quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

You cant just pick a side and say the other side is wrong.

But that is exactly what happens far too often.

It isn't about advocating for peace, or progress, or equality... it is about the picked side 'winning' by being even worse than 'the others'.
And anyone who doesn't swear to the lies and bigotry is 'one of them', and therefor wrong... and fair game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

You cant just pick a side and say the other side is wrong.

But that is exactly what happens far too often.

It isn't about advocating for peace, or progress, or equality... it is about the picked side 'winning' by being even worse than 'the others'.
And anyone who doesn't swear to the lies and bigotry is 'one of them', and therefor wrong... and fair game.

Alright, this is what I see as wrong.

1) building settlements in the occupied territories, the area was given to Israel by UN resolution to create a military buffer zone, not as an expansion of territory.

2) Expelling Palestinians by Israel, and Jews by the Arab countries. In both instances, the families have been in the region for generations.

3) Rocket and mortar attacks against Israeli civilians by Palestinians, and the Counter fire arty strikes by the Israelis addressed to whom it may concern.
Israel has smart weapons that would be able to hit the launchers with almost pin point precision.

quote:

ORIGINAL: VideoAdminChi

FR,

In response to the thread title, Alpha asked me to link to the definition of antisemitism in relation to TOS and how it applies on these boards:

...Disparaging either Jews as a whole, or individually, or the Jewish race/religion solely or substantially on account of their Jewishness or following recognized practices whether religious or not that is attributable to being either of the Jewish race or religion, singling out Jews for special treatment solely because they are Jewish. This all addresses their RACE or religion, it has nothing to do with political beliefs or the arena. Therefore, criticism of the Israeli state is not anti-Semitism. Other racial/religious comments that are not allowed can include, but not be limited to, any derogatory comment attacking someone because of something they practice or believe because of their race, gender, religious, or sexual beliefs.

quote:


Blog Archives
What Are Jews?
Jan 27
Posted by Tabitha

Hitler would love it.

Decades after he tried to convince the world that Jews are a separate ‘race’, many people still fall for this lie. Jews are defined as a ‘race’ in fiction, by some theologians of other faiths, and by many otherwise intelligent, rational people across the globe. Log into any online forum where religion is the topic, and you’ll find endless posts passionately insisting that there exists a ‘jewish race’.



You’ll also see people referring to ‘being jewish via blood’ or of someone being ‘of jewish blood’.

I mean really – do they think we Jews have kosher chicken soup running through our veins…?!

There is no such thing as ‘jewish blood’!

Let’s clarify the issue. Jews never were and are not now a ‘race’.

Can you alter your race? No.

Can you convert to Judaism? Yes.

Are you then considered as Jewish as those born into the faith? Again – yes.

Clearly, then, neo Nazi protestations to the contrary, Jews are not a ‘race’.



Nor are we an ‘ethnic’ group, though again, we are often defined as such.

But think about it: there is no one ethnicity which unites all Jews. How can there be? There are Japanese Jews. Indian Jews. Black Ethiopian Jews. White Jews. We come in all shades and colours. We represent all ethnicities.

So we’re not a race, and we’re not an ethnic group. Yet we’re not a religion in the same way that Christians or Muslims are, either. After all, as perplexed non Jews often note, there do exist Jewish Atheists. How can this be, though, if Jews are members of a faith?

So what are we, exactly…?

Well, we’re a Tribe. We started out as a collection of smaller tribes, bound by tribal law. Today we are still tribal in nature.

You’re born into the Jewish Tribe, if your mother is Jewish.

You remain a member of the Tribe – unless you leave to join another faith.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

You cant just pick a side and say the other side is wrong.

But that is exactly what happens far too often.

It isn't about advocating for peace, or progress, or equality... it is about the picked side 'winning' by being even worse than 'the others'.
And anyone who doesn't swear to the lies and bigotry is 'one of them', and therefor wrong... and fair game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

What is it called when Arab countries routinely deport Jewish citizens who have been living in the country for generations?

How can one blame just one side when both sides are killing civilians?


