It seems to me looking through your posts that your aim is not so much to help the Palestinans but to deligitimize the State of Israel and Zionist ideology.
What is all this nonsense you ramble on about of "ethnic cleansing"? Is your aim that if you repeat it often enough people might believe you???
Israel exists - Get over it. If you really want to help the Palestinians there is a lot you can do without arguning that Israel shouldn't exist. However I suspect you don't really care about them too much. You just have it in for the "zionists".
Anyway I do not expect you to leave this post on your site but I thought I would write it none the less.
The fact that the racist state of Israel shouldn't exist is obvious to anyone who thinks in terms of "shouldn't" as a moral imperative.
And yes, the state of Isreal is nothing more than the institutionalization of the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians - that is obvious to any fair minded observer.
Btw- Mark, did you ever read Hannah Arendt's book, and do you recommend it?
.
It's funny how likening Israel to a fascist or nazi state is yet another thing described as anti-semitic by zionists but it's ok when applied by zionists to others.
I think it is Taoism that states...
"You become what you hate."
Apart from the usual 'yawn' at the embedded anti semitism smear in this comment I am also starting to marvel at the VANITY implicit in this accusation.
The idea that the whole world revolves around hating zionists.
No one can have a genuine regard for the palestinians it has to be a hatred of zionists.
No one could possibly have an opinion on the actions of israel because we are all too obsessed with hating zionism and zionists.
It is astonishing.
It is like saying that Nelson Mandela's motives for fighting the apartheid regime in South Africa was simply due to an irrational hatred white people and nothing to do with the injustices suffered by his black countrymen.
Is it not hugely disrespectful to those who were murdered by the nazis to use their deaths to beat down anyone with an adverse view on israel today. Using their deaths to justify the same crimes today is surely the most disgusting and disrespectful thing you could do to their memory?
I for one would not like to have to face these souls in the next place after using them so.
The only state in your mind that doesnt deserve to exist is Israel.
And then you wonder why you get called anti-semitic.
Strange that.
I for one do not wonder why you call people anti semitic.
The reason you call people anti semitic is because you have no other argument.
You are morally and intellectually bankrupt.
The anti semitism smear is all you have left in the tool box.
I just think it is incredibly disrespectful (to real victims of anti semitism) for you to be exploiting them to score cheap points on an internet comments thread.
Firing off your anti semitism blunderbuss (you know the one with the hair trigger) every time you do not like the direction a dicussion goes is despicable.
Not just because of who you smear, but because of the disrespect you show to those who have been genuine victims of anti semitism.
I think people who deploy this false anti semitism slur are just as contemptible as the racists they claim to deplore
I've said before that Israel is uniquely despised because Israel is uniquely despicable. It is the last of the colonial settler states. You need to argue your case rather than making bland, false and time-wasting assertions interspersed by whingeing about getting deleted.
It reminds me of that old Jewish joke about the Jewish mother who was watching her son march in the army. Everyone was marching left right, left right and he was marching right left right left She turns round to one of the other mothers watching the parade and states. "Look at my son- he is the only one marching in time"
Isakofsky - I agree. Israel is often referred to as the "zionist entity". "Zionist project" or as you say "process" would be more apt.
No, David, the majority of an ethnic or religious entity say that it's true therefor it must be true, is not a very robust argument. A majority of Catholics think we should all be Catholics. So? A majority of southern Baptists think there'll be a day of judgment when I'll be deemed a sinner? So?
there's always someone somewhere else living where you want to create homeland. It's a snag but there you go. People will insist on peopling the planet even where Jews say that they want to live. Irritating.
You shouldn't get so upset with David's argument about a majority of Jews saying they want an exclusivist "Jewish State", therefore they should have it.
Afterall, that is the basis of Israel's Brechtian Democracy.
.
Sadly though, dear old Bert B. didn't publish the poem. It was found in his writings after he died. Still, it shows that you can't keep a great idea down.
yes, i love the idea of Israel's Brechtian Democracy. Nice name for it. I'm sure 'David' enjoys the joke too, don't you, David?
Funny that. So much for your theory on "ethnic cleaning". Maybe you wish that they did not live there and then your theory would have more credibility. As it happens they do live there and your arguments are left in tatters where they belong.
Also, the fact that some Arabs remained doesn't mean that there was no ethnic cleansing. Most were removed from what became Israel in 1948 and many were removed from the West Bank in 1967 and are stil being froced to leave while Jews worldwide are invited to come there and live.
