<< CRITTERS THRIVING ~ MAIN ~ AUDIENCE REDUCED >>
TRUE, DEEP, TRAGIC INCONVENIENCE
Infrequent blogger Kurt Andersen on inconvenient truths:
Al Gore’s movie about global warming has a brilliant title: It flatters us—those of us who believe the scientific consensus about climate change—that we are clear-eyed and honest and brave enough to admit this “inconvenient truth” that the Bush administration and its reckless, craven, venal corporate allies refuse to admit. Yet the truth about greenhouse gases, although plenty scary, is really not so inconvenient: The blame for inaction is easy to lay on others, a solution seems possible, and that solution doesn’t look that onerous.
Whereas concerning the Middle East, there is for most of us no obvious overriding analysis, let alone fix. Concerning Israel and the Palestinian territories, all the truths tend to be truly, deeply, tragically inconvenient.
And the big one is this: Israel is a good and miraculous nation that deserves the support of civilized people, but the great unfortunate fact about its creation—being carved by the U.N. out of Arab land in 1947—cannot be ignored or wished away ... Sixty years on, there can be no revising or reversing that mistake—and when the choice is Israel versus unaccommodating Islamist fanatics, we must be for Israel. Is there any more inconvenient truth?
Andersen got it right in the penultimate sentence: “When the choice is Israel versus unaccommodating Islamist fanatics, we must be for Israel.” Worrying over Israel’s founding isn’t inconvenient; it’s irrelevant.
Yes, almost 60 years after Israel was created, and after all the amazing technological, medical, agricultural advances coming out of Israel during this time in spite of the non-stop threats to Israel’s existence, there is still debate on the right on Israel to exist even in MSM today.
Israel has a population of almost 6 million of which about 5 million are Jews. I read articles daily discussing where the Jews should be moved to. These same people accuse Israel of ethnic cleansing.#1
Not only is it irrelevant but it’s inaccurate
You have nicely summed up media reporting of Israel.
As for history, This excellent Japanese article dispels historic myths for good.
Quite so. It is impossible to put that particular genie back in the bottle, even if it were desirable to do so. Call it fate, destiny, justice, a fait accompli, whatever you like - the State of Israel exists, and its legal right to exist is not contested by anyone other than, (a) rogue regimes like that of Iran, (b) people whose expectations have been unrealistically raised by local and international politicians, and (c) terrorists who, if Israel were handed over to them tomorrow, would not cease their operations against the west.
Incidentally, I really enjoy Michael Lonnie’s comments; he’s good on so many things: science, history, you name it. He drops in here, dazzles us with his perspicacity and learning, and then rides off into the sunset (after reading his stuff, I always feel like asking, “who was that masked man?”).
It’s another of those canary down the mine issues.
Like “9/11 was an inside job” or “US foreign policy is controlled by the ‘Israel Lobby’”.
As soon as you hear someone talking about “Israel was a mistake” or “Israel has no right to exist” or it was “carved out of Arab land” you know you are dealing with a fucked in the head ignoramus best avoided from then on.
It stands out like a beacon. If they had a capital “D” for “dickhead” branded on their forehead they wouldn’t make it more obvious.
There were territories occupied by a foreign invader, that being the Arab, and then another, that being the British.
Actually it was the Turks most recently prior to the British. From the early 16th century through to 1918, the area was part of the Ottoman Empire. When that fell apart after WWI, Britain and France stepped in, as you say. Presumably on the basis that the region wasn’t sufficiently messed up already.
The Turks took it from the Arabs, who took it from the Christians, who sort of squatted there after the Romans packed up and left. The Romans took it from the remains of Alexander’s empire, and Alexander of course swiped it from the Persians. The Persians knocked over the Assyrians, who gave the boot to the Phoenicians (holed up in Lebanon at the time, after being kicked out of the area southwards) and the Israelites and Aramaens.
Before that… I can’t quite remember. Must be getting old.
geoff:
As soon as you hear someone talking about “Israel was a mistake” or “Israel has no right to exist” or it was “carved out of Arab land” you know you are dealing with a fucked in the head ignoramus best avoided from then on
I think that almost all those who say it whether they be far left, Islamist or far right, have one thing in common. They want to bring down Western Democracy.
