Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    24 Jun '17 18:541 edit
    http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/06/israel-gains-egypt-saudi-red-sea-islands-deal-170624101932517.html

    A new and perhaps final settlement of the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Israel is now in sight, based on an alliance of Israel with Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and building up towards a regional conflict against Iran and against Shia Islam. The idea is for Egypt to open its borders with Gaza and a Hamas ruled enclave separated from the West Bank, while Jordan assumes responsibility for any remaining slivers of Palestinian land in the West Bank, now largely consumed and over-run by Israel's illegal settlements.
  2. Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    100919
    24 Jun '17 19:18
    A quote from an unknown source....

    "If the Palestinians wanted peace, there would be peace.
    If Israel wanted war, the Palestinians would not exist.
    Think about it."
  3. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    24 Jun '17 19:571 edit
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    A quote from an unknown source....

    "If the Palestinians wanted peace, there would be peace.
    If Israel wanted war, the Palestinians would not exist.
    Think about it."
    I thought about it.

    I recommend you read State of Terror by Thomas Suarez

    Zionism is built on ethnic cleansing. Has been since the turn of the 20th Century.
  4. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    24 Jun '17 20:04
    Originally posted by finnegan
    http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/06/israel-gains-egypt-saudi-red-sea-islands-deal-170624101932517.html

    A new and perhaps final settlement of the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Israel is now in sight, based on an alliance of Israel with Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and building up towards a regional conflict against Iran and against Shia ...[text shortened]... tinian land in the West Bank, now largely consumed and over-run by Israel's illegal settlements.
    Egypt and Saudi Arabia might be despotic States, but there is no way their People would ever accept such a "deal". Any Egyptian or Saudi government that endorsed it would face massive protests and probable civil war.
  5. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    24 Jun '17 21:05
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Egypt and Saudi Arabia might be despotic States, but there is no way their People would ever accept such a "deal".
    Any Egyptian or Saudi government that endorsed it would face massive protests and probable civil war.
    If Egypt's President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi became perceived as more of an accomplice of
    Israel in oppressing the Palestinians, would he be assassinated like President Sadat was?

    Saudi Arabia's King Faisal (1906-1975) was perhaps the last Saudi king to take risks in opposing Israel.
    The 1973 Arab oil embargo changed the balance of power between oil producers and oil consumers.
    Yet King Faisal had a reputation as a ruler who could not be bought by money or American inducements.
    Reportedly, he declared that wealth meant less to him than his hope of praying someday
    in the Al-Aqsa Mosque in a free (not under Israeli military occupation) Jerusalem.
  6. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    24 Jun '17 22:18
    Originally posted by finnegan
    I thought about it.

    I recommend you read State of Terror by Thomas Suarez

    Zionism is built on ethnic cleansing. Has been since the turn of the 20th Century.
    Actually, that does beg the question: why hasn't Israel exterminated the Palestinians when they could've easily done so for decades? Why not back in 40's, when the world's pity was still with them because of the Holocaust? Why not in the 60's after the Six Day War? Why not in the decades since?

    Do the Israelis fear retribution? Sanctions? Embargos? A bad reputation? What's been stopping Israel for almost 80 years?
  7. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    24 Jun '17 22:40
    Originally posted by vivify
    Actually, that does beg the question: why hasn't Israel exterminated the Palestinians when they could've easily done so for decades? Why not back in 40's, when the world's pity was still with them because of the Holocaust? Why not in the 60's after the Six Day War? Why not in the decades since?

    Do the Israelis fear retribution? Sanctions? Embargos? A bad reputation? What's been stopping Israel for almost 80 years?
    Nothing is stopping them but the pace of their progress has been dictated by their ability to induce Jewish immigration to displace non Jewish residents. The illegal settlements have virtually engulfed the West Bank. Gaza is no more than a concentration camp. The apartheid system has been continually refined.
  8. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    24 Jun '17 22:533 edits
    Originally posted by vivify to Finnegan
    Actually, that does beg the question: why hasn't Israel exterminated the Palestinians when they could've easily done so for decades? Why not back in 40's, when the world's pity was still with them because of the Holocaust? Why not in the 60's after the Six Day War? Why not in the decades since?

