Israeli Mythinformation About the 1948 War

[Rue]

Hey guys. I'm new to this forum, but after reading I think Higgly has a stronger case than Rue does.

That settles it. You Figleaf and Higgly have settled it. Of course you are right. There is one problem. Your timing and the content of your response is a tad funny don't you think? But I know great minds think a like.

p.s. in case you are interested and actually read what I wrote, I wasn't making a case, I was simply filling in those pieces of information and history Higgly leaves out-my point from day one has never been to say one side was right and the other wrong, just that Higgly's approach is deliberately one sided and misleading. Interesting you felt the need to say Higgly had a stronger case. I guess he just brings out the idealism in you and Fig. Lol. Now run along and find a Zionist to call a bad guy.

[Figleaf]

Overheard:

Higgly: There's a lot of birds living in the woods.

Rue: Higgly, Higgly, Higgly. Your constant misinformation is appalling. You ignore the squirrels... there are 10000 squirrels at least.

Higgly: Well, other sources suggest more like 8000 squirrels, but however many there may be, I was pointing out the surplus of birds.

Argus: Who cares about the birds! Only squirrel-haters would keep constantly bringing up anything about birds.

Higgly: But look ... there are at least 3 kinds of bird visible right there ... I've counted 6 crows, 12 sparrows and 3 jays in just the last half-hour.

Rue: Higgly, Higgly, Higgly. Your numerous personal failings disgust me. While you insist on ignoring the squirrels, you fabricate false bird counts. I have reliable information that there were no more than 5 crows, 10 sparrows and 4 jays here at this time two weeks ago.

Higgly: That still suggests a lot of birds, irrespective of the numbers of squirrels.

Argus: Why you squirrel-hating sumbitch! I oughta...

Rue: Higgly, Higgly, Higgly....

[Higgly]

Well said Figleaf, and thanks to you too Pharoah.

Rue, I am not going to respond to the rest of your posts. Whack-a-mole is only fun when the carnie's in town. You are welcome to continue on your own.

[Rue]

Well said Figleaf, and thanks to you too Pharoah.

Rue, I am not going to respond to the rest of your posts. Whack-a-mole is only fun when the carnie's in town. You are welcome to continue on your own.

hah, guess whackan-israel is over for now.

since fig is writing me poems now here is one back;

Higgly: Israel bad Palestine good anyone who says otherwise makes me sick and tired

Rue: guess what I am gonna make you sick and tired

Fig: I am the light and the way and I shine upon Higgly and curse the disbeliever and killer of you know who

Higgly: Higgly, I agree with you um me er you no me um thanks Higgly, thanks Fig

Rue: playing with ourselves Higgly, what does your dogma say about that?

Higgly; bad Zionist go away bad bad bad

Rue: hey fig do you really nead a leaf not that I am bring up size as an issue.

regards, until the next anti-israel diatribe, shalom salaam.

[Sergiy]

What do you think of Obadiah Shoher's views on the Middle East conflict? One can argue, of course, that Shoher is ultra-right, but his followers are far from being a marginal group. Also, he rejects Jewish moralistic reasoning - that's alone is highly unusual for the Israeli right. And he is very influential here in Israel. So what do you think? uh, here's the site in question: Middle East conflict

Edited February 10, 2008 by Sergiy

[myata]

Whatever the details, it's very clear to any independent open minded observer that the conflict was caused by mass immigration of foreign people into already populated area, and subsequent unilateral creation of an ethnic state. These days we call this kind of affair "ethnic cleansing". But apparently, there's bad "ethnic cleansing" and (not so bad) "ethnic cleansing". Every case is different, as that US foreign guy likes to say.

Regardless less than fortunate events of the past, all realistic strategies for the future (specifically, peaceful future) will have to include 1) acknowledgement and remediation of the wrongs of the past; and 2) a fair settlement which both sides can reasonably live with.

