Discussion
Grumfutock said:
OK I will skip over the bit where you said "Interestingly I don't think a single poster has addressed the comments made by Ben Gurion either." I apologise as I took "not a single poster" to mean not a single poster.
Are the Nazis relevant to what's happening in Gaza in 2014? I don't think so, perhaps you can explain the relevance?
Ref the HUNDREDS of ex IDF. Can you provide a link to these HUNDREDS of statements and I will happily take a look. Once done I will report back with my thoughts on the relevance.
Addressed does not mean quoted. Many people have quoted the comments on this forum. No one has addressed those quotes/comments. Are the Nazis relevant to what's happening in Gaza in 2014? I don't think so, perhaps you can explain the relevance?
Ref the HUNDREDS of ex IDF. Can you provide a link to these HUNDREDS of statements and I will happily take a look. Once done I will report back with my thoughts on the relevance.
Anyway, I'm not your search b
h so please do your own search re the 100s of statements. Try break the silence dot com and let's see if you believe that's anti Israeli propaganda as well. Out of interest how many ex IDF soldiers' testimonies do you need saying that they thought what Israel is doing is not humane and amounts to terror? 1,10,100?And can you really really not see the relevance of BG's comments to the plight of a generation or 2 of Palestinians, and how it has shaped what Israel is todat? And do you really believe his comments and actions are not relevant to those that lost their land to Zionists? Cause and effect?
Israel was ostensibly formed because of the persecution of Jews in the late 1800s and in the 1900s. The persecutors are dead, Balfour is dead, no doubt most if not all of the UN representatives who recommended a split of Palestine are dead. So are we to return the migrant Jews back because the reasons and authorities that granted them Israel are dead and irrelevant?
When do past actions become irrelevant?
How very bizarre.
Alpinestars said:
Addressed does not mean quoted. Many people have quoted the comments on this forum. No one has addressed those quotes/comments.
Anyway, I'm not your search bh so please do your own search re the 100s of statements. Try break the silence dot com and let's see if you believe that's anti Israeli propaganda as well. Out of interest how many ex IDF soldiers' testimonies do you need saying that they thought what Israel is doing is not humane and amounts to terror? 1,10,100?
Oh OK. We will all just believe you then, no need for links at all. Anyway, I'm not your search b
h so please do your own search re the 100s of statements. Try break the silence dot com and let's see if you believe that's anti Israeli propaganda as well. Out of interest how many ex IDF soldiers' testimonies do you need saying that they thought what Israel is doing is not humane and amounts to terror? 1,10,100? Alpinestars said:
And can you really really not see the relevance of BG's comments to the plight of a generation or 2 of Palestinians, and how it has shaped what Israel is todat? And do you really believe his comments and actions are not relevant to those that lost their land to Zionists? Cause and effect?
Israel was ostensibly formed because of the persecution of Jews in the late 1800s and in the 1900s. The persecutors are dead, Balfour is dead, no doubt most if not all of the UN representatives who recommended a split of Palestine are dead. So are we to return the migrant Jews back because the reasons and authorities that granted them Israel are dead and irrelevant?
When do past actions become irrelevant?
How very bizarre.
You are right. History and past generations are relevant to 2014. Which would you like to discuss first, Judea, The Kingdom of Judah or the Kingdom of Israel? Please pick which one you feel is the most relevant and we can take it from there. Israel was ostensibly formed because of the persecution of Jews in the late 1800s and in the 1900s. The persecutors are dead, Balfour is dead, no doubt most if not all of the UN representatives who recommended a split of Palestine are dead. So are we to return the migrant Jews back because the reasons and authorities that granted them Israel are dead and irrelevant?
When do past actions become irrelevant?
How very bizarre.
Grumfutock said:
You are right. History and past generations are relevant to 2014. Which would you like to discuss first, Judea, The Kingdom of Judah or the Kingdom of Israel? Please pick which one you feel is the most relevant and we can take it from there.
No more questions your Honour. You've highlighted all I needed to know. Thanks. Alpinestars said:
Grumfutock said:
You are right. History and past generations are relevant to 2014. Which would you like to discuss first, Judea, The Kingdom of Judah or the Kingdom of Israel? Please pick which one you feel is the most relevant and we can take it from there.
No more questions your Honour. You've highlighted all I needed to know. Thanks. Taxi for Alpine!
TheRealFingers99 said:
enioldjoe said:
"Effective PR and revisionist historians"
Just a general point but amidst the constant accusations and 'facts' being hurled about from both camps it's worth standing back and considering which of the two sides in this conflict would be more likely to (need to) use PR, revisionism and propaganda and so on to achieve their goal?
The side with the far greater military superiority or the side who cannot reasonably be expected to win a conventional war?
Wouldn't the less powerful militarily be more likely to attempt a 'conceptual genocide' against their enemy, perpetrating a delegitimization of the opponent through 'effective PR and revisionist historians' etc as a forerunner to denying them a future in their land?
The side with least right to the land, surely, would want to use PR? Just a general point but amidst the constant accusations and 'facts' being hurled about from both camps it's worth standing back and considering which of the two sides in this conflict would be more likely to (need to) use PR, revisionism and propaganda and so on to achieve their goal?
The side with the far greater military superiority or the side who cannot reasonably be expected to win a conventional war?
Wouldn't the less powerful militarily be more likely to attempt a 'conceptual genocide' against their enemy, perpetrating a delegitimization of the opponent through 'effective PR and revisionist historians' etc as a forerunner to denying them a future in their land?
Israel could win militarily in a nanosecond (or a couple of months using conventional weapons). It will not because it needs to keep "the West" on side. Hence the slow erosion and the PR budget.
Al Jazeera's documentary on Al Nakba (a Palestinian documentary, but stuffed full of Israeli and Jewish historians) gives good background.
