NationStates Jolt Archive

The fact that Israel is not a poor country like Syria or Lebanon is due to the will and the effort the Jewish immigrants put in. The fact that Israel can actually export food despite being essentially a bunch of arid rocks is due to the efforts of Israeli farmers. Why do you think the Ottomans and land owners were so willing to give it away?.


Yet the Palestine area was exporting crops in 1945/46 when Israeli land ownership overall was still just 7%. The major crop introduced by settlers was the Citrus and for this market they can take credit.

In every country that has been colonised, the coloniser denies that anything of worth, or worth considering, existed before them.

Of course fear of being exterminated played no part in the refugees leaving...
It probably did play a part. But then, the Arabs aren't exactly angels in that regard either.
Fact of the matter is that there was no Jewish force that expelled people from their land. The vast majority of refugees left because they had no interest in spending time in a war zone, not because there was an Israeli policy to expel them.

BTW - If a 60 year old palastinian made a claim should he/she be given their land?
Probably not the land, because that would just kick other people of theirs. A financial compensation, sorta like a delayed eminent domain payment might be a good idea.

Theres nothing 'conspiratorial', mysterious or cabalistic. Its an attempt to grab as much of the West Bank as is deemed viable, along with Arab East Jerusalem, in a unilateral move.
And what exactly would Israel have to gain? I said before that there are lobby groups, and the government is peddling to them.

Neither the country nor its economy nor the Israelis themselves have anything to gain because a few oddballs feel they need to play settler. These guys cost the state millions and millions and contribute virtually nothing in return...other than win a few votes with the extreme right.

I have said before that I don't agree with these settlements, and I most certainly don't agree with the way the security fence has been built. But I have also said that the Israeli government does not have a master plan to destroy Palestine, which is essentially what you're aiming at here. They're politicians, just like politicians anywhere else. And for many years now every one of them has known that a long-term settlement with the Palestinians is the only way to secure the safety of their voters. They all tried it in different ways, but so far neither their own right wing extremists nor the Palestinians have rewarded those efforts in the least.

Yet the Palestine area was exporting crops in 1945/46 when Israeli land ownership overall was still just 7%. The major crop introduced by settlers was the Citrus and for this market they can take credit.
Source?

600,000 is still the third largest jewish population in the world.

you were the one who claimed they were leaving!!

back up your claim that they are attacked by muslims and leaving france.

otherwise its just blah blah frenchie bashing.French Jews are in fact leaving France in large numbers. This summer I was working in Israel, and I had the opportunity to meet alot of French young people who were also vilsiting or volunteering. I was SHOCKED to discover that ALL of them (without one exception) wanted to leave france and come live in Israel eventually, if not immediately. They cited anti-semsetism and animosity from Muslims as a direct reason for their decision. Several told me they don't tell aquaintances that they are Jewish, and would not feel safe wearing a symbol of their Judaism in public, like a magen david pendant or some such. Now, while this is not exactly extreme persecution, it is enough of a feeling of alienation and discomfort to decide to go somewhere else. I was surprised because these are young people who were born in France. One would not here the same thing from a group of young Jewish Canadians or Americans - here, only a fraction of people, and young people in particular, have decided to make the step to Israel.

I literally heard an eqaul amount of French as English in the streets of Jerusalem this past summer (with a good spattering of Spanish).

Things to consider are that the French Jewish community is almost completely of North African (Moroccan, Algerian, etc) descent - Sephardic Jews who are quite traditional, very supportive of Israel, and rather right-wing. There aren't many Ashkenazi (think if them as "native") Jews left in France since the war. Most of the Jews in France are of middle socio-economic standing, and are not especially established, making the transition to Israel less painful than it could be. They are fairly recent immigrants - from the 1950s to 70s, I think. In fact, they came to France as part of the same immigration wave that the North African Arabs (that are now thought to be such a threat) started to come in. The animosity between the two groups is merely and extension of what existed in their home countires, which are the same (Morocco, Algeria, etc) - the conflict and anti-semetism has merely been translocated to France. This is of course in addition to France's rather objectionalbe policy, growing European predjudice against Israel, and burgeoning Neo-Nazi movements in the last few years.

here's a couple things I found about the french Aliya of recent years.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1159193424785

