Israel is guilty of occupation, apartheid and colonialism, [Archive] - House of Politics

WANT_FREE

02-26-2007, 01:11 PM

Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, John Dugard, has issued a harshly critical report on Israel's human rights record in regards to its treatment of the Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territories of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

"The international community, speaking through the United Nations, has identified three regimes as inimical to human rights - colonialism, apartheid and foreign occupation," Dugard says. In his 24-page report, which will be presented to the United Nations General Assembly for debate on 15 March 2006, the South African lawyer accuses Israel of all three.

Occupation

Israel is clearly guilty of occupying another nation. Dugard also refutes Israel's claim that, since its 'disengagement' in 2005, it is no longer occupying the Gaza Strip. Israel controls all the borders, air space and sea space surrounding the Strip, in addition to carrying out numerous military incursions and air strikes into the Strip, thereby continuing to be the occupying power.

Apartheid

Furthermore, Dugard says Israel's discriminatory practises towards Palestinians amount to apartheid. He says in his report: "Discrimination against Palestinians occurs in many fields. Moreover, the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid appears to be violated by many practices, particularly those denying freedom of movement to Palestinians."

Dugard harshly criticises Israel's system of checkpoints and barriers across the occupied West Bank, which makes freedom of movement and trade impossible. In particular, he criticises the arbitrary nature of the restrictions. "there is a secret list with some 180,000 names of security risks who may not pass through a checkpoint," Dugard says, "but no notice is served on such a person on this list until he arrives at a checkpoint"; this means "it is left to Palestinians to find out by trial and error whether they will be allowed to pass through a checkpoint on a particular day". As a result, "an arbitrary and capricious regime prevails."

Dugard warns Israel that, "In apartheid South Africa, a similar system designed to restrict the free movement of blacks - the notorious “pass laws” - created more anger and hostility to the apartheid regime than any other measure. Israel would do well to learn from this experience."

Dugard singles out Israel's illegal separation wall as one of Israel's most apartheid-like tool. He says, "It has become abundantly clear that the Wall and checkpoints are principally aimed at advancing the safety, convenience and comfort of settlers."

In regards to Jerusalem and the wall, Dugard says: "The 75 km Wall being built in East Jerusalem is an instrument of social engineering designed to achieve the Judaization of Jerusalem by reducing the number of Palestinians in the city. The Wall is being built through Palestinian neighbourhoods, separating Palestinians from Palestinians, in a manner that cannot conceivably be justified on security grounds."

Dugard depicts in particular the absurd plight of the inhabitants of Ar-Ram neighbourhood of northeast Jerusalem: "Some 60,000 people live in the suburb of ar-Ram just outside the municipal boundary of Jerusalem. About half of the residents are Jerusalemites who left Jerusalem because of the restrictions placed on Palestinians’ building houses in the city. They are completely dependent on Jerusalem for work, education and hospitals. Yet now they are surrounded by the Wall and cut off from Jerusalem. To get to work, school or hospital they must travel a circuitous route of several kilometres and pass through the international terminal-like checkpoint at Qalandiya, and they may only do this if they have the correct permit. A journey that previously took them minutes is now extended into hours."

Colonialism

He also accuses Israel of carrying out illegal, colonial practises, saying, "The Occupied Palestinian Territory is the only instance of a developing country that is denied the right of self-determination and oppressed by a Western-affiliated State." He singles out the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank as a new form of colonialism. Furthermore, noting that Israel has appropriated agricultural land and water resources in the West Bank for its own use, Dugard says that, "This aspect of Israel’s exploitation of the West Bank appears to be a form of colonialism of the kind declared to be a denial of fundamental human rights and contrary to the Charter of the United Nations as recalled in the General Assembly’s Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples of 1960 (Resolution 1514 XV)." He suggests the case be referred to the International Court of Justice.

War crimes

Dugard accuses both Israeli military personnel and Palestinian militants of war crimes, pointing out that the state of Israel has the greater responsibility: "Persons responsible for committing war crimes by the firing of shells and rockets into civilian areas without any apparent military advantage should be apprehended or prosecuted. This applies to Palestinians who fire Qassam rockets into Israel; and more so to members of the IDF who have committed such crimes on a much greater scale. While individual criminal accountability is important, the responsibility of the State of Israel for the violation of peremptory norms of international law in its actions against the Palestinian people should not be overlooked."

While condemning the Palestinian launching of homemade Qassam rockets into Israel, Dugard says, "Israel’s response has been grossly disproportionate and indiscriminate and resulted in the commission of multiple war crimes."

As for Israel's policy of demolishing residential buildings in the Gaza Strip suspected of housing weapons, preceded by a warning issued over the telephone shortly before the air strike, Dugard describes this act as a " policy of terrorism by telephone." In regards to the Palestinians' collective act of gathering on the roof of a targeted building in a form of 'human shield', Dugard says, "Voluntary, collective action of this kind can at most be categorized as an act of civil disobedience against the occupying Power."

Dugard describes the imprisonment of the Gaza Strip's 1.4 million inhabitants behind Israeli-controlled borders as "a controlled strangulation that apparently falls within the generous limits of international toleration."

The UN rapporteur also describes the racist attacks carried out by some Israeli settlers against Palestinians. "Undoubtedly the most aggravated settler behaviour occurs in Hebron," Dugard says, "where Palestinian schoolchildren are assaulted and humiliated on their way to schools, shopkeepers are beaten and residents live in fear of settler terror." Dugard adds that, despite rulings by Israel's High Court of Justice that it is the duty of the Israeli military to protect Palestinian farmers from settlers, "there is still evidence that the IDF turns a blind eye to settler violence and, on occasion, collaborates with the settlers in harassing and humiliating Palestinians."

In regards to Israel's policy of extrajudicial killing, or targeted assassinations, of 'terrorists' wanted by the state of Israel, Dugard describes this practise as "the death penalty on a wide scale through the back door ".

Palestine, a test for the West

Dugard concludes that the case of human rights violations in the occupied Palestinian territory has come to resemble a 'test' for the West, by which its commitment to human rights is to be judged. He recognises that numerous other nations in the developing world suppress human rights, but Israel is the only "Western-affiliated regime" allowed to get away with it. Dugard warns, "If the West fails this test, it can hardly expect the developing world to address human rights violations seriously in its own countries, and the West appears to be failing this test."

palerider

02-27-2007, 01:45 PM

Occupying? Are you serious? Tell me, doyou remember how was it that Israel came to find themselves on that land in the first place?

And arabs living in Israel, have more rights than they would have living in their respective countries.

The author is clearly no more than an anti semite.

Lilly Marlene

03-02-2007, 06:13 PM

palerider -

To oppose the State of Israel does not make one an antisemite.
The justification commonly provided as to why that land should be taken for the Jewish State is a religious one, from the Old Testament of the Bible.
Yet please recall that the founder of that whole idea of the modern Jewish State (Theodore Hertzl) was himself an atheist. As a matter of fact, his first choice was to found the State of Israel on a portion of Africa.

Very religious Orthodox Jews are strenuously opposed to the State of Israel, on the grounds that their Torah forbids them to establish a State using human might 'like the nations do'. They are enjoined repeatedly in their scriptures to wait on the Lord to establish it.
Yet,
the founders of the State of Israel - as well as those who administer the State today - routinely submit that they have the right to that land on religious grounds.

Look forward to exploring this further, later.

palerider

03-03-2007, 06:26 AM

If I remember my Old Testament, God often used and influenced governments to establish a place for his people.

And opposing the state of israel doesn't make one "not" an anti semite either. This author's reasons label him an anti semite as clearly as if he were wearing a sandwitch sign.

Lilly Marlene

03-03-2007, 05:28 PM

If I remember my Old Testament, God often used and influenced governments to establish a place for his people.

Sure, agreed. But the people themselves are strictly enjoined - as I wrote - not to use might to establish a state, following the Diaspora.

And opposing the state of israel doesn't make one "not" an anti semite either. This author's reasons label him an anti semite as clearly as if he were wearing a sandwitch sign.

Well that may be.
But I do know this: once I understood that the State of Israel actually goes against God's specific commands to Jews ...
then for me, the whole house of cards began to fall, as regards US policy in the mideast.

palerider

03-04-2007, 04:32 AM

Sure, agreed. But the people themselves are strictly enjoined - as I wrote - not to use might to establish a state, following the Diaspora.

Once again, in the Old Testament, God often told the jews that he had "handed over" a parcel of land to them but left it to them to conquer the inhabitants. Often instructing them to kill the inhabitants to the last child and to kill their animals as well.

But I do know this: once I understood that the State of Israel actually goes against God's specific commands to Jews ...then for me, the whole house of cards began to fall, as regards US policy in the mideast.

I would be interested in seeing the verses from the Hebrew texts upon which youhve based your understanding that the state of Israel goes against God's specific commands to the Jews.

Genisis 15:18: "In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abraham, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates."

This would encompass not only the present borders of Israel, but lebanon, syria, iraq, jordan, and a sizeable piece of north west saudi arabia.

Lilly Marlene

03-05-2007, 05:23 PM

palerider

03-06-2007, 09:14 AM

Yes, I can find them to post here.
Please realize I am speaking specifically of verses dealing with the time after the Diaspora, which occurred in 70 AD.

I have a deadline on Wednesday and will not be able to post much anymore til after that.

But I guarantee to you that these commands exist and they are unequivocal.

In the meantime while I am away, please do a search for "Neturei Karta" and they might even have them on their site.

I hope you all have a good week til next I visit here,
Lilly

There was nothing in the Torah in 70AD that hadn't been there for hundreds and hundreds of years. Perhaps there were different interpretations, and some interpretations leaned towards not using force to create a state, but that would simply be the interpretation of an individual (and followers). Not to be confused with what the Torah does or does not forbid.

Neturei Karta is a small group that believes that the nation of Israel can only be reunited after the return of the Messiah. The Messiah returned over 2000 years ago and if you are a student of scriptures, groups such as Neturei Karta are among those jews who will hail the antichrist as the Messiah. If you are relying on these people to help you form your opinion on the justification for the State of Israel, you have chosen the wrong group.

Lilly Marlene

03-08-2007, 09:59 PM

There was nothing in the Torah in 70AD that hadn't been there for hundreds and hundreds of years. Perhaps there were different interpretations, and some interpretations leaned towards not using force to create a state, but that would simply be the interpretation of an individual (and followers). Not to be confused with what the Torah does or does not forbid.

I'm afraid it is not a matter of interpretation at all. The meaning of the passages is unequivocal.

Neturei Karta is a small group that believes that the nation of Israel can only be reunited after the return of the Messiah. The Messiah returned over 2000 years ago and if you are a student of scriptures, groups such as Neturei Karta are among those jews who will hail the antichrist as the Messiah. If you are relying on these people to help you form your opinion on the justification for the State of Israel, you have chosen the wrong group.

Christ didn't unite the nation of Israel; there was no need to because they had not been "dispersed" yet when He was on earth. The reason the Neturei Karta "believes that the nation of Israel [must wait on God to unite it]" ...is because that is what their scriptures say.

If the gauge you are using involves belief in Jesus as the Messiah, then the secular atheists who founded the State of Israel are just as much "the wrong group" as the Neturei Karta.

The justifications usually summoned for the state of Israel seem to be these two:

1. Because God gave that land to the Israelites in the Jewish Scriptures ("Old Testament").
and
2. Because of the Holocaust.

Neither one of those justify the State of Israel upon closer examination.

palerider

03-09-2007, 03:22 AM

I'm afraid it is not a matter of interpretation at all. The meaning of the passages is unequivocal.

Then bring them here. I have to say that if the basis of my argument was based on passages that were unequivocal; so powerful, in fact, that they caused me to withdraw my support for an entire nation, they would not be so remote from my mind that they would require "looking up".

Christ didn't unite the nation of Israel; there was no need to because they had not been "dispersed" yet when He was on earth. The reason the Neturei Karta "believes that the nation of Israel [must wait on God to unite it]" ...is because that is what their scriptures say.

If you are referring to scripture that warns against gaining a nation by might before the messiah comes, then those scriptures have been supersceeded. But like I said, I am interested in seeing the scriptures that are unequivocal.

Again, if you are a student of scriptures, the next one who will unite Israel is the antichrist who will be hailed by misled groups as the messiah.

If the gauge you are using involves belief in Jesus as the Messiah, then the secular atheists who founded the State of Israel are just as much "the wrong group" as the Neturei Karta.

Again, I don't refuse to support actions that I want to happen just because they aren't happening for the reasons that I have for supporting them.

Lilly Marlene

03-09-2007, 04:00 AM

palerider

03-09-2007, 09:49 AM

Palerider -
Please read at the link below ... I *think* the verses were in there; if not I'll have some time this weekend to find them. There is a whole site devoted to examining them (and no I did not commit them to memory) but as I said on the other thread I'm rushing this morning so later I'll find them.

You don't have to read the whole thing, you can start at "Exile and Redemption".

I have read the whole thing. There is no "unequivocal" passage from the Torah that would deny the state of Israel. Their entire position is based on the fact that they believe that Elijah did not return and therefore Jesus could not be the messiah.

If you are a student of scriptures, the last prophecy with regard to the re-establishment of Israel is found in the old testament is found in the book of Malachi. Chapter 4 verses 5 amd 6 to be specific:

"See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse."

The entire positon of Neturei-Karta is based on the idea that Elijah did not return. If you are a student of scripture however (are you?) if you look in the New Testament at Matthew 17:10-13, Jesus says:

Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands."

The prophecy in Malachi cautions that either Elijah will reunite Israel of a curse will be laid upon the land. Well, they didn't recognize him and rather than being reunited, they were cursed.

If you study scriptures, the next appearance of Elijah is fortold in Revelations. Chapter 11 verses 3-6. The two olive trees are Elijah and Moses.

If you are going to claim that scripture has led you to withdraw your support for the state of Israel, then you are bound to consider all scripture. If you just don't like Israel and convienently use some scripture to support your position but disregard scripture than foils it, then that action speaks for itself.

Lilly Marlene

03-09-2007, 03:19 PM

"...then that action speaks for itself."

Care to elaborate ? Is this supposed to suggest that I am being disingenuous here ? If so, please just come out and say that that is what you think.

I have not read the whole Bible and in answer to your question, no I'm not a Scripture scholar.
However,
I do know that there are several passages which ARE unequivocal about this matter because I've seen them.
Just because they were not presented on that particular website does not mean they don't exist.

I will find them just as soon as I have adequate free time, so please adopt a wait-and-see attitude; you'll be glad you did.

As far as "not liking Israel", I used to be one of the people who supported Israel very stoutly and I still do donate to an orphanage there and a feeding program. But no, I do not appreciate the actions of the regime in Israel and because of the obvious atheism, indifferentism, or agnosticism of most of the leaders I am not inclined to support the religious justification.

More on this soon,
Lilly

palerider

03-09-2007, 03:41 PM

I have not read the whole Bible and in answer to your question, no I'm not a Scripture scholar.

And yet, you are willing to withdraw your support of Israel based on some passages that may or may not even exist in the Torah and if they do, then they may or may not have been taken completely out of context.

However,
I do know that there are several passages which ARE unequivocal about this matter because I've seen them.
Just because they were not presented on that particular website does not mean they don't exist.

I continue to wait..........

As far as "not liking Israel", I used to be one of the people who supported Israel very stoutly and I still do donate to an orphanage there and a feeding program. But no, I do not appreciate the actions of the regime in Israel and because of the obvious atheism, indifferentism, or agnosticism of most of the leaders I am not inclined to support the religious justification.

You don't appreciate the fact that they must either defend themselves or submit to the billion arabs that surround them and wish them dead to the last child? Exactly what would you have them do?

inbadfaith

03-10-2007, 07:46 PM

Dear palerider,

I am curious as to why you feel the need to resort to ad hominem attacks. You could perhaps begin with a more substantial defence, ie. the human rights violations being a side effect in providing security for vulnerable Israeli civilians. That would be a good start.

Clearly, Lilly Marlene and palerider miss WANT_FREE's objective in his post; to shed light on the human rights violations within the OPT….. not to incite interpretation of religious texts, as I am sure they are not theologians.

Of course I understand that religion is variable when we discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but surely this discussion has gone astray... Stick to the facts and the reports, as I am sure we have all heard the curt replies once too many times.

Call everyone you want an anti-Semite (which apparently, for palerider, seems to include the UN, simply on the basis of its criticism of the state of Israel), but human rights violations still remain human rights violations, no matter how eloquently you reinterpret them.

If one were to call for the destruction of the state of Israel, yeah, that is anti Semitic. But it seems that now, a mere criticism of the Israeli state makes a person an anti-Semite.

The argument is utterly incoherent and evades the issue. , If that is the only comeback it has, I don’t think it makes Israel look very good.

palerider

03-11-2007, 05:22 AM

I am curious as to why you feel the need to resort to ad hominem attacks. You could perhaps begin with a more substantial defence, ie. the human rights violations being a side effect in providing security for vulnerable Israeli civilians. That would be a good start.

Kindly point out any ad homenim attack I have made.

Clearly, Lilly Marlene and palerider miss WANT_FREE's objective in his post; to shed light on the human rights violations within the OPT….. not to incite interpretation of religious texts, as I am sure they are not theologians.

The original post in this thread is little more than anti semitic bloviation. And even a cursory reading of the post will reveal that I was not the one who brought the interpretation of religious texts into this discussion. The religious texts, however, are far more interesting thant the anti semitic rant that began the thread in the first place.

The fact is, as I pointed out initially, that arabs living within Israel, have far more human rights than they would have if living in their own respective countries.

course I understand that religion is variable when we discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but surely this discussion has gone astray... Stick to the facts and the reports, as I am sure we have all heard the curt replies once too many times.

Conversation tends to wander. If you don't like the direction this one has taken, you are free to start a new thread and discuss with the administration the possibility of deleting any post that doesn't strictly adhere to your original premise. Personally, I am not interested in discussing, in detail, the anti semitic post that began this thread.

Call everyone you want an anti-Semite (which apparently, for palerider, seems to include the UN, simply on the basis of its criticism of the state of Israel), but human rights violations still remain human rights violations, no matter how eloquently you reinterpret them.

Of course the UN is anti semitic. Care for some of the more blatant examples of anti semitic speech on the floor of the UN?

"Is it not the Jews who are exploiting the American people and trying to debase them?"- Libyan UN Representative Ali Treiki.

"The Talmud says that if a Jew does not drink every year the blood of a non-Jewish man, he will be damned for eternity." -Saudi Arabian delegate Marouf al-Dawalibi before the 1984 UN Human Rights Commission conference on religious tolerance.A similar remark was made by the Syrian Ambassador at a 1991 meeting, who insisted Jews killed Christian children to use their blood to make matzos.

(It should be noted that no effort was made by the UN to address these statements or correct those who made them.)

On March 11, 1997, the Palestinian representative to the UN Human Rights Commission claimed the Israeli government had injected 300 Palestinian children with the HIV virus. (despite the efforts of Israel, the United States and others, this blood libel remains on the UN record.)

There are other examples:

In 1975, at the instigation of the Arab states and the Soviet Bloc, the Assembly approved Resolution 3379, which slandered Zionism by branding it a form of racism.

Bloc voting also made possible the establishment of the pro-PLO "Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People" in 1975. The panel became, in effect, part of the PLO propaganda apparatus, issuing stamps, organizing meetings, preparing films and draft resolutions in support of Palestinian "rights."

The Commission on Human Rights routinely adopts totally disproportionate resolutions concerning Israel. Of all condemnations of this agency, 26 percent refer to Israel alone, while rogue states such as Syria are never criticized.

For 52 years Israel has been the only UN member excluded from a regional group. Geographically, it belongs in the Asian Group; however, the Arab states have barred its membership. Without membership in a regional group, Israel cannot sit on the Security Council or other key UN bodies.

When I see anti semitism, I will point it out. Suggesting that simply crying anti semitism is some sort of dodge in the issue is a very poor tactic when the anti semitism is easily illustrated. Refer above. Over 25 % of the commission on human rights resolutions are against Israel. Are you going to try to defend the notion that Israel is committs over 25% of the human rights violations in the world?

If one were to call for the destruction of the state of Israel, yeah, that is anti Semitic. But it seems that now, a mere criticism of the Israeli state makes a person an anti-Semite.

Anti semitism need not be so blatant and the suggestion that loud and destructive rhetoric must be present in order for anti semitism to be present is anti semitic in itself.

inbadfaith

03-11-2007, 03:51 PM

Lilly Marlene

03-11-2007, 04:09 PM

Greetings, inbadfaith -
I see that you mentioned something I said; I only had time to scan a part of your post quickly but would like to read it later ... right now I'm just stopping in here for a minute to post some stuff for palerider.

I don't feel that palerider is calling any poster an antisemite or a racist.

Look forward to talking to you,
Lilly

Lilly Marlene

03-11-2007, 04:10 PM

inbadfaith

03-11-2007, 05:15 PM

Apologies, Lilly,

I did not call him a racist, I was using it as an example. :)

In his first post, he called the previous person an anti-Semite.

Lilly Marlene

03-12-2007, 12:01 AM

Apologies, Lilly,

I did not call him a racist, I was using it as an example. :)

Good evening inbadfaith,

I'm sorry, I didn't mean YOU were calling anyone a racist; I just meant I didn't think that palerider was calling any poster a racist or an antisemite.
Heh,
the confusion is probably owing to all of our being short one hour of sleep today !!

In his first post, he called the previous person an anti-Semite.

I think he was referring to the author John Dugard, rather than the poster who presented the material.

Even so, your point is well taken about exploring the basis for the antisemitism.
The only aspect of that on which I'd take issue is ...it is anti-Zionism rather than antisemitism.
Note:
if hostility towards the State of Israel were rooted in antisemitism, then the Neturei Karta one would be demonstrating virulent prejudice against themselves ...but what they are opposing is not Jews, but the State of Israel.
[please see the links on them which I posted for palerider].

Again I hope that is readable; I'm adversely affected by the "springing forward" so I should put myself to bed now.
Good night,
Lilly

palerider

03-13-2007, 02:28 AM

Firstly, an attempt to make one wrong right by another wrong is circular and unreasonable. It is like condemning the UN for being corrupt, and then having it defend itself by stating that the US government is more corrupt. It gets us nowhere. The issue at hand is the OPT.

First, you were the one who, in an offhand way, suggested that it was laughable in some way that I might suppose that the UN was an anti semitic organization. It clearly is not laughable as they are. Remember that you brought the UN into this discussion.

Secondly, you seem to be fighting an invisible monster... I don't think anyone on this page posted anything about hating Jews, they simply criticise the Jewish STATE. I agree with you that many nations are anti-Semitic and it is resonant in your aforementioned texts, but I don’t see your point. Are you just going to condemn any remark as anti-Semitic?

The initial post in this thread references an article by one John Dugard who is well known for a long history of anti israel and anti anti semiticl positions. There are times when one is correct in pointing out anti semitism.

Which leads me to the issue of ad hominem attacks… Rather than questioning or responding to the initial post, you seem to already have preconceived notions and prejudices against those who make criticisms. I did not read through all of your posts, but it seems unfair to disregard all that WANT_FREE has presented. If he were to be an anti-Semite, his points still remain valid.

Pardon me. I was under the impression that in the company of intelligent people, that responding to Duggard's points one by one was not really necessary. If you require that I point out how wrong he is, then I will gladly accomodate you.

I addressed the issue of occupation already. Israel came to be on the "occupied" land as a result of being attacked. They withdrew from the vast majority of the land that they gained when they were attacked already and the ones who are complaining about the small sliver that they still hold have no claim on it at all as there has never existed a palestinian nation. They are simply arabs that happen to have been on land that changed hands during a military action. Had they chose to get along with the new landlords rather than declare war on the civilian population things would have went quite differently for them.

The bulk of his argument seems to revolve around the notion of Apartheid. I genuinely didn't think that there were people here who were unaware of know how wrong mr dugard was in that characterization.

The goal of the afrikaners in instituting apartheid was to eliminate the rights of black South-Africans by stripping them of citizenship in their own country.

This being said, one can not even begin to make the argument that Israel is engaging in anything even like apartheid. Mr dugard simply says it for effect and the anti israel factions let it stand and then catcall at anyone who points out his anti semitism. The Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza never were citizens of Israel, and as a group, expressed the political wish to remain citizens of Jordan and Egypt after the land they live on was won in war. One should properly note that both Jordan and Egypt have refused to take back those areas since they signed peace-treaties with Israel. One should also note that nearly twenty percent of the population of Israel proper are Arabs, who vote, sit in the Knesset, and have access to the same services and privileges as other citizens of Israel. Those would be the arabs that opted to get along with the new landlords as opposed to blowing up women and children on busses and in markets.

Sorry, I got off on a tangent there. Apartheid was instituted by the afrikaners by geographically separating black south africans from white south africans through the institution of Bantustans, which which were intended to eventually become permanent 'homelands' for the blacks outside of South-Africa and it was hoped that these would be acknowledged by the international community. For this reason, the black population was literally moved and blacks were permanently barred from many areas.

Israel has forced no citizens to move (except for Isralies who were taken from Gaza when Israel gave it to the Palestinians) and arab citizens of Israel continue to live exactly where they have since 1948. Except, of course for the Palestinians in the territories Their area is already internationally acknowledged as being separate - which is by their stated wish. One should also note that a very large portion of the Westbank is Judenrein, (literally "clensed of jews") as it became when Jordan seized the territory in 1948 - few of the Jews who lived there before the war have returned palestinian attitudes make it a bad plan to go back.

Mr dugard then goes on to rant about colonialism which I belive is covered under my explanation of his errors with regard to apartheid. It should be noted again, however, that those poor souls that he accuses Israel of separating have separated themselves by their wishes and by their actions. His characterization is patently anti semitic as what he says is only said for effect as there is no actual truth in it.

Then calling police actions, and the actions of the palestinians war crimes is another example of saying things simply for effect and his suggestion that Israel has fired more rockets into palestinian areas than the palastenians have fired into israel is a blatant lie.