Your anology is pathetic. A better anology might be like a political party in the UK saying that Britain should be run by Tehran. See how quickly that party would be shown the door. In the UK the Government is considering banning Hizb ut Tahrir and partly for that reason. Funny how Hizb have been banned in many countries in the Middle East for that sort of thing and you arent complaining. It is only Israel that you want to have a dig at...
I am not saying that ethnic cleansing is of the same order as genocide, but your argument is like someone saying that since Hitler didn’t kill all the Jews of Europe, (and quite a few of them survived) therefore, the holocaust didn’t really happen.
The fact of the matter is that 80% of the Christian and Muslim population of the territory, which became “Israel” were ethnically cleansed. And I don’t think that the term requires 100% of an ethnic group being cleansed to apply.
BTW- I find it interesting that someone would apparently make an argument based on the fact that a crime against humanity was only perpetrated against 80% of a particular population group.
.
.
David - a demand for Arab Israelis to be equal to Jewish Israelis is not the same as a party in the UK demanding that the UK be ruled from Tehran.
Greg - he's a zionist, don't expect honesty, integrity or shame - disgrace yes - shame no.
You and I both know that Israel accepted the partition plan in 1947 and the Arabs didn't... There were numerous calls for Arabs to leave the area by Arab rulers themselves. This is documented in the following book: Edward Atiyah, The Arabs, (London: Penguin Books, 1955) which shows comments by Haled al Azm the then Syrian Prime Minister. Oh and before you start to argue that that is Zionist propoganda - edward Atityah was the Secretary of the Arab league Office in London.
I could go on and on -
Mark Elf increddibly sys that Palestinians are still being forced to leave. I don't know where he gets that one from. Did you just now make it up Mark? It's a new one to me.
It gets more bizzarre by the minute. Away from the fact that Arab Israelis are not required to serve in the Israeli Army there is no difference. The reason they do not serve in the army is that it is hardly fair to ask them to potentially be in a situation of war with other Arabs - I am not aware of Arab Israelis claiming they want to join the army. Dont forget however that tyeh Druze population of Israel do serve in the Army and they are not Jewish.
For not serving in the army they forego certain health and welfare benefits that are not denied to orthodox Jews who do not serve in the army. They are barred from living on JNF land, even if they serve in the army as some do, and they have been barred from living on state land though the law has been changed recently but it has not been tested, as far as I know. Until now the Arabs have been banned from living on over 90% of Israel's surface area. As I said, the law has been changed (well the interpretation by the judges has changed) and Arabs are supposed to be able to live on state land but I don't know if the law has been tested yet.
Arab towns are less resourced than Jewish towns. Arab towns and Jewish towns are official designations in Israel. What kind of town do you live in David, a Jewish town or a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant town?
The list of discriminations against Arabs in Israel is endless.
I think some questions have been put to you that you have't answered. So answer the one about the ethno-religious designation of your home town.
Thanks
Why in heaven's name, are the actions of some arab leaders, germane to the argument that Israel is country created in 1946-48 by a group of jews drawing a line round a territory and saying, this is the jewish homeland. You can even show us how some Arab landowners 'sold' the land that Palestinians farmed on to the Jewish settlers. So what?
Just face up to it, it was a landgrab and whatever's happened since is informed by the actions of the US state facing the native americans. Keep moving them on, keep telling them that they are part of a great free nation, keep telling them that you're giving them land while you're taking it away somewhere else.
ps, i loved the tehran ruling the UK analogy, David. Utterly convincing. Meanwhile, perhaps you can explain why it's not legal for someone to stand for election in Israel on a ticket that suggests that Israel should be anything other than a Jewish state? What's wrong with Israel turning into a state like, say, the UK?
By the way, David, where do you live? In the UK? US? What's wrong with zionism? You don't want to live in Israel? You don't want to live in your homeland?
Edited By Siteowner
re: I don't know what it was like. Well, the way I know what it's like is from listening to Palestinians. Do you listen to Palestinians, David? The difference between what happened when Israel was created and whatever has gone in Arab states is that a)yes, I was talking about Israel and not the Arab states and...er...two wrongs are both wrong. Pointing the finger at one wrong doesn't make the first wrong right. Nice try though. b) the creation of the state of Israel involved a single act of nation-making that involved a catastrophe for the people living there. It seems that this is almost impossible for zionists to accept. They say that the Arab leaders told them to get out, that the Arab landlords flogged the land anyway. That it was all desert. that the Palestinians ran like rabbits. That there were loads of Jews there anyway etc etc. The point is that it was a catastrophe for them, and it goes on being a catastrophe. All you do, David, is try to say that it wasn't and it isn't. Over and over again. Perhaps it helps you sleep ok. Perhaps it makes you feel good to say that it wasn't a catastrophe. At least someone like Benny Morris is honest. He says, yes it was a catastrophe, yes, we bombed them out, but good. Let's do some more. People like you David, pretend it's all hunky dory when it isn't. But your way, you try and make what's happened acceptable to fair-minded people - oh the arab leaders said, get out, did they? O well, that's ok then. Fair enough. That meant it was no-man's land so first come first served, eh? Fair enough. Fair enough.
