Seems no one wants to touch this.
LOL!
Win to Olmert? Yeah, if evading the issue with comments like, "don't listen to him, no one listens to him" are considered well-thought-out rejoinders that win debates!
Rabbi Kahane won this one because fools like Olmert didn't have the answers then, and they don't have the answers now. They lead their people further and further down the past of destruction.
Oh, and DB, he is Rabbi Meir Kahane. Absent honorifics may cause people to think that you (Heaven forfend) are biased...
By the way, I posted this very debate almost a year ago. 
Are you out of your mind? Fact is that olmert has pretty much conceded Rav Kahane's point re demographics when he joined up with sharon to destroy Jewish communities because of the very demographic problem he claimed didn't exist in his debate with Rav Kahane. Kopel pretty much just tries to get olmert to answer the darn questions but he evades with stock answers empty of any content.
Next you will tell me that Dershowitz won his debate with Rav Kahane as well! (even Dershowitz admited afterwards that he was creamed!)
Yes Virginia, there is a Jewish KKK.
Kahanism is about Jewish superiority over the rest of the human race, no thinking person is fooled that it's anything else.
It's Jewish fascism masquerading as "Torah-true" Judaism and Jewish nationalism.
And metastisizing into all orthodoxy.
Olmert: "I don't think I have to give - at this time - a definite answer".
Olmert: "Rabbi Kahane provokes emotions of people"
Kahane: "Who is wise - he who can see tomorrow"
Kahane: "The contempt that Mr. Olmert has for arabs is incredible. There isn't one arab that enjoys living in a state that is officially called the "Jewish State""
Kahane: I'm a Jew living in a Jewish state and I don't care what the arabs think. I offer them the only choice possible: Live happily in any of your 22 countries with your own people and let me live in my one country.
Olmert: I believe that the overwhelming majority of Israelis will live in peace with Arabs.
That is winning the debate?
Kahane's vision is defective:
1) Just because the Arab birthrate is Israel is now higher than the Jewish birthrate doesn't mean it will be that way forever. In fact, birthrates all over the developing world are dropping as people realize that large families make not sense in an urbanized society. So while the relative proportion of Israeli Arabs to the total Israeli electorate will rise some, they probably will never outnumber the Jews. (By the way, this is probably the reason why the Orthodox Jews, despite their currently higher birth rate, will probably not take over the Jewish people. At some point, the large families will not be sustainable.)
2) For the Arabs to democratically "eliminate" the Jewish State of Israel, they would have to be 50.1% of the Israeli electorate AND vote for political parties that advocate turning Israel into a non-Jewish state.
What will be more interesting is that at some point, the Arab vote might become large enough that the Zionist political parties will want to make real efforts to attract Arab voters or make coalitions with Arab parties in which the Arab parties have some real power. I suspect, in exchange for the support of Arab parties, such an Israeli government would need to provide adequate financial support to the Arab sector. To do so, they will obviously have to cut funding to some other part of the Jewish sector. Support of the hareidi insitudtions would be an obvious choice.
This, of course, only deals with Israelis and Arabs living inside the Green Line, where the Arabs are citizens with theoretically equal rights. There are a lot more Arabs in the territories, and the Israelis would have a problem if they gave them the vote. Which explains the apartheid situation that exists there. Of course, that can be dealt with easily enough by putting the Jewish settlers under the rule of the Palestinian authority, where they would have equal right, just like the Israeli Arabs have equal rights in Israel.
Of course, from the point of view of the worldwide Jewish people, it probably wouldn't be the end of the word if Israel democratically gives up being a Jewish state, at least as long as the rights of the Jewish citizens are respected. One can hope that such an elimination of the State of Israel might lead to a de-hareidizaion of Orthodox Judaism by eliminating state funding for hareidi educational institutions.
Are you out of your mind? Fact is that olmert has pretty much conceded Rav Kahane's point re demographics when he joined up with sharon to destroy Jewish communities because of the very demographic problem he claimed didn't exist in his debate with Rav Kahane.
Olmert and Sharon were dealing with the demographic problem of the territories. Kahane was claiming that this demographic problem exists within the Green Line. Of course, to Kahane, there's no difference as he is under the mistaken notion that the Jewish people's claim to the Land of Israel comes from God's promise in the Torah. In reality, of course, the Jewish claim to Israel comes form the Balfour Declaration/League of Nations mandate and the UN Partition Resolution of 1947.
Live happily in any of your 22 countries with your own people and let me live in my one country.
One of their 22 countries is your country! Palestine is one of the 22 Arab countries. I amazes me how far-right in Israel constantly fails to realize that the 22 Arab countries are the 22 members of the Arab league.
In reality, of course, the Jewish claim to Israel comes form the Balfour Declaration/League of Nations mandate and the UN Partition Resolution of 1947.
The Jewish claim to the territory probably preceded the League, but they formalized it in a legal way.
Live happily in any of your 22 countries with your own people and let me live in my one country.
One of the morally bankrupt arguments of all time. As Ted Koppel pointed out, there are Arabs living in Israel who have lived there for generations, whose ancestors were there before the first European Jew returned, and they do not wish to leave.
Oh, and DB, he is Rabbi Meir Kahane. Absent honorifics may cause people to think that you (Heaven forfend) are biased...
Are you new to this blog? I almost never use titles like Rabbi, or doctor. Dont get hung up on little nothings
Liorah, you are spewing ad hominems instead of responding to Rabbi Kahane's points. Why don't you respond to his content?
CA, basically, according to you, anyone who believes God gave the Jews Israel is mistaken in the same way you claim Kahane is.
Absent honorifics may cause people to think that you (Heaven forfend) are biased...
Are you new to this blog?
Oh don't worry, I am not new, and I know you have your biases...or were you referring to the honorifics? 
What amazes me here is not that you guys are against Rabbi Kahane. I knew that long ago, and never expected anything else. What DOES surprise me is the knee-jerk reaction of DB, Liorah and CA that makes them immediately believe that Kahane lost the debate. You can believe someone is wrong, and still concede that they won a debate. When considering the implied question DB poses: who won this debate, you have to be able to separate between your personal feelings and the arguments and points of teh debate. When you listen to this particular debate, only one who cannot distinguish between their personal feelings and an objective accounting of the debate could say that Olmert won.
Come on.
Liorah, you are spewing ad hominems instead of responding to Rabbi Kahane's points. Why don't you respond to his content?
You have to understand that to many people, Rabbi Kahane's views about the Arabs are analagous to David Duke's views about the Jews. That's an overstatement, but people are going to react negatively to someone who calls for expelling millions of people from their homes.
Since most us wouldn't take the time to respond to Duke's arguments, many people do to the same to Rabbi Kahane.
>That's an overstatement, but people are going to react negatively to someone who calls for expelling millions of people from their homes.
As long as those people are arabs and not Jews.
Its amazing that everyone here is applying a moral standard that has NEVER been employed by anyone in the world until the late part of the last century. Population transfers have been used to resolve difficult situations throughout human history and sometimes (often times) its the lesser of all evils to do so.
To argue otherwise is to ignore human nature, history, and the morality of the Torah and of common sense.
It was almost a 100 years ago that the nobel peace prize was given to a man who orchastrated the population transfer of both greeks and turks in order to avoid prolonged conflict. today, the world is so twisted that arafat and peres can win such a prize.
Liorah, how do you feel about Sharon? He expelled thousands of people from their homes, causing tremendous suffering and family problems. And as for Olmert: have you seen the video of what he did in Amona??
Do you have the same vitriol for them as you do for Rabbi Kahane?
Rabbi Kahane's positions are a response to a number of factors which he considered existential dangers to the existence of Israel. Calling him names or the "Jewish KKK" does not magically erase the issues he raises. So it is incumbent upon us to deal with the message, and not try to kill the messenger.
(And Liorah, Rabbi Kahane was not "all about the superiority of the Jewish race". What is the Jewish race, anyway? What a silly statement. Judaism is a nation and a religion, not a race. Go to Israel and you will see African, Asian, European, Middle Eastern Jews. A Jew is a Jew. So whatever you wish to call him, he was not a rascist.)
By the way, the very factors that he wrote about and that you brand him a 'rascist' for, are ones that were specifically mentioned by Sharon as a reason for the Disengagement. And no, CA, it was not only in the 'territories' that he mentioned the demographic issue. The point was that Israel could not keep Gaza as it would badly affect a Jewish majority in the forseeable future. Disengagment was the opposite response to the same issues Rabbi Kahane brought up.
I guess when Jews expel Jews, its not as morally reprehensible in liberal eyes than when Jews expel anyone else.
As long as those people are arabs and not Jews.
There's a difference between expelling people to a foreign country and using eminent domain power to bring people into their country.
Its amazing that everyone here is applying a moral standard that has NEVER been employed by anyone in the world until the late part of the last century. Population transfers have been used to resolve difficult situations throughout human history and sometimes (often times) its the lesser of all evils to do so.
Genocide has worked too. I think most people would argue that we have evolved morally since WWII (or at least are trying to make the effort).
It was almost a 100 years ago that the nobel peace prize was given to a man who orchastrated the population transfer of both greeks and turks in order to avoid prolonged conflict. today, the world is so twisted that arafat and peres can win such a prize.
I don't get this argument at all. Just because something was viewed positively 100 years ago does not mean it is still morally proper.
Rabbi Kahane's positions are a response to a number of factors which he considered existential dangers to the existence of Israel. Calling him names or the "Jewish KKK" does not magically erase the issues he raises. So it is incumbent upon us to deal with the message, and not try to kill the messenger.
While I consider Rabbi Kahane's solutions reprehensible, I agree that his policies were the result of very real problems. His arguments should be taken seriously. Duke just made up the problems to justify the solutions.
BTW I want to go on record to say that what has happened to the Gaza residents since Disengagement is obscene. How the government didn't have any real plan for what to do with all those people is beyond me.
and I know you have your biases...
Stop being silly. There's no such thing as a man without biases. You have yours. I have mine. Can we move on?
implied question DB poses: who won this debate,
Kahana lost it that night 20 years ago; more importantly, his argument failed to carry the day, and lies defeated, thank god, in the dustbin of history.
That's an overstatement, but people are going to react negatively to someone who calls for expelling millions of people from their homes.
let me fix your type
That's an overstatement, but MORAL, KIND HEARTED INTELLIGANT JEWISH people WHO KNOW THEIR OWN HISTORY are going to react negatively to someone who calls for expelling millions of people from their homes.
>That's an overstatement, but people are going to react negatively to someone who calls for expelling millions of people from their homes.
As long as those people are arabs and not Jews.
You're comparing two things that are not alike. And you know it.
Its amazing that everyone here is applying a moral standard that has NEVER been employed by anyone in the world until the late part of the last century. Population transfers have been used to resolve difficult situations throughout human history and sometimes (often times) its the lesser of all evils to do so.
Oooh. better say it this way
Its amazing that everyone here is applying a moral standard that has NEVER been employed by anyone in the world until the late part of the last century. SLAVERY was used to resolve difficult situations throughout human history blah blah.
Once upon people also ate their own kids. And worshiped idols. Are you ACTUALLY going to come here and argue that the old ways are better just because they were the old ways????
To argue otherwise is to ignore human nature, history, and the morality of the Torah and of common sense.
I don't mean to be rude, but this sentance said nothing.
Its amazing that everyone here is applying a moral standard that has NEVER been employed by anyone in the world until the late part of the last century. Population transfers have been used to resolve difficult situations throughout human history and sometimes (often times) its the lesser of all evils to do so.
So has slavery. The views on that have evolved over time, too.
I don't think anyone here is criticizing pre-modern cultures for using population transfers per se. The issue is that Kahanists want to use that precedent as a "get out of jail free" card when people point out that there are serious ethical dilemmas with employing this practice, at any time but particularly in the modern age which puts a greater emphasis on individual rights. That's like suggesting that since plenty of ancient cultures practiced human sacrifice that it should be "on the table" as a legitimate form of religious expression. Nope, sorry. If there is any argument to be made for deporting over 1 million citizens who have committed no crime, its proponents' first responsibility must be to address the inherent moral issues, not hide behind the platitude of, "but there's historical precedent!"
You mentioned the Gush Katif residents. I'm not sure how you can oppose what happened to them while defending Kahane's position of expelling oodles of Israeli Arabs. I still struggle with whether the decision to remove them from Gaza was justified or not, and, like Nephtuli, am ashamed of their treatment in the years since.
So whatever you wish to call him, he was not a rascist.
"Merely" being an ethno-religious chauvinist is hardly much better.
Kahana lost it that night 20 years ago
Based on what, the arguments Olmert put forth (snort) or your general disagreement with his views?
If the latter, that is not called losing a debate, my friend.
Based on what, the arguments Olmert put forth (snort) or your general disagreement with his views?
Based on his inability to resolve the central flaw in his reasoning. The Arabs were there before he was, on land they purchased or inherited from others who had purchased it, and THEY WISH TO STAY THERE.
I'm actually a little embaressed by the arguments Chardal puts forth... as if the fact that men were once brutes requires us all to be brutes for ever more.
Oh well. What can you expect from someone who thinks you grill chicken paprikash (shudder)
DB, what you are saying is that in order to win a debate, he has to convince you that he is right. That is not the definition of losing a debate!
I am trying to figure out if you do this kind of thing on purpose or by accident DB. You claim he lost a debate, but then it turns out that what you really meant to say is, "look, here they are arguing, and now Olmert is the last man standing, I sure am glad".
You claim he lost the debate. The definition of losing a debate is when the other side adequately responds to your points, while you are unable to do so to their points. Olmert lost this debate, not Rabbi Kahane. Now, whether or not RK is right, is another question.
You mentioned the Gush Katif residents. I'm not sure how you can oppose what happened to them while defending Kahane's position of expelling oodles of Israeli Arabs.
You said it yourself. It's because they are ethno-religious chauvinists who dress themselves up in psukim.
You claim he lost the debate.
He did. He gave no satisfactory answer to Koppel's question, and that exposed him as the hate-filled fraud he was.
exposed him as the hate-filled fraud he was.
See, the debate always comes down to this. I guess this is why you assume Olmert won the debate, because sentences like this you actually perceive to have value beyond vicious ad hominems.
Based on his inability to resolve the central flaw in his reasoning. The Arabs were there before he was, on land they purchased or inherited from others who had purchased it, and THEY WISH TO STAY THERE.
Majority of the land in Ottoman controlled Palestine was government owned, so very few Palestinians actually owned land before 1948. But that doesn't really affect the argument either way in my mind.
>Kahanism is about Jewish superiority over the rest of the human race,
Liorah, can you back this up?
It's because they are ethno-religious chauvinists who dress themselves up in psukim.
DB, are you not above the mud-slinging? I never called you names -- why are you calling me names?
Majority of the land in Ottoman controlled Palestine was government owned, so very few Palestinians actually owned land before 1948. But that doesn't really affect the argument either way in my mind.
Irrelevant, and for two reasons: (1) Some of them did own land. (2) A vanquishing nation is not without obligations to the civillians it conquers.
See, the debate always comes down to this. I guess this is why you assume Olmert won the debate, because sentences like this you actually perceive to have value beyond vicious ad hominems.
Can you address Mister Koppel's question? Kahana couldn't, or wouldn't, and I say it was because he was a hate-filled fraud. Do you have a better explanation? Or an answer to the question?
ethno-religious chauvinists who dress themselves up in psukim.
I can't think of a better way to describe the avarage kahanist.
You mentioned the Gush Katif residents. I'm not sure how you can oppose what happened to them while defending Kahane's position of expelling oodles of Israeli Arabs.
No one likes to expel anyone! However, when you have a group of people in which many desire the destruction of your state, it makes sense to transfer them out from within you, where they repeatedly hurl rocks, molotov cocktails, and machine-gun stretches of highway. Rabbi Kahane's platform stated that, and listen up, you guys, because this is what he said countless times:
any Arab who wants to live in peace in Israel may do so, with full civil liberties. Only those who do not accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state are to be transferred, because the present an existential threat to Israel's existence.
That is not ethnic cleansing, it is the logical protection of a State against those within it who wish to destroy it!
Sorry, but no sale. If the majority of the people who live in Israel wish for it to be something other than a Jewish state, well, that's how the democratic cookie crumbles. Its not something I would wish to see, but there are lots of things happening every day that I would not wish to see.
However, when you have a group of people in which many desire the destruction of your state, it makes sense to transfer them out from within you, where they repeatedly hurl rocks, molotov cocktails, and machine-gun stretches of highway
Odd. In America when people behave contrary to the law, we arrest them, put them on trial, and if found guilty, inprison them. Perhaps we should be deporting them to Australia instead?
No one likes to expel anyone! However, when you have a group of people in which many desire the destruction of your state, it makes sense to transfer them out from within you, where they repeatedly hurl rocks, molotov cocktails, and machine-gun stretches of highway.
This isn't true about the overwhelming majority of Palestinians.
any Arab who wants to live in peace in Israel may do so, with full civil liberties. Only those who do not accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state are to be transferred, because the present an existential threat to Israel's existence.
The plan wouldn't be so bad if he used the term "civil liberties" like we do in America. Could an Arab be a member of the Knesset? Could he become PM? Can he practice his faith freely if he's a Christian? Would he be treated equally under the law?
If the answer to these questions is no, then you can see why people oppose this plan.
Sorry, but no sale. If the majority of the people who live in Israel wish for it to be something other than a Jewish state, well, that's how the democratic cookie crumbles. Its not something I would wish to see, but there are lots of things happening every day that I would not wish to see.
And anyway, this is a problem of your own making. If the population of Israel changes the character of the state, all that means is that your side has lost the argument. But its not too late. Its not to late to convince American Jews to move to Israel in greater numbers. Its not too late to convince Israeli Jews to have more children. And its not too late to convince the moderate Arabs that remain that Jewish Israel is their best bet. You could do all of those things, and all of them are options morally superior to displacing people from their homes.
Odd. In America when people behave contrary to the law, we arrest them, put them on trial, and if found guilty, inprison them.
It is more complicated than what you make it out to be, but there are other possibilities besides expulsion.
Sorry, but no sale. If the majority of the people who live in Israel wish for it to be something other than a Jewish state, well, that's how the democratic cookie crumbles. Its not something I would wish to see, but there are lots of things happening every day that I would not wish to see.
DB, all you are saying is that democracy is more important to you than a Jewish state. That is Rabbi Kahane's very point! He says, the state of Israel in its DOI, states it is a democratic state, and that it is a Jewish state. Those two can't co-exist. If it's Jewish, that overrides any democratic allowance to become un-jewish. If it's Democratic, then it is an anathema to call it Jewish.
Your choice is to be democratic, even at the cost of being Jewish.
I can see you disagree with Rabbi Kahane, but his view that it's Jewishness should override its Democracy does not justify your calling him a hate-filled fraud.
You seem to be calling anyone that views Israel in terms of the national destiny of the Torah a hate-filled fraud, because they also feel that its Jewishness trumps its democcracy.
BY THE WAY, Olmert and Sharon AGREE that the jewishness trups democracy, thats part of why they committed the disengagement!
So, are they hate-filled frauds?
Again, you are making your emotional statements, without carefully thinking things through to the end.
It is more complicated than what you make it out to be, but there are other possibilities besides expulsion.
Sure! We could kill them! Or put them in camps! Or strip them of their possesions! Or tear down their houses! Or... (wow this is FUN)
Irrelevant, and for two reasons: (1) Some of them did own land. (2) A vanquishing nation is not without obligations to the civillians it conquers.
Very few owned private property in Ottoman Palestine (there is little private property in Israel today). But I agree that the lack of land ownership does not make it acceptable to expel people.
Your choice is to be democratic, even at the cost of being Jewish.
People should live as they wish to live. Zeh klal godol. The alternative is facism, and slavery.
Anyway, what happens after we toss out the Arabs. Are secular Jews next? You laugh? Why? Its not hard at all to imagine a Kahana of the future arguing that secular Jews with their preference for pork and chilul shabbas are a dnager to the existential blah blah of the holy blah blah. And once they are gone, who's next? Mafdal? Chardal? The Charedim?
I can see you disagree with Rabbi Kahane, but his view that it's Jewishness should override its Democracy does not justify your calling him a hate-filled fraud.
Correct. His desire to expel people from their homes and their land with psukim conviniently trotted out as his justification are what makes him a hate-filled fraud.
> In reality, of course, the Jewish claim to Israel comes form the Balfour Declaration/League of Nations mandate and the UN Partition Resolution of 1947.
Since the biblical claim is only valid for those with faith, how about the historic claim? It is certainly the birthplace of Judaism (especially if you accept biblical criticism, ruling out Mt. Sinai as the birthplace), and the Jewish people have deep emotional connections there. Many parts of halacha only make sense in Israel. The possible lack of a divine claime does not negate these other deep claims.
That said, I accept tat pragmatic compromise may be neccesary, (if some arabs will be pragmatic enough to accept peace), but for you, CA, to imply that Jews have no claim is the rejection of at least 2500 years of Jewish hostory.
DB, all you are saying is that democracy is more important to you than a Jewish state. That is Rabbi Kahane's very point! He says, the state of Israel in its DOI, states it is a democratic state, and that it is a Jewish state. Those two can't co-exist. If it's Jewish, that overrides any democratic allowance to become un-jewish. If it's Democratic, then it is an anathema to call it Jewish.
I agree that Democracy and Judaism can conflict, but it is not an anathema for a supporter of democracy to call Israel a Jewish state.
BY THE WAY, Olmert and Sharon AGREE that the jewishness trups democracy, thats part of why they committed the disengagement!
I also support disengagment, but leaving people in their homes and their villages to govern themselves and to create their own destinies is a far far far cry from rounding them up in the middle of the night and forcing them into cattle cars
Rabbi Kahane looked at reality square in the face and acknowleged issues that other politicians refused to accept.