I guess while I am at it, I should also point out that mr dugard identifies jews as a race. A racist act.

Sure, you can call someone racist, but that doesn’t solve anything. I am sure the person already knows that they are indeed racist… but how about probing the cause of their racism? Why are people anti-Semitic in the first place? I am sure that you can understand WHY, even as an adamant Israel white knight.

Mr duggard has a long and well known history of anti semitism. This is just one more rant on his part that has little, if any real truth in it. He speaks for effect and depends upon his anti semitic readers to defend him.

I agree that there is racism in that part of the world. The racists, however, are not Isralies. They attack when attacked, and when intelligence indicates imenent attack. Their attacks are based on a threat, or a percieved threat and not on the race or religion of those who represent the threat. The palestinians, and all anti israel arabs is clearly racist as their objection is based on nothing more than religion (which they characterize as race).

Palerider, I am curious as to what you suggest.

Do you support the treatment of the Palestinians now? Do you agree with the building of the wall? Do you want an independent state of Palestine? How about a return to the 1967 borders? What do you think of lack of free movement, and how difficult it is to get into Palestine for outsiders?

The "palestinians" are where they are now, and living in the conditions that they are living in by their own choice. Clearly arabs are welcome in Israel as they live peacefully within the cities and are very active within the government and actually hold office.

And no. I don't support an independent palestinian state. Unless of course, the jordanians would care to give back the portion of the palestinian mandate that they occupied. Are you aware that 80% of jordan consists of land that they drove the palestinians off of?

The wall? Of course I agree with it. It has achieved its stated purpose and was only built as a last resort. Suicide bombings have decreased sharply.

And the "palestinians" are unable to move freely as a result of their own actions.

palerider

03-13-2007, 02:34 AM

palerider, here we are:

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/index.cfm

In particular, please click on two headings:

* "Scriptures" (they have the verses and the "Three Oaths" but I don't know how to cut and paste pdf)
and
* "Rabbis and Sages".

Talk to you later,
Lilly

Thanks. As I pointed out earlier, these scriptures are to be read in the context of the return of Elijah. The prophecy at the end of Malachai states that upon the return of Elijah, Israel will either be reunited, or a curse will fall upon them. The didn't recognize Elijah when he returned and were therefore cursed.

These scriptures also speak to the land that God promised them. As I pointed out earlier, the land they are promised is considerably larger than the land they presently reside on. If you don't want to support Israel, or just don't like jews, that is fine, but don't try to use these scriptures as any sort of valid reasoning. They have been deliberately misinterpreted by a very small group for reasons that they aren't prepared to speak publicly.

Lilly Marlene

03-13-2007, 01:21 PM

Thanks. As I pointed out earlier, these scriptures are to be read in the context of the return of Elijah. The prophecy at the end of Malachai states that upon the return of Elijah, Israel will either be reunited, or a curse will fall upon them. The didn't recognize Elijah when he returned and were therefore cursed.

palerider, I'm guessing that when you refer to Elijah whom they didn't recognize, you mean John the Baptist (as per Christ's identification in the NT).
Please note:
at the time of John the Baptist, Israel did not NEED to be reunited; their Diaspora ("scattering") occurred a generation or two later in 70 AD.

These scriptures also speak to the land that God promised them. As I pointed out earlier, the land they are promised is considerably larger than the land they presently reside on.

1. The Ashkenazic Jews (who began to come to the area in significant numbers in the late nineteenth century with Theodore Hertzl and eventually founded the modern State of Israel) are not the same people to whom God in the Bible promised that land. They are Europeans, whose origins are in the Caucasus areas, and who converted to Judaism in a documented historical conversion initiated by their king.

2. What if another group of people had verses in their Holy Book which featured God giving them a large portion of North America as properly theirs, say Wyoming ?
How would we like it,
if they just started coming over and relocating anyone who lived in Wyoming, and instituting their own sovereign nation ?
How would we feel about a superpower if it began underwriting that ?

3. When you allude to the fact that the area was bigger than present day Israel, am I correct in guessing that you advocate further expansion for them ? If so, how do you think that is going to be received by Muslims in the Middle East ?

I felt it was very heartening when I read yesterday that Olmert is prepared to "treat seriously" the Saudi ideas for peace.
I'll try to keep up to date on that.

I also want to read - when I have more time - the second part of what you wrote to inbadfaith because it looks interesting.

If you don't want to support Israel, or just don't like jews, that is fine, but don't try to use these scriptures as any sort of valid reasoning.

Will you kindly not fling around insinuations that people might just "not like Jews" if they object to the actions of the State of Israel !
The very existence of the Neturei Karta shows the lame reasoning involved in that suggestion.

They have been deliberately misinterpreted by a very small group for reasons that they aren't prepared to speak publicly.

As I recall, they are not permitted many chances to speak publicly when any possibility of national exposure is involved ...
You know,
It sounds as though you are saying a group of Orthodox Jews has a covert agenda and a secret reason for opposing the State of Israel.
Will you please tell me what you suppose that would be ?
And
by the way, they are not so 'very small' a group either. If you went to the "Rabbis and Sages" section, you will have seen that it's been a substantial number throughout the last one hundred plus years who have spoken their opposition. Note that many held the title "Chief Rabbi" in European cities like Paris and Cologne.

Talk to you all later ...have a nice afternoon,
Lilly

palerider

03-13-2007, 03:36 PM

palerider, I'm guessing that when you refer to Elijah whom they didn't recognize, you mean John the Baptist (as per Christ's identification in the NT).
Please note:
at the time of John the Baptist, Israel did not NEED to be reunited; their Diaspora ("scattering") occurred a generation or two later in 70 AD.

And exactly what is a generation in time to God?

1. The Ashkenazic Jews (who began to come to the area in significant numbers in the late nineteenth century with Theodore Hertzl and eventually founded the modern State of Israel) are not the same people to whom God in the Bible promised that land. They are Europeans, whose origins are in the Caucasus areas, and who converted to Judaism in a documented historical conversion initiated by their king.

I wasn't aware that God had said that only "these" jews are his chosen people but not "those" jews. Maybe I missed something?

2. What if another group of people had verses in their Holy Book which featured God giving them a large portion of North America as properly theirs, say Wyoming ?
How would we like it,

Personally, I wouldn't argue. Historically speaking, anyone who goes after Israel tends to end up on God's s*it list and in turn gets the crap kicked out of them.

if they just started coming over and relocating anyone who lived in Wyoming, and instituting their own sovereign nation ?

There has never been a nation of palestine, if that is what you are referring to. Prior to the establishment of the state of israel, there were never any people who even identified themselves as palestinians. And the only people that Israel has relocated have been the Isralies who were forcibly removed (when necessary) from Gaza.

3. When you allude to the fact that the area was bigger than present day Israel, am I correct in guessing that you advocate further expansion for them ? If so, how do you think that is going to be received by Muslims in the Middle East ?

Here is a map of the area with the land God has promised them colored yellow. If God himself gives it to them, I doubt that it matters how the muslims recieve it. They should probably count themselves lucky if they aren't killed to the last woman and child as happened so often in biblical times when God gave lands to his people.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/stories4u/Greater_Israels.jpg

Will you kindly not fling around insinuations that people might just "not like Jews" if they object to the actions of the State of Israel !
The very existence of the Neturei Karta shows the lame reasoning involved in that suggestion.

Perhaps if people began their complaints with an acknowledgement that Israel did not "start" this and in largest part reacts to violence against them perhaps it would not appear that they simply have an axe to grind with Israel. There are others who are far more guilty in the situation there than Israel.

It sounds as though you are saying a group of Orthodox Jews has a covert agenda and a secret reason for opposing the State of Israel.

Are small groups of Orthodox Jews immune to covert agendas?

Will you please tell me what you suppose that would be ?

I am not an orthodox jew and therefore not privy to any agenda they have covert or otherwise.

And by the way, they are not so 'very small' a group either. If you went to the "Rabbis and Sages" section, you will have seen that it's been a substantial number throughout the last one hundred plus years who have spoken their opposition. Note that many held the title "Chief Rabbi" in European cities like Paris and Cologne.

They are a small group. So small that they have never had even the smallest chance of gaining political power via election even in areas in which their numbers are greatest.

Lilly Marlene

03-14-2007, 02:15 PM

And exactly what is a generation in time to God?

Alright, but the disparity is not just about generations; it is also that the verses at issue describe a scenario where they are already "scattered" .

I wasn't aware that God had said that only "these" jews are his chosen people but not "those" jews. Maybe I missed something?

Alright, then let's think about that for a moment. As we hear repeatedly, being Jewish is not a racial thing. Thus, anyone who converts to Judaism as a religion would be entitled to a place in Israel, according to the reasoning you seem to embrace.

How large an area would you need to accommodate everyone on the globe who is Jewish in that sense, if they should choose to go there ?

In fact, if I am not mistaken (and I might be) ...there is a tribe of Africans who self identify as one of the Lost Tribes of Israel, as well.

I am going to guess that you are not concerned with how large an area would be needed -
but just think about the implications of that !
In other words, expansion into as much land as it would take ...at the expense of other people.

Personally, I wouldn't argue. Historically speaking, anyone who goes after Israel tends to end up on God's s*it list and in turn gets the crap kicked out of them.

But my question was not about Israel. I was asking you, how would we like it if ANOTHER people's holy book featured their God giving them OUR land.

There has never been a nation of palestine, if that is what you are referring to. Prior to the establishment of the state of israel, there were never any people who even identified themselves as palestinians. And the only people that Israel has relocated have been the Isralies who were forcibly removed (when necessary) from Gaza.

1. There might not have been people who called themselves Palestinians, but there was a land called Palestine (see the Balfour Declaration).

2. And there were people in it. How can you assert that they were not relocated ...given that Israel has refused them "the right of return" ?
Why would they be seeking a "right of return" had they not been there in the first place ?

Palerider, I have read some of the writings of David Horowitz on this topic - in fact I read some of his book titled "Unholy Alliance" ...I like to look at both sides of a story whenever possible.

He says similar things to what you've written. I don't think he is willfully misrepresenting, but I think he is mistaken and I'll give you one reason why I think that.

After saying that no one was relocated, and that no one had any use for that land anyway except to pass through it on nomadic journeys ...he then mentions a little later in his book "the thousands who seek to return".

Why on earth do you think they are boiling mad - enough to sacrifice their lives and the lives of their children ? Do you suppose people could mobilize themselves to that degree, simply from the desire to take land that had not really ever been their home ?
Or,
do you suppose that is all from hatred of Jews because of religious differences ?

Here is a map of the area with the land God has promised them colored yellow. If God himself gives it to them, I doubt that it matters how the muslims recieve it. They should probably count themselves lucky if they aren't killed to the last woman and child as happened so often in biblical times when God gave lands to his people.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/stories4u/Greater_Israels.jpg

Thank you, that is instructive.

Now suppose that - in the Koran - Allah gave Arabs an identical percentage of land in the United States.
Substitute point for point the course of those who founded Israel ...coming here to our country and doing the exact same things.
I am sure you're going to object that we have a nation here so it would be different.
But the people who were in Palestine lived there too so it's NOT essentially different.
In fact,
It's a lot like what our ancestors did to the American Indians.
We were bastards to them; this was their home even if it was not a formally announced country.

We can't undo that now, but we can at least not support a similar injustice in the Middle East.

Honestly,
if it's true that God wants the Jewish People to have all of that land (because it's in the Bible), then the verses must also be true (also in the Bible) which say that God [I]Himself will establish them on it and that they are not to use force.

Perhaps if people began their complaints with an acknowledgement that Israel did not "start" this and in largest part reacts to violence against them perhaps it would not appear that they simply have an axe to grind with Israel. There are others who are far more guilty in the situation there than Israel.

I think the founders of the State of Israel did start this ...but it's all spilt milk now just like our "Manifest Destiny" which did such harm to the Indians.
And IMO it's time to just do what's the least harmful for everybody involved.

According to the Bible, God loves everyone, even the Palestinians ...so the land should be divided fairly. And if the Likuddists think God wants them to have the whole thing, they should wait on God to give it to them, as He told them to.

palerider

03-14-2007, 03:43 PM

Alright, but the disparity is not just about generations; it is also that the verses at issue describe a scenario where they are already "scattered" .

The verses refer to prophecy. Propheycy necessarily speaks to things that are yet to happen. That aside, the verses you pointed me to must be read in the context of the return of Elijah. Since Elijah already returned, they are meaningless. If you believe the bible, the next time we see Elijah, he will be accompanied by Moses and they will be preaching against the antichrist. If you don't believe the bible, then using scripture to defend your position is disingenuous.

Alright, then let's think about that for a moment. As we hear repeatedly, being Jewish is not a racial thing. Thus, anyone who converts to Judaism as a religion would be entitled to a place in Israel, according to the reasoning you seem to embrace.

How large an area would you need to accommodate everyone on the globe who is Jewish in that sense, if they should choose to go there ?

In fact, if I am not mistaken (and I might be) ...there is a tribe of Africans who self identify as one of the Lost Tribes of Israel, as well.

The indicated land on the map I provided should just about do it.

But my question was not about Israel. I was asking you, how would we like it if ANOTHER people's holy book featured their God giving them OUR land.

That would depend entirely on which book it was coming from and the history of what happens if a nation actively engages them in war. Besides, Israel has an historical claim on that land that goes back literally thousands of years.

1. There might not have been people who called themselves Palestinians, but there was a land called Palestine (see the Balfour Declaration).

There never was a palestine, and there never were palestinians. In the Six-Day War, Israel captured Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem. But they didn't capture these territories from Yasser Arafat. They captured them from Jordan's King Hussein. Do you ever wonder why all these "palestinians" suddenly discovered their national identity after Israel won the war?

The first time the name palestine was used was in 70 A.D. when the Romans committed genocide against the Jews, smashed the Temple and declared the land of Israel would cease to exist. From that time, the Romans declared that it would be known as Palestine. The name was derived from the Philistines, a Goliathian people that the jews conquered hundreds of years before. It was a way for the Romans to add insult to injury. They also tried to change the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina, but that had even less staying power. The land was never known as palestine by the native people. The only historical references to it being known as palestine are to be found in Roman history.

There is no language known as palestinian. There is no distinct palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as palestine governed by palestinians. Palestinians are arabs, indistinguishable from lordanians (another recent invention), syrians, lebanese, iraqis, etc.

2. And there were people in it. How can you assert that they were not relocated ...given that Israel has refused them "the right of return" ? Why would they be seeking a "right of return" had they not been there in the first place ?

No one lived there permanantly and no one was displaced. The UN defines a palestinian refugee as one whose normal place of residence was the land that came to be known as palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict. Since the land was only occupied occasionally by nomadic people, no one is actually a palestinian.

Between 1946 and 1958 there were about 120,000 people living in the area that is now all of israel and jordan. You do the math. Today, there are approximately 5 million "palestinians" claiming the right to return. Since there were only 120,000 living in the area that is now Israel and jordan, explain to me where all of these "palestinians" came from.

Only about 120,000 Arabs resided in an area that covered the territories, the state of Israel and Jordan.Why on earth do you think they are boiling mad - enough to sacrifice their lives and the lives of their children ? Do you suppose people could mobilize themselves to that degree, simply from the desire to take land that had not really ever been their home ?[/quote]

They are boiling mad because jews live there. They didn't have any problem at all with the king of jordan kicking them off of 80% of the land that was given to them in the palestinian mandate.

Now suppose that - in the Koran - Allah gave Arabs an identical percentage of land in the United States.
Substitute point for point the course of those who founded Israel ...coming here to our country and doing the exact same things.

No comparison since there never was a country called palestine and never had been a palestinian language, or a palestinian government. Besides, islam has a long history of being an agressor and attacking other nations to claim their land and subdue the people who lived there. What do you think started the crusades?

Honestly,
if it's true that God wants the Jewish People to have all of that land (because it's in the Bible), then the verses must also be true (also in the Bible) which say that God [I]Himself will establish them on it and that they are not to use force.

No argument there. When God gathers up the entire nation of israel, the state of Israel won't be large enough so at that time, the remainder of the promised land will be handed over to them.

According to the Bible, God loves everyone, even the Palestinians ...so the land should be divided fairly. And if the Likuddists think God wants them to have the whole thing, they should wait on God to give it to them, as He told them to.

I don't see Israel going after the entire block of real estate that God promised them. And if you have read the bible, you will see that God doesn't love everyone. Far from it. Ordering entire peoples killed to the last child and the livestock too is hardly the definition of love.

adinas

03-15-2007, 03:57 AM

He also accuses Israel of carrying out illegal, colonial practises, saying...

The only problem with colonialism is that it ENDED TO EARLY. Maybe if it lasted a couple of centuries more, the Arabs would have been civilized instead of murdering each other left and right and trying to figure out how to nuke the rest of us.

Lilly Marlene

03-15-2007, 02:14 PM

Well, I was almost finished with my reply (on which I had spent at least a half hour), then I hit some wrong key and the whole thing disappeared.

I'm now disgusted, and it's infernally hot here right now, so I guess I'll take that as a sign and just come back to this one later.
Regrettably, you're probably going to view the mishap as just one more item in the catalog of Divine indications of favor towards the State of Israel.
:)

Lilly Marlene

03-16-2007, 01:29 PM

New day; let's try this again !

