The blood libel brought up to date

[shira]

The blood libel brought up to date
Caryl Churchill's play Seven Jewish Children resonates with antisemitic tropes, amplified further by the Guardian video

...

Seven Jewish Children is not a play about Israel. It was written by Churchill as a "response to the situation in Gaza in January 2009", but it is a play explicitly about Jews. Her response to Gaza is to accuse Jews of having undergone a pathological transformation from victims to oppressors. The play comprises seven brief scenes, of which the first two are generally taken to represent the Holocaust, or perhaps pogroms during an earlier period of antisemitic agitation; in other words, they take place in Europe, before Israel even existed. It is Jewish thought and behaviour that links the play together, not Israel. The words Israel, Israelis, Zionism and Zionist are not mentioned once in the play, while Jews are mentioned in the title and in the text itself. We are often told that when people talk about Israel or Zionists, it is mischievous to accuse them of meaning Jews. Now, we are expected to imagine that a play that talks only of Jews, in fact, means Israelis.

In the first two scenes, it is Jewish "uncles" and "grandmother" who are killed, despite approximately one and a half million Jewish children having perished in the Holocaust. Whereas it is elderly Jews who are killed, the Jews' victims are overwhelmingly depicted as children: there are two mentions of dead adults, namely "Hamas fighters" and "policemen", but seven of dead children: "the boy", "the family of dead girls", "babies" and "their children covered in blood". The play lands its blows in the final two scenes, culminating in a monologue of genocidal racist hatred: "they're animals … I wouldn't care if we wiped them out … we're chosen people."

...

The anti-Zionist conceit that, as long as you are talking about Israel, you can say whatever you want about Jews, is laid bare here. It is not even possible to discuss whether or where this play crosses a line from criticism of Israel into antisemitism, because the play does not present us with a specific criticism of an Israeli policy or action. The Guardian's illustration of a Jewish family seder table is far more appropriate than a photograph of the Israeli cabinet table would ever have been.

The dishonesty and amorality of the adult voices in Seven Jewish Children is striking. Nowhere are right and wrong considered, when deciding how to answer their children's questions. Never does an adult in the play consider whether their suggested answer is true or not, nor whether this should have any bearing on which answer is given. Their only thought is which answers will best shield Jewish children from difficult moral questions. It is as if Jewish children are brought up in a moral vacuum, with Jewish power and vulnerability the only things that matter.

<snip>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/01/carylchurchill-theatre

[IndianaGreen]

1. Zzzzzzzz

:boring:

[Chulanowa]

2. The hilarity of Shira accusing others of racism continues

It's like watching someone in blackface get offended by the term "redneck"

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[shira]

9. so being a pro-Israel zionist = racist?

Do you enjoy being accused of antisemitism due to your crude remarks? I'm assuming you don't.

If the charge of antisemitism, true or not, makes you angry then why would you attempt to accuse others of being racists or supporters of oppression? Such a charge provokes just as angry a reaction as a charge of antisemitism. You think I enjoy being accused of racism by you or anyone else?

[Chulanowa]

10. Actually, yes, that's exactly what that means

At least, the Zionist part. You... do know what Zionism is, right Shira? Or do you suppose that it's just a funny word you can sticker onto yourself to give yourself internet cred or something? Since I personally think you're rather ignorant of a lot of things relating to this very broad subject, let me explain.

Zionism is, at the very core, the belief that Jews cannot live in the societies of other people, and instead must live in Eretz Yisrael, in their own separate little enclave in the world. Attendant to this thought is the belief that, simply by being Jews, they have a divinely-granted deed and title to that particular patch of land, regardless of who else happens to have been living there at the time.

Of course, Zionism isn't alone in this mode of thinking, Shira. There are plenty of other racial superiority movements in the world. How many of them do you support? Is it just Zionism, or are you more egalitarian?

The charge of antisemitism doesn't make me angry, primarily because thanks in large part to people such as yourself, the term has been stripped of any meaning. You'll throw it at anyone and anything, from what I can tell. Criticize Israel? ANTISEMITE! Show any sympathy for the people in Gaza or Lebanon? ANTISEMITE! Find Jerry Seinfeld completely unfunny? ANTISEMITE! (no, seriously, I've been called an antisemite for that. It was a little surreal)

What I'm finding is that people swinging this term around are either purposefully trying to stifle discussion of certain topics, or simply aren't intelligent enough to come up with any other argument. There's also clear waffling between these two.

Now. Do I think you enjoy being called a racist? Of course not. However, you have declared yourself a Zionist, which in my eyes, is pretty much the same as if you had labeled yourself "Aryan". As for supporting oppression, you have unflaggingly, unfailingly supported every attack Israel has conducted against the Palestinians, and have advocated further attacks against any number of other nations. No, I don't think that you enjoy being called a racist - But I'll bet that Bill O'Reilly doesn't, either. The appelation fits rather snugly in both cases though.

[shira]

14. wow. just wow.

You wrote:

"Zionism is, at the very core, the belief that Jews cannot live in the societies of other people, and instead must live in Eretz Yisrael, in their own separate little enclave in the world. Attendant to this thought is the belief that, simply by being Jews, they have a divinely-granted deed and title to that particular patch of land, regardless of who else happens to have been living there at the time."

1. Why is it Jews felt they couldn't live in the societies of other people and had to seek refuge in a land Jews already lived in continually for thousands of years? Might it have ANY thing to do with the persecution they suffered for thousands of years that eventually led to the Holocaust? Is it so difficult for you to admit there is justice to the zionist cause?

2. You believe Jews felt 60-100 years ago that only they belonged there, it was okay to take/steal land that wasn't theirs, boot out the arabs, and they acted on these beliefs?

[Chulanowa]

21. Answers for your questions...

1) Why is it Jews felt they couldn't live in the societies of other people and had to seek refuge in a land Jews already lived in continually for thousands of years? Might it have ANY thing to do with the persecution they suffered for thousands of years that eventually led to the Holocaust?

Okay. Let's run with your argument. Let's pretend for the moment that Zionism is a noble quest to create a safe and properous homeland for the Jews of the world.

Why then, if all that was needed was a patch of usable land for the Jews to live on safely, did it absolutely, at all costs, no comprimise allowed, have to be Palestine? I mean maybe it's just me, but saying something like "My people are on hteir last legs,, we need a place where we can be safe from persecution, please, for the love of God, give us somewhere... So long as it's this one spot, we won't accept anything else" seems... Well, it strikes me as being a little dissonant.

Perhaps it's because the Zionists were part of the privileged class, while the people they were trying to "save" were the ones getting fucked that resulted in this disconnect? I suppose it's easy to argue over dinner with Herr Deutsch over the validity of your claim for Palestine, if you're not the one in the camp.

But even beyond this strange level of pickiness for a desperate people, there's the simple fact that, well, they already knew about all the problems that would result. The idea of Jewish expatriation was not a new one - It'd existed at least since the 1700's, and had been investigated and researched intensively, by Christian and Jewish, European and American interests, quite extensively. It was already very well known that the mass migration if hundreds of thousands - or especially millions - of people to the Levant would cause lots and lots of problems. For a moment, set aside all that ethnic, religions, linguistic stuff. Imagine if the northernmost five Mexican states just suddenly emptied into the United States. Can you imagine the logistics of that shit? It's staggering. NOW mix in the religious, ethnic, and political issues. Oh yeah. That's a mess, huh? A mess hte Zionists knew they were getting onto.

So, how did all this turn out, Shira, this noble and admirable quest for a Jewish homeland, safe and prosperous? Well, according to your all-too-frequent posts, Israel is like, CONSTANTLY on the verge of destruction by everyone and anyone. Israelis live in a pretty constant state of shock and fear, and are one of the most militarized societies on earth. Not only is there the actual threat posed by the people who used to live there and their allies, but the Government - Zionists, one and all - are only to happy to stir up more fear and anxiety by explaining, in detail, how Israel is about to be obliterated by the Boogeyman of the Week.

Please forgive me if I think your argument about how the Zionists are out for the good of the Jewish people has about the same worth as a pile of my own shit, Shira. Possibly less, my crap can be mulched.

Is it so difficult for you to admit there is justice to the zionist cause?

You're asking me whether I think it is just to punish the Arabs of Palestine for the crimes of the governments of Europe.

You're asking me whether I think you are just to demand a Jewish homeland in the Levant, while you are while living in a city built over the remains of the village of Totant, part of the domain of Nanepashemet's band of the Massachusetts tribe.

You're asking me if I believe it is just to create a safe haven for one's people that you know for a fact will be neither safe nor a haven.

So, I'm asking you - Is this a bad joke, or are you really so dumb?

2. You believe Jews felt 60-100 years ago that only they belonged there, it was okay to take/steal land that wasn't theirs, boot out the arabs, and they acted on these beliefs?

The ones who subscribed to the ideals of Zionism, yes, since that's exactly what Zionism is about. Unlike you, Shira, I don't subscribe to the idea that any particular ethnicity shares a hive mind, so, no, I don't think "the jews" believed anything as a singular unit.

I leave that to antisemites and zionists. Not that there's a lit of difference between the two, in practice.

[shira]

40. thx for the response but there are so many errors in your post - where to begin?

You ask, did it have to be Palestine where Jews went? Well where else could Jews go at the time? There were already Jews in Palestine. It's where the Jewish homeland used to be and it was where Jews had always longed to be. It was very sparsely populated in the 19th century. Not 'empty' but not at all heavily populated. It was ruled quite brutally by the Ottoman Turks until around 1916-17. It's insane to argue that Jews of that time had any notions of 'stealing' land or dispossessing or tossing out anyone. The Turks didn't consider the Jews a threat in any way. And neither did the leader of the Arabs in that area after the Ottoman empire was dissolved (see Weizmann-Faisal agreement). So no, it wasn't "known" all along that immigrating to Palestine would result in so much bloodshed. And Jewish immigration wasn't seen as some punishment to indigenous Arabs.

You say Israel was a result of Europe's crimes against Jews. But the first aliyahs into Israel by masses of Jews started in the 19th century, well before the Holocaust. Jews outside Europe, like in Russia, had it pretty bad. Those throughout the mideast at the time also suffered in dhimmitude.

[Chulanowa]

61. You could begin by trying to come up with thought-out answers

Rather than repetitive propaganda. Honestly, Shira, do yourself a favor. Find some new talking points. The ones you have now stopped fooling most people around 1977.

You ask, did it have to be Palestine where Jews went? Well where else could Jews go at the time?

