There are no myths about Zionism
There are no myths about Zionism
Oooof Beletesri, I can see I am going to have to enter into the same debates with you and make the same facts all over again as was done with Abu and Moishe. That is what I mean about Myths. Well, maybe YOU don’t but many do. You see a Myth is something believed by many but not supported by fact.
Firstly, Believed by Many: If in any of the debates that follow, you believe that some “Myths” are in fact NOT believed by Zionists, please say so, so that I can then pull out all of my tired old references from JewishVirtual library, etc.
The next is to disprove any particular belief, in which case the circle is almost closed.
The final stage is to show that even when disproved, it comes around again in short order. Then it is definitely a Myth.
So where do you want to start Beletesri? Shall we do what you seem to view as the Big One, namely that the creation of Israel was justified? OK? But in order to do that we need to somehow establish some much more concrete starting thesis other than “there were a significant number of Jews living in the Ottoman empire and therefore the granting to them of their own State was warranted”. Or this in fact your main justification, Beletesri? Looking back in this thread it seems to be about your only piece of reasoning. Do you want to start there or would you like to offer something a bit more in line with modern motivations for the granting of sovereignty?
Expect to be asked why the Whites in South Africa could not get their own State on the basis of your reasoning, or why the Chinese cant claim a chunk of Indonesia. Also expect to be asked why the ancestral inhabitants of the ground that is now Israel, did not get first call, but instead some foreign folk who owned a bit of real estate.
(sorry that I have to be pedantic, but I have wasted much time in the past on “faith” statements)
DING!! Seconds out of the ring.
I don't need to "start" anywhere.
The debate is over.
You Lost and had No facts.
Your only tactic trying to assign my posts to 'zionist myths'; 'myths' ONLY in that your previous one-liner strings/Unbacked-merely-numbered-pronouncements said they were!
ie, the last part of the debate on the previous page (you having already lost ALL other points) went like this:
But you NEVER Replied "more fully" Nor at all to my FACT on refugees.i.beletesri as partially quoted by klipkap
.....aside from the Displacement that was a Result of the Arab-Started 1948 War, NOT the creation/partition of Israel/Palestine.
Another Truth Klipkap can't make a myth.
I will reply more fully later since I am busy today. But so as not to let the case of the Zionist Myths cool, let's briefly address exactly what you wrote above -- EXACTLY.
Your words reflect a concept often occurring mantra-like in the Zionist publications. Firstly, can we agree on that so that I am not accused of having made up the words that you used or the very similar ones in numerous Zionist sources. OK - "the Displacement of the ancestral owners of the land which is now Israel was the result of the Arab-Israeli war, not the creation of the State of Israel. Fair enough? A very common Zionist point of view?
If it can be disproved, would it be acceptable to call it Zionist Myth number 9?
I am assuming the the foregoing is fair and that we can get on with debating the validity of your statement - OK?
Instead reverting again to the post/tactic above... Ducking the issue and making vague references to your own mythical myths.
Last edited by i.beletesri; May 17 2008 at 01:20 PM.
There is a facet of truth to your statement, unfortunately it is far from a complete picture for the huge increase in population of palestinian arabs. There are several reasons why they did no remain static at about half to 3/4 million persons.
#1 the exclusion of non-jewish labour from Palestine was becoming prevalent. The Jewish fund held that all land acquired from Arabs be held as inalienable Jewish property, not to be sold or leased to others. This meant Pelestinian feudal holdings, bought from under them from the ottoman owners, often found themselves put off from long worked land. There are notable exceptions though:
Dr Ruppin, from his memoirs records that he had to turn to Arab Labour to build Tel Aviv as it couldn't be done with Jewish labour only. The two factors for this being Arab knowledge of building on that ground, and their cheap labour. Indeed the first house built by the Jewish labourers collapsed under construction.
#2 Infant mortality: It dropped dramatically before fall of the Ottoman empire. The leading Israeli demographer Yehoshua Porath documents this explosion thoroughly in his works.
