Darth Wong's Israel bashing

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Now you show your true colors. You don't care who the aggressors are.

Not when it comes to ongoing wars. Wars have been going on for thousands of years. The four major war zones that have gotten the most (western) press in the last decade are:

Ireland: Started more than 300 years ago.
The former Yougoslavia: Started more than 600 yeras ago.
Kashmir: 300 years ago.
Israel: 3000 years ago, or something like that.

So who cares who the aggressor is in a particular battle in a war that's been going on for centuries?

BTW, I'm not conceding Israel is the aggressor here. I'm just arguing it's a moot point.

[Coyote]

Actually, the idea that this is a Religious War thathas been going on for 3000 years is very, very erroneous. The Israel/Palestine conflict is really only about 200 years old, maximum, and originally started out as a land dispute that only very incidentally had anything to do with religion.

The truth is that Jews and Muslims had lived in that region for enturies in relative peace, the non-Muslims of any religion (not just the Jews) had to pay a special tax for not being Islamic and while there were occassional persecutions they were mostly individual initiative and not gov't sanctioned pogroms.

The Jews and Muslims were frequently united under the threat of Christian persecution, who saw anyone who did not accept Jesus as an "infidel". One of the greatest Islamic warriors of all times, Salal-Udeen ("Saladin") had, as his chief advisor, one of the greatest Jewish philosophers of all time, Moshe Maimun ibn-Maimun, or "Moses Maimonedes".

Recently, as the war has dragged on, radical religious groups hve polarized the issue, especially bandits such as Hezbollah (uber-radical Shia'a party) and Islamic Jihad who use religion now to rally the troops on to greater violence.

[Darth Wong]

Of course it's not religious. That's why there is such endless acrimony over Jerusalem and its "holy sites", right?

[Coyote]

It has developed into a religious war and is now, but the roots of the conflict were more political. It is much easier for demagogues to get people fired up over religious issues.

[Darth Wong]

Why do you say the roots of the conflict were not religious? What made Jews move back into that area en masse, and adopt a "by any means necessary" policy toward settling that particular piece of land if not religion? There are lots of places on Earth where one can live without being surrounded by your enemies.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Why do you say the roots of the conflict were not religious? What made Jews move back into that area en masse, and adopt a "by any means necessary" policy toward settling that particular piece of land if not religion? There are lots of places on Earth where one can live without being surrounded by your enemies.

At the time, Muslims were not the enemies of the Jews - quite the contrary, they had been Jewish allies throughout most of history. The Zionist movement was primarily a Nationalist movement, Mike, to provide the Jews with their own Nation-State. The decision to choose Israel over an area in Africa (Which had actually been considered), was due to the large Jewish population already living in Palestine.

[Wicked Pilot]

At the time, Muslims were not the enemies of the Jews - quite the contrary, they had been Jewish allies throughout most of history.

That's absurd. Muslims and Jews had been killing each other randomly throughout the British occupation.

The decision to choose Israel over an area in Africa (Which had actually been considered), was due to the large Jewish population already living in Palestine.

There was a larger Jewish population living in Europe. Couldn't they have been given a chunk of Germany or Italy? It's not like the Muslims had anything to do with the Holocaust.

Hell, there were quite a number of Jews living in U.S. too. Why not just send all the Jews to New Jersey? All U.S. citizens there would be forced into Pennsylvania, and the former state would become the new Nation of Israel.

[Coyote]

Well, Jews and Muslims were killing each other during the British Occupation, which had only been in effect since World War One. For much of history, Jews and Muslms have been allies with only ocassional conflicts.

And yes, the Zionist movement was partially a religious desire to return to Israel, the land, but it was not a formula to destroy/kill the Muslims.

[Darth Wong]

Well, Jews and Muslims were killing each other during the British Occupation, which had only been in effect since World War One. For much of history, Jews and Muslms have been allies with only ocassional conflicts.

Only because the enemy of my enemy (ie- Christianity) is my friend. Once that enemy backs off a bit, we see the underlying hatred bubble back up to the surface. This should come as no surprise. The Koran explicitly states that the infidels (ie- all non-muslims) must be put to death "wherever ye may find them", and the Bible explicitly states that God's "chosen people" have the right to exterminate all followers of other gods in order to take the land which has been promised them. These are not friendly doctrines.

And yes, the Zionist movement was partially a religious desire to return to Israel, the land, but it was not a formula to destroy/kill the Muslims.

Don't change the subject; no one said their goal was to destroy/kill the Muslims; their goal was to return to their Biblically defined "holy lands", and destroying/killing/displacing the Muslims was the means to that end.

