Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Defamation Documentry and Irish Israel relations?

13567

Comments

  • #62
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    getz wrote: »
    thats true, but why is that ?

    'It's the economy'

    Economic migration of jews from Ireland to higher paid jobs in the UK or indeed to israel is nothing new. If you are claiming that the absence of jews in Ireland proves that Ireland is anti semitic you have a looooooooooooong way to go to prove that one.


  • #63
    meditraitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,207 ✭✭✭meditraitor


    getz wrote: »
    thats true, but why is that ?

    because we have bigger willies ;)


  • #64
    Kipperhell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,477 ✭✭✭Kipperhell


    Jakkass wrote: »
    What evidence do you have to suggest that the vast majority of the Jewish people do not have Semitic genes from the region? There is a lot to suggest that the Jewish people indeed are of the same line who were evicted from Rome all those years ago.

    It's pure nonsense to suggest that the Palestinians are somehow more authentically the heirs of the land, and that the Jews are not merely because they were kicked out.

    Using that logic the US should give back the lands to the Native American tribes and leave. There has to be a point where the people effected lose their descendent rights. No matter what happened in history the claim to Israel is very tenuous at best. By all accounts Jewish settlements are increasingly stealing further land and actively restricting the growth of a nation.

    I have never heard anybody claim that Israel paid for the land/homes they took by force.

    Anyway the thread was originally started to comment on the film and Irish relations with Israel. The film showed a clear denial of legitimate criticism of Israel by some groups which appear to yield some power.


  • #65
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Oh, managed to find a link to the documentary on 4OD, not sure if it will work in Ireland, and can't check it, as I am in work, but I am sure someone will be able to tell us if it works here or not:

    True Stories: Defamation


  • #66
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    wes wrote: »
    Oh, managed to find a link to the documentary on 4OD, not sure if it will work in Ireland, and can't check it, as I am in work, but I am sure someone will be able to tell us if it works here or not:

    True Stories: Defamation

    Excellent - will check it later. Thanks.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    wes wrote: »
    I never suggested that the majority of Jewish people don't have ancestors from the region, just that not all of them do.

    Right. What is the issue with people migrating to a certain land? This is what I don't get. The Jewish people set up shop mostly of their own enterprise in the 19th century. Many others had set up shop, such as the Arabs under the Caliph Umar in 600AD.The Bzyantines, The Romans, the Greeks, the Hebrews, The Amalekites, Girgashites, the Amorites, the Hizzites among other tribes. Who is to say that any one group has more precedence over the land than another given how long and contentious the land of Israel has been?

    I don't think the Palestinians have any more right to Israel than the Jewish people do, likewise I don't believe the Jewish people have any more right to Israel than the Palestinians do. What's the solution then? A framework to enable Palestinians to have the same freedoms as the Jewish people. A recognition that it is one country, of two peoples. That's my view.
    wes wrote: »
    I think when you claims are a millenium old there a bad joke. The Palestinians were driven from there homes, based on land claim that is over a 1000 years old, I am sorry but that is quite frankly nonsensical in the extreme.

    When is the cut off point? If the Palestinians remain displaced for 1,000 years, and if Israel remains will they have a right to say that the Palestinians have no right to return? Think about it.
    wes wrote: »
    Yes, which is all well and good, but as I stated earlier I do take issue with Zionists myths and will challenge them.

    All I remember is wes, I was very much pro-Palestinian, but on further assessment into the history of the situation, I found that it was much more balanced than I had thought it was. It's much more realistic to accept that responsibility lies on both sides, and that affirmative action must be taken place to ensure that Palestinians and Israelis are regarded on an equal foot.
    wes wrote: »
    Well, leaving aside the fact that you claims about Zionists mostly buying the land is actually wrong, and is another Zionists myth. Now, some Zionists did buy land, but if you look up on how much they bought, you will clearly see that they only actually bought a tiny portion of the land of Palestine, and I should add that buying land doesn't give you a right to set up a state btw.

    That's what happened at the First Zionist Congress in 1886. Before this in the 1870's Orthodox Jews from Russia had purchased land in Israel and settled in it. The most major movements happened from 1886 onwards, when money was raised for the effort amongst European Jews. In Herzl's Der Judenstaat he put the view to Western Governments that if the Jews were an eyesore to Western civilisation that they should get behind them and allow them to settle in Israel. This is an indication of the incentive of finding new hope elsewhere.

    Buying land doesn't give you a right to set up a state no. Settling is however a right. If demographics shift, the demographics will also start to reflect in politics. This is obvious no? I will admit that the 1947 UN work, and the 1948 Israeli declaration of it's statehood is highly questionable, but I don't believe there is anything wrong with people migrating.
    wes wrote: »
    You see if I went to Iran with the express intention of setting up my own state (the Zionists aim in Palestine incidently), then they would rightly take issue with it, regardless of whether I bought land or not. You are leaving out the simple fact that Zionist went to Palestine to create there own state.

    Of course they would take issue with it. I think if one assesses the context the early Zionist congress cannot be held with such contempt as people suggest it should be. Likewise, the struggle for Palestinian freedom shouldn't be treated with contempt. The problem here was that there were two highly contradictory national plans, when a one state solution should have been built from the interim instead of trying to please two separate groups of people with their exclusive claims to the land.
    wes wrote: »
    Well, we both agree on this.

    These issues are the brunt of the current problem.
    wes wrote: »
    I have no issue with Israel existence in the here and now, but I consider its creation to have been a crime agianst the indigenous people, the Palestinians, in much the same way as I would consider the European colonization of the America's as a crime against the native people there.

    I don't consider Israel's declaration to be a crime considering that the sovereignty of the land was under the British Mandate. They handed it over to the UN, and they voted accordingly as how best it should be dealt with when it was handed over.

    The problem with the 1948 plan was, that it provided 2 states in an incredibly small portion of land. The idea should have been a single state from the get go. Partition causes nothing but issues.
    wes wrote: »
    Well, I would have no issue with very easily tearing a part such a claim, and in fact it easy to explain via inter-marriage.

    I'm merely saying that all people have a mix of different groupings. It's highly unreasonable to criticise Jewry on one standard, and then not afford the Palestinians the same criticism. They are no more indigenous to the land than the Israelis are. The only difference is that one was displaced longer than the other.
    wes wrote: »
    Again, I don't disagree that a large portion of Jews originate from Palestine, but that I find a 2000 year old land claim to be nonsence and to be honest I think such a land claim to have as much merit as you or me claiming parts of Africa. Zionists are just European colonists, they are not special, and there ancient lands claims are bloody joke.

    They are no more a joke than the claims that the Palestinians currently are making. I think they need to be heard.

    I don't think you'd call it a "bloody joke" if your group of people were slandered and despised wherever they went. It's a bit rich to criticise something outside of it's context.
    wes wrote: »
    So? Its there land, and they can do with as they wish, and I would disagree with your assessment of it in anyways.

    It raises questions over Palestinian national identity.
    wes wrote: »
    The creation of the state of Isreal went against the wishes of the indigenous populace, and whether there is or isn't a Palestinain national identity is irrelevant.

    Yes, it is irrelevant. Everything to do with the Palestinians being more indigenous, and the Jewish people not having a viable right to the land and to live there is absurd and ridiculous.

    What matters is a levelling off of rights and freedoms, not nitpicking about who is more "indigenous". Israel's here, and it's probably going to be here to stay. What needs to happen though, is that Palestinians can be respected as human beings.
    Kipperhell wrote: »
    I have never heard anybody claim that Israel paid for the land/homes they took by force.

    Until a certain point, they did, and there's historical evidence for this. After that point, I would be in agreement that it was wrong.

