Palestinians on the Right Side of History

[barb162]

Palestinians on the Right Side of History

By BENNY MORRIS
Published: August 24, 2005
Rockville, Md.

THERE is, from the historian's perch, something fitting about the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. I am not speaking about the fact that this appallingly overcrowded area has 1.3 million Arabs who need every inch of its 140 square miles to even begin to imagine a better life and who regard their former Jewish occupiers as nothing more than robbers.
snip
The Gaza Strip was the exception. It was the only part of the old Gentile coastal plain that was saved for the Arabs, by the Egyptian Army. It changed hands, of course, in 1967 (along with the West Bank); but with the Israeli withdrawal, it will regain a long tradition of evading Jewish control.

snip
Of course, these historical details are of little interest to the Islamic fundamentalists, who, by most accounts, enjoy majority support in the Gaza Strip. For them, history begins with the conquests of Muhammad and his caliphs in the seventh century. According to Koranic law, all the land they conquered (including not only today's Palestine but also Spain and Portugal) became inalienable Islamic territory. Or as Mahmoud Zahar, a Hamas leader, said recently, the fundamentalists seek to control not just the Gaza Strip and the West Bank; as he put it, "All of Palestine is our land."

Indeed, probably most Arabs would like to "de-Judaize" all of Palestine, and many, no doubt, see the Gaza evacuation as a first step. But that remains a distant dream. Gaza may be reverting to "Gentile" rule, but whether the West Bank - in which lie the true historical roots of the Jewish people - will do so also is another, and far more painful, question.

Benny Morris, the author of "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited," is a professor of history at Ben-Gurion University in Beersheba, Israel.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/24/opinion/24bmorris.html?th&emc=th

[bluesoul]

1. More right wing articles...yuck

NYTimes and Benny Morris??

:puke:

You couldn't pick a more right wing source....

[Brightmore]

2. The NY Times isn't a right wing source

The NY Post is the conservative paper in NY.

Plus, this is an Op-Ed, not a news article.

[Colorado Blue]

18. Since when is Benny Morris RIGHT WING? He's actually

a revisionist and highly controversial historian who has placed much of the blame for the Palestinian refugee problems on Israeli tactics in 1948.

In recent years, due to direct experience with the Intifada, he has come to an understanding that many in the Arab camp wish the absolute destruction of Israel and the murder of all her citizens.

This has indeed tempered his outlook and understandably so. One cannot dismiss the effects of personal experience as "right wing".

Nor can the NY Times be considered right wing. Many on the right consider it a bastion of the "liberal elite", whereas certain articles and authors cited in the far Left "Counterpunch" have also been extolled - and published - by the far Right.

Go figure.

[bluesoul]

19. LOL

No wonder that many registered democrats voted for Bush with views like this. The shift in the US (fortunately not that much over here in Europe, at least not within true liberal and left wing parties)has been so strong to the right that now Morris is a progressive, NYTIMES is "liberal elite" (save for a few individuals they're following WP in the right shift as far as foreign policy is concerned)

And Counterpunch is far right, just because some on the right found their articles useful? Not that for the very different reasons and reasoning behind it. After all KKK and White Aryans also don't like Palestinians, so they're closer to you by such logic. Puh-lease

[Darranar]

65. Benny Morris expresses happiness over hearing about...

the massacres of innocent Palestinians.

He thinks the 1948 expulsion of the Palestinians didn't go far enough.

Yes, he is right-wing. Extremely right-wing. He is just more honest than a lot of right-wingers.

[eyl]

66. Care to cite

where he "expressed happiness over the massacres of innocent Palestinians"?

[Violet_Crumble]

67. I can cite where he expresses cold-hearted callousness...

While I have a very high opinion of Benny Morris as a historian, I've got nothing but contempt for his right-wing and racist personal attitudes. But no-one can knock the guy for his honesty...

I'm a bit surprised by the original ridiculous claim made in this thread that Benny Morris isn't right-wing in his views. I could have sworn there was a lengthy discussion involving the poster who made that claim not all that long ago where examples of his rather extreme and bigoted personal views were given...

