 |
| |
|
|
Shiber
|
 |
Haifa, Israel
Jul 2002
time: 07:21
|
|
Yes, you were right, I did confuse the two. I apologize.
Regarding the British white paper: the British feared that arab land owners would sell more of their land in Palestine to Jews and that the previous owner's arab workers will be left with no job, as they will be replaced with Jews who will come to work this land.
By limiting Jewish immigration, the British could force Zionists to stop buying land or buy land at a slower rate because there will be no Jewish workers to work the fields.
Besides, the British also had an interest in keeping Jews out because they would rather not see the Jewish/Palestinian conflict in Palestine heat up because then they might be pressured by the rest of the world to end their mandate over Palestine, which is something they wanted to avoid because the mandate was giving them a lot of economical benefits (such as cheaper ways to transfer arab oil). This could be another likely reason why the British limited Jewish immigration into Israel.
P.S. I'll try to explain the "next year in Jerusalem" tradition again, as I see you haven't quite gotten to the bottom of it.
First of all, you've missed quoted the Passover Hagadda, which instead reads "next year in *built* Jerusalem". A Jew who reads this passage is mourning over the loss of the 2nd temple and is expressing his hopes that the era of the 3rd temple of Jerusalem will soon come and that he will live to see it. Jewish people can say this without being complied to migrate to Israel because the 3rd temple hasn't been built yet (according to tradition it will be built after the Messiah will come from the heavens to Jerusalem).
Just so you would know what Jews are "mumbling" about.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
S. Kroeze
|
 |
the Hague, the Netherlands, Old Europe
Dec 1999
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shiber
Dear S. Kroeze,
I have to note that I am not surprised you read so many so-called academic texts which contain so many blunt mistakes or holes.
Many self-proclaimed researchers rely heavily on Hebrew texts and/or quotes from various Jewish figures that were put out of cultural and/or religious context by the translator, the researcher's source(s) or the researcher himself (though often unintentionally).
Since you do not come from a cultural or religious Jewish background, I advise you to double-check your facts and conclusions with those who do before you bring them here. |
As could be expected, you have decided to avoid serious debate -probably because you have run out of arguments- and instead to rely on insinuations and discrediting of sources.
BRAVO!
Of course only Jews can say something about other Jews!
For your information: most authors (Chaim Greenberg, Brenner, Ben-Gurion) -those self-proclaimed researchers- I quoted verbatim, are/were Jews!
Perhaps you might notice that those self-proclaimed researchers at least mention their sources which shows they understand the basics of academic research. Since you seem to doubt their integrity it is your task to double-check their facts and conclusions. I have still some faith in humanity and have no reason to suspect these authors -though some of them were Zionists!
When my sources contain factual errors (or mistranslations) it would be very easy to point them out. Just read some reliable study yourself and show me/us the differences. (Yes, this will require some effort on our side) Next we could discuss the differences.
When you would possess greater intellectual integrity you would at least try to give examples of important Zionists publicly condemning Nazism, Fascism, Anti-semitism and/or bravely defending the rights of Jews in the Western world or the Muslim/Christian Arabs in Palestine. Before 1945 this will be rather difficult, but you could have tried. Good luck!
When you would be less lazy you could search for and read the articles referred to in the footnotes.
My sincere apologies for trying to have a serious debate; I am truly sorry I overestimated you.
Sincerely,
S.Kroeze
PS: When you will ever graduate you will possibly learn to judge the 'academic' quality of some study. Judging a book without having read it, is not a sign of intelligence, nor of moral integrity.
Last edited by S. Kroeze on 26-07-2002 at 21:30
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shiber
|
|
Haifa, Israel
Jul 2002
time: 07:21
|
|
Did I say that those specific researchers you've relied on are fakes? No I haven't, nor did I mean to. I wouldn't have judged them without first reading their studies and compared them with parallel studies.
I did however point out that there are many fakes out there. Not everyone who publishes academic papers is a real researcher.
As for your rediculous claims that the author deserves more credit because he is Jewish - I take it you haven't heard about Jews who deny the holocaust. They too publish academic-looking papers and mention their sources.
As for the validity of the studies and other sources that you referred to, I cannot judge them nor could I have responded to most of your arguments as I am not familiar with history nor with the Zionist movement as you appear to be, nor am I really interested in those subjects.
Sure, it's easy to quote a research and say "this is an academic research I'm quoting. If you want to refute it then why don't you move your lazy ass down to the library and read a truckload of books and articles over a subject which never really appealed to you, and do all that just to answer a post made by some guy you didn't even know a day before". In other words, I don't really give much of a f*** about all this to spend so much time reading so I could be up to your level of knowledge.
To sum up:
What you are doing right now is equal to me walking over to a 10 yr. old kid and saying for example "the holocaust never happened!" and then throw a bunch of facts and refer to several academic papers and say "now refute this!". He simply won't be up to my level. I'd rather discuss issues with my peers who would throw arguments at me that I can properly answer.
