Pages

Jump to bottom

33 comments

1 Bob Levin  Thu, Jul 5, 2012 10:05:44am

I think you need to read more. Wikipedia is reasonable for basic research.

You also seem to talking out of both sides of your mouth--

As you have I hope noted I am not claiming Jews run the world or control the media or any of that conspiratorial BS though clearly, the current cow towing to the Bibi wing of the Israeli political system makes it seem so.

I think you might have a problem if this is the most cogent paragraph you write.

2 Destro  Thu, Jul 5, 2012 11:53:06am

I am asking a question as to why Americans are investing so much importance to Israel in domestic policies. I don't accept conspiracy theories so I wanted to get that of they way in case any anti-semetic postings happen. I don't consider my posting anti-semetic if that is what you are trying to slyly hint at. I jus don't get why Israel suddenly is the most important foreign policy concern of the USA that we might go to war over and which forces America's politicians to make pilgrimages seeking backing/blessings by foreign potentates? It makes no sense.

3 Bob Levin  Thu, Jul 5, 2012 1:30:51pm

re: #2 Destro

Fine I won't be 'sly'. You're posting stinks of hatred.

Israel is not the most important policy concern of the US. However, for Jews, it is. Nevertheless, for the US, Israel produces an astounding array of technological and agricultural products and innovations, which quite frankly rival the benefits of oil--which the US mostly imports from Canada. Israel is the most stable country in a region prone to chaos, and therefore an important military point in proximity to the Straits of Hormuz and the Suez Canal.

During the Cold War, Israel was even more so, as the Soviets vied for control of these two waterways. Before the existence of Israel, the British and French fought the Russians over control of the Suez Canal.

From a moral point of view Israel is a thorn in the side of Europeans, given their glorious histories of genocides, which even spilled into the 1960s, such as France going through Algeria. Even after WWII and the establishment of Israel the world gladly stepped out of the way for the Arab world to finish off what the Nazis started, not just once but three times. The UN is little more than Nuremberg in Manhattan.

The US is a unique country, because it was not founded on the principles of realpolitik, but also on moral principles which many soldiers have fought for, many have died for. The US is a nation that honors their dead through more than ceremonies, but also through carrying out the mission of the fallen throughout our history. Abraham Lincoln was quite clear about this at Gettysburg.

The sad fact is, World War II didn't really end, but it morphed. For the Jews especially, World War II didn't end--at all. For many US soldiers, the overall point of the war was only made clear upon the opening of the camps. The history matters.

The US has many foreign policy concerns, many of which they don't tell either me or you. You have to read to figure out the picture. If you ignore all of the news articles about what is happening in the world--and only focus on Israel, with anger and resentment, your point of view stinks of hatred.

The reason political campaigns go through Israel is not to seek the blessing of the Israelis, but rather to let the US public know that candidate A has a sense of morality grounded in US history, in a way that simply going to Boston and Philadelphia doesn't quite communicate. It tells the world what the US stands for, that even though the British Empire, for instance, is not keen on knowing its own history of genocide, the US knows, and will not stand for any more. This is the intent. Whether the US, or UN, can stop further genocides in another matter.

The US has never gone to war in lieu of Israel. Israeli soldiers fought in 1947, 1956, 1967, 1973. Israeli soldiers fight Hamas, the constant shelling of rockets, Fatah, and Hezbollah. In fact, Israel is most emphatic about keeping US soldiers out of their conflicts. To believe otherwise stinks of hatred.

Got it? Or was that too sly?

4 Destro  Thu, Jul 5, 2012 4:01:54pm

America's genocide of Indians (and millions of Vietnamese it killed) is ignored by your 'analysis' but France's non genocide in Algeria against a leftist insurgency is somehow seen as evil by you, when your argument is that Israel was our anti-commie ally in the Middle East (and really did a number on the Palestinians worse than what the French did to the Algerians since the Algerians are still in their own country and were not made to flee as refugees).

