Daniel Perl's father: anti Zionism is racism.

[Johnny Canuck3]

nice dodge here but it is a pointless aside ... get back to the point jc what's the reason you have failed to do the most basic of research then?

It's not a dodge. I pay more attention to you when you stop calling names, and simply discuss the ideas.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

nice dodge here but it is a pointless aside ... get back to the point jc what's the reason you have failed to do the most basic of research then?

I'll grant you I haven't done a lot of research on Palestine/Israel, but I take comfort in the fact that historians throughout the world have done so, and are still in disagreement over things that happened only 50 years ago in that area.

I have been doing a bit of reading, and came across a few things I didn't know about.

http://www.hebron.org.il/1929/tarpat.htm

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_riots_1929.php

Sounds like the haganah was born around that time.


At the same time, I've also done some reading here:

http://www.is-pal.net/maps.htm

These sites indicate that Isreael caused the nakbah, not the exhortations of arab leaders.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

have you looked at the primer on that thrid link you have posted ?

http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html

The standard Zionist position is that they showed up in Palestine in the late 19th century to reclaim their ancestral homeland. Jews bought land and started building up the Jewish community there. They were met with increasingly violent opposition from the Palestinian Arabs, presumably stemming from the Arabs' inherent anti-Semitism. The Zionists were then forced to defend themselves and, in one form or another, this same situation continues up to today.

The problem with this explanation is that it is simply not true, as the documentary evidence in this booklet will show. What really happened was that the Zionist movement, from the beginning, looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the indigenous Arab population so that Israel could be a wholly Jewish state, or as much as was possible. Land bought by the Jewish National Fund was held in the name of the Jewish people and could never be sold or even leased back to Arabs (a situation which continues to the present).

The Arab community, as it became increasingly aware of the Zionists' intentions, strenuously opposed further Jewish immigration and land buying because it posed a real and imminent danger to the very existence of Arab society in Palestine. Because of this opposition, the entire Zionist project never could have been realized without the military backing of the British. The vast majority of the population of Palestine, by the way, had been Arabic since the seventh century A.D. (Over 1200 years)

which kinda answers the whole thread in one basic bit of research.

in order to appropreate whether this is a biased sourced or factual you can then do cross refferencing on the subject.

i know this is teaching your gnadmoterh to suck eggs and you could do this if you choose.

btw is there any reason why you wouldn't go to palestine?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

have you looked at the primer on that thrid link you have posted ?

http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html



which kinda answers the whole thread in one basic bit of research.

in order to appropreate whether this is a biased sourced or factual you can then do cross refferencing on the subject.

i know this is teaching your gnadmoterh to suck eggs and you could do this if you choose.

btw is there any reason why you wouldn't go to palestine?

I did choose to do it. I read at least three of the 'revisionist' historian's essays on the third link.

No comment on the massacres in the 20s?

Why no palestine? I try to avoid places where a shooting war is in progress.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I did choose to do it. I read at least three of the 'revisionist' historian's essays on the third link.

and you'd be able to prove they are revisionist how?

again do your research and vailidate the claim...

No comment on the massacres in the 20s?

what comment would you like?

they happened the causes of them are still hotly disputed (see the wiki for more refference as to what is in dispute about them) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Riots_in_Palestine_of_1929

what oyu have failed to mention in commenting on your link is that although 67 people were killed 435 were sheltered against the violence by arab neighbours which would highlight that the riots were not the commonly percieved view with in hebron... more over if you were to accept the primery cause not being the arabs rioting and being anti semetic but the manner of the use of the wall which had been in place since the otterman empire. The Arabs insisted that the Jews observe the long-standing agreements (from Ottoman times) that allowed unlimited access but did not allow practices such as erecting barriers and blowing shofars. as documented in the contempory british reports.

what isn't in dispute is that

On August 14, 1929, 6,000 Jews marched in Tel Aviv chanting "The Wall is ours". The next day, hundreds of Jews, including Betar members armed with batons, demonstrated at the Wall. Rumors and leaflets, some apparently prepared in advance, declared that the Jews were preparing to take control of the holy places and that Muslims should come to Jerusalem to defend them.

in light of the background of the intent of the jews at the time to change the very nature of how practices were observed at the wall it is not inconcieveable that muslim leaders with their own agendas used this to stur up trouble...

Why no palestine? I try to avoid places where a shooting war is in progress.

it's not all shooting, were you to go there you'd know this...

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

and you'd be able to prove they are revisionist how?

again do your research and vailidate the claim...

They call themselves revisionists, if you look at the link. They are revisionist, because they go against the accepted history that the palestinians left at the insistence of their own leaders.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

it's not all shooting, were you to go there you'd know this...

