When the Beloved is Ready for the Lover

[Servetus]

There are more Sephardi and Arabs citizens in Israel then there are Jewish ...

I don't understand. Are you excluding Sephardi as Jews? As I understand it, one of the points that Dayan makes in his article is that it is necessary, from his standpoint, to prevent the very situation you claim is already present in Israel: an Arab majority. An Arab majority with full voting rights in Israel would change the situation considerably.

Serv

 

[Servetus]

Obviously, you have never read the book of Esther.

In keeping with our continuing theme of Marduk (Mordechai), don't you mean Astarte?


Serv

 

[radarmark]

Indeed Sephardi are Jews... Jews or decedents of Jews rescued by Jews from Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Morocco. Wouldn't it have been something for the Arab states to integrate (or at least give citizenship to) the Palestinians, or better yet allow (as was intended) a separate Palestinian State in 1947? My point was that within Israel the percentage of Arabs and Jews rescued from Islamic countries is much, much higher than the percentage of Jews and Palestinians in any Islamic country. Israel opened its doors, the Islamic states shut them. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries)

Dayan is (mistakenly in my opinion and in the opinion of the UN and every treaty I know of) basing his claim on the "current post-1967" border that includes Gaza and the West Bank (his Judea and Samaria). No, those in the occupied territory do not have the right to vote (automatically) as they are "occupied territories". And yes, they (if included in a "single state solution") would make Jews the minority.

What I was referring to was Israel within internationally accepted (pre-1967) boundaries. See the difference?

 

[Servetus]

Indeed Sephardi are Jews... Jews or decedents of Jews rescued by Jews from Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Morocco. Wouldn't it have been something for the Arab states to integrate (or at least give citizenship to) the Palestinians, or better yet allow (as was intended) a separate Palestinian State in 1947? My point was that within Israel the percentage of Arabs and Jews rescued from Islamic countries is much, much higher than the percentage of Jews and Palestinians in any Islamic country. Israel opened its doors, the Islamic states shut them. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_...slim_countries)

As I see it, the "Arab" or "Islamic" states to which you refer, following the demise of the Ottoman Empire, were as much or more an invention of the Western power elites, especially of England and France, than the "national homeland for the Jews," announced by Lord Balfour to Baron Rothschild. Issues of reciprocity are thus, again to my mind, for the most part moot.

In addition to Palestine (later transmogrified into Israel), Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Transjordan, for instance, were all, at one point, European "mandates," which system was itself a fabrication of European late-colonialism. Above, you mention Egypt. Let me step back and take a closer look at that stellar example of an "Islamic" state and of how it has been played.

Source (pp. 90-92):
William R. Polk

"Ismail [the reprobate Governor of Egypt] did "waste" a great deal of money ... but his big outlays were to the ... European creditors whose pressures he could not resist once he was caught in the web of usury ... During his reign the new basis of the Egyptian economy was laid ...

By 1875 Egypt had sold its shares in the Suez Canal through the offices of Rothschild to Disraeli's government for a mere 4 million [Pounds Sterling] and had ceded to its creditors control over the collection of taxes and duties in large parts of the Egyptian economy. By 1877 about two thirds of the revenues of the Egyptian government were devoted to the debt, and Egypt was in effect, placed in receivership by its European creditors and their governments. Finally in 1879 Ismail was deposed at the instigation of the European powers and replaced by a weak and vacillating ruler who could be little more than a front for the Europeans who controlled Egypt ...

The British seizure of power in Egypt was almost embarrassingly easy. The official justification for it, the bankruptcy of Egypt, could not be satisfied by an early withdrawal. Thus, though Britain immediately announced that it was planning to withdraw, British officials set about the reorganization of the country. Once involved in this program they found it more and more difficult to leave. The last British troops did not, in fact, leave until 1956."

My point, then, is this: if, at any point, Britain had wanted Egypt to do something, Egypt would likely have done it.

Dayan is (mistakenly in my opinion and in the opinion of the UN and every treaty I know of) basing his claim on the "current post-1967" border that includes Gaza and the West Bank (his Judea and Samaria).

I wonder if, following Condoleeza Rice's example of clearly ineffective and craven statecraft, Hillary Clinton will sometime reprimand the Jewish squatters and tell them how "unhelpful," that's right, unhelpful they are all being? If she does, it probably won't be in an election year.

Source:

"The U.S. long has opposed new settlements but largely looked the other way at some homebuilding, such as expansion of selected neighborhoods. Rice herself had called settlement building unhelpful and was infuriated when Israel appeared to undercut her by announcing new building licenses hard on the heels of some of her diplomatic visits."

What I was referring to was Israel within internationally accepted (pre-1967) boundaries. See the difference?

I think I see the difference. But I am looking at the territorial maps of Palestine over time, including projections into the future, and am noting, especially, that Eretz Israel, the borders of which have never, so far as I know, been actually specified by any authority, is sometimes defined as stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates (and beyond). That makes for explosive politics. Furthermore, given that we are dealing, sometimes, with the Jewish equivalent of Arab terrorists or, if one prefers, "militant nationalists," some of the blokes for whom Dani Dayan acts as spokesman don't quote UN treaties (except when they support Israel's legitimacy): they prefer, instead, the Book of Genesis.


