Israel - The Right to exist as a State?

[MHz]

Fact is the Arabs scared their own people to get them out of the way. As the UN voted, the Arab armies attacked. By the way, I didn't use a link, get your facts straight, I know the history.

"In May, 1948, the Arab States responded to the creation of the UN-mandated Jewish State of Israel with a 5-power attack by regular armies, from Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan, together with armed Palestinians, and armed Arab volunteers,
including Moslem Brotherhood elements.

Perhaps you should look up the history as there is a gap of months between the UN vote and the involvement of the Arab Nations. In that time some 650,000 were forced to flee or be killed by the Jewish Militia of the time.

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181

November 29, 1947

 

[damngrumpy]

darkbeaver here we go time for some personal insults. How could that even be
judged as anti semitism did you read what I said? I said the Israelis had a right
to exist and that the Arab world must integrate itself into the rest of the world
society if they wanted any sympathy. By integrating their society into the rest of
the world they would in turn abandoned their reckless behaviour that gets them
into so much trouble. I particularly resent being called an anti Semite, as my
daughter in law is Jewish and from Israel. My grand daughter is also Jewish.
If you were saying it because it was true so be it, but you are saying it because
you appear to be blind to any other view except your own on this subject.
It is time to look at this problem in real time and not from the past or the future
scope of events. We cannot change the past but we can discuss the present
with the hope of having a better future and at present it is not likely to happen
when people won't even look at the problems realistically.
Read it again I was more than fair to Israel therefore nothing said there was in
any way anti semite.

 

[Cliffy]

Damngrumpy, if you read some of beavers other posts today, he is saying that the only Semitic people in the ME are Palestinian Arabs. Most Jews are of such mixed European blood as to not be qualified as Semitic.

 

[damngrumpy]

Cliffy that explains everything just like the weird world of a wax museum it may be a
likeness but there is little substance

 

[ironsides]

Cliffy that explains everything just like the weird world of a wax museum it may be a
likeness but there is little substance

Great reply.



No idea what was going thru the heads of the Arab leaders at the time (1947-48 ), if it was up to me, I would have gotten the local Arabs more involved even if it just caused confusion for the Israelis. The Palestinians must be trouble makers or there is some other reason no Arab Nation (Egypt, Syria, Jordan Iraq or Iran) are willing to offer the Palestinians sanctuary till the shooting stops. Jordan tried and pushed them out.

Damngrumpy, if you read some of beavers other posts today, he is saying that the only Semitic people in the ME are Palestinian Arabs. Most Jews are of such mixed European blood as to not be qualified as Semitic.

Anti-Semitism (alternatively spelled antisemitism) is hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group, which can range from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution. Nothing to do with any other religious or racial group.


You must be a rabid anti-dentite.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ythrdCsOFJU

 

[lone wolf]

...kinda like calling all Americans Yankees

 

[ironsides]

Isn't that what were called, except Damn Yankees down south

 

[lone wolf]

I suppose among US Americans - but the Americas is a lot more than 49 states

 

[darkbeaver]

darkbeaver here we go time for some personal insults. How could that even be
judged as anti semitism did you read what I said? I said the Israelis had a right
to exist and that the Arab world must integrate itself into the rest of the world
society if they wanted any sympathy. By integrating their society into the rest of
the world they would in turn abandoned their reckless behaviour that gets them
into so much trouble. I particularly resent being called an anti Semite, as my
daughter in law is Jewish and from Israel. My grand daughter is also Jewish.
If you were saying it because it was true so be it, but you are saying it because
you appear to be blind to any other view except your own on this subject.
It is time to look at this problem in real time and not from the past or the future
scope of events. We cannot change the past but we can discuss the present
with the hope of having a better future and at present it is not likely to happen
when people won't even look at the problems realistically.
Read it again I was more than fair to Israel therefore nothing said there was in
any way anti semite.

So she's jewish and from Israel and probably a damn nice person, but is she a semite? The past is changed on a dayly basis and has been for all my life, and the lives of most of my ancestors back to the beginning of civilization. Control of the past ensures control of the present and the future. I read every available word you post, you write like I wish I could. I'm not surprised or hurt that you don't read me. Thankyou for your participation in a testy but absolutely vital topic.

 

[ironsides]

I suppose among US Americans - but the Americas is a lot more than 49 states

Geographically your right, but when someone refers to Americans they usually mean a U.S. citizen.

 

[darkbeaver]

Anti semite, anti jew, anti zionist where is the pea?

 

[Goober]

Anti semite, anti jew, anti zionist where is the pea?

Its in your head.

