Gaza, Israel, Hamas, etc

"On a side note, the world really didn't take much notice of the Hamas rockets over the past year. There were no demonstrations outside the UN or PA missions when this was going on and Israelis were being killed."

Were any Israelis being killed over the past year?  I heard that a couple were slightly injured, and that a few dozen were visibly upset.  How many Palestinians were killed by the Zionists during that time? 

A just solution would be a unified bi-national Palestine, with every resident having equal citizenship, and with those who have been dispossessed being granted recognition and compensation, which may include the right to go home.

Welcome, Troll #16904. Yes, of course Israel can bomb Gaza and the West Bank and Golan Heights to dust, just as the U.S. imagined it could have bombed Viet Nam to dust. But the U.S. and its puppets (the survivors, that is) had to drag their sorry posteriors out before having them shot off. So it will be with the Israeli mass murderers.

Hope you enjoyed your visit.

If Hamas did not Exist

read Jennifer Loewenstein's piece "If Hamas did not exist" -

www.counterpunch.org

And it would be helpful to have rabble-rousers (even trolls) post references to useful readings rather than occupy the space simply with our own opinions and the all too frequent ad hominem mudslinging. 

That's the story I linked to, Hoodeet. The first sentence. Where it says "If Hamas did not exist". That's a link. 

Thank you, Babble software that makes links invisible. 

This was written and published on YNet (the web service of Yediot Ahronot which is a mainstream, some would say conservative, mass Israeli newspaper) before the Gaza attack and after a Hamas demo earlier this month. It's quite instructive as far as Israel's role in building Hamas:

Hamas rally our fault: Israeli officials who endorsed Hamas’ creation should be held accountable  [7]

I apologize in advance if I'm breaking protocol by replying to something from another thread which I can't access to reply.  It's on the same topic.

Reply to Unionist re. my observation about "ad hominem" attacks.

Happy new year, Unionist, and I take your point.  But it still is a personal (ad hominem) attack to criticize people's positions by calling them pricks and other such things.  I simply advocate attacking ideas and positions freely, without falling into the moralizing posture implied in a reluctance to keep ideas separate from character.  Call it a personal preference, if you will.   I find that the spittle and the bile  kind of obscure the dialogue - and the picture -  because they raise the emotional pitch, hamstringing the rational development of ideas.   We don't call it blind rage for nothing.

Believe me, I have a huge cache of choice words I'd like to sling around, but I think it would serve only for me to vent and to raise the collective anger unnecessarily.  

Perhaps I'm asking for politeness in dealing with intruder trolls and with others of the leftish persuasion, or simply for some maturity, because I spent too much of my life around pseudo-adults for whom ideological disagreement usually took the form of insults, dismissiveness and contempt; there rarely if ever was a constructive outcome. 

I agree with Hoodeet.  I completely disagree with the opening post, but considering that there is a wide range of points of view on the left about the Israel-Palestine situation, we're not going to throw people off babble for posting what "Objective Observer" did.  If he starts posting racist stuff about Palestinians, then fine, we'll toss him, just as we toss babblers who post anti-semitic stuff. 

Until then, I would appreciate it if people would not resort to namecalling.  If you have a problem with something someone has written, alert a moderator.  (Since oldgoat and I are officially on vacation, then contact jrose until tomorrow - jrose AT rabble DOT ca - but I just happen to be reading this for interest now, and thought I'd intervene early in the thread before it got ugly.)

Hoodeet, this is a progressive anti-imperialist anti-racist anti-misogynist anti-homophobic discussion board. I don't call people names at work or in the community or on the street. But here, this is a space where freedom is consciously and deliberately denied to those who do not share some very very basic leanings - a space where we do not have to start every discussion from square one, as we often need to do in the outside world.

My experience is that when someone registers on babble, doesn't say "hello", and in her/his very first post starts justifying the Israeli carpetbombing of Gaza - it is almost 99% certain that this is the same person, under a different alias, who was just banned 5 minutes or the day before.

These individuals know what this site is and that their stands are anathema to those who post here. When they come back and post notwithstanding, it is like the prick/asshole/degenerate who stands in the street outside your window for the tenth time shouting "Long Live George W. Bush!", invoking freedom of speech. You are entitled to throw your shoes at them until they can be removed by the garbage collectors.

We do not look for engagement with such provocateurs. We identify them quickly and wait for sanitation to remove them. That is the only "constructive outcome" possible.

I don't really feel like debating this point much more. If this site were open to every creep and monster that felt like spewing vomit here, it would lose its character as a progressive space and become redundant. I am not the only habitué who would look for another place to hang out. I get enough of that shit in daily life, the MSM, TV, the workplace, the grocery store... Lots of time and place to practise arguing with fascists. This is a place for progressives to plot together how to go out into that world and change it for the better.

I absolutely do not - nor with you - but if this is a moderator's decision, I will of course comply with it. I just want to note the unusual number of new posters whose first post is of this nature.

 I don´t understand how that statement isn´t loaded full of racism and hate.  The only reason bombing the most populated area in the world to "dust" is "probably" not the best solution is that the world won´t like it?  

 I thought Unionist was being polite.

Is there anything in particular you disagree with? I believe I've been quite even-handed in laying out the current situation, at least from my point of view.

