# Israel's new tourism pitch...



## Ugg (May 8, 2003)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,952258,00.html

Another article in the same vein:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,950072,00.html

Now, not only the Palestinians are fair game but also anyone who enters the Occupied Territories.  The second article is mind boggling.  Insult added to injury, literally.


----------



## habilis (May 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ugg _
> Now, not only the Palestinians are fair game but also anyone who enters the Occupied Territories.


For somebody so overflowing with compassion, well, rather compassion for Hamass and Hezbollah and Saddam at least, you'd think you could spare a little love for the Israelis. Or at least their sad situation.

Real nice.


----------



## chevy (May 9, 2003)

Sorry to interrupt you, but the "peace" people have no compassion for Saddam, they have compassion for the people who die. They have less compassion for the people who die with a gun in their hands than for the people who die without.

I'm not a peace activist or similar, but you transform their sayings by suggesting they have compassion for Saddam when they have compassion for the Iraki people (who still live a nightmare).

Same thing for Israel vs Palestine. If some extreme Palestine people deserve jail, Palestine is not occupying Israel. And the Palestine army is not destroying the houses of Israeli. The fact that someone says that the Israeli army is out of control does not mean that this person does not have compassion for the Israeli population.

Peace still has some progress to do in this part of the world.


----------



## Ugg (May 9, 2003)

I feel for every single person killed in Israel, N. Ireland, the former Yugoslavia and all the other countries torn by religious strife.  They all died because their governments have ceased to value human life.  Nobody deserves to die at the hands of their own government.  

I've no sympathy for terrorists who choose to kill innocent men, women and children.  I've also no sympathy for the people of Israel who elected a war-mongering terrorist to lead their country.  

Israel (by this I mean all the people who live in Israel, not just the jews) created the situation it is in.  It is up to all Israelis to find a way out.  Arafat is slowly losing his grip and that is a first step.  Now it is time for Israel to lose Sharon.  Terrorists should not be elected to higher office.


----------



## chevy (May 9, 2003)

Israel did not create Israel (I mean the modern Israel), it was created by Great Britain with the support of other European countries... a bit more than 50 years ago... without any consideration for the local populations.

Israel is not the only one to be responsible for this situation.


----------



## Ugg (May 9, 2003)

That is very true, GB made a bloody mess of it just like they did in Iraq and a few of their other colonies.  However, the Israeli government is solely responsible for its own actions and cannot blame GB or the UN for its own policies towards the Palestinians.  Especially since Israel refuses to allow the UN to mediate and has derided Tony Blair's middle east peace plan.  

The Sharon government has placed all of its eggs in the basket of the United States.  Israel's long-term survival depends upon peace with its neighbors.  The US cannot continue to subsidize Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Iraq, etc indefinitely.  Israel will need to make peace with the Palestinians before that can be done.  Their response has been to build a wall around the West Bank.  Essentially ghettoizing the Palestinians as the Jews were ghettoized in Europe.  What's the next line of Sharon's agenda, a slow painful form of genocide?

Habilis, you deride me for my apparent lack of sympathy to the Israeli people, have you any idea what it is like for the majority of Palestinians today?  Their living standards are roughly on a par with the Afghanis.


----------



## habilis (May 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chevy _
> I'm not a peace activist or similar, but you transform their sayings by suggesting they have compassion for Saddam (...) Same thing for Israel vs Palestine.


The Israeli Defense Force is the proxy army of the U.S. and their war against Palestinian terrorism is our proxy war. If you accept that fact, then the same logic applies to the peace movement; the terrorists and terror regimes are their proxy allies.



> _Originally posted by Ugg _
> Habilis, you deride me for my apparent lack of sympathy to the Israeli people, have you any idea what it is like for the majority of Palestinians today?


Yes I do and it's a terrible scene and a terrible mess. I know full well the conditions in which they live. The Israeli's are not without blood on their hands. But if they wan't peace, either side, they need to forget history, as hard as it's going to be. The Arabs need to stop playing the blame game - which is the root of their endless frusterations and humiliations - and the Israelis need to make reparations. If there is a peace in the world that can happen, it's the Israel/Palestine question.


----------



## chevy (May 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *The Israeli Defense Force is the proxy army of the U.S. and their war against Palestinian terrorism is our proxy war. If you accept that fact, then the same logic applies to the peace movement; the terrorists and terror regimes are their proxy allies. *



I don't considere your opinion as being a fact. The only fact here is that this is your opinion.


