Skip to main content

I am a liberal Zionist American and member of the Democratic Party.  The Democratic Party is now being labelled as increasingly unfriendly to Israel.  So I have a question...how many on here are Zionists?  By Zionist I mean simply someone who believes in a Jewish State in Israel, according to any boundaries.

EDIT: I mean an Israel according to UN 1947 boundaries, 1948 boundaries, some form of boundaries being discussed in Annapolis, or a Jewish state according to present boundaries.

So in short, I am asking whether you believe in a Jewish state of Israel, be it on land smaller than what Israel occupies now, or not.

Originally posted to Zionist American on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:30 PM PDT.

Poll

Are you a Zionist?

61%182 votes
28%84 votes
9%29 votes

| 295 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  this (11+ / 0-)

    will not be a scientific poll, fyi.

    John McCain, 100 years in Iraq "fine with me"

    by taylormattd on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:32:19 PM PDT

    •  Well either way... (0+ / 0-)

      ...Better than nothing!  It should help answer critics and fans of Daily Kos to some extent, I think...

      •  or more likely (6+ / 0-)

        it will be used by by freepers as evidence that kossacks are anti-semites, and by pffers that kossacks hate Palestinians.

        John McCain, 100 years in Iraq "fine with me"

        by taylormattd on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:35:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Don't be UTTERLY RIDICULOUS. (4+ / 0-)

        What an embarrassingly ill-conceived notion of your own importance you are labouring under.  

        According to your UID, we have at least 156,280 other registered users here.  Not even one percent of this community will vote in your risible "poll".

        Please.  Go away with your foolishness and learn to blog like a sensible adult before you come back.

      •  no good (6+ / 0-)

        can possibly come of this. You're new here (I'll give you the benefit of that doubt), so you can't know what kind of hornet's nest you're prodding.

        Please delete.

      •  "Jewish State" is a confusing term (0+ / 0-)

        Israel is a secular democratic state that happens to have a Jewish majority.  

        The only things that make Israel a "Jewish state" are that Jewish majority and the Law of Return which provides a safe haven for Jews to flee from historical persecution.

        There is no state religion in Israel, and there is a separation of church and state.

        Like most Western democracies, Israel respects the equal rights of women and freedoms of religion, speech and the press.

        I would support a Palestinian state that existed based on the same principles.

        •  It's not a confusing term, as you actually (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          arielle, dansmith17, Zionist American

          point out and perfectly define.  

          It is more aptly a "confused" term, often pointed at in mock stupidity for the purpose of confusing things.  I suppose there are those who are actually confused, but they really shouldn't be here, talking with the grown-ups.

          Try our famous burgers and dogs.
          -Munson Diner

          by Eric S on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:55:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Israel does not respect freedom of Religion (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rusty Pipes

          Reform and conservative Judaism are not allowed to perform marriages or conversions.

          If it does not even respect Judaism, how do you say it respects freedom of religion?

          Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

          by RisingTide on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:31:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Why should reform Judaism...? (0+ / 0-)

            ...Be allowed to define who is a Jew?  Reform Judaism does not follow Halacha (Jewish law), and it allows 45 minute conversions.  And anyway, Israel does recognize Jewish (and non-Jewish) marriages performed elsewhere.  If you want a Reform marriage, marry outside of Israel and then civil laws will accept it as a binding marriage.

            •  it will not, zionist american (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Rusty Pipes

              a marriage to a jew who was converted using the vows that one would be required to take to convert to Judaism in the reform sect would be invalid, as that person is not jewish.

              I object to a state founded religion and I think that the state loses many Jews every year because of this stupidity.

              Reform Judaism, as Orthodox Judaism, has traditionally not been Zionist.  

              No state should be allowed to decide what constitutes religion...

              Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

              by RisingTide on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:29:46 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You are wrong on this, RisingTide (0+ / 0-)

                Marriages conducted outside the state of Israel are accepted as binding.  There is a veritable cottage industry of Jews marrying in Cyprus, for this very reason.

                That said, I do believe it would be a good idea for Israel to recognize Conservative conversions, because the Conservative movement believes in Halacha.  I think this is a mistake on Israel's part.  I also am not happy that Israel only recognizes religious weddings (of Christians, Muslims, and Jews) within Israel. (so if you want a civil ceremony, regardless of your faith, you have to go to Cyprus or elsewhere)

                Israel is not perfect, but it's still far better than the nations that surround it, in terms of its egalitarian attitude and laws.

                •  here here! (0+ / 0-)

                  i agree muchly with your last line.

                  I am sorry you do not believe I am Jewish, nor that it is possible to be Jewish without believing in Halacha.

                  My hamentaschen are better than yours!

                  ;-)

                  Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

                  by RisingTide on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:53:48 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Maybe you misread what I wrote (0+ / 0-)

                    I think Reform Jews are Jewish, as they are born Jewish. (and anyone born Jewish is Jewish)

                    I think Reform Judaism is just not authentic Halachic Judaism, it is "Judaism lite."

                    Listen, I grew up with Reform Judaism, so I do not speak from lack of experience or knowledge in the matter.

                    •  Halachic Judaism is not Judaism proper either... (0+ / 0-)

                      Manichewitz kosher for passover cakes are an affront to the entire holiday of Passover.

                      To be a Reform Jew means to question, and to come to your own conclusions -- be they more strict or less than your orthodox counterparts.

                      As for me, this year I will spend an entire month (March, for whatever it matters) eating bread, something I do not normally consume much of. And then, for one week, I will swear off leavening and celebrate Passover.

                      Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

                      by RisingTide on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:21:23 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  To be a Jew in general... (0+ / 0-)

                        ...Is to question.

                        However, saying "I do not want to follow this part of Judaism" is seperate and distinct from saying "Judaism does not contain kosher laws."

                        Reform Judaism would say the Kosher laws of Judaism, as an example, are not binding on Reform Jews.

                        To analogize...

                        You can say you disagree with the right to bear arms, but it is simply incorrect to say there is no binding second amendment.

                        •  the questioning found in the Talmud (0+ / 0-)

                          seems like sophistry to an editor.

                          and numerology seems ... quite inarticulate as an argument, when posed to a scientist

                          Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

                          by RisingTide on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:08:01 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  I think i see what point you're making (0+ / 0-)

                          Orthodox Judaism is just as much a part of the faith as Reconstructionist Judaism.

                          ;-)

                          Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

                          by RisingTide on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:08:35 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Here's the bottom line... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...You can say it is not wise to follow this or that part of Judaism due to the realities of the modern world.  But be intellectually honest, which I do not see Reform Judaism as.  First at least admit that Kosher and Family purity laws exist and they are binding.  Then say "I am not accepting these laws because they do not apply to the modern world."

                            Reform Judaism is not intellectually honest because it denies the laws exist in a binding nature to begin with.

                            That said, there are many good rabbis in the reform and reconstructionist movements.  I know a number of them.  While I do not think Reform Judaism is intellectually honest, I do not begrudge those who attend these congregations.

                          •  you want me to say what I believe? (0+ / 0-)

                            I will say that eating peanut butter on passover is not a problem, because in modern times things are more sterile.

                            eating cookies or cake or beer, however, is a problem -- no matter how some rabbis feel about being bribed to say that certain things are not leavening.

                            I think that anyone who does eat honey cake on passover is intellectually dishonest -- can we agree on that?

                            I will make my own decisions -- and though I do not eat pork, I do not believe in a G-d who would damn someone who did. I believe that those laws were created by men, who saw what the consequences of eating things were, and created a more just society based on the laws of kashrut.

                            I'm not even sure what you're talking about with family purity laws -- somehow that doesn't parse.

                            I will not believe in a religion where my voice is less than anothers, or in a religion that silences me because men can't keep their dicks from sullying their mind while praying (which was something brought forth out of the mouth of my former rabbi, if in slightly more picturesque fashion).

                            I believe in Tikkun Olam, working together with C-d to create a more perfect world. I believe that is a greater manifestation of the Jewish Ideal than following all the laws one hundred percent of the time. Selflessness is a higher virtue to me than loyalty.

                            Just my two cents, gone rolling under a fridge.

                            Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

                            by RisingTide on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:08:25 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  A few observations... (0+ / 0-)

                            I will say that eating peanut butter on passover is not a problem, because in modern times things are more sterile.

                            I looked this up, and the laws concerning peanut butter are actually more complex than how you painted it.

                            http://www.bethyeshurun.org/...

                            I think that anyone who does eat honey cake on passover is intellectually dishonest -- can we agree on that?

                            We can agree, depending on what the cake is made of.  But I think honey cake is disgusting and do not eat it, anyway!

                            I will make my own decisions -- and though I do not eat pork, I do not believe in a G-d who would damn someone who did.

                            Judaism does not believe in hell, so no one is damned for eating pork.

                            I believe that those laws were created by men, who saw what the consequences of eating things were, and created a more just society based on the laws of kashrut.

                            That is the belief of Reform Judaism; my question to you is...if you really believe all the laws are manmade, why do you still consider yourself a Jew and feel the need to follow anything at all?  Is that not the logical consequence of this thought?  I was an atheist for a long time, and that was my thinking at the time.

                            I'm not even sure what you're talking about with family purity laws -- somehow that doesn't parse.

                            http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...

                            I do not follow those laws, but I would not say they are not binding. (there are 613 mitzvot altogether, as you probably know, these are just some examples)

                            I will not believe in a religion where my voice is less than anothers,

                            In Judaism, a woman's voice is considered just as important as a man's voice.

                            or in a religion that silences me because men can't keep their dicks from sullying their mind while praying (which was something brought forth out of the mouth of my former rabbi, if in slightly more picturesque fashion).

                            For the uninformed, Orthodox Jduaism restricts those who may be cantors to men over the age of 13.  This is not just because of an idea that a woman's voice is too sexy, but also because of the idea that only those who are obligated for the time bound mitzvot are capable of leading a congregation.  I agree I am not comfortable with the sexy voice idea, but the second idea I see no problem with.

                            I believe in Tikkun Olam, working together with C-d to create a more perfect world.  I believe that is a greater manifestation of the Jewish Ideal than following all the laws one hundred percent of the time.

                            Is there anyone that does not believe the universe should be made better, and "to be a good person"?

                          •  this judaism you talk about (0+ / 0-)

                            where a woman is not permitted to read torah on her bat mitzvah...

                            this does not seem to be just as important as a mans.

                            when people talk of the decline of generations and then say a woman's voice is less than a man's which is in turn less than his elders, and so on back in time to Maimonides, it turns the respected author inside out (or rolling in his grave, if you would prefer)

                            Judaism has historically been a very sexist religion. Kaddish is a movie that touches on that theme.

                            Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

                            by RisingTide on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:20:29 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You misinterpret big ideas in Judaism (0+ / 0-)

                            I actually wrote a Devar Torah on this very subject, seen below...

                            This week’s parsha, Pekudah, brings us to the end of Exodus. Last week consisted of the building of the Mishkan (the Tabernacle), and this week focuses on the building of the institution of the Kohen. We learn that the Kohen in the Tabernacle were to be servicing Hashem.  But most importantly of all, we learn that Moshe Rebanu was not to be a Kohen, a high priest, this most exalted of positions.  Not only was Moshe not to be a Kohen – after all the work he put in explaining exactly the way the Tabernacle was to be built as well as the system of priesthood – it said that he was not to enter the Tabernacle while a cloud resided over it – i.e., while the glory of Hashem resided over the Tabernacle. I will pause and first say it is a wonderment to imagine that Hashem’s glory could ever be felt in such a way! Can you imagine going to synagogue and seeing a cloud resting over the Jewish Center and saying to yourself "Yup, that’s Hashem’s glory!" But that is for another discussion. What I really wanted to comment upon is Moshe’s psychology. He was not to be a high priest, rather it was to be Aaron and his progeny.  Imagine, if you will, that you spend a lifetime building a castle, and then cannot enter it. Can you imagine the frustration you would feel after? But yet the Torah did not record a single objection from Moshe. Why? And what should we learn from that?

                            I take from this passage the notion of differentiation of roles. Moshe knew his role was to lead the Jewish people out of Egypt, and then pass on Hashem’s messages to the Jewish people. He knew his role was not to be a high priest, and he accepted that with humility and understanding, grateful for the roles he was allowed to fulfill. This runs in contradistinction to the world we live in today. I will admit something to you all; I found it very hard to identify with Judaism for perhaps my entire life, because I believed in an alternative ideology, that of modern day feminism. This ideology states that men and women are not only equal, but should be equal in all respects. As such, that means women should be, for example, firemen, even if they cannot pass the physical test men are more able to pass. Some feminists have stated that if a woman cannot carry a heavy load over her shoulder, it should be adequate for women to drag the heavy load. This extreme example shows how almost nonsensical this rigid ‘equality’ has become in today’s world. It is thought women can and should do everything men do and vice versa, even when it is counter-intuitive. So where does that leave Judaism? We see in Judaism that women cannot be rabbis, and are not responsible for time bound mitzvot. How does that leave a modern day feminist able to identify with Judaism? The answer is that in fact there is equality between men and women in Judaism, but it is a different equality than that typically understood under modern day feminism. Men and women are considered equal in their respective different roles. As such, being a wife and mother is considered equal, if not in many respects metaphysically superior, to the roles given to men. Harmony in the Jewish home is found through an acceptance that the husband and wife simply have different roles, rather than the same roles, just as Moshe understood his role was different from that of Aaron and the Kohanim. As such, modern day notions of equality between the sexes should not bar identifying with Judaism...quite the contrary.

                          •  there is a certain point (0+ / 0-)

                            where a woman should be the caretaker to a child. it is while she is delivering milk.

                            to bind one sex to a different set of rules for their entire life is nonsensical.

                            Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

                            by RisingTide on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:41:51 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Hmm... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...You already just acknowledged that there are times when women are not capable of abiding by time bound mitzvot. (i.e., when they are breast feeding)

                            Anyway, the rabbi's role in Orthodox Judaism is not seen as any "better" than anyone else; he is just another member of the congregation.  Women have big roles in Judaism as well, and often are the ones who will give Devar Torahs. (which explain the Torah portion for the week)

                          •  I have not experienced this (0+ / 0-)

                            when I have attended Orthodox services.

                            also, when I have attended Conservative services.

                            they both are not very welcoming to a questioning woman.

                            Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

                            by RisingTide on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:48:32 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  There are some bad congregations (0+ / 0-)

                            but I do not view it as representative of true Judaism.  That said, I do have problems with some aspects of Orthodox Judaism.  Are you in the NYC area?

                    •  Orthodox Judaism (0+ / 0-)

                      is not something every jew can support.

                      Just as I do not support Christianist philosophies, I do not believe that Jews should only buy from Jews. ()yes, I do realize that not all orthodox believe this()

                      Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

                      by RisingTide on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:23:31 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  I reject the attitude that any Judaism is Lite (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Rusty Pipes

                      Walk in the light wherever you may be
                      Walk in the glory of the light said he...

                      Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

                      by RisingTide on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:24:22 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  you should have talked to my grandparents... (0+ / 0-)

              they kept halacha while going to a reform synagogue.

              Please, how much of Reform Judaism do you really understand?

              Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

              by RisingTide on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:30:28 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I grew up going to a reform temple (0+ / 0-)

                The reform movement does not believe in Halacha.  This is a simple fact.  Individual reform Jews might be different, but the reform movement as such simply does not believe Halacha is binding.

                •  the reform movement would probably say (0+ / 0-)

                  you should keep whatever aspects of Halacha are meaningful to you.

                  Or something like that.

                  To say that Israel is right in its exclusion of Reform Judaism is to say that Reform Judaism is not Jewish -- which vastly misstates the obvious.

                  I know converts who will never be considered Jewish by Israel's standards, as they refuse to lie during a conversion -- and taking Orthodox vows would be a lie.

                  (i hope you're having fun with this conversation!)

                  Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

                  by RisingTide on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:37:15 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  As soon as you keep whatever you want... (0+ / 0-)

                    ...Then how exactly is that a religion?

                    My problem with Reform Judaism is that, however well intentioned, it ultimately says "believe what you want."  This is why 45 minute conversions are accepted.

                    I know converts who will never be considered Jewish by Israel's standards, as they refuse to lie during a conversion -- and taking Orthodox vows would be a lie.

                    We are discussing the age old question of "Who is a Jew."  Israel reached a compromise based on a very long time of debating this very issue.  I doubt we will convince each other on this topic, but suffice it to say, traditional Jewish law states you are a Jew if your mom is Jewish or if you convert to Orthodox Judaism.  Israel allowed the Hitler (not Halacha) definition of Judaism (if you are Jewish enough to be killed by Hitler, Israel should be a safe haven for you), and also the traditional notions of conversions.  Was that the right decision?  I think that since the Conservative movement believes Halacha is binding, Conservative conversions also should be recognized.  Maybe they will be in the future.

            •  I have never in my life (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Eric S

              heard of a "45 minute conversion" to Judaism.  Ever.

              I have the distinction of being called a media whore by Courtney Love. -Maynard J. Keenan

              by arielle on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:44:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I did... (0+ / 0-)

                ...It happened before a couple got married.

                •  Not in MY synagogue! (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Rusty Pipes, Eric S

                  Or any Reform Synagogue I have ever attended!

                  I have the distinction of being called a media whore by Courtney Love. -Maynard J. Keenan

                  by arielle on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:19:27 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  You heard of it? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Rusty Pipes

                  You have first hand or documentary evidence of any kind.  And do you have any serious information about how wide spread this supposed practice is?  There is nothing of the kind I have even heard of.  

