BF2S Forums Fire Helen Thomas??

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Again FEOS ... what do you call what Israel has been doing since 1947?

Repeatedly fighting for existence while oppressing part of their population. That's a pretty succinct summary, I think.

What would you call it?

What about the actions of the Jewish agency during the 30's?

A campaign described by both external observers and Jewish critics as a "systematic regime of economic deprivement"? A campaign which led to riots by the indigenous Arab populace which triggered the Zionist terror attacks of the 30's and the creation of a number of terrorist agencies to protect and enforce the agenda of the Jewish agency.

It's the fact that the Arabs were happy to coexist from the very beginning but the Zionist immigrants didn't see things the same way that caused the real problems and really highlights who is to blame here. The only reason they were fighting for their existence at any point last century in Israel was due to their own actions - according to accounts from a huge variety of sources.

To paint the situation in the Levant in such black and white, simplistic terms as this is ludicrous, Bert. There were so many different variables affecting the situation, that to state one thing triggered another is, to be frank, intellectually dishonest at best.

The Arabs were NEVER happy to coexist with the Jewish population. Nor was the Jewish population EVER happy to coexist with the Arab population. The briefest of research will show this. The British had their hands full from the beginning managing the League of Nations Mandate because of it--it's no wonder they didn't want any part of it once the Mandate expired. European antisemitism, which encouraged the zionist movement and thus illegal immigration to the Mandate during the 20s and 30s didn't help matters, as it contributed to an unbalanced population explosion, which the Arab population viewed as unfair, resulting in several instances (pre-Irgun, btw, Dilbert) of terrorism in the area by Arabs. Which led to responses from the Jewish population, and so on and so on. With the enmity between the two groups going all the way back to Abraham...because it's not about land, it's about religion and intractable cultural differences.

So it's not so simple as Jews did this, Arabs did that. Europe as a whole was involved. Britain, through its management (or mismanagement) of the Mandate was involved. The League of Nations, with its arbitrary decisions regarding the area, often at odds with those who actually live in the area, was involved.

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Repeatedly fighting for existence while oppressing part of their population. That's a pretty succinct summary, I think.

What would you call it?

What about the actions of the Jewish agency during the 30's?

A campaign described by both external observers and Jewish critics as a "systematic regime of economic deprivement"? A campaign which led to riots by the indigenous Arab populace which triggered the Zionist terror attacks of the 30's and the creation of a number of terrorist agencies to protect and enforce the agenda of the Jewish agency.

It's the fact that the Arabs were happy to coexist from the very beginning but the Zionist immigrants didn't see things the same way that caused the real problems and really highlights who is to blame here. The only reason they were fighting for their existence at any point last century in Israel was due to their own actions - according to accounts from a huge variety of sources.

To paint the situation in the Levant in such black and white, simplistic terms as this is ludicrous, Bert. There were so many different variables affecting the situation, that to state one thing triggered another is, to be frank, intellectually dishonest at best.

The Arabs were NEVER happy to coexist with the Jewish population. Nor was the Jewish population EVER happy to coexist with the Arab population. The briefest of research will show this. The British had their hands full from the beginning managing the League of Nations Mandate because of it--it's no wonder they didn't want any part of it once the Mandate expired. European antisemitism, which encouraged the zionist movement and thus illegal immigration to the Mandate during the 20s and 30s didn't help matters, as it contributed to an unbalanced population explosion, which the Arab population viewed as unfair, resulting in several instances (pre-Irgun, btw, Dilbert) of terrorism in the area by Arabs. Which led to responses from the Jewish population, and so on and so on. With the enmity between the two groups going all the way back to Abraham...because it's not about land, it's about religion and intractable cultural differences.

So it's not so simple as Jews did this, Arabs did that. Europe as a whole was involved. Britain, through its management (or mismanagement) of the Mandate was involved. The League of Nations, with its arbitrary decisions regarding the area, often at odds with those who actually live in the area, was involved.

It may be simplifing things a bit, but the bahaviour of the Jewish immigrants to Israel is very much the heart of the issue here. There is a mountain of evidence to support this, which I will be happy to roll out when I have a bit more time to do so.

There are obviously other factors behind why the immigration happened, why it was allowed at all, PR management of the whole thing - but the Arabs were happy, by and large, having the Jewish immigrants there - to begin with, the question is, what changed that opinion.

A helpful exaplanation by an Israeli historian:

But the major cause of tension and violence throughout the period 1882-1914 was not accidents, misunderstandings or the attitudes and behaviors of either side, but objective historical conditions and the conflicting interests and goals of the two populations. The Arabs sought instinctively to retain the Arab and Muslim character of the region and to maintain their position as its rightful inhabitants; the Zionists sought radically to change the status quo, buy as much land as possible, settle on it, and eventually turn an Arab-populated country into a Jewish homeland.