Thanks - but i'll leave the Al Jazeera spiel. I'd be wary of an organisation funded by two radical sheiks who support al qaeda.
avinalarf said:
allnighter said:
avinalarf said:
allnighter said:
ndeed, something in the article reminded me exactly of what's going with the Pro-Israel contributors who won't hesitate to tell lies on here just like Israel's propaganda machine to divert attention from the real issues associated with the conflict.
“Hajo knows that Israel has a long history of abusing the tragic history of the Holocaust in order to suppress legitimate criticism of its own crimes.
“Especially since Gaza, people are no longer taken in by their claim that anyone that criticises Israel is anti-Semitic.”
I was always the one to jump on anyone who displayed a slight tendency to anti-Semitism on here and I did that on at least three occasion in this thread IIRC, and obviously that was deliberately ignored by one poster on here who was allegedly "sure" that I will be happy so long as most Jews are dead.
If these are the kind of punching below the belt debating techniques that are being utilised on here by the likes of Mrr T to obfuscate any criticism directed at Israel, then this proves they are uneasy with the truth and more at ease in their imaginary comfort zone that Israel is the caring mother of all democracies, and the IDF are the little cupids of love and tenderness.
A rather patronising comment.“Hajo knows that Israel has a long history of abusing the tragic history of the Holocaust in order to suppress legitimate criticism of its own crimes.
“Especially since Gaza, people are no longer taken in by their claim that anyone that criticises Israel is anti-Semitic.”
I was always the one to jump on anyone who displayed a slight tendency to anti-Semitism on here and I did that on at least three occasion in this thread IIRC, and obviously that was deliberately ignored by one poster on here who was allegedly "sure" that I will be happy so long as most Jews are dead.
If these are the kind of punching below the belt debating techniques that are being utilised on here by the likes of Mrr T to obfuscate any criticism directed at Israel, then this proves they are uneasy with the truth and more at ease in their imaginary comfort zone that Israel is the caring mother of all democracies, and the IDF are the little cupids of love and tenderness.
That you are not anti Semitic is neither here or there.
I can assure you anti semitism is alive and well and does not require your verification.
Just as prejudice against blacks is stll thriving,and therefore when they comment on their history of slavery,which was abolished many years before the holocaust,do you feel justified to dismiss that history in such a cavalier fashion ?
A) Israel has no right whatsoever to exist as the Israelis are living on confiscated Palestinian land.
B) Israel has a right to exist and thus has a right to defend itself against attack by it's enemies.
Point (a) closes down the debate.
Point (b) leads to a discussion on the amount of force used and whether it is appropriate.
As regards your comment on slavery,one could argue that as Africans and Arabs indulged themselves in selling Africans into slavery that was an excuse for Europeans to act accordingly.
Not an argument I would use but an example of the twisted logic and bias you display.
Once again you choose to ignore the many historical and recent examples where invading forces have removed and/or confiscated land from those already living on it,many in far more savage ways than Israel has employed.
Edited by avinalarf on Monday 25th August 16:42
What on earth are you waffling about? Arabs slaves my twisted logic? You make no sense whatsoever. If someone criticises Israel it does not mean they hate Jews period!
Edited by allnighter on Monday 25th August 23:07
Grumfutock said:
You are right. History and past generations are relevant to 2014. Which would you like to discuss first, Judea, The Kingdom of Judah or the Kingdom of Israel? Please pick which one you feel is the most relevant and we can take it from there.
I'd be happy with "within living memory".
Grumfutock said:
zuby84 said:
Countdown said:
But hopefully with effective PR, combined with revisionist historians, nobody will remember the situation in a hundred years time.
Anyone with any sense knows that this is exactly what Israel's main tact is. Just like how Zionist apologists are quietly sweeping the Zionist terrorists' atrocities in the mid 1900's under the carpet and saying "it's no longer relevant to this current situation." Like I've said before; credit where credit is due - Israel has perhaps staged the biggest PR coup in history over the last 50 years?
enioldjoe said:
Thanks - but i'll leave the Al Jazeera spiel. I'd be wary of an organisation funded by two radical sheiks who support al qaeda.
That doesn't mean it's rubbish. AJ funded it, and it was made by a Palestinian. But there's a lot of documentary footage, decent references, and input by Israeli academics. Funded by Sheiks who support Al Quaida? So that's why the US targeted their reporters?
It's funded by the Quatari ruling family. See here.
Where do you get this rubbish?
Apropos bias:
"On 4 March 2011, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Al Jazeera provided more news coverage than the opinion-driven coverage of American mass media. Most American media outlets declined comment. Michael Clemente of Fox News called the comments "curious", while not directly refuting them. Secretary Clinton's remarks contrast dramatically to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's complaints of bias early in the previous decade. However, Rumsfeld apparently changed his opinion and expressed in 2011 that he was "delighted" by Al Jazeera English." Wikipaedia
Incidentally, Al Jazeera has had "fallings out" with the Israeli government, Hamas and the PA.
enioldjoe said:
Strange how the concept of a 'Palestinian' people' only emerged after the six day war.
Strange indeed. Count Folke Bernadotte, UN Peace Mediator, responsible for rescuing thousands from Nazi concentration camps, murdered by the Stern gang in 1948, refers to Palestinians. The rest is a Meirian myth. Edited by TheRealFingers99 on Monday 25th August 23:08
Edited by TheRealFingers99 on Tuesday 26th August 00:31
Mrr T said:
allnighter said:
Mrr T said:
allnighter said:
Mrr T said:
allnighter said:
forced expulsion and ethnic cleansing of 750,000 Palestinians who ended up as refugees are historical facts and well documented and have nothing to do with genocide, how stupid can you get? Are you really that thick?
