quote:

---

Debbie Almontaser dreamed of starting a public school like no other in New York City. Children of Arab descent would join students of other ethnicities, learning Arabic together. By graduation, they would be fluent in the language and groomed for the country’s elite colleges. They would be ready, in Ms. Almontaser’s words, to become “ambassadors of peace and hope.”

...

Ms. Almontaser’s downfall was not merely the result of a spontaneous outcry by concerned parents and neighborhood activists. It was also the work of a growing and organized movement to stop Muslim citizens who are seeking an expanded role in American public life. The fight against the school, participants in the effort say, was only an early skirmish in a broader, national struggle.

“It’s a battle that’s really just begun,” said Daniel Pipes, who directs a conservative research group, the Middle East Forum, and helped lead the charge against Ms. Almontaser and the school.

---

quote:

---

In newspaper articles and Internet postings, on television and talk radio, Ms. Almontaser was branded a “radical,” a “jihadist” and a “9/11 denier.” She stood accused of harboring unpatriotic leanings and of secretly planning to proselytize her students. Despite Ms. Almontaser’s longstanding reputation as a Muslim moderate, her critics quickly succeeded in recasting her image.

---

What country is this? Oh yeah, the "home of the free". Sounds like witch hunts are the norm. Didn't she get the memo about the US flag pin?

quote:

---

“It is hard to see how violence, how terrorism will lead to the implementation of sharia,” Mr. Pipes said. “It is much easier to see how, working through the system — the school system, the media, the religious organizations, the government, businesses and the like — you can promote radical Islam.”

Mr. Pipes refers to this new enemy as the “lawful Islamists.”

They are carrying out a “soft jihad,” said Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, a trustee of the City University of New York and a vocal opponent of the Khalil Gibran school.

---

Ah, it's about a "soft jihad". Nothing more to be said then.

What a seriously screwed up country. Don't dare speak the truth about America's terrorism contributing to terrorism worldwide. Not America The Good. America the Free.

What does this story have to do with Zionism"? I know FM likes to use any excuse to invoke (negatively) Zionism into any argument but this is more than sloppy its a flame of the worst kind.

It is Zionism.

[ 01 May 2008: Message edited by: Stargazer ]

Those who attacked this school and Ms. Almontaser did so because they saw it as a threat to their relentless project of defining Arab and Islamic cultures as irredeemably evil.

There was no good reason for any pro-Israel person of good will and good conscience to work against Ms. Almontaser and to try to prevent the Kahlil Gibran School from opening. Those that did so want Arab American school children to lose their language, their culture, and their entire identity.

And the idiots don't even realize that Kahlil Gibran himself was a Bahai, not a Muslim.

This was a triumph of paranoia and hate. I hope, ohara, that you'll join us in denouncing it.

[ 01 May 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 01 May 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

i believe that when we try to make a story about zionism fit as if a round peg into a square hole we do ourselves wrong.

quote:

---

post-9/11 anxieties

---

I fail to see what this has to do with Israel or Zionists. The real villian here is the media, specifically the New York Post.

Moreover, I don't think a separate school for Arabic speaking students was a good idea to begin with. Though open to all, in practice this would be another example of separatism. Offer Arabic has a language within the general public school setting.

[ 01 May 2008: Message edited by: josh ]

[ 01 May 2008: Message edited by: josh ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

What a pathetic sick bastard. This is Zionism?

---

Daniel Pipes, Peacemaker?

quote:

---

...Pipes supporters, who represent both the core of the Republican base and the core of the pro-Israel lobby, are itching for such a fight. He has been endorsed by groups such as the Christian Coalition, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the American Jewish Congress, and the Zionist Organization of America. "The kinds of issues that Daniel has been talking about are the kinds of issues we could stand a debate about in the public at large," says Frank J. Gaffney Jr., the president of the Center For Security Policy, a conservative think tank.

The issues Gaffney refers to extend far beyond the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A prolific author and columnist with a doctorate from Harvard, Pipes opines exhaustively on just about every aspect of terrorism and the Muslim world. Pipes is also a founder of Campus Watch, a website that compiles public files on college professors who are critical of Israel or certain aspects of American Foreign policy. Several weeks ago he penned a column arguing that the Bush administration should install a "democratically-minded Iraqi strongman" in Iraq. In another column, he asserted that the U.S. had no "moral obligation" to rebuild countries like Iraq and Afghanistan after an invasion...