Unfortunately, his proposed solutions to those issues were racist, unethical, and a little naive as well.
DB, all you are saying is that democracy is more important to you than a Jewish state. That is Rabbi Kahane's very point!
And the fact that he made this so-called point is what makes him a fool as well as a fraud, because if he had won the day, what would have protected him and his fellow srugi-wearers from a Charedi-Kahane?
People should live as they wish to live. Zeh klal godol. The alternative is facism, and slavery.
Anyway, what happens after we toss out the Arabs. Are secular Jews next? You laugh? Why? Its not hard at all to imagine a Kahana of the future arguing that secular Jews with their preference for pork and chilul shabbas are a dnager to the existential blah blah of the holy blah blah. And once they are gone, who's next? Mafdal? Chardal? The Charedim?
First of all, you are entitled to your opinion, but you should know that most Israelis feel that preserving Israel as a Jewish state trumps democracy. It is unthinkable, and against all secular zionistic ideals, that Israel be allowed to become a non-Jewish state by votes. So just realize taht you are on the extreme left outskirts of any discussion on that point.
Second, the alternative is fascism, slavery? You are not coherent here. If the USA voted to turn this into a monarchy, would that be allowed? The point is that there are certain principles more dear than allowing the people to do what they want at any given moment. In Israel, one of those is that Israel is a Jewish state.
Finally, Rabbi Kahane, many times, said that secular Jews are not to be coerced into keeping halacha. Just so you know. If you want more info on that, I suggest you read his books, instead of condemning him for ideas he was solidly against. You should be ashamed of the way you smear people without knowing if that is their position.
First of all, you are entitled to your opinion, but you should know that most Israelis feel that preserving Israel as a Jewish state trumps democracy. It is unthinkable, and against all secular zionistic ideals, that Israel be allowed to become a non-Jewish state by votes. So just realize taht you are on the extreme left outskirts of any discussion on that point.
Wonderful. So let them make their point with words. Let them argue. And if they win the day, they win the day. If they lose... well perhaps it's not a very good argument in the first place.
And the fact that he made this so-called point is what makes him a fool as well as a fraud, because if he had won the day, what would have protected him and his fellow srugi-wearers from a Charedi-Kahane?
It is clear that you are writing from emotion, so I will make allowances and say it again:
Rabbi Kahane would not force any Jew to do anything they didn't want to do. Sure, he would put more bible into the Israeli public schools, but that is about it. So your rediculous fear mongering is a patent falsehood.
Arabs would only be forced to leave if they would not accept Israel's existence and be willing to live under a Jewish country. Do you get that? If we had a group of Mexicans who were militant and shot at cars on the 5 interstate, trying actively to turn california into a Mexican state, do you have ANY doubt that after their prison terms, they would be DEPORTED to Mexico?
DB, come on!
> (And Liorah, Rabbi Kahane was not "all about the superiority of the Jewish race". What is the Jewish race, anyway? What a silly statement. Judaism is a nation and a religion, not a race. Go to Israel and you will see African, Asian, European, Middle Eastern Jews. A Jew is a Jew. So whatever you wish to call him, he was not a rascist.)
When I was 16 years old, I had great admiration for Rabbi Kahane & his ideas. I finally got to hear him speak to a small group and he struck me as a litle rabid. I was surprised at the hatred that he seemed to have for Arabs, even while claiming that he had no such feelings. And he couldn't answer several of my questions, instead asserting that my questions were foolish. (For example, I asked, won't the Americas object to our transferring the Arabs.)
If the USA voted to turn this into a monarchy, would that be allowed?
Allowed? It's not likely, but its conceivable, and could happen under the rules. All it would take are an ammendment or two.
The point is that there are certain principles more dear than allowing the people to do what they want at any given moment.
Sure. TO YOU. Why should I just let you push whats important to you on to the rest of us?
In Israel, one of those is that Israel is a Jewish state.
So let those who feel that way, make their arguments and win the point without stacking the deck.
Rabbi Kahane would not force any Jew to do anything they didn't want to do. Sure, he would put more bible into the Israeli public schools, but that is about it. So your rediculous fear mongering is a patent falsehood.
Good for the holy and sainted Rabbi Kahane. But what about his succesor. What about the man who builds on his ideas and argues that because it was ok to expel Arabs its also ok to expel certain kinds of Jews. Such a thing is impossible? Absolutely not.
> That's an overstatement, but MORAL, KIND HEARTED INTELLIGANT JEWISH people WHO KNOW THEIR OWN HISTORY are going to react negatively to someone who calls for expelling millions of people from their homes.
True - just read people who write to The Jewish Press.
Wonderful. So let them make their point with words. Let them argue. And if they win the day, they win the day. If they lose... well perhaps it's not a very good argument in the first place.
I am at a loss for words here. What are you saying? You are basically arguing that Israel should not be protected from becoming an Arab state. And I point out that this is a very extreme view and most would reject it. Then you say, if they lose, maybe its not a very good argument? WHAT?
DB, you corner yourself into extreme ideas, and then feel compelled to protect them. You don't have to feel that way.
Arabs would only be forced to leave if they would not accept Israel's existence and be willing to live under a Jewish country. Do you get that? If we had a group of Mexicans who were militant and shot at cars on the 5 interstate, trying actively to turn california into a Mexican state, do you have ANY doubt that after their prison terms, they would be DEPORTED to Mexico?
Again you are compating two things that are not alike. Let me set you straight. Here are some of the differences.
1 - If those Mexicans were BORN here they certainly would not be expelled
2 - If they were legal immigrants they would also not be expelled.
3 - If they were illegal immigrants, which the Arabs we're discussing are not, they would be expelled, but this expulsion would not affect any other Mexican. No one would seriously suggest rounding up every Mexican in the country, the way Kahanists have suggested deporting every Arab
4 - Mexicans in America are full citizens. There's no difference between them and between me. They can do as they please, live as they wish, and the government will do nothing to make them feel second rate. That isn't the story in Israel today, and even when you speak so codecendingly about letting Arabs have "civil rights" you aren't offering them anythng approaching full citizenship.
So please drop the bogus anaologies.
You are basically arguing that Israel should not be protected from becoming an Arab state.
That's right. No stacking the deck. Everyone makes their arguments on equal footing, and whoever wins wins.
Democracy is the only thing that protects us from people like Kahane, who may start with Arabs but will never stop there.
> any Arab who wants to live in peace in Israel may do so, with full civil liberties. Only those who do not accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state are to be transferred, because the present an existential threat to Israel's existence.
That excluded enfranchisement. Do you feel African Americans had full civil liberties before they were allowed to vote?
Allowed? It's not likely, but its conceivable, and could happen under the rules. All it would take are an ammendment or two.
You are so bound up in your liberty and allow people to do what they want, that you don't protect the very things you hold dear from your own freedom!
Good for the holy and sainted Rabbi Kahane. But what about his succesor. What about the man who builds on his ideas and argues that because it was ok to expel Arabs its also ok to expel certain kinds of Jews. Such a thing is impossible? Absolutely not.
Suddenly far-sighted DB, what would happen when the successor of the government that changes Israel to be an Arab country, and then his successor decides to kill all the Jews, but there is NO IDF LEFT to protect the Jews. You are so willing to look into the future and see the dangers of one side, but you are willing to trust an Arab Palestine with Jewish institutions, holy sites, and even children! Read about 1929 in chevron to see what is possible, and see the gleeful destruction of the shuls of Gush Katif.
You are being hypocritical.
You are so bound up in your liberty and allow people to do what they want, that you don't protect the very things you hold dear from your own freedom!
Correct. No stacking the deck. I argue for things that are important to me. You argue for things that are important to you. One of us wins, and life goes on.
You are so willing to look into the future and see the dangers of one side, but you are willing to trust an Arab Palestine with Jewish institutions, holy sites, and even children
Of course I don't trust them. I don't trust any man. I trust democracy. Thats it.
>That's right. No stacking the deck. Everyone makes their arguments on equal footing, and whoever wins wins
Wow
In the end, both DB and MT are choosing the extremes. But lets not be fooled that DB's opinion is any less of a threat than MT's.
Second, the alternative is fascism, slavery? You are not coherent here. If the USA voted to turn this into a monarchy, would that be allowed? The point is that there are certain principles more dear than allowing the people to do what they want at any given moment. In Israel, one of those is that Israel is a Jewish state.
That would require a lot more than a majority. But it would happen if an amendment got passed. Passing such an amendment requires a supermajority.
And Mevaseret you haven't explained what civil rights the remaining Arabs would have.
LOL, so basically, DB, what is your problem with the "people" of an arab majority Israel voting to change it to Palestine, and vote that no Jews can live there, just like no Jews are allowed in so many Arab countries currently?
Hm? Why is that ok for you, but Rabbi Kahane kicking out Arabs who desire the destruction of the State (and not to expel those who don't) is morally reprehensible?
In the end, both DB and MT are choosing the extremes.
Democracy is an extreme? Letting people live their own lives and chart their own destinies is an extreme? Wow. I am shocked.
LOL, so basically, DB, what is your problem with the "people" of an arab majority Israel voting to change it to Palestine, and vote that no Jews can live there, just like no Jews are allowed in so many Arab countries currently?
Of course that isn't ok. Are you mad?
Hm? Why is that ok for you,
Its not ok you lunatic
LOL, so basically, DB, what is your problem with the "people" of an arab majority Israel voting to change it to Palestine, and vote that no Jews can live there, just like no Jews are allowed in so many Arab countries currently?
This is one reason why Israel needs a constitution with supermajority rules.
Hm? Why is that ok for you, but Rabbi Kahane kicking out Arabs who desire the destruction of the State (and not to expel those who don't) is morally reprehensible?
HH is right. You guys are both taking the absolute extreme position here.
Israel should be concerned about keeping its status as a Jewish state. And it should enact policies that would protect the nature of its state. But not every policy is acceptable.
>Democracy is an extreme
Don't be a fool. You are against anything to protect certain principles. If democracy changes positions and Israel is voted to become a muslim state, you would have no problems with that.
I am assuming DB would have no problem with an ammenment outlawing freedom of speech.
Nephtuli, they would have civil liberties, but no political rights. they would not be able to vote. This is Rabbi Kahane's platform. You may feel it is not fully democratic, and you would be right. He held that Israel should not be a democracy open to all citizens, only to Jews. This would preserve Israel's place as a Jewish state.
You may say that that is not full civil liberties, but it is alot more than Jews and most Arabs get in their home countries.
And in the end, Rabbi Kahane was very willing to admit that he had no qualms taking away the political liberties of non-Jews in Israel, since it was a simple halacha that non-Jews in Israel have no political rights.
You may disagree with his willingness to follow halacha over democracy in Israel, but that certainly doesn't make him a fascist rascist, slavery-supporting, hate-filled fraud that DB thinks he was.
I am assuming DB would have no problem with an ammenment outlawing freedom of speech.
I'm assuming HH would have no problem if I inserted a gopher directly into his rectum.
Can you be serious please.
You guys are both taking the absolute extreme position here.
Israel should be concerned about keeping its status as a Jewish state. And it should enact policies that would protect the nature of its state. But not every policy is acceptable.
How is what you said less extreme then what I said?
DB, it always turns silly with you: i am a lunatic, you are inserting things into HH's rectum.
Can you please learn how to have a polite conversation even when you disagree with people?
Don't be a fool. You are against anything to protect certain principles. If democracy changes positions and Israel is voted to become a muslim state, you would have no problems with that.
Go away HH. Or read the whole thread before you speak.
>Can you be serious please.
Read what you write:
"No stacking the deck"
" I trust democracy"
Nephtuli, they would have civil liberties, but no political rights. they would not be able to vote. This is Rabbi Kahane's platform. You may feel it is not fully democratic, and you would be right. He held that Israel should not be a democracy open to all citizens, only to Jews. This would preserve Israel's place as a Jewish state.
Yes. This is one of the indications that he was a hate-filled fraud.
You may say that that is not full civil liberties, but it is alot more than Jews and most Arabs get in their home countries.
SO WHAT??? You're hurting my ears with these stupid arguments. Now we're supposed to take morality lessons from syria? If we treat Arabs better than Hitler treated Jews we've furlfilled our moral obligations? Are you even listening to yourself?
DB, I really have to tell you how offended I am by your method of argument.
I never called you one name. I never would.
You, on the other hand, have called me a lunatic, an ethno-religious chauvinist, among other things.
Do you think you can keep the tone of this debate in the spirit of truth and honest debate, without ad hominems?
>Go away HH. Or read the whole thread before you speak.
Fool. Go read your own comments.
>You are basically arguing that Israel should not be protected from becoming an Arab state.
>That's right. No stacking the deck. Everyone makes their arguments on equal footing, and whoever wins wins.
If you don't believe certain principles should be protected regardless of a democratic vote, than you are just as much as a threat. Nothing would be "sacred" to you.
Do you think you can keep the tone of this debate in the spirit of truth and honest debate, without ad hominems?
Nephtuli, they would have civil liberties, but no political rights. they would not be able to vote. This is Rabbi Kahane's platform. You may feel it is not fully democratic, and you would be right. He held that Israel should not be a democracy open to all citizens, only to Jews. This would preserve Israel's place as a Jewish state.
Halacha does not always treat Jews and non-Jews equally, so would Arabs even have civil liberties? Would their situation be that different from the status of Blacks in the South before Brown v. Board of Education?
But it's very important to clearly state what Rabbi Kahane's position was: either Arabs accept second class citizenship or we'll throw you out of our country (we don't care what happens to you after that).
You don't see why most westerns would consider such a plan racist?
And in the end, Rabbi Kahane was very willing to admit that he had no qualms taking away the political liberties of non-Jews in Israel, since it was a simple halacha that non-Jews in Israel have no political rights.
What did I say before about him trotting out psukim to justify his noxious positions? Thanks for proving the point.
You may disagree with his willingness to follow halacha over democracy in Israel,
Please. He was a fraud and a hupocrite who only cared about halacha when he could use it to hit Arabs over the head. Did he also think adulterers in Israel should be stoned? Why not?
but that certainly doesn't make him a fascist rascist, slavery-supporting, hate-filled fraud that DB thinks he was.
never called you one name. I never would.
You, on the other hand, have called me a lunatic, an ethno-religious chauvinist, among other things.
If you tell me that "its ok" with me that Jews were mistreated in Arab countries you've dropped all pretense that this is a polite conversation. So don't act all wounded.
If you don't believe certain principles should be protected regardless of a democratic vote, than you are just as much as a threat. Nothing would be "sacred" to you.
Nothing is sacred. That's exactly the point. And more importantly, you have no right to unilaterally impose your idea of sacred on me, or anyone else.
Democracy includes civil liberties, guaranteed by a constitution or similar document, not just representative voting rights. I assume that when DB says he trusts democracy, he is including those rights, so therefore, he wouldn't be OK with a majority voting away those rights for any subsecion of the population.
But it's very important to clearly state what Rabbi Kahane's position was: either Arabs accept second class citizenship or we'll throw you out of our country (we don't care what happens to you after that).
You don't see why most westerns would consider such a plan racist?
Thanks for putting a very fine point on it.
SO WHAT??? You're hurting my ears with these stupid arguments. Now we're supposed to take morality lessons from syria? If we treat Arabs better than Hitler treated Jews we've furlfilled our moral obligations? Are you even listening to yourself?
The Afrikaners made the same arguments about apartheid. Blacks in South Africa had a better standard of living than in most of Africa, so they should be happy and stop complaining.
How is what you said less extreme then what I said?
Maybe it isn't, so I'll lay out my position so we can see. Israel should come up with a Constitution that requires a supermajority and protects its status as a Jewish state. If they don't do so, they wouldn't really have much of a recourse if the majority wishes to do away with the Zionist project.
So maybe we do agree on this point. In practice, I don't think an Arab democracy in Israel is going to be so nice to the Jews, so the Jews might have to take non-democratic measures to protect themselves. We need social and economic legislation to lower the Arab birthrate by increasing their standard of living and creating more opportunities for their women.
We need social and economic legislation to lower the Arab birthrate by increasing their standard of living and creating more opportunities for their women.
Also good ideas.
>Nothing is sacred. That's exactly the point. And more importantly, you have no right to unilaterally impose your idea of sacred on me, or anyone else.
Duh, then you are just much of a threat to my well being. I for one, consider freedom of speech is a basic principle for this country that can not be un down. You do not. Your fanatic salute to a democracy with no principles can send just as much people into the cattle train
Israel should come up with a Constitution that requires a supermajority and protects its status as a Jewish
Fine. Depending what you mean by "protects its status as a Jewish" and also depending on who gets to participate in the process of writing and ratifying this constitution.
First of all, not rascist. Maybe Religionist.
Again, I am explaining Rabbi Kahane's view. His view is that Israel is a democracy second to it's mainenance of its Jewish reality.
Rabbi Kahane's way to maintain this was to give Arabs living in Israel civil liberties, but no political rights. This also happens to match the response that classic halacha has to non-jews living in Israel. That may be seen as un-democratic, but that is fine, because according to RK, the democracy of Israel is important only AFTER securing its Jewishness.
You may have a different solution, and so might I. I am simply explaining RK's position, and showing that it is not rascist, hate-filled or fraudulent. Of course he was on an extreme when viewed with Western ideas that democracy is paramount. But I dont think many Israeli's in general feel that Israel being a democracy trumps Israel being Jewish, so democcracy is going to HAVE to take a certain hit to ensure that Israel is Jewish.
Nephtuli, I have no problem with a RK who admits he is not going to create a perfect democracy. He admits there are limits, and explains them. We may not agree with him, but we may understand him. What I do have a problem with is a DB who is willing to envision a Palestine instead of an Israel, becuase he is unwilling to deviate from democratic principles EVER. He paints himself into a corner of such liberal fundamentalism that I cannot even understand it.
Your fanatic salute to a democracy with no principles can send just as much people into the cattle train
No it can't. That's exactly the point.
I am simply explaining RK's position, and showing that it is not rascist, hate-filled or fraudulent
What you've done is shown the very opposite.
>No it can't. That's exactly the point.
wow, you really showed me there.
Of course it can exist. Just as people can undo a particular amendment, then can undo other rights, transforming the entire country to something it wasn't, which can lead to other disasterous consequences
DB, would you please answer my question?
Do you think you can keep the tone of this debate in the spirit of truth and honest debate, without ad hominems?
What I do have a problem with is a DB who is willing to envision a Palestine instead of an Israel, becuase he is unwilling to deviate from democratic principles EVER. He paints himself into a corner of such liberal fundamentalism that I cannot even understand it.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
That's Thomas Jefferson, by the way, not some hippie leftie do-gooder.
Do you think you can keep the tone of this debate in the spirit of truth and honest debate, without ad hominems?
Could you stop whining? Please? That's doing more to deteriorate the tone of this conversation than my angry reaction to being told *by you* that I think "it's ok" that Jews living in arab lands were treated badly.
Duh, then you are just much of a threat to my well being. I for one, consider freedom of speech is a basic principle for this country that can not be un down. You do not. Your fanatic salute to a democracy with no principles can send just as much people into the cattle train
What exactly should a state do if 60% of its population opposes free speech? Who decides what's a fundamental right if not the people themselves?
Fine. Depending what you mean by "protects its status as a Jewish" and also depending on who gets to participate in the process of writing and ratifying this constitution.
Everyone should participate and only certain rights (like the right of return) must be included.
Nephtuli, I have no problem with a RK who admits he is not going to create a perfect democracy. He admits there are limits, and explains them. We may not agree with him, but we may understand him. What I do have a problem with is a DB who is willing to envision a Palestine instead of an Israel, becuase he is unwilling to deviate from democratic principles EVER. He paints himself into a corner of such liberal fundamentalism that I cannot even understand it.
His ideas are considered contempable especially in America because of our history. But do you really think Arabs are going to treated fairly if they can't vote? I can't even imagine how he expected their civil liberties that were required by Halacha to be protected.
Just as people can undo a particular amendment, then can undo other rights, transforming the entire country to something it wasn't, which can lead to other disasterous consequences
I don't have time to teach you about democracy right now. You're just going to have to take my word for it.
But do you really think Arabs are going to treated fairly if they can't vote?
Do you think he cares?
No it can't. That's exactly the point.
In theory you are correct. But in practice a majority Arab Israel is not going to protect the Jews' civil rights. They are going to treat them horribly. That is a bad thing and needs to be avoided.
mevaseretzion & DB,
There's a fundamental point that you'll never agree on. MT feels that ancient Jewish values trump any modern philosophies or political systems. DB does not.
Could you stop whining? Please?
I don't have time to teach you about democracy right now. You're just going to have to take my word for it.
DB, your contempt for your commenters is really of heroic proportions.
I would be embarrassed to present like this if I were you.
>What exactly should a state do if 60% of its population opposes free speech? Who decides what's a fundamental right if not the people themselves?
That it is something inherit to the country itself. That without certain principles, like freedom of speech, it would no longer be the country in question. That there are some liberties that are above the ability for someone to simply "vote it out."
>I don't have time to teach you about democracy right now. You're just going to have to take my word for it.
Well, I think you should make some time for it then.
DB's point is that there is nothing "sacred." Anything can be on the table. That if the will of the people say X than X it is, regardless of the cost of it.
In theory you are correct. But in practice a majority Arab Israel is not going to protect the Jews' civil rights. They are going to treat them horribly. That is a bad thing and needs to be avoided.
Certainly, but not by becoming the thing you fear.
Do you think he cares?
I do, actually. Thanks for asking.
Quoting Thomas Jefferson is really not the point. He was talking about creating a country that would be a-religious. Israel is MEANT as a JEWISH state. Don't you see taht that HAS to affect how it deals with democratic issues?!
That it is something inherit to the country itself. That without certain principles, like freedom of speech, it would no longer be the country in question. That there are some liberties that are above the ability for someone to simply "vote it out."
