It's The Zionists

[Ffalstaf]

I suspect the weight of the historical evidence is on my side of the discussion.

As a history graduate who has studied the events in question with access to people who were actually involved at the time, and as a member of Mensa, allow me to assure you that not only are you flattering yourself, but you look stupid doing so.

If you think that FT Mods should just sit back and accept a sloppy argument, when they see it, you may have some surprises coming.

Nothing about mods accepting a sloppy argument. Mods set the tone; you should have the social skills to present your view without using insulting or aggressive language.

I'm leaving this topic before it escalates further.

 

[Spookdaddy]

Well...bugger me! I find myself in the not entirely familiar position of wishing to defend PM and his argument, but given the fact that Ffalstaf has retired the field I suppose it would be pointless.

Phew...close call.

Shakes hands, swaps ciggies, knocks ball about, quick rendition of Stille Nacht, resumes position on opposite side of canvas and mixes another metaphor.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Well...bugger me! I find myself in the not entirely familiar position of wishing to defend PM and his argument, but given the fact that Ffalstaf has retired the field I suppose it would be pointless.

Phew...close call.

Shakes hands, swaps ciggies, knocks ball about, quick rendition of Stille Nacht, resumes position on opposite side of canvas and mixes another metaphor.

None more surprised than myself, I can assure you!

Trebles all round! :lol:

 

[Quake42]

Not all Jews in what is now Israel were "colonists" from Europe though were they? There is a long and unbroken history of Jewish people in the Middle East - almost all of whom were expelled from Arab countries after 1948 (a bit of ethnic cleansing that the Palestinian lobby tend to forget about).

We've had the discussion before and we're probably never going to agree - the topic arouses too many strong feelings - but I continue to be baffled as to why this particular ethnic/resources conflict makes people foam at the mouth in the way that far more black and white situations (such as Tibet or the Rwandan genocice) do not.

It's just not logical to argue that everyone on Earth is entitled to self-determination, unless they're Jewish. Ultimately that is what the anti-Israel argument boils down to.

 

[Spookdaddy]

But are there not two basic assumptions in that statement: that people who are moved by the situation in the Middle East are not moved by arguably similar situations in other parts of the world, and that criticism of anything Israeli betrays a desire to see Israel wiped off the map?

Neither is true, or at least it may be in certain extremist individuals cases, but to imply an automatic connection is plainly wrong.

Criticism of (for example) American, German or British foriegn and domestic policy, past or present, does not, in most cases, imply that the critic wishes to annihilate the present State.

Is it logical to argue that every nation on earth should be subject to scrutiny unless it's Israel?

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Not all Jews in what is now Israel were "colonists" from Europe though were they? There is a long and unbroken history of Jewish people in the Middle East - almost all of whom were expelled from Arab countries after 1948 (a bit of ethnic cleansing that the Palestinian lobby tend to forget about).

We've had the discussion before and we're probably never going to agree - the topic arouses too many strong feelings - but I continue to be baffled as to why this particular ethnic/resources conflict makes people foam at the mouth in the way that far more black and white situations (such as Tibet or the Rwandan genocice) do not.

It's just not logical to argue that everyone on Earth is entitled to self-determination, unless they're Jewish. Ultimately that is what the anti-Israel argument boils down to.

Plenty of information in the Wikipedia about the subject of the Jewish settlement of modern Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

...

Zionism and the British Mandate

Zionism and the British Mandate

Jews living in the Diaspora have long aspired to return to Zion and the Land of Israel.[36] That hope and yearning was articulated in the Bible,[37] and is a central theme in the Jewish prayer book. Beginning in the 12th century, Catholic persecution of Jews led to a steady stream leaving Europe to settle in the Holy Land, increasing in numbers after Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492.[38] During the 16th century large communities struck roots in the Four Holy Cities, and in the second half of the 18th century, entire Hasidic communities from eastern Europe settled in the Holy Land.[39]

The first large wave of modern immigration, known as the First Aliyah (Hebrew: ?????), began in 1881, as Jews fled pogroms in Eastern Europe.[40] While the Zionist movement already existed in theory, Theodor Herzl is credited with founding political Zionism,[41] a movement which sought to establish a Jewish state in the Land of Israel, by elevating the Jewish Question to the international plane.[42] In 1896, Herzl published Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State), offering his vision of a future state; the following year he presided over the first World Zionist Congress.[43]