As all the research by historians and geographers of modern Palestine shows, the Arab population began to grow again in the middle of the nineteenth century. That growth resulted from a new factor: the demographic revolution. Until the 1850s there was no "natural" increase of the population, but this began to change when modern medical treatment was introduced and modern hospitals were established, both by the the Ottoman authorities and by the foreign Christian missionaries. The number of births remained steady but infant mortality decreased. This was the main reason for Arab population growth, not incursions into the country by the wandering tribes who by then had become afraid of the much more efficient Ottoman troops. Toward the end of Ottoman rule the various contemporary sources no longer lament the outbreak of widespread epidemics. This contrasts with the Arabic chronicles of previous periods in which we find horrible descriptions of recurrent epidemics—typhoid, cholera, bubonic plague—decimating the population. Under the British Mandate, with still better sanitary conditions, more hospitals, and further improvements in medical treatment, the Arab population continued to grow.
The Jews were amazed. In spite of the Jewish immigration, the natural increase of the Arabs—at least twice the rate of the Jews'—slowed down the transformation of the Jews into a majority in Palestine. To account for the delay the theory, or myth, of large-scale immigration of Arabs from the neighboring countries was proposed by Zionist writers. Mrs. Peters accepts that theory completely; she has apparently searched through documents for any statement to the effect that Arabs entered Palestine. But even if we put together all the cases she cites, one cannot escape the conclusion that most of the growth of the Palestinian Arab community resulted from a process of natural increase.
Jehoshua Porath, Proffessor Emeritus Hebrew University. reply to Joan Peters.
The article actually deals pretty thoroughly with most demographic issues, and there are few who would try to take issue with Porath's credentials.
First, promoting the 'Ethnic Cleansing' routine continuously and with other snippets like "Euro influx"/"threatened" routine. (despite denial.)
2. Similarly, When Foolosophy posted his Bogus/Wrong Jewish 'dualie' string.. you didn't have the knowledge to deny it but try and (subtly dammingly) apologize it away, indeed, enhance/Agree Him, with the "But it's 'Client State" routine TOO.
and 3, now, quoting a 22 yr old article by Porath, a Leftist Anti-Israeler from the at least as left/anti-Israel NY Rev of books (who has a small stable full of anti-Israelers), Arguing Against Joan Peters' Book which supports the Premise of Arab population growth through emmigration. The book itself which you DON'T even mention, but in that Porath is making a weak rebuttal against it, which in turn is later re-rebutted by Daniel Pipes.
Alan Dershowitz recent book, 'The Case for Israel' uses Peters', now Time-Tested facts so heavily, he was accused of Plagiarism in text and Idea- taking whole portions.
You mention your "Jewishness".. but Please.. debate as you will, there is Nothing pro-Jewish in your posts....not even 'half'.
Perhaps only in the far left fringe camp of 'Jews' like Chomsky, Finkelstein, Amira Hass, Pappe, ete who are Wildly Anti-Israel and borderline anti-semitic. (It's a great living for about 2 dozens Jews who engage in it being used as Cover/"see!" for 'anti-zionists'.)
Last edited by catzmeow; May 19 2008 at 11:10 AM. Reason: personal insults are against the rules.
Peters is a fraud, that is accepted by allcomers except maybe a deluded, dreaming few. Here however Porath explains why her arguments which you so shamelessly regurgitate, amount to nothing less than bs.and 3, now, quoting a 22 yr old article by Porath, a Leftist Anti-Israeler from the at least as left/anti-Israel NY Rev of books (who has a small stable full of anti-Israelers), Arguing Against Joan Peters' Book which supports the Premise of Arab population growth through emmigration. The book itself which you DON'T even mention, but in that Porath is making a weak rebuttal against it, which in turn is later re-rebutted by Daniel Pipes.
if by'time tested' you mean sheer made up disingenuity, then yah. Feel free to consume at your leisure. Just the most venerated demographers in Israel don't agree with you or dershowitz.Alan Dershowitz recent book, 'The Case for Israel' uses Peters', now Time-Tested facts so heavily, he was accused of Plagiarism in text and Idea- taking whole portions.
I'm not dropping my pants to show you proof.You mention your "Jewishness".. but Please.. debate as you will, there is Nothing pro-Jewish in your posts....not even 'half'.
hmm, the race-traitor argument again. So far you've tried to refute my post by saying that I'm anti-semite, not jewish, maybe am jewish but not jewish enough, maybe am jewish but am a traitor because I don't support the bs fallacies that keep getting passed off as truth regarding demograpphics.