Serv

 

[Servetus]

Do you mean the Arabs? That must be those whom Sir Mark Sykes was secretly buggaring ...

Sorry. That would be buggering, or shagging, or, well, one gets the idea.

Serv

 

[Ben Masada]

when joshua was running things, we didn't have military superiority and our opponents were the idolatrous "seven nations", who we were not permitted to make peace with. it was a "milhemet mitzvah". that is not the case today, so you cannot make the same arguments.

during the struggle for jerusalem, we also didn't have military superiority and our opponents were the idolatrous philistines, who we were not permitted to make peace with. it was a "milhemet mitzvah" - but, you will note, david was not permitted to be the one to build the Temple because of the blood on his hands, necessary or not. that is not the case today, so you cannot make the same arguments.

during the maccabean revolt, we also didn't have military superiority and, moreover, greeks notwithstanding, it was also a civil war between hellenisers and those fighting to preserve judaism. many jews killed other jews. that is not the case today, so you cannot make the same arguments.

as for the "five major wars of aggression", i agree on '48, '67 and '73, but not suez - which i do not think israel really won, let alone lebanon either in '81 or '06. in any case, none of those wars were ever designated "milhamot mitzvah" and i struggle to see exactly where the "spirit of the L!RD" was in suez or lebanon. we learn nothing from history if we are not honest about it.

bananabrain

Gosh! I can't believe you said something I can agree with. I am of the same opinion about '48, '67 and '73 wars. I never agreed with the Israeli incursions into Lebanon. The one of '56 was practically won by England and France. No creditation to Israel I intend to claim. I compare the ones with Lebanon to the Vietnam war by the Americans. But with regards to possessing military superiority does not diminish from fighting in the Spirit of the Lord. That's a fight for survival.

Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

In keeping with our continuing theme of Marduk (Mordechai), don't you mean Astarte?


Serv

No, I mean Esther.

 

[bananabrain]

Do you mean the Arabs? That must be those whom Sir Mark Sykes was secretly buggaring while, above board, he was handing a piece of Palestine to the Jews for a "national homeland" in contradistinction to a Jewish State.

yes, the british promised everything to everyone. whilst the jews accepted this as realpolitik, the arabs have chosen [selective] outrage as their strategy. and what a successful strategy it is.

Said Theodor Herzl: "not everything in politics is disclosed to the public, but only results ..."

and only the results in israel/palestine, apparently, are worthy of endless threads rehashing the same old rubbish arguments. just once, i'd like to see someone getting this upset about what the chinese have done to the tibetans, or the pakistanis to the bangladeshis, or pretty much everyone everywhere to everyone else. after a while you start to observe a pattern. and after a while i start to lose patience with such an obsessive focus, as it cannot be ascribed to reason or logic. more syrians have been killed by their own government in the last two years than palestinians by israelis EVER. where are the "perennially outraged"? nowhere to be seen. i think we can all draw the evident conclusion: oppression and bloodshed is to be microscopically and forensically identified and, indeed, manufactured when carried out by israel, the us or uk, ignored when carried out by other middle eastern, far eastern or african states and actively encouraged by large numbers of people when the victims can be characterised as "zionists". oh, we know that one.

I suspect that, despite the fact that Kach, Kahane Chai are listed by our State Department as a terrorist organization, absolutely nothing will be done to stop its supporters from sending them and these euphemistically called "settlers" contributions via Paypal. Meanwhile, if a Muslim dares to send a zakat (charity) payment via Paypal, he can expect to soon find an FBI probe up his rectum.

well, the opposite is the case here in the UK.

An Arab majority with full voting rights in Israel would change the situation considerably.

hence the troubling phrase "demographic timebomb" much in use on the israeli right wing, despite the evidence that although 20% of israelis are arabs and have been since 1948, the expected apocalypse has not emerged. this is because of the very clear link between economic growth, education and number of children per family. the israeli arabs have far less kids than the west bankers and gazans, because they're economically integrated and better educated. this is one of the best arguments against annexing the west bank and one of the arguments that persuaded sharon to leave gaza. of course, not everyone can see the logic of this.

I am looking at the territorial maps of Palestine over time, including projections into the future, and am noting, especially, that Eretz Israel, the borders of which have never, so far as I know, been actually specified by any authority is sometimes defined as stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates (and beyond). That makes for explosive politics.

the borders of *eretz yisrael* are defined rather vaguely in the Torah. however, *eretz yisrael*, the religious territory, is not *medinat yisrael*, the modern nation-state. the only people that conflate the two are what are known as the "national-religious" and, even then, there is a vast amount of room for interpretation, reinterpretation and misinterpretation. i myself have difficulty in characterising *medinat yisrael* as a religious entity given its relationship with the religious establishment both locally and worldwide, as well as the geopolitical realities involved.