    What I'm interested is an honest assessment of the history which is both sides did horrible things to each other. This is clearly evident from a historical viewpoint from the 1860's through 1948 in particular.


  • #68
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,311 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    getz wrote: »
    thats true, but why is that ?

    Because many left for Israel in the early years of that state, many emigrated to the UK and the US for exactly the same reasons as the rest of the population here, and, because there was never a large Jewish community here to begin with, the practicalities of finding a marriage partner within the Jewish religion etc, meant that choosing to live here, rather than abroad in a larger Jewish community was a bit limiting.

    Anyone reading old Dail transcripts from the 40's can clearly see that casual anti-semitism was common enough here, but that didn't stop the Briscoes etc from contributing to society here. De Valera probably didn't do us many favours with the whole 'sorry to hear Hitler's dead' bit, but he was pretty close to Isaac Herzog back in the day, so he probably wasn't much of an anti-semite.


  • #69
    getz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    Morlar wrote: »
    'It's the economy'

    Economic migration of jews from Ireland to higher paid jobs in the UK or indeed to israel is nothing new. If you are claiming that the absence of jews in Ireland proves that Ireland is anti semitic you have a looooooooooooong way to go to prove that one.
    no one of the bigest reasons was that people like jewish doctors had to leave the country to practise as the catholic run hospitals would not allow them beds,many irish jews had to move over to the UK , i bet you dident know that


  • #70
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Kipperhell wrote: »
    Using that logic the US should give back the lands to the Native American tribes and leave. There has to be a point where the people effected lose their descendent rights. No matter what happened in history the claim to Israel is very tenuous at best. By all accounts Jewish settlements are increasingly stealing further land and actively restricting the growth of a nation.

    I'm not discussing the current context, but rather the historical Zionist Congresses under Theodor Herzl. The source I consulted mainly was Martin Gilbert's - Israel - A History which deals from 1870's - 1997.

    Although I haven't really focused on it in a while, modern Middle Eastern history is an interest of mine.
    Kipperhell wrote: »
    Anyway the thread was originally started to comment on the film and Irish relations with Israel. The film showed a clear denial of legitimate criticism of Israel by some groups which appear to yield some power.

    This is wrong, but to attempt discredit Israel's existence to me is just ridiculous. This isn't going to help anyone. What will help, dealing with the situation realistically and finding equality within the Israeli state.

    Honest criticism doesn't amount to anti-Semitism no matter how much some of Israel's staunchest defenders may want it to be. That's clear to me, but I do still support Israel's existence, and I will support efforts to bring Palestinians and Israelis closer together in the current context rather than in the historical one.


  • #71
    Kipperhell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,477 ✭✭✭Kipperhell


    Jakkass wrote: »

    Until a certain point, they did, and there's historical evidence for this. After that point, I would be in agreement that it was wrong.

    What I'm interested is an honest assessment of the history which is both sides did horrible things to each other. This is clearly evident from a historical viewpoint from the 1860's through 1948 in particular.
    What would that point be? The seconds after they declared the state of Israel. ISRAEL never bought the land. Jewish people did buy property but the creation of Israel didn't involve purchasing any land but occupation. Nowhere near the same thing.

    It is obvious you are using biblical scripts rather than absolute historical fact. I think you are going way off topic on this thread too considering I started it.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Kipperhell - If you read anything about Theodor Herzl, and the Russian Jewry who settled in the land first, they did pay for the land until a certain point. They raised funds for this purpose at their meetings. Seriously read up on it and get back to me. I'm talking about the 1880's.

    I don't see how 1880's history is covered by the Bible.


  • #73
    Kipperhell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,477 ✭✭✭Kipperhell


    Jakkass wrote: »
    This is wrong, but to attempt discredit Israel's existence to me is just ridiculous.
    It was very lucky to get official recognition as a legitimate state from its inception. There was by far no guarantee. There is huge difference to saying Jewish people should live there to saying that they have the right to kick other people out and claim ownership and create their own state. Israel as a state has a very questionable existence


  • #74
    Kipperhell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,477 ✭✭✭Kipperhell


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Kipperhell - If you read anything about Theodor Herzl, and the Russian Jewry who settled in the land first, they did pay for the land until a certain point. They raised funds for this purpose at their meetings. Seriously read up on it and get back to me. I'm talking about the 1880's.

    I don't see how 1880's history is covered by the Bible.

    I have always been talking about the state of Israel while you have not. AS 1880 was prior to this point how did Israel purchase any land then? You are confusing Jewish people with the Jewish state of Israel. So there is no point where Israel paid for the land remains true. You have used biblical references of Jewish history which is very questionable


  • #75
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Kipperhell wrote: »
    It was very lucky to get official recognition as a legitimate state from its inception. There was by far no guarantee. There is huge difference to saying Jewish people should live there to saying that they have the right to kick other people out and claim ownership and create their own state. Israel as a state has a very questionable existence

    You're strawmanning my posts now. I already said I disagreed with displacing people.

    Although questionable existence? I don't see exactly how given the international recognition it has.

    I'm one of those people who argue that Israel needs to change it's approach, it doesn't need to disappear. There are bad things about how Israel conducts itself, but there are also very good things about Israel too.

    One of the things that turned me most off pro-Palestinian thought, and into my more neutral view, was the idea of boycotting Israel financially.


  • #76
    Kipperhell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,477 ✭✭✭Kipperhell


    Jakkass wrote: »
    You're strawmanning my posts now. I already said I disagreed with displacing people.

    Although questionable existence? I don't see exactly how given the international recognition it has.

    I'm one of those people who argue that Israel needs to change it's approach, it doesn't need to disappear. There are bad things about how Israel conducts itself, but there are also very good things about Israel too.

    One of the things that turned me most off pro-Palestinian thought, and into my more neutral view, was the idea of boycotting Israel financially.

    I genuinely worry about your ability to understand what is said to you and your long rants. How you can read a book and grasp the meaning must be near impossible. Current international recognition is not really an indicator of the days when Israel was formed where it awaited being legitimate and it would not have happened if the US had not stepped up.

    I'm done with with reading your posts due to the nature of them rather than the view. This must be at least the 5th time I have put you on my ignore list can't see why I take you off it.


  • #77
    joesoap007
    Closed Accounts Posts: 152 ✭✭joesoap007


    i think people in ireland can relat 2 people in palstine,they put walls up in the north and made the irish feel like dirt when every the could,nd that wasonly a few years go,we all no the storys of wat happen for 100s years ago. how pure evil england was 2 us,i seen the same in palstine only 100 times worse,seein it on tv growing up i never like jews ,,but i was wrong 2 paint them all with the same bursh.didin konw the tora jews oradoxjews and Zionist pigs.,so the more people that seen what was happing to the people in palstine the more stick they got here,,name me a jewish person that lost his job in ireand,ther like the chinesegood workers.i think ireland is anti Zionist now,and so we should be..how meny jews live here seen a us report sayin 500 000 lol and one saying 50 000,during ww2 500 jesws lived here dose any1 no

    cheers
    anto


  • #78
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,017 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    ^^ English please ?


  • #79
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Kipperhell wrote: »
    I have always been talking about the state of Israel while you have not. AS 1880 was prior to this point how did Israel purchase any land then? You are confusing Jewish people with the Jewish state of Israel. So there is no point where Israel paid for the land remains true. You have used biblical references of Jewish history which is very questionable

    You mightn't notice, but myself and wes were also discussing Zionism. The Zionist movement began in the 1880's with the ambition of setting up an Israeli state. Herzl wrote his book "Der Judenstaat" (The Jewish State) around this time.

    I haven't used any Biblical references asides from that the Hebrews inhabited the land which is also backed up by secular history. Likewise tribes such as the Philistines and others. I don't see how this is questionable. Are you trying to say that the Hebrews never settled the land at all in ancient times? There's archaeology left, right and centre that proves that false.

    I'm considering Modern Israeli history from the struggle to statehood to the present day.

    What I do agree on, is a lot of Israel's treatment as a State to the Palestinians has been unfair. Royally so, and things need to be done to change that, but I don't agree this means getting rid of Israel. That's absurd to me.

    As for the ignore list, put me on if you wish. I'm really interested in discussing the Israel issue.


  • #80
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Right. What is the issue with people migrating to a certain land? This is what I don't get. The Jewish people set up shop mostly of their own enterprise in the 19th century. Many others had set up shop, such as the Arabs under the Caliph Umar in 600AD.The Bzyantines, The Romans, the Greeks, the Hebrews, The Amalekites,

    You are deliberatly ignoring the fact that Zionists wanted to take over Palestine and the indigenous people be damned. We call this Colonialism these days. Bringing up other people who did the same does not justify it.

    Zionists did not go to Palestine to just live there as you put, they went there to create there own state at the expense of the people already living there, and naturally enough, they had a problem with that. Invasion and migration are 2 very different things, and to describe Zionists as migrants is ridiculous, when you go someplace with the express intention of taking it over and creating your own state, we call that an invasion.

    Seriously, I don't understand how you can possibly call what the Zionists did as migration.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Girgashites, the Amorites, the Hizzites among other tribes. Who is to say that any one group has more precedence over the land than another given how long and contentious the land of Israel has been?

    Again, a 2000 year old land claim is a joke.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't think the Palestinians have any more right to Israel than the Jewish people do, likewise I don't believe the Jewish people have any more right to Israel than the Palestinians do.

    Well, now they both have a equal right to the land. I don't expect Jews to leave after generations have been born there since Zionists went there.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    What's the solution then? A framework to enable Palestinians to have the same freedoms as the Jewish people. A recognition that it is one country, of two peoples. That's my view.

    I agree with that.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    When is the cut off point? If the Palestinians remain displaced for 1,000 years, and if Israel remains will they have a right to say that the Palestinians have no right to return? Think about it.

    They already say they have no right of return, in direct opposition to international law. Incidently, the right of return of refugee's is covered under international law these days, and Palestinian refugee's fall under that. So, I would go with international law regarding a right of return for Palestinian refugee's.

    As for a 1000 years from now, I don't see any relevance regarding that, as in all likelihood the situation will be completely changed by then.

    Also, they use there 2000 year old land claim to justify land theft in the occupied terroritories btw, again in direct violation of International law.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    All I remember is wes, I was very much pro-Palestinian, but on further assessment into the history of the situation, I found that it was much more balanced than I had thought it was. It's much more realistic to accept that responsibility lies on both sides, and that affirmative action must be taken place to ensure that Palestinians and Israelis are regarded on an equal foot.

    Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but I very much disagree with a lot of what you say.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    That's what happened at the First Zionist Congress in 1886. Before this in the 1870's Orthodox Jews from Russia had purchased land in Israel and settled in it. The most major movements happened from 1886 onwards, when money was raised for the effort amongst European Jews. In Herzl's Der Judenstaat he put the view to Western Governments that if the Jews were an eyesore to Western civilisation that they should get behind them and allow them to settle in Israel. This is an indication of the incentive of finding new hope elsewhere.

    Buying land doesn't give you a right to set up a state no. Settling is however a right. If demographics shift, the demographics will also start to reflect in politics. This is obvious no? I will admit that the 1947 UN work, and the 1948 Israeli declaration of it's statehood is highly questionable, but I don't believe there is anything wrong with people migrating.

    So basically, the Palestinians be damned then? Right? Who cares what the people who live there already think about a European colonial invasion? Honestly, Zionists had no right to invade another country and kick out the people living there, and Herzl pretty much intended that the Palestinains be ethnically cleansed:
    A new exodus for the Middle East?

    --SNIP--
    As early as 1895, Theodor Herzl, the prophet and founder of Zionism, wrote in his diary in anticipation of the establishment of the Jewish state: "We shall try to spirit the penniless [Arab] population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country ... The removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly."
    --SNIP--

    What we are talking about is invasion, not migration. I find it hard to believe that you are confusing the 2.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Of course they would take issue with it. I think if one assesses the context the early Zionist congress cannot be held with such contempt as people suggest it should be. Likewise, the struggle for Palestinian freedom shouldn't be treated with contempt. The problem here was that there were two highly contradictory national plans, when a one state solution should have been built from the interim instead of trying to please two separate groups of people with their exclusive claims to the land.

    I hold mainsteam Zionism with the utmost contempt. Zionism is no different than any other European ideology that called for colonialism of foreign countries. Zionism was and (mainstream) Zionism to this day is largely a racists colonial ideology.

    Also, once again, the Zionists were invaders, and there 2000 year old land claim a bad joke and does not deserve to be taken in anyway shape or for seriously.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't consider Israel's declaration to be a crime considering that the sovereignty of the land was under the British Mandate. They handed it over to the UN, and they voted accordingly as how best it should be dealt with when it was handed over.

    The UN vote was a general assembly vote, which aren't binding.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    The problem with the 1948 plan was, that it provided 2 states in an incredibly small portion of land. The idea should have been a single state from the get go. Partition causes nothing but issues.

    The problem was that Western countries gave away something that they had no right to give away.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'm merely saying that all people have a mix of different groupings. It's highly unreasonable to criticise Jewry on one standard, and then not afford the Palestinians the same criticism. They are no more indigenous to the land than the Israelis are. The only difference is that one was displaced longer than the other.

    Once again, 2000 year old claim is a bad joke.

    Palestinians are descended from Jews, who changed there Religion a couple of times, and inter-married, and lived there for a millenia. Zionists have a 2000 year old land claim, which is a bloody joke.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    They are no more a joke than the claims that the Palestinians currently are making. I think they need to be heard.

    Nope, could care less what some loon in the West Bank says about some 2000 year old claim personally, and they have no validity under international law.

    Palestinian claims however, do have validity under international law.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't think you'd call it a "bloody joke" if your group of people were slandered and despised wherever they went. It's a bit rich to criticise something outside of it's context.

    No, its a bit rich to go someplace and drive people out of there homes on the basis that some of you ancestors lived there 2000 year ago, and to use your own abhorent treatment at the hands of another group of people to justify you own frankly abhrorent treatment of another group of people (who are actually distant relatives, but inter-married and changed there Religion, so they don't count anymore).
    Jakkass wrote: »
    It raises questions over Palestinian national identity.

    So? If Palestinians want to become part of Egypt or Jordan, thats there business. Its there land, and they get to do what they want with it.

    However, they have made there choice of a independent state clear, so I fail to see much relevance in what you say for the current situation, as Palestinains nationalism clearly exists in there here and now.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Yes, it is irrelevant. Everything to do with the Palestinians being more indigenous, and the Jewish people not having a viable right to the land and to live there is absurd and ridiculous.

    Once again, a 2000 year old claim, has no validity in International law, and personally I think it to be nonsensical in the extreme.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    What matters is a levelling off of rights and freedoms, not nitpicking about who is more "indigenous". Israel's here, and it's probably going to be here to stay. What needs to happen though, is that Palestinians can be respected as human beings.

    I never called for Israel to go away, I was replying to someone who brung up the past, and addressed the myths they presented, and I have no issue with calling the basis for the creation of the state of Israel to be ridiculous. This has nothing to do with the here and the now.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    What I'm interested is an honest assessment of the history which is both sides did horrible things to each other. This is clearly evident from a historical viewpoint from the 1860's through 1948 in particular.

    Personally, I don't see you assessment as being particularly honest personally, especially when you refer to "migration".


  • #81
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    wes wrote: »
    You are deliberatly ignoring the fact that Zionists wanted to take over Palestine and the indigenous people be damned. We call this Colonialism these days. Bringing up other people who did the same does not justify it.

    I'm somewhere in the middle. I don't support either side 100% exclusively. I do think that bad things were done, but bad things were done on both sides, and this needs to be recognised rather than demonising one side over the other. This isn't helpful and it won't bring about a solution.

    Bringing up the other tribes who have lived in this area means that the land is a much more contentious issue. It doesn't mean that the Palestinians have any right above and beyond the Israelis to live there. Indeed, such an argument misses the key point.

    Israel exists, but there are serious human rights abuses against the Palestinians. What do we do now? Squabbling about who is more "indigenous" is another issue.
    wes wrote: »
    Zionists did not go to Palestine to just live there as you put, they went there to create there own state at the expense of the people already living there, and naturally enough, they had a problem with that. Invasion and migration are 2 very different things, and to describe Zionists as migrants is ridiculous, when you go someplace with the express intention of taking it over and creating your own state, we call that an invasion.

    The Jews from Russia who came in the 1870's before the 1886 Zionist Congress didn't have any clear ambitions for Israeli statehood. Following from the Zionist Congress, yes there were clear ambitions for Israeli statehood there, I haven't denied this either.

    The Jewish people were migrants, irrespective of your need to demonise them. Escaping a situation which they couldn't tolerate for much longer. I think that can be sympathised with to a degree.
    wes wrote: »
    Seriously, I don't understand how you can possibly call what the Zionists did as migration.

    Quite easily. People came from one part of the world, and inhabited another.
    wes wrote: »
    Again, a 2000 year old land claim is a joke.

    I have yet to see what's so funny about being displaced and despised as European Jewry were for years.
    wes wrote: »
    Well, now they both have a equal right to the land. I don't expect Jews to leave after generations have been born there since Zionists went there.

    They always did.
    wes wrote: »
    I agree with that.

    Good, we have some common ground. This is actually the most important common ground of all. Any other disagreement is tangential.
    wes wrote: »
    They already say they have no right of return, in direct opposition to international law. Incidently, the right of return of refugee's is covered under international law these days, and Palestinian refugee's fall under that. So, I would go with international law regarding a right of return for Palestinian refugee's.
    wes wrote: »
    As for a 1000 years from now, I don't see any relevance regarding that, as in all likelihood the situation will be completely changed by then.

    Also, they use there 2000 year old land claim to justify land theft in the occupied terroritories btw, again in direct violation of International law.

    I recognise that Israel has wronged the Palestinians in numerous ways, as the Palestinians have wronged the Israelis in numerous ways.
    wes wrote: »
    So basically, the Palestinians be damned then? Right? Who cares what the people who live there already think about a European colonial invasion? Honestly, Zionists had no right to invade another country and kick out the people living there, and Herzl pretty much intended that the Palestinains be ethnically cleansed:

    I don't agree entirely with your assessment of the situation. I also resent the fact that you are more interested in putting words in my mouth. I've already disagreed with displacement of the Palestinians. Are you going to read my posts honestly or distort them to say what I didn't say?

    I actually fall very much to the middle of this issue.

    As for Herzl's intentions, please back up your quotation. I've read other quotes that support the view that Herzl welcomed the idea of the Palestinians residing within Israel. Perhaps he was a double dealer, but who knows.
    wes wrote: »
    What we are talking about is invasion, not migration. I find it hard to believe that you are confusing the 2.

    I think you need to distinguish between the situation of individual European Jews who came there, and the organised effort to found a Jewish State.

    I will tell you with no apologies that if I were a European Jew, and I were offered a chance to move back to Israel at that point in history I would have done so without question.

    Try put yourself in that situation and tell me what you would have done.
    wes wrote: »
    I hold mainsteam Zionism with the utmost contempt. Zionism is no different than any other European ideology that called for colonialism of foreign countries. Zionism was and (mainstream) Zionism to this day is largely a racists colonial ideology.

    Feel free to do so, don't expect me to join you. I want to take an impartial look at this and see what the best thing we can do right now is. There are extremists involved as with any viewpoint, for example Meir Kahane who not only encouraged xenophobia, but also encouraged domestic terrorism in the United States and Israel. I reject this, but I'm not going to brand every Israeli who takes pride in the Israeli state as someone to be held in contempt. Likewise I won't be doing the same for every Palestinian who hopes for a better future.

    Such a viewpoint won't help, and won't bring about change.
    wes wrote: »
    Also, once again, the Zionists were invaders, and there 2000 year old land claim a bad joke and does not deserve to be taken in anyway shape or for seriously.
    wes wrote: »
    The UN vote was a general assembly vote, which aren't binding.

    The British sought advice from the UN in 1947. Having received this advice they went ahead and attempted to implement the advice that they have received giving Israel 55% of the land, the Palestinians 45% (which is arguably the more unfair part), and Jerusalem and it's environs to the United Nations.

    The Palestinians didn't like this, and revolted. Their Arab neighbours came to their call. The Israelis defeated them and expelled 700,000 Palestinians from the land. This was wrong, and I resent it.
    wes wrote: »
    The problem was that Western countries gave away something that they had no right to give away.
    wes wrote: »
    Once again, 2000 year old claim is a bad joke.

    Before the British, the land was under Ottoman sovereignty. There was no Palestinian state. The British attempted to accommodate both by offering separate states. This was a bad move.
    wes wrote: »
    Palestinians are descended from Jews, who changed there Religion a couple of times, and inter-married, and lived there for a millenia. Zionists have a 2000 year old land claim, which is a bloody joke.

    We've been through this already. I don't feel that based on their ancestry the Palestinians have a stronger case than the Ashkenazi Jewry.
    wes wrote: »
    Nope, could care less what some loon in the West Bank says about some 2000 year old claim personally, and they have no validity under international law.

    This is incredibly disingenuous. You read my post, and then you assume I'm referring to settlers in the West Bank.

    I'm referring to even the most ordinary of Israelis who are glad that they have an opportunity to live in freedom. All we have to do is ensure this freedom can be afforded to the Palestinians rather than squabbling over whether or not Israel should exist. It exists and it will continue to do so.
    wes wrote: »
    Palestinian claims however, do have validity under international law.

    Palestinian claims to equal rights, of course have validity. I'm not arguing that you don't. I'm interested in a via media solution rather than a partisan approach like you are taking.
    wes wrote: »
    No, its a bit rich to go someplace and drive people out of there homes on the basis that some of you ancestors lived there 2000 year ago, and to use your own abhorent treatment at the hands of another group of people to justify you own frankly abhrorent treatment of another group of people (who are actually distant relatives, but inter-married and changed there Religion, so they don't count anymore).

    Did I or did I not disagree with Al Naqba already?

    I could go through the numerous other pogroms that happened between 1860's and the 1940's such as the Hebron Massacre of 1929 where the Jewish community were purged out of the city and slaughtered. It's not the issue though. Making a list of wrongs is very easy.

    What I am suggesting is, to move forward, dwelling on the wrongs isn't the answer.
    wes wrote: »
    So? If Palestinians want to become part of Egypt or Jordan, thats there business. Its there land, and they get to do what they want with it.

    It says something about how viable they thought their national identity was if it was dispensable as soon as the Egyptians and the Jordanians made an offer in the 1949 Armistice Agreement.
    wes wrote: »
    However, they have made there choice of a independent state clear, so I fail to see much relevance in what you say for the current situation, as Palestinains nationalism clearly exists in there here and now.

    Indeed. There are two options. 2 state solution essentially a replay of the 1948 plan with a few changes, or a 1 state solution. I think the latter is more viable.
    wes wrote: »
    Once again, a 2000 year old claim, has no validity in International law, and personally I think it to be nonsensical in the extreme.

    Whether or not it has any viability in international law isn't the issue. Israel's here now. You can bet your money that if someone drove the Israelis out of Israel it would be as much a human rights issue as in the case of the Palestinians though.
    wes wrote: »
    I never called for Israel to go away, I was replying to someone who brung up the past, and addressed the myths they presented, and I have no issue with calling the basis for the creation of the state of Israel to be ridiculous. This has nothing to do with the here and the now.

    It's patently absurd particularly from the perspective of Jewish people in Europe in the 19th century to suggest that anti-Semitism wasn't a good basis to seek freedom somewhere else. From that point of view I would have advocated it to the end. Any one of us would.
    wes wrote: »
    Personally, I don't see you assessment as being particularly honest personally, especially when you refer to "migration".

    I don't think your assessment is in any way considering the situation that the people who came to Israel were in. It's very easy to take a partisan view, it's more difficult to try and reconcile both, and consider both.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    arybvtcw0eolkf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,608 ✭✭✭✭arybvtcw0eolkf


    Brian Griffin wrote: »
    Think i Got a bit of insight to why this is but could be completely wrong.

    I've met a ood few israelis and heres my two cents.

    Most of them are all horrible people. Its there the only country that the people are nearly always rude and annoying at best. Every other country has people that are nice and people who are not, regardless of the sterotype that the counrty has.

    I think the reason for this is that mosts of the Israelis that you meet traveling are of an age where they have recently left the army, more then likely they are traveling with friends from the army. They are completely indoctrinated by the army and are dicks without a brain. But even met one or two traveling by themselves and they were also rude.

    I have met a few Israelis that are alright, they were older or had skipped the county to avoid the army. And i got on ok with these guys, didnt bring up any sensitive subjects though.


    Those horrible bastards are threatening Haiti now!..

    'Israel was rushing rescue forces to the poverty-stricken nation. Two El Al planes took off from Ben-Gurion Airport on Thursday night carrying a 121-member delegation that includes 40 doctors, five search-and-rescue teams, and a K9 rescue squad from the army's Oketz unit. The IDF medical teams are preparing to spend two weeks in Haiti and to see an average of 500 patients a day, Chief IDF Medical Corps Officer Brig.-Gen. Nahman Ash said on Thursday.

    OC Home Front Command Brig.-Gen. Shalom Ben-Aryeh, head of the delegation, said there was hope that the search-and-rescue teams would still succeed in rescuing people trapped beneath the rubble. He said that the pictures from Haiti were reminiscent of the last rescue mission Israel launched to India in 2002.'


    SOURCE

    I might also add to that, that on my travels I've met many, many Irish people.

    Almost without exception all have been obnoxious & violent drunks, but hey what can ya say!.


  • #83
    joesoap007
    Closed Accounts Posts: 152 ✭✭joesoap007


    lol spellings not great,are you makin fun of me


  • #84
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Gunner Weak Shelf wrote: »
    Those horrible bastards are threatening Haiti now!..

    'Israel was rushing rescue forces to the poverty-stricken nation. Two El Al planes took off from Ben-Gurion Airport on Thursday night carrying a 121-member delegation that includes 40 doctors, five search-and-rescue teams, and a K9 rescue squad from the army's Oketz unit.


    Considering the size of their economy thats not that surprising;

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/opinion/12brooks.html

    It ranks second behind the U.S. in the number of companies listed on the Nasdaq. Israel, with seven million people, attracts as much venture capital as France and Germany combined.


  • #85
    arybvtcw0eolkf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,608 ✭✭✭✭arybvtcw0eolkf


    Morlar wrote: »
    Considering the size of their economy thats not that surprising;

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/opinion/12brooks.html

    It ranks second behind the U.S. in the number of companies listed on the Nasdaq. Israel, with seven million people, attracts as much venture capital as France and Germany combined.

    Your desparate and scrapping the bottom of the barrel now, give it over - you do yourself no favours!.


  • #86
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'm somewhere in the middle. I don't support either side 100% exclusively. I do think that bad things were done, but bad things were done on both sides, and this needs to be recognised rather than demonising one side over the other. This isn't helpful and it won't bring about a solution.

    I am not demonizing anyone firstly. I judge each side claims on there own merit, and I make up my mind that way. If I find less merit on one sides claim, I will state that.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Bringing up the other tribes who have lived in this area means that the land is a much more contentious issue. It doesn't mean that the Palestinians have any right above and beyond the Israelis to live there. Indeed, such an argument misses the key point.

    The other tribes don't exist anymore, so I don't see the relevance.

    Also, once again 2000 year land claims, make no senses whatsoever.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Israel exists, but there are serious human rights abuses against the Palestinians. What do we do now? Squabbling about who is more "indigenous" is another issue.

    Ok, so why did you reply that part of my post if you don't think it relevant then? Why even
    Jakkass wrote: »
    The Jews from Russia who came in the 1870's before the 1886 Zionist Congress didn't have any clear ambitions for Israeli statehood. Following from the Zionist Congress, yes there were clear ambitions for Israeli statehood there, I haven't denied this either.

    The concept of Zionism actually exists long before the first congress, and Zionist intention were clear as day. The founder of Zionism own words confirm this intention pretty clearly.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    The Jewish people were migrants, irrespective of your need to demonise them. Escaping a situation which they couldn't tolerate for much longer. I think that can be sympathised with to a degree.

    Quite easily. People came from one part of the world, and inhabited another.

    Again, Zionists were invaders. Going someplace with intention of taking it over, is an invasion, being persecuted by someone else does not change this. If the majority of Zionists just wanted to go there to live, we would not be having this conversation.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I have yet to see what's so funny about being displaced and despised as European Jewry were for years.

    Now, your deliberately misrepresenting me. I said a 2000 year old land claim is a joke, and not that the persecution of Europes Jews was a joke. Seriously, you know very well what I am saying, so you shouldn't purposefully misrepresent what I am saying.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    They always did.

    Nope, they didn't. One sides claim was based on a 2000 year old land claim, which is rather absurd.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Good, we have some common ground. This is actually the most important common ground of all. Any other disagreement is tangential.

    Fair enough.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I recognise that Israel has wronged the Palestinians in numerous ways, as the Palestinians have wronged the Israelis in numerous ways.

    Yes, both have done so, but I think it fair to say, that Israel has done a lot more to the Palestinians.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't agree entirely with your assessment of the situation. I also resent the fact that you are more interested in putting words in my mouth. I've already disagreed with displacement of the Palestinians. Are you going to read my posts honestly or distort them to say what I didn't say?

    Well lets see what I said then:
    wes wrote:
    So basically, the Palestinians be damned then? Right? Who cares what the people who live there already think about a European colonial invasion? Honestly, Zionists had no right to invade another country and kick out the people living there, and Herzl pretty much intended that the Palestinains be ethnically cleansed:

    My issue with what you said, is that you seem to think that Zionism would some how not affect the Palestinians, and that they had some sort of right to Palestine, regardless of the wishes of those who live there. Have I misinterpreted you?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I actually fall very much to the middle of this issue.

    As for Herzl's intentions, please back up your quotation. I've read other quotes that support the view that Herzl welcomed the idea of the Palestinians residing within Israel. Perhaps he was a double dealer, but who knows.

    I provided a link with the original quote.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I think you need to distinguish between the situation of individual European Jews who came there, and the organised effort to found a Jewish State.

    I will tell you with no apologies that if I were a European Jew, and I were offered a chance to move back to Israel at that point in history I would have done so without question.

    Try put yourself in that situation and tell me what you would have done.

    Well, I would not do what they did.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Feel free to do so, don't expect me to join you. I want to take an impartial look at this and see what the best thing we can do right now is.

    I would disagree with you claims to impartiality. You have stated several Zionist myths as facts for example, and are deliberately obtuse, when you are challenged on them.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    There are extremists involved as with any viewpoint, for example Meir Kahane who not only encouraged xenophobia, but also encouraged domestic terrorism in the United States and Israel. I reject this, but I'm not going to brand every Israeli who takes pride in the Israeli state as someone to be held in contempt. Likewise I won't be doing the same for every Palestinian who hopes for a better future.

    Such a viewpoint won't help, and won't bring about change.

    I agree extremists exists, but the Israeli government are the ones who are supporting and building colonies in the West Bank, and they represent main stream Zionism, which is what I hold in contempt. My view point is based on the facts as I see them, and the colonies are doing more damage to peace than any view point that I have.

    Also, If someone is proud of there country, I have no issues with that, however if they support the colonies, then they are very much a part of the problem and not my view of them.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    The British sought advice from the UN in 1947. Having received this advice they went ahead and attempted to implement the advice that they have received giving Israel 55% of the land, the Palestinians 45% (which is arguably the more unfair part), and Jerusalem and it's environs to the United Nations.

    The Bristish had no right to give away something which did not belong to them, and there actions have caused untold pain and suffering in the world, due to there feckless actions.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    The Palestinians didn't like this, and revolted. Their Arab neighbours came to their call. The Israelis defeated them and expelled 700,000 Palestinians from the land. This was wrong, and I resent it.

    Well, we both agree with that much.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Before the British, the land was under Ottoman sovereignty. There was no Palestinian state. The British attempted to accommodate both by offering separate states. This was a bad move.

    Zionists btw, were demanding a state, and were engaged in terrorism against the British to achieve at the same time btw.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    We've been through this already. I don't feel that based on their ancestry the Palestinians have a stronger case than the Ashkenazi Jewry.

    Again, I liken the Palestinians to the native American's and I think ancient land claims are not in anyway shape or form valid.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    This is incredibly disingenuous. You read my post, and then you assume I'm referring to settlers in the West Bank.

    I taught you wanted to talk about the here and now in that instance. My bad, I got confused.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'm referring to even the most ordinary of Israelis who are glad that they have an opportunity to live in freedom. All we have to do is ensure this freedom can be afforded to the Palestinians rather than squabbling over whether or not Israel should exist. It exists and it will continue to do so.

    I have no issues with Israels existence, but if you want to discuss the past, then I think it perfectly valid to state my opinion that the state should not have been created in the first place. If you don't want to discuss the past, then you shouldn't reply to such posts.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Palestinian claims to equal rights, of course have validity. I'm not arguing that you don't. I'm interested in a via media solution rather than a partisan approach like you are taking.

    I see no reason not to call things the way I see them. That what I do all the time, and I personally think it would be wrong of me to take any other approach.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Did I or did I not disagree with Al Naqba already?

    Yes, and how exactly do you think Zionists were going to set up a state where they were not the majority?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I could go through the numerous other pogroms that happened between 1860's and the 1940's such as the Hebron Massacre of 1929 where the Jewish community were purged out of the city and slaughtered. It's not the issue though. Making a list of wrongs is very easy.

    Yes, and those things were terrible, but if you don't want to discuss history, why did you reply to those bits of my post?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    What I am suggesting is, to move forward, dwelling on the wrongs isn't the answer.

    Al Naqba is at the heart of the conflict. I am not listing every single indignity and crime commited by either side, but the one that is very much at the heart of the conflict.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    It says something about how viable they thought their national identity was if it was dispensable as soon as the Egyptians and the Jordanians made an offer in the 1949 Armistice Agreement.

    So? I don't see the issue. If Palestinians wanted to merge with other states, thats there business.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Indeed. There are two options. 2 state solution essentially a replay of the 1948 plan with a few changes, or a 1 state solution. I think the latter is more viable.

    I would agree that 1 state is probably the best solution, as the 2 side are too intermingled at this point to split.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Whether or not it has any viability in international law isn't the issue. Israel's here now. You can bet your money that if someone drove the Israelis out of Israel it would be as much a human rights issue as in the case of the Palestinians though.

    Yes, of course it would. It would be against international law.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's patently absurd particularly from the perspective of Jewish people in Europe in the 19th century to suggest that anti-Semitism wasn't a good basis to seek freedom somewhere else. From that point of view I would have advocated it to the end. Any one of us would.

    I would not have advocated taken over some one else land, against the wishes of the people who live there. This is what Zionism was, and btw I am not attributing that view to you.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't think your assessment is in any way considering the situation that the people who came to Israel were in. It's very easy to take a partisan view, it's more difficult to try and reconcile both, and consider both.

    I have considered both and judge them on there merits. I find the Zionist side to have little merit and I have no issues with saying so. If you find it partisan, then fair enough, but at the end of the day, just because 2 sides are making claims, doesn't make them both valid.


  • #87
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Gunner Weak Shelf wrote: »
    Your desparate and scrapping the bottom of the barrel now, give it over - you do yourself no favours!.

    What the hell are you talking about ?

    You posted a link saying they were sending 2 aerpolanes, I posted a link illustrating that it was not exactly surprising given the scale of their economy ?

    How exactly is that scraping the bottom of the barrel ?


  • #88
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    wes wrote: »
    The other tribes don't exist anymore, so I don't see the relevance.

    It shows that your argument isn't as solid as you might think it is. The Palestinians have not been there perpetually, populations have shifted and changed. They deserve rights, but they are not more deserving of living there than Israelis are.
    wes wrote: »
    Also, once again 2000 year land claims, make no senses whatsoever.

    It makes perfect sense that the Jewish people should return to their ancestral homeland after being maligned and mistreated for centuries. What mightn't make sense is whether or not the Israeli state should have been born. That's a whole other argument.

    Your lack of empathy for the circumstances at the time is where we are getting lost here.
    wes wrote: »
    The concept of Zionism actually exists long before the first congress, and Zionist intention were clear as day. The founder of Zionism own words confirm this intention pretty clearly.

    Elaborate more, I'm interested.
    wes wrote: »
    Again, Zionists were invaders. Going someplace with intention of taking it over, is an invasion, being persecuted by someone else does not change this. If the majority of Zionists just wanted to go there to live, we would not be having this conversation.

    In many cases Zionists were merely people who had better hopes for their families and children. This was a real option.
    wes wrote: »
    Now, your deliberately misrepresenting me. I said a 2000 year old land claim is a joke, and not that the persecution of Europes Jews was a joke. Seriously, you know very well what I am saying, so you shouldn't purposefully misrepresent what I am saying.

    I'm not really purposely misrepresenting it. You are criticising the Zionist movement for settling in Israel. What else would they have done?
    wes wrote: »
    Nope, they didn't. One sides claim was based on a 2000 year old land claim, which is rather absurd.

    Why is it absurd? - If one takes into account the human aspect of it, it's hardly absurd at all.
    wes wrote: »
    Yes, both have done so, but I think it fair to say, that Israel has done a lot more to the Palestinians.