    Do the Israelis fear retribution? Sanctions? Embargos? A bad reputation? What's been stopping Israel for almost 80 years?
    First of all, Vivify likes to act as though the Western world must represent the whole world.
    In 1948 Israel and Zionism enjoyed the general support of both the USA and USSR as
    well as the UK, the former colonial ruler of Palestine, but Zionism was much less admired
    in most of Africa and Asia. Many future African and Asian countries were still under
    Western colonial rule and therefore unable to vote independently at the UN.

    Vivify underrates the difficulty of covering up an Israeli genocide of the Palestinians in addition to committing it.
    There would have been some Jews who would have opposed it and been brave enough to bear witness.
    So would the Zionists have been ready to kill other Jews as blithely as they would kill Arabs?
    Vivify might as well ask why white Americans did not complete a genocide of the 'Indians'
    (indigenous people) when they clearly had enough power to do so for many decades.

    I would add that access to cheap (desperate) Palestinian labour (who have hardly any
    power over their wages or working conditions) has long been helpful to Israel's economy.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre

    "The Deir Yassin massacre took place on April 9, 1948, when around 120 fighters from
    the Zionist paramilitary groups Irgun and Lehi attacked Deir Yassin, a Palestinian Arab
    village of roughly 600 people near Jerusalem,"

    "Despite an original boast by the victors that 254 had been killed, Aref al-Aref counted
    117 victims, 7 in combat, and the rest in their homes.[4] According to a count conducted
    by International Red Cross representative Jacques de Reynier, apart from bodies left
    lying in the streets, 150 corpses were found in one cistern alone, among them people
    who had been either decapitated or disemboweled.[5] Several villagers were taken
    prisoner and may have been killed after being paraded through the streets of West
    Jerusalem.[6] Morris wrote that there were also cases of mutilation and rape."

    "The killings were condemned by the leadership of the Haganah—the Jewish community's
    main paramilitary force—and by the area's two chief rabbis. The Jewish Agency for
    Israel sent Jordan's King Abdullah a letter of apology, which he rebuffed."

    "The narrative was embellished and used by various parties to attack each other—by the
    Palestinians against Israel; by the Haganah to play down their own role in the affair; and
    by the Israeli left to accuse the Irgun and Lehi of blackening Israel's name by violating
    the Jewish principle of purity of arms.[11] News of the killings sparked terror among
    Palestinians, encouraging them to flee from their towns and villages ..."

    As far as I know, no one was ever prosecuted for participating in the Deir Yassin massacre.
    In 1948, Israel's future Prime Ministers Begin and Shamir were important leaders of the
    Irgun or Lehi, and they apparently approved of or condoned the Deir Yassin massacre.

    In my conversations with some pro-Israeli Jews, I have heard them say that while the massacre
    was 'deplorable' and even concede that some individual Zionists might have gone too far
    in committing rape, torture, and mutilation rather than just the 'clean killing' of the village,
    on the whole the incident was a 'strategic necessity' in establishing the state of Israel.
    The Deir Yassin massacre provoked a widespread panic among the Palestinians, leading
    to a mass flight of refugees. (Israel has taken the position, contrary to international law,
    that when a Palestinian has fled in wartime, that refugee has lost all right to return.)
    In short, Deir Yassin seems to be have been a remarkably effective act of terrorism,
    terrorizing the Palestinians into behaving exactly as Israel wanted.
  9. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    25 Jun '17 08:55
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    First of all, Vivify likes to act as though the Western world must represent the whole world.
    In 1948 Israel and Zionism enjoyed the general support of both the USA and USSR as
    well as the UK, the former colonial ruler of Palestine, but Zionism was much less admired
    in most of Africa and Asia. Many future African and Asian countries were still under
    W ...[text shortened]... ffective act of terrorism,
    terrorizing the Palestinians into behaving exactly as Israel wanted.
    Deir Yassin seems to be have been a remarkably effective act of terrorism, ...