Well... Just about anywhere, really. You know there's this one nation that's always (some small examples nothwithstanding) always been very friendly to the Jewish people and the idea of a Jewish state. It has a very large amount of land, and its population already had a lot in common with the Jewry of Europe. It's called the United States. That would have been a no-brainer, to my way of thinking. friendly locals, similar cultures, lots of open land. Hell, give 'em Texas, it's not like the US really wanted that thing anyway...

You talk about "the justice of the Zionist cause" well... Justice would have been carving a Jewish state out of Germany, Vichy France, Denmark, Poland, or any other accomplice to the Nazis. They're the ones who committed the crime, they're the ones who pay the burden, it's very simple. While I can in some ways sympathize with the idea that the Jews didn't want to live near the people who just tried to kill them, the fat is that MY people have managed that trick for a little over a century now, and I suspect such a Jewish State in Europe would he a fucking lot more secure and libertine these days than Israel currently is.

It's where the Jewish homeland used to be and it was where Jews had always longed to be.

While I can sympathize with this to some degree by my own ancestry, I don't see an independent and sovereign Choctaw / Chickasaw nation being restored in Alabama-Mississippi. So could you tell me why the Jewish people get such consideration, and mine do not? Lots of people want lots of things, and most don't get it. I would really like to know what, precisely, makes Israel a special case in this manner. Do you actually have a reason? And don't give me "they've suffered so much," because again, I'm not seeign any Native American or Aborigine or Hmong or Romany nations springing up.

It's insane to argue that Jews of that time had any notions of 'stealing' land or dispossessing or tossing out anyone.

It's equally insane to argue that the Jews of that particular period had any interest at all in ditching Europe and the Americas to go to Palestine. That was in fact the biggest hurdle the Restorationist Christians were facing. The Jews of Europe and America didn't want to leave for Palestine, and the Jews of Palestine didn't want to abandon lucrative trades to go hoe some rows.

However, as I note below, after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, the Zionist movement damn sure DID start talking in the languages of purges, land grabs, cleansing, and expansionism.

The Turks didn't consider the Jews a threat in any way.

Really? Then why did the Ottoman Empire strictly limit Jewish immigration to Palestine? Is this the part where you turn from gentle-spoken concilatory intellectual into your usual frothing Muslim-hating self?

So no, it wasn't "known" all along that immigrating to Palestine would result in so much bloodshed.

You said earlier, "It was ruled quite brutally by the Ottoman Turks" and after this you say "Those throughout the mideast at the time also suffered in dhimmitude." You're kind of sending mixed messages, trying to tell me that everything was hunky-dory when it supports your argument, and terrifying for the Jews when it doesn't.

And Jewish immigration wasn't seen as some punishment to indigenous Arabs.

The indigenous Arabs got no consideration, for good or ill. They were essentially wildlife, as far as the decision-making in the UN went. Whether that was the intent or not, that IS what happened. "Sorry Abdul, but the Germans and Russians fucked up a lot of Jews, so we're taking your land and giving it to these survivors"

While I definitely holds that the victims of the Holocaust deserves recompense, and that the perpetrators of it deserved to have something taken out if their hides, I just can't see the logic of transferring the cost to the Arabs of Palestine... and that's exactly what happened. The Germans committed a crime and the Palestinians footed the fine.

You say Israel was a result of Europe's crimes against Jews. But the first aliyahs into Israel by masses of Jews started in the 19th century, well before the Holocaust.

Aren't YOU the one making the case that Israel "deserves" to exist because of all the suffering of the Jewish people over so many centuries? Well, most of that happened in Europe. And yes, there was plenty of jewish migration prior to the Holocaust, mostly from lands under Russia.

But these immigrants were not nationalists, were not Zionists. They were refugees accepting a port - The Porte, to be specific.

Those throughout the mideast at the time also suffered in dhimmitude.

Which is perversely STILL better than what most Jews could have expected out of a lot of Europe at the time, don't you think? Would you rather have to pay a tax (smaller than the alms your neighbors have to make, generally) and be barred from holding political positions, or would you rather have Krystalnacht every decade or two?

[shira]

64. speak for yourself

You're trying to argue that America would have been a much better choice for a homeland? When? Which year? Mass immigrations into Israel began in the 19th century and early 20th century based on persecution that well PRECEDED the Holocaust. Look into the St.Louis incident here:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/stlouis.html

It's laughable and quite tragic that someone as intelligent as yourself thinks America would have virtually given away Texas at that time.

[LeftishBrit]

18. No it isn't; that's exactly like calling all criticism of Israel antisemitic!

There are many views that one can hold and they don't equal racism.

Except perhaps for a small minority, Zionism is not a 'racial superiority movement'. Many Jews are concerned about their ability to 'live in the societies of other people', not because they feel superior to other people, but because they have had so much experience through history of the *other* people not wanting them in their societies: at best, restricting the places where they can live and the jobs they can hold; all too frequently, kicking them out or murdering them. This is the main reason why Jews have wanted their own homeland.

Do you consider all nationalism to be 'racial superiority movements'? Do you consider for example that the Armenians' having a homeland reflects 'racial superiority'? Or that Palestinians' wish for their own state is 'racial superiority'?

[Chulanowa]

22. That "small minority" is the one calling the shots and making the policy, though

As is often the case with these sorts of ideologies. Funny how they tend to float to the top, huh? And since Israel's a (more or less) democratic society, the fact the foaming racist Zionist wacky kooks are in charge of things says a few things.

And sorry, no, I can't get much sympathy stirring when I think of people establishing a homeland where they won't be kicked out or murdered... by kicking out and murdering the previous inhabitants. Furthermore, trying to get me to sympathize with how tenuous a toehold European jews hat on their jobs and livelihoods, and the restrictions they often lived under, isn't going to move me in light of the Israelis doing the same things to the Arabs living in their nation. Seriously. I have no sympathy for the Plymouth Colonists, either, for what it counts. I mean hey, maybe the Palestinians had the same dreams going.

Which brings us to your next question. Do you really think Israel can be equated to Palestine or Armenia in that fashion? Because they're really three quite different processes.

The Armenian nation developed "organically" - Armenians have lived in Armenia for who knows how damn long, and have, for the most part, stayed there. They've always been culturally distinct from their neighbors, and the land has generally always been "Armenia" - its existence as a "nation" is more of a modern-day courtesy for an established entity than anything.

Palestine is similar, but different. Like the Armenians, the Palestinians have always been in Palestine - for some reason, a lot of people like to think a wide conversion to Islam magically made them a different people entirely, go figure. Though very similar to their Arab muslim neighbors, the Palestinians wanted their own state - as did several of those same neighbors. Though basically the same people and culture, they wanted to have their own independent nations.

Israel however, was created by colonial fiat, populated by foreign immigrants sent there by other foreign states, and resulted in the oppression of the people who were living there first. This same colonial fiat would have happily provided reservations for those original people - but only in the worst land with no notable resources available.

Gosh that sounds eerily familiar to me. Anyone else?

[oberliner]

24. From what source did you learn about the founding of the State of Israel?

Can you cite any particular texts you've read that have brought you to your understanding of this period?

[Chulanowa]

27. Oh, I wish I had that kind of memory...

To remember every book, journal, article, report,and assorted entries I've read over the last 17 years that cover the topic, by name and page number no less. If I had that kind of memory, though, I would probably use my powers for evil.

Right now I'm chewing through "Power, Faith, and Fantasy; America in the Middle East 1776 to the present" by Michael Oren. Though it obviously focuses on US involvement in the region, it does touch on the foundations of Zionism and Israel, since you can't very well talk about the overarching subject without giving those two air time. Would you like me to list the sources from the 128-page bibliography, or are you good?

I'm curious as to which part of my statements you might find questionable, however.

The idea of the creation of a Jewish state in the region was dreamed up in the British Empire - The Balfour Declaration.
The Jewish population of the territory was primarily made of European immigrants.
The idea of a Jewish state was drawn onto maps and voted on by the UN.
An Arab state was also in the deal, but the planned Arab state was extremely resource-poor.
The UN votes, the Arabs living there get pissed, the Jews declare themselves a nation, and predictably war breaks out.
End result? Jewish state, and Arab "reservations" abutting this state.

Now are you going to explain to me that Great Britain was not the initial creator of the two-state proposal, that the Jewish population was mostly "native", that the UN did not draw the borders, and that these borders did not greatly favor one proposed nation over the other, that there was no war over the issue in 1948, that there is in fact not a state named Israel that has a pair of territories containing a lot of Arabs that happen to be more or less under Israeli dominion? because if you are, I'm going to need you to source all that :)

[oberliner]

31. Here is the characterization that struck me

"Israel however, was created by colonial fiat, populated by foreign immigrants sent there by other foreign states."

Rarely have I seen the creation of Israel presented along those lines - specifically with no mention of the historical oppression (and near annihilation) of the Jewish people.

The "foreing immigrants sent there by other foreign states" is quite an interestingly selected description.

[Ken Burch]

34. Well, the phraseology was harsh.

But if the Balfour Declaration(which also guaranteed the Palestinians a state, as everyone forgot for some reason)wasn't a product of colonialism and the colonial mindset, that what was it? Isn't it inherently colonialist to treat a place(Palestine, in this case)as if it is yours to dispose of, when in fact it isn't your place at all(or even, in the British government's case, in its OWN Empire?)

This wasn't the first time some European had tried to determine the fate of Palestine. Napoleon tried to do so in the early 1800's, and he hadn't even conquered the place yet.

As to "foreign immigrants sent there by other foreign states", there were these facts on the ground

1)The U.S. refusal to accept most European Jewish immigrants even AFTER World War II, even after the U.S. government KNEW what had happened and knew its refusal to accept the refugees in the Thirties had been immoral), a step that forced a large number of refugees to move to Palestine and what became Israel because they had nowhere else to go;

2)The combined injustice done to the Mizrahim: Their expulsion from Arab countries in unjustified retaliation for the expulsion of Palestinians(after all, the Mizrahim had had nothing to do with that and weren't even interested in Zionism prior to it), and the refusal of any country except Israel to let the Mizrahim exiles settle in significant numbers-an event the Europeans, the North Americans AND the Arab world owe the Mizrahim compensation and an apology.)

And here is the key fact your point about "the historical oppression(and near annihilation)of the Jewish people leaves out: That monstrous and indefensible event, an event that killed Jews, Roma, gays and lesbians, leftists, Jehovah's witnesses and others who were simply guilty of trying to help the above-mentioned groups, was solely the work of Europeans.

It has never been appropriate to use the memory of the victims of the Shoah to justify harming people who were not responsible for their suffering and their deaths.

Nobody in Palestine was to blame for the Holocaust. And even the "Grand Mufti"(a man who was imposed in the job by the British, who added the arrogant title "Grand" to the traditional title of mufti for the sole purpose of inflating his ego) was simply a useful idiot for the Reich. Hitler would have done everything he did even if the Grand Mufti had never lived.