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Travel/4577.htm

French Jews are in fact leaving France in large numbers. This summer I was working in Israel, and i had the opportunity to meet alot of french young people who were also vilsiting or volunteering. I was SHOCKED to discover that ALL of them (without one exception) wanted to leave france and come live in israel eventually, if not immediately. They cited anti-semsetism and animosity from Muslims as a direct reason for their decision. Several told me tehy don't tell aqauntances that they are jewish, and would not feel safe wearing a symbol of their Judaism in public, like a magen david pendant or some such. Now, while this is not exactly extreme persecution, it is enough of a feeling of alienation and discomfort to decide to go somewhere else. I was surprised because these are young people who were born in France. One would not here the same thing from a group of young Jewish canadians or Americans - here, only a fraction of people, and young people in particular, have decided to make the step to Israel.

I literally heard an eqaul amount of French as English in the streets of Jerusalem this part summer (with a good spattering of Spanish).

Things to consider are that the French Jewish community is almost completely of North African (Moroccan, Algerian, etc) Sephardic Jews who are quite traditional, very supportive of Israel, and rather right-wing. There aren't many Ashkenazi (think if them as "native") Jews left in France since the war. Most of the Jews in France are of middle socio-economic standing, and are not especially established, making the transition to Israel less painful than it could be. They are fairly recent immigrants - from the 1950s to 70s, I think. In fact, they came to France as part of the same immigration wave that the North African Arabs (that are now thought to be such a threat) started to come in. The animosity between the two groups is merely and extension of what existed in their home countires, which are the same (Morocco, Algeria, etc) - the conflict and anti-semetism has merely been translocated to France. This is of course in addition to France's rather objectionalbe policy, growing European predjudice against Israel, and burgeoning Neo-Nazi movements in the last few years.

here's a couple things I found about teh french Aliya of recent years.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1159193424785

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Travel/4577.htm

man,france is rascist,they were and always will be.
So now..
Wat is france?

A conspiracy? Its policy. Or was the increased building around East Jerusalem a natural phenomena? Plus I read recently theres a plan to recognise the illegal outposts in the west bank(Washington Post, I think). Theres nothing 'conspiratorial', mysterious or cabalistic. Its an attempt to grab as much of the West Bank as is deemed viable, along with Arab East Jerusalem, in a unilateral move.
You should supply a source about your claim about the illegal outposts -the last that I heard, they were still being actively dismantled on a continuous basis.
But anyway, about the "land-grabbing" there is absoloutly no doubt that Israel is actively making policy to ensure that large jewish populations will ultimately become part of the sate. Same goes for Jerusalem, which was imancipated into the state after 67. Not that that solved the city's demographic problem, which is quite complicated and I'll only go into if there's particular interest.

Although in principle, I agree with the idea of swapping population cenres (within the realm of reason) to create two states with minimized internal conflict, the fact is that only one side is really actively doing anything, and there is no talking, agreement, or concencuss on how such an arrangement will take place. Notwithstanding the reasons why there is no bilateralism in this process right now, the process itself is going forward anyway, because Israelis see it as inevitable and essential. There will be a consolidation and a separation of Jewish settlements from Arab towns, and because of the impossibility (percieved or real, it makes no difference) to negotiate right now, Palestinian farmers (and others) will get hurt in the process.

I don't see that the ultimate direction of Israeli policy would be much different if negotiations were taking place, though I have no doubt that this can be done with much greater afficiency and consideration, and cooperation. That is waht negotiation and bilateralism can accomplish. Israel will not agree with hamas on the ultimate existential questions you are all so eager to expound - but they might agree on how to hurt people the least, and live side by side. Damages to both sides can be minimized.

But anyway, about the "land-grabbing" there is absoloutly no doubt that Israel is actively making policy to ensure that large jewish populations will ultimately become part of the sate. Same goes for Jerusalem, which was imancipated into the state after 67. Not that that solved the city's demographic problem, which is quite complicated and I'll only go into if there's particular interest.
Those populations were put there. And now that there is a population there Israel is claiming the land. This is not about an area that happened to be mainly jewish, but about a jewish area that was created and supported with the intent of taking land.