I still don't get how going to Israel imparts any sense of morality to a politician. I see it as pandering and I identified what I assume are the forces being pandered to in the USA (and they are not American Jews).

Pandered groups are mostly Christian Americans who A) Have a racial hatred for Muslims/Arabs (For the record I am not an Iranian nor Muslim nor an Arab or from the Middle East, etc and B) The American foreign policy hawks.

Sorry, I find Israel slightly less important than say Mexico but maybe more important than Poland on the scale but because of the foreign policy madness of the USA Israel has taken an outsized role in American foreign policy and domestic politics.

I don't appreciate being accused of some sly hatred of Israel by you because I brought up the subject but I am sure you will do it again and have done it to others.

5 Buck  Thu, Jul 5, 2012 4:49:07pm

re: #2 Destro

I don't consider my posting anti-semetic if that is what you are trying to slyly hint at.

And yet that keeps coming up with you.

I actually only want to ask you one question:

You say "Israel with all her short comings". Just curious, what short comings are you referring to?

6 Buck  Thu, Jul 5, 2012 4:53:21pm

OK, I lied...

Two questions:

What the hell do you mean by "a thriving democracy (inside her own borders)"?

As opposed to what? A democracy outside of her borders?

What does that mean?

7 Buck  Thu, Jul 5, 2012 5:01:57pm

re: #3 Bob Levin

The reason political campaigns go through Israel is not to seek the blessing of the Israelis, but rather to let the US public know that candidate A has a sense of morality grounded in US history, in a way that simply going to Boston and Philadelphia doesn't quite communicate. It tells the world what the US stands for, that even though the British Empire, for instance, is not keen on knowing its own history of genocide, the US knows, and will not stand for any more. This is the intent. Whether the US, or UN, can stop further genocides in another matter.

I actually wish I did have a bunch of sockpuppets so that I could upding this 1000 times.

I would only add that we may not be able to stop ALL further genocides, but supporting Israel can and does stop the genocide of the Jewish people.

The Jews now have control over their defence, and that is what allows each and every Jew to swear "Never Again".

8 Bob Levin  Thu, Jul 5, 2012 5:40:08pm

re: #4 Destro

America's genocide of Indians (and millions of Vietnamese it killed)

That pretty much says it all. If you don't understand how a book works, then there's no discussion. But it's pretty clear how you feel. You're a racist just like everyone else you say you're not like.

France's non genocide in Algeria

Nor do you know how to click on a link. What about 1.5 million killed by France do you not understand?

when your argument is that Israel was our anti-commie ally in the Middle East (and really did a number on the Palestinians worse than what the French did to the Algerians

I can hardly see your hatred at all from here.

I am sure you will do it again and have done it to others.

Damn straight I'd do it again, and I have done it to others--whose precious opinions withstand all fact and reason.

I don't appreciate being accused of some sly hatred of Israel

If you understand English, you'd know that I'm saying that there's nothing sly about your hatred. It's full blown and blossoming. Clear as day.

Pull up your collar, your neck is red from the sun.

9 Destro  Thu, Jul 5, 2012 6:15:10pm

re: #8 Bob Levin

The USA killed about a million one Vietnamese and the French killed about a million five Algerians. So your point was what? That Europe is evil? Yea, well Uncle Sam is just as bloody in some cases.

I don't hate nor love the Israelis. They are no different to me than say the French. They are foreigners to me and not even long term allies that have a shared long term history with the USA like France does.

Since I tend to support the underdog, I probably would have supported the Vietnamese against the USA and the Algerians against the French and I don't see how you can excuse your hatred of Palestinians (yes, I know of their disgusting PLO movement but then again you don't seem to have a problem with the Algerian independent movement that did the same to the French as the PLO did to the Israelis) as well.

Israel's shortcomings are occupying millions of people against their will, the power of the religious fundamentalists in Israel at the expense of secularism and that is about it. Other than that Israel is a modern western country but those problems are real and not acceptable to me as a secularist and anti-militarist.