    The Deir Yassin massacre, for example, only appears "remarkably effective" [your term] if it is imagined to have been unusual, unprecedented or otherwise out of the usual way.

    You may appear by some readers to overstate your case with colourful language. Sadly, the opposite is the case. The premise behind writing State of Terror by Suarez Thomas, was that it is difficult to overcome the banality of statistics and convey the scale of unprovoked terrorist violence inflicted by Zionists on their Palestinian neighbours without setting out in detail a seemingly unending pornography of violence. What changed in 1948 was primarily that acts which a few weeks earlier were described as "terrorist" became instead acts of "war" and then acts by a national army, while the victims of unprovoked violence became "enemies" instead of innocent civilians. [Those who tried to resist became "terrorists, in an exquisite perversion of language.] Their nature and intent remained the same - to convince Palestinians of the utter futility of resistence.

    Haganah, Irgun and Lehi were in reality competing terrorist organisations with overlapping methodologies - though each had their own specialities - and by 1948 they already had a decades long track record of terrorism, including assassinations and threatened assassinations against political opponents across Europe. Bombing of civilian targets was commonplace, especially (civilian) railway trains. A favoured technique perfected well before 1948 was to enter a Palestinian village and place explosives against houses in which families were sleeping. They produced a steady stream of terrorist recruits as young as 13 for their campaigns, training them through random acts of brutality, overcoming the reticence of older Jews by indoctrinating their children in a process still fondly described as "education". The process has never stopped and continues, with refinements of technique of course, in the ongoing settler movement - a movement that has been ongoing without cessation for over a century. Those who are fastidious like to depict all this as incidental, unrepresentative, and to express disapproval in variously mild and sneering terms. Only by examining the incremental spread of the settlement movement over time is the scale and audacity of the process apparent.

    1948 was not a defensive war. The existential threat facing Zionism was that the United Nations, having offered them a democratic single state solution, agreed to partition on generous terms which the Zionists rejected. They have never accepted a border and never ceased to expand their settlements beyond whatever arbitrary line the UN has been willing to consider.
  10. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    25 Jun '17 12:511 edit
    I would add that access to cheap (desperate) Palestinian labour (who have hardly any power over their wages or working conditions) has long been helpful to Israel's economy


    From the outset, there has been friction among Jewish settlers over the need for Palestinian labour in their enterprises. There has never been a shortage of willing workers, but there has been a racist policy to exclude jon-Jews from the very earliest settlements.

    A common problem apparently discussed mong Zionists has been the so called inverted pyramid - too many educated, middle class Jewish settlers, too few willing or even capable of doing the work of Palestinians. [Indeed, despite introducing Western scientific and capitalist methods of farming to transform agriculture, the Jews still had to learn how to farm in that country from the Palestinians they wished to displace. Nobody can replace the expertise of local people who know their land.] This was the incentive behind successive drives to induce Jews to migrate from other countries, where they were perfectly comfortable with no desire whatsoever to be uprooted. To secure more immigrants, the Zionists routinely employed false flag terrorism and generated the appearance of (non existent) anti-semitism, in order to terrorise Jews into escaping to Israel. This resulted in the wrecking of Jewish communities in Bahgdad, Egypt, Morocco, Yemen and other countries around the Arab world. Even Ethiopian Jews were identified and drawn in, albeit to a most oppressive and racist welcome.

    To the dismay of both sides, so called "Arab Jews" turned out to be no more inclined to carry out the unskilled and pooly rewarded agricultural and industrial tasks done by Palestinians, and although treated with serious lack of respct by racist Israeli Jews, they responded by being more Zionist than the Zionists, more aggressive, more Orthodox, more determined to succeed in their new environment from which they had no real escape. They were, after all, often quite successful professional and business people in the countries from which they had been extracted, failing to fit the racist stereotypes entertained in Israel.

