The israeli palestinian debate

[stephkyle7]

Saudi Arabia supports most terrorist states and groups around the world. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, and many of the people who fight us abroad(including Iraq) come from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia also commits numerous human rights abuses, and are often an oppressive regime towards their own people.

...BUT they're our ally, so the reality gets swept under the rug and is minimilalized.

What I just described is a good example of our relationship with Israel. If it's our ally doing it, well then it's entirely different. You can apply this to our own foreign policy as well.

Most Americans are conditioned to support our allies, regardless of the black and white reality of what these countries do. With information so monopolized, and the discussion(if any) being conducted in such a narrow spectrum, it's hard not to be this way.

The house of Saud is staunchly capitalist which is a western as you can expect from a theocratic aristocrasy.
The fact that the 9/11 Highjackers as well as OBL were saudi nationals has nothing to do with the political leadership of the country.
That was one of the worst misrepresentations of fact I have ever read in here.
OBL was kicked out of Saudi, his assets frozen, and his citizenry revoked for smuggling arms for terrorist purposes,the fact that the most zealous Jihadist have sprung from there is not a surprise considering how staunchly devoted to Sharia they are,this is in no way a reflection of The House of sauds alegiance to the west.
Conversely, despite a much more liberal application of sharia within Iran, the Republican Guard and the Supreme religious leaders have embraced clandestine and fully government funded terrorist activities through out the Muslim world against Isarel and Sunni nations.

Does anyone else find it odd that some people will freak out at the thought of Sharia law, at the same time trying to legislate Christian Doctrine into law?
Defense of marriage, Illegal abortion,Inclusion oF GOD in schools and everywhere else? what the hell is the difference? pretty much just the language(LOL).

Look, the bottom line is money and power ,it always is. Why was there little strife under the Romans,or Ottomans?
If we paid off the palestinians to pipe down and turn in their neighbors who made trouble, it would be over pretty quick.

[The Schmooze]

The house of Saud is staunchly capitalist which is a western as you can expect from a theocratic aristocrasy.
The fact that the 9/11 Highjackers as well as OBL were saudi nationals has nothing to do with the political leadership of the country.
That was one of the worst misrepresentations of fact I have ever read in here.
OBL was kicked out of Saudi, his assets frozen, and his citizenry revoked for smuggling arms for terrorist purposes,the fact that the most zealous Jihadist have sprung from there is not a surprise considering how staunchly devoted to Sharia they are,this is in no way a reflection of The House of sauds alegiance to the west.
Conversely, despite a much more liberal application of sharia within Iran, the Republican Guard and the Supreme religious leaders have embraced clandestine and fully government funded terrorist activities through out the Muslim world against Isarel and Sunni nations.

Does anyone else find it odd that some people will freak out at the thought of Sharia law, at the same time trying to legislate Christian Doctrine into law?
Defense of marriage, Illegal abortion,Inclusion oF GOD in schools and everywhere else? what the hell is the difference? pretty much just the language(LOL).

Look, the bottom line is money and power ,it always is. Why was there little strife under the Romans,or Ottomans?
If we paid off the palestinians to pipe down and turn in their neighbors who made trouble, it would be over pretty quick.

Most of the 9/11 hijackers being from Saudi Arabia is a well-known fact, and was stated as such, independently. If that is "one of the most misrepresented facts" you've ever read then I have to laugh. I never once claimed that the government somehow commissioned this attack. My original point on them sponsoring terrorist groups and states still stands though.

The overall point(which you may have missed) is that our alliance with certain countries determines the narrative, policy, and our selective outrage as a country.

and yes, in the end it is all about money. Capitalism at its finest.

[Randy West]

I don't think it has been brought up but does anyone think it has more to do with the money the Israeli's have for our weapons?

And onto the next point, if we weren't selling them the weapons another country would be. They already purchase weapons from other countries like Germany and France anyway. If it wasn't us selling to them another country would step in and pick up our slack.

[nastynice]

That's not correct at all.

In the 1900s Jewish Settlers started buying land off of the Bedouin and started settling in Palestine. By 1948, they already accounted for more than 30% of the population.

The UN voted to partition the Palestine into two states, Israel and Palestine. The Arabs automatically revolted and became increasingly violent towards Jewish immigrants and British soldiers (source).

After their mandate expired, the armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq invaded Palestine. The war that ensued created the Palestinian exodus. It wasn't ethnic cleansing. If anything, Palestinians were encouraged to leave and were expeled by occupying Arab armies.

Ok, so I gave that a good read, and even dove into some of the links within ur link. What I'm getting here is that basically this idea of a Jewish state was starting to take form well before the official creation of Israel. The Zionist led UK backed racist policies (wages, weapons possession, etc) and systematic displacement of Arab nationals (mostly from country side to poverty stricken urban areas) is what basically lead to these revolts. Is this correct?

As I see, the Jews and non Jews of the area really had no issues except for when it came to the Zionist ideology and segregation of people, is this correct? This seems to be the spark of everything.

I'm coming across a lot of new stuff in this thread, which is good. The more I learn about this topic, the more blatantly racist the Zionist ideology seems to be.

Don't mean to ask loaded questions, but that's honestly what I'm getting out of your links. Correct me if there's a misunderstanding on my part.

[stephkyle7]

@ schmooze, what i took from your post was that the Government was somehow in league with these individuals,which is innaccurate, yes many of the terrorist around the world are Saudi Nationals, no doubt about it.

Nasty, you are falling victim to the same polarized views that are at the root of the problem, how can you be racist against yourself?

They are the same people, just becasue some one wrote a book describing a change to some reeligious doctrine doesnt change who they are.
Its ridiculous , and once again it is only about money. It is always about money, thats it.
PEOPLE with money get to run rough shod over people who dont have money.that is the nature of capitalism, which was what gave rise to all the other Marxist, socialist, communist, Keysenian demand side economics, and on , and on.
capitalism is like anything and everything else in the universe it must be balanced, other wise it will destroy itself.
Those at the center of the wealth Vortex are most insulated from the chaos on the periphery like the eye of a tornado...they do mot care about others suffering and hardships so they seek to "keep the party going" at all costs.
we have been searching for that balance through various social,economic and governmental models, but the plutocrats will stop at nothing to tear down anything in the way of keeping themselves above and beyond reproach or oversite from the masses.
If the world bank, loaned the UN money, to build schools and Roads, and parks, and housing this problem would disappear.
people with nothing to lose will fight to the death.
People with a nice car, apartment, house, family, stores, parks...they like all those things, they dont want bombs going off anymore, they wont put up with their neighbors firing rockets that might get their stuff destroyed.
Its just about money.

[nastynice]

I agree with your views on capitalism. However, race DOES play a role in this particular issue too. If it didn't, then the demographic of the people who were forced out of their houses wouldn't be lopsided, but representative of the entire population.

I'm not speaking of the people, I am speaking of the principles of Zionism, I don't see how racism isn't one of the core principles.

[B-Ray]

I really think you're reaching here and I fail to see how race plays into any of this. There is a large population of arabs living in Israel (over 1/5 of the population) and there are arab members of parliament in Israel. Calling zionism racism or calling Israel an 'apartheid' state is merely an attempt at sensasionalist conjecture.

[jrice9]

I agree with your views on capitalism. However, race DOES play a role in this particular issue too. If it didn't, then the demographic of the people who were forced out of their houses wouldn't be lopsided, but representative of the entire population.

I'm not speaking of the people, I am speaking of the principles of Zionism, I don't see how racism isn't one of the core principles.

The biggest reason and most technical reason that Zionism isn't racism is that Jews aren't a race. There are Jews who are of all different ethnic backgrounds.

The point about Non-Jews having virtually eqal rights (I have a few quibbles but their minor if we're talking a Western democracy) in Israel (not talking about the territory) as well makes a signifificant point.

There is surely much more tolerance/legal rights for non Jews in Israel then there are for Jews in other Middle Eastern countries.

[jrice9]

I agree with your views on capitalism. However, race DOES play a role in this particular issue too. If it didn't, then the demographic of the people who were forced out of their houses wouldn't be lopsided, but representative of the entire population.

I'm not speaking of the people, I am speaking of the principles of Zionism, I don't see how racism isn't one of the core principles.

And to be honest, also there is also a certain amount of racism/intolerance that far exceeds Israel's issues that exist within the Palestinian territories/leadership and the Arab world.

If you talk about those who were kicked out, you have to discuss also the Jews kicked out of the different Arab states and the derogatory/racist things taught in Palestinian schools about Jewish people.

[Freakazoid]

Ok, so I gave that a good read, and even dove into some of the links within ur link. What I'm getting here is that basically this idea of a Jewish state was starting to take form well before the official creation of Israel. The Zionist led UK backed racist policies (wages, weapons possession, etc) and systematic displacement of Arab nationals (mostly from country side to poverty stricken urban areas) is what basically lead to these revolts. Is this correct?

Strong selective reading.

They weren't systematically displaced. Jews simply bought the land and evicted the Arabs.

If the Arabs had not revolted, they would have had a much more favorable outcome. The British and the Jews didn't exactly get along in the 30s. Churchill wasn't exactly too fond of them and blamed them for their own misfortunes.

As I see, the Jews and non Jews of the area really had no issues except for when it came to the Zionist ideology and segregation of people, is this correct? This seems to be the spark of everything.

Nope, the Nuremberg Laws and Nazi propaganda became increasingly popular in the 30s and created outgroup homogeneity (re: frustration-aggression theory) resulting in mass xenophobia throughout Europe, ME and NA.

As a result, the Jews had to be British allies in order to ensure their survival.

I'm coming across a lot of new stuff in this thread, which is good. The more I learn about this topic, the more blatantly racist the Zionist ideology seems to be.

Don't mean to ask loaded questions, but that's honestly what I'm getting out of your links. Correct me if there's a misunderstanding on my part.

Actually, Zionism started becoming popular again because antisemitism and hostility towards the Jews was becoming the norm in Europe. Zionism became especially popular with Russian Jews escaping progroms and state-led persecution.

[nastynice]

I really think you're reaching here and I fail to see how race plays into any of this. There is a large population of arabs living in Israel (over 1/5 of the population) and there are arab members of parliament in Israel. Calling zionism racism or calling Israel an 'apartheid' state is merely an attempt at sensasionalist conjecture.

Well, if black people in Texas wanted a black majority in their state and so systematically displaced non blacks to ensure their control over the land, how could that NOT be based on racist principles? I know Zionism is a political ideology, but u know what I'm saying.

[nastynice]

The point about Non-Jews having virtually eqal rights (I have a few quibbles but their minor if we're talking a Western democracy) in Israel (not talking about the territory) as well makes a signifificant point.
.

I haven't read too much about Arabs in Israel, but from the little bit I have it seems to be unanimously agreed upon that they receive less govt resources, lesser educational facilities, live in lesser living conditions, have many laws targeting them, and have a different set of immigration laws to abide by. It could be worse, so I'm not saying that to play a victim card for Arabs in Israel, but from what I've seen your statement seems to be inaccurate

[nastynice]

If you talk about those who were kicked out, you have to discuss also the Jews kicked out of the different Arab states and the derogatory/racist things taught in Palestinian schools about Jewish people.

I think the Jewish exodus and the Palestinian exodus were very quite different. There seems to be many Jews who say they were not refugees but instead Chose to go to Israel to have bEtter economic opportunity, and stated this applies to majority of the migrants. I was reading on "Persian Jews" and saw that in the early 1900's the vast majority of Jews in Iran were lower class. Then after migration only 1% were lower class, so concerning Iran these statements seem to be accurate.

However you too are right about many Jews being kicked out, I believe during the Palestinian exodus Arab nations decided they were going to kick Jews out of their country if the Palestinians weren't allowed back. Over the next decade they too systematically displaced jews, and that is very wrong.
I know this is true for Jordan and I believe Syria, although at one time they halted emigration, so I don't know what to make of that. I think other countries did take similar actions, I'm not sure which ones, but I know lebanon and Iran didn't which is wierd since those seem to be two of the top countries in israels target.

But back to the point of comparing the Palestinian exodus to the Jewish exodus, if you are suggesting these two events were the same as one another I believe you are mistaken

[nastynice]

And to be honest, also there is also a certain amount of racism/intolerance that far exceeds Israel's issues that exist within the Palestinian territories/leadership and the Arab world.

.

Yea that's probably true. As far as Palestine well that's obviously understandable, as they are actively oppressed by the state of Israel. Rest of Arab world ur right, there's probably bad blood. I feel like I was reading something about antisemitism spreading thru the Arab world in the 30's. Why was this happening? Some of it made sense as it seemed more about British occupation and their relation with some Jewish communities, but I can't say if that was the entire reason or what. I had just skimmed a few things addressing this. If u have more knowledge on the subject please share, because I didn't really understand it all

[nastynice]

Strong selective reading.

They weren't systematically displaced. Jews simply bought the land and evicted the Arabs.

If the Arabs had not revolted, they would have had a much more favorable outcome. The British and the Jews didn't exactly get along in the 30s. Churchill wasn't exactly too fond of them and blamed them for their own misfortunes.



Nope, the Nuremberg Laws and Nazi propaganda became increasingly popular in the 30s and created outgroup homogeneity (re: frustration-aggression theory) resulting in mass xenophobia throughout Europe, ME and NA.

As a result, the Jews had to be British allies in order to ensure their survival.



Actually, Zionism started becoming popular again because antisemitism and hostility towards the Jews was becoming the norm in Europe. Zionism became especially popular with Russian Jews escaping progroms and state-led persecution.

Ok, if my reading is selective you can correct me, I'm ok with that. I've been using the very links u've been pasting.

You say they weren't systematically displaced, then you immediately describe a method of systematic displacement.

Why is it that Nazi propaganda was becoming popular in the Mideast? Why is it that antisemitism was becoming popular in Europe?

And just to go back to this British mandate, I'm just not understanding. So they said here is land for a Jewish state, here is land for an Arab state, right? From what I have seen, the land of Israel contained about half Jews and half Arabs, correct? So how was it that a "Jewish state" was formed? Why wasn't it touted as a state with half Jews and half Arabs?