---

quote:

---

Hell even the ADL was defending Debbie Almontaser at one point

---

quote:

---

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) commended President George W. Bush for appointing Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes to the board of the United States Institute of Peace.

---

Apparently the open racism, and hate mongering of Pipes is not at all too much for the ADL brand of Zionism.

[ 01 May 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

“It’s an agenda to paint Islam, not just extremists, as a major problem.”

Muslim leaders, academics and others see the drive against the school as the latest in a series of discriminatory attacks intended to distort the truth and play on Americans’ fear of terrorism. They say the campaign is also part of a wider effort to silence critics of Washington’s policy on Israel and the Middle East.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
For me, and many others, Daniel Pipes and Israeli brutality and racism are the face of a new Apartheid and Zionism is the supporting ideology.

---

quote:

---

I would say that's an agenda to paint Zionism, not just extremists, as a major problem.

---

Sixty years of war, ethnic cleansing, racial/ethnic discrimination, national chauvinism, militarism, corruption, moral decay...

Yup, Real Existing Zionism is a real peach....

Denying Pipes' connections with the Zionist right in the U.S. is childishly naive.

[ 02 May 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

For your reference:

Not so much outraged about Daniel Pipes (a Zionist) and his attempts to do what he can to vilify Muslims. No Ohara and his gang want to strip Zionism from this discourse because THEY HAVE AN AGENDA! Aren't you a Zionist ohara (as defined by your terms, not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes?

Spare me your bullshit ohara. I can see through it, others can. You have been doing nothing on these boards bur defending the CJC, however wrong they are, and now trying to stifle any legitimate discussion of how this relates to an extreme Zionist view.

Gosh, don't you get tired of being a one-trick pony?

[ 02 May 2008: Message edited by: Stargazer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:
“This is a political, ideological agenda,” said John Esposito, a professor of international affairs and Islamic studies at Georgetown University who has been a focus of Mr. Pipes’s scrutiny.

I would say that's an agenda to paint Zionism, not just extremists, as a major problem.

---

I would point out that by making an assertion that Pipes vilification of Islam as "extremist by nature" as a "major problem" and then trying to parrallel that with painting Zionism as "extremist by nature" also as a "major problem" you are actually making the mistake you want others to avoid.

If you want people not to conflate Zionism with Judaism, prima facie, you better not indulge in making parrallels between Islamic "religion" and Zionism the "political philosophy."

Zionism, the political philisophy does not get a free ride because of its association with Judaism, just as Islamic Fundamentalism the political philisophy does not get a free just because of its association with Islam. It is important to remind people of the distinction to be made between a religion, and the political movements that they spawn, but your parralel is clearly an attmept to give Zionism exrta lattitude simply because Zionists choose to associate themselves with Judaism.

"Zionism" is not a religion, and criticism of it is not religious bigotry, while Pipes is definitely a religious bigot, in fact the core element of Pipes's thesis is the same kind of conflation you have just made. You can not on the one hand oppose those who conflate a religion with a political movement in order to critcize it, and then use the same principle to excuse another.

It is the very same principle that Pipes uses, and if you reject the principle, then must reject the principle in total. This stands regardless if you are using that principle in defence of a political movement, or to attack it.

[ 02 May 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Ohara, typically, is outraged! Outraged I say, about this being about Zionism.

Not so much outraged about Daniel Pipes (a Zionist) and his attempts to do what he can to vilify Muslims. No Ohara and his gang want to strip Zionism from this discourse because THEY HAVE AN AGENDA! Aren't you a Zionist ohara (as defined by your terms, not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes?

Spare me your bullshit ohara. I can see through it, others can. You have been doing nothing on these boards bur defending the CJC, however wrong they are, and now trying to stifle any legitimate discussion of how this relates to an extreme Zionist view.

Gosh, don't you get tired of being a one-trick pony?

[ 02 May 2008: Message edited by: Stargazer ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ohara:
Your animosity towards Zionism so clouds your thinking that it must be hard being you.

---

It's going to be hard being YOU on babble if you say something like that about another babbler again for opposing colonialism on a left-wing, anti-colonialist discussion forum. Because you're going to suddenly find yourself unable to post. Get my drift?

