Israel: Democracy in action.

[CapelDodger]

from Esther:

I believe that this post of yours confirms my suspicion that you judge today's Israel with the terms of the post 6 Days War Israel and this is totally wrong. The quote I posted comes from a speech of Ben Gurion after the 6 Days War.

Mycroft accuses me of living a century in the past, and you of thinking life began in the 60's. I'm too old for the latter, and too young for the former. I mistook the quote (since the message was much the same) as this one :

[Establishing] a Jewish State in part of Palestine is not the end but the beginning. The establishment of such a Jewish State will serve as a means in our historical effort to redeem the country in its entirety.

This was in a letter to his son at the time of the Peel Commission. So, what did he mean by the "country"? You can see how the neighbours might need to know before they can sleep easy in their beds.

In our days israelis are not willing to cover the cost of zionist dreams especially because the aim of the zionists is fulfilled. The hills of Zion are ours now.

Romance is all very well in novels, but a disaster in reality. Has the aim been fulfilled with the current arrangement of settlements? Is that the aim? Because people keep sticking up new ones, and Israelis pay to subsidise and defend them. They may not want to, but their willingness doesn't seem to be a requirement.

This is quite a spin, in my opinion.Sinai is what Egypt wanted in order to sign to peace treaty it might be irrelevant to you but it wasn't irrelevant to them. Both parties got what they wanted and they proved that honest negotiations do bring an outcome.

The Egyptians see the Sinai as their territory, taken off them by conquest and subsequently regained. Israel does not regard it as its territory. So yes, agreement was reached. Does Israel regard the "hills of zion" as a similar bargaining chip? Clearly not. My point is : the Sinai cannot be compared to the West Bank.

Although I do not have any kind of education, to my understanding, in every country the army wants war ... Maybe you believe in the notion of the "chosen people" more than I do and you expect the israeli military to be different in that in a situation where the enemy exists and it doesn't need to be artificial

The enemies are, and always have been, real; that was inevitable. The status of the military in Israel, which was formed in and by war, is highly unusual. The military plays a much more central role in Israeli society than almost anywhere else. Peace would change that, and the military might use their political influence to prevent it. I agree that it would be excellent if there was a chance to find out.

 

[CapelDodger]

from Esther:

Why the arabs kept rejecting the plans?

There's no simple answer. Abdullah of Jordan was keen to accept partition as long as there wasn't a Palestinian State, but he had no formal authority over the Arabs in the Mandate territories. Those Arabs who found themselves assigned to Israel weren't going to accept it. Outside that, there were all sorts of "nationalists" out-shouting each other, and others who backed Abdullah and union with Transjordan as the only viable option (this included the vast majority of the upper- and middle-classes). Other Arab states were interfering (as were the zionists, of course; they'd be falling down on the job if they weren't) for their own purposes - for instance, Syria was well aware of Abdullah's Greater Syria ambitions and didn't want to see him expanding into Palestine. The Brits backed Abdullah in Palestine, but not in the Greater Syria thing. But nobody could admit to any of this, which highlights another problem for the Arabs - the way they use language. High-flown, gory rhetoric is expected, but in the end everybody knows accomodations will be made. Blend that with nationalism and religion and they're always be someone screaming blue murder.

Is that really rejection? The iconic figure presented in the zionist story is Haj Amin rather than Abdullah. This is the figure - a rabble-rouser who blew his chances in the Arab Revolt, 1936-39 - that was chosen as the spokesman, the representative Arab of the time. In this way, Israel's breaking of the deal with Abdullah (and rejection of peace proposals) is meant to go unnoticed. Nowadays, Hamas is chosen as the archetype. There will always be rejectionists, and (in my opinion) Israel will always choose to present them as the real voice of Palestine, and thus avoid serious peace talks. Talks which would have to include final borders, something that may be impossible under Israel's democracy.

The mistakes of the Arabs are part of the issue because for every mistake the arabs made the Israelis moved a stepped further from their original plan. Can you blame us for that?