I can't believe you said something I can agree with.

i am an open-minded, moderate individual, not a suicidal pushover. your problem is that you see everything in black and white.

But with regards to possessing military superiority does not diminish from fighting in the Spirit of the Lord. That's a fight for survival.

if you have military superiority, then by definition you're not in a fight for survival. the last time israel was in existential peril was in 1973, although had saddam had WMDs launchable further than kurdistan in 1990, i would have included then. similarly, the iranian bomb would be an existential threat, while syrian chemical weapons and hizbollah katyushas are not. that is because israel possesses greater retaliatory capability. however, i would utterly reject any suggestion of "deus vult" on anything larger than engagement scale.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[radarmark]

I just have to comment on what I see as a brilliant exchange (on both sides).

Quote:
An Arab majority with full voting rights in Israel would change the situation considerably.

hence the troubling phrase "demographic timebomb" much in use on the israeli right wing, despite the evidence that although 20% of israelis are arabs and have been since 1948, the expected apocalypse has not emerged. this is because of the very clear link between economic growth, education and number of children per family. the israeli arabs have far less kids than the west bankers and gazans, because they're economically integrated and better educated. this is one of the best arguments against annexing the west bank and one of the arguments that persuaded sharon to leave gaza. of course, not everyone can see the logic of this.

I believe the only way for an Arab majority in Israel is a single-state solution. That has pretty much been off the table since 1947. A simple return to pre-1967 or even 1947 borders would almost guarantee (given the realpolitik within Israel) that that Kachian red flag would never happen.

It is so very parallel to India/Pakistan. India has successfully integrated Muslims and Sikhs into the state in very much the same way. I believe Indian Muslims have fewer children, better income, and better education than the average Pakistani.
The ones who do not see the logic of this (the “settlers” in the West Bank) should either return to Israel or stay where they are and become a Jewish minority in a primarily Muslim Palestine.

Quote:
I am looking at the territorial maps of Palestine over time, including projections into the future, and am noting, especially, that Eretz Israel, the borders of which have never, so far as I know, been actually specified by any authority is sometimes defined as stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates (and beyond). That makes for explosive politics.

the borders of *eretz yisrael* are defined rather vaguely in the Torah. however, *eretz yisrael*, the religious territory, is not *medinat yisrael*, the modern nation-state. the only people that conflate the two are what are known as the "national-religious" and, even then, there is a vast amount of room for interpretation, reinterpretation and misinterpretation. i myself have difficulty in characterising *medinat yisrael* as a religious entity given its relationship with the religious establishment both locally and worldwide, as well as the geopolitical realities involved.

The problem of maps is a problem of definition. Eretz Yisrael does not exist as a nation-state, Medinat Yisrael does. And its borders are pretty well defined by the 1947 partition and subsequent 1949 Green Line. Let the Kachians speak of their “Greater Israel” and the Gazans of their “Greater Caliphate”. Reality is something different… Mendinat Yisrael and Occupied Palestine (reference here is to the fact that the surrounding Arab states occupied it in 1948 and, while it has switched hands, it remains, for the most part, occupied).

You, bb and serv, both have shown what true interfaith dialogue can be.

 

[radarmark]

As I see it, the "Arab" or "Islamic" states to which you refer, following the demise of the Ottoman Empire, were as much or more an invention of the Western power elites, especially of England and France, than the "national homeland for the Jews," announced by Lord Balfour to Baron Rothschild. Issues of reciprocity are thus, again to my mind, for the most part moot.

Fine, whatever the actual states should have been, the point I that in 1948 Israel began evacuating Sephardim from Muslim areas (to the point that the vast majority of Jews in Israel are non-European in ethnicity). Did one Muslim state open its doors and welcome Palestinian refugees? No. Did one Muslim state allow the Palestinians access to the land (noted as Palestine in the 1947 U.N. resolution)? No. Reciprocity may be moot to your mind, but I find it as rather compelling argument.

I wonder if, following Condoleeza Rice's example of clearly ineffective and craven statecraft, Hillary Clinton will sometime reprimand the Jewish squatters and tell them how "unhelpful," that's right, unhelpful they are all being? If she does, it probably won't be in an election year.

And if you think that will ever happen (given the Radical Religious Right here in the U.S.A.) I have this Orange Bridge I can sell you. No you make a wonderful point. The issue and repercussions are much bigger than Jews vs. Arabs or Israel vs. Palestine. There is plenty of blame to go around to the U.S., U.K., France, Russia, and all the Arab states.

I think I see the difference. But I am looking at the territorial maps of Palestine over time, including projections into the future, and am noting, especially, that Eretz Israel, the borders of which have never, so far as I know, been actually specified by any authority, is sometimes defined as stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates (and beyond). That makes for explosive politics. Furthermore, given that we are dealing, sometimes, with the Jewish equivalent of Arab terrorists or, if one prefers, "militant nationalists," some of the blokes for whom Dani Dayan acts as spokesman don't quote UN treaties (except when they support Israel's legitimacy): they prefer, instead, the Book of Genesis.