Edited by allnighter on Monday 25th August 09:30
I would have said "forced expulsion and ethnic cleaning" would be clearly defined as genocide by Articles 2 of Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Now where did I accuse Israel of "Genocide" when I was talking about the ethnic cleansing of 750,000 Palestinian Arabs from their land who ended up as refugees and were never allowed back to their valleys and farms?
Now are you going to continue to make yourself stupid, or are you going to provide evidence of:
1. Me accusing Israel of "Genocide".
2. Me being happy that all or most Jews were dead.
Give us something with a bit of meat on, or hang your head in shame.
Edited by allnighter on Monday 25th August 15:18
Ok let's give you the benefit of the doubt and try again shall we? Ok GENOCIDE, as per the Convention on genocide means any of the acts committed in examples (a) , (b), (c), (d) or (e) above with INTENT TO DESTROYin whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
EDITED TO MAKE IT EXTRA EXTRA CLEAR FOR YOU:
(a) Killing members of the group; [with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; [with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; [with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. [with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]
Now which part of DESTROY did you miss? I do hope you know what DESTROY means, you know, it involves the actual killing which defines GENOCIDE as in:Annihilate, wipe out, obliterate, eliminate, eradicate, liquidate! It's laughable and stupid to state, according to you, that genocide does not require you to kill when you clearly missed the definition above "INTENT TO DESTROY" in whole or in part a racial group.
I know you are desperate to get out of the hole you put yourself into, but you are chasing your own tail mate. Incidentally, when I mentioned the 750.000 Palestinian Arabs who were evicted from their villages and farms by Zionist terrorists in order to change the demographics for a future state of Israel and make room for newly arrived Jewish immigrants, genocide never crossed my mind because the 750,000 poor sods were not killed or annihilated. They ended up as refugees so it does not fit the description of genocide per se.
However, according to your warped definition of the Convention on Genocide, we have a new meaning for genocide, it does not require any killing involved! Go figure! So you are actually insinuating that Israel actually committed genocide against the Palestinians aren't you? You see you walked straight into that one didn't you? Well done.
Now that you have been asked repeatedly to provide evidence to support your accusations against me for attributing the term genocide to Israel, and my desire to see most Jews dead, and you have failed so far to back up your deliberate lies, are you actually going to apologise? Or will you continue to make yourself look even more stupid? The ball is in your court. Your call!
Edited by allnighter on Tuesday 26th August 00:19
zuby84 said:
Hang on, is Mrr T arguing that Israel has committed genocide or it hasn't? I'm confused.
He started by accusing me of stating that Israel has committed genocide, which everyone who read my numerous posts so far knows it's a lie. According to his (weird) interpretation of the Convention on Genocide, genocide does not require any killing, so therefore he is confirming that the 750,000 poor buggers who were expelled from their villages were victims of genocide, even though they were still alive and living in refugee camps. He tried to trap me, but he ended up trapping himself.allnighter said:
e started by accusing me of stating that Israel has committed genocide, which everyone who read my numerous posts so far knows it's a lie. According to his (weird) interpretation of the Convention on Genocide, genocide does not require any killing, so therefore he is confirming that the 750,000 poor buggers who were expelled from their villages were victims of genocide, even though they were still alive and living in refugee camps. He tried to trap me, but he ended up trapping himself.
So, Mrr T is supporting a country who participates in what he calls genocide (as per his own definition)?enioldjoe said:
As anyone can read for themselves, no 'bashing' was intended and no inflammatory language was used. You chose to use the term 'bashing'.
You are of course correct when you say it's about land though. I'll add , it's about Holy land. And Islam *has* to get it back.
I'm an agnostic, and I will happily agree with anyone who wants to have a go at religion in principle, but I did not wish for this thread to turn into atheists V religionists war.That's all.You are of course correct when you say it's about land though. I'll add , it's about Holy land. And Islam *has* to get it back.
I was preventing a diversion, not creating one. I do not see the point in you going back 100s of pages just to dig out a small point of order I raised politely with a poster who was polite back to me? What's your beef?
Edited by allnighter on Tuesday 26th August 00:24
zuby84 said:
allnighter said:
e started by accusing me of stating that Israel has committed genocide, which everyone who read my numerous posts so far knows it's a lie. According to his (weird) interpretation of the Convention on Genocide, genocide does not require any killing, so therefore he is confirming that the 750,000 poor buggers who were expelled from their villages were victims of genocide, even though they were still alive and living in refugee camps. He tried to trap me, but he ended up trapping himself.
So, Mrr T is supporting a country who participates in what he calls genocide (as per his own definition)?Alpinestars said:
Grumfutock said:
OK I will skip over the bit where you said "Interestingly I don't think a single poster has addressed the comments made by Ben Gurion either." I apologise as I took "not a single poster" to mean not a single poster.
Are the Nazis relevant to what's happening in Gaza in 2014? I don't think so, perhaps you can explain the relevance?
Ref the HUNDREDS of ex IDF. Can you provide a link to these HUNDREDS of statements and I will happily take a look. Once done I will report back with my thoughts on the relevance.
Addressed does not mean quoted. Many people have quoted the comments on this forum. No one has addressed those quotes/comments. Are the Nazis relevant to what's happening in Gaza in 2014? I don't think so, perhaps you can explain the relevance?
Ref the HUNDREDS of ex IDF. Can you provide a link to these HUNDREDS of statements and I will happily take a look. Once done I will report back with my thoughts on the relevance.
Anyway, I'm not your search b
h so please do your own search re the 100s of statements. Try break the silence dot com and let's see if you believe that's anti Israeli propaganda as well. Out of interest how many ex IDF soldiers' testimonies do you need saying that they thought what Israel is doing is not humane and amounts to terror? 1,10,100?And can you really really not see the relevance of BG's comments to the plight of a generation or 2 of Palestinians, and how it has shaped what Israel is todat? And do you really believe his comments and actions are not relevant to those that lost their land to Zionists? Cause and effect?