[tharkûn]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by The Duchess of Zeon:
At the time, Muslims were not the enemies of the Jews - quite the contrary, they had been Jewish allies throughout most of history.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's absurd. Muslims and Jews had been killing each other randomly throughout the British occupation.

No you just don't understand when the "time" is refering to. Try 19th century under Ottoman rule. At this point in time the biggest enemy of the world Jewry is in Czarist Russia.

There was a larger Jewish population living in Europe. Couldn't they have been given a chunk of Germany or Italy? It's not like the Muslims had anything to do with the Holocaust.
Actually it was tried, in Poland. Under Czarist policy the Jews could live only in certain areas, here they established semi-autonomous areas. These were wiped out en masse by Hitler. It was also tried in Birbidjan. The zionist movement was decades old by the Holocaust rolled around. Numerous sites had been tried by various nationalistic groups, all of them except Palestine met with dismal failure. When the dust settles after WWII the only major concentration of world Jewry left are in the US and Israel.

Hell, there were quite a number of Jews living in U.S. too. Why not just send all the Jews to New Jersey? All U.S. citizens there would be forced into Pennsylvania, and the former state would become the new Nation of Israel.
That idea was put forth by the Zionist Congress, it was known as Galverston, thousands of Jews moved to Texas with the hopes of making a Jewish homeland. It again did not work.


What made Jews move back into that area en masse, and adopt a "by any means necessary" policy toward settling that particular piece of land if not religion?
That everything else failed. The zionist congresses actively tried to settle Uganda, Texas, Argentina, Libya, Iraq, Angola, Canada, and Australia. Other Jewish movements (i.e. the Bund or some of the Jewish Communist societies) tried to settle other areas as a Jewish homeland i.e. Jewish shtetls in Poland and Birobidjan in the USSR. Some progressed further than others, but in all cases except for Palestine they failed miserably.

What made Palestine so attractive was:
1. The fact that it was initially ruled by the Ottoman Turks. They were deeply indebted to Jewish bankers and there was some thought that an autonomous area could be bribed out with cash.
2. At the time Muslims were extremely tolerant of Abrahamic religions. You paid a tax, they allowed you to live among them in peace. Compared to the Czarist pogroms, the Dreyfus Affair, etc. the Ottoman Palestine looked great.
3. The large Jewish population both in Palestine and in the surrounding countries. Unlike their European neighbors, most Arabic lands had not expelled the Jews over the centuries, indeed the oldest Jewish communities in the world were in Palestine and in the countries surrounding it (these were expelled around '48 into Israel).
4. The Balfor document. Of all the numerous attempts to establish a Jewish homeland only two ever received any type of official support - Birobidjan and Palestine. The former was in Stalinist Russia, the latter under British Imperial rule.

Palestine was not chosen for religious reasons alone ... when the choice was made the religious community was ADAMENTLY against it (most rabbis beleived only with the coming of the messiah would the Jews retake Israel). Most of the religious influence in Palestine came not from the Ashkenazi jewry (most religious Ashkenazi Jews opposed moving to Palestine, and were eventually killed by Hitler), rather it comes from Sephardi Jews (those Jews living in the middleast, north africa, iran since Roman times). Even today the strongest religious party is Sephardic in nature.

What people don't realize is most of the early zionists were not religious. Most of the fanatically religious opposed Jewish settlement in Palestine on theological grounds, most moderately religious Jews put their effort into assimilation, most often this left the irreligious and irreligious Jews to be zionists or socialists; by '48 most of the former two groups are dead (being concentrated in Eastern Europe and Poland in particular ... something around an 80% fatality rate in the Holocaust) while the zionists survived because they simply weren't there.

Palestine was chosen because it worked when other ideas failed. Hell remember what Herzl said, "We shall take what is given us, and what is selected by public opinion."

[tharkûn]

The Koran explicitly states that the infidels (ie- all non-muslims) must be put to death "wherever ye may find them", and the Bible explicitly states that God's "chosen people" have the right to exterminate all followers of other gods in order to take the land which has been promised them. These are not friendly doctrines.
Umm no. "Infidels" in Islam does not refer to orthodox Jews, and practicing Christians ... provided they are willing to live under Muslim rule. The only major difference is the "People of the Book" have to pay a special tax.

their goal was to return to their Biblically defined "holy lands", and destroying/killing/displacing the Muslims was the means to that end.
That is BS. Thousands of Jewish immigrants headed to Texas, Argentina, and all sorts of other places the world over. Hell tens of thousands went into Stalinist Russia to establish a Jewish homeland. Zionism tried NUMEROUS places to establish a Jewish homeland ... one of them worked, the others flopped.

