Palestinian ambassador reiterates call for a Jew-free Palestinian state

[hack89]

During a breakfast briefing hosted by the Christian Science Monitor on Tuesday, Palestinian Ambassador to the United States Maen Rashid Areikat reiterated his call to create a Jew-free Palestinian state.

“Well, I personally still believe that as a first step we need to be totally separated, and we can contemplate these issues in the future,” he said when asked by The Daily Caller if he could imagine a Jew being elected mayor of the Palestinian city of Ramallah in a future independent Palestinian state. “But after the experience of 44 years of military occupation and all the conflict and friction, I think it will be in the best interests of the two peoples to be separated first.”

Last year, Areikat made a similar statement during an interview with Tablet magazine. Asked whether it would be neccessary to transfer and remove “every Jew” from a future Palestinian state, Areikat responded “absolutely.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/13/palestinian-ambassador-reiterates-call-for-a-jew-free-palestinian-state/#ixzz1XqjY4mbI

[Rageneau]

1. Another reasonable, responsible, equitable suggestion from the Palestinians.

The Palestinian ambassador is gravitating toward peace and brotherhood. In the past, the Palestinian leadership's only consistent suggestion has been, "Death to the Jews!"

But that didn't pan out.

So now they seem to be moving toward, "Go Away to the Jews!"

[shira]

2. This can't possibly be. It must be a mistranslation. He meant "Israelis" not Jews.

:eyes:

[shaayecanaan]

5. Actually, he *said* Israelis...

If you can get past the circle-jerk of right-wing blogs reproducing the above story, a google search reveals the transcript of his interview with Tablet Magazine:-

When you imagine a future Palestinian state, do you imagine it being a place where Jews, if they wish to become Palestinian citizens, could own property, vote in elections, and practice their religion freely?

I remember in the mid-’90s, the late Faisal Husseini said repeatedly “OK, if Israelis choose to stay in a future Palestinian state, they are more than welcome to do that. But under one condition: They have to respect and obey Palestinian laws, they cannot be living as Israelis. They have to respect Palestinian laws and abide by them.” When Faisal Husseini died, basically no Palestinian leader has publicly supported the notion that they can stay.

What we are saying is the following: We need to separate. We have to separate. We are in a forced marriage. We need to divorce. After we divorce, and everybody takes a period of time to recoup, rebound, whatever you want to call it, we may consider dating again.

So, you think it would be necessary to first transfer and remove every Jew—

Absolutely. No, I’m not saying to transfer every Jew, I’m saying transfer Jews who, after an agreement with Israel, fall under the jurisdiction of a Palestinian state.

Any Jew who is inside the borders of Palestine will have to leave?

Absolutely. I think this is a very necessary step, before we can allow the two states to somehow develop their separate national identities, and then maybe open up the doors for all kinds of cultural, social, political, economic exchanges, that freedom of movement of both citizens of Israelis and Palestinians from one area to another. You know you have to think of the day after.

http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/48834/qa-maen-areikat/

Thats three mentions of Israelis and two mentions of Jews. I think its fair to say that he was referring to Israeli Jews.

It is worth noting that Israeli Arabs, being of Palestinian descent, will be entitled to citizenship in the newly established Palestinian state. Israeli Jews, being overwhelmingly of non-Palestinian state, will not be so entitled. Its a familiar right-wing meme that this is somehow anti-semitism, but it is a misleading one.

Its worth noting that the only significant Jewish population in the OPT who are *not* settlers are the Samaritans, who number about 300 or so in Nablus. There is no suggestion that they will be required to leave. The charter of the PLO also makes clear that any Palestinian Jew enjoys the right of return to the Palestinian state, the same as his Muslim counterpart.

[shira]

6. You don't have to be an apologist for the PA's extreme rightwing bigotry.

It couldn't be more clear. No Jews will be allowed in a Palestinian state. Arabs yes, Jews no. If this isn't bigotry, nothing is.

Perfect example of you seeing what you wish to see in the text.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shira]

9. It couldn't be more clear. Here's the text...

So, you think it would be necessary to first transfer and remove every Jew—

Absolutely. No, I’m not saying to transfer every Jew, I’m saying transfer Jews who, after an agreement with Israel, fall under the jurisdiction of a Palestinian state.

Any Jew who is inside the borders of Palestine will have to leave?

Absolutely.

What the hell do you call that?

Seriously.

What if some of those Jews are descendants of original Palestinian Jews from over 100 years ago? They all must leave....

[shaayecanaan]

11. According to the PLO charter, a Palestinian Jew is a Palestinian...

however, only 6% of Palestine was Jewish at the fall of the Ottoman empire, and I imagine that in the 60 years since that those Palestinian Jews have freely married amongst other Israeli Jews. Moreover, the settlers are generally of white descent rather than Mizrahi descent. If there are legitimately Palestinian Jews amongst the settlers then I imagine that their numbers would be very small indeed.

It is worth reiterating that the main population of non-settler Jews in the West Bank, the Samaritans, hold Palestinian certificates of birth and are recognised in all senses of the word as Palestinians. There is no suggestion that they will be required to leave.

[oberliner]

14. Samaritans are not Jews

You've repeatedly made this false claim that Samaritans are Jews when they are not.

[shaayecanaan]

28. For the purposes of the law of return, they are Jews...

and if a buddhist Jew or secular Jew or communist Jew still counts as a Jew then I can't see how believing that the temple mount is in Nablus rather than Jerusalem could disqualify you.

Moreover, from the perspective of a Palestinian, they are clearly Jews, in the same way that from the perspective of a Jew, a Jehovahs' witness clearly counts as a Christian.

[oberliner]

32. The Samaritans split from Judaism around 2,000 years ago

The Samaritans split from Judaism around 2,000 years ago, but because they speak ancient Hebrew and pray in synagogues, they are often mistaken for Jews.

For those Samaritans living in the West Bank, this can be problematic.

"The Palestinians know we live with Arabic people, but inside their mind, they think we're Jewish," Mr Cohen says.

"And because we also speak Arabic, the Jewish people think we're Arab.

"So we have a big problem - we're between two fires."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12069728

Incidentally, Israel has changed its mind a few times with respect to whether or not they are Jews for the purposes of the law of return.

In the early 1990's, they were not considered Jews by Israel for the purpose of the law of return.

It seems a better idea to go by what the Samaritans actually say about themselves and how they choose to self-identify, which is not as Jewish.

[shaayecanaan]

33. They identify as children of Israel

they do not identify as Jews, as they see Jews as the descendents of Judah rather than the kingdom of Israel. Ethiopian Jews likewise claim descent from one of the ten lost tribes (of Israel) rather than the house of Judah. So if Samaritans do not count as Jews, Ethiopian Jews wouldn't count either.

Esoteric theological arguments aside, I think Jews count as Jews irrespective of the tribe from which they claim descent, at least in the 21st century. But if you want to split hairs, I can refer to them as Hebrews or Israelites if you wish.

As you have previously conceded, at the present time Samaritans are Jews for the purposes of the law of return, and have been so for close to twenty years now.

[oberliner]

40. And not as Jews, as you have conceded

So I don't understand why you keep referring to them as such.

It is especially odd that you keep returning to the law of return. If, as in 1992, a change is made to the law and Samaritans are no longer included, would your assessment similarly change?

I am not meaning to "split hairs" - I am simply pointing out that Samaritans are not Jewish. They make a distinction between themselves and Jewish people.

There are a very tiny number of Samaritans and any time I have seen any of them cited they have stated that they are not Jewish (as in the citation I provided above).

[shaayecanaan]

48. And as you conceded, from the POV from the Palestinian Arabs they are Jewish...

as per your citation, in that they speak Hebrew, read Torah scrolls, keep kosher and so forth. They also live relative comity with their Arab neighbours. The reason that they are an instructive example is that they are virtually the only Hebraic people in the West Bank that are not settlers, and the fact that they live alongside their Arab neighbours in relative comity is testament to the fact that the Arabs don't resent the presence of Jews, as long as they are not settlers.

"If, as in 1992, a change is made to the law and Samaritans are no longer included, would your assessment similarly change?"

That is unlikely, given that Israel has imported vast numbers of Russians with hardly any Jewish connection at all. If a ham-eating Slav qualifies as Jewish then I think that the only 300 people left with a more or less reliably direct connection back to the biblical era have very little to worry about.

[oberliner]

50. No, they aren't

Some Palestinian Arabs mistakenly believe they are Jewish, but they are wrong. I am sure that there are also many Palestinian Arabs who are aware that Samaritans are not Jewish.

Some Americans mistakenly believe that Sikhs are Muslims, but they would also be wrong.

As to your other comment, I think it is equally likely that the conditions that gave rise to the change in 1992 could easily recur again.

But in any case, I think Samaritans have a right to define their identity for themselves.

Since they say they are not Jewish, that seems the most salient of all points on this question.

Why you are unable or unwilling to accept their self-identification as not Jewish is beyond my understanding.

Is there perhaps some political underpinning behind your repeated insistence to refer to them as Palestinian Jews even though they aren't Jewish?

[shaayecanaan]

52. So presumably, if I were to break into a Samaritan synagogue and smash up the menorahs

and then go out into their cemetary and desecrate all the tombstones, then it would not be an anti-semitic attack, because the Samaritans are not Jewish? Correct?