 

[damngrumpy]

darkbeaver I do sometimes read your material and there are times I agree, and others I do not,
but in this case I do not agree with you that what I said was anti Semite, or anything else.
I have many friends of different back grounds, some are Jewish and some are Muslim, and even
the those who are Bahia's. I listen to all kinds of points of view, but this time I take issue with the
fact that anti-Semite is being used in this manner. Someone who is anti-Semite is someone who
is in fact anti Israeli Jewish people, whether in the minds of what most reasonable people believe,
and in fact by definition. Those who are Jewish regardless of where they are from, or where they
live, who are being discriminated against are in fact under attack by anti-Semites.
What I was saying was that it takes two to tango in the Middle East which is an entity unto itself.
Look at recent events. Almost everyday, the two sides are trying to find new ways to kill each other
because it has become normal practice. In the midst of the chaos a forest fire breaks out and low
and behold, Arab and Israeli alike, Jew or Muslim it makes no difference they fight the fire.
Muslim Arabs came from other countries to fight the forest fire, people forgot about travelling
through each others airspace to fight the fire. If they can do it for a day they can do it everyday.
What we have is a feud a family feud at that, that has gone on for centuries and only they can bring
it to an end.
Israel has the right to exist and live in peace with its neighbours. Having said that, both combatants
must find a way to create and foster a healthy Palestinian State, so that all peoples can live in peace.
The first step to doing that is, they must stop killing each other, and the parents who are supposed
to set an example on both sides, had better address the Hatred issue.
Why did the Palestinians get thrown out of Jordan? Because when the camps were there the
radical fringe, groups used those camps to attack Israel with suicide bombers and raiders.
The same group then moved on to Lebanon and continued their attacks from there.
This does not excuse the tactics of the Israeli State. The concept of destroying the houses and other
building in retaliation is the same tactics Hitlers armies of occupation used in Easter Europe,
that included Poland and the Ukraine. Israel must share the responsibility for the problems that now
exist. But if both sides are going to stop the killing and destruction, then the old hatred must be set
aside. If there is going to be a new beginning West Bank Settlement expansion must end and real
and meaningful talks must begin. WE in the West or the Europeans cannot impose a peace on these
people, peace comes from the heart not the barrel of a gun and again it takes two to tango in war and
in peace, what is anti Semite about that?

 

[lone wolf]

I love how this text has turned a most delightful shade of sarcastic purple....

 

[earth_as_one]

DamnGrumpy... I recognize your viewpoint regarding Israel's origins. I used to share a similar viewpoint. But as I learned new facts about this old conflict, my viewpoint changed. I doubt you have heard of the "New Historians". They are a group of Jewish Israeli historians who have exploded commonly held perceptions regarding Israel's origins mostly based on declassified documents in Israeli and European archives, as well as interviews of the people who were involved in the events on all sides. Their conclusions regarding Israel's early history are widely accepted in academic circles, but not widely disseminated. I suggest you consider their conclusions:

The "New Historians":
The New Historians are a loosely-defined group of Israeli historians who have challenged traditional assumptions about Israeli history, including its role in the Palestinian Exodus in 1948 and Arab willingness to discuss peace.

Main arguments

Avi Shlaim described the New Historian's differences from the "official history" in the following terms, however it should be noted that Israel has no official history and that the new historians do not represent a unified body of thought. In addition Israeli understanding of national history has changed over the years, partially incorporating the ideas of the new historians. According to Shlaim:

* The official version said that Britain tried to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state; the New Historians claimed that it tried to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state

* The official version said that the Palestinians fled their homes of their own free will; the New Historians said that the refugees were chased out or expelled‎

* The official version said that the balance of power was in favour of the Arabs; the New Historians said that Israel had the advantage both in manpower and in arms

* The official version said that the Arabs had a coordinated plan to destroy Israel; the New Historians said that the Arabs were divided

* The official version said that Arab intransigence prevented peace; the New Historians said that Israel is primarily to blame for the dead end.[2]

Pappé suggests that the Zionist leaders aimed to displace most Palestinian Arabs; Morris sees the displacement happening in the heat of war. According to the New Historians, Israel and Arab countries each have their share of responsibility for the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian plight.[2]

New Historians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After considering the new facts and evidence uncovered by the New Historians, my current opinion regarding Israel's origin tends to align with conclusions reached by New Historian Ilan Pappe.

A CONVERSATION WITH ILAN PAPPE: LOGOS WINTER 2004

For completeness here are links to the the viewpoints of other important New Historians:

Benny Morris:
http://www.logosjournal.com/morris.pdf

Tom Segev:
Conversation with Tom Segev, p. 1 of 7

Avi Schlaim
AVI SHLAIM ON ARIEL SHARON: LOGOS SUMMER 2004

 

[CDNBear]

Well Bear, coming from somebody who professes to have some knowledge of steel and still you promote the 'official version' that weakened and sagging floor joist in the two towers were still strong enough to pull in both inner and outer columns to the point of breaking them pretty much eliminates me believing anything you promote as 'the truth'.

Of course, because logic fails you, oft and without prejudice.

An Israeli PR campaign isn't going to change the facts one bit.

But you cited Arabs that proved my opinion correct. Again, an act of logic failing you, oft and without prejudice.

Trying to change history are you?

You're projecting again.

Report: Israel building Arab ghettos
Arab Association for Human Rights reveals that increasing number of fences and ramparts built to separate Arabs from Jews in Israel

Report: Israel building Arab ghettos - Israel News, Ynetnews

Building fences, ramparts, or walls, does not a ghetto make. But nice try anyways. This is why you aren't just merely criticizing Israels policies, but are something far worse.

The "New Historians":

read: revisionists.

Even one of the most outspoken members Benny Morris, is on record stating that as new material was made available, he has changed his position.

But I guess you read his book, The Birth od the Palestinian Refugee Problem (1988), (Although I highly doubt that, that would mean you would have had to read through views he has that don't jive with yours) and think its the end all.

I've read all his books. He is one of the most balanced authors on the subject, if you ask me. Condemning Israeli policy as well Arab and Palestinian. EQUALLY!!!, But you wouldn't know that, sine you only cherry pick your material to smear Israel.

Again showing us what you really are.

 

[Colpy]

DamnGrumpy... I recognize your viewpoint regarding Israel's origins. I used to share a similar viewpoint. But as I learned new facts about this old conflict, my viewpoint changed. I doubt you have heard of the "New Historians". They are a group of Jewish Israeli historians who have exploded commonly held perceptions regarding Israel's origins mostly based on declassified documents in Israeli and European archives, as well as interviews of the people who were involved in the events on all sides. Their conclusions regarding Israel's early history are widely accepted in academic circles, but not widely disseminated. I suggest you consider their conclusions:

The "New Historians":
The New Historians are a loosely-defined group of Israeli historians who have challenged traditional assumptions about Israeli history, including its role in the Palestinian Exodus in 1948 and Arab willingness to discuss peace.

Main arguments

Avi Shlaim described the New Historian's differences from the "official history" in the following terms, however it should be noted that Israel has no official history and that the new historians do not represent a unified body of thought. In addition Israeli understanding of national history has changed over the years, partially incorporating the ideas of the new historians. According to Shlaim:

* The official version said that Britain tried to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state; the New Historians claimed that it tried to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state

* The official version said that the Palestinians fled their homes of their own free will; the New Historians said that the refugees were chased out or expelled‎

* The official version said that the balance of power was in favour of the Arabs; the New Historians said that Israel had the advantage both in manpower and in arms

* The official version said that the Arabs had a coordinated plan to destroy Israel; the New Historians said that the Arabs were divided

* The official version said that Arab intransigence prevented peace; the New Historians said that Israel is primarily to blame for the dead end.[2]

Pappé suggests that the Zionist leaders aimed to displace most Palestinian Arabs; Morris sees the displacement happening in the heat of war. According to the New Historians, Israel and Arab countries each have their share of responsibility for the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian plight.[2]

New Historians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After considering the new facts and evidence uncovered by the New Historians, my current opinion regarding Israel's origin tends to align with conclusions reached by New Historian Ilan Pappe.

A CONVERSATION WITH ILAN PAPPE: LOGOS WINTER 2004

For completeness here are links to the the viewpoints of other important New Historians:

Benny Morris:
http://www.logosjournal.com/morris.pdf

Tom Segev:
Conversation with Tom Segev, p. 1 of 7

Avi Schlaim
AVI SHLAIM ON ARIEL SHARON: LOGOS SUMMER 2004

Okay.

I actually have an education in history, and this is bull****.........for a number of reasons.

But one reason is so glaring, that is overwhelms all the others.

According to Ethan Bronner of The New York Times, the New Historians sought to advance the peace process.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Historians#cite_note-0

New Historians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History written with an agenda is NOT history, it is propaganda.