The Second Aliyah (1904–1914), began after the Kishinev pogrom. Some 40, 000 Jews settled in Palestine.[40] Both the first and second waves of migrants were mainly Orthodox Jews,[44] but those in the Second Aliyah included socialist pioneers who established the kibbutz movement.[45] During World War I, British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour issued what became known as the Balfour Declaration, which "view[ed] with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people". At the request of Edwin Samuel Montagu and Lord Curzon, a line was also inserted stating "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".[46] The Jewish Legion, a group of battalions composed primarily of Zionist volunteers, assisted in the British conquest of Palestine. Arab opposition to the plan led to the 1920 Palestine riots and the formation of the Jewish organization known as the Haganah (meaning "The Defense" in Hebrew), from which the Irgun and Lehi split off.[47]

In 1922, the League of Nations granted the United Kingdom a mandate over Palestine under terms similar to the Balfour Declaration.[48] The population of the area at this time was predominantly Muslim Arab, while the largest urban area in the region, Jerusalem, was predominantly Jewish.[49]

The third (1919–1923) and Fourth Aliyah (1924–1929) brought 100, 000 Jews to Palestine.[40] From 1921 the British subjected Jewish immigration to quotas and most of the territory slated for the Jewish state was allocated to Transjordan.[50]

The rise of Nazism in the 1930s led to the Fifth Aliyah, with an influx of a quarter of a million Jews. This caused the Arab revolt of 1936–1939 and led the British to cap immigration with the White Paper of 1939. With countries around the world turning away Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust, a clandestine movement known as Aliyah Bet was organized to bring Jews to Palestine.[40] By the end of World War II, Jews accounted for 33% of the population of Palestine, up from 11% in 1922.[51][52]

...

But, that wasn't what the discussion in question was about. It was about whether the Brits had somehow dumped the land on the Jewish inhabitants, against their will and left them to their fates.

I've always thought that the Jews got a bit of a crappy deal from Yahweh..."There you go, you can have this bit. It's got bugger all natural resources, and every one of your neighbours throughout history will hate you."

Regarding modern Israel, I think they got a crappy deal from the British government. "There you go, you can have this bit. It's predominantly Muslim Arab, and when you and they can't get along, we'll throw our hands up and pull out."

History would have been much different under the Kimberley Plan.

Whatever else the British got up to at the time, that's one thing that can hardly be left at their door.

 

[Quake42]

Is it logical to argue that every nation on earth should be subject to scrutiny unless it's Israel?

Of course not, and I am unaware of anyone arguing that. Certainly, I was making no such argument.

But are there not two basic assumptions in that statement: that people who are moved by the situation in the Middle East are not moved by arguably similar situations in other parts of the world

I think it's fair to say that more people in the West are exercised by the situation in Israel/Palestine than are about (say) conflicts in Congo, Sudan, Algeria or Burma.

and that criticism of anything Israeli betrays a desire to see Israel wiped off the map?

No, again I don't think that follows from any statement I have made. I have no issue with legitimate criticism of Israel. Much of it is justified.

However, the constant assertions that all Israeli Jews are "colonists" and that it is unreasonable of them to want their own state, rather than to share it with people who openly call for the destruction of Israel do, I think, betray such a desire.

Arabs and Jews have a legitimate right to homelands in the Middle East. No one would accuse the Dutch of being selfish and unreasonable because they wish to be Dutch and not German.

 

[wembley9]

It's just not logical to argue that everyone on Earth is entitled to self-determination, unless they're Jewish. Ultimately that is what the anti-Israel argument boils down to.

I havenl;t heard it argued that Jews have a right to self-determination - AFAIK the Zionist project is simply about having a homeland. It could have ended up as dictatorship with no self-determination at all for the people who live there (....like many countries in the world)...I'm not up on the theology, but I imagine the real Messiah is supposed to turn up and rule at some point.

Given how many peoples do not have a homeland, it's hard to argue that anyone has a 'right' to one - try asking for a homeland yourself and see where it gets you.

Back on topic though, if the Zionists really did have any power you then Israel would be ruling most of the Middle East by now. Presumably they'd have released that technology that allows cars to run on water, bankrupted all the Arab states and taken over...