    A feature of Gaza since the Israelis "withdrew" has been the daily movement of Palestinian labour to factories across the border - a system that is only allowed to function on Israel's terms. A pattern that has evolved especially in the West Bank, has been for the Israeli state to undermine and hobble Palestinian enterprises, while promoting Jewish Israeli owned enterprises designed to exploit low paid and insecure Palestinian Labour, which can be recruited or sacked to meet the needs of the owners. Palestinians are held down in unskilled and poorly rewarded types of work intentionally as a component of the apartheid regime in operation there.
  11. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    26 Jun '17 18:52
    Good to see the prospect of vindication for a long term strategy of refusing to confuse Jews for Zionists, recognising that Jews oppose Zionism and that Zionism is not consistent with much of Judaism. I am confident that Zionism is to Judaism what Islamic fundamentalism is to Islam or Christian Fundamentalism is to Christianity and Hindu nationalism is to the ancient Hindu faith(s). All are modern and perverse developments, exploting appeals to ancient scriptures to camouflage what is a novel and intolerant devation from / distortion of their real traditions.

    But that is not what this link is saying - it is my thought responding to the news that the younger generation of American Jews may be breaking free of their elders' fascination with Zionist propaganda. The truth hurts.

    http://www.thenational.ae/opinion/comment/can-young-jews-in-us-turn-tide-against-israel

    "Increasingly, American Jewry is becoming polarised, between an older generation whose ignorance allows them to advocate unthinkingly for Israel and a young generation whose greater knowledge has brought with it a sense of responsibility. In an ever-more globalised world, this trend is going to intensify."
  12. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    26 Jun '17 19:09
    Originally posted by finnegan
    All are modern and perverse developments, exploting appeals to ancient scriptures to camouflage what is a novel and intolerant devation from / distortion of their real traditions.
    Sorry, but the idea that 'real traditions' are nice benevolent practices is utter nonsense. Tradition and religion are maleable and may be used for good and evil and have been used for both throughout history. To pretend that 'the ancient ways' were all lovey dovey goodness whereas anything bad is a 'distortion' is deliberate blindness to reality.
    In Zambia various traditions have been used for less than admirable purposes and people always explain it away as saying that tradition had this good purpose originally and the only reason it is bad now is it no longer fits modern society or someone is misusing it. I say no. Some traditions were always bad or always neutral or always used by people for selfish aims. It is wrong to assume that they always had good origins - especially given the vast evidence to the contrary where history shows us a picture of frankly horrible societies.
  13. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    26 Jun '17 22:491 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Sorry, but the idea that 'real traditions' are nice benevolent practices is utter nonsense. Tradition and religion are maleable and may be used for good and evil and have been used for both throughout history. To pretend that 'the ancient ways' were all lovey dovey goodness whereas anything bad is a 'distortion' is deliberate blindness to reality.
    In Zam ...[text shortened]... he vast evidence to the contrary where history shows us a picture of frankly horrible societies.
    Well I hear your point and it has weight of course. I am after all an atheist.

    That said, I do not recall claiming that the real traditions were nice. I said, rather, that the appeal to tradition is often spurious. 'Archaism' is a technique that fascinates me because it is so persuasive - using archaic traditions and claiming that some modern innovation is actually a continuation and even a return to those ancient roots. So by borrowing some ancient writings and phrasing my innovation in the same terms, I can claim that I have those ancient sages on my side.

    The truth is that the past has produced a myriad of modern heirs by various confusing pathways. We are all the heirs of the past - and we all share the same past. My atheism is as much the product of medieval Christianity as any of the current Christian sects. Modern Western science is born out of the same Medieval Christianity and that, in turn, from medieval Islam, through which the Greek philosophers and mathematics were transmitted (and improved). There is no strand of modern thought that has no debt to earlier times and earlier thought. Those earlier traditions, in turn, spawned a whole zoo of different and interesting, often unexpected subsequent developments, which is the diversity we live with today.

    So indeed, "tradition" embraces a range from the inspiring to the depressing, and all of its many faces have as much reality as each other. It is as foolish to say of tradition that it is nice as to say it is horrible.

    Far more interesting to say that humanity is very much connected both geographically and historically. Rather than mock and belittle the traditions we share, it is more helpful to explore them with open minds.
Back to Top