    I don't if I take the whole span of the history until the present. Right now, yes, the Israelis have disproportionate control.

    It's a tightrope for them:
    If they tighten the security situation too tight they will get criticised, but if they loosen it up too much there will be a spate of suicide bombs within Israeli cities. This is reality. It's an incredibly difficult situation for them to decide over. Do you understand how it might be difficult for them to make such a decision? Distrust is something that is a problem in this conflict.
    wes wrote: »
    My issue with what you said, is that you seem to think that Zionism would some how not affect the Palestinians, and that they had some sort of right to Palestine, regardless of the wishes of those who live there. Have I misinterpreted you?

    Where did I say this? This is nothing but an implication. Yes, you have misinterpreted me to a considerable degree. I think both sides are worthy of consideration, and we need to find an accommodation that suits both instead of the typical "Screw Israel" response you often get. It's just not good enough.

    I think the Jewish people had a right to settle in Palestine, but I do think they should have considered the indigenous population more. That said, if the demographics considerably shifted, this doesn't amount to stealing, rather just political changes within a polity at a certain time. This shouldn't have been brought about by displacement or violence that's my issue with the Israeli side. I have no qualms about Jewish people living in Israel or in that region, or with Jewish people arriving.
    wes wrote: »
    Well, I would not do what they did.

    Very easy to say now. If I was regarded as sub-human for being of a certain descent, or for having certain beliefs, I would want to establish a place where myself and my brethren would be safe. Hands down I would have been on the first ship to Israel if I were a Jew living in 19th century Europe.
    wes wrote: »
    I would disagree with you claims to impartiality. You have stated several Zionist myths as facts for example, and are deliberately obtuse, when you are challenged on them.

    I've based all my discussion on historical sources I have read from the period between 1860 and 1967. Provide your source, and I will discuss it. I've even cited what main text I have used to reason about the history. It's hardly a "myth" to suggest that the Zionist Congress raised funds for settlement and purchase of the land if that is indeed what happened in Geneva from 1886 onwards.

    Provide your (objective, non-partisan) sources and I will discuss them.

    I come from the point of view, where I can sympathise with the Jewish people, and their plight. I also come from the point of view, where I find that the Israeli state has treated people in a substandard fashion.

    Claim that I am making a Zionist argument all you want. The primary reason I've brought forward this viewpoint is that most of the discussion here is pro-Palestinian. Were I in a discussion the other way around, I would probably attempt to balance it from the pro-Palestinian point of view.
    wes wrote: »
    I agree extremists exists, but the Israeli government are the ones who are supporting and building colonies in the West Bank, and they represent main stream Zionism, which is what I hold in contempt. My view point is based on the facts as I see them, and the colonies are doing more damage to peace than any view point that I have.

    I'm quite aware of this. It's disingenuous to suggest that every Israeli supports this though. It's also disingenuous to suggest that every Zionist supports this.
    wes wrote: »
    Also, If someone is proud of there country, I have no issues with that, however if they support the colonies, then they are very much a part of the problem and not my view of them.

    So, if someone is proud of Israel's existence and the freedom that it brought for those people who arrived there, is this wrong?
    wes wrote: »
    The British had no right to give away something which did not belong to them, and there actions have caused untold pain and suffering in the world, due to there feckless actions.

    The British had jurisdiction. Before that it was the Ottomans. They partitioned the land between the Jews and the Palestinians albeit in a questionable fashion.

    What would your solution be? I think they should have made a single State with two peoples.
    wes wrote: »
    Zionists btw, were demanding a state, and were engaged in terrorism against the British to achieve at the same time btw.

    Are you honestly trying to tell me that Arabs did not commit acts of terrorism against the British and the Jewry from the time of their original settlement until 1948?

    Yes, the Haganah and the Irgun did exist, but your assessment is utterly disproportionate.
    wes wrote: »
    Again, I liken the Palestinians to the native American's and I think ancient land claims are not in anyway shape or form valid.

    I think such a comparison is inaccurate, both claimed to be heirs of the land. It wasn't a foreign force settling in a foreign land. It was a people returning home.
    wes wrote: »
    Yes, and how exactly do you think Zionists were going to set up a state where they were not the majority?

    Answer my question.

    You're being disingenuous again. I think Israel should exist, but not necessarily as a State that rejects the Palestinians, but integrated them within.

    I.E I don't advocate expelling 700,000 people from their homes.
    wes wrote: »
    Yes, and those things were terrible, but if you don't want to discuss history, why did you reply to those bits of my post?

    Due to the fact that your viewpoint is incredibly objectionable and unbalanced.
    wes wrote: »
    Al Naqba is at the heart of the conflict. I am not listing every single indignity and crime commited by either side, but the one that is very much at the heart of the conflict.

    There are incidents which define it for both sides.
    wes wrote: »
    So? I don't see the issue. If Palestinians wanted to merge with other states, thats there business.

    I do. If you fight for a State and then give away your land it shows a form of dishonesty.
    wes wrote: »
    I would agree that 1 state is probably the best solution, as the 2 side are too intermingled at this point to split.

    More common ground. We're just in an issue of wanting to put the finger on someone to blame. My point of view is that both are equally to blame.
    wes wrote: »
    I would not have advocated taken over some one else land, against the wishes of the people who live there. This is what Zionism was, and btw I am not attributing that view to you.

    I personally find that unbelievable. I think you are coming at this from your own bias rather than genuinely thinking of the circumstances behind such an effort.
    wes wrote: »
    I have considered both and judge them on there merits. I find the Zionist side to have little merit and I have no issues with saying so. If you find it partisan, then fair enough, but at the end of the day, just because 2 sides are making claims, doesn't make them both valid.

    I find both to have merit, especially when you take the time to try a bit of empathy. I used to think the exact same as you did until I actually looked into it, and found out more about what the Jewish experience was like in Europe, and the challenges they faced in Israel. Of course the Palestinian situation was hard, as well, and has become incredibly harder ever since the Israeli state decided to take certain paths towards certain conclusions so as to make it more difficult.


  • #89
    GLUEY
    Closed Accounts Posts: 108 ✭✭GLUEY


    I know this makes me sound very slow, but where did all this hatred of Jews come from? Something to do with Jesus, or was it immigration or what? Sorry :o


  • #90
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    getz wrote: »
    thats true, but why is that ?

    Same factors that affect the rest of the population over the same time period initially - the need to emigrate to find work. Once the population falls below a certain level, there might have been the problem whereby if you wanted to marry within the Jewish tradition, staying here might well have made that difficult in the extreme. As regards religous difficulties/bigotry, it was the same boat for liberal catholics, protestants. This was not a pleasant country to be in, in that sense.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It shows that your argument isn't as solid as you might think it is. The Palestinians have not been there perpetually, populations have shifted and changed. They deserve rights, but they are not more deserving of living there than Israelis are.

    Genetic testing shows that the Palestinian have been there indefinitely actually. They inter-married with other groups and they changed there name, Religion etc. Once again they are the indigenous population, and are no different than the Native Americans in that regard.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    It makes perfect sense that the Jewish people should return to their ancestral homeland after being maligned and mistreated for centuries. What mightn't make sense is whether or not the Israeli state should have been born. That's a whole other argument.

    I have no issues with anyone going to another country legally for whatever reason, but we are not talking about that we are talking about Zionism.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Your lack of empathy for the circumstances at the time is where we are getting lost here.

    I certainly feel that what was done to Jews through out the centuries was horrible, but I am very specifically talking about Zionists, and not all Jews.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Elaborate more, I'm interested.

