User: adk

Dave3, you obviously don't pay enough attention to exit polls. Jews have always voted staunchly Democratic in presidential elections--NEVER ONCE have they voted for a Republican president in recent history. John Kerry received 74% of the Jewish vote in 2004, so no, Jewish voters DID NOT back Bush EITHER TIME. Of course, it depends WHICH TYPES of Jews you're talking about. The Ultra-Orthodox Jews (the ones dressed in religious clothing) voted about 90-95% for Bush; with Modern Orthodox Jews, about 30% voted for Kerry and 70% for Bush, give or take some percent; Conservative Jews (not politically conservative--I'm talking about the denomination) voted 76% for Kerry, and Reform Jews voted 84% for Kerry. Secular Jews were also overwhelmingly for Kerry. The only group that switched from Gore to Bush was the Modern Orthodox (I'm not sure about the ultra orthodox, though).

Although I realize your "I wonder what makes Jews guiltier" comment was probably intended to be humorous, nonetheless, I think it's important to get the facts straight before you make assumptions or assume the Jewish community is monolithic in its thinking. While most American Jews consider themselves pro-Israel, some Jews are NOT. About 12% of the Jewish respondents in one poll answered "yes" to the question, "Given my views on tolerance, diversity and plurality, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a Jewish state"--meaning AT LEAST 12% of American Jewry isn't OK with the concept of a 'Jewish state' in the Middle East. In another poll, 36% of American Jews DISAGREED with the statement "Despite a Jew's personal views on the conflict, he or she must always support the policies of the Israeli government". And poll after poll of the Jewish community has proven that a plurality, and in most cases a majority of American Jews support the creation of a Palestinian state.

So who will Jews vote for in November of 2008? Well, some in the Jewish community who are fanatically pro-Israel may sadly choose McCain over Obama, despite the fact that there's not much difference between the two in terms of their support for the state, ironically. Some Jews who are a bit racist may vote for McCain simply because they won't vote for a black man. However, most Jews will most likely vote for Obama, if past presidential elections are any indication. It seems every election cycle that the neocons say, "This is the year Jews will switch over and vote Republican for President". Some seemed to think Gore would lose some of Clinton's Jewish support in 2000, perhaps explaining why he chose Lieberman as his running mate that year. Well, it didn't happen, as 79% of Jews went for Gore-Lieberman. In 2004, commentators thought that was the year Jews would switch over and vote for Bush--unluckily for the neocons, that didn't happen, with 74% for Kerry. So will it happen in 2008? Quite doubtful.

No, the Hebron massacre doesn't prove that a multi-ethnic nation would have been impossible--I think it more proves that apprehension among some Arabs of what the Zionist movement had in store took a tragic turn. Actually, the history of Hebron says otherwise; for hundreds of years, Arabs and Jews had lived side-by-side without such problems.

http://www.brandeis.edu/jewishfilm/Catalogue/films/whatisawinhebron.htm

As for the 1948 partition, yes, I know there was a Jewish majority on the 56% of the land allotted to Israel, but there was a sizable amount of Arabs there as well, which would create population problems for a state bent on keeping a strong Jewish majority for the foreseeable future. And land ownership makes it an even bigger problem because Arabs who didn't own land in a Jewish-majority state would be the most at-risk.

Yes, violent acts did occur against Jews in Arab states, but the bulk of these happened around Israel's establishment, when the 900,000-strong exodus took place. Violence within the Mandate was a result of Arab apprehension of Zionist goals, as Edwin Montagu feared would happen with the Balfour Declaration. The people of the West Bank and Gaza have been occupied for 41 years now, and before that were occupied by Jordan and Egypt--they've had little breathing room and have becoming frustrated, as any colonized people would. Are some of them expressing their justified outrage in nonconstructive manners? Yes, indeed. But people who've been subjugated to endless occupation can't be blamed for that occupation.

The issue of Palestinian textbooks teaching hate has been disputed, namely through a study by political scientist Nathan Brown of George Washington University. Also, a Haaretz article mentions two studies that show Israeli textbooks aren't necessarily better than Palestinian ones when it comes to addressing the other side's narrative.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=511923

Removing checkpoints in the West Bank and removing Gazan military control by Israel would help make Israel safer, because it's the daily humiliation of Palestinians, coupled with the increased risk of violence they face, that drives Palestinian bitterness towards Israel. Once again, if Israel wants checkpoints, they will have to be on the Green Line, affecting flow in-and-out of Israel.

