Challenging the New Apartheid: Reflections on Palestine Solidarity

there were many different forms of Zionism. Should they all be lumped together as this article appears to do?

"Throughout North America, Zionist student groups openly invite representatives of the CIA, US Department of Defense, and the Canadian Security and Intelligence Services to speak at meetings they sponsor."

If this is true, it's incumbent upon the author to provide some proof.

(as a one time academician I would call it "sloppiness") that is allowed to some POVs but not to other POVs, notwithstanding.

n/t

When Zionism is mentioned in the media, it's referring to mainstream Zionism. Few articles other than academic ones will go into the different streams of Zionism, and this goes for 'pro-Israel' articles as well...


Violet...

Western education started going to hell in the 1960's

..but as the quality of education there or anywhere else wasn't being discussed in this thread, it really doesn't matter what any of our personal opinions are...

If you want to discuss what I said in my post, I'd be interested....

violet

You posted

Which is the problem -- entirely too much sound byte non-writing in the MSM and POV blogs, entirely too much sound byte non-analysis in the MSM and POV blogs, entire too much sound byte non-research in the MSM and POV blogs.

Which results in "lossy compression" of concepts with the loss of subtlety, depth, and understanding in the MSM and POV blogs.

And I am not singling any POV - they all do it. It is generational.

I've got no idea what yr referring to with all those acronyms. Coastie, I'm not talking about blogs, and unlike you, I'm not attacking the media as being 'non-writing' for not taking up thousands of more words that they don't have to go into all the different versions of Zionism. As I said before, it's academic sources that get into the different versions. Which is why yr comment talking about Western education going down the crapper didn't make sense....

Violet...

by posting this article? IMO, it pushes the envelope. Beyond that it's not terribly thoughtful.

Why are you asking?

are you asking why I'm asking a question of the OP? You may know hiim/her well enough to feel comfortable answering, and I thank you for your opinion, but I'm still interested in Wordie's response to my query.

you don't know me well, either,yet you haven't been asking me or some others here the sme pointed questions about their motives

means most American as well as Israeli as well as other Diaspora Jews, are leftwing. We are hardly pro-imperialist.

C'mon already.

This is stereotyping, it is hype, and it's apparently an attempt to distort and oversimplify the very concept of Zionism, which at its most basic, simply supports the right of Israel to exist, for the rights of the Jewish people to self-determination within the state of Israel.

In fact I'm tempted to declare that we are already living in a post-Zionist era.

But even if one doesn't accept that premise, there are many types of Zionists and to try and lump us all into one (perjorative) bag is simply prejudicial nonsense.

im'peereeu`lizum: a policy of extending your rule over foreign countries

----------------------

Many, if not most Zionists, which means most American as well as Israeli as well as other Diaspora Jews, are leftwing. We are hardly pro-imperialist.

who played imperialistic, colonialistic politics to the hilt in carving up the Ottoman Empire and redrawing the maps for their own imperialistic, colonialistic reasons. The Sykes-Picot Agreement is but one example.

F. William Engdahl's "A Century Of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order" describes some of this colonialism and imperialism.

And then, with India-Pakistan collapsing, (leaving the festering sore of Kashmir), Ernest Bevin took out his imperialistic, colonialistic wrath and frustration on the Jews.

That adds to the sum total of knowledge.

but i am amazed at the sum of your knowledge. you remind me of a jewish activist down here... he is a dr. although i dont know if what.

and the other European empires, actually DID.

blaming the "jewish people"?

are you trying to make this a racial issue???

have you ever been to tel aviv???????

are you insinuating that it is the brits who are to blame for the military occupation of palestine?????????

people are responsible for the illegal home demolitions, target assassinations and checkpoints but i dont think youll get very far pointing the finger at the british.

Start with something like "A Century Of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order" by F. William Engdahl, reach backward with either of both of Finkel's "Osman's Dream" and/or Menocal's "Ornament of the World." Then come back forward with Keay's "Sowing the Wind: The Seeds of Conflict in the Middle East."