But that's really beside the point, which is how does this conflict actually come to a conclusion. The prevalent attitude seems to be that if Israel just withdrew to some previous version of its border and allowed all the descendants of the Palestinians who were expelled in the 1940s to return, then all would be well. Unfortunately this would have the practical effect of destroying "Israel". It would not end Judaism, far from it. But the character, the founding purpose of Israel would be impossible to maintain.

You mean it would end the reality of a race-based state? Good. All such states should have ended with African Aparthied.

Now on to the reality of the situation - racism and Israeli Apartheid: 

McKinney to Obama: “Say Something” About Gaza Humanitarian Crisis 

A fellow babbler named Martin Dufresne has this as his tag line:

"Nuke the Knesset"

I don't understand how that statement isn't loaded full of racism and hate...

Israel is not a race-based state. You don't need to be of a certain 'race' to be a citizen of Israel.

 I make it a policy to bold my links.

The Knesset is an institution that represents and perpetuates official Israeli racism and brutality. It is not a people. Nevertheless, many Babblers have asked Martin to remove the tag line.

That will be a relief for all those Arabs who are not allowed on Jewish only roads in the West Bank. I am sure there are going to be some red faces in the IDF, when I send them my blistering letter, explaining to them that they have been applying the wrong traffic control policy all these years.

Or are you saying that "Arabs" are not a race?

You are absurd. In the one case you claim that Israel is not a "race-based" state, then in another you say nuking the Knesset would be "racist." Why would nuking the parlimentary body of non-racially based state, be racist?

My, what an educational de-bait; oh, sorry for the misspelling.

I suppose I fall somewhere in between Michele and Unionist on the protocol questions. But in the end I endorse what Unionist said about why not to bother replying.

But even if some people are little more than trolls, I'm one of those who has never liked the labelling of people as trolls.

I found Ohara's posting of the propaganda from Ynet the most offensive thing here. And told him he should just get out- that even replies to the offensive crap would just make people angrier. Ohara is a long time poster- hardly the stereotypical troll.

While I agree with Uniousist that given the circumstances we are not obligated to be civil, or to repeat replies for the thousandth time, there is a pragmatic case for replying at least occassionaly to the "moderate" self styled critical supporters of Israel and others who think Hamas should be compelled by allies to "stand down".

Read the piece by Jennifer Lowenstein linked above.

I'm going to expand a bit one of the quotes above:

If you pay ANY attention to the patterns, the issue is not the rockets fired.

When Yasser Arafat did not accept Ehud Barrack's final offer Israel set about provoking the Second Intifadah and then systematically destroyed the infrastructure of the PLA government and entire physical and social infrastructure.

"Don't want to play the game within what we have determined the rules will be? Then we destroy you."

The same thing with Hamas. If the rockets stopped Israel would not stop destroying Hamas. They killed and jailed the moderate differentiated non military leaderhsip of Hamas first. And they would not stop until what is left of Hamas is led by people who are willing to limit themselves to 'negotiating' over what manner of submission to Israels endless stream of shifting goalpost diktats.

I was replying in a rather sarcastic way to melovesproles' views regarding hypotheticals. It had nothing to do with my later statement, which I still stand by, that Israel is not a race-based state.

Then why does the IDF monitor many roads in the West Bank to prevent Arabs driving on them?

I rather enjoy the presence of the few regular apologists for Israel that have the guts to appear. Their numbers, and activity, seem much reduced, since the latest blatant atrocity. Obviously, only the most stalwart idealogues and the delusional have the temerity to try and put lipstick on this.

Good question, but off topic. Maybe you should start a thread about that.

So Israel is a not a formally race based state that practices the complete disposeession, suppression and apartheid separation of a race.

No. Its a stupid question. And no, it is not at all worthy of a thread. Race is, as we know, a socially constructed concept. This fact does not change the fact that "race" however it is socially constructed has tangible impacts in social intercourse.

For example, the IDF applies policies that prevent Arabs from driving on many road in the West Bank.

So nuking the Knesset would not be racist, then?

Since this is the New Elbbab, let's start with first principles.

Remember the 750,000 Arabs who were expelled from Palestine in 1948? And their descendants?

They could all return tomorrow.

All they have to do is undergo an Israel-recognized conversion to Judaism! Then, under the Israeli "Law of Return", they immediately become citizens! They might not get their land and homes back, but hey, first come, first served.

See, it's not race-based at all!

It's de-mock-race-y!

You people are being way too hard on this legitimate expression of left-wing thought about the Middle East.

The West Bank is not part of Israel. Israel is the occupying power in the West Bank, and as the occupier is doing things that occupiers typically do (but that doesn't make it right). For example, the Argentinians prevented Falklanders from driving on certain roads at certain times of the day. Did that make Argentina a race-based country?

Ridiculous. For one thing, there have been fairly lengthy studies which have articulated how the Basic Laws of Israel, directly impugn the rights of Arabs who are Israeli citizens. I suggest you research those studies, rather than continuing the embarass yourself here.

As for the liminal differences, as to what is Israel, and what is not Israel, that makes absolutely no difference, since the policies are racist and applied by the state of Israel. It makes no difference, if the racist policy is conducted external to the recognized borders of a country -- it is still a racist policy.

And in point of fact, Israel has no borders. This is a fact. There are no Israeli laws that define its borders. Just like there is no constitution that establishes whether or not Israel is a religious state, or a secular one, only a collection of "basic laws" that serve as a basis for a legal system.