Like I said in the previous post, let the Kachists live in their cloud-cuckoo land of “Eretz Yisrael”. They and the Salafists and other pan-islamists who preach “Khilafa” should be given some useless place (like Death Valley) and be co-located there with a real high fence around it (“Escape from L.A.” anyone?). Just kidding, but you get the point, there are extremists on both sides. I only pray to G!D that they do not influence the majority too much.

 

[Ben Masada]

if you have military superiority, then by definition you're not in a fight for survival. the last time israel was in existential peril was in 1973, although had saddam had WMDs launchable further than kurdistan in 1990, i would have included then. similarly, the iranian bomb would be an existential threat, while syrian chemical weapons and hizbollah katyushas are not. that is because israel possesses greater retaliatory capability. however, i would utterly reject any suggestion of "deus vult" on anything larger than engagement scale.

b'shalom

bananabrain

What kind of reasoning is that? The Arabic countries that attacked us during all their wars of aggression had military superiority over ours and got crushed. The military superioriority is not in the military capability but in the brains.

In the war for the Golan Heights with Syria, they had work-of-the-art visual equipment in their tanks, provided by Russia, which we did not possess, which they could see in the dark as if it were at midday. They did get some advantages over us but how come they lost at the end? Because we were fighting a war of survival and not as a result of a stupid grudge.

Ben

 

[bananabrain]

let the Kachists live in their cloud-cuckoo land of “Eretz Yisrael”. They and the Salafists and other pan-islamists who preach “Khilafa” should be given some useless place (like Death Valley) and be co-located there with a real high fence around it (“Escape from L.A.” anyone?). Just kidding, but you get the point, there are extremists on both sides. I only pray to G!D that they do not influence the majority too much.

as much as i admire your attempts to be evenhanded in this respect, radarmark, the fact remains that whilst kach is supported by not more than a few thousand people even amongst the national-religious, not even enough to get a member of knesset, even had the party not been banned, which makes it marginal in the extreme, the salafi/pan-islamist/khilafah-mongering tendency is *mainstream* in virtually all islamic societies these days, thanks to the petro-dollars pouring out of the gulf for the last thirty years and being spent on "education" and "outreach". look at the egyptian parliament and try and find someone who *doesn't* subscribed to these views in either of the two majority parties, who are, lest we forget, the muslim brotherhood (i.e. egyptian hamas - which includes the *elected president*) and, of course the salafi party. yes, there are "extremists on both sides", but i think you're missing something rather important about *how dominant* the extremism actually bloody is.

What kind of reasoning is that? The Arabic countries that attacked us during all their wars of aggression had military superiority over ours and got crushed. The military superioriority is not in the military capability but in the brains.

israel is not short of brains, but if it had not had nuclear capability in 1990 those scud rockets would not have had conventional warheads. that is military superiority. israeli technology, organisation, motivation and, crucially, air power is unchallenged by anyone in the region. granted, you can't have military superiority without brains, but having a big brain will not prevent someone from attacking you. try it next time someone tries to mug you - "don't hit me, i have a big brain". see where that gets you. it is brains, however, that makes military superiority *useful*.

In the war for the Golan Heights with Syria, they had work-of-the-art visual equipment in their tanks, provided by Russia, which we did not possess, which they could see in the dark as if it were at midday. They did get some advantages over us but how come they lost at the end? Because we were fighting a war of survival and not as a result of a stupid grudge.

i agree, but tank forces are not decisive compared to air power, which can fly straight over your tanks and take out your infrastructure. that is why the syrians have craploads of missiles, as we know, as well as chemical and biological weapons, but they would think twice about using them offensively because of the response, hence the proxy war conducted via hizbollah, which can seriously disrupt israel without affecting its offensive capabilities; that is why they continually draw israel into aggressive responses, in order to score points and engage in psychological attrition; do you seriously think that they would bother with this if they had the real capability to destroy israel? you don't have to take my word for it, even - i suggest you read prof martin van creveld of hebrew u on this, he's quite a celebrated military historian and the world expert on the idf.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[radarmark]

Van Creveld is one of the few sane military theoreticians. Look at his short and popular interview in Sonshi and you will get the idea. If you like it get his Rise and Decline of the State or Transforation of War (very well recieved by most, almost instant classics in academia). The Van Creveld-Silverstein furor of a couple of years ago (I think) was quite amusing and was picked up the the Neo-nazi-cons in the U.S.A. A truely rational mind has a hard time in the real-politik of the world.

 

[Servetus]

Well, if America decides to stop God's blessing on herself by ceasing to bless Israel, we will survive because help will come from somewhere else. That's what Mordechai said to Esther in the Court of Ahasuerus: "Even if you now remain silent, relief and deliverance will come to the Jews from another source; but you and your father's house will perish." (Esther 4:14)

Mordechai? That helps to explain things.
"MORDECAI (; probably = "belonging to Marduk," a Babylonian divinity)."

