open Democracy News Analysis - Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state, - Comments

lotsofwordz on "Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state"

lotsofwordz — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:24:34 +0000

"Sometimes I wonder what would happen if it was all a lie. I mean, if there were no gas chambers. If there was no systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators. Wouldn't that mean that the Jewish state was based on a lie?" Trust a German neo-Nazi to question the reality of the Holocaust ... Israel is based on the truth that it is the national homeland of the Jewish nation. Now bugger off, Adolf.

srjingles3 on "Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state"

srjingles3 — Sat, 15 Apr 2006 22:16:53 +0100

kayecy I found the following regarding the Weizman-Faisal agreement. Article IV is quite interesting ARTICLE IV All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures measures the Arab peasant and tenant farmes shall be protected in their rights and shall be assisted in forwaxiiing their economic development. http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~samuel/feisal1.html

srjingles3 on "Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state"

srjingles3 — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 23:55:22 +0100

In reply to the origional post, only the most naive of naive people can say that they have gained knowledge from researching the internet. You have to be able to sift between the neo-nazi sites and the more reputable sites for any background on this. LOL! Use your brains man.

eric_5 on "Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state"

eric_5 — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 09:48:20 +0000

Who is the mystic 'impartial' force that will give ALL the facts? To me it is dangerous to search for some 'impartial' 'all knowing' type we can surrender our judgement to. kerrygoulde Impartial sources, obviously, don't include an Israeli advocacy group, even if, or especially if, it is masquerading as an organization concerned only with 'accuracy'.

kerrygoulde on "Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state"

kerrygoulde — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 16:01:43 +0000

QUOTE ERIC_5> Propaganda is to be dismissed out of hand. Let's have an impartial presentation of the facts and we can have a discussion on that basis. Who is the mystic 'impartial' force that will give ALL the facts? To me it is dangerous to search for some 'impartial' 'all knowing' type we can surrender our judgement to. Who cares whose mouth it comes from? The most vile or the most pure, but a fact is either true or it isn't. Can you disprove anything Robert has said? Or are you simply unwilling to take it on board as any possible counterargument to the assertions of Israel's critics? From my perspective, I don't think Robert has committed himself to any concrete statements against Palestinian's right to human rights or to a state of their own, yet you seem to assume that he denies both those things, and to attack him from that basis. Better to wait until he makes such a statement himself. By the way, what is the difference between 'propaganda' and an 'argument'... I was always given to understand that 'propaganda' was either a means of denying the counterargument to express itself, or deliberately false/misleading statements. Since Robert is not silencing counter-arguments, your assertion of 'propaganda' must therefore be based on the assumption that his information is false. Yet you seem unwilling to research and/or prove this. Why?

eric_5 on "Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state"

eric_5 — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 17:54:51 +0000

Can you disprove anything he's just said? Does anything he's just said affect the human rights of Palestinians? kerrygoulde Propaganda is to be dismissed out of hand. Let's have impartial presentation of the facts and we can have a discussion on that basis.

kerrygoulde on "Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state"

kerrygoulde — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 15:09:02 +0000

Can you disprove anything he's just said? Does anything he's just said affect the human rights of Palestinians? The conclusions we draw from data is one thing. The facts themselves are another. It's a sad symptom of the modern world that attacking the source of facts seems to have replaced the need to actually disprove them. I admire the fact that Robert uses facts and historical claims to drawn his conclusions and add depth and new information to the debate. I personally believe in the two-state solution with Palestine, but it seems hypocritical not to acknowledge the way that the Palestinian cause has been used as a political football to advance the goals of a number of Islamic states, many of whom have made little effort to accomodate and/or provide practical support to the Palestinians in question.

eric_5 on "Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state"

eric_5 — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:14:46 +0000

Source for the dates events http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=27 > x_article=204 Robert Tilden It's significant that you should rely on CAMERA, an Israeli advocacy organisation, very lightly disguised as an outfit concerned with 'accuracy'.

Robert Tilden on "Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state"

Robert Tilden — Sun, 26 Feb 2006 22:22:56 +0000

The point is, Israel doesn’t owe an explanation for its existence. The Arabs who lived in the Ottoman empire were, with only a few exceptions, not divided into nations. There is name in Arabic for the Saudi Peninsula, for example. The term ‘Arabs’ is used to describe people who speak the Arabic language as a mother tongue. The term ‘Palestinian’ was used to describe primarily the Jews living in Palestine up to the time when, in 1948, they declared the state of Israel. In 1925, Abdallah I almost called his kingdom ‘Palestine’ and not Trans-Jordan (later Jordan). In 1949 Jordanian citizenship was given to all those now living in the West Bank. You’re critique of Israel, as if this is unique is hypocritical. The war in 1948 was a defensive war, from the Israeli vantage. The battles were all on the areas that are now Israel proper with armies from neighboring Arab countries. Have you taken a look at maps of Germany from 100 years ago? Boarders change, Germany lost two wars, lost territory. Mexico lost wars, the wars it lost were much more defensive than the wars the Arab countries waged against Israel. In the 20’s millions of Turks and Greeks moved across the boarders, in 1948-1949 a few hundred thousand Arabs left what is now Israel, and, close to one million Jews left Morocco, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Syria, Yemen and other Arab and Muslim countries. What of the Jewish property in lands in those countries? Before 1939 the Jewish Agency bought vast tracts of land in what is now Syria. Other land was also owned in what is now north eastern Jordan. These lands were confiscated by those two countries… but your double standard ignores that. 1886 First modern Jewish settlement is established when Jews from Tiberias and Safed purchase land from the Ramtaniya village and found Golan BeBashan east of the Sea of Galilee. 1887 Jews from Tiberias and Safed purchase land from Bedouin town of Bir Ashkum. 1891 Baron Edmund de Rothschild purchases 18,000 acres of land to found a Jewish settlement. Not until the end of the French Mandate are the Jews stripped of official title to land in the Golan. 1899 The Pasha of Damascus expels the Jews from Rothschild's settlement, but even after the 1923 Anglo-French Accord the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association administers the Baron's property. 1908 Jews settle in the Bet-Zayyada Valley. 1920 The Jews are forced out of Golan in the face of Arab rioting. Britain and France divide up the former Ottoman Empire giving France a mandate over Syria. The French order Faisal to leave Syria. 1944 The Golan becomes part of the Republic of Syria. Sunni Muslims, Circassians, Druze, Alawites, a small Christian minority and other small groups live in the region. With the end of the French Mandate, all Jewish land ownership on the Golan is nullified. Source for the dates events http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=27&x_article=204 But don’t let your double standards get in your way.

kayecy on "Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state"

kayecy — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 15:19:18 +0000
Robert - you stated: ................................................................. "....with a population of over six million, most of which are born in Israel, these people are native of the land, more so than the ‘Palestinian Refugees’ 2nd, 3rd and 4th generations of people born outside of the boarders they claim are theirs." ................................................................. So do we just ignore recent history? The Palestinians were in a similar position in 1920 (less than 15% Jews in Palestine at that time). How can you think it acceptable for Israel to prevent Palestinians returning to their (destroyed) villages in Israel whereas only 80 years ago it was apparently quite OK for European Zionists (who had had no connection with Palestine for the past few centuries) to demand a right to immigrate there?

Robert Tilden on "Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state"

Robert Tilden — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 01:02:25 +0000
Sir, You are wrong on two levels. Your doubts about the Holocaust are one level and how this has anything to do with some sort of justification for the Jewish State is wrong in a different way. You have a right to hold your own opinions but not to make up your own facts. David Irving learned this the hard way, after first British court, and now an Austrian court both found his arguments questioning the Holocaust to be nothing but lies. The fact that you can quote books that question historical facts is meaningless as books could be found questioning anything you may think of. Just sighting a source makes you as bogus as the source is. Such a vast conspiracy, hundreds of thousands of survivors, I have yet to hear of one old man or woman who on their deathbed admitted to etching his tattooed number himself on their arm, of leaving most of his family behind never to see them again, as part of a large plot, in hope that a Jewish state will come out of this effort. The Jewish Holocaust, unfortunately fits in a 20th century pattern, it stands out not because of it being the most extreme, but because it got the most attention as it dealt with Jews. Six million six hundred thousand Jews murdered by the Nazis and their minions pale next to the estimated 50 million Russians killed, the number of Russian dead is so large the question of whether they are military or civilian is mute. Roma people, aka ‘Gypsies’, suffered much the same treatment and perhaps were killed at a larger proportion than the Jews; others living under the 3rd Reich were also killed systematically, handicapped, known homosexuals, those suspected of being Communist. All these do not attract doubt. I’m sure there are many Germans alive today who have missing relatives who were victims of the Nazi culling of the ‘misfits’. The WWII horror has its counter part in Asia, under the Japanese, was perceived by another well known genocide, that of the Armenians living under the Ottomans. Even after WWII, when the world vowed ‘never again’ genocides occurred in Cambodia (by their own leadership) and most recently a very well documented genocide: April- July 1994 in Rwanda in three months, 800,000 people were killed using no high tech tools. Another declared genocide, in Sudan, has, or still is occurring. You admit yourself that these theories come from Middle Eastern academics and leaders; these all have a motive, to de-legitimize Israel. Research with an agenda, like they have, is doubly suspect. Why single out the Jewish Holocaust? Do they research other holocausts or Genocides? Leaving aside the Holocaust issues, the Jewish State owes no one an apology for its existence. Every country on earth has a history, this history includes migrations. England was once Celtic, perhaps it should be returned to the Irish, or at the least to the Welsh; The French, or Franks, took over from the Gallic peoples, Slaves are also newcomers, Istanbul is conquered Constantinople; and Iraq are only superficially Arab, having much longer pre-Arab histories. Tunisia and Algeria are both city-states carved up by France, putting lands in the Sahara that never were controlled by the coast into their boarders. Asiatic Russia, Australia, New Zeeland and the whole Western Hemisphere are all conquered lands taken from oppressed peoples. The Jewish claim to the land of Israel, in comparison looks very good, unless, like in the holocaust case, you make up your own facts and disregard over one thousand years of Jewish inhabitance of the land, before being expelled by the most archetypical of empires, the Romans who also changed the name of the conquered province from Judea to Palestina. You could bring sources questioning this as well; Arafat was not convinced that a temple ever existed in Jerusalem, for much the same reasons that the Holocaust is questioned by Middle Eastern leaders. The Jewish attempt to establish a Jewish State predates the Holocaust in any event (see the Balfour Declaration, 1917). No Holocaust excuse was seen needed by either the Zionist leadership, nor the British. You could dismiss historical claims all together, but in this case, once more Israel need not explain its existence, with a population of over six million, most of which are born in Israel, these people are native of the land, more so than the ‘Palestinian Refugees’ 2nd, 3rd and 4th generations of people born outside of the boarders they claim are theirs. Boarders change as a result of wars, the fact that no Palestine Political entity was established in 1948, alongside Israel, should be put to the Jordanians and Egyptians who occupied land that never was part of their territories before, in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Before accusing Israel of being born in sin, look at the country you are in and be sure it is without sin.