By the way posted back and forth regarding Israeli religious extremists destroying ancient Jewish sites in Israel which to me is what the fanatic Muslims do to Islamic holy monuments as well (right now in Mali). You tried to play it off as a limited minor event when the article clearly stated it was an ongoing concern by the Israeli antiquities community.

Also, Bibi and his party reminds me very much of the Republican wing nut types. I figure if they like him and his party there is little reason for me to support Israel ruled by that type of person who calls Sean Hannity his friend.

10 Destro  Thu, Jul 5, 2012 6:35:34pm

re: #6 Buck

What the hell do you mean by "a thriving democracy (inside her own borders)"?

There was an editorial written recently in the NY Times that explained that to me. Pefect way for me to link the article in answering your question! Thanks!

To Save Israel, Boycott the Settlements

Instead, we should call the West Bank “nondemocratic Israel.” The phrase suggests that there are today two Israels: a flawed but genuine democracy within the green line and an ethnically-based nondemocracy beyond it. It counters efforts by Israel’s leaders to use the legitimacy of democratic Israel to legitimize the occupation and by Israel’s adversaries to use the illegitimacy of the occupation to delegitimize democratic Israel.

11 Destro  Thu, Jul 5, 2012 6:39:12pm

re: #7 Buck

What does Israel's military have to do with American Jews? Are you saying the USA would not defend her own citizens?

12 Bob Levin  Thu, Jul 5, 2012 7:37:34pm

re: #9 Destro

So your point was what? That Europe is evil?

No, that was not my point at all.

You might want to actually read about the French in Algeria. If you know about the

disgusting PLO movement

then what is your point? That I'm supposed to love an organization that is in the business of murdering Jews. I don't think I can love Fatah. But I don't see them a just a bunch of foreigners, either.

Because, if people are just a bunch of foreigners, then it's easy to make the French decision of simply massacring 1.5 million foreigners. The Middle East war started in 1947, and has lasted to this day, precisely because the Israelis would not do what the French did in Algeria. The two events, therefore, are not related, except in the most abstract, inhumane perspective.

Nor do you understand the what an occupation is. The Israelis are not occupying the West Bank. The Palestinians living in the West Bank have their own government, police, courts, schools, media and tax system--not to mention representation in the UN. That's not occupation. That's their own bad government.

By the way posted back and forth regarding Israeli religious extremists destroying ancient Jewish sites in Israel which to me is what the fanatic Muslims do to Islamic holy monuments as well (right now in Mali). You tried to play it off as a limited minor event when the article clearly stated it was an ongoing concern by the Israeli antiquities community.

That's the way it is in the Middle East, you have to have more than one source for most information. And then you have to be sure those sources are reliable. If you want to re-post the article, with links--go ahead. The laws in Israel regarding antiquities are pretty strict, and the antiquities authority has many ongoing concerns. People break laws, but that doesn't make the society lawless.

Also, Bibi and his party reminds me very much of the Republican wing nut types. I figure if they like him and his party there is little reason for me to support Israel ruled by that type of person who calls Sean Hannity his friend.

Then you have no idea what life is like in Israel, populated by just a bunch of foreigners, according to you. If you started the conversation by saying that you don't understand, you certainly didn't follow it up with uncertainty. You have plenty of opinions, of which you are certain, facts be damned.

I really don't see much difference between you and Hannity. 'Facts be damned' seems like a motto you two share.

13 Destro  Thu, Jul 5, 2012 8:36:29pm

re: #12 Bob Levin

You support Bibi's Likud coalition? They are the must contemptible collection of backward thinkers out there. I see no difference between them and the Republican kook party. What I am puzzled by is the deference paid to Bibi and his party by Americans - and I attempted to answer the link between American right wing kooks finding common cause with Israeli right wing kooks and mixing in kooky theologies of the American right wing (rapture) with neocon militarism/American imperialists.

