Ed General Israel/Palestine discussion thread - Part 3

[WildCat]

120 years ago a group of European racists who happened to be Jewish decided to displace an entire population for their own gratification and the sacred purity of their race. That was because Jewish life in Europe had normalised, leading to greater mixing and, inevitably, matching and mongrelisation. The Zionists were very much against mongrelisation, in common with most European conservatives of the time. Another concern for them was that Jews as citizens related directly to their governments : the self-perpetuating bands of Community Leaders who were previously the interface between Jews and governments lost much of their status and respect. Both these problems could be solved by a Jewish State containing only (or very largely) Jews and ruled by its rightful Community Leaders.

Read the proceedings of the Zionist Congresses, and all the acreage of debate and discussion in the press, pamphlets and books and you will find all of this discussed. What you won't find is a Jewish State as a bolt-hole for a threatened people. You will find Herzl and others arguing vehemently that it wasn't that. And, of course, nobody referred to what would happen forty years in the future due to a bizarre and utterly unpredictable set of circumstances.

I'm always for the victims, and the Palestinians are the victims of the Zionists. The Zionist plan - clearly stated - to displace the Palestinian population one way or another was widely criticised at the time but still within the pale. It isn't now, yet you continue to defend it while playing "look over here" with the Holocaust and promoting blood libels against the Arabs. It's far from edifying.

Nope, no hint of anti-Semitism in this post!

 

[Craig B]

You say you denounce [Violations of humanity by Syria], and yet, they play no apparent role in your consideration of events in the Golan Heights. I do not find your claim credible.

You don't believe that I think the expulsion of the Syrian population of Golan and the usurpation and resettlement of its land can't be justified by the any crimes committed by the Syrian régime?

Nonsense. I don't find your statement in the least credible.

This is pure imperialism. Back in the nineteenth century, the removal of peoples from their lands and their replacement by Europesn settlers was "justified" by the claim that the previous rulers of these lands were naked tyrants and savages. What if they were? This is the same stuff.

What misdeed on the part of the UK government would justify my being thrown out of my home and country?

 

[CapelDodger]

That's one way of looking at it. Another way would be to recognize that it could have belonged to everyone until the issue was forced by a race-war started by invading neighboring countries.

The Israelis were determined that it would not belong to everybody, it would belong to them alone, and they'd spent three decades preparing the army which was to conquer it for them. Those European Jews from Europe were the invaders, you'll recall, and Europe is a different continent. They were the ones primed with European race theory. The Palestinians certainly weren't invading - they were there, in the way. MAny of them not for long.

Revisionism.

That's it? I see your problem, of course.

Right. They were fleeing Russian pogroms.

No, they weren't. Some were left-wingers on the lam after the failed 1905 revolution (among them Ben Gurion, who said he'd never experienced anti-semitism at home) but most were young enthusiasts with allowances looking for a cause - and most of those went back home when they found it was hard. The rest were horrified to find the Holy Land filled with "foreigners" - the term they always used for the Palestinians, echoing Ezrah who found "foreigners in the Land" and threw them out on his return from Babylon, but you'll know all about that. And they called their settlements "colonies", if there's still any doubt about who were the invaders

The Russians, "lagging behind" like you say they do, hadn't thought of industrializing genocide the way the Nazi's would 60 years later.

The Russians had 400 years to kill all its Jews and lessons on mass murder from the Mongols etched into their cultural narrative : do you really think it would require modern industry? A reasonably industrious and biddable population - which the Russians have always had - could get it done in a decade at most.

And yet they didn't. Nobody did, or tried to, until the uniquely appalling Holocaust.

You get this from the same revisionist sources you used to claim Joachim Prinz was a cheerleader for Hitler? Either way, let's see your evidence.

The Joachim Prinz reference escapes me. The evidence of what lay behind the Zionist project is in plain sight: the proceedings of the Zionist Congresses were entirely open and publicised to the greatest extent possible, while the general debate was carried out internationally largely through the press and in letters later published in vanity-books. Remember that the Zionist fringe - which is very much what it was - was trying to sell itself. It did not employ Project Fear for that. It employed Project Jewish Pride.

You'll have to look in books for this stuff, but you might find it a worthwhile effort. Try to get a broad range, including some of the anathematised publications.

If you have evidence that the Zionists promoted Palestine as a bolt-hole when the project was first launched do provide it. If you find any evidence that the Jewish State was to be shared with any other race at the beginning, do provide it. If you have evidence of a discontinuity in the Zionist story where the willingness to share crept in, do share. (Remember that the World Zionist Organisation created in the First Zionist Congress is the same self-perpetuating gathering of Community Leaders that Netenyahu tickled with his appalling blood libel speech recently.)

If you can find any reference to the Jewish State being democratic that would be interesting too. That is, references outwith reasons why democracy was both inappropriate when building a nation state and undesirable in principle.

 

[CapelDodger]

Craig B:

Back in the nineteenth century, the removal of peoples from their lands and their replacement by Europesn settlers was "justified" by the claim that the previous rulers of these lands were naked tyrants and savages.

