Its got nothing to do with anti-semitism.

__________________
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

Guess who?

Not trying to be a smart ass, but, do you really believe that? And if so, why?

__________________
Democrats, finding new ways to destroy wealth for over 100 years.

Because to criticize Christianity does not make one anti-Christian. To criticize Islam does not make one anti-Muslim or anti-Arab, just as uncovering truths about the Bush administration does not make one anti-American or unpatriotic. To criticise Isreali zionism and Judaism doesnt make one anti-semitic. Especially when its not only the Jews that are of semitic origin.

Moreover, Arabs and Jews have lived together in Mandate Palestine, along with Christians for many many years. That only changed when the political balance was upset by zionism.

__________________
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

Guess who?

That is also an interesting post. So you're saying the problem is Zionism.

So you're against Zionism. In that case would it be fair to call you an anti-Zionist?

__________________
With partners like these peace was possible!

whom would guarantee these “security guarantees"? and how?

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

so uhm hamas and the likes of which, would treat the jews and sons of abraham?

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

how can you violate something you never signed?

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

Indeed.

That said, I recognise that Isreal exists and dont wish the Isreali people to disappear, nor do I think itd be possible.

__________________
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

Guess who?

OK.

Now considering that Zionism is merely a movement which supports the right of Jews to self-determination in the Land of Israel. What would that make you?

It's funny, you say you recognize that Israel exists, but not that it has a right to exist. And you say you don't want the Israeli people to disappear. But you proclaim that you are an anti-Zionist, which by definition means you deny the right of Israeli people to live in Israel.

So either you don't know what the hell you're talking about, or you're just being a hypocrite. Which is it?

You can't have it both ways. And please don't bother trying to redefine the term Zionism. Or invent new definitions for the word anti-Semitism. There are already existing definitions in dictionaries and encyclopaedias.



I on the other hand recognize Palestinians' right to have a state in Palestine with East Jerusalem as their capital. I believe they have a historic right to the land, but I also believe that Jews have a historic right to the land. So a two state solution where both sides come to some kind of compromise is the only peaceful solution. I believe a compromise where Palestine is established in Gaza and the West Bank, with East Jerusalem as their capital living side by side with Israel is the only solution.

Even PM Netanyahu stated that he supports a two state solution with a demilitarized Palestine living side by side with Israel. Obviously both sides will have to compromise and come to an agreement about Jerusalem and the right of return. Both sides will have to compromise. Israel isn’t the only one that needs to make concessions.

But what is clear from some posts in this forum is that some people who live in Europe and other places are even less willing to compromise than PM Netanyahu who they claim is unwilling to compromise.

It's really very amusing to see the same people here (btw not referring to you CHOCOBOT) who demand that Israel abide by UN resolutions, yet they refuse to even recognize Israel as a Jewish state, which is a cornerstone in the Partition Plan proposed by the UN. Those same UN resolutions that they cite time after time call for a Jewish state and an Arab state. Now people are suddenly outraged by Netanyahu’s demand to recognize Israel as a Jewish state (which also ensures minorities’ religious and legal rights of course).

So you'll understand why Israelis don't get too excited when we're criticized by such a bunch of hypocrites.

__________________
With partners like these peace was possible!

Most of Europe believe that Israel has a perfect right to live in the land which was given to them. This is the 1967 boarders. They have the right to do what they like as long as they stay inside international agreement on human rights and such...
Europe has a problem with them:

• Expanding on the original land
• Illegal settlements

Palestinians are not living in Israel but Israelis are living in Palestine.
They do believe that if this area and Palestine could be given the right of existence as well then the job of fixing Palestine could start.

There is always going to be people who will say 'What idiots picked this piece of land for them to live in?...' Which is a fair point. But that is the past and there is no way that Israel can be moved now, We live in the here and now.

Separate point: Historically, Palestinians have a bigger claim to palestine than the jewish people. They only have the land of Israel for a very short time historically. But future of this area can't decided by the past but by the people today.