The attempt to create a unified constitution was put on hold a long time ago, largely because the secularists, could not reconcile their differences with non-secularists.

OO may not be a troll. But we are 'discussing' ridiculous stuff now.

Such blatant lies. If you, Objected Observer, can't be honest about the essential nature of Israel, the self-proclaimed Jewish State, Zionism, a supremacist ideology, and the occupation which is also a colonization of Arab land and the dispossession, ghettoization, and subjugation, dehumanization, and brutalization of those same Arabs, it is no wonder your discourse here is childish, juvenile, and racist in itself.

Sadly, your pathetic and racist perspective seems the predominant viewpoint in Israel today. Worse, the opinion leaders in North America and Europe are so cowed by the juvenile but mass opionion such as yours that they have failed in their humanitarian obiligation AGAIN! 

Once more a racist, genocidal state is not confronted but appeased by the West. 

Trolling is actually part of Israel's official internet propaganda offensive, so beware when arguing with certain sock puppets on internet forums.

FM, one of your points was that it's wrong for Israel to describe itself a (I'm using your words here) "Jewish State".

Just out of curiosity, is it wrong for Iran to describe itself as the "Islamic" Republic of Iran? I don't think it is, since most people in Iran are Muslims, and it's none of my business anyway what Iran calls itself.

By the same token, why should you care if Israel calls itself the "Jewish State", if they actually do (officially anyway).

In Israel, things are often seen more clearly:

From an article entitled "Yes, It Is Apartheid", by Yossi Sarid, in Ha'aretz.

He has already been admonished by a moderator for it.  Are you here to shadow-moderate or are you here to participate?  If the former, then buzz off - we have enough moderators and you haven't been appointed as one of them.  If the latter, then let the moderators do their job and stop derailing threads with arguments about whether other people are breaking the rules.

That goes for everyone else, too.  It would be so great if a moderator could intervene and ask for restraint without everyone turning it into a 50 post argument about whether the moderator is in order or not.  If you want to talk about the the subject of the thread, talk about it.  If you want to talk about something else, go elsewhere and talk about it.

Thanks.

To participate. So Michelle what do you object to about the OP?

LOL.

Because it goes to the racist ideology of Zionism - the official ideology of the racist state. If you were born inside the current state of Israel and you were ethnically cleansed when it was created, you have no right to return to your ancestral homeland if you are an Arab. But if you are Jew, born and raised in Toronto, who has never ventured outisde of the city, you can go to Israel and have citizenship. That is racism. It is the same ideology common among white supramcists demanding a "christian state" or a "white state".

And in fact, some white supremacists, like Zionist supremacists, say anyone is welcome to live in a separate white state so long as they accept the values of the state which is the inherent superiority of the founders.

The essence of the conflict is racism and oppression and no matter what rationalizations you construct to dance around, that is what you're defending.

OK, so anybody who is a supporter of Israel in its current fight with Hamas is a racist? Is that your position? Because Jack Layton supports Israel's right to defend itself in this particular conflict. And I'm very sure that Jack Layton is not a racist.

Racist or misinformed. I certainly was a supporter of Israel back in the 70s and 80s. I was misinformed. Only when I looked beyond the headlines and approached the issue as a human being rather than as a consumer of information for mass consumption did I come to realize there was a racial and power dynamic to the question.

I also support Israel's right to defend itself if attacked as I support my own right to defend myself if attacked. But Israel has not been attacked. It is the most heavily armed and militarized nation in the region and it has weapons of mass destruction. It has waged war against its indigenous population and against all of its neighbours. 

The current assualt is against a civilian population, that same indigenous population, that is lightly armed and no match for Israel's war machine.

To claim the rockets fired from Gaza is an assualt is to claim the punches of a victim against her attacker are an assualt. It is ludricous and just another indignity against the real victim.

And be aware, the only reason Gaza is caged, starved, and brutalized is because they are a non-Jewish population that has refused to relent on claims to ancestral homelands and equal rights within that homeland.

Unionist certainly was being restrained. I agree.  My response to Unionist did not suggest that s/he was the one being hateful; I was simply responding to Unionist's correction of my use of the term "ad hominem". And I was expressing my personal distaste for name-calling, which serves only to vent and raise the temperature of a discussion.  

OO, see what FM just posted?  I agree with it.  Since you were wondering about my point of view on the subject.

(and to Frustrated Mess's reply)

Jack Layton is the leader of a party that's slavering after power within the established system and even if he believed the premise of Zionism is racist he would be nuts to state it publicly.  The official line is "Israel's right to exist", a mantra for all politicians.

In a way, even defenders of Palestinian rights have to utter it.  Reminds me of the msm articles about Nicaragua in the 80's:  all references to the Sandinista government had to have the modifier "Soviet-backed", "Cuban-backed", "Marxist" or some such epithet, attached.

 I know, too, that the seemingly harmless mantra may well be taken as a code that reinforces the hegemonic powers' justification of  "Israeli policy, right or wrong".  And I also believe that we have to keep pushing all the political parties, providing a counterweight to the pro-Israel-right-or-wrong (IRoW) party heavies, but I doubt we'll ever get a clear and unequivocal pro-Palestinian statement from them until economic pressures bear fruit.  What those economic pressures may be --success of the boycott of Israel, changes in the pro-Western Arab world, a complete meltdown in the US, peak oil resulting in a clearer position of China vis a vis its oil suppliers, whatever-- I won't even venture a guess.