We are talking about the killing of thousands of people, the destruction of an entire society.

"A society that aims to kill you forces you to destroy it. When the choice is between destroying or being destroyed, it's better to destroy."

There is something chilling about the quiet way in which you say that.

"If you expected me to burst into tears, I'm sorry to disappoint you. I will not do that."

So when the commanders of Operation Dani are standing there and observing the long and terrible column of the 50,000 people expelled from Lod walking eastward, you stand there with them? You justify them?

"I definitely understand them. I understand their motives. I don't think they felt any pangs of conscience, and in their place I wouldn't have felt pangs of conscience. Without that act, they would not have won the war and the state would not have come into being."

You do not condemn them morally?

"No."

They perpetrated ethnic cleansing.

"There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide - the annihilation of your people - I prefer ethnic cleansing."



http://www.counterpunch.org/shavit01162004.html




"This reputation was definitively shattered by Morris’s interview in the Friday supplement of Haaretz, Israel’s “intellectual” daily, a month before publication of an expanded second edition of his principal work, retitled The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited.<4> Relentlessly pursuing his empirical research, Morris documents even more Israeli massacres of Palestinians—some two dozen—than were chronicled in the original text, as well about a dozen cases of rape by Israeli soldiers. But “balance” is maintained by his discovery “that there were a series of orders issued by the Arab Higher Committee and by the Palestinian intermediate levels to remove children, women and the elderly from the villages.”<5> Nonetheless, Morris coldly concludes, “There is no justification for acts of rape. There is no justification for acts of massacre. Those are war crimes. But…I do not think that the expulsions of 1948 were war crimes. You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs. You have to dirty your hands.” Not only does Morris refrain from morally condemning the ethnic cleansing of 1948, he explicitly endorses it because “ Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population.”<6>

Morris now provides a moral justification for ethnic cleansing that he did not offer before the second intifada, arguing that “ven the great American democracy could not have been created without the annihilation of the Indians.” Native Americans and those with a sounder knowledge of North American history may demur. But in Israel, appeal to the authority of the US is the ultimate clincher in any argument. Yearning for the success of the American example, Morris now criticizes Israel’s first prime minister and defense minister, David Ben-Gurion, for failing to do “a complete job” because “this place would be quieter and know less suffering if the matter had been resolved once and for all. If Ben-Gurion had carried out a large expulsion and cleansed the whole country…. It may yet turn out that this was his fatal mistake.” Palestine-Israel might also be quieter today if Hitler had completed his planned genocide of world Jewry. It does not occur to Morris that there might be a parallel between these two historical counterfactuals. The first is in the realm of acceptable speculation; the second is too obviously outrageous to consider.

http://www.merip.org/mer/mer230/230_beinin.html

[eyl]

68. There's a far distance

between callousness and joy.

[barb162]

21. Incorrect again. According to the rules of the IP forum on sources

"Vanity websites are generally not as credible as the New York Times, the Washington Post or the UK Guardian and are likely to be locked."


Bluestone, if you don't "like" the New York Times I would suggest you take it up with Skinner, Lithos....

[bluesoul]

22. em

It's BlueSOUL, Barby...

And don't worry I wont be long here. If Counterpunch is "vanity" and unwelcome then I'd rather be elsewhere where true liberal and progressive ideas are welcome. Already too much of the RW syndromes even with NYTimes, WPOST especially (Guardian and British are more true to their ideals)...

EOS

[Andromeda]

40. The Old Grey Lady a right-wing source?

You really need to become better informed.

[not systems]

3. "in which lie the true historical roots of the Jewish people"

This sounds like the Serbian claim to Kosova and
other famous appeals to nationalistic fanaticism.

Israel can defend it's borders and live in peace
but it chooses to annex more and more of the west bank
exactly because of these historical appeals to
nationalist fanaticism as demonstrated by the
freak show that was the Gaza pullout.

[Violet_Crumble]

6. Not surprising considering he advocated expulsion of Arabs in 1948...

I'm too sleepy and lazy to go searching for his article from last year, but the article posted had a link at the bottom to recent articles and here's the extract of a recent Benny Morris article..