The verses refer to prophecy. Propheycy necessarily speaks to things that are yet to happen. That aside, the verses you pointed me to must be read in the context of the return of Elijah. Since Elijah already returned, they are meaningless.

palerider, Jews don't necessarily agree that Elijah 'already returned'. Surely you can see how that changes things.
It is the beliefs of the Jews with which we are dealing here.

If you believe the bible, the next time we see Elijah, he will be accompanied by Moses and they will be preaching against the antichrist. If you don't believe the bible, then using scripture to defend your position is disingenuous.

THANK YOU.
This was my entire point if you recall: that it is disingenuous for those who founded the State of Israel to do so on the basis of Jewish scripture, because they don't believe the Bible. They are generally atheists (check that for yourself if you don't believe me) or at best some of them are agnostics.

Whether or not I myself believe the Bible has little to do with it, because I am not the one trying to justify the seizure of land based on it. Instead, I mentioned it strictly to tell you that the interpretation used by Netanyahu - and others like him - is bitterly contested by OTHER JEWS so it can scarcely be characterized as "anti-Semitic".

Generally I can say I don't believe some parts of the Bible
because if I did I would have to help people stone their children if those children talked to them insolently, I would have to stone gay people who acted out their desires, and so forth.

Additionally, as I'm sure you know, my religion (Catholic) does kind of ignore some parts of the Bible also; for example it is really not very 'millenial' and as a child in Catholic school I know we never even touched the book of Revelations except for the allusion in it to Mary (woman crowned with the sun and stars).

I am going to send this now before continuing just to make sure the same thing doesn't happen to me today as what did yesterday.

Lilly Marlene

03-16-2007, 02:02 PM

[continuing]

That would depend entirely on which book it was coming from and the history of what happens if a nation actively engages them in war. Besides, Israel has an historical claim on that land that goes back literally thousands of years.

Yes, the same claim as some of my ancestors have to the area which today is France.
The fact is that very few nations are now composed of the descendants of those who first stood on two legs in them.
Not to mention,
that does not describe the population of people who inhabited Israel at the time of the dispersion in 70 AD.
IF
we were to follow your reasoning about historical claims, then you and I should pack up our gear and get out of here because the area of these United States belongs clearly to the American Indians.

There never was a palestine, and there never were palestinians...

.................................................. ..................

The history is interesting.
Yesterday I went almost point for point but what will it yield me:
While some of it is consensus, other aspects of what you contend is strenuously disputed by Arabs, who were just as physically present as the Zionist sources were.

In any case,
what you have written boils down to a single idea. You seem to be saying that because Arabs organized themselves differently and did not use the paradigm we are accustomed to (formally declared nation, separate language, and so forth) ...that because of that, they don't have any claim to the land.

You must see the parallel there with the American Indians !

If you had it to do differently than our European ancestors did, would you not deal differently with American Indians ?

Please do some soul searching before answering. I'm sure you know some Indians or at least someone who is part Indian. You can reject all the Hollywood stuff and read even the most conservative sources and I will bet you still find it to be unjust.

Between 1946 and 1958 there were about 120,000 people living in the area that is now all of israel and jordan. You do the math. Today, there are approximately 5 million "palestinians" claiming the right to return. Since there were only 120,000 living in the area that is now Israel and jordan, explain to me where all of these "palestinians" came from.

May I see citations for your numbers ?
I'm sure that reproduction and 20th century medical advances (reduced child mortality, longer life span) accounts for some of the increase, but I agree with you that that does seem
to be a stretch.

They are boiling mad because jews live there. They didn't have any problem at all with the king of jordan kicking them off of 80% of the land that was given to them in the palestinian mandate.

1. Arabs and Jews lived together in these lands for centuries without rancor before the establishment of the State.
2. What do you mean, 'the palestinian mandate' ?

No comparison since there never was a country called palestine and never had been a palestinian language, or a palestinian government. Besides, islam has a long history of being an agressor and attacking other nations to claim their land and subdue the people who lived there. What do you think started the crusades?

We are enjoying that discussion on the other thread
:)

Now look at these last two paragraphs you wrote:

No argument there. When God gathers up the entire nation of israel, the state of Israel won't be large enough so at that time, the remainder of the promised land will be handed over to them.

I don't see Israel going after the entire block of real estate that God promised them. And if you have read the bible, you will see that God doesn't love everyone. Far from it. Ordering entire peoples killed to the last child and the livestock too is hardly the definition of love.

I guess you already know that your position - at least on this topic - is derived at least in part from your religious ideas.
Where do I begin to address those last two paragraphs ?
They describe God as being even more partial to Jews than the Muslims portray Him being partial to Muslims !

In any case, at this point we are not debating politics; we are debating religion.

And I do recoil from arguing with people about their faith.

In the first place it's completely useless ; in the second it only leads to antagonism which will create a predicament where we will stop communicating at all.

I'll just say this: not everyone shares these beliefs, so I don't think we can formulate policy on them.

Lilly Marlene

03-17-2007, 12:37 AM

Here is something I hope you will watch palerider: it is not sensationalized in any way at all.
In fact,
it is done by an Israeli. Below the link I am posting a description which I *think* is by the poster (whose name I would frankly rather not write for reasons you'll see).

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7076559682845192036

Extended Description

This is a film that simply provides a “fly on the wall” account of various checkpoints on the Palestine-Israel border. Miles from anywhere, people travel frequently, walking long distances, to go to hospitals or to work. The Israeli guards like to ’show them’ and routinely harass them by making them stand in the blazing sun, driving rain, or deep snow for many hours (eg up to ten hours) before returning their papers and often sending them home. They are polite, but admit to the cameras that this is how they deal with people - force them to stand in the rain.

It could almost be a laid back Palestinian expose of what is happening at the checkpoints except - and here is the double-whammy - it is made by an Israeli, with Israeli funding - and it has been snapped up and promoted by the Israelis in cinemas but also the Palestinians - what is perhaps even more shocking (according to the director Yoav Shamir at the Edinburgh International Film Festival) it is now being used by the Israeli forces as training material for their guards.

I also like the style of it, no commentary, just “fly on the wall”-filming (minus the single comment made by the cameraman to a soldier) - In my opinion that is real documentary. You get to see what is going on and is allowed to develop your own interpretation

palerider

03-17-2007, 03:43 AM

[QUOTE=Lilly Marlene;2112]Here is something I hope you will watch palerider: it is not sensationalized in any way at all.
In fact,
it is done by an Israeli. Below the link I am posting a description which I *think* is by the poster (whose name I would frankly rather not write for reasons you'll see).

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7076559682845192036

Interesting Lilly. Have you ever been to that part of the world? If you had, would you find it interesting to see a "palestinian" peasant speaking english to an Israeli guard at a checkpoint?

The major complaint seems to be that they are forced to wait in order to go where they want to go and are inconvenienced greatly. We had one serious instance of terrorism here involving airplanes and overnight, we found ourselves waiting for 3, 4, 5, or more hours to board a plane. Luckily, we have comfortable airports in which to wait, but if we didn't, we would have been waiting for hours in whatever weather we happened to be in. And that was from just one incident of terrorism involving planes.

Suppose, we regularly had people walking up to the service counters in the airports sporting suicide bombs with the intention of killing as many as possible. How many incidences of that do you think it would take before you were no longer waiting inside the airport but outside, for how many more hours before you even got into the terminal building?

Keeping a suicide bomber waiting is a psychological tactic. When you keep them waiting, there is a greater potential for them to exhibit behavior that might identify their motives. Police in this country play the same game with suspects. Keep them waiting and see if they give themselves away. In the case of the "palestinians" and the history they have created for themselves, they are all suspects.

This situation, as bad as it is, is one of their own making and I am afraid that I can't work up much pity for them. We wait for hours now as the result of 1 incident, ask yourself what it would be like if there had been literally thousands of incidents.

Lilly Marlene

03-17-2007, 02:17 PM

Interesting Lilly. Have you ever been to that part of the world? If you had, would you find it interesting to see a "palestinian" peasant speaking english to an Israeli guard at a checkpoint?

So you would dismiss the footage - because a few times they spoke in broken English ?
Palerider,
English is spoken all over the globe. It is not in the least surprising that it would be one common language
in which these Israelis and Palestinians might grope about, in the effort to convey ideas to one another.

The major complaint seems to be that they are forced to wait in order to go where they want to go and are inconvenienced greatly. We had one serious instance of terrorism here involving airplanes and overnight, we found ourselves waiting for 3, 4, 5, or more hours to board a plane...

.............................................

This situation, as bad as it is, is one of their own making and I am afraid that I can't work up much pity for them. We wait for hours now as the result of 1 incident, ask yourself what it would be like if there had been literally thousands of incidents.