It has never been fair to blame Palestinians for the Grand Mufti's individual vileness.

The Jewish people deserve(as does everyone else)to be free from suffering. But this has never justified what has been done to the Palestinian people. For sixty years, they have been falsely cast as villians and monsters. And this blood libel upon THEIR character has been used to justify dispossessing them and leaving them with nothing. This has to be stopped. I know that, unlike shira, you basically get this, oberliner. But it needs to be said and it needs to be dealt with if this situation is ever to be resolved.

[Chulanowa]

36. Thank you for managing to type out what I was thinking

I think I inherited one too many snark genes to be very good at this.

[Chulanowa]

35. And yet, that's what happened.

How exactly do you think all these white European faces ended up in Israel? Did they sprout? Fall from the sky?To be sure, a number of them are descendants of people who immigrated of their own volition, but a larger number are the descendants of the survivors of the Russian pogroms and the Nazi Holocaust, who were, almost to a man, refused entry into places like Great Britain and the United States, and instead packed into boats and shipped to Palestine. Emigration to Israel was encouraged by these dame nations.

Kinda funny, when you stop to think about it. One of the leading reasons for resistance to Zionist ideals among Jews was the idea that the Jewish people would be forced to pull up their roots and emigrate to the proposed Jewish homeland. And here we end up with a bunch of homeless Jews being told "we don't want you, go to Palestine", while Jews with homes are being told "Hey guys, ever thought about hitching a boat to go to the Levant? You really should. It's swell! We'd just love to see you get the fuck out, er, I mean, have your own nation!"

As for my not mentioning the oppression of the Jewish people, well, no, I didn't. Is it important that I do? I kind of figured it was a given that we're all aware of, first off. Show of hands, anyone in the I/P forum who was clueless about this until Oberliner mentioned it?

Second, oppression is apparently not justification for a nation-state, judging by the sheer number of oppressed groups who are lacking one.

[Ken Burch]

38. In the UK, they had a deliberate policy to break up Jewish refugee families.

They took the children and sent the parents home to die. Nice one, Winston.

[Vegasaurus]

26. The Palestinians never wanted their own state until 1967

They seemed not to have nationalistic aspirations during their prior occupation (by Egypt and Jordan), or before that in history.

Do you read some revisionist history somewhere with different information, because you really do need to read facts.

[Chulanowa]

28. You know, I was devising a nice meaty reply for you...

Like I came up with for Shira, and to a lesser extent Oberliner. As often as I disagree with them, they at least make the effort to further a point, make arguments from their sources, and despite usually being wrong ( ;) ) are at least somewhat informed.

You're... Not.

The Palestinians have wanted their own state since at least the Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire during WW1. You know, when T.E. Lawrence promised them that the British would grant them statehood if they helped out against the Turks?

Y'know what... nevermind man. I'm sure your town has a public library. I don't get paid enough for this.

[Ken Burch]

39. Tom Segev's book "One Palestine, Complete", says you're wrong on that.

Read it sometime.

Also, remember that Palestinians were living under the Ottoman Empire until 1918, so they couldn't be too overt in publicly proclaiming "nationalistic aspirations" or they'd be risking imprisonment or death.

It's not like there were many anticommunist protests in the USSR between 1924 and the emergence of Gorbachev.

And Black South Africans, people in India, the Irish, the Scottish, Native Americans and other conquered nations sometimes went centuries without any nationalist expression. Fear of torture and death will have that effect.

But, as the saying goes, just because you have silenced a person doesn't mean you have converted her.

[shira]

42. so where was the cry for a Palestinian state in Gaza and the W.Bank between 1948-67?

Do you honestly believe there would exist Palestinian leadership in the territories calling for Jordan and Egypt to end their brutal occupation had Israel immediately handed back the territories after the 1967 war?

Seriously?

The moment they'd voice a response, they'd be shot as dissenters against Egypt and Jordan. We all know this.

You need to realize that fundamentalist, jihadi Arab leadership in Gaza, the W.Bank and throughout the local region view Israel as a religious blasphemy. This is the way they viewed Israel WELL before 1967, before any occupation or settlement activity. Nothing has changed in their minds. Israel must be destroyed. A sovereign Palestinian state comes in a very distant 2nd place to the goal of destroying Israel. It's bad enough that any gentile "dhimmis" have self-determination in what is labeled Islamic holy land (like Spain for example, that used to be Islamic owned) but it's infinitely worse that lowly Jews are the dhimmis who have that self-determination and are preventing Muslims from achieving the domination and subjugation of others (like Jews of course) that Allah once promised them.

[Chulanowa]

47. Actually that was the oroginal point of al-Fatah

al-Fatah was a "grassroots" Palestinian liberation movement - liberation from both Israel and Egypt. In response, Egypt created the PLO to suck power away from al-Fatah while maintaining its own placement.

"We all know this" - Ah, logical fallacies. The only thing Shira has to argue with once his racist invective and screeds of pointless diatribe...

You need to realize that fundamentalist, jihadi Arab leadership in Gaza, the W.Bank and throughout the local region view Israel as a religious blasphemy. This is the way they viewed Israel WELL before 1967, before any occupation or settlement activity. Nothing has changed in their minds. Israel must be destroyed. A sovereign Palestinian state comes in a very distant 2nd place to the goal of destroying Israel. It's bad enough that any gentile "dhimmis" have self-determination in what is labeled Islamic holy land (like Spain for example, that used to be Islamic owned) but it's infinitely worse that lowly Jews are the dhimmis who have that self-determination and are preventing Muslims from achieving the domination and subjugation of others (like Jews of course) that Allah once promised them.

...have been used up? Holy shit, Shira had some ignorant bullshit in reserve!

[shira]

50. wrong again, jeez

1. Fatah (PLO) never had as a goal, since it's inception, the liberation of the W.Bank and Gaza from Jordan/Egypt. It's only goal was to "liberate" what was then Israel within the 1967 borders by destroying it.

2. What is "racist" and ignorant about that paragraph? I cannot imagine there is anything more "racist" there than the usual bigoted "anti-zionist" tripe on these boards. You constantly accuse the "zionists" here of stifling debate with accusations of anti-semitism but all I see is you attempting to do so with your baseless charges of racism.

[Chulanowa]

62. The fact that you're equating the PLO with Fatah in a historical sense proves your ignorance

They were different, competing organizations up until 1967, when Fatah joined the PLO, then in 1969 when Yassir Arafat stepped into the leadership of the PLO, effectively cementing the two organizations. But Fatah was founded in 1954 as a group favoring Palestinian nationalism, in opposition to Arab Pan-Nationalism that was espoused by Egypt and, after 1964, Egypt's puppet in PLO.

So I suppose you've got me, as far as semantics goes - it wasn's so much "liberation from Egypt" was it was "Reject Egypt's plans for the area and work against them."

I cannot imagine there is anything more "racist" there than the usual bigoted "anti-zionist" tripe on these boards.

Yeah, that's kind of my point. I'm saying your senseless hateful ranting is pretty much on equal footing with that senseless, hateful ranting.

Big difference is, their posts get deleted, yours get to stay. Gotta love that even on DU, hatred of M&M's is accepted and endorsed.

[shira]

65. once again

Yeah, that's kind of my point. I'm saying your senseless hateful ranting is pretty much on equal footing with that senseless, hateful ranting.

Big difference is, their posts get deleted, yours get to stay. Gotta love that even on DU, hatred of M&M's is accepted and endorsed.

Your charge of racism against me. Is this based on faith or evidence? If evidence, please provide.

[oberliner]

51. But it was not a "liberation movement" that also included Israel's continued existence

The concept of an independent Palestinian state living side by side at peace with Israel was not what Fatah was all about in those days.

Edit to add: Neither Israel nor Jordan was particularly interested in that idea either at that time, of course.

[Chulanowa]

63. And? Did I say it was?

But good call on admitting Israel wasn't too keen on the idea, either. Even though I suspect you meant Egypt instead of Israel. Either way it's accurate, so hey.

[oberliner]

67. They were as much of an "eliminate Israel" movement as an "establish a Palestinian state" one

At no point did they entertain the notion of accommodating the existence of Israel in any form.

The Zionist movement was potentially compatible with the Palestinian Nationalist movement whereas the opposite was not the case.

This is evidenced by the response by the two communities to the Partition Plan which would have allowed for both.

And I have no idea why you would suspect I meant Egypt when I wrote Israel.

[Chulanowa]

75. And that has what to do with the rivalry between Fatah and the PLO?

You know, there is history and politics to the region - even within recent history - where Israel simply isn't headlining. TO quote a certain Sicilian, "Inconceivable!"

As for why I thought you might have mistyped, it's because you're not exactly known for taking Israel off the pedestal - even if your pedestal is somewhat smaller than others'.

And what in the world makes you think that the Zionist movement and the Palestinian nationalist movement are compatible in the least? Is there any other instance where two competing nationalist movements have been compatible? Sri Lanka? China? Ireland? Iraq? Texas?

What exactly makes you think that, out of all the nationalist movements in the world, past and present, ZIONISM is the one that is magically "potentially compatible"? Even in spite of the ample evidence that Zionism has as much interest in a Palestinian state as Palestine has in a Zionist state?

Hmmmm. I wonder. :rofl:

[Ken Burch]

53. Those fundamentalists wouldn't have had influence had not the IDF crushed the SECULAR Palestinian

leadership.

And there is a man named Barghouti, who is secular and progressive, rotting in an Israeli jail. The polls show he'd win the next Palestinian election if he were released. Would you agree that there's no good reason NOT to release him?

You have got to accept that brute force can't make the Palestinians behave better. It never could. What would would be letting them have a decent life and ending the Occupation. There's nothing in the status quo that is good for either them OR Israel. And it's not acceptable to demand that the world back the Israeli government's insane insistence in preventing the establishment of a Palestinian state just to proved that the world doesn't "hate the Jews". If I hated Jews, I'd support what Netanyahu is doing, I'd back Lieberman, and I'd have supported Operation Cast Lead.

[oberliner]

54. Is life imprisonment not a suitable sentence for someone convicted of murder?

Isn't the fact that he was convicted of the murder of five civilians a good reason not to release him?

It is interesting that you label him as progressive in spite of his leadership role with the Tanzim militia.

They have taken responsibility for several suicide attacks on Israelis.

Edit: I would add that I personally believe it is a good idea to release him, but I would acknowledge that there are good reasons not to.

[Ken Burch]

55. A lot of people responsible for killing have gone on to lead states.

Barghouti is a supporter of a secular Palestine. This makes him a clear improvement over Hamas, and we all know that Fatah is so corrupt and despised by the Palestinians that it will never have popular support again.

