Hamas leader denies Nazi genocide of Jews

[Dr_Willie_Feelgood]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090831/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_h...

By DIAA HADID, Associated Press Writer Diaa Hadid, Associated Press Writer – 13 mins ago
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip – A Hamas spiritual leader on Monday called teaching Palestinian children about the Nazi murder of 6 million Jews a "war crime," rejecting a reported U.N. proposal to include the Holocaust in Gaza's school curriculum.

A senior Israeli official said such statements should make the West think twice about ending its boycott of Hamas, in place since the group seized Gaza by force in 2007.

{ snip }

Many Palestinians are reluctant to acknowledge the full extent of the Holocaust because they feel it provided legitimacy for Israel's establishment. A majority of Gaza's 1.4 million people are descendants of Palestinians who fled or were driven out of their homes during the 1948 Mideast war over Israel's creation.

Hamas' founding charter calls for Israel's destruction, though senior Hamas officials have recently said they would accept a Palestinian state alongside Israel as an interim stage to full Islamic control of the region.

{ snip }

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

Holocaust denial is wrong. And so is the subjugation of the native population of Palestine.

So what is it going to take to get the Israelis to respect the territorial rights of the Palestinians, and Palestinians to respect to rights of Jews to live peacefully in Palestine?

[Recursion]

1. Wait. Is he denying the Holocaust or rejecting a specific demand to put it in a curriculum?

There's a long distance between the one and the other, particularly when the aftermath of the Holocaust resulted in, among many other things, the creation of the modern state of Israel.

[Dr_Willie_Feelgood]

2. Both

'Adding the Holocaust to the curriculum would amount to "marketing a lie and spreading it," al-Astal wrote in a statement.'

[Recursion]

3. I still don't know what he's saying

Again, I have no idea whether he's saying "The Holocaust didn't happen" or "The Holocaust is being used to justify the existence of the state of Israel".

[Dr_Willie_Feelgood]

4. Sound like denial to me - "so-called Holocaust"

'Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri also objected to including what he referred to as the "so-called Holocaust" in the lesson plan. "We think it's more important to teach Palestinians the crimes of the Israeli occupation," he said.'

[Recursion]

5. *shrug* I'm not going to break my back defending Hamas

I just have noticed the media tend to knee-jerk any discussion involving the Holocaust.

[oberliner]

9. The letter said that the Holocaust was a "lie invented by the Zionists"

That seems to be a pretty hateful and ignorant statement. Especially considering it was made in an open letter to a UN official.

[azurnoir]

13. Is that the quote? because on my reading of the article

the complete quote was this:

"I do not exaggerate when I say this issue is a war crime, because of how it serves the Zionist colonizers and deals with their hypocrisy and lies," he wrote.

[oberliner]

15. Yes, that is the quote

Branding the Nazi genocide of the Jews "a lie invented by the Zionists," the Islamist movement which runs the Gaza Strip wrote in an open letter to a senior U.N. official that he should withdraw plans for a new history book in U.N. schools.

...

In an open letter to local UNRWA chief John Ging, the movement's Popular Committees for Refugees said: "We refuse to let our children study a lie invented by the Zionists."

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsMaps/idUSTRE57T1JW20...

[azurnoir]

16. But that isn't the quote is it? In fact the quote backs up this

statement from your link

Hamas's official spokesman in Gaza, Sami Abu Zuhri, said he did not want to discuss the history of the Holocaust but said:

"Regardless of the controversy, we oppose forcing the issue of the so-called Holocaust onto the syllabus, because it aims to reinforce acceptance of the occupation of Palestinian land."

and from the OP it should be noted

The Holocaust is not taught in West Bank schools, said an education ministry official in Western-backed President Mahmoud Abbas' government.

should or shouldn't the Holocaust be taught in Palestinian schools is an open question it seems for the problem is not the information itself but how that information is used

your interpreting of the statement ignores that

[oberliner]

17. Yes that is the quote

You are mixing up different quotes and different people.

I was not citing the quote from Sami Abu Zuhri but rather the quote from the letter that Younis al-Astal sent to the UN.

Have a look, again, at the Reuters story and you will find the quote I am talking about.

I have offered no interpretation but have merely reprinted what is in the Reuters article, to wit:

Branding the Nazi genocide of the Jews "a lie invented by the Zionists", the Islamist movement which runs the Gaza Strip wrote in an open letter to a senior U.N. official that he should withdraw plans for a new history book in U.N. schools.

and

In an open letter to local UNRWA chief John Ging, the movement's Popular Committees for Refugees said: "We refuse to let our children study a lie invented by the Zionists."

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLU32190...

Those paragraphs are lifted directly from the Reuters article without any interpretation from me.

[azurnoir]

33. You choose that quote to the exclusion of all other the quotes

in the article interesting

[oberliner]

34. That is the quote that I find most egregiously repugnant

One would think every other progressive on this board and elsewhere would feel likewise.

[azurnoir]

40. Ah so now your the gatekeeper of how a "Progressive" should feel?

but shouldn't a "progressive" take the quotes I cited into consideration as an explanation of how Palestinians especially those in Gaza might feel about this or is critical thinking not part of being a "Progressive"?

[oberliner]

150. I thought Progressives were united in their disdain for Holocaust denial

Apparently I was mistaken.

[shira]

35. how do those other quotes in any way minimize the quotes Oberliner cited?

[LeftishBrit]

41. Perhaps because it's the most glaringly nasty quote...

[azurnoir]

42. My point exactly

but choosing the lowest point is hardly produtive

[LeftishBrit]

46. I would say that the one who really chose the lowest point...

was the person who made this remark in the first place, not the people who commented on it on the forum.

[azurnoir]

50. I would say both did the former by saying it and the latter

by only taking that comment into account as representative of the general attitude

[oberliner]

57. Can you give me a better idea of what (if anything) is newsworthy about this story?

What would you say is the key takeaway from this news item?

[azurnoir]

66. I would take away that UNRWA perhaps means well but is

mistaken to add the Holocaust to the curriculum in it's Gaza schools at this juncture in time as it makes many of the residents uncomfortable, with some claiming as you pointed out that the Holocaust did not happen and some saying that the subject matter may be used to "justify" their current condition

[Kurska]

72. Historical fact makes you "Uncomfortable"

Tough shit.

[azurnoir]

73. Is that what I said? Was that the question?

or is that just your opinion?

[Kurska]

74. "mistaken to add the Holocaust to the curriculum in it's Gaza schools at this juncture in time as it

"

It might also be uncomfortable to talk about the vietnam war in america because of the iraq war, would you suggest we not teach that at all.

Education needs to be above petty politics, could you imagine some palestinian growing up in the Gaza strip, leaving it and having no idea what the holocaust was?

[cali]

154. lol. coming from you this whole exchange is most amusing

[Ken Burch]

80. He said teaching the Holocaust would be "marketing a lie".

Phrasing it that way IS Holocaust denial.

Hamas must repudiate this bastard and all who agree with him.e

[Ioo]

6. Ummm, this is not a shocker to me. Not sure you know this, they don't like Jews

Just want to be clear that this is not news

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. Looks like everybody is busy re-writing history there -

"A senior Israeli official said such statements should make the West think twice about ending its boycott of Hamas, in place since the group seized Gaza by force in 2007."

I thought that Hamas won the elections in Gaza, and that subsequently Israel withdrew from Gaza. When did they seize Gaza by force? I thought they simply rejected the control of Fatah, from the West Bank. Since when is internecine fighting 'seizing by force'? Did Fatah have a right to govern there? If so, why didn't Fatah win the elections?

Just more 'divide and conquer' going on.