I can understand your point of view and the argument you advance here is effective.
However,
it ignores a vital difference between the 911 attacks here and the suicide bombings that torment Israelis (and please understand that I don't endorse either).

palerider

03-17-2007, 04:22 PM

I can understand your point of view and the argument you advance here is effective.
However,
it ignores a vital difference between the 911 attacks here and the suicide bombings that torment Israelis (and please understand that I don't endorse either).

The long history of suicide bombings is far worse than the 9/11 attacks on us. Imagine what it would be like here if we knew that someone was going to blow up somone else two or three times per week for years upon years.

Lilly Marlene

03-17-2007, 05:17 PM

The long history of suicide bombings is far worse than the 9/11 attacks on us. Imagine what it would be like here if we knew that someone was going to blow up somone else two or three times per week for years upon years.

Yes, I know that I could not live that way, with the rocket situation.
But even so, it is comparing apples with little red hens.

palerider

03-18-2007, 08:20 AM

Yes, I know that I could not live that way, with the rocket situation.
But even so, it is comparing apples with little red hens.

So you don't think that Israel should take whatever measures are necessary to try and protect the people in the face of near daily bombings for decade upon decade?

Lilly Marlene

03-19-2007, 01:44 PM

So you don't think that Israel should take whatever measures are necessary to try and protect the people in the face of near daily bombings for decade upon decade?

Oh I definitely have an opinion on that for you. I will tell it to you AFTER you answer the question I asked of you, several days ago in post #31 of this very thread, about the American Indians - and also the source for the numbers you cited ( which I also requested in post #31).

[A couple of days later]

I see that you won't answer my questions. How about answering just the first question and I'll withdraw my request for documentation of your numbers ?

Smila

03-22-2007, 06:25 AM

Lilly Marlene

03-22-2007, 01:55 PM

I am new here and this is my first post. But after reading through this thread it seems that Lilly is upset that a Jewish state exists and questions the need, rationale, history and bibilical references for it. So, I would like to pose a pretty direct question to Lilly.

Welcome to the board, Smila.
Please show me anything I've written that questions the need, rationale, history, or biblical references for the State of Israel.
I have not questioned any of those things at all; in fact I have amplified on them.

If I am upset over anything, it would be over the same issues discussed by the first poster and by inbadfaith. My bringing up the Neturei Karta's opposition to the State of Israel was not necessarily an agreement with the stance they take; it was to demonstrate that opposition to the present state of Israel is not anti-semitic as one person was contending.

What do you think should happen to the state of Israel? Do you think that all Israeli Jews should leave and return to Europe? What is your proposed solution?

I would be happy to answer your question, but I have already told my opponent that I will do so *after* he answers what I asked him six days ago.

You can write to me in private if you like and I'll tell you my position.

I can tell you this much: it does not involve forcing anyone to leave and go back to Europe.
Please recall the prior post in this thread in which I commented that some things are spilt milk and the best idea is to do what is least harmful now for the greatest number of both the Jews and the Arabs in that area.

Smila

03-23-2007, 06:04 AM

Lilly - you have spent an enormous amount of time in this thread arguing against Israel as a homeland for Jewish people. You can go back and read your arguments for yourself. I have no desire to point them out to you. In fact, you have used every trick in the book - even going as far to say that Ashkanizi Jews have no right of return to their homeland. And yet you plow ahead seemingly oblivious to how offensive that might be to Jewish people - of any type. I don't know if you are anti-semitic or not but I do find most of your remarks remarkably insensitive to the Jewish faith and oftentimes woefully inaccurate. Do you realize that you are utilizing the same arguments put forth by the American Nazi party? Yes. They disquise their raging anti-semitism in the same arguments you have espoused here. I have no idea what your political affiliation is but I will tell you that the extreme left has met the extreme right on the internet political spectrum over this one issue. You both share the same ridiculous arguments and argue the same inaccurate history.

I must also tell you that your reference to the history of my homeland as "split milk" is mind-boggling in its ignorance. Have you no idea how offensive that is?

Feh - this argument of yours is nothing new. Its all over the net. From the left, from the right. I am sick of it. No one - not even you - wishes to engage in conversations about solving problems. All I have seen out there is vitriolic attacks against Israel for being what it is - a zionist homeland to Jews. Being a zionist is being a Jew. Its part of the faith. Get it?

I will give you credit though for couching your anti-Israel sentiments in such a civil tone. You almost make anti-semitism look scholarly.

I have no desire to continue this conversation with you privately or publically. I just wanted to make my point and leave.

Smila

03-23-2007, 06:33 AM

Zionists or Nazis? - Welcome to the new Anti-Semitism

The comparison between Zionists, Israelis or Jews and Nazis is made by three distinct groups and for two very different purposes. In all cases the analogy is little to do with facts and instead tries to paint Zionists, Jews or Israel as the personification of evil.

This vilification in the form of comparison with Nazism or otherwise is either the result of underlying antisemitism or is simply making use of antisemitic tendencies in society to achieve support for some other objective, often political. The propoganda of the Arab States is an obvious example of hate for political ends. Though there is underlying antisemitism in this case as well, the primary benefit of creating a hatered of Zionism / Jews / Israel is to deflect critisism at home. Like wise in Nazi Germany the Jews were blamed for the loss of the first world war by Nazi Germany, and for every other problem the Nazi propogandists could think of.

In a similar fashion Jews today are in some minority corners of the web being blamed for both 9/11 and for the War in Iraq. This general antisemitic trend of blaming the Jews is one reason some (not realising the significance) try to blame Jews for the greatest two historic evils they can think of: Nazism and South African apartheid. While some blame Jews / Israel for these things, others use the Palestinians as their pawn and instead say Israel is LIKE apartheid South Africa and that Zionism is LIKE Nazism.

For the far right, the goals of the comparison with Nazism in particular is often aiming to reduce the horror of Nazism as much as it is to vilify the Jews. As long as the Nazi Holocaust is a crime so abhorent that it is not up for "debate", neo-Nazis will find it hard to recuit and impossible to gain power and make a new Nazi state.

More alarming is when other minority groups like the British Muslim community (equaly disliked by the Neo-Nazis) fall into using the same Neo-Nazi arguments. An example is the boycott of Holocaust Memorial Day by the Muslim Council of Britain. The real reason behind it is to try reduce the "victim status" of the Jewish community so that attacks on them (or on Israel) are tolerated more by society at large. The same logic has been used by Muslim groups who insteado f supporting Jews when complaints are made about antisemitic acts instead try and undermine the complaints and insist that "they have it worse". When the conversation is not abstract but about a particular case the community is working to resolve these attitudes are abhorent and counter productive for all anti-racism campaigners.

The last group that needs to be mentioned is the British left. While clearly against Nazism, neo-nazism and the far right in general, antisemitism on the left is often not acknowledged and is seen as an acceptable form of racism. To arrive at this point the left often borrow from arguments of the NEo-Nazi right, or borrow from the Muslim anti-Israel lobby who in term borrow from the Arab states propoganda which is itself often based on neo-Nazi is not actual Nazi propoganda.

It is our observation that the rise in antisemitic attacks in recent years (2005 and 2006) combined with the high profile academic boycotts tagretting Israel raised the problem of left wing antisemitism in the mind of the public. In a retiring speech at NUS conference 2006 a non Jewish member of the NUS executive explaimed that in fighting racism we must not forget about antisemitism and we as a society must face up to the fact that Antisemitism is NOT a lesser form of racism. That it needed saying is a sad reflection on the situation, that it was said shows people are beginning to tackle the problem.

Another positive sign is the work on antisemitism within European Community. The EU definition of antisemitism explicitly lables as antisemitism "drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis". This is a definition of antisemitism that is now in use by law enforcement across europe. This makes the use of the analogy a hate crime. The inclusion of this point shows the huge gap between reality and propoganda as well as an acknolwedgement of the danger posed by those pushing this Israel = Nazism (or Zionism = Nazism) analogy.

As mentioned some try a far more direct approach, to blame Zionists or Jews for the Holocaust or the rise of Nazism. While there were some meetings early on in an attempt to transfer Jews our of Germany (and save their lives) some have tried to use the historical fact of communication between Nazi officials and Jews outside Germany as "proof" that the Jews and Nazis were in active collaboration. The sickness of this attempt to rewrite history is almost beyond words. Yes, Jews did work with the Nazis in order to try save peoples lives. The Nazi ghettos were run by Jewish committees and even in the death camps the Nazis used Jews as police and to sort the belongings of those they had gassed. Why did the Jews cooperate? The choice was to cooperate and try make things a little better, or not to cooperate and to be killed. We are not in a position to judge their decisions. What we do know is that despite attempts by the Zionism movement to rescue Jews, negotiations in the end broke down. The Zionist organisations worked with the British against Germany and th stories of their acts (often in the Special Operations Executive) are legendary, e.g. Hannah Senesh. This is the real history of Zionism against Nazism

Source - Zionismontheweb.com

Lilly Marlene

03-23-2007, 01:27 PM

Lilly - you have spent an enormous amount of time in this thread arguing against Israel as a homeland for Jewish people. You can go back and read your arguments for yourself. I have no desire to point them out to you.

