Responding to Sincere, But Ignorant, Cocktail Party Type Comments About Israel

that never in history has there been a nation or homeland known as Palestine, so the Israelis can not steal something that does not exist.

Also, when Israel became a nation and a multitude of Palestinians chose to leave Israel, none of the Arab countries offered the Palestinians refuge or welcomed them into their country, except Israel. The Palestinians have been abused and used as pawns by the Arab nations in the ongoing conflict with Israel.

Thanks, Bob, for the history,
Glenn Flowers

Good comments. Thanks for the encouragement. Actually Jordon did take in some of the Palestinians but only after the 1948 war when they were already displaced and they were mostly kept in camps. In essance, you are right in that the Arab world at large did not take them in.

So demolishing homes, destroying their livelihood, destroying their water supplies is all kosher because there was never a nation called Palestine?

Because there was no "homeland" for Palestinians, you can kick them off the land they were/are currently living on without guilt?

BTW, referring to '48 when Palestinians left, they left because of either the threat of war or were forced off because of Israeli force. And International law guarantees the right to return.

And though one would be right in pointing out the disregard for Palestinians by many in the Arab world, Israel engages in a brutal occupation and harsh ethnic cleansing. If Israel joins the Arab world in abusing the Palestinians, doesn't that make Israel as guilty as the Arab world?

It is common knowledge that Israel struck first in the 6 day war. The issue was complicated. Egypt did move troops into position but it was a defensive posture (See Benny Morris's "Righteous Victims"). Egypt was already tied up in trying to stop a civil war elsewhere. Egypt had expelled UN troops but later invited them back as long and said they could be placed in Gaza. A key difference between the '67 war and the '56 invasion in which France, England and Israel attacked Egypt was that Israel first checked with the US in '67. The US objected to the attack in '56.

The key as to Israel's intentions could be found in the following Menachem Begin quote:

"In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai do not prove that Nassar was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

International law, established after WWII forbids the occupier to keep the land let alone build settlements there. The presence of settlements on occupied land shows that defense is not the only concern of Israeli policies. And consider that since the Annapolis talks last year, Israel has announced the enlargement of settlements 3 times.

Talking about the intentions of Zionism is problematic because there were several versions of Zionism. Its harshest form called Revisionism is the form that took hold by the Israeli gov't.

The problems with claiming that the Jews have a right to their own state is 1) it follows the model of Eastern European democracies where the nation was seen as belonging to a particular ethnic group--Russia for the Russians, Germany for the Germans--rather than all of the people. Thus it does not follow the model set by America.

The second problem is that the land they picked already had a number of inhabitants. Like I said before, we can deal with Peters' errors later if you wish, but the idea that European Jews would have a privileged place in a land where Arab indigenous people had been dwelling, whether for a few years or many generations goes against the grain of democracy and equality rather than promotes it.

Israeli archaeologist, Jeff Halper, correctly calls this "ethnocracy" rather than an ethnic democracy.

The other problem you have is that the quotes I can provide not only express the sentiments of a few common settlers, these quotes both provide a foretelling of how Zionism was working in Israel. Plus prominent figures were saying the same thing as the settlers. These prominent figures include Theodore Herzl.

Regarding the Arabs who stayed, realize that ethnic cleansing does not have to occur in an all or nothing manner. In addition, the Israeli Arabs who have stayed have been treated like second class citizens and suffer in more subtle ways. David Shipler's "Arab And Jew" documents some of the inequality.

Plus, the refusal to allow Arabs who were fleeing either the threat of violence or violence itself to return to their homeland is a clear indicator that ethnic cleansing was occurring and is against international law. Again, you don't have to eliminate all people from one race to make it ethnic cleansing, you just have to eliminate enough. And this is something Zionists wanted to do during the war of '48 because the demographics made Israel's Jewish state a precarious venture.

What you don't understand is that Israel never totally left Gaza. Their settlers did, their military occupation never has. And that military occupation is brutal. Troops firing randomly into Palestinian homes, bulldozers demolishing homes without much notice and sometimes with the occupants still inside, snipers firing at women and children, curfews, the demolishing of public water wells, farmland, greenhouses and other means of livelihood has decimated Gaza's equality. Lately it is the cutting off of power supplies, food and medicine and all of these actions are international crimes.

In addition there is Israel's killing of internationals including activists and journalists. And Israel does this with impunity.

It is not that the Arabs are good and the Israelis are bad or vice-versa. Both are guilty of crimes against humanity. But here in the US, especially amongst Christian circles, we hear one side--the Israeli side.

The firing of missiles is immoral but has a context just like Israel's ethnic cleansing is immoral but has a context. It is not until we see the faults and responsibilities of both sides that we can start the peace process.

I agree that you cannot selectively use the UN. But did you know that Israel broke far more resolutions and for a longer time than did Iraq? And it was a Jewish terrorist group that murdered a UN negotiator in the late 40s.

What people do not realize is that much of the Arab rejection of Zionism was because it was also seen as another attempt at European colonization. Modern Zionism was started by secular Europeans who had a legitimate concern because of the gross anti-semitism that existed there. And while many here jump on the anti-Arab bandwagon for anti-Semistism, European Christianity has exhibited anti-Semitism to a much greater degree and for a longer time than anyone else did.

I think it was wrong of the Arabs not to accept the Jews coming in. But many of the European Jews who were emigrating to Palestine came with a chip on their shoulder and the intention to dominate. It was the result of centuries of abuse. But dominating others only causes a chip to form on the victims' shoulders and the cycle, or more correctly, the chain of abuse continues.

