The Troubled History of Jews

Thank you for re-writing history...at least in some cases.

What amazes me the most are your one-eyed subjective statements in the final paragraph about Arafat. Living in the west...I can tell you that you are just regurgitating recent White House propaganda line on Palestine....

All in all, a failed attempt to discredit Arafat.

Dear Sridar ji

I suggest that you go through an oldish article on chowk and the discussion that follows.

Suicide Bombers
by Waqar Talib

http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00002484&channel=civic%20center&start=0&end=9&chapter=1&page=1

++
As the Americans are fond of saying, two wrongs do not make a right.
++

Sure but patting one party on the back and slapping the other in the face isn`t going to solve any problems either.

Regards.

Two quick points Khan Sahib,
Mandela did take up arms against the aparhteid regime of South Africa. He is very candid in his autobiography, Long walk to freedom. He was charged and convicted of sabotage. Even after this he remains my hero. Another factual mistake is that about the offer Ehud Barak gave to Arafat at Camp David. Contrary to the popular assertion by media, Arafat was not offered 96 percent of West Bank. What was offered was incontinous and unworkable state in the form of five cantons. Five in West Bank and one in Gaza. One of the cantons would have been near East Jersusalem but the Al-Aqsa complex would have remained under Israeli control. Even Robert Malley, a member of the American team at Camp David, said that no Palestinian leader could have justified something like this to his people. With all his shortcomings I must say had it not been for him the idea of a Palestinian state would have been in the dustbin of the human history.

re: #93 by Dr_Riq
Let us first discuss what is legitimate and what is not, instead of accusing each other of stupidity!
Is killing of innocent people by ``suicide bombers`` a legitimate way of addressing one`s grievances? You yourself have said ``No`` to that question in your last post.
Is Israel then justified in defending itself from the onslaught of ``suicide bombers``? You bet, it is.
All i am saying then is that the Palestenians need to find another way of fighting for their cause. Trying to force someone to your views thr` terrorism just does not work.

``On that argument, you then have NO reason to critisise suicide bombers; they are being unjustified in killing civillians, sure, but so is the Israeli army in killing civillians too. So everything cancels out and its allright in the end?``
The above statement of yours still does not make any sense to me. As the Americans are fond of saying, two wrongs do not make a right.

``need I not remind you that although Israel has a population roughly that of the city of London, it has the 4th largets military in the world? That military spending in Israel is so great? That the aid benefitted to Israel form the US is greater that US aid spent on the whole of the African continent?``
You perhaps need some lessons in history.
The 1966 war (also called the Six day war) was precipitated by Egypt when it closed the Suez Canal and expelled the UN representatives from the Sinai peninsula.
UN could not keep up its promise to Israel that suez canal will be kept open for trade.
http://www.mideastweb.org/israelafter1967.htm
(Against this background, in Mid-May, 1967, Egyptian President Gamal Nasser again closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping and dismissed the UN peace force from the Sinai Peninsula. The United States failed to live up to its guarantees of freedom of the waterways to Israel.)
Arab nations had, until very recently, never acknowledged the very existence of Israel.
This is from the same URL:

(At the UN, PLO Chairman Ahmed Shukhairy announced that ``if it will be our privilege to strike the first blow`` the PLO would expel from Palestine all Zionists who had arrived after 1917 and eliminate the state of Israel. Nasser said on May 27, ``Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight.`` On May 28, he added: ``We will not accept any...coexistence with Israel...Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel....The war with Israel is in effect since 1948.``)
As to your allegation of Israel` s military strength, here is the reality (from the above URL):

(On paper, Israel had almost as many aircraft as the Egyptians, but the Israeli aircraft were mostly old, and even the Super-Mirages were no match for the Mig-21 fighters acquired by Egypt from the USSR. On paper, the IDF had a huge number of ``tanks.`` However, while Syrians and Egyptians were equipped with late model Soviet heavy tanks, most of the Israeli ``tanks`` were in fact tiny French AMX anti-tank vehicles, and the heavy tanks were refurbished WWII Sherman tanks fitted with diesel engines.)

(Balfour was corrupt and gave the minority population (Jews) the majority of the land. Even you (probably) can see thats not right.)
It is not as simple as that. You may read all about the Balfour agreement in this URL:
http://www.mideastweb.org/mebalfour.htm
``The Tibetan example doesn`t measure up to Palestine. Peace is actually viable in Tibet. ``
Peace is not viable in Tibet. It is enforced by brute force by China. Peace will fail the day the newer generation of Tibetans opt for violence and do not heed the advice of Dalai Lama.
Sridhar

Dr Riq

Sorry for being late.