                  I have heard, from mouths I have seen, words of disparagement about Reform Judaism, informed by nothing but prejudice.  

                  Try our famous burgers and dogs.
                  -Munson Diner

                  by Eric S on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:48:21 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I read up on this... (0+ / 0-)

                    ...And based on what I read, the conversion is individually-based...

                    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...

                    Perhaps the bride in question knew a great deal about Judaism prior to her conversion.  I will admit that anecdotal evidence is not 'evidence.'

                    •  Didn't find that 45 minute thing.... (0+ / 0-)

                      A dear friend of mine whose mother converted to Judaism (well before he was born) obliged his own wife (she of mixed Protestant and Catholic background) to convert.  It was a reform conversion, and an arduous one, leaving scars still after 15 years.  

                      And then there are my neighbor, proudly former of a Conservative temple in Long Island, who side by side with is dad, disdain the choice of a Reform Synagogue here in our corner of the Catskills.  The choice is Orthodox or Reform around here with no in-between, and so they have chosen nothing in preference to Reform.

                      And then there are the Hasids here, so many, whose eighteenth century version of Judaism introduces elements that for a thousand years, no self-respecting traditional Orthodox Talmudist would have recognized or accepted.  And brothers who fight over their community patrimony.  And other Satmar who this past week demonstrated against Zionism.

                      And then there were the Lubavitch rabbis, three of them, who I had to drag into court.  They had hired me to produce a program about the Moshiach and then refused to pay me.  (I can't remember if the Moshiach had died by then or was just very sick).   Ironically, I always got paid by The Pius XII Foundation for Youth and Family Services, at least until they had to close thier doors for the terrible misuse of some of the children in their charge.

                      And then there was my grandfather, a traditional Orthodox who lived on Division Street in Brooklyn, who never spoke English clearly.  But he would go to shul rather than talk to my father, his oldest son, for the sin of becoming an American.

                      And there was the Reform Rabbi at my beloved uncle's funeral.  She told me that Reform Judaism would likely not last through my own son's generation as it does not fulfill the needs of such a very different one than those who created it.

                      And there was the Orthodox Rabbi and leader of Czechoslovakia's Jewish community, whom I met in Prague before the Berlin Wall came down, and suffered the whispers of many there, that he was a member of the secret police.  Of course, later he admitted it was all for the good of the community.

                      And I cannot leave out myself, who has had to make a painful decision about exactly how and what of his jewish heritage he will pass on to his two sons.  One circumsised by an Orthodox Mohel, the other by me, both under the watchful eyes of their Korean Christian mother.

                      And I do like honey cake.  It was my mother's mother's best dish, and it speaks to me of the authentic experience of the shtetl born Jew.

                      Shall I go on?  Nothing for pat judgments and all more complicated than any debate here could unravel.

                      And Jewish Virtual Library is hardly definitive.

                      Try our famous burgers and dogs.
                      -Munson Diner

                      by Eric S on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:55:08 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Interesting comment (0+ / 0-)

                        Not sure how it relates to the original point I made; I concede that I heard of this happening in one instance, which is anecdotal evidence and not 'proof.'  I do believe that the Jewish Virtual Library is one of the better sources out there, and it does not say that Reform conversions are 45 minutes.

                        You circumcised your own son?  How did you do that???  I am serious, I have no idea how you did that!

                        All in all, I think a real conversion means someone wants to be Jewish, and accepts it on their own, and not due to pressure from anyone.  I think we can agree on that one.  I would not condone someone converting just because they are getting married, nor would I ever marry a non-Jew and ask them to convert only for me, and not because they did not on their own want to be Jewish.

                        A final note...And other Satmar who this past week demonstrated against Zionism.

                        When did that happen?  The Neterei Karta are a breakaway sect of the Satmar and have been 'ex-communicated' after they traveled to Iran for the Holocaust denial conference.

                        Final final note!  I grew up actually just not liking honey cake, for whatever reason!  Maybe I will try it again soon, just for the taste of it.

                        •  Don't do this at home... (0+ / 0-)

                          Though I actually did.  Once the child's foreskin is in the appropriate clamp (placed there by the aforementioned Mohel), all it takes is a deft excision with a sharp knife.  The Mohel offered me the option and I took it... though me took the blessed remains and saw they got a proper burial.  

                          I wouldn't ask my wife to convert, nor would she if I asked.  I didn't ask her to become an American citizen, but her parents did, and she almost always listens to them.  

                          But you would probably raise your kids to be Jewish, now wouldn't you, and they wouldn't have much of a say in that.  My kids are learning the "My 1000 Funniest One Liners" by Henny Youngman (Question:  What do you get when you cross a rooster and a rooster?  Answer: A very cross rooster.)

                          As for the Satmar, here's the story from my very own local newspaper, and directly from the mouth of Joel.

                          Try our famous burgers and dogs.
                          -Munson Diner

                          by Eric S on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:55:45 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                •  not in my synagogue either (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  arielle, Rusty Pipes

                  We're unaffiliated, services use the conservative prayerbook, and we're very welcoming to interfaith couples (though the rabbi will not perform interfaith marriages).

                  But conversion is treated quite seriously, and requires lots of work and commitment.  There's no such thing as a "convenience" conversion in our congregation.

      •  This poll is a bit deficient (0+ / 0-)

        If your sole purpose is to show right-wing snoops that "DK is not anti-Israel" then you are wasting your time. They do not belong to the reality-based community anyway.

        If your purpose is to really gauge the sentiment here, then you offer way too few options for this complicated problem.

        Don't forget that Zionism, model 2008, is not exactly defined by a bunch of progressives debating about it online.

        Rather, it is defined mostly by the policies of the Israeli government, by the mainstream interpretation of Zionism in Israel, and by the wall-to-wall backing of Israeli policies by the mainstream Zionist organizations abroad.

        A great many Kossacks would hesitate to automatically associate themselves with these, even though they are fine with supporting Israel's existence, security, etc.

  •  I am not. (5+ / 0-)

    I do not believe a Jewish state is sustainable, as currently constructed.

    I wish, and will fervently work towards a more sustainable Israel -- but I hold no hope that I will succeed.

    The great dream died years ago, and it ain't coming back.

    Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

    by RisingTide on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:34:32 PM PDT

    •  Just curious... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MBNYC, dfb1968

      What do you mean by, "...will fervently work towards a more sustainable Israel...."

      Try our famous burgers and dogs.
      -Munson Diner

      by Eric S on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:22:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I believe that,... (3+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        livosh1, arielle, Eric S
        Hidden by:
        RisingTide

        based on this one's other comments, he means an Israel without Jews.

        "I remember every detail. The Germans wore gray. You wore blue."

        by dfb1968 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:26:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Respectfully Hide Rated (0+ / 0-)

          for the unsupported fleer. I believe that Pansemitism does not preclude the existence of a Jewish state. In fact, one might say that Jews in the Middle East is a base assumption required to advocate for that position.

          I wish for an Israel that might get along with it's neighbors (including Iran).

          Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

          by RisingTide on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:34:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Why is it Israel that is not getting along? (0+ / 0-)

            Israel never wished for Iran to be wiped off the map.  Why is the burden on Israel to "get along"?

            •  I'm not so sure you understand Iran (0+ / 0-)

              it is a far different place than it used to be.

              Israel needs a real dose of realpolitik -- ally with the intelligencia and middle class of Iran.

              It's not that I should say Israel is the problem child. As far as I'm concerned, the entire region is problematic, and only slightly less so than Africa -- with more potential to get dramatically worse, to boot.

              Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

              by RisingTide on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:25:49 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not sure what you mean... (0+ / 0-)

                ..."Iran is a far different place than it used to be."

                In what way?

                •  demographically (0+ / 0-)

                  70% of it's population is under thirty.

                  that means most of it hasn't lived through the seventies.

                  It is ruled by a theocracy allied with a middle class. This means that the middle class can do whatever it pleases (including things that the theocracy would outlaw).  It is a very rare country in this respect.

                  It is very easy to confuse nationalism with hatred. Our future leaders are currently engaging in dialogue with Iran, as well they should. Rational countries talk with other rational countries to arrive at solutions of mutual benefit.

                  Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

                  by RisingTide on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:34:31 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  There is a disconnect between Iran's ruling class (0+ / 0-)

                    ...And the ruled.

                    But the rulers in power are power hungry theocrats who believe in an obscure "12th imam" theory.

                    Our future leaders are currently engaging in dialogue with Iran, as well they should.

                    Do you believe it productive to have a dialogue with the power hungry theocrats, or with the Iranian dissidents?  And how exactly would one have a dialogue with the dissidents?

                    •  you are illinformed (0+ / 0-)

                      iran's ruling class includes the middle class and the theocrats.

                      Perhaps you ought to cultivate more friendships with those in Iran?

                      I do not believe that the theocrats are powerhungry, or that Iran has been behaving irrationally. A rational desire to protect yourself from a vastly larger and more powerful country who has declared you part of the "axis of evil" despite your obvious helpfullness after 9/11 -- who could fault Iran?

                      Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

                      by RisingTide on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:52:23 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

                        A rational desire to protect yourself from a vastly larger and more powerful country who has declared you part of the "axis of evil" despite your obvious helpfullness after 9/11 -- who could fault Iran?

                        It is rational to build nukes and threaten to wipe Israel off the map, and engage in Holocaust denial?  It is rational to fund/arm/train Hizballah, whose goal is worldwide Jew ellimination?

                        •  it is rational to build nuclear weapons (0+ / 0-)

                          to defend oneself against the United States.

                          Walk a minute in Iran's shoes, and see Israel as a puppet state of America, just like what we tried to do to Iran itself.

                          I do not like Holocaust denial, but that is not official Iranian policy -- on gov't supported TV they have a show about the Holocaust on right now.

                          Supporting Hezbollah is also not something that I can support, but I can understand what motivates that -- which is more a desire for regional hegemony.

                          Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

                          by RisingTide on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:14:13 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Rational? (0+ / 0-)

                            Walk a minute in Iran's shoes, and see Israel as a puppet state of America, just like what we tried to do to Iran itself.

                            Israel is not a puppet state of the USA, so it is not RATIONAL to say it is.

                            I do not like Holocaust denial, but that is not official Iranian policy -- on gov't supported TV they have a show about the Holocaust on right now.

                            There was a government sponsored Holocaust denial conferance in Tehran.

                            Supporting Hezbollah is also not something that I can support, but I can understand what motivates that -- which is more a desire for regional hegemony.

                            Hizballah was supported for more than 15 years , easily, including under Clinton's time in office, when Iran was hardly on the radar screen.

                            Finally, the problem with Iran having nukes is that they are not behaving rationally.  They believe in the 12th imam, and are seeking to bring about the end of the world.  This is not just all a response to a perceived threat.  And Israel never has threatened to wipe them off the map, it only has been the other way around.

                            I do think there are rational actors within the Iranian regime, but I also think there are many irrational actors.

                          •  there are many irrational actors in our regime as (0+ / 0-)

                            well.

                            I am more concerned about American crazies dropping nuclear weapons than I am with Iran, who walks a better balance between forces (sad but true).

                            would you rather say that America is a puppet state of Israel? (looking at the un votes, you mgith have a point ;0)

                            Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

                            by RisingTide on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:26:26 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

                            America does not pull Israel's strings, and certainly not vice versa.  The UN votes have been made in response to extremely one sided UN vitriol; thankfully the USA has stood for justice on occasion.

                            Yes, there are crazies within the USA, but there are checks and balances and Christian end of the world types have no power within the White House. (even assuming Bush panders to the Christian base, he has not shown to hope for the end of the world)

                          •  how much crack have you been smoking? (0+ / 0-)

                            wait just one minute, i'm going to go grab some citations from this illustrious website to go support my sig.

                            Christian end of the world types have much power within the white house, but the more important place is within congress, where my former senator spearheaded a drive to get JesusFreaks (end of the world types, if you must use a long name) to west point, using congresspeoples constitutional right to appoint people to west point.

                            What matter if our military elite is brainwashed?

                            Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

                            by RisingTide on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:05:16 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  aha! (0+ / 0-)

                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            there are countless other stories, but this one is pretty decent to orient yourself.

                            Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

                            by RisingTide on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:12:10 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That is a troubling report, BUT... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...That is still worlds away from evidence that Bush and his associates hope to bring about the end of the world.

                          •  eh? you think ahmanijad has real power? (0+ / 0-)

                            I don't. and I know more iranians than you do.

                            please find more information, there are plenty of places to look.

                            you are repeating party lines that are false.

                            Reality has a well known liberal bias, and I expect you to be wiser by the time you are done with your research!

                            Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

                            by RisingTide on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:09:41 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I never said Ahmadinejad has real power... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...But he merely echoes what is said by the mullahs, who are pulling all the strings.

                            If he was disliked by the mullahs, he would be gone.  But he is still there.

                          •  this is flatly not true. (0+ / 0-)

                            the mullahs share power with the middle class, which quite frankly does whatever the fuck it pleases, including mixed gender dance parties with alcohol.

                            Think about that for a second.

                            I can cite sources, if you need.

                            Iran is not merely mullahs and reactionaries. There are moderates there, and they have power too -- this is how Iran has stayed economically strong.

                            Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

                            by RisingTide on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:24:27 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I have read up on this... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...Even as this is on Pajamas media, I feel this is as good a source as any to explain the internal mullah dynamic in Iran...

                            http://pajamasmedia.com/...

                            and

                            http://pajamasmedia.com/...

                          •  please read more then. (0+ / 0-)

                            your facts are inaccurate and misleading.

                            as north korea is run by the military (and so is pakistan), iran shares power between the religious and the secularish middle class.

                            Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

                            by RisingTide on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:03:53 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Just not true. (0+ / 0-)

                            The secular middle class wears hijabs, as an example, and then inside closed buildings, dresses in very revealing outfits.

                            Why the need to live double lives if they have real power in Iran?

                            Please read the articles I liked for info on the mullahs.

                          •  err.. the pulling all the strings part. (0+ / 0-)

                            if he was disliked, he'd be gone.

                            Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

                            by RisingTide on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:25:01 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Just like israel stands for justice (0+ / 0-)

                            when it opposes banning personal handguns? (along with just the us and one other country...)

                            Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

                            by RisingTide on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:14:05 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Why is that a bad thing? (0+ / 0-)

                            If personal hand guns were banned, more would have died in the Mercaz yeshiva massacre.

                            In Israel, you have people who are highly trained with fire arms, due to IDF service.  They know how to handle a fire arm and how to avoid mishandling it.  As a result, gun deaths are extremely low in Israel.

                            What would be the logic of banning fire arms in Israel, given the lack of statistical evidence that it is harming society?

                          •  this was a worldwide ban... (0+ / 0-)

                            and the number of lives saved worldwide would far outnumber the number of lives possibly lost in Israel.

                            strike one for the military industrial complex!

                            Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

                            by RisingTide on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:14:00 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You have failed to show how hand guns... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...Have proved to be a danger to anyone in Israel. (or anything other than a tool for self defense which has sadly been necessary)

                          •  do I need to? (0+ / 0-)

                            show you pictures of kids with machine guns, on all the continents of the world?

                            please tell me I don't.

                            there is a wonderful argument for banning of handguns -- they are inaccurate, and only useful for hiding.

                            Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

                            by RisingTide on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:26:19 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Specifically in Irsael... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...All people are highly trained in fire arms, and face a daily threat of terrorism.  Often it is hand guns which save lives.

                            What may be true across the world simply has no applicability to the reality on the ground in Israel.

                          •  which does not change the ethics of the matter (0+ / 0-)

                            do you do soemthing which is detrimental to everyone else...

                            isn't that generally termed selfish?

                            and not all people are highly trained in firearms. most, yes, but not all.

                            Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

                            by RisingTide on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:59:21 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  There is mandatory draft service in Israel (0+ / 0-)

                            And those who were not drafted have the free will to learn how to use fire arms, no?

                          •  there is not mandatory draft service... (0+ / 0-)

                            there is mandatory service, but it need not be in the military.

                            Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

                            by RisingTide on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:29:39 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Okay, true... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...But most of the country goes into the military.

                            Those who do not have the option of learning how to fire a weapon, if they desire to own one.

  •  I Believe (0+ / 0-)

    Hillary is a liar.

    and my Bible advised me not to trust liars as leaders.

    I believe in the right of the State of Israel to exist within its current or Biblical boundaries.

    "Jehova gave those lands to Jacob"

  •  who's doing the labeling (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bronte17, Rusty Pipes, DoGooderLawyer

    who's labeling the Democratic Party as being unfriendly to Israel?

  •  there are no Jewish editors at DK as far (0+ / 0-)

    as I can tell...

  •  If I Were A Skeptic (14+ / 0-)

    I would say that you possibly created this ID, just to create this poll and then use it as evidence elsewhere that people at DailyKos are not Zionist / Anti-Semitic.

    But I'm not a skeptic.

  •  I do not believe in Zionism (5+ / 0-)

    Nobody is chosen.

    Human rights for all.

    My dogs think I'm smart and pretty.

    by martydd on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:35:53 PM PDT

    •  On what do you base your apparent belief (6+ / 0-)

      that "Zionism" entails a belief in "choseness?"

      •  I don't believe in a chosen people. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        drbloodaxe

        I don't believe being chosen by a mythical being entitled anyone to their own state.