[oberliner]

150. Samaritan Synagogue Damaged in Attack (2000)

A synagogue was damaged in the West Bank city of Nablus during an attack by Israeli helicopter gunships on a nearby building used by the Palestinian Fatah faction, synagogue officials said.

<snip>

The 320 Samaritans live in Nablus and in nearby Mount Gerizim, which they consider a sacred site. They observe some Jewish rituals but do not regard themselves as Jews.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=82227&page=1

I am not sure how many times and in how many different places you need to see the statement that Samartians do not regard themselves as Jews before you are willing to accept it.

[azurnoir]

156. a bit more

Samaritans refer to themselves as Bene Yisrael ("Children of Israel") which is a term used by all Jewish denominations as a name for the Jewish people as a whole. They however do not refer to themselves as Yehudim (Judeans), the standard Hebrew name for Jews, considering the latter to denote only mainstream Jews.

The Talmudic attitude expressed in tractate Kutim is that they are to be treated as Jews in matters where their practice coincides with the mainstream but are treated as non-Jews where their practice differs. Since the 19th century, mainstream Judaism has regarded the Samaritans as a Jewish sect and the term Samaritan Jews has been used for them

This page was last modified on 12 September 2011 at 07:36.

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

[shaayecanaan]

157. I think our friend is being a bit disingenuous, to be honest...

the reason that Samaritans regard themselves as distinct from other Jews is quite different from our modern concepts of "Jews" and "Judaism". The Samaritans regard themselves as practising the religion of ancient Israel, that is to say the religion of the old testament. However, as they are descended from the ten tribes of Israel rather than the tribe of Judah, they describe themselves as children of Israel rather than as Jews (ie the descendants of Judah).

In general terms, Jewish groups that are descended from the ten lost tribes (eg Ethiopian Jews) are referred to as Jews, notwithstanding this quite technical distinction.

In any event, Samaritanism is so close to Judaism (basically identical, aside from the fact that Mt Gezirim is the temple mount instead of Jerusalem) that I don't think you can exclude them from Judaism, unless you similarly exclude the Karaites and most other heterodox Jewish groups.

[oberliner]

164. You could not be more wrong

To say that Samaritanism is "basically identical" to Judaism shows a startling degree of ignorance - especially surprising considering that this seems to be a topic of some interest to you.

And again, you seem loathe to integrate the fact that Samaritans repeatedly and consistently have noted that they are not Jewish into your understanding of their religion.

[shaayecanaan]

182. Maybe you'd like to describe the major differences for us, if you think there are any...

it might help you advance your rhetorical style beyond meaningless pedantry.

[oberliner]

191. Alrighty

Though I am loathe to speak on behalf of another faith, I will endeavor to respond to your query.

Samaritans believe in only one prophet, Moses.

Jews believe in dozens of prophets such as Isiah, Elijah, Amos, Hosea, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and numerous others.

Samaritans believe only in the Torah.

Jews believe in the Tanakh, which includes the Torah, the Nevi'im (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, etc), and the Ketuvim (Psalms, Job, Proverbs, etc).

All of these sacred Jewish books and prophets would be completely alien to Samaritans.

Similarly, the Talmud is central to Judaism and serves as the basis of Jewish law and ethics.

This critical component of Judaism is not a part of Samaritanism.

Samaritans do not celebrate or acknowledge Jewish holidays that do not originate from the Torah such as Purim or Chanukah.

Samaritans do not have bar mitzvahs nor do they require a minyan for prayer.

Modern day Samaritans conduct ritual slaughter/sacrifice of animals; in modern day Judaism, prayer has taken the place of burnt offerings as Jews believe sacrifice to be no longer possible since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Judaism and Samaritanism diverged at a fork in the road that occurred centuries ago, just as Judaism and Christianity diverged long ago for different reasons (but still have their similarities).

I have tried to do what I can to share with you some of the major differences that I am aware of between Judaism and Samaritanism.

However since there are a very small number of Samaritans in the entire world (around 700, I believe), generally speaking, I would defer to those living Samaritans to define their religion.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, many of those who have done so have made a point of asserting that they are not Jewish and that their religion is not Judaism.

I am not sure why you are not able to similarly defer to their understanding of their faith and religious identity.

[shaayecanaan]

194. Following that logic, neither Jesus, Daniel nor Ezra were Jewish

since all of the above would have identified as "Israelites" rather than "Jews" (as that term was not in currency at the time), all of the above would have had no concept of the Talmud (since they predated it by at least 200 years) and none of the above would have regarded any of the secondary texts of the old Testament as being canonical, as the Tanakh was only canonised around 70 AD or so.

In fact, most of the distinctions that you have relied upon post date the destruction of the temple and the development of rabbinical (ie orthodox) Judaism around 70 AD. Again, if that is your definition, then there never was a Jewish kingdom in Palestine, since the religion of Israel during the Hasmonean kingdom lacked all of the above elements. Your definition would also mean that Judaism has only a 2000 year history (ie since 70 AD), rather than a 3000 year history.

Your definition would also exclude numerous heterodox movements within Judaism (the Karaites for example) that do not accept the Talmud as authoritative, but which are nevertheless commonly regarded as falling within the tent, so to speak.

[oberliner]

195. They all predate the "fork in the road" to which I referred

70AD would be that pivot point of divergence with respect to Samaritanism and Judaism.

Please be aware that I am not trying to define Judaism or Samaritanism - you asked me to name some of the differences between the two, and I named the differences that I was aware of. I am not a religious scholar or expert on the subject.

With respect to the people you mentioned, Jesus, Daniel, and Ezra considered themselves to be Jewish. Modern day Karaites consider themselves to be Jewish.

However, for the millionth time, Samaritans do not consider themselves Jewish.

And, also for the millionth time, I would defer to the Samaritans themselves to define their religion and religious identity.

Samaritans do not consider themselves to be Jewish - thus, they are not Jewish.

That ought to be the most salient point on the subject as far as I am concerned.

Why this does not carry any weight for you is still unclear to me.

[shaayecanaan]

197. Not to labour the point, but...

Neither Jesus, nor Daniel, nor Ezra ever once referred to themselves as Jewish, or to Jews. They instead referred to themselves as bene Israel - exactly the same term that the Samaritans use.

If that is as critical an element as you suggest, then equally those persons cannot be Jewish.

Following on with your "fork in the road" comment - do you regard Samaritanism as reasonably consistent with "mainstream Judaism" prior to 70AD?

And as far as self-identifying goes, Messianic Jews identify as Jews. Do you regard them as Jewish, or what they practise as Judaism?

[oberliner]

198. Modern day Samaritans are not Jewish

They say they are not Jewish, so they are not Jewish.

You asked me to name some differences, so I did, but I don't think that is as important as the several references I have provided where Samaritans say they are not Jewish.

I defer to them to define their own faith and religious identity.

I leave you with a passage from John (4/9)

The Samaritan woman said to him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.

[shaayecanaan]

199. But before 70AD, they were?

And bear in mind that the Gospel of John was penned around 300 AD or so, by which time the schism of Jews and Samaritans had become complete.

Incidentally, roughly 5% of the Dead Sea Scrolls are Samaritan texts, indicating that up until 100 AD or so, Samaritan doctrine had not been completely expunged from the emerging Jewish canon. The Dead Sea Torah is actually more consistent with the Samaritan Torah than it is with the mainstream Masoretic text.

In many ways this debate is similar to modern Christian views of Gnostics and Arianists, both of whom were eliminated by the 7th century AD. The churches view both of the above as non-Christian heresies. However on any objective view, the religion practised by both groups was Christianity.

[shira]

196. Shaay, you're xtian. Jesus once made a distinction between Jews and Samaritans...

Go to the lost sheep of Israel, not to the gentiles and Samaritans...

Now if Jesus says so, what sayeth you?

[azurnoir]

187. I think in this arena the defination of Jew and who's a Jew

has become quite flexible as per political need

[oberliner]

193. Amen to that

Couldn't agree more.

[oberliner]

165. Always good to bring in Wikipedia

Do you have the 1995 Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies article that Wikipedia is citing there?

I'd love you to share more from that article if you do.

[azurnoir]

186. you have used wiki yourself

however I have noted that since I have started including the last edit date (a wise move for anyone posting from wiki) in any posts from wiki some seem to have a problem with wiki

[oberliner]

189. Note the source

Remember that Wikipedia is nothing but a collection of other sources. The power is in the editing. When in doubt, check the source Wikipedia uses. If it's an online source, all the better - since it's easier to access usually.

[azurnoir]

190. this source Shulamit Sela, The Head of the Rabbanite, Karaite and Samaritan Jews University of Lon

Shulamit Sela, The Head of the Rabbanite, Karaite and Samaritan Jews: On the History of a Title, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 57, No. 2 (1994), pp. 255-267

[oberliner]

192. It looks like a fascinating paper - perhaps you should read it?

If you have $13, you may do so.

JStor has it for that price:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/620572

[shira]

17. There is nothing in the OP statement about allowing ANY Jews into a future Palestine....

And Samaratans aren't Jews.

It's okay - at least 2/3 of the world is in favor of a state that will rule via sharia law, deny its citiizens the most basic human rights, discriminate against gays, and glorify the most heinous terrorists like Sami Kuntar, so a Jew-free Palestine must be okay as well.

[shaayecanaan]

34. Its Samaritan, with an "i" (nt)

[aranthus]

20. That is not true.

The Charter actually says:

"Jews who were living permanently in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist Invasion will be considered Palestinians."

The Zionist Invasion begins with the Balfour Declaration of 1917. However, for Arab Palestinians, a Palestinian is anyone living in Palestine until 1947, and then, "Anyone born to an Arab father after that, within Palestine or outside it, is a Palestinian."

. In other words only Jews still alive from those living in Palestine in 1917 are going to be considered Palestinians. Their descendants aren't Palestinians, unlike the descendants of Arab Palestinians. So you could probably count the number of Jewish "Palestinians" on one hand, if that.

[shira]

22. The Palestinian National Charter is really one nasty piece of work...

FYI:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/PLO_Covenant_commentary.html

[shaayecanaan]

36. I think you could count them on one hand anyway...

I don't think that there are many Jews that identify as Palestinian, and I don't really think that that many Jews will be terribly interested in living in Palestine. This whole post has a Fox-News style fake controversy feel about it.

[Boojatta]

163. Do you agree that Hispanics haven't settled uniformly throughout the USA?

Do you think that it's important to distinguish between Hispanics "of white descent", and other Hispanics?

Should there be segregation of Hispanics based on skin color?

Is it important to draw lines on the map and ensure that "legitimate" (i.e. non-white) Hispanics control various regions of the USA, and that Hispanics "of white descent" remain outside of those regions, separate and apart from "legitimate" Hispanics?

[fast lane]

178. Self-delete

my apologies...wrong post. :+

[fast lane]

15. How do you feel about Steve Biko's ideas?

He promoted essentially the same idea...mutual separation on the basis of mutual dignity as a first step.

And if you look below, you'll see it's quite clear the Palestinian statement in question was referring to Israelis.

[shira]

16. This denial is nuts. Tell me, which Jews, if any, will be allowed to live in a future Palestine? NT

[fast lane]

18. You didn't answer the question

and then you talk of denial? Hmmm...

Jews will certainly be welcome in a liberated Palestine. The steps to get to that point are the issue here.

[shira]

19. Separation of Jews and Arabs? As in, all Israeli Arabs must live in Palestine, not Israel?

No, can't say I'm for that.

Are you for Israeli Arabs - who consider themselves Palestinians - being excluded from living in a future Palestinian state?

[fast lane]

21. Which brings us back to the question you ignored

What do you think of Steve Biko's ideas on healing the wounds of apartheid? The concept of mutual separation on the basis of mutual dignity as a first step (funny how you keep ignoring that part) toward healing apartheid's wounds is quite applicable here. Once again, Palestinians have always said that they have nothing against Jews, the comment in question was about Israelis who would refuse to accept living in Palestine (in other words, those who cling to the warped idea of an ethnically pure state). In the end, though, this is about trying to heal the wounds caused by Israeli policy.

By the way, "Israeli Arabs" do live in Palestine.

[shira]

23. I've answered you. You are ignoring my questions. Biko's solution applied to Israel...

...would call for Jews in Israel and Arabs in Palestine. Both states ethnically cleansed. I'm against that.

Is there any other way Biko's plan would be applied WRT Israel?

[fast lane]

24. You haven't

If you had, I would have seen an answer relevant to both the quotes presented here and to Biko's struggle in South Africa. Ethnic cleansing has absolutely nothing to do with it, and the fact that you keep repeating this without any foundation, and indeed with consistent repudiation in the quotes posted on this very thread (such as "Listen, again, we have nothing against Jews. This is a political conflict"), shows that no, you haven't given any such answer.

Mutual separation of Biko's sort doesn't involve ethnic cleansing at all...only the principle that Palestinian issues would be decided by Palestinians and not dictated upon Palestinians by Israeli politicians and IDF guns. Jewish issues would then be addressed by the Jewish population. There's nothing there that says this group has to live here or there...because it's a question of self-determination and power over one's own community, something Palestinians have been denied by Israel.

The policy that you're trying to project upon others, ethnic cleansing, is ironically enough a vintage hallmark of Israeli policy (along with a consistent denial of Palestinian rights, something demonstrated in the responses of many on this very thread). That's what progressives are trying to fix.

[shira]

26. If Biko's policy were applied here, Israeli Arabs would be denied citizenship...

...in a future Palestine along with all Israeli Jews? Or only Jews?

[fast lane]

41. The principle

is that one community deals with its own problems with no interference, and the other does the same.

That was one very valid and important philosophy on how to heal the wounds of apartheid. Progressives are trying to do the same when it comes to the horrors caused by Israeli ethnic cleansing. Instead of dealing with this honestly, you erroneously try to project "ethnic cleansing" upon Palestinian voices when Israeli ethnic cleansing is the cause of the entire situation.

[shira]

42. So you support a Palestinian state that won't accept any Jews living within it, great.

I wonder if you'd also support a future Israel that rids itself of every last Arab inhabitant within it, in order to deal with their own problems with no interference.

[fast lane]

43. There you go projecting erroneously again

It's about each community figuring out its own issues without interference. I said before that it has nothing to do with telling one group it has to live here or there, it has to do with allowing each group power over its affairs. The fact that I need to repeat myself again and again shows us that you're incapable of approaching these issues honestly.

Remember, ethnic cleansing is Israel's thing. Progressives oppose that.

[hack89]

46. But if Israel decide their best course of action would be to expel all muslims

regardless of citizenship, that would be ok? They have that kind of power over their own affairs?

[fast lane]

59. No

Because that would be imposing decisions upon the other community.

[hack89]

63. But expelling Jews from Palestinian lands is not imposing on another community?

I was talking about Israeli Muslims, btw.

[fast lane]

66. That doesn't quite enter into the matter

Jewish presence in Palestine? That's fine. A society founded upon depriving Palestinians and other peoples of land and dignity? That isn't.

[hack89]

69. What does that have to do with Jews living in a Palestianian state?

why can't they stay there as Palestinian citizens if they want?

[fast lane]

71. That's perfectly fine

So long as each community has respect and dignity (meaning Israel has to do a 180), there's no problem with that.

[hack89]

72. Does Hamas have to do a 180 and stop firing rockets at Israel? nt

[fast lane]

76. Once Israel treats Palestine with a modicum of respect

then the 180 will have been made.

[hack89]

78. So it is Israels fault Hamas is shooting rockets? Hamas is justified in their violence? nt

[fast lane]

83. It is Israel's fault that Gaza is under virtual siege

It is Israel's fault that Palestinians in the West Bank have not even freedom of movement.

But I'd be interested to hear how the Zionist expulsion of Palestinians during Al Nakba or the massacres in Lebanon...were actually in response to Hamas.

[hack89]

85. Al Nakba was the result of a poor decision to start a war they couldn't win

Bad things happen when you lose wars. Just think - if the Arabs hadn't threatened war in 1967 we wouldn't be having this conversation. The Palestinians on the west bank would be Jordanians while those in Gaza would be Egyptians.

Concerning 1948, since 40 percent of the Palestinians stayed and are now Israeli citizens it was not much of an ethnic cleansing, was it.

[fast lane]

92. First, they didn't start it

Zionists were carrying out murderous violence in Palestine long before 1948.

Second, "might makes right" is no justification for anything. Your argument boils down to "we won, so we can do whatever we want, massacres and ethnic cleansing included"...but that is an argument of pure jingoism and is not one made of any progressive stuff. You might as well try to justify the misadventure into Iraq, just because "we won".

Third, had Palestinians accepted Jordanian and Egyptian citizenship, they would have validated the Zionist campaign of ethnic cleansing done to them years earlier. That is no solution, unless you think getting rid of an inconvenient group of people is a "solution".

Fourth, pushing out 60% of a population from their own land is an inexplicable crime. Simple as that. Utterly oppressing those who stayed is no different.

[Shaktimaan]

140. really?

So what happened? The Zionists just moved to Palestine and began murdering Arabs, or what?

And no one said might makes right... He only said that the situation is the result of wars began by the Arabs. It would only apply to Iraq if Iraq had attacked us first, which it did not.

Also, Palestinians DID accept Jordanian citizenship, what makes you think they didn't? And how does it validate ethnic cleansing?

And how are Israeli-Arabs "utterly oppressed?"

Both your logic and history seems extremely warped to me.

[fast lane]

148. That's not too far from the truth of it

Lest we forget the distinguished record of the Irgun.

Yes, the argument was indeed "might makes right". Even if the Arabs "started it" (which they most certainly did not, and anyone who says otherwise is ignoring history), "we won" isn't justification for pushing out over 700,000 Palestinian civilians through brutality and intimidation. It isn't justification for violently occupying Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon...and it certainly isn't justification for the crimes committed during those occupations.

Many Palestinians did not accept Jordanian citizenship, and they have the right to do so. It validates Israeli policy because it would be accepting a life in Jordan and not the land that belongs to them.

So-called "Israeli-Arabs" are utterly oppressed, and all the usual indices are applicable here. They have little to no substantive political voice, they receive lower wages, they are harassed and intimidated just for speaking their language on the street, they see their homes bulldozed when Israel wants more Lebensraum.

[eyl]

152. Are you actually aware of the origins of the Irgun?

It was formed a splinter group of the Haganah; the splitters disagreed with the Haganah's policy regarding how to respond (note that word) to Arab attacks. And the Haganah itself was likewise formed as a response to such atatcks.

Who's ignoring history again?

[fast lane]

154. So the King David Hotel bombing

was a "response" to "Arab attacks"?

[Boojatta]

166. I heard that The Prophet Muhammad was not only the founder of a religion ...

but also a military commander. Did he launch any wars of choice that were wars of conquest, or did he merely have a job as head of a Department of Defense?

Even if the Arabs "started it" (which they most certainly did not, and anyone who says otherwise is ignoring history),

[fast lane]

172. Early Islamic armies

oftentimes treated Jews far better than the governments they replaced. Islamic Spain (especially under the Umayyads) is perhaps the most well-known example, but this was not out of the ordinary. Compare the treatment of Jews between the First Crusade and Saladin when those two forces took Jerusalem and the contrast couldn't be clearer. I mean, some of the ugliest bouts of anti-Semitic lunacy took place in Germany after the First Crusade was called and before the Crusaders even left. Suffice to say, this mess wasn't started by the Arabs.

[Boojatta]

183. Under what circumstances did Arabs and Muslims first arrive to settle in Jerusalem?

I would not be surprised to hear that, on some occasions, Muslim armies arrived in Jerusalem, drove out some self-proclaimed "Christians" who were persecuting people who practiced an old-time religion that was good enough for Jesus. (Yes, according to the New Testament, Jesus celebrated Passover.) However, I'm asking about not what from your perspective in the year 2011 seems "early." There seem to be a variety of conflicting versions of history, some of which don't even include the Nazi death camps. So please tell me about your version of history. In your version, under what circumstances did Arabs and/or Muslims first settle in Jerusalem?

Perhaps you believe that Mary, mother of Jesus, was both an Arab and a Muslim?

[Shaktimaan]

185. Obviously, I reject this narrative.

But here's the great thing. Since it is a fact we disagree over it is something we can easily resolve. Since this time period was so well documented we can just look up the situation surrounding the conflict's start. I think it is important to establish our basic facts before we start discussing murkier subjects.

Now the Irgun came much later than the start of the violence. It was a reaction to Arab attacks. A radical reaction sure, but the Irgun did not initiate the conflict.

The first violent attacks that I know of came in 1920 in the form of riots instigated by the the (later) Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin where indigenous Jews were primarily attacked. In one of the following 1921 riots instigated by him 43 Jews were left dead. These riots and looting continued, leading to what was probably the one that galvanized defensive action by the Yishuv, the Hebron Massacre in 1929. Arab pamphlets convinced a mob that Jews were planning on dismantling the Temple Mount in Jerusalem which led to severe rioting in several cities. Hebron was completely ethnically cleansed of its Jewish inhabitants. 67 were killed there and the rest fled. Some later returned but were forced to flee again in 1936. All indigenous Jews, incidentally.

THEN the Haganah was formed, which the Irgun split from in 1931 (but their first attack was not until 1937, a full 17 years after Arabs first began violently targeting Jews in Palestine, during the Great Arab Revolt.)

All of the dozen or so books that I've read on this subject are in agreement on this topic, (with the exception of Carter's, who avoided the subject altogether.) So finding documentation will be easy. If you doubt anything I wrote here, just look it up.

I never read anything saying that Zionists moved to Palestine and began attacking people. But by all means, defend your narrative... Where/when did these attacks take place, and who was involved?

[eyl]

153. And why did said siege

and restrictions begin? most of them weren't in place, say, 20 years ago.

[fast lane]

155. You mean Gaza?

Gaza was filled with apartheid settlements 20 years ago. The siege was a way to keep the Palestinians of Gaza without basic rights in lieu of the settlement system that started soon after 1967.

[pelsar]

130. i get it...if your "disrespected"..its ok to kill people....

it always strikes me as a bit weird how attempted murder is so easily excused......so now being "disrespected" is enough of a reason to attempt to kill randomly.

you did write" once israel treats Palestine with a modium of respect" . Given that english is my mother tongue, the meaning is very clear:

[fast lane]

133. It's not some small form of disrespect, remember

It's decades of Palestinians being hounded by tanks and bulldozers and snipers. It's decades of being a perpetual refugee because of racially-motivated mass expulsions. It's massacres. It's not having even freedom of movement.

That's not just disrespect, it's outright oppression.

Until Israel respects Palestinians enough to try to find a reasonable solution, the outlook will remain bleak. We have to accept that before looking upon the wider situation, wouldn't you agree?

[pelsar]

134. oh...so "large disrespect" makes random murder acceptable?

Until Israel respects Palestinians enough to try to find a reasonable solution, the outlook will remain bleak. We have to accept that before looking upon the wider situation, wouldn't you agree?

no i don't agree...i find the concept of "disrespect" which is a subjective value, as a reason to randomly attack and kill people to be totally unnacceptable......

[fast lane]

149. "Large disrespect" in the form of ethnic cleansing

makes resistance necessary. If not for that resistance, Zionism would have taken everything from Palestinians long ago.

But I find it interesting how you side-step Israel's record of murder, whereas Palestinian resistance to ethnic cleansing is somehow wrong. In order to do that, you would have to say that Israel is justified in murder, while Palestinians are not justified in acts of self-defense. A curious argument that is.

[pelsar]

159. your definition...resistance = killing random civilians

but I find it interesting how you side-step Israel's record of murder,

i'm not side stepping anything..the discussion here, which were concentrating on, is how as a progressive you justify the random killing and attempted murder of civilians.

just clarifying it:
"large disrespect" means one can justify killing civilians anytime of the day anywhere


I'm just curious if your fellow "progressives" here agree with you?...sure would be interesting to hear their opinion.

[fast lane]

171. Resistance manifests itself

in many ways, but the right to self-defense is present throughout. Why must Palestinians defend themselves? Well, that's what you're trying your best to ignore: Israeli brutality against Palestinians from Gaza to Lebanon. Palestinians have no choice but to resist in any way they can, or else they would have seen all their land taken from them long ago.

So until you face the real issue, which is Israeli oppression, you will never understand the situation.

Just clarifying it: Israel massacring entire camps full of Palestinian men, women and children...OK by you. Palestinians doing what they can to oppose the tanks and bulldozers that are trying to liquidate the very existence of their people...not OK. Interesting.

[pelsar]

184. got it...targeting children is progressive moral stance

i understand that its difficult for the "progressive" to come out clearly and claim "killing civilians randomly is perfectly ok if we call it "defense"...but that is exactly what your claiming isn't it?

so here i'll will help you and you can simply say something to the affect of "yes i agree"

You version of defense includes targeting civilians, of all ages anywhere....and you call it defense....and you also claim this is a progressive moral stance.

___
i'm not ignoring anything, the present subject is your definition of defense and the justification and promotion of targeting children......curious why the other "progressives here are pretty quiet about your stance....

[hack89]

73. The Palestinians want a Jew free Palestine!

that is what the OP is all about. Do you think they are wrong in wanting to kick out all the Jews? Isn't that ethnic cleansing?

[fast lane]

77. Listen to what he says

"Listen, again, we have nothing against Jews. This is a political conflict"

Getting rid of apartheid settlements isn't ethnic cleansing. Jewish presence in Palestine is one thing, a system designed to steal land from Palestinians at the point of a gun (and bulldozer) is not.

[hack89]

79. But he doesn't say "just settlements." He says no Jews anywhere. nt

[fast lane]

81. He was speaking in a context

and the context was an end to Israeli control of occupied Palestinian areas.

[hack89]

82. No - the context was that after the PA gained control it would expel all jews. nt

[fast lane]

84. 'Every Israeli should be welcomed in Palestine.'

Funny how Zionists never listen to Palestinians.

[hack89]

86. "this is something we are trying to end" - ditto. nt

[fast lane]

93. You forgot what came before it:

"an occupation power occupying a people against their will"

Those little details are so important.

[hack89]

94. One man's opinion. nt

[fast lane]

98. One which you're not listening to nt

[hack89]

102. Why should I? He is advocating ethnic cleansing. nt

[fast lane]

105. No he isn't

he was speaking of the occupation of Palestine, which is itself a policy of ethnic cleansing.

So why do you defend ethnic cleansing and project it upon someone who proposed no such thing?

[King_David]

90. 'Jewish presence in Palestine? That's fine.'

Are you speaking for them again ?

It takes an extreme arrogance for someone to speak for another peoples.

[fast lane]

100. I speak as a progressive

You speak as a Zionist who wants to deny Palestinians their land and dignity. Perhaps you would like to measure the arrogance it takes for you to claim that Zionist tanks and bulldozers are being used to protect Palestinian civil rights, not to mention the political numbness it takes...but I doubt it.

[King_David]

107. Try stay on topic.

Palestinians do not need a 'progressive' to speak for them.



(You call me a 'Zionist' as if that is an insult??

I am a PROUD JEW AND ZIONIST. )

[fast lane]

110. The topic greatly relates to this

your arrogance to claim that IDF brutality is a sivilizing force is very much at the center of our issue. Israeli bulldozers do nothing for LGBT rights, that's the fact.

[King_David]

115. Stay on topic

We were talking about LGBT rights in a civilized society and if ANY society can be civilized without LGBT rights.