Israel was ostensibly formed because of the persecution of Jews in the late 1800s and in the 1900s. The persecutors are dead, Balfour is dead, no doubt most if not all of the UN representatives who recommended a split of Palestine are dead. So are we to return the migrant Jews back because the reasons and authorities that granted them Israel are dead and irrelevant?
When do past actions become irrelevant?
How very bizarre.
allnighter said:
3
Indeed. Ethnic cleansing in this case is the systematic and forced removal of the members of an ethnic group from communities in order to change the ethnic composition of a given region.
This begs the question what do pro-Israel revisionists think Zionism is? If they wish to pass Zionism off as an inclusive ideology, then why were the Zionists so adamantly against the refugees right of return? They know as well as Ben-Gurion did and Benny Morris does, that the Jewish State does not want Arabs.
So, why are the ardent pro-Israel camp on here trying to hide what the beloved founding father Ben-Gurion said, wrote and wished? Is it a case of sweeping it under the carpet, exercise some "damage control negationism" in line with the holocaust negationists, because this is what it looks like when you deny the ethnic cleansing that was implemented through the Dalet Plan and lasted six month. At the end of the period more than half of Palestine’s native population, over 750,000 people, had been uprooted, 531 villages had been destroyed, and 11 urban neighbourhoods had been emptied of their inhabitants.
Here's the original David Ben-Gurion letter for those who can read Hebrew:
http://palestine-studies.org/files/hebrelett.pdf
The letter is like a rallying cry revealing that he won't be satisfied with anything less than the whole of Israel being Jewish.(My bold)
“The establishment of a state, even if only on a portion of the land, is the maximal reinforcement of our strength at the present time and a powerful boost to our historical endeavors to liberate the entire country.”
And in case you are reading something else in Ben-Gurion's vision as total harmony between Arabs and Jews, check my bold in the text above to remedy you of such delusions:
“What we really want is not that the land remain whole and unified. What we want is that the whole and unified land be Jewish [emphasis original]. A unified Eretz Israeli would be no source of satisfaction for me— if it were Arab.”
It would be interesting to see if anyone[excluding revisionists and ardent Zionists on here] can read the original letter in Hebrew so as to check that the translation in English has been faithful and correct. I will keep an open mind on this.
ETA: The bold text is not cooperating with me today.
Alpinestars said:
franki68 said:
no,of course arabs were displaced,as I mentioned previously some were forced out,some left through fear ,some left because the arab league told them too,and some didnt leave.The use of the word cleansing though is odious,has it been applied to any other displaced population ? And they are not the indigenous people.It is a land that has been conquered many times and had massive immigration into it at many points throughout history .
the palestinians have claimed to be descended from the philistines (I think someone referred to that on this thread earlier) ,but since it was pointed out the philistines were actually greek/cypriot invaders ,the palestinians now try to claim they were descendants of the caanites.
the oNly constant has been a near continual jewish presence for 3000 years.
may I suggest some research on the dna shared between those palestinians who have long ties to israel and the jews ,it suggests that they are descended from jews ,its actually something both sides agree on...keeping quiet.It suits neither side to admit to it,but it is an interesting area of research.
Ok let's not call it ethnic cleansing. Call it what you will. But you accept that some of the population was forced out by terror.the palestinians have claimed to be descended from the philistines (I think someone referred to that on this thread earlier) ,but since it was pointed out the philistines were actually greek/cypriot invaders ,the palestinians now try to claim they were descendants of the caanites.
the oNly constant has been a near continual jewish presence for 3000 years.
may I suggest some research on the dna shared between those palestinians who have long ties to israel and the jews ,it suggests that they are descended from jews ,its actually something both sides agree on...keeping quiet.It suits neither side to admit to it,but it is an interesting area of research.
This begs the question what do pro-Israel revisionists think Zionism is? If they wish to pass Zionism off as an inclusive ideology, then why were the Zionists so adamantly against the refugees right of return? They know as well as Ben-Gurion did and Benny Morris does, that the Jewish State does not want Arabs.
So, why are the ardent pro-Israel camp on here trying to hide what the beloved founding father Ben-Gurion said, wrote and wished? Is it a case of sweeping it under the carpet, exercise some "damage control negationism" in line with the holocaust negationists, because this is what it looks like when you deny the ethnic cleansing that was implemented through the Dalet Plan and lasted six month. At the end of the period more than half of Palestine’s native population, over 750,000 people, had been uprooted, 531 villages had been destroyed, and 11 urban neighbourhoods had been emptied of their inhabitants.
Here's the original David Ben-Gurion letter for those who can read Hebrew:
http://palestine-studies.org/files/hebrelett.pdf
David Ben-Gurion said:
5 October 1937
Dear Amos,
I was not angry at you, but I was very sorry indeed that there was no reply from
you. I cannot accept the excuse that you have no time. I know you have a lot of
work at school, in the field, and at home, and I am happy that you are so
preoccupied with your studies. But it is always possible to find free time if
necessary, not only on Sabbath days but even during weekdays. Your excuse that I
keep moving from one country to another is not convincing. You can write to me
in London. Here they [the Jewish Agency office] always know where I am, and
they are efficient in forwarding my mail. As to the question of my membership in
the executive committee [of the Jewish Agency], I shall explain to you in person if
I meet you in Tel Aviv upon my return. Here what I want to talk about is the
conflict you are experiencing between your reason and your emotions with regard
to the question of the state. Political matters should not be a question of emotions.
The only thing that should be taken into account is what we want and what is best
for us, what will lead to the objective, and which are the policies that will make us
succeed and which will make us fail.
It seems to me that I, too, have "emotions" [quotation marks in original. Hebrew:
regesh]. Without these emotions I would not have been able to endure decades of
our hard work. It definitely does not hurt my feelings [regesh] that a state is
established, even if it is small.