It's probably not best to get into a metaphysical conversation about what is the essential nature of the United States. But in the US we would need an overwhelming majority to make any changes to the Constitution. That serves as a good check on the people to make sure some leader with 50.1% of the population behind him changes some of our most important rights. But let's say such an amendment were passed. What could be done about it? If 75% of the US opposed free speech, how could we stop them from making that part of the Constitution?
Israel is MEANT as a JEWISH state
Says who? People? Well can't people change their mind?
I do, actually. Thanks for asking.
Don't you see that as a major flaw with R. Kahane's plan? Even if there are no moral problems, history has shown us that democracy is necessary to protect rights.
SAYS THEIR DECLERATION OF INDEPENDENCE!
DB's point is that there is nothing "sacred." Anything can be on the table.
Why should it be otherwise? Why should a majority, or super majority be prisoner to something a previous generation decided?
>What could be done about it? If 75% of the US opposed free speech, how could we stop them from making that part of the Constitution?
I am no legal expert, and certainly, that is not the thrust of my comment. I beleive certain principles that define a country to be untouchable. For US, it is ABC, for Israel, it might be XYZ.
But lets say practically speaking, if 75% decided they wanted to get rid of free speech, then I guess it would have to be done, right? But IMO, this country would cease to be the United States and what it stands for.
DB, the declararion of independence of israel states: we declare a JEWISH STATE.
Haven't you ever read it?
SAYS THEIR DECLERATION OF INDEPENDENCE!
So?
But IMO, this country would cease to be the United States and what it stands for.
You'd be wrong, because all the US stands for is government of the people, for the people, by the people.
>Why should it be otherwise? Why should a majority, or super majority be prisoner to something a previous generation decided?
So thats my point. If 75% of people wanted to do away with freedom of speech, you would have no practical problem with that. You might have some naustalic emotional problem getting rid of it, but in the end, you as the 25% that lost out should not be whinning.
He was talking about creating a country that would be a-religious
No he was talking about what makes a governemnt legitimate
>You'd be wrong, because all the US stands for is government of the people, for the people, by the people.
Wrong, because without some practical laws in its place to carry out that mission, it would stop being that.
But lets say practically speaking, if 75% decided they wanted to get rid of free speech, then I guess it would have to be done, right? But IMO, this country would cease to be the United States and what it stands for.
And therefore what? Obviously if the majority of Israel decided it was no longer a Jewish state, it would cease to be a Jewish state. But can we suspend democracy to ensure that never happens? Wouldn't that also take away from Israel's essential character just as much as making it no longer Jewish?
>And therefore what? Obviously if the majority of Israel decided it was no longer a Jewish state, it would cease to be a Jewish state. But can we suspend democracy to ensure that never happens? Wouldn't that also take away from Israel's essential character just as much as making it no longer Jewish
Nobody is saying suspend democracy. There clearly has to be a balance. I do not beleive in getting rid of democracy nor do I believe in certain principles that should be protected.
DB, the declararion of independence of israel states: we declare a JEWISH STATE.
It also says:
"it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture."
Nobody is saying suspend democracy. There clearly has to be a balance. I do not beleive in getting rid of democracy nor do I believe in certain principles that should be protected.
I agree. I believe the best way to ensure those principles are protected is by legislating them under supermajority rules. But if the requisite supermajority wants to change the rules, the only way to stop them is by suspending democracy.
Israel needs to ensure that supermajority never materializes by dealing with the social problems it has right now.
Ok, I am out. I do have work, you know.
Important points to take away:
1) Rabbi Kahane only ever advocated expelling Arabs who do not accept Israel as an entity, actively seek to destroy her from within.
2) He may not have been a paragon of democracy, but democracy in Israel by definition has to be tweaked, because its declaration of independence pronounces it a Jewish state, so that has to be preserved as well.
3) Rabbi Kahane was not a rascist. He accepted all races to have full rights in Israel, as long as they were Jewish.
4) Arabs in Israel would have civil, but not political rights.
5) Those who argue with Rabbi Kahane on many matters have the same arguments with Torah and Halacha on those matters.
6) DB has contempt for commenters he disagrees with, calling them lunatics and telling them he doesn't have time to teach the constitution, so they will just have to take his word.
7) When deciding who wins a debate, you must suspend your own opinion of the people debating, and judge who made better points, and who was able to answer more questions. NOT, who do I like, who do I hate.
I enjoyed this exchange of ideas (except when being called a lunatic by DB). At the very least, we can all agree that the issues Rabbi Kahane raised were important ones that are still relevant to the discussions and arguments taking place today in Israeli politics. His view may not be accepted by a person, but that person should still strive to think about the answers HE would give to Rabbi Kahane's raised issues. May God give us the wisdom and sense to protect our country and secure its inhabitants.
With admiration and respect to everyone here.
>But if the requisite supermajority wants to change the rules, the only way to stop them is by suspending democracy.
Well then, I guess this is life, which is full of inconsistencies. To protect one thing, we sacrifice a bit of another. This is something we do every day in our world.
>Israel needs to ensure that supermajority never materializes by dealing with the social problems it has right now.
And if that doesn't happen? I mean, its all nice in theory and all
Israel's nature as a Jewish state is a very important one, and it should be proteced as much as possible. But not by trampling minority rights.
Part of the problem stems from the fact that Israel's Jewish status is usually defined as being a state for the Jewish people. That inherently promotes the rights of its Jewish citizens over its non-Jewish citizens.
What if the state was merely said to founded on the basis of Jewish values and principles, rather than on Jewish ethnicity?
When India and Pakistan became independant, there where millions of refugees from both countries. After both World Wars borders were redrawn and millions of people became refugees. In the nineteenth century, the Native Americans were forced to leave their homelands and live on reservations. They are still there today. The whole world just accepts that. Why is it only problem for Israel?
Well then, I guess this is life, which is full of inconsistencies. To protect one thing, we sacrifice a bit of another. This is something we do every day in our world.
Who gets to make that decision in my example? What right do the 25% have to make the decision for the 75%?
And if that doesn't happen? I mean, its all nice in theory and all
In the current situation (meaning the Arabs in Israel continue to harbor the same anti-Israel sentiments), we'd have to suspend democracy to some degree not to protect values, but to protect lives.
But I don't think we'll ever get there.
What if the state was merely said to founded on the basis of Jewish values and principles, rather than on Jewish ethnicity?
To some degree the state must protect Jews as Jews. The Law of Return is as essential to Israel as any other principle.
When India and Pakistan became independant, there where millions of refugees from both countries. After both World Wars borders were redrawn and millions of people became refugees. In the nineteenth century, the Native Americans were forced to leave their homelands and live on reservations. They are still there today. The whole world just accepts that. Why is it only problem for Israel?
Are you talking about the refugee problem or the expelling the Arabs in Israel and the territories? If the former, we dealt with this in the beginning of the thread.
enjoyed this exchange of ideas (except when being called a lunatic by DB
whine whine whine
And what about the thing you said about me? You can't pretend it didn't happen you crybaby.
When India and Pakistan became independant, there where millions of refugees from both countries. After both World Wars borders were redrawn and millions of people became refugees. In the nineteenth century, the Native Americans were forced to leave their homelands and live on reservations. They are still there today. The whole world just accepts that. Why is it only problem for Israel?
Because of anti-smeitism. I mean duh. Anti-semitism is also why the whole world no longer accepts slavery, genocide, and a whole host of other things that were once ok, but today are not.
>Who gets to make that decision in my example? What right do the 25% have to make the decision for the 75%?
Legally speaking, if you are talking about what principles are indeed "sacred," then if it GOT TO THE POINT where there is only a 25% or less in favor of it, then it might be lost. If the wish of 75% is to undo the Jewish character of Israel then I guess so be it, right? But then say goodbye to Israel
"Good for the holy and sainted Rabbi Kahane. But what about his succesor. What about the man who builds on his ideas and argues that because it was ok to expel Arabs its also ok to expel certain kinds of Jews. Such a thing is impossible? Absolutely not."
Whats worse than expelling Jews is not letting Jews in during the Holocaust, something DB that your sainted left did, but you always avoid discussing it.
I suppose if you did you might have a Don Quixote mirror reaction.
And what about the thing you said about me? You can't pretend it didn't happen you crybaby.
What did I say about you, DB?
Neftuli:
Ifit was wrong to force the Native Americans off their ancestral lands, then maybe we shoud rectify the situation now. Why aren't we? Let the Seminoles go back to Florida,and the Nez Perce back to Washington State.
Gadfly
I think the point is, what was done is done. But just because that is how society did it back then, does not mean we do it now.
'Democracy includes civil liberties, guaranteed by a constitution or similar document, not just representative voting rights. "
No it doesn't.
Democracy just means majority rile. If we allowed the vote in Vietnam in '55 HoChi Mihn would have won and become an elected dictator.
Just because some modern democracies have a constitution etc. doesn't change its original meaning.
Dovbear:
I understand that slavery in variosu forsm is very much alive today and is excepted all over the world. Genocideis happening in Africa as I type this. Nobody seems to care very much.
Mevaseret,
I realize you aren't going to read this for a while, but I have to respond to some of your points because I think they characterized properly:
1) Rabbi Kahane only ever advocated expelling Arabs who do not accept Israel as an entity, actively seek to destroy her from within.
No, he advocated expelling Arabs who didn't want to be treated like the Blacks in the post-bellum South.
2) He may not have been a paragon of democracy, but democracy in Israel by definition has to be tweaked, because its declaration of independence pronounces it a Jewish state, so that has to be preserved as well.
The DOI also "ensure[s] complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex." So while their must be a balance of some sort, how is it acceptable to completely ignore one aspect of the DOI in favor of the other?
3) Rabbi Kahane was not a rascist. He accepted all races to have full rights in Israel, as long as they were Jewish.
This is just semantics. Technically he wasn't a racist, but he did favor one group of people over group.
4) Arabs in Israel would have civil, but not political rights.
Would they even have equal civil rights? And how would those rights be protected without political rights?
I'm not even sure Jews would have full political rights. If Jews ivoted for an Arab to become PM, there is no way R. Kahane's plan would have allowed that.
Last point: DB asked a good question earlier. If R. Kahane did not support imposing Halacha on Jews, why is it ok to impose it on the Arabs?
"You don't see why most westerns would consider such a plan racist?"
Racism requires differnt racial groups.
fighting between different semitic groups does not apply.
mevaseretzion,
good posting, but you have spent more time on this morning on DB's blog than your own for the last month.
I understand that slavery in variosu forsm is very much alive today and is excepted all over the world. Genocideis happening in Africa as I type this. Nobody seems to care very much
Right, but if Israel were to try it all those anti-smeites would complain.
Legally speaking, if you are talking about what principles are indeed "sacred," then if it GOT TO THE POINT where there is only a 25% or less in favor of it, then it might be lost. If the wish of 75% is to undo the Jewish character of Israel then I guess so be it, right? But then say goodbye to Israel
I'm not sure we disagree.
Ifit was wrong to force the Native Americans off their ancestral lands, then maybe we shoud rectify the situation now. Why aren't we? Let the Seminoles go back to Florida,and the Nez Perce back to Washington State.
I oppose to Palestinian right of return, so you're asking the wrong person. However, pragmatic considerations must be taken into account and that is why no one serious talks about giving up states to the Indians, even if we do recognize the wrongs we perpetrated upon them.
Whats worse than expelling Jews is not letting Jews in during the Holocaust, something DB that your sainted left did, but you always avoid discussing it.
I always avoid it? Really? Wow. Another mind reader who follow me everywhere and knows everything Ive ever said or thought.
You want to discuss it? Let's discuss it. Right now.
we declare a JEWISH STATE
when is a state a Jewish state or just a state of Jews?
>I'm not sure we disagree.
Ok, so how would you answer your own question
sheesh.
you guys really don't get it.
western democracy is NOT JUST a form of government. It is a set of values. Values which sometimes conflict with those of the Torah and for that matter, with those of the average traditional Israeli. Rabbi Kahane was of the opinion that when these values contradict certain categories of Jewish values (such as survival of the Jewish people in EY, among others), then western democratic values must step aside. It is not THAT complicated. DB sees a slipery sloap in this, but so what? I see a slipery sloap in letting the Arabs get too much power. I also see an extreme danger in DB's "nothing is sacred" majority rules no matter what version of democracy. what keeps america safe is not majority rules but rather a culture and history openess and tolerance. If such a culture did not exist, then representative democracy would not be worth a hill of beens. and SINCE is DOES NOT exist in arab culture in general and in Israeli arab culture in particular, the pushing of democratic institutions blindly upon a Jewish state is in effect weakening her standing power in a fundumental manner.
I'm not even sure Jews would have full political rights. If Jews ivoted for an Arab to become PM, there is no way R. Kahane's plan would have allowed that
ooh killer point.
If such a culture did not exist, then representative democracy would not be worth a hill of beens. and SINCE is DOES NOT exist in arab culture in general and in Israeli arab culture in particular, the pushing of democratic institutions blindly upon a Jewish state is in effect weakening her standing power in a fundumental manner
None of this is an argument against democracy. Its simply an argument that democracy in Israel might lead to the abolishment of democracy in Israel. Which would of course be a bad thing.
Ifit was wrong to force the Native Americans off their ancestral lands, then maybe we shoud rectify the situation now. Why aren't we? Let the Seminoles go back to Florida,and the Nez Perce back to Washington State.
Do they want to go back? It seems we should start with that question.
Ok, so how would you answer your own question
If 75% wanted to get rid of free speech, we'd lose it. There is nothing we can do about it. But you're right that a lot would have to happen before we got there.
Robert Bork believes the Constitution does not protect a right to marry. He was once asked by a student what he would do if the majority voted to prohibit marriage. Bork responded that if it got to that point marriage would be the least of our problems.
>Which would of course be a bad thing.
No, I beleive his point is, in your attempt to argue for only a democracy, you would be willing for that to be on the table.
>Its simply an argument that democracy in Israel might lead to the abolishment of democracy in Israel. Which would of course be a bad thing.
Et Laasot LeDemocrasi Heferu the Bill of rights?
>If 75% wanted to get rid of free speech, we'd lose it. There is nothing we can do about it. But you're right that a lot would have to happen before we got there.
So in this point, I think we disagree. That we cannot create a system that would allow for it to even reach that point.
No, I beleive his point is, in your attempt to argue for only a democracy, you would be willing for that to be on the table.
It is on the table. It's already on the table in Israel. You already have people -Arabs and Jews - who wish to eliminate democracy.
Dovbear is to democary as Camus is to rationalism. They both end up in the absurd.
>It is on the table
And you are defending that
western democracy is NOT JUST a form of government. It is a set of values. Values which sometimes conflict with those of the Torah and for that matter, with those of the average traditional Israeli. Rabbi Kahane was of the opinion that when these values contradict certain categories of Jewish values (such as survival of the Jewish people in EY, among others), then western democratic values must step aside. It is not THAT complicated. DB sees a slipery sloap in this, but so what? I see a slipery sloap in letting the Arabs get too much power. I also see an extreme danger in DB's "nothing is sacred" majority rules no matter what version of democracy. what keeps america safe is not majority rules but rather a culture and history openess and tolerance. If such a culture did not exist, then representative democracy would not be worth a hill of beens. and SINCE is DOES NOT exist in arab culture in general and in Israeli arab culture in particular, the pushing of democratic institutions blindly upon a Jewish state is in effect weakening her standing power in a fundumental manner.
I agree that practically a majority Israeli-Arab country would be a disaster. I do believe that a Constitution would create useful protections that could help mitigate the problems that such a result would bring on Israel.
Representative democracy itself opposes Jewish Halachic values. Can the people vote against Halacha?
It's not just that some checks on democracy will be required to protect certain values. Every modern democratic state has those checks. R. Kahane's plan would create a permanent underclass with no political rights and no real assurances of even some form of civil rights. It amazes me that you don't see this. It would be an unmitigated disaster on many levels.
Nephtuli, I will respond, then get back to work:
1)No, he advocated expelling Arabs who didn't want to be treated like the Blacks in the post-bellum South.
Did the Blacks of the south try to destroy the country by shooting at whites and blowing up white busses? The comparison is obscene. What you are doing is comparing actions without giving attention to the REASONS those actions are taken. Again, only those that try to destroy Israel and deny its right to exist were to be deported.
By definition the USA is a country of the people by the people. Israel is a Jewish country and that means that those who are not Jewish do not have the right to decide the destiny of the state. Anyone can live in Israel if they accept that they are living in a Jewish state run by Jews, and not by representatives of ALL its inhabitants. I know this is un-democratic, but this is what RK felt was necessary to maintain the character of the Jewish state.
Also, blacks were treated that way in the South becuase of their race, not because of understandable needs to protect the character of a country. That was simple rascism, and that is not what RK was about.
2)The DOI also "ensure[s] complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex." So while their must be a balance of some sort, how is it acceptable to completely ignore one aspect of the DOI in favor of the other?
RK said that Israel's DOI was a schizophrenic document. The point is that we all can understand the need for a Jewish state in the world, and that is more important that keeping it democratic in all ways.
A Jewish Israel is not only divinely ordained (for those who believe in that) but also a necessity so that a Holocaust never again occur. I am sure that you would agree that this was one of the reasons the secular zionists imagined a Jewish state.
3)Would they even have equal civil rights? And how would those rights be protected without political rights?
Good question. They would have to be protected very carefully. This deserves its own discussion, but is not a reason to consider RK out of bounds.
4) In regards to DB's question: There are two parts to halacha, that which deals with the individual, and taht which deals with the nation. That which deals with the nation consists of global policies, that Rabbi Kahane would implement or pave the way for to a certain extent. This type of Halacha says how to deal with an existential threat from within from a hostile nation: throw them out. However, personal observance of halacha is not to be forced upon people, and it almost never works. The Torah way to bring Jews back to their tradition is not to force them, but to show them the beauty of Torah and mitzvos, and support chabad-like campaigns. We would hope taht Israel would become more religious in this way.
Of course, as a religous person and a Rabbi, RK was supportive of a general return to halacha and torah in Israel. However, he would not force people to do things. On the other hand, his Gov't policies would be guided by the national halacha that concerns the running of a Jewish State.
So in this point, I think we disagree. That we cannot create a system that would allow for it to even reach that point.
How could we create such a system?
>I do believe that a Constitution would create useful protections that could help mitigate the problems that such a result would bring on Israel.
In the end, a Constitution could suffer the same fate (even though I agree it might help out). If 75% of people wish to change something in there, then there is nothing you can do about it.
>How could we create such a system?
Give me 5 minutes
No, seriously, I don't have a LEGAL explanation for you, only that perhaps a system has certain binding rules in it to protect itself.
"You want to discuss it? Let's discuss it. Right now."
The Jewish left in pre-state palestine controlled the visa process, and did all they could to keep out revisionists and religious Jews.
They had a media blackout concerning the Holocaust becaus e they felt it would detract from thier menshevik eneterprise.
Kastner collaboration with the Nazis.
The Nazis profiled the Jewish left to serve as kapos an on the Judenrat.
The Jewish left in America which rallied and dominated the civil rights movement , but ignored the Holocaust and kept quiet.
It is on the table
And you are defending that
Recognizing it is not defending it-
Did the Blacks of the south try to destroy the country by shooting at whites and blowing up white busses? The comparison is obscene. What you are doing is comparing actions without giving attention to the REASONS those actions are taken. Again, only those that try to destroy Israel and deny its right to exist were to be deported.
First of all, I've already admitted the problems he recognized are all too real. But I'm not talking about Hamas and Fatah and the ones who wish to destroy Israel. The Arabs who would remain in Israel after the expulsion (and who accepted the Jewish nature of the state) would be treated like the Blacks in the US in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This point needs to be emphasized.
Also, blacks were treated that way in the South becuase of their race, not because of understandable needs to protect the character of a country. That was simple rascism, and that is not what RK was about.
Again it's just semantics. Yes RK wasn't a racist. But he certainly viewed one group in Israel more favorably than another group.
By definition the USA is a country of the people by the people. Israel is a Jewish country and that means that those who are not Jewish do not have the right to decide the destiny of the state. Anyone can live in Israel if they accept that they are living in a Jewish state run by Jews, and not by representatives of ALL its inhabitants. I know this is un-democratic, but this is what RK felt was necessary to maintain the character of the Jewish state.
Maintaining the Jewish nature of the state is not an end that would justify all means.
RK said that Israel's DOI was a schizophrenic document. The point is that we all can understand the need for a Jewish state in the world, and that is more important that keeping it democratic in all ways.
A Jewish Israel is not only divinely ordained (for those who believe in that) but also a necessity so that a Holocaust never again occur. I am sure that you would agree that this was one of the reasons the secular zionists imagined a Jewish state.
Again I agree that the problems he identified were real and some the ravings of a David Duke. But there are other solutions that don't require trampling on our moral values.
Good question. They would have to be protected very carefully. This deserves its own discussion, but is not a reason to consider RK out of bounds.
This is a fundamental problem with his theory and must be dealt with up front.
>Recognizing it is not defending it-
So let those who feel that way, make their arguments and win the point without stacking the deck.
That's right. No stacking the deck. Everyone makes their arguments on equal footing, and whoever wins wins.
That is a defense for it being on the table, not just recognizing what OTHERS are doing.
Of course, as a religous person and a Rabbi, RK was supportive of a general return to halacha and torah in Israel. However, he would not force people to do things. On the other hand, his Gov't policies would be guided by the national halacha that concerns the running of a Jewish State.
But don't you see that by expelling Arabs and keeping the remainder as a permanent minority, you are forcing Halacha upon them? A ger toshav must accept Jewish sovereignty. Why force him to accept Halacha but not the secular Jew in Tel Aviv? Are you making a pragmatic argument that only Jews will be convinced of Halacha by "habad-like measures, but not non-Jews so compulsion is necessary?