[oberliner]

56. I agree with all of your points

It makes sense to release him and I think he would probably be a popular choice among Palestinians if he ran.

That said, I can see why some in Israel would be hesitant to agree to his release.

Edit to add: Did you think Israel was wise to release Kuntar?

[Ken Burch]

57. Too early to tell as yet. There's a risk in releasing such people, there's a risk in ARRESTING them

I'm glad I'm not the person in the Israeli government who has to make these decisions.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. Nonsense.

Trying to compare Churchill's play - which accurately attacks a worryingly widespread current of thought in today's Jewish community - with the claim that Jews drink the blood of Christian children at passover - which we don't - is just silly.

Rather than complaining about the dishonesty and amorality of the voices in the play, we should be attacking the dishonesty and amorality of their real-world counterparts, who are only too widespread on the talkboards of the Jerusalem Post, Ynetnews and even Haaretz, and whom, frankly, I suspect you number among.

[Bryan Sacks]

7. I love that you said "which we don't" n/t

[shira]

8. the churchill play is nonsense

Rather than complaining about the dishonesty and amorality of the voices in the play, we should be attacking the dishonesty and amorality of their real-world counterparts, who are only too widespread on the talkboards of the Jerusalem Post, Ynetnews and even Haaretz, and whom, frankly, I suspect you number among.

What do you think of this response to the play by an Israeli mother in the comments section at Harry's Place?

"What really annoys me about the Caryl Churchill play is this.

I’m an Israeli parent -which is who, in fact, the play is criticising. I have raised 5 children in Israel, which is no easy task, over and above the normal difficulties of parenting. Like the majority of Israeli parents I have wrestled with the dilemma of how to raise happy, balanced children in an environment with so many instances of violence and fear.

One has to cope with the fears of a child whose father and/or brother has gone to war. One has to cope with the anxieties of children forced to wear a gas mask for hours at a time for weeks on end and forbidden to leave the house. One has to cope with the nightmares resulting from seemingly unending terror attacks. One has to decide on a balance between the freedoms a teenager demands and the obvious dangers. One has to comfort teenagers who have buried friends.

But all the while, from their infancy one tries not to opt for the easiest route. So one buys children’s books promoting Arab-Israeli co-existance. One takes them to plays with the children of Arab friends. One encourages them to study hard in Arabic lessons in school. One discusses current affairs and politics taking care to present the other point of view. When they go to the army one makes sure that they discuss their difficulties and moral dilemmas over a shabbat meal.

And then along comes Caryl Churchill and makes a complete stereotypical lie out of all those years of parenting and all those sleepless nights of dilemma."
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/04/28/an-israeli-parent-responds-to-seven-jewish-children/

and whom, frankly, I suspect you number among

What exactly do you think I believe, or would want others to believe, that you think is wrong and/or dangerous?

Also, you mentioned talkbacks in jpost, haaretz, etc. Take a look at this about talkbacks:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3710481,00.html

Now based on those particular talkbacks, what would you think about a 10 minute play called "7 european/american children" which would attack the dishonesty and amorality of their real-world counterparts? A play that would 'stereotype' all western pundits who have anti-Israel views and are really nothing more than hateful bigots? How's this:

"Tell her we care about both Israeli and Palestinian children affected by war.....but don't tell her about Sderot and the children there....tell her they are just firecrackers and political statements and that they harm no one.....tell her instead about the Gaza ghetto....but don't tell her about the Gaza withdrawal of 2005....tell her about the Jenin massacre....don't tell her it wasn't a massacre.....tell her about Israeli use of human shields.....but don't tell her about the more widespread Hezbollah and Hamas use of human shields....don't tell her about the disgusting Hamas charter because they really don't mean what they say........tell her it's quite alright that Israel need not be recognized as a Jewish state....don't tell her about the grand Mufti of Jerusalem and his involvement with Hitler.....tell her Israel provoked the 1967 war....don't tell her Israel dismantled all settlements in both Gaza and the Sinai.....tell her Israel doesn't want peace.....tell her they are all neo-cons.....tell her Palestinians have every right to violently resist since they are occupied.....don't tell her that Hamas and Fatah kill palestinian moderates....."

[Ken Burch]

12. A Palestinian mother or father has all the same worries listed in the "one has to cope" paragraph

But then, you don't care about that, because you robotically accept the Likudnik line that the whole thing is the Palestinian leadership's fault and the Israeli government it innocent of any wrongdoing. And even though you always knew the Gaza War could NEVER make Palestinians turn away from Hamas, you believed that lie anyway.

Do you EVER think, shira? Do you ever question?

[shira]

15. seems you're the one who doesn't care about Jews being stereotyped and libeled

As for Palestinian leadership's fault, what fault in this conflict do you attribute to them? Can you list 2-3 ways Palestinian leaders have wronged the people they say they represent?

[Ken Burch]

16. Actually, yes

1)In Fatah's case, through not dealing with the corruption in the PA.
2)In Hamas' case, by moving away from the social welfare provision that was a major feature of their appeal before they came to power.

And it is utterly bogus to label any criticism of the Israeli mindset as "Jews being stereotyped and libeled". Nothing in Operation Cast Lead has anything to do with the historic Jewish experience. Instead, it's about an increasingly authoritarian regime using brute force to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, because that regime is convinced that it only retains global relevance if it is "besieged". The Gaza situation is not a crisis of survival for Israel, it is instead about a group of arrogant leaders who care only about being seen as "the winners".

"Seven Jewish Children" is not an attack on Jews. If it was Tony Kushner would not defend it, for G-d's sake. It is an attack on a destructive mindset that some people who happen to be Jewish have. Those people and that mindset are not above criticism simply due to the fact that they have some connection to Judaism(a connection they have loosened by abandoning their support for justice and self-determination for all peoples.)

[shira]

19. that's it? well that explains pretty much everything about your views

How about Palestinian leadership's...

a. continued rejection of a Palestinian state since 1937
b. ways in which they treat gays, women, and dissenters that has zero to do with Israel
c. ways in which they brainwash children to hate, be intolerant, become child combatants/shields, etc.

You cannot claim to know anything about the I/P conflict if you don't know anything about everyday Palestinian life. I suggest sites like Palestine Media Watch or MEMRI. Take a look at what the media and your favorite editorialists are not telling you. See for yourself how Palestinian leadership encourages and incites genocidal discourse against Jews. You'll find blood libels, world conspiracy theories, genocidal intentions and more. You'll find that Palestinian leaders and some Arab leaders around the ME are unquestionably frustrated genocides, who openly declare their intentions to anyone who cares to listen. Any reading of history will show this has been the case going back over 80 years.

I suggest you stop venting your moral disgust and impatience on a people sincerely struggling for their very life against a remorseless Jihadi enemy. Israel isn't fighting against the Palestinians in Gaza. Israel is fighting Iran and other global Jihad movements (in S.Arabia, Syria, etc..) that preach little else but hatred and extermination. Hamas and Gaza are their first line of attack.

I don't see how you can simply ignore this remorseless enemy’s behavior, and the ways in which it violates your own value-system infinitely more than the Israelis violations. You may not care much about the way they treat Jews, but look at what they've done and are still doing to Palestinians and their children. How can that not enrage you?

I'm surprised you aren't more sympathetic and understanding of the Palestinians true problems. If Israel retreats behind all 1967 borders tomorrow, you think Palestinian suffering ends? Even if you don't personally believe this, it seems most of your comrades naively think so - or are so hateful of Israel that they are blind or apathetic to the real issues Palestinians have with their muslim/arab tormentors who should be denounced for the villains they are to their own people.

As for the "Israeli mindset", the Churchill play doesn't mention Israel. It's about the "jewish" mindset or "victim" mentality. It's about a collective jewish nervous breakdown.

[Chulanowa]

23. Ah, bullshitting the new guy already?

"a. continued rejection of a Palestinian state since 1937"

Did you mistype and meant 1947? because in 1937, an Arab Palestinian state was pretty much thought to be a given, and is in fact what the British were "working towards" (in their special, slow, no-results-acheiving imperial way). I'll assume that you did in fact mean 1947. There are two flaws to this line of thinking Shira.

First, to the figuring of the Palestinians, there was already a "Palestinian state", and the 1947 partition plan represented a HUGE truncation of that state. Second, the parts that would be left in Palestinian hands were universally shit. The nascent Jewish state would have 100% control over fresh water, 80% of the arable land, all of the ports, and 100% of the Negev desert - which at the time was thought to have lush oil deposits by all parties. Each "deal" offered since has been smaller and more restrictive with fewer solid guarantees.

But of course, the Arabs never had any say whatsoever in the proceedings of the UN partition plan - Uruguay had a vote, Palestine didn't.

"b. ways in which they treat gays, women, and dissenters that has zero to do with Israel"

This is arguable. Gaza and the West Bank are pits, basically. Pits with rather large populations. This is a direct result of that shit-ass partition plan that I just got done talking about, and more indirectly, due to constant pressure and segregation from Israel. The West Bank and Gaza are basically an Arab version of Pine Ridge and Rosebud. Where there is stress and poverty, there is systemic abuse. Absolute rock-solid fact. Alleviate poverty and stress, and the abuses will tend to start evaporating. I'm not saying Israel is the cause of these issues - but they are the cause of the cause of the cause.

"c. ways in which they brainwash children to hate, be intolerant, become child combatants/shields, etc."

Yes, which they do on a lower budget than the Israelis do to their own children. Indoctrination and mandatory military service is only laudable when rich people do it. Shame on them.

I don't see how you can simply ignore this remorseless enemy’s behavior, and the ways in which it violates your own value-system infinitely more than the Israelis violations.

Here's a simple explanation, Shira. The two parties, truthfully, act about the same. The Israeli leadership is no more interested in a peaceful resolution than the Arab leaderships are - both sides have too much invested in getting their people to hate and fear each other. Herever there's a difference - while you're talking about what a couple Arab leaders want to do, the rest of us are seeing what the Israeli leaders are doing... And again, the two are quite similar.

Another difference however, is that this "remorseless foe" - nice use of propaganda keywords by the way, Herr Goebbels - has repeatedly shown itself incapable of achieving the goals you attribute to it. The 1948 war saw more Egyptians shooting at Jordanians than either army shot at the Israelis, for an example. These nations simply lack the manpower, weaponry, or even popular support to achieve these supposed goals.

Israel, on the other hand, the poor, oppressed, defenseless nation, is a nuclear power with one of hte world's largest and most capable militaries, arguably the best intelligence network, and of course, the unquestioning, mindlessly loyal support of the United States. Some underdog, huh?

