Skip to main content

View Diary: The case against Zionism, a historical perspective part 1. (162 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  2 things (0+ / 0-)

    Firstly,

    What is the hope for the future? Unfortunately I don't see much of a way out.  The Palestinians were in 2000 willing to accept as a settlement 33 percent of what was there's before the european colonialists arrived, which was rejected.

    Are you referring to when Ehud Barak offered 97.5 percent, and Arafat turned him down?

    Also, what is the point of this post? Because you feel the Israelis had no claim to the land 55 years ago, we should give it up??
    Should Americans promptly be giving up all Native American land that too was stolen from them?

    I can't see peace happening until zionism as a philosophy is defeated, and I don't see that happening this century.  

    When on one side is Zionism and on another side is a philosophy that has leaders that support targeting innocents on purpose (Hamas, Hezbollah) to accomplish its goals, I choose zionism.

    •  'Zionism' does not equal 'Israel' (7+ / 0-)

      I'd hope that everyone here hopes for the ideal of an Israeli state, a Palestinian state...and especially, a free Lebanon. The Lebanese are the forgotten victims here...they're neither oppressor nor instigator, but they get the shit from Israel on one side, and Iran and Syria on the other. To their credit, I guess, they've been pretty long-suffering.

      Anyway, rejecting Zionism is a great idea. Zionism is the flip-side of the old racisms. Israel is a mature nation-state, and it needn't depend on outmoded ideas that we're based on their rejection from Europe.

    •  The Palestinian position (6+ / 0-)

      is that their state should occupy all the territory between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.  Accepting the Camp David formula, which Arafat did at Camp David, acknowledged Israeli sovereignty over its own part of that territory, which accounts for something like 74% of it.

      Now, you may not like the Palestinian position, but it is one they have held consistently since the state of Israel was proclaimed in 1947.  That they have modified their position is a historical fact.  It's sad that you continue to mouth mindless zionist talking points that have no basis in what actually happened at Camp David.

      See my diary for an in-depth discussion of the Camp David process, and for links to further reading.

      •  You missed my point. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Inky, Euroliberal, JayBat

        my point was that the PLO was willing to comprimise, by only asking for the 33 percent of what was thier's before the colonialists arrived backed by the british army.  I think it was the right move to comprimise, instead of going on forever in a struggle to try and get it all back. My point was clearly(or maybe not that clear) THat the palestinians had already comprimised a great deal.

        •  I think I got your point (5+ / 0-)

          and I was trying to back it up.  I'm not sure about the 33% figure, because as I understand it accepting a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza would only give them about 25% of historical Palestine -- but in 2000 they were willing to do that.

          There's a slander out there that Arafat walked away from a great deal at Camp David.  It's simply not true -- offered compromised a tremendous amount at Camp David, although unfortunately for a lot of different reasons it was impossible to reach a final agreement.

          But the process didn't end there. Clinton made an offer in December 2000 that built off the agreements already reached at Camp David in July, and that offer became the foundation for the nearly successful talks at Taba in January 2001.  Taba failed because Barak had little authority as a lame duck prime minister, and Sharon came in with the desire to scuttle the peace process.

    •  why choose a side? (5+ / 0-)

      I think you missed the point.  As I said, Araft asked for 33 percent of what was there's before The European colonialists arrived, As far as land goes. But Israel insisted on keeping exclusive jewish roads, control over the palestinain borders, and exclusive jewish settlements within thier terrority.    

      Im glad you made the comparison between Native American's/ Palestinians.  The difference is Native americans have the same legal rights as Americans(plus affirmative action). THe laws in Israel still discriminate against palestinians, for example in 1989 the Israeli supereme court said any party fielding candidtates asking for equality of rights between arabs/israeli's can be banned.  

      I am opposed to Hamas and hezbollah for the reasons you stated, but I disgree that Israel does not target civillians.   Occupying territory targets civillians. destroying water purification by knocking out the electricity targets civillians, killing small children.  Israeli clearly believes in the philosophy of collective punishment. not allowing refugees to return targets civillains.  

      And why must you choose a side? Do we have to choose sides in everything in life?    