Question: Would it not be better for the UN peacekeeper (mainly EU troops) to control a demilitarization of the West bank and Gaza? They are experienced in nation building which Palestinians need. They could offer security and policing until palestine could get a more secure government which can manage itself... Israel could not need the IDF to sort out there problems. If Israel moved the back there settlers, Hamas's main sponsor Iran, has proposed to stop helping in cause violence (they also agreed to nuclear inspections) which would be a win - win for both sides (except the illegal settlers which have no right to be there anyway).

Thanks for proving my point.

You see, I stated that both Palestinians and Jews have a historic right to the land. I didn't make any judgement on whether one has more of a historic right than the other.

But you simply couldn't do that.

You show your clear bias with your ridiculous claim that "historically" Palestinians have a bigger claim. But thanks anyway, I was hoping some biased poster would come along in order to illustrate why we tend to ignore this kind of biased, self-righteous drivel.

About those EU troops, we can see just how effective they are at keeping Hezbollah from arming themselves in southern Lebanon. Thanks for the offer, but I don't think any Israeli leader is going to invite any more EU troops to whine and bitch about Israel and sit and do nothing about the arms smuggling they were supposed to be stopping.

__________________
With partners like these peace was possible!

Self-determination in an empty land would have been fine. Except it wasnt.

I dont know what that makes me. What do you think?

What would confer a right to exist? Or what would that mean?

I can definitely say it does exist however. Because I can see it.

I have no wish to have anyone die or be expelled, or live under tyranny, thats all. I deny rights that contravene other peoples rights.

I imagine everyone can live under a state that respects all its people, and doesnt have to pave over or take over the homes and villages of other people.

Im sure youll tell us.

The aims and pursuits of zionism was never simply a free desire to live in peace with ones neighbours, but to establish a state for zionists and in spite of ones neighbours.

What I can do is accept the past to an extent, and try to find a future that finds reasonable accomodation for all sides.



Fair enough. Though one cannot accept the crimes of the past committed to create Isreal as somehow right or justified, if the Palestinians are willing to move on and establish a state in the west bank and gaza Im all for it.

Indeed. The Pals will likely have to just take some comp. for the right of return. Maybe extra land or money or something.
They shouldnt have to forgoe Jerusalem though.

We just read his statements and draw natural conclusions.

IHow can they abandon their own people living in Isreal? What happens when Arabs form a much greater number than they do now on land in Isreal that of course, they have always been on?

They've still to accept it as a purely Jewish state?

Youre criticised by your own people just as much, so there's no need to label us.

__________________
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

Guess who?

Its probably numbers within living memory that provide the basis of the claim.

Unless one thinks that somehow a Jewish immigrant who's family has been away from the area for a thousand + years has equal claim to a land as some Arab villager who lives in a majority who've actually been there for the last thousand years.

__________________
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

Guess who?

In virtually every respect the Arabs have a PRIOR claim. They claim descent from Abraham, who is also "the Father of the Jewish people." But Hagar's son, Ishmael, from whom the Arabs descend, was born BEFORE Sarah's son, Isaac, from whom the Hebrew tribes came. Thus, at the first level, the Arabs have the first claim.

The Arabs did not leave the area--they continued to live there throughout Jewish history. The Torah, which is the official record of the Jews, contains many references to the Hagarites or Hagrites who were their neighbors. In fact, the Arabs have CONTINUOUSLY occupied the disputed land for about thirty-eight hundred years now, while the Jews lived there for a mere eighteen hundred years before being dispersed by the Romans, and have only returned to Palestine a little more than a century ago (and most of them much more recently than that). Thus, the Arab claim to the land is substantiated by their clear and continuous occupation, while the Jews must admit that they have lived 90% of the past two millennia elsewhere. This is a second point in favor of the Arab claim over the Jewish claim.

The modern record is too detailed and complicated to be fully reviewed here, but little more than a century ago the Arabs were indisputably in possession of the lands between the Mediterranean and Dead Seas. Since then, outside interference from Western Europe and (later) the US has implanted among them a foreign people, who call themselves Jews, but who are mostly Ashkenazi--of demonstrably European descent. It is these people, whose ancestors NEVER lived in the Middle East, who constitute the ruling class of modern Israel.

Do not be fooled by Jewish claims to "historical precedence"--they are simply untrue. The Israeli claim to the land is entirely a religious one. They assert that "God gave it to them."