All this ignores the inconvenient fact that there were always Jews living quite peacefully among the Arabs, Druze, and Christians in what is now Israel. No one ever brings up the Sabras. To say it was Arab land alone is ridiculous and inaccurate. And after all this time, as Tim Blair says, irrelevant.
Let us choose a people with whom we wish to be friends and allies in the 21st century: a forward-looking, modern, reasonable, accomodating people, or a perpetually enraged, irrational, ignorant mob indoctrinated by a death cult.
Hmmmm.
And let’s not forget that many of the Arabs that lived there sold their land to the jews in anticipation of getting that land back for free after the Arab armies killed all the jews.
That’s something that’s very rarely covered at all.
Posted by memomachine on 2006 07 24 at 11:33 AM • permalinkApparently all the suspicions about liberal anti-semitism are just so much hooey. Via a link to the Huffington post from LGF, comes this gem from Sheldon Drobny (founder of Air America): “So my conclusion is that the bloggers who violently hate Israel and see it in black and white terms are not really liberals . . . Furthermore, I would not put it past the right wing to flood the liberal blogs with hateful criticisms of Israel to advance a perception that liberals are anti-Israel or anti-Semitic. And I see Karl Rove’s fingerprints all over this.”
Wronwright, what’s the deal? Did you run out of latex gloves again?
but the great unfortunate fact about its creation—being carved by the U.N. out of Arab land in 1947—cannot be ignored or wished away ...
How about the fact that it was the Jews who bought the land, fertilized it, irrigated it, and generally made that ex-desert worth fighting over? The UN may have set the borders, but the Jews made Israel long before that.
#11 Wronwright, what’s the deal? Did you run out of latex gloves again?
The doofus is guessing. With the exception of a few miscues (moving the Russian lake to 5600 BC Mesopotamia, misreading the operator manual to the Japanese weather machine, and um, the Mars global warming thing), my execution of Karl’s orders have been both flawless and anonymous. I am but a spectre, a ghost cloaked in plausible deniability.
Why? Karl hasn’t said anything about me has he?
Posted by wronwright on 2006 07 24 at 12:18 PM • permalink#15: Why? Karl hasn’t said anything about me has he?
No, no. Well, there was a big question mark in your last expense account submission (“replacement zulu spear”), but I don’t think that caused too much concern. You’re probably right about Sheldon Drobny; it was just a lucky guess. I mean, how shrewd can the dude really be? “Hmmm. A left-wing talk radio show operated by some of the most obnoxious people in the country. M’yes, sounds like a hit. Go for it!” BTW, I wasn’t going to say anything, but . . .“Sheldon Drobny”. Is he real or is that a nome de agent provacateur?
Ok, it’s MarkL. The nommes de neocon this genius came up were Sheldon Drobny and Floyd Smerkle. I told him firmly to go to the Department of False Identities and get a “good name”. But apparently Andrea is manning that position for the time being, what with Dan Lewis working on his flow (down the Potomac). I guess he went in, saw Andrea polishing her large oak paddle, all the while exuding an impression of sheer menace, and he made a run for it.
So Sheldon Drobny it was. You don’t think anyone caught on, do you?
Posted by wronwright on 2006 07 24 at 02:03 PM • permalinkThe Turks took it from the Arabs, who took it from the Christians, who sort of squatted there after the Romans packed up and left.
That’s not quite an accurate impression of what happened. The area was part of the Byzantine Empire until the Muslim conquest; as the Byzantines considered themselves the direct heirs of the Romans, it could be considered part of an established nation from the days of the Roman conquest until the Muslim conquest.
All this ignores the inconvenient fact that there were always Jews living quite peacefully among the Arabs, Druze, and Christians in what is now Israel. No one ever brings up the Sabras. To say it was Arab land alone is ridiculous and inaccurate. And after all this time, as Tim Blair says, irrelevant.
It also ignores the purging of Jewish natives from the Arab world. The Arab nations largely expelled their Jewish population, who mostly made their way to Israel. What should become of those people and their descendants?
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 07 24 at 02:30 PM • permalinkThe Arab nations largely expelled their Jewish population, who mostly made their way to Israel. What should become of those people and their descendants?
They should all be killed so we can build museums and memorials for them where we can go and be sad and say “Never again.” Because Lefties do love victims.
In fact, I guess you could say that for Lefties, the only good Jew is a dead Jew.
I could add a lot more than two cents to Pixy Misa’s “Brief History” (all due respect, of course, Pixy), but for the moment I will satisfy myself with one item.
The first general uprising in history based solely on the right to freedom of religion succeeded in utterly routing the Seleucid armies of Antiochus Epiphanes from the land of Israel and environs. It is celebrated today as Channukah (choose your own spelling and pronunciation based on the your ability to utter a uvular fricative).
It also resulted in the establishment of a new dynasty which led Israel for approx. 230 years. Now, I know 230 years doesn’t sound like much—I mean, really, thats only about as long as the United States has existed—but it is something, right?
While the Hasmonean dynasty managed to create an independent Jewish kingdom, its successes were rather short-lived, and the dynasty by and large failed to live up to the nationalistic momentum the Maccabee brothers had gained.
Pity the claiming of kingship by the later Hasmoneans led to their eventual downfall, since that title was only to be held by descendants of the line of King David—but then the Romans had their hand in it with their Idumean puppets (Edomite—descendants of Esau), the Herodians.
And this is not based solely on the K’tuvim of the Old testament (i.e., th “CH” in TANACH), nor from that traitor Josephus. There are many archaeological sites and artifacts throughout the region which attest to these events.
</pedant>
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 07 24 at 04:23 PM • permalinkGee, do you think the demonstrations this last week, with their signs showing a Hezbollah flag flying over the White House, and blatant declarations of their intent to take over the world for Allah, might have penetrated the breezy areas between the ears of the leftists?
Oh, there’s nothing to be concerned about. These people are just overreacting. These were the silent moderate Muslims demonstrating here; your next door neighbors, the ones you’ve been waiting to hear speak out against those terrorists who are hijacking their religion. And the fact that some of those signs showed up in varying venues in different countries shouldn’t worry you. I’m sure that it wasn’t coordinated. Just peaceful protesters who threatened death to any who confronted them.
Perhaps wronwright left the odor of ancient mead floating about the lefty blogosphere, giving ol’ Sheldon a clue to what is actually going on. And maybe She Who Must Be Obeyed tattled to you know who. (Not that there’s anything wron with that.)
Ouch.
As another person much cleverer than me once pointed out, sixty years ago many europeans didnt want the jews to live in europe, know many europeans dont want the jews to live in israel, which begs the question of where they would like them to live exactly, if they would like them to live at all, i think we are seeing our old friend anti semitism , back from its post war hibernation.
Yesterday on Playschool, I mean PM:
MARK COLVIN: .... there must also be a lot of people who are just very angry and think that Hezbollah is at the root of all this.
DAVID HARDAKER: There are those… there is a section of the population which is implacably opposed to Hezbollah, whatever it does, whatever social services it performs, of course.
What? People are OPPOSED to Hezbollah KNOWING that they perform social services?
Oh comes on MentalFloss. You made that up. Seleucid. Antiochus Epiphanes. Channukah. At least make it sound plausible.MentalFloss, I was going to razz you a bit, but I’m too impressed with your intellectual discourses to do that. I do enjoy your learned discussions. I learn a lot from them.
Posted by wronwright on 2006 07 24 at 08:20 PM • permalinkAn inconvenient truth for the lefties, muslims and arabs is that much of what became modern Israel were well established Jewish enclaves before the 1948 UN creation. Jews have always existed in the area, but the Zionist movement saw many Jews immigrate to the area under the Ottomans and set-up many of the modern towns that exist in Israel today. There business productivity was enormous, and many Arabs migrated to the area because the Jewish areas were more prosperous. See how many Palestinians can trace their heritage past the latter part of the 19th century - not many. When the UN set up the countries of Israel and Palestine they divided it by the enclaves that were predominately Jewish (6 enclaves - I go by memory) or predominately Arab (8 enclaves). The Jews had the lesser area, and some areas were not connected. The Jews accepted their lot, the arabs wouldn’t - they started the 1948 war to drive out the Jews. This was a blessing in disguise as Israel was able to join together their enclaves into a single country. Jordan controlled the West Bank territory and Egypt controlled the Gaza strip. Palestinians, as a people, did not come into existence until 1968, after Israel kicked the Jordananians and Egyptians out of their enclaves.
#24 And maybe She Who Must Be Obeyed tattled to you know who. (Not that there’s anything wron with that.)
She Who Must Be Obeyed???? Oh this Dirty Harriet routine has gone too far. First, she passes out font like it’s Halloween, when she damn well knows I’m accountable for that out of my wash-and-wax budget.
Then she spanks me, with MY BACK TURNED. She said she used her paddle but I suspect she really used her hand.
Then she stoled my own personal property. Namely a Zulu spear and a Norman shield, both of which are authentic and priceless. If I see them on Ebay, I’ll report her to Homeland Security.
Now she’s snitched on me to Karl? Iowahawk (makes wriggly motions with index fingers), move over. Andrea is quickly moving up to My Nemesis #1.
Posted by wronwright on 2006 07 24 at 08:34 PM • permalinkJesus, they’re certifiable.
Nah, they’re just emotional teenagers, trying to cast blame wherever possible without acknowledging any responsibility for anything themselves.
Of course, being stuck as an emotional teenager while actually being an adult (well, biologically anyway) might qualify as being certifiable, so perhaps I shouldn’t quibble.
do I have this right? Kurt Anderson managed to get almost all his facts wrong, yet still came to the right conclusion.
Posted by daddy dave on 2006 07 24 at 09:14 PM • permalink#31 PW:
I’ve often wondered about that.
Domesticated animals are different from the wild (self supporting) as in they never lose their juvenile coloring or behaviour.
This is probably due to them never having to make those changes that come from having to fend for themselves in any serious manner.I wonder if the same thing doesn’t happen to humans? Raise em too soft and they never go through those changes that lead to true adulthood?
#28 Shucks, wronright, and here I thought you admired me for my sense of humour!
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 07 24 at 09:44 PM • permalinkAh yes Kae, the old monstrous dictator as social service provider. Years from now I’m sure there will be some jackass saying, “at least Hezbollah kept the Katyushas flying on time!”
Posted by Vanguard of the Commentariat on 2006 07 24 at 10:35 PM • permalinkRegarding the history of Israel/Palestine, the whole thing is laid out in detail here.
Posted by daddy dave on 2006 07 24 at 10:47 PM • permalink#25
....sixty years ago many Eeuropeans didn’t want the Jews to live in Europe, now many europeans don’t want the Jews to live in Israel, ... where they would like them to live exactly, if they would like them to live at all, ...
Is Madagascar still available?
Posted by pog-ma-thon on 2006 07 24 at 11:14 PM • permalinkWell, as a general principle, I’m not sold on the idea that every identifiable group ought to migrate back to wherever its ancestors lived in the first millenium BC. I’d have to leave Maui.
However, all sorts of groups have moved (or been moved, in the case of Africans in the New World) over the last few centuries, and somehow they get along wherever they washed up, except one place. Well, two places. There’s Fiji.
But most places.
Posted by Harry Eagar on 2006 07 24 at 11:22 PM • permalinkJews were already living in Palestine at the time of the formation of Israel. They were not “moved there”. The UN plan was to divide the place up into Jewish states and Arab states, depending on which race was in the majority in which area. It never worked, of course, because the Arab states instantly attacked the Jewish states, starting the first Arab/Israeli war. But that was the plan.
Posted by daddy dave on 2006 07 24 at 11:34 PM • permalinkS’truth, Harry, you do come up with some real corkers!
The link daddy dave provided at #38, as well as your own effort (should you choose to exert it) will reveal much that is apparently hidden to you.
But then, there so little time until “the End”, right?
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 07 25 at 12:20 AM • permalink#31, PW:
Of course, being stuck as an emotional teenager while actually being an adult (well, biologically anyway) might qualify as being certifiable, so perhaps I shouldn’t quibble.
I don’t know about their being certifiable, but I do know that adolescence in what ought to be a grown man is damned unattractive.
Then what was that Law of Return about then?
Zionism was never about Jews who already lived in Palestine.
By the way, I’m not blaming the Zionists for not getting along with the neighbors. They tried. Not real hard, but they did try.
Posted by Harry Eagar on 2006 07 25 at 02:42 AM • permalinkMr. Eagar. Would you tell us what YOU think the Law of Return was about?
Give the matter a little thought. I am very interested in what you think.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 07 25 at 02:50 AM • permalinkFurther, the Islamic religious tie to the land of Israel is tenuous at best. Note Daniel Pipes remarks -
link - http://www.danielpipes.org/article/84
“The Jewish connection to Jerusalem is an ancient and powerful one. Judaism made Jerusalem a holy city over three thousand years ago and through all that time Jews remained steadfast to it. Jews pray in its direction, mention its name constantly in prayers, close the Passover service with the wistful statement “Next year in Jerusalem,” and recall the city in the blessing at the end of each meal. The destruction of the Temple looms very large in Jewish consciousness; remembrance takes such forms as a special day of mourning, houses left partially unfinished, a woman’s makeup or jewelry left incomplete, and a glass smashed during the wedding ceremony. In addition, Jerusalem has had a prominent historical role, is the only capital of a Jewish state, and is the only city with a Jewish majority during the whole of the past century. In the words of its current mayor, Jerusalem represents “the purist expression of all that Jews prayed for, dreamed of, cried for, and died for in the two thousand years since the destruction of the Second Temple.”
What about Muslims? Where does Jerusalem fit in Islam and Muslim history? It is not the place to which they pray, is not once mentioned by name in prayers, and it is connected to no mundane events in Muhammad’s life. The city never served as capital of a sovereign Muslim state, and it never became a cultural or scholarly center. Little of political import by Muslims was initiated there.
One comparison makes this point most clearly: Jerusalem appears in the Jewish Bible 669 times and Zion (which usually means Jerusalem, sometimes the Land of Israel) 154 times, or 823 times in all. The Christian Bible mentions Jerusalem 154 times and Zion 7 times. In contrast, the columnist Moshe Kohn notes, Jerusalem and Zion appear as frequently in the Qur’an “as they do in the Hindu Bhagavad-Gita, the Taoist Tao-Te Ching, the Buddhist Dhamapada and the Zoroastrian Zend Avesta”—which is to say, not once.”
Posted by Texas Ranger on 2006 07 25 at 05:32 AM • permalinkHarry, You raise a good point with the Law of Return. It’s true that Zionism wasn’t about the Jews that were already there. But the Law of Return is oversold by anti-Zionists as theft of “Arab” land, when it is just a targeted immigration policy. A lot of people don’t realise that there was a pre-existing Jewish presence that precipitated it.
Posted by daddy dave on 2006 07 25 at 08:24 AM • permalinkThe pull of the homeland of Israel has always been considerably less, in practice, than the push of Christian violence, no matter how much Jews in the Diaspora tear up when they say ‘next year in Jerusalem.’
Jews do not, except a tiny fraction, take advantage of the Law of Return to emigrate from the United States. Weizmann’s early recruits did not come from the East End of London, despite the discrimination they endured there, but from Russia, Poland etc.
Moving people around based on their religion/ethnicity is a sort of Assyrian idea. The United States has done it, too, with Cherokees, Japanese and Bikini islanders. However good an idea it seemed at the time, in retrospect, it has usually looked like a bad idea.
Just because Zionism was a poorly thought-out idea doesn’t change the fact that Israel exists now. Nor is it apparent that there was a better idea than Zionism at the time.
I blame the Christians first, Muslims second.
Posted by Harry Eagar on 2006 07 25 at 12:14 PM • permalinkHey, if it wasn’t for the mistake made by G. Washington, A. Hamilton, T. Jefferson, et al, in revolting against the British Crown, we wouldn’t be where we are now, in this stupid situation in the Middle East and we wouldn’t have McChimpy Hitler to deal with either. But, look, Kurtsie, I’m with you,when the choice is the USA versus unaccommodating Islamist fanatics, we must be for the USA. Is there any more inconvenient truth?
Just because Zionism was a poorly thought-out idea doesn’t change the fact that Israel exists now. Nor is it apparent that there was a better idea than Zionism at the time.
I blame the Christians first, Muslims second.
Why blame anyone, Harry, if it “...doesn’t change the fact that Israel exists now”?
It makes you sound…..vindictive.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 07 25 at 03:04 PM • permalink#54: I agree. There’s plenty of historical culpability to go around for the treatment of the Jews, but the present danger comes from (a) Islamic and secular Arab (Ba’athist) terrorists, and (b) their fellow travelers in the media and in academe. And pardon me, but agnostic/atheistic regimes like the Nazis and the Communists were not exactly Jew-friendly.
Equate the experiences of Jews in London’s East End with those in Eastern Europe?
Might as well compare (or rather, contrast) the experiences of the Six Nations in Eastern North America with that of the Six Nations East of the Rockies in Montana.
You can’t.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 07 25 at 03:45 PM • permalink#3 - Dan Lewis, belated thanks for that link. Very useful info there.
Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2006 07 25 at 08:53 PM • permalinkHarry Eagar, you don’t know what you are talking about. I grew up in Miami, Florida, which has one of the largest Jewish populations in the US. Many of the Jewish families living here have relatives in Israel or go there regularly (my Jewish boss was the exception, I don’t think he had any close family members in the country, but one of the daughters of the owner of the mortgage company was Orthodox, married to a settler in Israel, and had six kids—I met two of them when they came to visit their grandad). One of our coworkers, also Jewish, died suddenly, and we all contributed towards planting a tree in Israel in his name. When the first Gulf War happened, there was intense focus, naturally, on Saddam’s Scud missile bombing of Israel—even though that country was not participating in any of the “festivities.” I remember seeing news reports showing Tel Aviv under alert and thinking how much it looked like Miami Beach. I grew up with kids who spent summers in a kibbutz in Israel.
The ties between Jews in America and Israel is deep and real, even if they don’t all live there.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 07 25 at 11:03 PM • permalinkMaybe the Jews should just pass a Native Title Act and give limited rights to hunt and fish to prior inhabitants over some piece of desert. The Lefties could then commence their mantras by a rote remembrance of the “traditional owners” of the land upon whom they now stand. That should include about everyone from Philistines, Persians, Medes, Christians, Turks, whatever.
Zionists without Zion, eh, Andrea? What will they think of next?
I grew up with kids like that, too. Some of my college classmates got drafted into both the US Army and the IDF. Boy, were they pissed. But they, with a couple of exceptions, stayed Americans.
Jeffs, if it doesn’t make any difference, why did we have five dozen posts justifying it? The other reason it matters now is that Zionism created Palestinian nationalism.
In 1948, nobody self-identified as a Palestinian, just as in 1840, nobody self-identified as a Romanian. Palestinian nationalism is real now, and Zionists have to deal with it somehow.
Mental, I am not equating the East End of London with East Europe. Exactly the reverse. You’re smarter than to misread that.
Zionism either worked or it didn’t.
I would guess that for Jews who embraced it for religious/spiritual reasons, it was a pretty complete success, except for the Eretz Israel fanatics.
For the others, who I believe were the majority, who embraced it for civil/secular reasons (like legal rights, economic success, personal security), it was an almost total failure up to 1939, because it failed to get many Jews far enough away from the Christians (there, I mentioned them again; I’m a bad boy).
After 1945, Zionism has had mixed success from the civil/secular viewpoint. On the whole, the Jews might have been better off if they’d come to America instead, and America certainly would have been.