Last warning. Keep your smarmy attacks to yourself. This discussion board was created for people who oppose racism and colonialism.

Stargazer...please don't let yourself get baited. It makes it more difficult for the moderators when you give people an excuse to complain about being attacked, even if you think they deserve it.

[ 02 May 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

...not the issue of the efficacy of the school itself.

---

What do you have to say about the "efficacy" of having an Arabic-language school in NYC then?

Was this school not providing adequate instruction? Is it perhaps an outrage to have an Arabic-language school in a city that has similar schools that are conducted in other languages? Please explain.

That it was effective in attracting the attacks of virulent racists, including, but not limited to Zionists, I'll agree with you.

[ 02 May 2008: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]

[ 03 May 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
If you want people not to conflate Zionism with Judaism, prima facie, you better not indulge in making parrallels between Islamic "religion" and Zionism the "political philosophy."

---

For example, the governing party of Turkey, and the raft of Islamic parties in Indonesia one of which gave the country a president recently. Although some 80 per cent of the country's population are Muslims, one of the defining features of the 22-day campaign was the silence of the five main Muslim parties on the issue of Islamic Law, while they insisted on the need to improve the economy.

But the most prominent example is the very existence of Pakistan. The Two-Nation Theory was the basis for the Partition of India in 1947. It stated that Muslims and Hindus were two separate nations by every definition. Many fundamentalist muslims opposed the idea of a state founded on political Islam, perhaps comparable to those in Israel - haredim, mostly, I think -- who thought the creation of the state of Israel was a mistake.

Were the Labour Zionists colonialists? Not from their perspective, but the Palestinians who resisted them would not agree. Were the creators of Pakistan colonialists? Not from their perspective, but the millions of Hindus and others who fled from Pakistan certainly felt differently about Partition. Partition was a disaster for what is now known in India as the Sindhi community, although they have recovered better than the Palestinians.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
This discussion board was created for people who oppose racism and colonialism.

---

[ 03 May 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

quote:

---

Were the Labour Zionists colonialists? Not from their perspective

---

Do our subjective perceptions make reality? In fact, if you research the history of Zionism, the Labor people weren't that different from the so-called "right wing" on issues like policy toward the Arabs, settlement, etc. They simply believed that rather than "redeeming the land" in the biblical sense, they were "redeeming the land and the Jewish nation" through work, modernisation and a more collective (only Jewish, mind you) politics.

Again, look at the picture of Real Existing Zionism and look at the policy decisions made by both "leftists" and "rightists" that have lead to over a half-century of awfulness. At what point do we call "Zionism" as it actually is colonialism, regardless of what ideological fantasies some Zionists might engage in?

If you want to get down to brass tacks, I'm a Zionist, too. I believe - in theory and in principle - that Jews are a nation among others and should be afforded the same rights. However, when in practice those rights are built on theft, violence, ethnic cleansing and thoroughly racist politics, then I have an issue. Same as I would with any other state doing those things.

The irony of trying to recreate the 19th-Century fantasy of a single-ethnicity state after what the history of the 20th Century taught us about the practise of that fantasy would be funny if it weren't so tragic in thought and, more importantly, in deed. Israel has become the same kind of state that harrassed, abused, and expelled Jews in the past.

Back to topic. Are you denying the connection between Zionist groups in the U.S. and the position of Israel in international relations? Are you denying that Pipes' "post-911 anxieties" are tied to his thoroughgoing anti-Palestinian/Zionist politics? He himself has made the connection between the "war" at home and the war abroad, as have a host of Zionist leaders (Israel's PMs, for example), as has George Bush. Pretending that Zionism's proponents have not subsumed the justifications for their actions under the broader rubric of the "War on Terror" is to simply deny the facts generally, and specifically evinced on this very forum. Furthermore, denying that Pipes' actions in this case are somehow discreetly isolated from the grander policy of "War on Terror" is similar folly. The general climate of anti-Arab sentiment which fuels Pipes, allows Israel to act brutally against the Palestinians -- and the U.S. against Iraqis, Iranians, and whoever else it sees fit to beat up Over There -- with impunity is part and parcel of the same politics. What is local IS global in this case. Microcosm and Macrocosm.

There is a stinking hypocrisy in opposing THIS abuse of Arabs/Muslims while parading around in support of Israel as it commits far worse travesties on Arabs/Muslims. Especially when this abuse has been largely perpetrated by some of the same people and in the name of the same cause. Funny that the application of "Zionism" as it is practiced in Israel and the Occupied Territories in North America is disgusting. Over there, however, it's a different matter altogether. Sounds like some want to have their cake and eat it, too.

[ 03 May 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

I would say that's an agenda to paint Zionism, not just extremists, as a major problem.

---

Are you justifying white supremacy and their anti-semitic beliefs? Because if you can elevate Zionism, a supremacist ideology, to being on the same plane as a major world religion and culture, then why not white supremacy? Or any other race based ideology that sets itself in conflict with another religion and/or culture?

I would also like to point out, as demonstrated with link form the ADL, Pipes is not considered an extremist among Zionists.

quote:

---

Pipes supporters, who represent both the core of the Republican base and the core of the pro-Israel lobby, are itching for such a fight. He has been endorsed by groups such as the Christian Coalition, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the American Jewish Congress, and the Zionist Organization of America. "The kinds of issues that Daniel has been talking about are the kinds of issues we could stand a debate about in the public at large," says Frank J. Gaffney Jr., the president of the Center For Security Policy, a conservative think tank.

---

He can even be found in the Jerusalem Post explaining the great problem faced by the Jewish state:

quote:

---

From its inception, Zionism had its share of Jewish opponents, ranging from the haredim to nostalgic Iraqis to reform rabbis. But, until recently, these were marginal elements. Now, due to high birth rates, the once-tiny haredi community constitutes 22 percent of Israel's current first-grade class; add to this the roughly equivalent number of Arab first-graders and a sea-change in Israeli politics can be expected about 2025.

---

Pipes isn't an extremist among Zionists, He is the mainstream.

[ 03 May 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Mr. Levy made reference to the possibility that his organization would provide anti-bias training to Ms. Almontaser’s staff.

The letter caused a stir among some Arab-Americans, who were bothered by Ms. Almontaser’s ties to Jewish groups. In late June, Aramica, an Arabic and English newspaper based in Brooklyn, ran a cover story with the headline “Zionist Organization Supports Gibran School Principal,” focusing on the link between Ms. Almontaser’s school and the Anti-Defamation League.

In just five months, Ms. Almontaser’s image had been transformed. She was rendered a radical Muslim by one group and a sellout by another.

At first, some city officials rallied to Ms. Almontaser’s side. Among them was David Cantor, the chief spokesman for the Department of Education, who wrote in an e-mail message to the editor of The New York Sun, Seth Lipsky: “I won’t allow Dan Pipes a free pass to smear Debbie Almontaser as an Islamist proselytizer who denies Muslim involvement in 9/11. It is a false picture and an ugly effort.”

---

I do try to avoid personal attacks. I apologize if my suggesting that Zionism is not part and parcel of a colonialist mentality from my pov was viewed as an attack. And to those who put all Zionists in the same pot I say it is the same as putting all the "Left" in the same pot.

quote:

---

When FM claims that Zionism in general is the support beam for so-called "apartheid" in the PA I wonder why you remain quiet?

---

quote:

---

Amos Oz and many more on the Israeli left are self-confessed Zionists. Are they too racist colonialists?

---

Tell me something, is a white supremacist who believes in "seaparate but equal" and who advocates for the separation of races in America, but doesn't advocate violence in achieving that end, is he a racist or not?

A South African Boer who supported Apartheid but disagreed with the brutal tactics of the government in supporting Apartheid, yet benefited from the social and economic privileges of the Apartheid system: racist colonialist or not, because that person didn't support the brutal methods of maintaining Apartheid?

Also, I think I have demonstrated quite clearly that Pipes is respected in the Zionist mainstream. He is not a pariah who is shunned by supporters of Zionism. He is a respected supporter of the ideology for which he speaks.

[ 03 May 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

If he doesn't, in my view he would not be a racist. But then he wouldn't be a Zionist either, would he?

Because, isn't Israel, the Nakbah, the occupation, the invasions of Lebanon, the settler movement that renders the so-called two-state a political impossibility, all expressions of Zionism as a state craft? Isn't Israel, as it stands, warts and all, the result of Zionist ideology? And how can there be Israel without the dispossession and marginalization of Palestinians (or the demonization of islam and Arabs by the likes of Pipes)?

You tell me.

[ 03 May 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

However, of course not all Zionists were, or are, racists and colonialists.

---

Zionism is a racist and colonialist ideology by definition. Its whole reason-for-being is to displace one ethnic group from its land by replacing them with another group.

quote:

---

Zionism is a racist and colonialist ideology by definition. Its whole reason-for-being is to displace one ethnic group from its land by replacing them with another group.

---

quote:

---

"I don't recognize the people who committed the attacks as either Arabs or Muslims.... Those people who did it have stolen my identity as an Arab and have stolen my religion." Just what I would want a real educator to say. Leave the door open to more discussion while showing appropriate disapproval. Almontaser deserves an "A," not expulsion.

---

quote:

---

Thread drift originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
Zionism is a racist and colonialist ideology by definition. Its whole reason-for-being is to displace one ethnic group from its land by replacing them with another group.

---

quote:

---

the Balfour Declaration of 1917 stated:

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

---

Jewish immigration to Palestine in the initial period following World War I was sparse, owing to difficult conditions in Palestine and lack of sufficient commitment to Zionism to face the rigors of pioneering life, as well as lack of funds for development. However, in the 1930s, with increased anti-Semitism and the rise of Adolf Hitler in Germany, the Fifth Aliya brought substantial numbers of European Jews to Palestine.

After spending three months conducting hearings and general survey of the situation in Palestine, UNSCOP officially released its report on August 31, 1947. A majority of nations (Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay) recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, with Jerusalem to be placed under international administration. Thus a Jewish state was voted upon, but would be smaller than the one promised in the League of Nations Resolution.

The majority of the Jews and Jewish groups accepted the proposal, in particular the Jewish Agency, which functioned as the de facto representative group of the nascent Jewish state. The Jewish Agency had been arguing for more land but finally accepted the opposition from representatives of the UN.

Every major Arab leader objected in principle to the right of the Jews to an independent state in Palestine, reflecting the policies of the Arab League.

On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, in favour of the Partition Plan.

Declassified documents indicate that the British had wanted to absorb Palestine into a "Greater Syria" that would eventually be ruled by Iraq. In January of 1948, the British allowed the Arab Liberation Army formed by the Arab League to infiltrate into Palestine from Syria.

Fighting began almost as soon as the plan was approved, beginning with the Arab Jerusalem Riots of 1947. The fighting would have an effect on the Arab population of Palestine, as well the Jewish populations of neighboring Arab countries.

On December 3, at the instigation of the Palestinian Arab leadership, a large mob ransacked the new Jewish commercial center in Jerusalem, looting and burning shops and stabbing and stoning whomever they happened upon. The next day, some 120–150 armed Arabs attacked Kibbutz Efal, on the outskirts of Tel Aviv, in the first large-scale attempt to storm a Jewish village.

From January onwards operations became more militaristic, with the intervention into Palestine of a number of Arab Liberation Army regiments who divided up around the different coastal towns and reinforced Galilee and Samaria. Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni came from Egypt with several hundred men of the Army of Holy War.

Up to 100,000 Palestinians, chiefly those from the upper classes, left the country to seek refuge abroad or in Samaria.

This situation caused the U.S. to retract their support for the Partition plan, thus encouraging the Arab League to believe that the Palestinians, reinforced by the Arab Liberation Army, could put an end to the partition plan. The British, on the other hand, decided on 7 February 1948 to support the annexation of the Arab part of Palestine by Transjordan.

Although a certain level of doubt took hold amongst Yishuv supporters, their apparent defeats were due more to their wait-and-see policy than to weakness. Ben-Gurion reorganized the Haganah and made conscription obligatory. Every Jewish man and woman in the country had to receive military training. Due to funds gathered by Golda Meir from sympathizers in the United States, and assisted by Stalin's support for the Zionist cause, the Jewish representatives of Palestine were able to sign very important armament contracts in the East. Other Haganah agents retrieved stockpiles from the Second World War, which helped equip the army further. Operation Balak allowed arms and other equipment to be transported for the first time by the end of March.

Terror attacks continued to evolve and escalate. The Arabs blockaded the road to Jerusalem and other towns, attacked Jewish towns and villages, convoys and road transport and massacred convoy personnel. The Jewish dissident force, the Irgun planted bombs in Jerusalem, Yaffo and elsewhere. The Haganah took mostly defensive actions in the initial stages. Notable events include Irgun bombing of Damascus gate in Jerusalem, December 12, 1947, Haifa refinery riots, December 30, massacre of the convoy of 35 to Gush Etzion, January 16, 1948, Ben Yehuda Street Bombing on February 22, Jewish Agency Bombing on March 11, 1948, Nebi Daniel and Yehiam convoy bombings on March 27, 1948, Deir Yassin Massacre on April 9 and the Hadassah medical convoy massacre on April 13, 1948. By this time the fighting had escalated to the level of brigade sized battles, with Operation Nachshon launched by the Haganah in the Jerusalem corridor, and the battle of Mishmar Ha'emek, fought between the Haganah forces and the Arab Liberation Army on April 4-12.

During this time, and beyond the command of Haganah or the framework of Plan Dalet, troops from Irgun and Lehi massacred more than 100 Arabs, mostly civilians, at Deir Yassin, a move that had an important impact on the Palestinian population, and one that was criticised and lamented by all the principal Jewish authorities of the day.

On 13 May, the Arab Legion, backed by irregulars, attacked and took Kfar Etzion, where 127 out of the 131 Jewish defenders were killed and the prisoners massacred.

quote:

---

That's a bit over-simplified, isn't it? I'm no expert so I'll quote Wikipedia:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the Balfour Declaration of 1917 stated:
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

---

Guess what? The British lied.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

No. Zionism is a racist ideology, however it's not specifically created to displace others. The Nahkba only happened because Ben Gourian refused to found the Israeli state on a peice of empty land.

---

Well, he did prove himself able to adapt to circumstances:

quote:

---

On July 12, 1937, Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary explaining the benefits of the compulsory population transfer (which was proposed in British Peel Commission):

"The compulsory transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the first and second Temples. . . We are given an opportunity which we never dared to dream of in our wildest imaginings. This is MORE than a state, government and sovereignty----this is national consolidation in a free homeland." (Righteous Victims, p. 142)

Similarly on August 7, 1937 he also stated to the Zionist Assembly during their debate of the Peel Commission:

". . . In many parts of the country new settlement will not be possible without transferring the [Palestinian] Arab fellahin. . . it is important that this plan comes from the [British Peel] Commission and not from us. . . . Jewish power, which grows steadily, will also increase our possibilities to carry out the transfer on a large scale. You must remember, that this system embodies an important humane and Zionist idea, to transfer parts of a people to their country and to settle empty lands. We believe that this action will also bring us closer to an agreement with the Arabs." (Righteous Victims, p. 143)

On the same subject, Ben-Gurion wrote in 1937:

"With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement] .... I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it." (Righteous Victims, p. 144)

And in 1938, he also wrote:

"With compulsory transfer we [would] have vast areas .... I support compulsory [population] transfer. I do not see anything immoral in it. But compulsory transfer could only be carried out by England .... Had its implementation been dependent merely on our proposal I would have proposed; but this would be dangerous to propose when the British government has disassociated itself from compulsory transfer. .... But this question should not be removed from the agenda because it is central question. There are two issues here : 1) sovereignty and 2) the removal of a certain number of Arabs, and we must insist on both of them." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, 117)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

This discussion board was created for people who oppose racism and colonialism.

[ 02 May 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

---

correct and Michelle being in favour of a 2 state solution which accepts a sovereign Palestinian State living beside Israel is not colonialism.

Supporting a 2 state solution is not racist

quote:

---

correct and Michelle being in favour of a 2 state solution which accepts a sovereign Palestinian State living beside Israel is not colonialism.

Supporting a 2 state solution is not racist

---

Here is a nice refresher of Zionism's beginnings:

quote:

---

Whenever I try to mouth these words, a remembered smell fills my nostrils. It is the smell of shit. Across the occupied West Bank, raw untreated sewage is pumped every day out of the Jewish settlements, along large metal pipes, straight onto Palestinian land. From there, it can enter the groundwater and the reservoirs, and become a poison.

Standing near one of these long, stinking brown-and-yellow rivers of waste recently, the local chief medical officer, Dr Bassam Said Nadi, explained to me: "Recently there were very heavy rains, and the shit started to flow into the reservoir that provides water for this whole area. I knew that if we didn't act, people would die. We had to alert everyone not to drink the water for over a week, and distribute bottles. We were lucky it was spotted. Next time..." He shook his head in fear. This is no freak: a 2004 report by Friends of the Earth found that only six per cent of Israeli settlements adequately treat their sewage.

Meanwhile, in order to punish the population of Gaza for voting "the wrong way", the Israeli army are not allowing past the checkpoints any replacements for the pipes and cement needed to keep the sewage system working. The result? Vast stagnant pools of waste are being held within fragile dykes across the strip, and rotting. Last March, one of them burst, drowning a nine-month-old baby and his elderly grandmother in a tsunami of human waste. The Centre on Housing Rights warns that one heavy rainfall could send 1.5m cubic metres of faeces flowing all over Gaza, causing "a humanitarian and environmental disaster of epic proportions".

So how did it come to this? How did a Jewish state founded 60 years ago with a promise to be "a light unto the nations" end up flinging its filth at a cowering Palestinian population?

The beginnings of an answer lie in the secret Israel has known, and suppressed, all these years. Even now, can we describe what happened 60 years ago honestly and unhysterically? The Jews who arrived in Palestine throughout the twentieth century did not come because they were cruel people who wanted to snuffle out Arabs to persecute. No: they came because they were running for their lives from a genocidal European anti-Semitism that was soon to slaughter six million of their sisters and their sons.

They convinced themselves that Palestine was "a land without people for a people without land". I desperately wish this dream had been true. You can see traces of what might have been in Tel Aviv, a city that really was built on empty sand dunes. But most of Palestine was not empty. It was already inhabited by people who loved the land, and saw it as theirs. They were completely innocent of the long, hellish crimes against the Jews.

When it became clear these Palestinians would not welcome becoming a minority in somebody else's country, darker plans were drawn up. Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, wrote in 1937: "The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war."

---

How does Zionism answer Mr. Hari's question?

[ 03 May 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Israel's cabinet seeks to play God over Gaza by bluntly controlling every facet of civilian life. Tearing up the West Bank presents a threat of similarly terrible consequences. Israel's separation barrier and hundreds of checkpoints threaten to create numerous smaller Gazas in the West Bank. The villages and cities that are becoming increasingly isolated and economically strangled today could become hotspots of desperation and violence tomorrow.

Last week in Gaza, Israel not only continued depriving the people of fuel and cooking gas, it held back supplies to UN agencies such as Unrwa - the agency devoted to the health, education, food supplies and more of Gaza's poor and deprived population. In hindering the operations of the UN, Israel was hindering the Quartet, of which the UN is a part.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by miles:
FM so just to be clear the only non-racist and non-colonialist solution to the Isreali Palestinian conflict is not a 2 state solution.

Rather it is a single state that is Palestinian.

---

It would be nice, but we're not at the point where it would be possible yet.

In order for it to work, there would need to be:

1)A long period where armed hostilities had ceased(and this goes for the IDF as well as Hamas, since both are just as bad in the blood on the hands department);

2)A guarantee that, while some people might have to move from the area of Palestine they currently occupy, nobody would be forced to leave Palestine entirely.

3)A guarantee that all faith traditions would be protected and respected, as well as the rights of secular people of all races;

4)A major reconstruction project in the Palestinian Arab areas that were wiped out in the conflict, and the rebuilding of all demolished homes(with funding diverted to this from the insane amounts of money spent on the Israeli military);

5)A Truth and Reconciliation Commission that would
hold the violent extremists on both sides accountable and give apologies and restitution for all victims of violence;

It probably will eventually need to come to a single-state solution. But this will require each community to accept that the other has an equal right to the land and that no religion will be priveleged over any other.

The world's Jewish communities were right to want some place where they could count on safety after the Shoah. But the Zionist movement's leaders ended up misleading and cruelly betraying them by selling them the lie that the land where they intended to build Israel was "a land without people". Once that lie was told, it became impossible for this land to be a place where anybody could live in peace.

There needs to be another way. A way that would involve both communities compromising and the ultra-religious to defer to the secular and democratic. Simply decreeing a unified state now wouldn't get us to that place. A deeper process of reconciliation and acceptance on both sides is necessary. For now, the important thing is to get BOTH sides to stop killing. As long as this remains a shooting war, there's no hope for anyone.