Also that the natives were not making full use of the land in the modern way, while showing no interest in how the natives were actually using it. That was actually used a lot in the early North American colonies, very explicitly. And we hear it a lot from Zionists today

This kind of arrogance is not unique to Zionists, of course. White people have been doing it for centuries and I've no doubt the Han Chinese did it when they first colonised the Yangtze Valley. Yup, the Chinese got to a sense of racial superiority first too.

 

[CapelDodger]

Nope, no hint of anti-Semitism in this post!

Point it out. Or is this all you're reduced to?

I suppose it was inevitable. Ziggurat gave in to temptation a while back and called me anti-semite straight out. Simply for calling him a racist, which, of course, he demonstratively is. He even does the demonstrating himself.

The hair-trigger sense for anti-semitism and blindness to actual racism is a common feature of Zionists. Not that you'll have noticed, of course.

 

[CapelDodger]

Uh-huh, yeah, sure, right.

I'm going a lot of that response. Really, if you've nothing substantive to say don't just say anything.

Here you trash any foundation for your objections about the same being done elsewhere. Your rant is, then, all about taking a side against Israel.

No, it's more about my justifed attitude to Austrians of the 1940's and the actual guilt for the Holocaust of so many of them. The fate of Austria would ring down the ages as a sign to those who might think to instigate such an enormity again.

I'm against Israel because it is the colonising agressor today.

And? And they are greatly concerned, with communities losing population in France, Sweden, and other places one might think local enlightenment would save them.

Save them from assimilating? How should they do that, ghettos and anti-miscegenation laws?

Or are they going to Palestine to live amongst ineveterate (if woefully ineffective) Jew-exterminators for safety?

The "they" who are concerned - would they be the Community Leaders?

Turns out there is a growing alliance between extreme righties and/or lefties and Islamic militants, and plenty of terror against Jews for being Jews.

There's a growing alliance between Zionists and anti-Muslims in Europe: Jews have left centre-stage as the religious minority of choice in Christendom. Of course only recently has Europe had another religious minority: they don't last long when the Christians arrive. Nobody can live with them. Except the Jews, for whom exception was made for the sake of Jesus's mother's family.

In southern Europe, you will find common sayings and expressions still in use that are horribly anti-Semitic. 'Dirty Jew' is still a common insult. And very few Jews remain.

It's a dismal and backward place. So was the rest of Europe a few centuries ago, so there's still hope. Heck, homosexuality was illegal until a few generations ago. Things move on, let's hope for the best.

That will be quite enough from you: collective guilt justifying mass murder of innocents. Lucky for you, the only people who regularly kill for spouting such nonsense are your friends in the Master Faith.

Oh dear. My "friends in the Master Faith", that's really all you can do?

Did you see those videos of Israelis hotting and hollering as bombs rained on Arab families in Netenyahu's last vote-gathering effort? I could choose to say that they characterise Israelis, but of course I won't. It's a shame that people can be so brutalised, though - and these are the ones who are winning. 120 years ago, when this thing was started by a group of European racists, their movement had no presence in Palestine at all. Now look how much they've conquered and how many "foreigners in the Land" they've thrown out.

But they whine and whine and whine about their inherited victimhood. It's pretty gut-turning, I'm sure you'll agree.

 

[CapelDodger]

So much anti semitism and Jew baiting had been seen, both in the uk and in this thread.

Where in this thread?

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Israel's recent shennanigans have nothing on Saddam Hussein and Hafez/Bashir Al Assad, who have all engaged in Genocide and produced far higher body counts within a month than Israel has in its entire existence. When was the last time Gaza was saturated in Nerve Gas, or Palestinians fed into wood chippers and acid baths?

 

[caveman1917]

Israel's recent shennanigans have nothing on Saddam Hussein and Hafez/Bashir Al Assad, who have all engaged in Genocide and produced far higher body counts within a month than Israel has in its entire existence. When was the last time Gaza was saturated in Nerve Gas, or Palestinians fed into wood chippers and acid baths?

Did you know that if you compare Israel to Nazi Germany that you can make the convincing argument "at least it's not as bad as Nazi Germany!" instead? Why be content with Iraq or Syria, go for the real deal...

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Did you know that if you compare Israel to Nazi Germany that you can make the convincing argument "at least it's not as bad as Nazi Germany!" instead? Why be content with Iraq or Syria, go for the real deal...

Because Assad is still a thing, while Saddam slightly less so. Meanwhile, their Fascist ideology Baathism is still prevalent in the Middle East.

So then, what makes Israel a fascist regime on the level of Assad's Syria or Saddam's Iraq, despite there being far less casualties and zero use of biochemical weapons? It's easy to condemn Israel while living in a comfortable western country, never knowing war nor having neighbours like the aforementioned tyrants.

 

[theprestige]

You don't believe that I think the expulsion of the Syrian population of Golan and the usurpation and resettlement of its land can't be justified by the any crimes committed by the Syrian régime?

Nonsense. I don't find your statement in the least credible.

This is pure imperialism. Back in the nineteenth century, the removal of peoples from their lands and their replacement by Europesn settlers was "justified" by the claim that the previous rulers of these lands were naked tyrants and savages. What if they were? This is the same stuff.