[oberliner]

8. Battle of Gaza, June 2007

The Battle of Gaza was a military conflict between Hamas and Fatah that took place between June 7 and June 15, 2007 in the Gaza Strip. It resulted in Hamas remaining in control of the Gaza Strip after forcing out Fatah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaza_ (2007)

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. From the link you yourself provided -

"The major conflict in Gaza surfaced in December 2006 and was centered on Hamas executive force attempts to control Gaza instead of the Palestinian police.<10> In the April 2008 issue of Vanity Fair the writer David Rose published an article, based on internal US documents, suggesting that the United States collaborated with the Palestinian Authority and Israel to attempt a putsch on Hamas, and Hamas preempted the putsch.<11>"

IOW, we didn't like the results of their elections and so the US, Israel and Fatah conspired to overthrow the duly elected Hamas government, whereupon Hamas won the ensuing fight.

They didn't 'seize control'. They RETAINED control after an attempted seizure by Fatah.

While I, personally, prefer the politics-driven Fatah over the religion-driven Hamas, the fact remains that they have the power they do BECAUSE we tried fucking with them. If we had left them alone in the first place the people would have eventually looked at who could give them what they need and Hamas would have lost subsequent elections.

But Bushco and the Israeli right do not trust democracy.

[oberliner]

11. Yes, the Vanity Fair article does present that hypothesis

In any case, Hamas got the most seats in the legislative elections, but that did not impact the fact that Abbas was still President or that Fatah also won some seats.

Hamas didn't retain control of Gaza, because they didn't have "control" of Gaza, per se, just the most seats in the legislature. After the Battle of Gaza (which may or may not have been inspired by what was described in the Vanity Fair article), Gaza became a separate political entity from the West Bank with new leadership being named by Hamas.

But, all that aside, are you really suggesting that there is some similarity between a person claiming that "Hamas sezied control of Gaza in 2007" and a person claiming that the Holocaust was a "lie invented by the Zionists"?

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. Just saying that both sides are re-writing history in a way that suits

their own agendas. Not suggesting there is any equivalency in the scope of the re-writing.

[oberliner]

14. I don't think that claiming that Hamas seized control of Gaza is rewriting history

The success of Hamas in the legislative elections did not give them "control" of Gaza - they simply were the majority party in a governing coalition with Fatah with the presidency, who is elected separately from the legislature, also being held by a member of Fatah.

Even if one is to accept the theories presented in the Vanity Fair article as truth, it still does not change the fact that Hamas drove Fatah from Gaza and took total control over it themselves. One may argue that they were justified in doing so because there was an imminent attack against them being planned by Fatah with assistance from the US, but that does not really make the statement that Hamas seized control of Gaza an untrue one.

Regardless, I think we can all agree that this particular statement by Hamas (about the Holocaust being a lie invented by Zionists) ought to be heartily condemned.

[shaayecanaan]

18. No

The success of Hamas in the legislative elections did not give them "control" of Gaza - they simply were the majority party in a governing coalition with Fatah

No. There was no need for a coalition with Fatah, as Hamas had won a clear majority of seats. Other parties had offered to govern with Hamas but this is fairly superfluous as Hamas already held a majority.

Generally, control of the lower house in most parliamentary systems entitles one to be called "the government" even if one does not have control of the upper house or the executive - for example, in Australian politics it is rare for a single governing coalition to have majorities in both houses.

There are many cases of governments pre-empting coups by jailing or exiling members of the opposition, imposing martial law, or suspending the constitution (for example, Poland in 1981). Generally, this is not referred to as "seizing power", as the government in question already was the dominant power. In Venezuela, presidential guard members loyal to Hugo Chavez were able to oust the coup that had replaced him, after a large popular uprising from the barrios blockaded the palace. Again, this is not a situation in which you would say the Chavez forces "seized control" as that phrase generally implies a unilateral seizure of power that is unjustified by any democratic mandate.

Fatah, OTOH, is in charge of the West Bank, even though Hamas is the democratically elected government of both the West Bank and Gaza. The fact that Fatah extra-constitutionally dismissed the Hamas government and now governs the West Bank without a democratic mandate effectively means that Fatah is much more clearly guilty of "seizing power" in the West Bank than Hamas.

[oberliner]

22. Are you denying that there was a unity goverment prior to the events of June, 2007?

March 17, 2007: Palestinian unity government takes office

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Palestinians installed a new, more moderate coalition government on Saturday, in hopes of persuading the international community to end its isolation of the Palestinian Authority and lift a year of bruising sanctions.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11457520 /

In March, control of Gaza was shared by Fatah and Hamas, both of whom had positions of power in the coalition government. You will note that it was called a "unity" government - not a Hamas-led coalition government.

In June, there was a violent conflict between members of Hamas and Fatah whereby numerous Fatah members were killed or expelled from the territory.

After those events, total control over Gaza was in the hands of Hamas.

[shaayecanaan]

58. I'll concede the point...

on the matter of the unity government. Still, the fact remains that if Hamas "seized power" in Gaza then equally Fatah "seized power" in the West Bank.

[oberliner]

61. The whole thing was an ugly mess for all concerned

What do you think ought to happen now by way of reconciling the two governments? Do you think there should be new elections or what?

[shaayecanaan]

62. I don't think it matters...

the Gaza strip is not capable of being effectively governed. There are too many people in what remains a very marginal piece of territory. Even a government with the best of intentions would either resort to the fist or break down eventually.

The only solution might be to allow 350 000 Gazans or so to migrate to the West Bank. West Bankers are rather cool on that idea and Israel is dead against it. Until its population is brought down to a manageable number I don't think it is worth the effort to try and establish a functional government there.

[pelsar]

159. not really...fatah was in charge of security...that means..

that legally only they get the guns and hamas was an illegal militia...... (kinda of like hizballa)

[bemildred]

19. 'Civil disobedience if Nakba dropped'

Arab educators expressed outrage Monday at Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar's intention to remove the phrase Nakba from textbooks in the Arab education system, and threatened civil disobedience if the ministry follows through on its decision, as well as others in the same vein.

Nakba means "catastrophe" in Arabic and is used by Arabs to describe the creation of the State of Israel.

"In the past five months since its formation, the government, along with the Education Ministry, has announced a number of dangerous decisions," the head of the Follow-up Committee on Arab Education in Israel said at a press conference. "Such as a prohibition to commemorate the Nakba of the Arab people in schools, the changing of road signs, forcing the singing of the 'Tikva' national anthem at schools and setting the promotion of military service or national service as a criterion for rewarding schools and staff."

"We reject these decisions outright," Atef Moaddi said. "And we stress that if an attempt is made to carry them out in Arab schools - the response will be refusal and civil disobedience."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2...

[aranthus]

20. What's you're point?

On the one hand, we have Hamas denying history by claiming that the Holocaust is a lie. On the other we have Palestinian educators denying history by trying to claim that the Nakba story is the truth. I get it. There are Palestinians who are in denial of history. Where does that take us? What is Israel supposed to do in response to that?

[bemildred]

24. Education Ministry approves text referring to 1948 as 'Nakba'

It seems fair to say the matter is in dispute.

Education Minister Yuli Tamir announced Sunday that the ministry has approved a school text describing the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 as 'Nakba', or catastrophe, for use in Israeli Arab schools.

"The Arab public deserves to be allowed to express its feelings," Tamir told Israel Radio.

In an unprecedented move, the ministry approved a text for third grade children that refers to the events of 1948 as catastrophic, saying Arab citizens were expelled from their homes and became refugees after their lands were confiscated by Israel.

http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/spages/884769.html

[aranthus]

39. That was two years ago, and now the government is trying to reverse the mistake.

You posted that the Education Minister stated to Israel Radio, that, "The Arab public deserves to be allowed to express its feelings." This is not true when it comes to schooling. Education is not about expressing feelings, it's about teaching the truth. If Palestinians want to teach their children at home about the Nakba narrative, they have every right to do so. If they want to publish the story in their media, that's their problem, and no one should interfere. But schools shouldn't indulge in historical falsehoods just to pander to a community.

[bemildred]

49. I know it was two years ago, I was supporting the fact that the matter remains in dispute.

Your "historical facts" are not.

[aranthus]

52. It's not reasonably in dispute. n/t

[bemildred]

59. According to whom?

It clearly is in dispute. Who are you to decide that those who disagree with you are "unreasonable"?

