Subject:
|
Re: A question of remembrance...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 8 May 2001 12:03:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1569 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> Thank you for your input, Lindsay, and for presenting the "facts on the
> ground" point of view about the Israeli occupation. The Zionists would like
> nothing better than to hold up their children born in Israel as a further
> claim to the land they took from the Arabs. The fact remains that they are
> European invaders, regardless of their Semetic claims. The fact remains that
> the minority wants to control the majority. We both know there's no way the
> Zionists will allow themselves to be governed by the Arabs, since they
> expect the same storm of oppression as they had unleashed on the Arabs.
> They've beat Arabs down for 50 years, now they want to say "but we live
> here, where can we go?" Fine, stay but no more construction and no more
> Zionist leadership.
I can't disagree at all with that last prescription. I've
been reading very closely articles that point out that even
within the territory Israel claims as sovereign, Palestinians
and other non-Jewish residents will outnumber Jews within 20
years. This is an issue of state representation, and I will
agree wholeheartedly that the ascendancy of Sephardim (I think
that's the term for Western Europeans, the first wave), who
make up the bulk of the conservatives, has to bow to true
democracy. I've never been in argument with that proposition.
> As far as the similarity with the plight of the Native Americans, the
> Israeli occupation is not as far along as it was with America and the
> Palistinians still outnumber the Israelis by the millions. So, there is
> plausibility to a civilian withdrawal, but let's begin with a military
> withdrawal. Of course, greed prevails and the Zionists want to clutch
> someone else's dirt and say "mine."
But again, let's use the South African case as a point. The
system of proper "apartheid", open-faced and with the Homelands
system which closely mirrors the "Palestinian Homelands" policy
of Israel, only dates from 1948. Yet nobody is suggesting that
white South Africans go "back to Europe." The catalyst was a
final victory in terms of representation and dialogue that made
it possible for a shocking amount of bitterness to be laid to
rest. I've met several ANC officers, one of whom was Mandela's
personal advisor (Ahmed Kathrada) and occupied the same cell
block with him on Robben Island for most of the 27 years he was
there--and it's amazing how little bitterness the man displays,
primarily because when the walls came down, they came down
completely. (If we can ever imagine an Israel with an Arab
head of state, then we'll definitely have turned the corner!)
I disagree that a civilian "withdrawal" is plausible, but
the issue of a military withdrawal is very very different.
> As far as Arabs running the Jews out of other countries, you'd be shocked to
> learn how much of that was orchestrated by Zionists but blamed on the Arabs.
There's always some push-pull in a situation like that, but
the point is that it happened after 1947, and overwhelmingly
in response to local government hostility. I'd like to know
precisely how Zionists orchestrated something in Arab capitals.
Suggesting that almost makes me expect to hear the infamous
syllable "Zog!" in the next sentence, or hear a citation of
the _Protocols of the Elders of Zion_. There's a point at
which fighting against oppression turns into paranoia, or at
least looks like it unless it's carefully supported. You're
attributing an inordinate amount of power and competence to
Zionism, and to quote another .debate, "extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence."
> http://www.jewsnotzionists.org
Lots of problems here, from a historian's point of view.
I see almost no source citations, especially for the claims
that Jewry was callously "sacrificed" to "get" Palestine. Those
are pretty serious allegations, and if you're going to make
them, Jewish or not, you'd better have pretty clear documentary
evidence from the Nazi state that such offers were made. The
implication is also that it was only an issue of money, which
is really pandering to Shylock "Rich Jew" stereotypes. If it
were really just a matter of money, would a Rothschild have been
gassed at Auschwitz?
I'd like to see documentary evidence, really. I may in fact
go into the Hansards when I go home, take a look at 1941-43,
and see just what was tabled in Parliament. I have a feeling
that the matter is significantly more complicated than the
webmasters above are making it seem, especially in a Europe
at war.
best
LFB
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: A question of remembrance...
|
| Thank you for your input, Lindsay, and for presenting the "facts on the ground" point of view about the Israeli occupation. The Zionists would like nothing better than to hold up their children born in Israel as a further claim to the land they took (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
197 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