    •  Well, I guess that makes you morally bankrupt (8+ / 0-)
      ...to deliberately choose such a black-and-white frame and then decide that years of murder of civilians, bulldozing of houses, and policies which ensure the privation of millions by the State of Israel are okay because the revolutionary violence of Palestinians is somehow worse...even though the Israelis have killed and rendered homeless many times more people than have the Palestinians.

      Here's the short version of facts in the area:

      1)  The foundation of the State of Israel was a moral wrong perpetrated on the people living in the region seized as its territory by European and US powers who basically wanted to dump Jews somewhere other than in their own countries.

      2)  This notwithstanding, Israel is there now, and the current problem is in how the divided population of the region can coexist.

      3)  The only differences in the behavior of the Israelis and the Palestinians in this conflict have been that:

          a)  Israel has a flag and so can pretend to be "defending itself as a nation state", whereas Palestinians are dispossessed and are therefore labeled as terrorists; and

          b)  Israel has vastly larger military capacity and the blank-check support of the United States, and has therefore been able to slaughter far more Palestinians than the Palestinians have been able to slaughter Israelis.

      4)  Supporting the de facto aparthied and military belligerence practiced by Israel since 1948 is neither morally defensible nor a path to resolution of the problem.

      5)  The American position in relation to the conflict has severely injured both American security, by inflaming anti-Americanism throughout the disadvantaged world.    There is a direct correlation between this position and the rise of radical Islam and its loathing of the United States.

      6)  Current American unwillingness to use its influence with Israel to curb its violence has allowed Israel not only to become a nuclear power, but to become one of the most aggressive military powers in the world.  Israel routinely crosses its borders in outsized reactions to relatively minor violations, committing murder and massive human rights violations when they do.

      Anyone who denies any of these data points is either uninformed or a zealot on one side or the other.  

      What a sad time it is when 2/3 of the country hates America.

      by Dracowyrm on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 01:29:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Whatever (0+ / 0-)

        Israel will defend it's borders. So will all nations. I agree that Israel is looking like the bad guy, as is the US, Iran, Syria, etc.

        "Anyone who denies any of these data points is either uninformed or a zealot on one side or the other."

        •  Borders? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Inky, Euroliberal

          Ohlmert has said that the final borders will not be specified until 2010. And under the so-called "Convergence Plan" it will be done "unilaterally".

          I would rather vote for what I want and lose, than vote for what I don't want and win. Eugene Debs

          by tgs1952 on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 01:58:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  agreed (0+ / 0-)

        wouldn't it be a really sad time when 2/3 of the "world" hates America?
        I think he was trying to make his point without being called a bigot.
        Lanny Davis, a Democrat, would happily call you a bigot. He calls everyone that isn't a zionist a bigot. Unfortunatly, people that speak the truth are now bigots and anti-zionism is equated with bigotry out of hand.
        and, uh, not to sound too much like a fucking redneck, but some of me best friends are Jews. That won't change because we all agree that Israel is behaving terribly. We think Israel should be relocated to west Texas or disbanded and the Jews scattered to all points of the earth. Not as bad as they make it sound. For someone that believes the bible is nothing more than Ala's fables, it's hard to get a grip on the zionist line of shit. You almost have to be a Christian to believe in a Jewish state. It's ironic then that Jews pretty much run this Christian state. And shouldn't us agnostics get a state where we don't have to put up with anyone's religous bullshit?
         

        "If the vice-President does it, that means it's not illegal." Richard Cheney Nixon

        by tRueffert on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 03:58:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Point in question 97.5 (0+ / 0-)

      The last 2.5 percent were all pretty crucial places, like water wells. I am not fully versed on the exact spots, but it the situation was not nearly as cut and dried as 'well he offered him almost what was asked, and he said no'.

      It never is though. Cut and dried, that is.

      "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice." - Arthur C. Clarke

      by groovetronica on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 01:56:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  that (0+ / 0-)

        would be the same argument used by someone who commited election fraud and saying: "well... I gave you 49.9% of the vote... what else do you want?"

        "As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities." Voltaire

        by Euroliberal on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 02:59:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (128)
  • Community (64)
  • Elections (24)
  • Environment (23)
  • Media (23)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Culture (22)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Law (21)
  • Science (21)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Labor (18)
  • Economy (17)
  • Bernie Sanders (16)
  • Marriage Equality (16)
  • Ireland (16)
  • Hillary Clinton (15)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • Rescued (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site