contrast to my belief of the illegality of any govt that does not have civil rights as its base).


More so how do you define them, these "indigenous people" if not via genetics?….what if there is immigration and and/or people living there for 20 years? do they count as "indigenous" or is there a 100 year cut off? or maybe its culture?….those who believe in a certain culture they get "indigenous status? and what about the minorities who have been there longer (bedouin vs arabs?) do they have a say and if so how much? and who decides?

The Taliban are a good example of an indigenous people, and i believe they have the backing of the people….so would you grant them legal status once they take over Afghanistan (or at least parts) and respect their way of governing, they are after all indigenous.

furthermore if the "indigenous people" have a revolution, and the fascists with more guns within them, take over (iran) does that still count as the will of the "indigenous" people? and what about 20 years after that? Do they require a new revolution if they want to change and is that fair to those who have to die for only the possibility of change (iran, syria) which will probably fail?

i think you have to define what exactly is an indigenous people and why your so willing to give them legal governing status irreguardless of how bad they treat the people within their territory.
__________________________________________




INTERVENTION

1. How many people are dying/suffering in the target nation?
2. Have all non-military means been exhausted?
3. Do I think the residents of the target nation would welcome intervention?
4. What are the chances of a successful intervention and a successful aftermath?
5. How many people are likely to be killed/injured as a result of the intervention and its aftermath.

whereas you've given it some thought your list has no relationship to anything actions that might occur on the ground…..
1) is there a formula? you previously hinted that saving 6 million is not worth 44 million, so what is the formula?
2) is based on collective punishment-i thought you were against that? (and sanctions always fail)
3) indigenous/citizens never welcome intervention when it attempts to change their culture.
4) In war, both sides believe they are going to win…
5) reading the future? (no comment)

realistically whatever guesswork there is before the intervention it will have little relationship to the actual outcome…. history is full of plans that never worked as planned..in fact, that is the norm.

In fact, i would conclude that according to your list the US shouldn't have attacked germany in WWII…. thats because in your list you cannot list the one value that makes intervention worthwhile…securing freedom for people, where the cost cannot be quantified. And that to, is why you don't understand zionism, freedom cannot be quantified and is not related to religion, culture or history, it transcends them people willing sacrifice themselves for that very freedom.



1936 ARAB NATIONAL GOVT

What evidence have you got that in 1936, a National Government responsible to a democratic elected assembly would have been racist?

Why were the Arab demands racist?......True they were directed against Zionists,

actually it was directed against jews, that defines racism. I would say having such a base law is pretty clearly racist and anti democratic, why pretend its not?

…and this was one of their base criterias. Thats a long way from understanding what democracy is. Furthermore they were no democratic institutions within the arab world at that time, realistically it doesn't happen out of the blue and as i wrote earlier, syria, jordan and egypt were just waiting for their chances to expand….why deny that as well?

i wrote the PA/Hamas have taken away individual rights since the oslo, this has been the Palestinians only chance to govern and they are exercising their new governing rights to remove civil rights from their citizens…..and this is after so many years of actual exposure to a democracy….and they still reject it. Hard to imagine that their ancestors would have embraced it as you seem to be claiming.

But, I'm not sure why this is relevant, you dont believe the type of govt the indigenous create is relevant, and the jews had no reason to trust the indigenous people to create a democracy and once again put them in minority status. The whole concept of zionism was to be able to live freely as jews within a democracy, unfortunately the imperfections of democracies also included (s) anti semitism.

the early zionists promoted jewish labor, no laws/rules were created against it, no sanctions, no fines, just peer pressure to change their own culture.


TO SIMPLISTIC

So far you have accepted that the Zionist intervention in Palestine was wrong and now you accept that the Arabs had a right to resist and you don’t fault them for it.

The zionist project was the "more moral" choice of their limited choices. Morality is not black and white, and i reject your belief that it would have be more moral for the jews to commit suicide (stay in germany) rather than create israel (as per your definition of the more moral choice in a previous post)….even those that did try to escape to other lands, as in the ss st louis came across massive anti semitism and a world reluctant to do anything-that too, was not moral. Lining up people and gassing them to the tune of millions is not moral, the survivors of such a thing have the moral right to live and defend themselves against the next onslaught, even if it means creating a democratic country where non existed and the mixed "natives" have to suffer under democratic laws.


people all over the world are willing to die for freedom, the jews died for no reason, those that survived many of them also died soon after, but at least it was for their freedom, that was the "more" moral choice.

and yes arabs had the right to resist, everyone has the right to resist change, that is our nature and that is our right, it wasn't a very smart idea, but it was their right.

SOLUTIONS
You've promoted two solutions:
1) asking a third country to donate some land for the jewish state
2)forget the concept of self defense and just keep on living as jews as guests in countries as anti semitism "comes and goes"…no change.

i would say that the first was no more than a fantasy, since its pretty hard to imagine a country voluntarily giving up part of its land for a foreign people…. and the second was not a solution….just more of the same

that leaves your "solutions" as in fact no solution at all….

your left with what is referred to as "no good choices." which also had a third option…zionism.

it appears you have a dilemma, the jews to remain as potential second class citizens (if history is to repeat itself once again), victims once again of anti semitism (did you know there was a pogrom right after WWII in poland?)

or to accept a jew led democracy where none existed on a land where others had immigrated to after the ancestral jews had left (so lets call the arabs "indigenous-but not the originals, a sort of second class kind of indigenous")

its a zero sum game,
1) new imperfect democracy
2) new dictatorship while leaving the jews to continue to be victims of anti semtism with no real options.


TO CHANGE THE DYNAMIC:
Actually the real change would occur if the Arabs, Palestinians leadership got up and apologized for their behavior toward the jews for so long.

They might want to add how ashamed they are for not being better than the "enlightened europeans" not just for their own pogroms and blood libels against the jews, but for refusing to open their arms for the escaping jews pre and post WWII. They could say that its clear there is enough room in the region for both peoples….arabs and jews, it was their own selfishness that got the better of them to act so cruel to people who had gone through so much….

Then apologize for wasting so much time, resources and efforts in trying to destroy israel and finish what hitler had started….. and realizing their mistake, they would now like to work hand in hand with the israelis to help them develop real democracies for their own citizens and for a better world.

that might work...
-------
sadat didn't apologize, he just declared a new beginning. The arabs (all the arabs countries) can do the same.

[kayecy]

127. Pre-WW1 Zionists knew that attempting to achieve a majority in Palestine was a near-impossibility...

SOLUTIONS to the pre-WW1 Jewish dilemma
You've promoted two solutions:
1) asking a third country to donate some land for the jewish state
2)forget the concept of self defense and just keep on living as jews as guests in countries as anti semitism "comes and goes"…no change.

...i would say that the first was no more than a fantasy, since its pretty hard to imagine a country voluntarily giving up part of its land for a foreign people…. and the second was not a solution….just more of the same

Solution 1 was no more of a fantasy pre-WW1 than the First Zionist Convention’s dream of a Jewish state in Palestine, then part of the Ottoman Empire.

Solution 2 need not have precluded a Jewish state being created.....With two million Jews already in the US, it does not seem unreasonable that, with the help of the influential and fantastically rich Jewish Bankers, Jews could have become the majority in one of the states of the US and thus avoided any possibility of ‘more-of-the-same’ happening....(In 1900, the population of Arizona was only 123,000, Colorado 500,00, Delaware 180,000, Idaho 154,000 and Nevada 160,000)....The 2 million Jews in the US were so little concerned about the possibility of resurgent anti-semitism that most preferred to stay in New York rather than move to say, Arizona where they could be in control of the state legislature, police, judiciary etc.

Achieving a Jewish majority in the Argentine (population 4 million in 1900) without resistance from the locals was also a real possibility.....Pre-WW1 Zionists knew that attempting to achieve a majority in Palestine was a near-impossibility....Hertzl & the ‘Territorialists’ knew that and believed that Argentina, Uganda, Ukraine, Cyprus and Sinai all had possibilities.... They were over-ruled by the Eretz Yisrael and Revisionist Zionists.


Summary
Only a small minority of the world’s Jews were Zionists pre-WW1....Most Jews simply wanted to avoid persecution and sensibly went to one of the many lands open to immigrants at the time...... Palestine was dismissed by most Jews as a harsh, hostile destination......Only the Zionists were determine to find a way to create a Jewish state in Palestine, no matter who suffered by it.

TO CHANGE THE I/P DYNAMIC:
Actually the real change would occur if the Arabs, Palestinians leadership got up and apologized for their behavior toward the jews for so long.

They might want to add how ashamed they are for not being better than the "enlightened europeans" not just for their own pogroms and blood libels against the jews, but for refusing to open their arms for the escaping jews pre and post WWII. They could say that its clear there is enough room in the region for both peoples….arabs and jews, it was their own selfishness that got the better of them to act so cruel to people who had gone through so much….

Then apologize for wasting so much time, resources and efforts in trying to destroy israel and finish what hitler had started….. and realizing their mistake, they would now like to work hand in hand with the israelis to help them develop real democracies for their own citizens and for a better world.......that might work...

A facetious response but nevertheless I am prepared to consider it:

If it is true that pre-WW1 Palestinians instituted pogroms etc against the Jews rather than simply resisting Zionist invaders, then I would be the first to suggest to them that they stand up and apologize for that wrong.....Can you produce evidence of such pogroms existed prior to the arrival of the Zionists?


You on your part, however, have given no explanation why you think Netanyahu should not issue an apology which might break the I/P impass......Why?

If you, yourself, think Zionism did a wrong to the Arabs, (however much lesser a wrong than the world did to the Jews).....Why are you not prepared to consider the outcome of Netanyahu standing up and merely repeating what you have said?

“The world had 2000 years to correct their "wrong" of anti semitism, they failed. Zionism has also committed a wrong against the Arabs, albeit causing fewer deaths...The G.O.I, unlike the rest of the world, would like to do all in its power to correct this historical wrong.....The Arabs had every right to resist Zionism and I do not fault them for doing so.”

[Shaktimaan]

128. Interesting discussion.

I've enjoyed reading the back and forth here, especially since you are both clearly going out of your way to be respectful of one another, despite markedly differing views on this subject. (I actually had a recent discussion with a Jordanian that was also interesting and challenging. A little respect for the complexity of the conflict and the validity of opinions that may oppose your own tends to go a long way in my experience.)

Obviously I have a lot of my own opinions but I'll hold off out of respect for the dialog the two of you have going here. With one exception. (Sorry, can't help it. It's something I've been thinking about throughout the entire thread.)

Kaycey, you clearly put a lot of stock in the rights of the indigenous Arabs to choose to reject Zionism, essentially giving them the kind of sovereignty one would normally associate with an independent state. I hear this sentiment often... that Zionists invaded "their land." My issue with this is that it seems to be rather arbitrary how anyone decides these rights. There is no question that Arabs lived there and were a majority in the area defined by the Mandate. But why should all of the land that no one was living on and no one owned have been considered Arab by right? Lots of different nationalities lived in this area; historically it was the home to dozens of different people. The Druze, Bedouins, Jews, Armenians, Maronites, Assyrians, Circassians, Samaritans, as well as both Christian and Muslim Arabs all lived there. At the time these Palestinians were not organized into any kind of political system that defined their nation in any way, nor which could be credibly negotiated with. The most recent "nation" that they belonged to had been King Faisal's short-lived "Arab Kingdom of Syria."

I don't understand who exactly you believe the land belonged to; the random assortment of nationalities and ethnicities held within the arbitrary borders of the British Mandate? And I reject the premise that an Arab majority within these random borders meant that an Arab arriving from Egypt should be welcomed while a Jew from the same place should be disallowed. After all, there was not a state there. No government save the British (and perhaps the Yishuv.) Nor did the people all consider themselves a part of a nation. (Certainly the indigenous Jews couldn't have. The Arabs may have been upset at Zionist immigration but it was the local Jews who bore the brunt of the riots you mentioned in the 20's. Jews had been living in Hebron for thousands of years prior to the massacre. Did the speed by which these peaceful civilians' neighbors turned to bloodshed not reinforce the desperate need for a Jewish state even more?)

No one made the argument that it should belong entirely to Israel either. You frame the issue as one where Zionism's existence prevented Palestinian self-determination. But this is not so... there were many attempts to share the land.

Basically, I feel that when we consider the morality of the situation we can not hold to these arbitrary rules that rigidly insist the general will of the majority of people living there (at that moment), should be considered above everything else. Ethics never works that way. The law might, but that's not what you're discussing. The question as I see it isn't merely weighing the right of the Jews to self-determination in their historical homeland versus the Palestinians right to the same. It is about the Palestinians right to the WHOLE homeland. To not share. Versus the truly critical need for a Jewish state, with the alternative being death for a great number of refugees. It has to be seen within the greater context of the post-war world and what was happening in it. Is it ethical for the Arab people to claim the entire middle east while denying the SHARING of a sliver of land with a nation facing extermination? A nation that is from there, and whose presence is unquestionably beneficial? I don't think so, personally. Which is also why I reject your idea of the Aliyah as the ultimate cause of all the subsequent bloodshed. I find it equally arbitrary. Why not blame anti-semitism in Europe? Or the violent Arab response to peaceful immigration (even if one does consider it an invasion, how does it justify reprisals against indigenous Jews? Or anyone who is not a violent threat for that matter... is it ever really acceptable to physically attack peaceful civilians?)

No need to respond. I don't mean to intercede here. I just felt the need to comment. Hope you at least consider my thoughts.

[kayecy]

129. Shaktimaan - see my comments on "6 in 10 Palestinians reject 2-state solution" - by SHIRA

Shaktimaan.....I have taken the liberty of copying your above comments to our old discussion thread on “6 in 10 Palestinians reject 2-state solution” - by Shira where you will see I have a couple of questions for you.

[pelsar]

130. come on....you can't be serious

your saying that if the jews were the majority in arizona or argentina then they could have used their influence and created a new state "without resistance from the locals"
isn't that what they did in Palestine?

Your also claiming that there were enough rich jews in the US in the 1900's to influence the US that had just finished up fighting the indian wars, mexican war to establish an america based on manifest destiny only to give a part of it to the jews?...your really grasping at straws here.

Argentina?....they havent even given up on the Falklands even though the residents there want to remain british......
do you have any and i mean any historical evidence that such a thing could have possible happened?

Only a small minority of the world’s Jews were Zionists pre-WW1....Most Jews simply wanted to avoid persecution and sensibly went to one of the many lands open to immigrants at the time...... Palestine was dismissed by most Jews as a harsh, hostile destination......Only the Zionists were determine to find a way to create a Jewish state in Palestine, no matter who suffered by it

and of course jewish immigration was limited...which translated in to a death sentence for those who trusted the countries they lived in or couldnt get out...you keep "forgetting to add that"

and the zionists its turned out were right, even though they were a minority..6 million dead jews later proved that plus, post WWII pogroms, more tossed out out of arab lands post WWII, kept in DP camps, etc. Anti-semitism still exists today, in fact the only thing that has changed is that the jews now have the very real option of defending themselves as jews, living as jews and that is far more moral than the other option which always translatee in to remaining a potential victim to the next local "spasm."

and yes it cost many lives, as i wrote, and history has shown, people are willing to make that sacrifice for freedom, and will continue to do so-the evidence is overwhelming be it in syria today, iran previous to that...and that is always the moral choice.

you misunderstand me...zionism is not wrong, its was the better moral choice of a very evil world. Whereas the arabs of Palestinian may have believed they had/have the moral right to resist zionism and its jews, as most people and cultures don't like change and are easily manipulated to resist, they were morally in the wrong for doing so. They rejected that saving of lives, creating a democracy for all is in fact the moral choice.

their preference to staying living in a feudal society and refusing to help others who were destined for death in europe was not the moral choice.

You have to ignore that the present preference of the arab israelis, according to the polls is that they prefer israels democracy to the PA, that is an admittance that resisting the creation of israel was wrong. I believe that is to be respected as a moral statement. They do after all live in israel as arabs.
_____

If it is true that pre-WW1 Palestinians instituted pogroms etc against the Jews rather than simply resisting Zionist invaders, then I would be the first to suggest to them that they stand up and apologize for that wrong.....Can you produce evidence of such pogroms existed prior to the arrival of the Zionists?

first i dont believe the Palestinians/arabs have to apologize for anything, be it anti semitism or anti zionism etc. They believed in what they were doing, they were wrong for it, but they were also uneducated in what a western democracy offers them.

but here you have acts of anti semitism pre zionism..

Then the Jewish community of its holy city of Safed was "massacred in 1660," and the town "destroyed by Arabs," only one Jew managed to evade death.<38> In 1674 Jerusalem's Jews were similarly impoverished by the oppression of the Turkish-Muslim rule, according to the Jesuit Father Michael Naud, "paying heavily to the Turk for their right to stay here.

In sixteenth-century Jerusalem, the Jews' taxation was tantamount to extortion, and the last remaining synagogue -- a monument from the time of Nachmanides -- was expropriated in 1586. As a result, most of Jerusalem's Jewry hastened off to Hebron, Gaza, and Tiberias

Those Jews remaining in Jerusalem were "bitterly persecuted" during the seventeenth-century reign of an Arab ruler who purchased his governorship and arrested the Jewish leaders.<35> Under the next ruler, while the hapless Jews were "speculating on the advent of the Messiah," a great number of them were massacred.<36>
In the early seventeenth century a pair of Christian visitors to Safed told of life for the Jews: "Life here is the poorest and most miserable that one can imagine." Because of the harshness of Turkish rule and its crippling dhimmi oppressions, the Jews "pay for the very air they breathe.

In 1775, the anti-Jewish blood libel was spread throughout the holy Jewish city of Hebron, inciting mob violence,



Rabbi Menachem Mendel 1783 moved to safed with his followers, after being harassed by the "locals" move to Tiberias

1834 musim riots in jerusalem against jews and christians

Among the special extortions that their Holy Land extracted from the Jews, paid to "local officials, Arab notables, and Arab neighbors":<62> in Jerusalem the effendi whose property was adjacent to the Sacred Wall on the site of the Jews' temple dunned the Jews 300 pounds annually for the right to pray there. \

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~peters/coexistence.html

____________

what this partial list clearly states is that the arabs of Palestine and the surrounding area (i did not include in the above list anti jew laws etc), were not going to accept the jews in any shape....and had various spasms of anti semitism like the europe.


basically it should be pretty clear, that no country was going to just give the jews their own country, not the US (with its own quotas and anti semitism), not Palestine....and as a jew i reject your idea of the "more moral choice that my relatives in europe should have just stayed there and meekly walked to their deaths.....

[kayecy]

131. I am sorry if I misunderstood you, but what exactly did you mean?......

your saying that if the jews were the majority in arizona or argentina then they could have used their influence and created a new state "without resistance from the locals"
isn't that what they did in Palestine?

No, nothing like in Palestine......In Palestine Zionists achieved a majority by invading the place against the wishes of the locals...Argentina etc were crying out for European immigrants....Can you really not see the difference?

Your also claiming that there were enough rich jews in the US in the 1900's to influence the US that had just finished up fighting the indian wars, mexican war to establish an america based on manifest destiny only to give a part of it to the jews?...your really grasping at straws here.

I was not suggesting the US would “give a part” of anything....I was simply saying that if Jews moved to Arizona and became the overwhelming majority there, their ‘security’ problem would be solved...They would be in control of the state legislature, police, etc by virtue of being the majority voters.....Instead, most Jews were so little concerned about security that they stayed in New York where they were not and never could become a majority....Perhaps only Zionists have an exaggerated 'security risk' complex!

and of course jewish immigration was limited...which translated in to a death sentence for those who trusted the countries they lived in or couldnt get out...you keep "forgetting to add that"

I am forgetting nothing......Supposing 4 million pre-WW1 Jews had immigrated to Argentina instead of the 300,000 that did so.....They would then have had majority control and Argentina under a majority Jewish government would have allowed in any number of 1930s Jews....The outcome for world Jews could have been far better than merely saving the 350,000 Jews who went to Palestine between WW1 and WW2.

you misunderstand me...zionism is not wrong, its was the better moral choice of a very evil world.

If I misunderstood you, what exactly did you mean when you said “...ok so we agree that "wrongs" are not equal…that i would say is one of my base arguments… zionism being the "lesser wrong"?(See yr post 121)....Surely, a 'wrong' is a wrong whether it is lessor or not?

their preference to staying living in a feudal society and refusing to help others who were destined for death in europe was not the moral choice.

Remember what you said earlier?...”.... I will not do to you what i would not like done to me.....”

From your statement, I assume that had Zionists been the ‘natives’ in Palestine after WW1, you would have welcomed an invasion by, say France (having lost the war with Germany), bent on swamping your Jewish culture and declaring it intended to achieve a French democratic majority and govern the area as a French ‘homeland’ permanently?

what this partial list clearly states is that the arabs of Palestine and the surrounding area (i did not include in the above list anti jew laws etc), were not going to accept the jews in any shape....and had various spasms of anti semitism like the europe.

Your most recent incident of an Arab ‘pogrom’ seems to be in the 1600s!......However I agree with your general point that Arabs were not going to accept Jewish domination...So again I have to ask you ...Why did the pre-WW1 Zionists insist on going to Palestine where they were not wanted and the risks were enormous, when at that time the door was still open to the USA, Argentina etc?......Forcing themselves on a people is immoral at any time...Doing so simply for a political dream was doubly so.
.

[pelsar]

124. just for clarification...

Stalin murdered between 20 and 40 million before the start of WW2...Hitler was democratically elected as Chancellor in 1933.....In spite of that you somehow manage to twist your ‘superior rights’ theory so that it supports the industrial-scale murderer Stalin!

i mean really....to have to explain that hitler managed to manipulate the germanys democracy and then convince the majority to be nation of racists is just to show how fragile democracies are. Which further explains why democracies use illiberal methods to protect themselves (they are vulnerable especially in the beginning).

Germanys failure to sustain democratic values was a failure to change its culture between the World wars, the allies "fixed' that after WWII and it took a lot more time, effort and resources to do it.

[pelsar]

119. an additional thought...

if you believe this:

Stace states in paragraph 5 that:...the main principle of international justice is that which was laid down in the Atlantic Charter. - Nations should have the right of determining their internal affairs without aggression from outside nations. This is nothing new, invented by Roosevelt or Churchill. It was implicit in Wilson’s policy and pronouncements. It was the idea on which the League of Nations was supposed to be built. It has always been, for that matter, the fundamental idea of democracy. For the self-determination or democracy of a nation means that its affairs are governed by the wishes of its own people

have you actually thought this through?

doesn't that mean, that if only germany had kept the industrial genocide limited to its own borders than it would have been none of anybodies business?

Obviously we shouldn't be bothered with the happenings in Dafur if we stick to that philosophy (stalins gulags being an internal matter)

Reminds me a comment long ago about the iraqi invasion:
"sure hussain was killing people but it was his people to kill"
------------

granted if you believe the above then i agree, zionism would be immoral, any attempt to change the politics of areas based on some arbitrary lines drawn on a map, with people of the wrong genetic makeup (i.e. not born there) would be declared immoral. This would include economic sanctions to any UN/World of Nations policy, attempting to make change.

i disagree, nations/societies/groups do not have immunity from being immoral.

[pelsar]

95. are israeli arabs "immoral"....

i just came across a harvard study that puts over 70% of the arab israeli citizens preferring to live in israel more than any other country in the world.... (page 3 of the pdf).

since israel is a country based on zionism, something you have called immoral...and yet the majority of the arab citizens of israel, those that you believe had their self determination 'taken away"...obviously disagree with you, are they too immoral for preferring the live in such an immoral country?

so are you going to discount their opinion as being "not worthy"..have they been corrupted by israels democracy (as hamas believes-since hamas sees democracy as a western disease). are they "traitors" to their culture?

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/coexistence_poll.pdf
-----

this refers ONLY to israeli arab citizens.....the reaction should be limited to just those people.

[shira]

96. In addition, Pelsar...

Yet since 1996, Dr. Shikaki has been polling Palestinians about what governments they admire, and every year Israel has been the top performer, at times receiving more than 80 percent approval. The American system has been the next best, followed by the French and then, distantly trailing, the Jordanian and Egyptian.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/02/international/middleeast/02LETT.html?pagewanted=1

Palestinians admire Israel's "racist" and "immoral" government more than any other in the world, including the USA, UK, France...

[Never Stop Dancin]

103. continued Israeli sovereignty is crucial

We should all support Israel for this simple fact: Israel has the best party scene in the Mideast, bar none. Even Dubai is only a distant second.

From the moment you disembark at Ben Gurion (after imbibing the generous free drinks on your El Al flight) you share a spliff with your Morrocan cab driver on the way to your hotel.

Then, after a couple of drinks at the hotel wet bar, your off to one of Tel Aviv's hottest clubs, tripping all night on acid or ecstasy (preferably both at the same time). The lights, the sounds of the trance music is unparalled. It's a total sensory experience.

And there's no need to fear the morning after. After a quick wake 'n' bake, you're off to one of Tel Aviv's innumerable outdoor cafes for a round of mimosas. Then it's off to the beach, where open containers and spliffs barely raise an eyebrow. And then back to the clubs after a power nap, to do it all over again. You see in Tel Aviv, the party scene is seamless--it don't stop. You may never make it to Jerusalem.

Tel Aviv--it's everywhere you want to be.

[shira]

81. Collective punishment is never acceptable, except for BDS vs. Israel and its citizens. n/t