[aranthus]

64. According to me of course.

Who am I to decide? I'm a moderate reasonable person, with critical thinking skills. I can also spot a false argument, which is the one that you've made. You know that I haven't said that the Nakba narrative is unreasonable simply because I disagree with it. There's much more to my point than that. Why would you ignore the bulk of my argument and try to reduce it to this kind of a straw man? Maybe because you don't actually have an answer to it. Me. I don't feel compelled to accept the Palestinian story when it's contradicted by the historical record and logic. But hey. If people want to pretend that it's the truth, who am I to stop them? Reality will do that.

[Kurska]

23. I understand where you are coming from, but Nakba and Holocaust denial aren't equivalent.

The holocaust is a historical event that one side is claiming never happened, the Nakba is a differing interpretation of a historical event that everyone agrees happened (The Israeli's just call the Nakba the founding of Israel).

I agree that the move is stupid and schools should teach differing interpretations of the same event to try and give the students multiple viewpoints, however disagreeing with the Nakba is saying "I view this event differently then you do", while denying the holocaust is saying "I think this event never happened. They are wholly different in that there is no real "Evidence" for the Nakba Vs. the founding of Israel because both sides have the same evidence and one just say that the founding was good and the other says the founding was a tragedy, there is however a incredible wealth of historical evidence that proves conclusively that the holocaust did infact happen.

[bemildred]

25. I'm not saying they are equivalent.

The Nazi genocide is clearly not equivalent to the expulsion and oppression of the Palestinians.

However, "Holocaust" and "Nakba" are both invented special names for national tragedies, and my impression is that some Palestinians resent being required to use the name "Holocaust" for the Nazi genocide when they are not allowed to use their name, "Nakba" for what happened to them; and that seems a reasonable point of view, and it does not necessarily mean that one is denying that the Nazi genocide occurred, though some people do that too.

I'm saying one must distinguish the argument about nomenclature from denial of historical facts, and that some of the Palestinians who are being accused of denial of historical facts are really disputing about use of special nomenclature. It is an argument about the framing of historical facts, and the Palestinian argument is that they have the same rights as anyone else to use a special name for their national tragedy.

[Kurska]

27. This article isn't about "desires to use terms other then holocaust' it is about holocaust denial.

I'm really not trying to be arguemenitive, but I don't see where in any of these cited articles you're getting half of this stuff. The Palesitnians aren't asking to call the holocaust by another name (And just for the record, holocaust is NOT the proffered term in Israel, the proffered term is shoah.)

There is nothing in "The Holocaust is a pack of zionist lies" that indicates that this arguement is about the word you're calling the holocaust.
Unless you're talking about Palestinians not mentioned in these articles and about issues that are completely unrelated to these articles (because these article are clearly straight up Institute for Historical Review holocaust denial), if you want to do that I think you should start another thread.

I would be sure to join you there, because I find the topic fascinating.

On edit: From what I can gather no one is banning the term, just removing it from government textbooks, take that for what you will. (Again I don't support it, but the government is hardly required to show differing viewpoints in textbooks, it is just a very good thing when they do.)

[bemildred]

28. The OP wanders around quite a bit actually.

I just see this subject come up quite a bit here, and I often feel that the sort of confusion I just discussed is occurring, so I wanted to elucidate the distinction that I made between denial of historical facts and arguing about special names for historical facts. Arguing about special names for historical facts is actually quite common, in lots of places. I'm not defending Younis al-Astal.

I knew it was going to annoy people, and probably get me called names, so I'm done with it.

[Kurska]

29. Fair enough, I see no evil in what you're doing.

And tentatively agree with you in regards to the naming of historical events, there really is a whole lot in a name.

I'm quite confident that all residents of the OT and Israel know of the Nakba, the founding of Israel and the holocaust/shoah.

[bemildred]

30. 'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;

Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.

[Kurska]

31. Haha exactly my thoughts.

Shakespeare is often tragically applicable to the I/P conflict.

[aranthus]

38. I do see your point, but

I don't think that Hamas is as concerned with the name Holocaust as they are with denying that it happened at all. Put another way, it's their Holocaust denial that leads them to deny that the event should have a name. It's because they deny that there was an intentional murder of Jews that they don't want to give that mass murder a name.

[bemildred]

48. And I think you are wrong.

The main beef the Palestinians have with the Holocaust is not it's historical factuality, but rather it's use as a special historical justification for what was done to them. There are people who are fully qualified Holocaust deniers, but that is not the primary Palestinian motive for questioning the Holocaust as a special historical event. It is the use of the Holocaust as a justification for the Nakba that they don't like, and I see that sentiment expressed over and over.

[aranthus]

51. Again, I see your point, but I think that their alleged reasons are also false.

First, I don't see over and over, or at all, that people on this board, or elsewhere try to justify oppressing the Palestinians because of the Holocaust. The pro-Israeli position isn't that simplistic, in part because we recognize that the Holocaust was not the impetus for Israel, nor was it a particularly important causal factor in Israel's creation, nor does it justify Israel, nor does it justify oppressing anyone. I understand that there are some who point to the Holocaust as a evidence of the Jews' need for Israel, but the historical and political reality is more complex than that. I think that the Palestinian claim in this regard is more of a red herring. Even if it were true that the vast majority of pro-Israelis argued the Holocaust in the way that the Palestinians claim, that does not justify denying the historical event. Hamas would gain credibility if they were to base their arguments on decent history, rather than on political expediency and feelings of hurt.

[bemildred]

60. And I think your alleged reasons are false.

The Holocaust is alleged as a reason for the creation and necessity of Israel all the time, here and elsewhere. One sees the events of 1948 brought up all the time too, the decisions of the Arabs states, the Mufti of Jerusalem, etc. etc. Almost all those people are dead. Of those still alive, almost all were small children at the time. Even now, almost of the Palestinians are children. Are the sins of the fathers to be visited onto the children unto the nth generation? What sort of "progressive" attitude is that?

[aranthus]

65. Our first duty is tho the truth.

If you want to pretend that there is a legitimate reason for Hamas to deny the Holocaust, that's your problem. I don't have to sail down denial with you. As for visiting the sins of the fathers on the children, I think you have it backwards. It's the Palestinians who want Israel to pay for the sin of existing. Yes, most of the people from 1947 are dead, but the present day Palestinians still believe many of the same lies that caused them to wind up in refugee camps in the first place, and that is a big part of what is keeping them there.

[bemildred]

81. So because they continue to resist their own subjugation, they continue to deserve to be subjugated?

Catch-22 anyone?

[shira]

99. PA leadership prefers the current situation, otherwise they'd have accepted Barak 2000 or Olmert '08

remember - Abbas was just quoted a few months ago stating the status quo is fine currently in the W.Bank.

[aranthus]

164. They're resisting Israel's existence, not merely subjugation.

Deal with reality and stop misrepresenting my position.

[Vegasaurus]

53. I've read that they think their own suffering is greater, and so why claim that Jews have suffered?

I don;t know...6 million starved, murdered, burned alive Jews, vs. 850,000 displaced Palestinians (along with 850,000 displaced Jews from Arab countries), living on billions of dollars of global aid, birthrate exponentially growing, colleges and universities built for higher learning, etc

Yes that Palestinian suffering is far greater than Jews', so they really should keep up their stupidity about the Holocaust.

[aranthus]

54. One people's suffering does not diminish the suffering of another.

That cuts both ways. The fact of the Holocaust does not diminish the fact of Palestinian statelessness.

[Vegasaurus]

55. No, but the level of suffering is not the same

One can acknowledge the Palestinian suffering, but it ain't the same as the near annihilation of an entire people.

[aranthus]

56. True.

I think there is a deeper problem as well. Palestinian Holocaust denial is simply one element of the denial of history and Israeli legitimacy that is at the core of their position. They deny a Jewish connection to the Temple Mount, to Jerusalem, to Israel. They deny that Jews are nation entitled to a state at all. They deny the Holocaust. They deny any causal connection between their actions and their position as stateless refugees.

[Ken Burch]

82. You mentioned Holocaust denial twice.

n/t.

[aranthus]

37. It's a bit more complicated than that.

The concept of Nakba involves both an interpretation of fact (which I believe to be invalid), and a belief in certain "facts" which are not true. First, there is the interpretation that the mere creation and existence of Israel is some moral wrong. Second, there is the belief in a history that states that: 1. The creation of Israel caused the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians; 2. Israel could not have come into existence without the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians; 3. The Israelis intentionally expelled all of the refugees. The history that supports the Nakba interpretation is false.

Of course, there is a kernel of truth to the Nakba narrative. There were hundreds of thousands of refugees (Palestinians and Jews). Some of the refugees were intentionally evicted (both Palestinians and Jews). What is problematic about the Nakba narrative is that it presents the historical event as something that happened to the Palestinians, rather than as something with which they have a strong causal connection.

[applegrove]

21. The wingnuts in Paliestine are as crazy as the wingnuts in the USA.

[Ken Burch]

84. And the wingnuts in Israel as well.

All three countries have equal wingnut deployment capability(on a per-capita basis, of course).

[pelsar]

26. I'm always amazed at the verbal gymnastics used here....

perhaps thats why i like to read the DU.

Hamas calls the Holocaust a lie, etc because it serves their national and cultural interest to create a society that removes "israel/jews from the map (choose the version that you prefer, hamas may or may not agree with you).

i'll simplify: denying the holocaust or whatever its variation is simply wrong and stupid, especially when it involves working/living with israelis and jews (from a western democratic liberal pov).....unless of course your "religious" it serves gods interest and western styled democracy is not the goal (duh!)

[azurnoir]

32. Yep me too

or focusing on only what we need especially when using "liberal" democracy when speaking of Israels current government but who knows maybe Bibi, Avigdor, Ismail, and Mahmoud will get together and dance the hora or perhaps the moon is made of green cheese or something

[shira]

36. Steven Colbert says it best

“‘Remember kids! In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."

[azurnoir]

43. It's good you recognize that n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

44. And sad you don't. n/t

[azurnoir]

69. Perception is quite difficult for those with tunnel vision

and a rather large chip on their shoulder, you have my sympathy, it must be so difficult for you

[Behind the Aegis]

75. Reality is confusing for those stuck in their own little world mired in propaganda,

revised history, and your own special version of the "facts." You have my pity, but then again, you are responsible for your own creation and projections.

[LeftishBrit]

45. Sounds as unlikely as a Sinn Feiner sending poems to a hardline Ulster Unionist...

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4075640.ece -

[azurnoir]

47. LOL well anything is possible n/t

[shaayecanaan]

68. Im rather fond of the verbal gymnastics you see on this board...

For example, Israel, although a Jewish state, is not a theocracy, because Judaism is not a religion. Its not an ethnocracy, because Judaism is not an ethnicity either. Judaism is a nationality, and therefore Israel is a Jewish state in the same sense that America is an "American" state. Of course, all citizens of America are equally American, but not all Israel's citizens are Jewish. But the right-wingers on the board like to overlook such trivial matters.

Sometimes the gymnastics contradict each other. For example, Israel is not a colonist because Palestine was never a proper country. On the other hand, Israel is entitled to occupy the Palestinians but not to extend to them the same rights as Israelis not because the Palestinians are Arabs but because they are foreigners. You'd think those two statements would contradict each other, but somehow they don't, apparently.

I also like the constant contortionist gyrations to try and escape any comparison of Israel to any other state or historical situation. For example, Israel bears no similarity to Apartheid, because Apartheid divided people on the basis of race and the Israeli occupation is of course completely blind to such modalities. Its not comparable to Yugoslavia, or to Armenia/Azerbaijian or anywhere else. Unless of course, you're talking about the Arabs, in which case they can be compared to anything, but preferably Hitler.

[pelsar]

76. thats always a fun game....

my favorite?...."progressives" that promote Palestinian statehood, knowing full well (those with knowledge of the politics) that the state or government produced will be at best a religious dictatorship or as per hamas in gaza, a fanatic dictatorship.

..... a state based on tribal loyalty and religion. A state that (shall we use gaza as the example?) that tortures homosexuals for being homosexual, the has killed people for holding hands in public etc.....

"progressives" joining religious fanatics to help produce a such as state...... (and in doing so, attempt to show how "evil" a liberal democracy that has successfully integrated a diverse population, that even has an efficient universal health care system)

_____

but actually your post is very confusing because your using arguments as if they are facts...which they aren't. For instance israel isn't a theocratic state as per your claim, which is rather obvious to someone who knows anything about israel, hence your first claim is so totally wrong, its just a waste of bandwith. And your others follow suite. Perhaps thats why your confused, you seem to know very little about the subject.

[shaayecanaan]

77. Palestinian statehood

"progressives" that promote Palestinian statehood

Sorry, pup, but I thought you were actually in favour of the two state solution? Or, like seemingly many on this board, have you started to oppose it when the US started making it clear that they actually wanted it to happen?

a state based on tribal loyalty and religion

Really? Oh me oh my, what a horrible notion that is.

A state that (shall we use gaza as the example?) that tortures homosexuals for being homosexual, the has killed people for holding hands in public

Sort of like a state that assassinated UN peace negotiators, then elected the said assassin as prime minister.

but actually your post is very confusing because your using arguments as if they are facts...which they aren't. For instance israel isn't a theocratic state as per your claim, which is rather obvious to someone who knows anything about israel, hence your first claim is so totally wrong, its just a waste of bandwith. And your others follow suite. Perhaps thats why your confused, you seem to know very little about the subject.

Not quite, pup. If Israel is not a theocracy and not an ethnocracy, then what, precisely, is a "Jewish state"?

[pelsar]

78. im for two states...so?

whats the connection?.... I just don't claim that israel must leave the WB because of civil rights, etc., since that is not the issue for me.

i've come to the conclusion that many progressives aren't really interested in "human rights, civil rights etc as THE most important value. See gaza for the example of how a Palestinian govt can turn out to be, and the lack of "progressive volunteers" who are willing to go and stand up the Gazans who are not getting their civil rights from their govt, the way they used to against israel. (granted hamas would probably just shoot them/kidnap them, but that not really an excuse for the true believers).

a state based on tribal loyalty and religion
i was under the impression that "progressives" are against such things as a matter of principle...could be wrong however.
____

are you really trying to compare Hamas as a govt to Israel in terms of civil rights, etc?....i see two options here, either massive ignorance or a bias that is sooo blind that words cannot describe it. Can some nice progressive on this board please explain to this nice person the difference between Hamas as a govt compared to israel?

---
you asked
If Israel is not a theocracy and not an ethnocracy, then what, precisely, is a "Jewish state"?
i guess i would call it a democracy..kind of like the US, UK, and other western countries that describe themselves as "christian" and have official christian holidays or turkey which is a muslim country.

research is your friend, though i understand you don't like the results, it wont so much as teach you anything, since its clear that your not interested in that, but it is rather embarrassing to have to explain such basic factors of the middle east to someone who appears to claim they know something about it.

[shaayecanaan]

96. "kind of like the US..."

so you would agree with the religious right that America is a Christian nation?

but it is rather embarrassing to have to explain such basic factors of the middle east to someone who appears to claim they know something about it

I have to say its rather ironic for an American tourist such as yourself to be lecturing me on the state of my knowledge.

[pelsar]

97. little correction for you

i remember christmas as school holiday growing up in Detroit....being jewish i, it was clear that the US is a Christian Country. (as per one example).

and your state of knowledge of israel is clearly lacking.........its pretty obvious by your posts....

[shaayecanaan]

140. a difference

Last Christmas for me, I remember trees being lit up with Christmas lights, choirs singing Xmas carols and people eating fruitcake. That was in Japan, with a whopping 1% of its population being Christian. Observance of Xmas doesnt necessarily correlate with being Christian.

being jewish i, it was clear that the US is a Christian Country. (as per one example).

Evidently a lot of Jews disagree with you, or at least the ones that initiate federal court proceedings to order an airport to remove a Christmas tree from its departure lounge.

and your state of knowledge of israel is clearly lacking.........its pretty obvious by your posts....

I never claimed to be an expert on Israel. Ive been there only twice for a cumulative total of less than four weeks. OTOH, I've lived in Lebanon and Ive spent a bit of time in just about all of the other countries in the region, so as far as this board is concerned, I don't think I'm a threat to the quality of conversation here.

Of course, this being the internet it's hard to know who's bullshitting and who isn't. For all I know you're some pudgy pimply-arsed 13-year old American kid who never gets out of the house. It would explain a few things.

[oberliner]

141. Japanese people work and go to school on Christmas

In the United States, this is not the case. All public schools are closed on Christmas.

Christmas Day is a designated federal holiday in the United States. This is not the case in Japan.

Numerous federal government government buildings are closed on Sunday, the Christian Sabbath.

[shaayecanaan]

146. numerous public buildings are closed on Saturday, the Jewish sabbath...

the five day weekend is a pretty universal staple these days, in any case.

Nowruz is still a holiday in Iran. Does that mean Iran is still a Zoroastrian country? (Roman) New Years' day is still a holiday in the West - does that mean the West still follows the Jovian religion?

Most traditional Christian holidays such as Halloween or Mardi Gras have become totally secularised. Christmas still has some religious trappings but is becoming progressively more secular with time. Many religious Christians eschew the holiday anyway as it was never a genuine Christian holiday but was simply enacted to replace the old pagan yuletide festivities.

In any event, clearly Israel is far more theocratic than Western countries - religious authorities hold a monopoly over marriage and divorce - rather like Christian Europe around 250 years ago. In addition to the public transport prohibition on Saturday, religious authorities also hold a practical monopoly on burial as all of the burial grounds are held by religious organisations and crematoria are usually intimidated into closing.

[oberliner]

147. Which Federal government buildings are closed on Saturday and not Sunday?

I can point to numerous Federal government buildings that are open and provide services on Saturday but are closed on Sunday (my local post office, for instance). Can you point to any that are closed on Saturday but are open on Sunday?

With respect to holidays, Christmas is a holiday in which all public school students can be assured that they will have the day off and, therefore, the ability to celebrate that holiday as they see fit.

Contrast that with the various holidays celebrated by non-Christians which may sometimes be considered "excused" absences but which often still require the student to miss class time (and/or school activities) in order to observe the holiday.

[shaayecanaan]

148. That was not my contention...

my contention was that most government buildings are closed on Saturday as well as Sunday.

My local post office is open until 12pm on a Saturday. Coincidentally, this is the same for Japanese schools which also open on Saturday mornings. The main reason for this is that it allows those workers the balance of the weekend uninterrupted, which would not be the case if they were open on Sunday rather than Saturday mornings.

In any case, sabbath observance is no longer an issue for most Christians, except for small sects such as the SDA church - most large churches have gyms and coffee shops that are open on Sundays. I can't recall any Christians getting excited about Sunday trading laws the same way they do for abortion, for example. Most of the time these battles are between various unions who want less trading hours and the business lobby which obviously wants more.

Btw, you ignored the larger question in my post regarding Nowruz.

[oberliner]

149. Do Muslims celebrate Nowruz?

From what I understand, they do.

Look, my contention is that the United States is a Christian country. I feel that non-Christians are forced to accommodate a variety of structural challenges that Christians do not have to worry about.

I am comfortable respectfully disagreeing with you on this topic.

[shaayecanaan]

152. Do Chinese Buddhists in the US celebrate Christmas?

From what I understand, they do.

That's the point. Celebrating a traditionally Christian/Zoroastrian festival is not necessarily evidence of Christian or Zoroastrian religious belief. And just because our Dad brought home a few chocolate bars for the kids each Eid did not make us Muslims.

I feel that non-Christians are forced to accommodate a variety of structural challenges that Christians do not have to worry about.

That is a statement borne more of identity politics than any real "structural challenge" for non-Christians in America.

Currently, 72% of America professes to be Christian. My contention is that this number could fall below 50% without it affecting the fundamental governing culture and structure of the United States in the slightest, which is the true test for whether the US is a Christian country or not.

[oberliner]

155. I am still going to have to disagree with you

But I am happy to leave it there and I thank you for sharing your perspective and insights.

[Ken Burch]

83. My favorite is people who STILL pretend

that continuing the Occupation is going to give the Palestinians a BETTER leadership group. It's been proven over and over that this is impossible, yet some still cling to this idea. Why?

or people who pretend that continuing the Occupation is going to turn Palestinians into supporters of LGBT rights(which obviously they should be, as should everyone else, but that's besides the point since most "pro-Israel" types in the U.S. aren't supporters or LGBT rights). Why does anyone believe THAT?

or people who pretend that continuing the Occupation is going to secularize Palestinians. Why does anyone believe THAT?

I just LOVE people who think crazy, nutty, wacky stuff like that. A barrel of laughs such folks are.

[pelsar]

106. wrong again....

that continuing the Occupation is going to give the Palestinians a BETTER leadership group.

history lesson again: the leadership that came out Intifada I (did you even know about them?), was not only educated, not religious, but pragmatic and produced several major steps toward the future Palestinian State.

I suspect you know little about these people (you might want to ask Prog Muslim) Or if you interested in learning some stuff you might inquire about what they accomplished....but a warning, you'll discover that many of your beliefs are wrong (education sometimes does that(

[Ken Burch]

110. Progressive Muslim would never accept the argument that the Occupation has led to better Palestinian

leaders, or that the emergence of those leaders vindicated the Occupation. I can't believe you'd think she'd support your position on this.

And arguing that the fact that good people came out of Intifada I somehow proves the Occupation is right is megachutzpah. Would you argue that the magnanamity Nelson Mandela displayed when he was finally released justified the his having been arrested(or justified the U.S. State Department's decision to tell the South African government where Mandela was hiding in 1962)?

The fact that suffering can possibly ennoble doesn't mean it was right that the suffering was inflicted.

[pelsar]

142. R E A D slower...it will help you understand your misconceptions

#1
you stated very clearly and i quote:
...that continuing the Occupation is going to give the Palestinians a BETTER leadership group. It's been proven over and over that this is impossible, yet some still cling to this idea. Why

you clearly wrote...and i shall repeat here: Its been proven over and over that this is impossible...

fact is that both PM and i agree that intifada I had very good quality local leadership. (far better than arafat and his cohorts)

lets keep to that simple fact and you can disagree with both PM and I and call the leadership of Intifada I "bad" but then i get the impression that you know nothing about them. (i was just refuting your claim, nothing more than that). Perhaps you can explain how that leadership was so bad.....

#2 as was mentioned in the post after yours: Christmas is an official holiday in the US...school days are off during the christian new year, etc. The same goes for many european countries...Turkey has muslim holidays off...none of those countries are theocratic as you define israel for the same thing...(i can't believe i even have to explain this stuff....)

and your right i could be a: For all I know you're some pudgy pimply-arsed 13-year old American kid who never gets out of the house

but even if i was, it would be clear that i have far greater knowledge than you about israel and that your many misconceptions go beyond just lack of knowledge......you prefer them as it appears to better fit your world view.

[Ken Burch]

143. Thanks for the unjustified condescention.

Oh, and you're still getting it wrong. Yes, there were good leaders in Intifada I. But NO, that doesn't vindicate the Occupation or prove that continuing it can lead to better Palestinian leadership. If your argument were correct, the Palestinians would have even BETTER leadership now than they did during Intifada I. Are you really going to make THAT argument?

And you can't cite Progressive Muslim's views to argue that the Occupation is justified. She'd have you for breakfast for saying that.

And I never defined Israel in ANY of my posts as a theocracy. Ever. So where the hell did THAT come from?