kerrygoulde on "Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state"

kerrygoulde — Sat, 18 Feb 2006 11:13:23 +0000
Well, supposing it's so, what about those who read posts like these of Andrew's and wonder at the deafening silence that meets his accusations?

David Wood on "Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state"

David Wood — Sat, 18 Feb 2006 04:08:29 +0000
> But I'm disturbed that your reaction, David Wood, is > to immediately say 'Don't reply to this neo-Nazi > troll'... > At least, in principle, you should agree that > reasoned rebuttle is desirable? In principle, yes. But in practice, this guy has no desire to really take into account views other than ones which support his own already established and deeply prejudiced views (have a look at his other postings and his website). Replying in cases like these can simply make the person concerned think that his views are taken seriously by intellgient people which therefore further legitimises his beliefs. Mind you, with prejudice like this, almost any response can do this... For what it's worth I have copies and translations of the original documents realting to the 'Final Solution' - it's historical existence is not a matter of dispute at all, and it really doesn't matter to me whether 1 million, 4 million or 6 million Jewish people were actually killed (although credible and meticulous research over many years by hundreds of different academics indicates somewhere in the latter range) - what matters is the genocidal intent and practice.

kerrygoulde on "Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state"

kerrygoulde — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:21:28 +0000
>What became evident > in my research is that facts exists that give > sufficient reason for a historic debate, whether > there has been a systematic, bureaucratic, > state-sponsored persecution and murder of > approximately six Million Jews by the Nazi regime and > its collaborators. You don't have to be a trained > historian to realise that, just a bit of common sense > suffices. It would probably be better to modify this into 'it's easier not to be a trained historian to realise that, just a bit of common sense is best'. But I'm disturbed that your reaction, David Wood, is to immediately say 'Don't reply to this neo-Nazi troll'... There are some very clever and meticulous researchers who struggle to represent the Holocaust as a 'myth', and I won't judge whether Andrew is one of them, or simply taken in by them, but as long as our response is 'don't reply' rather than presenting the counter-argument and upholding the values of history, it only adds fuel to the 'conspiracy theory' angle... "You never hear my opponents reply to me, do you? Haven't you thought why that might be? Because they know they have nothing to reply!" It's important that the vulnerable not be taken in by surface logic, and that detailed, historically credible counter-arguments be available for their perusal. Perhaps I am not the most qualified person to give counter-arguments, I have some experience of the study and methodology of history, but have undertaken no detailed research on the Holocaust, but still, you do what you can. At least, in principle, you should agree that reasoned rebuttle is desirable?

David Wood on "Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state"

David Wood — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 03:00:57 +0000
An alternative version of the original posting: "I grew up ashamed, but then I found that by selective reading, i could abandon my shame and actually enjoy hating Jews like any normal neo-Nazi!" Reads like an evil parody of some self-help counseling literature. Don't bother replying to this anti-semitic troll. Whether or not you believe in the Israeli state's right to exist, and whatever position you take on the relationship between that state and the Palestinians, the Holocaust has nothing to do with it. It has nothing to do with the fundamental moral basic of Israel. It certainly had importance in the historical circumstances for teh actual creation of the state, but both Zionism and European anti-semitism predate the Holocaust. Opposing Israeli state actions, or indeed the Israeli state more generally should not imply any connection to Holocaust denial or neo-Nazi views. Unfortunately there are plenty of people out there who like to cloak their anti-semiticism this way, at least we can see this nasty man for what he is.

Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state,

andrewwinkler — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:00:56 +0000
Sometimes I wonder what would happen if it was all a lie. I mean, if there were no gas chambers. If there was no systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators. Wouldn't that mean that the Jewish state was based on a lie? Having grown up in post-war Germany, I can still feel the shame to learn about the awful things that were performed in the name of the German people. I can still feel the tears in my eyes, the pain, the empathy with the victims, especially the Jews. Doesn't that justify all the things they have been doing to the Palestinian people for the past 60 years? Or at least explain? Read the rest of this post...
read more