        My dogs think I'm smart and pretty.

        by martydd on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:17:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Respectfully, that's NOT my question. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          arielle, MBNYC, Zionist American

          You wrote: "I don't believe in Zionism. Nobody is chosen."

          I understand this to mean that you don't believe in "Zionism" because you understand "Zionism" to entail a belief in choseness.

          But I do not understand "Zionism" to entail such a belief. Accordingly, I asked you why you believe in such an entailment?

          Alternatively, I could have asked you whether you believe in a "Zionism" not based on a belief in (divine) choseness. Or, I could ask you whether you believe that the Jewish people has a right to continue to exercise national self-determination within the state of Israel, without prejudice to particular borders. (I myself support a "two states for two peoples" peace settlement with a Palestinian state alongside Israel in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with its capital in east Jerusalem.)

        •  amen! (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          drbloodaxe, martydd

          i don't believe in a jewish state, a christian state, or a muslim state. what a ridiculous notion! everyone should be entitled to equal rights and equal citizenship! can you imagine the USA defined as a country for christian protestants? outrageous!

          as far as israel goes, more than 2/3 of the people in what is now israel were arab christian/muslim/druze when independence was declared! following ethnic cleansing and partition, 20% still are! they deserve equal rights and recognition!

          •  Do you believe Israel has a right to exist today? (0+ / 0-)

            And by that I mean according to even small borders.

            And hopefully you realize that Israel is not a religious state.  It is an ethnically Jewish state.

          •  What do you mean "don't believe in?" (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MBNYC, Zionist American

            As in, you don't believe in Santa Clause?

            Israel exists. Its culture and population are predominantly Jewish. But most Israeli Jews are not religiously Orthodox. Don't get hung up on semantics.

            Do you believe in the right of the French to continue to have France? Poles Poland? Japanese Japan?

            Then why not Jews Israel?

            •  I'm thinking he means (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MBNYC, martydd

              He doesn't believe in state religions.

              Got a problem with my posts? Email me, and let's resolve it.

              by drbloodaxe on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:14:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  How about ethnic based nationalities? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MBNYC, Zionist American

                Like (for example) Irish or Portuguese.  Or how about geographically based nationalities like (again, for example) Palestinian?

                And, yes, I know it you are interpreting someone else's question, but judging from your input and recs, I have a feeling this is a good question for you.

                Try our famous burgers and dogs.
                -Munson Diner

                by Eric S on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:40:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Are (0+ / 0-)

                  Irish and Portuguese ethnicities in and of their own rights, or have they been classed as ethnicities through growing over time as citizens of the respective states?

                  I seem to recall there were something called 'black irish' and it didn't refer to skin color, though darned if I can remember what it did mean.

                  And, through comments below, I've been informed that Palestinian isn't actually a nationality, which I have to admit came as a surprise.

                  I think a more timely question might be, what about Kosovars, or Chechnyans, or Kurds?  I think my answer is going to be the same.  If they want to undergo what I guess amounts to a secessionist or civil war based on the fact that they are largely a separate ethnicity, that's their business, so long as they respect the human rights of the minorities still intermixed with them and grant them full citizenship.

                  I wouldn't agree with the notion that any state being formed? forming itself?  should be allowed to either expel or treat as second class citizens anyone living in the region that wasn't among the ethnic majority.

                  I wouldn't say 'the state shouldn't exist' but I would censure them for what I would consider rights violations.  (And of course I note that this is exactly what Europeans in the Americas did to the native inhabitants.)

                  Got a problem with my posts? Email me, and let's resolve it.

                  by drbloodaxe on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:36:55 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  as regards Israel/Palestine, wait 20 or 30 years (0+ / 0-)

                    and the Jewish folks won't be in the majority. Just look at the birthrates.

                    Atheism: the religion devoted to the worship of one's own smug sense of superiority. -- Stephen Colbert

                    by Belvedere Come Here Boy on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:22:20 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Well that's what I'm waiting on (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Belvedere Come Here Boy

                      here in the states.

                      20, 30 yrs and we paleskinned folks will be minorities in the US.  Then I shouldn't have to hear crap from Limbaugh or Robertson any more, they'll get yanked off air for having too small a listening audience.

                      Got a problem with my posts? Email me, and let's resolve it.

                      by drbloodaxe on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:36:01 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  As far as the future of the pale skinned American (0+ / 0-)

                        ...his diminishing numbers will more likely infuriate and catalyze the nativist right.  

                        Remember, a radio demagogue does not need a tremendous rating to have a significant impact on the airwaves where niches and nationwide franchises rule.

                        Try our famous burgers and dogs.
                        -Munson Diner

                        by Eric S on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:49:56 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  Not true. (0+ / 0-)

                      The truth is that religious Jews in Israel have more kids than the Arabs.

                      The demographic time bomb is a myth not borne out by birth rates.

                      •  i loled (2+ / 0-)

                        i think this comment is precisely why i find it difficult to take you seriously. yes, the ultra-orthodox have more kids than your average palestinian (7+ per woman: http://www.nytimes.com/... but there are way more secular jews in israel than there are ultra-orthodox jews. the demographic time bomb is not a myth by any means and if trends continue as they have been, israel will have a palestinian majority by the time its 100th anniversary rolls around.

                        the fact that you are so out of touch with reality as to claim the demographic time bomb to be a myth makes you, frankly, not worth having a conversation with.

                  •  Nice, your eyes were opened on the Palestinians, (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    arielle, Zionist American

                    and all in all I agree, with a "but" or two.  

                    Israel should improve the treatment of their minorities, but compared with similar circumstances throughout the globe, very much in their own region, in a number of European nations and certainly with respect to minorities like Native Americans here in the US, they look quite good.

                    I am sure neither of us has the desire right now to go over the formation of Israel, but even the word "expel," though popular with some, is certainly arguable.  Even the hard core anti-Zionist can not point to a physical expulsion of Palestinians.  It has been said they were obliged to leave due to Israeli violence, but the truth of that war which Israel did not start, is that there was brutality on both sides and actually similar numbers of casualties.  

                    As for the term ethnicity, it is certainly applies to groups such as the Irish or Portuguese, and I myself, as a totally secular Jew, regard Jewishness as an ethnicity.

                    Try our famous burgers and dogs.
                    -Munson Diner

                    by Eric S on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:48:58 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  You don't even understand what (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MBNYC, Eric S

      "chosen" means.  And it has nothing to do with "Zionism".

      I have the distinction of being called a media whore by Courtney Love. -Maynard J. Keenan

      by arielle on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:25:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Since when have we been "unfriendly" to Israel? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pattyp, hideinplainsight, gooners

    I'm Jewish, and I have no idea what you're talking about.

    Pragmatic progressivism is the future.

    by Pragmaticus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:36:48 PM PDT

    •  He means me (5+ / 0-)

      I took their lunch money last week.

      Got a problem with my posts? Email me, and let's resolve it.

      by drbloodaxe on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:40:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Do you not hear relatives... (0+ / 0-)

      ...Who say that the Dem party is not the party to vote for for those who care about Israel?

      •  No (18+ / 0-)

        from what I see, the Dem party is more friendly to Israel, and the Republican party just wants to use it to start the Second Coming.

        Got a problem with my posts? Email me, and let's resolve it.

        by drbloodaxe on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:46:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  no shit... (5+ / 0-)

          people really need to pay attention to what the apocalyptic christians say will happen after Israel is victorious over Gog and Magog.

          Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society -Mark Twain

          by gooners on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:51:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Why do apocalyptic statements matter? (0+ / 0-)

            Honestly, I do not believe in the apocalypse, so I really don't care if those are the motivations of some Christians when they support Israel.  I would only be worried about that if I believed in the apocalypse, which I do not.

            Now that said, I would prefer people support Israel's right to exist for the right reasons. (and it appears most people on here do support Israel's right to exist)

            •  of course they do... (0+ / 0-)

              and you should be worried about apocalyptic christians because they believe that Israel and the Jews will be desroyed at the of end times.  So if they believe the end is here, how much of an ally do you think they will be?

              Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society -Mark Twain

              by gooners on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:54:01 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I do not worry about the end of days... (0+ / 0-)

                ...I only worry about citizens of Sderot who suffer daily rocket attacks, or the Mercaz yeshiva boys who were gunned down in the library.

                I worry about the here and now, not the fantasy world.

                If the end of the world should come, we'll see who was right, Christians, Jews, or some other religion.  I do not believe in Christianity, so I am not worried.

                But as I said, I want people to support Israel for the right reasons, and not just because it says so in the bible.

                •  I worry about (0+ / 0-)

                  anyone being injured or killed by violence perpetrated by other humans.

                  I don't care if they're Israeli, Palestinian, Lebanese, Iraqi, Sunni, Shiite, Kurd.

                  Got a problem with my posts? Email me, and let's resolve it.

                  by drbloodaxe on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:49:27 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  think about it... (0+ / 0-)

                  Someone really, really wants end times to come.

                  That person believes end times will be preceded by a devastating nuclear war centered on Israel.

                  How much will that person work against nuclear war centered on Israel?  How much will they push for it?

                  That person believes that the Jews will be slaughtered when Christ returns.

                  How much will that person care about Israeli casualties when they will be killed anyway?

                  Peace is nowhere prophesied for the Middle East, until Jesus comes and brings it himself. The worse thing that the United States, the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations can do is force Israel to give up land for a peace that will never materialize this side of the second coming. Anyone who pushes for peace in such a manner is ignoring or defying God's plan for the end of the age.

                  read this

                  watch this

                  Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society -Mark Twain

                  by gooners on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:15:08 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Certainly true, but not responsive. n/t (0+ / 0-)

          Try our famous burgers and dogs.
          -Munson Diner

          by Eric S on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:45:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not responsive to what? (0+ / 0-)

            the question was:

            Do you not hear relatives who say the Dem party is not the party to vote for for those who care about Israel?

            I answered no, and then added my opinion as to why the Dem party was perhaps a better party for same.

            Got a problem with my posts? Email me, and let's resolve it.

            by drbloodaxe on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:46:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I've already agreed that the Dems are the right (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Zionist American

              haven for American Jewry.  And I did sort of miss that opening "No,"  sorry.

              However, I don't really buy it.  

              You can't fail to be aware of the increasing leftist anti-Zionism.   Read through these comments for gawd's sake.  And another equally distressing phenomena, one that gets plenty of play here at dKos, is the right wing appeals to Jews in this election season.  The anti-Obama emails, right-wing jocks dwelling on Obama's middle name, even the ravings of supposedly "respectable" conservative pundits - Krauthammer, to name just one.  

              If you are unaware of this crap, then you simply aren't paying attention.

              Try our famous burgers and dogs.
              -Munson Diner

              by Eric S on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:59:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  To be fair... (0+ / 0-)

                ...There are legitimate concerns about Obama.  No matter what he says, his advisers are generally anti-Israel. (see: Brzezinski, Malley, and his ex-adviser, Samantha Power)  He voted against the designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terror group, and then used that vote for political purposes, claiming it is a step closer to war with Iran.  Haaretz listed him as the least friendly to Israel amongst the presidential candidates.  Not to mention his spiritual adviser, Reverant Wright, who is flat out anti-Israel and antisemitic.

                So yes, I think there are legitimate and non-hysterical concerns about Obama.  What comes of this in the future is an unknown.

                •  There are legitimate concerns about (0+ / 0-)

                  everyone.  Many are paper thin under scrutiny, others not.  

                  However, I believe Obama is the best hope for America right now and the American role in the ME most particularly.  In something of the fashion of the vicious anti-Communist, Nixon, opening relations with China, I believe Obama is  in a position to do things differently.  In this regard, I am not even considering his keen instincts and native wisdom.

                  Try our famous burgers and dogs.
                  -Munson Diner

                  by Eric S on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:57:00 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What should Israel do that it is not doing... (0+ / 0-)

                    ...Which Obama would get Israel to do?

                    And do you actually believe he will get the Palestinians or Iran to do things they otherwise wouldn't?

                    •  For starters, anyone could be more (0+ / 0-)

                      persuasive than a lame duck jerk like Bush.  I think Obama's "Muslim cred" will provide him leverage with the Palestinians AND the Israelis... and that's for starters.

                      Try our famous burgers and dogs.
                      -Munson Diner

                      by Eric S on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:12:13 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  How would Obama... (0+ / 0-)

                        ...Be better than all the presidents that proceeded him?

                        I mean honestly, it's not as if we have not had every single president since Truman attempt to negotiate peace in the Mideast.

                        How is his plan so unique and his approach to Israelis and Palestinians so different than what has been tried in the past?

                        •  Without trying to answer you directly, (0+ / 0-)

                          especially since you don't care for the answer I have already given, I must suggest, your question suggests the situation is hopeless or that there is no room for hard compromises.  I don't believe either of those things... and you know, I am a Zionist, committed to Israel's survival as much as anyone here.

                          Try our famous burgers and dogs.
                          -Munson Diner

                          by Eric S on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:21:04 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I know you are a Zionist... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...So I guess the better question is...

                            What do you see as the path to peace and do you see Obama would walk that path?

                            (let's agree for the moment that Bush has been a disaster and we agree a different path is necessary)

                          •  It is hard to ignore Bush in this context. (0+ / 0-)

                            The most destructive act to the cause of ME peace in the last ten years may well turn out to have been his misguided and abysmally stupid call for Palestinian elections.  This is what ultimately ushered in Hamas, and is still giving the Israel haters wet dreams.  When a supposed friend institutes policies like this, which set things backwards, it is hard to imagine how someone with a brain between his ears could fail to do better.  The mere fact od engagement, which Bush didn't attempt until the last years of his second term, suggests likewise.  Even Clinton, didn't get involved until it was too late.

                            I have faith in Obama's commitment, wherewithal, intelligence, and his greater appeal to both the Muslim world and Israelis interested in peace.  

                            The details?  Neither the time nor wisdom on my part to do them justice, however, I refer you to anotherAmerican's numerous diaries on the Clinton parameters, for a start.  

                            Try our famous burgers and dogs.
                            -Munson Diner

                            by Eric S on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:58:21 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Where do you see Israel in this? (0+ / 0-)

                            By that I mean...

                            What do you propose Israel should do that it is not doing?

                            And are you not concerned about Obama's advisers as well as connections?

                          •  I think I have answered both of questions, (0+ / 0-)

                            to the best of my present ability:

                            I have faith in Obama's commitment, wherewithal, intelligence, and his greater appeal to both the Muslim world and Israelis interested in peace.  

                            The details?  Neither the time nor wisdom on my part to do them justice, however, I refer you to anotherAmerican's numerous diaries on the Clinton parameters, for a start.

                            Try our famous burgers and dogs.
                            -Munson Diner

                            by Eric S on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:33:03 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  How would that achieve peace? (0+ / 0-)

                            I am serious.

                            I do not see how land for peace is working.  I no longer believe in it.  When the facts change, you change your ideology.  The facts have changed and Gaza was 'disengaged,' and there were rockets, not peace.  I believe land should be given up as a reward for peace, as well as if it is militarily infeasible to hold.  I think any other perspective means believing Abbas is a 'moderate' (which he is not, after all, he praised the Mercaz yeshiva massacre in Arabic) or other such fallacies in reasoning.

                            So assuming Abbas is not a moderate and Obama wants Israel to cede land to Abbas, then how does this help the peace process?

                            But I will go a step further...I do not think that on this matter, any of the candidates are even much different from each other.  I feel really rather downtrodden, this election season, and I am leaning towards not voting.  No one seems to have the guts or knowledge to speak truths, rather than hopes.  I might *hope* Abbas is a moderate; this does not make him one.

                •  Don't equate 'pro-Israel' with 'pro-Likud' (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Rusty Pipes, Eric S

                  Obama has been quite clear about this - he supports Israel and Israel's right to exist within secure borders, but this does NOT equate to supporting expanding the occupation of the West Bank.

                  In fact, as many including Ehud Olmert have observed, the status quo is HARMFUL to Israel.  Therefore, to support Israel, one must oppose the status quo.

                  •  Olmert? (0+ / 0-)

                    Olmert has a 2% approval rating in Israel.

                    And the settlements are hardly expanding.  If you go to Israel, you would see that the only settlements effectively expanding are suburbs of Jerusalem, which are not even considered settlements, and are considered part of Israel proper.  Places like Hebron are actually shrinking, not to mention Gaza was given back.

                    In short, I see it is very harmful to interpret increasing the building of suburbs around Jerusalem as equal to expanding settlements. (which almost everyone in Israel wants to keep, and it would literally cause a revolution and the end to Israel if Jerusalem were given up)

                    •  The propaganda war - and that is a large (0+ / 0-)

                      part of what negotiations are also based upon - is not necessarily dependent of hard facts, but impressions, gestures and will.  I understand the political need to satisfy a minority party in the wake of the recent yeshiva massacre, but does it fulfill the larger goal of peace?

                      Try our famous burgers and dogs.
                      -Munson Diner

                      by Eric S on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:16:55 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Have you been to Israel? (0+ / 0-)

                        Have you seen 'settlements' near Jerusalem?  They are hardly what one would call 'settlements,' rather, they are suburbs and are very close to the city of Jerusalem itself.  Most Israelis do not consider this settlements and I can assure you that any deal which takes this area out of Israel will be rejected by a large segment of Israeli society.  Hebron is different; I think this can be given away without causing a societal breakdown.