I BELIEVE NOT !

[fast lane]

120. It is on topic

You think you defend Palestinian rights by denying Palestinians the most basic of rights: to determine the course of their own community. This is a massive contradiction in more than one way.

The fact remains that Palestinian self-determination would signify incredible progress. It would set the foundation for all future advancements, advancements that are impossible under the heel of your precious apartheid state.

You can believe what you like, but your only goal here is the oppression and deprivation of the Palestinian people.

[shira]

55. So presumably you're OK with Israel doing the same thing, in order to "figure" out its own issues...

....without interference?

And you keep saying ethnic cleansing is Israel's thing, that Progressives are opposed to that. But you're for ethnically cleansing settlers who have roots in the W.Bank dating back to Ottoman times. You should oppose that, as a Progressive, but you don't. Why?

[fast lane]

60. I'd be OK with Israel ceasing its oppression and deprivation of

Palestinians...yes, most definitely. The issue is that Israel won't, because it's founded upon the idea of an ethnically-pure settler-state contrary to human rights.

"But you're for ethnically cleansing settlers who have roots in the W.Bank dating back to Ottoman times"

It's not that they need to leave (their bulldozers and IDF ruffians do need to leave, though), it's that they need to respect the humanity of Palestinians and everyone else in the region. That Israeli settlers refuse to do this, and instead engage in all manner of theft and brutality, is the problem that progressives are now tasked with solving.

[Jefferson23]

61. Welcome to DU. I have enjoyed reading your posts/ arguments. n/t

[fast lane]

68. Thank you!

:)

[pelsar]

136. do you also believe this?

It's a matter of fact. If you adhere to Zionism's goal of an ethnically-pure state, then you're a Zionist.


Zionists saying that Jewish children should suffer and die in Germany for the sake of their "movement".

just want to clarify your position....as this is the position of the person you've just welcomed

[Jefferson23]

138. Hi ya pelsar...what post # are you asking about specifically? n/t

[pelsar]

144. a few posts...

103

112

108 has some interesting implications
---

i know you like to interpret and reinterpret (whereas i take things more at their "face value"), but i believe these comments are pretty clear, not just in their face value but in your "department" of the deeper implications.

[Jefferson23]

160. I welcomed him/her and commented back in earlier posts that his

arguments which focus on the OP, which is the point of contention here, are imo, spot on. The debate here is about the interpretation
of what the gentleman said in the OP that is what I found commendable. This was also explained by two other members here that I agree with, post 10 and 12.


You are now asking me if I agree with each of his arguments further along now, they are as you pointed out about Zionism, that
is the focus..correct?

I have not involved myself in past discussions here about Zionism, whether the premise was right or wrong. You can scan
my posts here and I doubt you'll find me in on these conversations because they are for the most part imo, irrelevant to the
problem at hand...the occupation. But to answer your questions directly about the aforementioned posts, I would say, yes, I find
Zionism discriminatory and I also have issues with how ME states(despots)are run too. What I do not agree with is how
Zionism seems to be used here to defame Israeli policy or even explain them. You can be a Zionist and not support the occupation; I see the focus of condemnation of Israeli policy to be synonymous with Zionism as false...I don't agree with that.


The remarks about the Jewish children, best to ask which quote he is referring to..Benny Morris I think.

[pelsar]

161. thanks for the clarification....

it was as i suspected. I shall explain why i asked, and i shall show you two examples from israel right and progressive left:

In Israel, the religious right has been slowly infiltrating the army. That means making a career out of it, with the long term plans of eventually being in influential positions (there is nothing secretive about it,, we see this in Pakistan, in Turkey in Egypt). They enter the system, work with the system and have support of the country... and slowly build up their forces as time goes on. The latest little skirmish was officer candidates refusing to hear women solider voices in an official ceremony, something that was never a problem before (they were thrown out of the officer course). In this case, they were in the news and caused a bit of stir, there will be more.

We see the same thing on the progressive left, as per our poster here. Part of what he said will be backed up by progressives, but as we have seen, he in fact has a far more extreme view, a view that in my opinion is far more destructive than anything else.

just as the officer cadets were tossed out...i also believe that he too should be condemed....

[Jefferson23]

162. His opinion is his pelsar, I hope you would recognize and appreciate

the difference...but I do see your point, I agree.

[King_David]

141. I needed to take a shower after that exchange nt

[shira]

64. So you realize if Israel had the same policy, it would be racist/bigoted.

You have no issue with an ethnically cleansed Palestine that contains no Jews, however you'd be howling and screaming if Israel were to try justifying the same thing.

That's an obvious double-standard and without question hypocritical.

Tell me this - do you as a Progressive support a Palestine that is antisemitic, discriminates against gays, celebrates murderers like Sami Kuntar, rules by sharia law, and doesn't allow the most basic civil rights to its civilians? I can tell you as a Progressive that if Israel were as hideously rightwing as that, I couldn't possibly support it. Further, I would say if Israel were like this, it would have no right to exist as a nation. Can you as a Progressive say the same about Palestine?

[fast lane]

67. Apparently, you don't realize that I never said that

and that your entire argument is made-up. I've already stated that the problem is Israel's policies of apartheid and ethnic cleansing. A Jewish presence in a post-Zionist Palestine is more than welcome, and will be accorded with the respect that Zionism has never shown anyone.

I support self-determination for Palestine, because that would mean progress for the entire region. You speak of homophobic discrimination and civil rights, but you forget to mention that all Palestinians, LGBT or otherwise, are treated like garbage in your apartheid state. Self-determination for their people would be a step forward, and set the foundation for further advancement.

"Further, I would say if Israel were like this, it would have no right to exist as a nation"

Oh, so massacres against civilian populations are fine, but the possibility that LGBT rights wouldn't be tip-top in a liberated Palestine is just too much to bear, huh? Interesting priorities these Zionists have.

[King_David]

87. ' A Jewish presence in a post-Zionist Palestine is more than welcome,'

Who said?

Are you a Palistinian spokesman ?

My guess is that you THINK you can speak for

The Palistinians better than they can speak for themselves?

I believe what they say and not someone pretending to understand

them better than they understand themselves.

[fast lane]

95. It's already been said by one Palestinian

but you've refused to listen...which is quite typical by Zionist standards.

[King_David]

99. No it was said by YOU

Your able to read between the lines , even when something is crystal clear it is still 'murky'.

[fast lane]

101. You mean make stuff up

"Read between the lines"...good one. Try reading between the illegal Zionist apartheid wall.

[King_David]

111. Sorry I never understood this post nt

[fast lane]

113. You haven't been able to understand the quotes in the OP

so that's to be expected. I was saying that your "reading between the lines" means nothing, and is the product of a mindset that doesn't listen to Palestinian voices.

[King_David]

117. Still not understanding, sorry nt

[fast lane]

121. No, you're not

because you don't understand what Palestinians want. You're a Zionist...why would you?

[King_David]

91. 'the possibility that LGBT rights wouldn't be tip-top in a liberated Palestine is just too much'

'the possibility that LGBT rights wouldn't be tip-top in a liberated Palestine is just too much to bear, huh? '

Damn straight yes.

Any state discriminating against LGBT do not deserve recognition.

ZERO.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[King_David]

104. LGBT Palestinians ?

There are not many , they dare not come out of the closet.

Civilized?

ANY STATE DISCRIMINATING AGAINST LGBT IS NOT CIVILIZED.

GOT IT ?

GOOD !


(sivilize is actually spelled - civilize with a 'C')

[fast lane]

106. Wrong, being LGBT isn't a choice

So much for your "compassion" for LGBT rights, you can't even understand the first thing about the issue.

Furthermore, Palestinian self-determination would set the foundation for advancement in many other areas. Your sivilizing claims are nothing more than naked oppression...much like right-wing rhetoric about sivilizing other areas of the middle east. Actually, it's pretty much the same thing.

[King_David]

114. It is not a choice

But just like in Iran where Ahmadinajet says there are 'no Gays' , Palestinian Gays

for the most part remain in the closet as it is too dangerous to 'come out'.

Or you can find them 'out'in Jerusalem , where they feel safe.

(if they manage to get through the defense wall or checkpoints necessitated by terrorists)

[fast lane]

118. Actually, it is not a choice

And saying that it is a choice is highly insensitive to our LGBT friends. I suggest you educate yourself before you show just how empty your desire to sivilize Palestinians is.

All Palestinians, LGBT or otherwise, would find a great step forward in a liberated Palestine. Self-determination and independence are positive things to peoples under the yoke of racism.

[King_David]

123. LGBT would find a great step foreword?

Are you for real?

As great a step foreword as Gays enjoy anywhere else in the Middle East ? (Israel excepted)

LGBT rights are not negotiable .

[fast lane]

125. Of course

All Palestinians today are treated like garbage by Israel and its IDF goons. This includes LGBT Palestinians. The end of this oppression would be a great step forward for them, and Palestinian control over its own community would set the foundation for further advancement. This is the fact that you can't face.

[King_David]

127. The same as everywhere else in The Middle East ?

Israel Excepted of course.

[fast lane]

129. Not being under the shadow of Zionist oppression

would be a step forward for the whole region as well.

[Shaktimaan]

142. all Palestinians are treated like garbage?

Dude, you do know that Israel's had an Arab president, don't you? And that Arab-Israelis overwhelmingly want to stay in Israel as opposed to a future Palestinian state.