Obviously, you have never read the book of Esther.

In keeping with our continuing theme of Marduk (Mordechai), don't you mean Astarte?

No, I mean Esther.

But you must mean this Esther: "... the chief character in the Book of Esther, derived, according to some authorities, from the Persian "stara" (star); but regarded by others as a modification of "Ishtar," the name of the Babylonian goddess ..."

That is twice now, first with Marduk and now with Ishtar, that you have referred to Babylonian idols as supposed Jewish heroes. What is this? Euhemerism in reverse? Not only have I (recently) decided to not be Hellenized by St. Paul, I also am objecting to being Babylonionized by Ben Masada!


Serv

 

[Servetus]

with all due respect, there is no other case in the world where the children and grandchildren of refugees are still considered refugees, so that is not an argument that holds water in any fair and reasonable discussion, unless you also apply the same logic to the east prussians, the tibetans, the rohyinga, the greeks and turks of 1923, the indians and pakistanis of 1948 and in fact almost every territorial conflict in the last couple of centuries. no other group on the planet thinks they have a right to start negotiations by turning the clock back by generations. more to the point, if you start a war and lose it, then you must accept that there are consequences. how the purple stuttering feck do the rest of the arabs think that keeping the palestinians in refugee camps helps? the answer is that they don't actually *give a feck*. we have been refugees for 2,000 years - we got on with it and made the best of it. the palestinians, unfortunately, simply cannot face the reality that they have lost every war that they've started and that it is time to try something else - indeed, many of them have simply got on with their lives.

Do you mean the Arabs? That must be those whom Sir Mark Sykes was secretly buggering while, above board, he was handing a piece of Palestine to the Jews for a "national homeland" in contradistinction to a Jewish State.

yes, the british promised everything to everyone. whilst the jews accepted this as realpolitik, the arabs have chosen [selective] outrage as their strategy. and what a successful strategy it is.

It must be fairly easy for Jews to accept British promises as realpolitik when they are, comparatively speaking, the beneficiaries of British imperial policies in the region. Israel exists. Anyway, it is silly to speak of "the Arabs," especially, as if they were a unified, national bloc. The conflict between (the Hashemite) Faisal and Ibn Saud is a matter of record, and one which the British, with the help of T. E. Lawrence, played brilliantly, soon after Rothschild handed Disraeli the shares for the Suez Canal, thus upsetting the French. Even now, one notes, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, one-time British protectorates, are aligning with the USA against their historical rivals, what remains of the Baathists in what was the French mandate of Syria. "The Arabs," as ever divided, are still being conquered.

and only the results in israel/palestine, apparently, are worthy of endless threads rehashing the same old rubbish arguments.

Does it bother you that I quote Theodor Herzl as saying that it was the policy of Zionists, from the start, to largely rid Palestine of Arabs? Is that a "rubbish" argument? It can be supported with evidence. Anyway, and though the obvious must once again be pointed out, I am responding to Ben Masada who, in the first of the series of never-ending rubbish threads (in which I stopped participating because tempers were flying), called Palestinians "children of darkness" and who, in this thread, continues the theme by advocating ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Christians and Muslims to and beyond the borders of Eretz Israel, that brave, Altneuland from the Nile to the Euphrates.

just once, i'd like to see someone getting this upset about what the chinese have done to the tibetans, or the pakistanis to the bangladeshis, or pretty much everyone everywhere to everyone else ...

Who is upset? It sounds as though you are.

after a while you start to observe a pattern.

Correct. I have noticed a pattern. And I have called Ben Masada out on it.

and after a while i start to lose patience with such an obsessive focus, as it cannot be ascribed to reason or logic.

Ascribe it, then, to a certain repetitive tendency on Ben Masada's part. It is no mystery. If you think I am going to sit here and take it, you are wrong. When I asked him to restate his Biblical allegory into more concrete political terms, he defended ethnically cleansing Palestinian Christians and Muslims. And that, mind you, he did on the Christian forum of this board. Re-read his opening post and ascribe it, if you must, to allegory, if not to either reason or logic.

more syrians have been killed by their own government in the last two years than palestinians by israelis EVER. where are the "perennially outraged"? nowhere to be seen. i think we can all draw the evident conclusion: oppression and bloodshed is to be microscopically and forensically identified and, indeed, manufactured when carried out by israel, the us or uk, ignored when carried out by other middle eastern, far eastern or african states and actively encouraged by large numbers of people when the victims can be characterised as "zionists". oh, we know that one.

What are you on about? I am fed up with your kvetching at me because I oppose Ben Masada. After all, you oppose Ben Masada, but you don't usually do it until I've started the ball rolling, and then you kick it back into my court with arguments usually more emotional than rational. This issue is not going away, even if we all decide to ignore it. It is on such issues as this that American presidential elections are run. Sometimes, I wish I could ignore it.