                        We are speaking of hundreds of thousands of Israelis who live in Jerusalem and its suburbs.  Where would they live?  What would happen to them?  There is no infrastructure to support them within the 1967 borders.  It is simply not practicable to wish Israel to return to the 1967 borders. (but one can be a Zionist and wish it; I just do not see how one can be pro-Israel and wish it)

                        A few more things; look at the "success" that has resulted from forcing the Gaza settlers from their homes.  We have seen thousands of rockets fired at Sderot over the course of 2 1/2 years.  Everything I see indicates the same would happen to Jerusalem if East Jerusalem and its suburbs are given back.

                        A final note; why is it so terrible necessarily to build buildings on lawfully purchased land which is a suburb to the capital of the country?

                        •  I realize the settlements outside of (0+ / 0-)

                          Jerusalem are more like suburbs.  I even know they were built by Palestinian laborers, and would expect them to be part of a land swap... I think it's one of the key Israeli terms, but to put myself in the role of my negotiating partner, it would have to be worth my while, nu?

                          And as much, I am aware of every fact and opinion you have offered, but I think you are missing the point.  Let's go back to Ecclesiastes for a moment, and remember there is a time for every purpose, et cetera.

                          Try our famous burgers and dogs.
                          -Munson Diner

                          by Eric S on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:47:53 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I think you are also missing something... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...Which is an examination of who is living in Jerusalem and its environs.  Jerusalem is populated by more religious Jews, who are having multiple children.  Housing prices are through the roof.  There is a visceral need for housing, especially in the Jerusalem area.  If you do not build more houses for the growing population, where would these people otherwise live?

                          •  I appreciate your doggedness, (0+ / 0-)

                            and must apologize, because I cannot continue this discussion now.  

                            In part, because we seem to be talking past each other, but more so, because I must actually get to work.  dKos takes more time than I ever have for it.

                            Try our famous burgers and dogs.
                            -Munson Diner

                            by Eric S on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:29:33 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That is true... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Eric S

                            ...But it is fun to procrastinate!

                          •  House prices not the issue.... (0+ / 0-)

                            If US citizens lawful purchase land in Mexico just South of San Diego build houses and move in they have to abide by Mexican law, pay Mexican Taxes, and if they were murdered by Mexican thugs the Mexican authorities would be expected to investigate.

                            If an Israeli Citizen buys land in the disputed territories beyond the 1967 boundaries, he expects to pay Israeli Taxes but in return send his children to Israeli schools and be protected by Israeli security forces, but he expects the other inhabitants of the same area to have different rights.

                            The status of the territory needs to be resolved and if it is Israel then all inhabitants should become Israeli Citizens with the same rights and responsibilities.

                            If it is not Israel then the present Jewish inhabitants need to accept they are living in Palestine and pay taxes and receive services from the Palestinian authorities.

                            Never going to happen overnight, but this is now the nub of the problem, sometime between 1948 and 1998 the vast majority of the Arab population accepted that anything inside the 1967 borders was gone forever, but they still believe in a Palestinian state in all of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

                            If that is never going to happen and I no longer see how it can, as I think you are right there would be a revolution in Israel at the thought of evacuating so much land, then somehow the discussion has to move to a single secular state for all which is what officially no one wants at present.

                          •  You know there are differences. (0+ / 0-)

                            Let's examine these differences, eh?

                            There was a Mexican-American War, but what I will present you with is not that situation, but rather, what would be a parallel...

                            Imagine, if you will, that Mexico is not happy that the USA exists and would like to wipe it out.  The USA goes to war with Mexico in order to prevent annhilation, and wins and captures vast swaths of Mexican territory.  After this win, America says to Mexico and Latin America: "We want peace, so recognize our existence, proclaim you want peace, and negotiate with us."  Then in response, in Mexico City, there is a conference, and the Latin American states say: "No peace, no recognition, no negotiations." source

                            What do you do then?  You have won this land in a war of attempted annhilation!

                            I will up the ante.

                            Suppose the land won was of extreme significance to American citizens, and was the holiest spot on earth for Americans; land they were previously deprived access to.

                            I will up the ante.

                            Suppose that this land is then lawfully purchased from Mexican citizens, and on that lawfully purchased land is where American citizens begin to move in 'settlements.'

                            I will up the ante.

                            Suppose most of the 'settlements' is on land that was previously stolen from Americans by the Mexicans.

                            I will up the ante.

                            Suppose this land was also seen to be of vital security significance, and prevented greater attacks upon the citizenry.

                            I will up the ante one more time.

                            Suppose then the citizens of Mexico still refuse, to this very day, to recognize the USA, and that Mexico refuses to repatriate the Mexicans living on the land captured, for political purposes.  And the Mexicans living in this captured land are taught to hate the USA and wish it to sink into the sea.

                            Would you then view it as a terrible thing that those Mexicans, who should in fact be repatriated to Mexico, are not American citizens?  Would you view it as terrible that there are 'settlements' in the land that was captured?  What if citizenship was offered to some of these Mexicans (East Jerusalem residents) and it was flatly refused?  What if most of these Mexicans really only want to destroy Israel and have not shown a desire for peaceful coexistence?

                            What do you do?

                            There are no easy answers here, and the one state solution most certainly does not appear to be a real solution.

              •  I consider them lunatic fringe. (0+ / 0-)

                I don't make any judgments on trends based on blogs, as it's self selecting and self-vocal.  The nuts always scream the loudest and the most often.  Yeah, we've got nutty types on the left, just like there are nutty types on the right.

                Krauthammer?  I wouldn't spit on Krauthammer if he were on fire.  The man is a complete and utter ass on every topic he's ever spoken on, so I wouldn't be surprised if he's anti-semetic to boot.

                I'm not sure where you are going with 'right wing appeals to Jews'.  Are you saying dwelling on Obama's middle name and the like are somehow eiher pro- or anti-semitic?  I thought he middle name was some form of Arabic?  Something like 'Handsome'?

                Got a problem with my posts? Email me, and let's resolve it.

                by drbloodaxe on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:51:15 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Let's go back to the question, please. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  arielle

                  Maybe your relatives are extremely sophisticated, or uninterested in the ME, or even apolitical.  I'm not even sure why the question should have been limited to relatives.  

                  But there is no good reason to make excuses for the various nuts, it is enough - to be responsive - to note that these fissures in Democratic support for Isrtael do exist and are being exploited.

                  As for Krautblather, he is a Jew.  And the right wing seems to be in step with our own Hillary, in finding anti-Israel/anti-Semitic concern for Obama - from the ongoing Wright dust-up to the most recent accusations that Ret. AF General McPeak (an Obama advisor and campaigner) is an anti-Semite..

                  Try our famous burgers and dogs.
                  -Munson Diner

                  by Eric S on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:09:20 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  My relatives are kinda like me (0+ / 0-)

                    in that they don't actually really think about the middle east much at all, except to curse Bush for getting us into Iraq.  At least the ones I talk to.  I'm not a big family kinda guy, I'm a loner by nature.

                    The lunatic fringers I was referring to were here on dK.  I don't have any idea what the wider sentiment is, but the worse the US economy gets, the more insular in nature I expect sentiment to be.  Everyone will be focused on their own local problems and paying ever less attention to the rest of the world.

                    At this point, I really wish we'd just offered to create a Jewish homeland somewhere in the US.  We've got tons of open space that's sparsely inhabited, could have just bought out anyone who lived there already, and then we could have maybe avoided all the ME conflict in the first place.

                    Got a problem with my posts? Email me, and let's resolve it.

                    by drbloodaxe on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:52:18 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Israel was chosen... (0+ / 0-)

                      ...As Jews have had a continuous presence there since recorded history, and it is the historic and religious homeland for Jews.

                      A Jewish homeland in the USA would have had no authenticity.

                    •  The Yeshuv was already well established (0+ / 0-)

                      in Israel by the time it was formed.

                      Aside from that, why anyone thinks putting it any place other than where they did would have made a damn bit of difference with how the resident population or the rest of the world saw them is beyond me.

                      I have the distinction of being called a media whore by Courtney Love. -Maynard J. Keenan

                      by arielle on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:00:16 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Uganda!! (0+ / 0-)

                        There were suggestions pre 1914 of a JEwish homeland in Uganda or Madagasgar, but even if they had happened I can not see the local population being any happier than the Palestinians and at least a portion of the Jewish population would never have been willing to accept anything other than Jerusalem, but in pre WW1 that was not an option and if something else had been available well who knows.

                        The real other option is a land without a people for a people without a land. 19th Century possibilities are realistically US far west, Jewish UTAH, instead of Mormon or Patagonia far south of now Argentina.

                        There is an alternative History novel recently published which has a 21st Century US carrier (the USS Hillary Clinton) turn up in 1942 Battle of Midway, and is the story of the 1940's inhabitants dealing with the 21st Century knowledge and attitudes, (female and black officers etc) a sub plot has a small group of 21st century Israelis and 1940's Jews killing Castro and Batista, in 1944 and taking control of Cuba as a Jewish haven from the Holocaust, WEIRD.

                        •  Also (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Eric S, Zionist American

                          The Yiddish Policemen's Union by Chabon in which the Jews lose the '48 war and are set up in a mandate in part of Alaska.

                          And subsequently made to vacate.

                          The "people without land for a land without a people" thing is relative, as we all know.  Palestine was fairly sparsely populated but "sparse" is not even remotely "un".

                          Utah, too, had a population which was subjugated and infringed on by the Mormons.

                          Then you had the 800,000 Sephardic Jews who I really can't see in Utah.  Nor in Sitka, Alaska but it makes a good read.  :o)

                          I have the distinction of being called a media whore by Courtney Love. -Maynard J. Keenan

                          by arielle on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:38:20 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

      •  Whose relatives? (9+ / 0-)

        None of mine believe that, to the best of my knowledge. In fact it seems to me that conservatives tend to be rather prejudiced towards Jews. Many of the real extreme ones only support a Jewish state because they think it's necessary to bring about Christian Dominionism. Why not tell the people you hear saying it to research the Dem Party, so they can make their own informed decisions?

        Don't trust any UID over [insert current highest number here].

        by pattyp on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:50:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  NEVER! (5+ / 0-)

        Jews vote democratic, in extreme numbers, for their wealth and income levels.

        Tikkun Olam, we shall fix this broken world together, with justice for one and all.

        Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

        by RisingTide on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:51:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  This year (7+ / 0-)

        Host your own seder and invite different relatives.

      •  When I first ran into this attitude (0+ / 0-)

        it was the mid-80s, at a NY modern orthodox wedding, where the brother of the bride was buttonholing everyone who would listen, saying that the only candidate a pro-Zionist should support was Ronald Reagan.

        I was gob-smacked.

    •  You are too, too coy. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      arielle, Zionist American

      Even if you don't personally feel one way or another, as a visitor to this diary, you must certainly be aware of an unfriendly strain among some Democrats towards Israel.

      Try our famous burgers and dogs.
      -Munson Diner

      by Eric S on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:43:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think it is much too complicated (7+ / 0-)

    an issue for me to choose an option in your poll. What do you mean by according to any boundaries?

    •  Simple... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DoGooderLawyer

      I mean an Israel according to UN 1947 boundaries, 1948 boundaries, some form of boundaries being discussed in Annapolis, or a Jewish state according to present boundaries.

      So in short, I am asking whether you believe in a Jewish state of Israel, be it on land smaller than what Israel occupies now, or not.

  •  I am a Zionist (10+ / 0-)

    in that I believe in Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. But I don't believe Israel can do no wrong, and I am often critical of its actions. I am probably a little bit to the right of some on this site on the issue, but like you, I would call myself a liberal Zionist, and it is disturbing to me to see the Democratic Party labeled as anti-Israel, though sadly, some of the rank and file activists tend to be. At least, that has been my experience with grassroots organizations and activists. When I volunteered on the Dean campaign, I noticed that while Dean himself was very pro-Israel, many of the people who came to the meetup groups were not, and that may have been part of what made some Jews uneasy about him.

    "There's not a liberal America and a conservative America; THERE'S THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA." OBAMA '08

    by democrattotheend on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:37:16 PM PDT

  •  Step 1: Define Zionism (6+ / 0-)

    Good luck on that, I'll be back here when you've finished your doctoral thesis.

  •  Welcome to Daily Kos (13+ / 0-)

    There's a tradition of high-energy debate of Israel that produces massive threads that are avoided by the majority of Kossacks.

    I think it's safe to say that a large number of Kossacks want justice and dignity for Palestinians, and what that means for Israel is where most of the disagreement is. A few people are explicitly anti-Zionist. A somewhat larger group see Israel as a uniquely racist/theocratic state and America should back away. I think a lot of people fear that Israel pressures the U.S. into war in the Middle East and that it's going to push us into Iran, and that causes some really ugly fights, because it's tough to disprove a conspiracy theory.

    I think most people approve of the idea of Israel, but wish it would behave better in our eyes.

    That's my appraisal of the situation.

  •  The Poll Options Are Too Constrained (9+ / 0-)

    ....for it to be a meaningful measure of anything at all.

  •  How am I to read the second poll option? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RumsfeldResign

    and which poll option would include either a split or merged state with the palestinians?

    IE, I could support a state in which palestine was given x amount of land and israel didn't wander around the palestine area all the time with automatic rifles, or i could support a state in which palestinians were equal citizens.

    Which choice does that make me?

    Got a problem with my posts? Email me, and let's resolve it.

    by drbloodaxe on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:39:03 PM PDT

    •  I think your first option (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      arielle, Zionist American

      Is the first option on the poll question -- Israel is allowed to have a state on roughly the 67 borders.

      Your second option is more complicated -- a quarter of the population of Israel proper, as constituted, are Palestinians with full rights.  The rest of the Palestinians, in occupied territory taken from the Arabs in wars where the goal was explicit annihilation of Israel, do not have any kind of citizenship so 'rights' sort of misses the point -- Israel tries to be humanitarian within the confines of a very messy war but they certainly don't have the vote or any of that.

      They also outnumber Israeli jews -- so saying "give them the vote in a merged state" is basically saying "turn over all the infrastructure you've built in the last 60 years, your military, government, etc to a people who've spent that time trying to destroy you".  For this reason, most rational observers of the situation support a 2-state solution where West Bank and Gaza Palestinians would have full rihgts in their own state while Israeli Palestinians continue to have full rights as Israeli citizens.

  •  An interesting view ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Grass

    Because of views such as this, it is difficult to answer your poll. There is "Zionism" and there is "Zionism". Conflating "Zionism" with "State of Israel" is problematic.

    •  Eh, that's a fringe view (4+ / 0-)

      You could talk about Zionism meaning all of historical Palestine vs. a negotiated state, but really, "Zionism means supporting a sovereign, Jewish state in the land that was Palestine" is a non-controversial statement. Anything more is like saying that Lyndon Larouche's membership in the party means that being a Democrat is undefinable.

  •  yes and no and yes and no... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drbloodaxe

    I wouldn't go out and create a Jewish state right now, and if I did I wouldn't put it in half of historical Palestine, but there it is and it's not going anywhere.  I don't care about the Jewish Right of Return as long as it's within 1967 borders (which makes it a generic matter of a country's immigration policies); as for 1948 Palestinian refugees, they're not going back so they'd better get used to it and either like where they are, or go somewhere else.  These are harsh truths harshly stated, but it's time for an imposed settlement that ignores the actors themselves, who will never be pleased with half-measures, and just does what's obvious and sensible from the perspective of the rest of the world.  I nominate the Chinese, who think all sides are alien and nuts, and who are looking for opportunities to be constructive players in the world.

    The deeper context is that all religion is false, so confessional states are idiocy.  But so long as you're not all piling on the atheism bandwagon, Israel gets to stay so long as Saudi Arabia and a bunch of others do.

    -5.38/-3.74 I've suffered for my country. Now it's your turn! --John McCain with apologies to Monty Python's "Protest Song"

    by Rich in PA on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:40:22 PM PDT

    •  Great comment, (0+ / 0-)

      Except for the Chinese part.  I love China and may be studying there next year but they're not looking for opportunities to be constructive players, they're looking for access to resources.  Being symbolically constructive in some cases helps them with that, but there are too many arab states with oil to rely on Chinese impartiality in this case.

  •  Eleven. (8+ / 0-)

    OK, we're done now.

    Thanks, everyone.

  •  Progressive Zionist here (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    livosh1, zemblan, Zionist American

    Am Yisrael Chai!  

    Visit Sinister, the home of a left-handed left-wing Okie Jew.

    by ethanthej on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:41:22 PM PDT

  •  for such a new user... (7+ / 0-)

    you are trying to get some complicated info about a very controversial issue in a very simplistic way.

    you are welcome here, but a little more history will get you better response.

    Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society -Mark Twain

    by gooners on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:41:48 PM PDT

  •  Both Senators Obama and Clinton strongly (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenskeeper

    support a secure Israel as a democratic, Jewish state. They also both support a "two states for two peoples" peace settlement with the Palestinians.

    I expect the Democratic Party platform will reflect their views.

    I suspect, however, that many people who share their views would not regard themselves as "Zionists."

    Rather than polling us on labels, and abstracting from the weakness of all DKos polls, you might do better to poll on substance.

  •  I don't like your choices (6+ / 0-)

    I support a (mostly) secular Israeli state that is majority Jewish and I also support a Palestinian state. I wish there could be a viable, secular one-state solution, but that doesn't seem likely at this point. I'm also a Jewish American who has been to Israel and got into it. But I also think that people like the neo-cons and Likud are very detrimental to peace.