If you find it, you might also try Rashid Khalidi's "British policy towards Syria & Palestine, 1906-1914: A study of the antecedents of the Hussein- McMahon correspondence, the Sykes-Picot Agreement" which is out of print (but presents a Palestinian perspective on the issues raised by Engdahl and Keay, and is worth a serious read). Here are some links t an NPR series in which Khalidi participated--
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3860950
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/mideast/history/transcripts/p-two.10-01-02.mandate.html

The more you dig - the deeper it gets, and to cavalierly absolve the Brits of responsibility shows "whatever."

from http://www.npr.org/news/specials/mideast/history/transcripts/p-two.10-01-02.mandate.html: The point is that the British had not promised anything directly to the Palestinians themselves, and this is a constant problem in Palestinian history.

I suggest you study King Abdullah.

nothing i have posted has anything to do with the King or 2 states.

what do you see when i write military occupation?

how about ILLEGAL home demolitions?

self defense.

You are ignoring King Abdullah because you don't want to admit that creating a Palestinian state wasn't on the agenda in 1948. You don't want to look at Mandate history because you don't want to see that partitioning Transjordan took 78% of the "Jewish Homeland" and made it unavailable to the Jews.

You don't want to admit that Jordan attacked in 1948, took East Jerusalem against the provisions of the partition, besieged and damn near starved the rest of the city - which consisted of 1/6 of the Mandate's entire Jewish population - conquered the West Bank and expelled all its Jews, people whose communities date back THOUSANDS of years.

You don't want to admit that Gaza wasn't FREE but was taken over by the Egyptians.

You don't want to admit that Jordan annexed the West Bank and that Israel took it to avoid being crushed - and has held same in an attempt to exchange the land for peace agreements, as occured with Sinai.

Is Israel still occupying the Sinai? NO. Is she still in Lebanon? NO.

You don't want to admit that Arafat turned down an opportunity to create a state and that violence sharply ascended AFTER the Oslo Accords were signed.

You don't want to admit that the vast region controlled by the Arab League, populated by hundreds of millions of people and loaded with resources, continues to impose economic boycotts on Israel and that only 2 of its 22 states have any peace agreements with her whatsover.

You don't want to admit that Gaza has already been given to the Palestinians, who have used it to launch rockets at Israel, and in exchange for which there have been suicide attacks, murders and the elevation of Hamas, the terrorists, to the P.A. government.

Withdrawal from the West Bank so the terrorists would have free rein to attack Israel, as they are from Gaza? Does this make sense? Are you aware that even with the slightly beefed-up borders created by the fence, Israel is still only a few miles wide?

I think you should be talking to Hamas, not to me. Tell HAMAS about peace, tell Hamas about nonviolence, about recognizing the rights of Jewish people to self-determination in their own damn homeland. Tell the people who keep shooting those rockets to stop and start building their economy. Tell people who keep threatening the crossing at Karni that they're harming their own, people who are just trying to survive, like the Israelis.

And start thinking CREATIVELY about solutions to help the descendants of the Arab refugees from 1948, and to compensate the Jewish refugees from throughout the Middle East.

There are vast opportunities in this world. Leave the tiny state of Israel ALONE. Better yet, help her help the Middle East. Help her, with her creativity and her advanced technology, help the people she WANTS to live amongst.

good to know youre aware of the militray occupation part.

Boy, is there anything at all that you feel Israel should be criticised for???

You don't want to admit that Arafat turned down an opportunity to create a state...

I certainly hope no-one with the slightest bit of knowledge of the conflict would want to admit that, considering it's not true...


And start thinking CREATIVELY about solutions to help the descendants of the Arab refugees from 1948..

I notice you constantly tell everyone else to think creatively, yet yr only idea of 'help' is insisting that the refugees wishes are to be ignored and they should be resettled anywhere else but Israel against their will if need be. Disgusting...

Violet...

want to stay alive, the majority of whom are refugees or the descendants of refugees, of acting like an imperial power.

Meanwhile, you are conveniently ignoring the fact that the West Bank was annexed by JORDAN, that King Abdullah had no intentions of allowing a Palestinian state to exist, that the disputed territories were acquired in order to prevent Israel from being overrun by Hussein's armies, that Moshe Dayan called Hussein and told him the JORDANIAN border (ie the Green Line) wouldn't be breached unless Jordan entered the war.