----------



## toast (May 9, 2003)

> _Original cuts posted by chevy _
> *1. Israel did not create Israel (I mean the modern Israel)
> 2. it was created by Great Britain with the support of other European countries...
> 3. a bit more than 50 years ago...
> ...



1. Indeed.
2. An Israelian state was a logical, legitimate request after WW2. Hence, all Europe did agree to create a haven for the Jews. Remember, WW2 is Diaspora #17 I think. Diaspora #1 was the Simon persecution; Diaspora #11 was WW1... Diaporas were recurrent before Israel was created.
3. 1948. Great-Britain agreed to leave the coutry (Jerusalem and Golan areas) and signed the white book (kind of state creation treaty).
4. Local populations were not opposed, at the very basis. In fact, little people know the local muslims were completely okay with the idea ! Until they saw the geographic plans the zionists had drawn in their backs.
5. Of course. But Israel is top of the list.

The actual situation is sickening. Not only am I bored with Tsahal, I'm also bored with Arafat. I'm sorry, I hate this man. Things seem so... static under his reign. Even if Arafat has been an active man before, and even if his first attempts for peace did fail because of Israel, his actual politics are much less incline to bring peace.

I hope the new Palestinian government will be an activist government, in the sense: a hype-active one. Even if it's more radical. Israel / Palestine needs change, and now, in my very humble opinion.


----------



## dixonbm (May 9, 2003)

Lets not forget that Arafat said no to the biggest plan ever offered by Israel when Barrack was Prime Minister.  If he had only accepted that plan they may not be in this mess today.

Many, including me, believe Arafat is to blame for much of the break down in peace talks.  However blame must also be put upon Sharon for making things worse.  I believe Sharon is elected because the Israeli people had grown tired of the stagnate peacetalks and thought that perhaps they could force them to the peace table, too bad they were wrong.  Hopefully they will see they need more moderates leading their government.

Also I can't cite any sources now, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that Israelis initially offered a co state with the Palestinians when they were creating Israel, but they said no, so Israel created the modern day Jewish state.  Anyone have any more incite on this info?


----------



## toast (May 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by dixonbm _
> *1. Lets not forget that Arafat said no to the biggest plan ever offered by Israel when Barrack was Prime Minister.  If he had only accepted that plan they may not be in this mess today.
> 
> 2. Many, including me, believe Arafat is to blame for much of the break down in peace talks.  However blame must also be put upon Sharon for making things worse.
> ...



1. Arafat had reasons, good and bad, to do that. And this plan was not the more efficient peace plan ever built. The Camp David discussions could have been the end of the I/P conflict. Murders and political changes killed it.

2. All Arafat does is refuse plans he judges unworthy for his population. His behavior may be stupid at some times, at least it is legitimate. Sharon is an archetypical hawk, which is not legitimate in any way. Arafat may have made some errors, at least he wasn't doing them on purpose. I have far less scruples when it turns to Sharon.

3. Sharon was elected because of his tragically excellent campaign, based on fear, security and exasperation of the population. What a pity. I however understand Israelis. If I were living in Israel, I may have voted for Sharon. I do not mesesteemate the power of fear on human beings.

4. Check any documents concerning zionism post-WW2 to get a clear answer. Zionism excludes all contacts with other religions, while moderate Judaism is a friend of Islam, just like moderate Islam is a friend of Judaism. never forget both are based on the same [Old]_book.


----------



## toast (May 9, 2003)

Bookworms, click here


----------



## Ugg (May 9, 2003)

Here is a brief history of zionism:

http://www.robincmiller.com/articles/hanna1.htm

I spent about 15 minutes googling for something that wasn't in some way biased.  It was impossible.  The above article is at least moderate.  Don't know who the author is or what their affiliation is.

It is interesting to note that the Dreyfuss Affair influenced Herzl quite a bit.


----------



## toast (May 9, 2003)

This affair has been at the foundation of more events, thoughts, theories and conflicts than you can throw a stick at, even when that's your job or occupation like it is for me.


----------



## Jabberwocky (May 9, 2003)

I can't help thinking that what this whole sorry mess needs is for the US to stop providing blanket support and turning a blind eye to what is going on there. Of course, the US Government makes all the right murmers of dissent when things get really out of hand, but we haven't seen any of the aggressive policing that we have in other countries. It was only a few weeks ago that I read in the papers a desparate request from Israel to the US for financial aid - it was cited that the economy was shot because of 30 months of military action in Palestine - and the US was going to provide $10 billion in military and financial aid.

