Zionism and History

by **Dreams End** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 1:33 am

This is a great opportunity to learn...I wish more were participating. I am going to hold off on researching the quotes of Revisionist Zionists, Irgun, LIkudniks, etc. They have been condemned, within the Jewish community itself, as rather fascist. My contention is that Zionism was not some monolithic entity, and the fact that there even WAS a revisionist Zionism, shows this. Jabotinsky was not even allowed by Ben Gurion to be buried in Israel. I'm learning a whole lot of unfamiliar history, but from what I know... Revisionists split with Labor Zionism...leads to Betar, leads to Irgun which ultimately leads to Likud. Labor Zionism was clearly the dominant strain, so quotes from that strain are the most important to get to. Why did Israel veer right? Be another interesting discussion to have.

by **smithtalk** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:21 am

when the left embraces (current) Iranian ideology, something is very, very wrong couls you explain or describe the current iranian ideology you are vaguely referring to

by **Dreams End** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:32 am

Man is this gonna take awhile. Okay....I'm putting off the quotes from Revisionists, as I mentioned. If they are condemned from within Zionism, then I'm not sure that it's important to deal with them...however, I will let you know if I find anything on them as well. I also admit I'm cheating. I went straight to the "fake zionist quotes" fact-finding sections of various websites. Just started, actually. there are some AMAZINGLY horrible and demonstrably false quotes out there. So everyone should be careful. Heres a first one. It's not exactly redemptive, but there is more context, at least. The quote as given by Alice (twice): <blockquote>Quote:<hr> "When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle." Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, New York Times, 14 April 1983.<hr></blockquote> Full quote: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The Arabs will never win over us by throwing stones. Our response must be a nationalist Zionist response. For every stone that’s thrown–we will build ten settlements. If 100 settlements will exist–and they will–between Nablus and Jerusalem, stones will not be thrown. If this will be the situation, then the Arabs will only be able to scurry around like drugged roaches in a bottle.<hr></blockquote> The context: Fisk suggests that Eitan routinely referred to the Palestinians as “cockroaches” He states this as fact, giving no source, but other internet sites refer to an April 13, 1983 article by Gad Becker in the Israeli daily, Yediot Ahronot. This original source of the quote, however, indicates that Eitan’s comment was atypical, made in specific reference to Arab violence. According to Becker, this “uncharacteristic”(as he puts it) and controversial comment was made by outgoing Chief of Staff Eitan during a discussion of how best to deal with Arab violence in the West Bank. In responding to suggestions by Knesset members that the army should stop stone throwers by shooting at their feet or throwing stones back, Eitan reportedly said (the above quote). <a href="http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=21&x_article=775">Camera...a favorite site of someone on this thread.</a> I don't really know Camera, but their research into the quotes is completely sourced and therefore it is theoretically possible to do so. I wasn't going to deal with Likudniks, but this was just below that: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The Palestinians are "..beasts walking on two legs." Menahim Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, 'Begin and the "Beasts"', New Statesman, 25 June 1982.<hr></blockquote> Such a heavily redacted quote should be avoided, really. Anyway: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Indeed, the radical French-Israeli journalist, Amnon Kapeliouk, did attribute such a quote to Begin in his New Statesman article criticizing Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. The author posited: For this reason the government has gone to extraordinary lengths to dehumanise the Palestinians. Begin described them in a speech in the Knesset as "beasts walking on two legs". However, further investigation by CAMERA reveals that the actual speech upon which Kapeliouk based his quote, as well as news reports at the time demonstrate that the journalist distorted the quote, giving it a completely different tone and meaning. Begin was talking, not about "the Palestinians" but about terrorists who target children within Israel. On June 8, 1982, Begin addressed the Knesset in response to a no-confidence motion over Israel's invasion of Lebanon. He talked about defending the children of Israel, and according to a June 9, 1982 AP report, “his voice quaver[ed] with anger and sadness.” According to the minutes of the session, Begin stated: The children of Israel will happily go to school and joyfully return home, just like the children in Washington, in Moscow, and in Peking, in Paris and in Rome, in Oslo, in Stockholm and in Copenhagen. The fate of... Jewish children has been different from all the children of the world throughout the generations. No more. We will defend our children. If the hand of any two-footed animal is raised against them, that hand will be cut off, and our children will grow up in joy in the homes of their parents.<hr></blockquote> That's two. The actual quotes are not ones I'd want on a t-shirt, but it's clear that they are not an honest reflection of the speaker's intent. And, in general, quotes in which the paraphrase is longer than the quoted material should be avoided. I'll keep looking. The Einstein et al quote is real...it was taken out in a newspaper in 1948. However it was not against "Zionists" but against the Herut party. Again, I think it is not reasonable to ask me to defend the Israeli rightwing as if this is all of Zionism/Israel. In fact it shows what disagreement there was within Zionism. I reprint the entire letter. Again, CONTEXT is key here. And, to simply revel in the rare quadruple irony that has a full 3-point difficulty, I reprint the letter from Rense and include the original graphic. This is not a dig at Alice at all, though it is important to understand how these sorts of out of quote comments are used to make a much larger condemnation. Here's the graphic: <img src="http://www.rense.com/1.imagesG/1036081927.jpeg" style="border:0;"/> This is the Israel = Nazi symbol though because Jews in general use the Star of David as a religious symbol, it shows...well, we know what it shows. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Letters to the Editor New York Times December 4, 1948 TO THE EDITORS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES: Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine. The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughoutthe world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin's political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents. Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Begin's behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement. The public avowals of Begin's party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future. Attack on Arab Village A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base. On April 9 (THE NEW YORK TIMES), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants ? 240men, women, and children - and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem. Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin. The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of the Freedom Party. Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model. During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute. The people of the Freedom Party have had no part in the constructive achievements in Palestine. They have reclaimed no land, built no settlements, and only detracted from the Jewish defense activity. Their much-publicized immigration endeavors were minute, and devoted mainly to bringing in Fascist compatriots. Discrepancies Seen The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party, and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a "Leader State" is the goal. In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is imperative that the truth about Mr. Begin and his movement be made known in this country. It is all the more tragic that the top leadership of American Zionism has refused to campaign against Begin's efforts, or even to expose to its own constituents the dangers to Israel from support to Begin. The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party; and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism. ISIDORE ABRAMOWITZ HANNAH ARENDT ABRAHAM BRICK RABBI JESSURUN CARDOZO ALBERT EINSTEIN HERMAN EISEN, M.D. HAYIM FINEMAN M. GALLEN, M.D. H.H. HARRIS ZELIG S. HARRIS SIDNEY HOOK FRED KARUSH BRURIA KAUFMAN IRMA L. LINDHEIM NACHMAN MAISEL SEYMOUR MELMAN MYER D. MENDELSON M.D., HARRY M. OSLINSKY SAMUEL PITLICK FRITZ ROHRLICH LOUIS P. ROCKER RUTH SAGIS ITZHAK SANKOWSKY I.J. SHOENBERG SAMUEL SHUMAN M. SINGER IRMA WOLFE STEFAN WOLF. <hr></blockquote>

by **Dreams End** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:39 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>when the left embraces (current) Iranian ideology, something is very, very wrong couls you explain or describe the current iranian ideology you are vaguely referring to<hr></blockquote> Okay, guess we all don't agree on Iran, but I'm pretty sure most leftists would. That whole theocracy/Supreme Leader thing.

by **smithtalk** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:47 am

i disagree DE, i am glad to have read the fuller versions of the quotes which i myself have read shortened many times but i think they do reflect the honest intention of the speaker, and dont quote stuff like this and expect it to be swallowed According to Becker, this “uncharacteristic”(as he puts it) and controversial comment seems to me that if iranians speak and americans translate we accept the result readily and if nasrallah speaks and americans translate we accept the result readily, but if israeli's say disgusting racist things then they must surely be “uncharacteristic” fair and balanced eh? and i really think you should offer a bit more in response to my question than this equally vague backflip, Okay, guess we all don't agree on Iran, but I'm pretty sure most leftists would. That whole theocracy/Supreme Leader thing.

by **Dreams End** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:50 am

Oh...this one I knew about. Now, it doesn't make the quote all peace, joy and light, necessarily, but can you see a difference from the way it was written above: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> "Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I don't blame you because geography books no longer exist, not only do the books not exist, .The Arab villages are not there either. Nahal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibat; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kfar Yehushu'a in the place of Tal al Shuman. There is not one single place that did not have a former Arab population." Moshe Dayan's address to the Technion, Haifa (as Quoted in Haaretz, April 4, 1969).<hr></blockquote> Here's the actual quote: “We came to a region of land that was inhabited by Arabs, and we set up a Jewish state. In a considerable number of places, we purchased the land from Arabs and set up Jewish villages where there had once been Arab villages. You don't even know the names [of the previous Arab villages] and I don't blame you, because those geography books aren't around anymore. Not only the books, the villages aren't around. Nahalal was established in the place of Mahalul, and Gvat was established in the place of Jibta, Sarid in the place of Huneifis and Kfar Yehoshua in the place of Tel Shaman. There isn't any place that was established in an area where there had not at one time been an Arab settlement.” <a href="http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=21&x_article=775">camera again</a> Here's the story behind the quote: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> The quote is taken from an address Dayan gave to Technion University students on March 19, 1969. A transcription of the speech appeared in Ha'aretz on April 4, 1969. In answer to a student's question suggesting that Israel adopt a policy of punishing Arabs who commit crimes in the West Bank by deportation to Jordan, Dayan answers that he is vehemently opposed to this idea, insisting that the answer to the longstanding Arab-Israeli problem is to learn to live together with Arab neighbors. He goes on to say: “We came to a region of land that was inhabited by Arabs, and we set up a Jewish state. In a considerable number of places, we purchased the land from Arabs and set up Jewish villages where there had once been Arab villages. You don't even know the names [of the previous Arab villages] and I don't blame you, because those geography books aren't around anymore. Not only the books, the villages aren't around. Nahalal was established in the place of Mahalul, and Gvat was established in the place of Jibta, Sarid in the place of Huneifis and Kfar Yehoshua in the place of Tel Shaman. There isn't any place that was established in an area where there had not at one time been an Arab settlement.” Dayan's conclusion was that the solution to the Arab-Israeli problem is to learn to coexist with them. In the misquote, the key phrase “we purchased the land from Arabs” is omitted and thus Dayan's meaning is misrepresented. Dayan was not saying that Arabs were dispossessed. On the contrary, he was indicating that though Arabs sold the land of their own free will, given their one-time presence in the land of Israel, the Israeli goal is to live peacefully together with them.<hr></blockquote> I am aware that in the 1948 war, Arabs were driven from their homes. And if you find a quote from Dayan talking about that, this is one thing, but the above quote was taken out of context and a critical phrase ommitted. That's all I can do tonight. I didn't really want to be spending time debunking quotes...and some will turn out to be true...and I'll post that when I find it as well, as long as I'm not asked to defend Zionism as a concept and the founding of Israel by being forced to defend even the most rightwing Zionists. There's a reason those guys were the ones are establishment liked the most....but I'm still stuck in '48 while I go quote hunting....

by **Dreams End** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 3:00 am

Well smithtalk, why don't you start, as clearly I've been busy this evening, and tell us why you like Iran. I suggested they were a theocracy run by a Supreme Leader. Is this incorrect? Or do you just find this a good model to follow? Don't get me wrong...I'm not asking for the Shah's return. But go ahead and enlighten us. As for the quotes....Google, man. I find so many more sites...20 to 1 at least, using those quotes as listed by Alice than I do discussing the fallacies in them. I'm sorry, I can't go back in time and I don't have access to the records of Knesset meetings or even Nexxis. Someone has bothered to do the research...you suggest the context as presented is accurate, then for that quote, go find some information that shows that the excised versions reflected the true views of the speaker. I mean seriously, Alice tosses out 20 quotes with no context and I'm doing my best to track them down. And honestly, historical analysis by out of context quotes is not a very good approach...I'm just trying to be a good sport or be seen as dodging the question...despite the fact that no one here has answered most of mine.

by **Dreams End** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 3:20 am

This is actually starting to tick me off a little. Original quote (I know I'd said I'd stop but these are on the same page): <blockquote>Quote:<hr>"We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves." Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983.<hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr> nvestigation: The quote is found on numerous anti-Israel sites, in addition to MIFTAH’s, but the facts do not check out. While Shlomo Lahat was indeed re-elected as mayor of Tel Aviv in 1983, no record was found of any “Chairman Heilbrun.” The quote was traced to a 1988 book, The Hidden History of Zionism, by radical Marxist Ralph Schoenman (dismissed by mainstream historians as a crazed conspiracy theorist), and is one of many bogus quotes in the book attributed to Israeli leaders. According to Schoenman’s footnote, the quote by Heilbrun was hearsay relayed to him in private conversations: Cited by Fouzi El-Asmar and Salih Baransi during discussions with the author, October 1983 Needless to say, Schoenman’s scholarship, upon which many anti-Israel Web sites depend, leaves much wanting. CAMERA contacted former Mayor Lahat who attested that he has never employed, known or heard of any such person as “Chairman Heilbrun,” and that the reported incident never took place. Lahat also emphasized that he would never allow any of his employees to make such statements, as it completely contradicts his own sentiments about Palestinians.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=21&x_article=775">link</a> Sorry, alice, for the "radical Marxist" dig. That's not my sentiment. I am, however, no fan of Schoenman's. That was true even when I completely accepted his book, "The Hidden History of Zionism." Schoenman has a strange history and a very high creepiness factor. I can't say much about him personally, though I have met him and had the oddest experience of watching him and Cockburn argue about JFK's murder at some political function. The deep politics in all of that was mindbending and way beyond the scope of this thread...but the folks pushing Schoenman's stuff were police agents. I don't mean as in "I suspect them" I mean as in the woman (it was a married couple) had a resume with nothing but police work on it, while the husband offered a rather well known activist involved in the release of the Pentagon Papers (not Ellsberg) "guns and drugs". Not Schoenman's fault, I know, but they were central to bringing him in to speak and the whole scene was really, really weird. Schoenman has one version of the quote above that left out the "buying land" part. No reason to trust me, as I'm just an anonymous poster, but Schoenman is odd. However, Schoenman worked closely with Bertrand Russell who found it necessary, later in life, to write a <a href="http://kenrahn.com/JFK/the_critics/Russell/Private_memorandum_of_Russell.html">long memo</a> to explain what he'd come to learn about Schoenman. Schoenman did many things to help Russel but also many to discredit him. You can decide what that might mean. I think Russell just thought he was unbalanced.

by **smithtalk** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 4:19 am

DE when the left embraces (current) Iranian ideology, something is very, very wrong smithtalk could you explain or describe the current iranian ideology you are vaguely referring to DE Okay, guess we all don't agree on Iran, but I'm pretty sure most leftists would. That whole theocracy/Supreme Leader thing. smithtalk i really think you should offer a bit more in response to my question than this equally vague backflip DE Well smithtalk, why don't you start and tell us why you like Iran. maybe i am missing part of the conversation, the part where i said i like iran, you made the wild statements, you back them up

by **chiggerbit** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 4:53 am

Well, actually DE, you might want to check out how much Iran is run by its "Supreme Leader" and how many decisions are actually made by its military leaders.

by **erosoplier** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 5:13 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Do you have no room in your analysis for the organic movement of the Jewish masses away from oppression and to a land that would hopefully be a homeland? Is that simply not relevant?<hr></blockquote> See DE, this is where you don't seem to be getting it. The Jewish masses were being oppressed? Well that's surely a crying shame, but the land they chose to "hopefully be a homeland" was not vacant land. Not for century upon century. And the people - these Jews - who moved to this new homeland, most of them have absolutely no prior historical geographical link to this new homeland. They are ethnically geographically alien to this new "homeland." Far from it simply being not relevant, it is a crucial question, and if looked into I don't see how it can continue to be assumed that the right of the Jews to have a homeland morally outweighs the right of Palestinians to continue to live where they have lived for centuries - which is what you seem to be assuming.

by **erosoplier** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 5:20 am

Iran's political process got fucked over by an external influence (the USA). The regime it's got today is not a reflection of the desires of the people of Iran per se - it is a reflection of the desires of the peoples of Iran who, apart from anything else, have had to deal with the fact that their political process has been fucked over by an external influence.

by **AlicetheCurious** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 5:47 am

DE, I actually threw out all those quotes so that you'd know how I feel, expected to chase down and justify all kinds of nefarious 'quotes' published by polemicists. Since you don't seem to have discovered it by yourself, let me be clearer: it's a futile exercise. It's the kind of things earnest college students, financially supported by their parents, have the time and energy to do, not people like me, and presumably, not people like you, either, who have responsibilities and must deal with harsh reality constrained by the ravages of looming middle age (I flatter myself, it's hardly 'looming', rather firmly settled on my aching neck). My point is, dusty quotes, no matter how offensive, are not enough reason for me to spend precious time on something not directly related to my children, my husband, my home and the challenges that meet us. On the other hand, maybe I'm crazy, but it breaks my heart to witness that children are being killed, being maimed, that innocent people are suffering outrageous indignities, that people are being robbed and then blamed for their own destitution, and that a bunch of sociopathic suits smugly justify such crimes with statements that wouldn't convince an idiot, but are accepted as fact by so many who only ask that their "news" be pre-chewed and pre-digested so it goes down easy. That makes me mad. Really, really mad. "What can I do?", "what can I do?" is a refrain that almost physically tears its way around and around my brain as I watch my daily dose of documentary or news footage, or read about the Kafkaesque nightmare in which so many people are trapped. Assholes of all colours and creeds are welcome to flap their ugly mouths, as far as I'm concerned. It's a good way to judge intent, but really, I don't believe people should be stopped from expressing their views, or thinking their own thoughts, even if those thoughts are ignorant and hateful. But actually committing crimes, well, that's something else, isn't it? And when those crimes go unpunished, that hurts all of us because then precedents are set and examples are made. Also, I admit that I have a vivid imagination when it comes to imagining myself or my loved ones in every scene of horror I see. So it is almost unbearable for me when those crimes are justified by lies and suppression of information, or described as an "acceptable cost" by those who reap the benefits but pass the losses to the weakest and most vulnerable. Surely those of us who can, have a responsibility to speak out. You're welcome to keep spinning your wheels chasing down quotes and trying to read the minds behind the flapping mouths of the Middle East. That's not my bag. This is the kind of thing that I consider to be urgent and worthy of a "spotlight" by decent people who are concerned with the so-called "Middle East conflict". In the following article excerpt, there is evidence of a number of war crimes and violations of the Geneva Conventions. Do you think they should be investigated and if found to be guilty, the perpetrators should be brought to justice? I look forward to reading your answer. Or, you can keep sifting through quotes. Up to you. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Palestinians forced to scavenge for food on rubbish dumps By Patrick Cockburn in Jerusalem Published: 09 September 2006 [a] <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1431114.ece[c">news.independent.co.uk/wo...1114.ece[c</a>]<a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1431114.ece[/a">news.independent.co.uk/wo...114.ece[/a</a>] The Israeli military and economic siege of Gaza has led to a collapse in Palestinian living conditions and many people only survive by looking for scraps of food in rubbish dumps, say international aid agencies. "The pressure and tactics have not resulted in a desire for compromise," Karen Abuzayd, the head of the UN Relief and Works Agency is said to have warned. "But rather they have created mass despair, anger and a sense of hopelessness and abandonment." Israel closed the entry and exit points into the Gaza Strip, home to 1.5 million Palestinians, on 25 June and has conducted frequent raids and bombings that have killed 262 people and wounded 1,200. The crisis in Gaza has been largely ignored by the rest of the world, which has been absorbed by the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon. "Women in Gaza tell me they are eating only one meal a day, bread with tomatoes or cheap vegetables," said Kirstie Campbell of the UN's World Food Programme, which is feeding 235,000 people. She added that in June, since when the crisis has worsened, some 70 per cent of people in Gaza could not meet their family's food needs. "People are raiding garbage dumps," she said. Not only do Palestinians in Gaza get little to eat but what food they have is eaten cold because of the lack of electricity and money to pay for fuel. The Gaza power plant was destroyed by an Israeli air strike in June. In one month alone 4 per cent of Gaza's agricultural land was destroyed by Israeli bulldozers. The total closure imposed by Israel, supplemented by deadly raids, has led to the collapse of the Gazan economy. The 35,000 fishermen cannot fish because Israeli gunboats will fire on them if they go more than a few hundred yards from the shore. At the same time the international boycott of the Hamas government means that there is no foreign aid to pay Palestinian government employees. The government used to have a monthly budget of $180-200m, half of which went to pay 165,000 public sector workers. But it now has only $25m a month. <hr></blockquote> Of course, this is only one tiny example among a great many, that Israel is systematically engaged in war crimes and violations of international law. Does this concern you? If so, what do you suggest be done?

by **Dreams End** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 10:39 am

The title of this thread is zionism and history. So I have been concentrating on the history of Zionism. Very few of the arguments I've put forward have been responded to. Alice is by far the best of the lot, as the rest simply throw out a little rhetoric with no support whatsoever. And some want me to focus on Iran. My claims about Iran were that it supports Hezbollah (I mean the government of Iran), that th share ideology and that most leftists would not hold Iran up as a model for any country they would like to see established. I'm sorry, smithtalk, if I'm not more fully answering you, but this thread has a topic. You haven't contributed. Feel free to. If you think I've mischaracterized Iran, then show us how. Alice tossed out a bunch of quotes. I thought they were quotes she agreed with (the anti-Zionist ones) or found to go some way toward exposing the intent of early Zionists. Now she suggests they were tossed out there just to show how many quotes there are. It's a quote filled world, and irrelevant if they are true or not, unless you are a college student. Or something. If you don't have time to participate, I can certainly understand that. But saying you don't have time is different from whether it matters. It certainly does matter. In addition, I've already shown, without a whole lot of effort, that several of those quotes are not accurate. My contention is that the idea that early Zionists came in with the express purpose of displacing Palestinians is a myth and a noxious one. It's important to me to understand the forces in play here. You do not dispute, I'm sure, that the US has backed all kinds of countries who oppose Israel. We've backed both sides for so long that they idea that the US is "pro-Israel" is also one that leftists need to examine critically. Putting Saddam in power did not help Israel. Neither did removing him. Neither does our relationship with Wahabist Saudi Arabia, neither did secret arms deals to Iran etc etc etc. I also suggest that the left embrace of Hezbollah is disturbing. Einstein risked some disapproval by criticizing a tendency within Zionism (he supported Zionism and was even asked to run for President, which is one of the several ironies that made me giggle when that quote came up.) But the left can't seem to get that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" isn't analysis, it's Hollywood dialogue and means nothing. Also, it's interesting that Britain played this game. Ostensibly supporting Israel while working behind the scenes to destroy it. But i haven't gotten into that yet. It's a high stakes political game. I'm surprised that a leftist, in fact most, doesn't look beyond the rhetoric and surface reality. I'm very aware and disturbed by the fact that I get a lot of this from rightwing sources, which is why I quote Emperor's new Clothes. I haven't seen anything there yet, however, that discusses rightwing Zionism or the Israeli right. I'm very interested in the chicken and egg of whether the Soviets turned on Israel because Israel failed to live up to the expectations they had, for the Soviets were supportive in word and in UN votes, of the founding of Israel. Or if the rise in anti-Israel feeling mirrored a resurgance of the old anti-Semitism under the Tsar. I've seen cartoons, etc from the USSR in the sixties which are clearly anti-Jewish...not just anti-Israel. How did this happen? And was this the influence that led much of the worldwide left to turn away from Israel. Or was it the rise of Revisionist Zionism and Likud? I'd like to think that, but none of the left analysis I've seen makes any differentiation whatsoever. Just as Jared Israel seems to make no mention of the more fascist elements of the Israeli right (modeled, if I remember, directly from Mussolini), the left condemns "Zionism" and "Zionists" as a monolith. This also bothers me because it is very clear that one of the FBI's objectives under COINTELPRO was to drive a wedge between American liberal and progressive Jews and the rest of the left. Part of it was to create an anti-Soviet left, but part was to really keep Jews away from various potentially revolutionary movements. I'm thinking of COINTELPRO efforts to create the impression of anti-Semitism among the Black Panthers, with a specific objective of alienation a famous Jew, Leonard Bernstein, from that movement. I also think about the way things got split up around the first gulf war, with ANSWER creating a split between those who would condemn Saddam Hussein (including many Jewish peace groups) and those who would not (ANSWER). Anyway, beyond the topic, I know, but that's what I've been thinking about. So I've been trying to get a sense of the history. And to do so, I think having some concern about whether Zionism was some fascist movement specificaclly conceived to commit genocide or was, instead, a multi-stranded idealistic movement in reaction to continuous worldwide oppression of Jews is important. It's equally important, as an American, to understand MY OWN GOVERNMENT'S role in all of this. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dreamsend@rigorousintuition>Dreams End</A> at: 9/15/06 1:04 pm

by **Dreams End** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 4:12 pm

More on quotes. This is quite fascinating. One could, if one wanted, track many of these quotes via their various "edits" and see maybe who was originally reponsible for deleting key phrases. Here's another. This one is about Ben-Gurion. I could post several quotes where he vows that the State of Israel will be based on equality for all, etc. But I'll just stick to Alice's quotes. Here's the one on Alice's list: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>David Ben Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): " If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp. 121-122.<hr></blockquote> And the original quote as reported by Wiki...transcribed from "Le Paraddoxe Juif": <blockquote>Quote:<hr> 'I don't understand your optimism,' Ben Gurion declared. 'Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: they think we have taken their country. Sure God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwiztz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance. So, it's simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there. Otherwise the Arabs will wipe us out.'<hr></blockquote> Two words....this will turn no opinions around, but it rids the quote of the idea that Ben Gurion is accepting the characterization that "we have taken their country" and is instead suggesting that this is their perception. I can't confirm yet that the two words were not added in the wiki quote, but if I can, it will be interesting because if you google it, the first version, with the exact same punctuation, is what you find exclusively...no elipses but a semi colon. This suggests to me that they are all quoting from the same source, likely a list just like this very one. The book itself is not on Questia. Lots of references to Goldmann but only as a Zionist activist. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dreamsend@rigorousintuition>Dreams End</A> at: 9/15/06 2:13 pm

Zionism and History

Re: Zionism and History

de

Re: Zionism and History

Re: Zionism and History

Re: Zionism and History

Re: Zionism and History

Re: Zionism and History

Re: Zionism and History

Re: Zionism and History

Re: Zionism and History

Re: Zionism and History

Re: Zionism and History

Re: Zionism and History

Re: Zionism and History

Re: Zionism and History

Who is online