An Isfaeli Who's Got Everybody Outraged

By JONATHAN D. TEPPERMAN (NYT) 1564 words
Late Edition - Final , Section B , Page 7 , Column 5

ABSTRACT - Profile of and interview with Benny Morris who, in book published earlier this year as well as in Israeli newspapers and interviews, defends Israel's attempts to rid country of Arabs in 1948 because Israel's existence was threatened; Morris, who was reviled as anti-Zionist for criticizing Israel in 1988 book for forcing Arabs to flee during war of independence, now says all Palestinians should have been transferred out of Israel in 1948; photo (M)

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0F1FFB395F0C748DDDAD0894DC404482

I'm wary of all those sorts of claims, such as one I read recently that spoke of the 'righteous claims' to historic Palestine held by the Jewish people. Not so much because these statements are based on religious and/or nationalistic fervour, but because the intent most times in trotting out these lines is to negate any Palestinian claims to the land they live on...

Violet...

[gulfcoastliberal]

7. Ever hear of the Bar-Kokhba Revolt?

That was 2,000 years ago after the Roman Emperor Hadrian allowed the Jews to have Jersusalem but then went back on his word leading to the final battle with Servius Julius. The Romans under Hadrian persecuted Jews worse than than the Christians. The Jews "occupied" Jerusalem far before the Paestinians were around. The Jews have been persecuted for literally thousands of years. Why don't Americans stop being so "nationalistic" and give the country back to the Indians we stole it from in less than 200 years? Your argument ignores history.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. What's that got to do with my post?

Except to prove how quick some are to try to negate Palestinian claims to their own territory?

Violet...

[Brightmore]

9. Jews were there even before that

The Jews built their first Temple in Jerusalem in the 10th century BC. The second one was built in 536 BC.

Christianity wasn't even invented yet, let alone Islam.

[Violet_Crumble]

10. And how does that make nationalistic claims 'righteous'?

It's like some people think the Jewish people were centuries and centuries ahead of things and had a nation-state in existence which quite neatly wipes out any territorial claims of the Palestinian people. Bizarre thinking...

Violet...

[Brightmore]

11. Well, Jews were centuries and centuries ahead of things

But, you are right. That does not wipe out any territorial claims of the Palestinian people. I don't remember saying that.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. Then what's the point of claims such as those described?

Y'know, like 'righteous claim to the land' and other stuff? I don't think any claims are more or less righteous than the other when it comes to current day nationalist claims. Strangely enough, I've seen a few folk argue strenously that the Jewish people have some righteous territorial claim to the West Bank due to a Jewish presence in Palestine dating back to the year dot, but then contradict themselves by arguing that the Palestinians lost any claim to their territory when they lost the war against Israel. They kind of conveniently forget that way back in the year dot Jews fought a war and lost as well :)

Violet...

[bluesoul]

13. ANd

what has that got to do with the fact that there are Palestinians living there today and have been even before most of what is todays Israel, consisted of people that emigrated from all over the world that never lived there before? We're talking about the modern times and the living generation of people, not what happened centuries ago?

[Igel]

14. The problem with most "traditional land claims" is that they

presume a zero starting point.

Do we set it in 800 BC? Or in 1800 AD? Or in 2004 AD?

The difference is crucial: if we take 800 BC as the starting point, then most Western sources would say that Jews have the right to much of the territory; but not Gaza, unless they bought and paid for land there.

If we take it to be 1600 AD, then Jews have no right to the territory, at all, or even to own land.

If we take it to be 2004 AD, then the "Jews" (lic. Israelis, of any ethnicity/provenance), have a right to their current territory, except possibly some of the West Bank settlements. For most Israelis have known no other homeland, whereas most Palestinians have never known what's behind the armistice line as their home.

Complicating it all is the Ottoman Empire's relocation policy, in which peoples were moved around; the gradual, not sudden, elimination of most Jews from Palestine in antiquity; the gradual, not sudden, reestablishment of a significant Jewish presence in Palestine. And, of course, the persistent mantra that Jews were never in Palestine, and that Arabs (lic. Palestinians) by other names have always lived there.

[pelsar]

16. igal...

you sure are making the palestenain land claim complicated......ruins the simplicitiy of the good guys vs the bad guys scenario

[Igel]

23. Doesn't it though?

That's the problem with progressivism.

You get caught up in reality, facts, and nuances. Damned irritating, every one.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[Behind the Aegis]

25. That is not what anti-Semitism means,

Very SIMPLY anti-Semitism is discrimination against JEWS! It is NOT about heritage other than being JEWISH! Consult a dictionary and the history of the word.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[pelsar]

30. exposed!!!!

ohmygod....alex88 found us out....were really not jews were "ZIONISTS"...and we drink christian er muslim blood (got my centuries mixed up)....we take palestenains organs out and sell them to black africans...we got bush and company to attack iraq...but of course we first set up the remote controlled planes to hit the towers...GODWEREGOOD!...dont you just LOVE IT!....

its great to be on top of the world and fool all those moronic westerners time and time again....i'll let you in on a secret....there is no zionism..that too we made up..its really

superfragalisticexpealadocious...and i know the sound of it is really rather atrocious...thats why we cut it down to zionism

[Behind the Aegis]

31. Try again...

The word antisemitic or antisemitisch was probably first used in 1860 by the Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider in the phrase "antisemitic prejudices" ("antisemitischen Vorurtheile"). Steinschneider used this phrase to characterize Ernest Renan's ideas about Semitic racial traits. These ideas about "Semitic races" , and how they were inferior to "Aryan races", became quite widespread in Europe in the second half of the 19th century. Especially the Prussian nationalistic historian Heinrich von Treitschke did much to promote this form of racism. In Treitschke's writings Semitic was practically synonomous with Jewish. When the political writer Wilhelm Marr coined the German word Antisemitismus in 1879, its meaning was identical to Jew-hatred or Judenhass. The new word antisemitism was used merely to make Jew-hatred seem rational and sanctioned by scientific knowledge. However, it was never intended to eliminate the concept of hatred towards Jews based on the Christian conspiracies and legends so popular with the general population. In his book, "The Way to Victory of Germanicism over Judaism" (1879), Marr took up secular racist ideas of Arthur de Gobineau's "An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races" (1853, though direct influence is debatable). Marr's book became very popular, and in the same year he founded the "League of Anti-Semites" ("Antisemiten-Liga"), the first German organization committed specifically to combatting the alleged threat to Germany posed by the Jews, and advocating their forced removal from the country.

So far as can be ascertained, the word was first printed in 1881, when Marr published "Zwanglose Antisemitische Hefte," and Wilhelm Scherer used the term "Antisemiten" in the "Neue Freie Presse" of January. The related word semitism was coined around 1885. See also the coinage of the term "Palestinian" by Germans to refer to the nation or people known as Jews, as distinct from the religion of Judaism.

Despite the use of the prefix "anti," the terms Semitic and Anti-Semitic are not antonyms. To avoid the confusion of the misnomer, many scholars on the subject (such as Emil Fackenheim of the Hebrew University) now favor the unhyphenated term antisemitism. Yehuda Bauer articulated this view in his writings and lectures: (the term) "Antisemitism, especially in its hyphenated spelling, is inane nonsense, because there is no Semitism that you can be anti to." <1>, also in his A History of the Holocaust, p.52)

The term anti-Semitism has historically referred to prejudice towards Jews alone, and this was the only use of this word for more than a century. It does not traditionally refer to prejudice toward other people who speak Semitic languages (e.g. Arabs or Assyrians). Bernard Lewis, Professor of Near Eastern Studies Emeritus at Princeton University, says that "Anti-Semitism has never anywhere been concerned with anyone but Jews."<2>

In recent decades certain pro-Arabists have argued that the term should be extended to include prejudice against Arabs, Anti-Arabism, in the context of accusations of Arab anti-Semitism. The argument for such extension comes out of the claim that since the Semitic linguistic family includes Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic languages, and the historical term "Semite" refers to all those who consider themselves decendents of the Biblical Shem, anti-Semitism should be likewise inclusive. This usage is not generally accepted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-semitism

[Alex88]

32. You haven't contested the central point I made

in my post to "Brightmore", that the vast majority of Jews in the world today have no historical connection to historic Palestine. This was relevant to what "Brightmore was saying and discussing with someone else about the history of the "Jews". This point is central to the secondary point I made about the meaning of the word "Semitic" and how its misuse has advanced the Zionist falsehood that people who are called Jews today, as a group, have a historical connection to historic Palestine and/or biblical Israel. My reference to the 20th century wasn't to suggest that Jews didn't use the word "anti-Semitic" before the 20th century. Jewish Zionist aspirations in Europe certainly predated the 20th century. What is relevant is that without there being any historical connection to historical Palestine, the word Semitic doesn't apply to Jews of East European and Russian origins. I withdraw the statement that "European nationalists in the 19th century started erroneously labeling believers in Judaism in Europe as Semites". It's possible that nationalists in Europe heard Jews in Europe identifying themselves as Semites and then started doing so themselves. Who did or didn't first use the word wasn't part of the point I was trying to make.

Futhermore, one need only use the link for the word "Semitic" near the beginning of where your post from the Wikipedia webpage was copied, to find the passage below, and what follows it on that webpage, to confirm the point I was making. Also, I want to point out that I wasn't trying to suggest that Arabs adopt the use of the word "anti-Semitism" as an anti-Zionist strategy. However, they and every anti-imperialist and defender of the inalienable human and moral rights of Palestinians, has every reason to discredit the Zionist falsehood I've pointed out.

"Semitic is an adjective referring to the peoples who have traditionally spoken Semitic languages or to things pertaining to them. Genetic analysis suggests that the Semitic peoples share a significant common ancestry, despite important differences and contributions from other groups. This genetic commonality applies less in the Horn of Africa, however, where indigenous non-Middle Eastern populations may have adopted Semitic language(s) over time due to cultural influence from immigrants from Yemen . There is much debate about the scope of the word's "racial" use in the context of population genetics and history, but as a linguistic term it is well-defined, referring to a largely Middle Eastern family of languages - ancient and modern - including Amharic, Arabic , Aramaic, Assyrian (Syriac) , Babylonian (Akkadian), Hebrew , Maltese, and Tigrigna. The Proto-Semitic peoples, ancestors of the Semites in the Middle East before the break-up of the hypothesized original (proto-)Semitic language into various modern Semitic languages, are thought to have been originally from the Arabian Peninsula .

The word "Semitic" derives from the Greek version of the Hebrew name Shem , one of the three sons of Noah in the Jewish scriptures (Genesis 5:32); the noun form referring to a person is Semite. The negative form of the adjective anti-Semitic is almost always used to mean "anti-Jewish", specifically."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic

[Behind the Aegis]

34. OK...not sure of the point....but...

"You haven't contested the central point I made in my post to "Brightmore", that the vast majority of Jews in the world today have no historical connection to historic Palestine." What does this have to do with the 'price of tea in China?' The history of Jews is fairly clear, as the were spread to the winds there was intermixing, yet, they still are the some of the original inhabitants of ancient Israel. The same would go for many Romans who went to Israel and stayed, then later generations moved. The historic connections are moot. The state of Israel has been established. It is now seen as a Jewish refuge.

This statement: "I withdraw the statement that "European nationalists in the 19th century started erroneously labeling believers in Judaism in Europe as Semites". It's possible that nationalists in Europe heard Jews in Europe identifying themselves as Semites and then started doing so themselves. Who did or didn't first use the word wasn't part of the point I was trying to make." is a typical 'backhanded' apology. It is based in speculation and opinion and does nothing more than try to advance it was the "Jews doing."

You claim to point out "Zionist falsehoods" but do nothing of the sort. The attempt to 'hijack' and misuse the word antisemitism, is just one more way to denigrate the suffering of Jews and claim a 'moral highroad,' for which no group can claim!

On edit: What is the origin of your screen name? I am assuming name and year of birth, making you 17/18. Just curious.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. You didn't spot the falsehood?