There's also the fact that this "remorseless enemy" is a symptom of a greater problem. Deal with hte greater issue at hand, and the attendant complications will fade.

[shira]

41. your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance

I meant 1937 - the Peel Commission.

You state there was already a Palestinian state in 1947. I agree. It's called Jordan. You need to realize that well before 1948, that area was already internationally designated by the league of Nations as the Jewish national home (hint: look up Palestine Mandate).

You write that the shitty civil rights situation (gays, women, dissenters) in Gaza may have something to do with Israel's oppression. Great - so what's the excuse in any other Arab nation surrounding Israel?

That you virtually equate the Palestinian hate factories to Israel speaks volumes of your ignorance. I challenge you to go to MEMRI and PMW, spend some time there, and find the Israeli state-run equivalent of that hatred.

The 2 parties (Hamas/Israel) "truthfully" act about the same? So Israeli leaders, media, religious leaders, etc... call for Jewish children to become martyrs, call for genocide, recruit children as combatants and deliberately use them as human shields, treat women like complete shit, execute dissenters, etc.? Truthfully? As for Israel's superior weapons, you think if Hamas had them and Israelis had some rockets and small arms that Hamas would act "about the same" as the IDF?

[Chulanowa]

45. As usual, you have no room to talk

You state there was already a Palestinian state in 1947. I agree. It's called Jordan.

No, I said that in 1937 the idea of an independent Arab state made up of Palestine was thought to be a given. It's right there in the post you clicked reply to - I assume you can read, since you acn apparently write. Did you just miss ir, are you trying to misrepresent my words, or are you just genuinely dumb?

And no, Jordan was a separate region. In your own words, (hint: look up Palestine Mandate). You can't have it both ways, Shira. You can't claim that Palestine is really Jordan, and then start talking about the Palestine Mandate. ESPECIALLY when you're trying to call me ignorant.

You write that the shitty civil rights situation (gays, women, dissenters) in Gaza may have something to do with Israel's oppression. Great - so what's the excuse in any other Arab nation surrounding Israel?

Actually I listed poverty as the core reason for the situation. Israel's oppression does add to the state of poverty in Gaza and the West Bank, but I was quite clear in stating I don't believe Israel to be the sole, or even the one major cause. Again. Are you misreading, misrepresenting, or just dumb?

Poverty is endemic to the region. If you want an explanation of the hows and whys of poverty, you have a great big left-leaning message board to ask. Get to it!

That you virtually equate the Palestinian hate factories to Israel speaks volumes of your ignorance. I challenge you to go to MEMRI and PMW, spend some time there, and find the Israeli state-run equivalent of that hatred.

Right. MEMRI? Okay. While I'm doing that, I want you to go to Ann Coulter's website and get me some positive stories and editorials about Democrats.

I can look right in this thread and find the Israeli version of the same shit, Shira. You are a fine product of the hate indoctrination of the Israel side of this situation. You are an anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, warmongering little nut who's utterly incapable of distinguishing fact from myth, who's idea of debate is to lie, misrepresent, and when all else fails label the others in the argument as "antisemitic". You exhort Israel to escalate, always escalate, kill more, kill harder. You have regularly taken the position that there are no such things as Palestinians, that even if there were they have no human rights, and that all the suffering of Arabs is their own fault.

So with a fine example such as yourself - and so many others - all at my very fingertips here in the I/P forum of DU, why hte shit should I go to a hate site like MEMRI? I have my very own hate site to look at right here, courtsesy of you and so many others!

The 2 parties (Hamas/Israel) "truthfully" act about the same? So Israeli leaders, media, religious leaders, etc... call for Jewish children to become martyrs, call for genocide, recruit children as combatants and deliberately use them as human shields, treat women like complete shit, execute dissenters, etc.?

Do israeli political and religious leaders and media call for genocide? No. They call for (and then enact) ethnic cleansing. Hamas can talk all the genocide it wants, but it's the Israelis who are actually acting on the general idea there.

Recruit children as combatants? No, they wait until the children are 18, at least. Then it's off to the checkpoints, or airdropping into Lebanon, or perhaps even invading Egypt for the United Kingdom, like back in 1953!

Deliberately use them as human shields? Uh... Yes, where the fuck have you been? Several people have taken time out of their lives to explain to you, often multiple times, that that is exactly what Israel does. Israeli mutitions factories are deliberatly placed in Arab-Israeli neighborhoods, with the absolute intent of deterring any strikes against those factories. During the 2006 war with Lebanon, Israel fired from positions within Israeli towns and kibbutzes. Remember those pictures of little Jewish firls signing Israeli mortars "From Israel and Danielle"? "Dear Lebanese/Palestinian/Arab/Muslim/Christians Kids, Die with love. Yours, Israeli Kids." Several posters have given you information regarding the IDF's use of Palestinian civilians as human shields during the assault against Gaza. Are you just really bad at remembering things, or do you hope that our memories are worse?

Truthfully? As for Israel's superior weapons, you think if Hamas had them and Israelis had some rockets and small arms that Hamas would act "about the same" as the IDF?

Absolutely I do. The IDF's current purpose is primarily to destroy or disperse as many Arabs within the occupied territories as possible, while defending Israeli colonial expansion into the same regions. In this they serve a similar purpose to the US Cavalry during Manifest Destiny - Kill the indians and protect the settlers. I have no doubts that were the situation of weaponry reversed, Hamas would be doing the same thing to the Jews.

Of course, the situation isn't reversed, and isn't going to be reversed. So does your question actually have much iof a point?

[shira]

52. hard to take you seriously - just wondering if you take yourself seriously

You can't have it both ways, Shira. You can't claim that Palestine is really Jordan, and then start talking about the Palestine Mandate. ESPECIALLY when you're trying to call me ignorant.

Jordan is a Palestinian state, with a majority of the population being Palestinians ruled by the minority Hashemites. It may not be THE Palestinian state, but it's certainly A Palestinian state. So Palestinians already have a homeland - not that they can really and truly call it their own, but no one is complaining, right? Ever wonder why? Also, Arab leaders rejected the 1937 Peel plan for another Palestinian state east of Jordan that would have called for a small Jewish state too. Do you believe Jews who always lived there were entitled to even a smaller piece of land than what was offered in the 1947 partition plan?

Israel's oppression does add to the state of poverty in Gaza and the West Bank, but I was quite clear in stating I don't believe Israel to be the sole, or even the one major cause.

And you call me and others dumb?

Check out how Israel's oppression led to the state of poverty in Gaza and the W.Bank before the 2nd intifada by comparing the economies there with all other Arab states in the region. Tell us what you find. As for shitty civil rights, they're as bad outside of Israel than inside of the PA territories, so let's agree Israel has nothing to do with that.

Right. MEMRI? Okay. While I'm doing that, I want you to go to Ann Coulter's website and get me some positive stories and editorials about Democrats...why the shit should I go to a hate site like MEMRI?

Your opinion of MEMRI is based on faith or evidence? If evidence, provide it.

Do israeli political and religious leaders and media call for genocide? No. They call for (and then enact) ethnic cleansing.

Laughable.

Gaza 2005 is an example of your type of ethnic cleansing, but in reverse.

Do you take yourself seriously?

And for more stupidity to the infinite degree, you wrote:

Deliberately use them as human shields? Uh... Yes, where the fuck have you been? Several people have taken time out of their lives to explain to you, often multiple times, that that is exactly what Israel does. Israeli mutitions factories are deliberatly placed in Arab-Israeli neighborhoods, with the absolute intent of deterring any strikes against those factories. During the 2006 war with Lebanon, Israel fired from positions within Israeli towns and kibbutzes. Remember those pictures of little Jewish firls signing Israeli mortars "From Israel and Danielle"? "Dear Lebanese/Palestinian/Arab/Muslim/Christians Kids, Die with love. Yours, Israeli Kids." Several posters have given you information regarding the IDF's use of Palestinian civilians as human shields during the assault against Gaza. Are you just really bad at remembering things, or do you hope that our memories are worse?

If that's not bad enough, you finish your stand-up routine with this doozy:

Absolutely I do. The IDF's current purpose is primarily to destroy or disperse as many Arabs within the occupied territories as possible, while defending Israeli colonial expansion into the same regions.

Right, so in OCL why didn't the IDF just kill hundreds of thousands of Palestinians? Why did the IDF help in 2005 to ethnically cleanse Gaza of all its Jews? That's colonial expansion in reverse.

I don't think you're dumb, but you must expect others who buy into your bullshit to be dumber than dirt.

In this they serve a similar purpose to the US Cavalry during Manifest Destiny - Kill the indians and protect the settlers. I have no doubts that were the situation of weaponry reversed, Hamas would be doing the same thing to the Jews.

Right, most of Gaza's dead in OCL were militants out of a total of 1400 dead. And you believe that had the weaponry been reversed and Hamas had IDF capabilities, there would only be around 1400 dead Jews as a result.

See, I don't think you're dumb - just insane.

Of course, the situation isn't reversed, and isn't going to be reversed. So does your question actually have much iof a point?

The point is that your reply shows you're not dealing with reality. You're not credible at all. And the funny thing is that you probably take yourself very seriously.

[Chulanowa]

60. Ever notice that your "routine" gets more laughs than mine?

Kudos to you for spurring debate, but you really need to stop pretending that you actually know what you're talking about. It's disingenuous. Luckily we don't often get new guys 'round these here parts, so it's not like you can do much misleading.

Jordan is a Palestinian state, with a majority of the population being Palestinians ruled by the minority Hashemites.

That may in fact be the most mind-numbingly stupid thing you've ever said. And that's saying something! This is akin to saying that Great Britain is a German state, with the majority of the population being Anglo-Saxons ruled by the minority Windsors. It just makes no sense at all.

I think you just don't understand a damn thing you're talking about.

So Palestinians already have a homeland - not that they can really and truly call it their own, but no one is complaining, right?

You must be trying to beat the record you just set, within the same paragraph no less! Sorry, but you at least managed some vague sense of coherence on this one, so "Jordanians are Palestinians ruled by minority Hashemites!" holds the title for this round. Especially since this statement relies on the idiocy of the previous one in the first place.

But, for a moment let's take some high-dosage pain medication and attempt to use your painful, contorted logic. If Jordan is a Palestinian homeland because some Palestinians lived there (even if they didn't rule) wouldn't that then go for the Jews as well? By your argument, there were any dozens of places that were more of a "Jewish Homeland" than the Palestinian Mandate. The United States had more Jews than the Levant, and they actually had some political power! Same with Great Britain. Prior to the Holocaust, Eastern Europe was full of Jews, and carving a chunk out of them for a Jewish homeland would not only fit your logic of what constitutes a homeland, but would also be logical reparation for the crimes committed against Europe's Jews.