For decades the Zionists tried to camouflage their real aspirations, for fear of angering the authorities and the Arabs. They were, however, certain of their aims and of the means needed to achieve them. Internal correspondence amongst the olim from the very beginning of the Zionist enterprise leaves little room for doubt

Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-06-30 12:21:40)

Its a bit of a stretch to say they're defending themselves when they're seizing someone elses country.

Varegg wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So you can understand why the Palestinians would resort to terrorist methods, but you can't understand why Israel would defend themselves against the same?

They wouldn't have to defend themself against terrorist acts if they didn't terrorise them in the first place ... that's how I see it FEOS ...

Chicken and egg argument.

FEOS wrote:

Varegg wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So you can understand why the Palestinians would resort to terrorist methods, but you can't understand why Israel would defend themselves against the same?

They wouldn't have to defend themself against terrorist acts if they didn't terrorise them in the first place ... that's how I see it FEOS ...

Chicken and egg argument.

Not quite ...

I agree it is self-defeating and as I stated earlier there are so many wrongs in this conflict it's really useless to side with any part ... except maybe for the civilian Palestinian people ...

And Israel have broken so many international laws in their conduct and actions towards the civilian Palestinian population it is hardly just to call them the defender ... what means to fight do an opressed populace have? ... their last means are terror ...

FEOS wrote:

How's that "he holds the balance of power" thing working out for you?

Do you find it odd the foreign minister is making veiled threats against the prime minister?

"The foreign minister takes a very serious view of the fact that this occurred without informing the foreign ministry,"
McChrystal got fired for less.

From Rob Rogers.

FEOS wrote:

Varegg wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So you can understand why the Palestinians would resort to terrorist methods, but you can't understand why Israel would defend themselves against the same?

They wouldn't have to defend themself against terrorist acts if they didn't terrorise them in the first place ... that's how I see it FEOS ...

Chicken and egg argument.

No it isn't.

There are clear steps:

Arabs and Jews live alongside each other in Palestine (with an Arab majority) for ages with no problems.

Mass scale Jewish immigration begins with the 1st Aliyah.

The Jewish agency start pushing their agenda to gain political, economic and cultural control of the country.

Arabs riot following the campaign of economic deprivement conducted against them and cultural agreements being broken (no one was allowed to make any changes at the holy sites, Jewish worshipers did make minor changes).

Jewish immigrants form militant groups, which have terrorist offshoots.

These terrorist splinter groups bomb civilians and in some cases massacre entire villages (Deir Yassin for example).

........

Years later the Arabs form terrorist groups targeting Jews.




There had been sporadic violence and rioting by Arabs (which were quite brutally suppressed by the British administrators), but it was the response of the Jewish immigrants which led to the creation of terrorist groups targeting civilians.

Not to worry, Lieberman is back in charge

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu says he made a "mistake" by leaving his foreign minister out of secret talks between senior Israeli and Turkish officials.

Avigdor Lieberman said it was an "insult" that the talks took place in Brussels without his prior knowledge.

It was Israel and Turkey's first meeting since a serious diplomatic rift over the killing of Turkish activists on an aid ship bound for Gaza in May.
The two men met and agreed to fully co-operate in future, officials said.

On Wednesday, Israeli Trade Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer held secret talks with Turkey's Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, in Brussels.
Correspondents say Mr Ben-Eliezer is the most pro-Turkish member of the Israeli cabinet, while Mr Lieberman's hardline approach to Palestinians and Israeli-Arabs has made him unpopular abroad.
Mr Lieberman was not aware of the meeting until it was reported by the Israeli media.

"This is an insult to the norms of accepted behaviour and a heavy blow to the confidence between the foreign minister and the prime minister," he said in a statement on Thursday.

Mr Netanyahu's office later released a statement blaming "technical reasons" for the failure.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle … 487007.stm

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-07-02 16:26:33)

FEOS wrote:

And Bert, if you look closer, you can also see that Arabs started protesting and rioting as soon as they saw Jewish immigrants were doing better than Arab locals, both economically and educationally.

You're sure it wasn' to do with them invaing their country?

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And Bert, if you look closer, you can also see that Arabs started protesting and rioting as soon as they saw Jewish immigrants were doing better than Arab locals, both economically and educationally.

You're sure it wasn' to do with them invaing their country?

So legal immigration is "invading"?

AussieReaper wrote:

Or the huge monetary support they were getting from the US?

They weren't receiving any such thing from the US at that time.