Of course the partition of the country gives me no pleasure. But the country that
they [the Royal (Peel) Commission] are partitioning is not in our actual possession;
it is in the possession of the Arabs and the English. What is in our actual
possession is a small portion, less than what they [the Peel Commission] are
proposing for a Jewish state. If I were an Arab I would have been very indignant.
But in this proposed partition we will get more than what we already have, though
of course much less than we merit and desire. The question is: would we obtain
more without partition? If things were to remain as they are [emphasis in original],
would this satisfy our feelings? [b]What we really want is not that the land remain
whole and unified. What we want is that the whole and unified land be Jewish
(emphasis original). A unified Eretz Israeli would be no source of satisfaction for
me-- if it were Arab.[/b]
From our standpoint, the status quo is deadly poison. We want to change the status
quo [emphasis original]. But how can this change come about? How can this land
become ours? The decisive question is: Does the establishment of a Jewish state
[in only part of Palestine] advance or retard the conversion of this country into a
Jewish country?
My assumption (which is why I am a fervent proponent of a state, even though it is
now linked to partition) is that a Jewish state on only part of the land is not the end
but the beginning.
When we acquire one thousand or 10,000 dunams, we feel elated. It does not hurt
our feelings that by this acquisition we are not in possession of the whole land.
This is because this increase in possession is of consequence not only in itself, but
because through it we increase our strength, and every increase in strength helps in
the possession of the land as a whole.
[b]The establishment of a state, even if only on a portion of the land, is the maximal reinforcement of our strength at the present
time and a powerful boost to our historical endeavors to liberate the entire country.[/b]
We shall admit into the state all the Jews we can. We firmly believe that we can
admit more than two million Jews. We shall build a multi-faceted Jewish
economy-- agricultural, industrial, and maritime. We shall organize an advanced
defense force—a superior army which I have no doubt will be one of the best
armies in the world. At that point I am confident that we would not fail in settling
in the remaining parts of the country, through agreement and understanding with
our Arab neighbors, or through some other means.
We must always keep in mind the fundamental truths that make our settlement of
this land imperative and possible. They are two or three: it is not the British
3
Mandate nor the Balfour Declaration. These are consequences, not causes. They
are the products of coincidence: contingent, ephemeral, and they will come to an
end. They were not inevitable. They could not have occurred but for the World
War, or rather, they would not have occurred if the war had not ended the way it
did.
But on the other hand there are fundamental [emphasis original] historical truths,
unalterable as long as Zionism is not fully realized. These are:
1) The pressure of the Exile, which continues to push the Jews with propulsive
force towards the country
2) Palestine is grossly under populated. It contains vast colonization potential
which the Arabs neither need nor are qualified (because of their lack of
need) to exploit. There is no Arab immigration problem. There is no Arab
exile. Arabs are not persecuted. They have a homeland, and it is vast.
3) The innovative talents of the Jews (a consequence of point 1 above), their
ability to make the desert bloom, to create industry, to build an economy, to
develop culture, to conquer the sea and space with the help of science and
pioneering endeavor.
These three fundamental truths will be reinforced by the existence of a Jewish state
in a part of the country, just as Zionism will be reinforced by every conquest, large
or small, every school, every factory, every Jewish ship, etc.
Our ability to penetrate the country will increase if we have a state. Our strength
vis-à-vis the Arabs will likewise increase. The possibilities for construction and
multiplication will speedily expand. The greater the Jewish strength in the
country, the more the Arabs will realize that it is neither beneficial nor possible for
them to withstand us. On the contrary, it will be possible for the Arabs to benefit
enormously from the Jews, not only materially but politically as well.
I do not dream of war nor do I like it. But I still believe, more than I did before the
emergence of the possibility of a Jewish state, that once we are numerous and
powerful in the country the Arabs will realize that it is better for them to become
our allies.
4
They will derive benefits from our assistance if they, of their own free will, give us
the opportunity to settle in all parts of the country. The Arabs have many countries
that are under-populated, underdeveloped, and vulnerable, incapable with their
own strength to stand up to their external enemies. Without France, Syria could not
last for one day against an onslaught from Turkey. The same applies to Iraq and to
the new [Palestinian] state [under the Peel plan]. All of these stand in need of the
protection of France or Britain. This need for protection means subjugation and
dependence on the other. But the Jews could be equal allies, real friends, not
occupiers or tyrants over them.
Let us assume that the Negev will not be allotted to the Jewish state. In such event,
the Negev will remain barren because the Arabs have neither the competence nor
the need to develop it or make it prosper. They already have an abundance of
deserts but not of manpower, financial resources, or creative initiative. It is very
probable that they will agree that we undertake the development of the Negev and
make it prosper in return for our financial, military, organizational, and scientific
assistance. It is also possible that they will not agree. People don’t always behave
according to logic, common sense, or their own practical advantage. Just as you
yourself are sometimes split conflicted between your mind and your emotions, it is
possible that the Arabs will follow the dictates of sterile nationalist emotions and
tell us: “We want neither your honey nor your sting. We’d rather that the Negev
remain barren than that Jews should inhabit it.” If this occurs, we will have to talk
to them in a different language—and we will have a different language—but such a
language will not be ours without a state. This is so because we can no longer
tolerate that vast territories capable of absorbing tens of thousands of Jews should
remain vacant, and that Jews cannot return to their homeland because the Arabs
prefer that the place [the Negev] remains neither ours nor theirs. [b]We must expel
Arabs and take their place[/b]. Up to now, all our aspirations have been based on an
assumption – one that has been vindicated throughout our activities in the country
– that there is enough room in the land for the Arabs and ourselves. But if we are
compelled to use force – not in order to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev or
Transjordan, but in order to guarantee our right to settle there – our force will
enable us to do so.