Meanwhile Gaza had been under Egyptian, not Palestinian, control, until the Israelis handed it over to the Palestinians last year.

If you really believe Israel was created as a colonial enterprise or that it is an imperial power I suggest you read about the creation of The United States of America, where I believe you park your tush; or Australia, or the whole damn New World for that matter. Then, perhaps you should study Rome, China, the Persian empire, the vast empires of the Muslim world, and don't neglect the Aztec. You can read about ancient Egypt, about Alexander the Great, about The Empire of the Sun, about World Wars I and II, about Nazi Germany, about the Czars.

THEN go read some Jewish history. Then go look at a map and tell me that the settlements, which by the way are being defunded, and which take up some 2 percent (according to BBC) of a swatch of land that is smaller than Los Angeles, make Israel an imperialist power.

Please get a grip and also a sense of PERSPECTIVE.

And yeah - you're darn right the personification of Israel as a colonial/imperialist entity is racist. The whole reason Israel exists is because of virulent antisemitism. But the reason it exists WHERE IT EXISTS is because of ancient historial roots, and continued residence in the region, for thousands of years.

Meanwhile you can't go and retroactively condemn people for playing by the rules of their time, of working with the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire and powerful Arab leaders like the Emir Faisal, and committing the horrible crime of BUYING LAND and going to the League of Nations and the UN for assistance in verifying the legality of their claims (gasp - how COLONIAL of them!) And you can't condemn the Israelis for trying to survive.

Comparing a tiny state that is smaller than New Jersey with the British Empire is absolutely appalling.

Because the excuse everybody does it is such a compelling argument.

added Wordies: None of our own errors of the past should be a justification for Israel's errors in the present.

Saying Israel was founded as a colonialist settler state is not racist, CB. Yr habit of labelling just about every criticism of Israel as racist is just as silly as the amazingly one-sided and selective version of events you use to defend everything Israel does. And for the zillionth time, it's not *disputed territory*, it's occupied territory. Calling it disputed is attempting to claim Israel has some claim to the territory, which it does not...

Violet...

essentially the self-determination of the Jewish people in Israel.

Your point?????

imperialistic in nature. I don't think that's a terribly controversial assertion.

and are completely derided and mocked by some.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Zionism is a colonial project. Is that the same as saying that Israel is a colonial project? If you believe that Israel should be dismantled, why not just say so?

Lending more credibility to David Horowitz and Ward Connerly.

If someone claims to find such bigots appealing, then it's possible that
such comments could be taken at face-value. Which wasn't the intention, shurely.

Edited.

of harboring sympathies for Horowitz et al, based on what he wrote? How, umm, unsavory- and not exactly a shining beacon of intellectual honesty or insight.

I don't actually believe the author does harbour sympathies for the stated shysters,
it would've have helpful if their names weren't mentioned at all, it would've been
best if such absurdist comments weren't posted, imo.

"it would've been best if such absurdist comments weren't posted, imo."

Interesting. Although I didn't agree with the poster in question, I didn't find his remarks so absurd as to warrent your expression that it would be best if such comments weren't posted. Particularly interesting when considering the now deleted remark that the poster was responding to.

As for the reasons why I thought the remarks absurd, that was because I found
them illogical, irrelevant, & less than helpful.

You are indeeed correct - I have no sympathies for Connerly or Horowitz. But, nor do I have any sympathies for Ernest Bevin or Robert Sykes - in fact I could intellectually honestly classify them both as racists and possibly war criminals.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

that loud half wit credibility. I just wish that if someone believes that Israel should be dismantled, or for that matter, if the Palestinians shouldn't have a state, they'd just say so. The remark by Tom seems pretty transparent. Why not just own it, instead of making faux cryptic remarks?

The original append stated "Zionism is a colonial project. Even if there is free health care."

If one has the curiosity to really examine Israel-Palestine-Jordan (i.e., "The Mandate") in the context of "colonialism" and colonialism's handmaiden, "imperialism", a serious student would start with s serious history. Exemplary are:

"A Century Of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order" by F. William Engdahl, and
Keay's "Sowing the Wind: The Seeds of Conflict in the Middle East."