Although in principle, I agree with the idea of swapping population cenres (within the realm of reason) to create two states with minimized internal conflict, the fact is that only one side is really actively doing anything, and there is no talking, agreement, or concencuss on how such an arrangement will take place. Notwithstanding the reasons why there is no bilateralism in this process right now, the process itself is going forward anyway, because Israelis see it as inevitable and essential. There will be a consolidation and a separation of Jewish settlements from Arab towns, and because of the impossibility (percieved or real, it makes no difference) to negotiate right now, Palestinian farmers (and others) will get hurt in the process.

I don't see that the ultimate direction of Israeli policy would be much different if negotiations were taking place, though I have no doubt that this can be done with much greater afficiency and consideration, and cooperation. That is waht negotiation and bilateralism can accomplish. Israel will not agree with hamas on the ultimate existential questions you are all so eager to expound - but they might agree on how to hurt people the least, and live side by side. Damages to both sides can be minimized.
So... it looks like negotiations won't actually achieve anything. The palastinians will still lose land, Israel will still gain land. Natural Palastinian population centres in Israel will remain part of Israel and manufactured Jewish population centres in Palastine will be given to Israel.

The onlt thing you seem to want from negotiations is for the Palastinians to give permission for what Israel will do regardless.

Those populations were put there. And now that there is a population there Israel is claiming the land. This is not about an area that happened to be mainly jewish, but about a jewish area that was created and supported with the intent of taking land.

So... it looks like negotiations won't actually achieve anything. The palastinians will still lose land, Israel will still gain land. Natural Palastinian population centres in Israel will remain part of Israel and manufactured Jewish population centres in Palastine will be given to Israel.

The onlt thing you seem to want from negotiations is for the Palastinians to give permission for what Israel will do regardless.I'm taking a pragmatic approach. The sad fact is that Palestinian leadership has wasted it's numerous opportunities to have had a real positive contribution to peace and security, and terrorist orginizations have destroyed other chances at a negotiated agreement, which was their aim. With such a self-destrucctive political landscape as the one in the Palestinian territories, you cannot realistically expect Israel to sit on it's heels and wait until they sort themselves out, and then sit down. No. Israel will look after it's interests regardless of what the other side happens to be distracted with.

Eventually, when there is a negotiating table, the land score will perobably be evened up by swaps. A difficulty with this is that no arab israeli twon would ever willingly *be* swapped into the palestinian autonomous territory (or a future state) - they are much better off in Israel. But anyway, right now, this is unilateral action, and no-one is pretending that it's anything else. Do I like that? No. Do I see a way around it for now? No.

The Political climate in israel is such that people don't trust that pulling back (witness: gaza) does any good. Populatioons will be placed and solidified in a manner that will determine Israel's final borders - and those will be in and about the pre-67 borders, for purely pragmatic security and demographic reasons. it is no longer in Israel's interest to go after a "greater Israel" pipe-dream (well, it never was, but people now realize it). The Safest way for Jews to exist in Israel is compactly, at least while there's asa much hate flyinga round as there now is. This is simply a realistic assesment.

You should supply a source about your claim about the illegal outposts -the last that I heard, they were still being actively dismantled on a continuous basis. .


Time was not on my side.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/19/AR2006101901835.html


But anyway, about the "land-grabbing" there is absoloutly no doubt that Israel is actively making policy to ensure that large jewish populations will ultimately become part of the sate.
.

Populations which it put there, by hook or crook. Hence "land grab".


Although in principle, I agree with the idea of swapping population cenres (within the realm of reason) to create two states with minimized internal conflict, the fact is that only one side is really actively doing anything, and there is no talking, agreement, or concencuss on how such an arrangement will take place. Notwithstanding the reasons why there is no bilateralism in this process right now, the process itself is going forward anyway, because Israelis see it as inevitable and essential. There will be a consolidation and a separation of Jewish settlements from Arab towns, and because of the impossibility (percieved or real, it makes no difference) to negotiate right now, Palestinian farmers (and others) will get hurt in the process.

I don't see that the ultimate direction of Israeli policy would be much different if negotiations were taking place, though I have no doubt that this can be done with much greater afficiency and consideration, and cooperation. That is waht negotiation and bilateralism can accomplish. Israel will not agree with hamas on the ultimate existential questions you are all so eager to expound - but they might agree on how to hurt people the least, and live side by side. Damages to both sides can be minimized.

A process arbitrated by the US cannot be bilateral.

There is not even one side "actively doing anything" save towards its own ends - a unilateralism which will ultimately further complicate matters in the future.

And what exactly would Israel have to gain? I said before that there are lobby groups, and the government is peddling to them.

Neither the country nor its economy nor the Israelis themselves have anything to gain because a few oddballs feel they need to play settler. These guys cost the state millions and millions and contribute virtually nothing in return...other than win a few votes with the extreme right.?

Your first paragraph asks what Israel has to gain, and then says there are lobby groups that the Government peddles to....so therefore.....


I have said before that I don't agree with these settlements, and I most certainly don't agree with the way the security fence has been built. But I have also said that the Israeli government does not have a master plan to destroy Palestine, which is essentially what you're aiming at here. They're politicians, just like politicians anywhere else. And for many years now every one of them has known that a long-term settlement with the Palestinians is the only way to secure the safety of their voters. They all tried it in different ways, but so far neither their own right wing extremists nor the Palestinians have rewarded those efforts in the least..

Fair enough and true.


Source?

The document on which the rejected UN proposal was based.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0887282113/thehomeofalle-20

Just for fun, type in "French Military Victories" at Google, see what comes up. :D

I wont take time to comment the rest of your bullshit, but for your uninformed information this is called google bombing, where you alter the result google will give you.

Try typing "failure" for fun

Errr....

Time was not on my side.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/19/AR2006101901835.htmlThis article quotes the minister responsible stating that he is not negotiating on the law. What the law exactly is, and how it determines which settlements are legal and which aren't I'm not sure, but these 'negotiations' are basically talks to diffuse tensions such that the illegal settlement can be pulled down with a minimum of violence. Personally, I would prefer a total evacuation from all remote or small settlements, but that isn't happening right now. A few settlements being legitimized now, as bargaining cards for pulling down others, won't prevent them from being de-legitimized and evacuated later (something that will eventually happen, probably). If the government plays it's cards right, it will have most of the west bank evacuated eventually with a minimum of violence.

Populations which it put there, by hook or crook. Hence "land grab".I'm not even disputing your terminology. I feel that it is accurate. i would like to see any and all construction on the west bank stop, and a pullout of all settlements that aren't close to the border. I was sketching out the rationale behind this policy, which is one of consolidation and seperation. Quite opposite to my ideal vision of open borders, integrated towns and cities, etc, yet that dream is very far from reality now.
A process arbitrated by the US cannot be bilateral. Why not? The arbiter is not the limiting factor, the players themselves are. The Palestinian authorities are in no condition to be representing anything or anyone right now. They have no Israel policy. In fact, they have no policy period now that they have no money. (except one of violence, maybe - but that seems too out of control to be called a policy, really)

There is not even one side "actively doing anything" save towards its own ends - a unilateralism which will ultimately further complicate matters in the future.Obviously towards its own ends. I would be interested in hearing how it will futher complicate matters, and also, if you have an alternative suggestion.

This article quotes the minister responsible stating that he is not negotiating on the law. What the law exactly is, and how it determines which settlements are legal and which aren't I'm not sure, but these 'negotiations' are basically talks to diffuse tensions such that the illegal settlement can be pulled down with a minimum of violence..

All settlements are "illegal", the outposts being the step beyond which the Israeli govt is willing to turn a blind eye. Barring those immediately adjacent to the 1967 border, all should be removed.


Why not? The arbiter is not the limiting factor, the players themselves are.
..

The US affirmatively backs Israels aims at this point in time. There are declarations by many senior figures to that end, clearly, unequivocally, on numerous occassions. Regardless of the lack of trust this would cause on the Arab side, the fact of the matter is that they would be correct not to do so. Were the boot on the other foot and Saudi or Iran proposed, we would not be exonerating their partiality by placing the entire blame on "the players".


I would be interested in hearing how it will futher complicate matters, and also, if you have an alternative suggestion.

Considering the difficulties inherent in 'selling' any agreement to the Arab side and thus removing the undercurrent of violence, how precisely would any future leadership get its people to accept being lumped with something they had no say or representation in? Regardless of what could be agreed, x amount will be unsatisfied, but to be handed something and essentially told to like it or lump it will be guaranteed to lead to even more extreme groups arising.

Secondly, by saying "These are the final borders", any later attempt to end the inevitable backlash will place a future Israeli government in an awkward position, should negotiation be nesseccary.

All settlements are "illegal", the outposts being the step beyond which the Israeli govt is willing to turn a blind eye. Barring those immediately adjacent to the 1967 border, all should be removed.Here's your "should" again. People will tell you many different things about what should happen to those settlements, and neither you nor I are the ulimate judge of that. What is clear is that it is in everyone's interest for a large portion of the settlement to be evacuated eventually, and so for all intents and purposes that's what "should" happen. Ind it seems likely that that's what will happen.


The US affirmatively backs Israels aims at this point in time. There are declarations by many senior figures to that end, clearly, unequivocally, on numerous occassions. Regardless of the lack of trust this would cause on the Arab side, the fact of the matter is that they would be correct not to do so. Were the boot on the other foot and Saudi or Iran proposed, we would not be exonerating their partiality by placing the entire blame on "the players". I would support a Saudi-brokered deal if it worked. It is possible that the U.S. would not be the most effective broker at this time. If that is the concencuss when negotiations get back on track, some other country will hopefully step up, be it Egypt, Jordan, the EU, a combination of several, or whatever.

Considering the difficulties inherent in 'selling' any agreement to the Arab side and thus removing the undercurrent of violence, how precisely would any future leadership get its people to accept being lumped with something they had no say or representation in? Regardless of what could be agreed, x amount will be unsatisfied, but to be handed something and essentially told to like it or lump it will be guaranteed to lead to even more extreme groups arising. Quite right. Unilateral action isn't about making friends or building concencuss with the other side. It's about doing what you have to do to forward your agenda (be it demographic, security, etc) when you've tried other things and gotten no return.
I believe that a bilateral agreement is essential if you want to have any semblence of long-term security and quiet in the region. However, some concrete things can be done on one's own, too, when one has no choice. These things are preveting your civilians from dieing, and consolidating resources through strategic withdrawal.
Secondly, by saying "These are the final borders", any later attempt to end the inevitable backlash will place a future Israeli government in an awkward position, should negotiation be nesseccary.I don't really understand what you mean here. Awkward?

Here's your "should" again. People will tell you many different things about what should happen to those settlements, and neither you nor I are the ulimate judge of that. What is clear is that it is in everyone's interest for a large portion of the settlement to be evacuated eventually, and so for all intents and purposes that's what "should" happen. Ind it seems likely that that's what will happen.

A 'should' based on "What would I do, or those I know do, when faced with a 'garrsion' on the doorstep". Strangely enough, despite being a non-muslim, non-farming urban dweller and non-Arab, it involves a considerable degree of violence. Hence "should".


I would support a Saudi-brokered deal if it worked. It is possible that the U.S. would not be the most effective broker at this time. If that is the concencuss when negotiations get back on track, some other country will hopefully step up, be it Egypt, Jordan, the EU, a combination of several, or whatever.
.

Ideally yes. Whether the US will allow that to happen or not is another matter.


.I don't really understand what you mean here. Awkward?

Having declared "This far and no further" to then say "Ok, a bit further" implies a retreat and loss of face. While to an outside observer this may seem irrelevant in the overall scheme of things, such may not be the case in the Israeli side itself - particularily given an electorate perfectly capable of swing way to the right in certain circumstances, such as feeling threatened.

A 'should' based on "What would I do, or those I know do, when faced with a 'garrsion' on the doorstep". Strangely enough, despite being a non-muslim, non-farming urban dweller and non-Arab, it involves a considerable degree of violence. Hence "should". Well I guess the difference betwee us is that I only really think about 'shoulds' that are feasable. 'Shoulds' that don't involve innefectual violence also get points.

Ideally yes. Whether the US will allow that to happen or not is another matter. The US, *shock* doesn't have an exclusive stranglehold on international politics.

Having declared "This far and no further" to then say "Ok, a bit further" implies a retreat and loss of face. While to an outside observer this may seem irrelevant in the overall scheme of things, such may not be the case in the Israeli side itself - particularily given an electorate perfectly capable of swing way to the right in certain circumstances, such as feeling threatened.Loss of face is alot less important to Israelis than staying alive is. Israeli politics turn around so fast, so often, that consistancy within people, let alone withing parties in fairly short spans isn't even expected. I doubt anyone would care about cahnging a policy in negotiations if it was beneficial. Those people that oppose any retreat, or still harbor ambitions of a 'greater Israel' and so forth are very much opposed to this unilateralism already. The people that support it, and everyone to the 'left' of the spectrum from them overwhelmingly understand and desire an eventual negotiated solution - it is very much seen as a longish-term, but temporary stradegy.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but "accepted inferiority" is no better, especially if it's gonna mean that Jews will have to live under Muslim rule and pay jizya taxes and all that crap.


Maybe accepted inferiority is totally unnacceptable, maybe it isnt. But what truely is undispitable is that the treatment they got under the Arabs and Turks was a hell of alot better (they could practise their religion etc) before they stole Arab land, than after they stole Arab land and the kind of attitudes that arabs have toward Jews these days.

Thus I would conclude that maybe the Jews have a right to be angry for being treated as second class citizens in Europe and ME in Ottoman times, and certainly for the holocaust. But then again were talking about events 60 years ago going back hundreds of years, those times are long gone. Anti-Semitism existed specifically in Nazi Germany for like 15 years, for all the time previous to that in Europe and ME they were 'accepted inferiority' but were otherwise treated well. Any hatred of Israeli and zionism post 50's is exactly that, a political opposition to a Zionism, a political ideology that resulted in the annexation of Arab lands via mass migration and armed oppression. The Palestinians have 'national resistance', they dont hate jews, it's just for most of them all they have seen of the Israeli's are troops and bulldozers.

All resentment to Jews apart from that small part of German history was the limited citizenship they got prior in Europe and the Ottoman/Arab world, which was not anti-semitism. The opposition they are getting now neither is anti-semitism, it is as valid as opposing any expansionist state.

Nazi Germany was a lone example of a short peroid of anti-semitism which CANNOT be given to any group now opposing imperialist zionism, which is akin to expanisionist policies like Lebensraum.

Israel has created the modern opposition to itself in complete complicity.

Well I guess the difference betwee us is that I only really think about 'shoulds' that are feasable. 'Shoulds' that don't involve innefectual violence also get points..

It is quite feasible to remove all the settlements. Violence is only ineffectual if its cessation or continuance would have no discernable difference in effect. As all periods of "cessation" have led to an great increase in settlement construction, it therefore at least helps slow their progress.


The US, *shock* doesn't have an exclusive stranglehold on international politics...

In this area it most certainly does. There is but one "superpower" after all.


Loss of face is alot less important to Israelis than staying alive is. Israeli politics turn around so fast, so often, that consistancy within people, let alone withing parties in fairly short spans isn't even expected. I doubt anyone would care about cahnging a policy in negotiations if it was beneficial. Those people that oppose any retreat, or still harbor ambitions of a 'greater Israel' and so forth are very much opposed to this unilateralism already. The people that support it, and everyone to the 'left' of the spectrum from them overwhelmingly understand and desire an eventual negotiated solution - it is very much seen as a longish-term, but temporary stradegy.

Were that realism as present as you seem to think it is, they would have not increased building post 1992. You seem to think far more pragmatism exists than is the case.i

Since they are now interested with a wall against their own infidels,they thought an invavion was needed ,after al, the magino defense line was so outdated,they are asking china to make an effort too.they just sell a lot and want to sell weapon to a wall maker....
Who knows this may be the last trend.Long live democracy

Anti-Semitism existed specifically in Nazi Germany for like 15 years, for all the time previous to that in Europe and ME they were 'accepted inferiority' but were otherwise treated well.
[...]
All resentment to Jews apart from that small part of German history was the limited citizenship they got prior in Europe and the Ottoman/Arab world, which was not anti-semitism.
Are you serious? Are you telling me that before the Nazis there was no antisemitism?

Any hatred of Israeli and zionism post 50's is exactly that, a political opposition to a Zionism, a political ideology that resulted in the annexation of Arab lands via mass migration and armed oppression.
Except for the element that can be traced back to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem during WWII.

The Palestinians have 'national resistance', they dont hate jews, it's just for most of them all they have seen of the Israeli's are troops and bulldozers.
If only.
http://www.adl.org/main_Arab_World/default.htm

The opposition they are getting now neither is anti-semitism, it is as valid as opposing any expansionist state.
Except that they're not opposing expansionist policies, they're opposing the existence of the state itself. And not only that - several important Arab figures over the past 50 years have called for a lot more than that, a long line from Mohammad Amin al-Husayni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni#In_Nazi-occupied_Europe) to Hassan Nasrallah.