You claim to point out "Zionist falsehoods" but do nothing of the sort.

What was this, then? "a land without a people for a people without a land"...

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

36. falsehood

A falsehood that the poster stated. After reading his "points" about antisemitism, I really have a difficult time seeing his pointing out "Zionist falsehoods" as relevant.

[Violet_Crumble]

37. He did point it out, though...

...and did say it was one of the main Zionist falsehoods, which it was, even though I suspect that at the time they weren't deliberately ignoring the already existing Arab population, but because of typical European opinions of the time, didn't actually see them as *people* like Europeans were...

Confusion over the difference between Semitic people and the term *anti-Semitism* seems to be a reasonably common thing, and one that should be cleared up easily most of the time. At least it was for me ages ago when I read up on it...

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

38. Not really....

"Zionist falsehoods." What are those? Subterfuge, I would imagine. Or, is it propaganda...like any other.

As for, "(c)onfusion over the difference between Semitic people and the term *anti-Semitism* seems to be a reasonably common thing, and one that should be cleared up easily most of the time." One would think it would be easily cleared up, yet, here we are AGAIN, having to explain it; yet, it is just another Zionist conspiracy! It is not reasonable to continue this 'confusion.' It is nothing more than a bullshit attempt to discredit discrimination against Jews. Even if the term evolved erroneously, "antisemitism" still stands as discrimination against JEWS! PERIOD! This constant "but, but, but...Jews aren't real Semites" crap is just that, crap! It is yet one more way that "some" try to deride or diminish hate against Jews.

[Violet_Crumble]

43. You don't know what 'Zionist falsehoods' are??

Wouldn't it stand to reason that it'd be something that the early Zionists (hence the use of the word Zionist) claimed that was untrue (hence the falsehood part of it). Not sure why yr seeing subterfuge in it, unless the mere mention of the term Zionist is enough to set it off. What that particular falsehood was is propaganda and a myth...

Explaining the difference between Semite when used to describe a group of people sharing a common group of languages, and the birth of the term *anti-Semitism* (which didn't evolve erroneously, but was very deliberate on the part of its creator) can be done without screaming at people and heavily implying that people who err are anti-Semitic themselves...

btw, being a bit pedantic here, but while anti-Semitism is aimed against all Jews, people who convert to Judaism aren't necessarily Semites....

note: post carefully edited to remove all questions, rhetorical or otherwise. Just another thoughtful touch in my quest to make others posting experiences all that much less challenging ;)

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

52. .

Being even more pedantic, people who convert to Judaism can still be victims of anti-Semitism, no matter their ethnic/genetic make-up.

note: post carefully worded and kept simplistic. Just another thoughtful touch in my quest to make others reading experiences all that much less challenging ;)

[Violet_Crumble]

53. I'd already pointed that out...

That's where I said: 'while anti-Semitism is aimed against all Jews'.
But, uh, thanks for repeating what I'd already quite clealy said :shrug:

[Jim Sagle]

54. Zionist falsehoods are like Australian intelligence.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[pelsar]

44. so what else is new?

just another one in the long list that wishes us gone .....

"Within the next 30 years, the state of Israel will fall and if too much blood hasn't been spilled first and the earth in Israel scorched to much, the world will celebrate this event similar to the way they did the fall of the Berlin wall."

yea well i guess your the real answer to all of those who say were too agressive, were not trusting enough, etc etc etc.

and this from a "progressive website poster".....hate to see what the "hate website looks like".....

at any rate.....I'll keep your thoughts in mind, next time i got to vote for the next israeli prime minister......

a rep of the progressives wishes me "gone" and the world shall celebrate.....

[Violet_Crumble]

46. That's a terribly dark vision...

Within the next 30 years, the state of Israel will fall and if too much blood hasn't been spilled first and the earth in Israel scorched to much, the world will celebrate this event similar to the way they did the fall of the Berlin wall.