The a serious student should read:

Finkel's "Osman's Dream"
and
Menocal's "Ornament of the World."

If you find it, you might also try Rashid Khalidi's "British policy towards Syria & Palestine, 1906-1914: A study of the antecedents of the Hussein- McMahon correspondence, the Sykes-Picot Agreement."
Khalidi presents a Palestinian perspective on the issues raised by Engdahl and Keay, and is worth a serious read. This work is out of print, and I was unable to find a copy at Half or Amazon (but I have added it to my "wish list" on both. However, I did Google Khalidi and down load some of his papers. Here are some links to an NPR series in which Khalidi participated--

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3860950
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/mideast/history/transcripts/p-two.10-01-02.mandate.html

The more you dig - the deeper it gets, and to cavalierly absolve the Brits and French of responsibility and to assign the major share of blame to Israel or pre-state "Zionists" shows "whatever."

Based on my reading, I think the real "colonialists" and "imperialists" were those who carved up the Ottoman Empire and drew lines on maps for short run imperialist and colonialist reasons, and got caught up in a web of mutually inconsistent promises and undertakings -- from Robert Sykes to Ernest Bevin.

EDITED TO CORRECT SPELLING

It ignores the reality of the situation, in *this* century.

'Worlds apart


>snip

Israelis are genuinely bewildered that anyone might see similarities between their society and the old South Africa. Where, they ask, are the signs directing "Jews" and "non-Jews" to match the "petty apartheid" of segregated buses, toilets and just about every other facility in Pretoria and Johannesburg.

There are conspicuous differences, of course. Arab Israelis have the vote, although they were prevented from forming their own political parties until the 1980s. They are mostly equal under the law and these days the Israeli courts generally protect their rights. Jews are a majority in Israel; white South Africans were a minority. And Israel spent the first decades of its existence fighting for its life.

But for some of those with a foot in both societies, the distinctions are blurred by other realities. Some Jewish South Africans and Israelis who lived with apartheid - including politicians, Holocaust survivors and men once condemned as terrorists - describe aspects of modern Israel as disturbingly reminiscent of the old South Africa. Some see the parallels in a matrix of discriminatory practices and controls, and what they describe as naked greed for land seized by the fledgling Israeli state from fleeing Arabs and later from the Palestinians for the ever expanding West Bank settlements. "Apartheid was an extension of the colonial project to dispossess people of their land," said the Jewish South African cabinet minister and former ANC guerrilla, Ronnie Kasrils, on a visit to Jerusalem. "That is exactly what has happened in Israel and the occupied territories; the use of force and the law to take the land. That is what apartheid and Israel have in common."

Others see the common ground in the scale of the suffering if not its causes. "If we take the magnitude of the injustice done to the Palestinians by the state of Israel, there is a basis for comparison with apartheid," said the former Israeli ambassador to South Africa, Alon Liel. "If we take the magnitude of suffering, we are in the same league. Of course apartheid was a very different philosophy from what we do, most of which stems from security considerations. But from the point of view of outcome, we are in the same league."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1703245,00.html

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and with the win by Hamas I think there is strong support for Israel ( at least if polls are any indication)

It's important to understand that Israel, according to many reports, now intends on seizing most of the Jordan Valley as well as the parts of the West Bank that are indicated on the map. Do you see how completely the West Bank is broken up by Israeli settlements, barb? Do you see how the Wall doesn't follow the Green Line, but snakes around to enclose more and more Palestinian land on the Israeli side? Note that many experts have said that there is absolutely no legitimate security need for Israel to have included these illegal settlements within the Wall. This was done purely to take additional land for itself.

Here's the thing: The Palestinians original objection to the early Jewish settlers, rather than being motivated by anti-Semitism, was about land,imo. And far from being the perfect, bias-free society that you think Israel is, did you know, for instance, that a large portion of the land in Israel is off limits, by law, to anyone but Jews? Can't you see where the objections are coming from?