Make sense to you? And no, Israel while ruled by Bibi's Likud offers no sense of respect or reverence for me.

14 Bob Levin  Fri, Jul 6, 2012 2:14:00am

re: #13 Destro

I kind of got that you have no sense of respect for...what you claim as Likud. I wonder if you'd know the difference between Labor and Likud. Or what Kadima is. Or what the issues are that drive much of Israeli politics, or which side you would have supported on June 3, 1967. Or Yom Kippur of 1973. Or whether you would vote for Fatah over Likud.

I also understand that at this point in your life you wish to be associated with the left side of the political spectrum. However, you share many of the same traits as the right--such as forcing everything to fit into the way you'd like to see the world, a reluctance to look closely at an issue, a disdain for history and facts, and this rather odd tendency to reduce different people to some form of 'other'--through words like 'foreigner', and the quick dismissal of the deaths of a half a million people, like it was some debating point.

15 Destro  Fri, Jul 6, 2012 4:08:54am

Yea, people who are not Americans are foreigners. That is not so hard tp grasp is it? Israelis are not Americans. And Likud is trying to get the USA to launch a war with Iran and having American politicians cow tow to Israel over which American would be first to attack Iran. Maybe I am still sore about being suckered into attacking Iraq at the behest of others agendas.

16 freetoken  Fri, Jul 6, 2012 4:43:18am

I agree that Mitt is doing (mostly) religious pandering.

I doubt if the military-industrial complex has much to do with what Romney is doing here.

17 Bob Levin  Fri, Jul 6, 2012 4:53:01am

re: #15 Destro

Maybe I am still sore about being suckered into attacking Iraq at the behest of others agendas.

That's probably it. The International Jewish Conspiracy is a bitch, man.

18 Destro  Fri, Jul 6, 2012 5:59:11am

re: #17 Bob Levin

Right, because Israel had zero stake in lobbying for the over throw of Saddam?

I am pretty sure the Observer is anything but anti-semetic. Left wing? Sure. Anti-semetic, nope

Do you actually read newspapers or fact sources or are we doing "truthiness" for your world views?

Everything I comment on I can source (and not from Wikipedia or kook fring sources).

I enjoy the back and forth, allows me to post links and such.

The New York Observer: How the Israel Lobby Influenced the Iraq War Policy: 2 Cases

19 Destro  Fri, Jul 6, 2012 6:02:51am

re: #16 freetoken

re: #16 freetoken

I agree that Mitt is doing (mostly) religious pandering.

I doubt if the military-industrial complex has much to do with what Romney is doing here.

I see the religious angle more than the military angle, also. I think I sometimes assume the military industrial angle because well, the religious kook angle involves a huge end time war against Skelator and his evil army that the USA wages in Israel so I link those two up more than I should be.

20 sliv_the_eli  Fri, Jul 6, 2012 6:44:26am

re: #18 Destro

Nice try, but, no, when you repeatedly fall back on antisemitic canards such as the U.S. being

suckered into attacking Iraq at the behest of others [that is, Israel's and Jews'] agendas

makes you an antisemite, not a knowledgeable speaker on the subject.

That you can source to other uninformed and/or bigoted opinions does not alter the fact that your opinion is informed, as your own words in this thread reveal, by a fundamentally antisemitic worldview.

21 Destro  Fri, Jul 6, 2012 7:03:46am

re: #20 sliv_the_eli

If we attack Iran I bet you will call people who say we attacked Iran due in part to pressure from Israel as anti-semetic also.

Sorry, your anti-semite defense tactic long ago faded. Maybe it works at freerepublic or some such collection of kooks.

22 sliv_the_eli  Fri, Jul 6, 2012 8:01:43am

Nope. Only those who constantly recite antisemitic canards to support their views or who claim that the U.S. was "suckered into attacking..at the behest of others' agendas."