Now since 1948 Jews have been persecuted in Arab countries and completely expelled from Egypt

In 1948, the very day that Israel declared its independence it was attacked by its Arab neighbors, and was almost wiped off the map.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Now for the asskicker, the two, Palestinians and Israelis are not only alike in genetics, but in history, they are both persecuted peoples. Since the roman empire, both races have been oppressed, murdered enmasse and kicked out of every country they ever settled in.

quote:

On 20 May, Bevin informed Baron Inverchapel, the British Ambassador to the United States:

"I do not (repeat not) intend in the near future to recognise the Jewish State and still less to support any proposal that it should become a member of the United Nations. In this connection I hope that even through the Americans have recognised the Jewish State de facto they will not commit themselves to any precise recognition of boundaries. It might well be that if the two sides ever accept a compromise it would be on the basis of boundaries differing from those recommended in the Partition Plan of the General Assembly".[62]

In this regard, the British launched a sustained diplomatic offensive to have the United Nations recognize all of the areas taken by the Arabs as belonging to those Arab states, especially Jordan and to reduce the borders of Israel to being more or less what the Peel Plan of 1937 had advised.[62] In the early days of the war, the British delegation at the UN blocked all efforts at a ceasefire (which was felt to hurt the Arabs, who winning the war at this point more than the Israelis) and because of fears that Article 39 of the Chapter 7 of the UN Covenant might involve sanctions against the Arab states.[63] The British changed position on the ceasefire in the spring of 1948 when the Arab armies were in possession of substantial chunks of Palestine with the Egyptians holding much of the Negev and the Jordanians holding a large section of central Palestine.[63] Sir Ronald Ian Campbell, the British Ambassador to Egypt was instructed by Bevin to tell the Egyptian government after the first ceasefire:

"It might be presumed that the period of truce will be utilised by the Jews to establish an effective administration not only in those parts of their November State which are behind the military lines, but also in the Arab areas which they have occupied, such as the Central and Northern Galilee. If the Arabs are to be in a position to bargain on equal terms, it is essential that they should establish some real authority in the areas behind the lines occupied by their forces. This is particularly important in the area to the south of the Egyptian front line. The greater part of this area was awarded to the Jews last November and the Jewish settlements there are still holding out and presumably maintaining contact with Tel Aviv. We shall have great difficulty in supporting the Arab claim to retain this part of Palestine unless it can be shown that it is in fact and not in name only under Arab administration during the truce...."[64]

Finally as part of the diplomatic effort to support the Arab war effort, the British supported an arms embargo, which was felt to favour the Arabs more than the Israelis.[65] The British reasoning behind the arms embargo was that as long as it was in place, the United States would be prevented from supplying arms to Israel, and if the embargo were lifted the United States could supply vastly greater number of weapons to the Israelis than the British could supply arms to the Arabs.[65] source

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Actually the British were in support of the Arab league fighting Israel.

The diplomat Sir John Toutbeck wrote:

"We [and the Arabs] are partners in adversity on this question. A Jewish state is no more in our interest than it is in the Arabs.... Our whole strategy in the ME is founded upon holding a secure base in Egypt, but the usefulness of the base must be gravely impaired if we cannot move out of it except through a hostile country"

IN point of fact, Great Britain was working with the Arabs to defeat Israel

You need to get YOUR facts straight.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
At the time of the 48 war, the Israeli's had no true army, and was already embroiled in a civil war with the Palestinians, the day Israel declared its independence, the Arab League attacked.

quote:

On 20 May, Bevin informed Baron Inverchapel, the British Ambassador to the United States:

"I do not (repeat not) intend in the near future to recognise the Jewish State and still less to support any proposal that it should become a member of the United Nations. In this connection I hope that even through the Americans have recognised the Jewish State de facto they will not commit themselves to any precise recognition of boundaries. It might well be that if the two sides ever accept a compromise it would be on the basis of boundaries differing from those recommended in the Partition Plan of the General Assembly".[62]