Serv

 

[bananabrain]

It must be fairly easy for Jews to accept British promises as realpolitik when they are, comparatively speaking, the beneficiaries of British imperial policies in the region.

hmmm; the half-life of british imperial policy benefits has long since expired - this is probably why this is such a futile line of argument, as it is notable that the hashemites and saudis, even in opposition, did not see fit to argue with the british when it benefited them.

Anyway, it is silly to speak of "the Arabs," especially, as if they were a unified, national bloc.

generally, i don't. however, the collective delusion that This Just Can't Be Happening appears still to be uniform across the arab world. likewise, "zionism" isn't "unified" either except as regards jewish national self-determination being a good rather than a bad thing.

"The Arabs," as ever divided, are still being conquered.

well, with all due respect, perhaps they ought to spend less time on blaming everyone else in the world for their problems and a bit more on science, R&D, education and building a civil society. patents, publications and democracy will get the arabs far more than tired old platitudes about unity and conquest.

Does it bother you that I quote Theodor Herzl as saying that it was the policy of Zionists, from the start, to largely rid Palestine of Arabs? Is that a "rubbish" argument?

it bothers me that you think it'll get a rise out of me. a lot herzl's opinions have been proved to be a) impractical or b) embarrassing - viz his suggestion that the national language of the jewish state should be german. you won't find any classical nationalist writer in the latter half of the C19th saying much that would be acceptable today. of course it is israel that has a 20% arab population which, though in some ways disadvantaged, has the vote, political parties, etc, while the policy *right now* of the nascent palestinian state is that sale of land to a jew is a capital crime. rhetoric is no substitute for reality.

though the obvious must once again be pointed out, I am responding to Ben Masada

he says the same thing. this is, however, a public forum. if you two want to email each other or get a room or something (perhaps with amergin) then i won't stand in your way.

ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Christians and Muslims to and beyond the borders of Eretz Israel, that brave, Altneuland from the Nile to the Euphrates.

the trouble is that your response to him is based on this kind of straw man view of zionism, which i find it hard to believe that you genuinely hold with. *i* disagree with him on the grounds of both normative traditional judaism, political pragmatism and moral principle; the debating tactics of the so-called "palestine solidarity" echo chamber will benefit not one whit.

Who is upset? It sounds as though you are.

upset? bitter, perhaps? cynical, certainly.

Ascribe it, then, to a certain repetitive tendency on Ben Masada's part.

it is boring, isn't it?

I am fed up with your kvetching at me because I oppose Ben Masada. After all, you oppose Ben Masada, but you don't usually do it until I've started the ball rolling, and then you kick it back into my court with arguments usually more emotional than rational.

i am not "kvetching", as you put it, at you because you oppose him. you are both conducting the argument in a way which informs nobody and convinces nobody. it is hard to see the point unless both of you are prepared to be a bit more conciliatory. and if you think my arguments are emotional then what are your own appeals to emotive language?

This issue is not going away, even if we all decide to ignore it.

but neither is it going to be resolved by you two going at each other.

It is on such issues as this that American presidential elections are run.

that is an unfortunate feature of american politics - it has apparently been reduced to a series of hot-button knee-jerk issues in a small number of swing areas; i find the whole thing somewhat laughable; it is amazing that american politics ever achieves anything at all.

Sometimes, I wish I could ignore it.

i feel the same. unfortunately, i find it difficult to ignore continual attacks on sanity, rationality and reasonableness particularly given the hostility characteristic of debates about the middle east.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Servetus]

hmmm; the half-life of british imperial policy benefits has long since expired - this is probably why this is such a futile line of argument, as it is notable that the hashemites and saudis, even in opposition, did not see fit to argue with the british when it benefited them.

The British were engaged in their usual "divide and conquer" tactics as it related to the Arabs and Turks (and also the Jews), and "the Arabs," in any case, could hardly have argued with the British when they didn't even know that their presumed benefactors were secretly giving to the French what was promised to them. It was only after the Bolshevists had conquered Russia that the details of Sykes-Picot were published, much to Britain's embarrassment. Face facts: the Arabs got screwed; the Jews got more than their national homeland, they got a modern, nation State.

generally, i don't.

Well whether you generally do or not, in this case, you did.

however, the collective delusion that This Just Can't Be Happening appears still to be uniform across the arab world.

Undestandably so. Some of them woke up and realized they had been had: that British promises were hollow and -quelle surprise- after a time, the caliphate was abolished. The hard-core among them, increasingly, are swimming the backstroke.

ikewise, "zionism" isn't "unified" either except as regards jewish national self-determination being a good rather than a bad thing.

Sorry. That is not likewise. "Zionism" does not exist as a modern, nation state: Israel does. It is therefore possible to speak of Israel, and its policies, as of a unified, national bloc. Palestine, however, is still on the drawing boards, and probably will be for many years yet to come (unless they can circumvent the USA and go directly to the same United Nations which gave legitimacy to Israel).

it bothers me that you think it'll get a rise out of me. a lot herzl's opinions have been proved to be a) impractical or b) embarrassing - viz his suggestion that the national language of the jewish state should be german. you won't find any classical nationalist writer in the latter half of the C19th saying much that would be acceptable today. of course it is israel that has a 20% arab population which, though in some ways disadvantaged, has the vote, political parties, etc, while the policy *right now* of the nascent palestinian state is that sale of land to a jew is a capital crime. rhetoric is no substitute for reality.