And for those who still prefer the "2 state solution"(which would be more workable as an interim measure if done properly)is there any reason to trust the Israeli government not to use this "solution" in order to control resources and hold military dominance and by so doing simply make it impossible for the Palestinians to have any state at all?

It seems likely that they'd treat an "independent Palestine" as the British treated the Irish Free State-that is, that they would do everything they could to strangle such a state in its cradle.

How do we get the Israeli government to finally start behaving honorable and to treat the Palestinians as human beings?

And no, don't say "stop the terror". What the IDF does to the people in Gaza and the West Bank is just as much terrorism as anything Hamas does. They've abandoned any effort to enforce humane rules of engagement and have no reduced themselves to just settling scores and once again creating "facts on the ground".

The Israeli state has betrayed every ideal it was founded on. It has disgraced the people it was supposed to protect. It would be nice if those who swat away all criticism of what that state does would spend a single minute actually trying to get the Israeli government to clean up it's bloodsoaked act.

[ 03 May 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:

The world's Jewish communities were right to want some place where they could count on safety after the Shoah.

---

I also wasn't defending the idea that "refuge" was the sole rationalization for the creation of that state.

And was also recognizing that Israel failed to be a place where Jews could live in safety, largely because of the deceptions the Zionist leadership perpetuated on Jewish refugees and those who just chose to make "aliyah".

What I don't understand is why you find it so threatening to accept that some people DID see refuge as part of the rationale for supporting Zionism(even if you never did)and that that did and does play a signficant role in the reluctance of some of those people to criticize anything that the Israeli government ever did.

And, while I did use the phrase "the world's Jewish communities", I never presumed to speak for them.

Nor did I presume to speak for you, and I would never attempt to. And I never attempted to do so prior to this in any previous posts. I have to much respect for your feelings on this issue to ever even think of doing something like that.

I hope this clarifies what I was trying to say.

We're not enemies, unionist...ok?

[ 03 May 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 03 May 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 03 May 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 03 May 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

1)A long period where armed hostilities had ceased(and this goes for the IDF as well as Hamas, since both are just as bad in the blood on the hands department)

---

No they aren't, actually. And this is going to be one of those controversial points.

But, one is an occupying army that essentially imprisons one population, killing them, injuring them and destroying their homes with impunity. Not to mention torture, extrajudicial imprisonment, and deliberate withholding of essential resources to a civilian population. Add on political crimes like the denial of human rights, disenfranchisement, politicide. This series of crimes has been ongoing since at least 1967, and arguably since the first population transfers of the 1948 war. The other is an armed resistance movement that has used violence, sometimes against civilians, as a means to its ends.

Killing people is almost always wrong (if they are actually in the act of killing you - as an individual - right now, I don't have a problem with it, myself) but to claim that both sides share an equal amount of guilt for deaths, destruction, ethnic cleansing and so forth flies in the face of the evidence on the ground and the statistics which put the IDF waaaaaaay ahead on murders, on people ethnically cleansed, on house demolitions, etc. Let alone the fact that Hamas has never had the power to commit the kind of political crimes the IDF has.

Now, does that mean I love Hamas? No. Of course not. I don't agree with their tactics, or a lot of their politics, but it really blows my mind when we try to make equivalent players out of Israel and the Palestinians. If they were, the conflict wouldn't be happening. It is an occupation and resistance, not a conventional war and so far, Israel has inflicted most of the human and material damage, absorbing little.

I commend your efforts at envisioning a framework for reconciliation and I agree with some of what you said. However, there can be no "Truth and Reconciliation" if things like ethnic cleansing, a 10-1 murder ratio, and so on are not acknowledged and owned-up to. You know, The Truth... Hamas hasn't ethnically cleansed anyone, hasn't bulldozed a single Israeli home and hasn't disenfranchised a single Israeli. And in no way can they even be held responsible for all of the (inferior) number of deaths visited by Palestinians on Israelis.

It's like suggesting that the Apartheid regime and the resistors in the bantus and townships had an equal part to play. It flies in the face of reason.

[ 04 May 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

[ 04 May 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

My point of reference in making that statement was to those "Israel can do no wrong" types who insist that that IDF is ALWAYS morally superior to those in the Palestinian struggle.