I wish it were as simple as getting Jack Layton or even Iggy to change their public mantras.

Thanks for a very clear and pithy summary of the problem, FM.

A little perspective, perhaps?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/30/israel-hamas-gaza

19 deaths in six+ years reads like a bathtub drowning stat; or a fraction thereof.

You can be nice if you like. But I see no reason to be polite about a misinformed world view that enables racism. Frankly, I am tired of it. I have been patiently explaining the in's and out's of this situation for years, and while not always polite, my tolerance at this juncture is particularly low.

The erstwhile justification for the massive attrocity that is taking place at this moment is so thin that anyone defending it is like a man entering bar where half the staff are not wearing any clothes, and later trying to explain to his wife that he had not visited a strip joint.

Such obfuscation of fact deserves ridicule.

Yes, they obviously don't matter.  Geez, what are the victims' familes complaining about? 

Yes, and I suppose we should have flattened Oka, because someone there shot a member of SQ. Get real.

I have often disagreed with you, but I never thought you were morally dishonest. Now it is clear that you are.

[Edited for the sake of propriety]

I'll bite. Bathtubs w/o lifeguards? 

Is this conflict really about race or religion? Or is it about control of the natural resources Israel needs to supply its expansionist empire? Just as the failed objective of Israel's 2006 attack on Lebanon was to achieve the longstanding Zionist aim of pushing its northern border to the Litani River, it is likely that the current assault on Gaza is really about control of the huge natural gas reserves that lie off of Gaza's coast. See: Why It Rains: Hamas holding "Israeli" gas reserves hostage.http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4909.shtml

Got a link? The NDP's official statement on the current conflict is here and makes no mention of "Israel's right to defend itself." It's a pretty obvious attempt to remain "even-handed" and simply calls on both sides to cease hostilities and return to the negotiating table. So what did Layton say and where did he say it?

Jack Layton speaks:

"Whether Hamas rocket attacks on Israel or Israeli military campaigns in Gaza, violence against innocent civilians must stop. Notwithstanding every nation’s right to self-defence the Israeli government's response is disproportionate, and the use of rockets against Israeli civilians must be rejected. New Democrats condemn the massive loss of civilian life that is resulting from this escalation."

He adds that Israel's response is disproportionate, as if Israel should just launch unguided rockets indescriminately into Gaza.

http://www.cjpac.ca/statements/read/23/439 [55]

Last March, which has nothing to do with the current action which began a few days ago. Liar.

This is the same conflict. It's been going on since at least Mar 2008. Understand? There was a ceasefire for 6 months, then things started up again. Same conflict.

So, in March 2008 Jack layton said that Israel has the right to defend itself, just don't be disproportionate in response. Whatever that means.

Pogge, I'm with you in spirit, but why would anyone engage this character who just tells bald-faced lies in an effort to bait?

Here's a random sample, plucked from his opening grenade:

The Israeli blockade began (and later escalated) in 2006 with the election of Hamas to head the Palestinian Authority - at the same time countries like Canada halted aid. It had nothing to do with rockets.

Israel pulled out in September 2005. Not "about 5 years ago". Facts are malleable in the hands of this individual.

Bullshit. There was no "peace agreement" with the PA, before, during, or since. Israeli disengagement from Gaza, known as תוכנית ההתנתקות, was a completely unilateral operation never negotiated with or agreed upon by anyone in the PA.

As Cueball points out, anyone who cares knows or can find all these facts and many more. The rest of the OP, to the extent that it purports various facts, is equally false - and it's not ignorance, it's deliberate. No honest person can make a series of innocent mistakes like this out of ignorance. Honest ignorant people (that's most of us) ask questions or look up the answers.

It is vile and horrible to reduce the level of discussion and revert to haggling with Israeli propagandists at a time when Gaza is dying.

Sophistry. Your obvious intent was to claim that Layton regarded Israel's current action as self-defence and the official NDP statement obviously avoids doing exactly that. We're done here because I don't waste my time with liars.

No, I'm done with you because I don't debate with people who call honest folks liars. This is the same conflict as the one going on in Mar 2008. It's like saying WW2 ended when France fell, then another war started with the Normandy invasion.

As far as I can tell, he didn't seem to be shadow moderating in the way that it is normally done.  Lots of people point things out in an admonishing tone from time to time, or consistently in some cases, and it usually slides by as a normal part of the discussion.   Concerning the OP, I take the view that while 101’s are simultaneously useful and tiresome, they do not apply in the context of the latest mass murder by a racist, outlaw, aggressor nation.  For my two cents, I believe Unionist called it correctly.

I just wanted the opportunity to drop a link to the NDP statement alongside his quote to show up the obvious difference between his story and reality. As it happens, I had occasion yesterday to check on the official statements from both the Libs and the NDP since this began and I knew what he'd said didn't ring true. Had he substituted Michael Ignatieff for Jack Layton he would have been exactly right. I think the NDP position is a pretty bland affair but it's obviously not what this character described.

Edited to add:

Nor can it be called an end to occupation when the occupying power retains control over all borders, coastline and air space and reserves the right to send in its armed forces at will.  As far as Gaza is concerned, Israel simply turned a colonization project into an open air prison.