You were the one who was speaking in "purple feckin" language and getting all upset. I cited Herzl, and can cite others, as proof that the policy of "ethnic cleansing," supported in this thread by Ben Masada and justified, recently, in the New York Times by Dani Dayan, has been a policy of Israel from the beginning. I, as an American, am fed up with my country being an interested, rather than disinterested, party to the religious war between Arabs and Jews.

he says the same thing. this is, however, a public forum. if you two want to email each other or get a room or something (perhaps with amergin) then i won't stand in your way.

If you don't like "rubbish" arguments, then contribute to them with something other than emotionalism and predictable talking-points from the Zionist scriptorium.

the trouble is that your response to him is based on this kind of straw man view of zionism, which i find it hard to believe that you genuinely hold with. *i* disagree with him on the grounds of both normative traditional judaism, political pragmatism and moral principle; the debating tactics of the so-called "palestine solidarity" echo chamber will benefit not one whit.

On the contrary, you call him "fascist" and "karaite" while I call him out and address his logic. As far as I am concerned, he is not a "Fascist," though his policies, when enacted, are certainly Fascistic. As I see it, he suffers from a form of doublethink by which one can be the aggressor, expand into territories not one's own, and consider the act one of "self-defense." On a larger scale, the USA, Israel's Siamese twin, does the same thing in Afghanistan and Iraq and by means of the Bush Doctrine which permits so called "preemptive" wars.

upset? bitter, perhaps? cynical, certainly.

All those come through loudly and clearly.

it is boring, isn't it?

Yes. And the mystery is solved. It isn't stemming from some dark, irrational, obsessive focus on Jews, as you implied, it is coming from a repetitive Ben Masada.

i am not "kvetching", as you put it, at you because you oppose him. you are both conducting the argument in a way which informs nobody and convinces nobody. it is hard to see the point unless both of you are prepared to be a bit more conciliatory. and if you think my arguments are emotional then what are your own appeals to emotive language?

Usually, a response either to Ben Masada's or to yours. But, in any case, it is time to be emotional. We live in an era during which, as John Pilger put it, the "unthinkable" is being increasingly "normalized," and not just in Israel and not just by the Israelis. I've tried to make the point all along that the picture is wider than Israel: the British and American role in Middle East, then and now, should be fully explored. From the start, the Arabs were pitted against the Jews and, as I see it, the British official support for Zionism was, itself, at least as expressed by Churchill, part of a divisive strategy by which the aspirations of some Jews could be diverted from Bolshevism ("Internationalism" via Marxism) into Zionistic nationalism. But that is another story.

that is an unfortunate feature of american politics - it has apparently been reduced to a series of hot-button knee-jerk issues in a small number of swing areas; i find the whole thing somewhat laughable; it is amazing that american politics ever achieves anything at all.

Exactly. Even a little podunk congressional district election contest becomes a pissing contest for Israel, with all of the "financial backing" that that implies. American elections are political auctions and everything is for sale.


Serv

 

[Ben Masada]

as much as i admire your attempts to be evenhanded in this respect, radarmark, the fact remains that whilst kach is supported by not more than a few thousand people even amongst the national-religious, not even enough to get a member of knesset, even had the party not been banned, which makes it marginal in the extreme, the salafi/pan-islamist/khilafah-mongering tendency is *mainstream* in virtually all islamic societies these days, thanks to the petro-dollars pouring out of the gulf for the last thirty years and being spent on "education" and "outreach". look at the egyptian parliament and try and find someone who *doesn't* subscribed to these views in either of the two majority parties, who are, lest we forget, the muslim brotherhood (i.e. egyptian hamas - which includes the *elected president*) and, of course the salafi party. yes, there are "extremists on both sides", but i think you're missing something rather important about *how dominant* the extremism actually bloody is.

israel is not short of brains, but if it had not had nuclear capability in 1990 those scud rockets would not have had conventional warheads. that is military superiority. israeli technology, organisation, motivation and, crucially, air power is unchallenged by anyone in the region. granted, you can't have military superiority without brains, but having a big brain will not prevent someone from attacking you. try it next time someone tries to mug you - "don't hit me, i have a big brain". see where that gets you. it is brains, however, that makes military superiority *useful*.

i agree, but tank forces are not decisive compared to air power, which can fly straight over your tanks and take out your infrastructure. that is why the syrians have craploads of missiles, as we know, as well as chemical and biological weapons, but they would think twice about using them offensively because of the response, hence the proxy war conducted via hizbollah, which can seriously disrupt israel without affecting its offensive capabilities; that is why they continually draw israel into aggressive responses, in order to score points and engage in psychological attrition; do you seriously think that they would bother with this if they had the real capability to destroy israel? you don't have to take my word for it, even - i suggest you read prof martin van creveld of hebrew u on this, he's quite a celebrated military historian and the world expert on the idf.

b'shalom

bananabrain

The problem with Hizbollah and its false stability as an entity in Lebanon vis-a-vis Israel is due to the fiasco generated by our incursion into Lebanon to get the PLO out. Now, we prefer to listen to world public opinion and not break them once and for all. Were it that world politics left us alone, we would get rid of that snake in our bed in no time.