The Jewish left in pre-state palestine controlled the visa process, and did all they could to keep out revisionists and religious Jews.
They had a media blackout concerning the Holocaust becaus e they felt it would detract from thier menshevik eneterprise.
Kastner collaboration with the Nazis.
The Nazis profiled the Jewish left to serve as kapos an on the Judenrat.
The Jewish left in America which rallied and dominated the civil rights movement , but ignored the Holocaust and kept quiet.
Some true. Some not. But enough of it true to call it a tragedy. And an embaressment.
>R. Kahane's plan would create a permanent underclass with no political rights and no real assurances of even some form of civil rights.
not practically. The vast majority would be deported.
In any case, I would like to make a point regarding what I wrote above which I think people misunderstood. I do not think population transfer is a good idea simply because it was the way things were always done. By itself, this would be an argument that could support institutionalized slavery which I oppose. What I meant is that the underlying reasoning behind this solution is still in play and that the moral reasoning that would undo it is tragically flawed. The reason why it is better to transfer populations is because, hisotrically, there is MUCH less suffering that occurs in the one time temporary suffering of those deported then the suffering of leaving incompatible societies mixed with each other causing never ending bloosshed and suffering for who knows how long for both sides. Would it have been better to leave the greeks and turks in their places. Do you think that the hindus would have been better off had they stayed in pakistan? Further, I find the argument comparing the expulsions of Jews throughout the ages to RK's proposoles to be obscene. Did ANY jewish community which was expelled in the past behave towards its host nation in the same way the Arabs behave towards us?!?!? Let me be on record, that if the Jews of spain would have acted towards the spaniards in the same way the Arabs do towards us, then the expulsion would have been justified!
In the end, a Constitution could suffer the same fate (even though I agree it might help out). If 75% of people wish to change something in there, then there is nothing you can do about it
No, seriously, I don't have a LEGAL explanation for you, only that perhaps a system has certain binding rules in it to protect itself.
I agree. If we've reached that point, no permanently binding procedures are going to help either. The Jewish State will be lost in 75% of its population no longer considers it valid.
I think what is being missed here is that the non-Jewish citizens of Israel are just that: CITIZENS. With all the rights and responsibilities both of being that. Well, most but nitpicking is pointless and there's equalizing to be done for sure.
It is being missed by Jews in Israel, outside of Israel, non-Jews in Israel, outside of Israel, pretty much everywhere.
Why is it important? Because let's face it, outside of the nascent new Iraq, they aren't citizens in the other Muslim nations around. You can have whatever politics you like in Israel, as long as you don't violate the law. Same as here in the USA. NOT SO IN EGYPT, JORDAN, SYRIA, IRAN, SAUDI ARABIA...
The Palestinians in Israel I think on some basic level understand that. Else they'd have risen up in total anarchic rebellion a LONG time ago. They know that there's a certain irony in that the establishment of a Jewish state gave them a place and nation to belong to that at least didn't treat them as subjects to the whim of some tyrant, monarch, or mob.
However, it is that very Jewish state thing that galls them because they aren't Jews. It makes them feel like okay, here's a great start and an oasis of sanity and modernity in an otherwise severely messed up section of Earth, but we by our religion are explicitly... not Israeli enough.
How do you fix that? I got no idea, but Dov is right. Expelling CITIZENS is not an option and it reinforces the idea that they aren't really Israelis no matter what the law says. That sort of thing will be used as an ex post facto justification of terrorism and anything you toss out there to lend credence to the terrorists, especially of the level of being seen to disenfranchise legal citizens of the nation, is a serious mistake.
NO ONE misses that Jerusalem and Israel are sacred to Jews. Even antisemites know that one and accept it, if not the rightfulness of the claim. "Jewish state" and "Israel" do not have to be in the same sentence every time they are uttered. An emphasis of the secular and democratic side of Israel needs to be made and contrasted against the decidedly non-democratic regimes surrounding them and put to those wanting to throw rocks.
I don't see a problem with this from a religious standpoint as the return of Israel to the world is a matter of religious dogma within the faith and there's some credence to the notion that a holy Israel can't be taken by force but given by G-d alone. So until that holy Israel handed down by G-d happens, in the meantime the secular one can still do much to strengthen itself.
Lastly, Halacha CANNOT be laid down and enforced by a secular temporal government. If it is something you are forced to under threat of punishment, and is not followed because you of free choice decide to believe in its rightness and propriety, then it's no different that any other set of rules and boundaries and loses its sanctity.
Choice denotes judgment. Judgment denotes thought. Thought denotes intelligence. G-d didn't make you a pocket calculator.
>But don't you see that by expelling Arabs and keeping the remainder as a permanent minority, you are forcing Halacha upon them?
No, there is no chiuv for them to be expelled. There is a chiuv for us to maintain the viability of the Jewish state. We are not forcing them to keep halacha, but rather keeping it ourselves. So your comparison does not hold up.
not practically. The vast majority would be deported.
If the Arabs in Israel are really that much better economically and politically than their brethern in Arab countries, I wouldn't be so sure of that. Many might accept Jewish sovereignty simply because they have no better options available.
If only 20 percent stay, with the Arab birthrate, they will make up a large minority subclass with little real rights.
The reason why it is better to transfer populations is because, hisotrically, there is MUCH less suffering that occurs in the one time temporary suffering of those deported then the suffering of leaving incompatible societies mixed with each other causing never ending bloosshed and suffering for who knows how long for both sides.
This argument only works if one is a utilitarian.
Would it have been better to leave the greeks and turks in their places. Do you think that the hindus would have been better off had they stayed in pakistan?
India and Pakistan have fought numerous wars and two nuclear countries still in a state of war. Let's wait a little before we're so sure the creation of Pakistan from India was such a great idea.
Did ANY jewish community which was expelled in the past behave towards its host nation in the same way the Arabs behave towards us?!?!?
I agree that the comparison is very wrong. But recognizing a problem does not make any solution acceptable.
so, DB, do you also agree with Olmert's party's policy of baring RK for running for public office?
Neftuli:
A ger toshav who follows only the Sheva Mitvas Bnei Noach is just a desent person.
Dovbear:
There were, not too long ago, Indian seperatists who want an independent Indain State
No, there is no chiuv for them to be expelled. There is a chiuv for us to maintain the viability of the Jewish state. We are not forcing them to keep halacha, but rather keeping it ourselves. So your comparison does not hold up.
There is a chiyuv on a Ger Toshav to recognize Jewish sovereignty. We expect the Palestinians to recognize the Jewish state and accept second-class citizenship. If not we will expel them. We are forcing them to accept their Halachic obligations. I agree that their obligations coincide with our obligations to expel them (assuming such an obligation exists), but the result is that they must follow their obligations or be expelled. Surely that is compulsion, correct?
>This argument only works if one is a utilitarian.
You don't think morality has a utilitarian component???
>Let's wait a little before we're so sure the creation of Pakistan from India was such a great idea.
I never claimed that it will solve all the problems. But I have little doubt that those particular populations are better off now than they would have been otherwise.
>But recognizing a problem does not make any solution acceptable.
No, but a reasonable solution which has worked many times in the past and which is established in human history, which is still morally deffensable (any prefferable to all alternatives) and takes into account human nature and the nature of conflicting societies IS acceptable.
the problem chardal is that noone will take them, because the west doesn't want them and the arab lands want to be able to blame isreal.
You exilic Jews are funny. You sit with your ideas about democracy and equality and pontificate about Kahane and his solutions to the problem of NonJewish residents.
You know what? Those of us who believe the Bible and its promise regards the land. We like it here and its based on theocratic idea, not on Hertzs Altneuland or DerJudenstat.
So if we one day make it rule of Torah here,here then dont come, that way you wont have to face the Sanhedrin for any infractions.
So stay where you are, dont come here to live on land stolen from the former Ottoman Empire residents and have a clean conciense. Dont come here thinking that you will rewrite the provisions that make this land ours and not others. And those here that dont like it, then they can move to where you are and eat all the basar lavan they want.
Could we stop talking about the Arabs as if they all act and think as one man with one heart?
>Could we stop talking about the Arabs as if they all act and think as one man with one heart?
Could we stop talking about the Right wing republicans as if they all act and think as one man with one heart.
Sorry, had to say that.
no HH but we could, IYH shoot them all. (the republicans, not the arabs.)
> When India and Pakistan became independant, there where millions of refugees from both countries. After both World Wars borders were redrawn and millions of people became refugees. In the nineteenth century, the Native Americans were forced to leave their homelands and live on reservations. They are still there today. The whole world just accepts that. Why is it only problem for Israel?
Gadfly,
Yes, Israel is treated with a double standard. But just because other countries have gotten away with unethical behavior doesn't mean Israel should adopt that behavior.
So stay where you are, dont come here to live on land stolen from the former Ottoman Empire residents and have a clean conciense.
Most of us don't live there. Or haven't you noticed?
Dont come here thinking that you will rewrite the provisions that make this land ours and not others. And those here that dont like it, then they can move to where you are and eat all the basar lavan they want.
Maybe you should move to Kiryat Joel and establish your little theocracy there instead? What's that? KJ won't accept you. My, my. Perhaps you're starting to understand why theocracies are always a horrowshow
> Anti-semitism is also why the whole world no longer accepts slavery, genocide, and a whole host of other things that were once ok, but today are not.
Huh?
No, but a reasonable solution which has worked many times in the past and which is established in human history, which is still morally deffensable (any prefferable to all alternatives) and takes into account human nature and the nature of conflicting societies IS acceptable.
Maybe you and the mafdalniks should move instead. That would also solve the problem.
You don't think morality has a utilitarian component???
I think even Deontologists agree that there is a utilitarian component in morality. But a component is one thing; making it the central feature of morality is entirely different.
I never claimed that it will solve all the problems. But I have little doubt that those particular populations are better off now than they would have been otherwise.
If there's a nuclear war, I hope you'll change your tune.
No, but a reasonable solution which has worked many times in the past and which is established in human history, which is still morally deffensable (any prefferable to all alternatives) and takes into account human nature and the nature of conflicting societies IS acceptable.
This is a pretty strong statement and probably needs a few scholarly books to back it up.
Among the issues that need to analyzed:
1) Was transfer really the causal factor in the improvements of the situation in the past, or was it merely correlated with the improved situations?
2) Would transfer in this case be morally preferable? Would it save lives overall? Increase utility?
3) Would such a plan really be morally preferable overall, considering how the remaining Arabs in Israel would be treated?
4) Would Israel's position be better considering how it would probably lose all western support? If Israel's enemies are armed and sanctions are put into place, are you so sure Israel can survive?
Is Israel going to have the human capital to compete with the west (or even the Arab world), considering the likely sanctions that will be in effect? Would a number of Israel's intellectual elite flee to the west, leaving basically only the Chareidim and RZ populations in place, and would those loses decrease the military might of the state?
You have think about the future consequences of the actions. Population exchange was acceptable in the 20s; it no longer is today. The West's reaction won't be pretty, that's for sure.
> Democracy just means majority rile
Not workable democracy. The founding fathers of the USA obviously didn't agree with you, else, why a constitution?
Maybe you and the mafdalniks should move instead. That would also solve the problem.
Are you serious? Settlements don't help the situation but they are not the underlying cause of the conflict, that's for sure.
I didn't mean the settlers. I meant the noisy Arab haters
The Jewish claim to the territory probably preceded the League, but they formalized it in a legal way.
The Jewish traditional religious claim to the Land of Israel is not recognized by anyone besides religious Jews.
The program of the political Zionists involved getting a formally recognized Jewish State "secured by Public Law" (Herzl's words), i.e, a state whose claim to exist was recognized by the world community, or at least the Great Powers. The Zionists thus implicitly accepted that they had no legal claim to a state until they could convince the world community that such a state would be a good idea. And while Herzl preferred having that state in the Land of Israel, he was willing to consider other locations, as the Uganda Debacle revealed.
In any event, the world community did not recognize any Jewish claims on the Land of Israel until the League of Nations Mandate based on the Balfour Declaration, and that was just for a "National Home" not a state. The first authorization of a Jewish State by the World community was the 1947 UN partition resolution, and and that specifically called for a 2-state solution. Beyond that, most of the countries in the world (even a lot of Arab countries) accept the incorporation of territory conquered by Israel during the period 1948-1949. The stuff conquered after 1967 is what's in dispute.
You're confusing the 40's and the 60's
I didn't mean the settlers. I meant the noisy Arab haters
Even they are not the problem, partly because they have little power. The Palestinians are much more to blame in this conflict, that's for sure.
> The Jewish left in pre-state palestine controlled the visa process, and did all they could to keep out revisionists and religious Jews.
They had a media blackout concerning the Holocaust becaus e they felt it would detract from thier menshevik eneterprise.
Kastner collaboration with the Nazis.
The Nazis profiled the Jewish left to serve as kapos an on the Judenrat.
The Jewish left in America which rallied and dominated the civil rights movement , but ignored the Holocaust and kept quiet.
Person 1: I like oranges
Person 2: How can you like oranges you crazy Citrus-lover?! Don't you know that there's a guy who loved tangerines and was a mass murderer! You and all you Citrus lovers sicken me!!!! Murderers!
CA, basically, according to you, anyone who believes God gave the Jews Israel is mistaken in the same way you claim Kahane is.
Not true. Kahane believed in more than that. He had an overly paranoid view of the goyim, as well as a racist one, even though he tried to express it in other ways.
I once heard him speak in the 1970s at a synagogue in Philadelphia. This was before he bacame an Israeli politician, I think, so his schtick was demonizing the schvartzers and fear-mongering the Jews who lived in racially-mixed neighborhoods. Yes, he had a point, there were problems, but he went overboard. As to his little presentation, all I remember are the shtarkers he had by his side, the better to intimidate the audience, and the obvious theatricality of his presentation. The damn JDL poisoned black-Jewish relations for years, and has caused all of us who actually have to live with black neighbors (the vast majority of whom are not criminals)a lot of problems.
Frankly, in his case, I hope that God is the traditional type and that Mr. Kahane got the Deluxe 12-month tour of Gehenna, and that he's now atoned for everything and is sitting in the Olam Haba in fewllowship with Malcom X and Yassir Arafat.
> By itself, this would be an argument that could support institutionalized slavery which I oppose.
Wow, you're so enlightened! Kudos to you for being against slavery!
The Jewish traditional religious claim to the Land of Israel is not recognized by anyone besides religious Jews.
Not completely true, but not important.
The program of the political Zionists involved getting a formally recognized Jewish State "secured by Public Law" (Herzl's words), i.e, a state whose claim to exist was recognized by the world community, or at least the Great Powers. The Zionists thus implicitly accepted that they had no legal claim to a state until they could convince the world community that such a state would be a good idea. And while Herzl preferred having that state in the Land of Israel, he was willing to consider other locations, as the Uganda Debacle revealed.
That is untrue. The Jewish legal claim to Palestine was formalized in the League of Nations Mandate at San Remo, but the claim existed before it became enshrined into law. It was not created out of whole cloth in 1922.
Herzl was willing to accept other countries because beggars can't be choosers.
In any event, the world community did not recognize any Jewish claims on the Land of Israel until the League of Nations Mandate based on the Balfour Declaration, and that was just for a "National Home" not a state.
That is a very debatable proposition. There were instances in public international law at that time where national home and state were used interchangably.
The first authorization of a Jewish State by the World community was the 1947 UN partition resolution, and and that specifically called for a 2-state solution.
The Peel Commission plan called for two states as well, all the way back in 1936.
Beyond that, most of the countries in the world (even a lot of Arab countries) accept the incorporation of territory conquered by Israel during the period 1948-1949. The stuff conquered after 1967 is what's in dispute.
That is generally accurate.
And no, CA, it was not only in the 'territories' that he mentioned the demographic issue. The point was that Israel could not keep Gaza as it would badly affect a Jewish majority in the forseeable future. Disengagment was the opposite response to the same issues Rabbi Kahane brought up.
What are you talking about? Kahane and Olmert were arguing about the Jewish population within the State of Israel, and Kahane was fear mongering about how the Arabs would vote the Jewish state out of existence. Sharon 's disengagement was from Gaza, i,e, the territories. And if you include the Arab population of the territories, then maybe kahane's analysis has some merit, except that very few Israelis were talking about making west bank and gaza arabs Israeli citizens.
CA,
The Jewish claim to Israel under modern international law started roughly as you've outlined. But there's a long historical claim, even if one doesn't accept the divine claim. You seem bent on ignoring that.
>Maybe you and the mafdalniks should move instead. That would also solve the problem.
> I didn't mean the settlers. I meant the noisy Arab haters
Mafdalniks??? When are you living? In the 50s and 60s when they were basically socialist doves? Or in the 80s when they walked out of the knesset hall whenever RK would get up to speak?
And I am sure that the Arabs would stop killing Jews if all mafdalniks would move to New Jersey. In fact, that is why they killed so many Jews in the 20s and 30s. It was because of a political party that didn't exist yet!
> The Jewish left in America which rallied and dominated the civil rights movement , but ignored the Holocaust and kept quiet.
Do you know the difference between the 40's and the 60's?
That is untrue. The Jewish legal claim to Palestine was formalized in the League of Nations Mandate at San Remo, but the claim existed before it became enshrined into law. It was not created out of whole cloth in 1922.
OK, so the Zionist claim wasn't created in 1922, it was created in 1897 at the First Zionist Congress. (the "secured under public Law" wording is from the Basel Program agreed to by the Congress.) Any Jewish claim previously was either religious teachings held only by the Jews or stray proposals of individual intellectuals or parnoissim.
Ever since Pompey took Jerusalem in 63 BCE, there was no Jewish sovereignty. Political Zionism is strictly a 19th century phenomenon.
>I think even Deontologists agree that there is a utilitarian component in morality. But a component is one thing; making it the central feature of morality is entirely different.
Fine, I never claimed that it was the only factor. There are others as well. But in the final analysis, between what I expect to occur through expulsion and what I KNOW will continue to occur if the status quo is continued upon (especially the paths of oslo/road map/expulsion) is a non-starter. So I am forced to choose between an intolerable situation and at least the posibility of a better future and I choose to support a logical course of action which has worked time and time again in History. One which I refuse to appologize for. Considering the complete failur of the left and 'moderate' thinkers. It amazes me that everyone seems to keep on supporting the same failed (and immoral) policies.
>The damn JDL poisoned black-Jewish relations for years
Relations were tense from the times of the civil liberties demonstrations. It blew up with nothing to do with the JDL
In fact, that is why they killed so many Jews in the 20s and 30s. It was because of a political party that didn't exist yet!
sorry. I forgot you think that an Arab living in the 20s is no different from an Arab lving in 2008 and that was true of one is certainly true of the other.
The Jewish left in America which rallied and dominated the civil rights movement , but ignored the Holocaust and kept quiet.
Rallied?
And dominated?
Where do we start? History or english lessons.
Nephtuli, they would have civil liberties, but no political rights. they would not be able to vote. This is Rabbi Kahane's platform.
In practical terms, without being able to vote, their civil liberties will rest on a very shaky foundation. Thus Kahane's platform is disingenuous at best.
So I am forced to choose between an intolerable situation and at least the posibility of a better future and I choose to support a logical course of action which has worked time and time again in History.
Are you talking about genocide or slavery? I lost track of which old, discredited immoral idea you wanted to revive.
Ever since Pompey took Jerusalem in 63 BCE, there was no Jewish sovereignty. Political Zionism is strictly a 19th century phenomenon.
There was a Jewish people that always wished for a return to Zion. While that feeling began to wane a little during the enlightenment, those people still existed. Certainly they had no legal right over Ottoman controlled Palestine, but once the sovereignty vacuum opened up after the Ottoman's lost WWI, the Jews had a real legal claim to the territory, independent of the Balfour Declaration or Mandate.
>sorry. I forgot you think that an Arab living in the 20s is no different from an Arab lving in 2008 and that was true of one is certainly true of the other.
You are right. The arabs of the 20s and thirties were angry at Jewish national claims to any part of EY so they massacared Jews blindly but in the course of 80 years they have become enlightened and now they accept these claims and they are now massacaring Jews because of the 3 MK's elected to office by the mafdal. Brilliant analysis. If only there was no religious national party they would stop firing kassams at sderot and generally causing havok.
You havent dealt with this yet:
1) Was transfer really the causal factor in the improvements of the situation in the past, or was it merely correlated with the improved situations?
2) Would transfer in this case be morally preferable? Would it save lives overall? Increase utility?
3) Would such a plan really be morally preferable overall, considering how the remaining Arabs in Israel would be treated?
4) Would Israel's position be better considering how it would probably lose all western support? If Israel's enemies are armed and sanctions are put into place, are you so sure Israel can survive?
Is Israel going to have the human capital to compete with the west (or even the Arab world), considering the likely sanctions that will be in effect? Would a number of Israel's intellectual elite flee to the west, leaving basically only the Chareidim and RZ populations in place, and would those loses decrease the military might of the state?
>4) Would Israel's position be better considering how it would probably lose all western support? If Israel's enemies are armed and sanctions are put into place, are you so sure Israel can survive?
And if they didn't loose western support or face any sanctions, would you for it then?
You are right. The arabs of the 20s and thirties were angry at Jewish national claims to any part of EY so they massacared Jews blindly but in the course of 80 years they have become enlightened and now they accept these claims and they are now massacaring Jews because of the 3 MK's elected to office by the mafdal. Brilliant analysis. If only there was no religious national party they would stop firing kassams at sderot and generally causing havok.
The Arabs in the 20s were angry about one thing. The Arabs today are angry about something else. If Israel had spent the 70s and 80s doing something other then rubbing Arab noses in the 67 defeat, perhaps the 90s and the 00s would have gone differently.
I wasn't being completely serious when I suggested that the mafdalniks were the cause of the problem. What I meant was that you think the Arabs should leave, well maybe they should stay, and YOU should leave. Why do you get to stay in your home? Why is your claim superior to theirs? Because you believe G said one thing? Great. They believe God said something else.
" > Democracy just means majority rile
Not workable democracy. The founding fathers of the USA obviously didn't agree with you, else, why a constitution?
Yehudi Hilchati |"
Of course they agreed with me. They never set up a democracy, they set up a constitutional republic with a constitution to limit the tyranny of the majority.
>If Israel had spent the 70s and 80s doing something other then rubbing Arab noses in the 67 defeat, perhaps the 90s and the 00s would have gone differently.
Can you back this up?
What about bombings that were occuring in the 50's? Long before Jews took any land
The Jewish claim to Israel under modern international law started roughly as you've outlined. But there's a long historical claim, even if one doesn't accept the divine claim. You seem bent on ignoring that.
What the hell is a "historical claim?" As far as the histry goes, the last svoereign Jewish government gave up control of Judaea to the Romans in 63 BCE. Yes, there were a few Jewish "Kings" after that, but it was roughly equivalent to being the Governor of Puerto Rico.
After the Bar Kokhba rebellion, what few Jews were left in Eretz Israel were found in the Galil, and the Jewish community became fragmented with nobody seriously making any sort of claim to the land that they had no expectation of getting, anyway. During most of this "Exile" the Jewish yearning towards the land of Israel has been strictly a religious matter, and all claims were made on the basis of divine promise and the expectation that id they ever realized the claims, it would be through divine action. The political Zionism that arose in the 19th century was, indeed, something new under the sun.
Because you believe G said one thing? Great. They believe God said something else.
So the very fact they have a position de facto causes me to be unable to believe my position and act on it when I have the ability to do so?
DB, your argument is against anyone acting on anything they think ever.
The Arabs have a historical claim, too, arguably a stronger one.
>1) Was transfer really the causal factor in the improvements of the situation in the past, or was it merely correlated with the improved situations?
Um, logic would dictate that seperating populations CAUSES them to be have less conflict since conflict usually requires CONTACT.
>2) Would transfer in this case be morally preferable? Would it save lives overall? Increase utility?
YES. cuz once we are seperate this would be a normal war with a begining middle and end and not this ridiculous and untenable situation.
>3) Would such a plan really be morally preferable overall, considering how the remaining Arabs in Israel would be treated?
Uh? Those remaining would do so because they would WANT to be there. guess what, illigal imigrants to the US also don't have political rights but they CHOOSE to live in the US. Are you suggesting that the only moral course the US can take is to grant them political rights??
>4) Would Israel's position be better considering how it would probably lose all western support? If Israel's enemies are armed and sanctions are put into place, are you so sure Israel can survive?
This is a practical and not moral consideration. How to best execute the plan is really a seperate discussion but I am glad you are moving in the right direction.
>Is Israel going to have the human capital to compete with the west (or even the Arab world), considering the likely sanctions that will be in effect?
see above.
>Would a number of Israel's intellectual elite flee to the west, leaving basically only the Chareidim and RZ populations in place, and would those loses decrease the military might of the state?
Considering the fact that the RZ community is as economically strong as any in Israel. That it contributes to all segments of society. That the army is completely dependant on this society for its future eficacy. I think we will be ok. Also, to those who would flee, good ridance. They are one of the major factors weakening Israel at the moment.
>If Israel had spent the 70s and 80s doing something other then rubbing Arab noses in the 67 defeat, perhaps the 90s and the 00s would have gone differently.
Or, what you mean to say is, that by chas veshalom, celebrating Jerusalem Day, that we brought this upon us.
So the very fact they have a position de facto causes me to be unable to believe my position and act on it when I have the ability to do so?
DB, your argument is against anyone acting on anything they think ever.
I'm just hoping you'll see that this whole God said so claim isn't much of an argument.
Can you back this up?
Back up what? A suggestion?
What about bombings that were occuring in the 50's? Long before Jews took any land
Right. Because when the Zionists arrived the land was empty.. a land without people... and no Arabs were ever inconvinienced until 1967.
on the ball as always HH
DB, don't you realize you are being so pluralistic you are forgetting to take your own side?
"> The Jewish left in America which rallied and dominated the civil rights movement , but ignored the Holocaust and kept quiet.
Do you know the difference between the 40's and the 60's?"
I guess the 400 rabbis who marched on Washington 18 months before the wars end didn't care what decade it was.
Are you suggesting that the only moral course the US can take is to grant them political rights??
As an aside: Yes.
>Right. Because when the Zionists arrived the land was empty.. a land without people... and no Arabs were ever inconvinienced until 1967.
on the ball as always HH
Your comments claim that Arabs in the 20's are no different than they are 80's years lately. All you did was contradict yourself now. (not the first time, I caught you previously) If anything, you agree that fighting for the same thing has been going ever since.
DB, don't you realize you are being so pluralistic you are forgetting to take your own side?
You don't mean "pluralistic" You've used the word incorrectly.
Fine, I never claimed that it was the only factor.
You're emphasizing it a lot more than any Kantian would, that's for sure.
But in the final analysis, between what I expect to occur through expulsion and what I KNOW will continue to occur if the status quo is continued upon (especially the paths of oslo/road map/expulsion) is a non-starter.
Let's forget about morality for a second. If Israel expels millions of Palestinians and keeps the others as second class citizens it will lose the support of pretty much the entire western world (and much of world Jewry). That is almost certain to happen.
It is also likely that without the American people supporting Israel, the US and Europe will start backing its enemies, especially since they have oil and the US wants to resolve the Iraq problem. It is not hard to imagine Syria and Egypt being rearmed and not constrained from fighting by US influence.
So Israel's enemies become armed. It is very likely that the UN will place sanctions on Israel. Israel might not have to worry about terrorism, but sanctions can have a disastrous effect on an economy. Israelis are increasingly becoming more willing to make yeridah and a bad economy and lots of armed enemies on Israel's borders will not persuade them to stay.
So a number of secular Israelis will probably leave. Since they make up most of Israel's human capital, Israel will lose its only natural resource. As the society becomes more Chareidi dominated, it'll move in the direction of a theocracy, which will scare off much of the other idealistic secular Zionists.
So we'll have a copy of Iran, with no world support, sanctioned, myriad armed enemies with nuclear aspirations on its borders, and its economy in dire straits. How do you think that is going to end?
Is my scenario really fantastic? Some parts are more likely than others, but do you really think it's unlikely?
The situation we have now is bad, but Israel has the strong upper hand, it has world support especially from the world's only superpower, and it is among the world leader in a number of fields. Is Israel really worse off than it would be in my scenario?
Your comments claim that Arabs in the 20's are no different than they are 80's years lately. All you did was contradict yourself now. (not the first time, I caught you previously) If anything, you agree that fighting for the same thing has been going ever since.
There is no different. In fact every Arab from the begining of the time is completely interchangable with every other Arab from the begining of time. They even look alike.
>Back up what? A suggestion?
Ummmmm...you made a pretty bold "suggestion." I do believe it requires some backing up.
You don't mean "pluralistic" You've used the word incorrectly.
DB, no I haven't. You are trying to say, 'everyone's claim is as defensible as everyone else's therefore there is no value in the argument from historical claims.'
That is a pluralistic argument, and my point is, you have to ultimately side with yourself or no-one will.
>There is no different. In fact every Arab from the begining of the time is completely interchangable with every other Arab from the begining of time. They even look alike.
These worthless comments only show you are loosing at this and can't sustain your own previous comments.
DB, no I haven't. You are trying to say, 'everyone's claim is as defensible as everyone else's therefore there is no value in the argument from historical claims.'
That is a pluralistic argument.
No it isn't. It's moral reletavism, not pluralism
(anyway it isn't my argument!! I am not saying that "everyone's claim is as defensible as everyone else's therefore there is no value in any of them" I am saying that in *this particular case* the theological claim made by Jews does not constitue an especially strong or convinicing argument. Certainly no Muslim is going to buy it.)
These worthless comments only show you are loosing at this and can't sustain your own previous comments.
Aren't you pleased that I am agreeing with you about how all Arabs are exactly the same? One big faceless monolith.
>Aren't you pleased that I am agreeing with you about how all Arabs are exactly the same? One big faceless monolith.
I would be happy if you agreed with me, had I said that.
I would be happy if you agreed with me, had I said that.
Oh. I thought that was your position.
The way to win an argument, DB, is not to be insulting and facetious. It is to be honest and truth-oriented.
So we'll have a copy of Iran, with no world support, sanctioned, myriad armed enemies with nuclear aspirations on its borders, and its economy in dire straits.
But at least I won't have to look at any more Arabs!
>The Arabs in the 20s were angry about one thing. The Arabs today are angry about something else.
No. They reject ANY jewish claim to the land. Name me ONE arab political movement which recognizes Jewish RIGHTS to the land.
>If Israel had spent the 70s and 80s doing something other then rubbing Arab noses in the 67 defeat, perhaps the 90s and the 00s would have gone differently.
There is NOTHING that supports this ridiculous assertion. Fantacies of arab liberalism do not make for good policy.
>I wasn't being completely serious when I suggested that the mafdalniks were the cause of the problem. What I meant was that you think the Arabs should leave, well maybe they should stay, and YOU should leave.
Nobody WANTS to leave their home. I never suggested otherwise. But if compromize is impossible (and it is), then as long as I am stronger, I will make sure that it is the other guy who leaves and not me.
>Why do you get to stay in your home?
Because I can.
>Why is your claim superior to theirs?
Because I am a winner in the war and therefore sovereign. And the sovereign have a stronger claim to land than those who are conquered.
>Because you believe G said one thing? Great. They believe God said something else.
So what? I have a particular theological POV. So do they. I have a political POV, they have a different one. I have a moral POV, they have a different one. What does that have to do with anything?
The way to win an argument, DB, is not to be insulting and facetious. It is to be honest and truth-oriented.
No! The way to win an argument is to deport your opponents!!
But at least I won't have to look at any more Arabs!
On the contrary, there will still be Arabs in Israel.
> What the hell is a "historical claim?" As far as the histry goes, the last svoereign Jewish government gave up control of Judaea to the Romans in 63 BCE.
Since when does history begin only in the last 500 years?
Also, Jews never gave up their emotional attachment to their ancestral homeland. While admittedly a tiny percentage, many Jews travelled and settled there over the last 2 millenia. Zionism was a natural outgrowth of that attachment, albeit influenced by 19th century nationalism. You seem bent on denying any valid Jewish connection to that patch of land. Why?
>Oh. I thought that was your position.
No, Im just catching your inconsistencies
You seem bent on denying any valid Jewish connection to that patch of land. Why
You seem bent on trumping the most tenuous connection into a divine right. Why?
>There is NOTHING that supports this ridiculous assertion. Fantacies of arab liberalism do not make for good policy.
NO no no no Chardal, don't you understand. By us celebrating Yom Yerushalyim, we are in fact rubbing our noses to the Arabs, and everything that happened in the 90's, is something we had coming.
I wish to congratulate Chardal for admitting that this is about might, not morality.
And if they didn't loose western support or face any sanctions, would you for it then?
No, but I'm not dealing with that issue right now.
Um, logic would dictate that seperating populations CAUSES them to be have less conflict since conflict usually requires CONTACT.
We're talking about different types of conflicts. Greece and Turkey don't love each other right now, but the reason they aren't fighting is not because there was a population transfer 100 years ago.
YES. cuz once we are seperate this would be a normal war with a begining middle and end and not this ridiculous and untenable situation.
WWII had a beginning, middle and end. A lot more people died probably in a week than have been killed in Israel by Palestinian terror. The nature of the war says nothing about whether how many lives will be lost.
Uh? Those remaining would do so because they would WANT to be there. guess what, illigal imigrants to the US also don't have political rights but they CHOOSE to live in the US. Are you suggesting that the only moral course the US can take is to grant them political rights??
What do you mean by "want?" What are their other options? Who is going to absorb them? All things being what they are, Israeli Arabs would probably be better off as second-class citizens in Israel than as refugee camps in Lebanon.
But does that make it right to treat them like that?
This is a practical and not moral consideration. How to best execute the plan is really a seperate discussion but I am glad you are moving in the right direction.
Not true. You are incorporating the number of deaths in each course of action into your moral calculus. If I can show you that more people will die under your plan, it won't be as moral under your definition as you made it out to be.
Mevaseres?
That is a pluralistic argument.
No it isn't. It's moral reletavism, not pluralism
(anyway it isn't my argument!! I am not saying that "everyone's claim is as defensible as everyone else's therefore there is no value in any of them" I am saying that in *this particular case* the theological claim made by Jews does not constitue an especially strong or convinicing argument. Certainly no Muslim is going to buy it.)
I wish to congratulate Chardal for admitting that this is about might, not morality.
It is about using hard-won might and control to protect your nation against its enemy, no matter what arguments the enemy has for our destruction.
>No, but I'm not dealing with that issue right now.
I was asking DB
HH - who are you kidding. You never once celebrated yom yerushalayim in your life.
And, also who are you kidding? you know that when I speak about indiginites and hardships and humiliations to which Israeli Arabs were subjected I am not speaking about a yom yerushalyim party.
Careful now, or Mrs. Mevaseret is going to snap you for being facisous during a Serious and Mature conversation.
>> The Arabs in the 20s were angry about one thing. The Arabs today are angry about something else.
> No. They reject ANY jewish claim to the land. Name me ONE arab political movement which recognizes Jewish RIGHTS to the land.
Chardal, you are correct on this one point. Doesn't justify your other attitudes though.
It is pluralistic in its attempt to show that no one view has the claim on truth.
However, you have to believe in what you believe in and act on it, or you will do nothing. Believe me, the other side is not concerned with the possiblity that they are wrong.
So the very fact they have a position de facto causes me to be unable to believe my position and act on it when I have the ability to do so?
Before you start expelling millions of people, you might want to make sure you're certain that your claims are correct.
Because I am a winner in the war and therefore sovereign. And the sovereign have a stronger claim to land than those who are conquered.
This is also another one of those ideas that was rejected in the latter half of the last century.
Btw, DB, you're crazy if you think Israel is at fault for the lack of peace with the Arab world.
It is about using hard-won might and control to protect your nation against its enemy, no matter what arguments the enemy has for our destruction.
First they came for the Arabs and I said nothing, because I was not an Arab...
Then they came for the pork eating secularists...
It is pluralistic in its attempt to show that no one view has the claim on truth.
Please stop mischarecterizing pluralism. It makes me feel like all the posts I've written on the subject have gone to waste.
> You seem bent on trumping the most tenuous connection into a divine right. Why?
Did you even read my comments? I specifically appealed to historical claims, not divine ones, which are only valid within a religious faith.
Btw, DB, you're crazy if you think Israel is at fault for the lack of peace with the Arab world.
Good thing that isn't my position.
I wouldnt want anyone to think I was crazy
It makes me feel like all the posts I've written on the subject have gone to waste.
I fear they are as well thought out as your comments on this thread.
>We're talking about different types of conflicts. Greece and Turkey don't love each other right now, but the reason they aren't fighting is not because there was a population transfer 100 years ago.
How do you know this? Right now there might be other reasons, but without that initial transfer, they might still be fighting.
>WWII had a beginning, middle and end. A lot more people died probably in a week than have been killed in Israel by Palestinian terror. The nature of the war says nothing about whether how many lives will be lost.
Well obviously. WW2 had much more involvement, but there was an end. Would you prefer just because the casulty list has not reached millions that we continue on this course?
It is about using hard-won might and control to protect your nation against its enemy, no matter what arguments the enemy has for our destruction.
This has nothing to do with the issue we are talking about. No one here is against using military force against terrorists (at least I hope not). We are talking about using our "hard-won might" against innocent civilians.
It makes me feel like all the posts I've written on the subject have gone to waste.
I fear they are as well thought out as your comments on this thread.
Tsk tsk. Look at you with the ad hominum attacks. Does this mean you resigned as hall monitor? Has someone taken your place?
I guess so. If only one side of an argument is going to maintain civility, they put themselves at a disadvantage.
I have asked you to be civil many times, yet your temper gets the better of you. Why do you think that is?
I feel I must point somethng out to the Kahanists.
Attention.
YOU LOST
This argument we're having may have had currency in the late 80s but 20 years later? You guy LOST. No one except loonies and terrorists talks about transfer any more. And why?
BECAUSE YOU LOST
How do you know this? Right now there might be other reasons, but without that initial transfer, they might still be fighting.
Maybe. I think it has more to with the democratic norms that each society now shares. But why is the burden of proof on me? I'm not trying to prove a link.
Well obviously. WW2 had much more involvement, but there was an end. Would you prefer just because the casulty list has not reached millions that we continue on this course?
If the alternative is a casulty count that is higher? Probably.
But I was only responding to Chardal's point that the nature of the war affects the casulty count. I don't agree. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe more people died in Israel's wars than in terrorist attacks.
I have asked you to be civil many times, yet your temper gets the better of you. Why do you think that is?
I've asked you to grow up many times, yet your sanctimony gets the better of you. Why do you think that is?
I have to say, the tone and sarcasm that you display on this thread where no one is out to insult you, and yet you freely dispense with the insults, really has lowered my respect for you.
Not your arguments, but your rude, condescending attitude, calling anyone who disagrees with you a lunatic. But then, you probably think you are acting like the Ramban, and you are really displaying your acumen for debate.
>Maybe. I think it has more to with the democratic norms that each society now shares. But why is the burden of proof on me? I'm not trying to prove a link.
Right. NOW shares. Could have they moved in those respected paths had it not been for the transfer.
I'm not askign you to prove anything, just sharing thoughts.
I've asked you to grow up many times, yet your sanctimony gets the better of you. Why do you think that is?
Because, telling someone to grow up when you are repeatedly, flagrantly rude is silly. Why don't you grow up, and learn some manners?
DB, seriously, enough with the insults. I don't like MZ's opinions anymore than you do, but do I have to wade through a dozen posts about tone before I get to the real comments?
The fact that no-one speaks of transfer doesn't prove that Kahane was wrong, just that people don't support it.
How does that show that he "lost"?
Right. NOW shares. Could have they moved in those respected paths had it not been for the transfer.
Maybe, maybe not. I know very little about the history of either country, so I'll defer on that question. My sole point is that we shouldn't just nonchalantly assume that transfer led to the end of hostilities. It is a much more complex question I'm sure.
Tuli, I am not the one writing the posts about tone, and for the record, there's been nothing wrong with my tone. I called him a lunat8ic exactly once, and not because he disagrees with me, but because he made the lunatic suggestion that I think its ok that Jews were mistreated in arabs lands. That's the one insulting thing I've said on this whole thread, and for that we've all been subjected to MZ's whining, and complaining.
mevaseretzion ,
I repeat: you haven't posted on your own blog since 1/31. Please do .it was a good blob.
calling anyone who disagrees with you a lunatic.
YOU KNOW THIS DIDNT HAPPEN
I CALLED YOU A LUNATIC BECAUSE YOU MADE A LUNATIC SUGGESTION
NOW WILL YOU PLEASE DROP IT?
SUCK IT UP FOR HEAVENS SAKE
Tuli, I am not the one writing the posts about tone, and for the record, there's been nothing wrong with my tone. I called him a lunat8ic exactly once, and not because he disagrees with me, but because he made the lunatic suggestion that I think its ok that Jews were mistreated in arabs lands. That's the one insulting thing I've said on this whole thread, and for that we've all been subjected to MZ's whining, and complaining.
I disagree, but my whole point was to get both of you to stop talking about it. Truce please.
DB, stop it. You called me a lunatic, and an ethno-religious chauvinist,and called HH some other things.
Read back in the comments.
This is your house, but that shouldn't stop you from desiring a polite conversation.
DB, seriously, enough with the insults
Insults? I called him a lunatic once, and that was because HE said something offensive about me. And for that we've been subjected to nonstop moaning about tone. Jeez
OK, any comment that whines about tone is getting ignored. Or deleted. I havent decided yet. But ENOUGH
Insults? I called him a lunatic once, and that was because HE said something offensive about me. And for that we've been subjected to nonstop moaning about tone. Jeez
Fine no one insulted anyone. Let's just stop talking about it, ok?
I disagree
Then you aren't paying attention
>and called HH some other things.
No, he just said he wants to put something up my rectum.
No, he just said he wants to put something up my rectum.
You said you assumed [something absurd and crazy about me]
So I replied in kind by assuming [something absurd and crazy about you that involved your rectum]
Dont mischarecterize
The fact that no-one speaks of transfer doesn't prove that Kahane was wrong, just that people don't support it.
How does that show that he "lost"?
people don't support it, ie, he lost
The idea of transfer is far from dead in Israel.
The idea of transfer is far from dead in Israel.
Maybe on the LUNATIC right. But the rest of the country doesn't take it seriously.
The idea of transfer is far from dead in Israel.
This is true. Some MKs call for a voluntary transfer, while I think only Effie Eitam ever called for a forced transfer (I could be wrong). It is on the fringes, though.
However, minority ideas aren't dead and transfer usually gets more support among the population whenever there is a rise in terror attacks.
It is funny, because you said people don't support it, and now you admit people on the right do.
So I guess only the people who agree with you matter.
It is funny, because you said people don't support it, and now you admit people on the right do.
The idea is dead in Israel except on the fringes. This is what we mean when we say an idea has lost
Ah, I see. So basically, ideas that are not mainstream are "lost". Seems to me that lost ideas get resurrected all the time in politics, then.
I would not consider transfer out for the count, or lost.
Well I would. Its a terrible idea, a hateful idea, a noxious idea, and one no Jew should have ever considered.
"The idea of transfer is far from dead in Israel.
