The Problem with Israel

**Dusty1000** · 17 Nov 11,, 01:26

Originally Posted by Doktor

Dusty, in my short life around here I haven't seen Pari this persistent unless it is about climate change or sheep, but he's a kiwi, so...

Perhaps I've never come across a kiwi on a forum before. I'll keep an eye out for them in future.

**Doktor** · 17 Nov 11,, 01:30

Originally Posted by Dusty1000

The ones who weren't allowed to return to their homes, but remained within Israel, were not allowed to return to their homes because they were not present, at their homes, at a certain time on a certain date, even if they were in the next village, on holiday, or down at the shops, etc. The time and date would be whenever the authorities happened to check on each particular residence. If it was unoccupied, then the owners were counted as ''absent'' but ''present'' within Israel- hence, present absentees.

The only reason I can think of for doing so, is to try to encourage them to leave. Can you think of any other reason why they would be denied the right to return to their homes, if they didn't happen to be there at the time and on the day when the authorities came round to check, other than to try to persuade them to leave?

Stephen Glazer summarizes the position of Zionist historians, notably Schechtman, Kohn, Jon Kymche and Syrkin, as saying that:
"...the Arabs in Palestine were asked to stay and live as citizens in the Jewish state. Instead, they chose to leave, either because they were unwilling to live with the Jews, or because they expected an Arab military victory which would annihilate the Zionists. They thought they could leave temporarily and return at their leisure. Later, an additional claim was put forth, namely that the Palestinians were ordered to leave, with radio broadcasts instructing them to quit their homes".

**Dusty1000** · 17 Nov 11,, 01:33

Originally Posted by zraver

Nor is my stance anti-Israel although the defenders of israel's crimes in the occupied territories like to make the claim. I fully support israel's right to exist inpeace inside of the 1967 borders + the Golan Heights. Supporting the Palestinias rights to live in peace inside of the 1967 borders does not make me anti-Israeli.

This is pretty much my stance as well. While I think that a single democratic state (with a strong police force) would have been the best option in 1948, much antisemitism has been created in the middle east since then, lots of Jews have moved to Israel, so a two state solution along the 1967 borders, with Jerusalem split, and no settlements, would seem to be the best option nowadays. But I do also think the refugee problem has to be addressed for there to be peace. Hopefully Israel would be able to afford to bribe enough of the refugees to choose to live in the Palestinian state or elsewhere, rather than Israel, since preserving Israel as Jewish state is what most Israelis seem to want.

**JAD_333** · 17 Nov 11,, 01:36

Originally Posted by yellowfever

i have come to the realization that the real problem with israel is that there are so many crap about the jew/pal written online that an honest, constructive debate about the issue is just about impossible as the debators can't even agree upon the basic facts.

This is really turning into a "you started it", "no, you started it" kinda debate.....

yf:

Perhaps it is with the way you worded your post. It seems you're saying the "problem with Israel" is that people can't agree on the facts. While you are right that they can't, the problem is something else again.

But your second point is well taken. Victory in debate is that and no more. What we really have here is a bigger question: how to come to grips with a classic migration of people back to their ancestral homeland which in time reached a critical mass, which in turn created a political dilemma, which was then resolved in their favor by the UN.

Certainly one can feel pity for the displaced; it is always traumatic for them.
They may continue to resist, as they did in this case. They may find resistance futile, as seems to be he case. But to catalog all the misdeeds committed by the winning side in hopes that somehow it will reverse history is equally futile. If there were any logic in that, then where are the people speaking up for the people who the Palestinians displaced before the Jews returned and displaced them and the people displaced before them and so on, all the way back to the beginning of recorded history.

So, a good part of this thread is no more than a debate over what should go in the history books. Winning the history will not determine which side prevails in the future. To think otherwise is to reason from the wrong scale of life: Individuals. families, communities, counties, states, nations, world. All sacrifice to the next higher for their security.

If the security of the lowest depends the security of the highest, who in their right mind would expect Israel to jeopardize its security even if justice demands it. All we can expect is that Israel act justly if security allows. And what is just and what is safe is more or less where we are in terms of settling the real problem.

But hey, Yellow, it doesn't hurt to let folks argue about history. This ain't Camp David. So quit complaining.

**Parihaka** · 17 Nov 11,, 01:37

Originally Posted by zraver

Nope I took issue with you and your words, specifically: As well of course for one party wishing to achieve the goal "to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy."... You've taken a few statements out of context to condem an entire people. However you ignore the oganized actions and statemets from the other side that actually resemble said German actions..

Well no I didn't. If you'd been paying attention to the quotation marks and previous posts you would have realized that was a direct quote from wikipedia initially posted by me here in response to Dusty assertion that

Originally Posted by Dusty1000

The 1948 ''war'' was primarily intended to be a police action by the Arab states, against what was considered to be ''Zionist terrorist gangs.''

Only in your febrile imagination does that mean that I "condem an entire people. However you ignore the oganized actions and statemets from the other side that actually resemble said German actions".
What I do is call you on obvious falsifications: there's enough evidence for Israels evils in the past and present without you having to make shyt up.

**Dusty1000** · 17 Nov 11,, 01:38

Originally Posted by Doktor

Stephen Glazer summarizes the position of Zionist historians, notably Schechtman, Kohn, Jon Kymche and Syrkin, as saying that:
"...the Arabs in Palestine were asked to stay and live as citizens in the Jewish state. Instead, they chose to leave, either because they were unwilling to live with the Jews, or because they expected an Arab military victory which would annihilate the Zionists. They thought they could leave temporarily and return at their leisure. Later, an additional claim was put forth, namely that the Palestinians were ordered to leave, with radio broadcasts instructing them to quit their homes".

