Why Israel

crackerjack

Well-known member
And this, the history of the European involvement in Zionism, the founding of Israeli and Palestinian (what I meant was Lebanon, Syria, etc.) "states":

http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/900/902/Kamal-Salibi/

No one denies the colonial history of some European powers in the area, and their involvement in drawing up the current state boundaries.

But that isn't the same as this:

The U.K. and the U.S. bankrolled Zionism from DAY ONE honey.

If that's true, why were Zionists blowing up their paymasters in King David?
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
No one denies the colonial history of some European powers in the area, and their involvement in drawing up the current state boundaries.

But that isn't the same as this:



If that's true, why were Zionists blowing up their paymasters in King David?

Actually, Vimothy just denied it, if you want to look upthread and see.

Zionism is an entirely modern phenomenon. READ THE LINKS. Many sects within Judaism originally wanted nothing to do with Zionism. Many Jews think Zionism is a heretical practice and set of beliefs.

The Israel of the Bible and the Israel of today have nothing to do with one another. King David and the Jewish people of his day were certainly NOT "Zionists" in any meaningful sense of the term.

P.S. There are some Americans who are not pro-Israel, and they are the ones who were bombed in King David---sorry at first I thought you were trying to trace some history of zionism back to King David's time.
 
Last edited:

crackerjack

Well-known member
Actually, Vimothy just denied it, if you want to look upthread and see.

If Vim denied the involvement of European powers in the national boundaries of the ME then he has said something really stooopid (not for the first time, i'll admit). But I misssed him say this. Can you show me where? I'd look myself but time is short, this thread is long.

P.S. There are some Americans who are not pro-Israel, and they are the ones who were bombed in King David---sorry at first I thought you were trying to trace some history of zionism back to King David's time.

ha ha, no of course not. But can you explain what you mean by this, because this is the bit I have a problem with.
The U.K. and the U.S. bankrolled Zionism from DAY ONE honey.

I took you to mean that Israel was financed from the get go by the govts of UK & US (for what reason I don't know, perhaps as some sort of colonial sentinel or outpost of influence).

If you meant that Zionism was a movement with its origins in European and American Jewry, and that it was backed by individuals from those countries that's obviously a very different thing. I don't dispute that, though I would suggest European Jews in general (and Poles in paticular for some reason, at least among those fighting on the ground) played a much greater role than the UK & US.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
What I meant was that the conservative Christian right has always supported Zionism to a certain degree...this is not a very controversial point in the U.S., even the xian right admits this, is proud of it.

Vimothy questions this a few pages back, claiming that Israel in its earliest stages during the war did not benefit from U.S. involvement. This is patently false. We gave them guns, ammo, heavy artillery, tanks, aid money, helped them become major exporters, etc.

Apparently, the bombing of King David was not "meant" to kill or injure Europeans, since they gave out a warning to evacuate beforehand. Says that the Brits in the building refused to follow the order. This was in retaliation because the terrorist cell didn't think the colonial Brits had done enough to avenge attacks, and because there were some cultural conflicts (British colonizers took down a wall separating men and women near the Wailing Wall, for one). They were trying to get economic and political independence from Britain at this point. Check out the Wikipedia entry:

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

Interesting quote from it:

In July 2006, right-wing Israelis including former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former members of Irgun attended a 60th anniversary celebration of the bombing, which was organized by the Menachem Begin Centre. The British Ambassador in Tel Aviv and the Consul-General in Jerusalem dissented, saying "We do not think that it is right for an act of terrorism, which led to the loss of many lives, to be commemorated." They also protested against an Israeli plaque that claims that people died because the British ignored warning calls, saying it was untrue and "did not absolve those who planted the bomb." The plaque read "For reasons known only to the British, the hotel was not evacuated.” City officials agreed to slightly amend the wording on the plaque. [5]

As for individual versus government backing: of course, it must have begun at some point as a movement that spread on the level of individuals, but colonization is always government bankrolled and executed, no?
 
Last edited:

vimothy

yurp
The UK was especially instrumental in fucking creating what we call "Israel" and Lebanon...jesus you're dumb.

Read this:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ed_husain/2007/06/with_god_on_their_side.html

How you can say that "the U.K. and the U.S. bankrolled Zionism from DAY ONE honey" and yet link to a story that desribes the Stern Gang's attacks on British personnel at a time when Britain was not at all supportive of Israel and in fact refused to allow European Jews to enter Israel (re the film Exodus), is beyond me. Why do you think that the Stern Gang were carrying out assassinations? It's really not difficult, and you should know all this already. A country can go one way and then the other. America was uninterested ("we are neutral in thought and word and deed") and then very interested. Britain was supportive, not suppportive and currently is pretty half-assed. The USSR was the first country to recognise Israel (something else you should already know), and supplied it with the arms that allowed it to survive the first Arab-Israeli war, but then sided heavily with the Arabs in later conflicts.

Anyway, enough bullshit: provide evidence for British and U.S. bankroling from day one, if you have it.
 

vimothy

yurp
Actually, Vimothy just denied it, if you want to look upthread and see.

Please back up what you say with some sort of reference to reality. Where did I deny colonial involvement in the creation of the modern Middle East? We weren't talking about that.
 

vimothy

yurp
Zionism is an entirely modern phenomenon. READ THE LINKS. Many sects within Judaism originally wanted nothing to do with Zionism. Many Jews think Zionism is a heretical practice and set of beliefs.

The Israel of the Bible and the Israel of today have nothing to do with one another. King David and the Jewish people of his day were certainly NOT "Zionists" in any meaningful sense of the term.

P.S. There are some Americans who are not pro-Israel, and they are the ones who were bombed in King David---sorry at first I thought you were trying to trace some history of zionism back to King David's time.

You've entirely lost me here. What are you going on about?
 

vimothy

yurp
What I meant was that the conservative Christian right has always supported Zionism to a certain degree...this is not a very controversial point in the U.S., even the xian right admits this, is proud of it.

Ok, that is different to saying that the US has bankrolled Zionism from day one. Now you neeed to explain when this started (e.g. Herzl?) and what form this support took.

Vimothy questions this a few pages back, claiming that Israel in its earliest stages during the war did not benefit from U.S. involvement. This is patently false. We gave them guns, ammo, heavy artillery, tanks, aid money, helped them become major exporters, etc.

No, I questioned your assertion that "the U.K. and the U.S. bankrolled Zionism from DAY ONE honey." (Remember)? You have in no way supported this claim with any shred of evidence, except to link to Ed Hussain comparing Islamism to Zionism and what appears to be some sort of history of the European involvement in the creation of modern MIddle Eastern states. Neither of those pieces are relevant to your statement. All you need to do is link to some pieces explaining that America recognised Israel immediately upon its founding (in fact, before its founding) and then promptly sent money, guns and whatever else.

Apparently, the bombing of King David was not "meant" to kill or injure Europeans, since they gave out a warning to evacuate beforehand. Says that the Brits in the building refused to follow the order. This was in retaliation because the terrorist cell didn't think the colonial Brits had done enough to avenge attacks, and because there were some cultural conflicts (British colonizers took down a wall separating men and women near the Wailing Wall, for one). They were trying to get economic and political independence from Britain at this point. Check out the Wikipedia entry:

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

Obviously there was some conflict between Israel and Britain. Can you see how might moderate your statement upthread?

Interesting quote from it:

Mildly amusing, somewhat tasteless black humour, perhaps.

As for individual versus government backing: of course, it must have begun at some point as a movement that spread on the level of individuals, but colonization is always government bankrolled and executed, no?

*sighs*
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
Britain is in no way "half-assed" about Israel - we're fully 'on message' with America, supported the economic sanctions against the PA when the Palestinians voted the wrong way last year and allowed our naval bases to be used for shipment of US military aid to Israel when they were bombing the crap out of Lebanon.
 

vimothy

yurp
That's your opinion, Mr Tea, and you're welcome to it.

BTW, this

If I set a couple of savage rottweilers on you do you think I'd have a good legal claim that "it was them what chewed your face off, not me!"?

is a bad analogy. We've already discussed the Sabra and Shatila massacre - the Israelis didn't set the Phalangists on the Palestinians. The reasons that the massacre occured are reasons internal to Lebanon. If you watched while two rottweilers chewed my face off (because I'd chewed off their puppies' faces), and then were fired from your job because of it, it would be a much better analogy.
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
is a bad analogy. We've already discussed the Sabra and Shatila massacre - the Israelis didn't set the Phalangists on the Palestinians. The reasons that the massacre occured are reasons internal to Lebanon. If you watched while two rottweilers chewed my face off (because I'd chewed off their puppies' faces), and then were fired from your job because of it, it would be a much better analogy.

This is spectacularly untrue. One of the aims of the Israeli invsion of Lebanon in 82 was to establish Gemayel, the Phalangist leader, as Lebanon's President. Israel cannt evade its responsibility for Sabra and Shatila.

- we're fully 'on message' with America, supported the economic sanctions against the PA when the Palestinians voted the wrong way last year and allowed our naval bases to be used for shipment of US military aid to Israel when they were bombing the crap out of Lebanon.

This is broadly true, though it comes from a particularly low point in Blair's neo-connery. Blair's support of Israel last year was also the spark that lit the flame that forced him out of office early. I like to think if that war was happening now the UK would be more critical.

As for individual versus government backing: of course, it must have begun at some point as a movement that spread on the level of individuals, but colonization is always government bankrolled and executed, no?

(Echo Vimothy - sigh)
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
That's your opinion, Mr Tea, and you're welcome to it.
That's a curiously anodyne response, Vim. Yes it's my opinion that the British government's official position is pro-Israal: we're certainly not anti-Israel and I don't believe we're merely neutral, either. But the reasons I gave for this I stated as matters of fact: you're presumably not denying them, then? And if they're true, they seem to the actions of an actively pro-Israel government, don't they?

If you watched while two rottweilers chewed my face off (because I'd chewed off their puppies' faces), and then were fired from your job because of it, it would be a much better analogy.

Hang on a minute: what exactly did the inhabitants of those refugee camps, many of them women and children, ever do to the Lebanese Christians? I mean, PERSONALLY. What did they do that meant they deserved to be raped, maimed and killed? Because if they are guilty by virtue of being Palestnian then you're saying that people can be held collectively responsible on the basis of ethnicity...
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Out of curiosity: have any of you ever MET a Jew, let alone a Zionist? Because I have! I personally know several Israelis (not to mention dozens upon dozens of other Jewish people) most of whom praise the UK and the US from the rooftops for being so supportive of the nation of Israel from its inception!

You admit that Israel attacks Britain for overextending their economic and political reach in the region, then you try to claim that there is no "proof" for the fact that Zionism was bankrolled by WESTERN IMPERIALISM.

Are you all on crack?
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Hang on a minute: what exactly did the inhabitants of those refugee camps, many of them women and children, ever do to the Lebanese Christians? I mean, PERSONALLY. What did they do that meant they deserved to be raped, maimed and killed? Because if they are guilty by virtue of being Palestnian then you're saying that people can be held collectively responsible on the basis of ethnicity...

The moral universe is all black and white for the Vims of the world, until Israel becomes involved. Then he turns into one of those icky post-modernist moral relativisits he hates so much! Funny that.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
For fuck's sake.

Have you? It seems ABUNDANTLY clear that none of you probably have, with the sole exception of the couple of Americans on here.

You know nothing about how the identity politics of contemporary Judaism was fed by the 19th century's political climate in Europe, and the political backing and funding of the UK, France, and the U.S.
 

vimothy

yurp
That's a curiously anodyne response, Vim. Yes it's my opinion that the British government's official position is pro-Israal: we're certainly not anti-Israel and I don't believe we're merely neutral, either. But the reasons I gave for this I stated as matters of fact: you're presumably not denying them, then? And if they're true, they seem to the actions of an actively pro-Israel government, don't they?

You listed two activities of the British government that were "pro-Israeli". Someone else might list activities that were "pro-Palestinian" or "pro-Arab". Whether you think that this is enough or sufficient or a good thing is obviously a partisan point, and as such is your own opinion. Personally, I feel that the British establishment is institutionally pro-Arab, especially the foreign office, but again... so what? And does that add up "bankrolling Zionism from day one", which was the statement in question? No, I don't think so.

Hang on a minute: what exactly did the inhabitants of those refugee camps, many of them women and children, ever do to the Lebanese Christians? I mean, PERSONALLY. What did they do that meant they deserved to be raped, maimed and killed? Because if they are guilty by virtue of being Palestnian then you're saying that people can be held collectively responsible on the basis of ethnicity...

I didn't say that the Palestinians deserved to be massacred. I said that the Israelis didn't massacre them, which they didn't. I said that Israeli protesters, responding to international criticism, took to the streets to protest the massacre, and as a result a government inquiry was held and found that Isreali AF were "indirectly responsible" and recommended the sacking of certain personnel, all of which happened.

As to what the inhabitants of the camps personally did to Lebanese Christians, well, in all probability nothing at all. Just as in all probability the residents of Damour had done nothing personally to the Palestinians. These things happened; it's not a question of whether one side or another deserved it (a perfectly monstrous thing to suggest). Elie Hobeika, for example, the butcher who lead the Phalangists in the massacre of Palestinians, had his fiancee raped and murdered along with several members of his family by Palestinians at Damour a couple of years before the massacre.

I'm not trying to justify Sabra and Shatila, I'm trying to demonstrate that there were reasons for it occuring other than Sharon wanting to set his dogs on the Palestinians.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
I'm not trying to justify Sabra and Shatila, I'm trying to demonstrate that there were reasons for it occuring other than Sharon wanting to set his dogs on the Palestinians.

YES you ARE. There are "reasons" for everyone's political actions, nitwit.
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
Have you? It seems ABUNDANTLY clear that none of you probably have, with the sole exception of the couple of Americans on here.

The only thing abundantly clear round here is that you are a fucking idiot.
 
Top