Maybe on the LUNATIC right. But the rest of the country doesn't take it seriously.
DovBear | 02.27.08 - 4:44 pm | # "
This may or may not be true, nevertheless RK raised an 800lb gorilla issue that the other politicians were pretending to go away.
I remember when the arab population was 12%. now after 1 million russian's and 150 k ethiopian immigrants it is about 20%.
The future is bleak. I don't know the right answer and many of the pols are untrustworhty whores including G-D forbid the religious ones.
Wait, so now its 'lost' because you don't like it.
No it lost because no one takes it seriously
Man!
No it lost because no one takes it seriously
No one takes it seriously because it's a bad idea. It's not a bad idea because no one takes it seriously.
>a hateful idea
Even if its not pretty, can you explain to me how its hateful?
It lost because its a bad idea.
I think Haloscan ate my comment
oh, nevermind
"So a number of secular Israelis will probably leave. "
Over 1 million have already left. honestly I don't totally blame them. I don't blame a JINO for marrying a beautiful shiksa, and I don't blame a secular non jewish jew for wanting out.
Of course when the former writes a letter to the NYT saying that "even though I am a proud Jew and strong supporter of Israel, its current policies yada yada... " I know he's FOS.
Over 1 million have already left. honestly I don't totally blame them. I don't blame a JINO for marrying a beautiful shiksa, and I don't blame a secular non jewish jew for wanting out.
Of course when the former writes a letter to the NYT saying that "even though I am a proud Jew and strong supporter of Israel, its current policies yada yada... " I know he's FOS.
Who's talking about blame? Does anyone really think Israel could handle a mass exodus of secular Israelis?
It lost because its a bad idea.
Fine, but then the fact that it lost isn't important in this debate.
Who's talking about blame? Does anyone really think Israel could handle a mass exodus of secular Israelis?
over a million is a mass exudus.
over a million is a mass exudus.
They didn't leave all at the same time. And we're talking about more than 1 million.
DB so if you were made czar of Israel what would you do?
DB so if you were made czar of Israel what would you do?
resign!
DB so if you were made czar of Israel what would you do?
resign!
DovBear | 02.27.08 - 5:17 pm | #
Because the problems can't be solved , or because dealing with so many Jews is a thankless job or both?
I do have to post on my blog. I have left it far too long.
I plan to pick it up this week or next. Things have been so busy lately.
Sorry!
Didn't Rabbi Kahane suggest buying the Arabs out? He suggested givning them the fair market value for their land. This sound like eminant domain to me. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a municipality could buy houses owned by poor people and sell the land to rich developers. This is considered a legitimate public benefit. Isn't removing bombers from the population a public benefit?
Liorah, how do you feel about Sharon? He expelled thousands of people from their homes, causing tremendous suffering and family problems. And as for Olmert: have you seen the video of what he did in Amona??
Do you have the same vitriol for them as you do for Rabbi Kahane?
You assume my problem with Kahanism is Kahane's poltical views. Your assumption is wrong.
Didn't Rabbi Kahane suggest buying the Arabs out? He suggested givning them the fair market value for their land. This sound like eminant domain to me. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a municipality could buy houses owned by poor people and sell the land to rich developers. This is considered a legitimate public benefit. Isn't removing bombers from the population a public benefit?
The Eminent Domain Clause in the Constitution would not allow kicking people out of the country.
My problem with kahanism the fascist spirituality which drives it.
And Liorah, Rabbi Kahane was not "all about the superiority of the Jewish race".
Kahanism is.
By the way, the very factors that he wrote about and that you brand him a 'rascist' for, are ones that were specifically mentioned by Sharon as a reason for the Disengagement.
You see, you think you know why I despise Kahanism and you are again wrong. I did not support the disengagement from Gaza. Nevertheless, I still despise Kahanism. It's fascist.
Calling him names or the "Jewish KKK" does not magically erase the issues he raises.
First of all, I called Kahanism, the man's followers, the Jewish KKK. Second, any solution to "the issues" will not come as long fascist thinking is allowed to go on without correction. Certainly, Kahanists are not the only fascists contributing to the problem, but they are OUR fascists, and I for one, will not whitewash it just because there are worst fascists in the world than the Kahanists.
Liorah
Can you explain to me why Kahanism is about Jewish superiority over the rest of humanity?
>>Kahanism is about Jewish superiority over the rest of the human race,
Liorah, can you back this up?
You must be joking. I'm not going to name names because it's not important. Just reading some of the websites of Kahanists and it's clear that their vision of a messianic reality is the rest of the world bowing down to the Jewish people and groveling at our feet like good little subhumans. It's quite disgusting.
you have a link?
Nephtuli:
The concept of eminant domain predates the Constitution. Kings used it to confiscate land for a public benefit. Exile and banishment are also time honored forms of dealing with troublesome people.
Liora:
I always understood Kahane to be saying merely that Jews should be prepared to do whatever we have to do to defend ourselves, just like most normal people do.
Liorah, we happen to be discussing Rabbi Kahane and his ideology, not people who call themselves followers of his without subscribing to his true views.
So let's stay on that topic.
you have a link?
No, it isn't important and it's so commonlu known I don't need one anyway.
>No, it isn't important and it's so commonlu known I don't need one anyway.
How convenient.
Liorah, we happen to be discussing Rabbi Kahane and his ideology, not people who call themselves followers of his without subscribing to his true views.
So let's stay on that topic.
You aren't my boss, so don't boss me.
How convenient.
I assure you, it's not convenience, it's ahavat Yisrael.
FWIW to you Liorah, I am reading different articles on their main site and so far I have no found anything to say Jews are superior to the rest of the human race.
What I have found is it saying that we should not care what the gentiles think in matters of Israel, that we should be left alone and that Arabs should not be given citizenship, or, at least a limited citizenship.
>I assure you, it's not convenience, it's ahavat Yisrael.
How convenient (again)
Right, right, if you say so, but we all know the truth. We've all seen plenty of examples.
You are not going to provoke me into giving a link to a clear example (of which there are many), so save the energy of making more keystrokes on the matter.
You're really adding a lot today Liorah. You make accusations and don't care to support it. OK.
Correct, I do not want to support it, I want it to change.
Then if you can't support certain acccusations with, gasp, there I say it: FACTS...how are things going to change?
Mind you, I am trying to be impartial here. If indeed that is their attitude, I would care to know about it.
The concept of eminant domain predates the Constitution. Kings used it to confiscate land for a public benefit. Exile and banishment are also time honored forms of dealing with troublesome people.
You missed the beginning of the conversation where we spoke about the fact something used to be used does not mean it should continue be used today. Slavery and genocide were popular back in the day as well.
I'm not going to give you any facts. Get over it already.
OK.
But claim any "ahavas Yisroel" on your part
seems you got cut off
what were you trying to say?
what difference does it make
>>But claim any "ahavas Yisroel" on your part
DER on me.
Meant: Don't* claim any....
I thought I told you already not to boss me.
Nah
The first one was to MT
LOL.
Neftuli:
Modern municipalities have anti vangrancy laws. Homeless people are not allowed in. So apply eminent domain to buy up the Arabs property. Now they are vagrants. Then you can legally expel them, just like modern gated communities do.
Modern municipalities have anti vangrancy laws. Homeless people are not allowed in. So apply eminent domain to buy up the Arabs property. Now they are vagrants. Then you can legally expel them, just like modern gated communities do.
Do you think the Supreme Court would allow a muncipality to do that?
you can legally expel them, just like modern gated communities do.
a - what you are suggesting has never been done in this country
b- and anyway what you're suggesting woudldn't include deporting American born vagrants.
"So stay where you are, dont come here to live on land stolen from the former Ottoman Empire residents and have a clean conciense."
"Most of us don't live there. Or haven't you noticed?"
*
Well then what the heck do you care what goes on in this country. Thats why if you lived here you would know there is a movement afoot to first of all while training Cohanim in Avodat Hamikdash, we also want to be sure that when there is a serious Sandhedrin, there will be no Sunni/Shiite Rabbinic garbage going on.
The Talmud dosent belong in Eretz Israel anymore, a Sanhedrin adjucates and people observe, no mahclokess ergo no Talmud or psak dins to argue about. Yeshivot will finally go back to learning Torah full time and not Shas.
"Dont come here thinking that you will rewrite the provisions that make this land ours and not others. And those here that dont like it, then they can move to where you are and eat all the basar lavan they want."
"Maybe you should move to Kiryat Joel and establish your little theocracy there instead? What's that? KJ won't accept you. My, my. Perhaps you're starting to understand why theocracies are always a horrowshow
DovBear | 02.27.08 - 3:00 pm | # "
See you still dont get it. The Torah is the first and only constitution to safeguard the rights of the poor and rich alike. To make sure that if your a farmer and leave a corner of your field for the poor to gather, instead of throwing some coins into a JNF box.
And that includes the needy of any faith or race. If you think the Ten Commandments are an evil agent of Theocracy, then go ahead and nail the neighbors wife, murder the guy who pissed you off, or rob a bank if it makes you feel good.
Judaism is the only Theocracy I see around here today. A Mafia of Rabbis who ban and take graft and cherem this or that. They are the ones who have invented some of bullshit minhags and maaysas you all so worry about, a bracha for this food a bracha for that food, lechem or mezonot or shehakol on water.
Because somebody ruled that electricty is fire dosent mean a reconstituted Sanhedrin would have to see it that way. Yea you cook your meat over a light bulb. And as far as the Arabs here go, most of them are the gentlestt of people and its only the Jules Streichers of the Arab world at large that write us up as the big nosed shylock taking pounds of Palenstinian flesh.
The fact that other religons live here is not an issue since if the Mashiach comes, Yerushalayim will be needing a lot of hotel round succot time and we will welcome them. So some of them are here early big deal. So many of us here believe that only thru the Torah will this land serve a Ohr Laamim. Our prophets told the kings off anytime they felt they needed to repudiate the behavior. Wether stealing someones vineyard via murder or sending someones husband on a sucicide mission for personal gain.
Equal Rights, Civil Rights, thats the Theocracy of Judaism and the West and believe it or not, many secular people live a life of Torah in more ways then they realize. Judaism really is the enemy of a free Israelite nation. You dont understand that but as I said, you can live where you wish, keep you woman silent with your Kol Isha humbug and your nonesensical play at Shalosh Regalim shaking lulavs and Esrogs without a Mikdash yet afraid to offer a Korban today even without a Mikdash.
Judaism and the Amish are really closer faiths then Judaism and the Torah. Non of this conversion kangaroo courts of deciding who is Jewish because you wont matter. When a Moabite Woman refused to leave her Israelite mother in law and stay in friendly territory and told her, your people will be my people, that single devotional sentence made her the GreatGrand Mother of one of our most illustrious Kings. The Torah addresses all born Israelites, but welcomes all non israelites who wish to share in its chochma and darcai noam.
Its your Theocracy that puts people thru hell and now one group is trying to say whose conversions, formally valid are no longer. DovBear, your religon, your Theocracy is insane. Yes so please we want to rid ourselves of your madness.
>No one takes it seriously because it's a bad idea. It's not a bad idea because no one takes it seriously.
You guys are so full of it. No one advocates the idea because it is BANNED in your precious "democracy" called Israel. You hear that, banned. Any polititian who suggests it will NOT BE ALLOWED to run for parliment. Do you get that???
How can you make ANY statement about how popular it would be if this was not the case??
R' Kahane was banned from running for the knesset when he was polling 8-14 seats in the knesset for the 88 elections. NO ONE KNOWS what would be today if your precious values of democracy were not completely ignored and make illigral in this country.
If you and your leftist co-religionists in Israel would put your money were your mouth is and allow people to run on a platform of transfer for the Arabs, then we can start talking about whether the idea has "lost."
Naftuli, regarding your diversion regarding the practical effects of transfer today. First, I am glad you are no longer arguing that it is immoral but rather that the price is too high for Jews - that is, you are arguing that it is practically not implementable. That is really a seperate discussion than the original moral one. Do I take this to mean that if you were convinced that it could be done and that it would save lives in the long term, you would support it as a morally valid policy?
Personally, I think that it is only implemantable one an overwhelming majority of the country supports it. So the first step is to make it a legal idea in Israel. Next to push it politically until you get massive support for it. Next you have to get the people on the ground to come up with workable political and military plans for it. And only then can you execute it.
I can not imagine this happening at any time in the next 20 years, but that will not stop me from advocating what I think is the only moral and reasonable long term solution to this ridiculous situation.
No one except loonies and terrorists talks about transfer any more. And why? - Dov Bear
What are you talking about? Unless you consider the Israeli Left to be loonies.
The Left in Israel constantly talks about population transfers.
In their case, they are talking about transferring Jews out areas to be handed over to PA controlled. That is TRANSFER whether you want to use the term or not.
Minister Haim Ramon (and Olmert’s trial ballon) is currently proposing a bill to allow the easy and legal, forced population transfer of Jews out of the regions he wishes to transfer control of over to the PA.
“Peace Now” (an organization currently under investigation for tax fraud in the US and Israel) is a long-term proponent of the population transfer of Jews. The current Minister of Education is one of the founders of Peace Now.
Perhaps you meant to say the more one-sided statement that No one except loonies and terrorists talks about transfer of Arabs any more - because the heads of the Israeli government talk about Transfer all the time.
Its your Theocracy that puts people thru hell and now one group is trying to say whose conversions, formally valid are no longer. DovBear, your religon, your Theocracy is insane. Yes so please we want to rid ourselves of your madness.
Okay, you totaly lost me. If anyone else can make sense of LL's rant, please translate.
My theocracy? Um, I oppose all theocracies, with no exception. This blog is dedicated to exposing the corruptions in Orthodox society. So, I really dont follow you at all.
You guys are so full of it. No one advocates the idea because it is BANNED in your precious "democracy" called Israel. You hear that, banned. Any polititian who suggests it will NOT BE ALLOWED to run for parliment. Do you get that???
Of course, and for the record I think that was a mistake and a cowardly move on the part of the government. They should have let the khanists and the kachniks stand for office and all the rest. Nothing would have done more to expose them as the hate-filled frauds they are.
How can you make ANY statement about how popular it would be if this was not the case??
There are other ways to make an argument. And the kachniks have failed to make it succefully.
I can not imagine this happening at any time in the next 20 years, but that will not stop me from advocating what I think is the only moral and reasonable long term solution to this ridiculous situation.
It not moral, or reasonable, or a solution. It theft, plain and simple, and if god forbid you ever implement it Israel will take a seat next to Iran and the old South Africa in the international community, rejected and abandoned, and not just by the west, but by the majority of Jews, too.
In their case, they are talking about transferring Jews out areas to be handed over to PA controlled. That is TRANSFER whether you want to use the term or not.
See above. As already explained, these are two very different things, and not even slightly analogous.
Exile and banishment are also time honored forms of dealing with troublesome people.
So was the gullitine. Should we bring that back too?
DB: It theft, plain and simple, and if god forbid you ever implement it Israel will take a seat next to Iran and the old South Africa in the international community, rejected and abandoned...
What planet are you living on? That's where Israel already is right now in the international community.
Liorah, it is nice to see someone try to make unsubstantiated claims against Rabbi Kahane (and even his followers!) and not be able to back them up. It is also very strange to see you speak motzi shem ra (or at least lashon hara) about groups of Jews, and then have the temerity to justify your refusal to provide one fact to back it up, by claiming (ironically) ahavat yisrael!!
Liorah and DB, you have both decided to villify the Kahane camp because you don't like their message. Loaded phrases like 'jewish KKK' and 'hate-filled fraud' are examples of rhetoric that excludes any conversation; when you hear a good point, you just fall back on your personal attacks, as if that is a rational explanation for your hate.
Nephtuli, what do you say to the point Chardal made that Rabbi Kahane's views were indeed gaining strong steam (stronger than Shas today) in Israel in '88 before he was democratically banned?
And what do you, DB, say about that? And what do you say to a 'democracy' that banned his running? I thought you were into allowing democracy to go its way!
If you and your leftist co-religionists in Israel would put your money were your mouth is and allow people to run on a platform of transfer for the Arabs, then we can start talking about whether the idea has "lost."
I agree with DB that banning Kach was a bad idea. It should not illegal to advocate transfer or the destruction of the Jewish state through peaceful means. But didn't Effie Eitam call for transfer when he was the head of the NRP? Benny Elon has also called for voluntary transfer. The ideas are out there (and DB is correct that there are other ways to get ideas out besides politics), yet there is practically no serious support. Anyway I only argued that there is no support because it is a bad idea.
Naftuli, regarding your diversion regarding the practical effects of transfer today. First, I am glad you are no longer arguing that it is immoral but rather that the price is too high for Jews - that is, you are arguing that it is practically not implementable. That is really a seperate discussion than the original moral one. Do I take this to mean that if you were convinced that it could be done and that it would save lives in the long term, you would support it as a morally valid policy?
I might have misunderstood you. You argued that transfer is a good idea because there is less suffering for the deported in a one time transfer than there would be if the two groups stayed side by side forever. I understood this to be a moral argument and responded that it presupposes a utilitarian element to morality, to which you agreed.
So I assumed that you were arguing that transfer is moral partly because it would lead to more overall utility than any other policy. That is a moral argument. I responded that Israel would end up in a very precarious situation, which is one reason why transfer would not lead to greater utility overall than any other plan (there are other reasons as well, including the horrible fate of the expelled as well as the subjugation of the Arabs who remain). I was not making a practical argument, although for utilitarians how the plan would be implemented is very relevant to the morality of the plan itself. Were you not making a moral argument?
Personally, I think that it is only implemantable one an overwhelming majority of the country supports it. So the first step is to make it a legal idea in Israel. Next to push it politically until you get massive support for it. Next you have to get the people on the ground to come up with workable political and military plans for it. And only then can you execute it.
I think you greatly underestimate the moral fiber of the Israeli people.
Perhaps you meant to say the more one-sided statement that No one except loonies and terrorists talks about transfer of Arabs any more - because the heads of the Israeli government talk about Transfer all the time.
Like I said yesterday: there's a difference between bringing people into their country and kicking people out of their country.
What planet are you living on? That's where Israel already is right now in the international community.
Is this a serious argument? Both Iran and South Africa were sanctioned. There is no serious push among any country in Europe or the US for sanctions. Israel shares a very close relationship with the latter and is on good terms with almost all of Europe.
Nephtuli, what do you say to the point Chardal made that Rabbi Kahane's views were indeed gaining strong steam (stronger than Shas today) in Israel in '88 before he was democratically banned?
Polls are one thing, but elections are another. It's hard to say where they would be today if Kach was never banned.
DB: It theft, plain and simple, and if god forbid you ever implement it Israel will take a seat next to Iran and the old South Africa in the international community, rejected and abandoned...
What planet are you living on? That's where Israel already is right now in the international community.
Oh. So the piles of dollars Israel gets every year from America are a dream, vapor and smoke?
And what do you, DB, say about that? And what do you say to a 'democracy' that banned his running? I thought you were into allowing democracy to go its way!
I already said that was wrong
And Mevaseret I am asking you nicly not to make today's conversation into a discussion of tone. There are going to be vigorous angry comments from both sides. Just deal with it quietly ok?
DB: Oh. So the piles of dollars Israel gets every year from America are a dream, vapor and smoke?
The US is the single, lone exception. The rest of the world hates Israel. Just look at the voting tallies on UN resolutions regarding Israel.
DB, don't worry, I don't plan to comment much today, too much work from yesterday!
But stop painting me as some whiner unable to deal with your insults. The reason I am so bothered by your and Liorah's ad hominems is not offense, but the fact that they are formal fallacies that obstruct the discussion.
But, maybe that's what you need to get your points across...
The US is the single, lone exception. The rest of the world hates Israel. Just look at the voting tallies on UN resolutions regarding Israel.
Are you seriously arguing that Israel is viewed like apartheid South Africa in Europe? You have to be joking.
The US is the single, lone exception. The rest of the world hates Israel. Just look at the voting tallies on UN resolutions regarding Israel.
1 - The US isn't chopped liver.
2 - No one in the UN, and especially in Europe treats Israel the way they treat(ed) Iran or the old South Africa.
you can't be serious.
But stop painting me as some whiner unable to deal with your insults. The reason I am so bothered by your and Liorah's ad hominems is not offense, but the fact that they are formal fallacies that obstruct the discussion.
The thread shows that you are (a) a whiner and that (b) you were at least as insulting, and perhaps more insulting than I was.
2 - No one in the UN, and especially in Europe treats Israel the way they treat(ed) Iran or the old South Africa.
That's not true. There are a large number of countries that consider Israel as bad as South Africa used to be. However, none of those countries matter much in the grand scheme of things. The countries with the real power have fairly good relations with Israel.
The thread shows that you are (a) a whiner and that (b) you were at least as insulting, and perhaps more insulting than I was.
ok, DB. Goodbye.
There are a large number of countries that consider Israel as bad as South Africa used to be.
In the UN maybe, but not in Europe. And those in the UN who feel this way are either insignificant, or in a 60 year old state of war with Israel.
Nephtuli: Are you seriously arguing that Israel is viewed like apartheid South Africa in Europe? You have to be joking.
Spent any time in Europe lately? Know anything about the divestment policies being adopted by universities and churches around the world? Do you keep up with the resolutions of the UN General Assembly or the UN Human Rights Council?
No, I'm not joking at all. You sound like you're living with your head in the sand.
Spent any time in Europe lately? Know anything about the divestment policies being adopted by universities and churches around the world? Do you keep up with the resolutions of the UN General Assembly or the UN Human Rights Council?
Yes to all three. In fact I worked for the ZOA when the divestment issue was a big deal. So yes I know exactly what you are talking about.
We're not talking about crazies in Europe or US campuses. And, yes, Saudi Arabia is not Israel's friend. My point is that Israel has good relations with almost all the important countries. That was not true of South Africa, even though they were the US' ally in Cold War. And it's not true of Iran today which as been sanctioned by the Security Council.