I have never heard of these historians and can only guess that they subscribe to the ''official'' version of history, which I'm sure that most Israelis recognise amounts to little more than propaganda. The most authoritative Israeli historians are generally considered to be The New Historians. These are who many of us, on both sides of the argument, have been using as references.

**Dusty1000** · 17 Nov 11,, 01:43

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Only in your febrile imagination does that mean that I "condem an entire people. However you ignore the oganized actions and statemets from the other side that actually resemble said German actions".
What I do is call you on obvious falsifications: there's enough evidence for Israels evils in the past and present without you having to make shyt up.

How on earth you think that I am implying that you ''condemn an entire people'' from this:

Originally Posted by Dusty1000
The 1948 ''war'' was primarily intended to be a police action by the Arab states, against what was considered to be ''Zionist terrorist gangs.''

..boggles the mind. It really does. I mean, I didn't even mention you, nor did I mention any ''entire people''. Is this discussion real, or am I dreaming?

Like I said, you couldn't make this up.

**Parihaka** · 17 Nov 11,, 01:47

Originally Posted by Dusty1000

How on earth you think that I am implying that you ''condemn an entire people'' from this:

..boggles the mind. It really does. I mean, I didn't even mention you, nor did I mention any ''entire people''. Is this discussion real, or am I dreaming?

Like I said, you couldn't make this up.

It was a response to Zraver. You might wish to read more carefully.

**Doktor** · 17 Nov 11,, 01:54

Originally Posted by Dusty1000

I have never heard of these historians and can only guess that they subscribe to the ''official'' version of history, which I'm sure that most Israelis recognise amounts to little more than propaganda. The most authoritative Israeli historians are generally considered to be The New Historians. These are who many of us, on both sides of the argument, have been using as references.

To be so selective on who will get the citizenship and who not under no clear parameters, the above explanation makes a lot sense to me.

**Roosveltrepub** · 17 Nov 11,, 01:56

Originally Posted by gunnut

Here's an interesting situation. A minority populatioin achieved power and oppressed the majority. Apparently that was bad. But a majority population oppressing the minority was also bad.

When can a minority oppress the majority?

When can a majority oppress the minority?

What if the 99% wants to take away the stuff the 1% owns? Is that oppression or democracy?

never, never and since when is wanting the 1 percent to no longer pay half the percentage of their earnings in taxes as i do? Hows this why do republicans want old people to get sick and die....just as much hyperbole

**zraver** · 17 Nov 11,, 02:17

Originally Posted by Doktor

How come 1.2 mil+ Muslim got citizenship and equal rights and the others didn't? I can't put it more simple then that.

1.2 million didn't get citizenship rights, a few hunfred thousand did. Most of them were Arabs who lived away from the frontier wher emost of the fighting occured or were bedouins in the Negev. The rest of the Arabs lost rights through 1 of 3 means- 1 and 2 they fled the fighting or they were driven out to become refugees. 3- they happened to be away from their home when the local was seized by Jewish forces and were then prevented by the laws of the new state of re-occupying their land and became present abesntees. The present abesentees later gained citizenship but not rights to their land which was by israeli law all given to a custodian who in turn sold it to one of the two big land funds in Israel.

**Doktor** · 17 Nov 11,, 02:19

So you want to tell me the right of property doesn't exist in Israel?

**YellowFever** · 17 Nov 11,, 02:49

Originally Posted by JAD_333

But hey, Yellow, it doesn't hurt to let folks argue about history. This ain't Camp David. So quit complaining.

Ah, my good man, JAD, thou art preaching to the choir.

Your post a couple of pages ago tells me your belief in this matter curtails pretty nicely with my own.

Hey, on the bright side, at least the new guy is actually engaging in debate rather than lecturing from a soapbox.

And it is my god given right to complain so stop complaining that I'm complaining.

**YellowFever** · 17 Nov 11,, 03:00

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

never, never and since when is wanting the 1 percent to no longer pay half the percentage of their earnings in taxes as i do? Hows this why do republicans want old people to get sick and die....just as much hyperbole

DING DING DING!!!!

We have finally got the kitchen sink involved in this thread.

Now if we can only get the subject of gay service in the military and same sex marriage somehow incorporated into this thread, it will have everything.....

**JAD_333** · 17 Nov 11,, 03:19

Originally Posted by zraver

And as shown repeatedly the Jews did not accept the partition plan-

Z:

The disagreement is over semantics. You are using the word "accept"
when you mean "implement". The fact is the Jewish Agency did "accept" the UN partition plan and the Arabs/Palestinians did reject it.

Whether the Jews liked the plan, paid lip service to it, or secretly hoped for a better outcome in time are all separate matters and call for completely different words.

Publicly, the Zionist leadership accepted the UN partition plan, although they hoped somehow to expand the borders allotted to the Jewish state. The Palestinian Arabs and the surrounding Arab states rejected the UN plan and regarded the General Assembly vote as an international betrayal. Some argued that the UN plan allotted too much territory to the Jews. Most Arabs regarded the proposed Jewish state as a settler colony and argued that it was only because the British had permitted extensive Zionist settlement in Palestine against the wishes of the Arab majority that the question of Jewish statehood was on the international agenda at all. The United Nations Partition Plan | Middle East Research and Information Project

They didn't even wait the two months required by the plan but decalred israel's existence from the moment the mandate ended...

Why was that? Civil war had been going on for 7 months ever since the UN approved the partition plan. The Brits set next May 14 as the date they would end their Mandate. Arab forces were poised to invade Palestine as soon as the Brits left. Israel declared statehood the next day. It was going to need country to country assistance. So, what's the problem with the date?