At this point, it's simply not in the cards. Israel and its supporters in the West aren't yet prepared to say in the open that any wrongs were committed by unilateral establishment of Israel; ongoing settement activity casts serious doubts on Israels's sincerity in looking for a fair settlement; and on the other side, there's no consensus as to the reality of coexistence with Israel. So I don't have much hope for positive change in the region in the short term.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

In this particular case history is meaningless. The present reality has the only relevance. First of all, its none of our business. Secondly, its their business. Thirdly people should mind their own business.

The reality of events can be summarized in this manner. Hitler tried to exterminate the Jews. After the war the rest of the world allowed the Jews a homeland in sympathy. People were displaced and there was another war. The Arabs never did welcome their unfortunate Palestine displaced peoples, just as we did not welcome the Jews before the war. We had to make amends for that, now the Arabs must follow suit. It is because they have not that we have this international problem.

The important thing to remember is that it isn't our problem. We cannot solve that problem, only they can solve the problem. If it is a fight they want, then let them fight. If it is peace they want then let them make peace. War or peace are the alternatives, and neither is a decision that can be made for them.

[myata]

It wasn't their only problem when we (West, in the broad sense, specifically, Britain, US and their allies in the UN) interfered to create it, but now when it's gotten out of hand, it's their own business? Even while some of us still continue to support one side in the conflict, strongly and unquestionably? Even when our money are used to create these "facts on the ground" which come out almost daily: new Israeli construction in East Jerusalem? When the arms we supply are used to enforce it?

I'm not sure if that ("we have nothing to do with i"t) is exactly the state of affairs. And I won't be surprised if our (again, in the broad sense) involvement will cause less than only brotherly love and gratitude from the receiving side.

[JB Globe]

I don't have the time to respond to many of the points raised in this post, but I would just like to say that as a Jew I found absolutely no anti-semitism in Higgly's original post. The only thing I could see was a well-researched position that runs counter to the claims of right-wing Israel supporters of the Likhud/Goi-Neo-Con persuasion.

Whenever you write something counter to these folks views you always know the anti-semite card will be played early and regularly, even if you are Jewish yourself. However, it never gets any less infuriating, especially for me as a descendant of people who were exterminated because of REAL ACTUAL anti-semitism, when people cry wolf because they're too lazy to debate an argument based on facts.

The non-Jews who do this have absolutely no business doing so, and the Jews who do this should damn-well know better. Exploiting anti-semitism and the memory of the Holocaust for political gain or to "win" an argument is a betrayal of the history of our people, and you have no business calling yourself a good Jew if you do so.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Nice post.

Now in your considered opinion, should the nation of Canada take a position in the current state of affairs, or should we simply take a humanitarian approach and supply medical attention for those harmed?

[Rue]

I don't have the time to respond to many of the points raised in this post, but I would just like to say that as a Jew I found absolutely no anti-semitism in Higgly's original post. The only thing I could see was a well-researched position that runs counter to the claims of right-wing Israel supporters of the Likhud/Goi-Neo-Con persuasion.

Whenever you write something counter to these folks views you always know the anti-semite card will be played early and regularly, even if you are Jewish yourself. However, it never gets any less infuriating, especially for me as a descendant of people who were exterminated because of REAL ACTUAL anti-semitism, when people cry wolf because they're too lazy to debate an argument based on facts.

The non-Jews who do this have absolutely no business doing so, and the Jews who do this should damn-well know better. Exploiting anti-semitism and the memory of the Holocaust for political gain or to "win" an argument is a betrayal of the history of our people, and you have no business calling yourself a good Jew if you do so.

With due respect you did not read all the posts so you have made an incorrect assumption as to what I said. I did not at any time suggest the fact that Higgly's take on Israel, particularly his first post was anti-semitic. You are dead wrong and so your lecture as to when to accuse someone of anti-semitism is inappropriate as it was never used in this series of debates as you suggested it was and if in fact you read my posts you would see early on I made a reference to Higgly now sticking to the debate and not personal references to Jews.