Well, I'm afraid you'll have to point them out if you want to claim that I've made them, Smila. The thread is not very long - it should be easy.

The only thing I've said that could possibly be mistaken for what you suppose ...is when I reminded another poster that the first choice of Theodore Hertzl for the Jewish homeland was a place in Africa. That is true and you can fact check it for yourself. It hardly equates to "arguing against Israel as a homeland for Jewish people". But it does show the arbitrariness of the geographic selection, at least in the mind of the founders of the State.

There is something very wrong in a situation where a person cannot state what is true in a matter of public discourse.

In fact, you have used every trick in the book - even going as far to say that Ashkanizi Jews have no right of return to their homeland.

Where exactly did I say that please ? And what other "tricks" have I used? You should be able to show me both those things if they are true.

And yet you plow ahead seemingly oblivious to how offensive that might be to Jewish people - of any type. I don't know if you are anti-semitic or not but I do find most of your remarks remarkably insensitive to the Jewish faith and oftentimes woefully inaccurate.

I have had several very close Jewish friends since my teenage years, and right at this moment we are buying land thanks solely to a huge bonus my husband received from a Jewish client.
To suggest that I or anyone else is "antisemitic" if they don't march in lockstep with AIPAC and JINSA, is merely to show me that you don't know how to distinguish "anti-semitic" from "anti-Zionist".

Now ...you just told me I had made some remarks which are "woefully inaccurate".
Would it be asking too much for you to point out the supposed inaccuracies ?
After all,
If I am saying something that is inaccurate - as you claim - then this forum is your chance to make the correction for any readers to see, so I find it instructive that you haven't done so.

Do you realize that you are utilizing the same arguments put forth by the American Nazi party? Yes. They disquise their raging anti-semitism in the same arguments you have espoused here. I have no idea what your political affiliation is but I will tell you that the extreme left has met the extreme right on the internet political spectrum over this one issue. You both share the same ridiculous arguments and argue the same inaccurate history.

Once again, you have still not told me what the "inaccuracies" are.
I don't care which people on the left or right agree or disagree with me.
The quest is for what is true.
If you are going to keep saying that I'm writing something that is incorrect, then you should also tell me what that is and where I went wrong in my assessment.

I must also tell you that your reference to the history of my homeland as "split milk" is mind-boggling in its ignorance. Have you no idea how offensive that is?

Actually I said "spilt milk" and I was characterizing some specific aspects of the history. And no, I don't. I don't know how offensive it is and I surely don't know how it could be called "ignorant". Just what am I supposedly "ignoring" ?

Would you like to put me in prison for discussing such an offensive subject ... the way they do now in Germany and a few other countries ?

Feh - this argument of yours is nothing new. Its all over the net. From the left, from the right. I am sick of it. No one - not even you - wishes to engage in conversations about solving problems. All I have seen out there is vitriolic attacks against Israel for being what it is - a zionist homeland to Jews. Being a zionist is being a Jew. Its part of the faith. Get it?

Your statement is patently incorrect; in fact, that is the very reason I injected the Neturei Karta into this discussion in the first place.
The Neturei Karta are pious Jews.
And they vociferously oppose the State of Israel as it is currently installed.
That is why they as a group are muffled, hobbled and persecuted.
Maybe you are the one who needs to "get it".

In addition to that, I told you I would be happy to talk about how to solve the problem. I told you I would do so in private because at this point - on this thread - I am still in the midst of a discussion with someone else and have told him I would move to that *after* he answered a question I posed to him a week ago.
And?
You told me at the end of your post that you did not want to continue this conversation in public or private [see my last quote from you at the end of this post]. But in an adjacent paragraph you accuse ME of being the one who "does not wish to engage in conversations about solving problems".

As I said, I'm ready anytime.
Your projections are very transparent.

I will give you credit though for couching your anti-Israel sentiments in such a civil tone. You almost make anti-semitism look scholarly.

The civil tone should tell you plainly that I do not have personal rancor involved in this issue. What I try to do is to see it as a person uninvolved in the polemics from either side.

I have no desire to continue this conversation with you privately or publically. I just wanted to make my point and leave.

Well, the only point you've made so far is that my position offends you.
There are a lot of things which offend me too.
I am sorry you do not feel up to a free and open discourse about this, but the days are over when people are going to be intimidated into silence by the threat of being labeled "anti semitic".

Also, thanks for the article from the Zionists, but I have never compared the Israelis to Nazis so I have no idea what you are hoping to achieve with that.

Friendindeed

03-24-2007, 04:29 PM

Nazi Hitler Nazi Nazi. All in your posts Smila and nobody elses.
Are you familiar with "Godwin's Law" ?
Because you have just proved it.

You should take a tip from palerider if you want to defend the state of Israel, argue the points in an honest way instead of hit-n-runs & mudslinging.

valgal

03-26-2007, 04:06 PM

am I seeing really that we are debating policy based on the bible?

Lilly Marlene

03-26-2007, 11:41 PM

am I seeing really that we are debating policy based on the bible?

Actually I think palerider makes a far more convincing case basing his on religious ideas, than others make by using the Holocaust.

[And as Friendindeed noted, it goes without saying that it's far more convincing than the tactic of just stepping in to call people "antisemitic" or "Nazis".]

Why ?

Because palerider forces the question to fence sitters, and so many Americans ARE fence sitters.
That is,
In order to deal with him, one must clarify one's position and there really is no equivocating.

Whereas,

Utilizing the Holocaust as a grounds for Israel's supposed right to come in there and take over ...begs the question Aminadijad asked ( which loosely paraphrased is,
"If it's all about the crimes committed against Jews by Europeans in the Holocaust then why isn't the homeland located in Europe ?")

Now to Smila and anyone else who might want to come and jump all over my stuff, that is Amadinejad's question which I am quoting so don't try to attribute it to me.

I also want to speak to something I didn't see before, namely, look at this sentence from three posts above:

I will give you credit though for couching your anti-Israel sentiments in such a civil tone. You almost make anti-semitism look scholarly.

There is the reflexive equivalence made there between "anti-Israel" and "anti-semitism" as though they were the same thing.
Does all the material I posted about the Neturei Karta fall on blind eyes ?

Is it not just a little absurd to accuse Jews of being "anti semitic" ?
Yet that is what it amounts to, because they are strenuously opposed to the State of Israel.

valgal

03-27-2007, 07:01 AM

Lilly, I suppose for me the utilization of one's belief system as a justification for policy is not appropriate. It is a belief system it is not a proven system and is based on the subjectivity of belief not on facts. I am a bit taken a back by this approach.

If God were real and if the Bible was his word then there would not be a thing that man could do if his will was for the state of Israel, therefore the point of arguement is moot.

However to expect the world to fall into line with the interpretation of a subjective document to formulate policy of this magnitude, well it just is not sensible.

I do agree with you that logic would seem to dictate that the Jewish homeland should be in a place where the crime was comitted if that is the justification for the state of Israel.

I have no opposition to the state of Israel in its current location but I do have some grave misgivings on the continued expansion of its borders as well as the many people that have been uprooted from their family homes, had those homes either confiscated and inhabited by others or destroyed for development. For those people my heart goes to.

Lilly Marlene

03-28-2007, 12:55 PM

Lilly, I suppose for me the utilization of one's belief system as a justification for policy is not appropriate. It is a belief system it is not a proven system and is based on the subjectivity of belief not on facts. I am a bit taken a back by this approach.

Ya I know what you mean; I pointed that out to my opponent too (that I don't think we can formulate policy on it).
But just in comparison to the Holocaust argument I think his is a more effective one.

If God were real and if the Bible was his word then there would not be a thing that man could do if his will was for the state of Israel, therefore the point of arguement is moot.

That is a really good insight Val ! Of course my opponent probably shares that with you and figures that I'm on the hellbound train because of my views ...
since apparently some people cannot be troubled to consider the strong Biblical foundation for opposing the man-made State of Israel.

I have no opposition to the state of Israel in its current location but I do have some grave misgivings on the continued expansion of its borders as well as the many people that have been uprooted from their family homes, had those homes either confiscated and inhabited by others or destroyed for development. For those people my heart goes to.

Yes, I am fine with leaving Israel where it is even though I think it was a very grave mistake to install it there (which is what I meant by 'spilt milk').
After all,
No Israeli citizens who are there now ...had any agency in the way it came about.
BUT
My reservations are these:

* I worry that the Palestinians will keep getting screwed.

*I worry that Israel will be dependent on the US INTO INFINITE TIME for the resources to maintain a State which is surrounded by people who want it destroyed.