 

[Spookdaddy]

...However, the constant assertions that all Israeli Jews are "colonists" and that it is unreasonable of them to want their own state, rather than to share it with people who openly call for the destruction of Israel do, I think, betray such a desire...

I'm unaware that anyone here has actually claimed that 'all' Israeli Jews were colonists, and if my post implied otherwise I apologise. But surely you can't be asserting that immigration has not been a huge and fundamental factor in the creation of what is the modern State of Israel.

 

[Quake42]

But surely you can't be asserting that immigration has not been a huge and fundamental factor in the creation of what is the modern State of Israel.

No, not at all, and clearly immigration on that scale - particularly when many of those immigrants are determined to have their own state and prepared to use violence to get it - is going to lead to major problems. I just get irritated when others imply that there had been no Jewish presence in the Middle East for over a thousand years. Believe me, I have come across many people who were labouring under just such a delusion.

I suspect that we may have misunderstood each other and in fact probably hold similar views on the whole issue. For the record, I believe that there are rights and wrongs on both sides and I'm in favour of a two state solution with security for both Israel and Palestine.

 

[Spookdaddy]

...I suspect that we may have misunderstood each other and in fact probably hold similar views on the whole issue.

And I suspect you'd be correct. Funnily enough I was actually just about to post something on similar lines myself.

 

[Analis]

Well, "being a Jew" isn't simply a matter of religion. It's also an ethnic and cultural affiliation. There are lots of Jewish people who are not especially religious, but consider themselves Jewish and feel an affinity with Israel.

Israel is certainly far more secular than most other countries in that region.

For many of them, it has come to an ethnic meaning. But what meaning is there to being a Jew, other than being a member of a religious community ? What defines Jewish "ethnicity", other than sharing religious myths and rituals ? The myth of the enslavement in Egypt, the Alliance with God, allegiance to the Torah etc... In fine, we are back to the religious definition.
If many people view themselves as "Jews" while they retain no religious belief, it's because they were forced by social pressure to feel so. It's only a mirror image of the racism and xenophobia they faced. They were not Jewish anymore, but non-Jews saw them as of a distinct ascendance. They're afraid the will never be accepted, and so this "ethnic" membership acts as a substitute. And yes, I think the same applies to many "Muslims" (notably immigrants). Who aren't anymore Muslims, but who define themselves as such ; because they see themselves as sharing a common culture with believers, as they are facing the same hostility from Westerners.

And I wouldn't claim that a country who, among many examples, allows only religious weddings, is secular at all.

 

[Ginando]

Those who read my few ramblings will know that I seldom participate in the serious political discussions which pop up from time to time. I am no history scholar and am not a Jew, so I am no expert in the geography or history of the region. My interest in this was sparked by my late father who was a serving soldier with the British army in Palestine in the 1930's. He had the unenviable job from time to time of transporting condemned prisoners to wherever they were to be executed, and had occasion to speak with real people, not politicians, who were fighting to preserve their way of life, on both sides of the divide. What struck him though was the sheer passion of the new Israelis. The Arabs were fighting for 'their' land, but the Jewish settlers were fighting for a new nation where they could feel safe and enjoy statehood. They didn't care what it cost, or who they hurt along the way. The Arabs didn't have that same passion or at least not as many by way of numbers the Jews had. It is interesting to see in the 21st century that Palestinians now have that self same zeal as they see their 'state' and way of life threatened

I also wonder why it is that many people forget that the state of Israel existed long before Jewish settlers returned in the early 20th century to what had become Palestine. Even a cursory search via google will show that the ancient Israelites had their own state. Nobody can refute that. They may argue about what was Israel. Are we speaking about ancient Judah or Samaria or both? They can also argue about the borders of states long since gone, but the fact is that this area was always the home of the Israelites and the home of Judaism. Even while various invaders or new masters controlled the land that is now Israel and some of its neighbours, Jews did remain there and in significant numbers, and no doubt passing from generation to generation the belief that one day they would be free.