Clearly in such event we will have to deal not only with the Arabs living in Eretz
Israel, since it is very probable that Arabs from the neighboring countries will
come to their aid. But our power will be greater, not only because we will be better
organized and equipped, but also because behind us stands a force still greater in
quantity and quality. This is the reservoir of the millions in the Diaspora. Our
entire younger generation of Poland, Romania, America, and other countries will
rush to our aid at the outbreak of such a conflict. I pray to God that this does not
happen at all. Nevertheless the Jewish state will not rely only on the Jews living in
it, but on the Jewish people living in every corner of the world: the many millions
who are eager and obliged [emphasis original] to settle in Palestine. There are not
millions of Arabs who are compelled or willing to settle in Palestine. Of course it
is likely that Arab adventurers and gangs will come from Syria or Iraq or other
Arab countries, but these can be no match for the tens and hundreds of thousands
of young Jews to whom Eretz Israel is not merely an emotional issue, but one that
is in equal measure both personal and national.
For this reason I attach enormous importance to the conquest of the sea and the
construction of a Jewish harbor and a Jewish fleet. The sea is the bridge between
the Jews of this country and the Jewish Diaspora – the millions of Jews in different
parts of the world. We must create the conditions that will enable us in times of
necessity to bring into the country in our own ships manned by our own seamen,
tens of thousands of young men. Meanwhile we must prepare these young men
while they are still in the Diaspora for whatever task awaits them here.
I am confident that the establishment of a Jewish state, even if it is only in a part of
the country, will enable us to carry out this task. Once a state is established, we
shall have control over the Eretz Israeli sea. Our activities in the sea will then
include astonishing achievements.
Because of all the above, I feel no conflict between my mind and emotions. Both
declare to me: A Jewish state must be established immediately, even if it is only in
part of the country. The rest will follow in the course of time. A Jewish state will
come.
My warm greetings [Hebrew: Shalom Rav].
When do you return to Kadoorie [agricultural school]? Write to me. Show this
letter to your mother and sisters.
Dear Amos,
I was not angry at you, but I was very sorry indeed that there was no reply from
you. I cannot accept the excuse that you have no time. I know you have a lot of
work at school, in the field, and at home, and I am happy that you are so
preoccupied with your studies. But it is always possible to find free time if
necessary, not only on Sabbath days but even during weekdays. Your excuse that I
keep moving from one country to another is not convincing. You can write to me
in London. Here they [the Jewish Agency office] always know where I am, and
they are efficient in forwarding my mail. As to the question of my membership in
the executive committee [of the Jewish Agency], I shall explain to you in person if
I meet you in Tel Aviv upon my return. Here what I want to talk about is the
conflict you are experiencing between your reason and your emotions with regard
to the question of the state. Political matters should not be a question of emotions.
The only thing that should be taken into account is what we want and what is best
for us, what will lead to the objective, and which are the policies that will make us
succeed and which will make us fail.
It seems to me that I, too, have "emotions" [quotation marks in original. Hebrew:
regesh]. Without these emotions I would not have been able to endure decades of
our hard work. It definitely does not hurt my feelings [regesh] that a state is
established, even if it is small.
Of course the partition of the country gives me no pleasure. But the country that
they [the Royal (Peel) Commission] are partitioning is not in our actual possession;
it is in the possession of the Arabs and the English. What is in our actual
possession is a small portion, less than what they [the Peel Commission] are
proposing for a Jewish state. If I were an Arab I would have been very indignant.
But in this proposed partition we will get more than what we already have, though
of course much less than we merit and desire. The question is: would we obtain
more without partition? If things were to remain as they are [emphasis in original],
would this satisfy our feelings? [b]What we really want is not that the land remain
whole and unified. What we want is that the whole and unified land be Jewish
(emphasis original). A unified Eretz Israeli would be no source of satisfaction for
me-- if it were Arab.[/b]
From our standpoint, the status quo is deadly poison. We want to change the status
quo [emphasis original]. But how can this change come about? How can this land
become ours? The decisive question is: Does the establishment of a Jewish state
[in only part of Palestine] advance or retard the conversion of this country into a
Jewish country?
My assumption (which is why I am a fervent proponent of a state, even though it is
now linked to partition) is that a Jewish state on only part of the land is not the end
but the beginning.
When we acquire one thousand or 10,000 dunams, we feel elated. It does not hurt
our feelings that by this acquisition we are not in possession of the whole land.
This is because this increase in possession is of consequence not only in itself, but
because through it we increase our strength, and every increase in strength helps in
the possession of the land as a whole.
[b]The establishment of a state, even if only on a portion of the land, is the maximal reinforcement of our strength at the present
time and a powerful boost to our historical endeavors to liberate the entire country.[/b]
We shall admit into the state all the Jews we can. We firmly believe that we can
admit more than two million Jews. We shall build a multi-faceted Jewish
economy-- agricultural, industrial, and maritime. We shall organize an advanced
defense force—a superior army which I have no doubt will be one of the best
armies in the world. At that point I am confident that we would not fail in settling
in the remaining parts of the country, through agreement and understanding with
our Arab neighbors, or through some other means.
We must always keep in mind the fundamental truths that make our settlement of
this land imperative and possible. They are two or three: it is not the British
3
Mandate nor the Balfour Declaration. These are consequences, not causes. They
are the products of coincidence: contingent, ephemeral, and they will come to an
end. They were not inevitable. They could not have occurred but for the World
War, or rather, they would not have occurred if the war had not ended the way it
did.
But on the other hand there are fundamental [emphasis original] historical truths,
unalterable as long as Zionism is not fully realized. These are:
1) The pressure of the Exile, which continues to push the Jews with propulsive
force towards the country
2) Palestine is grossly under populated. It contains vast colonization potential
which the Arabs neither need nor are qualified (because of their lack of
need) to exploit. There is no Arab immigration problem. There is no Arab
exile. Arabs are not persecuted. They have a homeland, and it is vast.
3) The innovative talents of the Jews (a consequence of point 1 above), their
ability to make the desert bloom, to create industry, to build an economy, to
develop culture, to conquer the sea and space with the help of science and
pioneering endeavor.
These three fundamental truths will be reinforced by the existence of a Jewish state
in a part of the country, just as Zionism will be reinforced by every conquest, large
or small, every school, every factory, every Jewish ship, etc.
Our ability to penetrate the country will increase if we have a state. Our strength
vis-à-vis the Arabs will likewise increase. The possibilities for construction and
multiplication will speedily expand. The greater the Jewish strength in the
country, the more the Arabs will realize that it is neither beneficial nor possible for
them to withstand us. On the contrary, it will be possible for the Arabs to benefit
enormously from the Jews, not only materially but politically as well.
I do not dream of war nor do I like it. But I still believe, more than I did before the
emergence of the possibility of a Jewish state, that once we are numerous and
powerful in the country the Arabs will realize that it is better for them to become
our allies.
4
They will derive benefits from our assistance if they, of their own free will, give us
the opportunity to settle in all parts of the country. The Arabs have many countries
that are under-populated, underdeveloped, and vulnerable, incapable with their
own strength to stand up to their external enemies. Without France, Syria could not
last for one day against an onslaught from Turkey. The same applies to Iraq and to
the new [Palestinian] state [under the Peel plan]. All of these stand in need of the
protection of France or Britain. This need for protection means subjugation and
dependence on the other. But the Jews could be equal allies, real friends, not
occupiers or tyrants over them.
Let us assume that the Negev will not be allotted to the Jewish state. In such event,
the Negev will remain barren because the Arabs have neither the competence nor
the need to develop it or make it prosper. They already have an abundance of
deserts but not of manpower, financial resources, or creative initiative. It is very
probable that they will agree that we undertake the development of the Negev and
make it prosper in return for our financial, military, organizational, and scientific
assistance. It is also possible that they will not agree. People don’t always behave
according to logic, common sense, or their own practical advantage. Just as you
yourself are sometimes split conflicted between your mind and your emotions, it is
possible that the Arabs will follow the dictates of sterile nationalist emotions and
tell us: “We want neither your honey nor your sting. We’d rather that the Negev
remain barren than that Jews should inhabit it.” If this occurs, we will have to talk
to them in a different language—and we will have a different language—but such a
language will not be ours without a state. This is so because we can no longer
tolerate that vast territories capable of absorbing tens of thousands of Jews should
remain vacant, and that Jews cannot return to their homeland because the Arabs
prefer that the place [the Negev] remains neither ours nor theirs. [b]We must expel
Arabs and take their place[/b]. Up to now, all our aspirations have been based on an
assumption – one that has been vindicated throughout our activities in the country
– that there is enough room in the land for the Arabs and ourselves. But if we are
compelled to use force – not in order to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev or
Transjordan, but in order to guarantee our right to settle there – our force will
enable us to do so.
Clearly in such event we will have to deal not only with the Arabs living in Eretz
Israel, since it is very probable that Arabs from the neighboring countries will
come to their aid. But our power will be greater, not only because we will be better
organized and equipped, but also because behind us stands a force still greater in
quantity and quality. This is the reservoir of the millions in the Diaspora. Our
entire younger generation of Poland, Romania, America, and other countries will
rush to our aid at the outbreak of such a conflict. I pray to God that this does not
happen at all. Nevertheless the Jewish state will not rely only on the Jews living in
it, but on the Jewish people living in every corner of the world: the many millions
who are eager and obliged [emphasis original] to settle in Palestine. There are not
millions of Arabs who are compelled or willing to settle in Palestine. Of course it
is likely that Arab adventurers and gangs will come from Syria or Iraq or other
Arab countries, but these can be no match for the tens and hundreds of thousands
of young Jews to whom Eretz Israel is not merely an emotional issue, but one that
is in equal measure both personal and national.
For this reason I attach enormous importance to the conquest of the sea and the
construction of a Jewish harbor and a Jewish fleet. The sea is the bridge between
the Jews of this country and the Jewish Diaspora – the millions of Jews in different
parts of the world. We must create the conditions that will enable us in times of
necessity to bring into the country in our own ships manned by our own seamen,
tens of thousands of young men. Meanwhile we must prepare these young men
while they are still in the Diaspora for whatever task awaits them here.
I am confident that the establishment of a Jewish state, even if it is only in a part of
the country, will enable us to carry out this task. Once a state is established, we
shall have control over the Eretz Israeli sea. Our activities in the sea will then
include astonishing achievements.
Because of all the above, I feel no conflict between my mind and emotions. Both
declare to me: A Jewish state must be established immediately, even if it is only in
part of the country. The rest will follow in the course of time. A Jewish state will
come.
My warm greetings [Hebrew: Shalom Rav].
When do you return to Kadoorie [agricultural school]? Write to me. Show this
letter to your mother and sisters.
The letter is like a rallying cry revealing that he won't be satisfied with anything less than the whole of Israel being Jewish.(My bold)
“The establishment of a state, even if only on a portion of the land, is the maximal reinforcement of our strength at the present time and a powerful boost to our historical endeavors to liberate the entire country.”
And in case you are reading something else in Ben-Gurion's vision as total harmony between Arabs and Jews, check my bold in the text above to remedy you of such delusions:
“What we really want is not that the land remain whole and unified. What we want is that the whole and unified land be Jewish [emphasis original]. A unified Eretz Israeli would be no source of satisfaction for me— if it were Arab.”
It would be interesting to see if anyone[excluding revisionists and ardent Zionists on here] can read the original letter in Hebrew so as to check that the translation in English has been faithful and correct. I will keep an open mind on this.
ETA: The bold text is not cooperating with me today.