For years, Israel has claimed that it had "no partner" with whom to negotiate, but all the time was seizing more and more and more land, and putting the Palestinians through more and more serious depravations, which led to ever increasing insurrection among the Palestinians, which then of course, justified in the minds of the Israelis even further crackdowns and seizure of land. South Africa also placed blacks in walled, economically deprived areas, while taking the best land for themselves. They also tried to paint their country's problems as being the result of an uppity (and violent) subculture within their midst - they were for decades simply blind to their own cruelty. Why can't you see the parallels to South Africa in this situation? I am not saying they are exactly the same, but clearly there are parallels.

--new or old, Israel is not an apartheid state--

Does it extend beyond "cos-I-say-so", or is there more to the analytical process
than that?

bother? You stomp in and yell, then stomp out. What's the point? By now, everyone knows how you're gonna feel about an article like this.

"A key question will be how Hamas manages the contradiction between its commitment to the national struggle and maintaining the structures of the PA...."

An interesting way to descibe support for suicide bombers.



"For this reason, the dispossession of the Palestinian people is ultimately linked to the fate of US imperialism. This is the root explanation for the growing convergence between US imperialism and the Zionist movement in North America, and its opposite reflection in the anti-war movement. In countries as far apart as Iraq and Venezuela, we are witnessing a resurgence of popular movements across the globe. These struggles are beginning to roll back the power of US imperialism, and our Palestinian solidarity work must continue to make real and effective links with these struggles...."

Personally I don't think the writers are taking a long enough view of things, call neocon policies "imperialistic" if you want but to maintain that there is "intitutional" US Imperialism is stupid.



"Part of challenging this conservative leadership is to build real solidarity with other anti-capitalist movements in our cities...."

I wasn't aware that Pals were socialists? Is this true?

far from it....infact they waver between capitalism and tribalism.....depending upon the geographical areas. Further from the cities the more "tribal" the orientation is.

a small example: at one point, a couple of years ago, the PA brought in some "police from gaza" to the westbank.....within days they were returned to gaza. The "locals" wanted nothing to do with them

_____

the author is simply playing up the "anti-establishment" card...(kind of like adolescents or teens or freshman do.....logic is not a factor, but slogans are)

http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0/4ecb8cfeaeed57bac1256cf40042de00?Opendocument

Because it's from the documents of the United Nations and is in the public domain, I hope I can be given some leeway with respect to the four paragraph rule.

*snip*

Jews in Arab Countries in 1945 and why they had to leave, often as Stateless Refugees

1. In 1945, there lived about 140,000 Jews in Iraq; 60,000 in Yemen and Aden; 35,000 in Syria; 5,000 in Lebanon; 90,000 in Egypt; 60,000 in Libya; 150,000 in Algeria; 120,000 in Tunisia; 300,000 in Morocco, including Tangiers: a total of roughly 960,000 (and a further 200,000 in Iran and Turkey). Of these ancient communities (less than 50,000 Jews remain out of an overall population of 1.2 million), in the Arab world their number is hardly 2,000 remain, under one-half of one percent of the figure at the end of the Second World War.

2. As to why and how these countries became Judenrein from the 1940s, the heading of an article from the New York Times of 16 May 1948 — a day after Israel declared its independence — says it all: "Jews in Grave Danger in all Moslem Lands. Nine Hundred Thousand in Africa and Asia Face Wrath of Their Foes."

3. Four months earlier (18 January 1948), the President of the World Jewish Congress, Dr. Stephen Wise, appealed to U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall in very clear terms: "Between 800'000 and a million Jews in the Middle East and North Africa, exclusive of Palestine, are in 'the greatest danger of destruction' at the hands of Moslems being incited to holy war over the Partition of Palestine (...) Acts of violence already perpetrated, together with those contemplated, being clearly aimed at the total destruction of the Jews, constitute genocide which under the resolutions of the General Assembly is a crime against humanity."