  •  I have no idea what a Zionest is (0+ / 0-)

    When we are together it isn't me who matters, but the other person

    by AHiddenSaint on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:45:17 PM PDT

    •  Simple... (0+ / 0-)

      I mean an Israel according to UN 1947 boundaries, 1948 boundaries, some form of boundaries being discussed in Annapolis, or a Jewish state according to present boundaries.

      So in short, I am asking whether you believe in a Jewish state of Israel, be it on land smaller than what Israel occupies now, or not.

      •  actually if you mean if I believe we should (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rusty Pipes, dansmith17

        support Israel first on everything then the answer is no. I think Israel is trying to push us into a war with Iran and I do not agree with that.

        When we are together it isn't me who matters, but the other person

        by AHiddenSaint on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:54:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not the question. (0+ / 0-)

          It's whether Israel has a right to exist at all...not whether it should be supported on this or that issue.

          •  Israel has no more (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tgs1952, Rusty Pipes, limpidglass

            right to exist than America does.

            They do exist, but national boundaries aren't a matter of 'right'.  They're a matter of who beat up who and took the lands.

            Got a problem with my posts? Email me, and let's resolve it.

            by drbloodaxe on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:58:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  you know, I've never understood that question (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            drbloodaxe

            either you exist or you don't. If you exist, you don't need the "right to exist"--your existence should be more than enough. If you don't exist, of what good to you is some abstract "right to existence"?

            I don't think the Founding Fathers of America debated whether America had any "right to exist"; they just brought it into existence. And I don't think the founders of Israel debated the question either.

            It's a silly argument. You might as well ask whether you, as an individual human being, have "the right to exist". Then you'll understand how frivolous the question is.

            •  It is not Israel's existence but it's JEWISHNESS (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tnichlsn, Rusty Pipes, Big Tex

              Of course Israel has a right to exist it exists is a member of the United Nations and is a recognised state by most nations on the planet.

              There are at least 10 states I can think of which are recognised by zero countries or only a handful and yet in all other ways are more reasonable as countries than many other states.

              What keeps being demanded is that the rest of the world recognise Israel as a Jewish state, this I have more of a problem with,  at present it has a Jewish majority and Christian and Muslim minorities, if at some point in the future the balance changes I would hope there would be peaceful changes in the democratic nation, recognition of a Jewish state would in that situation either give the right for the then minority to undemocratically rule the majority or to expel them from their homes to maintain an artificial Jewish state.

              either of those options I and I suspect many here would have a problem with.

              •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

                Israel gives Arab Israelis full democratic rights at present.  As far as the Palestinians, that is more complicated, and being negotiated presently.  They exist as a semi-autonomous state right now.  Gaza could have been the first step towards statehood, but is proving to not be a great success, to put it mildly.

                •  Sorry if I am not being clear.... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Rusty Pipes, Zionist American

                  At present I agree Arab Israelis have full democratic rights, and are a minority, and it is unlikly that demography or immigration will see a change in the Jewish majority of the 1967 borders of Israel, but it is possible in some decades time.

                  The majority population of all of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean is much more likely to reach a non Jewish majority in the foreseeable future.  

                  I think Israel should exist.
                  I think Israel should not be attacked from it's neighbours
                  I think Israel should be a democratic state.
                  I think it should have strong support for the rights of the minority population both now and in the future.
                  I think the details of that state should be for the population of the state, to agree, be that Jewish, secular, bi-national or any other variant.

      •  And what will happen inside those boundaries? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rusty Pipes

        drive the Palestinians into the sea, allow them to live peacefully side-by-side, force them to occupy uninhabitable zones? South African history is the closest parallel and they tried all 3 options at one time or another. Which are we talking about here?

        Support democracy at home and abroad, join the ACLU & Amnesty International http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org and http://www.aclu.org Your voice is needed!

        by tnichlsn on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:13:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I believe... (7+ / 0-)

    ...that the wearing of white after Labor Day should be elevated to felony status, at least in the state of Connecticut.  Oh wait...

    Fear will keep the local systems in line. -Grand Moff Tarkin Survivor Left Blogistan

    by boran2 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:46:15 PM PDT

  •  "According to ANY boundaries?" (8+ / 0-)

    This is what happens when one writes a diary that can be read in under a nanosecond -- words that cry out for explanation go unexplained.

    For the record, I am -- like most American Jews -- a liberal who supports the existence of the state of Israel even while I am highly critical of manhy of its actions.  (Come to think of it, that could also be said of most Israeli Jews as well.)  But I certainly do not favor ANY boundaries -- I favor a boundary between two states, Israel and Palestine,  mutually negotiated by and mutally acceptable to both peoples.  That is the only road to peace and peace is the only true security for Israel -- and as a Zionist, Israeli security is a paramount issue with me.

    As for this -- "The Democratic Party is now being labelled as increasingly unfriendly to Israel" -- such labelling (or rather libelling) is merely GOP propaganda that has nothing to do with reality and has done nothing to shake the identification of American Jews with the Democrats, who received 88% of our votes in 2006.  

    I will vote for whoever or whatever the Democrats nominate -- animal, vegetable or mineral.

    by Finck II on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:46:59 PM PDT

  •  omg (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sockpuppet, mcfly, Big Tex, blueness, martydd

    Do not respond to this diary!  Please, for allah's sake.

    * 4001 * http://icasualties.org/oif/

    by BDA in VA on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:47:37 PM PDT

  •  What a load of crap. (8+ / 0-)

    Why do you see fomenting divisiveness as being helpful?  All I see is a high UID number coming in and saying "Let's you and him fight.".

    Don't confuse this confusion with disorganization, because we're not that organized yet. -5.13/-3.38

    by Grannus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:49:08 PM PDT

  •  Lump me with the first wave of zionists, (7+ / 0-)

    who arrived, discovered that this was NOT a land without people as advertised, and promptly got back on the boat.

  •  Does this poll envisage at all the distinction (0+ / 0-)

    between religious Zionism - the belief that the Jewish people will be reunited in the land of Israel after the coming of the Messiah - and political Zionism?

    We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

    by Lepanto on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:50:44 PM PDT

    •  Not relevant... (0+ / 0-)

      ...I only mean the following...

      I mean an Israel according to UN 1947 boundaries, 1948 boundaries, some form of boundaries being discussed in Annapolis, or a Jewish state according to present boundaries.

      So in short, I am asking whether you believe in a Jewish state of Israel, be it on land smaller than what Israel occupies now, or not.

  •  Israel doesn't need (0+ / 0-)

    a "right" to exist.  it exists because Israelis want it so.

  •  to me, the boundaries are less important (8+ / 0-)

    than that whatever state(s) exist respect the fundamental human rights of all people under their control.

    surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

    by wu ming on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:54:13 PM PDT

  •  Obama offers a 2 state solution (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zemblan

    probably the most stabilizing solution. do clinton/mccain offer that? just curious

  •  This is a very feeble attempt (3+ / 0-)

    to label this forum as anti-semite. From what I have seen the people here are smarter than to fall for you pathetic trap.

  •  We Are The New World (0+ / 0-)

    The United States has no business taking sides in the Middle East.

  •  I'm not Jewish or a Zionist (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    livosh1, blueness, RisingTide

    I do support a Jewish state and I hope for Peace some day.

    Live from Brooklyn! An Edwards Democrat. Now What?

    by resa on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:01:44 PM PDT

    •  Then you are a Zionist. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eric S

      Zionism inherently means supporting the existence of the State of Israel according to any boundaries, be it small boundaries (UN 1947 borders) or larger boundaries (the present ones).

      •  I am resisting posting an angry comment...... (0+ / 0-)

        in response to your intentionally divisive rhetoric. By the way....I am not a zionist.

      •  No, I am not. (0+ / 0-)

        I think that you know that Zionism has taken on a much larger meaning than that (or in other words, it's not that black & white).

        Live from Brooklyn! An Edwards Democrat. Now What?

        by resa on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:23:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No it has not. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          arielle, Eric S

          Zionism = a belief in an ethnically Jewish state of Israel, according to even small borders.

          People have tried to turn Zionism into a dirty word, but would you care to tell me why it is inherently such a dirty word, and for that matter, why you are NOT a Zionist?

          •  I don't define myself (0+ / 0-)

            as any kind of ...ist. I'm for everybody.

            Live from Brooklyn! An Edwards Democrat. Now What?

            by resa on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:34:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  When you are for everybody, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Zionist American

              you are for nobody.  Really.  You just can't spread yourself thin enough.

              Try our famous burgers and dogs.
              -Munson Diner

              by Eric S on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:51:54 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  How cynical you are. How sad. (0+ / 0-)

                I'd rather be for nobody than to have to choose.

                People have been telling me that I have to choose all of my life and, of course I'm still not against anybody. It's pretty hard and highly unlikely for a multi-racial mutt whose lived all over the world and has half ethnically Jewish kids.

                If you need to force me into some kind of -ist, it's just plain humanist.

                I hope that makes you feel more comfortable.

                Live from Brooklyn! An Edwards Democrat. Now What?

                by resa on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:14:44 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Sorry dear, but not only do I know (0+ / 0-)

                  what I'm talking about, but it's hardly cynical.  I bear no one ill, but my love is so precious, it must be meted out with care so the deserving can get a full measure.  

                  And do you wanna' know something funny?  I have lived all over the world (well, mostly the US & Asia, but it's a lot of frequent flier miles anyway you look at it) and I have two lovely half ethnically Jewish kids.  It is not easy attaching pride to their two ethnic identities when they are outsiders everywhere, but it is essential if they are to have any sense of rootedness.

                  Try our famous burgers and dogs.
                  -Munson Diner

                  by Eric S on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:59:47 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You are (0+ / 0-)

                    free to disagree with me, not to lecture me. I'm way too old for you to be doing that. I've raised kids who are the most grounded adults that you could ever meet. I always made sure to remind my children when they were growing up that if other people who have problems about with they are, that it's the other persons problem. For me, it was very easy! My kids are amazing people, one is working towards becoming a Unitarian minister and highly trained in anti-racism. I hope that you have a similar result.

                    I greatly respect that you focus your energy on one specific group of people and I respect your work.

                    I'm more likely to focus my time, energy and money on groups like Amnesty International and Doctors without Borders.

                    Face it, I'm different from you. I'm nobody important and I'm nobodies savior, nor am I trying to be. I hope that's ok with you. If it isn't, too bad.

                    Live from Brooklyn! An Edwards Democrat. Now What?

                    by resa on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:18:24 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I would not pretend to change anyone here. (0+ / 0-)

                      Nor do I get myself in a twist when challenged, insulted or disagreed with.  If my time on dKos has proven anything, it is that very few care to see anything but approval for their own.  I don't even claim to be different.

                      Congrats on your wonderful kids.  I started quite late in life, so mine are quite young while I am getting quite old.  But what I seen of their dealings with racism already, has obliged me to learn certain stances, teach certain lessons and form certain opinions... these along with the other lessons of my life I do share here.  I will say, Isaac, at age nine, is far more knowledgeable of racism and "anti-racism," from the training I have given him, than most twice his age.

                      As for the focus of my energy, it is hardly here at dKos, nor has it ever been on "one specific group of people," despite your respect for such.  I would probably fit under the broad label of "humanist" just as you do, though I cannot, like you, be "for everybody."  I have seen the bad guys and the selfish and the fools - all with my own eyes - and I don't offer the other cheek.

                      Still, different as we may or may not be, Amnesty International, MSF, the ACLU and the Jazz Foundation are my favorite charities.  And on the subject of difference, if this is a lecture, how is it any worse than this?  And are you so sure the affection implicit in the word "dear" is entirely ironic?

                      Try our famous burgers and dogs.
                      -Munson Diner

                      by Eric S on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:07:33 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Good for you! (0+ / 0-)

                        I took the "dear" and your initial post to me both to be talking down to me and condescending, admittedly I responded in kind since that seemed to be the language in which you chose to communicate with me.

                        Perhaps that was not your intention in which case, I apologize and perhaps you should consider the way in which your words come across.

                        For the record, calling a woman "dear", particularly one  that you don't know,  when you are disagreeing with her is probably not the best tactic to take. It sounds condescending.

                        If you consider responding to a "challenge", "insult", or "disagreement" as getting into a twist then I guess that I am in one.

                        I assure you, I am not angry or insulted. I would not be replying to you, nor would you have any respect from me at all. You continue to have my respect for your POV and for our differences (and we are different).

                        PS - I realized on reflection that I am in fact, one other "ist", so I lied. I am a Buddhist. I never think of Buddhism that way as being "for" a particular group of people but it is an "ist", so I was wrong.

                        Live from Brooklyn! An Edwards Democrat. Now What?

                        by resa on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:25:39 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  And do not call me dear. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Rusty Pipes

                    Live from Brooklyn! An Edwards Democrat. Now What?

                    by resa on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:18:42 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  No it hasn't. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Eric S, RisingTide, Zionist American

          It has been bastardized by those with an agenda.

          I have the distinction of being called a media whore by Courtney Love. -Maynard J. Keenan

          by arielle on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:17:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Question (0+ / 0-)

    I am somewhat ignorant here. That's the only definition of the term "zionist?" The original one? Because I never support "my country, right or wrong"-ism, even if it's not my country. That's what contemporary "zionism" means to me. If that is not what it "really" means, then of course what I think is irrelevant. "My religion, right or wrong" is also disagreeable to me.

  •  Outrageous (0+ / 0-)

    It is absolutely outrageous that 38% of the posters on dKos do not believe that Israel should be a Jewish state.

    I'm sure a poll of registered Democrats in the US would show that more than 95% agree that Israel should be a Jewish state.

    This just proves that the current dKos readership is not representative of the Democratic Party.  Something should be done to remedy that.

  •  Do you belive in a Palestinian state as well? (5+ / 0-)

    There will be no peace until both sides respect each other's right to existence. When men stop fighting each other and sit down to listen to each other, maybe they'll get somewhere.
    Probably that will never work though. Perhaps the women of Palestine and Israel should sit down and make the decisions for their future. They're much better at negotiating and compromise. Then, all they have to do is stop giving their men sex until they agree.
    Leave it to only men to decide and the world will never have peace.

    "The truth shall set you free, but first it will piss you off!" - Gloria Steinem

    by MA Liberal on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:09:03 PM PDT

  •  The poll doesn't contain suffficient options. (4+ / 0-)

    I think that most people woud agree that once a group has lived in a place a significant length of time it is hard to construct a situation where that group leaves.  I would also suggest the religious prophecy will never be a solid basis to justify land ownership when the parties are of different religions.  The only reasonable solution is a negotiated settlement. Once divided, however, both societies have to be allowed to progress without one maintaining hegemony over the other.

    "Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come." Victor Hugo

    by lordcopper on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:11:05 PM PDT

    •  Well, the only relevance... (0+ / 0-)

      ...Is whether Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state even on a small plot of land, such as that granted in the 1947 UN vote.

      •  That's hardly the situation now, nor would that (0+ / 0-)

        be acceptable to Isreal at this point.  My point was that even though the state of Israel was established based on a Judeo-Christian worldview (in conflict with the existing poputation), existing there for 61 years brings legitimacy.  Again, the only reasonable solution is a negotiated settlement. Once divided, however, both societies have to be allowed to progress without one maintaining hegemony over the other.

        "Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come." Victor Hugo

        by lordcopper on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:23:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What do you mean... (0+ / 0-)

          ...By "Judeo-Christian worldview (in conflict with the existing poputation)"?

          The 1947 borders were on land that was majority Jewish as of 1947, despite the Holocaust and all attempts to keep Jews from immigrating to Israel.

          But sure, no one is happy with the situation in the West Bank.

  •  it's not about "a" Jewish state (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sockpuppet, Big Tex, martydd

    In my definition it's about taking, sneaking and stealing more and more land from Palestinians, subjugating them economically, and humiliating them with an arrogant misuse of power.

    There are reasonable people who want a stable, peaceful Jewish state, including myself.

    Palestinians share some of the blame for failures, of course. But they're like a dog beaten from birth and can't behave normally, so the Israelis have to carry the moral weight of the challenge to bring peace to the region. They broke it; they have to fix it.  

    I'm back from exile with a smile. Gobama!

    by bob zimway on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:19:07 PM PDT

  •  I don't believe this poll ... (0+ / 0-)

    offers enough options. I was not able to choose one and I suspect many other people feel the same way.

      I am not aware of any animosity towards Jews, or anybody else on this site as a function of their religion.

      I do find it troubling that any criticism of the state of Israel or its' actions is deemed to be rooted in some animosity towards Jews and the critic is often accused of antisemitism.  

    In the halls of justice, the only justice is in the halls. Lenny Bruce

    by the biped on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:20:06 PM PDT

    •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

      It's about whether you believe Israel has a right to exist at all, even on tiny boundaries, or not.

      •  Yes ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        drbloodaxe

          I believe, at this point, Israel has a right to exist.

          I regret the manner in which it came into being and am philosophically opposed to religious tests as regards citizenship or the right to remain in the area in which one lives as a function of either religion or race (or however one would characterize the distinction between the Zionists and the inhabitants of what is now Israel as of 1948).

        In the halls of justice, the only justice is in the halls. Lenny Bruce

        by the biped on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:36:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

          Non-Jews are also citizens of Israel. (and Judaism is an ethnicity and religion wrapped up into one, so the "right of return" is similar to the right of children of American citizens who grew up in other countries to return to America)

          But nice to know you support Israel in at least some form. :)

          •  I was talking ... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Rusty Pipes, drbloodaxe

            about the Palestinians' right to remain exactly where they were in 1948 and to be incorporated into any political system that the birth of the state of Israel gave rise to as full citizens with the same rights as anyone else (regardless of their religion or any other distinction one could make).