Here's a good, well-sourced post with useful (i.e. sickening) information, quotes, etc.:

The aggression continues; over 400 dead 

It's completely about religion, although it has morphed into a false racism, where each side demonizes the others characteristics, even though both antagonists are Semitic.

That was not about this incident it was way back in march of last year FFS.

___________________________________________________________

"watching the tide roll away"

I agree with you. Of course it is about water and gas. But access to water and mineral resources is often dependent, not always, on control of the land. Even in our modern, materialist society going to war against a people for water and minerals is still viewed as simple banditry. Which it is.

So there becomes a need for "the narrative", the myth building, the noble-izing of the ancient art of sacking and plundering. Onto the stage rolls God, Country, Tribe, and Father. In the current case, it is like rolling sevens. We've got God, country. tribe and father  all rolled in together.

As well, in any case of colonialism through race, we have the foreigners who can claim some ancient untested right to the land, and who are often much more rabid than the natives, to lead the charge into the"unsettled lands'. Think "settling the West" and the impact on First Nations in North America and we get the idea.

As unfortunate as it is, we must demolish the mythology to get to the reality.   

There hasn't really been much that is intellectually honest about the debate as conducted from your end so far. A number of substantive points were brought forward to confront your false claim that Israel is not a "racially based state", your only response was to any of that was to argue the semantic point about whether or not it is relevant that Israel calls itself the "Jewish State."

It is not at all about religion. It is about land and resources, pure and simple. The religious trappings of the various factions involved are secondary, and their cause expressed often in a religious form. The "religious" motif, is one almost wholely introduced by the Zionists, when in fact, the Arabs were calling for a secular state long before the 1948 Zionist attack, and the expulsion of the Arabs. The PLO explicitly rejected the religious construction of issues in its 1964 founding charter. They maintained this view throughout the Arafat period.

The Arabs only picked up on the religious construction of the issue with the founding of Hamas in 1988.

Furthermore, the idea that this is "all about religion" only obscures the real issues, and contributes to the ideological grid lock.

I fully agree, but will go one step further - even the mainstream Zionist leadership post 1948 were mainly secular, even agnostic - still are for the most part. Didn't observe Sabbath, didn't wear head covering, were regularly denounced by the religious parties for being impious, only preserved religious-type laws for marriage & divorce... The influence of the religious parties escalated with the 1967 Occupation and the settlements.

On the Palestinian side, no one ever noticed any religious trends before the 1980s, when various organizations arose to fill the vacuum left by secular and leftists who either proved inadequate or were crushed by the Israelis. I challenge anyone to find a hint of "Muslim" character to any part of the struggle before that decade. Of course people were religious, but it was never Judaism vs. Islam (& Christianity) - it was Jews in the ethnic-national sense vs. Palestinians, and the struggle was a colonial one - over land, resources, water, and later labour.

New blog: Harm to civilians during the fighting in Gaza and Southern Israel - it's being used to provide information by a number of Israeli human rights groups.



H/t to Oxdown Gazette [71] which is a division of the growing Firedoglake empire.

Great resources, pogge - thanks.

The Return to Zion

It's a good thing then that it isn't based on religion.  Things could be so much worst than they are now if it were.  Of course land and resources are included, the promised land, the promised resources.

If the religious fanatics from both sides were removed from the equation, how quickly do you thing the ideological gridlock would disappear along with them?  People on both sides who are religious but might be persuaded towards a secularist resolution of the conflict would be justified in being more frightened of their own respective extremists than those of the enemy.

The significance to Muslims of the Dome of the Rock, sitting on the temple mount since the year 691, might be a hint.  Invaders with the intention of desecrating the things that are sacred to Muslims have traditionally rallied the ire of the faithful.  Hence the crusades.  Bulldozing it all under to make way for a new temple would be seen as a desecration.

Jews, Muslims, and Christians (of various denominations) lived together in peace in the Middle East and Palestine specifically for centuries - until British imperialism, hungering to displace the Ottoman Empire, struck an alliance with largely non-religious Zionists to create a colonial beachhead in the region. Herzl at one time was favourable to having Uganda as the Jewish "homeland". The religious Jews, both those in Palestine and in the "Diaspora", were overwhelmingly non- or anti-Zionist.

From the info above at my earlier link, it's no wonder they can be considered non Zionist if they never heard of it's father.  Still though, the land and resources, coveted within their dreams for many centuries, must truly be among the most unique assets in the world.

It wasn't coveted in their dreams for centuries. That is modern mythology. Zionism was a tiny movement among Jews until after Hitlers pogrom. Sephardic Jews were promised land, jobs and proseprity if they chose to immigrate to Israel.

 The process of assimilation of the Sephardic Jews of the Arab lands was one encouraged by direct invitation by the Zionists, and propelled by increasingly negative attitudes towards Jews (and indeed some tit for tat expulsions by some Arab countries) in response to the expulsion of the Arabs of Palestine within some Arab countries. 

To say that there was no bias against Jews in the predominantly Arab Muslim lands prior to the creation of Israel would be false, but in the main the two populations lived fairly peacefully side by side for centuries. In fact, it was the Arabs and Turks who most readily accepted Jewish refugees into their lands during the European pogroms, until the policy of accepting Jewish immigrants was forced on them by the European powers.