    I was talking specifically of Herzl and the quote I mentioned earlier.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    In many cases Zionists were merely people who had better hopes for their families and children. This was a real option.

    Every Invader through out history has had a family. I don't see why Zionists would be different tbh.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'm not really purposely misrepresenting it. You are criticising the Zionist movement for settling in Israel. What else would they have done?

    Well, for one not invader another country and ethnically cleanse the indigenous population.

    You, btw very clearly misrepresented what I said. I did not make light of anybodies suffering.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Why is it absurd? - If one takes into account the human aspect of it, it's hardly absurd at all.

    Human's are pretty absurd most of the time.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't if I take the whole span of the history until the present. Right now, yes, the Israelis have disproportionate control.

    It's a tightrope for them:
    If they tighten the security situation too tight they will get criticised, but if they loosen it up too much there will be a spate of suicide bombs within Israeli cities. This is reality. It's an incredibly difficult situation for them to decide over. Do you understand how it might be difficult for them to make such a decision? Distrust is something that is a problem in this conflict.

    What I understand is that they are constantly stealing Palestinian land and calling it security and a lot of there problems stem from this theft. The Israeli's could easily protects themselves and not completely screw over the Palestinians.

    For example, Israel apartheid wall, could easily be built in Israel, instead of again stealing more Palestinian land. If Israel main concern was security and not a greater Israel, a Palestinian state would have been setup a long time ago.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Where did I say this? This is nothing but an implication. Yes, you have misinterpreted me to a considerable degree. I think both sides are worthy of consideration, and we need to find an accommodation that suits both instead of the typical "Screw Israel" response you often get. It's just not good enough.

    You take Zionism in isolation very often, and I apologies if I misinterpreted that.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I think the Jewish people had a right to settle in Palestine, but I do think they should have considered the indigenous population more. That said, if the demographics considerably shifted, this doesn't amount to stealing, rather just political changes within a polity at a certain time. This shouldn't have been brought about by displacement or violence that's my issue with the Israeli side. I have no qualms about Jewish people living in Israel or in that region, or with Jewish people arriving.

    Once again, you present are bizarre interpretation of history.

    Zionists were colonists, they went there with the intent to take over, and as such are not settlers. Secondly, ethnically cleansing is what caused the demographic shift. In 1948, Jews were still a minority.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Very easy to say now. If I was regarded as sub-human for being of a certain descent, or for having certain beliefs, I would want to establish a place where myself and my brethren would be safe. Hands down I would have been on the first ship to Israel if I were a Jew living in 19th century Europe.

    Good for you. I would have opposed any such invasion personally.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I've based all my discussion on historical sources I have read from the period between 1860 and 1967. Provide your source, and I will discuss it. I've even cited what main text I have used to reason about the history. It's hardly a "myth" to suggest that the Zionist Congress raised funds for settlement and purchase of the land if that is indeed what happened in Geneva from 1886 onwards.

    Provide your (objective, non-partisan) sources and I will discuss them.

    I come from the point of view, where I can sympathise with the Jewish people, and their plight. I also come from the point of view, where I find that the Israeli state has treated people in a substandard fashion.

    Claim that I am making a Zionist argument all you want. The primary reason I've brought forward this viewpoint is that most of the discussion here is pro-Palestinian. Were I in a discussion the other way around, I would probably attempt to balance it from the pro-Palestinian point of view.

    I never denied that they bought land, just that they bought the majority of it. Again you are being obtuse. Zionists buying land does not give them a right to a nation state to put it simply.

    As for source, you can read Peace not Apartheid by Jimmy Carter, and the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Illan Pappe.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'm quite aware of this. It's disingenuous to suggest that every Israeli supports this though. It's also disingenuous to suggest that every Zionist supports this.

    I used the term mainstream Zionist and did not refer to all Zionists or Israeli's, hence why I used the term to refer to a specific group.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    So, if someone is proud of Israel's existence and the freedom that it brought for those people who arrived there, is this wrong?

    Nope, nothing wrong. However, seeing as that freedom was gained at the expense of the Palestinians, it is insensitive.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    The British had jurisdiction. Before that it was the Ottomans. They partitioned the land between the Jews and the Palestinians albeit in a questionable fashion.

    Could care less about what the British had. They promised the Arab freedom after World War 1 and stabbed them in the back, like they have always done. The British government of the day, were a pack of criminals with bigger guns than other people.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    What would your solution be? I think they should have made a single State with two peoples.

    The British shouldn't have promised to give a state in Palestine to Jews back then, but nowadays, either a 2 state (which is pretty unlikely due to the colonies) or 1 state solution.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Are you honestly trying to tell me that Arabs did not commit acts of terrorism against the British and the Jewry from the time of their original settlement until 1948?

    Yes, the Haganah and the Irgun did exist, but your assessment is utterly disproportionate.

    I would not call Arab attacks on the British military terrorists personally, the British were foreign occupiers who promised them freedom and reneged on it. The British had it coming in that regard imho.

    As for attacks on Jewish civilians, they were most certainly terrorists attacks.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I think such a comparison is inaccurate, both claimed to be heirs of the land. It wasn't a foreign force settling in a foreign land. It was a people returning home.

    Nope, it was clearly a foreign force. They were European colonists. 2000 year old land claims have no validity whatsoever.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Answer my question.

    I did.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    You're being disingenuous again. I think Israel should exist, but not necessarily as a State that rejects the Palestinians, but integrated them within.

    I.E I don't advocate expelling 700,000 people from their homes.

    Israel was setup to be a Jewish state. That is its entire purpose. So it is confusing at times to know where you stand.

    I have no issue with a state called Israel existing now, but I am very much against the reality of how Israel was created.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Due to the fact that your viewpoint is incredibly objectionable and unbalanced.

    Objectionable to you maybe, but I am just stating things as they happened and not sugar coating them with any apologetics.

    Personally, I find the 2000 year old land claims to be objectionable and absurd in the extreme. I find the fact that you won't accept that the Palestinian are the indigenous population to also be objectionable, as well as going against facts proven by genetic research.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    There are incidents which define it for both sides.

    Al Naqba is what defines it for the Palestinians. I could bring up any number of other incidents, but I don't as that would take all day.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I do. If you fight for a State and then give away your land it shows a form of dishonesty.

    Nonsense, people can do with there land as they please. To call this dishonest is imho nonsensical.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    More common ground. We're just in an issue of wanting to put the finger on someone to blame. My point of view is that both are equally to blame.

    I would say Zionism is what caused the mess. Without it, the conflict simply wouldn't exist.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I personally find that unbelievable. I think you are coming at this from your own bias rather than genuinely thinking of the circumstances behind such an effort.

    I know my own mind. If you find my position unbelievable thats your business. I very much against screwing over other people for my benefit and I could easily do it in my own life if i chose to do so, but I don't.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I find both to have merit, especially when you take the time to try a bit of empathy. I used to think the exact same as you did until I actually looked into it, and found out more about what the Jewish experience was like in Europe, and the challenges they faced in Israel. Of course the Palestinian situation was hard, as well, and has become incredibly harder ever since the Israeli state decided to take certain paths towards certain conclusions so as to make it more difficult.

    I am a big believer in 2 wrongs don't make a right. I know Jews had it terrible in Europe, but that doesn't make it right for them to heap misery on to Palestinians. Ultimately Zionists chose to screw over another group of people, who had **** all to do with there persecution in Europe and that is what i judge them on.

    Now, If Zionists took it out on the people who persecuted them, I would have a lot more sympathy, but they Zionists decided to to heap a load crap on the Palestinians and as such they lose any such sympathy.


Advertisement
Advertisement