Edited By Siteowner
Greg, what ethnic cleaning?
Rather than take up too much of Mark's space with a response, I have decided to respond on my own blog.
You may read the explanation (complete with citations) here.
You may respond either here or there.
As for the statement that:
"Israel exists - Get over it."
I have often wondered if apartheid south africa would still exist if the world had simply "gotten over it". - Thanks be to God, it (the world) didn't, and it (apartheid south africa) doesn't.
.
.
I won't have people misrepresenting what they read here. It lowers the tone too much and I think it's off-putting for honest readers.
Mind you - it would normally be bad for Isakofsky to assume that you're Jewish just because you lie for racist war criminals. But I think he may have assumed that you were the same person as one calling himself "Jews for Israel". Given your dishonesty, it's pointless checking with you.
But you have now lied about the ethnic cleansing, lied about the discrimination and lied about what I said about the JNF.
I know I let standards drop the last couple of days but I can't let people stoop as low as you have done here - not presistently anyway.
The argument, as I understand it, is between those like Norman Finkelstein, who say that there was a coherent plan for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine prior to the 1947/8 war and those, like Benny Morris, who say that it arose in response to military needs. It has always seemed to me that Morris' postition is incoherent - he never explains how the zionist leadership expected there to be a jewish state without a large jewish majority. Surely this could only be possible if there was large scale ethnic cleansing? It is not surprising that so few Jewish leaders openly advocated a policy that they all knew to be criminal.
It may be that coherent plans for extensive ethnic cleansing did exist and the documentary evidence has either been destroyed or, more likely, remains classified. In the meantime, we must rely on the evidence that has already come to light (and to which Greg refers). There is also some interesting circumstantial evidence. Leila Parsons, an expert on the history of the Druze, notes that during fighting in the Galillee in the summer of 1948, Arab villages were destroyed whether or not they put up armed resistance to the IDF. On the other hand, few Druze villages were destroyed, even those whose inhabitants fought the IDF. This is powerful evidence, she argues, that the IDF was being ordered to cleanse the Galillee of Arabs whether or not these actions were necessary for military reasons, and even if they were counter-productive to the war effort.
Finkelstein has pointed out that Plan Dalet was put into practice only after the State of Israel was recognised by the great powers. Zionists usually argue that it was a purely military response to the deadlock emerging in the "war of the roads", but it is far more likely that it was always planned and put into operation only when the zionists thought they would get away with it.
Of course there was much talk about transfer (just as there is now) but the point is that the plans were kept secret, for obvious reasons. This means that historians like Morris can argue that there was no plan even though the overwhelming circumstantial evidence (including the facts you raise) suggests that there was.
There were numerous calls for Arabs to leave the area by Arab rulers themselves. This is documented in the following book: Edward Atiyah, The Arabs, (London: Penguin Books, 1955) ^ [...] and before you start to argue that that is Zionist propoganda - edward Atityah was the Secretary of the Arab league Office in London.
This is the usual text posted in Zionist quote-collages in support of this view --
"This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boasting of an unrealistic Arab press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of some weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and retake possession of their country." Edward Atiyah (then Secretary of the Arab League Office in London) in The Arabs (London, 1955), p. 183
But the text in fact continues --
"But it was also, and in many parts of the country, largely due to a policy of deliberate terrorism and eviction followed by the Jewish commanders in the areas they occupied, and reaching its peak of brutality in the massacre of Deir Yassin. ... If the Arabs could be driven out of the land in the course of the fighting, the Jews would have their homes, their lands, whole villages and towns, without even having to purchase them. And this is exactly what happened." - idem, p183.
Thanks to Brendan of the alef mail list. Anyone know why they moved their archives offline?
Eventually, he dropped the case; but one consequence was the removal of the entire archive from the public domain, in order to prevent similar vexatious action in future.
What a shame.
Commenting by HaloScan