In this regard, the British launched a sustained diplomatic offensive to have the United Nations recognize all of the areas taken by the Arabs as belonging to those Arab states, especially Jordan and to reduce the borders of Israel to being more or less what the Peel Plan of 1937 had advised.[62] In the early days of the war, the British delegation at the UN blocked all efforts at a ceasefire (which was felt to hurt the Arabs, who winning the war at this point more than the Israelis) and because of fears that Article 39 of the Chapter 7 of the UN Covenant might involve sanctions against the Arab states.[63] The British changed position on the ceasefire in the spring of 1948 when the Arab armies were in possession of substantial chunks of Palestine with the Egyptians holding much of the Negev and the Jordanians holding a large section of central Palestine.[63] Sir Ronald Ian Campbell, the British Ambassador to Egypt was instructed by Bevin to tell the Egyptian government after the first ceasefire:

"It might be presumed that the period of truce will be utilised by the Jews to establish an effective administration not only in those parts of their November State which are behind the military lines, but also in the Arab areas which they have occupied, such as the Central and Northern Galilee. If the Arabs are to be in a position to bargain on equal terms, it is essential that they should establish some real authority in the areas behind the lines occupied by their forces. This is particularly important in the area to the south of the Egyptian front line. The greater part of this area was awarded to the Jews last November and the Jewish settlements there are still holding out and presumably maintaining contact with Tel Aviv. We shall have great difficulty in supporting the Arab claim to retain this part of Palestine unless it can be shown that it is in fact and not in name only under Arab administration during the truce...."[64]

Finally as part of the diplomatic effort to support the Arab war effort, the British supported an arms embargo, which was felt to favour the Arabs more than the Israelis.[65] The British reasoning behind the arms embargo was that as long as it was in place, the United States would be prevented from supplying arms to Israel, and if the embargo were lifted the United States could supply vastly greater number of weapons to the Israelis than the British could supply arms to the Arabs.[65] source

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

I must be the odd man out. I have friends that are Israeli and friends that are Palestinians. Now I am not going to say what each side is doing is the right thing to do, but I can see where each side has their justification for the actions their peoples have taken over the years.

Here is the problem.

I have come across people who are so blindly against Israel that they wont even look at sources that prove there are two sides to the problem.

IN 1948, the UN established TWO homelands in Palestine.



Now the problem is that only one side accepted this and that was Israel. Immediately after the formation of the Nation of Israel, it was attacked by its Arab neighbors.

In fact Israel was attacked by several countries each time in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1974 and the goal of those attacks was to erase Israel from the map.

Now there is hypocrisy involved in these attacks on Israel for its recent activities.

In the case of each person that have made anti Israel or anti Semitic arguments, their own country has a history of ethnic oppression of indigenous people, which in many ways is still going on. They seem to rejoice in the deaths of Israeli civilians and mourn the deaths of Palestinians who die in the reprisal attacks.

I wish to point out a given historic, albeit borderline on myth, reason that the favoring of one over the other is not only stupid, but makes no sense.

The Jews, Palestinians and Arabs claim one patriarch as the father of their races, that patriarch being Abraham.

The good news is that the genetics of Arabs and Jews have been pretty extensively researched. The classic study dates to 2000, from a team lead by Michael Hammer of University of Arizona. They looked at Y-chromosome haplotypes - this is the genetic material passed from father to son down the generations.

What they revealed was that Arabs and Jews are essentially a single population, and that Palestinians are slap bang in the middle of the different Jewish populations (as shown in this figure).

so there is some scientific proof to the common patriarch belief.

But what I cant wrap my head around is how people can condemn the Israelis for doing things that are in their own national history.

People on both sides are dieing, and that is a tragedy.

What is worse is that genetically, they are all related to each other.

quote:

Example Death certificate from Auschwitz


According to the official death books, there were 400,000 prisoners at Auschwitz

Half Israelis - 200,000

Of that number, 30,000 died
15%

Also according to the official death books, the other 200,000 breaks down like this

165,000 Catholics
12,300 Eastern Orthodox
11,600 Protestants
5,500 Greek Catholics
9,700 Other, including 5 Muslims and 387 Jehovah's Witnesses

of these numbers:

Almost 32,000 Catholics died, almost 2,500 Eastern Orthodox died, almost 2,300 Protestants died, over 1,000 Greek Catholics died

In other words:

82.5%
Of the Catholics died

20.3%
Of the Eastern Orthodox died

19.8%
Of the protestants died

18.2%
Of the Greek Catholics died

Compared to 15% of the Israelis

quote:

82.5%
Of the Catholics died

quote:

ORIGINAL: thezeppo

Wow, this has really strayed from the topic title!