My blame applies to the whole project, the idea of creating a nation by moving somewhere and robbing and ejecting the population. So that people can revel in "their" possession of the "hills of zion". As you may have surmised, I don't think that objective is worth the bones of one Pomeranian grenadier. Let alone what's happened to the Palestinian people and the people of the surrounding countries.

The notion of the jewish state is not very appealing for the younger generations that weren't brought up with the vision of Zion.

As backing for that I'll provide a quote (heard in London), "I'm not getting my *** balls shot off for some ****** settler who doesn't think I'm a good enough **** Jew to meet his daughter". The vision thing has kind of faded for some. It may be that being born there in the reality rather than going there to build the vision is what makes the difference.

... we are not interested in making other people jewish ...

Tell that to the Idumeans.

 

[zenith-nadir]

More accurately, of course, for the Palestinians the war started the day it was declared by the First Zionist Congress.

Hummmm. So the war started for the Palestinians in August 1897 when a couple hundred jews met in Switzerland and declared war on Palestine.

So, for the Palestinians, the war did start in 1947, and about half of the expulsions had occurred before the declaration of statehod, with no intervention by Arab armies.

So now the war, declared in 1897, really got underway in 1947 when half of the expulsions occurred with no intervention by Arab armies. I guess you never heard of the Jerusalem pogrom in 1920 or the Hebron massacre in 1926 or the Great Uprising in 1936 or of the pro-Nazi Mufti of Jerusalem Amin al-Husayni.

 

[CapelDodger]

Hummmm. So the war started for the Palestinians in August 1897 when a couple hundred jews met in Switzerland and declared war on Palestine.

They declared that they were going to go and build a nation where the Palestinians lived, a nation that was for a different people who were also going to move there. That's launching a war by any rational understanding of the word. It might never have got to the fighting stage - after all, Armenians in Europe launched a war on Turkey to no great effect - but as it happened it did, and the fighting continues.

So now the war, declared in 1897, really got underway in 1947 when half of the expulsions occurred with no intervention by Arab armies. I guess you never heard of the Jerusalem pogrom in 1920 or the Hebron massacre in 1926 or the Great Uprising in 1936 or of the pro-Nazi Mufti of Jerusalem Amin al-Husayni.

Intriguing thinking. The non-intervention of the Arab armies in 1947, you seem to claim, is incorrect since the Arab armies intervened in the 1920's, but there were no Arab armies in the 1920's. Haj Amin wasn't an Arab army. If this weird stuff invalidated the idea that the war started for the Palestinians in 1947 because it started before 1947, it would also invalidate your claim that the war started in 1948 when actual Arab armies did intervene in Palestine. Are you sure you've thought this through?

 

[Elind]

I don’t think that we can agree on that.

SEEMS TO ME WE AGREE ON THIS POINT, HOWEVER POORLY I EXPRESSED IT.

What are you talking about? I remind you that according to you out of the two of us, _I _am the fanatic not you.

I THINK YOU KNOW THAT I AM TALKING OF FANATICS WHO MANAGE TO INVOKE LAWS AND POLICIES BECAUSE OF YOUR FRACTURED SYSTEM OF NARROW OBJECTIVE POLITICAL PARTIES. OBVIOUSLY I DON"T MEAN ALL ISRAELIS.

We owe you nothing and if you believe that “I and my own fanatics do not worth the cost” I hope you look good in khaki because you will have to go to Middle East to look after the Arabs for the sake of the organized interests that run your approximation of democracy.