I'm hoping that within the next 30 years, there'll be a fair and just negotiated settlement to the conflict that leads to two peaceful states living side by side. If Israel ends up annexing most of the West Bank, I could see a future where Israel self-destructs from the inside and ceases to be a democracy, but I think it'd be quieter and slower than the fall of the Soviet Union, which seems to still bring on gusts of celebratory whooping and hollering from those who didn't realise that the future without two superpowers to balance each other out would be an unstable and uncertain one...

Violet...

[pelsar]

39. lets be serious with alex....

"Zionists used it for propaganda purposes in the 20th century to promote the claim that the people in the world who believed in or practiced Judaism, as a group, had a historic connection to historic Palestine."

guess that means in judaism with all its connections to zion/jerusalem/bar kochba revolt. etc are just `zionist propaganda"

alex appears to be one of those who tries very hard to show that the jews have no connection to ancient palestein/israel and the whole thing is a ruse..

just like the protocols of zion
just the like the holocaust deniers.....
just like the 4,000 jews who didnt show up for work 9/11

never could figure out why someone has to deny the jews their own history...guess it must be that other thing......

[Andromeda]

41. Did you ever study history?

When you don't have any facts to base your argument on, just make stuff up, huh?

These claims by you are probably the most preposterous ones I've heard.

[Violet_Crumble]

47. One of those claims wasn't preposterous...

The 'land without a people for a people without a land' line was a very famous one and most definately did exist....

Violet...

[Andromeda]

56. What is that supposed to prove?

Please tell me why that makes any difference at all. If you must repeat a line tell me why that has any importance at all and what does that mean to Jerusalem.

The post in question has been deleted anyway so there is no way I can refer to it.

[Alex88]

50. Yes, but obviously you haven't

"Did you ever study history?"

[Andromeda]

55. Is all that you can do is parrot what I say?

Please try to be more original.

[pelsar]

26. palestenains are really mormons...

according to a DNA test it seems they really have more connection to the latter-day-saints then they do to the arab "family.

[Brightmore]

27. Wrong and wrong

I'm not going to do your research for you, but you are 100% wrong on everything you posted.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[pelsar]

45. more links...

along the same line...

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

got more if you need them

[Violet_Crumble]

49. Ha ha!

I hadn't seen that site before. Thanks for posting the link...

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

48. That first site is very stinky...

And it's not just the word Bible in it that had me turning my atheistic nose up. On the main page of the site it's got this blurb:


The Bible is NOT a Jewish Book
The statement is commonly made, even by those who should know better, that we Christians owe a debt to the Jews, for we got our Bible and our religion from them. While many people have been deceived into believing this, it is completely false. . . we got neither our Bible nor our Christian religion, either in whole or in part from those who were Jews, either by religion or by race. We owe them no debt, for they gave us nothing.

Uh-huh. Bet these nutters are closely related to Family First...


Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

51. Jesus H. Christ.

The term "antisemitism" specifically means prejudice against JEWS.

Antiarabism is prejudice against Arabs.

Attempts to change the meaning of words are another, virultent form of revisionism, it's propoganda - not intellectualism; and in this case as in so many, an attempt to rob Jews of our history. Beyond that they are an attempt to change history itself, to denude words of their meaning, and that's a route to illiteracy, back to the Dark Ages, to a Kafkaesque world of darkened mirrors where reality is dependent upon "political correctness". It's a tool not of freedom, not of Renaissance or Enlightenment, but of totalitarianism.

I should think such word games should be scorned for the politically motivated falsehoods that they are.

Judaism is cultural, religious, national, and to some degree ethnic: the majority of Jews in Israel are of Middle Eastern descent. Many who come from Russia and elsewhere in Europe do appear to be 100% "semitic" like my own family - as if that matters, considering, as I say, that Judaism isn't dependent upon "race". Others come from Africa, and are black, others from India, and so forth.

I should think in this day and age we'd be celebrating such diversity, and be interested in studying people's history and heritage, on the very real facts of history and circumstance that led people to modern Israel - just as we study the history of Europe or Australia or North and South America - and not relying upon such Nazi-like focus upon race.

What if I were to go around complaining that the whole of North and sub-Saharan Africa is invalid and should be dismantled, because Arabs aren't indigenous to the region? Or that everybody not of indigenous Native American descent should pack their suitcase and go home? Or that everybody in England not of historic, pure Briton descent should go home - to Norway, to Normandy, to Germany, to Pakistan? I would labelled a racist, reactionary asshole.

I won't even bother commenting on your other posts, the sentiments therein are so prejudicial one would expect to see them on an actual hate site.

[manic expression]

57. And the Celts should have France back!

The Romans persecuted the Gauls! We need to give all of Europe back to the Celts! Wales should also take England, since they were kicked out! :sarcasm: :eyes:

[simcha_6]

63. History is irrelevent

See post 62.

[simcha_6]

62. Right to land is irrelevent

I don't think I'd care more if the Palestinians had had a state/kingdom in ancient times than I do with them living on the land for thousands of years. The fact is, they want a state and peace won't happen before they get a state, so why not give them Gaza, the West Bank, and do some land swaps for Ma'aleh Adumim? (Shared control of Haram al-Sharif is absolutely necesary though. In fact, I think it would benefit the Palestinians to have the Israeli police, army, and Shin Bet in charge of security there.) Similarly, the Jews need a state, so just as the religious settlers can kindly quiet down about right to all of the Palestinian territories (which I believe they do sort of have), Hamas can also silence themselves about all of Israel being Islamic land (also true) for their use only. Religion and history need to give way to pragmatism.

[simcha_6]

61. Speaking realistically

A lack of space, indefensible pre-1967 borders, and distrust of the Palestinian plays a large part in Ma'aleh Adumim and the expansion of coastal cities into the West Bank. Also, imagine the political backlash if a PM gave up E. Jerusalem with the Western Wall, and the Palestinian government prohibited Jews from visiting. Democracy's only huge problem is the fact that politicians make bad long-term decisions to get elected. But anyway, religion is only a part of the reason for the expansion.

[H5N1]

4. Sharon will re-invade Gaza in the final phase of his land grab

He wants it all, nothing less will do.
Meanwhile, he has captured the admiration of the unkowing
- a superbly timed ruse that plays on the sympathy of
Fox watchers everywhere while shifting attention
from his other nefarious 'activities.'

Bravo, Mr. Sharon.

[Brightmore]

5. You have proof...

That Sharon plans on taking back Gaza?

[pelsar]

15. H5N1 is just one of those....

who have trouble with change....its tough when your "favorite demogog" does things that dont fit your image...so you have manipulate the events to fit the image...as opposed to seeing the events for what they are....

[Colorado Blue]

17. What on earth makes you think the Israelis would want Gaza?

They tried at one point to give it back to the Egyptians, who also didn't want it. The settlements and the occupation there have proven to be a costly and frequently inhumane disaster. The greenhouses have already been purchased and given to the Palestinians. The settlements have already been razed.

The real challenge in Gaza confronts Palestinian, not Israeli, leadership. The presence of the Hamasniks, who continue to preach the efficacy of violence and vow the utter destruction of Israel, threaten the peace and security of all.

Meanwhile I find your attribution of Mephistophelean attributes to Sharon to approach the absurd. His political career is in the toilet because of his stand on the withdrawal.

[tucoramirez2005]

20. You can't be serious

Sharon surrendered Gaza, and part of the West Bank in the same breath.

[simcha_6]

64. In that case

If he's so anxious to take over Gaza, Hamas better stop lobbing Qassam's toward Sderot and other Israeli towns. If they keep firing them (as they've hinted they will) Sharon will have no choice.

Sharon doesn't want Gaza. He'd like to keep it, of course, but it's a security nightmare. You've turned him into the bogie (sic) man, and in doing so have failed to understand his motivations. That's how hate starts.

[Usrename]

58. sexual relations

Reading this thread, thought I'd just throw this one out there and see if it got any bites. Hoping for large tuna!

:)

[barb162]

59. "To the moon, Trixie, to the moon"

(Ralph Kramden)

[simcha_6]

60. The Egyptian Army didn't "save the land for Arabs"

They took the land, mined the roads to Gaza, and kept it as a Palestinian concentration camp, as bad (or worse, except during the Intifadas) than Israel.