 

[darkbeaver]

darkbeaver I do sometimes read your material and there are times I agree, and others I do not,
but in this case I do not agree with you that what I said was anti Semite, or anything else.
I have many friends of different back grounds, some are Jewish and some are Muslim, and even
the those who are Bahia's. I listen to all kinds of points of view, but this time I take issue with the
fact that anti-Semite is being used in this manner. Someone who is anti-Semite is someone who
is in fact anti Israeli Jewish people, whether in the minds of what most reasonable people believe,
and in fact by definition. Those who are Jewish regardless of where they are from, or where they
live, who are being discriminated against are in fact under attack by anti-Semites.
What I was saying was that it takes two to tango in the Middle East which is an entity unto itself.
Look at recent events. Almost everyday, the two sides are trying to find new ways to kill each other
because it has become normal practice. In the midst of the chaos a forest fire breaks out and low
and behold, Arab and Israeli alike, Jew or Muslim it makes no difference they fight the fire.
Muslim Arabs came from other countries to fight the forest fire, people forgot about travelling
through each others airspace to fight the fire. If they can do it for a day they can do it everyday.
What we have is a feud a family feud at that, that has gone on for centuries and only they can bring
it to an end.
Israel has the right to exist and live in peace with its neighbours. Having said that, both combatants
must find a way to create and foster a healthy Palestinian State, so that all peoples can live in peace.
The first step to doing that is, they must stop killing each other, and the parents who are supposed
to set an example on both sides, had better address the Hatred issue.
Why did the Palestinians get thrown out of Jordan? Because when the camps were there the
radical fringe, groups used those camps to attack Israel with suicide bombers and raiders.
The same group then moved on to Lebanon and continued their attacks from there.
This does not excuse the tactics of the Israeli State. The concept of destroying the houses and other
building in retaliation is the same tactics Hitlers armies of occupation used in Easter Europe,
that included Poland and the Ukraine. Israel must share the responsibility for the problems that now
exist. But if both sides are going to stop the killing and destruction, then the old hatred must be set
aside. If there is going to be a new beginning West Bank Settlement expansion must end and real
and meaningful talks must begin. WE in the West or the Europeans cannot impose a peace on these
people, peace comes from the heart not the barrel of a gun and again it takes two to tango in war and
in peace, what is anti Semite about that?

I provided the dictionary meaning of semite and still you don't recognize that in the post that originated our discussion you definitly engaged in anti semitic slurs of the second class semites. It is my contention that the word semite has been coopted to fit the zionist need for a definitive link to the ME. That link is an ad hoc construct pure and simple. I would also note that your plea for inclusive blame and a joint solution is entirely unrealistic simply and inexorably rendered unworkable because of the overwhelming disparity of arms and money. What you seem to consider fair and balanced is that the Palestinians take responsibility for their own violent displacement and the genocide conducted on them. I refuse to refine my position to fit the politically correct notions such as it taking two to tango, Palestinians have no shoes and can't hear the music. You believe that this is a fair fight and I know that it isn't. Their is no history of conflict between Israel and Palestine before 1900. If we are to believe the Zionist claims of birth rights to Palestine we must also understand that they are conducting genocide on their own kin. It is very silly to insist that any attack on Jews Israelis and or Zionists is anti semitic when in truth there is every reason other than blind dumb hatred simply because of religion.
I use to engage in religion bashing in these threads, particularly christians because of my own past association with organized god marketing. I realized early on that it was counter productive to get sucked into that old con of an argument as concerns position. Religion is simply not worth fighting for nor does it interest me except as an historical artifact, like thumbscrews, the rack or the whip. It is a fence with which you may hide behind and sling **** at your neighbours but it is completely unassociated with god or good.It is simply an insturement of discord and war designed long ago by the lids suits and crowns. Jew christian muslim, who cares, are you murdering your neighbours and destroying their homes and farms? If so then you're evil pricks and you will get justice sooner or later.
Until you reconsider your racist feelings about semitic Arabs I will easily class you (by dictionary definition) as anti semitic.

Okay.

I actually have an education in history, and this is bull****.........for a number of reasons.

But one reason is so glaring, that is overwhelms all the others.



New Historians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History written with an agenda is NOT history, it is propaganda.

You still think you have an education in history, even when most of the thinking world knows most of conventionally taught history is anything but historically accurate. So while you may have paid for a history degree you don't know enough about history to know that you got squat for the coin. In fact you are actually educated in disinformation. What is the history of this mythical period of truth in history classes? It is funny that you quote the heavily agendized Wikidpedia (above) now one of the biggest propaganda organs in the world. Wikipedia is Orwells Ministry of Truth and you ain't ever going to see like Winston finally did.

 

[ironsides]

No peace negotiations by Hamas until the question of who owns Jerusalem is settled. Palestinians refuses to budge on the issue, everything else will just have to wait. Hamas is the one in this case holding up any hope of a peace settlement. Israel will not give up Jerusalem, but probably could be persuaded to allow the Palestinians a section and access Muslim Holy places. No weapons of any kind near any holy places.

 

[lone wolf]

Wasn't Jerusalem supposed to be neutral - according to the oft-maligned Res 181?