What had in fact happened was that in a previous series of posts between myself and Higgly debating this topic he made a comment about New York being a state for Jews. He said it in a sarcastic way and I called it anti-semtiic and in the context it was used it was and no I do not put up with inferred Hymietown cracks.

Do I think Higgly is a racist, etc. no. I think he has strong views and he go carried away and so do I. But I also think he deliberately made an effort in this round of posts to debate me on the issues and he knows I enjoyed it. We both debated them as strongly as we could and with due respect I made very specific effort to address the issues NOT the person nor did I use the anti-semite card and with due respect neither Higgly or Figleaf or anyone else came back and was able to provide documentation to indicate the information I presented was incorrect.

Where Higgly and I strongly disagree is that I believe his take on the creation of Israel does not properly include and take into consideration certain issues but in fact selectively ignores them and in particular the movement of non Palestinian Muslims into the Palestinian region and the role Britain, France and Germany and the Arab League played as well as the significance of the expulsion of 900,000 Jews from Arab league nations.

I specifically provided documented evidence when Higgly questioned where the 900,000 Jewish refugee number came from.

You did not read all the posts so you assume I called him an anti-semite because I disagree with his version of history. Had you read what I wrote you would see I am very specific and careful and if I call someone an anti-semite in any post, I make clear reference to why I do it and don't just throw it out. So with due respect you are out of line for your suggestion I said something I did not or raised an arguement in a context that I did not.

Now if you must know the only time I raised anti-semitism in this series of debates was because of one comment and one comment only, the following comment;

"Rue, whenever an Israelite such as yourself starts playing the anti-semitism card, all I see is a little white flag of surrender."

I am a Canadian NOT an Israelite and I did not play the anti-semtiic card. He took what I said and assumed that was what I was doing. I did not. In the context of calling me an Israelite I called him out. That was the only specific reference I made to him. In regards to an issue HE not I assumed was calling him an anti-semite (flowing from the Israelite crack) is that I contend it is inconsistent to suggest Jews can not have a country and desire universal sufferage but Muslims and Christians can and no one questions that. That to me is necessarily anti-semitic against Jews as a people because it creates a discriminatory standard that only two sets of people can have and not the third.

In this specific context, it is a very crucial and legitimate arguement in defense of Zionism. It is necessarily anti-semitic to suggest Jews can not have the exact same rights Christians and Muslims have enjoyed.

As for using the word Israelite to describe me, no-not you as a Jew or anyone else calls me that.

Since you have missed the entire point of what I was arguing let me put it in simple terms, here is a reference Higgly used;

"The massacre of Palestinian Arabs by Jewish forces"

Its an example of how anti-semitic references have become entrenched in our language to the extent people just assume they are o.k. Its probably unintentionmal. So tell me. Why are the Arabs " Palestinian" not Muslim, but the forces "Jewish" and not either "Israeli" or "Zionist".

The word Jew has been misused so many times when referring to Israelis or Zionists that for all I know not even you notice.

I do not like it when people refer to terrorists as Muslim terrorists just like I do not like the way the term Zionist is used to make references that assign deterimental value to all Jews.

If I am going to refer to a terrorist who claims to be Muslim, I am careful and say Islamic fundamentalist not Muslim. That may seem ridiculous to you but to me I practice the same objective standards when describing everyone and people know it in my posts.

It is not unreasonable to challenge someone when they fuse and mix "Zionist" with "Jew" or make alleged criticism about Israel foreign policies which smeers all Israelis as people or all Jews as people and I will continue to challenge that so when we discuss the Israeli-Palestinian issue it is not used or exploited to incite hatred against either Muslims or Jews as people.

More to the point, the fact that you felt it was germaine to say you were a Jew when you responded says a lot.

Why was it relevant? Why was it any more relevant then if you were a Muslim or Christian? do you buy into this bullshit that people should immediately assume because you are a Jew anything you say a bout anti-semitism MUST be right? Why else did you raise the fact you are a Jew?