The U.S. has many good reasons of its own to take all sorts of actions against the Iranian regime for a whole host of reasons that have been accumulating since the attack upon and takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979 and include, among other things, the truck bombing of the U.S. Marines' barracks in Beirut, their active support for and participation in attacks upon U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and their involvement in an attempt to assasinate another nation's ambasssarod on U.S. soil. There are also serious geo-political issues at play that have nothing to do with Israel or the pro-Israel lobby.

Now, does that mean Israel would not benefit from the U.S. acting against Iran? Of course not. But so will every other country in the region, our allies in Europe and the U.S. itself.

And if you nevertheless insist that everything the U.S. does in the region is because it was "suckered into" doing it a the behest of "someone else's agenda", by which you clearly make reference to an alleged Jewish conspiracy that controls U.S. foreign policy, then you are an antisemite.

23 Destro  Fri, Jul 6, 2012 8:30:35am

re: #22 sliv_the_eli

Sorry, you don't get to sucker your self out of the very provable fact that the Bush admin worked closely with Israeli interest in over throwing Saddam. That is a provable fact.

The New York Observer: How the Israel Lobby Influenced the Iraq War Policy: 2 Cases

24 sliv_the_eli  Fri, Jul 6, 2012 9:06:33am

re: #23 Destro

Sorry, you don't get to sucker your self out of the very provable fact that the Bush admin worked closely with Israeli interest in over throwing Saddam. That is a provable fact.

The New York Observer: How the Israel Lobby Influenced the Iraq War Policy: 2 Cases

You know that old saying about it being better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove the point? You might want to take that advice.
For starters, even the overtly biased article on which you claim to rely for information and to which you linked does not claim that "Bush worked with Israeli interst in overthrowing Saddam." The author of that piece at least had the sense not to make such an easliy disprovable claim.

More importantly, the Israeli government warned the Bush administration not to attack Iraq, precisely because, among other things, it would eliminate Saddam as a counterweight to Iran. And before you go foaming at the mouth about right wing kookery, here is a link to a mainstream, left-of-center newspaper reporting half a decade ago on the admission to this fact by Colin Powell's former chief of staff:

[Link: www.ynetnews.com...]

Then again, I guess facts be damned if they are inconsistent with the whole wolrd Jewish conspiracy thing.

25 Destro  Fri, Jul 6, 2012 9:26:13am
More importantly, the Israeli government warned the Bush administration not to attack Iraq,

Let us say your point is true. I am more than happy to concede it. That still brings me up to the American political establishment (mostly Republican) using the "Israeli" excuse as one justification for attacking Saddam (reminders given of his SCUD attacks and presumed WMD stockpile). That was my initial problem with American politicians in relation to Israel.

I am more than willing to concede these American right wing nut kooks are doing more damage to Israel than helping and I include Bibi and his Likud party in the kook category for stoking the American right wing nut jobs. Lastly, any head of state that calls on Sean Hannity is not a stable influence for his country. I just Youtubed the Hannity - The Netanyahu Interview and got grossed out by it.

26 Buck  Fri, Jul 6, 2012 11:55:28am

re: #11 Destro

What does Israel's military have to do with American Jews? Are you saying the USA would not defend her own citizens?

Where did I say American Jews?

However, can you think of a time in history where the USA did not defend her citizens?

When the shit hit the fan in the past, Jews had no where to go for safety. Not to the USA, or anywhere in the world.

Now they have Israel.

27 Buck  Fri, Jul 6, 2012 12:22:48pm

re: #21 Destro

If we attack Iran I bet you will call people who say we attacked Iran due in part to pressure from Israel as anti-semetic also.

Sorry, your anti-semite defense tactic long ago faded. Maybe it works at freerepublic or some such collection of kooks.

Ya, we are all wrong about you.

Here it is, when you use the words of the Anti Semite, when you use the words of the hater you can't wash it away with "I support Israel like I support any democracy".

Regarding your #10. That is opinion. And it is a biased and very bad opinion.