It is this automatic "yes we'll help you" support for Israel over the years that would appear to have generated much of the anti-US sentiment in the fundamentalist muslim world. By all means, the US can provide aid to countries that ask for it, but the aid should not be so one sided in a conflict situation and it should certainly not be military aid. And if a country mismanages their economy by waging war, they should really get the financial cold shoulder.

All the recent hunt for weapons of mass distruction (WMD) quietly ommitted a couple of facts that I have learned throughout the recent Iraq war:
1. Iraq's biological weapons were _*GIVEN*_ to Saddam _*BY THE US*_ to assist his war against Iran.
2. Israel has weapons of mass distruction, also provided by the US.

Perhaps the US should stop trying to influence foreign politics and maybe it wont come back to bite them in the a*** years later.

I was stunned to read on the BBC site that the US military budget for 2003 was $342 Billion. This is more than the rest of the countries in the list put together, including the relatively "big" spenders, UK, France, China, Russia etc.!

Finally, as I understand it, the reason why the Arab league has been prevaricating over coming to the table for a complete ban on all WMD in the region is because they want the same rules to be applied to Israel, who oddly enough is not very keen to play that game.


----------



## Ugg (May 9, 2003)

The US refusal to support any UN resolution that condemns Israel for its actions against the Palestinians is legendary.   And we wonder why so much of the Arab world hates us...


----------



## habilis (May 9, 2003)

I found an interesting population equation in the updated CIA World Factbook regarding Israel and it's surrounding neighbors:

These numbers are average/per year

Saudi Arabia: 6.2 children born per woman
Syria: 3.4 children born per woman
Jordan: 3.1 children born per woman
Iraq: 4.6 children born per woman
Lebanon: 2.1 children born per woman
Egypt: 3 children born per woman

Israel (Not including West bank and Gaza Strip which is primarily Arab): only 1.6 children born per woman

If you go by those numbers, Israel will cease to exist, at least in it's present Jewish state, some time in the future.


----------



## toast (May 9, 2003)

> _Original cuts posted by Jabberwocky _
> *1. I can't help thinking that what this whole sorry mess needs is for the US to stop providing blanket support and turning a blind eye to what is going on there.
> 
> 2. It is this automatic "yes we'll help you" support for Israel over the years that would appear to have generated much of the anti-US sentiment in the fundamentalist muslim world.
> ...



1. Fictitious. American Jewish lobby.

2. Maybe, but that's far from being reason #1. The US has also provided Arab states with arms.

3. See point 2. Arab states are also armed by the US, at least since 1991.

4.1. Replace 'given' by 'sold'. At the time, Iran is the US axis of evil #1 country. The Shah is looked at like Saddam is today. In the Cold War context, this support to Saddam was predictable and logical.

4.2. Israel has 200+ nuclear heads provided by the USA, yes. So ? Reminder: Pakistan is muslim and unofficially possesses nuclear power too (more or less officially since 1998). Terror equilibrium = nullity of nuclear weaponry.

5. The US have a big problem since the end of the Cold War: disengagement. They succeeded in some parts of Africa, Asia, Europe. But not in the Middle-East, for the situation is more complex there than anywhere else. Plus, add the money factor 

6. USA = hegemonic unipolar unilateral power since 1991. USA = 56 years of Cold War at least. USA = large territory, large population. USA = atomic weapons, ICBMs/IRBMs, submarines, Star Wars. Add all elements and get such a budget.

7. That's a consequence of a theory called, international theories, the dilemma over security. The problem, as you spotted, is the Israeli administration at this point. But the Israeli government is itself a consequence of something else, and ... (never stops) ...


----------



## toast (May 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *I found an interesting population equation in the updated CIA World Factbook regarding Israel and it's surrounding neighbors:
> 
> These numbers are average/per year
> ...



A bit too much evolutionist/darwinian to be realistic, but the idea behind it is of importance. The Middle East cities will be the next overpopulated area in the world, after African, South American and Asian ones.


----------



## habilis (May 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> 1. Fictitious. American Jewish lobby.


Can you elaborate on what you mean by that?


----------



## toast (May 9, 2003)

Of course.

Zionism is at the basis of a strong Israel lobby in the US. Not only neo-zionists but also new Christians have pressured governement decisions in a lobbyistic attitude. Hence, blanket support and blind eye strategies.

Links: Ugg, Google.


----------



## serpicolugnut (May 15, 2003)

I had heard/read that Anti-semitism was pretty rampant in France, but wow - now I see it up close...


----------



## Ugg (May 15, 2003)

Why is it that when anyone makes a comment critical of zionism or the govt. of Israel, they are immediately labeled an anti-semite.  I despise what Berlusconi is doing to Italy but people don't run around calling me an anti catholic.  