Why therefore do people not grasp that we are speaking about an ancient people who, in their minds and according to their beliefs were simply retaking what had been rightfully theirs, albeit 2000 or 3000 years earlier, and doing so to preserve not just a country, but an entire religion. Even prior to WW2, anti semitism was rife in every corner of the globe, then with the rise of Nazism the Jews had faced total extermination. Even after the war, and despite the irrefutable evidence of the horrors of the concentration camps Jews were never welcomed with open arms where they tried to settle. It's natural therefore that they would want a homeland and the most obvious place was their ancestral homeland in what had become Palestine.

There's nothing new about nations forming. It has happened to other states over the years. Look at any map with the borders of nations through the centuries and borders change, countries appear, disappear and re-appear. Sometimes it has caused bloodshed and heartache, sometimes it's a natural progression.

The truth is in my humble opinion is that there are still very significant numbers of people who simply hate Jews. That is why they are desperate to see Israel disappear, and it is that very thing which steels every Jew to fight so passionately for their country and will stop at nothing to secure their homeland and their beliefs. This makes them an incredibly dangerous people, and one likely to resort to whatever means including nuclear warfare to protect their state and their beliefs. It would be foolish for any politician to ignore this simple fact.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

I have to admit, I mostly agree with Ginando's Post, or at least, I concur with its essentials. I'd like to emphasise, that for at least a millennium, perhaps nearer two, the state of Israel wasn't much more than idea, or rather, a prayer, 'Next year, in Jerusalem'.

The power of ideas never ceases to amaze me.

 

[Quake42]

I have to admit, I mostly agree with Ginando's Post, or at least, I concur with its essentials. I'd like to emphasise, that for at least a millennium, perhaps nearer two, the state of Israel wasn't much more than idea, or rather, a prayer, 'Next year, in Jerusalem'.

The power of ideas never ceases to amaze me.

In fairness though, nationalism in general, or at least as we understand it today is a relatively new phenomenon.

 

[Spookdaddy]

...Why therefore do people not grasp that we are speaking about an ancient people who, in their minds and according to their beliefs were simply retaking what had been rightfully theirs, albeit 2000 or 3000 years earlier, and doing so to preserve not just a country, but an entire religion...

Because (apart from the fact that legitimising millenia old territorial claims would see forced shifts in population on a scale that would have made Stalin spot his boxers) the relationship between the Jewish people and the actual territory of Israel is much more complex than this generalised assertion implies.

There is no de facto connection between being Jewish and holding the belief that the modern day state of lsrael should exist. In fact it is precisely because of their reading of the Torah (ie according to their beliefs) that many Jews believe Israel to be a blasphemy. Put very simply one train of thought has it that the people of Israel existed without a territory for thousands of years, the source of their essential nature being the Torah. Zionism attempts to redefine the true essential nature of the Jews, shifting it from the spritual to the material. Many Jews are not at all happy with that...and quite a few are downright furious.

Look up Neturei Karta or Satmar or the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network or Jews Not Zionists or Jews Against Zionism, to name but a few. Some of these groups represent a prmarily religious position, others may be more secular, but all contradict any attempt to imply an automatic consensus of belief with Judasim itself. Judaism and Zionism are simply not synonymous.

For what it's worth, I don't actually disgree with the tone of the original post, but to imply a homogeny of opinion within Judaism as regards the modern state of Israel is wrong, plain and simple, and to build an argument around that assumption is therefore dangerous.

(I know youtube isn't always the best of sources but a quick scan of this, this and this and some of the related videos might be an eye-opener. Quite fascinating really - but be warned, Jews accusing other Jews of anti-semitism and Rabbis laying into the state of Israel in a way which might put Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to shame is not good viewing for those who like things clear cut).

 

[ramonmercado]

An interesting article. Full text at link.

On Politics, Popes And Reasons To still HOPE

By Eileen Fleming

Beneath a brutal history of centuries of doctrinal polemics, Crusader massacres, forced exiles of Jews and a Church that did not recognize the State of Israel until 1993, simmers the effects of forty-two years of military occupation and the negation of the human rights of the indigenous peoples of the Holy Land by the Jewish State.

While surface relations between the Vatican and Israel appear better than ever, the "lingering Jewish bitterness over the Vatican's posture during the Holocaust, the uncertain legal status of church property in Israel, and outstanding concerns about Christian religious sites in the Holy Land continue to be diplomatic sticking points.