Your argument is really weird. Where are you getting your information?

[fast lane]

147. You mean Wahabi?

Doesn't prove anything when I was talking of Palestinians. The Druze are a different group. And anyway, a Latino congressman doesn't mean Latinos aren't discriminated against or treated poorly by the state.

So-called "Arab-Israelis" want to stay where they are because it's their home, but that doesn't mean they appreciate it when Israel says they can't even commemorate their identity (or the myriad of other policies designed to marginalize them). Your argument would be like saying that since Black Africans in South Africa didn't want to go to the Bantustans, that South African apartheid was fine.

[Shaktimaan]

168. hang on...

So now the Druze don't even qualify as Palestinians?

This is getting really weird. OK, so what do you think a Palestinian is?

Also, I was serious when I asked you where you get the majority of your information from. I'm genuinely curious. (You must realize by now that it differs significantly from everyone else's information.) For example, where did you learn that the Druze are not Palestinian?

[fast lane]

173. They often consider themselves a group distinct from Palestinians

no? I've read this in a few studies, but is also reflected in those few whom I have met (it was sort of a vague "yeah, well we're not actually Palestinian" kind of response). This passage is somewhat useful to our ends:

According to the survey, the Druze see themselves first of all as Druze (81 percent), then as Arabs (64 percent of the respondents said they viewed their affiliation with the Arab people as being of great importance).

Affiliation with Israel comes in third (approximately 59 percent), and in last place was the connection to the Palestinian people (33 percent of the respondents cited this as very important).

Perhaps a bit off-topic, but this is also interesting and touches upon the original point of non-Jews and their relationship to the Zionist state:

About half of the survey's respondents (48 percent) termed the relationship between Druze citizens and the state as bad or very bad.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/israeli-druze-face-deepening-identity-crisis-1.2637

My main point is that it is a distinct group...even if we are to consider them Palestinians (which is not invalid, IMO), the position of that former president is as much reflective of the Druze's long-standing (and somewhat unique, among non-Jewish populations) role in institutions such as the IDF as anything else.

[Shaktimaan]

143. wow. I'm learning every day.

I'd be OK with Israel ceasing its oppression and deprivation of Palestinians...yes, most definitely. The issue is that Israel won't, because it's founded upon the idea of an ethnically-pure settler-state contrary to human rights.

This is amazing. You know, I've read BUNCHES of books about Zionism; its history, the early, divergent theories that were endlessly debated, etc. And while Zionism really is a big tent movement with lots of different ideas falling under its general umbrella, I have never encountered a description that was quite like yours here.

woah. So like, you really believe this statement don't you? Like, for real?

Can you explain how a state so devoted to purity of race ended up just a few decades later as one of the most ethically diverse countries in the history of the planet? Can you explain why such a state ended up with the only significant citizen-populations of both Palestinians and Jews throughout the entire Middle East?

[fast lane]

151. It's diverse for the same reason 1970's South Africa was diverse

Apartheid does not always attempt to erase diversity, it attempts to give one group a virtual monopoly on power. In Israel, that means that Jews come first and everyone else comes second. This is in fact what Israel is founded on.

You say that Palestinians live there, but you neglect to mention that they are treated as cheap and intimidated labor for Israeli companies. We cannot forget, though, that Zionists today are constantly worrying themselves over the so-called "Demographic Bomb". Apparently, Palestinians being born is a problem for Israel.

Do you agree that Zionism seeks a "homeland" for Jews? If so, then that, there, is exactly what I'm talking about.

[Shaktimaan]

167. wait a sec..

So seeking an "ethnically pure state" means the same thing as "self-determination?"

Do you agree that Zionism seeks a "homeland" for Jews? If so, then that, there, is exactly what I'm talking about.

Of course I agree with that definition of Zionism. But how is seeking a homeland for Jews the equivalence of building an "ethnically pure state?" I mean, can you even show me some evidence that a single influential Zionist wrote about that as a goal?

There is such a gaping chasm between seeking a national home and seeking an ethnically pure state that it really reeks of intellectual dishonesty that you are attempting to defend it.

It's diverse for the same reason 1970's South Africa was diverse

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Was 1970's SA diverse? Was it more diverse than 2000's era SA? Why?

Besides that, or the reasons you purport, the fact is that Israel really is the most ethnically diverse state in that entire region. You don't see the reality of ethnic diversity blooming in the past 50 years as being somewhat incompatible with your assertion that the Zionists sought to build an "ethnically pure state?"

[fast lane]

169. No

those are most frequently diametrically opposed to one another.

Of course I agree with that definition of Zionism. But how is seeking a homeland for Jews the equivalence of building an "ethnically pure state?" I mean, can you even show me some evidence that a single influential Zionist wrote about that as a goal?

You said it yourself. Zionism wants to create a state that is for Jews and not for others. Its entire purpose is to have Jews come first and everyone else second, if at all. That is entirely contradictory to every ideal held by progressives.

Many a Zionist have written about this in one way or another, but here's a good quote from Ben Gurion: "The Arabs cannot accept the existence of Israel. Those who accept it are not normal. The best solution for the Arabs in Israel is to go and live in the Arab states---in the framework of a peace treaty or transfer." Ben Gurion clearly felt that Arabs had no place in a Zionist state.

There is such a gaping chasm between seeking a national home and seeking an ethnically pure state that it really reeks of intellectual dishonesty that you are attempting to defend it.

A national home? This is a state forged by Europeans conquering Palestine and kicking out 700,000 of the people who were living there...and then denying those who stayed any semblance of political empowerment. That's not a national home, that's a settler-state.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Was 1970's SA diverse? Was it more diverse than 2000's era SA? Why?

Yes, 1970's SA, as today, was very diverse. You had Zulu, Xhosa, Sotho, Venda, Tsonga, Coloured, Indian, Afrikaner, British, Khoi-San communities...just to name a few. The issue, though, was that apartheid gave virtually all power and privilege to whites (Afrikaners and British) at the expense of everyone else. Coloureds and Indians and Black Africans were treated like dirt. That's what apartheid is, not the absence of diversity but the suppression of the rights of peoples who aren't deemed worthy of dignity. Israel, of course, supported South African apartheid and continued to sell that criminal government weapons after the UN embargo (Taiwan was the only other country to do so).

That's why this "blooming" diversity only goes to show how much of an apartheid society Israel really is. Palestinians are treated as second-class citizens and have no political authority while Jews are afforded all power and privilege.

[King_David]

89. 'Jews will certainly be welcome in a liberated Palestine.'

Are you a Palestinian spokesman?

Have you conferred with Hamas on that ? (they were elected by the people)

[fast lane]

108. I'm a progressive

You're a Zionist who doesn't like uppity Palestinians saying what they think.

[King_David]

119. That is just offensive

What are you saying?

C'mon spit it out. I dare you.

[fast lane]

124. What's offensive is the denial of Palestinian rights by Israel

and that is what progressives seek to ameliorate.

You've already admitted that you don't want to listen to what Palestinians say, so you've already exposed your own intentions.

[King_David]

126. Come on explain what you meant in post 108

fast lane (76 posts) Fri Sep-16-11 07:31 AM
Response to Reply #89
108. I'm a progressive
You're a Zionist who doesn't like uppity Palestinians saying what they think.







What do you mean? What are you implying about me. Help me understand this post.

[fast lane]

128. It means you refuse to listen honestly to Palestinians

which is something your posts here have proven quite adequately.

[King_David]

131. A lot of your posts

Are shrouded in 'code'

(and this exchange is now boring me - bye bye )

[fast lane]

132. No code, just fact nt

[King_David]

170. Your views as expressed on this thread

Can not by any stretch of the imagination

be described as " progressive ".

[fast lane]

175. And why not?

I'm against Israeli apartheid. Nothing more or less.

[King_David]

176. Extreme left meets Extreme right in a circle.

Hypothetically speaking ,hate against a People (even if called Zionists as a cloak) is still bigotry.

Some people who are self proclaimed 'progressives' are anything but.

Hamas and the PA are very right wing organizations.

Progressives DO support LGBT rights ( 100% without any exceptions for right wing oppressive regimes)

[fast lane]

177. Zionism is not a people

it is a political ideology. Standing against a political ideology is not "hate against a people".

The most arrogant part about your argument is that you conflate Zionism and Judaism. You actually want to convince yourself that there's no difference between the two. This is incorrect.

What you're trying to say is no different than when the Tea Baggers say that we're "Anti-American" because we oppose their lunacy. on edit...I'm not saying you're like them politically...just trying to make a point about the conflation of identities with political views.

[King_David]

179. Your views as pointed out to you by other posters on this thread

Are Extremist views.

That is NOT Progressive at all !

Zionism is the Jewish National movement ...

And when YOU say 'Zionist' ,theres no conflating anything . ( We all get your meaning only too clear )

[fast lane]

180. When I say Zionist

I refer to those who support a state that is run by and for Jews at the expense of other peoples. I don't refer to Jews or Judaism, because not all Jews are Zionists.

I fully support Jewish rights from the Americas to Europe to Asia to Australia...but I do not support any system that consciously assigns all privilege and power to one people while oppressing other peoples.

Again, it's incredibly arrogant to say that your political ideology is the default ideology of all Jewish people. It's also wrong.