WE ARE ALREADY THERE, OR HADN'T YOU NOTICED? IN MY OPINION LARGELY BECAUSE OF THOSE ABOVE MENTIONED POLICIES (AND PLENTY OF HELP FROM THE ARABS, OF COURSE). YOU THINK YOU OWE US NOTHING FOR THE BILLIONS WE HAVE GIVEN IN CASH, AND THE HATRED WE HAVE CREATED ELSEWHERE BY SUPPORTING ISRAEL AT EVERY STAGE AND LEVEL. THAT SUPPORT HAS OFTEN BEEN WARRANTED IN MY OPINION, BUT IF YOU THINK THAT YOU OWE US NOTHING, THEN PERHAPS IT'S TIME TO START CUTTING TIES AND WE'LL SEE IF YOUR APPROXIMATION LASTS LONGER THAN OURS.

 

[Esther]

I have composed a long answer to Capel Dodger regarding his answer to my question but I lost it. Capel Dodger will have to live for one more day without my analysis.

originally posted by Elind
We are already there, or hadn't you noticed?In my opinion largely because of those above mentioned policies ( and plenty of help from the Arabs of course). You think you owe us nothing for the billions we have given in cash, and the hatred we have created elsewhere by supporting Israel at every stage and level.That support has often been warranted in my opinion, but if you think that you owe us nothing,then it's time perhaps to start cutting ties and we'll see if your approximation lasts longer than ours.

I had to re-type that because capital letters upset me.

My point Elind was that if USA wanted to have the control over the Arabs and the area would had to pay triple the billions in cash if Israel didn't exist. Policies have nothing to do with charity. The existence of Israel serves the interests of USA perfectly. So, from that point of you we don't owe you a thing.Also, the Israeli society is not corrupted yet by the culture of vulgar consumption so don't be so sure about who would survive longer if we cut ties. We are resistent to misfortunes. Deprive the average american of his local hamburger shop and his world is falling apart.

 

[CapelDodger]

from Esther:

Also, the Israeli society is not corrupted yet by the culture of vulgar consumption so don't be so sure about who would survive longer if we cut ties. We are resistent to misfortunes.

"We" implies a unity that that is not at all evident in Israel today (or amongst Jews generally, ever). I wonder how many of the recently-arrived Russians would stick out a serious slump, or young urban professionals. Israel is an unformed nation, and I doubt if its democracy could take much stress. (I don't think US democracy is terribly robust either, if that's any consolation.) When the US economy goes down the toilet we'll get a chance to see.

Capel Dodger will have to live for one more day without my analysis.

Don't you just hate waiting for test results?

 

[CapelDodger]

from Esther:

My point Elind was that if USA wanted to have the control over the Arabs and the area would had to pay triple the billions in cash if Israel didn't exist. Policies have nothing to do with charity. The existence of Israel serves the interests of USA perfectly

I disagree. Israel doesn't control "The Arabs", for the US or at all. The best-case scenario for the US can be seen in the Gulf, distant from Israel. The same scenario is impossible closer to Israel because of US policy. US support of Israel is motivated by internal politics, not the availability of Saudi oil (and there's no other reason for wanting to dominate the region). Strategic, diplomatic and economic motivations would have seen the US back an independent Kurdish state - no religious aspect, the people were already living there, very capable of looking after themselves with a continuity of culture going back at least as far as Israel's. But it never happened.

Support for Israel has become a touchstone of righteousness in US politics. (Like opposing legalised weed.) Which is why the tail is wagging the dog these days.

 

[Elind]

I have composed a long answer to Capel Dodger regarding his answer to my question but I lost it. Capel Dodger will have to live for one more day without my analysis.



I had to re-type that because capital letters upset me.

My point Elind was that if USA wanted to have the control over the Arabs and the area would had to pay triple the billions in cash if Israel didn't exist. Policies have nothing to do with charity. The existence of Israel serves the interests of USA perfectly. So, from that point of you we don't owe you a thing.Also, the Israeli society is not corrupted yet by the culture of vulgar consumption so don't be so sure about who would survive longer if we cut ties. We are resistent to misfortunes. Deprive the average american of his local hamburger shop and his world is falling apart.

Sorry about the capitals. It was not meant as shouting, just to separate text. I'll improve my editing skills I think.