The "West Bank" is an invented place that really just describes which side of the river it is. It used to have a name. Judea and Samaria. You might remember the story of the "Good Samaritan". Well that is where he came from. Judea is well known as the place where the word Jew is from.

That land was given BACK (returned) to the Jews way back in 1920. It was taken in war from the Ottoman Empire, and multiple times the whole world voted to give it to the Jews. Britain was given a mandate to help the Jews secure it and to transfer it to them when they were ready.

This was done in accordance to international law. The allies from WW1 and the league of nations all agreed.

"What is done cannot be undone."

The UN, when it was formed agreed to accept everything that the League had done.

Other countries were formed at the same time, and by the same people. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq.

Now, the Jews gave up a huge and majority section of the land they were given to Jordan. Land for peace. Even though that was part of the Mandate. The deed was already transferred.

That land you call the "West Bank" IS part of Israel, and was stolen in 1948. It was not traded, it was not given away, it was stolen from the Jews. A great ethnic cleansing took place and Jewish holy places were vandalized.

After that war, the countries that stole that land did not make peace. They stayed in a state of war with Israel, and in 1967 Israel TOOK BACK THAT LAND THAT WAS THEIRS.

No ethnic cleansing took place, no holy places were vandalized. The people living there were given the chance to become citizens. Many did.

Now that article and I suppose you are all up in arms because Jews live there in greater numbers? Why is that a problem? Can't Jews live anywhere they want?

You want to give that land to Israel's enemies and give them a country? Do you think they should do something in return? Make peace with Israel for example? Can we set a time limit on the offer?

Get it? Use the words of the Anti Semite, use the words of the hater and you will be seen that way.

People are being very specific about the offensive language. You can't pretend that you are being unfairly targeted.

28 Destro  Fri, Jul 6, 2012 1:27:59pm

re: #26 Buck

Where did I say American Jews?

However, can you think of a time in history where the USA did not defend her citizens?

When the shit hit the fan in the past, Jews had no where to go for safety. Not to the USA, or anywhere in the world.

Now they have Israel.

Yea, enemies of Jewish people must be upset that most of the Jews in the world were rounded up and made to live in one small spot. Real bright.

29 Destro  Fri, Jul 6, 2012 1:33:57pm

re: #27 Buck

You bored me with useless drivel. I did not say Israel has no right to exist and what does the sovereignty of the land have to do with private ownership of the land? In other words, Arabs who owned the land should still own the land even if it is under the Israeli flag and even if they fled.

But, as part of a negotiated settlement it is envisioned that will be sorted out one hopes.

Israel has a right to exist as a UN member state. But where her borders will be are up for negotiations. I thank you for not bringing up God as proof of some sort since I don't believe in the sky fairy and tend to ignore those that make claims based on fairy tales.

30 Buck  Fri, Jul 6, 2012 3:02:28pm

re: #28 Destro

Yea, enemies of Jewish people must be upset that most of the Jews in the world were rounded up and made to live in one small spot. Real bright.

Yes it is. A place to defend, a place that will always accept them.

re: #29 Destro

You bored me with useless drivel. I did not say Israel has no right to exist and what does the sovereignty of the land have to do with private ownership of the land? In other words, Arabs who owned the land should still own the land even if it is under the Israeli flag and even if they fled.

I didn't say that you said "Israel has no right to exist" did I? Although you pointed to an article that you said represented your opinion. That authors opinion seems to be that he is alarmed at how many Jews live in certain neighborhoods. As if there should be a quota? "OK we accept these few Jews, but no more." What does that sound like to you?

And OF COURSE Arabs who owned the land should still own the land, why do you think that is not the case? Do you really believe that there is some kind of aparthied, and arabs can't own property? Or maybe that the land was stolen?

Should Arabs, who never owned the land, but that had their landlords sell the land to the JNF (for big money) still own the land? And does the JNF, who had donations from Jews all over the planet and used that money to buy land HAVE to give it away?

