Bob

Honestly, I don't feel like participating in this thread anymore. About 99% of what's being said in here by the anti-Israel crows is false. I do not have the patience to go into a history lesson about either the Holocaust or the origins and early history of the Zionist-Arab conflict. As has been said already, Benny Morris created the quintessential resource for this history with "1948". With respect to Holocaust education, it's the most well-documented historical event of all-time. If anybody has a sincere interest in it, there are thousands of books and many rich museums. I simply don't have the patience to argue with people who are aware of the unique persecution suffered by the Jewish people during the Holocaust or those who make false allegations of "ethnic cleansing" in the pre-Israel Palestine without having so much as read a book about the history of these events.

Alright look. Let's be honest. Just for a minute. You made up your mind long ago about who's responsible for this conflict. I know that you sincerely believe that Zionism and Jews are to blame for this entire conflict for their original dispossession of some of the Arabs of Palestine, as well as establishing a state on land that they desired for their own future state. I know that you naturally side with the underdog and those who are the perceived "losers". After all, since all people are equal and more or less the same (in your view), then any large discrepancy between two groups in terms of power, wealth, or influence can only be explained by the oppression of the stronger group over the weaker group. Here's my recommendation to you and many others. Start again from scratch. Analyze this issue without your preconceptions and biases. Read literature about the origins of the conflict. Consider what early Zionists did towards fulfilling their ambition. Charity drives to buy and develop land. Leveraging all available political contacts to make diplomatic efforts to secure political recognition for a future Jewish state. Some degree of economic and social integration with the Arabs. it's hardly as simple as you wish it was.

If you watch the video of the lunatic religious Jew (who most Jews, including myself, despise) who claims that Zionism "started" the conflict (this is truth without context), then you have to be opposed to all independence movements. Since moves for independence will necessarily elicit a hostile response from some, therefore the natural prescription is to not demand independence or self-determination because it make make some other mad. Basically, if someone is angered by your political motives, then it's your fault for making moves that made them angry. Sorry. We're gonna relinquish our independence to appeal to religious nuts and those that hate us. Do I even need to mention that you're drawing on support from a guy who more than likely believes the world was created in six days and is waiting for the Messiah to return to ressurect all the Jews? You're in a bad position when your intellectual support comes from such a source!

Was the Jewish response to anti-semitism entirely predictable and understandable, culminating the nationalist movement known as Zionist? Zionism never advocated dispossession of inhabitant of any land. Indeed, early Zionism's socialist leanings struggled with the question of how to deal with the Arabs of Palestine when the immigration of Jews to the Palestine Mandate began.. As the Yishuv (early Jewish commmunity) grew, and hostilities from the Arabs grew in response, this question was debated over within the Jewish community. This is a complex history of which you are completely ignorant, so spare me your amateur hour analysis. Interesting fact - some in the Yishuv (as well as some British officials who bought into this reasoning) believed that the Arabs would come to welcome the Jewish community as the the influx of intellects, education, and skills would necessarily lead to increased economic prosperity for Arabs, as well. As the Yishuv grew in size and organization and wealth, however, few Arabs (even those who financially benefited from the economy) looked favourably on this new community, which was seen as alien. Anyways, there's a long and interesting history of the conflict, read Benny Morris' book "1948". It's boring in some parts but very dense and informative. It it mandatory reading and the quintessential resource for the history of this conflict. Again with the Gypsies. Sorry, I don't care about them. Moving on... There is no other option to secure the Jewish people other than Jewish statehood. Full stop.

You're still ignoring the difference between mainstream Christianity which has liberalized itself over centuries and mainstream Islam, which seems to be reverting itself into a more fundamentalist flavour. If Islam was on a path towards liberalizing itself, it's be headed in the right direction. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case.

Would you agree that Canada's large and growing Arab and Muslim population plays into increased Canadian public hostility towards Israel (connected with growing anti-semitism)? As an easy exercise for proof - take a look at the anti-Israel/anti-Zionist/anti-semitic messages all over the CBC website's comments section on articles dealing with Israel. Furthermore, politicians sensitive to this trend appear to be reflecting this anti-Israel trend that's growing in Canada, and are expressing anti-Israel sentiment (the Davies lady being a recent example). Anecdotally, although I've met quite a few Arab and Muslim professionals (with real education) who are truly integrated into modern life and success, some of the poorer areas in my city (subsidized housing, cheap rental units) seem to have more Arabs and Muslims than your common Canadian white trash. For every Jim Jones or Gilles LaFrancois high-school dropout in the loser neighbourhoods, there are five Muhammad bin Alis or Reima Adbuls - know what I'm saying? Assuming that Arabs and Muslims make up a greater proportion of the unemployed/low-income demographic than their proportion of the total Canadian population, it seems logical to me that the parties that pander to this low-income group (i.e. the NDP) would begin to reflect anti-Israel positions in their rhetoric.