[Darth Wong]

Umm no. "Infidels" in Islam does not refer to orthodox Jews, and practicing Christians ... provided they are willing to live under Muslim rule. The only major difference is the "People of the Book" have to pay a special tax.

What the fuck difference does it make? The point is still that the Koran says it's OK to butcher people who won't bow to your God and obey his laws. Similarly, the Jewish religious heritage glorifies the ruthless extermination of whole peoples in order to cleanse the "promised land" for God's "chosen people". I reiterate: these are not friendly doctrines. Your nitpick does not change that fact. So what if they're allowed to believe in something else while bowing to Mohammedan law? I think you're missing the point.

their goal was to return to their Biblically defined "holy lands", and destroying/killing/displacing the Muslims was the means to that end.

That is BS. Thousands of Jewish immigrants headed to Texas, Argentina, and all sorts of other places the world over. Hell tens of thousands went into Stalinist Russia to establish a Jewish homeland. Zionism tried NUMEROUS places to establish a Jewish homeland ... one of them worked, the others flopped.

Did it ever occur to you that Israel worked not because it was the easiest, but because they tried the hardest? And why did they try the hardest there? I'll give you three guesses.

[tharkûn]

Your nitpick does not change that fact. So what if they're allowed to believe in something else while bowing to Mohammedan law? I think you're missing the point.
Quite possibly. My point is that compared to the Christian Nations at the time bowing to Mohammedan law is trivial. When the choice to try to establish a Jewish state in Palestine was made Arabs were not the enemies of Jews. It was thought that Mohammedan law would compel the Arabs to except a Jewish homeland.

Did it ever occur to you that Israel worked not because it was the easiest, but because they tried the hardest? And why did they try the hardest there? I'll give you three guesses.
Actually the most effort went into Poland, measured in dollars or people the Jewish homeland was emerging in distinct centres in Poland. Poland was thought to be the easiest because Jews constituted 10% of the population and were already fairly homogenous. The vast majority of Jewish religious leaders supported the Polish option. Unfortunately 90% of Polish Jews died in WWII. Communities were gutted and the survivors wanted to get the hell out.

But where exactly is there an easier place to settle? Uganda, Argentina ...? Where esle do you have a large preexisiting community, backing from one of the world's powers, and cheap costs?

[Darth Wong]

Actually the most effort went into Poland, measured in dollars or people the Jewish homeland was emerging in distinct centres in Poland. Poland was thought to be the easiest because Jews constituted 10% of the population and were already fairly homogenous. The vast majority of Jewish religious leaders supported the Polish option. Unfortunately 90% of Polish Jews died in WWII.

We all know what happened to the Polish jews. The point is that once they had backing from the world community, they went straight to the "holy land" even though violence was a foregone conclusion.

But where exactly is there an easier place to settle? Uganda, Argentina ...? Where esle do you have a large preexisiting community, backing from one of the world's powers, and cheap costs?

Germany. The only place where they would have had moral justification to uproot people from their homes. And the Germany military was certainly in no shape to contest it.

Alternatively, a sparsely populated state like Montana, a portion of a sparsely populated continent like Australia, or a large Pacific island. All of these would have led to less violence than what we've seen. Are you seriously suggesting that there was no place anywhere on Earth more convenient than a tiny strip of land surrounded by Muslims who consider them the hated infidels?

[Durandal]

The basic fact remains that the Jews are only pushing for that strip of sand because it was promised to them according to ... them. Well, their religion, to be more precise. Because of this, they are an aggressor nation forcing their religious beliefs on another nation. I personally couldn't give two shits about whether or not the Jews have a homeland. Too fucking bad. If they're going to cause so much fucking trouble over a worthless strip of sand when there are large amounts of unsettled land in other places of the world, they don't deserve to have one.

All this, "But we might get persecuted again" and "But we need a homeland" bullshit is just secret code for, "Our holy book says it should be ours, so we want it."

[Darth Wong]

My children are a racial mix of Taiwanese, Cantonese, British, and German. They do not have an ethnic homeland. Therefore, I demand 50 square kilometres of New Jersey. Because as we all know, ethnic segregation is the way of the future, not the religious past

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Germany. The only place where they would have had moral justification to uproot people from their homes. And the Germany military was certainly in no shape to contest it.

There was actually a proposal to do this. I think it was going to involve the deportation of all Germans in Saxony and its conversion into a Jewish Homeland, though it's been a while since I recalled the details; and it might have been a part of the Morgenthau Plan.

[tharkûn]

The point is that once they had backing from the world community, they went straight to the "holy land" even though violence was a foregone conclusion.
Violence is a foregone conclusion whenever large numbers of people move. Unless the land is outright uninhabited (and there are precious few areas left that can sustain hundreds of thousands of people) you are going to have a bloodbath. Hell Canadian settlement resulted in more deaths than Israeli.

Germany. The only place where they would have had moral justification to uproot people from their homes. And the Germany military was certainly in no shape to contest it.
No but the Red Army was, Stalin had other plans for the Jewish people than letting them take German land. Germany ALREADY had problems with shortages as ethnic Germans in Poland, Czechoslavakia, and the rest of Eastern Europe were expelled into Germany.

Alternatively, a sparsely populated state like Montana, a portion of a sparsely populated continent like Australia, or a large Pacific island. All of these would have led to less violence than what we've seen. Are you seriously suggesting that there was no place anywhere on Earth more convenient than a tiny strip of land surrounded by Muslims who consider them the hated infidels?
No I'm suggesting that when the push to settle Palestine was decided upon it was the easiest. In the 1890's the Muslims didn't consider Jews the hated infidels, in the 1890's booking passage to the Pacific is vastly more expensive (rail to the mediterrain cost, hop a small ship bound for the Suez, ride in the rest of the way), Montana is no different than Texas ... the zionists tried to set up shop in a sparsely populated area and it failed. Even with thousands of immigrants it went down the tubes.

By the time WWII closes major preperation for a Jewish state in Palestine has already occurred. Nothing outside of the USSR has the backing of the world's powers. Zionism has a network set up, they have answers that the common Jew is looking for, their ideological opponents in the Jewish community are dead, their critics are disgraced by the utter failure of assimilation. By the time Israel is founded, it is FAR too late change your mind and head anywhere else. You have too many stupid people committed to a Jewish state in Palestine (and if you like I can quote atheists who ardently supported a Jewish state in Palestine).

When the decision was made, it was sensible. When the decision was implemented there was too much momentum and too few credible alternatives to change.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The basic fact remains that the Jews are only pushing for that strip of sand because it was promised to them according to ... them. Well, their religion, to be more precise. Because of this, they are an aggressor nation forcing their religious beliefs on another nation. I personally couldn't give two shits about whether or not the Jews have a homeland. Too fucking bad. If they're going to cause so much fucking trouble over a worthless strip of sand when there are large amounts of unsettled land in other places of the world, they don't deserve to have one.

All this, "But we might get persecuted again" and "But we need a homeland" bullshit is just secret code for, "Our holy book says it should be ours, so we want it."

It was a nationalist movement, and it started before the worst of the Jewish persecution had occured!

[The Duchess of Zeon]

My children are a racial mix of Taiwanese, Cantonese, British, and German. They do not have an ethnic homeland. Therefore, I demand 50 square kilometres of New Jersey. Because as we all know, ethnic segregation is the way of the future, not the religious past

Well, the Jewish goal at the time, Mike, was a legitimate one. The Nation-State was the principle of the era, and everyone else had one or was fighting for one (in the Balkans mostly). The Jews were without one and were persecuted. Jewish leaders came to the conclusion that a lot of the persecution was due to being an identifiable nationality inside of someone else's nation-state, and if they got their own it would end.

That makes a lot of sense according to when the Zionist movement got started.

[Coyote]

Many here have stated their opinions about the establsihment of the first Hebrew kingdom; the Divine command to move into the land and uproot the natives, etc-- we just finished a big discussion on that.

But right or wrong, the ancient kingdom was established and the land became the homeland for the Hebrews. Just as America is now my homeland, even though it used to belong to someone else, and the same can be said for most other countries today.

There was not expected to be any great trouble with the Muslims since the two had always gotten along well in the past. The Jews and Muslims trace their lineage back to Abraham and both Jewish and Christian populations had lived quite well under Muslim rule.

"Muslim" and "Islam" come from the Arabic root word of "SLM" which means "to submit to God". If a person submits tot he wil of God, obeys the laws and lives within the laws, then he has "submitted tot he will of God" and is a Muslim.

It is believed in Islamic doctrine that Abraham, Jesus, Noah, all were Muslims, because they submitted ot the will of God. In pre-Mohommedan times, that was all you had to do. Now, one must recognize that Mohommed is the Prophet of God, as well as submit to the laws, to be a Muslim.

Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet of God, and delivered miracles of healing and compassion to the people. Among Jews, Jesus is basically a philosopher figure. But both religions, since they embrace the basic precepts of God, are seen as "semi-enlightened" by Islam.

Now, in order for someone to be a "infidel", or khufr, one must be a non-beliver (of either Jew, Christian, or Muslim precepts) who rejects Islam after being enlightened to it, or who simply attacks Islam from the outset.

Since the year of the Hijrah, or the first Pilgrimage to Mecca in 622, Jews and Christians have traditionally been accepted in Muslim communities, the caveat being that they mst submit to Muslim rule and pay a special tax.

[Darth Wong]

Well, the Jewish goal at the time, Mike, was a legitimate one. The Nation-State was the principle of the era, and everyone else had one or was fighting for one (in the Balkans mostly).

Nation-states, yes. Ethnic nation-states, no. Even at that time, the word "American" meant a citizen of America, not a member of a particular ethnicity.

The Jews were without one and were persecuted. Jewish leaders came to the conclusion that a lot of the persecution was due to being an identifiable nationality inside of someone else's nation-state, and if they got their own it would end.

Jews are not identifiable unless they wish to be identifiable. I can't look at Jon Stewart or Stephen Spielberg and say "ah, he's a Jew" the way they can look at me and say "ah, he's of Asian descent".

[Darth Wong]

But right or wrong, the ancient kingdom was established and the land became the homeland for the Hebrews. Just as America is now my homeland, even though it used to belong to someone else, and the same can be said for most other countries today.

America is not an ethnic homeland. It is a nation-state in which citizenship is granted by simple geographical birthright. You cannot compare the founding principles of America to the apartheid principles of Israel, which is so profoundly racist that they openly admit that it would not exist in their eyes if it became ethnically dominated by Arabs.

There was not expected to be any great trouble with the Muslims since the two had always gotten along well in the past. The Jews and Muslims trace their lineage back to Abraham and both Jewish and Christian populations had lived quite well under Muslim rule.

Both Jewish and Christian populations were tolerated as long as they lived under Islamic law. This hardly means one could reasonably expect that the Muslims would be pleased to find themselves being evicted from their homes.

Since the year of the Hijrah, or the first Pilgrimage to Mecca in 622, Jews and Christians have traditionally been accepted in Muslim communities, the caveat being that they mst submit to Muslim rule and pay a special tax.

Again, this is no minor caveat. There is no indication whatsoever that their tolerance of those who submit to their rule means that they will happily become marginalized and evicted from their homes.

[Coyote]

More from my Atalas, the Martin-Gilbert Routledge Atlas of the Arab Israeli Conflict--

"1099 AD-- Jews take part in the defense of Jerusalem against the Crusaders, fighting alongside the Arabs.
1267 AD-- During the next five centuries, Jerusalem is reinstated as a centre of Jewish learning.
By 1880, the Jews formed the majority of the population in Jerusalem"
(page 2)

"The Mameluks (Muslims) who ousted the Crusaders in 1291, and ruled until 1516, at times encourgaed Jewish settlement, and many Jews came to Palestine to escape Christian persecution in Europe. After 1517, under the Otoman Turks the Jews of Europe continued to sek refuge in Palestine from Christian persecution and expulsion, despite spasmodic ill-treatment by their Muslim rulers."
(page 2)

"His Majesty's government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which will prejudice the civila and religious rights of non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country"
--The Balfour Declaration, 2 NOV 1917 (page 8 )

"We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement...We will wish the Jews a hearty welcome home.. We are working together for a reformed and revised Near East, and our two movementns compliment one another. The movement is national and not imperialistic. There is room in Syria for us both. Indeed, I think that neither can be successful without the other"
--The Emir Faisal to Felix Frankfurter 3 March 1919

"The Jew is clannish and unneighbourly, and cannot mix with those who live about him. He will enjoy the priviledges and benefits of a country, and then lead its people, whom he has already impoverished, where he chooses. He encourages wars where self-interest dictates, and thus uses the armies of the nations to do his bidding"
--The Haifa Congress of Palestinian Arabs to Winston Churchill, 28 March 1921

Just a few more insights to the past and development of Palestine...

[Darth Wong]

Nowhere in that list did I see any hint that they would be amenable to eviction from their homes to make way for the Jewish Homeland. The message is fairly consistent: you can live near us if you like, as long as we're in charge. I don't see this as an authorization for ethnic cleansing.

There was no hint whatsoever that this would go peacefully, and I don't see the point in pretending that there was. It was obviously going to be violent, and the fact that the Israelis used terrorism to convince the Brits of their needs should be a fairly good tip-off. They chose to live there not because they were invited or welcome, but because their stupid book says so. Period.