"In 1965, the Second Vatican Council adopted the "Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions," called Nostra Aetate (in our time). The declaration addresses the church's relationship with all non-Catholics and, in particular, affirms the deep connection between Christianity and Judaism, rejecting anti-Semitism "any time and by anyone." [1]

According to Webster's a Semite is "a member of any of the peoples speaking a Semitic language, including Hebrews and Arabs."

Although the Vatican supported the 1947 UN General Assembly Resolution 181, which partitioned Palestine, it refrained from recognizing the State of Israel for another forty-five years.

http://www.countercurrents.org/fleming150509.htm

 

[Ginando]

...Why therefore do people not grasp that we are speaking about an ancient people who, in their minds and according to their beliefs were simply retaking what had been rightfully theirs, albeit 2000 or 3000 years earlier, and doing so to preserve not just a country, but an entire religion...

Because (apart from the fact that legitimising millenia old territorial claims would see forced shifts in population on a scale that would have made Stalin spot his boxers) the relationship between the Jewish people and the actual territory of Israel is much more complex than this generalised assertion implies.

There is no de facto connection between being Jewish and holding the belief that the modern day state of lsrael should exist. In fact it is precisely because of their reading of the Torah (ie according to their beliefs) that many Jews believe Israel to be a blasphemy. Put very simply one train of thought has it that the people of Israel existed without a territory for thousands of years, the source of their essential nature being the Torah. Zionism attempts to redefine the true essential nature of the Jews, shifting it from the spritual to the material. Many Jews are not at all happy with that...and quite a few are downright furious.

Look up Neturei Karta or Satmar or the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network or Jews Not Zionists or Jews Against Zionism, to name but a few. Some of these groups represent a prmarily religious position, others may be more secular, but all contradict any attempt to imply an automatic consensus of belief with Judasim itself. Judaism and Zionism are simply not synonymous.

For what it's worth, I don't actually disgree with the tone of the original post, but to imply a homogeny of opinion within Judaism as regards the modern state of Israel is wrong, plain and simple, and to build an argument around that assumption is therefore dangerous.

(I know youtube isn't always the best of sources but a quick scan of this, this and this and some of the related videos might be an eye-opener. Quite fascinating really - but be warned, Jews accusing other Jews of anti-semitism and Rabbis laying into the state of Israel in a way which might put Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to shame is not good viewing for those who like things clear cut).

I am confused. You say I am wrong because I have looked at one aspect of the claims that Israel belongs to the Jews, yet your argument actually reinforces what I have said. I say this because you point out there are groups within who hold Zionism to be blasphemy. You say 'many Jews' I agree these groups exist, however they are most certainly not in the majority. The Neturei Karta number somewhere about 5000 people. Hardly a significant group. My point was that there are truly significant numbers (i.e. millions) who do believe Israel is their home, both physical and spiritual, and therefore trying to deny them their (believed) right is extremely foolish and ultimately very dangerous.

 

[Spookdaddy]

The only 'wrong' I'm pointing out (and how my comments reinforce the generalisation is beyond me) is the idea that Jewishness and Zionism are automatically synonymous, which the statement I was specfically responding to does appear to suggest.

The 'ancient people' you refer to include people with vastly differing opinions so to refer to 'their' minds and 'their' beliefs as if these are homogenous is wrong, not to mention a tad patronising. And if the ancient people you were refering to only includes those that agree with themselves (and you) on a particular subject then what about the rest - does their ancientness not count, do their minds and their beliefs not count? You can't appeal to the ancientness of a culture and its beliefs in order to legitimise an argument while at the same time excluding those elements of that ancientness and those beliefs that don't suit.

Granted, Neturei Karta are a relatively small group, but they are only one of those mentioned and that list is in no way exhaustive. Besides, it's not about numbers, it's about generalisations - God forbid I should object to generalisations when aimed at other peoples, religions or cultures.

 

[Ginando]

The only 'wrong' I'm pointing out (and how my comments reinforce the generalisation is beyond me) is the idea that Jewishness and Zionism are automatically synonymous, which the statement I was specfically responding to does appear to suggest.