Of course, I'm supposing actual logic, rather than your racist double standard here, so, I suppose I can't exactly wrap my brain around your trainwreck of thought.

Also, Arab leaders rejected the 1937 Peel plan for another Palestinian state east of Jordan that would have called for a small Jewish state too.

True, but once again, disingenuous on your part. You're not providing full information on the Peel Plan. There's a very, very, very important part of the Peel Plan that you're leaving out. In fact this idea is more or less central to the execution of that plan. David Ben-Gurion thought this central part of the plan was a good idea, and lauded it quote a bit.

The key to the Peel Plan was forced population transfer. Every Arab that was within the borders of the proposed Jewish state was to be expelled under the Peel Plan. Now, I'm not any sort of Palestinian Leader (I frankly lack the energy to yell that damn much), and maybe it's my heritage as the descendant of some of the first people to be marched into Oklahoma at gunpoint, but I find the idea of a forced population transfer to be pretty objectionable, myself.

For the record, Jews would have been forced out of the Palestinian Arab state as well. Just as objectionable in my opinion. It's worth mention that a few hundred thousand Arabs would have been rendered homeless by hte plan, while around twelve hundred Jews would have suffered the same.

I'd like to assume that the reason you left this fact out of your thumping of hte Peel Comission was because you didn't know. But, you being you, I'm pretty certain you did, and were, as usual, trying to obfuscate to further your racist agenda.

Furthermore...

Do you believe Jews who always lived there were entitled to even a smaller piece of land than what was offered in the 1947 partition plan?

Well, obviously the Jews who weren't living there didn't believe that. The Twentieth Zionist Congress (Zurich, 1937) outright rejected the Peel Plan as well, on grounds that the proposed Jewish state just wasn't big enough.

Which to me, seems just a little bit strange. The Jewish nation proposed by the peel plan pretty much covered the majority of the Jewish population in the Mandate, and then some. On top of that, it would have ejected nearly two hundred and fifty thousand Arabs from the same territory. I'm not sure how big of a state the Twentieth Zionist Congress wanted, but I kind of get the feeling that your repeated use of the term "small" when describing the Jewish state would have gotten you cuffed about the ears by these guys.

But past that, you seem to be trying to draw me into an argument over which race has more rights to property than another race. Thanks, but I'll pass on that.

And you call me and others dumb?

Pretty much just you and Vegesaurus. Mostly Vege. I call you a liar and a racist.

Check out how Israel's oppression led to the state of poverty in Gaza and the W.Bank before the 2nd intifada by comparing the economies there with all other Arab states in the region.

I hear this logic all the time from Republicans who want to cut away our nation's social safety net. "Poor Americans aren't as poor as poor Somalians, therefor they aren't really poor at all!"

Would you do me a favor? Since you clearly have info on Gaza and the West Bank's economies relative to neighboring Arab states in the years prior to the second intifada, would you mind sharing it? It does sound rather interesting, and since it seems to be the crux of your point, you probably SHOULD show it as an example.

What I'm finding is mostly from during after the second intifada. However this is still relevant since, as i'm saying, poverty creates conditions for extremism in ANY population, regardless of hte period. If Palestinian poverty has risen in recent years, then it stands to reason that so has various flavors of extremism in those territories.

Here's some numbers

GDP
Palestinian Territories (West Bank / Gaza): $11.95 billion
Egypt: $452.5 billion
Lebanon: $44.05 billion
Jordan: $31.01 billion
Syria: $96.53 billion
Saudi Arabia: $600.4 billion
Israel: $205.7 billion

GDP per Capita
Palestinian Territories (WB / G): $2,900
Egypt: $5,500
Lebanon: $11,100
Jordan: $5,000
Syria: $4,900
Saudi Arabia: $21,300
Israel: $28,900

Inflation
Palestinian Territories (WB / G): 11.5%
Egypt: 18%
Lebanon: 4%
Jordan: 15.5%
Syria: 14.9%
Saudi Arabia: 10.3%
Israel: 4.7%

Population Below Poverty Line
Palestinian Territories (WB / G): 60%
Egypt: 20%
Lebanon: 28%
Jordan: 12.5%
Syria: 11.9%
Saudi Arabia: N/D
Israel: 10.8%

Unemployment
Palestinian Territories (WB / G): 24%
Egypt: 8.7%
Lebanon: 9.2%
Jordan: 13.5%
Syria: 9%
Saudi Arabia: 11.8% (among males. N/D for women)
Israel: 5.9%

As we can see, the Palestinians are poor. Not just poor, but FUCKING poor. The only measurement of "poor" where they're not topping the list in the region is inflation, and that's probably only because they use the Israeli Shekel. If you think Israel has no impact on the poverty of Palestinians (As seems to be the case) then can you inform me exactly what the purpose of Israeli forces blocking ports and borders is? Are they searching rice trucks for weapons one grain at a time, or what?

Gaza 2005 is an example of your type of ethnic cleansing, but in reverse.

Really? Removing lawbreaking squatters is the same as ethnic cleansing? Do you also think that gay pride parades are hate-speech against Christians, or that the existence of the NAACP oppresses white people? Exactly how many idiot freeper memes can you cram into a statement exactly?

And for more stupidity to the infinite degree, you wrote:

I notice that you fail to even try to counter my statements.
Israeli military installations and weapons factories are placed in Arab towns and neighborhoods.
During the 2006 war with Lebanon, the IDF placed many of their firing locations within Arab towns such as Fassouta, Madj-al-Krum, Al-Aramshe and Tarshiha, all of which sustained civilian losses when Lebanon returned fire.
There exists plentiful footage of Israeli soldiers not just using individual Palestinians as shields, but also of using whole families, by barring htem within their own homes and then using those houses as firing locations.
Would you like to see the pictures of those girls writing on the rockets in 2006?

You see, Shira, no matter how much you strive to be like GOlda Meir and David Irving, pretending something does not exist and then refusing to speak of it, does not mean that that thing does not exist.

Right, so in OCL why didn't the IDF just kill hundreds of thousands of Palestinians?

Because for all the contempt Israeli politicians regularly show towards the notion, Israel IS part of a larger international community, and wholesale slaughter like that is bad for business, and leads to reprisal. Instead the IDF kills a few thousand there. a few hundred here, sow a little Dier Yassin-style terror all around, and maintains starvation blockades. It's called realpolitik, Shira. Sure, blasting away all the Arabs would satisfy the overall goal, but it would make dealings with other nations a little difficult.

Why did the IDF help in 2005 to ethnically cleanse Gaza of all its Jews?

I've already covered this silly assertion.

That's colonial expansion in reverse.

Well, it would be if settlements in the West Bank didn't keep popping up, and there weren't an ongoing ethnic purging in East Jerusalem. I'd be the first in line to do the Bad American Movie Clap for Israel if it had pulled out of Gaza and stopped its further expansions. But... it didn't. So I won't. I hate that stupid clap anyway.

I don't think you're dumb,

Maybe not, but you sure seem ever-hopeful.

Right, most of Gaza's dead in OCL were militants out of a total of 1400 dead. And you believe that had the weaponry been reversed and Hamas had IDF capabilities, there would only be around 1400 dead Jews as a result.

The point is that your reply shows you're not dealing with reality.

Really? Because the reality is that Hamas does not have Israel's military capability, does not have Israel's manpower, does not have Israel's foreign funding and aid., and never will. So it would seem to me that the one having troubles with reality, is the fellow tryingto make a salient argument out of an impossible hypothetical.

[shira]

66. can't do this anymore, you get the last word in okay?

If Jordan is a Palestinian homeland because some Palestinians lived there (even if they didn't rule) wouldn't that then go for the Jews as well?

Not "some" Palestinians. They are the majority there (between 60-80%).

If you want to debate, I'm right with you but I've had enough of the personal insults and attacks. It's hard for me to ignore them in each successive post. We're done for now. You call me a racist nearly every post; imagine if I called you a jew-hater every post?

In fact, tell you what - if you write nothing else to me - please explain WHY I'm a racist. If it were up to me, no more Israelis would have to fight in any more future wars and Jews would all be working in peace alongside Palestinians forever. Israel's economic successes would easily start becoming a reality in Palestine too. Two nations working alongside each other in peace. Maybe you're against that and don't believe Israel has a right to be there or think that as Westerners they should bring Western standards to the Arabs there, etc; but regardless, what makes me racist in your opinion?

[Ken Burch]

32. I know that everyday Palestinian life is terrible

And I know that their leaders are not saints.

The fact is, though, that their own leaders are not the dominant power in Palestinians' lives. They can't be held to much of anything will their constituents live at the mercy of the Israeli army. This doesn't mean excusing "people of color"(btw, that's an odd phrase to use given that there are many shades of skin color on both sides of this conflict)from morality, but it does mean that those who defend the subjugation of such people are not the ones who are entitled to make moral demands of them.

History also teaches us that the leadership of occupied peoples can not be successfully forced to change its actions in a positive way through the continued subjugation of those peoples by the occupiers. And that it is impossible to militarily defeat one Palestinian leadership and then see it replaced by a more sensible one. All crushing them can do is make the next generation fight to "avenge the shame". The IDF should do the sane thing and stop humiliating Palestinians, but for some reason it refuses to do so.

Israel is not struggling for survival here. What the Israeli government is really focused on is keeping its global relevance. The leadership of that government is convinced that it can only keep this relevance by keeping the situation between them and the Palestinians unresolved and dangerous.

That leadership is not, as a primary objective, interested in allowing the people of Israel to live in peace. If the steps that were necessary to make that happen(ending the oppression of the Palestinians and accepting their right to a real state)were taken, this would make the Israeli people safer(because ending oppressive situations does tend to at least sharply reduce conflict and violence), but it would mean that the Israeli government would not continue to get massive aid from the U.S. and would not be able to endlessly continue its project of militarization.

I want the Palestinians to have a decent life. I also want the Israelis to have a decent life(and for antisemitism and all other forms of hate to be wiped out globally). Where you and I disagree, shira, is that I know that preserving the status quo, as you objectively advocate, can only make all of those objectives harder to achieve.

As to the creation of a state and what it would do to ease Palestinians' suffering, no I don't think it would create an instant paradise(anymore than the creation of Israel did). But it will create the possibilities for achieving a better life. How can you think delaying the establishment of a Palestinian state, and also humiliating and automatically discrediting any Palestinian leadership by making that state as small as possible, can be good for anyone? Israel has never gained any security from the creation of those settlements, or from the daily harassment of Palestinians. Indeed, both are clearly responsible for the emergence of such phenomena as suicide bombers. Clearly, those things would not have emerged were Palestinians actually having the chance to create a new life for themselves.