Finally, it was someone ELSE who called you a "pimply arsed 13 year old". That wasn't me.

[pelsar]

144. lets try again....

the occupation does not vindicate anything, that was not my point.......

......under bad situations sometimes some very good people rise to the top, it doesnt justify the situation, but it happens as it did...PM and i agree that there were some good leaders out of Intfida I (and for clarity i shall repeat, it doesn't justify the occupation)
_____


and i apologies for the wrong response for the 13yr old, i rather enjoyed it being called a 13 yrs pimply......and about the theocracy..seems i've confusing different posts with yours....(shaayecanaan)

[Ken Burch]

145. The bottom line is this:

The fact that, in that situation, good leaders emerged against the Occupation does not mean that the Occupation should be maintained in what we both know is the vain hope that good leaders will emerge if the oppression of the Palestinian people continues.

I accept the apology for the things I didn't say.

[pelsar]

153. thats the disagreement....

good leaders emerged against the Occupation does not mean that the Occupation should be maintained

unfortunately i say yes....mainly because the alternative is that much worse (the're are no good options here, but one is worse than the other)....and that i've discovered is the jist of my disagreement with many here.

Pre gaza pullout i was of the opinion that it was possible to pullout and some good would come of it. I look at Gaza, i look at iran....and no longer. A poor "undemocratic leadership, a fanatic leaadership will not lead, not in the short term and not in the long term (maybe in the longer term.....80-100yrs down the line-but thats impossible to know) to a state (Palestine) that does not consist of internal wars and external wars with its own and with its neighbors.

that means lots of killing, miserable lives, torture etc.....not much on civil rights. The world, as per the gaza, iran examples wont have much influence and "people power" doesn't either, not when their govts have god on their side. (again, iran and gaza being the examples)

If they could keep the "killing to themselves (i.e. zimbabwa as far i know just "kills" their own"), that would be one thing, but no doubt it will include a attacks on israel as well, as per history....and we don't need additional wars.

the solution that will prevent such, is exactly what israel did pre48, first establish the institutions with social/democratic values that are embedded in the population, and then its easier to make a state that understands its responsibility to its own...

gaza is the prime example of a failed state as a result of not doing that....i doubt the westbankers look at gaza with approval.

[pelsar]

156. continued from previous post...the basic disagreement.... (153)

and because i've had this argument with a few others....i believe (just guessing here) you might say that is impossible to develop democratic institutions and education while under an occupation.

for that i say....but israel did precisely that - hence not only is it possible, but its been done in the middle east a mere 60 years ago

[proteus_lives]

63. Is anyone actually surprised that Hamas would deny the Holocaust?

These guys only want the kids of Gaza to learn that Jews are pigs and devils.

Thugs and wingnuts are the same the world over.

[pelsar]

67. of course not..but that is not really the issue here....

the real issue as far as I'm concerned is the hypocrisy involved. Hamas now "owns" gaza. They have created a non democratic society that was initiated by not just killing the members of the governing body...(responsible for the security of gaza-the PA), but by some of the cruelest methods, such as throwing some of them off buildings, killing their kids at school, etc.

This was all possible because israel left gaza, as a result of international pressure (and some internal strategic politics via Sharon). Pressure from many HR groups was relentless as its always been, the claim was that they were concerned with the Human rights, the civil rights of the Palestinians in Gaza. If that was so, i would expect them to be screaming their heads off at what Hamas is now doing. For what they are doing, is far far worse than anything the IDF did....but they arent. No longer are nice american civil rights advocates going to gaza to support the Palestinians when their civil rights are run over by the governing body...nor will they be, because in the end, its not about the Palestenians civil rights, its more about land ownership and tribal loyalties.

One can believe that the Palestinians should live in Gaza with the IDF observing their every move, preparing to attack at every kassam launched (which in fact is what i believe), but we can least lose the facacde that its about "human rights"...its not, thats just the means to the end...to let the Palestinians be ruled by someone from their own gene pool and its nothing more than that.

[azurnoir]

70. Well Gaza has never been about rights not for the Israeli

government anyway, it must be such a powerful feeling to have 1.5 million people under life or death control

[pelsar]

71. first a fix on my post...

i meant to write that israel should NOT have to observe the gazans and be ready to attack at every kassam...that is simply not at good situation be in...

but now for your post:
israel was occupying gaza.....of course if wasn't about their civil and human rights...an occupation by definition denys that. But that is no longer the issue is it? Welcome to Sept 2009 The issue is Hamas and human rights groups now!!!

so where are they?..where are the nice europeans and americans sneaking in to Gaza an protesting the hamas rule....

or do you believe as i do, that those protests were never about civil rights....it was about tribal landownership?

----------------------
it must be such a powerful feeling to have 1.5 million people under life or death control i assume that question is directed at Hamas....so i can't answer it

[Ken Burch]

79. What Al-Astal said was vile.

There is no excuse for Holocaust denial, and I can confidently say that the prohibitive majority of people who support the end of the Occupation and the creation of a real Palestinian state would agree with this.
I urge Hamas to repudiate this man and to repudiate this mindset. Holocaust denial does the Palestinian cause no good: There is no need to deny that this hideous event occurred. It's enough to say that Palestinians had nothing to do with it and should never have had to suffer as a result.

The statement, however repugnant, does NOT justify maintaining the Occupation or stealing MORE Palestinian land(even under then euphemism "natural growth").

[LeftishBrit]

91. I fully agree with all your points here.

[Ken Burch]

95. Thanks.

n/t.

[grassfed]

85. If the Nakba is a lie to Israel, then the Holocaust is a lie to Palestinians

http://irish4palestine.blogspot.com/2009/08/holocaust-i...

Difference: the Naqba is not the casus belli for genocide.

[Behind the Aegis]

86. There's a whole bunch of failed logic.

[oberliner]

87. The Holocaust is not a lie to anyone

Some of the responses, like yours, to this news story on a progressive board like this one are frightening.

[grassfed]

88. not my opinion of course but reflects understandable Palestinian feelings

The Holocaust was, is, an unspeakable tragedy.

[LeftishBrit]

90. Well, thanks...

But the blog you quote is bizarre. I don't know who the author is; but anyone who speaks of 'Zionist control of the UN' (the UN???) and entitles an entry "Do Zionists control the Internet?" cannot be taken seriously.

[grassfed]

93. Do not thank me.

Would you thank me for saying that the LA wildfires are a catastrophe? It's not about you.

[LeftishBrit]

94. I was being slightly ironic.

I meant 'thanks for saying something reasonable', in contrast with your previous post.

[Violet_Crumble]

102. As with most genocides, there are people who think the Holocaust is a lie....

It's no good you saying that no-one thinks it's a lie, because there are people out there that do indeed think that. And if there weren't, then the Holocaust would really be unusual compared to other genocides where denial of the genocide is the final step of the genocide.

[oberliner]

103. I didn't say anything about what anyone thinks

Something cannot be a "lie" to anyone if it is true.

People are welcome not to believe things that are true, but it doesn't make them lies, even to them.

[Violet_Crumble]

104. The poster you replied to seemed to be...

I guess with yr desire for precision in the written word, it could have been easy to miss....

[oberliner]

105. Did you go to the link they provided?

It did not seem to be populated by folks who have a good grasp on reality.

[Violet_Crumble]

108. And yr point, if you have one?

People who think genocides are a lie don't have a good grasp on reality. Tell me something I don't already know. I'm merely telling you that just because you don't think it's a lie doesn't mean that other people don't.

[LeftishBrit]

89. The Holocaust isn't the casus belli for genocide EITHER!

Even if you don't support Israel's existence, please don't make up history:

(1) There were many Jews in Palestine long before the creation of the State of Israel. Tel Aviv for example was predominantly Jewish long before 1948, and long before the Holocaust.

(2) Plans for the creation of the State of Israel preceded the Holocaust by a long time. The Balfour Declaration was in 1917 for example.

(3) There were MANY new independent states created at the end of the British Empire - not just Israel.

(4) Only about half of Israeli Jews are Europaean.

And how on earth can the Holocaust be a 'lie to Palestinians' - or to anyone?

I don't consider the Naqba to be a lie either, though some of the specifics may be the subject of debate - but this has nothing to do with whether the Holocaust is true or false.

[grassfed]

92. Zochrot

The Zionist collective memory exists in both our cultural and physical space. Many monuments and road signs point out the loss of Jewish soldiers in wars, yet no indication of the destruction of Palestinian life may be found at all on our cultural and geographical landscape. The heavy price paid by the Palestinians -- in lives, in the destruction of hundreds of villages, and by being uprooted from their homes -- receives no public recognition. Demolished Palestinian villages are never commemorated, their names often Hebraicized and bestowed upon the new settlements established in their place. These villages are invisible spots on Israel's landscape; only the obstinate sabra bushes serve as their silent monuments.

Palestinian pain, too, is illegitimate; all expressions of pain are considered hostile and threatening. Israel regards its Arab citizens' grief as a threat to Jewish existence here and now. In past years Palestinian awareness of the political importance of collective memory and public commemoration of the Nakba ("disaster"), in opposition to Israeli Independence Day, has risen and become more visible. Visits to demolished villages now take a more central role in shaping the identity of Palestinian citizens of Israel, yet these are made unobtrusively and without demands that the state officially recognize their suffering.

Zionist collective memory also prevents Jews from acknowledging their part in the destruction, from accepting responsibility and, consequently, from achieving real reconciliation with the Palestinians. The Jewish people have not taken and do not take any action aimed at acknowledging their part in the Palestinians' suffering. Any possibility for such action is immediately rejected out of fear that recognition of injustices committed will oblige the Jews to leave Israel. This paranoia is both derived from the Jewish "victim complex" and reinforces it.

http://www.zochrot.org/index.php?id=343

[cali]

98. oh for fuck's sake. there is no genocide by Israel- much as sick minds

want to convince people that there is. there's a brutal occupation. Isn't that bad enough? Nope, not for some. hyperbole doesn't help. lying doesn't help. And hate doesn't help.

[shira]

100. and they wonder why I/P isn't resolved with all this hyperbole and exaggerating Israel's crimes

they wonder why the "hasbara brigade" like me gets so bent out of shape debating the exaggerations and not focusing on the reality.

seems they don't want the conflict resolved - all they want is to demonize Israel and Jews.

it's fairly easy to figure out Arab and Muslim haters when they engage in hyperbole, exaggerations, and lies - we know what motivates them and it's not peace - the same applies to those who do the same against Israel and, of course by extension, the Jooz. It's just as bad and we know well what that's all about.

[Violet_Crumble]

101. Hold on. Yr the person who refers to settlements being dismantled as ethnic cleansing...

Yr one of the last people to talk about hyperbole when yr so prone to it yrself, Shira.

[shira]

107. not really - i do that only to make a point against some who argue Israel's goal is ethnic cleansing

real ethnic cleansing happened, for example, when Jordan forced Jews out of parts of Jerusalem in 1948.

but now that you mention it, your hyperbolic "apartheid" label isn't very helpful when it comes to working out solutions - maybe it's best you stick to reality rather than hyperbole - people might take you more seriously.

[Violet_Crumble]

109. You definately refer to the removal of settlers as ethnic cleansing...

If yr going to try denying it, I'll go get links to where you've done it. What you've done is hyperbole, Shira, and a very RW form of it, for that matter. And if you want to deny it's hyperbole, that just makes you a complete hypocrite....


btw, yr continuing on yr path of being incorrect on everything when it comes to me. I don't label Israel as apartheid - I say quite correctly that the system in the West Bank is reminiscent of apartheid, and agreed recently that *Manifest Destiny* is a more accurate term to describe the system. Neither of those things are hyperbolic, though I do suspect you have no clue as to the definition of hyperbole.....

[shira]

111. again - read carefully - i did say that but only to make a point against those claiming Israel ....

has or is still ethnically cleansing Palestinians. The closest example in the past 60 years of this happening in I/P is the Gaza '05 example - in fact, Jews are forbidden from buying land in the OPT and are not safe living there, and definitely not treated equally there, a sad and racist reality - not that you care although I'll bet you tout yourself as someone who is adamently anti-racist.

I agree with the Manifest Destiny label.....do you still think Israel's W.Bank policy is colonialism?

[shira]

113. oh, and furthermore - what would you call it if Palestinians were to do the same as Jews in Gaza '05

[bemildred]

114. So you admit that removing "settlers" from the OPT is not ethnic cleansing?

I just want to be sure what your position is. Thanks in advance.

[shira]

115. right - it's not ethnic cleansing

[bemildred]

117. Always a pleasure when we can agree.

Thanks again.

[shira]

130. actually, Shaktimaan makes a compelling argument that it is ethnic cleansing

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

sorry, I've changed my mind - I agree with him - shouldn't let emotions rule.

[bemildred]

136. Ah, so ethnic cleansing is OK.

That seems more consistent.

[shira]

137. is that what you get out of that? that it's okay? sheesh.

I agree with Shaktimaan, even if we agree it was the right thing to do in Gaza - that was an example of ethnic cleansing - some ethnic cleansing being more acceptable than other forms, that's all, just one standard - no double standards.

[bemildred]

138. That is what he says.

"I think that not allowing the Palestinians back in after the war was certainly ethnic cleansing. And I believe it was necessary. Just as I recognize that evicting the settlers is also ethnic cleansing but support that."

It is a consistent and well thought out position. It would be easy enough to criticize, but I'll let it stand with the comment that if one accepts that position, then the next question is who gets to decide when it is "necessary" and when it is not? And who gets to decide what methods are acceptable and which are not in carrying out this "necessary" act? And I will add that those questions get to the core of the issue in my view.

[shira]

139. fair enough...

but the point is that Gaza '05 was ethnic cleansing that is no different than any other example of ethnic cleansing .... like Jordan ethnically cleansing E.Jerusalem in 1948 .... the reasons or 'blame' behind each act are of course different, but both are examples of ethnic cleansing nonetheless.

[Violet_Crumble]

118. That's really pathetic, Shira. Do you mean anything you post in this forum?

Also, I'm now going to give anyone using hyperbole against Israel the benefit of the doubt as they might be using yr lame excuse that they're only doing it to make a point about yr silly hyperbole going on about how removing Israeli settlers is ethnic cleansing. How about in future you actually say what yr views are, as that's what everyone else here does.

Also, you seem to fling around words that don't quite fit...for example racism when it comes to Jews. They're not a race, not that accuracy or fact seems to be something yr all that fond of...

Do you even know what Manifest Destiny means?

[shira]

119. so just ask anytime you're not sure - unlike many here, i'm not ashamed of my views

yes, I know what manifest destiny is.....do you think Israel's actions did or still does amount to colonialism?

[Violet_Crumble]

120. How about you try being honest about what yr views are?

That seems much easier than expecting people to ask you if you really mean something you say. I don't know about anyone else here, but I've got no time or patience for idiots who aren't honest about what their views are. It's not that difficult a thing to do, and you might feel better for stating what yr views actually are, instead of inventing things you don't actually believe....

I don't think you do know what Manifest Destiny means, and seeing yr prone to not being honest about what you think, you'll surely understand why I can no longer believe you when you say you know what something is....

[shira]

121. i'm always willing to explain my views on I/P to those who wish to know them - why not you?

[Violet_Crumble]

123. But you just told everyone you say things you don't mean...

How are any of us to know when yr being honest or not?

[shira]

124. you're twisting what i mean, why do you that?

i merely use the arguments of others i disagree with and give them the same back in return, for argument's sake.

again - i'm more than willing to explain my views on I/P as i'm not in any way embarassed by them - why aren't you as open to questioning?

[Violet_Crumble]

127. Not at all, You stated a view you claim now you don't hold..

That's dishonesty. Well, actually dishonesty is claiming in hindsight that you didn't mean it when you argued that removal of Jewish settlers would be ethnic cleansing, because I've gone back and seen some of those instances where you argued that, and you weren't making a point at all. Do you need links to yr own words as a refresher?