Both sides have lots of arguements. And nothing has come out of those arguements in so many years. Only the ordinary Palestinians have suffered. The Palestinians can continue in their struggle. Neither you nor I can stop them. Similarly, we can not resolve this conflict in 10-20 Interacts.

My opinion, at best, was based on ground realities. There is always a time to move on and forget the bad dreams of past. This requires courage and boldness.

Israel is willing to hand back the West Bank and Gaza with minor modifications. But the Palestinians (including the radical groups) must give it some confidance of doing so.

The answer simply lies in the Palestinians to lay down their arms and give that feeling of safety to Israel. Believe me, it is good for them. They will save their future generations.

Mandela did not take up arms. In fact, in this new world, violence does not seem to pay. Unless you are a powerful state itself. Non-state actors have no chance. This is the reality of life.

NHK

DR_Riq
//....Of course they have military might. Thats not much, really, to be proud of...//

I am not sure if Israeli Army was that big and mighty in 60`s - nevertheless, their victory over arabs was definitely something to be proud of. Probably first time in history of jews - they successfully defended themselves against gang of vicious determined enemies.

Anyway - Israel`s aggressive push on Palis is par the course. If the situation is reveresed and Arabs had the military advantage - they would be doing exactly the same thing against the jews, probably worse.

In fact - that`s exactly what Aabs were planning to do when the ganged up on the jews in 67 war. They thought they had the military strength and they can take advantage of it and throw the jews out to the sea - once and for all. It`s another matter that the Arabs lost miserably and continue to loose ever since.

Now the shoe is on the other foot. Israel is taking full advantage of their superior military might. If tomorrow, by any chance, arabs attain the same military might and jews become weak - then arabs will do exactly the same to the jews.

SO quit whining on behalf of palis. They are getting killed now and they will kill back as soon as they get a chance.

This tribal warfare has been going on for past hundreds of years and will go on into any foreseeable future. It`s in their bedouin blood and culture, it`s part of who they are. These people will never ever learn to live together.

Alas, Chowk is a noble attempt to unite the subcontinent through good-natured discussions between the intelligencia; but occasionally one or two nationalistic idiots come and spoil the party. You, Sridhar, are a prime example. Pat yourself on the back, you can manage to perform such a task.

WHEN I said ``On that argument, you then have NO reason to critisise suicide bombers; they are being unjustified in killing civillians, sure, but so is the Israeli army in killing civillians too. So everything cancels out and its allright in the end?``
I was actually pointing out the illogical arguments as proposed by `nazarhayatkhan`. They are as illogical as the theory I put forth. In demonstrating faux, one has to go to the extremes to demonstrate why something is wrong. Only then do people see, through hypothetical extremes, that the argument is invalid. But it seems that you failed to see this simple point! What stupidity!

But just for the record, even if you still do not understand what I am trying so hard to tell you, I am actually against the civillian killing of suicide bombers. Yup, you heared right, even a /muslim/ can be logical.

``Muslim countries tried invading Israel in the 60s and got whipped by that small nation.`` Small nation? need I not remind you that although Israel has a population roughly that of the city of London, it has the 4th largets military in the world? That military spending in Israel is so great? That the aid benefitted to Israel form the US is greater that US aid spent on the whole of the African continent? Of course they have military might. Thats not much, really, to be proud of.

``NOw, muslims can`t have the balls to confront Israel directly, hence the suicide bombers, a cowardly way of reacting. Why can`t they adopt the Gandhian way of ``Satyagraha``? I can assure u it will be much appreciated all over the world even if it does not yield results.``
Read my article again. And if the answer doesn`t hit you, read it yet again, more /slowly/.

``If the land belonged to Palestine just because they have been living there, it could also be argued that it belongs to Israel historically and now in reality.``
Right, so the fact that people living on a land for countless generations, still isn`t saying to you that its /their/ land, just because a piece of paper says it isn`t?
By your argument, India was never really India, it was just some land with people living on it. In fact, no India actually belongs to the British because a piece of paper in colonial times says they won it form the Portuguese!
For your benefit, Im being sarcastic. You can have India back. I was kidding.

``Israel had legal accession to the land thr` Balfour agreement.`` Its Balfour that this trouble started in the first place to begin with. My point is, this `agreement` never actually took into consideration the people living there already... remember ``A land with no people for a people with no land``? Balfour was corrupt and gave the minority population (Jews) the majority of the land. Even you (probably) can see thats not right.