It is arrogant to demand that the oppressed jump through endless hoops before they can stop being oppressed. People who come from a heritage of oppression should understand that better than anyone. As the events of the past created monsters like the men of Lehi, so the events of the present created Hamas.

The answer is to end the injustice. Preserving it, and falsely demonizing those who point it out, does no good to the people of Israel. You can't forever hold someone else down.

[Ken Burch]

17. The other problem is your ludicrous belief that the use of brute force by the IDF

can actually lead to the emergence of a BETTER Palestinian leadership.

Why, when no such thing has ever resulted, after 60 years of collective punishment of Palestinians by the IDF and the Israeli government, do you still hold to such a curious belief?

Why do you not yet get it that brutalizing, oppressing and humiliating Palestinians on a daily basis, imposing on them a degree of suffering and misery that no Israeli could ever come close to experiencing, could have no other effect but to drive Palestinians towards the acts of resistance you condemn?

Why can you not see that ANYONE, subject to the treatment Palestinians have received, would inevitably end up taking the same course?

And why can you not see that Palestinians would resist in exactly the same way if the Ottomans, other Arabs, or even insane milennial American evangelicals did to them what the IDF has repeatedly done? How can you still insist on the notion that they only do this because Israel is supposedly a "Jewish" state?

The truth is, shira, if anyone treated you as the IDF has treated them, you'd do everything every Palestinian has ever done. AND YOU KNOW IT.

Anyone would. It's a universal human trait to resist oppression.

What part of reality do you not get here?

What is a Palestinian?

If you prick him, does he not bleed?

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[Donald Ian Rankin]

25. Surely you can distinguish between "after" and "during"?

*After* the occupation, it is very likely that the Palestinians will stop violence against Israel.

*During* the war, there were many attempts kill Americans and Germans.

[shira]

43. after occupation, it's likely Palestinians will stop violence vs. Israel?

Is that statement based solely on blind faith?

What evidence do you have that this is "very likely"? Iranian backed Hezbollah didn't stop their violence even after Israel pulled completely out of Lebanon according to UN specifications. What makes you think Iranian backed Hamas will stop their violence based on the very recent history of Gaza 2005?

[Ken Burch]

58. It's a hell of a lot more likely than them stopping it while the Occupation goes on.

At the moment, they have nothing to gain from stopping the violence, since Netanyahu will simply claim victory and build more settlements and recruit more settlers and gloat. And more olive groves will be cut down or replanted on stolen settlement land, and more water diverted. Netanyahu and the IDF won't give anything in return for a stop in the violence. He's shown this in the past. But you don't hold the Israeli side responsible for anything.

And let me say this:

I don't like the current Palestinian leadership. It's not one I ever would have chosen for them. But, well, they didn't ask me. And I know that, as a priveleged Western outsider, there's a limit to how much I'm entitled to judge Palestinians. I have white skin priveleges and they don't. I have class priveleges and they don't. They have D-9 Cats bulldozing their homes and I don't.
What right do I, or anyone else, have to demand anything of the Palestinians? THEY ARE AN OPPRESSED PEOPLE UNDER A BRUTAL OCCUPATION!
No one acts like a saint in a situation like that.

The only thing that can change their attitudes towards Israelis is for Israelis to stop crushing their lives, their spirits, and their dreams. Let them breathe, for G-d's sake. Choking them off hasn't achieved anything after 42 years, and if it hasn't yet it obviously can't. The Iron Fist has failed and it's time for the Israeli government to admit it.

It is the height of presumption for those of us outside the grip of the Occupation to sit in judgment of the Occupied. And there's no way the IDF's actions can ever lead either to a less-violent Palestinian leadership or a more liberal Palestine. Neither thing can be imposed by force. Palestine can only have a democratic revolution AFTER it's free from the occupation. And Israelis can only breathe easy after the Occupation is ended, because the Occupation provides no measure of security that can possibly be outweighed by the rage and desperation it provokes.

[shira]

68. so you have no reason to expect an end to "resistance" once Israel withdraws from the W.Bank

Withdrawal from S.Lebanon in 2000 led to increased hostilities - as did Gaza 2005. But you expect different results this time around based on.........blind faith?

You say you cannot speak for Palestinians. How about trying to empathize with Israelis? Rockets falling on top of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem is a VERY REAL and LIKELY scenario based on a unilateral withdrawal behind 1967 borders. That's not only a threat on the Jews to the west of the green line but ALSO even moreso to the Palestinians to the east of that green line who will suffer in retaliation to an all out Hamas attack from the W.Bank. But you think this is best for all concerned?

[Ken Burch]

69. Withdrawal in itself wouldn't be enough. There would also have to be

a major international and U.S.-backed effort to economically revitalize the West Bank. Such an effort has been made in Northern Ireland since the Good Friday Accord was signed and has had incredible effect in reducing the violence there.

There would also need to be something like a South African-style "truth and justice commission" in which people on both sides could confront those who mistreated them.

And a lot of work would need to be done by Israelis to acknowledge the ways that Palestinians were mistreated under the previous order.

You say I can't guarantee that a Palestinian state would instantaneously mean the end of all hostilities. Fine, I'll concede that. But you can't guarantee that maintaining the status quo and stalling for time can get the Palestinian people to change their leadership or their tactics, or that it can achieve anything. And it can't do a damn thing to reduce the roles of Iran and Saudi Arabia in the region. In fact, preserving the status quo, continuing to build more settlements, and continuing daily harassment and collective punishment of Palestinians can only make things worse. Why can't you accept the reality of that? Why can't you see that the status quo has no redeeming qualities to it for anyone, including the Israeli people.

I do feel a great deal of empathy with ordinary Israelis. It's just that I disagree with you as to who is to blame for what they have to put up with. If I DIDN'T emphathize with them, I'd support what Netanyahu is doing, I'd support the IDF in its treatment of Palestinians, and I'd support more settlements, because ALL of those things, and the continuation of the Occupation, can have no effect but to make the daily lives of Israelis, as well as Palestinians, worse and worse and worse.

It's never been possible to subdue or occupy a people into moderation. And that's what the Israeli government doesn't get. It still seems to be hooked on the adrenaline rush of "beating the Arabs", and is still drinking the "peace through victory" koolaid. The interests of the Israeli government and the IDF leadership are largely at odds with the interests of the Israeli people. It's in the interests of the people to end the conflict. It's in the interest of the Israeli military-industrial complex to KEEP IT GOING because they're convinced that an Israel at peace and in safety is not a country that can continue to have international influence and prestige and not a country that can keep getting massive doses of U.S. military and economic aid. This is similar to the disconnect between the American people and our military-industrial complex, and this is to be expected, as Israel emerged as a country during the height of the Cold War, and became a factor in that conflict.

[shira]

70. you must think Israelis are dumb

It's in the interest of the Israeli military-industrial complex to KEEP IT GOING because they're convinced that an Israel at peace and in safety is not a country that can continue to have international influence and prestige and not a country that can keep getting massive doses of U.S. military and economic aid.

You realize, unlike America, every Israeli citizen has a stake in the military? They're either in it or have close relatives and friends in the IDF. You think they don't mind having a leadership that wants to keep this conflict going, or do you think they're too stupid and don't know they're all being taken advantage of, and that they and their grandchildren are being used for more decades of IDF combat activity?

[Ken Burch]

71. I'm making a distinction between the rank-and-file soldier and the IDF high command

The people's army ethos is only in the ordinary troops nowadays. The generals have gone "warrior elite" just like the generals everywhere else did.

What you're not getting, shira, is that Israel's leadership doesn't necessarily give a damn about the people anymore.

The leaders in Israel are like the leaders everywhere else. They have to be challenged and they have to be disbelieved.

[Ken Burch]

72. I don't think Israelis are dumb. Too trusting of the generals, yes, but not dumb

What has to happen in Israel now is for the people to become as skeptical of the military leadership as people in the U.S. did during and after Vietnam. That was a moment when the scales fell from American eyes. It's time they fall from Israeli ones.

The generals and the political leaders aren't on the side of the people. They're on the side of their own egos. Just like in any other country. You've got to come to terms with that.

[shira]

73. do you read Haaretz, JPost, YNet, etc.? Israeli press is WAY more self-critical than

the US press. You say the scales are off since Vietnam here in the USA? Then explain this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x274150#274394

There's simply no way that crap would be tolerated in Israel, the people there simply do not have the stomach for 50:1 combatant to civilian kill ratios. I don't see the American left all bent out of shape regarding these latest events. Let's at least admit that the Israeli left is way more critical, vocal, and more effective than the American left. Israel, after all, in both Lebanon and Gaza combined had civilian kill ratios of around 1:1 in comparison to US troops fighting thousands of miles from home and protecting no Americans under imminent threat (like those little firecracker grads and katyushas). There's simply no excuse for the American left to be so silent over these latest findings from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Abroad, there's no excuse for the international peace camp to focus singularly on Israel and ignore what the US military is doing.

Seriously, Americans have no right to accuse the IDF of anything based on current US military operations. It takes quite a bit of nerve to focus abroad and ignore what's going on in your own backyard. It's inconsistent, isn't it Ken? Does it upset you? And if not, why not?

[Ken Burch]

74. I've never given the U.S,. miilitarists a pass.

In fact, I've been one of the people on DU that's been critical of the passivity of some Obama supporters on the Iraq/Afghanistan question. No double standard from me on that one, kiddo.

Those who ignore U.S. militarism should be condemned, and I do condemn them.

The Israeli left has my devoted support. I contribute to the Refuser Solidarity Network for that reason. What I'm talking about is the 78% or more of Israelis who voted against the left(and that's if you still count Ehud Barak's Labor Party in the left total). Those people are the ones being far too trusting of what the IDF tells them. There was nothing in my post that was an attack on the Israeli left, a left I desperately wish was larger.

[shira]

76. so riddle me this one

"In fact, I've been one of the people on DU that's been critical of the passivity of some Obama supporters on the Iraq/Afghanistan question. No double standard from me on that one, kiddo.

Those who ignore U.S. militarism should be condemned, and I do condemn them. "

why so much MORE focus on Israel from your fellow hard leftists who spend more time on Israel than criticizing US actions in Afghanistan and Iraq? There's simply no way this occurs without a wimper in Israel:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x270897#274152
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x270897#274154

Your fellow American hard leftists are asleep at the wheel.

Now go overseas. Why so much more European, UN, human rights orgs, etc.. focus on Israeli military actions than US actions that are at least 10X worse?