You make several points, somewhat separated from each other. If you understood the USA at all, you would understand that we don't give a crap about "controlling" the Arabs. They can't do that themselves, so why the hell do you think we would want to? Where else in the world do YOU think the US has controlled those it liberated? "Bomb us and we bomb you to hell" seems a good enough policy toward the Arabs if nothing else works.

Israel once seemed like a shining example of democracy in that part of the world and was then a worthwhile thing to support, but the fact is that you have not fullfilled your part of the implicit bargain, largely through your land grabs, whether through greed or fanaticism and the US has always opposed your stupid settlement policies (and the Palestinians have, as usual, screwed themselves by not working with the major investment in jobs and infrastructure that it once gave).

Now however it is clear that Israel wants to keep the territory at any cost, and screw its friends. (Gaza withdrawal would have been inconceivable to you, no doubt, a few years ago). Believe me, I support the wall. You should have built it a long time ago, but in a manner that reflected border that most others could accept.

As to what you don't owe us. ($##^&* you). You owe us your damned existence.

As to vulgar consumption. Stupid ass comment. Where are you from? The USSR? Some people consume vulgarly, jews included, some don't. Actually I shouldn't bother commmenting on such a crass commentary.

Without our support you will sink, and in case you hadn't noticed, a very large percentage of those who you brought in to help your population plan, came to Israel largely because that would give them a better opportunity to get them to the USA, and thousands are doing so.

Go back to diaspora, that is where you are good at having your nation. I am begining to think you are incapable of having a geographic nation, as probably many French jews are thinking as well, thanks to your foot in mouth fat leader.

 

[Mycroft]

Wow, Elind. Can you pack any more hatred into that?

 

[Baker]

Wow, Elind. Can you pack any more hatred into that?

All second that Elind you didn't creep over from the Stormfront forum by any chance did you?

 

[Esther]

Re: Capel Dodger's answer to my question as to why the Arabs kept rejecting the plans.

Capel Dodger, do not be offended by what I will say, maybe I read too much into your post but it seems that you don't take the Arabs seriously, you talk about their policy as if they are retarded, blocked by their cultural background, naive and ready to bite any bait that the west serves them.

If this is the case I believe that you are wrong. The Arabs are very smart and determinded. Their problem is that they consider themselves omnipotent and they believe that they can conquer the world whenever they wish, it's just that they do not wish that's why they haven't conquered the world yet. Also, we don't know what those nice people, the British, have promised to them and they made them so unwilling to negotiate seriously. I will take the risk to be accused of racism with the comment that I will make but it seems to me that their religion is an obstacle to them more than any other religion.

Is that really rejection? The iconic figure presented in the zionist story is Haj Amin rather than Abdullah. This is the figure - a rabble-rouser who blew his chances in the Arab Revolt, 1936-39 - that was chosen as the spokesman, the representative Arab of the time. In this way, Israel's breaking of the deal with Abdullah (and rejection of peace proposals) is meant to go unnoticed. Nowadays, Hamas is chosen as the archetype. There will always be rejectionists, and (in my opinion) Israel will always choose to present them as the real voice of Palestine, and thus avoid serious peace talks. Talks which would have to include final borders, something that may be impossible under Israel's democracy.

Well, again you seem to discover the basic traits of humanity in Israel for the first time in human's history. I know some other people who never miss the opportunity to mention Zabotinsky as the archetypical figure of zionism or Ariel Sharon and Shabra and Shatila as the personification of the israeli policy.

My blame applies to the whole project, the idea of creating a nation by moving somewhere and robbing and ejecting the population.

Ok. I undrerstand that.

Tell that to the Idumeans.

You must be a very religious person Capel Dodger. Obsessing with religion can be destructive, you know, I do not want to preach now but just be careful with religion. Too much religion might distort your perception of reality.

 

[Esther]

I will ignore the aggressive style of this post and I will try to focus on the points you try to make.

You make several points, somewhat separated from each other. If you understood the USA at all, you would understand that we don't give a crap about "controlling" the Arabs. They can't do that themselves, so why the hell do you think we would want to? Where else in the world do YOU think the US has controlled those it liberated? "Bomb us and we bomb you to hell" seems a good enough policy toward the Arabs if nothing else works.

It's in the very definition of the word "super-power" the urge and the desire to control the whole world. Suepr-powers wish to have the total control of the gloge. Suggesting that USA is not interested in controlling the arab world is errr strange, to put it mildly.The Arab world is really hard to ignore because of its size, of its wealth and of course because if its way of understanding politics. So, it's convenient to keep the Arab world busy with Israel than risking their people to wake up and start posing questions. If Israel didn't exist to keep the Arabs busy, USA citizens would have to go in Middle East to play this role. As to the last question in this paragraph you are right to wonder. For example, you bombed Serbia and you left them like that although you have promised to re0built the country after " liberating" it.

Israel once seemed like a shining example of democracy in that part of the world and was then a worthwhile thing to support, but the fact is that you have not fullfilled your part of the implicit bargain, largely through your land grabs, whether through greed or fanaticism and the US has always opposed your stupid settlement policies (and the Palestinians have, as usual, screwed themselves by not working with the major investment in jobs and infrastructure that it once gave).

If things are the way you describe them then why USA government doesn't try to punish Israel by accepting Arafat into the White House for a cup of coffee? It's true that democracy feels uncomfortable when terrorism rules. Ask Ashcroft if you do not believe me.

Now however it is clear that Israel wants to keep the territory at any cost, and screw its friends. (Gaza withdrawal would have been inconceivable to you, no doubt, a few years ago). Believe me, I support the wall. You should have built it a long time ago, but in a manner that reflected border that most others could accept.

The wall is a necessary evil and in order for this evil to work it must be out of the 1967 borders. This is how the Green lines of security of UN are drawn anyway. It wouldn't work and there wouldn't be any point in building the wall on the pre-1967 borders.

As to what you don't owe us. ($##^&* you). You owe us your damned existence.

Haha. Not really. I could tune to the spirit of your message and reply that if you did something to save the Jews during the war then a jewish state wouldn't be necessary but I do not wish to do such a thing.

As to vulgar consumption. Stupid ass comment. Where are you from? The USSR? Some people consume vulgarly, jews included, some don't. Actually I shouldn't bother commmenting on such a crass commentary.

But you did bother to comment and now I have to answer. The culture of consuming has nothing to do with spending money. It's associated with making an easy and comfortable style a raison d'etre, a reason to go to a war or to join the army. This is what I meant. BTW the Russians have a level of civilization that western societies cannot even dream of.

Without our support you will sink, and in case you hadn't noticed, a very large percentage of those who you brought in to help your population plan, came to Israel largely because that would give them a better opportunity to get them to the USA, and thousands are doing so.

That's another interesting theory. Do you mean that Israeli citizens are excluded from USA's immigration policy?

Go back to diaspora, that is where you are good at having your nation. I am begining to think you are incapable of having a geographic nation, as probably many French jews are thinking as well, thanks to your foot in mouth fat leader.

Hatred is like caugh and being in love. One can hardly hide it. I was born in Israel and I do not have any diaspora to go back to and be ceratin that unlike the French in case of emergency I will stay there to fight and I won't surrender in 20 minutes.

 

[CapelDodger]

from Esther:

Well, again you seem to discover the basic traits of humanity in Israel for the first time in human's history.

Israel is the subject, so I bring up these traits in reference to Israel, but I would do the same thing if Irish natonalism (for instance) was the subject. I clearly fail as a writer, since I have so often tried to stress the inevitability of the conflict resulting from zionism. It is inevitable because of normal human traits, and could be predicted. Was - very loudly - predicted.

I know some other people who never miss the opportunity to mention Zabotinsky as the archetypical figure of zionism or Ariel Sharon and Shabra and Shatila as the personification of the israeli policy.