The fact that Arabs find specific interest in long standing cultural icons such as the Temple Mount, is not at all suprising, nor is it unusual for liberation movements to find such monuments that speak to a joint heritage important in their symbolic iconography. There is nothing particualarly religious about it.

The religious view of the conflict, established by the Zionists when they decided to impose there religious state in the midst of the Arab populations served very directly to assert and unassailable "religious" claim that superceded the secular rights of individuals, based in faith, who occupied the land which they desired.

As usual, the religiously founded ideology served the purposes of power and wealth, and was not the primary motivator of the Zionist cause, but merely a tool that asserted an ideological justification to support the claim manifested as the right of conquest.

Slumberjack, your linked source is unreliable. It's a modern U.S. Zionist revisionist rewriting of history. For example:

There was no movement among Jewry - and far less so among religious Jewry - to "return" to "Israel", let alone build a "Jewish commonwealth", during the hundreds of years that Jews recited those prayers prior to the turn of the 20th century. The "return" was to take place in the days of the Messiah. A very few European Jews that did "return" did so after their deaths, by sending their remains to Palestine (if they had the resources to do so), or more commonly by being buried at home with a handful of real or symbolic earth from Zion.

Even the Jews who lived in Palestine all along were lukewarm or hostile to the imported notion of a Jewish state. Some, like the Jerusalem-based Neturei Karta (ultra-orthodox "guardians of the wall", referring to the Wailing Wall of the temple), are anti-Zionist and refuse to recognize the State of Israel to this day.

In my parents' family in Europe, right until the 1930s and 40s, there were three wings: (1) the religious, who scorned at the secular irreligious Chalutz (pioneer) movement; (2) the leftists of various stripes (Bundists, communists, etc.) who strongly opposed Zionism of any kind, holding that the place for Jews was among the nations; (3) various stripes of Zionists, from mildly religious to outright atheist secular labour and socialist. The latter were the minority - and even among these "Zionist" groups, those who actively promoted emigration and settlement were but a handful - and they rivalled the communists in being the most hostile to religion.

Jewish prayers talking about Israel are like Catholic prayers talking about heaven. It's not about going there in one's lifetime.

ETA: I cross-posted with Cueball, but I agree with his post 100%.

Insisting that the conflict is religious is to mystify what is all too real. And mystifying the claim on Palestine, so that the claim could not be challenged by secular human morality was the latent intent behind asserting the religious construct upon the issue, as was done by the Zionist.

To assert that the issue is about religion is to fall into their trap, and make it appear as if the conflict is unresolvable because it is theologic in nature. First and foremost it must be understood that the conflict is about land and resources, and its resolution lies in the assertion of "human rights" over "liturgical right".

The Zionists are fine with the conflict being defined in theological terms. It served their purposes and reduces everything to the irresolvable theological dispute, in which might is the only real mode of discourse, since human rights are of negligible weight in the realm of theology.

This advantages their cause, since they are the powerful, and the Arabs are weak.

I was aware of it's US Zionist origins.  Jewish and Catholic prayers are one thing.  For the fanatic sects of each mythology, prayers only take them so far.  For them, a more proactive approach is useful in helping things along towards a first or second coming.  I thought this Q and A was interesting. 

I have no argument with this.  I believe, as I've alluded to more than a few times, that religion was manufactured for many purposes.  It is humanities greatest all-purpose invention, and its wonders are still being put to good use, for those that gain from it, and it is being used as it was intended, to provide cover for inhumanity.  As for history, it too is often misused to represent various causes.  False Memory: Misusing History in the Arab-Israeli Conflict

Cueball and Unionist already pointed out how religious fanaticism was a product of, rather than a motivator of the conflicts.

I thought I would just make it explicit that the dissapearance from the scene now of religious fanatics could not be expected to have a compelling effect on the conflict.

The conflict is after decades terribly ethnic and full of hatreds that even if they can be overcome do have a frighfully dangerous volition of their own now. [Surprise, surprise.] But religious fanatics and fanaticism plays little role at all in that on the Israeli side, and still only a secondary and derivative role on the Palestinian side.... even with the vital contemporary importance of Hamas.

What motivates the people who occupy those quaint hilltop communities throughout "Judea" and "Samaria?"

Zionism: Power expressed as a religious ideology.

Cueballs response above is the most relevant. But to answer your question of what motivates those folks:

Ethnic fanaticism. You can do the pinhead argument of whther that is racism, or contains racism.

Some of those racists on the hilltops are completely secular. And if the explicitly religious zealots were to leave, there are plenty of secular racists to replace them. I had a friend who would be counted among the latter. Not surprisingly, a very complex individual. But that doesn't change who has was/is and what he did.

In reviewing your posts and especially what you have linked to Slumberjack, I don't understand what is at stake in you defending your point that:

 "If the religious fanatics from both sides were removed from the equation, how quickly do you thing the ideological gridlock would disappear along with them?"

You have argued that religion is a justification for the seizure of lands. You have not argued that without the religious justification it would all go away.

The British Palestine Solidarity Campaign site is well worth a read: http://www.palestinecampaign.org/

Both Cueball and Ken have answered the "motivation" question quite accurately.

There is no doubt that many of the settlers are led by religious wingnuts. What is instructive is to see the Israeli regime sweep these characters aside as one does a housefly, when they stand in the way of Israel's geopolitical and colonial needs. The best example is how Sharon set a deadline for the settlers to leave Gaza, then went and chased the stragglers out, with a few nutbar rabbis condemning him to hell as a traitor to God etc. etc.