Again, how would anyone know whether yr stating yr own views or just making up something that you don't believe? I for one aren't interested enough to find out...

[shira]

129. i really don't care what you believe about me - i'm open to questions on my views, you're not

i'm not at all embarassed by any of my views on I/P, but it's apparent you are and that's why you rarely answer direct questions.

your obfuscation is dishonest.

-----

you can, of course, have the last word - when you want to seriously debate anything (and I'm not sure you're willing or capable), maybe we can go at it again.

i'm just not interested in your childish ad hominem ranting.

[shira]

131. changed my mind, Violet

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

i agree with Shaktimaan.

[Violet_Crumble]

133. You do that changing yr mind thing a lot, it appears...

Not sure at all what yr agreeing with him on, nor why you think it matters to anyone...

[Lithos]

151. Question

If the occupied land was obtained illegally via improper eviction and/or coercion (armed or threat of violence) then is it ethnic cleansing?

In other words, would make a distinction between removing settlers from say, Gush Etzion vs. some post-1967 settlement?

L-

[shira]

157. it's ethnic cleansing - whether legal or illegal / moral or immoral / voluntary or not

Jewish leadership in power at the time could have decided in 1947 to evacuate Gush Etsion voluntarily in the interest of peace - and that would have been ethnic cleansing, just the same as Gaza 2005.

Just the same - if Jordan forces out all Gush Etsion Jews in 1948 (which they did) and Hamas somehow managed to achieve the same due to their own might in 2005 - against Israel's will - both would be examples of ethnic cleansing.

[Lithos]

158. That wasn't the question

The question was whether there is a distinction in how the settlement was originated which determines if it is ethnic cleansing or whether it is removal of squatters.

Gush Etzion was settled on land bought earlier. However, quite a few of the settlements exist based on much flimsier legal limbo.

While I am at it, given the definition of "ethnic cleansing" as I am now reading it, would it not follow that the removal of the Bedouin today in the Negev regions is not also ethnic cleansing? I have a hard time distinguishing the difference between the laws applied to them and the laws as they are applied to the settlers. Seems like to me there is plenty of legal precedence here to remove settlers using the exact same laws which are being applied to the Bedouin.

L-

[shira]

160. i don't make any such distinction - but that's my opinion

Jordan ethnically cleansed E.Jerusalem of all its Jews in 1948 and Palestinians took their places in what was an illegal occupation by Jordan. If Palestinians were removed from E.Jerusalem now - and let's at least acknowledge they're squatters every bit as much as any other Jewish squatters with flimsy legal claims - I'd label that ethnic cleansing too.

One standard.

I know nothing of the removal of Bedouins from the Negev, but found this article (see below) which states that the Bedouin population has increased some 10-fold in Israel since 1948 (a higher rate of increase than any other people in that region):
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_C...

[Lithos]

161. Don't follow that Palestinians in E. Jerusalem are squatters

By any stretch. Am curious as to why you would consider such a claim. The families of the West Bank from which most WB Palestinians descend have been present for many hundreds of years. Also, I find the comment "10-fold" a curious extraction. Does this mean that if a population is increasing any removal is not considered ethnic cleansing? If so, how does that hold for the West Bank settler population which is also growing.

The rather interesting analysis of the Bedouin is that in their case, irregular construction is destroyed with minimal process while the settlers of the West Bank seem to find their initial, extremely irregular construction tolerated and encouraged. Also, the Bedouin have had a problem getting any title to what is essentially land they have used for years (public lands), but the Settlers seem to be able to obtain easy title and use permits with minimal effort.

L-

[shira]

162. how about the Palestinians who moved into E.Jerusalem after 1948

and took the place of Jews in the Jewish quarter? What makes them different than any other settler?

The families of the West Bank from which most WB Palestinians descend have been present for many hundreds of years.

Same can be said for Jews there - like from Hebron for example.

Also, I'm not aware there's an effort (what's happening BTW) to rid the Negev of Bedouins. Can you provide a link?

And if Bedouins are discriminated against more than other Israelis within the green line (whether WRT construction or anything else) I hope as Israeli citizens they take their cases to court and win.

Comparing Bedouins or any other non-Jews within the green line to settlers is comparing apples and oranges IMO, as any Israeli citizen can be a settler - not just Jews - so any benefits settlers receive, any Israeli citizen (by law) can also receive - including Israeli Bedouins.

[Lithos]

163. Two points

1) Most of the Palestinians on the West Bank were there before the war. Most of those who left what is now Israel did not stop in the WB, but instead opted to move up and down the coastal highways - Lebanon and Gaza. Most of the Palestinians in E. Jerusalem have long roots there. There is no difference.

2) I agree with you about Jews in Hebron, I will even buy the notion of Gush Etzion. However, most of the settlers in the West Bank are neither in Hebron, nor Gush Etzion, nor are most directly related to either group as most settlers seem to be recent emigrants to Israel. If you state "nearness" of relation allows them to stay, then logically that would apply to any Palestinian West Bank

L-

[Violet_Crumble]

132. And I keep on asking how anyone's supposed to know whether you mean what you say or not...

For some strange reason you keep on ignoring that and start whining about other stuff. This isn't about my views. I'm not sure how you managed to misread this sub-thread in such a way that it becomes about that. Instead of flailing around blindly accusing me of some nefarious reasons for ignoring yr 'question', I hope I've already pointed out that yr questions are really quite stupid and seeing as how you don't bother answering any questions you get asked, and as I'm not all that interested in doing a Q&A session with people who aren't very honest about their own views, and tend to be rather manic and one-sided in the way they view the I/P conflict, that lack of interest extends to whatever misreading you do of what I've just said where you put it through a filter and come up with 'I'm not dishonest! You are! I'm not hypocritical! You are!'....

I've already said to you plenty of times in the past that you aren't capable of any sort of rational debate, and definately not capable of doing anything that doesn't involve flinging vicious and false accusations about other posters, including myself around. See, I don't tend to see posts from you falsely labelling me as antisemitic, antizionist, not progressive, far-left etc to be what qualifies as 'serious debate'. It's stupid and it's immature and nasty, and if pointing that out is considered by you to be childish, then yr idea of what's childish is as strange as what yr opinions on several other things are....

btw, I notice you yet again do multiple posts in reply to one of my posts. Can you please stop doing that? DU give us the ability to edit posts within one hour and I'm not going to bugger around replying to a mushrooming number of posts from you...

[shira]

134. sigh, now we're done - you're just spamming ad hominems and you're boring

total waste of time

======

enjoy Mondoweiss

[Violet_Crumble]

135. We were done the moment you flung around nasty attacks on me...

Yr just a bit too dopey to realise it...

And that 'enjoy Mondoweiss' thing is pretty lame. I don't read it, as far as I can recall have never been a reader of it, and think it's kind of amusing that you think you magically have some knowledge of my reading habits that I don't....

[oberliner]

122. Jews are not a race?

Can I quote you on that?

[Violet_Crumble]

125. I don't really care what you do...

Though it's probably not a good idea to ask me any questions seeing as how you don't appear to possess the courtesy of answering any that I've asked you recently. And if you want a reminder of where they are, please PM me and I'll send you links....

[oberliner]

126. Sorry I should rephrase

Thank you for pointing out that Jews are not a race.

[Violet_Crumble]

128. That's okay. I knew what you were getting at...

I don't think I've ever claimed that Jews are a race or that racism is a term that applies to hatred and discrimination against them. The other poster appears to be a bit all over the place and changing their view on that depending on which way the wind blows, that's all....

[shaayecanaan]

112. bullshit - you've tried to make that point in deadly earnest nt.

[shira]

116. well, i don't think it's ethnic cleansing - but I'm curious what you'd call it if Palestinians did

the same as Gaza 2005...if every Palestinian or Arab had to be removed from some area, what would you call that?