The 'ancient people' you refer to include people with vastly differing opinions so to refer to 'their' minds and 'their' beliefs as if these are homogenous is wrong, not to mention a tad patronising. And if the ancient people you were refering to only includes those that agree with themselves (and you) on a particular subject then what about the rest - does their ancientness not count, do their minds and their beliefs not count? You can't appeal to the ancientness of a culture and its beliefs in order to legitimise an argument while at the same time excluding those elements of that ancientness and those beliefs that don't suit.

Granted, Neturei Karta are a relatively small group, but they are only one of those mentioned and that list is in no way exhaustive. Besides, it's not about numbers, it's about generalisations - God forbid I should object to generalisations when aimed at other peoples, religions or cultures.

Irrespective of what is said after this I have no intentions of carrying on this pointless debate. Spook, if I have offended you for whatever reason, that was not my intention, nor was it my intention to instigate an online flame war or portray my observations as historical fact, truth, Jewish law or any part of the Israeli constitution or whatever.

They were based on stories my late father told me about the nature of real Israelis who all incidentally claimed to be Jews, and who were about to die happily or otherwise at the end of a British rope for their cause. These were not theoretical or philosophical discussions, nor were they based on sanitised videos on Youtube, ill informed and contested articles in Wikipedia or someones dissertation for their degree in middle east politics and certainly not the musings of academics. This was what real people told him. People who were fighting to the death for what they saw as their nation and for their beliefs. Now whether this is patronising is something no doubt you will debate, but I emphasise unashamedly these terrorists/patriots/religious zealots or however you wish to label them were speaking about their cause.

Irrespective of this, common sense observations based on what the modern state of Israel has done since its formation and what it has made clear it will do if it is threatened by whatever source shows how dangerous a nation Israel is. You may feel comfortable carrying out an intellectual argument as to the rights and wrongs of Israel, Judaism and history, but the here and now is that millions of Israelis believe they have a right to be there, whether its based on history, religion or whatever, end of story. I don't say they are right or wrong it is a simple fact. The government of Israel and its military still contains hawks who will stop at nothing, absolutely nothing to preserve the state of Israel. This coupled to one of the most formidable arsenals of ultra modern weaponry including large numbers of thermo nuclear devices is all indicative of a nation who will fight to the death for their nation. It is all well and good having an intellectual debate about why Israel has/has not the right to exist. Oxford dons and Jewish scholars of every persuasion could sit year after year debating why historically my original comments are incorrect and I have no problem with that. However it would make no difference to my main point, which is what you have missed in your enthusiams to portray me as a ill informed buffoon.

I have rewritten this several times deleting much sarcasm and in truth some anger because it wouldn't be helpful. You suggest I have patronised either the Jews or Israelis or both. My understanding is that to patronise is to 'treat condescendingly' Frankly any patronising has come from you as you deride my comments because they don't fit with your beliefs or your pseudo intellectual bullying. I on the other hand am always prepared to listen to the other persons opinion, even when I disagree. What I do not do and hopefully will never do, is suggest that they are wrong because I know better which is precisely what you try to do by patronising my observations.

This is why I don't do politics, normally!!!

 

[Spookdaddy]

To be honest, given that I've said that I agreed with the tone of your argument and was only objecting to a generalisation, I'm finding your response completely over the top, not to mention bewildering. I've made no judgements about the legitimacy or otherwise of the state of Israel or the people who created that state and continue to support it, so please don't address your tirade to me as if I have.

Disagreement is not synonymous with derision - how have I tried to portray you as an 'ill-informed buffoon'? If you feel I derided you then I apologise but frankly I can't see where that derision came in and whatever the case you appear to be intent on paying back in spades, not least to those Jews who contribute to the sources I mentioned. (By the way, where did I use the contested wiki source and which is the dissertation - and in what way would you say that the youtube videos, flawed sources that they admittedly can be, are 'sanitised'?)

I on the other hand am always prepared to listen to the other persons opinion, even when I disagree. What I do not do and hopefully will never do, is suggest that they are wrong because I know better which is precisely what you try to do by patronising my observations.

Excuse my 'pseudo intellectual bullying' but I think you may have just proved that this statement isn't true.

 

[Gitrdone]

Granted, Neturei Karta are a relatively small group, but they are only one of those mentioned and that list is in no way exhaustive.