[King_David]

181. Vast Majority of Jews are Zionists

That's the truth

[aranthus]

7. He said Jews in the very passage you cite.

"I’m saying transfer Jews who, after an agreement with Israel, fall under the jurisdiction of a Palestinian state." Bolding by me.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bemildred]

12. Yeah, I think you are right.

The OP is somewhat dishonest in its presentation.

"“Listen, again, we have nothing against Jews. This is a political conflict,” he explained. “Once the political issues our resolved, every Palestinian should be welcomed in Israel. Every Israeli should be welcomed in Palestine. But under the current circumstances — an occupation power occupying a people against their will — this is something we are trying to end.”

Of course one can say that he is lying and his words mean nothing, but then why should I believe any of the rest of this, or pay any attention to it? I think his real "sin" is casting it as a political and secular issue.

Edit: I think what he is really saying is he wants any Israelis who do not accept Palestinian citizenship to leave, and I would expect the motive is to have a chance to get the new state off the ground with a minimum of internal conflicts. I would expect the new state to have its hands full with rejectionists as it is; and if the settlers stay, then the new state would have the duty to protect them. It is a recipe for trouble. On the other hand, the British partition of Raj comes to mind as a counter-argument of the "what could go wrong? variety of argueable relevance.

[Shaktimaan]

13. So I understand...

your defense of this statement is that you think he only meant that Jews of a particular race need to leave, but indigenous Jews would be allowed to stay? But it is not because of the RACE that they'd have to leave, it is because they were not originally there pre-1948 or whenever... which of course dovetails with race quite exactly.

Hmmm... as I recall Palestinians are not nearly so discerning when it comes to determining whether someone qualifies as a non-Jewish Palestinian. By the UN's definition, an Arab could have moved from Egypt a mere 2 years before the Nakba, been a citizen of Jordan for several decades and still qualifies as a Palestinian refugee, as does all of his descendents. In fact, does Arafat even meet such a standard?

This is all academic anyway. However you cut it you're talking about ethnic cleansing, it's pretty obvious. Which is fine, I actually think he has a point. But let's at least be honest about it.

[shaayecanaan]

27. Bear in mind the obvious double standard that applies here...

according to the Israeli law of return, a Palestinian with roots in Jerusalem going back 1000 years is forbidden from returning to the place of his birth, but an American tourist can fill out a one-page form and obtain citizenship on a passing fancy. He doesnt even need to live there.

As far as racism goes, thats a pretty clear cut example right there.

[shira]

29. A Palestinian citizen of a friendly nation like the US, UK, or Australia can obtain...

....Israeli citizenship.

[shaayecanaan]

35. You don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about...

A non-East Jerusalem Palestinian (or any other non-Jew) could technically apply for residence in Israel (usually by having an Israeli employer sponsor them) and then apply for naturalisation (ie, citizenship) from the relevant minister, after living in Israel for at least three years.

Citizenship this way can only be obtained via ministerial discretion. The current minister of the interior is Eli Yishai, of Shas, who is unlikely to be a very enthusiastic grantor of citizenship to Palestinian applicants.

Whether the Palestinian in question comes from Australia or from Norway or from Djibouti makes no difference.

[shira]

39. Just correcting your statement about Palestinians being forbidden to return to Israel...

You were wrong and you know it, so why make the claim?

Meanwhile, you're still excusing bigotry that discriminates against all Jews living in a future Palestine. Maybe Israel should toss out all Palestinians from within the green line but keep only the Druze. You couldn't possibly have a problem with such a policy, right? After all, Israel keeps the Druze while Palestine keeps the Samaritans. That's fair, right?

[shaayecanaan]

49. And likewise, a Jew is perfectly entitled to apply for residence in Palestine

they can apply to the Palestinian Minister for the Interior in the same way. A couple of Israeli Jews including Uri Davis has applied for and obtained Israeli citizenship, and a number of other Jews just as the journalist Amira Hass have sought and obtained residence in Palestine. I dare say that the Palestinians are more receptive to these requests than the Israelis.

Areikat himself has said that the Palestinians have no problems with Jews seeking residence in Palestine legally, through the Palestinian Authority, rather than through illegal settlements. The Arabs living in Israel are not settlers, so your rather puerile analogy breaks down early.

[shira]

53. One state's policy allows immigration while the other intends to forbid it. Why are you intent...

...on equating the two, or pretending Israeli state policy is just as bad or worse?

More questions:

1. If a settler has roots in the W.Bank going back to the Ottoman era then what makes his/her dwelling there illegal in your view - or unworthy of being allowed to live in a future state? It's not his/her fault that he/she or their parents were ethnically cleansed from 1948-67, is it?

2. Do you think it would be alright if the PA were to forbid Israeli Arabs from becoming citizens and moving into a future Palestinian state?

[shaayecanaan]

54. Bullshit, I just corrected you and pointed you to several examples

of the PA granting residence to Jews. Do you really think this sort of wilfully ignorant bluster is going to persuade anyone?

[shira]

56. You left a lot of questions unanswered yet again....

And I don't see how the PA allowing Amira Hass and Uri Davis (who are exceptions to the rule due to their political support) is equivalent to Israeli policy that allows thousands of Palestinians to immigrate from other friendly nations.

[shaayecanaan]

58. Israel allows thousands of Palestinians to migrate from friendly nations?

I'm honestly mystified. Pray, tell me, who are these thousands of Palestinians immigrating from friendly nations? Can you point to any of them?

[shira]

65. Silly me, I thought this was a 2 way conversation. Let me know when you're ready to answer...

...my questions.

I'll wait.

[Shaktimaan]

37. Racism? OK, sure. So what?

Basically, you are talking about the difference between establishing a right of return (or rectifying ethnic cleansing from 65 years ago, if you prefer), and comitting ethnic cleansing today. The two are not equivalent. There are plenty of examples of population exchanges during war... most of the time these are not rectified later on. Groups just resettle.

I very much disagree with the concept that a WWII era population exchange during wartime somehow justifies a current ethnic cleansing policy during relative peacetime. To draw an equivalency, do you think that any Jews who were living in (what is now) the OPT back in 1947 (and all of their descendents), should have the right to immigrate to a new Palestinian state? Of course not.

To your point about racism, sure, I agree. Giving preferential treatment to a single ethnic group regarding immigration is discriminatory. (Not technically RACE-ist, but whatever, same thing). But then the entire concept of nation-states is based on discrimination... ie: it divides the world into those who are the SAME and those who are OTHER. Big deal, that's how the world works. I can live with that. The best we can hope for is to limit such discrimination WITHIN any given nation. But not BETWEEN them. Not while we still bother drawing up borders anyway.

Israel exists specifically to give any Jew in the world, tourist or not, the right to immigrate to a safe haven. Presumably Palestine would work along a similar principle. Or do you expect it to not give right of return to American Palestinian tourists? (While Jews who live there even NOW are forced to leave.)

You're right, not every person is able to return to the exact spot they were born at and build a house there. None of the Jewish refugees who went to Israel were able to. It sucks, but sometimes that happens during times of great upheaval. I certainly don't think that requiring some Palestinians build their houses 20 miles away from the exact spot they were born is an injustice worth destroying Israel to rectify. And I'm fine with having a Palestinian policy of this sort actually... but we should at least be honest about what it is.

[shaayecanaan]

38. This wasnt a "World War II population exchange"

this was a transfer of civilians beginning in 1974 to an area under military occupation, contrary to Article 46 of the Geneva Convention. If wanting that rectified amounts to ethnic cleansing, then the fact that the Cypriots want the post-occupation Turkish settlers (or at least most of them) to leave Northern Cyprus is likewise ethnic cleansing.

Of course, when Israel left Gaza it forcibly took the settlers with it, even without an agreement with the Palestinians. I suppose Israel would be guilty of ethnic cleansing then?

[Shaktimaan]

45. Of course there was.

Despite the fact that most victims of the Nakba left of their own accords, the fact that their return was prevented amounts to ethnic cleansing, or at least the equivalent. It wasn't total ethnic cleansing, but that hardly changes the nature of the beast. Subsequently Jews from all over the Middle East were either forced out of their states or encouraged to leave, with Israel acting as the primary actor in the resettling of these refugees. There were obviously both indigenous and immigrant Jews who were forced off of their land in places like Hebron, Jerusalem, Gaza, etc both in the decades leading up to and including the two wars in 47-48.

900,000 or so Jews left Arab lands for Israel. 750,000 Palestinian-Arabs left Israel for Arab lands. Voila... population exchange.

Of course, when Israel left Gaza it forcibly took the settlers with it, even without an agreement with the Palestinians. I suppose Israel would be guilty of ethnic cleansing then?

Sure. What it is, is using a previous injustice to justify a current one. Gaza was originally cleansed of its Jews in 1947, thus any Jews who then went to live there in 1970 or whatever were defined as "illegal settlers." Sure, you are saying that it isn't about cleansing the Jews per-say, just the settlers who arrived after a certain time. It just happens that the two groups are exactly the same.

In other words:

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets or steal bread.

On edit: Just saw this bit... even without an agreement with the Palestinians. You don't remember an agreement as to the details and specifics of the pullout in 2005 being arranged with the Palestinians? What do you recall happened?