It's not the same stuff at all. The justification for taking the Golan is entirely different from the imperialist fantasy you lay out above.

During the Six Day War, Syria mistakenly thought that Egypt was winning, and that Israel was vulnerable. For this reason, they launched their own imperialist war of aggression against Israel, from the Golan Heights. This was a strategically valuable point along the Israel-Syria border. As long as it was in Syrian possession, the Golan placed Israel at increased risk from its belligerent neighbors.

But even though Israel launched a preemptive strike against Egypt to start the Six-Day war, it made no move against Syria. It was not until after Syria initiated hostilities that Israel responded by taking the Golan.

The Israeli occupation of the Golan was a military necessity, brought about by Syria's unjustified attack on Israel. Syria could perhaps have regained the Golan after the war, through diplomatic means, but they were not entitled to it. They lost that entitlement the day they resorted to open war with Israel.

Interestingly enough, Israel returned all of the Egyptian territory it captured during the Six Day War. But their war with Egypt had been started by Israel. And apparently Egypt had better diplomats than Syria.

Syria, on the other hand, deserved no such privileges. If Syrian citizens were displaced from the Golan, that is the fault of the Syrian government. If they were concerned about losing strategically important border territory to Israel, the Syrians should not have started a war with Israel in the first place, or else taken more care to actually win it.

 

[Mycroft]

I'm not astonished you brought it up. It's the example always given as evidence that this sort of thing was going on all the time.

The Dreyfus affair resulted in the exoneration of Dreyfuss, but more importantly an uproar erupted across Europe against the French Government and officer class, and a classic work - J'Accuse - laid out the modern European position. One in which this sort of behaviour was no longer acceptable.

It's kind of a glass half full/half empty issue. Dreyfus was convicted at court marshal, twice.

Yeah, it's great that so many French people stood up for him, but they stood up against all of those other French people who wanted to railroad him. Saying that only one side of those people are representative and that we shouldn't pay attention to the other half is deliberately choosing not to look at the whole picture.

 

[Aridas]

What misdeed on the part of the UK government would justify my being thrown out of my home and country?

Using your immediate area as a staging ground to arbitrarily launch a war of conquest against a neighboring country (yes, yes, the UK doesn't quite have direct neighbors but if Scotland split off and you lived in a neighboring area to the ensuing border, that would work for setting) and then losing badly works just fine. War is a serious move at a national level and will generally have very real effects on the people of the involved nations, whether for good or for ill.

 

[caveman1917]

Your rant is, then, all about taking a side against Israel.

They're doing industrialized murder in the form of a spectator sport. How would you not take a side against that?

 

[caveman1917]

Because Assad is still a thing, while Saddam slightly less so. Meanwhile, their Fascist ideology Baathism is still prevalent in the Middle East.

So then, what makes Israel a fascist regime on the level of Assad's Syria or Saddam's Iraq, despite there being far less casualties and zero use of biochemical weapons? It's easy to condemn Israel while living in a comfortable western country, never knowing war nor having neighbours like the aforementioned tyrants.

General Syria/Iraq discussion thread is over there -->

 

[Giz]

No, they weren't. Some were left-wingers on the lam after the failed 1905 revolution (among them Ben Gurion, who said he'd never experienced anti-semitism at home) but most were young enthusiasts with allowances looking for a cause - and most of those went back home when they found it was hard. The rest were horrified to find the Holy Land filled with "foreigners" - the term they always used for the Palestinians, echoing Ezrah who found "foreigners in the Land" and threw them out on his return from Babylon, but you'll know all about that. And they called their settlements "colonies", if there's still any doubt about who were the invaders

The Russians had 400 years to kill all its Jews and lessons on mass murder from the Mongols etched into their cultural narrative : do you really think it would require modern industry? A reasonably industrious and biddable population - which the Russians have always had - could get it done in a decade at most.

And yet they didn't. Nobody did, or tried to, until the uniquely appalling Holocaust.
.

Minimizing the pogroms. Good job, you'd minimized Dreyfus (proves that not all French people were antisemitic), minimized the holocaust (a historical freak occurrence), you only needed to minimize the effect of centuries of pogroms on Jewish life to complete your anti-Semite bingo card.

 

[trustbutverify]

Minimizing the pogroms. Good job, you'd minimized Dreyfus (proves that not all French people were antisemitic), minimized the holocaust (a historical freak occurrence), you only needed to minimize the effect of centuries of pogroms on Jewish life to complete your anti-Semite bingo card.

Yea, right out of the anti-semetic playbook. We've seen this all before- it shouldn't even be surprising.

 

[Ziggurat]

They're doing industrialized murder in the form of a spectator sport. How would you not take a side against that?

The Palestinians cheered when 9/11 happened. You have taken sides with that.

 

[applecorped]

The Palestinians cheered when 9/11 happened. You have taken sides with that.

 

[caveman1917]

The Palestinians cheered when 9/11 happened.

It must be sad when all you have to cheer for is some people hijacking a plane and flying it into a building, rather than such a nice spectacle Israel regularly provides its citizens.

You have taken sides with that.

Evidence?