There have been too many cases of brutality for the Israeli leadership to claim they can't do anything to decrease such abuses. And once again, no, I'm not blaming "all of the nation", or the entirety of the Israeli people, or even all IDF personnel, but the leadership. Israel is also responsible for its collective punishment regarding bombing civilian areas, regardless of who's located there. Collective punishment of Palestinians doesn't protect the Israeli people.

How would these occupied people support a deal in which Israel gets to keep most of its annexed settlements, while only giving back land equal to 1 to 3% of the West Bank? How would they support Israeli control of the airspace of the new Palestinian state? How would they support Israeli-controlled settlement roads cutting into what should be the West Bank? Israel's existence, with the fourth-most-powerful military on earth, is not under any threat from the Palestinians, and even the surrounding Arab states realize this. It would be suicide for an Arab attack.

A quick mention of Iraq; Rwanda hasn't been split up even after the 1994 Rwandan Genocide. I think what's needed is a UN Shiite/Sunni Muslim peacekeeping force and a rebuilding of the economy, infrastructure and communities, not a further division of the Arab world.

House demolitions have affected the wrong people; often not the Palestinian militants. How does demolishing a house and its owner's olive groves stem terrorist acts? Especially when the suspect is nowhere to be found? Demolishing houses and claiming it's done to stop terror only further enrages the Palestinian populace, especially when the people in the house haven't done anything. It destroys their livelihood and effectively makes them homeless, contributing to rampant poverty and encouraging greater bitterness. It's also collective punishment, prohibited by international law.

There would be no incentive to target Israel if the occupation was ended, and I mean truly ended, not Israel keeping annexed settlements, keeping the 11.9% of territory annexed by the fence, keeping constant military surveillance over the West Bank and Gaza, and giving a token amount of unspecified Israel territory to a Palestinian state. So yes, I have offered a "better alternative"; a real withdrawal, not the phony one the Israeli leadership speaks of. Israel has the right to defend itself legally, as every other nation does--which means it can't claim to do so by violating international law.

It's not the Palestinian people's fault that Israel's territory went from 56% of the Mandate to 78% in 1948. Palestinians that wish for a two-state settlement, which is roughly half according to one poll, have already made their share of concessions. And since Palestinian militant groups were created in resistance to Israel's occupation, it's impossible to think they'll disarm while the situation that fuels their armament continues unabated. And I don't see how Palestinian demands for 100% of Gaza and 100% the West Bank would destroy Israel. Israel would be more secure with a stable Palestinian state and a democratic Palestinian leadership, not the current anger-inciting military control. As long as Israel expects Palestinians to submit to brutal military occupation, illegal house demolitions, bombing civilian areas in the name of security, annexation through settlements and the alleged security fence, there will be no peace.

"1 - The Arabs succeed in preventing illegal immigration (difficult given Palestine's long sea coast), leaving a vast population of Jewish refugees and displaced persons with nowhere to go."

They would allegedly have nowhere to go because of the Zionist movement's insistence on moving the bulk of Jewish refugees to Palestine, as Roosevelt adviser Morris Ernst could attest to. You can find his quotes on page 10 here:

http://www.adcma.org/ShortHistoryofPalestine-IsraelConflict.pdf

. . . approximately 1/4 of the page down on here:

http://desip.igc.org/fromWhatPriceIsrael.html

. . . and near the bottom of the page here:

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

"2 - Illegal immigration, unrest, war, partition, and more war. Which is similar to what actually happened."

You're 100% correct about this scenario being similar to what actually happened. This is probably what would have occurred had a single state been created, but simultaneously the Zionist movement had continued to advocate the conversion of some territory in this hypothetical state into a Jewish state.

I personally put most of the blame on the Zionist leaders, not the people living in the British Mandate. I think the people of the region would have been perfectly capable of creating a solution, otherwise.

What's wrong with the Camp David Accords? Egypt recognized Israel, while Israel returned the Sinai. You think that proves Arab nations wouldn't stick to an agreement? Perhaps you made a mistake and were referring to something else--please clarify.

"And they weren't ever violent before 1948? I guess murders, riots, massacre's, etc...aren't violent...like the Hebron Massacre...just a little misunderstanding."