You're probably right. My pharmacist goes there every year; last time was to join the protests against giving up Gaza.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

They call themselves revisionists, if you look at the link. They are revisionist, because they go against the accepted history that the palestinians left at the insistence of their own leaders.

don't be coy you and i both knwo that's not the accepted meanign of the term revisonist now is it...

If i were to say you are a revisionist about the causes of the second world war what would you assume...

again you are not qualifing yourself which is important in establishing your sources. one might therefore assume that this laxidasical manner was a deleberate ploy in order to promote circluar arguments...

and less charitable posters might even say trolling...

so come on are you going to debate sensibly as i beleive you can or sucumb to the cat calls of troll and lazy debate?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

don't be coy you and i both knwo that's not the accepted meanign of the term revisonist now is it...

If i were to say you are a revisionist about the causes of the second world war what would you assume...

again you are not qualifing yourself which is important in establishing your sources. one might therefore assume that this laxidasical manner was a deleberate ploy in order to promote circluar arguments...

and less charitable posters might even say trolling...

so come on are you going to debate sensibly as i beleive you can or sucumb to the cat calls of troll and lazy debate?

Christ, you argue even when I throw you a bone.

"What lessons have the revisionist historians drawn from their diligent working-through of the archives? As regards the broad picture of the balance of power between Jews and Arabs in both 1947 and 1948, their results contradict the generally-held picture of a weak and poorly armed Jewish community in Palestine threatened with extermination by a highly armed and united Arab world - David versus Goliath."

http://mondediplo.com/1997/12/palestine

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

You're probably right. My pharmacist goes there every year; last time was to join the protests against giving up Gaza.

have they been shot?

or shot at, tbh i would have thought with your previous experinces that havig an armed kid in proximity to you wouldn't bother too much other than the obivous ... and the instances of live rounds being used espically around 'internationals' is considerably less (not non exisitant true but not as significant as you would believe based on tv coverage) in the time i was there there was only 2 occasions where i felt that things were hariy enough to warrent maybe having been else where and on both occasions i have actively gone into those situations knowing full well that would be the case by attending known trouble spots these situations were necessary as part of the work i was doing (and am going back to do...) however the remainder of the time (a great deal i was unaccompanied) i felt no less safe than i ever have done in hackney or any of londons so called trouble filled areas... indeed on the whole the was no sense or problematic issue whilst with in palestine itself there was more urgancy and sense of forboding with in israel but then if you are freely associating with palestinians and regularlly crossing the check points then the guards are going to get suspicious...

 

[laptop]

Did I miss the bit where Canuck acknowledged that Pearl's argument is content-free?

I know. Let's make it even simpler with an example. And a folksy touch.

1. I propose an ideology, to be called Maplism, which holds that Chinese people cannot exist unless they can seize maple syrup from whomsoever they choose.
2. Anti-Maplists say it's wrong to seize others' maple syrup.
3. But Maplism holds that Chinese people cannot exist unless they can seize maple syrup from whomsoever they choose...
4. So by this logic Anti-Maplists want Chinese people not to exist and are therefore surely racist against Chinese people!!!

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

have they been shot?

or shot at, tbh i would have thought with your previous experinces that havig an armed kid in proximity to you wouldn't bother too much other than the obivous ... and the instances of live rounds being used espically around 'internationals' is considerably less (not non exisitant true but not as significant as you would believe based on tv coverage) in the time i was there there was only 2 occasions where i felt that things were hariy enough to warrent maybe having been else where and on both occasions i have actively gone into those situations knowing full well that would be the case by attending known trouble spots these situations were necessary as part of the work i was doing (and am going back to do...) however the remainder of the time (a great deal i was unaccompanied) i felt no less safe than i ever have done in hackney or any of londons so called trouble filled areas... indeed on the whole the was no sense or problematic issue whilst with in palestine itself there was more urgancy and sense of forboding with in israel but then if you are freely associating with palestinians and regularlly crossing the check points then the guards are going to get suspicious...

It sounds safer than I imagined, but I don't get a lot of vacation time, and all things being equal, I prefer to spend it with my kids in Paris or maybe Barbados or even Winnipeg. I can't constantly be on fact-finding missions.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I'm sure there are truths to be learned in Palestine, but believe it or not, there are truths to be learned even in Winnipeg.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Did I miss the bit where Canuck acknowledged that Pearl's argument is content-free?

I know. Let's make it even simpler with an example. And a folksy touch.

1. I propose an ideology, to be called Maplism, which holds that Chinese people cannot exist unless they can seize maple syrup from whomsoever they choose.
2. Anti-Maplists say it's wrong to seize others' maple syrup.
3. But Maplism holds that Chinese people cannot exist unless they can seize maple syrup from whomsoever they choose...
4. So by this logic Anti-Maplists want Chinese people not to exist and are therefore surely racist against Chinese people!!!

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Did I miss the bit where Canuck acknowledged that Pearl's argument is content-free?

I know. Let's make it even simpler with an example. And a folksy touch.