Because in order to intellectually respond to all of your arguments I'd have to spend a lot of time studying about something that hardly interest me at all, and because otherwise I won't be able to relate to your arguments, refute them or decide over their credability, I suggest that we terminate this discussion as of now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
S. Kroeze
|
|
the Hague, the Netherlands, Old Europe
Dec 1999
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
This is a Islamic jihad against Israel. On the whole, this is not about the Palestinians getting back their land. It is about the Infidel governing muslim land.
From the Israeli point of view, Israel exists. Regardless of whether Zionism was in part racial - although I have a hard time with that since both the Jews and the Arabs are Semites - to insist that Israel is a colonialist racial conquest that deserves a short and painful deal is to be racist as well. |
As a rule I only quote those parts I judge to be interesting.
Much of the Muslim agitation against Israel is just rhetoric meant to satisfy the general Muslim public.
Nevertheless I do not doubt that in the long term, Palestine will be reintegrated with the Muslim world. Since it is mostly desert and does not contain many valuable raw materials, I think Western Christianity will be able to survive this loss.
Perhaps you still grieve for the loss of the Crusader States?
As you should know by now, I define a Jew by religion, not by race, ethnicity, culture or language.
Nor do I think states should be based on race or religion.
In my view it is of the utmost importance that ALL inhabitants of a country have the same legal/political/economic rights. Nor do I think it desirable that borders do change -generally speaking. This can only promote war.
I am quite certain that some of my ancestors once upon a time lived in Russia and the Middle East.
Yet when I would be so foolish to migrate to Russia or the Middle East (with some other agnostic patrician Dutchmen) I would not expect that the people living in the area would move out. Nor would I wish that those few natives remaining would be treated as second-class citizens, nor would I expect that Dutch would become the language of the country, agnosticism the dominant religion and the prevailing culture patrician.
Nor would I pass laws that would restrict immigration to Dutch, patrician agnosts.
When people would nevertheless pursue such a disastrous policy, they can expect that the people driven out or those reduced to second-class citizenship will not be really enthusiastic. I wouldn't be surprised when they would try to drive me out or to reconquer the lost territory.
Doubtless I would develop some ideology that would establish my superior rights. The natives would be portrayed as barbarians and savages, while Dutch agnosticism would be glorified as the true bearer of civilisation.
So when I migrate to Russia or the Middle East I should accept the fact that Dutch is not the dominant language in the area, agnosticism not the dominant religion and its prevailing culture different.
When I would conform to the local conditions, life could be tolerable. And I would hope that -as in every country- ALL inhabitants of this country have the same legal/political/economic rights, regardless of race, religion, culture. If not, I would strongly advise, not to migrate to this region.
When you condemn this as racist, so be it!
Sincerely,
S.Kroeze
|
|
| |
|
|
|
S. Kroeze
|
|
the Hague, the Netherlands, Old Europe
Dec 1999
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by muxec
The history never repeats. Simply historicans repeat each other.
S. Croeze you act as stupid. Do ypu know about the difference bettwen opinion and fact? |
I am sorry to disappoint you.
Historians do not repeat one another; on the contrary, they often disagree with one another.
They generally read thousands of pages, written by eyewitnesses, journalists etc. They read inscriptions, diaries, codes of law, minute books, government orders, letters, surveys, statistical material, bills, books/pamphlets written during the period they are studying etc; they spend thousands of hours searching archives; they visit locations where important events occurred, often they interview politicians, eyewitnesses, soldiers, public servants etc.; they study maps, land registers etc.
Often they will quote verbatim their sources; if not, they will provide a footnote with a source reference. This makes it possible for other historians/people to read/check these source with their own eyes.
Just one example:
"When, after Kristallnacht, the British, in the hope of easing the pressure for increased immigration into Palestine, proposed that thousands of children be admitted directly into Britain, Ben-Gurion was absolutely against the plan, telling a meeting of Labour Zionist leaders on 7 December 1938:
[*]If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England, and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Yisrael, then I would opt for the second alternative. For we must weigh not only the life of these children, but also the history of the People of Israel.[23]
Britain's policy was firmly fixed; there was not the slightest chance of London suddenly allowing any mass immigration into Palestine, yet Ben-Gurion persisted, refusing to contemplate other sanctuaries. On 17 December 1938 he warned the Zionist Executive:
[*]If Jews will have to choose between the refugees, saving Jews from concentration camps, and assisting a national museum in Palestine, mercy will have the upper hand and the whole energy of the people will be channelled into saving Jews from various countries. Zionism will be struck off the agenda not only in world public opinion, in Britain and the United States, but elsewhere in Jewish public opinion. If we allow a separation between the refugee problem and the Palestinian problem, we are risking the existence of Zionism.[23]"
(source: L.Brenner: 'Zionism in the Age of the Dictators',1983)
[23] Yoav Gelber, 'Zionist Policy and the Fate of European Jewry (1939-42)', Yad Vashem Studies, vol. XII, p. 199.