Um . . . Dr. Smart, when did I say Arabs living in Palestine weren't ever violent? Putting words in my mouth won't help your argument. Over the course of the 1929 Palestine riots, 133 Jews and about 116 Arabs were killed, a tragedy for both peoples. And what about massacres committed by militant Jewish groups like Irgun, such as Deir Yassin? While that occurred well after Hebron and Safed, it's still an important aspect of the conflict. I think I made it pretty clear in one of my previous posts, both sides have committed atrocities over the course of the conflict. However, the Sephardim and Arabs of Hebron had lived together for quite a while without such violence.

My outlook on this is that Edwin Montagu was correct in his analysis of the 1917 Balfour Declaration, which was that it would cause panic throughout the Muslim world, and create tension between Jews and Arabs living in the new British Mandate. He was the one who pushed for the Balfour Declaration's recognition of the rights of non-Jewish communities living there, as Arthur Balfour hadn't made reference to that in his version of the Balfour Declaration. Unfortunately, that small gesture didn't help much.

Fast forward to the modern-day situation. How should Israel defend itself? For one thing, they should end the daily abuses of Palestinians. If you want to encourage the behavior that leads to actions such as those of Palestinian militants, then bombing civilian areas and killing large numbers of children and unarmed adults is OK, I guess. Also, settlement expansion isn't helpful at all. If the settlers want to live in the West Bank, fine, but they should abide by the laws of the Palestinian Authority and renounce their Israeli citizenship if they're going to legally live on Palestinian land. And no, I don't have it backwards; as I've already stated, violence is never an excuse for collective punishment, and it's Israel's implementation of this that causes Palestinian anger. The safety of the Israeli people is important, but it cannot be at the expense of the Palestinian people. What about their safety? They deserve to live in a secure state as well. They are no less deserving of protection than the Israeli people.

"Also the West Bank and Gaza were in Arab control for close to 20 years."

Dr. Smart, go back and read my other post, I've already addressed that. I don't want to repeat myself, so it would be best if you read what I've already written.

"Also, the supposed obsticales to statehood blocking the Palestinians never stopped anyone else. I put this as evidence that they are more concerned with the death of Jews then the rise of a Palestinian nation."

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Once again, you make generalizations about "Palestinians" even after advising me against making generalizations about Israel. Many ISM members go to the West Bank to protect Palestinians, and guess what? 20% of them are Jewish. There's also a group called "Birthright Unplugged", a knockoff of the Birthright Israel trips, except this groups tours the West Bank; most of its voyagers are Jewish. This begs the question, if Palestinians are only concerned with the death of Jews, how come all those Jews aren't massacred on the spot? Why are Israeli peace activists able to join together with their non-violent Palestinian activists to protest the planned 723-km separation barrier without being slaughtered? This disproves your point about their allegedly shared desire to "kill Jews".

As for the "supposed obstacles" that "never stopped" anyone else, to whom are you referring, specifically? Do you mean South Africa, by any chance? And why are Palestinian militants violent? They're resisting the occupation, although many of the actions they take are counterproductive, such as rocket attacks that hit civilian targets, and suicide bombings. These egregious actions don't negate the validity of the Palestinian cause, though. The blacks in South Africa weren't perfect; some of them raided white farms and murdered the inhabitants even after apartheid ended. Does this mean their goal of economic equality isn't just? In Tibet, the Chinese government has diluted Tibetan culture over the years, humiliated native Tibetans, and has banned images of the Dalai Lama. During the recent riots in Lhasa, about 99 Tibetans were killed, but on the other side, 14 ethnic Han Chinese were killed as well. These Tibetan rioters were dead wrong in their destruction of Han Chinese property and murder of 14 Han Chinese individuals, but this doesn't mean the Tibetans in general are more concerned with killing Chinese people than gaining autonomy for their province.

Moving on to the ambulance case, I'll restate that Israel has no business administering checkpoints in the West Bank to begin with. If they're going to do so anyway, despite the illegality of the occupation, they may not delay ambulances for more than 30 minutes, and in the case of an emergency, more than 15 minutes. Unfortunately, B'Tselem has documented numerous violations of this. Cases in which ambulances have been outright denied mobility through a checkpoint despite a medical emergency, are terrible violations of human rights.

Militants that operate near civilian areas are more-often-than-not from those areas themselves. Nevertheless, Gazan militants who operate near civilian areas should for one thing stop firing Qassam rockets as Israel, as this is a violation of human rights. However, Israel's continued economic and military control of Gaza doesn't help matters at all, and will have to be halted if the violence is to be quelled. When Israel bombards civilian areas, that's a crime, and it's Israel that's responsible, since Israel is the party that's doing the killing. Collective punishment is never OK, and is the responsibility of whomever carries it out. Let's further examine Israel's behavior concerning Gaza. In October 2006, it was Israel, not Hamas, that violated the 20-month ceasefire the two respective parties had agreed upon.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1531571/Hamas-threatens-to-break-ceasefire-after-Israeli-air-strikes.html

If Israel was serious about ending the perilous situation for border residents, it wouldn't have provoked militants with cross-border attacks of its own.

"Also, you ignored my statement that land ownership in many surveys were done by counting renters and squaters as owners."

Why shouldn't they be counted as owners? Even if they don't officially "own" the land, they're still using it; it's their home. As for most people in the area being immigrants, yes, most Ashkenazim were immigrants, but everyone else? On your point regarding the population of Palestine during Ottoman times, yes, the statistics are imprecise. Nevertheless, there was a substantial Arab population of at least 410,000 in 1893, and one Zionist estimate puts it at above 600,000 throughout the 1890s:

http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm

It's quite interesting you bring up Iraq, because I can see parallels there. The west would probably love to see Iraq divided up, especially the U.S., as this would turn the area into weak, defenseless states that could be easily coerced in the future in order to obtain access to the massive oil reserves located there. Similarly, the creation of a militarized Jewish state in the Middle East would serve as a western outpost of sorts to keep the Arab nations in check, and keep them focused on bickering with Israel, so that western dominance isn't challenged.

In any case, as I've already stated, it would have been impossible to give 1/3 of Palestine to a Jewish state, as Arabs would have been a sizable minority there, and once again, the Peel Commission allowed for transfer of Arabs in order to facilitate this. Undoubtedly it would have been forced transfer. I'll repeat what I said before, which was that Jewish opinion wasn't even unified on this proposal. How could this proposal have succeeded when a provision for forced transfer existed and when Jews of the area weren't in concurrence?

"Also, note that many Arabs moved to the area after the Jews because of the fact the Jews moved there and improved the area, making the immigrant Jews more local then the immigrant Arabs."

So? What about the native Arabs? What about the native Jews? They're the ones who were most entitled to a state--when I say this, I'm not advocating expulsion of immigrant Arabs and Jews. A state should have been created that would protect the rights of all inhabitants, and yes, it is possible to have a multi-ethnic state.

"As soon as you can find a more moral way for Israel to defend itself other than blockades and having soldiers monitoring towns, please say it. And do not say to pull out, because we should both know with the evidence I have presented that such a move is suicide. Arabs have shown violence against Jews long before Israel."

Actually, I will say "pull out", because its occupation is illegal. And no, you haven't presented that such a move is suicide. Palestinian anger is fueled by the now 41-year occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. You say you understand the settlements aren't helping, but Israel's logic makes absolutely no sense. Israel claims it will remove them if peace is agreed upon, but it's the relentless expansion of these settlements that is part of the problem. Israel continues to provoke Palestinian militants by expanding settlements, and says at the same time that the expansion will end and settlements will be removed once peace is reached. There cannot be peace unless the settlements are halted--continued expansion is the problem. Also a problem is the security fence, annexing 11.9% of Palestinian land and all major settlement blocs. Once again, in regard to the checkpoints, Israel can legally administer them on its pre-1967 borders to affect flow in-and-out of Israel, but to have them within the West Bank is illegal, and leads to much humanitarian abuse, as has been widely documented by the human rights organizations.

Actually, what Israel does will greatly affect whether or not the violence stops. And I really don't see how collective punishment, house demolitions, an apartheid system of West Bank roads, settlement construction and the security fence is helping anyone.

"A "bi-national state" would either have been either a Jewish-majority state with a large Arab minority, or an Arab-majority state with a large Jewish minority. Would the Arabs really have accepted the former, and would the Jews have accepted the latter?"

What a bi-national state constituted would have depended on the inhabitants of the Mandate. It probably wouldn't have been a Jewish majority state since the majority of citizens living in Palestine were Arab, even after the successive aliyahs of Ashkenazi Jews. In my reply to Dr. Smart I stated that the Arab High Committee released an offer for full independence from Britain and equal rights for all people living there in response to the failed Peel Commission back in July 1937. The Arab suggestion went unheeded. What I would say to the question of whether or not Jews would have supported such a solution, is that if Jewish immigrants to the area wished to live there, they would have to abide by the wishes of the locals not to have their land fragmented in such a manner as the Peel Commission would have done. As for the anger towards Jews from surrounding Arab nations, this came in full force after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the establishment of Israel on 78% of the land.