http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Sto...220749,00.html
what's today's apologist excuse, o ye of pro-israel?
or is the pursuit of lebensraum a vital and noble goal? i mean, they've been invading every country around them in the pursuit of "living space" for years. i can totally support that, right? the last bunch who thought that way were cool guys!
Its a whole lot of bad shnitz going on over there. Once again the world sits and watches as it has numerous times before.
*sigh*
Butuz
The differences between Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism are not as distinct as the Guardian would have you believe.
You want to expand on that or are you reading from the Anti-Defamation League website?Originally Posted by TeePee
The Cow by Ogden Nash
The cow is of the bovine ilk;
One end is moo, the other, milk.
Many newspaper articles, particularly in the Guardian, are not just anti-israel, but anti-jew. In particular, one editorial suggested that anyone writing an article showing the Israeli side of the conflict should declare if they were Jewish. No suggestion that anyone expressing anti-israeli sentiment should mention their race.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not pro-Israel. There is a war going on ('a whole load of bad shinitz'), and no side is innocent (both sides shinitzing heavily). However, the popular press never misses an opportunity to condemn Israel and Israelis, and the reason for that is racism.
I would have to thoroughly agree here. If you keep your eyes open you might notice that the Israelis are always being condemn but not the arabs?
That is such a crock of shi* it is unreal, look at what they have been doing in Rafah in the last few days and then dont criticise it, there is right and wrong and what is happening to the Palestinians is wrong. The very system that would produce suicide bombers is based on barbarism and that has been visited on the Palestinians for long enough that they now know how to reproduce it just fine.
I ask you to define a semite and then come again, by the way it is not the definition that the ADL would give it that is correct.
Read the article added below and that is what people would choose to do instead of telling Israel to cop the **** on and stop killing people wholesale. It galls me that the most inherently racist project in the world is what would choose to call all its critics racists. The reality is that all of the Whit non-semitic jews that have gone to Israel claiming Aliyah will not live alongside arabs as they regard them as "untermenschen" and I do use the nazi word on purpose as the two projects were extremely similar.
Israel is an apartheid state.
http://www.rense.com/general52/aga.htm
The Cow by Ogden Nash
The cow is of the bovine ilk;
One end is moo, the other, milk.
hmm you dont read much US press do you, another crock.
The Cow by Ogden Nash
The cow is of the bovine ilk;
One end is moo, the other, milk.
I have to disagree with some of this; Israel was founded upon a land-grab that forcibly dispossessed some 800,000 Palestinian Arabs of their land through a campaign of military force and outright terror (the idea was to remove the existing people from the alleged "land without a people for a people without a land" - thanks Theodore Herzl, now look what you've gone and done)*. The initial campaign involved terror which claimed Arab and other lives (90 British dead in the bombing of the King David Hotel, for example, in which Menachem Begin participated).
They have certainly profited in terms of land in military engagements since (the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights) but it should be noted that most of those land grabs were consequences of incursions by neighbouring states (the '67 and '73 wars for instance). While they perhaps should not have retained that land, it didn't come into their hands as a consequence of invading neighbouring states, rather as a consequence of the invasions by neighbouring states going severely wonky.
Now I hold no brief for Israel's current actions with regard to the continuing insistence upon flouting international law by building settlements on Palestinian land or their blatant land grab by means of building their "security" wall so that Palestinian land magically becomes Israeli property; and as far as their murder of Palestinian civilians, that's absolutely unconscionable (though not unexpected; Ariel Sharon IS, after all, the man who turned loose Phalangist extremists in Palestinian refugee camps in the full knowledge that they would perpetrate a massacre**). That said, it hasn't always been Israel doing the invading.
*"Democracy or Ethnocracy" - Prof. Oren Yiftachel, Ben Gurion University
**Report of the Commission of Inquiry into
the Events at the Refugee Camps in Beirut
(The Kahan Commission)
(February 8, 1983)
Last edited by nichomach; 21-05-2004 at 11:16 AM.
True the Balfour agreement was just a cut-and-run strategy by the UK in the divide and conquer style they used so effectively as their exit strategy after all of their colonial adventures, kashmir,NI, Israel. All the worlds top hot spots caused by UK colonialists and people wonder why British foreign policy bothers me in the extreme.
The Cow by Ogden Nash
The cow is of the bovine ilk;
One end is moo, the other, milk.
With respect, there was no Balfour agreement. The Balfour declaration was a short note stating the following:
"November 2nd, 1917
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour"
In other words, you can buy your homeland, or come to some sort of landsharing agreement to found your homeland, but you cannot seize it by force. The policy was flouted by the founders of Israel when they used military force and terror to expel the Palestinian population.
I'd further note that Palestine was certainly NOT a colonial adventure, it was a League of Nations mandated territory (subsequently a UN mandate).
Last edited by nichomach; 21-05-2004 at 11:12 AM.
OK misnomenclature taken on board, it was a declaration, why then have the UK not respected their part of the bargain? I am still of the opinion and your post has not convinced me otherwise that the UK always leaves an area of trouble as their exit strategy, hostory bares this out whatever propaganda may suggest to the contrary.
"being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country"
So selling them weapons will not prejudice their civil rights,cue Jack Straw defending the sale of Jets to Israel that are used to bomb civilian appartments.
The Cow by Ogden Nash
The cow is of the bovine ilk;
One end is moo, the other, milk.
It's not merely misnomenclature, it'd be a ****ing PSYCHIC cut-and-run strategy that was put into place 31 years before the "cutting-and-running" occurred.
As to the question of weapons sales to Israel, why on earth would you think I would support these, or condone the UK's position on them? Did you actually READ my first post? I merely stated what the UK's policy was when Balfour wrote.
As to Britain always leaving trouble behind it when it left colonial or other territories, there is something in that, it's true. However, I'd note that in many of these cases, the problems which precipitated trouble predated British arrival and merely resumed when Britain left. India is a prime example; tensions between the major faiths in India had always been present and had always occasioned bloodshed. It's arguable that less inter-faith violence occurred under British rule than might otherwise have been the case. Partition was a very bad solution, but it was not one imposed by Britain; the separation of India into India and West Pakistan and East Pakistan (later Pakistan and Bangladesh) was a consequence of an ultimatum given to Jawaharlal Nehru by Mohammed Ali Jinnah, head of the Muslim League. Jinnah stated that unless Nehru accepted a very loosely federated India with a very high degree of regional autonomy, the Muslim territories would secede. Nehru feared that such a structure would be very unstable and that consequently India would fragment, so basically he told Jinnah to go ahead and secede.
I stand by what I said and I did not say you support these weapons sales, what I said was that that does not fit with the original declaration, of course I read your post.
The Cow by Ogden Nash
The cow is of the bovine ilk;
One end is moo, the other, milk.
The UK has sold weapons to Israel in clear breach of arms control guidelines, and in the face or bald-faced lies and double-dealing from Israel. Israel has assured Britain that no UK supplied equipment will be used in the occupied territories, and has repeatedly reneged on those assurances. It's wrong that we continue to supply them with weapons including " leg-irons, electric shock belts and chemical and biological agents such as tear gas. They also include categories covering mortars, rocket launchers, anti-tank weapons, military explosives, and infrared and radar sensors." Arms sales to Israel breach guidelines. However, Britain "has not sold main equipment such as tanks, aircraft, warships or artillery to Israel since May 1997". There are British sourced components in Israeli tanks, helicopters and planes being used in the occupied territories, and this use is also a flagrant breach of Israeli assurances (no change there, then). Complain about that, by all means; I'll agree with you. Some of your assertions in regard to other matters are a little wide of the mark, though.
don't forget, kids: 4-year-old girls make for great sniper practice
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote