The difference between anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel

[Dogmaphobe]

er

Who here has EVER claimed mass murder as a human right? Who?

all those claim that Arabs mass murdering Jews is a legitimate product of some sort of "liberation" movement or who rationalize such actions within the context of human rights.

Take this Coyote chick, for instance.........

You can't answer a simple question?

Where have I ever claimed mass murder as a human right?

I'll add one more:

Where I have I ever claimed that targeting and killing civilians is in anyway legitimate or a legitimate product of a "liberation" movement?

It should be easy for you to come up with a link since you claim I post thousands....

Heck -- you have gone well beyond that by all your usual aggressive and disingenuous crap involving the rewarding of a genocidal mass murderer of Jews with a Nobel Peace prize.

 

[Shusha]

That seems ok - but, what happens when Jewish self-determination seeks to opress and prevent Palestinian self-determination on lands which have ancestral value to the Palestinian people?

But it doesn't. There is not and there never has been a widespread idea among the Jewish people that Palestine must not exist and that Palestinians have no rights to self-determination.

 

[Coyote]

Those who fled did so for a variety of reasons, true, but the overriding factor was that they were more loyal to the Nazi al Husseini clan than they were the more moderate Nabashiki clan, and were openly hostile to Jews and the establishment of an Israel state in which they were invited to participate freely. They either left at the behest of Arab leadership, left because they were leaving the area to make way for Arab armies or left because they were enemy combatants involved in hostilities.

The moderate and more peaceful Arabs remained in Israel, which now contains over 1 1/2 million of their descendants.

Interestingly enough, a LARGER number of Jews were kicked out of Arab lands. Somehow, the antisemites all fail to acknowledge this fact as they are only interested in persecuting Jews.

You have a reputable source for that claim?

Historical documentation seems to indicate that they fled as you say, for a variety of reasons - which don't seem to jive with yours.


The document details 11 factors which caused the exodus, and lists them "in order of importance":

1. Direct, hostile Jewish [ Haganah/IDF ] operations against Arab settlements.
2. The effect of our [Haganah/IDF] hostile operations against nearby [Arab] settlements... (... especially the fall of large neighbouring centers).
3. Operation of [Jewish] dissidents [ Irgun Tzvai Leumi and Lohamei Herut Yisrael]
4. Orders and decrees by Arab institutions and gangs [irregulars].
5. Jewish whispering operations [psychological warfare], aimed at frightening away Arab inhabitants.
6. Ultimate expulsion orders [by Jewish forces]
7. Fear of Jewish [retaliatory] response [following] major Arab attack on Jews.
8. The appearance of gangs [irregular Arab forces] and non-local fighters in the vicinity of a village.
9. Fear of Arab invasion and its consequences [mainly near the borders].
10. Isolated Arab villages in purely [predominantly] Jewish areas.
11. Various local factors and general fear of the future.[6]

Bringing up Jewish expulsions from Arab countries - a deflection - do two wrongs make a right?

 

[Shusha]

Who here has EVER claimed mass murder as a human right? Who?

They frame it as "resistance" or "freedom fighting". But they do frame it as a human right -- the right to resist occupation -- to use terrorism against innocents.

 

[Mindful]

Those who fled did so for a variety of reasons, true, but the overriding factor was that they were more loyal to the Nazi al Husseini clan than they were the more moderate Nabashiki clan, and were openly hostile to Jews and the establishment of an Israel state in which they were invited to participate freely. They either left at the behest of Arab leadership, left because they were leaving the area to make way for Arab armies or left because they were enemy combatants involved in hostilities.

The moderate and more peaceful Arabs remained in Israel, which now contains over 1 1/2 million of their descendants.

Interestingly enough, a LARGER number of Jews were kicked out of Arab lands. Somehow, the antisemites all fail to acknowledge this fact as they are only interested in persecuting Jews.

Why have the "Palestinians" carried this refugee status for so long without being rehabilitated and absorbed? When Israel was declared a sovereign nation in 1948, nearly one million Jews were evicted from their homes in Arab lands -- countries in which they were born. Where are these "refugees"? Historical record shows that they weren't refugees for long. Israel absorbed them, and they were effectively assimilated into Israeli society. In fact, history shows that refugees from any ethnic group over the years were at some point absorbed into society, thus making their status as "refugees" quite temporary--Except for one group -- the "Palestinians". They are the only people who willfully choose to keep their refugee status, thus passing it on from generation to generation.

 

[Coyote]

er

Who here has EVER claimed mass murder as a human right? Who?

all those claim that Arabs mass murdering Jews is a legitimate product of some sort of "liberation" movement or who rationalize such actions within the context of human rights.

Take this Coyote chick, for instance.........

You can't answer a simple question?

Where have I ever claimed mass murder as a human right?

I'll add one more:

Where I have I ever claimed that targeting and killing civilians is in anyway legitimate or a legitimate product of a "liberation" movement?

It should be easy for you to come up with a link since you claim I post thousands....

Heck -- you have gone well beyond that by all your usual aggressive and disingenuous crap involving the rewarding of a genocidal mass murderer of Jews with a Nobel Peace prize.

Links please to the previous claims?

Context matters - like heroizing a man who is a an anti-semitic bigot that went around the country electrocuting live animals....

 

[Coyote]

Who here has EVER claimed mass murder as a human right? Who?

They frame it as "resistance" or "freedom fighting". But they do frame it as a human right -- the right to resist occupation -- with terrorism.

I agree that they have a right to resist occupation - any group does. But that right does not include targeting civilians.

 

[Shusha]

Who here has EVER claimed mass murder as a human right? Who?

They frame it as "resistance" or "freedom fighting". But they do frame it as a human right -- the right to resist occupation -- with terrorism.

I agree that they have a right to resist occupation - any group does. But that right does not include targeting civilians.

I disagree that they have a right to resist occupation. Rather I think they have a responsibility and an obligation (to their own people and to the global community) to negotiate a peaceful solution to a dispute over territory and to achieve independence and secession by peaceful means.

 

[Coyote]

Those who fled did so for a variety of reasons, true, but the overriding factor was that they were more loyal to the Nazi al Husseini clan than they were the more moderate Nabashiki clan, and were openly hostile to Jews and the establishment of an Israel state in which they were invited to participate freely. They either left at the behest of Arab leadership, left because they were leaving the area to make way for Arab armies or left because they were enemy combatants involved in hostilities.

The moderate and more peaceful Arabs remained in Israel, which now contains over 1 1/2 million of their descendants.

Interestingly enough, a LARGER number of Jews were kicked out of Arab lands. Somehow, the antisemites all fail to acknowledge this fact as they are only interested in persecuting Jews.

Why have the "Palestinians" carried this refugee status for so long without being rehabilitated and absorbed? When Israel was declared a sovereign nation in 1948, nearly one million Jews were evicted from their homes in Arab lands -- countries in which they were born. Where are these "refugees"? Historical record shows that they weren't refugees for long. Israel absorbed them, and they were effectively assimilated into Israeli society. In fact, history shows that refugees from any ethnic group over the years were at some point absorbed into society, thus making their status as "refugees" quite temporary--Except for one group -- the "Palestinians". They are the only people who willfully choose to keep their refugee status, thus passing it on from generation to generation.

Israel wanted them and they wanted Israel. Personally, I think they are owed compensation for their losses.

The Palestinians are in a somewhat different category - they don't want to go elsewhere and their situation has never been resolved. Part of it is the Arab politics that refuses them any official status that will allow them move on (other than Jordan who took a huge number). Part of it was Israel's unwillingness early on to allow them to return and the creation of special laws that prevented them from returning and reclaiming property.

I'm not exactly sure they "chose" to keep a refugee status...what are the options for refugees? They are not allowed citizenship in the countries their camps are in, they aren't allowed to work, are they even allowed to immigrate. Their status in Syria was particularly tragic because of ISIS - they lacked documentation and citizenship to escape to other countries.

 

[Coyote]

Who here has EVER claimed mass murder as a human right? Who?

They frame it as "resistance" or "freedom fighting". But they do frame it as a human right -- the right to resist occupation -- with terrorism.

I agree that they have a right to resist occupation - any group does. But that right does not include targeting civilians.

I disagree that they have a right to resist occupation. Rather I think they have a responsibility and an obligation (to their own people and to the global community) to negotiate a peaceful solution to a dispute over territory and to achieve independence and secession by peaceful means.

Would you have said that to the Jews who were fighting the British?
What about the French resistance (and the other national resistance movements) fighting Nazi occupation?
What about the countries that rose up against Soviet occupation?
How about the current conflict in Iraq and Syria where ISIS is occupying territory?

 

[Mindful]

Those who fled did so for a variety of reasons, true, but the overriding factor was that they were more loyal to the Nazi al Husseini clan than they were the more moderate Nabashiki clan, and were openly hostile to Jews and the establishment of an Israel state in which they were invited to participate freely. They either left at the behest of Arab leadership, left because they were leaving the area to make way for Arab armies or left because they were enemy combatants involved in hostilities.

The moderate and more peaceful Arabs remained in Israel, which now contains over 1 1/2 million of their descendants.

Interestingly enough, a LARGER number of Jews were kicked out of Arab lands. Somehow, the antisemites all fail to acknowledge this fact as they are only interested in persecuting Jews.

Why have the "Palestinians" carried this refugee status for so long without being rehabilitated and absorbed? When Israel was declared a sovereign nation in 1948, nearly one million Jews were evicted from their homes in Arab lands -- countries in which they were born. Where are these "refugees"? Historical record shows that they weren't refugees for long. Israel absorbed them, and they were effectively assimilated into Israeli society. In fact, history shows that refugees from any ethnic group over the years were at some point absorbed into society, thus making their status as "refugees" quite temporary--Except for one group -- the "Palestinians". They are the only people who willfully choose to keep their refugee status, thus passing it on from generation to generation.

Israel wanted them and they wanted Israel. Personally, I think they are owed compensation for their losses.

The Palestinians are in a somewhat different category - they don't want to go elsewhere and their situation has never been resolved. Part of it is the Arab politics that refuses them any official status that will allow them move on (other than Jordan who took a huge number). Part of it was Israel's unwillingness early on to allow them to return and the creation of special laws that prevented them from returning and reclaiming property.

I'm not exactly sure they "chose" to keep a refugee status...what are the options for refugees? They are not allowed citizenship in the countries their camps are in, they aren't allowed to work, are they even allowed to immigrate. Their status in Syria was particularly tragic because of ISIS - they lacked documentation and citizenship to escape to other countries.

With all due respect, I'm not comfortable arguing this topic with you.

So therefore I'm not going to.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Keep in mind that NEXT MONTH will mark the 100th Anniversary of the:

• Arab Revolt --- 8 June 1916 and was when Grand Sherif Hussein bin Ali, the Hashemite Emir who stood as the Guardian of the Holy City of Mecca, and the man that would be recognized by the Allied Powers as King of the Hejaz, when the insurrection began by attacking the Ottoman garrison in Medina.

• Sykes-Picot Agreement --- This month, in fact last week, was the centennial (9 May 1916), which led to the Partition of Turkish-held Syria,Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine into French Mandate Area "A" and British Mandate Area "B."
​

I am glad that you agree with my post with one exception. How did the Palestinians miss out on the inherent universal rights that apply to everyone else? What I see is power politics, the rule of the gun, and external interference.

[NOTABLE CHANGES (∆t)]

A relatively quiet period in history; although 1918 would become a very interesting period with nearly twice as many changes.

Jan 1910: The French Republic creates French Equatorial Africa
Jan 1910: The Cape Colony, the Colony of Natal, the Transvaal, and the Orange River Colony unite as the Union of South Africa to gain independence from the United Kingdom.
Aug 1910: The Korean Empire capitulates and is annexed by the Empire of Japan.
Oct 1910: The first Portuguese Republic supersedes the Kingdom of Portugal.
Jan 1912: The Republic of China supersedes the Qing Dynasty of China. Nanking is the provisional capital.
Nov 1912: Albania declares its independence from the Ottoman Empire.
Mar 1914: Albania becomes the Principality of Albania.
Nov 1916: Germany and Austria-Hungary Empires establishment of the Regency Kingdom of Poland. Later, on the surrender of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, the Second Polish Republic will begin.
​

(COMMENT)

Q: Were there any international laws, (alla 1916) in which the "inherent universal rights" were outlined in the Wilson 14 Points?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

Supporting the Palestinian right to self determination does not equal antizionism unless it means the irradiation of Israel.

This speaks to my point above in my response to Challenger's post and linked op ed.

One can support the Palestinian right to self determination and ALSO support the Jewish right to self determination and not require the oppression of one over the other. (Exception noted*).

Just so, one can support the Jewish right to self-determination and ALSO support the Palestinian right to self-determination and not require the oppression of one over the other. Its not a zero-sum game where supporting the one means the oppression of the other.

Absolutely agree...

(*But since we are noting exceptions -- please note that the exception is NOT Jewish self-determination but the particular brand of Palestinian self-determination which denies and rejects Jewish self-determination and does actually seek to oppress and prevent Jewish self-determination on lands which have ancestral, historical and religious value to the Jewish people. Its another odd reversal where Zionism is labelled as oppressive, while it is actually only the Palestinians calling for exclusive access to lands and holy sites -- at the expense (oppression) of the Jewish people).

That seems ok - but, what happens when Jewish self-determination seeks to opress and prevent Palestinian self-determination on lands which have ancestral value to the Palestinian people?

How can they oppress and prevent the Palestinian right to self determination when it is a concept and not a tangible thing. And how can the lands have ancestral value when they never saw them until the arrived in the middle of the 20C.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Why have the "Palestinians" carried this refugee status for so long without being rehabilitated and absorbed? When Israel was declared a sovereign nation in 1948, nearly one million Jews were evicted from their homes in Arab lands -- countries in which they were born. Where are these "refugees"? Historical record shows that they weren't refugees for long. Israel absorbed them, and they were effectively assimilated into Israeli society. In fact, history shows that refugees from any ethnic group over the years were at some point absorbed into society, thus making their status as "refugees" quite temporary--Except for one group -- the "Palestinians". They are the only people who willfully choose to keep their refugee status, thus passing it on from generation to generation.

Arab leaders saw them as propaganda tool. Instead of Arabs absorbing their fellow Arabs, they decided to create an entirely new people called "Palestinian" to act forever as an open challenge to Israel's legitimacy. Through this cynical manipulation, they change the equation from Arabs vs Jews to Palestinians vs Jews, and thus invert the relationship of perceived power. This was sold to the low functioning portion of the left overly eager to support the "little guy" (even, as we have seen in Coyote and others, even if it involves mass murder).

Instead of ARABS vs Jews, it is now sold to leftist antisemites as Jews vs paletinuians


Arab propaganda was aimed at inverting the relationship between David and Goliath, and has been highly successful by turning a disgusting hatred into some sort of virtue..

 

[Boston1]

Those who fled did so for a variety of reasons, true, but the overriding factor was that they were more loyal to the Nazi al Husseini clan than they were the more moderate Nabashiki clan, and were openly hostile to Jews and the establishment of an Israel state in which they were invited to participate freely. They either left at the behest of Arab leadership, left because they were leaving the area to make way for Arab armies or left because they were enemy combatants involved in hostilities.

The moderate and more peaceful Arabs remained in Israel, which now contains over 1 1/2 million of their descendants.

Interestingly enough, a LARGER number of Jews were kicked out of Arab lands. Somehow, the antisemites all fail to acknowledge this fact as they are only interested in persecuting Jews.

Why have the "Palestinians" carried this refugee status for so long without being rehabilitated and absorbed? When Israel was declared a sovereign nation in 1948, nearly one million Jews were evicted from their homes in Arab lands -- countries in which they were born. Where are these "refugees"? Historical record shows that they weren't refugees for long. Israel absorbed them, and they were effectively assimilated into Israeli society. In fact, history shows that refugees from any ethnic group over the years were at some point absorbed into society, thus making their status as "refugees" quite temporary--Except for one group -- the "Palestinians". They are the only people who willfully choose to keep their refugee status, thus passing it on from generation to generation.

Because the entire narrative is pure fiction.

1) There is no such thing as a palestinian, they are all Arab Muslim colonists.

2) There is no such thing as palestine. There is Israel and Jordan with a measure of Gaza thrown in to placate the ignorant masses.

3) There are virtually NO refugees. Oh you might find the occasional octogenarian but this descendants thing is pure crap.

4) The remnant Arab League armies has zero rights under the Geneva Conventions

5) Protected persons lose those protections when they engage in acts hostile to controlling state.

6) Israel has zero legal responsibility or obligation to house or offer citizenship to descendants or non protected persons.

I could go on and on and on but whats the point. The Israel bashers will invent whatever BS they feel like on that particular day.

For instance

This crap about anti Zionist being somehow diverse from anti Israeli. The two are identical. Sniveling on about imaginary offenses presumably given by the Israeli state is nothing more than the usual Israel/Jew bashing.

Might as well just call a bigot a bigot and lose the BS pretenses.

 

[Shusha]

Israel wanted them and they wanted Israel.

Speaking of mythologizing things...this sounds suspiciously like you are justifying the mass explusion and ethnic cleansing of a specific minority ethnic group.

Edited to add: Do you realize that this exact argument is used to justify the persecution of the Jewish people in European and other countries today?

 

[Mindful]

Why have the "Palestinians" carried this refugee status for so long without being rehabilitated and absorbed? When Israel was declared a sovereign nation in 1948, nearly one million Jews were evicted from their homes in Arab lands -- countries in which they were born. Where are these "refugees"? Historical record shows that they weren't refugees for long. Israel absorbed them, and they were effectively assimilated into Israeli society. In fact, history shows that refugees from any ethnic group over the years were at some point absorbed into society, thus making their status as "refugees" quite temporary--Except for one group -- the "Palestinians". They are the only people who willfully choose to keep their refugee status, thus passing it on from generation to generation.

Arab leaders saw them as propaganda tool. Instead of Arabs absorbing their fellow Arabs, they decided to create an entirely new people called "Palestinian" to act forever as an open challenge to Israel's legitimacy. Through this cynical manipulation, they change the equation from Arabs vs Jews to Palestinians vs Jews, and thus invert the relationship of perceived power. This was sold to the low functioning portion of the left overly eager to support the "little guy" (even, as we have seen in Coyote and others, even if it involves mass murder).

Instead of ARABS vs Jews, it is now sold to leftist antisemites as Jews vs paletinuians


Arab propaganda was aimed at inverting the relationship between David and Goliath, and has been highly successful by turning a disgusting hatred into some sort of virtue..

These inconvenient facts and quotes keep cropping up, don't they?


Prior to 1967, no news headlines ever referred to Arabs as "Palestinians". The Middle East conflict was known as the Arab-Israeli Conflict and not the "Palestinian"-Israeli conflict.

During a 1958 interview with Mark Wallace entitled 'The Arab-Israeli Conflict', Abba Eban referred to the Arabs in as such, and there was never an instance when Arabs were referred to by any other name:

 

[Phoenall]

Those who fled did so for a variety of reasons, true, but the overriding factor was that they were more loyal to the Nazi al Husseini clan than they were the more moderate Nabashiki clan, and were openly hostile to Jews and the establishment of an Israel state in which they were invited to participate freely. They either left at the behest of Arab leadership, left because they were leaving the area to make way for Arab armies or left because they were enemy combatants involved in hostilities.

The moderate and more peaceful Arabs remained in Israel, which now contains over 1 1/2 million of their descendants.

Interestingly enough, a LARGER number of Jews were kicked out of Arab lands. Somehow, the antisemites all fail to acknowledge this fact as they are only interested in persecuting Jews.

Why have the "Palestinians" carried this refugee status for so long without being rehabilitated and absorbed? When Israel was declared a sovereign nation in 1948, nearly one million Jews were evicted from their homes in Arab lands -- countries in which they were born. Where are these "refugees"? Historical record shows that they weren't refugees for long. Israel absorbed them, and they were effectively assimilated into Israeli society. In fact, history shows that refugees from any ethnic group over the years were at some point absorbed into society, thus making their status as "refugees" quite temporary--Except for one group -- the "Palestinians". They are the only people who willfully choose to keep their refugee status, thus passing it on from generation to generation.

Israel wanted them and they wanted Israel. Personally, I think they are owed compensation for their losses.

The Palestinians are in a somewhat different category - they don't want to go elsewhere and their situation has never been resolved. Part of it is the Arab politics that refuses them any official status that will allow them move on (other than Jordan who took a huge number). Part of it was Israel's unwillingness early on to allow them to return and the creation of special laws that prevented them from returning and reclaiming property.

I'm not exactly sure they "chose" to keep a refugee status...what are the options for refugees? They are not allowed citizenship in the countries their camps are in, they aren't allowed to work, are they even allowed to immigrate. Their status in Syria was particularly tragic because of ISIS - they lacked documentation and citizenship to escape to other countries.

No mention of the 1 million Jewish refugees that were disenfranchised of their lands and property by the arab muslims. The Palestinians were involved in this and had laws made to stop the Jews from reclaiming their lands, a pity they lost the land and then lost their protection when they tried to steal Jordan and ended up being kicked out of Jordan. If you look at the UNWRA method statement you will see that they were expressly told to find new homes for the few Palestinian refugees that were created by the war started by the arab muslims. The arab muslims decided to use the refugees as a propaganda statement and this led to them increasing in number.

THEY ARE THE ONLY REFUGEES THAT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO ADD MORE TO THEIR NUMBERS OVER THE YEARS. ALL OTHERS ARE NOT SEEN AS REFUGEES WHEN THEY BREED, BUT AS CITIZENS OF THE NATION THEY ARE LIVING IN.

 

[Shusha]

Would you have said that to the Jews who were fighting the British?
What about the French resistance (and the other national resistance movements) fighting Nazi occupation?
What about the countries that rose up against Soviet occupation?
How about the current conflict in Iraq and Syria where ISIS is occupying territory?

Well, remember I reject the idea that a Palestine exists and the idea that this non-existent entity is "occupied". (Yes, I am aware what the international community thinks about that).

An existing nation invading another existing nation is not the same thing as independence movements and fledgling nations. The current conflict is the result of two independence movements in conflict over territory at best, and the anti-semitic rejection of one independence movement, at worst.

There is no occupation because there is no, and has never been any, settlement of which territory actually belongs to which existing or non-existing entity. That is the fundamental dispute. And that dispute can only be resolved through peaceful negotiations.

Unless you are of the mind that Israel has no right to exist. In which case, Israel is the nation with a right to resist its own destruction.

 

[Coyote]

Would you have said that to the Jews who were fighting the British?
What about the French resistance (and the other national resistance movements) fighting Nazi occupation?
What about the countries that rose up against Soviet occupation?
How about the current conflict in Iraq and Syria where ISIS is occupying territory?

Well, remember I reject the idea that a Palestine exists and the idea that this non-existent entity is "occupied". (Yes, I am aware what the international community thinks about that).

An existing nation invading another existing nation is not the same thing as independence movements and fledgling nations. The current conflict is the result of two independence movements in conflict over territory at best, and the anti-semitic rejection of one independence movement, at worst.

I don't quite agree here though...I'll grant I think the IP situation is unique to some degree because of it's origins, and territory that has never been legally resolved.

Most of the Palestinians are resisting Israeli control over territory they had claimed and that later Israel took in a war initiated by the Arabs. I think that is legitimate resistance in the same way as any other resistance movement as long as civilians aren't the target. Now the segment of Palestinians that want to irradicate Israel, that is different - but I'm talking about the ones that have been fighting for a two-state solution. If Israel's independence movement is legitimized but the Palestinians is denied, then it seems to me that the Palestinians are being treated as a seperate class.

There is no occupation because there is no, and has never been any, settlement of which territory actually belongs to which existing or non-existing entity. That is the fundamental dispute. And that dispute can only be resolved through peaceful negotiations.

It's debatable in my opinion. If there is no occupation why are Palestinian minors adjucated under Israeli Military law?

Unless you are of the mind that Israel has no right to exist. In which case, Israel is the nation with a right to resist its own destruction.

Not at all, but I think the Palestinians have a right to resist the Israeli's in what they claim as their territory for the second state. It may benefit them - but it is their right.