I must be a leftist, and that's bad, even though it was leftists who founded Israel, but wait that's good.
you sound conflicted and angry, but nowhere do you ever make any decent arguments. In fact I can respect a good argument for any facet of the debate but with you I just find barren soil.
I have one MO. Tell it like it is, take the good with the bad and accept truth wherever it leads you. Don't (*)(*)(*)(*) on my back and tell me it's raining. The only way to resolve a situation is to expose a situation and lay it bare.
You will notice porath's piece makes great comment about about Arab propaganda. A good debater would have read it and taken that tack.
As for Israel being a client state, that's a given. I don't know why you pretend otherwise. Israel has been client to britain france and the US. That's called alliance and the seat of strategic thinking. You make it sound like a bad thing for me to say it out loud.
Last edited by catzmeow; May 19 2008 at 11:11 AM.
I mention your race.. Only because YOU did.
Otherwise I wouldn't know it.
You, using it as some sort of genetic even-handedness ploy.
But it's YOUR ploy, not my invention.
2. (echoing the '2' above), you conspicuously leave out.Now you're all in Faux Huff at being called an anti-semite - which I specifically said I wasn't doing.
I would think someone with any 'Jewishness' or even any radar at all for anti-semites, would immediately want to check Foolosophy's 'Dualie' claim.
You go right to work apologizing for a damming Lie about Jews/Israelis while other posters hit Google and Wiki and make mincemeat of it.
You didn't even want to check it, just Cop to it!
This was Classic of your work here as was the whole "I Said Ethnic Cleansing" routine you went parroted with until I got in your face, then it was "I was just discussing it".
Now, even more obviously I was correct then too.
You also got called on your Porath/NYRB credentials which you said (being half Jewish) were impeccable.
Well they certainly are not.
It's a well known Anti-Israel Den, which you don't mention *EDIT*.
I didn't claim Peters was the ultimate arbiter, tho recently backed; only that You left out the whole context and promoted Porath/NYRB as having unquestioned credentials.. which thru my post we now know ISN'T true.
So my basic point stands.. you are [at least] anti-Israel in a Leftist kind of way and have shown so in every single string in which it's an issue.
YOU, Yes You, Using your 'half-Jewishness' as being genetically and rationally therefore balanced will no longer fly here.
You're in the Camp with those Leftist, anti-Israelers I mentioned above.. many as I also said .. borderline anti-semites. Finkelstein recently gone from DePaul for his 'Leftism'. (cough)
And 'Anti-Israel' (cough) even to the point of not questioning Foolosophy! whose position here is Well known to say the least.
Last edited by catzmeow; May 19 2008 at 11:14 AM. Reason: personal insults
BTW, I still find your distaste of leftists curious, given that Israel was built by leftists. I take the tag proudly, even though I'm a centerist. Still, todays centerists are having as hard a time as todays moderates in convincing extremists that they really exist. Luckily we don't need your approval.
"I said Ethnic Cleansing"
Not challenging/going along with blatant anti-Jew Foolosophy's "Dualie" Claim!
Espousing that NYRB and your other positions are 'Centrist'.
Nor me taking you apart in the last about your attempted hand-grenades "Race Traitor" and "anti-semite", When in fact it's You using your stated Race as some sort of genetic even-handedness claim.
You can take it any way you want (like you do loosely with facts).. but you've been outed here by me.. With detailed Documentation from YOUR other posts and strings here.
Last edited by i.beletesri; May 17 2008 at 06:55 PM.
I'm sorry that I didn't reply to your other posts, but I didn't because you quite plainly didn't read them properly, especially the first ones. I know how it works; you see a statement and you jump on it as per tradition, but don't actually read it then spend a week trying to make ground out of it. We've all been there but seriously that bus left before you even got there.
I know this game, called 'out the moderate', because I know that in your apparently polarised view, there is no middle ground. I am comfortable in my roots, and confortable in my debate position as someone who detests bs myths. To me, you're position is just another of extremism and cultivation of histories that suit your position.
Now you can put up a debate in this debate forum, or you can just waffle on about my personality and race credentials. If it's the latter then expect me to bypass your posts *EDIT*. I know I don't fit your small world but that's really not my problem. Put up a debate like the other I've met here. Really there are a few standouts, and I would rather engage with them than to wade through your off-topic musings. No offence.
Last edited by catzmeow; May 19 2008 at 11:15 AM. Reason: personal insults.