[24] Ari Bobber (ed.), The Other Israel, p. 171.
[*] note for muxec: like the author I use another type to indicate that those were Ben-Gurion's own words
|
|
| |
|
|
|
S. Kroeze
|
|
the Hague, the Netherlands, Old Europe
Dec 1999
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shiber
Did I say that those specific researchers you've relied on are fakes? No I haven't, nor did I mean to. I wouldn't have judged them without first reading their studies and compared them with parallel studies. |
In a previous post you said: "...so-called academic texts which contain so many blunt mistakes or holes."
In my view this amounts to discrediting of sources, a rather immature strategy.
quote:
I did however point out that there are many fakes out there. Not everyone who publishes academic papers is a real researcher. |
Doubtless some historians are better/more reliable than others; opinions and understanding change. Yet I would never use words as "Many self-proclaimed researchers..." without giving arguments.
quote:
As for your rediculous claims that the author deserves more credit because he is Jewish - I take it you haven't heard about Jews who deny the holocaust. They too publish academic-looking papers and mention their sources. |
I would never have brought this point up, but you have repeatedly said that I was unable to understand something because I am not Jewish. Again a rather disagreeable debating trick.
quote:
As for the validity of the studies and other sources that you referred to, I cannot judge them nor could I have responded to most of your arguments as I am not familiar with history nor with the Zionist movement as you appear to be, nor am I really interested in those subjects.
Sure, it's easy to quote a research and say "this is an academic research I'm quoting. If you want to refute it then why don't you move your lazy ass down to the library and read a truckload of books and articles over a subject which never really appealed to you, and do all that just to answer a post made by some guy you didn't even know a day before". In other words, I don't really give much of a f*** about all this to spend so much time reading so I could be up to your level of knowledge. |
Six months ago I had never read one book about Zionism or Israel. My interest is of quite recent date. Nevertheless I have read by now several books on the subject. When you can recommend studies please do!
When you want to know how confreres judge some publication you can search for reviews in professional historical journals.
Of course for me it will be easier to find literature because of professional training.
quote:
To sum up:
What you are doing right now is equal to me walking over to a 10 yr. old kid and saying for example "the holocaust never happened!" and then throw a bunch of facts and refer to several academic papers and say "now refute this!". He simply won't be up to my level. I'd rather discuss issues with my peers who would throw arguments at me that I can properly answer.
Because in order to intellectually respond to all of your arguments I'd have to spend a lot of time studying about something that hardly interest me at all, and because otherwise I won't be able to relate to your arguments, refute them or decide over their credability, I suggest that we terminate this discussion as of now. |
I agree with your proposal. But why discuss something which doesn't interest you?
I would like to point out that you started to give an overview of Israeli history. I would never make a post without some knowledge on the subject matter. And I will usually read a bit before making a post about it.
On the other hand, you are still a far more intelligent debater than Siro and many others. You are able to admit there are things you don't know!
Sincere regards,
S.Kroeze
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by S. Kroeze
As a rule I only quote those parts I judge to be interesting.
Much of the Muslim agitation against Israel is just rhetoric meant to satisfy the general Muslim public.
Nevertheless I do not doubt that in the long term, Palestine will be reintegrated with the Muslim world. Since it is mostly desert and does not contain many valuable raw materials, I think Western Christianity will be able to survive this loss.
Perhaps you still grieve for the loss of the Crusader States?
As you should know by now, I define a Jew by religion, not by race, ethnicity, culture or language.
Nor do I think states should be based on race or religion.
In my view it is of the utmost importance that ALL inhabitants of a country have the same legal/political/economic rights. Nor do I think it desirable that borders do change -generally speaking. This can only promote war.
I am quite certain that some of my ancestors once upon a time lived in Russia and the Middle East.
Yet when I would be so foolish to migrate to Russia or the Middle East (with some other agnostic patrician Dutchmen) I would not expect that the people living in the area would move out. Nor would I wish that those few natives remaining would be treated as second-class citizens, nor would I expect that Dutch would become the language of the country, agnosticism the dominant religion and the prevailing culture patrician.
Nor would I pass laws that would restrict immigration to Dutch, patrician agnosts.
When people would nevertheless pursue such a disastrous policy, they can expect that the people driven out or those reduced to second-class citizenship will not be really enthusiastic. I wouldn't be surprised when they would try to drive me out or to reconquer the lost territory.
Doubtless I would develop some ideology that would establish my superior rights. The natives would be portrayed as barbarians and savages, while Dutch agnosticism would be glorified as the true bearer of civilisation.
So when I migrate to Russia or the Middle East I should accept the fact that Dutch is not the dominant language in the area, agnosticism not the dominant religion and its prevailing culture different.
When I would conform to the local conditions, life could be tolerable. And I would hope that -as in every country- ALL inhabitants of this country have the same legal/political/economic rights, regardless of race, religion, culture. If not, I would strongly advise, not to migrate to this region.
When you condemn this as racist, so be it!
Sincerely,
S.Kroeze |
It is interesting that many Mexicans migrate to the US year in and year out. So many, that they now comprise one third of the population - maybe more if we had an accurate account. As a result, we have all government forms in both English and Spanish. Schools are taught in both languages. Most Californians who grew up here in the last few decades speak Spanish.
When they get here, they settle mostly in large Mexican-American communities where only Spanish is spoken. They buy land – they don’t steal land – just as the Jewish settlers of Palestine did prior to 1948.
California was once Spanish territory, so there is “some” analogy with the situation in the ME.
Of course there is resistance to further immigration from Mexico. It seems the entire population of Mexico wants to flee and live in the United States. This is why many Americans support NAFTA and anything else that can help build the Mexican economy and political institutions.
But, what differs about the situation here in California, and indeed across the Southwest, is that we do not have armed bands of Anglos attacking Mexicans, openly threatening to drive them into the sea or back to where they came from. This is the real point of departure with the ME.
From my understanding of history, none of the parties involved 1919 understood that the Zionists intentions were to carve out a separate Jewish state. Faisal intended to be King of Syria – a deal he had struck with the British. Weizmann negotiated with Faisal about continued large-scale Jewish immigration into “Palestine.” Faisal agreed.
Later, in 1920, the French were given Syria as a “Mandate.” They moved in during the summer and deposed Faisal. At the same time, Palestine was made a British mandate. Faisal’s army broke up. Many went to Palestine to where they began resistance to the British mandate and the Balfour declaration.
Further details from the Army Area Handbook:
quote:
Prior to the Paris Peace Conference, Palestinian Arab nationalists had worked for a Greater Syria (see Glossary) under Faysal. The British military occupation authority in Palestine, fearing an Arab rebellion, published an Anglo-French Joint Declaration, issued after the armistice with Turkey in November 1918, which called for self-determination for the indigenous people of the region. By the end of 1919, the British had withdrawn from Syria (exclusive of Palestine), but the French had not yet entered (except in Lebanon) and Faysal had not been explicitly repudiated by Britain. In March 1920, a General Syrian Congress meeting in Damascus elected Faysal king of a united Syria, which included Palestine. This raised the hope of the Palestinian Arab population that the Balfour Declaration would be rescinded, setting off a feverish series of demonstrations in Palestine in the spring of 1920. From April 4 to 8, Arab rioters attacked the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem. Faysal’s ouster by the French in the summer of 1920 led to further rioting in Jaffa (contemporary Yafo) as a large number of Palestinian Arabs who had been with Faysal returned to Palestine to fight against the establishment of a Jewish nation.
The end of Faysal’s Greater Syria experiment and the application of the mandate system, which artificially carved up the Arab East into new nation-states, had a profound effect on the history of the region in general and Palestine in particular. The mandate system created an identity crisis among Arab nationalists that led to the growth of competing nationalisms: Arab versus Islamic versus the more parochial nationalisms of the newly created states. It also created a serious legitimacy problem for the new Arab elites, whose authority ultimately rested with their European benefactors. The combination of narrowly based leadership and the emergence of competing nationalisms stymied the Arab response to the Zionist challenge in Palestine. |
What this history tells me is that the resistance to Jewish immigration had three parts: 1) Faisal’s resistance to the Mandate; 2) Palestinians resistance to the Mandate because they believed they were to be given “self determination;” and 3) Muslims who wanted the Infidel out of the ME.
When war broke out in 1948, both the Palestinians and the Arabs took part. At the end of the war, the Palestinians had nothing. Israel had been formed in one half of Palestine. Jordan (Iraq) and Egypt held the other half.
But, since the Arabs lost and Israel was created, the Arabs renewed the war in ’67 and again in ’73. Palestinians were not involved. Had the Arabs won, Palestine would have been divided among them – just as in 1948.
As well, non Arab Muslims "clerics" in other countries supported the Arab cause and continued to support it. Once they came into power, such as in Iran, they began to actively support the cause against Israel with money, guns and terror. Their objective is not to evict the Jew from Arab land, but to evict the Jew from Muslim land. This is not mere rhetoric. It matches well with the statements of OBL and his radical Islamic crew.
In the last 30 years, the Arabs rulers have largely given up their hopes of ruling Palestine and are now supporting, for the first time, the cause of the Palestinians – for their own Palestinian state. This is a refreshing maturation by the Arabs rulers.
But there still is an ugly component here. That is the Muslim cause, supported by clerics throughout Arabia and other Islamic states, that will never surrender one inch of Muslim territory to the Infidel. We, the West, are at war with these folks now. We have a common enemy with Israel here.
If the Palestinians settle with Israel, there is a hope that the radical clerics will change their tune, but there is no guarantee that this will happen.
Last edited by Ned on 27-07-2002 at 06:02
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberGnu
|
 |
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:21
|
|
Shiber, if the army has even a shred of evidence that a massive attack was in the works, they are more than welcome to present it. As usual, the burden of proof rests on the party to claim something.
We all know that isn't going to happen though, so justifiying the murder of 15 people by a made up story of a possible crime isn't going to cut it.
Furthermore, the FBI has been warning for truck mounted mobs for months now, particularly around july fourth. A warning is not the same as something actually happening... And anyone can pick up a copy of LArry Bond at the nearest bookstore.
BTW, in regards to the bomb at the fuel depot, I'm assuming you refer to the May 23'rd event? (I might be off by a day or so). That bomb actually DID go off, but the resulting fire was put out by firemen. As a chemical engineer, take my word for it: it takes a LOT of explosives to rupture a fuel depot, and usually expertly applied as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberGnu
|
|
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
Regarding the British white paper: the British feared that arab land owners would sell more of their land in Palestine to Jews and that the previous owner's arab workers will be left with no job, as they will be replaced with Jews who will come to work this land.
By limiting Jewish immigration, the British could force Zionists to stop buying land or buy land at a slower rate because there will be no Jewish workers to work the fields.
Besides, the British also had an interest in keeping Jews out because they would rather not see the Jewish/Palestinian conflict in Palestine heat up because then they might be pressured by the rest of the world to end their mandate over Palestine, which is something they wanted to avoid because the mandate was giving them a lot of economical benefits (such as cheaper ways to transfer arab oil). This could be another likely reason why the British limited Jewish immigration into Israel.
|
Oh, I agree with you. There definetly was an economic factor in the british limitation of imigration, quite likley the most important fact next to a desire to keep political violence to a minimum.
This is the original argument, however:
quote:
Shiber:This is just as justified as saying "we own this land, even though we didn't use it at all before the Jews arrived and we sold some of it off to them, and they're the ones who actually turned it out of swamplands and wilderness to successful agricultural settlements and cities".
Gnu: I'm sorry, but this is just not the case. Take a look at the british white papers. One of them states quite bkuntly that 'there is no more room for jewish settlers without signifcantly lowering the quality of life of the current population. Immigration to palestine should thus be curtailed'.
If there were plently of room, this wouldn't have been the case. |
You see? We weren't debating the origins of british immigration policy but the veracity of the statement 'and they're the ones who actually turned it out of swamplands and wilderness to successful agricultural settlements and cities'.
So, since the brits concluded that letting more jews immigrate would displace arabs from their land, it could not be the case.
quote:
P.S. I'll try to explain the "next year in Jerusalem" tradition again, as I see you haven't quite gotten to the bottom of it.
First of all, you've missed quoted the Passover Hagadda, which instead reads "next year in *built* Jerusalem". A Jew who reads this passage is mourning over the loss of the 2nd temple and is expressing his hopes that the era of the 3rd temple of Jerusalem will soon come and that he will live to see it. Jewish people can say this without being complied to migrate to Israel because the 3rd temple hasn't been built yet (according to tradition it will be built after the Messiah will come from the heavens to Jerusalem).
Just so you would know what Jews are "mumbling" about.
|
Well, the destruction of the second temple, wasn't that in ~100AD? And how long has this tradition been around? I always thought that it originated in the removal of the jewish people from palestine in ~100AD, and the stated desire to return to 'the promised land'.
Regardless of the origins and full meaning of 'next year in (built) jerusalem', the point is that jewish culture apparently emphasize a desire to return to the holy land, but since the jewish people had roughly 1400 years of opportunity to do so I would have to conclude that the stated desire is historically false. Do you see what I mean?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberGnu
|
|
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
CyberGnu, do you know what it means to feel that you are next? |
No, not really, since I come from a peaceful country that hasn't been in war since 1850 or so.
I expect I would feel a large amount of anger and fear, however, but while understandable, blaming the victim for hitting back is still not right.
If I was acting like I ideally think I should be acting, I would be pissed as hell at my goverment who endangers mine and others life by acts of aggression, and I would spend all my effort trying to stop those acts.
There is quite a bit of difference in irrationally lashing out at someone who hurts you and rationally defending the attacks... I could understand evn though I don't condone the first, but to do the second you must be misled or fundamentally a person without moral standards. I suspects that most pro-israelis are of the first category, manipulated by people from the second...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shiber
|
|
Haifa, Israel
Jul 2002
time: 07:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
Oh, I agree with you. There definetly was an economic factor in the british limitation of imigration, quite likley the most important fact next to a desire to keep political violence to a minimum.
This is the original argument, however:
You see? We weren't debating the origins of british immigration policy but the veracity of the statement 'and they're the ones who actually turned it out of swamplands and wilderness to successful agricultural settlements and cities'.
So, since the brits concluded that letting more jews immigrate would displace arabs from their land, it could not be the case.
Well, the destruction of the second temple, wasn't that in ~100AD? And how long has this tradition been around? I always thought that it originated in the removal of the jewish people from palestine in ~100AD, and the stated desire to return to 'the promised land'.
Regardless of the origins and full meaning of 'next year in (built) jerusalem', the point is that jewish culture apparently emphasize a desire to return to the holy land, but since the jewish people had roughly 1400 years of opportunity to do so I would have to conclude that the stated desire is historically false. Do you see what I mean? |
The British mostly feared the immigration of Jewish extremists who at that time concluded that Jews and arabs cannot possibly exist together.
As for the conclusions made by the British, I wouldn't give them too much credit as they obviously weren't impartial on this case.
As for Jews having 1,400 yrs to migrate to Israel and choosing not to, most of them didn't really choose to you know. First of all, there were times when Jews weren't allowed to leave their towns or special zone (such as the Russians' 'Thum Hamoshav').
Second of all, before the European rulers became more open towards Jews they weren't allowed to integrate with the christian society and were limited to several professions (you may recall that the church gradually forbade Jews from entering various professions until all they had left to do was loaning with interest, and then blamed the Jews for robbing Christians of their wealth when they loaned them money with interest). Therefore most Jews lived in poverty, which meant they couldn't even fund the trip.
Third, Jews could not own land either because they couldn't afford it or because the authorities wouldn't allowed them. As a result of this, they had absolutely no agricultural background and couldn't possibly support themselves in Israel, so there was no point of them migrating before Zionist training camps were established in Russia and parts of west Europe.
Fourth, nationalistic desires have a tendancy to be pushed aside by more pressuring matters. Only when Jews could become professionals (e.g. journalists, bankers, lawyers, accountants etc') in the modern age and many Jews left poverty and became wealthy did they began thinking seriously about establishing settlements in Israel.
Finally, in order to establish a large movement such as the Zionist movement a monetary base wasn't enough. You had to convince people to join your movememt, and this was made possible only as a result of the 'Summer of Nations', where many nations demanded independence and self-definition and Jewish thinkers decided that this is what the Jews needed as well to cease to be an abnormal nation.
I hope I didn't leave any of your arguments unanswered. If I have, please alert me of this and I will try to answer them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zevico
|
|
Melbourne
Apr 2002
time: 15:21
|
|
Gnu, some jews (not many at all, very few in fact) did migrate to Israel. To give you one example:
You are a doctor/merchant/whatever in Muslim Spain. Suddenly, another, much more radical sect of Islam/christianity comes along, invades the city you live in, and says 'convert or die'. Now before this happens, you live a great life, with higher taxes to pay, but hey, who cares? You've got a great house, great life, you read all that torah and talmud stuff and become learned and all that, why leave to some backwards country where you might die drom bedouins and disease and terrible weather? Now the sect comes along (or in a modern case: Nazi Germany) come along, it suddenly seems a good idea to go back to your ancestral homeland, where you might be safe-craphole that it may be. Btw, Moses Maimonides is the doctor in question-he did move to Palestine, but couldn't support himself because the place was a craphole.
Additional reasons:
The Crusaders.
Radical Islam.
Israel at the time was wasteland, and was in economic recession (no jobs, little food, etc).
Basically, why leave a country when your rich/middle class and have few problems in life? The Golden Age in Spain wasn't called that because life was ****, you know.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
S. Kroeze
|
|
the Hague, the Netherlands, Old Europe
Dec 1999
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sirotnikov
In my previous encounter with you, you became all touchy about me not respecting your sources, which are wierd. You have shown yourself to misinterpert even those texts (and decided that mixed marriage is forbidden in israel from a pragraph that meant that jewish religious courts only marry jews together (DUH!)).
|
Thanks a lot for demonstrating again your capital reading skills!
quote:
Originally posted by S. Kroeze
Dear Sirotnikov,
Thanks for trying to have a debate!
Yet as usual you are not reading carefully and fantasizing about what is my opinion on some issue.
And though you are the only one who at least tries to refute arguments, you never base them on sources. Another recent, scholarly study would qualify.
Nor do I think it is relevant, which political movement do support some view. It is the evidence that decides.
Let's use the issue about the 'mixed' marriages.
In my opinion the sentence of Thomas is rather muddled:
"Occasionally the Supreme Court will intervene, but generally it does not intrude on rabbinical rulings, e.g., concerning the validity of Jewish marriages outside the orthodox form or the prohibition of marriages of Jews to Moslems or Christians."
I understand this sentence as follows: The rabbinical courts didn't want to allow marriages between Jews and Christians/Muslims, BUT because the Supreme Court intervened it was finally allowed.
So in the end we seem to agree that 'mixed' marriages are allowed (since when?). Yet is still surprises me that the legislator(parliament) did NOT decree by law.
In a democratic constitutional state that would have been the only possible procedure. This incident -the way I understand it (and please correct me by some source when I am wrong)- shows that the possibility of 'mixed' marriages was not matter-of-course.
And this NOT being matter-of-course is suspect in my view! |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
S. Kroeze
|
|
the Hague, the Netherlands, Old Europe
Dec 1999
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shiber
Finally, in order to establish a large movement such as the Zionist movement a monetary base wasn't enough. You had to convince people to join your movememt, and this was made possible only as a result of the 'Summer of Nations', where many nations demanded independence and self-definition and Jewish thinkers decided that this is what the Jews needed as well to cease to be an abnormal nation. |
You couldn't have demonstrated the basically anti-Semitic character of Zionism more effectively!
So the ideology of Hashomer Hatzair is still valid?
"The Jew is a caricature of a normal, natural human being, both physically and spiritually. As an individual in society he revolts and throws off the harness of social obligations, knows no order nor discipline."
('Our Shomer "Weltanschauung",' Hashomer Hatzair (December 1936), p. 26; originally composed in 1917, republished)
Hashomer Hatzair (Young Watchmen) was a left(!) Zionist youth movement
When Zionism developed there was no common Jewish language, no common Jewish culture, only a Jewish religion.
Since most Zionists were irreligious, they decided to define 'Jewishness' by race.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shiber
|
|
Haifa, Israel
Jul 2002
time: 07:21
|
|
Once again you display complete ignorance when it comes to politics in Israel.
Israel is a Democratic state, but it is also a Jewish state, and the two often collide. Since the Orthodox have a lot of political power in Israel, which they gained partly by cheating the elections which always gets them a few more seats in the Knesset, pretending to be socialists and pretending to care about poverty and excessive use of religion as a tool to raise support. They also get plenty of votes from Israeli arabs (especially Druzis) because they have strong connections with their religious leaders and they support their institutions.
Every time a legislator touches a matter that concerns the Orthodox they raise a lot of strife and therefore the legislators prefer to use other tools, such as the Supreme court rather than the parliament to insure the Democratic rights of the citizens of Israel.
This is one of the reasons why Israel still doesn't have a constitution. There are still too many arguments within the Israeli society on matters such as "Freedom of religion" vs. "Freedom from religion" and so on. However, we have many 'Fundamental Laws' and 'Court Precedes' that insure most of the Democratic rights that every other Democratic state allows their citizens.
his is called a 'practical constitution', and btw, Israel is not the only Democratic state with a practical constitution rather than a formal one. Britain, for example, still has a practical constitution until this very day.
Now let us relate to the matter of mixed marriage.
The Orthodox are against marrying Jews and Goyim because according to the Torah we are the chosen people and therefore we should not mix with non-Jews. Most of the non-religious people in Israel don't mind if Jews marry Muslims or Christians, but the legislators prefer not to employ the parliament to decide on these issues, but rather use the Supreme Court.
AFAIK, at the moment a mixed couple cannot have a Jewish Orthodox marriage (nor will this ever be possible because the Halacha forbids mixed marriage) but you can have a reformist ceremony. However, you won't be given all the privileges that married couples get in Israel.
In Israel, the only way for a Jew to marry and receive full rights as a married man/woman from the state is by Orthodox marriage. There are other ways to marry in Israel, such as holding a reformist ceremony or enlisting yourself as a married couple (which is possible in some municipalities and is what gay couples usually do) but AFAIK you still don't get full privileges.
This, I'm afraid, is one of those 'sensitive matters'. Jews don't have freedom within religion or freedom of religion, which is why you can't get married in a civil ceremony and you have to do everything (marriage, divorce etc') the Orthodox way. The dispute over these matters as well as other matters (shutting down of non-essential government offices during Saturdays and Jewish holidays, allowing the sale of Hametz to Jews during Passover without having to pay a fine etc') has lasted ever since the state of Israel was founded, and I'm afraid the end of this dispute still isn't in sight.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shiber
|
|
Haifa, Israel
Jul 2002
time: 07:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by S. Kroeze
You couldn't have demonstrated the basically anti-Semitic character of Zionism more effectively!
So the ideology of Hashomer Hatzair is still valid?
"The Jew is a caricature of a normal, natural human being, both physically and spiritually. As an individual in society he revolts and throws off the harness of social obligations, knows no order nor discipline."
('Our Shomer "Weltanschauung",' Hashomer Hatzair (December 1936), p. 26; originally composed in 1917, republished)
Hashomer Hatzair (Young Watchmen) was a left(!) Zionist youth movement
When Zionism developed there was no common Jewish language, no common Jewish culture, only a Jewish religion.
Since most Zionists were irreligious, they decided to define 'Jewishness' by race. |
According to Ahad Ha'am, the basis of the Jewish nation is both cultural and historical. Yes, it's a very diverse cultural base as there are Orthodox Jews and non-religious Jews, separatists and liberals etc', but it was still a cultural basis according to Ahad Ha'am.
According to Ahad Ha'am the Jews are a nation within nations, and what they need is a cultural base. His vision of the state of Israel describes a state which serves as a cultural center which *every* Jew could relate to. According to his vision, such a state would make the Jews a normal nation and would help combat anti-Semity, as one of the main reasons for anti-Semity in his opinion was that Jews were a nation within nations (this is basically true, as during the 'Summer of Nations' Jews were seen as an abnormal state and an enemy of nationalism which bloomed throughout Europe).
The point is that there are factions within Zionism. One who declares himself as a Zionist is not obliged to accept Hertzel's visions as well as Ahad Ha'am's and Hashomer Hatzair's visions and ideology.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shiber
|
|
Haifa, Israel
Jul 2002
time: 07:21
|
|
About CyberGnu's latest post:
I've recently watched a lecture about Palestinian terror and the stages that a Democratic society goes through when confronting acts of terror.
According to the lecturer, which is btw a well-respected Mizrahan (an expert in issues such as the arab society and the middle east) and currently works for the ministry of defense, terror has an advantage against Democratic societies because the people in a Democracy expert the government to take care of and strive to improve their quality of life, and when extremists strike at civilians the population immediately complains to the government and pressures it to give in to the terrorists' because to them, this is cost effective - they give up whatever the terrorists want (as long as it's reasonable) and in return they don't have to pay the price of losing lives.
The Israeli society has gone through this process as a result of the Palestinian Intifada. We thought that if we satisfied some of their demands they would agree to compromise. We agreed for a Palestinian state, we agree to negotiate with the PLO which is a terrorist organization, we've opened the gates of the White House for Arafat, we signed the Oslo agreement and we delayed the issue of east Jerusalem and the Palestinian right of return for later, thinking that they would agree to some compromises.
When Arafat said to arab world leaders that he does not believe in peace and that the Oslo agreement is only stage one, where stage two would be the elimination of the state of Israel once his terror organization grows strong enough, we thought he was saying that only to please Muslim extremists. After all, according to the logic of cost-effectiveness the Palestinians wouldn't choose terror as a strategy because this would cost too dearly, right?
When we awoke from that fantasy it was much too late. The Palestinians have managed to build up a strong army with connections to nearly every Muslim terror organization in the world and an impressive organizational base and arsenal. Then we realized that there's no choice but to fight back.
Now the Palestinians are paying the price for choosing terror. They live in poverty and their society is devestated as social anchors such as family crumble in result of their sanctification of death and martyrdom. We are paying a dear price too - a constant war, but it's much better than sitting like ducks in a shooting range.
About the Palestinian society:
The Palestinian society is much different than yours. According to your logic the Palestinians want peace because it's profitable in terms of cost-effectiveness. However, you have to understand that the Palestinians think much different than you do.
First of all, they are raised to value martyrdom more than anything else from day one. Dying for Allah and the Palestinian cause is the greatest of all honors. When you see Palestinian schoolchildren chanting "more than anything else we wish to die for Palestine" and "we wish to destroy the Jewish nation" in class you'll understand what I mean.
Second of all, they don't think in terms of cost-effectiveness, so forget that idea. They don't value life either like us western people do. In fact they mock the Israelis because we consider life the most sacred value of all (they are made to think that valuing life makes one weak and feeble).
Finally, they believe in maximalistic goals and resent all forms of compromise. They are raised not to compromise on anything until they have all of Palestine and the state of Israel is completely eradicated. Btw, today Arafat is saying that he could have gotten a Palestinian state in 1977 and much more than he can get nowadays negotiating with Israel, but he wouldn't compromise on anything.
The point of all of this is to demonstrate that Palestinian aggression is not a result of any Israeli aggression. Want more facts to back this up? Ok, how about the era of 1993 - 1996, where there were no assassinations of Palestinian terrorist leaders and no use of tanks and planes against the Palestinian population? Still, there were more terror attacks that time than ever before.
P.S. In the aspect of the way we deal with Palestinian uprisings, compared to our neighbours we are saints. Palestinian uprising and resistance was met in Egypt, Syria and Jordan with soldiers who shot live fire into crowds. When Palestinians demonstrate violently, we employ barricades, and snipers or tear gas when the situation requires (when Israeli soldiers guarding the area or civilians living nearby are in immediate danger of getting hurt).
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-07-2002 04:33
|