And btw, I find your demeaning (i.e. "ignorant, concktail party type comments") of opposing statements not to be consistent with one who desires a serious discussion on the topic. That is more of power play and an assumption of superiority. Just stating the obvious.

Please don't use the term ethnic cleansing to refer to the Israeli treatment of it Arab minority or Arab's living in the territories. If there were ethnic cleansing than why are these populations increasing at rates higher than the Jewish population. The only ethnic cleansing going on in the middle east is the decimation of the Christian Arab community in Bethlehem due to the Moslem-dominated Palestinian Authority raping and stealing from these Arabs along with the violence against Christian Arabs in Gaza by Hamas and in Lebanon by Hizbullah. How come we never hear cries about this real ethnic cleansing? Is it because Jews can't be blamed for it?

Israel sure did strike first in 1967. It was a preemptive strike that the Arab nations will never forget. The Torah commands that “if one comes to slay you, slay him first.” A preemptive strike was justified for the following reasons:

On May 14, 1967 Nasser demanded the withdrawal of UN Emergency Forces — established a decade earlier as an international guarantee of safety for Israel — from the Sinai Peninsula. After the UN complied without any discussion in the General Assembly, Nasser replaced the UNEF with his Egyptian army.

Nasser then closed the Straits of Tiran in the Red Sea to all Israeli shipping and all ships bound for Eilat. By definition, this is an act of war. U.S. President Lyndon Johnson affirmed that it was an illegal and aggressive act to blockade Israeli shipping in an international waterway. Israel had the right to strike Egypt for this act alone.

There was a massive build up of Arab troops on Israel’s border that was understood by every nation at the time as offensive, especially to the Arabs themselves. Nasser gloated: "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel ... to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation." An Arab force of some 465,000 troops, nearly 3,000 tanks and more than 800 aircraft were arrayed near Israel’s borders.

May 17, Voice of the Arabs: "All Egypt is now prepared to plunge into total war which will put an end to Israel."

The Syrian defense minister announced: "Our forces are now entirely ready ... to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united ... the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation."

Israel’s army is mostly a reserve army, meaning nearly all of it citizens, once mobilized must strike unless the threat is eliminated diplomatically. As the nations of the world chose not to intervene they encouraged Israel not to strike first, but to wait and be invaded by the massive Arab armies. Israel chose to strike first and survive.

Come to think of it, why are Arabs allowed to live in the Jewish state of Israel, but the Palestinian Authority won't allow any Jews to live in the proposed Palestinian state? Isn't this the real apartheid? Jews were expelled from Gaza and it is now illegal for Jews to live there. Isn't that ethnic cleansing? 600,000 Jews were expelled from the Arab countries of Irag, Yemen, Syria, Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia during the period from 1948 to 1952. Wasn't this ethnic cleansing?

Israel's treatment of Arabs is far superior to any treatment of Jews or Christians in Arab and Moslem countries. Why don't you address yourself to the real racism against Jews and Christians in the Moslem world?

One only needs to consult the writings of early Zionist settlers, including the diaries of Theodore Herzl, to see the intention to ethnically cleanse the land. Ethnic cleansing doesn't have to be an all or nothing ordeal. The intention to take away land from the Arabs is well documented prior to '48. If you want to know what ethnic cleansing is then live in Gaza where your land, water supply, and livelihood can be demolished at a moments notice without compensation by authorities who are accountable to no one. Then see what it is like to live when Israel shuts off fuel for electric plants as well as medical and food supplies. So you are not kicking the people off the land, you are merely giving them a choice between living or leaving.

As for the '67 war, the intention of the Egyptians in putting 100,000 troops along the border was defensive is described by now conservative Benny Morris. If you remember, Egypt already had 60,000 troops tied up in a civil war elsewhere. In addition, you forgot to mention that Egypt offered to allow the UN troops back to the area provided that they were on the Israeli side of the border.

Finally, it is the quote from Begin that provides strong testimony regarding the necessity of Israel's attack. It is not that the issue is not complex, but the '67 war was a war of choice for Israel, not a war of necessity. It was the attack on Egypt that started the war and yet they knew that Egypt was not planning to attack. But what gave the Israelis permission to attack was that the US said they would support them unlike the Israeli, along with France and England, attack of '56 which the US moved quell.

Certainly it would be unfair to only blame Israel for the tensions there. But it would be just as unfair to only blame the Arabs including the Palestinians. In addition, we could also fault Western Civ and Christianity which self-righteously conducted centuries of Anti-Semitism that spawned the kind of Zionism that started in the 1800s and is present now.

Unless we have a penchant for mutual mass destruction, we need to work for equality for all now. That starts with the confessions of wrongdoings by all sides--Arabs, Israel, and the US. See the following:

http://extrememoderate.blogtownhall.com/2007/11/27/who_will _be_the_best_actor_at_annapolis.thtml

I forgot to mention the expulsion of Jews from the Arab countries from '48 to '52. I agree that that was ethnic cleansing and it was in response to Zionism.

So you see, both sides are at fault. There is a difference between making Palestine a Jewish refuge from making it a Jewish State that is most threatened by demographics. The Arab birthrate in the area, from what I hear is higher than the Jewish birthrate. Ask yourself why Israel hasn't yet annexed the land they conquered?

Finally, this reclaiming one's homeland because of historical ties is being replayed in the Southwest US. There, Mexicans are coming back to a land that was their's before we kicked them out by war. Like during the British mandate, this is occurring both via legal and illegal immigration. Will the returning Mexicans become the Western Hemisphere's Zionists? Will US citizens become the Western Hemisphere's Palestinians? Stay tuned.