            In the halls of justice, the only justice is in the halls. Lenny Bruce

            by the biped on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:53:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Palestinians were given an offer for a state... (0+ / 0-)

              ...In 1947, by the UN, and their leaders rejected it.

              They then lost the war, and what was supposed to be the Palestinian state was incorporated into Jordan and Egypt, rather than made into a seperate state.  Those that remained in Israel during the duration of the war were granted citizenship. (as Arab Israelis)

              •  I take it then ... (0+ / 0-)

                that you believe the UN had some inherent right to give away that which they did not, in fact, own.

                  I would refer you to Benny Morris or Edward Said or Norman Finkelstein or, the best book I ever read on the subject, "The Unmaking of Palestine" by Wasif Abboushi.

                  I'm sure you realize that the subject is a good bit more complicated than your previous post suggests.

                In the halls of justice, the only justice is in the halls. Lenny Bruce

                by the biped on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:05:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Are you serious? (0+ / 0-)

                  Norm Finkelstein?  The man is a propogandist who shills for Hizballah.  Edward Said was friends with Arafat.  These are the people you cite to?

                  The Palestinians had no state in 1947 which was then "bequeathed" to the Jews.  There simply was no state in existence in 1947; it was all part of the British Mandate.  The (very tiny) borders set out in 1947 were majority Jewish in 1947.

                  •  No, I was kidding ... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Rusty Pipes

                     
                      Are you serious?

                      I thought the topic was sufficiently complicated and SERIOUS that I read 10 or 15 books on the subject over the last 20 years.
                     
                      The British Mandate and the UN. Wow. I eagerly await your defense of colonialism and the subjugation of the native inhabitants of what is now Israel.

                      Until I am in receipt of them, I will bow to the superior intellect and greater wisdom that you clearly believe you possess if your insulting tone is any indication.

                     

                    In the halls of justice, the only justice is in the halls. Lenny Bruce

                    by the biped on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:40:36 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  For clarification... (0+ / 0-)

              ...The war was not just Palestinians against Israel, it was a multitude of Arab states v. Israel.

  •  Progressive Zionist (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric S, Zionist American

    while I don't like the passive straw man "democratic party is being labelled", and I think you should have put your very good definition in the diary itself (do an update), this is worth asking.

    according to your definition, I am a Zionist, and those that label the desire or belief in the state you describe as racism or ethnism are probably being discriminatory.

    unfortunately, extremists on the left have been winning the branding war on what the word Zionist mean, associating it with AIPAC and Likud and a refusal to critique Israel, so that lots of good hearted folks don't think it's a good word or thing to be.  

    simply put, everyone should be a Zionist and everyone should support the Jews' historical right to have a homeland in at least some part of their historical home, the same way they would for any other ethnic group trying to achieve self-determination, like the Palestinians.

    •  I'm sorry? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      poleshifter, martydd

      I should have a right to create a homeland in my family's historical homeland(s) even if some other country already exists there?

      I don't think so.  I should be able to settle there, if I meet the requirements of immigration and join the country that already exists.

      Got a problem with my posts? Email me, and let's resolve it.

      by drbloodaxe on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:50:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There was no 'Palestine' in 1947 (0+ / 0-)

        So I am not exactly sure where you are going with this.  Jews lawfully purchased land, and then were granted the right to a state via a UN vote in 1947. (Palestinians were also granted the right to a state at that time)  Jews accepted, Palestinians (or at least the leaders) rejected.  The 1947 borders were on land that was majority Jewish at the time it was voted upon.  Then the 1948 borders were the result of warfare where Arab states fired the first shot.

        Simply put, history is different than how you portrayed it.

        •  Ah, so (0+ / 0-)

          there was no pre-existing nation in that spot prior to 1947?

          It was the one place on earth not already claimed by any other country?  What an incredible coincidence.

          Got a problem with my posts? Email me, and let's resolve it.

          by drbloodaxe on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:56:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's a fact. (0+ / 0-)

            This was part of the British Mandate in 1947.  Prior to that, it was part of the Ottoman Empire. (but not a seperate state)  Prior to that, it was a Crusader state.  Prior to that, it was part of the Caliphate.  Prior to that, it was part of Byzantium.  Prior to that, part of the Roman Empire.  Prior to that, part of the Greek Empire.  Prior to that, part of the Persian Empire.  Prior to that, part of the Babylonian Empire.  Prior to that, there was a Jewish state of Israel.  Prior to that, Canaanites lived there.  We don't know any further back.

            Look it up, thems the facts.

            •  Just did (0+ / 0-)

              though admittedly I used wikipedia, so what I was reading is suspect.

              So basically it comes down to Brits taking it over after WW 1 and telling the current inhabitants tough luck, like invading Europeans did to the American Indians, who also got shafted to create the US.

              Well, I still would have to say I don't believe in a 'right' to any land apart from the hypothetical right of conquest, which is apparently what went on there, just as it did in the US.

              You conquer, you take the land.  Worked in America, worked in Israel.

              Got a problem with my posts? Email me, and let's resolve it.

              by drbloodaxe on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:10:40 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's not quite how it happened. (0+ / 0-)

                The Brits took over, and for a short time, Jews were in luck and there was the Balfour Declaration, which declared that Israel was to be a Jewish state.  However, the Brits also made promises to Arabs who supported them during WWI.  So they promised the land to two different parties.

                Anyway.

                Before 1917, Jews started to emigrate to Israel and lawfully purchased land.  Tel Aviv, for instance, was constructed on what was completely desert land, and lawfully purchased from the Ottomans.  After 1917, Jews started emigrating to Israel and buying more land.  This stepped up as Jews was suffering from pogroms in Europe.  Then, the Holocaust happened in Europe, and at the same time, the Brits published the White Paper of 1939, which froze all immigration to Israel. (this was also encouraged by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Al Husseini)  Six million Jews then died in the Holocaust, and the remainder of them alive were living in displaced person camps across Europe, in virtual prisons.  No one wanted Jews to be repatriated into European states, and Jews were desperate, especially after the Holocaust, to have their own state.  But Britain refused to allow immigration to Israel, out of fear of inciting Arab hatred.  There were a few thousand Jews who slipped through.  Then in 1947, the UN granted a partition on land that was majority Jewish as of 1947, despite all odds (i.e., despite the Holocaust and attempts to prevent Jewish immigration to Israel).  Jews fought for the rest against Arab states who attacked it on the first day of its formation.  The Brits did not allow any weapons in the hands of Jews, but these weapons were smuggled in, anyway.  Jews fought against the Arab states and prevailed.

                So in short, the Brits might have favored Jews in 1917, but not afterwards.  The story is much more complicated than how you laid it out.

                •  Sounds like it (0+ / 0-)

                  is indeed much more complicated.  But I'm still an athiest, so I'm going to stick with my answer that there is no 'divine right', the only right is the right that one way or another it was created, so it does exist.  That having been said, I don't see any particular reason that a country once created should be 'uncreated'.  But I wish they'd hurry up and figure out a peace with the peoples they seem to be constantly fighting with.

                  Got a problem with my posts? Email me, and let's resolve it.

                  by drbloodaxe on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:28:58 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I never said... (0+ / 0-)

                    ...That Israel has or had a "divine right" to exist.

                    That is for theologists, which I am not.

                    I believe one can very easily be an atheist and believe Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state.  Recall: Judaism is both an ethnicity and a religion.

                    As an aside, one can believe in a right to a Jewish Israel and also a right to Palestinian state.  The two do not contradict each other.

                    •  Israel has a right to exist as an Israeli state. (0+ / 0-)

                      By claiming all Jews as an ethnic group and saying they must be loyal and supportive of Israel, you are suggesting all African Americans should have votes in the Nigerian elections, all Italian Americans in the Italian one, all French Canadians in the French election and so on.

                      At some point Israel has to start thinking of itself as an Israeli state and not as a Jewish state.

                      •  Jewish non-Israelis... (0+ / 0-)

                        ...Have no right to vote in Israeli elections.  They only have a right to emigrate to Israel, if they so choose.  Many states do the same.  I have a friend who has one Irish grandmother, but that alone qualifies her for Irish citizenship if she wanted.

                        Is that "racist"?

                        •  I dig the right of return for both Jews & (0+ / 0-)

                          Palestinians. The latter can trace their family back sixty years.

                          Let everyone in...one state, let 'em all vote.

                          Atheism: the religion devoted to the worship of one's own smug sense of superiority. -- Stephen Colbert

                          by Belvedere Come Here Boy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:55:23 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Here's the problem re: Palestinians (0+ / 0-)

                            The problem simply is that they are not given a right of return because the Palestinians lost the 1948 war which attempted to annhilate Israel.  They lost.  Germans have no right to return to parts of Poland they were kicked out of.  Why should the Palestinians be granted a right that no one else has?  Why is it an intrinsic right they deserve?

                          •  The Germans and Poles are still arguing as well.. (0+ / 0-)

                            There are descendandts of Germans who were kicked out of Sudetenland or Poland in 1948 who are also still campaigning for a right of return or a right to compensation for lost property.

                            Now that Poland and the Czech Republic are in the EU there were transitional provisions to prevent Germans simply buying property but they will be phased out in a few years and then if the Germans want to return they can.

                            There is no way they are going to get compensation for the property lost at the time though.

                            The Palestinians are at some point going to have to accept that the refugees of 1948 are never going home and they need to be resettled permanently into the countries they now inhabit.

                            The Israelis are going to have to accept that they either have to leave ALL 100% of the West Bank and Golan heights or they will be in a state of war for another few decades.
                            At that point the possibility of a 2 state solution will be gone and the only solutions remaining will be...

                            1. Mass slaughter or expulsion of Palestinian inhabitants, I assume almost all Israelis and all here would never accept.
                            1. An apartheid state with a non Democratic system in favour of the Jewish population.
                            1. A Democratic state with a large Jewish and Arab populations.

                            If 2 separate states are no longer possible I would hope a single secular state was but with the history I can not see it.

                            One example nearby is Cyprus, realistic intermingling of the 2 populations is now restarting Peace talks now after both populations being separated and quarantined from each other by an International force for 30 years.

                            The big problem is the settlements, no Palestinian leader can accept Peace based on the majority of the settlements remaining, no Israeli leader is going to be in a position to give up the settlements.

                            Is any outside power going to be willing to devote sufficient force to protect Jewish inhabitants of an independent Palestine with significant Jewish populations in what would then be Palestine.
                            I doubt it very much.
                            Would a future Palestinian state ever see the IDF as an unbiased and neutral party in such discussions?

                          •  A few responses... (0+ / 0-)
                            1. Do Germans have any inherant 'right of return' to Poland?  No one would say as much.
                            1. Have you seen the Golan Heights?  It was nearly empty, population-wise, prior to Israel winning it in 1967.  It was merely used as a launch pad for rockets.  Why give back land which no one lived in and was merely used as a launch pad for rockets?
                            1. The world community is not arguing Jews should get compensation for the land and money they lost when they were kicked out of Arab states.  So why are Palestinians special in this regard?
                            1. Even if the status quo remains, it is not apartheid.  The Palestinians have their own seperate system of governance under the Palestinian Authority.  Arab Israelis have full voting rights within Israel, so how could this be seen as a race-based inequality system?
                            1. The big problem is the settlements, no Palestinian leader can accept Peace based on the majority of the settlements remaining, no Israeli leader is going to be in a position to give up the settlements. - untrue

                            As of March 26, 2008, there is still not a single Palestinian leader that has given up claims to 100% of Israel.  Hamas, in its charter, states its plan to wipe Israel off the map.  Same with Fatah.  It is the biggest fallacy in reasoning to say it is about the settlements.  Israel would be willing to give up land in the West Bank, and it would likely not cause a serious problem within the state.  The exception is Jerusalem and its surrounding areas.  But why do Palestinians necessarily deserve Jerusalem?  This is the Jewish homeland and the Jewish heartland, not the Muslim one.

                          •  Try and respond. (0+ / 0-)
                            1. No the Germans do not have a right after all this time and but groups of them are still arguing for it but they will be unsuccessful. The refugees of 1948 and their descendants will never return, but there will be an Arab myth that they should for decades more or even longer. With a Jewish Diaspora for centuries I would think you could understand the demand even if you do not accept it. (Next year in Jerusalem!)

                            The much more recent refugees from Bosnia or Croatia are being offered a right of return with the International community to protect them.

                            1. There were a small number of villages and there is a Syrian town of Quenerita (or something like that) which now sits in no mans land. The answer of why give it back is because it will be a cause of a state of war between Syria and Israel from now till hell freezes over if you do not. At present with a massive military superiority over Syria the answer is so what, but in another 2,3,4 decades do you still want to be at war.
                            1. The Palestinians should not be special, but maybe Jewish refugees from Aden or Iraq should get compensation and those from Eastern Europe are certainly arguing for compensation for the crimes of the 1940's both Nazi and Soviet.
                            1. Even if the status quo remains it will not be apartheid, the Palestinians will have their own SEPARATE system do you even know what Apartheid means, it was an Afrikaans word for Separate. Inside the 1967 borders the citizens of Israel have equal rights, though the Arabs would say they meet discrimination (though probably less than in many society's around the world with minority populations), it is in the disputed lands beyond the 67 borders were an apartheid system is in danger of being entrenched. All Jewish residents are by definition Israeli citizens all, Arab residents are somehow different with seperate rights. This was acceptable as a position if it is seen as a temporary occupation it becomes unacceptable if seen as permanent. If the land is going to be permanently occupied then it needs to become part of Israel and so do the inhabitants with all the rights and privileges that entails.
                            1. There are 2 issues here, 1 we would give up all the land if we pretend all of Jerusalem and the surrounding suburbs do not count, well sorry but from a Palestinian point of view the Arab residents of East Jerusalem are a very significant part of their constituency and they do not accept that Israel has a right to all of Jerusalem and the surrounding area. I do not think any Israeli Government is ever going to partition Jerusalem I do not see peace from the Arab population unless you do . All possible solutions would need much more trust on each side than is possible at present. You ask why do they DESERVE it, as if geo-political problems are decided by who is good and who is bad and the rest of the world should support the one who is good.

                            I will bow to your better knowledge over the views of Hamas and Fatah, but I was under the impression that Fatah had accepted the Israeli right to exist as part of the Oslo process. I would give an example the other way. When Ireland broke away from the UK the Irish constitution claimed as of right all 32 counties of Ireland despite at the time only having authority over 26 of them. Despite the fact that there was an official legal document claiming a significant chunk of British territory as Irish the British and Irish governments managed to get along reasonably well from 1922 to 1998 when the relevant parts of the constitution were removed. There were terrorist groups which tried to put the claim into reality but the Irish government for most of the century saw them as a threat to itself as well and took action against them.

                            UK also has peaceful and constructive ties with Spain and Argentina despite disputes over Gibraltar and the Falklands, on both cases the both sides have a claim to 100% of the territory, in both cases as long as there is no likelihood of the claim being enforced by military means then who cares.

                            Any Arab political group which in the end makes peace will not be in a position to give up on symbols before much time has passed.
                            We will not talk until you stop sending rockets at Sderot, useful tactic.
                            We will not talk until you destroy your charter, accept our version of history and accept the Israeli states right to exist, not a useful position, unless you do not actually want to talk.

                            The bit of paper is not important it is the tactics used to have that view. If an Arab political party amongst the Arab Citizens of Israel had the view that Gaza and the West Bank should be incorporated into Israel and the law of return should be reversed to allow Palestinians from 1948 but now Jews who had never previously been resident. I would hope that would be seen as a legitimate political view AS LONG AS they campaigned only through the ballot box and did not use military means.

                          •  Responses to your response... (0+ / 0-)
                            1. The Palestinians were local Arabs in 1947 who at least appear to have sided with other Arab states who pushed to have Israel wiped off the map before it even was on the map.  Bosnians and Croatians, in contrast, were victims of a war started by Serbs.  So, as such, Palestinians are closer to Germans who were kicked out of Poland.  No one holds these Germans have an 'inherant' right to return.  And let me add, it is good you seperated out the time!  Certainly, no one holds that Germans have an 'inherent' right to return, more than 60 years later.  Why are Palestinians treated so specially?
                            1. I walked all through the Golan Heights.  You are speaking of sparsely populated Syrian villages, and they were mostly occupied by Druze people who were all given 100% citizenship into Israel.  There is no 'occupation' of the Golan Heights.  The land was won in a war of attempted annhilation. (Six Day War)  The land is critical because it is high ground, and was used as a vantage point, with which to fire down into Israel.  It is required, militarily, unless and until Syria no longer poses the threat that it is.
                            1. The Arab states refuse to even recognize what they did to Jews from Arab states, let alone compensate them or grant them a 'right of return.'  Morocco is the only state that has openly asked for Jews to come back.
                            1. Apartheid does not simply mean seperate, it means legalized discrimination on the basis of race.  There is no racial discrimination against Palestinians, as they are the same race as Arab Israelis, who are full citizens of Israel.  And Palestinians are not seeking to become citizens of Israel; the majority of them seek to wipe Israel out. (based on how a recent poll had 84% of Palestinians thinking the Mercaz Yeshiva massacre was a good thing, as well as voting in Hamas)
                            1. East Jerusalem was legally annexed by Israel and all East Jerusalem residents are citizens of 'Jerusalem.'  They were granted the option to become full citizens of Israel, and have refused.  But that is not because Israel did not offer it to them.  Jerusalem is the Jewish holy city, not the Muslim one.  The Koran only says that Muhammad rose to heaven 'from the furthest mosque.'  Jerusalem was not mentioned once in this document.  It was only after Muhammad died that Muslims interpreted the holy temple in Jerusalem (*the Jewish holy temple*) as 'the furthest mosque.'  In short, the Muslims only have a connection to Jerusalem because Jews do!

                            So why exactly should Jerusalem be divided?  What would be the logic, based on humanitarian or religious grounds?  I do not see it.

                          •  I agree with a lot of what you say!! (0+ / 0-)
                            1. The Palestinians of 1947 are not going to return, the world community does not support their return the Palestinians are not and should not be treated specially. They will continue to demand a right of return and or compensation, there is a view African Americans should get monetary compensation for slavery in the 17th 18th century. The Balkan wars were more complicated than you suggest but the international communitty was trying to enforce a return to sttus quo ante, not pick a side and support the good guys as you suggest.
                            1. Golan is a bargaining chip without a peaceful Syria  you should keep it, at some point it is worth trading for peace. realistic option is accept Syrian soverignty but maintain Israeli military istalations for a very long time, maybe 25 years.
                            1. If they were forced out under threat of violence they should be entitled to compensation, many were but some were encouraged to come to the fledgling Israel by offers of support by zionists who wanted to increase the Jewish population of Israel. When Asians were chased out of Uganda in the 1970's they argued for and some have got compensation and or return.
                            1. Sorry but because you do not discriminate on one side of the green line does not mean that the discrimination on the other side does not exist, it does. Alsace Lorraine passes between Germany and France several times, 1870-1918 Germany, 1918-1940 France, 1940-1944 Germany, 1944- now France. On each occasion the "owner" had no intention of leaving the population became citizens of the relevant state and gained the vote in the new state. When US beats Mexico and gains California, the inhabitants of California become citizens, whether they wanted to or not. Either the land is Israel in which case you inherit the people, or the land is not Israel in which case the settlers have no right to be there.
                            1. Making them citizens of "Jerusalem" is a convenient fiction, that suits both sides politicians. Either Jerusalem has been truly annexed and will never be up for discussion in which case all of the inhabitants should get Israeli citizenship and the vote whether they want it or not, or the area is still under dispute and then the Israeli political system accepts the possibility of leaving Jerusalem.

                            The problem of the "occupied" territories, is summerised in 3 things Israel wants but at any time it can only have 2.

                            1. It wants all the land between the Jordan River and the sea.
                            1. It wants to be a Democratic State.
                            1. It wants to be a Jewish state.

                            If it keeps the land forever at some point the Palestinians stop asking for a state and start asking for the vote, how can the outside world say no. How can a state be "Jewish" if even 40% of the electorate is not Jewish. How can a state be Democratic if a large part of the population is denied a vote by a legal fiction that they are only under "temporary" occupation.

                          •  We are getting closer to agreement! (0+ / 0-)
                            1. Agreed.
                            1. Mostly agreed!  It is a bargaining chip in a sense, but there are now wineries in the Golan Heights, as well as a fresh water supply.  So Israel is in many senses now also economically dependent upon the Golan. (and is not just using it as a bargaining chip)
                            1. Most Jews from Arab lands were forced out after 1948, but I will acknowledge some left because Israel formed, and they were Zionists.
                            1. The Palestinians have a sort of autonomy now that is in some ways similar to Puerto Rico.  They have a self governance.  The IDF would not have a presence within their communities if there was not a need for the IDF presence.
                            1. Israel offered citizenship to East Jerusalem residents, and it was refused.  Their refusal is not Israel's fault; these residents have the opportunity to become Israeli citizens at any time they want. (the offer has not expired)

                            Now, as far as the solution...

                            Does anyone say the USA is not a 'democracy,' because Puerto Rico, Guam, or the US Virgin Islands are not given the right to vote in federal elections?  Few would say that.  I would use that analogy to Israel and say that the problem with the territories does not render Israel not a democracy.

                            MOREOVER!

                            Israel has not shown a desire for all the land west of the Jordan River.  A mainstream Israeli would say Jerusalem should stay Israeli, as well as the surrounding suburbs.  This mainstream Israeli would be reticent about keeping towns deep within Judea and Samaria, such as Hebron or Shechem.  There still are communities located there, but no new communities within those areas.  What should be done about this?  Well in my mind, there is no solution now.  The IDF presence is necessary east of the 'Green Line,' in order to root out terror cells.  Fatah has shown to be just as much a terror organization as Hamas. (see: Abbas praising the Mercaz Yeshiva massacre)

                            In an ideal world, Israel would consist of the borders outlined in the Barak plan.  But we do not live in an ideal world, and that is no longer realistic.  That only is ideal if the Palestinian state is viable and peaceful and would enable Jews to have access to holy sites within Judea and Samaria.  In contradistinction, Palestinians destroyed Joseph's Tomb, and are actively involved in archeological destruction of the Wailing Wall.  So really, the only way there can presently be a Palestinian state is if a REAL 'moderate' Palestinian leader steps up to the plate and shows he is committed to rooting out the terrorists.  Otherwise, any state granted will merely be a repeat of what happened in Gaza.  Except the rocket firing will occur within range of large population centers.

                            What happens in the meantime?  The status quo continues, and Israel will have to let the Palestinians know two things: a) they want peace and are fully willing to comply with the Barak plan; b) the Barak plan will only happen after the Palestinians show they too want peace and will not use a state as a launch pad for terror.

                    •  I'm not even saying (0+ / 0-)

                      it doesn't have a right to exist per se.

                      I'm saying I don't believe any country has a 'right' to exist, I think they just do exist.  Israel, America, Argentina, Japan.  I think we're past the point where countries are going to be created through the division of empires, as I think we're past the age of empires.  Any new countries formed will be through balkanization of larger states, I would guess, as we're possibly seeing with Kosovo.

                      Is there anything else we discuss in terms of 'rights' to exist?  If things exist, they're self evident, and the term right just seems meaningless to me.

                      Got a problem with my posts? Email me, and let's resolve it.

                      by drbloodaxe on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:42:22 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  Absolutely Correct (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Eric S, Zionist American

            The "concept" of Palestine included land that is now Israel and Jordan.  It was originally part of the Ottoman Empire, which fought on the side of Germany during WW I.  The League of Nations, after WW I, granted the entire "Palestinian Mandate" area to Great Britain, which at the end of WW I issued the Balfour Declaration which said that Jewish people had a right to have an independent state on part of the Palestinian Mandate.

            It was the Balfour Declaration that was instrumental in the UN decision to partition the old British Palestinian Mandate area into 3 separate countries -- Israel for Jewish people, a Palestinian state, and Jordan, governed by the Hashemites and mostly nomadic Arabs and not Palestinians.

            The Jordanians accepted and the Israelis accepted.  The Palestinians refused it.

            Just an accurate history lesson for you.

            •  Jewish homeland (0+ / 0-)

              The Balfour deceleration talked of a Jewish Homeland not a state, the deceleration was in 1917 while the war was still ongoing and the subtle but important difference was that it would allow significant Jewish immigration to the area, not at the time an Independent state.

              This was 1917 and the hight of the British Empire, those arrogant Brits like Balfour who proposed it assumed there would be some Arabs, some Jews but Britain would control the land in the name of Christian civilization for generations. Allenby the General who captured Jerusalem and Damascus from the Ottomans was certainly of the view that he was capturing the Christian holy lands. At this point the Empire controlled close to 40% of humanity and the government was elected by male property owners over 30 in the United Kingdom, so maybe 20% of the UK population.

              The idea that there would be sufficient Jewish immigration to be in a position to demand an independent state in less than 20 years was incomprehensible in 1917.

        •  My friend has a Palestinean birth certificate (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Zionist American

          from 1946.  Born a Jew outside of Jerusalem.

  •  I would argue (5+ / 0-)

    and your current poll results bear this out, that a large majority of Kossacks, in so far as they have an opinion, wants Israel to be a Jewish state and exist in peace and within accepted borders.

    You'll probably find, with the same caveats, that a similarly large majority wants a Palestinian state to exist in peace within accepted borders.

    How to get there is what seems to be causing what disagreement exists.

    This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog. It's a Democratic blog with one goal in mind: electoral victory. - FAQ

    by MBNYC on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:24:04 PM PDT

  •  I don't believe (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drbloodaxe, martydd

    that any ethnic or religious group is rightfully entitled to its own state, and thus the idea that Israel should be a "Jewish state" is no more acceptable to me than the idea of America as a "Christian nation."  And it would be foolish not to acknowledge that the historical process by which the current state of Israel came into existence was grossly unjust to the indigenous Palestinians.

    That having been said, the existence of Israel is a historical fact that could not be undone without causing a great deal of suffering to the people currently living in Israel, many of whom were born there after the state came into existence and can thus hardly be blamed for the unjust way in which it was created.  Israel should continue to exist within its pre-1967 borders, and a Palestinian state should be created in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

    •  Given Judaism is an ethnicity and a religion... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eric S

      ...Your definition of being against any ethnic group having a state means you are against statehood in general.

      Are you also against France, Russia, and Japan being states?

      That said, I am glad you are in favor of a state of Israel existing according to any borders. (i.e., 1967 borders)

      •  I think you're a little confused (0+ / 0-)

        There is a difference between states like France, Russia, and Japan that formed naturally over the course of centuries, versus a state like Israel which was artificially created by foreign colonists on territory that was appropriated by an occupying foreign power, with the stated purpose of advancing a specific ethnic group.  To be clear, when I say that no ethnic or religious group is rightfully entitled to its own state, what I mean is that they are not entitled to a state in which they are given a privileged status under the law, or a state that exists for the primary purpose of advancing their ethnic/religious group to the exclusion of others.

        That said, I am glad you are in favor of a state of Israel existing according to any borders. (i.e., 1967 borders)

        I'm heartened to know that I have your approval, even though I wasn't seeking it.  But for further clarification, I never said that I was "in favor of a state of Israel," I just said that its existence is a historical fact that can't be undone at this point without causing a lot of suffering.  What I'm in favor of is peace and progress for the people living in the Levant, and especially for the Palestinians, who have been greatly wronged over the last century or so.  That won't come by forcibly uprooting millions of Israelis and relocating them, but it also won't come by continuing to allow the state of Israel to just do whatever it wants to.

        •  Jews Have There for 3000 Years (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          arielle, Eric S, Zionist American

          Jewish people have lived in, or governed, the land that Israel sits on for more than 3000 years.

          Who says it belonged to anyone else?

        •  I addressed this point... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          arielle

          ...Over here:

          http://www.dailykos.com/...

          Israel was not formed as as "colonialist" power in the slightest.

          •  To address what you posted in your other comment (0+ / 0-)

            Palestine was controlled by an occupying foreign power (Britain), and that occupying foreign power allowed European Jews to immigrate to Palestine under the Balfour Declaration with the purpose of creating a "national home for the Jewish people" without regard to the wishes of the indigenous people who lived there.  Britain never "refused to allow immigration to Israel" as you stated, though it did at times restrict immigration.  I'm not sure how that doesn't qualify as colonialism.

            •  Huh? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              arielle

              Jews who moved to Israel never did so as British citizens, nor representatives of Britain.  And they lawfully purchased land.  Moreover, Britain absolutely restricted all efforts to immigrate to Israel in 1939 - the infamous White Paper.  So the Brits were not simply these fabulous allies to Jews who let them do what they want.

              And you call the Brits a "foreign occupying power."  What about the Ottomans?  Were they not thath as well?  There were "foreign occupying powers" of Israel since the times of the Crusades, which incidentally was the last time there actually was a STATE in 'Palestine' prior to the creation of Israel.

              Colonialization refers to foreign control over a native land, with the purpose of extracting natural resource.  That never was the intent of Jews in Israel, where they are NOT a foreign power, and in fact were (and are) farmers of the land, with the goal of an independent state.

              Just because certain propogandists call Israel a 'colonialist' state does not mean it ever was.

              •  Well done. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Zionist American

                This one subject is so rife with bastardized and maligned meanings of words as to beggar belief.

                "Zionism", "chosen", "apartheid", "colonialist", "(h)olocaust", "genocide", "anti-Semitic" all get bandied around in a dangerous and precipitous manner.

                When you try to explain how those terms are inartful at best, you get told you have to deal with the changed meaning or that particular person's meaning or what they think the word should mean.

                Sorry.  I speak English.

                I have the distinction of being called a media whore by Courtney Love. -Maynard J. Keenan

                by arielle on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:39:53 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  .... (0+ / 0-)

                Jews who moved to Israel never did so as British citizens, nor representatives of Britain.  And they lawfully purchased land.

                How is their citizenship status relevant to the fact that they were foreign colonists?  As far as their "lawfully" purchasing land, the law in this case was being administered by an occupying power, not by the indigenous population of Palestine.

                Moreover, Britain absolutely restricted all efforts to immigrate to Israel in 1939 - the infamous White Paper.

                No, that's not true - the White Paper placed a limit of 75,000 immigrants over a five-year period, but it did not ban immigration as you are suggesting.

                And you call the Brits a "foreign occupying power."  What about the Ottomans?  Were they not thath as well?

                Yes, they were.  I'm not sure how this negates what I said, but it's absolutely true that the levant had been under foreign control for centuries prior to the formation of Israel.

                Colonialization refers to foreign control over a native land, with the purpose of extracting natural resource.

                No, a desire to extract natural resources is not a neccesary prerequisite to colonialism.  That certainly wasn't the case with the ancient Greeks or the Romans.

                That never was the intent of Jews in Israel, where they are NOT a foreign power, and in fact were (and are) farmers of the land, with the goal of an independent state.

                The people who created Israel were overwhelmingly European Jews who either immigrated to Palestine themselves or descended from people who had done so in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  And it should be noted that opposition to Jewish immigration was not limited to Palestinian Arabs, and also included many Palestinian (indigenous) Jews as well.

                •  Many logical fallacies. (0+ / 0-)

                  How is their citizenship status relevant to the fact that they were foreign colonists?  As far as their "lawfully" purchasing land, the law in this case was being administered by an occupying power, not by the indigenous population of Palestine.

                  You are flat out wrong in the definition of 'colonialist.'

                  Colonialism is the extension of a nation's sovereignty over territory beyond its borders by the establishment of either settler colonies or administrative dependencies in which indigenous populations are directly ruled or displaced.

                  source

                  Where was a "Jewish nation" that was being "extended beyond its borders"?  There was none.  This was flat out NOT colonialism.  And using your strnage definition of property law, then even the Arabs who bought and sold land for centuries under Ottoman and British rule have no property rights, because all property rights appear to be null and void, using your logic.

                  No, that's not true - the White Paper placed a limit of 75,000 immigrants over a five-year period, but it did not ban immigration as you are suggesting.

                  Okay, I admit you are right in this.  But still, this was inhumane at the time of the Holocaust.

                  And you call the Brits a "foreign occupying power."  What about the Ottomans?  Were they not thath as well?
                  Yes, they were.  I'm not sure how this negates what I said, but it's absolutely true that the levant had been under foreign control for centuries prior to the formation of Israel.

                  Thank you for saying this.  This goes to the notion that there was no prior 'state' that was being taken away by the Jews.  There was no Palestinian 'state' in 1947 that was usurped.

                  Colonialization refers to foreign control over a native land, with the purpose of extracting natural resource.
                  No, a desire to extract natural resources is not a neccesary prerequisite to colonialism.  That certainly wasn't the case with the ancient Greeks or the Romans.

                  See above, where I discuss what colonialism is.  To compare Jews, victims of Romans and Greeks, with the Romans and Greeks...is very wrong.

                  The people who created Israel were overwhelmingly European Jews who either immigrated to Palestine themselves or descended from people who had done so in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  And it should be noted that opposition to Jewish immigration was not limited to Palestinian Arabs, and also included many Palestinian (indigenous) Jews as well.

                  Not sure your point about Palestinian Jews.  There were dissents amongst Jews worldwide about whether it was a good or bad idea to seek a seperate state.

                  Just because Jews migrated to the area hardly makes them 'colonialist.'  When someone moves from one nation to another, they are not known as 'colonizers.'  Under what possible definition of 'colony' can you support this contention?

                  •  Logical fallacies? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Rusty Pipes

                    You are flat out wrong in the definition of 'colonialist.'

                    Colonialism is the extension of a nation's sovereignty over territory beyond its borders by the establishment of either settler colonies or administrative dependencies in which indigenous populations are directly ruled or displaced.

                    source

                    Really?  You're citing Wikipedia as your source for the definition of colonialism?  The same Wikipedia where "any user can change any entry, and if enough users agree with them, it becomes true"?  That Wikipedia?

                    Where was a "Jewish nation" that was being "extended beyond its borders"?  There was none.  This was flat out NOT colonialism.

                    Yes it is colonialism, even under your parsing of the Wikipedia definition of the word.  In this case, the nation extending its sovereignty over territory beyond its borders is the UK, and they were doing so under the auspices of an administrative dependency in which Jewish settlers were being allowed to immigrate.

                    And using your strnage definition of property law, then even the Arabs who bought and sold land for centuries under Ottoman and British rule have no property rights, because all property rights appear to be null and void, using your logic.

                    I never gave a definition of property law or addressed property rights.  I simply responded to the idea that Jewish settlement was morally legitimate because the land they settled on was "legally" purchased, by pointing out that these land purchases occurred under the authority of an occupying power.

                    No, that's not true - the White Paper placed a limit of 75,000 immigrants over a five-year period, but it did not ban immigration as you are suggesting.

                    Okay, I admit you are right in this.  But still, this was inhumane at the time of the Holocaust.

                    Only if you assume that Palestine was the only place that these refugees could have relocated.  They could have been settled in England, but the UK chose not to allow that, perhaps due to the anti-semitism of their own people.  The people of Palestine weren't given that choice.

                    And you call the Brits a "foreign occupying power."  What about the Ottomans?  Were they not thath as well?

                    Yes, they were.  I'm not sure how this negates what I said, but it's absolutely true that the levant had been under foreign control for centuries prior to the formation of Israel.

                    Thank you for saying this.  This goes to the notion that there was no prior 'state' that was being taken away by the Jews.  There was no Palestinian 'state' in 1947 that was usurped.

                    The issue in question isn't whether some prior Palestinian state was being usurped, it's about the rights of the Palestinian people at that time to control their own affairs.

                    Not sure your point about Palestinian Jews.  There were dissents amongst Jews worldwide about whether it was a good or bad idea to seek a seperate state.

                    Jews worldwide were viewing the issue from a different vantage point than Palestinian Jews were.  It's sort of like the immigration issue here in Texas - more than a few Latinos who were born here have a negative view of illegal immigration and think that we should draw a hard line against it, because they're viewing the issue from a practical viewpoint rather than an ideological viewpoint.  Likewise, many of the Palestinian Jews probably didn't view the issue of Jewish immigration in nationalistic terms of the idea of reviving the state of Israel - they may have seen it as a bunch of outsiders coming into their land and disrupting their way of life.

                    •  More logical fallacies (0+ / 0-)

                      Really?  You're citing Wikipedia as your source for the definition of colonialism?  The same Wikipedia where "any user can change any entry, and if enough users agree with them, it becomes true"?  That Wikipedia?

                      So?  I did not change that definition.  You can check in the stats on when the entry has been changed.  This definition hardly is different than the one on dictionary.com

                      http://dictionary.reference.com/...

                      Yes it is colonialism, even under your parsing of the Wikipedia definition of the word.  In this case, the nation extending its sovereignty over territory beyond its borders is the UK, and they were doing so under the auspices of an administrative dependency in which Jewish settlers were being allowed to immigrate.

                      This is such utter nonsense it is almost shocking to read.  Jews were "extending the borders of the UK"???  HUH???  These Jews were not citizens of the UK and lawfully purchased land.  They were not 'representing' the UK.  In fact, there were even fights between Jews and the British officers.

                      I never gave a definition of property law or addressed property rights.  I simply responded to the idea that Jewish settlement was morally legitimate because the land they settled on was "legally" purchased, by pointing out that these land purchases occurred under the authority of an occupying power.

                      Yes, you did.  You said all land purchases made by Jews in what was then designated 'Palestine' were illegitimate, as Jews had no right to purchase even a single plot of land.  This is utter discrimination against Jews unless you extend it to everyone, and say that all land purchases made at that time were illegal and illegitimate.

                      Only if you assume that Palestine was the only place that these refugees could have relocated.  They could have been settled in England, but the UK chose not to allow that, perhaps due to the anti-semitism of their own people.  The people of Palestine weren't given that choice.

                      There was antisemitism in England, but will you at least acknowledge that there was extreme antisemitism amongst Arabs, who sided with the Nazis?  The leader of the Palestinians at the time was Haj Amin Al Husseini, who was an architect of the Final Solution, and tried to stop all Jewish immigration to Israel.

                      http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...

                      The issue in question isn't whether some prior Palestinian state was being usurped, it's about the rights of the Palestinian people at that time to control their own affairs.

                      They never had a state, nor control over their own affairs.  So I fail to see how the fact that there was no 'state' in Palestine since the time of the Crusades is not relevant.

                      It's sort of like the immigration issue here in Texas - more than a few Latinos who were born here have a negative view of illegal immigration and think that we should draw a hard line against it, because they're viewing the issue from a practical viewpoint rather than an ideological viewpoint.  Likewise, many of the Palestinian Jews probably didn't view the issue of Jewish immigration in nationalistic terms of the idea of reviving the state of Israel - they may have seen it as a bunch of outsiders coming into their land and disrupting their way of life.

                      Nope, it is not.  Jews worldwide had different opinions on Zionism.  Some were in favor, some were not.  There were vast movements of Jews NOT living in 'Palestine' who were against Zionism, prior to Israel forming.  The Reform movement was extremely anti-Zionist, as was the mainstream Orthodox movement.  So unless you actually show 'Palestinian' Jews were particularly against the state of Israel forming, I am at a loss over what your point here is supposed to be.

                •  Think you're wrong here. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Zionist American

                  No, a desire to extract natural resources is not a neccesary (sic) prerequisite to colonialism.  That certainly wasn't the case with the ancient Greeks or the Romans.

                  Rome, for instance, needed water, taxable agricultural land (the grain of north Africa, especially), strategic geography, and human resources in the forms of soldiers and slaves.

                  Senators grew fat and wealthy off the largess of their provinces.

                  I have the distinction of being called a media whore by Courtney Love. -Maynard J. Keenan

                  by arielle on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:18:18 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Perhaps so (0+ / 0-)

                    My understanding with the Romans was that they established colonies with the purpose of strengthening their control over lands that they had conquered, but you're certainly right that the Romans did exploit the lands they colonized, whether or not that was their goal from the outset.

            •  Colonialism (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Zionist American

              Are you suggesting that Muslims who lawfully move to the US and buy land in Dearborn, Michigan are "colonialists"?

               

              •  Dearborn, MI? (0+ / 0-)

                Dearborn isn't under control by a foreign government, and I'm not aware of any movement to create a Muslim state in Southeast Michigan, so I don't see the parallel you're trying to draw here.

                •  It is clear. (0+ / 0-)

                  You have foreigners moving in to land they do not own.  Clearly, under your idea, that would be 'colonialization.'

                  •  Clearly not (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Rusty Pipes

                    because, as I stated before, Dearborn isn't under control by a foreign government - unless the Canadians are secretly governing Michigan under a mandate from the UN, and the rest of us just haven't been told about it yet.

                    •  I don't get your point (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Zionist American

                      Although many jews already lived in pre-Mandate Palestine, the place was ruled by the Ottoman Empire (i.e., Turkey).  

                      Jews came lawfully and bought land, just like Muslims today in Dearborn.  After WW1, Britain controlled the land, but most of the Jews who came to Israel after WW1 didn't come from Britain.  

                      Again Jews came lawfully (when not restricted by Britain) and bought land, just like Muslims today in Dearborn.  What's the difference between Muslims lawfully moving to American controlled Dearborn or Jews lawfully moving to Ottoman or British controlled Palestine?  Why is one Colonialism and the other is not?

  •  why do you want to know? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rusty Pipes, Big Tex

    and what do you plan on doing with this "information?"

  •  Here's my 2 agorot (5+ / 0-)

    which, thanks to the Bush economic policies, are worth more every day.

    I don't give a shit what most people think.  We (Israelis) have only succeeded as a people when we didn't care what the rest of the world thought.  Even the US condemned us when we bombed Saddam's actual nuclear reactor (as opposed to Colin Powell's imaginary one) in 1981.  Begin didn't care.  The whole world realized just a few years later that we were right.  (z"l Ilan Ramon)

    So, the bottom line is, hate us, love us, I no longer give a shit.  I tried to serve in uniform for one of my beloved countries but couldn't because I was too young.  I did serve my other beloved country, in combat, and will gladly do so again.  How many people who have answered this poll in the positive or the negative can say the same thing.

    If you love Israel, great, get your ass over here and help out.  If you hate Israel, also great, get your ass over here and help out the people you claim to care so much about.  If not, shut the fuck up and leave us alone.

    "I remember every detail. The Germans wore gray. You wore blue."

    by dfb1968 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:11:01 PM PDT

  •  The poll is meaningless, but I was also curious (0+ / 0-)

    The poll says nothing about dKos as a whole, since fewer than 0.02 percent of Kossacks have voted, and I'd be surprised if you even get to 0.1 percent, leaving alone the fact that it can be hacked or freeped.

    I've followed dKos I/P discussions for less than 6 months, but I, too, have been curious about how many here would be OK with the destruction or dissolution of Israel.  But the poll is a crude device, and perhaps the diarist is just looking for an easy barometer.  Instead of a poll, perhaps you might monitor the "Israel" or "Palestine" tag for a while and see which commenters hold which attitudes.  You'll develop a scorecard after a few months.

    And BTW, I have noticed that I/P discussions have been mocked as mere flamebait.  While it's true that many dKos I/P discussions have much more heat than light, I have been impressed with the substance of many of the discussions.  It's nothing like the old I/P discussions on usenet's talk.politics.mideast 20+ years ago.  Google it and see.  dKos is lofty compared to the run-of-the-mill I/P internet discussions, now or in the past.

  •  I believe (0+ / 0-)

    that Romantic Nationalism is a relic of the 19th Century.

    I recognize the existence of the State of Israel and its member status in the UN.  I support a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine which both give equal civil rights to all their citizens.

    Reel Bad Arabs: a crash course on Orientalism

    by Rusty Pipes on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:34:13 PM PDT

    •  Whatever you care to believe, ethnic and (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Zionist American

      religious based "Romantic" nationalisms are among the most powerful currents shaping our world at this very moment.

      Try our famous burgers and dogs.
      -Munson Diner

      by Eric S on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:12:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I do not believe (0+ / 0-)

      that any nation has the right to commit ethnic cleansing, even though many nations have gotten away with this crime.  I do not consider myself either a Zionist or an anti-Zionist.  Even though I have not agreed with its every action, I support the United Nations (the organization of which John Bolton has wanted to whittle off 10 floors).

      Reel Bad Arabs: a crash course on Orientalism

      by Rusty Pipes on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:49:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  When did Israel commit ethnic cleansing? (0+ / 0-)

        Recall that the population of Palestinians has increased tenfold since 1948.

        •  When? (0+ / 0-)

          (I understand you're new here) In 1947-48.  Check out litho's diary series from about a year ago (here, here and here).

          Reel Bad Arabs: a crash course on Orientalism

          by Rusty Pipes on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:19:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That was not an ethnic cleansing. (0+ / 0-)

            There was a war going on at the time, started by Arabs.  Most of the Arabs left of the own accord or because they were told to go.  Some stayed, and you see Arab Israelis.  A small number were forced out, but that is a drop in the bucket compared to the number of Jews pushed out of Arab countries, as well as the West Bank and other areas now within Israel.

            •  Litho did an excellent job (0+ / 0-)

              covering this topic last year.  In his diaries, he demonstrated that the consensus of scholarship is overwhelming (Israel: Rethinking 1948, Israeli Expulsion of Palestinians,  Refuting Israel's New Historians, Jewish Refugees from Arab Lands,  Determining Historical Consensus on Israeli Ethnic Cleansing):  

              1.  The ethnic cleansing of Palestinians started before Israel declared independence.  At least 200,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes before May 15.
              1.  The Arab Armies invaded in part in response to public pressure over the plight of Palestinian refugees in their countries.
              1.  Palestinians were not told to abandon their homes by the fabled Arab radio broadcasts.
              1.  Some Palestinian Arabs who are now citizens of Israel were able to stay in their own homes.  Over 100,000 of them became Internal Refugees when they were expelled from their homes, but did not leave what became Israel proper.
              1.  The Palestinian refugee problem preceded the expulsion of Mizrahi Jews from Arab countries.

              Pappe takes aim at one of the central themes of Israeli history: that of perpetual Jewish victimization.  In particular, he directly attacks the received wisdom on the 1948 War of Independence: that Israel's Arab neighbors, motivated by an irrational desire to drive the Jews into the sea, invaded the Zionist state as soon as it declared its independence, only to be thwarted by the plucky and resourceful Zionists who not only defended themselves successfully from the aggression but were even able to expand their territory in the face of adversity.

              The truth, he says, is quite different.  In fact, he contends, under the direction of Zionist leader David Ben Gurion and a small group of close advisors, the Hagana began a coordinated ethnic cleansing campaign in December 1947, which succeeded in expelling some 200,000 Palestinians from their homes prior to the declaration of the State of Israel in May 1948.  Faced with a growing refugee problem, and pressure from civil society in their own countries, Arab leaders sent defensive forces into those areas of Palestine reserved for the Palestinian State under the United Nations' partition plan. These forces, generally weak, uncoordinated, and ineffective, hoped to help Palestinian villagers organize local militias to defend themselves against the ongoing cleansing operations organized by the Hagana and its associated militias (the Stern Gang and the Irgun).  The only Arab forces to enjoy any success whatsoever, however, were those of the Hashemite kingdom operating on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem.  Despite repeated efforts to conduct expulsion operations in those areas, the Zionists were unable to make effective inroads there, and the Jordanians then absorbed the West Bank into their kingdom.

              The core argument of the book rests on the characterization of Hagana activities through 1948 as an ethnic cleansing operation.  Previous historians have reached similar conclusions, most notably the Israeli historian Benny Morris, whose groundbreaking Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem (first published in 1989 and revised and updated in 2004) was the first to assert a degree of Israeli responsibility for the creation of nearly a million Palestinian refugees during the war for independence.  In the revised edition, Morris contended Ben Gurion was aware of, and approved in advance, the cleansing operations conducted by the Hagana military.  Palestinian historians have also produced oral histories of Israeli ethnic cleansing during 1948, and Pappe's research suggests those oral histories match the archival record closely.

              Reel Bad Arabs: a crash course on Orientalism

              by Rusty Pipes on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:33:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I know all about 'New Historians' (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Keith Moon

                They relied upon shoddy scholarship and have been heavily debunked by many.

                Benny Morris - debunked

                Ilan Pappe - debunked

                Amira Hass - debunked

                Avi Schlaim - debunked

                Edward Said (not a 'new historian,' but he is the father of the 'anti-orientalist' movement) - Debunked supporter of Arafat (more debunking of Said)

                All of the 'new historians' who claimed Israel was 'born in sin' have been heavily discredited by other historians who have proven the evidence they rely upon is either fake or half truths.

                Anita Shapira rightly debunks the false history of the 'new historians' right here.

                Israel was not born in sin, despite proclamations otherwise by individuals who have shoddy scholarship and an agenda.

                •  Seriously, (0+ / 0-)

                  Daily Kos is a Reform Democratic blog.  You won't gain any credibility by citing Right-Wing sources like Daniel Pipes' Middle East Forum, CAMERA and random right-wing bloggers.  While these sources may be popular over at LGF, people who use them here often are considered "not a good fit" for this site.

                  Reel Bad Arabs: a crash course on Orientalism

                  by Rusty Pipes on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:44:34 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Oh just stop it (3+ / 0-)

                    "you won't gain any credibility" - pah.

                    Both of you should consider the material as well as their sources.  If you have complaints about Pappe, Morris, Pipes or CAMERA, fine.  Show me where they're wrong.

                    Arguing that you shouldn't consider a source just because of who it is is just ad hominem.  Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they're wrong.

                    •  One of the admins of this site (0+ / 0-)

                      set a standard of not giving any credibility to articles carried on a site, antiwar.com, solely because of the politics of its proprietor, Justin Raimondo.  Since that time, anyone wanting to cite an article by a legitimate author on that site, such as Juan Cole, has had to link to the article cross-posted on another site.  There is precedent on this site for not giving credence to articles posted on sites based on the politics or policies of those sites.  So, no, as a Progressive Democrat, I do not have to recognize the validity of right-wing sites or authors.  If the information is factual, it is usually also available on a legitimate site.

                      Reel Bad Arabs: a crash course on Orientalism

                      by Rusty Pipes on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:40:20 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  "Right wing"? (0+ / 0-)

                    CAMERA is a media watch site which meticulously cites its sources.  The Middle East Forum hosts scholars from across the ideological aisle.  But these sites must be wrong because they are 'right wing,' and thus are 'not welcome' at Kos?

                    Do facts not matter?  All that matters is ideology?

      •  What?? (0+ / 0-)

        any nation has the right to commit ethnic cleansing

        what ethnic cleansing did Israel commit or are you just your garden variety anti-jewish nazi?

        •  Oh my Godwin! (0+ / 0-)

          Seriously, user #157070, read the FAQ and familiarize yourself with the site.  Not only are Nazi accusations inflammatory (hence TR/HR worthy), but accusing old-timers of being "anti-jewish" in one of your first comments is more likely to convince regulars here that you are a better fit at LGF than here.

          Reel Bad Arabs: a crash course on Orientalism

          by Rusty Pipes on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:51:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  "Jewish State" is a confusing term (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    arielle, zemblan

    Israel is a secular democratic state that happens to have a Jewish majority.  

    The only things that make Israel a "Jewish state" are that Jewish majority and the Law of Return which provides a safe haven for Jews to flee from historical persecution.

    There is no state religion in Israel, and there is a separation of church and state.

    Like most Western democracies, Israel respects the equal rights of women and freedoms of religion, speech and the press.

    I would support a Palestinian state that existed based on the same principles.

  •  Agree (0+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Hidden by:
    donailin

    I agree with you but find way too much Jewish/Israel hate on this blog and wonder if it has to do with the support for Obama and his anti-Semitic pastor Wright

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site