Rather than name-calling, serpico, why not contribute something constructive.


----------



## serpicolugnut (May 15, 2003)

> Why is it that when anyone makes a comment critical of zionism or the govt. of Israel, they are immediately labeled an anti-semite. I despise what Berlusconi is doing to Italy but people don't run around calling me an anti catholic.



First of all, it's Mr. LugNut. 

Second, let's clearly agree on a definition of zionism... From my source:

_Zionism, the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, advocated, from its inception, tangible as well as spiritual aims. Jews of all persuasions, left and right, religious and secular, joined to form the Zionist movement and worked together toward these goals. Disagreements led to rifts, but ultimately, the common goal of a Jewish state in its ancient homeland was attained. _ 

Agreed?

So, what's there to be critical of? Israel was created (with the blessing of most of Europe and the UN). It was attacked. In those attacks it won, it acquired land. That land is theirs now. 

When zionism is used as a blanket term to insinuate that the Jews are after more land, or are trying to remove the palestinians because they aren't jewish, it reeks of anti-semitism.

If the Israeli's wanted to solve this problem they could do it inside of a week. All they would have to do is go in to the Palestinian areas, round up all the Palestinian refugees, and deport them. Now, if the Israeli's are as evil as everyone says, why haven't they done this? Simple. Because they remember history.

They do their best to live with a population that would deny their very existence if possible. The palestinians who chose to integrate in to Israeli population live as most Israelis do. The ones who don't live like refugees, refusing to accept the current situation for what it is.


----------



## toast (May 15, 2003)

Hello,

_I had heard/read that Anti-semitism was pretty rampant in France, but wow - now I see it up close..._

Wow ! So much food for thought in that post ! I am amazed. So far, I'm an anti-zionist, and if your head assimilates zionism and Judaism, then there's helluva history homework to catch up. 

Please, avoid that, I'm bored of being called antisemitic, pro-Saddam, usw. What if I said the Palestinian human bombs are a rational phenomenon ? Damn ! He's a fanatic, ban him from this place and send the cops !

If your history books qualify the French as antisemitic, please look the publishing date and press Refresh button.

That's so easy to call people antisemitic when they say anything wrong about Jewish populations. Even the British government was accused of anti-semitism after the war, while Israel owes them almost everything as far as state creation is concerned !

Mr Lugnut, your dictionary definition is what zionism is in books. I thought this conversation was about historical facts, and when turning back to history, it appears zionism was more Ben Gourion invading substantial parts of the Neguev Desert and provoking the first Palestinian civilian exodus (600,000 refugees in 1948, according to the UNHCR) than simply creating what was to be a homeland for a persecuted population who was enduring its 14th or such diaspora.

---

_Certains historians find certain periods of history nothing intelligible, and call them 'dark ages'; but such phrases tell us nothing about the ages themselves, though they tell us a great deal about the persons who use them._

R.G. Collingwood, "The Idea of History", 1946.


----------



## Cat (May 15, 2003)

> When zionism is used as a blanket term to insinuate that the Jews are after more land, or are trying to remove the palestinians because they aren't jewish, it reeks of anti-semitism.



What would you call it? Invasion? State terrorism? Ethnical cleansing? Israeli colonists have been known to advocate a general right to everything wihtin sight through appeal to zionistic ideals. Other totalitarian groups had ideals too. I would never consider hating someone for being jewish, but I definitely disagree with the (consequences of the) ideology of zionism. Why are you so anti-gallic?


----------



## serpicolugnut (May 15, 2003)

> What would you call it? Invasion? State terrorism? Ethnical cleansing? Israeli colonists have been known to advocate a general right to everything wihtin sight through appeal to zionistic ideals. Other totalitarian groups had ideals too.



I would call it the spoils of war. As I stated - Israel was attacked in '67, and fought Egypt, Syria and Jordan in the 6 day war. They lost, Israel won. The land the palestinians occupy belongs to Israel now.  The palestinian people should either relocate to within the new borders of their country of origin, or assimiliate in to the Israeli society.

To accuse Israel of ethnic cleansing is absurd. If Israel wanted to be rid the Palestinians, then there would truly be ethnic cleansing. In the face of all they are subjected to, I believe Israel conducts itself with a restraint that very few countries could exert.

The entire concept of Israel giving this land back to the palestinians is absurd. When in history has a country fought a war, won it, and then been expected to give the land acquired back? 



> If your history books qualify the French as antisemitic, please look the publishing date and press Refresh button.



Well, several reports have anti-semitism at it's worst levels since WWII. Mostly in France, where the Arab population has  increased.

Look, if Israel was truly interested in adhering to the zionist principle as laid out here, why hasn't Israel attempted to conquer Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq and Iran? We've seen that when faced with 3 attackers in 1967, Israel easily dispatched them, inflicting mass casualties and sustaining very little on their side. If Zionism was truly the concern it's put forth to be, then Israel should have expanded to include the entire middle east by now. It hasn't, and zionism is nothing more than a bunk term used by those who wish the jews would pack their bags and move their country to the artic tundra.


----------



## toast (May 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *The entire concept of Israel giving this land back to the palestinians is absurd. When in history has a country fought a war, won it, and then been expected to give the land acquired back?*



Well, remember ? Rwanda 1998 / Somalia 1993 ? Chechnya 2001 ? Nepal 2000 ? Nigeria / Biafra 1983 ?

What I 'like' with your definition is that the invasion of Koweit (1990) looks legal if you apply it. After all, Iraq fought a war, won it, so it shouldn't been expected to give the land acquired back. 

Thanks for bringing back the war to the definition Clausewitz gave (1832-1834): politics continued by other means.

May I remind you that every war fought outside chapter VII of the UN Charter is illegal by definition (article 2 paragraph 4 of this same Charter).

Plus, check your sources. The article you quote says the following thing:



> French Jewish leaders are calling this "the beginning of a new Kristallnacht".



This was said by the B'nai Brith and they are far from being the French Jewish leaders. B'nai Brith are a fanatical org. notorious for mugging people around when they 'trespass the Jewish memory' (ie. their name: B'nai Brith = Sonfs of the Jewish Memory). B'nai Brith also threw chairs on Chomsky last time he came in France (some time ago).

On top of that, this article basically says France is the scenery of a new civil war between the Maghrebine immigration and between the Jewish population. Anyone living in France will tell you this is pure fantasy. Antisemtism does exist in a latent form; it is often used by poorer categories, just as every form of racism is often instrumentalized by those who need a scapegoat for their own poverty.

In brief, it sounds like everyone reads Edouard Drumont in France and likes it. Well, no. We don't have antisemitic libraries like they have in Japan


----------



## toast (May 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *Look, if Israel was truly interested in adhering to the zionist principle as laid out here, why hasn't Israel attempted to conquer Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq and Iran?*



- Tsahal would not be numerous enough, hence it would have to organize conscription, hence the war would costs more civilians' life than bearable by Israel.

- War is illegal and Israel is a UN member.


----------



## Cat (May 16, 2003)

> I believe Israel conducts itself with a restraint that very few countries could exert



It's probably my fault that I am not able to see the subtle restraint the Isreali bulldozers are exerting while tearing down refugee camps. Israeli snipers are really mercyful killers since they save the poor palestinians from a life of hardship and uncertainty. And then those bad bad british diplomats, tsk, tsk, trespassing on Isreali territory, of course they had to shoot at them ... By the way, a very nice and restrained wall they are building IN palestinian territory... Is it to keep them out or keep them in? A very tactful solution ...


----------



## habilis (May 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> The entire concept of Israel giving this land back to the palestinians is absurd.


Yes, it certainly is, and if the left had it's way, we would give America back to it's original owners, the Indians. Then they would replace the lead in bullets with soft rubber so wars would be kinder and gentler.





> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> ... zionism is nothing more than a bunk term used by those who wish the jews would pack their bags and move their country to the artic tundra.


Amen brother, aint that the truth. The only time people ever use that term is when they want to cast aspursions on the Jewish people. God if their is any sympathy in this world, you'd think some could go to the Jews, the most persecuted people in history, just trying to be left alone and protect their miniscule little country.


----------



## Cat (May 16, 2003)

> the most persecuted people in history



Having been victims once doesn't entitle you to commit the same atrocities you suffered.


----------



## habilis (May 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cat _
> Having been victims once doesn't entitle you to commit the *same atrocities* you suffered.


That's a real balanced statement. That you equate a rocket attack on a Hamas leaders car, or the bulldozing of a few dozen houses in self defense, or the accidental shooting of a child during a Palestinian stone-throwing riot, or EVEN that genocidal attack on a Palestinian village(I forget the name) by Israel's "Proxy" Christian extremist army, to the state-run systematic extermination in gas chamers of nearly the entire jewish race to the tune of 6 million+ dead, is truly disgusting and sad.


----------



## Cat (May 16, 2003)

Don't confuse the gravity of ones actions with the results. Murder is murder, wether of one or one thousend. Do you justify Israels actions by pointing at who did worse than that?


----------