What we've learned about wyly and Bryan with respect to their knowledge of the Holocaust: 1. Apparently the United States Holocaust Memorial Holocaust Museum, the Jewish Museum of Berlin, and Yad Vashem in Jerusalem (the most prominent Holocaust museums in the world who lead the world in Holocaust research) are "Zionist museums". 2. Apparently there were thirty thousand blacks in Germany during the Holocaust. 3. Apparently the homosexuals wore a "pink triangle", and other undesirables were identified with others markings. 4. Bryan has read "plenty of books on the subject (the Holocaust", and avoids the "Zionist propaganda". So aside from wyly's revisionist claims (which will of course never be substantiated because they're all false), Bryan is apparently well-read on this subject, as he avoids the "Zionist propaganda" regarding the Holocaust. This forum has undoubtedly reached a new low. One last point, I didn't know the Roma referred to the "segani" (Russian term for Gypsies). Excuse me for not knowing the English word to describe this group. Now I can really laugh, as trying to suggest that these people (who were absolutely victimized in the Holocaust) were targeted as the Jewish people by the Nazis and other collaborators just illustrates more ignorance of the history of the Holocaust. As one of endless examples, take a look at the anti-semitic propaganda of the Nazis - then try to find even one example of anti-Roma propaganda (posters, radio ads, public humiliations, labelling and targeting of individuals and properties for vandalism, etc). To deny the specific targeting of Jews in the Holocaust is pure ignorance. Perhaps it bothers you to accept this reality, for some twisted reason(s)? In all seriousness, this doesn't surprise me. Unless you're Jewish or interested in these events of history for some other reason (Jewish in-laws, friends, some other connection to the Holocaust), the likelihood of you researching these events is low because you don't have much of a connection to it. The number "six million" means nothing to you. To me, it includes some of my family. Naturally, through this and my Jewish upbringing, I was educated on these historical events.

Certainly Muslims in the West are much less involved in fundamentalism and hold more liberal views about the world in which they live based on exposure to competing ideologies. Primarily, they are exposed to the unquestionable moral superiority of Western liberalism. Still, there are problems in liberalizing Muslims. We've seen these problems in the USA and in Europe, as well as in Israel. Unfortunately, we don't crush them as we should. I wish that was the case. The same is true from Jewish fundamentalists in Israel. Although of course Jewish fundamentalists cannot hold a candle to Islamic fundamentalists with respect to their hate and violence, they still need to be forced into compliance with basic Israeli values. Whether it be their subsidized religious education which doesn't teach fundamentals of math, science, history, physical education, or language... to their exemption from military service: it needs to be stopped. Unfortunately, liberalism in the name of "tolerance" tolerates those whose core values run contrary to the basic values of the society. That's a long time ago. The Vatican isn't calling for Jihad against the world in 2010, nor has it been for along time. Christianity, for the most part, has liberalized itself. Islam hasn't. Why marginalize a religion that doesn't seek to impose itself on you and whose values and practices are compatible with the universal values of democracy and liberty? Are Jews marching in downtown London calling for Jewish courts to be established in place of the prevailing law? Are conservative Christians murdering hundreds of people in the metros of London, Madrid, or Moscow calling for Jihad against the infidels? The standards of living have nothing to do with fundamentalism. Plenty of terrorists have come from extremely wealthy and privileged backgrounds. This is an absolute lie perpetuated by morons. Off the top of my head I can easily list twenty examples of contemporary mass murderers who participated in terrorism, yet were educated professionals from wealthy families. Contemporary terrorism is almost entirely ideological. Much of the world lives in poverty, yet Muslims are almost the exclusive perpetrators of terrorism. Your false supposition fails in light of the facts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDe3nUdTRcM A relevant video clip.

Are you seriously suggesting that Christian fundamentalism is as common among Christians are it is Muslims extremism is among Muslims? Are you suggesting that Christian fundamentalism is comparable to Muslim fundamentalism in its goals and methods? I stopped being surprised by your desperate attempts to apologize for terrorists long ago. When Christians start yelling out "praise Jesus" when blowing themselves up and murdering the infidels EVERY DAY and AROUND THE WORLD, then you'll have a point. You certainly are a hate-filled and angry person. Why else would you so consistently go around apologizing for murderers and trying to draw moral equivalence between terrorists and conservative Christians? Perhaps you never went to university and accomplished nothing in life, and that's compelled you to become the way you are. Who knows?

Yes, I am hate-filled because I refuse to acquiesce to the demands of those who wish to destroy me. I am rigid and inflexible because I will not allow myself to be subjugated and liquidated in accordance with the demands of my enemies.

No serious disagreement from me here, except for the fact that Jews and other non-Muslims were persecuted under Islamic leadership. Islamic leadership of yesterday and today does not treat non-Muslims as equals. Regardless of their feelings, we don't need their permission to have our own country and have self-determination.

So what? You'd have a point if the practise of conservative Judaism and Christianity was similar to the practice conservative Islam.

The first video clearly displays and anti-semitic Jew. Neturei Karta members hate secular Jews and all those who support Israel. Of course you don't know who Neturei Karta are, but that doesn't stop you for cheering for a clip which supports your anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, and anti-semitic perspective which you don't understand. In your view, Jews can only be tolerated in the Middle East if they are subservient to the Arabs.

I've seen Yonatan Shapira before, and he's certainly entitled to his opinion. He was not involved in Cast Least, however. If you watch or read his interviews, it's quite clear that he's a borderline pacifist. To him, any risk of collateral damage is unacceptable. Someone like that simply cannot function in the IDF, given the nature of the enemies Israel faces. Furthermore, For every Yonatan Shapira, there are a thousand soldiers who fully support Israel's self-defense needs and recognize the nature of our enemies.

He's not a pre-Israeli Jew. Your thread title is inaccurate. This man wasn't around making observations about relations between Jews and Arab in the Palestine Mandate. More importantly his anecdotes from his grandmother about Arabs and Jews getting along (babysitting one another's kids) is likely to be true. There are very real stories of Jewish and Arab personal and business relationship before and after Israel's establishment. None of this overrides the broader theme of conflict between the two sides, however. Jews were assaulted, robbed, and murdered by Arabs as soon as their numbers began to grow in the late 19th century and became vocal about their nationalist aspirations. There is no question that hostilities increased with the growth in Zionism. As is clear to anyone who's done their homework on Israeli and Zionist history, Arabs and Muslims are opposed to Jewish self-determination and have always been. Zionism, a movement for the emancipation of Jews and the establishment of a Jewish state, runs contrary to Arab and Muslim rejection of Jewish independence. To them, the entirety of the land belongs to them and all non-members of their groups must be subservient to Arab rule. The same stupid logic this dumb Jew is using could be used to suggest that the civil rights movement for blacks "started" racial tensions, as during this time, lynching of blacks were increased, as well as assaults and murders (including MLK's assassination). It's funny how you try to garner support for your revisionist history by utilizing a one-minute video of a Neturei Karta member - the most despised group of Jews who oppose Israel exclusively on a religious basis. To them, a Jewish state runs contrary to their interpretation of Judaism. Unfortunately for them, most Jews in the world are secular, and Israel is by and large a secular state, guaranteeing religious freedom for all rooted in law and culture. Good luck siding with a ultra-religious moron. Most importantly, this entire thread is an illustration of the modern-day Google and YouTube moron who thinks he or she can understand complex realities with five minutes of 30-second video clip browsing. I feel bad for people like you, who that watching 15 one-minute video clips is some sort of substitute for spending thousands of hours reading primary sources. The worst part of all is that you are representative of the majority of the population - completely ignorant and thinking that they can learn something online with their one-minute attention spans. It's pathetic.

In your world, rational discussion means drawing parallels between Apartheid in South Africa and the current Israeli-Arabic conflict. Nevermind the fact that you and I both know you've never so much as read one book about either subject.

Israel owes nothing to a group of people that have been hostile to the Jewish presence since the 19th century. In Judea and Samaria there is an Israeli presence out of necessity for Israeli security, there is simply no other solution to a group of people committed to Israel's destruction than a military presence. You think Israel likes having to be in a position where it must secure a group of people who are openly hostile to its existence? Ever talk to a 21-year-old Israeli who just spent three years of his life in service as a border police officer? How about the families of victims of terrorism originating from the Palestinian territories? You think Palestinians have some sort of right to have the same standard of living as Israel, without any of the responsibilities? If the Palestinians are so downtrodden (they're not), they're free to submit applications to live somewhere else. If you care, why don't you sponsor a Palestinian to come move to Canada?

Well, Israel and Palestine isn't South Africa. There are no meaningful parallels to be drawn between the two. Clearly you're trying to imply that Israelis are counterparts of whites and Palestinians the counterparts of black in SA during the time of Apartheid. Of course, though, let's not take a side. Supporting terrorism in the name of "balance" and "objectivity". How principled of you. Spare me the "zealout" accusations, you've clearly staked out your position in the anti-Israel, pro-terrorism "peace" camp.