But, as part of a negotiated settlement it is envisioned that will be sorted out one hopes.

Israel has a right to exist as a UN member state. But where her borders will be are up for negotiations. I thank you for not bringing up God as proof of some sort since I don't believe in the sky fairy and tend to ignore those that make claims based on fairy tales.

Why should her borders be up for negotiations? However if it has to be so, can we set a time limit? I mean if there is no other party to negotiate, or no one with a valid claim, can we just use the borders that were set in 1920 by all the world's countries? The land that was called The British Mandate, where Britain was mandated, by international law, to give to the Jews.

Why not?

In the meanwhile, if arabs and muslims can live in Israel, why can't Jews live in what you call the West Bank? Why does that article you say is the best representation of your opinion say they can't?

31 Buck  Fri, Jul 6, 2012 3:08:10pm

re: #29 Destro

You bored me with useless drivel.

Of course, you call my history and the entire justification for the claim of the land called Israel as "useless drivel".

That is the legal claim. That is the indisputable facts.

You call it "useless drivel".

32 Destro  Fri, Jul 6, 2012 8:46:32pm

re: #31 Buck

Of course, you call my history and the entire justification for the claim of the land called Israel as "useless drivel".

That is the legal claim. That is the indisputable facts.

You call it "useless drivel".

Yea, British have a history of stealing native peoples land and giving it to foreigners from Europe.

And it is no concern of mine nor should be of yours. I mean you are an American so why are we sjubjecting ourselves to the local politics of a non American nation (full of Europeans).

33 Buck  Sat, Jul 7, 2012 9:01:22am

re: #32 Destro

Yea, British have a history of stealing native peoples land and giving it to foreigners from Europe.

And it is no concern of mine nor should be of yours. I mean you are an American so why are we sjubjecting ourselves to the local politics of a non American nation (full of Europeans).

Really you are now going to tell me what to be concerned about?

However, it is clear you are not even bothering to read what I wrote. The British didn't steal "native peoples land and giving it to foreigners from Europe".

This land was given up by the Ottoman Empire after the war to the Allies. They distributed it to the people who were the natives on the land.

In the late 1880s, there were fewer than 350,000 Arabs living in the entire region called Palestine, which then included the area now called Jordan. Arabs immigrated en masse to the desolate region to take advantage of the economic development created by the Zionists. Arabs constituted only 37 percent of the total immigration to pre-state Israel. I

n your terminology, the descendants of Arabs who immigrated in pursuit of jobs and economic opportunity are “Natives,” while the descendants of Jewish immigrants who fled discrimination, violence, and genocide are “Europeans.”

Nothing was stolen. No land was stolen.

No one questions Syria's borders. They got theirs from the same process. No one questions Lebanon. Done with the same pen.

The Jews WERE the natives on the land. Yes, long before 1947 the word “Palestinian” -- if it meant anything at all -- referred to Jews living in Palestine. The Palestine Post (now the Jerusalem Post) was the Jewish English-language newspaper. The Palestine Orchestra (now the Israel Philharmonic) was a Jewish orchestra, filled to overflowing with Holocaust survivors. The United Palestine Appeal, an American charity, raised money to resettle homeless Jews from Europe in Palestine -- one of the things Arabs objected to the most.

The coins and stamps had hebrew writing on them, all with the "Eretz Israel" initials. Long before the British were involved.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Why Did More Than 1,000 People Die After Police Subdued Them With Force That Isn’t Meant to Kill? An investigation led by The Associated Press has found that, over a decade, more than 1,000 people died after police subdued them through physical holds, stun guns, body blows and other force not intended to be lethal. More: Why ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 33 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
A Closer Look at the Eastman State Bar DecisionTaking a few minutes away from work things to read through the Eastman decision. As I'm sure many of you know, Eastman was my law school con law professor. I knew him pretty well because I was also running in ...
KGxvi
Yesterday
Views: 87 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 1