With regard to the UN, all you've shown is that most bodies in the UN are suspectable to whims of large blocs of countries.
Where are the sanctions? Where is the boycott? Where is the embargo?
South Africa was subjected to all that and more (deservedly so) If Israel tosses out its Arabs the same thing will happen to it (deservedly so)
Is that something you think lies in Israel's best interests?
(I'm not going to argue with you anymore that Israel is better treated now than aprtheid South Africa was. Its like arguing evolution with a godol)
DB: 1 - The US isn't chopped liver.
Granted, and that's an important point. However, your original statement was "Israel will take a seat next to Iran and the old South Africa in the international community".
DB: 2 - No one in the UN, and especially in Europe treats Israel the way they treat(ed) Iran or the old South Africa.
In terms of condemnations, they certainly do. See the links in my comment above. The only thing missing is sanctions. That's not happening yet only because of the US's veto power in the Security Council.
DB: you can't be serious.
See my answer to Nephtuli above.
The only thing missing is sanctions.
and an embargo... and a (sporting, cultural, or economic) boycott.. and the severing of relations... and the pulling of ambassoders...
Nephtuli: Are you seriously arguing that Israel is viewed like apartheid South Africa in Europe? You have to be joking.
DB: 2 - No one in the UN, and especially in Europe treats Israel the way they treat(ed) Iran or the old South Africa.
Nephtuli: That's not true. There are a large number of countries that consider Israel as bad as South Africa used to be.
Hmm, now it sounds like you're joking, too.
In terms of condemnations, they certainly do. See the links in my comment above. The only thing missing is sanctions. That's not happening yet only because of the US's veto power in the Security Council.
Can you provide the text of a resolution calling for sanctions that was agreed upon by the 14 members of the SC besides the US?
The US has vetoed a lot of bills, but none (AFAIK) that called for sanctions would have passed but for the US veto.
Hmm, now it sounds like you're joking, too.
?? I've admitted that many countries consider Israel South Africa's twin. What I argued is that Israel is not considered like South Africa by the world community as a whole (and especially by the countries that matter). That is an undeniable fact, and the only people who would disagree are Palestinian supporters.
DB: Where are the sanctions? Where is the boycott? Where is the embargo?
Again, this is due more to the US's veto power than anything else. There are strong political movements for all the things you mention in the EU, and in most major US universities.
DB: South Africa was subjected to all that and more (deservedly so) If Israel tosses out its Arabs the same thing will happen to it (deservedly so)
Is that something you think lies in Israel's best interests?
I never said a word about the proposal that Israel throw out its Arabs. I addressed the issue of how Israel is regarded today in the international community. Why are you distorting what I said with a red herring?
DB: (I'm not going to argue with you anymore that Israel is better treated now than aprtheid South Africa was. Its like arguing evolution with a godol)
I'm flattered.
Again, this is due more to the US's veto power than anything else. There are strong political movements for all the things you mention in the EU, and in most major US universities.
Please supply the resolution that called for sanctions and embargos and the rest that would have passed saved for an american veto. I'd like to see it.
I never said a word about the proposal that Israel throw out its Arabs. I addressed the issue of how Israel is regarded today in the international community. Why are you distorting what I said with a red herring?
I'm not distorting what you said. I am attempting to bring this conversation back to the issue originally under discussion. Your compatriots say that throwing out the Arabs will make Israel stronger, when quite clearly and obviously it will only weaken the country, in every imaginable way, and with every imaginable constinuent, save for the lunatic right.
DB: (I'm not going to argue with you anymore that Israel is better treated now than aprtheid South Africa was. Its like arguing evolution with a godol)
I'm flattered
Oh.
Then perhaps you misunderstand.
Nephtuli: Can you provide the text of a resolution calling for sanctions that was agreed upon by the 14 members of the SC besides the US?
No such resolution is going to be seriously considered until such a policy is already supported by a US administration.
>What I argued is that Israel is not considered like South Africa by the world community as a whole (and especially by the countries that matter). That is an undeniable fact, and the only people who would disagree are Palestinian supporters.
I don't know if that is an undeniable fact. You just admited that many countries consider it a twin of SA. The only difference there is no actual sanctions in play (yes, I realize that is a difference), but you can't just throw away the demonstrations that were in play during the long intifadas, and disproprtionate condemnation by some of these European countries.
DB: Please supply the resolution that called for sanctions and embargos and the rest that would have passed saved for an american veto. I'd like to see it.
As I said to Nephtuli, no such resolution is going to be seriously considered until such a policy is already supported by a US administration. That's one reason why your point about the US not being "chopped liver" is well-taken.
No such resolution is going to be seriously considered until such a policy is already supported by a US administration.
How convinient.
So what is your basis for saying that the only thing preventing South Africa-style sanctions and embargos and boycotts on Israel is the US veto?
DB -- are you denying the fact that there is a strong, growing movement for divestment and sanctions in universities and churches throughout Europe and the US?
Senior IDF officers (present and retired) already refrain from setting foot on the soil of certain European countries, because of outstanding warrants for their arrest on war crimes charges. (E.g., Doron Almog, who can't go to Great Britain.)
Again, this is due more to the US's veto power than anything else. There are strong political movements for all the things you mention in the EU, and in most major US universities.
Which major US university divested from Israel? In most cases the counterpetitions got more signatures than the divestment petitions. This is old news and no university is even remotely considering it right now.
No such resolution is going to be seriously considered until such a policy is already supported by a US administration.
If it was just the US, why not? The US has vetoed dozens of resolutions against Israel and everyone knew they were going to veto it before the resolution was voted on. The reason none of Israel's enemies has ever tried to get such a resolution passed in the UN is because they could never get France, England, the US or whatever other EU country is on the SC at the time to vote for it. No such resolution would even win the required 9 votes to get passed.
DB: So what is your basis for saying that the only thing preventing South Africa-style sanctions and embargos and boycotts on Israel is the US veto?
I honestly don't understand what you're asking. Because the US has veto power, it plays a major role in setting SC policy. Things that the US is guaranteed in advance to veto are usually not even discussed there. As evidence, witness the difference in the sort of things that are passed in the GA. (But the GA has no power to impose sanctions, of course.)
Senior IDF officers (present and retired) already refrain from setting foot on the soil of certain European countries, because of outstanding warrants for their arrest on war crimes charges. (E.g., Doron Almog, who can't go to Great Britain.)
That's a judicial issue related to England's universal jurisdiction legislation. It has nothing to do with whether the government supported arresting Almog. And Jack Straw, the FM at the time, apologized. Belgium redid its law to make it inapplicable to Sharon.
DB -- are you denying the fact that there is a strong, growing movement for divestment and sanctions in universities and churches throughout Europe and the US?
Growing? At the beginning of the Intifada there were petitions all over the US. After they lost badly, the movement died down. It certainly isn't growing. You are confusing the far-left with the mainstream.
>But didn't Effie Eitam call for transfer when he was the head of the NRP? Benny Elon has also called for voluntary transfer.
voluntary transfer is absurd but better than nothing. Yes, they have not banned a voluntary transfer program ... yet.
Try taking a kach postion though, you will be banned faster than you can say democracy.
The only full study (not a poll, but a study) done on this matter was published in 2004 by the university of haifa. It concluded that about 30% of the Jewish population of Israel would vote for a party with kach's platform if it was alowed to run. A MUCH larger amount supported other forms of transfer for the Arabs. I could not find a link to the study just now but here is a link to a snipet on it: http://www.inn.co.il/News/News.a...News.aspx/
81508
I honestly don't understand what you're asking. Because the US has veto power, it plays a major role in setting SC policy. Things that the US is guaranteed in advance to veto are usually not even discussed there. As evidence, witness the difference in the sort of things that are passed in the GA. (But the GA has no power to impose sanctions, of course.)
It's not just the US! Resolutions are offered in the SC even though everyone knows the US will veto them. The country calling for sanctions would need to get most of Europe on board and they have no chance of doing that.
Try taking a kach postion though, you will be banned faster than you can say democracy.
Eitam took such a position and I am pretty sure he is still the Knesset.
The only full study (not a poll, but a study) done on this matter was published in 2004 by the university of haifa. It concluded that about 30% of the Jewish population of Israel would vote for a party with kach's platform if it was alowed to run. A MUCH larger amount supported other forms of transfer for the Arabs. I could not find a link to the study just now but here is a link to a snipet on it:
Obviously people are going to be more willing to take extreme measures with the Intifada still fresh in their minds. The availability heuristic is a very big deal. You probably could have gotten half of America to agree with interning all Arabs on Sept 10. But after people calm down and start to think rationally, they start acting normally. There is no doubt in my mind that a similar study would not show the same numbers today.
DB: I'm not distorting what you said... Your compatriots say that throwing out the Arabs will make Israel stronger...
I speak for myself, not for my "compatriots" (whoever you think they are).
I can ascribe things to you based upon people I designate as your "compatriots", too.
DB -- are you denying the fact that there is a strong, growing movement for divestment and sanctions in universities and churches throughout Europe and the US?
Please answer my question first. For your convinience here it is again
...what is your basis for saying that the only thing preventing South Africa-style sanctions and embargos and boycotts on Israel is the US veto?
Nephtuli: After they lost badly, the movement died down. It certainly isn't growing. You are confusing the far-left with the mainstream.
Not in Europe, I'm not.
Senior IDF officers (present and retired) already refrain from setting foot on the soil of certain European countries, because of outstanding warrants for their arrest on war crimes charges. (E.g., Doron Almog, who can't go to Great Britain.)
I understand Pinochet had the same problem.
Things that the US is guaranteed in advance to veto are usually not even discussed there.
How strange. So how is it the US has vetoed dozens and dozens of anti-Israel resolutions? According to you not one of them should have ever been discussed!
A major theme in this thread is the concern on what would be the effect of an empowered arab minority on the jewishness of Israel. is there a similar concern about the effect from the growing group of Israeli citizens of jewish ancestry who couldn't care less about judaism or even being jewish??
DB: Please answer my question first. For your convinience here it is again
...what is your basis for saying that the only thing preventing South Africa-style sanctions and embargos and boycotts on Israel is the US veto?
My basis is (1) the intense hostility against Israel by the overwhelming majority of UN member states (including SC members), (2) the frequent calls for sanctions voiced in the parliaments, newspapers, and public forums of most European, Islamic, and non-aligned states, and (3) the fact that the US has the veto.
It's an analysis. That's my basis.
Now please answer my question:
Are you denying the fact that there is a strong, growing movement for divestment and sanctions in universities and churches throughout Europe and the US?
Are you denying the fact that there is a strong, growing movement for divestment and sanctions in universities and churches throughout Europe and the US?
Oh yes. Its nowhere near what it was, and has very little chance of going anywhere.
Obviously people are going to be more willing to take extreme measures with the Intifada still fresh in their minds. The availability heuristic is a very big deal. You probably could have gotten half of America to agree with interning all Arabs on Sept 10. But after people calm down and start to think rationally, they start acting normally. There is no doubt in my mind that a similar study would not show the same numbers today.
Don't you think you are dismissing this because it doesn't fit in with your views?
Even if only 10% of Israelis would support it after "calming" themselves, don't you think that is a sizeable proportion of Israel, and that it adequately supports Chardal's assertion that the Kahane POV is not supported by a minute exteme element in Israel?
Not in Europe, I'm not.
You are, but I'm glad to see that you realize that only the fringe left in the US consider Israel an apartheid state.
My basis is (1) the intense hostility against Israel by the overwhelming majority of UN member states (including SC members),
We;ve respond to this already. The hostility is not coming from the important countries.
(2) the frequent calls for sanctions voiced in the parliaments, newspapers, and public forums of most European, Islamic, and non-aligned states
Those calls in Europe come from the far left in those countries. No mainstream politican in a position of power is calling for such things.
(3) the fact that the US has the veto.
What does that have to do with anything?
Are you denying the fact that there is a strong, growing movement for divestment and sanctions in universities and churches throughout Europe and the US?
In the US, yes. I'm not as familiar with Europe but I doubt there's a strong push for divestment.
* should've finished the sentence
...but by a significant minority that has grown and would continue would it be "legal" to have his views aired in the free market of ideas?
>Oh yes. Its nowhere near what it was, and has very little chance of going anywhere.
I'm glad it doesn't go anywhere, but the fact that these things reoccur should bother everyone.
Don't you think you are dismissing this because it doesn't fit in with your views?
Possibly. I'd like to see more than one study before making any judgments.
Even if only 10% of Israelis would support it after "calming" themselves, don't you think that is a sizeable proportion of Israel, and that it adequately supports Chardal's assertion that the Kahane POV is not supported by a minute exteme element in Israel?
We need to see more numbers. Fact is the mainstream considers it off the table.
DB: Oh yes. Its nowhere near what it was, and has very little chance of going anywhere.
Why do you believe that it used to be stronger and then weakened? In an increasingly Islamic Europe, its becoming more likely every day. In the final analysis, you might be right that it won't happen -- but that will be thanks to the US, and nobody else.
...but by a significant minority that has grown and would continue would it be "legal" to have his views aired in the free market of ideas?
I agree.
I'm glad it doesn't go anywhere, but the fact that these things reoccur should bother everyone.
It does bother me, but let's not exaggerate its power.
Nephtuli, the point is that 30%, or even 10% is mainstream. Add to that the support that would come if the Kahane ideas were not banned, you have a sizeable minority of people agreeing in principle with those ideas.
>It does bother me, but let's not exaggerate its power.
Not to offend you, but Jews probably said that same thing in Germany. We should never see it as something that is impossible to happen.
Of course my point being is that it seems pointless to argue that just because actual sanctions have not been put forth, everything is fine and the world backs us up.
Nephtuli, the point is that 30%, or even 10% is mainstream. Add to that the support that would come if the Kahane ideas were not banned, you have a sizeable minority of people agreeing in principle with those ideas.
You can probably find 10% of the US that will argue that Bush should be impeached. But no Senator has called for impeachment because 10% is not mainstream.
Of course my point being is that it seems pointless to argue that just because actual sanctions have not been put forth, everything is fine and the world backs us up.
Who made this claim? I merely responded to the argument that Israel is treated like South Africa and Iran.
Gotta go people. I'll be back later today or tonight.
No, not like Iran, but I think there is a mainstream ( I think) of people in Europe view Israel as SA and sanctions on Israel would not bother them at all.
"is there a similar concern about the effect from the growing group of Israeli citizens of jewish ancestry who couldn't care less about judaism or even being jewish??"
Well the chickens have come home to roost. Those people are known as yordim ,and a 60 year policy of trying to be "normal" has led to that. Perhaps they should not have cut the yemenite payot.
Truth be told all non0rtho jewish isms fail the 3 generation test.
Whether or not transfer will work is irrelevant because Israel will not do it.
However those who condemn it never come up with another alternative.
>However those who condemn it never come up with another alternative.
Yes, they do. Give up some territories.
>Eitam took such a position and I am pretty sure he is still the Knesset.
No he didn't. He advocated voluntary transfer.
>Obviously people are going to be more willing to take extreme measures with the Intifada still fresh in their minds. The availability heuristic is a very big deal. You probably could have gotten half of America to agree with interning all Arabs on Sept 10. But after people calm down and start to think rationally, they start acting normally. There is no doubt in my mind that a similar study would not show the same numbers today.
NO DOUBT, wow. and you don't even live in Israel. It was a full study of Israeli attitudes. NOT a passing poll. And I have NO doubt that the numbers are higher today. especially after the fiasco of the expulsion crime. Funny how when shown actual evidence that their gut feelings are way off, you guys always quote some imagined difference. For DB its the vast difference between arabs in the 20s and 30s and today, for you its the huge gap in Jewish attitudes which changed over the past 4 years. Give me a break. If any of you liberals (yes, even you naftuli), would put your money where your mouth is and advocated the enfranchisment of kahanists with nearly the same passion as you protect the poor suffering "palestinian" people, then maybe we could find out how people will really vote. Until you are willing to compete in the elections, don't make any claims about Israeli attitudes.
>Fact is the mainstream considers it off the table.
No, the fact is that a small leftist Israeli oligarchy is keeping it from being discussed in any mainstream national forum. But slowly we will get rid of these bunch of asafsuf. Fact is, those Jews who are having babies are much more likly to support the kach platform than not.
You can probably find 10% of the US that will argue that Bush should be impeached. But no Senator has called for impeachment because 10% is not mainstream.
If no senator called for impeachment because they know it is rediculous, NOT because it is not mainstream.
The fact is that you are characterizing something as "off the table" simply becuase you don't like it; 30% of Israelis are interested in the proposals that Kahane put forth.
Whatever your feelings about Kahane, you must admit that if 30% of Israelis in the Haifa study would support Kahane planks in a political platform, it is not marginal or off the table, and the fact that it is not more visible in Israeli politics is due to its being BANNED, not its unpopularity.
And let me just say, it was banned in the most un-democratic, unfair way.
Arabs who openly meet with Syria (an act of treason against the state of Israel) are allowed into the elections (ex. Balad party), but Kahane is not.
>Fact is, those Jews who are having babies are much more likly to support the kach platform than not.
Who the Charedim??
So it comes down to a choice between charedim over running the country or Arabs. Hmmmm... tough choice. I think you can perhaps reason more with an Arab
I think he meant religious people in general.
No, not like Iran, but I think there is a mainstream ( I think) of people in Europe view Israel as SA and sanctions on Israel would not bother them at all.
Sure there are people in the US who want to impose sanctions and there are even more in Europe. But Israel is not considered anything like SA by the leadership of those countries.
No he didn't. He advocated voluntary transfer.
See here. Maybe something was lost in translation, but "expel" does not mean "leave voluntarily." I recall him making similar comments in the past, but I might be mistaken.
NO DOUBT, wow. and you don't even live in Israel. It was a full study of Israeli attitudes. NOT a passing poll. And I have NO doubt that the numbers are higher today. especially after the fiasco of the expulsion crime. Funny how when shown actual evidence that their gut feelings are way off, you guys always quote some imagined difference. For DB its the vast difference between arabs in the 20s and 30s and today, for you its the huge gap in Jewish attitudes which changed over the past 4 years. Give me a break.
One doesn't need to live in Israel to know that during and right after horrible experiences pretty tend to have extreme views. It's documented psychology. It's the same reason why people tend to overvalue certain baseball players. They remember what they did in big situations, but they forget all the times they failed.
Give me a break. If any of you liberals (yes, even you naftuli), would put your money where your mouth is and advocated the enfranchisment of kahanists with nearly the same passion as you protect the poor suffering "palestinian" people, then maybe we could find out how people will really vote. Until you are willing to compete in the elections, don't make any claims about Israeli attitudes.
I don't live in Israel, so I have no say who can run. If I did, I want support undoing the ban against Kach.
Anyway, I'd rather focus on the issues we talked about yesterday than whether transfer is mainstream in Israel. When it comes down to it, you're correct, it is an empirical question.
Whatever your feelings about Kahane, you must admit that if 30% of Israelis in the Haifa study would support Kahane planks in a political platform, it is not marginal or off the table, and the fact that it is not more visible in Israeli politics is due to its being BANNED, not its unpopularity.
I don't think it's that simple, but I'd prefer to talk about the issues from yesterday. Neither you or Chardal have responded to my points from yesterday and early this morning.
Liorah, it is nice to see someone try to make unsubstantiated claims against Rabbi Kahane (and even his followers!) and not be able to back them up.
There is a difference between unable and unwilling.
"However those who condemn it never come up with another alternative.
Yes, they do. Give up some territories.
holy hyrax | 02.28.08 - 1:43 pm | # "
How does that affect the pre state arab population?
>See here. Maybe something was lost in translation, but "expel" does not mean "leave voluntarily." I recall him making similar comments in the past, but I might be mistaken.
Way to go Eitam! I never saw this. My guess is that he was not banned (yet) because its not part of his official party platform. But if he continues on this path...
Regarding your other points. Look, I don't agree with your scenarios, and even if I did, I am not advocating a chaotic imediate transfer. Once this becomes a real posibility in internal Israeli politics, THEN the discussion can begin on how and when to execute the transfer. And all the points you raised would be taken into consideration. The crime is that all discussion of this most reasonable of solutions is not allowed in order to (in the most orwellian of manners) "defend" democracy.
What can I say, with all his faults, Ben Gurion was a real leader who was able to make the dicision in 48 to expell many Arab towns thereby making Israel a viable state. Unfortunatly, Eshkol and Dayan lacked the same wisdom in 67. But a time will come when there mistake will have to be corrected.
HH, I was talking about chareidim, RZ, and traditional sefardim all of whom have a higher birthrate than secular ashkenazim.
The chareidim have no interest in running the country. But they will support such policies when push comes to shove.
Way to go Eitam! I never saw this. My guess is that he was not banned (yet) because its not part of his official party platform. But if he continues on this path...
You could be right, but my point was that it is talked about from time to time.
Regarding your other points. Look, I don't agree with your scenarios, and even if I did, I am not advocating a chaotic imediate transfer. Once this becomes a real posibility in internal Israeli politics, THEN the discussion can begin on how and when to execute the transfer. And all the points you raised would be taken into consideration.
I didn't think you were. But what about my scenario would change if the plan had the support of a wide swatch of Israeli society? You really don't think there would be sanctions? You don't think US support would shift and the Europeans wouldn't take an overtly Arab position? You don't think Israel's enemies wouldn't be able to use the transfer as a means of consolidating their power and rearming themselves? And I never even brought up the possibility of the US using military force to prevent the transfer. Israel has a very powerful military, but they are no match for the US armed forces.
The one thing we I am willing to concede is that if most of Israeli society supports transfer, perhaps there won't be the large Israeli exodus I predicted. But I think we'd both agree that in order for transfer to be carried out, Israeli society would have to make a dramatic shift, and it's not hard to imagine that shift pushing a lot of the secular Israelis away. And with the sanctions and Israel's enemies rearming, it's also not hard to imagine many other Israelis leaving for better off countries like the US. I think that's a bad thing.
When it comes down to it, the current situation with kassams landing on Sderot every day is vastly superior to the days of the Intifada. And the Intifada is vastly superior to an actual war with a real country.
What can I say, with all his faults, Ben Gurion was a real leader who was able to make the dicision in 48 to expell many Arab towns thereby making Israel a viable state. Unfortunatly, Eshkol and Dayan lacked the same wisdom in 67. But a time will come when there mistake will have to be corrected.
It always amazes me how the far right and far left tend to agree on certain propositions, but for vastly different reasons. The far left believes Israel expelled hundreds of thousands of Palestinians because that makes the Israel the aggressor and the Palestinians the victim. The far right believes it as well, but their belief stems from the idea that Ben Gurion created a precedent, and we can do it again.
The far-left believes Israel is a pariah state. As we saw above, so does the far-right.
The far left believes Israel expelled hundreds of thousands of Palestinians
You make it sound like it didn't happen
So it comes down to a choice between charedim over running the country or Arabs. Hmmmm... tough choice. I think you can perhaps reason more with an Arab
The real question is who'd be more likely to provide freedom of religion, the haredim or the muslims... really tough call.
You make it sound like it didn't happen
See what I mean?
The real question is who'd be more likely to provide freedom of religion, the haredim or the muslims... really tough call.
I think we'd also have to worry about, you know, Hamas taking revenge against the evil Zionists. The Chareidim aren't going to start killing anyone.
Its documented that Rabin and Ben Gurion drove out hundreds of thousands of Arabs. The evidence was found in the offical Israeli archives. There's no point denying it any more.
Its documented that Rabin and Ben Gurion drove out hundreds of thousands of Arabs. The evidence was found in the offical Israeli archives. There's no point denying it any more.
Documented by whom? Benny Morris? Ilan Pappe?
The reality is that there were small-scale expulsions (Lod is an example) usually (but not always) related to military necessity, but there is no real evidence that Ben Gurion systematically expelled hundreds of thousands of people.
There was a libel case a few years ago when a doctral student in history claimed a Hagannah unit expelled an entire village. They sued him for libel and won.
The reality is that there were small-scale expulsions
Yes, this is the reality of which I am speaking.
Yes, this is the reality of which I am speaking.
How does that square with "Its documented that Rabin and Ben Gurion drove out hundreds of thousands of Arabs?"
I'm talking about a much much smaller number.
How does that square with "Its documented that Rabin and Ben Gurion drove out hundreds of thousands of Arabs?"
The documented numbers are in the hundreds of thousands.
>The documented numbers are in the hundreds of thousands.
Well...one of you can be right
The documented numbers are in the hundreds of thousands.
That just isn't true. There are people who claim that, but the evidence does not come close to that number.
The documented numbers of Palestenians who were uprooted approaches 700,000.
Lod alone was 50,000. (and that order was signed by Rabin and it can be viewed)
(There were also small masacres
Saliha (70-80), Deir Yassin (100-110), Lod (250) and 12 documented rapes perpetrated by IDF forces in 1948.)
Let's define what we mean by "uprooted"
I don't say 700,000 were driven out at the point of a gun, but 700,000 Arabs left their homes, either directly as a result of IDF actions, or because they heard about things that had happened in place like Deir Yassin and Lod so they left in fear, or, like all civilians, they wanted to get out of the way of the war and then were prevented from returning.
The 50,000 in Lod were expelled, however.
Quoting Benny Morris:
All told, if we take all the massacres and all the executions of 1948, we come to about 800 who were killed. In comparison to the massacres that were perpetrated in Bosnia, that’s peanuts. In comparison to the massacres the Russians perpetrated against the Germans at Stalingrad, that’s chicken feed. When you take into account that there was a bloody civil war here and that we lost an entire 1 percent of the population, you find that we behaved very well.
>I don't say 700,000 were driven out at the point of a gun....
Then that makes all the differnce
Then that makes all the differnce
It makes A difference. I am not sure it makes THE difference.
Lod alone was 50,000. (and that order was signed by Rabin and it can be viewed)
Are you sure about that number? Anyway Rabin ordered the expulsion, but there is no evidence that Ben Gurion supported it. In fact, there is evidence he opposed it. Ephraim Karsh wrote about it a few years ago.
I don't say 700,000 were driven out at the point of a gun, but 700,000 Arabs left their homes, either directly as a result of IDF actions, or because they heard about things that had happened in place like Deir Yassin and Lod so they left in fear, or, like all civilians, they wanted to get out of the way of the war and then were prevented from returning.
I basically agree with this, except that Deir Yassin was wildly exaggerated by the Palestinian leadership for political reasons and that propaganda had a negative effect by causing a number of Palestinians to leave.
Like you said most Palestinians left because there was a war going on and they didnt want to caught in the crossfire.
It makes A difference. I am not sure it makes THE difference.
Sure it does. People leave in wars for all types of reasons. If the massacres were infrequently and small-scale, it is unlikely they left because they feared being massacred. More likely, they left because A: there was a war going on, and B: they heard all types of propaganda about Israeli genocide and they believed it.
Dovbear:
It has always been my understanding that Deir Yasin was a battle not a massacre. The arabs used Deir Yasin as a base to attack the food conveys heading to Jewish Jerusalem. As a base of attack, it was a legitimate target. The civilians who were killed were cought in the crossfire.
12 rapes is, of course 12 too many. However, when compared to what happened during other wars, it doesn't seem all that much. My father served in the US army in Europe during WWII. He told me that despite the fact that a GI could get the firing squad if he raped a German woman, there was raping of German women. When I was a lad in Yeshiva, we had a Vietnam veteran working as a cook. He told us stories of what life was like in country. He said that there was raping of Vietanmese women, (and children.)
Are you sure about that number? Anyway Rabin ordered the expulsion, but there is no evidence that Ben Gurion supported it. In fact, there is evidence he opposed it. Ephraim Karsh wrote about it a few years ago.
Yes, the number is accurate.
The evidence that BenGurin supported it is indirect, and not as conclusive as a signature on an order.
I basically agree with this, except that Deir Yassin was wildly exaggerated by the Palestinian leadership for political reasons and that propaganda had a negative effect by causing a number of Palestinians to leave.
The Irgun exagerated it for the same reason.
It has always been my understanding that Deir Yasin was a battle not a massacre. The arabs used Deir Yasin as a base to attack the food conveys heading to Jewish Jerusalem. As a base of attack, it was a legitimate target. The civilians who were killed were cought in the crossfire.
Your understanding is faulty.
12 rapes is, of course 12 too many
12 *documented* rapes which suggests that there were more... but still see the Morris quote I supply above.
>It always amazes me how the far right and far left tend to agree on certain propositions, but for vastly different reasons. The far left believes Israel expelled hundreds of thousands of Palestinians because that makes the Israel the aggressor and the Palestinians the victim
Its generally accepted (today) in Israel, that ben Gurion had a policy of expelling as many arabs as he could. Benny Morris gave a interview a few years ago where he basically said that Israel has to thank ben Gurion because if he didn't make that tough decision, there would not be a viable state today. He is using basic common sense when he says this. Israel could simply NOT work if when they started out, they had 600,000 Jews and 850,000 Arabs in one country! Just use some common sense!
The situation in 67 was much the same but the leaders had no guts to do the same.
Regarding your questions above. Consolodated Israeli public opinion would open up many options including withstanding sanctions until they are over. Allowing leaders to take tougher positions on the world stage because of local opinion. and many other benefits (I don't believe that the US would intervene militarily for many reasons, first of which is that Israel would have to do it so fast that there would be no time to reverse it. Once the deed is done, no one will volunteer the resourse to bring all those people back. Heck, they haven't even settled them for the past 60 years, they are not going to start now).
This is all besides the point, the first stage is to get this topic to be part of legitimate public debate, then the particulars can be ironed out.
Back to the moral question. Let me put it this way. If you had world support, and you could make the decision to transport 3 million Arabs from EY to one of the Arab countries, would you oppose it as an immoral move. To me the moral decision is pretty obvious, what about you?
RE ben Gurion, in the 10s he was openly against transfer of Arabs (and yes, it was discussed openly as part of potential zionist plans, many reasonable people saw it as a nesessary step to create a Jewish state). However, Ben Gurion's biographer,Michael Bar-Zohar writes:
"And therefore in place of Ben Gurion's humanist thesis ten years earlier which absolutely disqualified the expulsion [of Arabs], there now appears a more harsh theory; the expulsion is permissible on condition that the evacuated Arabs are settled in new places and receive the means of rehabilitation." (Michael Bar Zohar, "Ben Gurion: A Political Biography (Tel Aviv, 1975). yes, Naftuly, 75, so you can't claim post zionist bias for Bar Zohar.
In any case, anyone who wants to study how common such proposals were has to read what is really one of the most definite studies of the matter: "International proposals to transfer Arabs from palestine 1895-1947) by Chaim Simons isbn 0881253006
Dovbear:
What exactly is wrong with my undestanding of the Battle of Deir Yasin? It ws located just due East of Jerusalem. It was near the highway that the food convoys used, which was the only source of food for the Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem. The Arab Militias used the Arab villages to launch attacks on the conveys. Deir Yassin was one such village.
Israel could simply NOT work if when they started out, they had 600,000 Jews and 850,000 Arabs in one country! Just use some common sense!
It simply could not work... if you either (a) embraced a poiicy of denying Arabs their civil rights or (b) expected to give them their civil rights while also imposing your own culture on them
I may have worked fine if an attempt had been made to create a real democracy, in which there was a seperation of church and state, and the rest.
The result probably wouldn't have been a "Jewish" state, but there also probably would not have been quite so many Jewish corpses.
>The result probably wouldn't have been a "Jewish" state, but there also probably would not have been quite so many Jewish corpses.
This is where you are dead wrong. The Arabs would have attacked and there would have been a war no matter how many rights you would have given them. What the left NEVER understands is that the Arabs would hate them just as much if they were, c"V able to run Israeli policy for the past 60 years (that is if there were still an Israel at this point in time).
The issues RK brought up were at the very basis of Zionism and WERE part of the discussion from the very begining of the zionist enterprise. RK just came on the scene when everyone was trying to ignore the painful decisions that had to be made and those that will have to be made. And for showing the truth and displaying the choices in such a clear manner, he was demonized and banned.
I understand that Muslims have a religious concept called "Daar El Islam" and "Daar El Charb." This means that they have a religious obligation to bring the whole world under Muslim sovereignty. The idea of seperation of church and state, or of a secular style government is foreign to Muslims. Moreover, they have a special responsibilty to insure that once a land was at any time under muslim rule, it must stay that way at all cost. So Eretz Yisroel was part of a Muslim Empire, so Muslims must fight to the death to see to it that iut stays that way. They cannot concieve of sharing or partitioning the land. The only way that they can allow Jews to live there is if the Jews accept Muslim sovereignty, and accept the inferior, "Dhimmi" status.
Its generally accepted (today) in Israel, that ben Gurion had a policy of expelling as many arabs as he could. Benny Morris gave a interview a few years ago where he basically said that Israel has to thank ben Gurion because if he didn't make that tough decision, there would not be a viable state today. He is using basic common sense when he says this. Israel could simply NOT work if when they started out, they had 600,000 Jews and 850,000 Arabs in one country! Just use some common sense!
Well, I guess if Benny Morris says it, it must be true.....
And your circumstantial evidence is not even remotely conclusive. No one has ever found anything even resembling an official government plan to expel the Palestinians en masse. In some places (Haifa) the Jews asked them to stay.
(Michael Bar Zohar, "Ben Gurion: A Political Biography (Tel Aviv, 1975). yes, Naftuly, 75, so you can't claim post zionist bias for Bar Zohar.
Shabtai Teveth, who has written a number of books on Ben Gurion and who has unmitigated access to Ben Gurion's private letters argues that BG only supported transfer in the context of the Peel Commission plan of 1937. Does Bar Zohar even disagree? What time period is he talking about?
Ephraim Karsh exposed Morris almost 10 years ago.
In any case, anyone who wants to study how common such proposals were has to read what is really one of the most definite studies of the matter: "International proposals to transfer Arabs from palestine 1895-1947) by Chaim Simons isbn 0881253006
I haven't read this book and practically have no way to even borrow it, but what do transfer proposals have to do with the question of whether transfer actually happened? No one denies that people proposed it. Interestingly, though, no one mainstream in the US or Europe proposes it anymore.
Back to the moral question. Let me put it this way. If you had world support, and you could make the decision to transport 3 million Arabs from EY to one of the Arab countries, would you oppose it as an immoral move. To me the moral decision is pretty obvious, what about you?
I was only arguing leshitascha. But I would be more open to it is they could be resettled peacefully and reasonably. I would also require the remaining Palestinians be treated equally with the rest of the people in Israel, though.
Consolodated Israeli public opinion would open up many options including withstanding sanctions until they are over.
Why would they ever be over? I am, however, glad that you recognize that sanctions are a given.
Allowing leaders to take tougher positions on the world stage because of local opinion. and many other benefits (I don't believe that the US would intervene militarily for many reasons, first of which is that Israel would have to do it so fast that there would be no time to reverse it. Once the deed is done, no one will volunteer the resourse to bring all those people back. Heck, they haven't even settled them for the past 60 years, they are not going to start now).
I tend to think the world might not intervene military because they wouldn't want to absorb the casualties. There is no question a US led international force would overwhelm the IDF after a while, but there would a ton of casualties, and the leaders might not want to lose that many soldiers for humanitarian or political reasons.
A blockade, though, could be a real problem for Israel, which wouldn't have any way to break it.
The Irgun exagerated it for the same reason.
Absolutely. They took the Arab lies and ran with them.
I understand that Muslims have a religious concept called "Daar El Islam" and "Daar El Charb."
We both know how Jewish sources and beliefs are often mischaracterized by outside sources. Surely the same thing could happen to Islam. Moreover, do all Muslims believe the same thing?
My point is there might be such ideas in mainstream Islam, but I doubt anyone in this comment thread is qualified to decide that.
>Well, I guess if Benny Morris says it, it must be true.....
And your circumstantial evidence is not even remotely conclusive. No one has ever found anything even resembling an official government plan to expel the Palestinians en masse. In some places (Haifa) the Jews asked them to stay.<
Its not just benny morris. I have family members who were in the lechi and ones that were in the palmach. It was a simple matter to ask them if there was a genral understanding in 48 that in order to make israel viable demographicaly, the Arabs would have to be chased out (in the context of war). They responded that it was common knowledge that the war must end with a demographic situation which was workable and many times their units acted accordingly when either expelling or in other contexts just making the Arabs scared enough to do it themselves.
Also, whether you like it or not, Morris' conclusions are pretty mainstream in the academic world at least. The only ones who deny them are people polemicizing for Israel from the center-left and center-right. Have you even read his books. Certain facts can be established without an official government order. In the end, there is no way 700,000 Arabs would have fled if there was no concious effort to do so. And both standard and anecdotal evidence points to the fact that there was such a policy.
>Shabtai Teveth, who has written a number of books on Ben Gurion and who has unmitigated access to Ben Gurion's private letters argues that BG only supported transfer in the context of the Peel Commission plan of 1937. Does Bar Zohar even disagree? What time period is he talking about?<
Bar Zohar was talking about the Peel Commission. There is no indication, however, that BG flip floped again on this issue at a later date. Sure he would have prefered that the refugees be settled and taken care of but BG was a pragmatist if nothing else and he did what he could.
>I haven't read this book and practically have no way to even borrow it, but what do transfer proposals have to do with the question of whether transfer actually happened? No one denies that people proposed it. Interestingly, though, no one mainstream in the US or Europe proposes it anymore. <
It illustrates how the idea of transfer went hand in hand with political zionism. There is no other way it was imagined to work. It is only the ridiculous modern "morality" which desires to perpetuate conflict without taking the neccasary steps to resolve it.
>I was only arguing leshitascha. But I would be more open to it is they could be resettled peacefully and reasonably. I would also require the remaining Palestinians be treated equally with the rest of the people in Israel, though.<
Very nice, you just joined the Moledet since you pretty much just repeated their platform.
>Why would they ever be over? I am, however, glad that you recognize that sanctions are a given.<
At this point they are a given. The reason they would be over is that unlike appartheid, it is a particular action that created a fact. Sanctions are there in order to reverse a status quo. No one will create sanctions until Israel returns the expelled arabs. Worst case is that there will be sanctions in protest of the action and after a new status quo is reached, they will be lifted.
>A blockade, though, could be a real problem for Israel, which wouldn't have any way to break it.<
Ok, another political factor to consider. (and I am not sure we couldn't break it)
>Absolutely. They took the Arab lies and ran with them.
So did the Hagana in Tzfat.
>We both know how Jewish sources and beliefs are often mischaracterized by outside sources.
Yes, but I heard this from Muslims. Not even Israeli ones but American ones learning in university. I wouldn't discount it so quickly.
Its not just benny morris. I have family members who were in the lechi and ones that were in the palmach. It was a simple matter to ask them if there was a genral understanding in 48 that in order to make israel viable demographicaly, the Arabs would have to be chased out (in the context of war). They responded that it was common knowledge that the war must end with a demographic situation which was workable and many times their units acted accordingly when either expelling or in other contexts just making the Arabs scared enough to do it themselves.
This is anecdotal evidence. It's pretty clear what the Lechi thought, but just claiming that some people thought there was a general feeling in the air that the Arabs must go is not real evidence that such expulsion happened.
Also, whether you like it or not, Morris' conclusions are pretty mainstream in the academic world at least. The only ones who deny them are people polemicizing for Israel from the center-left and center-right. Have you even read his books. Certain facts can be established without an official government order. In the end, there is no way 700,000 Arabs would have fled if there was no concious effort to do so. And both standard and anecdotal evidence points to the fact that there was such a policy.
I agree that this is a mainstream position in Israel's universities. And as we both know, universities tend to lean more toward the left (in some cases the far left).
I have read major parts of some of Morris' books. It's been a few years, so I can't really debate specific aspects. But Ephraim Karsh has shown that Morris took a number of quotes out of context (including even changing "we shouldn't expel" to we must expel). Both Teveth and Anita Shapira also successfully, in my mind, rebutted works by Shlaim and Pappe.
700,000 Arabs didn't just leave randomly. There are a whole bunch of reasons why they left: some left because they were expelled (Lod and Ramle), some left because the other Arab countries told them to (Haifa), some left because they were rich and felt they could watch the war on the sidelines (Edward Said's family did this IIRC), some left because they were scared by the propaganda put out by Arab leaders and the Irgun that the Jews were massacring and raping everyone (Deir Yassin being a prime example), some left because they knew war was coming and didn't want to be caught in the cross-fire, and some left because they just didn't care much for Palestine and were just as happy elsewhere. I'm sure there are other reasons as well.
People leave war-zones for all types of reasons. It's simplistic to blame the Arab refugee problem on the demographic issue. Surely, in most cases, no one was sad to see them go, but that is not the same thing as expelling them themselves.
Bar Zohar was talking about the Peel Commission. There is no indication, however, that BG flip floped again on this issue at a later date. Sure he would have prefered that the refugees be settled and taken care of but BG was a pragmatist if nothing else and he did what he could.
Teveth strongly disagrees. He believes that BG's support for transfer in the Peel Commission plan was a one time event. Now, if the UN had proposed a transfer as part of Resolution 181, would BG have supported it? I don't know, but accepting a plan that requires the world to transfer the Arabs is far different from doing the transfer himself.
It illustrates how the idea of transfer went hand in hand with political zionism. There is no other way it was imagined to work. It is only the ridiculous modern "morality" which desires to perpetuate conflict without taking the neccasary steps to resolve it.
Speaking of mainstream, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Chaim Simons isn't mainstream. If Simons' views were mainstream in the universities, why couldn't Simons get someone other than Ktav to publish his books?
So without the ability to get ahold of his book, I'm going to trust the mainstream scholars on this one.
Very nice, you just joined the Moledet since you pretty much just repeated their platform.
Then you should be happy.
I'm willing to allow torture too in some situations. I'm not a Kantian, and I believe that in some cases we have to balance moral principles.
That said, I disagree with Moledet because I see no justification to promote transfer (voluntary or compulsory) given Israel's current situation. Could I envision a possible scenario when transfer might be morally acceptable or even required? Yes, but my guess is Elon and I kind of disagree about that when transfer might be acceptable.
At this point they are a given. The reason they would be over is that unlike apartheid, it is a particular action that created a fact. Sanctions are there in order to reverse a status quo. No one will create sanctions until Israel returns the expelled arabs. Worst case is that there will be sanctions in protest of the action and after a new status quo is reached, they will be lifted.
Remember in my scenario, there is literally nowhere for the Palestinians to go. No one is going to take them in. There would be a reversible fact. Moreover, your plan proposes deprives the remaining Palestinians of political rights. That deprivation is a central feature of apartheid.
Ok, another political factor to consider. (and I am not sure we couldn't break it)
These factors are part and parcel of the moral question. And yes, Israel would have absolutely no way to break it if the US was serious about imposing it.
So did the Hagana in Tzfat.
Could be.
Yes, but I heard this from Muslims. Not even Israeli ones but American ones learning in university. I wouldn't discount it so quickly.
It might be true. I just think it's unwise to be so sure that it is an obligation based on the word of a few biased scholars or some random Muslims. We all know how Jewish beliefs are often mischaracterized; why couldn't the same thing happen to Islam?
Absolutely. They took the Arab lies and ran with them.
They told their own lies, for the purpose of scaring people out of their homes. And let's not forget the crime itself...