The Tibetan example doesn`t measure up to Palestine. Peace is actually viable in Tibet. With Palestine, its a perpetual war, although its not seen in that light, because all the casualties are on the Palestinian side, not Israeli. Even if Palestine vied for peace officially, Palestinians would still be killed daily, much like what is happening today, despite the absense of a suicide attack in recent times.

Now can we all stop dismissing each other as `evil muslims/evil hindus` and start arguing properly. Fundamentalism is a real poison that keeps on persisting in Chowk. Lets start being civillised.

re:#91 by Dr_Riq
You seem to have given yourself the title of Dr. May we know a Dr of what? Illogical thinking perhaps.
``On that argument, you then have NO reason to critisise suicide bombers; they are being unjustified in killing civillians, sure, but so is the Israeli army in killing civillians too. So everything cancels out and its allright in the end?``
Wow!
By this crappy logic, Hindus in India should contiinue their pogrom ala Gujarat in order to cancel out the arocities perpetrated by muslim rulers on them over the centuries.
Except muslims, most non-muslims wil not accept your logic. Israel is a state with an army and will defend itself as it seems fit. Suicide bombers are just terrorists. Muslim countries tried invading Israel in the 60s and got whipped by that small nation. NOw, muslims can`t have the balls to confront Israel directly, hence the suicide bombers, a cowardly way of reacting. Why can`t they adopt the Gandhian way of ``Satyagraha``? I can assure u it will be much appreciated all over the world even if it does not yield results.
The reason is: violence is in the muslim blood. You guys can`t think of sharing and living. I am sure if Palestenians gave up violence, some kind of compromise could be worked out with Israel.

``Right, so a people should just lay back whilst their land is being taken from them, henious crimes against humanity (some evidence even points to genocidical acts) against them, et al, because it would have benifitted them... ``
If the land belonged to Palestine just because they have been living there, it could also be argued that it belongs to Israel historically and now in reality. Israel had legal accession to the land thr` Balfour agreement. I am not sure where the illegality crept in. Not even the Israelis are saying the Palestenians don`t belong there but until very recently, most muslim nations had been saying that Israel had no right to even exist.
And, yes, Nazar Sahib is right about Palestenians having wasted more than 50 years on violence. They have nothing to show after all that violence. So, logically it makes sense to change your tactics and sue for peace. I will cite the Tibetan struggle as an example. Their land too was grabbed by China. They too are against a major power in the area but their struggle has been noted all over the world and Dalai Lama is a very respected figure. China is slowly coming to the view that Tibetans need more autonomy. Not even Dalai Lama is talking about independence, knowing fully well that is not realpolitik.
Sridhar

#76 nazarhayatkhan

Sorry for replying to a comment you made some time ago; you may want to read back to refresh your memory.

Anyway.

So the summation that history is unfair and illogical justifies that a minority people `deserve` the majority of the land? If something deplorable and illegal has happenned on one side of the world, and/or in another time frame altogether, this justifies the crimes committed by the Zionists present-day?
You know perfectly well that that is utter tripe and nonsense. On that argument, you then have NO reason to critisise suicide bombers; they are being unjustified in killing civillians, sure, but so is the Israeli army in killing civillians too. So everything cancels out and its allright in the end?

``All states that came out of the Ottoman were artificial and arbitrary. Statesmanship is to have the farsight and wisdom to assess correctly and cash on the oppurunity blah blah blah...``
And this has /what/ relevance to rebutting my point?

``The Arabs living in Israel have full rights.`` ... Im not even going to start on that one.

``the Palestinians are on the wrong track and have wasted 56 years. They could keep on wasting more years. Living in peace with Israel would have benefitted them a lot...``
Right, so a people should just lay back whilst their land is being taken from them, henious crimes against humanity (some evidence even points to genocidical acts) against them, et al, because it would have benifitted them...
Right, now, am I the only one who wonders where you got this stuff from?

``About the return of all Palestinians into Israel? It has a demographic element to it. If Israel does this and still wants to have a democracy, it will turn into a minority once again. It does not want that to happen. It will permit some genuine cases to return. ``
Good point. The thing is, the land wasn`t Israeli to begin with! Whole communities were living there; frightened away by the shadow of Zionism. Israel takes the land, Jews suddenly become the majority (because they were the /only/ ones remaining!). Solution? Give back the land rightfully! That way, although Israel would become smaller, it would still have a majority Jewsih population, and thus will be more flexible in excersising Thalmud law. Which is, understandably, what it wants to do.
How to give back the land? 2 NATIONS!

amit #87: ``It is no different from the contradiction in Romair criticizing Israel for not being secular while he is a strong champion of two nation theory in the subcontinent.``

Hmmm.....quite a bit of nonsense here.