A good analogy would be the Conservative Party and some of its evangelical Christian base. Some of the followers may be motivated by foolishness (though in both Canada and Israel, we're talking about a minority). But the underlying interests of the Conservative Party have everything to do with oil and gas tycoons and capitalism generally. God doesn't enter into that equation.

This is totally totally wrong. There is no signficant religious fanaticism on either side, in terms of the "propellants". This is not India. To describe religion as being of any signficance in the Israel-Palestine situation would be like saying that religion was "one of the main propellants" in the South African anti-apartheid struggle - because the regime had its racist Dutch Reformed Church. It is total mystification and diversion from the reality of the conflict. 

If it can be agreed that this conflict is really about giving Israel an excuse to attempt to seize lands and resources for Israel, then it certainly is to Israel's advantage to have Hamas fire rockets at them. When Israel invaded Lebanon in 2006, it was widely reported in foreign media that the Israeli soldiers who were supposedly kidnapped by Hezbollah in a "daring, cross border raid" were actually in Lebanon when they were confronted by Lebanese police. Coupled with the information that a few days ago Lebanese police discovered and dismantled seven timer-controlled rockets aimed at Israel one can only assume that if Hamas were not firing rockets at Israel, then the Israelis would have to do it for them. 

Remember that Mossad, by its own motto, makes war with deception.

The comparision of the Jewish state of Israel to White Supremacy is so vile as to be unworthy on this board. Is it not possible to have a conversation here without resorting to "Israelis are like White Supremacists"? By making such comparisions you dilute the evil of neo-Nazism and white supremacy.

Ok, ohara. Tell us what you think about the Israeli attacks on Gaza, and I promise to answer you without any reference or comparison to White Supremacists.

I was saddened that Hamas chose to disregard warnings that continued bombings into Israel from Gaza would result in a swift and strong reaction. That so many are being killed, dispossesed and wounded troubles me deeply. What do you suggest Israel should do (short of self-destruction) to ameliorate this situation?

1. Stop all incursions whatsoever into Gaza (with the sole exception of hot pursuit, if and when that should be applicable), and declare a unilateral ceasefire.

2. Unilaterally and publicly recognize Hamas authority over Gaza, pending further peace talks.

3. If rocket attacks continue, formally ask Hamas to stop them.

4. If they do not stop immediately, ask the Security Council to intervene - offer to end the blockade as soon as the Security Council acts.

5. If the Security Council refuses to act in a situation where rocket attacks continue while Israel observes a unilateral ceasefire, get back to me. Not before.

NOTE: The above does not represent "my position". It's just a sample answer to your question, a series of steps which even supporters of Israel might give some consideration to implementing. The above does not amount to "self-destruction", just to forestall any dismissive comments.

ohara, if an air and sea blockade were imposed on Israel and if during a 'ceasefire' the equivalent of only 50 to 75 truckloads of supplies were allowed to enter the country and no goods were allowed to leave would Israel consider that an act of war?

see below

From "Gaza : Colonial Violence and Flawed Justifications", Rachad Antonius, published in French in Le Devoir

[edited to correct name of author]

Thanks, aka Mycroft.

I've known Rachad for more years than I care to count. It's vital to have a clarion voice like his in academia. He is a widely respected activist.

And I am saddened to see that "ohara" is STILL allowed to justify on Babble Israel's genocide of Palestinians as some "swift and strong reaction", making the notion that we are a progressive forum a pitiful joke.

Spoken like a true fascist. Congrats. You finally made the grade.

On the bright side, I am personally delighted that it seems that (from the usual cohort of 5 or 6 appologists that visit this board) it is only you whose attachement to intellectual honesty and basic human morality has been so corroded by years of lying to yourself that you are able to shamelessly offer up this shit for the world to see, without apparent embarassment.

"The comparision of the Jewish state of Israel to White Supremacy is so vile as to be unworthy on this board. Is it not possible to have a conversation here without resorting to "Israelis are like White Supremacists"? By making such comparisions you dilute the evil of neo-Nazism and white supremacy."

I agree with you ohara. There is no comparison between Israel and Nazis. Nazis believed that the untermenschen were human beings, unter but human beings nonetheless. On the other hand, Israelis believe that Palestinians are Animals.

I think I get it now.  In Klondike fashion, the 20th Century saw a rush of squatters and settlers onto the land solely for the boundless wealth of its resources.  And as for all the archeological activity, it has nothing to do whatsoever with attempting to link ancient mythology to the present, and thereby providing false fodder for a claim to the land spanning 1000s of years.  It is merely a search for buried treasure.

Contrary to popular belief, the region upon which Israel sits, is not wasteland. It is in fact, some of the most fertile land in the region. Taking possession of it has direct material rewards. Furthermore, when established, and recognized, settlements can depend on substantial direct financial aid from the Israeli government. The challenge is to establish a claim for long enough that the facts on the ground require Israeli support and protection for the settlement.

Race hate born of fear, and other existential factors such as "man's search for meaning" may very well play some role in the motivational psychology of many settlers, but that is really ancilliary to the power dynamic and ideology that enable whatever personal fantasies that are being expressed by individual settlers. If you are really interested in that topic I suggest you read, Zygmund Bauman's excelent work, "Modernity and the Holocaust."