1. I propose an ideology, to be called Maplism, which holds that Chinese people cannot exist unless they can seize maple syrup from whomsoever they choose.
2. Anti-Maplists say it's wrong to seize others' maple syrup.
3. But Maplism holds that Chinese people cannot exist unless they can seize maple syrup from whomsoever they choose...
4. So by this logic Anti-Maplists want Chinese people not to exist and are therefore surely racist against Chinese people!!!

Zionism as I understand it involves a striving for nationhood. It seems silly to argue that the jews cannot exist without their own state, since they did so for millenia.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Zionism as I understand it involves a striving for nationhood. It seems silly to argue that the jews cannot exist without their own state, since they did so for millenia.

Anti-Zionism earns its racist character from denying the Jewish people what it grants to other collectives (e.g. Spanish, Palestinians), namely, the right to nationhood and self-determination.

from here

so which is it JC2?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

from here

so which is it JC2?

Where in that quote does it say that jews can't exist without nationhood?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The article says that the jews should have the right to nationhood, just as other groups want or claim that right.

That's something different from VP's little scenario, which has as a supposition, the proposition that nationhood is a necessary antecedent to the existence of jews.

 

[ViolentPanda]

That's something different from VP's little scenario, which has as a supposition, the proposition that nationhood is a necessary antecedent to the existence of jews.

Would you be kind enough to point out where I've said this?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Would you be kind enough to point out where I've said this?

I know. Let's make it even simpler with an example. And a folksy touch.

I propose an ideology, to be called Maplism, which holds that Chinese people cannot exist unless they can seize maple syrup from whomsoever they choose.
Anti-Maplists say it's wrong to seize others' maple syrup.
But Maplism holds that Chinese people cannot exist unless they can seize maple syrup from whomsoever they choose...
So by this logic Anti-Maplists want Chinese people not to exist and are therefore surely racist against Chinese people!!!

 

[laptop]

The article says that the jews should have the right to nationhood, just as other groups want or claim that right.

But if that were all that Zionism held, then Pearl's argument would be empty for a different reason.

If Jews - like gypsies and the Baha'i - had "a right to nationhood" but it was accepted that they lacked territory for a nation-state... then people who said they had no right to seize anyone else's territory to get one would merely be stating the obvious.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

But if that were all that Zionism held, then Pearl's argument would be empty for a different reason.

If Jews - like gypsies and the Baha'i - had "a right to nationhood" but it was accepted that they lacked territory for a nation-state... then people who said they had no right to seize anyone else's territory to get one would merely be stating the obvious.

But they had a connection to Palestine, and arguably, the original UN mandate provided living space for both jews and palestinians. Things seemed to go awry from there.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I know. Let's make it even simpler with an example. And a folksy touch.

I propose an ideology, to be called Maplism, which holds that Chinese people cannot exist unless they can seize maple syrup from whomsoever they choose.
Anti-Maplists say it's wrong to seize others' maple syrup.
But Maplism holds that Chinese people cannot exist unless they can seize maple syrup from whomsoever they choose...
So by this logic Anti-Maplists want Chinese people not to exist and are therefore surely racist against Chinese people!!!

Please don't make it simpler.

Now, would you be kind enough to point out where I've said what you claimed?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Please don't make it simpler.

Now, would you be kind enough to point out where I've said what you claimed?

I apologize. Laptop made that post; I thought it was you.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I apologize. Laptop made that post; I thought it was you.

Thank you.

 

[tangentlama]

to laptop, et al: could this new 'az=as' propaganda drive have anything to do with submission dates for word definitions to Webster's Dictionary, whaddya think? I know some groups have tried to have the az=as definition put in before, without success. just looking for some explanation for the timing of recycling of this tired old argument.

 

[snadge]

I'll grant you I haven't done a lot of research on Palestine/Israel, but I take comfort in the fact that historians throughout the world have done so, and are still in disagreement over things that happened only 50 years ago in that area.

you never do johnny, you never do.

just like your research on the 2cnd world war when you were arguing for America.

you argued that america declared war on germany " sometime after pearl harbour"

even though I had offered links and "true" history of amerikas' machinations of all and sundry in the lead up to pearl harbour.

and a link to Hitlers "I declare war on america, the spineless cowards" speech

then you ran away never to be seen again.

 

[tangentlama]

Thank you.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

you never do johnny, you never do.

just like your research on the 2cnd world war when you were arguing for America.

you argued that america declared war on germany " sometime after pearl harbour"

even though I had offered links and "true" history of amerikas' machinations of all and sundry in the lead up to pearl harbour.

and a link to Hitlers "I declare war on america, the spineless cowards" speech

then you ran away never to be seen again.

I think you're thinking about someone else.

 

[nino_savatte]

I think you're thinking about someone else.

Oh no he isn't. He's got you banged to rights.