I have never once asked anyone to simply believe me because I am a Jew. Using your logic they must believe your take on anti-semitism since you a Jew but even though I am a Jew they should not believe me-why-not because following your logic if there are 2 Jews and one denies anti-semitism and the other claims it, side with the one who denies. Why? Why does the denial immediately call for credibility? Why must your position be automatically assumed as the correct one? The answer to that is because since yours is not favourable to Jews, it must be true since a Jew saying something unfavourable about their collectivity must be telling the truth and someone saying something favourable or indefence of his collective identity must be wrong since its self-serving. Sorry I do not buy into this defeatist, self-hating, I must be telling the truth because I am denying fallacy.

The fact is you came on this forum to lecture against using the race card but you raised it to give yourself immediate moral high ground and with due respect that is not credible.

I do not wish any special privilege as a Jew and have never asked for it in any of my debates. Don't you think for one second because you are Jewish this automatically gives you credibility if you are anti-Israeli in position or if you choose to deny anti-semitism. Discuss the merits of the issue not your religious or cultural status. Stop turning yourself into a stereotype.

Finally do not generalize and make assumptions that you know when and why people raise the race card. Each time it is raised the individual merits and scenario including cause and chain of events leading up to that accusation must be assessed to determine if its legitimate, illegitimate or anything else and your personal religious status has nothing to do with the merits of the case.

You can't have it both ways. You have no right to lecture anyone on the race card when you raise it and you did.

Edited February 14, 2008 by Rue

[marina]

Nobody invited you here Argus. You are here entirely under your own power. You don't like it, then piss off.

bravo

[Higgly]

Rue, I must say I am surprised at your newfound magnanimity towards me, given some of the insinuations and accusations you have hurled at me in the past.

I would like to clear up one point though. The comment I made about Jews moving to New York was in response to the all too often heard remark from Israel's supporters that all of the Palestinians should move to Jordan. Perhaps you can use your own reaction to my comment to guage how a Palestinian must feel when hearing such comments.

I have voluntarily abesnted myself from MLW because I was finding it too difficult to keep a civil tongue in my head. However, I am pleased to see that there is new blood on the board with a more balanced view of the world, so perhaps I'll be a more frequent visitor in the future.

[Rue]

Rue, I must say I am surprised at your newfound magnanimity towards me, given some of the insinuations and accusations you have hurled at me in the past.

I would like to clear up one point though. The comment I made about Jews moving to New York was in response to the all too often heard remark from Israel's supporters that all of the Palestinians should move to Jordan. Perhaps you can use your own reaction to my comment to guage how a Palestinian must feel when hearing such comments.

I have voluntarily abesnted myself from MLW because I was finding it too difficult to keep a civil tongue in my head. However, I am pleased to see that there is new blood on the board with a more balanced view of the world, so perhaps I'll be a more frequent visitor in the future.

I concede Higgly we both were heated-BOTH. I am no angel and you know that. I am a large jack ass on many instances. Just ask Buffy the Zion Slayer. She still won't come to Toronto and buy me a beer and arm wrestle.

Had you stated the full context as you now explain, I think you know by now from what I have said, I would agree with you that both assumptions are similarly inappropriate for the same reasons.

I can understand why Palestinians would not feel Jordan is not a Palestinian state. They see it no different then Israel-to them it would be just an artificial colony created by Westerners. You know I know that. Travelling through the West Bank, I know that very well.

You and I know Jordan can not go anywhere no more then Israel can, and the King of Jordan (both today's) and his father, have been positive, constructive influences in the region. Their moderate influence has been crucial in many peaceful relations, but you and I know the same people who would try destroy Israel would do exactly the same to Jordan if they had a chance, and Jordan is in identical danger.

All you or I ever tried to do was debate as best we could. O.k. so the nose came out of joint. Its what happens. Who cares. We move on. Unlike many, you work hard to read what I quote and vice versa. I know you read things outside your comfort zone. You have demonstrated that.

Also everyone can agree on one thing about the Middle East, the Queen of Jordan is a babe man. An absolute knock out babe. Oy I have become a dirty old man. But its true.