You only get one shot at getting this one right, kiddo. :popcorn:

[Shaktimaan]

78. You know what the problem is?

Until recently Israel had a pretty large and active peace movement based on the concept of land for peace. The belief was that if Israel were to offer concessions, make a credible offer for the establishment of a Palestinian state and so on, that peace was attainable. It was basically the same thing that you're suggesting. Israel would make some concessions that would improve the Palestinian's quality of life, give them some limited self-determination (to begin with) so they could slowly build the government institutions necessary to run a state, bring in international investment, and so on, as a show of good faith and to give the Palestinians a reason to fight for peace... to show them the benefits of peace with Israel. In short, they thought, "oppression is bringing us nothing. If we offer them respect and opportunity instead then it will pay us dividends in peace."

The problem is that it did not work out well. There's a reason that the Israeli Peace movement is in shambles today. Their ideology, (our ideology), was tested and it failed. It failed miserably. And as much as it kills me to admit it, because I was a big supporter of the LfP concept, the Israeli Right predicted the outcome very accurately.

Don't get me wrong. Israel didn't do everything perfectly, nor were any of their concessions completely adequate for the long term. But they existed. And the result gave Israel a pretty good idea of what to expect from that brand of solution. Which was grim, to say the least. From the Israeli perspective, their issue with making territorial concessions coupled with increased autonomy is that it greatly reduces their security. So they need to know that any effort on their part will be met with a decrease in terrorism. So far every time Israel has made sizable concessions to the Palestinians it has resulted in exponentially increased violence visited upon Israel.

If Israel freezes settlement construction, closes checkpoints, removes their military from parts of the OPT, ends military ops in the OPT, begins allowing Palestinians into Israel to work in large numbers and so on, and the immediate result is a drastic increase in terrorism, then it isn't going to end up working. Any peace process has to benefit both sides. You can't expect Israeli to "wait it out" while terrorism gets worse and worse.

Oslo brought terror. There was no benefit for Israel. The same thing goes for the withdrawal from Gaza. And the withdrawal from Lebanon. However the fence and checkpoints brought security. Peace is always going to be a tough sell unless it actually brings, you know... peace.

[Chulanowa]

29. Well, as usual, some corrections...

During the US occupation of Japan, and the Allied occupation of Germany, there damn sure was armed resistance from the locals. Not just sympathizers of the old regimes, but also people who just wanted the occupying forces to get the fuck out. We see a similar occurrence in the US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Ironically for your argument, we also saw violent opposition to the British occupation of Palestine by Jewish militants and terrorists - of course on a more heroic note, there's also the instances of sporiadic Jewish resistance to the Nazis and Russians both. Further, I expect that once the Dalai Lama eventually dies, we'll see the same sort of resistance flare up in Tibet. Gandhi had his hands full trying to keep British blood from filling Indian streets - and wasn't as successful as I'm sure he would have liked. Similar movements were initiated by the Maori in New Zealand (though with more threat than actual violence) and of course, the resistance of the Indians against the United States, as well as various militant minority movements through our history.

There's an awfully long history of various and sundry occupied peoples turning to violence, Shira. For the most part they all follow the same pattern. A people who have no temporal power will very frequently turn to violence to try to meet their needs.

And, once again, you, of all people on this board, have no room to call another "racist" much less "fascist".

[Ken Burch]

30. My beliefs reflect the fact that you can't hold an occupied people to the same standards

as their occupiers. The comments you make about Palestinian tactics are little different from the comments of the Afrikaners who went on about ANC "terrorism".

And in Africa, China, Armenia, Russia, there was incredibly violent resistance to those who were oppressing them. So did the colonial troops in the American Revolution.

If you want the Palestinians to behave according to your "moral expectations", then tell the IDF to treat THEM morally. Tell the Israeli government to institute a permanent settlement freeze. You can't defend an Occupation and still sit in lordly judgment of the Occupiers.

The answer is justice. The answer is to treat Palestinians as human beings and stop trying to defeat them. Winning isn't the point.

[Ken Burch]

33. That should have read

"You can't defend an Occupation and still sit in lordly judgment of the OCCUPIED".

[shira]

44. really? so occupied Palestinians between 1948-67 acted similarly WRT their Jordanian and Egyptian

occupiers?

[Chulanowa]

46. There's an important difference, of course

You see, the Israelis, after the 1948 war, occupied, then annexed quite a bit of Palestinian land. The Jordanians and Egyptians were there to liberate that land, and protect the Palestinians from repeats of Dier Yassin (or at least, that's what the Jordanians and Egyptians claimed)

I think you're mixing up the terms "occupied" and "military presence within".

[oberliner]

48. Jordan annexed the West Bank and East Jerusalem

Their actions were not consistent with "liberating" the land as they themselves annexed the land to Jordan. They did not make any attempt to grant the Palestinians their own state and instead attempted to turn the Palestinians into Jordanian citizens. At no point was an independent Palestinian state proposed by the Jordanian leadership.

[shira]

49. this takes the cake

The Jordanians and Egyptians were there to liberate that land, and protect the Palestinians from repeats of Dier Yassin (or at least, that's what the Jordanians and Egyptians claimed)

Yes of course, Jordan and Egypt just had the best interests of Palestinians at heart.

:eyes:

[Chulanowa]

59. Did you miss the part in parentheses?

You not only copied it, but bolded it, so I have to assume you did manage to see, and presumably read it.

WHat part of that, exactly, suggests that I hold that Jordan and Egypt had the best interests of Palestinians at heart? Upthread, I mentioned that the Egyptians and Jordanians spent more time fighting each other than fighting the Israelis they were "supposed" to be at war with. What part of that suggests that I hold the two had the best interests of the Palestinians at heart?

In fact, Shira, it would appear that I am sort of stating the exact opposite of what you're claiming I'm saying.

Yet again.

Imagine that.

However, the Palestinian take on this situation was comparable to that of South Korea and South Vietnam during the US wars in Korea and Indochina. Did the Koreans / Vietnamese like us a whole bunch? No. Did they want our military in their countries? Not very likely. Did they often act against us? Of course. But they were scared enough by the people our forces were there to fight that they could tolerate our presence, so long as we kept them safe from that foe. By this token, the Palestinians didn't get too loud about their dislike for Egypt and Jordan hanging out in Palestinian territory, because the Arab forces were, if not on the side of the Palestinians, at least opposed to the enemies of the Palestinians.

[Shaktimaan]

77. Thos one does truly take the cake.

You've said some pretty ridiculous things so far in this thread but I didn't see much point in redundantly refuting them. Shira seemed to have the situation pretty well under control. But I just have to comment on this one.

The Jordanians and Egyptians were there to liberate that land, and protect the Palestinians from repeats of Dier Yassin (or at least, that's what the Jordanians and Egyptians claimed)

Hahahahaha. OK, I'll bite. Forget about the absurdity of this statement from a historical perspective for one second. I'd love to see a link supporting your belief that the Egyptians and Jordanians ever said that their occupation of the Palestinian Territories was to protect the Palestinians from repeats of Deir Yassin. Who do you believe actually said this, and when?

As far as its accuracy and the distinction you're making between "occupied" and "military presence within", you aren't making a very compelling case. You say that the Israelis differed in that they annexed the land that they occupied, right? However that is precisely what Jordan did with the West Bank and East Jerusalem. They declared it part of Jordan, granting citizenship to all the Palestinians living there. (Just like Israel did.) There was no guise of "liberating" Palestine for the Palestinians or of any intention to eventually back their bid for an independent state. In fact, the PLO went so far as to officially state in their charter: "This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area." as a means of reassuring the two Arab states of the PLO's friendly intentions. King Hussein once stated that "Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan."

Of course, when the PLO tried to "liberate" part of Jordan in the name of a new Palestinian state, Jordan was famously unsupportive of their endeavor. Between 3,500 and 10,000 Palestinians were killed in 11 days of fighting, many of them civilians. During that crisis Jordan even happily accepted Israeli intervention to prevent the Syrians from intervening on behalf of the Palestinians. Jordan had no compunctions about delivering 100 Deir Yassins upon the Palestinians or even with enlisting Israel's help to do it.

So what is this "important difference" you're talking about? If anything it seems that the Palestinians only gained the possibility of their own state in the OPT after Israel drove out Jordan and Egypt. In fact, Jordan did not even relinquish their claim over that land until the late 80s... not what you would expect from someone concerned with "liberation." The biggest difference that I can see is that the Palestinians received a marked increase in freedom, standard of living and self-determination due to Israel replacing Jordan and Egypt. After all, Jordan was the state to throw out every Jew from its conquered territory and then annex it completely. Can you imagine if Israel had acted similarly?

[LeftishBrit]

5. Well, I disagree, but I am well aware that in a sense this goes beyond agreement/disagreement

If someone is hurt/offended, then one cannot tell them that they are not offended. People's feelings must be taken as valid, which does not necessarily - or even usually - equate with banning the material that hurt them.

I will simply say that I think that it is not accurate to say that children are not portrayed as being endangered by antisemitism, or that the antisemites only murder adults. It is clear that the child in the first episode is in very great danger, and that the adults are trying to save her from a horrific death. In fact, we do not know if she survives or not. I imagined her as becoming the mother in the second episode, whcih would imply that she survived but was orphaned - but that may be just a reader's tendency to find links where they may not exist. Maybe she was killed. It is a terrifying episode either way.

[azurnoir]

6. Not just nonsense there is also willful misinterpetation

no more well outlined than here-

In the play's concluding monologue, presumably set during the Gaza conflict, the Jewish speaker declares: "… tell her I look at one of their children covered in blood and what do I feel? Tell her all I feel is happy it's not her." What are we to make of the "all" in that sentence? This nameless Jew, seemingly representing any and every Jew, who cannot escape the pain of the Holocaust and the shame of Gaza, can now feel nothing for the other, dead, non-Jewish child, covered in its own blood.

Really? That is a desperate but predictable explanation, the mother here hardly represents all Jews

To me the play especially in the last sequence represents the conflict an adult feels when trying to explain what is going on in a situation like Gaza to a child, nothing more nothing less

ETA this is something I have some experience with even more complicated because it involved explaining Gaza as juxtaposed to the Holocaust

[Ken Burch]

11. ANOTHER "Seven Jewish Children" thread? sheesh!

Look, Tony Kushner and Alisa Solomon's article in The Nation showed that the play WASN'T antisemitic.

[azurnoir]

13. As Shakespeare said

"Methinks the lady doth protest too much"

[ConsAreLiars]

37. For any who actually want to SEE that play, here's a link

to the whole 9-10 minutes of it, as shown on Laura Flanders' GritTV show. The play begins at 10 minutes into the show.

http://lauraflanders.firedoglake.com/2009/05/05/seven-jewish-children-kathleen-chalfant-and-greenfest/