Nazi Germany was a lone example of a short peroid of anti-semitism which CANNOT be given to any group now opposing imperialist zionism, which is akin to expanisionist policies like Lebensraum.
Well, "Lebensraum" literally means "living space". Taken literally, I would think that early Israel would certainly have had a legitimate interest in creating a secure living space for its people.
I said before that I don't agree with the expansion of settlements in the West Bank and I think the security fence shouldn't cross the Green Line.

There are basically three distinct anti-Israeli lines of thought:

1. The first is simple opposition to Israel's policies. On many issues I concur with this, even though in the past year or so I have become a lot less idealistic on the issue and I realise that oftentimes the Israeli leadership is confronted with a lack of alternatives, courtesy of their opposition's unwillingness to make compromises.

2. Second is anti-Zionism, which is the opposition to there being a "Jewish state". While I don't think there is a "Jewish people" as such, and I don't think such a state should be excluding others...if the Jews would like a state, I don't see a point in denying them any more than I would have denied the wish for a German state back in the 1850s.

3. And the third is outright anti-semitism. One has to be careful with this accusation, but should also be careful not to never take it seriously. Things like the myth of blood libel on Arab TV for example are antisemitic, there is no two ways about it. I don't think most people who criticise Israel do so because they're against Jews, but for some this criticism becomes so unreasonable and irrational that the lines start getting blurry.

Israel has created the modern opposition to itself in complete complicity.
But ask yourself: What did it actually do wrong? What could or should it have done differently?

2. Second is anti-Zionism, which is the opposition to there being a "Jewish state". While I don't think there is a "Jewish people" as such, and I don't think such a state should be excluding others...if the Jews would like a state, I don't see a point in denying them any more than I would have denied the wish for a German state back in the 1850s.

I've noticed in my encounters with peopleof this second variety that they often push lines of hatred because of their utter and total misunderstanding of the Jewish experience. Not to mention that they rarely have a vision for the future - all they think about is the big mistake the creation of Israel was, and lament current impossibilities like the right of return and so forth. Often, Jewish political/economic concpiracy theories are mixed into their hetoric as well. For this reason, I find it hard to take these people seriously. I think sometimes their behaviour and rehetoric are so irrational that it is pinned to anit-semsetism for lack of a better term, though it may not be the classic Christian or Muslim brands of Jew-hatred. I often encounter youngish, white 'activist' college types who adopt this foolishness - what is interesting to note is that most real Palestinians living in the region would never expect the extreme ideology type 2. cling to.

Personally I've thought that were there more honesty and less PR efforts on both sides it would rather cool matters. Certainly hostile Palestinians are hardly the most lovely of peoples when they want to kill you, and being told the people who are kicking down your door at three in the morning are the "light of freedom" in the middle east isnt the easiest to swallow either. Also the total denial of historical wrongs is just not on. They have to be faced up to before people can move on.

Do you all hate the French or something?! :O

lol Well, I do agree that France could destroy the US if they really wanted to, but the US could most certainly do the same...uh...right? BUT why would France want to do that anyway?

I know that you were just refering to the strength and what-not of France...but what if they decided (France) that they don't like the US anymore? And, perhaps..."Destroy" them? (I say "them" 'cause I'm a true Canadian myself) What do you think would happen?

In a fight without nuclear weapons, the US would most certainly win. In a fight with nuclear weapons, both countries would be completly annihlated.

all they think about is the big mistake the creation of Israel was. free speech.
...
they rarely have a vision for the future - the future is not in my hands.. I am only 1 (one) US taxpayer.
but I do have an opinion about what the future should be.

If france destroyes Israel, then it will be my hero! :fluffle:

...
the future is not in my hands.. I am only 1 (one) US taxpayer.
but I do have an opinion about what the future should be.
And given your posting history I'm willing to be tthat it is a future without Jews.

And given your posting history I'm willing to bet that it is a future without Jews.Ill take that bet.

if you find one quote of me saying that.

You will pwn mi sig for one full month.
are you willing to bet your sig?

You guys make my head hurt.

Why did I become an English major? :(

Why did I become an English major? :(what is your main Language?