4. Only two months earlier (24 November 1947), addressing the Political Committee of the UN General Assembly, Egyptian delegate Heykal Pasha, remarked on the Partition Plan for Palestine -- five days before the historic vote : "The United Nations....should not lose sight of the fact that the proposed solution might endanger a million Jews living in the Muslim countries. (...) If the United Nations decides to partition Palestine, it might be responsible for very grave disorders and for the massacre of a large number of Jews (...) if a Jewish state were established, nobody could prevent disorders. Riots would spread through all the Arab states and might lead to a war between the two races." (1)

5. During the 20th century, thousands of Jewish men, women, and children, young and old, were brutally massacred in Arab countries – in the Maghreb, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya, and Aden – even under French and British colonial rule – and also in Palestine by lawless gangs soon after the British conquest in 1918 and during the Mandate period (1922-47).

6. Already, in Iraq (1936 and 1941), Syria (1944, 1945), Egypt and Libya (1945), and Aden (1947) – all before the modern State of Israel's independence – murderous attacks had killed and wounded thousands. Here is a description from the official report in 1945 by Tripoli's Jewish community president Zachino Habib, describing what happened to Libyan Jews in Tripoli, Zanzur, Zawiya, Casabat, and Zitlin on 4-5 November 1945: "The Arabs attacked Jews in obedience to mysterious orders. Their outburst of bestial violence had no plausible motive. For fifty hours they hunted men down, attacked houses and shops, killed men, women, old and young, horribly tortured and dismembered Jews isolated in the interior.... In order to carry out the slaughter, the attackers used various weapons: knives, daggers, sticks, clubs, iron bars, revolvers, and even hand grenades." (2)

7. Pogroms and persecutions -- and grave fears for their future -- regularly preceded the mass expulsions and exoduses of the Jews, whose ancestors had inhabited these regions from time immemorial, and over a millenium before successive waves of the Arab conquest and occupation from the seventh century on. Beginning in 1948, more than 650,000 of these Oriental Jewish refugees were integrated into Israel's small area of 20,000 km2 -- even as the country was being threatened with annihilation by its neighbouring Arab League States. (Approximately 300,000 more were exiled and found refuge in Europe and the Americas.)

8. About half of Israel's 5 million Jews — from a population of about 6.5 million, of whom roughly 20% are Arab, Druze, and Bedouin Israelis — is now composed of these same refugees and their descendants, who received no humanitarian aid from the United Nations, and who did not ask for it. It was Israel alone, with the help of Jewish communities just emerging from the Hitlerian genocide, which achieved their human survival and integration.

9. A parallel political commitment on behalf of the less numerous Arab refugees of Palestine (about 550,000 in 1948, although a figure of 750,000 is often given) for their integration into some of the 21 countries of the Arab League, covering 15 million km2 (10% of the world's land surface) was considered too great a sacrifice by their Arab brethren.

10. George Orwell's remark about everyone being equal, but some being more equal than others, could also be applied to refugees in general since the 1940s. Some refugees are, indeed, considered more equal than others. The forgotten million Jewish refugees from Arab lands were not helped by the United Nations, nor were they kept for over half a century in 'refugee camps' breeding hopelessness, frustration, and a culture of hate and death, in which jihadist bombers thrive today. Orwell's remark might also be applied to the scores of millions of refugees on all continents who were displaced during numerous tragic conflicts on many continents throughout the 20th century.

11. The transfer of populations on a large scale, a consequence of war or for political reasons, has been a characteristic of human history, particularly in the Islamic Orient. Deportations, expropriations and expulsions of dhimmis — Jews, Christians, and other indigenous peoples — were recurrent throughout the long history of 'dhimmitude', including in Palestine. One should question today the real motivation of a selective, historically-flawed memory which systematically spotlights the Arab-Palestinian refugees.

12. UN Security Council resolution 242 of 22 November 1967 was also refused by the Khartoum Arab League Summit Conference – with the formula: "No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiation with Israel, no concessions on the questions of Palestinian national rights." Resolution 242 refers to "a just solution to the refugee problem," a term that was considered as including the Jewish refugees from Arab countries.

13. The dire hardships endured by the great majority of the Jewish refugees from Arab countries have never been examined, nor has the loss of their vast and inestimable properties and heritage dating back over three thousand years. The time has now surely come for this great injustice to be addressed seriously, within the context of a just and equitable global solution to the ongoing Middle East tragedy.