Anyone who wishes to promote or justify conflict will present a hateful archetype to its constituency. We seem to be in agreement.

The Arabs are very smart and determinded. Their problem is that they consider themselves omnipotent and they believe that they can conquer the world whenever they wish, it's just that they do not wish that's why they haven't conquered the world yet.

They're very smart, yet they consider themselves omnipotent, yet they're constantly pissed-off at the way the world treats them like toys. I just can't make any sense out of this. Iagree that Islam is a major handicap. The problems of the Arab world are various, but one is the brief moment in the sun it had in the 7th and 8thCE which has left it with a chip on its shoulder ever since, in my opinion. A problem the wider world has is the entirely coincidental presence of oil at a time when that matters a lot. (And, prior to that mattering, it lay on the Britain-India route.) Throwing a new Jewish State into the pot at the same time wasn't a good idea. It's a small enough enemy for the Arab world to take on.

 

[a_unique_person]

Well, again you seem to discover the basic traits of humanity in Israel for the first time in human's history. I know some other people who never miss the opportunity to mention Zabotinsky as the archetypical figure of zionism or Ariel Sharon and Shabra and Shatila as the personification of the israeli policy.

It is my understanding that for many years Sharon was considered unelectable. Now he is PM. Israel has clearly change it's stance with time.

He is not the personification of Israeli policy, he is a good token to use as the representative of extremist Israeli policy. His auto biography is titled 'warrior', if that you gives you any indication of where he stands. Perhaps he believes he is the 'messiah'.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by American
Yes because aup never made the world dominating evil Jew comment besides making every reference to it.
Then it can't be true?
AUP has made close to 100 threads criticizing the US but still claims he doesn't hate the US because he never came out and said I hate the US he's not anti-American?

I guess that you accept the need to provide evidence in support of claims on this sceptics site? Those who make things up and decline to support their claims are in Uri Geller territory. If they are happy to be there, that is their perogative.

Let me just analysis your post a little.

What do you mean by the US? The people of the US or the administration of the US? The poor of the US or the rich of the US? Is it anything made in the US, suggested by the US, invented in the US, claims by the US (such as there were WOMD in Iraq) etc? Perhaps it is merely what you don't like to hear?

What does 'close to' mean? Is it 110, 99, 80, 70, 50, 30 or some other number? Are you implying that there are not 'close to' 100 things about the USA, or any other country or organisation, which cannot be criticised?

Within the Houses of Congress or Senate there may be congressmen and senators who have made many criticisms, perhaps exceding your 'close to'number' (whatever that may be), of bills proposed by the incumbent administration. From your post, it appears you might consider that they hate the USA or were anti-american. After all, you chose to provide no categorisation of any of those 'close to' 100 posts which, you claimed were criticisms of America. You made no differentiation into positive or negative criticism. Instead, you seem to be be equating some arbitrary and as yet undefined number of criticisms with hatred. If that is indeed your intent, can I suggest that is a fundamentally un-American and deeply anti-sceptical stance to take?

Does any particular amount of criticism mean you are anti-american, as you appear to suggest? If that was true then could anyone criticise anything American (without fear of being labelled anti-american or a hater of America). Is that what you want? Is that what you believe is the American way?

Let me ask it another way. Do you believe in the right to criticise at all. Let me try to think if there are or were any other regimes are or were intolerant of criticism of the ruling administration. Perhaps you might agree that Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, North Korea and China fall into that category.

If anyone wants to debate with anyone else can I suggest that a good starting point might be what the other person actually said or claimed, not some false concoction from the world of Uri Geller.

 

[CapelDodger]

Riding on E J Armstrong's post, how does someone like Rush Limbaugh rate on the anti-American scale? He claims - well they all do, dont they? - that he's not anti-american, but then he lays into the types of american he hates. Add them all up (taking account of overlaps), and he hates a clear majority of what the good ol' actually is.