I have actually supported the Cabinet Mission Plan, where Muslims in South Asia would have been part of a federation, with certain fixed representation in the center. It was accepted by Gandhi, Jinnah and the British. After that the Muslims could have seen how things developed in South Asia. If BJP-type parties took over (which they eventually did), they would have security against them, and could demand their own state. If not they could live comfortably within a federation.

Even now, I think their should be an economic union in South Asia, provided no land remains occupied.

Jews have a right to demand their own state, if they are being prosecuted by people because of their religion. Why shouldn`t they? Suppose the BJP completely starts running India, and starts threatening Indian Muslims left and right, because they are Muslims. Don`t you think the Indian Muslims, at that point, would have a right to their own state. Any society that cannot protect its minority, then cannot deny that minority a separate state. If the world cannot protect the Jews, then they should indeed have their own state. Same is the case for Muslims in India, and Hindus in Pakistan.

What the Jews don`t have a right to is demanding a state on someone else`s land.

Well.I would like to add here some more.You simply said terrorist to muslims.But you never thought what circumstances made for them and they changed all the realtiy though it is not allowed in islam whatsoever they are doing against jews or america none even a single bit.But i`ve seen many ppl just make decision without knowing the circumstances.Now can you answer who is responsible for IRAQ.I accept here afghanistan was the land of terrorist but what about IRAQ,after america has admitted that they have made biggest mistake ever.
Who is responisble for present condition of IRAQ?

re:#87 by amit
If Jews had not been persecuted, they would have been well assimilated in their respective countries and theoratically at least, there would have been no takers for a jewish homeland. Nazi persecution ensured that Israel became a historical reality.
Now, for all the compassion (and money)that overflows from muslim countries for the Palestenian cause, how many of these countries have offered to absorb the Palestenians in their own territory?
These muslim nations continue to send terrorists, money etc into Palestine but have never ever offered territory for the Palestenians to settle down.
It all then boils down to an ideological and religious war. Muslim nations had gone on the war in the 60s to destroy Israel but latter came out victorious. Now it is a lot more powerful and is able to defend itself. As i already said, the only way to defend terrorism is be on the offensive, something that India can learn.
I have no sympathy for terrorists and none whatsoever for Yasser Arafat and the country that he dreamed of liberating one day.
My question is: have muslims ever demonstrated that they can live in peace anywhere in the world when they are not in a majority and have to share space with other religions/cultures. We see friction in India, in Thailand, in Denmark now and the world over. Their terrorist A$$ is being kicked in Palestine and i am happy about it.
Sridhar

#80
I hear the resident chauvinists want them renamed american-pakistanis :)

#68
Agree on jews claiming a chosen status engender envy derision or both. But the more important reason for the historic animosity is xtians think of them as having betrayed jesus & refused his msg.

Re conversion, Madonna was in Israel recently on a pilgrimage (madonna was a jew, wasn`t she?). AFAIK she hasn`t officially converted. From what I read some jews would welcome her & some wouldn`t if she chose to convert.

Re:rsridhar#78

I have a fundamental dislike of parochial ideologies and nationalities that are based on race or religion, whether it is two-nation theory or zionism. In my view, both are equivalent in being exclusionary and divisive between people living in the same land. Both these ideologies have caused tremendous harm, suffering and devastation. Today the leader of Mohajirs in Pakistan, Altaf Hussain says that two nation theory was a blunder, when it was the mohajirs who wanted Pakistan. That shows the hollowness of that ideology. Zionism is no different from that. It has devastated the lives of Palestinians, turned jews into brutal oppressors who can`t live in peace in their own country and are caught in a never ending cycle of an ``eye for an eye``.

From what I have read from your interacts, you are not exactly a great fan of Pakistan or partition. If you cannot support Pakistan for breaking away on religious grounds, how can you support Israel for establishing a religious state excluding other people? It is a contradiction. It is no different from the contradiction in Romair criticizing Israel for not being secular while he is a strong champion of two nation theory in the subcontinent.

There is no doubt that jews have suffered a lot and deserve a country. They should be the first people to understand the pain of being dispossessed and treated like a second class citizen. Yet they have implemented a rigid religious state where non-jews are basically second-class citizens and Arabs are third class citizens. Palestinians cannot even live docile lives if they want, because the Israelis constantly want their land. At the least, Isreal should withdraw to the 1967 borders and give Palestinians their own country, compensate people who cannot return to their homes and make peace with these people.