Ben

 

[bananabrain]

Face facts: the Arabs got screwed; the Jews got more than their national homeland, they got a modern, nation State.

if facts are to be faced, let us also face the fact that had the arabs behaved more reasonably in 1947, 1948, 1967, 1973, 1999, 2006 and, let's face it, pretty much ever, they would probably have a palestinian state by now and certainly peace might have been foreseaable in the next generation. the israelis got their heads down and grafted, with the result that israel, whilst far from perfect, now has a lot more going for it economically, socially, scientifically, culturally and so on than, say, lebanon, syria, jordan, iraq, saudi or egypt. and the same goes for the arab citizens of israel as opposed to the palestinians locked in their brothers' refugee camps. the arabs can rage on about the perfidious british and sing "falastin biladna, yahood kalabna" all they like. this is all about whether you have a can-do attitude or whether you would prefer to blame everyone else rather than take responsibility.

Well whether you generally do or not, in this case, you did.

if the arabs will insist on being "pan-arab" about palestine, then sauce for the goose etc. pan-arabism is an illusion - the only thing arabs appear to be united about is how much everyone hates israel. and that is a lousy excuse for a group identity.

It is therefore possible to speak of Israel, and its policies, as of a unified, national bloc.

possibly, but equally illusionary. one might speak of israel's "grand strategy" in the geopolitical sense (i recommend stratfor's take on this) but it remains a society bitterly divided both ethnically, religiously, politically and economically. certainly there is no consensus beyond "israel should exist" and "we will fight rather than die".

I cited Herzl, and can cite others, as proof that the policy of "ethnic cleansing," supported in this thread by Ben Masada and justified, recently, in the New York Times by Dani Dayan, has been a policy of Israel from the beginning.

i'm sorry, but you simply cannot draw a theme from herzl (never a functionary of the modern state, as he died long before it was realised) to dani dayan and manufacture a "policy of israel from the beginning", any more than you could draw a policy line from the views of gladstone to the policies of vince cable; such an attempt smacks of a desperate attempt to paint israel as uniquely evil which is not worthy of anyone possessed of moral judgement and a sense of perspective. if ethnic cleansing was the policy of israel, it would have been done. the fact that it has not ought to show this canard for what it is: an attempt to harness the jargon and mumbo-jumbo of international human rights law for partisan political ends. there is far more of a case against virtually any other country in the world, let alone if you go back in time to the C19th.

I, as an American, am fed up with my country being an interested, rather than disinterested, party to the religious war between Arabs and Jews.

well, unfortunately, that is about grand strategy and geography. the US depends on global trade, which depends on global sea lanes, which depends on global air supremacy. this is geopolitics - religion has absolutely nothing to do with it from the point of view of the US. again, i encourage you to read george friedman's "the next 100 years" on this subject. i am fed up with the argument over the falkland islands, but it's not going to go away any time soon.

emotionalism and predictable talking-points from the Zionist scriptorium.

what, like throwing the indefensible phrase "ethnic cleansing" and equally predictable israel-bashing arguments about? this bores me. i thought better of you than this stuff.

On the contrary, you call him "fascist"

referring to his opinions and policies, i don't see what's emotional about it.

"karaite" while I call him out and address his logic.

logically analysed, his position is precisely that of the karaites and his arguments parallel those comprehensively refuted by everyone from sa'adia gaon to maimonides. it's the oldest chestnut in the book.

as John Pilger put it

gore vidal, john pilger, who next? robert fisk? ilan pappe? edward said? sheesh.

I've tried to make the point all along that the picture is wider than Israel: the British and American role in Middle East, then and now, should be fully explored.

this has all been done to death many times before. both sides have done bad things, nobody argues about that. however, what people of sense and goodwill should be doing is thinking about the way forward, not putting up strawman arguments which depend upon one-sided, discredited nonsense and dogwhistle politics.

as I see it, the British official support for Zionism was, itself, at least as expressed by Churchill, part of a divisive strategy by which the aspirations of some Jews could be diverted from Bolshevism ("Internationalism" via Marxism) into Zionistic nationalism. But that is another story.

yes, i believe at the time we were supposedly responsible for both international bolshevism and international capitalism. amazing stuff, really, but i see no reason that it should

be used to poison debate.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[radarmark]

Quote: "karaite" while I call him out and address his logic.
"karaite" while I call him out and address his logic.
logically analysed, his position is precisely that of the karaites and his arguments parallel those comprehensively refuted by everyone from sa'adia gaon to maimonides. it's the oldest chestnut in the book.

"Karaite" vs. "Fascist". Gosh, which is worse?