14. The question of this forgotten million (now over three million) Jewish refugees from Arab countries was raised by a representative of the World Union for Progressive Judaism at the 58th of the Commission on Human Rights (24 April 2002). Speaking in a 'right of reply,' the representative of Iraq, Saad Hussain, declared: "The Arab history, the Arab and Islamic history for fourteen centuries, has not witnessed any harm to the Jews – quite the contrary. The Jews have lived, and continue to live in peace, and their sacred places and their property have been protected until today. (...) They live in Arab countries today in perfect safety, despite the events – the horrible events in Palestine." (3)

15. The truth is very different. Jews have always been forbidden to reside in Saudi Arabia, and in Jordan since 1922; there are, reportedly, no Jews in Libya; under 100 in Egypt and Syria; only 38 remain in Iraq. The whole Arab world will soon be virtually Judenrein.

16. The World Union for Progressive Judaism calls on the Commission on Human Rights to highlight in a resolution the fundamental human rights of these ancient Jewish minorities: the forgotten million Jewish refugees from Arab countries. All refugees are equal!

Why do I feel like I suddenly stumbled onto the set of a tacky American Law & Order rip-off?

Is it just me, or did what CB posted have nothing to do with the OP?

Violet...

Refers to the other half of , kinda like .

You support Jewish refugees, but not only do you not support Palestinian refugees, but you disagree that they are refugees by putting the word refugees in dit-dits when talking about them. So, can you explain to me how it's possible to support only Jewish refugees and not Palestinian refugees? I can't see how it's possible to do so...

Violet...

".......whenever the rights and concerns of the Palestinians are addressed in law or action, that the Jewish Refugees from the Arab Countries also be mentioned".

How is that supporting only one group of "refugees"?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't support the rights of Palestinian refugees, and go so far as to deny they're actually refugees. So, I'll wait for you to explain how you can support the rights of only one group of refugees while not supporting the rights of Palestinian refugees...

Also, I'm sure you'd also support any strange and politically motivated resolution that says whenever Jewish refugees are mentioned, then Palestinian refugees should also be mentioned? What's the problem with being able to talk about one without the other?

Violet...

I suggest rewording it.

n/t

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm getting the very strong impression that there's a strong desire in some quarters to totally minimise the Nakba (for yr information, the term 'Nakba' relates specifically to the event I linked to) by yelling loudly about Jews who were expelled from Arab countries. Those expulsions (as with the Nakba some fled and some were physically expelled) are NOT the other half of the Nakba, and attempts to paint them both as the same thing and as some sort of 'population exchange' are clumsy politically motivated propaganda. And the site you linked to does exactly that, and in doing so it appears as petty and spiteful....

Knee-jerk attempts to change the topic of the thread like this remind me of a habit some folk had here in the past where any article posted about the deaths of civilians on one 'side' would automatically bring on outraged 'yeah, but what about MY much worthier victims!!!' style replies. For those sort of people any attention at all given to those they deem to be unworthy victims is considered to be too much attention and they'll do what they can to change the subject back to their worthy victims...

So, no, Coastie. The post in question was no more relevant than you highlighting the word *nakba" and then linking to something that wasn't about the nakba at all...

Violet...

I didn't. Try reading my post and other posts from me in this forum on the issue of refugees, then come back and apologise for getting it so very wrong....

Violet...

n/t

all have a direct line to israels independance....if there was no israel neither the Nakba nor the expulsion/leaving of the jews from the arab countries would have occured......

the real difference was the aftermath, israel absorded those refugees, the arab countries made sure the palestenains stayed in camps. Two very different philosophies. One that actually cared for its brethren, the other group more interested in something else.

I might just sit here and play the same Changing The Subject game and talk for a while about the destruction of Palestinian homes...

I see. So you think Israel shouldn't be responsible for compensating the Palestinian refugees for their losses? You don't think Israel was in the wrong for not allowing them to return to their homes? It's the 'evil Arabs'* who are to blame for everything coz they didn't force people who don't want to live in their countries to become citizens? Another huge difference is that the Jewish refugees didn't want to return to their homes, whereas the Palestinians do. And considering many of these refugees from Arab states were housed in tents for ages where the conditions weren't much better than they were for Palestinian refugees, and given the discrimination they faced once they arrived in Israel, you should rethink yr comment about caring for its brethren, because there wasn't all that much care involved at all....


* I figure since you view most criticism of Israel as being all about other posters views that Israelis are evil, then the same applies to you when you criticise Arab states...

Violet...

actually i do believe israel can help in compensation for many palesteanins who lost their homes....not all "left of their own free will"..some in fact live in plain view of their previous homes....but that shall come as part of ending the conflict.

and yes the jewish refugees did not want to return to the arab countries...nor did they want to return to germany..seems the jews really didnt have much to return to. The palestenains, knowing full well that life in israel would be better than in the "arab countries (as is proof for those who stayed) want to return......and the arab countries, simply did not want them either. But thats not israels problem.

and yes those refugees from arab countries were housed in tents, treated poorly...and 50 yrs later are at the top of and part of israels political and military echelon....thats called caring for them. Few countries in the world can boast of such a record.

The palestenains are still living in refugee camps and treated like dirt by their host countries....big difference.....

actually i do believe israel can help in compensation for many palesteanins who lost their homes.

Actually, Israel MUST compensate the many Palestinians who lost their homes. That's the reality, pelsar. Israel holds responsibility for this and it IS Israel's problem....

Violet...

Nor are there absolutes in this conflict: If one sides has a MUST...then so too will the other side: The arab states MUST compensate for the jewish refugees, the arab states MUST compensate israel for attempted genocide, the arab states MUST....ad nasueum (and the same could be said for what israel MUST do.....)


so whos MUST is more important?

Just the same as when I say that the existence of Israel MUST be acknowledged. I find it very sad that you don't feel there's a need for Israel to compensate the refugees, but given the tenor of yr posts recently, it comes as no surprise to me...

Violet...

so as i understand it...the negotiation is:

recognition for israel vs recogntion of palestenain refugees......

ok, thats a possibility, i have no problem with that, but thats just a small part of the overall end of conflict, as far as I'm concerned being recognized as a human being and being able to live in security is not something that i have to negotiate.

the real trade of compensation is a two way street: compensate the palestenians for all their suffering...and compensate the israelis, their arab immigrants, not to mention complete and full cesation of the anti semetic/israeli propagand coming out of the arab countries that feed the hate.

because they are all related:; compensating the palestenains, i.e. give them money so that they can go buy weapons to try to kill more israelis is not really improve the situation a whole lot.

it has to be comprehensive....that is the MUST

I'm merely trying to point out the blatantly obvious fact that there are MUSTS if you ever want this conflict to be resolved...

because they are all related:; compensating the palestenains, i.e. give them money so that they can go buy weapons to try to kill more israelis is not really improve the situation a whole lot.

WTF???? Wanna lay off a bit on the negative stereotyping of Palestinians?

Violet...

for those who look at the conflict not through blinders but with a constant reapraising of the facts....gaza has been an eye opener.

A contiguous piece of land that the palestenains now have full control over, in govt, in security and in financial resources. True in the meantime they make use of the occupation electricity (whos station some are trying to destroy with their kassams....)...but never the less, the ability of the palestenain society to govern itself, and secure its own borders is now being shown.

for those of us who dont believe in excuses for failure, the palestenain society is gaza at this point in time is exactly that. The intls who came to help, have run away, not protected by the security services nor appreciated by the society as a whole. Attempts to blow up karmi, their main export border point, are an exercise in sucide, as was destroying the greenhouses. The inability to take advantage of the Rafiah closing is also telling, that it be open more hours, enlarged for exporting etc.

and finally the kassams.....they dont even pretend to try to stop them......

This is the palestenian state of today...and now with hamas in power.....who knows where thats going to lead.

The palestenains have chaos in Gaza...I'm an not in favor of expanding such chao to additional areas.

It's a pity you can't be anywhere near as critical of Israel as you are of the Palestinians...

Violet...

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.