They're a cult actually. Composed primarily of Jewish Holocaust deniers, even spoke at Ahmadinejad's little Holocaust-denying anti-Semitic hatefest a little while ago.

And it's funny how people say Israel is an artificial country and not legitimate, yet Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon are legitimate, even though they were also formed from the former Ottoman Empire just like Israel was.

Nothing at all to do with anti-Semitism, I'm sure...

 

[Spookdaddy]

Granted, Neturei Karta are a relatively small group, but they are only one of those mentioned and that list is in no way exhaustive.

They're a cult actually. Composed primarily of Jewish Holocaust deniers, even spoke at Ahmadinejad's little Holocaust-denying anti-Semitic hatefest a little while ago...

According to their own spokesmen they went to Iran not to deny the Holocaust but to deny the right of those present day Israelis who do so to use the Holocaust as an excuse for their treatment of the Palestinians.

For those who took time to bypass the media blizzard of disinformation, several things about our trip should have been clear. Our position as stated throughout the conference was explicit and free of any ambiguity. We affirmed the reality of the mass murder of Jews during the Second World War. And we were not the only speakers there who did so. But (also of enormous significance) we told those assembled that the reality of the Holocaust should not be used as a pretext to strip the Palestinian people, either as individuals or collectively, of their property and land.

Source.

There is an immeasurable difference between this attitude and Holocaust denial. Given the seriousness of the accusation perhaps, Gitrdone, you could point us in the direction of any actual evidence that Neturei Karta are Holocaust deniers (rather than simply naive or possibly incredibly arrogant - either state of mind is a possibility, given what the inevitable consequences of attending such a conference were bound to be).

It's also worth pointing out that their foundation predates the Holocaust, whereas the wording of your statement appears to imply that their existence is a reaction to that event.

It's also worth pointing out (again) that, whatever and whoever Neturei Karta represent, their existence and the existence of other anti-Zionist groups within Israel and the Jewish diaspora, indicates the (very simple)point I have been trying to make, which is that there is no absolute uniformity of thought within Judasim as to the modern day state of Israel.

 

[ramonmercado]

Israeli wins Fatah top body seat
Uri Davis
Mr Davis has been a harsh critic of Israel for years

A Jewish-born Israeli has been elected to the governing body of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah party.

Uri Davis, 66, an academic who is married to a Palestinian, is an outspoken critic of what he calls Israel's "apartheid policies".

As the only Israeli member of the Revolutionary Council he says he wants to represent non-Arab people who support the Palestinian cause.

He called for an international campaign to boycott Israel to be toughened up.

Dr Davis said his Israeli citizenship made no difference to his election.

"Within the conference itself the welcome was most heartfelt and enthusiastic - the Fatah movement is an open, international movement - membership is not conditional on ethnic origin, it's conditional on agreement with the main part of the Fatah political programme," he told the BBC News website.

Dr Davis said he did not define himself as Jewish but as "a Palestinian Hebrew national of Jewish origin, anti-Zionist, registered as Muslim and a citizen of an apartheid state - the State of Israel".


Fatah congress delegates cast their votes

Young leaders dominate poll
Can Fatah reinvent itself?
Profile: Fatah movement

He was one of around 700 Fatah members competing for 89 open seats in the body, which oversees the group's day-to-day decision making.

Others elected to Fatah's revolutionary council included Fadwa Barghouti, the wife of the senior Fatah figure, Marwan Barghouti, who was jailed by Israel five years ago for the murder of five people.

The old guard of Fatah retained only four of the 18 elected seats. The rest went to younger men.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8203989.stm

 

[segovius]

Naturei Karta are actually correct within the confines of Judaic belief; that is it is axiomatic that the State of Israel is held to be founded after the arrival of the Messiah.

As this clearly has not happened then - in an orthodox view - the State of Israel must be false. Again in their view. Difficult to argue if one accepts the Judaic law - which many in Israel do not but that's another issue.

Btw; to call them Holocaust Deniers is false and gives the impression that one is more interested in calumnising an 'enemy' than assessing any facts.

I think a similar thing happened with Ahmedinejad's "Wipe Israel off the map" which he never actually said if one reads the original Farsi transcripts. Of course if one reads Western propaga...err..I mean objective reporting, it seems to have reached the status of Holy Writ.