[shaayecanaan]

51. Presumably then, Gandhi was asking for ethnic cleansing when he wanted the Brits out of India?

after all the Brits, unlike the Indians, just happened to be white. Presumably if your logic was adopted, then just about any action that had the consequence of impacting upon the members of a certain race would be racist, whether that was the intention or not.

So what say you? Would you support an indictment against Gandhi at the Hague?

[Shaktimaan]

57. of course not

The Brits were colonists living there at the behest of their mother country, Great Britain. (Or sometimes at the behest of the Dutch East India Company, depending how you look at it.) There was no expectation that British expats living in India were doing so to create a national home for themselves. Nor was the land in any way disputed regarding ownership.

Jewish refugees did not travel to Palestine/Israel with the intention of bringing glory and gold home to Morocco. They moved there permanently to escape persecution.

Whereas the Jews living in Palestine were expelled specifically because they were Jewish, regardless of whether they had been there for 1000 years or 10. To then excuse a repeat because the Jewish inhabitants were not the original ones is pure absurdism. Of course they aren't the original ones if the original ones were already expelled and/or massacred.

Look at Hebron for example... Jews have been living there for thousands of years. Then they were absent for 20. Are the new Jews moving there really the equivalent of English colonists under the Raj simply because they are different Jewish people than the indigenous ones previously expelled/massacred there?

[shaayecanaan]

139. Yes, but now we're talking about motivation....

Gandhi getting the Brits out of India was not ethnic cleansing because there were valid, non-racist reasons for wanting it so. Likewise, the Palestinians wanting the settlements in the West Bank dismantled is not ethnic cleansing because the Palestinians have valid, non-racist reasons for wanting it so.

Look at Hebron for example... Jews have been living there for thousands of years.

They've been living there for roughly 400 years continuously. Before that it was on and off. And even then, the Jewish community in Hebron was a few Sephardic families, less than fifty people for the most part.

Aside from Hebron, there is very little Jewish connection to most of the cities of the West Bank. There have been no Jews in Jericho for 1400 years. None in Nablus (aside from the Samaritans). None in Ramallah. The relatively tenuous connection to Hebron is about as good as Jewish claims to the West Bank get.

If continued Jewish presence in a place justifies its colonisation, then the Jews have a better claim to Athens (in Greece) than they do for Hebron, since there has been a continuous Jewish presence in Athens (and much of Greece and Turkey) for more than 2400 years.

Likewise, the Armenians and Assyrians have been in Jerusalem for more than 2000 years. Do they get to build settlements as well?

[King_David]

3. It's consistent with everything that's been said in the past

They are not changing their story nor denying it .

[shira]

4. They don't need to deny anything when their "leftist" apologists do it for them. n/t

[King_David]

25. Amazing how some on DU

Tie themselves into a Pretzel trying to support this right wing,

rabid ,racist bigot and insist that he did not say ,think ,mean to say , JEWS.

When quite clearly the piece of trash Bigoted Antisemite DID say it !!!

LOUD AND CLEAR !!!

[shira]

30. They think it's leftwing to support extreme, fascist, 3rd world rightwingery. n/t

[aranthus]

31. They think that it's okay to oppose anything West.

Ever since Marx, there has been a strain of the Left that sees Capitalism, and the Western civilization which created it, as the supreme enemy of humankind. So anyone who opposes the West is going to be seen as an ally. It's not that they support fascists. It's that they think that Western Capitalism is worse than Third World dictatorship. That's in part why they seem to support homophobic, sexist, tyrannical Arab/Muslim governments over relatively more open Israel. Israel is pro-Western, Capitalist, and yeah, Jewish. All of that makes Israel worse than the Arab/Muslim world that wants to destroy the Jewish state.

[fast lane]

44. Amazing how Israeli apologists refuse to listen to Palestinians

"Listen, again, we have nothing against Jews. This is a political conflict"

It seems the Zionist crowd here can't bring themselves to be honest about facts...and instead resort to cheap slander. It's very fitting.

[King_David]

47. Yea and Ahmadinejad the POS

Was mistranslated ?

We heard that ad nauseum for years.

"Same shit different day"

[fast lane]

62. So not only do you not listen to Palestinians (which you admit)

but you don't listen to Persian translators, either. Nice. Since you missed it:

Listen, again, we have nothing against Jews. This is a political conflict.

But since Zionists sees Palestinian people (among others) as inconvenient obstacles to their living room, I'm sure you'll just ignore those words once again.

[King_David]

80. Nothing to ignore , they do not need your revisions,explanations

and they do not need some foreigner explaining to us Jews what they mean.

The Ambassador said it very eloquently himself , he does not need you to

interpret his speech or interview to us Jews.

Ahmadinajet had the same problem.

Western `liberals` were so desperate for him to NOT BE A JEW HATING SCUM that they thought they

could explain what he meant to say.

Well you know what ? They say what they mean,and do not need YOU to explain it to 'THE JEWS'.

'NO JEWS ALLOWED ' is not a new concept. We have seen it before and We recognize it.

No need for you to attempt to falsely claim what he said is not what he means.

He was very clear...


GOT IT?

GOOD !!!

[fast lane]

88. Ah, so there's no need to listen to Palestinians

because you, yourself, are so enlightened that you may read their inner desires from afar. Or, more likely, you simply don't value what Palestinians say.

By the way, "Lebensraum" is not a new concept, either, and that's what Israel has been basing its policy on since its inception.

[King_David]

96. No it is YOU who is so 'enlightened'

So much more than even the Palestinians ? You are able to interpret them far better than they can express themselves to us.

How did you obtain that 'gift' ?

[fast lane]

103. Any sensible person can read a quote

Unfortunately, Zionists don't seem capable of this. The same holds true when they are confronted with Zionists getting chummy with Mussolini, or Zionists saying that Jewish children should suffer and die in Germany for the sake of their "movement".

Reading something honestly...Zionists just can't seem to do it.

[King_David]

109. Calling A Jew a 'Zionist' is NOT an insult.

I myself and the vast majority of Jews are PROUD TO BE ZIONISTS !

[fast lane]

112. Who said I employed it as an insult?

It's a matter of fact. If you adhere to Zionism's goal of an ethnically-pure state, then you're a Zionist.

[King_David]

116. Ha ,your mask is dropping nt

[fast lane]

122. Ha, you can't face facts nt

[pelsar]

135. i like clarity...and its good to see yours....

basically your definition of zionism is the preferred definition of fanatics/extremists. For whatever reason you need to believe in the extreme view (i refuse to be your psychologist), it does put you in irrelevant minority of the far far left....thats where the cults lie...

[shira]

137. The ignorance and stupidity in posts throughout this thread reminds me of religious fundamentalism.

There's only so much of that stupidity I can take.

I feel if I read more of this thread, I'll lose a lot more brain cells.

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fast lane]

146. Not at all

Zionism is a political ideology, nothing more or less. Pointing out when its adherents are unable to approach issues honestly is quite reasonable.

[cali]

158. uh, yes.

nothing reasonable about hate and ignorance.

[fast lane]

174. Well

where do you see hate or ignorance in my views? I am fully in support of an enfranchised Jewish presence in the Levant (and wherever else Jews live, for that matter), I simply object to any state that, as a matter of course, privileges the interests of one group over another. It wasn't OK when Afrikaners did it, and it's not OK when Israelis do it.

[shira]

188. You "support...an enfranchised Jewish presence in the Levant". What does that mean exactly? n/t

[aranthus]

70. No. It's a question of not believing him.

On the one hand, he doesn't want Jews in Palestine, but he "has nothing against Jews." That's a little contradictory, don't you think? And don't say that he meant Israelis, because he says nothing about Israeli Arabs. Second, he says that it's a political conflict, which is true. What he doesn't tell you, is that it's a political conflict between Jews and Arabs. Because Jews are a people as well as a religion. That's something he doesn't want to admit, because to the Palestinians Jews are merely a religion without any right to a state. The bottom line is that the Palestinians want a Judenrein state.

[fast lane]

75. Little reason for that

It's clear he did mean Israelis, as in those who don't approve of living in a Palestinian state. He wouldn't have said he has nothing against Jews if that wasn't the case. It's not contradictory, it's just others putting things in the blackest terms possible.

It's not a political conflict between Jews and Arabs but Zionists and Palestinians. Israel is not synonymous with a Jewish presence in Palestine, Jews lived in Palestine long before the first Zionists met in Europe.

To the Palestinians, Israel is a state that oppresses them and steals their land for Lebensraum. Palestinians want to live in a society that doesn't treat them like dirt...it has nothing to do with being "Judenrein".

[pelsar]

74. whats the big deal?....and whats the surprise?

i find this "nit picking" and attempts to redefine the Palestinians society ridiculous. The concept of non discrimination and civil rights is a western democratic value. The Palestinians, as i understand, have not accepted the western moral value system (I believe those of the ISM and others who help the Palestenians against israel will concur that they are advised not to comment on the "non western democratic customs and values that they observe).

In fact as i have learned here and as it has been explained to me many times, the Palestinians cannot be expected to even have those western values until after their get their independence, under the occupation they simply cannot develop in that direction (as many seem to believe they will for reasons that are not entirely clear to me).

so..they don't want jews in their state....neither do the saudis,isn't that the essence of mutliculturalism? isn't that the whole point of having their own state, so they can do what they want?