Paco, the agnostic/atheistic regimes in USSR and Germany merely carried on their Christian heritage. No change at all. Hitler’s army went into combat with belt buckles embossed ‘Got mit uns.’ Some atheists.
Everybody in Germany except Jews and communists was a Christian. And just about everybody in Germany except Jews and communists was a Nazi. Do the math.
Posted by Harry Eagar on 2006 07 26 at 12:35 AM • permalinkJeffs, if it doesn’t make any difference, why did we have five dozen posts justifying it?
Harry,
You made the assertion that:
“Just because Zionism was a poorly thought-out idea doesn’t change the fact that Israel exists now. Nor is it apparent that there was a better idea than Zionism at the time. “
Nor did anyone say “it doesn’t make a difference”.
I specifically asked:
Why blame anyone, Harry, if it “...doesn’t change the fact that Israel exists now”?
I’m showing the “Bullshit!” card, Harry. You changed the subject, ignored the question, and in general ran away. My question was, and remains, “Why blame anyone?”
Not that I expect you to answer, given this response of yours.
The other reason it matters now is that Zionism created Palestinian nationalism.
Uh, yeah, right. Sure, Harry. Much of objectively written history disagrees with you, but, hey, go right ahead and look like a fool.
Oh, wait, you already look like a fool. Well, then, carry on. Keep up the good fight!
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 07 26 at 12:49 AM • permalinkHarry Eagar, where did I say anything about “Zionists without Zion”?
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 07 26 at 07:24 AM • permalinkEverybody in Germany except Jews and communists was a Christian. And just about everybody in Germany except Jews and communists was a Nazi.
This is a sweeping statement that overlooks an awful lot. There are differences in moral culpability between people who were active Nazis and bought into the whole Aryan Superman rubbish, and people who disliked or even hated the Nazis but felt powerless to do anything against them. There were also many people (including Christians) who actively opposed the Nazis and died for their faith. The same with the Soviet Union and the communists. The appeal to God on German belt buckles might have been to Odin, for all Hitler cared about religion.
This is a sweeping statement that overlooks an awful lot.
Paco, I think you just described every single post made on this thread by Harry Eager.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 07 26 at 09:42 AM • permalinkpaco, read Manstein’s memoirs about that buckle.
There were 50 million people in uniform resisting Hitler. How many were Germans?
The answer is, fewer than 1,500 (X Battalion, SOE, almost all of them German Jewish refugees). There were Free French, Free Polish, Free Czech armies. Where were the Free Germans?
Andrea, if Zion is so important that it had to be carved out after a lapse of 1,800 years, the least the Zionists could do is move there.
At least the Jewish ones. Feeling deep and abiding ties to a state of Israel doesn’t mean a great deal in international terms. Many Irish feel deep and abiding ties to the Ould Sod, and fervently supported self-independence from Britain (see Owen Wister, ‘The Ancient Grudge’ for an impassioned contemporary view), but I don’t think many on this thread are going to have much good to say about the IRA.
OK, Jeffs, I’ll try to answer in a different way. There’s been plenty of blame handed out to the Muslims here. All of it deserved, too. And defenders of Israel have gone back as far as the Trojan War to defend their arguments. It seems kind of restrictive to fuss as me for going back a mere 75 years to point out why there had to be a state of Israel in the 20th century.
Anybody here want to claim that Weizmann went to Balfour to say, ‘Mr. Foreign Secretary, Britain must support a Jewish national homeland because of the terrible pogroms sweeping the East End of London and the Lower East Side of Manhattan’?
Posted by Harry Eagar on 2006 07 26 at 12:27 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Not only is it irrelevant but it’s inaccurate. There was no nation there before Israel was created. There were territories occupied by a foreign invader, that being the Arab, and then another, that being the British.
Long before muslims existed, those lands were a mix of various Christian sects and old school pagan pantheistic blends.
The arab has zero claim upon Jerusalem, other than it’s important to the Jews and anything important to the Jews must be denied them, according to the spewings of the founder islam.