I wouldn't consider myself as qualified as others here to speak on Israel post 1948, but if people are looking for a nation to blame for the whole mess then might I suggest my own? Quite apart from the cultural fascination with Palestine in the 19th Century, Lord Palmerston (foreign sec. at the time and the last British PM to die in office dontchaknow) clearly viewed Ottoman Palestine as strategically important judging by the reaction to Mehmet Ali's control of Egypt from 1832. Jewish immigration into Palestine (or Bilad Al-Sham as it was then) can be seen as far back as 1891, although obviously there was a small indigenous Jewish population. Israeli narratives can trace the Jewish claim to Palestine back to Roman times, whereas the Palestinian narratives stretch just as far. Both have a claim on the land, so to consider one group interlopers or usurpers of the others position is a major simplification, particularly if such a suggestion takes 1948 as its starting point.

Ultimately it was the British who maintained the Ottoman Empire in 19th Century to maintain strategic and economic interests; It was the British who promised the Arab population an independent land through the 1916 Mcmahon-Hussein talks; It was the British who broadcast the Balfour Declaration, declaring their support for Zionism in a misguided attempt to appeal to Jews in Germany. It was the British who claimed responsibility for Palestine during the mandate period and in the Sykes-Picot agreements of 1916, and it was the British who encouraged both groups during the mandate period. I would argue that the major reason conflicts in the East are still ongoing today is because the British policy throughout the inter-war period was to maintain and sustain the Empire in the face of the support for Wilsonian principles of nationalism and self-determination. The British were arrogant enough to presume they could manage calls for self-determination from either side, because if you weren't British you were backwards, malleable and easily-led. Before 1914 there was no Palestinian nationalism as we understand it, Pan-Arabian nationalism was just as likely to rise to the forefront. Out of a total of 12 million Jews, 127,000 were Zionists. It was the actions of the British that created and maintained this conflict.

The British role tends to be marginalised today as competing Palestinian and Israeli historiographies attempt to assert the national identity of their respective group over the other, but that should in no way be taken to mean that we weren't absolute bastards.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thezeppo
I would argue that had the British not become involved, Palestinian nationalism may not have emerged to the polemical extent that it did.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thezeppo

@politesub
Certainly not directly, his time was up before Zionism was a going concern. I was suggesting the British inter-war policy regarding the East was a continuation of Palmerston's 19th Century policies. You are completely right, the two-state solution had been suggested before and by that point there really was no other alternative.

I would argue that had the British not become involved, Palestinian nationalism may not have emerged to the polemical extent that it did. There still would have been anti-Zionist sentiment across the neighbouring lands, of course, but it may not have developed to the degree it has today. I guess we can never really know for sure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

Zionism was a going concern in the 1920s, and the British were allowing Jewish immigrants to have land in increasing amounts. This encroachment was the rationalization for the Ikwhan death squads that lead in a direct line to Muslim SS units, and then Hamas.

It is stock in trade of the revisionist Holocaust deniers to handwave away everything from Dreyfus to the end of WWII, and pretend that there was never any violence against Jews that they didn't deserve for creating Israel.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

Zionism was a going concern in the 1920s, and the British were allowing Jewish immigrants to have land in increasing amounts. This encroachment was the rationalization for the Ikwhan death squads that lead in a direct line to Muslim SS units, and then Hamas.

It is stock in trade of the revisionist Holocaust deniers to handwave away everything from Dreyfus to the end of WWII, and pretend that there was never any violence against Jews that they didn't deserve for creating Israel.

It is a crass assertion to suggest anyone debating the subject not to your liking is a "revisionist holocaust denier"