The burried treasure comes in the form of US banknotes, filtered in to support the Israeli war economy, which depends on a constant state of crisis for its justification. Israel's main benefactor, the US, is rewarded in turn by having a stable and dependent client in the region so that it can exert control over the middle east oil supply.

It is no accident that Israel sits athwart the main commercial routes that joined together the economy of the Arab peoples for centuries.

As for archaeology. The distortion of scientific inquirey to bend its findings conform to an superior ideological goal is totally par for the course.

Slumberjack, your attempts to understand Jewish political, cultural and religious history are laudable.

Makwa, the similarities between the Zionist settler views of the indigenous Arab population's relationship with the land, and that of the European settlers here, are truly chilling.

It is said that "Israel made the deserts bloom." I read a recent survey which showed that 90% of all Israeli agricultural production is not on newly cultivated land, but in fact land previously cultivated by Arabs.

Even now / We are not lost: If you look out at the night / You'll see the colours and the lights seem to say / People are not far away, at least in distance, / And it's only our own dumb resistance / That's making us stay.

The bombing raids by the IAF are unquestionably a gross reaction to this situation. There is never an excuse for the killing of innocent civilians, never!

I do however with the same passionate fervour totally reject any progressive activist that would link Israel to White Supremacists. It wins us no friends and makes a laughing stock of real anti-racism. As much as I deplore O'hara's characterization of Israel's position I do agree with her that using the comparisions to white supremacy  is pretty contemptible.

.

Who's "us"?

Yeah, I would agree with you that "mass murderers" is a more apt characterization of the current situation. The bombers are certainly not stopping to inquire into the racial complexion of the children they slaughter. Thanks for that clarification.

Well, first, you put forward a false argument.  I have not linked Zionism to white supremacism and so far as I know they are not in any way linked. What I have done is argued that they share, essentially, a similar philosophy.  

Your argument goes to the Zionist pretext that we can't accuse Zionism of what it is - a political framework for a racist and supremacist state.  Until and unless we acknowlege that Zionism is a form of supremacist politcs no different than South Africa's Apartheid, then Palestinains are forever denied the recognition of their struggle as liberation struggle for basic human rights as was South Africa's movement against Apartheid.

Until that time, folks like OHara and other apologists for Zionism will attempt to present Israelis as just regular folk wanting to live in peace who are inflicted by this monstrous people who engage in violence as though it was their nature. I mean, if you read OHara's talking points, and the official Isra eli talking points, poor Israel is being forced to launch missiles against stupid Palestinians who insist on tossing rockets against Israelis who deserve something that Palestinians do not - security. Why not? 

Becuase Zionism rejects the rights and dignity of Palestinians - non-Jews - in their own land because they represent what has been termed, and by Zionists not by me, a demographic time bomb. And why? Because if Palestinians were integrated into Israel with full civil and political rights their presence, as Palestinians and non-Jews, would undermine the essential characteristics of the Jewish state.

So what are we describing here?  

That was then Makwa, this is now and we are supposed to have learned better. 

I must admit I felt uncomfortable the first time I looked at Israeli talking points and substituted Indian for Palestinian because I'm a native British Columbian and the Gordon Campbell government has issued a statement that they are going to recognize aboriginal title to the pubicly owned lands of BC (90%). They're not doing it because they're all that warm and fuzzy about the First Nations but because they want to privatize all of that luscious land and mega billion dollar resources.

That said, the governments and peoples of Canada are not treating Indians the same way that the Palestinians are currently being treated by "the modern government" of Israel.

A few days ago I showed a South African friend Google Earth for the first time and we had a look at the privileged white suburb of Johannesburg where he'd grown up. I noted the wide bungalow rooves, well maintained lawns and backyard swimming pools. Scrolling north a couple of k's brought us to a black shantytown, with 30 houses occupying the same space as one white home. The difference in lifestyles was....suggestive.

Then we scrolled to where I grew up in south western Ontario and I noted the wide bungalow rooves, well maintained lawns, backyard pools...and I realized, SHIT!...we're part of the same animal. The only reason my home turf didn't have a shantytown tucked handily by for cheap labour is because most of our First Nations people died from European diseases. 

Otherwise, I realized with a shock, it would look the same.

Then I scrolled over to Gaza and noted the arable productive lands on one side of the fence...and the crowded tiny circumstances on the other side. 

And I understood why the western press is all singing the same song. It is the song of colonial kin. It is the song of the colonialists. 

Israel is a principally white European colonial project. It is a work-in-progress. Its EXPLICIT if unexpressed goal is to drive the Gazans from the land which will then be colonized by the Israeli state. They have similar ambitions for the West Bank.

They do not want peace. They want land. They will pay for it with their blood, if the rate of exchange is deemed good. That is the job of the IDF. 100:1 is the best deal their war machine has gotten yet.

I'll say it again. 

THEY DO NOT WANT PEACE. THEY WANT LAND.

I mean, I think most people here get that. I get that. But still, I am shocked when I put it like that.

But really, that's it, isn't it? A colonialist state with a superior military force with the support and complicity of western nations is attempting to force an indigenous population from its land in order to have it for itself.

Seems pretty racist to me.

Excellent analysis, Merowe.

Yeah..., it's a shame our "Opposition" parties seem to have a blind spot about it.

Blood for votes in Israel

Closing for length.