How can you be so obtuse as to drop all the relevant context of this situation with such a ridiculous comparison? I know I shouldn't be surprised, this is your modus operandi of consistent deceit and misrepresentation. To clarify your hypothetical scneario, the non-governmental NGO American vessel would have to be sailing to a non-state territory being blockaded by a country with which it is currently engaged in hostilities. Furthermore, the American NGO vessel would be delivering goods, services, and persons to this non-state territory in violation of the blockade imposed on the territory by the country it is at war with. So, the country imposing the blockade has no way of verifying for itself that the vessel is not carrying contraband contrary to its blockade regulations. So the next time an American vessel does that - refuses to comply with the instructions of the country imposing the blockade on the non-state territory, and then viciously resists attempts by the military blockade to redirect it to a port where an inspection can take place, then we'll see how Americans should respond to such a "similar" scenario. When that happens, I don't think you'll find a lot of supports among Americans for this rogue hypothetical fauxtilla. By the way, interceptions of threats take place in "international waters". Furthermore, the water off the coast of Gaza is not internationally recognized as Israeli waters. Israel itself doesn't claim these waters as its own. These facts do not override Israel's responsibilities to defend itself through the blockade of Gaza, however. Israeli lives are just a tad bit more important than philosophical debates. Why don't you just come out and support what they're doing? Why are you so afraid to tell how you really feel? It is no secret that someone such as yourself, you consistently drops all relevant context in order to shape the narrative to fit his ignorant worldview, supports the organizers, participants, and agitators of this fauxtilla. We all know how you feel - don't be delusional and think that you can fool us into thinking you're on the fence on this issue. How someone can be so moronic as to drop all the context of war between Gaza and Israel is beyond me.

They got exactly what they wanted, eight of the nine vessels were diverted without serious incident, but at least one group on the Mavi Marmara intended to cause violence and achieve martyrdom. Those aboard the Mavi Marmara wanted to put the IDF in a position where it would need to use violence to protect itself, and therefore lead to the typical jeering and outrage from Israel's enemies (i.e. myata). The predictable outrage from Muslims, Arabs, and other typical anti-Israel groups came out like clockwork. Unfortunately, we've seen weak leadership from the international community, as usual, with respect to these events. Even Israel is showing weakness by complying with the pressure to loosen the blockade and weaken its security with respect to Gaza. Israel can never allow its right to self-defense to be undermined.

Thank you for you opinion, without-a-doubt rooted in a full five-minutes of research on the subject. Another internet forum Google expert to the rescue. The irony of you criticizing "default excuses" and "coined phrases" is quite thick. We don't need "independent" kangaroo courts who seek to deny Israel's right to self-defense. Sorry to break it to you, but Israel doesn't need your permission to protect its citizens from those who want to murder us.

Exactly. Refusing the permission of the ship the go to Gaza based on legitimate, legal, moral, and necessary security grounds (any country would do the same) isn't "armed assault". When the ship refused to comply with instructions from the Israeli Navy it then became legitimate for a forceful takeover to steer the ship to Ashdod. Unfortunately, the brave young boys who boarded the ship one at a time were ill-informed about the nature or these agitators, who were clearly intent on killing the soldiers. What kind of moronic intelligence were these soldiers given, considering that they were surprised to be viciously assaulted by hate-filled agitators? Any reasonable person knows that the types of people who go on these ships are likely to be hate-filled and violent. Only when the soldiers had their lives and safety threatened did they radio their controller for permission to use necessary force to protect themselves - only after several commandos were stabbed and shot. Another example of Israeli soldiers being put as risk to appease extremist politics - the same things happens in the USA, with American soldiers being wounded and killed with ridiculous rules of engagement and political considerations being put before security and military necessity. Based on these recent events, hopefully the IDF will smarten up and take a much more conservative and cautious approach to future ships trying to make a political statement and incite violence. No more hesitation, more stern commands to trespassing vessels, and with more serious consequences for non-compliance.

More ignorance. The unprovoked violence started in the late 19th century through Arab and Muslims terrorism against the growing Jewish presence and subsequent statehood in the region. That was the unprovoked violence. Israel and the Jewish people have been defending ourselves ever since. This didn't start two weeks ago. It didn't start when Israel placed the blockade on Gaza in 2007. It didn't start after Israel's liberation of territory in 1967. This is a continuation of Arab and Muslim hostility to Jewish self-determination, as they view Israel's existence as an affront to Arab land. The fauxtilla incident didn't occur in a vacuum outside of the historical context of the region and certainly isn't a valid arbitrary starting point for any conflict.

Removing squatters is inhumane? Especially in areas vital to security? Alright. That's a joke, right? You don't think teenagers (and even younger children, tragically) have been involved in terrorism murdering Israelis? So the war war to rescue two soldiers and had nothing to do with preventing rocket fire and other terrorism into Israel? So lying about Israel's needs to defend itself is now your favourite pastime?