Edited by allnighter on Saturday 2nd August 12:56
TheRealFingers99 said:
Grumfutock said:
You are right. History and past generations are relevant to 2014. Which would you like to discuss first, Judea, The Kingdom of Judah or the Kingdom of Israel? Please pick which one you feel is the most relevant and we can take it from there.
I'd be happy with "within living memory"."Israel was ostensibly formed because of the persecution of Jews in the late 1800s and in the 1900s. The persecutors are dead, Balfour is dead, no doubt most if not all of the UN representatives who recommended a split of Palestine are dead. So are we to return the migrant Jews back because the reasons and authorities that granted them Israel are dead and irrelevant?"
allnighter said:
It just gets better and better debating with you. The convention on Genocide which I copied went straight over your head mate.I tried to help you out with my bold but you're still blind to it! It's just incredible! I seriously do not know whether you have a serious problem interpreting texts or you are playing silly games with me.
Ok let's give you the benefit of the doubt and try again shall we? Ok GENOCIDE, as per the Convention on genocide means any of the acts committed in examples (a) , (b), (c), (d) or (e) above with INTENT TO DESTROYin whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
EDITED TO MAKE IT EXTRA EXTRA CLEAR FOR YOU:
(a) Killing members of the group; [with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; [with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; [with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. [with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]
Now which part of DESTROY did you miss? I do hope you know what DESTROY means, you know, it involves the actual killing which defines GENOCIDE as in:Annihilate, wipe out, obliterate, eliminate, eradicate, liquidate! It's laughable and stupid to state, according to you, that genocide does not require you to kill when you clearly missed the definition above "INTENT TO DESTROY" in whole or in part a racial group.
I know you are desperate to get out of the hole you put yourself into, but you are chasing your own tail mate. Incidentally, when I mentioned the 750.000 Palestinian Arabs who were evicted from their villages and farms by Zionist terrorists in order to change the demographics for a future state of Israel and make room for newly arrived Jewish immigrants, genocide never crossed my mind because the 750,000 poor sods were not killed or annihilated. They ended up as refugees so it does not fit the description of genocide per se.
However, according to your warped definition of the Convention on Genocide, we have a new meaning for genocide, it does not require any killing involved! Go figure! So you are actually insinuating that Israel actually committed genocide against the Palestinians aren't you? You see you walked straight into that one didn't you? Well done.
Now that you have been asked repeatedly to provide evidence to support your accusations against me for attributing the term genocide to Israel, and my desire to see most Jews dead, and you have failed so far to back up your deliberate lies, are you actually going to apologise? Or will you continue to make yourself look even more stupid? The ball is in your court. Your call!
For anyone interested the arcane argument I am having with Allnighter a summary is below.Ok let's give you the benefit of the doubt and try again shall we? Ok GENOCIDE, as per the Convention on genocide means any of the acts committed in examples (a) , (b), (c), (d) or (e) above with INTENT TO DESTROYin whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
EDITED TO MAKE IT EXTRA EXTRA CLEAR FOR YOU:
(a) Killing members of the group; [with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; [with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; [with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. [with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]
Now which part of DESTROY did you miss? I do hope you know what DESTROY means, you know, it involves the actual killing which defines GENOCIDE as in:Annihilate, wipe out, obliterate, eliminate, eradicate, liquidate! It's laughable and stupid to state, according to you, that genocide does not require you to kill when you clearly missed the definition above "INTENT TO DESTROY" in whole or in part a racial group.
I know you are desperate to get out of the hole you put yourself into, but you are chasing your own tail mate. Incidentally, when I mentioned the 750.000 Palestinian Arabs who were evicted from their villages and farms by Zionist terrorists in order to change the demographics for a future state of Israel and make room for newly arrived Jewish immigrants, genocide never crossed my mind because the 750,000 poor sods were not killed or annihilated. They ended up as refugees so it does not fit the description of genocide per se.
However, according to your warped definition of the Convention on Genocide, we have a new meaning for genocide, it does not require any killing involved! Go figure! So you are actually insinuating that Israel actually committed genocide against the Palestinians aren't you? You see you walked straight into that one didn't you? Well done.
Now that you have been asked repeatedly to provide evidence to support your accusations against me for attributing the term genocide to Israel, and my desire to see most Jews dead, and you have failed so far to back up your deliberate lies, are you actually going to apologise? Or will you continue to make yourself look even more stupid? The ball is in your court. Your call!
Edited by allnighter on Tuesday 26th August 00:19
allnighter said:
He started by accusing me of stating that Israel has committed genocide, which everyone who read my numerous posts so far knows it's a lie. According to his (weird) interpretation of the Convention on Genocide, genocide does not require any killing, so therefore he is confirming that the 750,000 poor buggers who were expelled from their villages were victims of genocide, even though they were still alive and living in refugee camps. He tried to trap me, but he ended up trapping himself.
Your argument is despite using the word “killing” in section a) using the words “destroy” elsewhere still mean killing.I do not have time for a web forum argument to research if there are any cases which aid with the analysis.My own view is the treaty would have been drafted by legal draftsmen (and women) who would be very accurate in their use of words.
So I would suggest:
a)If they had intended to include only an action which included killing the clauses would have said so.
b)That clause a) includes the word “killing” but the others do not is not accidental.
c)Destroy does not mean killing alone it has a much wider definition.
d)If destroy had to include killing then you only need clause a) the rest are redundant.
In my view forcible removing a population for its home, (now be careful I am not saying Israel did that), that was your accusation. Would be in breach of clause b) and c) even if they did not kill anyone.
A quick google search shows others hold the same view.
http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocide/whatisit.htm...
Lets also be clear this is my opinion. You are entitled to hold a completely different opinion.
I will also refrain from calling you a cretin, an idiot, and the various other insult you so love to direct at posters who disagree with you.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff