Zionism (and Nationalism in general)

[A-Palestinian]

For the moment, the request is to Define Zionism. This means no history, and no sob stories. Just a definition. Other statements/conclusions will follow.

[victot]

a-palestinian:
go to http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/zion.html to read up on zionism.
it is estimated that 71% of all would-be future palestinian suicide/sacrificial bombers who go to this site and read it though, convert to judaism, and become rabbis!

here is the deifinition it gives of zionism:

Zionism, the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, advocated, from its inception, tangible as well as spiritual aims. Jews of all persuasions, left and right, religious and secular, joined to form the Zionist movement and worked together toward these goals. Disagreements led to rifts, but ultimately, the common goal of a Jewish state in its ancient homeland was attained. The term "Zionism" was coined in 1893 by Nathan Birnbaum.

[A-Palestinian]

Victot,

Your responce is appreciated.

The first 2 lines contain the actual meaning of Zionism, and the rest are sideline facts. As such, I will disect those first two lines:

First line: Zionism, the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland

This sentence adovocates the settlement of a homeland. The homeland in this case, is referring to modern day Israel, and the territories. Uganda was also a possibility early on. Where the new country was to be founded though, is irrelevant for the moment. Let us call this new land to be allocated for the new Zionist Nation, "Area X".

Thus, Upshot 1 is: The pre-requisite of Zionism, would be land allocated for it.

Second line: and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel

This phrase means that once the Zionist state has been founded, its populus is to remain mostly Jewish.

Thus, Upshot 2 is: A concious effort is to be made, to discriminate in favour of maintaining the Jewish populus as the majority, at all times, in this new Zionist state.

The Conclusion is: Zionism is an ideology, that seeks out an area of land, for, and only for the Jews. In short, Zionism is Jewish Nationalism.

--m--e--a--n--s--> E-N-D-S.

Any End - any goal - in order to be attained, must go through the means by which said End can be attained. Thus we can now safely say, that Zionism's Ends, are the Conclusion above. Notice however, that nothing is mentioned about the means of going about achieving those ends.


ZIONISM

--m--e--a--n--s--> E-N-D-S: Land for Jews,
etc. (See conclusion)

Before I go on, there has to be Zero disagreements on what I have stated above. Thus, I will pause for now, and offer any rebuttals/additions to come in. It is crucial that any doubts be removed now, rather than later.

[victot]

well, im no expert like some of these guys...
though it seems pretty much right to me.

ps.

it's hard to have zero rebuttals before knowing the point you're making...

[NewsGuy]

I am not so sure about whether there is an "official" definition of Zionism, per se. In fact, as the article I am linking to below states, the definition of Zionism has been hotly debated for a very long time.

Here is the discussion in the British Guardian newspaper:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/unracism/story/0,1099,546868,00.html

In any event I think that all definitions of Zionism agree that the Jews have a right to reestablish themselves and live independently in the land of Zion (Jerusalem), which has been interpreted as modern-day Israel, including the Palestinian-controlled territories. This is based on the fact that Jews originate in that land and have lived there continouosly for thousands of years.

The weird twist about "Uganda" amounted to some intellectual exercise that was rejected by the Zionist congress in 1905. I am not familiar with anyone who would support settling in a land other than the Jewish homeland of Israel.


You mention "discrimination" and "allocating" land, but actually there is no mention of discriminating against other groups, nor "allocating" land in the definition itself.

Actually, the initial Zionist method to acquire land in Israel to purchase the land for cash from the lands' ownder, i.e., the Ottoman Empire, as well as some from Syrian and other foreign owners of the land.

The discrimination was put into place by the Arabs, who intimidated their own people and forbade them to sell land to Jews (purely on the basis of religious discrimination). At the same time, Arab massacres of Jews started in communities like Hebron in 1929. All this led to the UN partition of British Palestine and it is on this basis that Israel exists, not on the basis of Zionist philosophy, which in any event has no one single definition.

[A-Palestinian]

I believe ample time has passed for any additions towards my previous post. I will first address Newsguy's post, and then move further.

Newsguy,
"In any event I think that all definitions of Zionism agree that the Jews have a right to reestablish themselves and live independently in the land of Zion (Jerusalem), which has been interpreted as modern-day Israel, including the Palestinian-controlled territories. "

This is Zionism. Unlike what you said however, it DOES have a definition for it, per se. The only differences encountered in the different forms of Zionism, are the reasons why Jews must go back to ancient Israel. However, their raw and basicend is the same - and that end is stated as the conclusion of my previous post.

End of address to Newsguy.

I will now continue:

It was established earlier, that for a Zionist state to exist, land must exist for it to exist over, and that also, for a Zionist state to exist, the majority of the populus in the state, must remain Jewish. Those are the Ends.

The means by which to go about achieving those ends, have not been addressed. I will now address them.

I do this by making a list of statements, which are dependant on each other. That is, if statement 1 is false, then statement 2 following it, must also be false. This will allow for an easier discussion, and any disagreements are to be linked to individual statements.

Statement 1: From 1800, and especially since then, there have always been people residing in any given part of the temperate world (in varying numbers), that is, in any part of the world excluding and the Antarctic.

Statement 2: Thus, any attempt to create a nation on Earth, (excluding the Antarctic) must at some point also take into account the native populus on said piece of land. "Accounting" for the natives, means that when a new nation is formed, they are either part of it, in which case they can stay, or they are not part of it, in which case they cant stay.

Statement 3: If a new nation is formed, with the intention for being solely for the "X" people, then it can be formed on previously un-inhabited land. (Like Mars). If the new nation for the "X" people is to be founded on land previously occupied by the "Y" people, then the "Y" people must somehow be removed. If the "Y" people can be persuaded into leaving, then the new Nation for the "X" people can be formed. If the "Y" people cannot be presuaded to move, then force must be used to remove the "Y" people.


Statement 4: By the second line of Post number two, a Zionist state's majority populus must remain Jewish. Since a Zionist state is to be formed in an area of land previously occupied by "Y" people, the only hope for a Zionist, is for the "Y" people residing in ancient Israel to go away. Since the "Y" people in ancient Israel will not go away, then a Zionist (if adamant enough), can use force to evict the "Y" people.

Statement 5: (Allow an interjection of a little C++ here): Let "X" = Jewish, and let "Y" = "Palestinian". Re-read above statements with new substitutions.


In ANY case, a Zionist state will have to resort to force, in order to create a new nation on temperate Earth. (Since creating a Zionist Nation on a land already occupied by Jews defeats the purpose). Meaning, a Zionist state must forcefully evict any non-Jews from an area on which the new nation is to be formed.

Conclusion: Zionism, to take effect on Earth, is immoral.

I will pause here, and allow any rebuttals/additions to be made, so that I can address them, and then move on.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by A-Palestinian
Conclusion: Zionism, to take effect on Earth, is immoral.


Interesting how all this college lecture-style pseudo-intellectual recitation boils down to the same old Arab rhetoric: "Zionism is immoral."

Well, to me, the Palestinian mass murder of innocent Israeli children sitting in pizza stores and in shopping malls is what's immoral. The fact that more than 2/3 of the Palestinian population supports suicide bombings in a crowd of innocent Israelis is what's immoral.

On the other hand, the right of the Jewish people to resettle their homeland is not only moral, but an obvious historical turn of events. As for the Palestinians, there is a saying that goes something like "if you build you home right near the ocean, don't be surprised when it gets flooded."

Same goes for the Palestinians -- since they are squatters in the Jewish homeland, they should not be surprised and have no excuse to complain when the Jews who are the owners of the land, kick the Palestinian out.

But in this case, much of Israeli land was actually bought for cash from the Ottoman Empire and not even taken forcefully, as would be the Israeli right in any event. This shows the breakdown of "a Palestinian"'s theory that Zionism somehow requires force and discrimination. Maybe all it takes in a few bucks handed to the greedy Arabs.

But wait... Upon seeing that the Palestinians were gladly selling more land to Jews, even in the past few years, the Palestinian "Ra'is," i.e., Arafat, in a spectacular display of Palestinian human rights and enlightenment, ordered that any Palestinian caught selling land to Jews would be have their throat slashed and his/her body dumped publicly in the middle of the marketplace. This was intended to show what will happen to any Palestinian who refused to discriminate against Jews.



Now, class, I will "allow" the chance for rebuttle before getting to the rest of this thread. :)

[sharonbn]

A-Palestinian:

I see some flaws in your "logic" line of thinking:

“any attempt to create a nation on Earth, (excluding the Antarctic) must at some point also take into account the native populous”
its the question of the chicken and the egg: The Arab tribes that populated the land of Israel around 1800s have themselves been forceful evictors of previous "native" populous - the Egyptian Mamluk despotism, who, in their turn, evicted the previous “owner”, the Christian Crusade country. who, in their turn, evicted the Arab and Persians. who, in their turn evicted the Byzantines (i.e. Romans). who, in their turn…

How far do you want to go? Human history did not start at 1800. Who is to say who is the original ihabitants and rightfull owner of Israel? The Zionist movement based its claim on the bible.

BTW, At the point of time you chose to start – 1800s - there was no Arab independent rule of the land of Israel (the last such rule ended in 1099 with the first crusade). The ruler of the country at that time was the Ottoman empire (i.e. the Turks.) As was mentioned here before, the Zionist leaders negotiated with the land owner regarding the purchase of land in Israel. The Arab and Bedouin tribes were not part of the equation simply because they did not own the land.

“there have always been people residing in any given part of the temperate world (in varying numbers),”
to say varying is to put is mildly. At the time of the rise of Zionism and the re-settlement of the land of Israel (second half of the 19th century), the country was very sparsely populated. Except for the urban cities (Jerusalem, Jaffa, Akko, etc.) which accounted for less than 5% of the land mass, the country was all but empty. There were virtually no small villages, almost no agricultural areas. The barren land was “populated” by drifting Bedouin tribes, who made their living raiding the outskirts of the cities and robbing the trade routes. They don’t come much emptier than that. Its almost as if you put up a big “VACANT” sign on the land.

“If a new nation is formed, with the intention for being solely for the "X" people”
Try this: Let "X" = Palestinian. Interesting, huh? Isn’t it the Palestinian people who are now attempting to create a new nation? Based on your conclusion, the PLO organization is immoral because it is based on a nationalisitc ideology. The Palestinians didn’t even “resort” to force, they started with force.

In conclusion, I will state my private belief:
IMHO, Zionism and Palestinian nationalism are equally moral (or immoral) ideologies - they both express the desires of their people for a secure home land.
The difference, I believe, is in the "--m--e--a--n--s-->" part - but that is a different issue.

I will pause for now, and offer any rebuttals....

[victot]

A-Palestinian:

i see what you're saying...
but one cannot deny that the jewish people have a strong connection and at least some claim to this land...

let's pretend person B is married to person A, with a love that echos through the ages. then for a reason beyond their control, person B is thrown out of town... must leave, go away, cannot stay...
but person B vows to return one day, never settles down with anyone, makes it a large part of who they are to declair that one day, when the time is right, when they are able, they will return to person A.

then after a long time person C comes along, and person A and C get togather...
but... after another very long time period, person B comes back... and is able to obtain person A back from person C...
poor person C... they didn't do anything wrong... but history and fate has proven that person that person A and person B belong with eachother.


heh, that's my story. try to figure out who or what person A, B, C are...

peace out.

[A-Palestinian]

I will begin by addressing Newsguy:

"Interesting how all this college lecture-style pseudo-intellectual recitation boils down to the same old Arab rhetoric: "Zionism is immoral." "

Newsguy, your statement contains a logical fallacy. The fallacy is in the form: If person A is evil, and person A states that 1+1=2, then 1+1 is not 2, because person A is evil

The name of this fallacy is:

"Falsification by association".

Falsification by Association is the attempt to discredit an idea based upon disfavored people or groups associated with it.

Thus, your statement is flat out wrong, and is thus dismissed.

"On the other hand, the right of the Jewish people to resettle their homeland is not only moral, but an obvious historical turn of events. "

This statement also contains a logical fallacy. It is in the form: "A dime is round because it has no angles. Rebuttal: No, a dime is a triangle."

The name of this fallacy is:

"Circulus in Probando"

Or, "begging the question". In short, your only rebuttal to the conclusion that Zionism is immoral, is a re -statement of the original stance, that it is moral, but no rational reason given why. In short, your statement is an arbitrary assertion, and holds no water, and as such, is dismissed as invalid.


-------------------------------------------------------------------

I will now address SharonBn:

In attacking statement 2 , you state:

"its the question of the chicken and the egg: The Arab tribes that populated the land of Israel around 1800s have themselves been forceful evictors of previous "native" populous - the Egyptian Mamluk despotism, who, in their turn, evicted the previous “owner”, the Christian Crusade country. who, in their turn, evicted the Arab and Persians. who, in their turn evicted the Byzantines (i.e. Romans). who, in their turn…
"

Under this line of thinking, you are stating, that the eviction of "Y" from a certain area in order to make room for "X" is ok, since other people have always been doing it. But since people have always been doing it, then if "Y" attempts to do it now, that must also be ok. Thus, when a Palestinian blows up a Pizzierra, it is ok, under your flawed logic.

However, since a Palestinian blowing up a Pizzierra is not moral, then your paragraph is also logically inconsistent, and thus wrong. As such, it is dismissed.

In attacking statment 1 , you state:

"At the time of the rise of Zionism and the re-settlement of the land of Israel (second half of the 19th century), the country was very sparsely populated. Except for the urban cities (Jerusalem, Jaffa, Akko, etc.) which accounted for less than 5% of the land mass, the country was all but empty. "

(This is a dispute of fact. As such, it cannot contain any logical fallacies.) First off, there was no "country" to speak of, before the creation of Israel. During Israel's creation, 600,000 Palestinians were misplaced. 150,000 stayed. But let us lower this figure, to be extremely skeptical. 300,000 were misplaced, and 75,000 stayed. This gives us a sum of 375,000 people, who were previously living on this land. Thus under even the most skeptical estimates, a significant portion of people lived there.
(This has no bearing whatsoever on the original argument though).

In attacking statement 3 , you state:

"Try this: Let "X" = Palestinian. Interesting, huh? Isn’t it the Palestinian people who are now attempting to create a new nation? Based on your conclusion, the PLO organization is immoral because it is based on a nationalisitc ideology. "

This is a correct conclusion. The PLO is an immoral organization. (This is why a variable "X" can be used, since there is nothing that can be input, to make the statement moral).

I will pause here again, and I await.

[sharonbn]

A-Palestinian:

First of all, I must say I find your rhetoric too aggressive for my taste. You are far too quick to declare other statements wrong and dismiss them. Furthermore, I want to say I didn’t attack your statements. I questioned them and tried to point out flaws in the logic.

OK, on with the questioning:

”you are stating, that the eviction of "Y" from a certain area in order to make room for "X" is ok, since other people have always been doing it.”
I did not make any such statement. I showed that the history of the land of Israel is characterized by frequent exchange of rulers and inhabitants.
Your statement goes like this: “Area x was occupied by Palestinian people, out of the blue came the Jews with their Zionist ideology and evicted the inhabitants in 1948.”
I say this is a skewed view of the history of the area. Let me rephrase that: This is a subjective point of view held by the Palestinians.
The Jewish people say (with equal subjectivity): “The Jews are the primal inhabitants of the land of Israel, according to the bible. The Jews were evicted by force (by the Babylonians). Along the course of history, The Arabs invaded the country (they originated in modern day Saudi-Arabia), took it from whoever was sitting there at the time (the Byzantines) and settled in the land. The Jews are simply claiming what’s theirs. The motif of the Zionist movement is the RETURN of the Jewish people to their home land – the land of Israel.
To make matters clear, I am not saying what’s OK and what’s immoral. I say you have to look at the question of land ownership and eviction in historical context.

“when a Palestinian blows up a Pizzierra, it is ok, under your flawed logic.”
I feel I have to be blunt on this one (since this statement offended me), Either you made an awful mistake, or you’re trying your best at manipulative propaganda. You so articulately made the distinction between the means and the ends. Where do you think blowing up a pizzeria belongs to?

“First off, there was no "country" to speak of, before the creation of Israel.”
So the state of Israel was created out of the void. So it didn’t replace anything, did it?
Seriously, to say that is also misleading. Before the creation of Israel, the country was part of the British empire. That does not make it any less country then, say, present Australia (which is to date ruled by the British monarchy).

“During Israel's creation, 600,000 Palestinians were misplaced….”
Yet again, one historical fact taken out of context.
Two things regarding this fact:
First, you’re right, This has no bearing whatsoever on the original argument. When the Jews started settling in the land of Israel, they did not evict anyone. By the end of the British mandate, the Jewish population had grown to 600,000, mostly through immigration. The Arab population had grown into 1,300,000, mostly through natural growth. At the point of the declaration of the state of Israel (May 14, 1948) there was room enough for both nations.

Second, the eviction of the Palestinians in 1948 has little to do with the Zionist ideology. The Jewish state did not come to existence out of a violent conflict (like the American state), but rather by world recognition as part of the UN resolution to partition the country into a Jewish and Arab states. This resolution was accepted by the Jewish leadership and rejected by all Arab governments and leaders. The so called "war of independence of Israel" was initiated by the Arab nations of Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, together with the Palestinian militia. The Jews were forced to go out and defend their newly born state. The eviction of the Palestinians is a result of this war and NOT the result of an inherited concept in Zionist ideology.

One more point:
Imagine, if you will, that the Arabs had accepted the UN resolution. Separate Jewish and Arab states are formed and live peacefully alongside each other. No forceful eviction had taken place, yet the Zionist ideology has materialized. This scenario, however seems imaginary today, could take place back in 1948. It shows that the materialization of the Zionist ideology does not have to come at the expense of any other people.

To summarize my point of view:

1. The claim who originally populated the country and who evicted who is an issue to subjective interpretation.
2. When the Jews started settling in the land of Israel, the country was (almost) empty.
3. By the time of the formation of the state of Israel, the two nations had room enough to settle, Eviction was not necessary. It was a result of violent dispute that erupted for reasons not directly related to Zionism.

” The PLO is an immoral organization. (This is why a variable "X" can be used, since there is nothing that can be input, to make the statement moral).”
We almost agree. I claim that Zionism and the PLO are both moral organizations, since they express a rightful desire for a secure home land for their people. They do not claim that for them to materialize someone has to move out.

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

Before I go on, I will first state, that my laments are not directed towards you personally. They are however, directed towards your stances, in full force. Do not equate your personal self, with your stances.

I will now address the matters at hand.

You have made 5 rebuttals.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Rebuttal 1:

First you say: "The Jews are simply claiming what’s theirs. "
but then you say: "To make matters clear, I am not saying what’s OK and what’s immoral. "

This is inconsistent. If you are not making a positive claim (a claim that something is alright, or ok), then you cannot state the first sentence. If you are stating the first sentence, then you cannot also state the second. This show inconsistency on your part. Make up your mind, as to which sentence you stick by. Moreover, in rebuttal one, you are obviously trying to mix a justification with history. You cannot do both at once.

Finally, your rebuttal 1 appears to be digressing into tangential irrelevancy. Thus, I will restate what you are trying to refute: You are trying to refute, Statement 2, which states:

Statement 2: Thus, any attempt to create a nation on Earth, (excluding the Antarctic) must at some point also take into account the native populus on said piece of land. "Accounting" for the natives, means that when a new nation is formed, they are either part of it, in which case they can stay, or they are not part of it, in which case they cant stay.

Since this is a rebuttal of this statement, then point out where this statement goes wrong.

------------------------------------------------------------

Rebuttal 2:

"I feel I have to be blunt on this one (since this statement offended me), Either you made an awful mistake, or you’re trying your best at manipulative propaganda. You so articulately made the distinction between the means and the ends. Where do you think blowing up a pizzeria belongs to? "

What I did, was extrapolate your statements, ad absurdum. This means, you take a statement, and show what its logical outcomes would be if follows consistently, to absurdity. The absurdity here, obviously came out with the conclusion that a Palestinian suicide bomber is "ok", since from "his baised perspective", he "owns" the land. IF such is the case, (like you state), then you cannot complain when he blows up a pizziera.

However, since blowing up a pizziera in this context is immoral, then your original premises, of there being "only subjective interpretation" is outright flawed.

Therefore yes, if you accept that there is only "subjective interpretation", then you MUST also accept a Suicide bomber as being "ok". (Since under HIS interpretation, nothing is done wrong). You may not hold this conclusion explicitly, but you do hold it implicitly. (If you accept the fallacy of "subjective interpretation").

--------------------------------------------------------------

Rebuttal 3:

"“First off, there was no "country" to speak of, before the creation of Israel.”
So the state of Israel was created out of the void. So it didn’t replace anything, did it?
Seriously, to say that is also misleading. Before the creation of Israel, the country was part of the British empire. That does not make it any less country then, say, present Australia (which is to date ruled by the British monarchy).

You are making a logical fallacy here. The logical fallacy you commit here is called:

"Affirming the Consequent"

The fallacy is in this form:
If A then B.
Not B,
Therefore not A.

Or,

If there is a Land, then possibly a country.
but there is no country,
Therefore there is no land.

A very clear fallacy. Just because there was no country pre 48, does not mean there was a "void' as you put it. It simply means, that there was no country. Peroid. The land was under rule by a British Mandate, previously, and prior to that, it was under Ottoman rule, as a province. It was not a self-governing country pre-48, in recent times.

Anyways, weather or not it was a country or not pre 48 has NO bearing whatsoever on the discussion, and is thus irrelevant.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Rebuttal 4:

I have divided Rebuttal 4 into three parts:

"“During Israel's creation, 600,000 Palestinians were misplaced….”
Yet again, one historical fact taken out of context.
Two things regarding this fact:
First, you’re right, This has no bearing whatsoever on the original argument. When the Jews started settling in the land of Israel, they did not evict anyone. By the end of the British mandate, the Jewish population had grown to 600,000, mostly through immigration. The Arab population had grown into 1,300,000, mostly through natural growth. At the point of the declaration of the state of Israel (May 14, 1948) there was room enough for both nations. "

This contains a logical fallacy. The name is this fallacy is:

Non-Sequitor .

or, The Irrelevant. Your end points of "there was enough room for both of them", and "how populations grew" are irrelevant. As such, this paragraph is dismissed.

"Second, the eviction of the Palestinians in 1948 has little to do with the Zionist ideology. The Jewish state did not come to existence out of a violent conflict (like the American state), but rather by world recognition as part of the UN resolution to partition the country into a Jewish and Arab states. This resolution was accepted by the Jewish leadership and rejected by all Arab governments and leaders. The so called "war of independence of Israel" was initiated by the Arab nations of Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, together with the Palestinian militia. The Jews were forced to go out and defend their newly born state. The eviction of the Palestinians is a result of this war and NOT the result of an inherited concept in Zionist ideology . "

For the moment, (and only for the moment), I am not talking about what hapened. I am talking about Zionism, and what its pre-requisites are. Originally, this is intended to attack Statement 3 , of post number two. I will restate this statement.

Statement 3: If a new nation is formed, with the intention for being solely for the "X" people, then it can be formed on previously un-inhabited land. (Like Mars). If the new nation for the "X" people is to be founded on land previously occupied by the "Y" people, then the "Y" people must somehow be removed. If the "Y" people can be persuaded into leaving, then the new Nation for the "X" people can be formed. If the "Y" people cannot be presuaded to move, then force must be used to remove the "Y" people.

Please re-read it Carefully, and fully. It goes into the two (and only two) possible conditions. Re-read, and then re-address.

As such, I await your responce to this part of Rebuttal 4.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Rebuttal 5:

"I claim that Zionism and the PLO are both moral organizations, since they express a rightful desire for a secure home land for their people. "

This statement is very wrong. But the error is very subtle, and thus it is easy for it to slip by. The logical fallacy is that you mix up Intentions, with the means such intentions are sought. Thus, under your flawed logic, I am a moral person, since I want to save my mother by giving her a kidney transplant. (intention), via, killing someone else in order to get a kidney. (means). My intentions may be sound, but my means not. Thus, I cannot be a moral person.

Similarly, if the PLO wishes for "Palestinian Statehood" (intention), and go about achieving this through suicide bombers, (means), then they cannot be moral. The same goes for the Zionists.

Thus, your statement is flawed, and once again, I restate the original conclusion, that Zionism is immoral. (Dont jump in here and say "But I showed you that there was space enough for all of them in 48!". That might be true. But like I said before, that is a Non-Sequitor, because of Statement 3. Address the theory first, before the reality).

Conclusions follow:

[A-Palestinian]

Your conclusions state:

1) The claim who originally populated the country and who evicted who is an issue to subjective interpretation.

Extrapolation, ad absurdum, would tell me this: The land of Israel actually belongs to my race of Pink Elephants. Since there are no absolute truths, you cannot say I am wrong. And since you cannot say I am wrong, then I will stampede your citizens repeatedly. Again, you cannot say I am wrong, because that will be only "your interpretation". Thus, I am right to stampede innocent civilians.

Clearly, such a snenario, justifies suicide attacks, which are immoral. In short, this conclusion, is a bloody one. It will justify the attackers attacks, on the grounds that you have ZERO absolute thruths judge him by. This is clearly wrong - a suicide bomber is immoral. Therefore, your statement is false.

2. When the Jews started settling in the land of Israel, the country was (almost) empty.

Non-Sequitor.

3. By the time of the formation of the state of Israel, the two nations had room enough to settle, Eviction was not necessary. It was a result of violent dispute that erupted for reasons not directly related to Zionism.

Until you have directly addressed Statement 3, you cannot say this. Thus, Non-Sequitor.

You have alot of homework.

[sharonbn]

A-Palestinian,

You are right in your last sentance. It will take me some time to answer your long post. Since I am a working person, I do this stuff at nights - bit-by-bit.
I will post a reply within 2-3 days.

[sharonbn]

A-Palestinian,

---------------------------

Rebuttal 1:

First you say: "The Jews are simply claiming what’s theirs. "
but then you say: "To make matters clear, I am not saying what’s OK and what’s immoral. "
This is inconsistent.
This is really a side issue. I will address this with a short answer: Not true.
I did not present my personal opinion on the matter in the above paragraph. The sentence “The Jews are simply claiming what’s theirs.” Refers to the Zionism point of view, not my own.

If you are not making a positive claim...
I am not making ANY personal claim none whatsoever.
I want to make myself crystal clear: I do not say The Jews are simply claiming what’s theirs. I say that the Jews say that.
and PLEASE don’t say something like:
The Jews say that
You are a Jew
Therefore you say that.

You are trying to refute, Statement 2...
My comments regarding the populous status at the end of the 19th cent. actually are
refuting Statement 1:

Statement 1 : From 1800, and especially since then, there have always been people residing in any given part of the temperate world (in varying numbers), that is, in any part of the world excluding and the Antarctic

According to your point of view the world is like a bitmap – lots of ‘0’s and ‘1’s (well, you actually claim it’s lots of ‘1’s). Something similar to Parmenides’ view of the world: Once a given land is occupied in any varying number – no one can squeeze in without stepping on someone else’s tow.
Well, like the famous singer said: “I don’t subscribe to this point of view”.
I say: The land of the earth is analogous to a jag of water – it has a “constant” maximum capacity and varying degree of fullness.
For Example: The city of Tel Aviv was founded in 1899 by 66 families. The area of the settlement was a vast desolated sand dune located some 8km north of the city of Jaffa. The capacity of this area was around 1 million from the beginning. However, the jag was all but totally empty. Tel Aviv has reached its max capacity somewhere during the 1990’s. (the city’s population has been stagnant for the last 5 years.)
Even today there are parts of the world (other than Antarctica) that are vacant, although their number is declining over time (this is natural, as human population is in constant growth.) The Sahara desert, the Amazon jungle, the Himalayan mountains – there is plenty of space there to settle. You might say that these places are uninhabitable due to the harsh environment. This was exactly how most of the land of Israel was regarded 120 years ago.

Now, your later statements all rely on the first. Since I debunked this statement, all other fall as well:

Statement 2: Thus, any attempt to create a nation on Earth, (excluding the Antarctic) must at some point also take into account the native populus on said piece of land...
Statement 2 is true only if said piece of land is, say, more than half full.
The land of Israel was, IMO, ~20% full at the end of the 19th cent.

Statement 3: If a new nation is formed, with the intention for being solely for the "X" people, then it can be formed on previously un-inhabited land. (Like Mars).
Already addressed this issue – there was and still is vacant land on Earth.
If the new nation for the "X" people is to be founded on land previously occupied by the "Y" people, then the "Y" people must somehow be removed.
It is indisputable that on the day of the declaration of the state of Israel in May 1948, 600,000 Jews, who mostly came from outside Israel, found a place to live without needing to remove anybody.

Statements 4,5 rely on previous ones.

---------------------------
Rebuttal 2:

What I did, was extrapolate your statements, ad absurdum. This means, you take a statement, and show what its logical outcomes would be if follows consistently...
WRONG. Your outcome, although reflecting reality is not a logical follow of my
statements (who said reality was logical? ;-)

Palestinian suicide bomber is "ok", since from "his baised perspective", he "owns" the land. IF such is the case, (like you state), then you cannot complain when he blows up a pizziera.
I don’t understand your logic – if a person claims to own a piece of land, then this claim alone (regardless if valid or not, if subjective or objective) entitles the person to blow up a pizziera?!? This is logical?
Let us practice ad absurdum a little: I go abroad on a long trip. I come back to find some drifter has moved in to my apartment. I claim ownership of the place is my claim valid? is it moral? according to you - it depends on what I do next
I can speak with him and try to persuade him to move out - in this case I am a moral person and my goal (to get what's mine) is moral.
OR
I can take my gun and shoot both his legs. In this case I am not a moral person and my goal (to get what's mine) is immoral.

Therefore yes, if you accept that there is only "subjective interpretation", then you MUST also accept a Suicide bomber as being "ok". (Since under HIS interpretation, nothing is done wrong). You may not hold this conclusion explicitly, but you do hold it implicitly. (If you accept the fallacy of "subjective interpretation").
This is a textbook case of “the means justify the ends” (I will elaborate on rebuttal 5.)

--------------------------------------------------------------

Rebuttal 3:

The whole of Rebuttal 3 is an answer to my statement
So the state of Israel was created out of the void. So it didn’t replace anything, did it?
However, the next word: “Seriously” shows I wrote this as a side joke.
We can debate on and on about whether or not Israel was a country, a land, a territory, a province... but this is really not relevant so lets drop the issue.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Rebuttal 4:

Non-Sequitor .
or, The Irrelevant. Your end points of "there was enough room for both of them", and "how populations grew" are irrelevant.
Why is this irrelevant? You don’t explain.
I think I showed the relevancy earlier on.

Statement 3: If a new nation is formed, with the intention for being solely for the "X" people, then it can be formed on previously un-inhabited land. (Like Mars). If the new nation for the "X" people is to be founded on land previously occupied by the "Y" people, then the "Y" people must somehow be removed. If the "Y" people can be persuaded into leaving, then the new Nation for the "X" people can be formed. If the "Y" people cannot be presuaded to move, then force must be used to remove the "Y" people.
Please re-read it Carefully, and fully. It goes into the two (and only two) possible conditions. Re-read, and then re-address.
Again, your statement lacks a third possible condition – Y can stay while X forms its new nation. I showed how this condition is not only possible, but that is what actually happened.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Rebuttal 5:

I am a moral person, since I want to save my mother by giving her a kidney transplant. (intention), via, killing someone else in order to get a kidney. (means). My intentions may be sound, but my means not. Thus, I cannot be a moral person.
You take “The means justify the ends” and give it a twist: “the means valid the ends”. Basically your saying – regardless if the end is moral or not, if the means chosen to pursue this end are immoral – so is the end itself.

What if two or more separate means are used to achieve one goal?
Avigdor Liberman is a Zionist (by his own admission). He is on the extreme right side of the Israeli political map.
Yossi Bailin is also a Zionist (by his own admission). He is on the extreme left side of the Israeli political map.
(I wish I could draw a similar example from The Palestinian politics, but it seems far less diverse than the Israeli one.)
They both want to achieve the same goal (separation of Jews and Palestinians and peace).
Avigdor Liberman believes that Arafat is not a viable partner anymore. In order to achieve the goal the Palestinians have to be first forcefully subdued. Arafat has to be replaced by someone else, and then negotiations can start towards permanent agreement.
Yossi Bailin thinks Arafat is still the only partner available. He believes Israel has to first stop all violent actions against the PA, freeze all Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, and then start negotiations with Arafat towards permanent agreement.
They disagree on the borders but are aiming at the same ultimate goal.
IMO, Yossi Bailin is a moral person while Avigdor Liberman is not (this is truly my private opinion.) So what does this say about Zionism?

When you say:
Similarly, if the PLO wishes for "Palestinian Statehood" (intention), and go about achieving this through suicide bombers, (means), then they cannot be moral. The same goes for the Zionists.
You mean ALL the members of the PLO support suicide bombers? (I hope not…) I can tell you for a fact, half of the Israeli Zionists don’t support violence as a means to achieve Zionism.

As to the rest of the post, I believe I addressed al of the points.
You have a lot of homework...
9795 characters long... wow, I wonder if this is the longest post in the forum.
I will pause for now.

[McSceptic]

There are no moral phenomena only moral interpretations of phenomena.

-

Nietzsche 101

[ibrodsky]

A-Palestinian,

Great job of obfuscation!

If you are appalled by people whose actions are based on an ends-justifies-the-means philosophy, you are missing a wonderful opportunity to condemn militant Islam. Specifically, look at the PA which encourages the murder of defenceless civilians and glorifies suicide bombers.

Your arguments rest on two key assertions:

(1) the Jewish national home was established on land already inhabited by others; and

(2) Zionism is immoral because the Israel seeks to maintain its Jewish identity.

I think there is some truth to number 1. However, it isn't that simple. The people who were "already" living there were largely nomads with no land ownership in the modern sense. And the population of Palestine increased as Jewish immigrants created urban commerce.

The fact is that most countries evolved -- people were displaced and borders were changed through wars. Once you decide to go back more than a couple of biologic generations to determine the rightful owners of land, it's anyone's game.

Arabs have done everything they can to keep Palestinians living as "refugees" even though only a tiny minority ever lived within Israel. This includes human rights violations: for example, Palestinian "refugees" in Lebanon can't buy land or enter certain occupations. There is good cause to wonder if some of the "refugees" are just Arabs who signed up to play that role.

By rejecting any conceivable partition -- demanding that Arabs must get all of the land -- the Palestinians' land grievance lost all credibility. What Palestinians are angry about is not that the Jews stole a sliver of land, but that the Arabs were unsuccessful in stealing it back. In attempting to destroy Israel, Arabs are attempting to not only get "their" land back but to take land back that was sold or that never belonged to Arabs.

Your second argument is total nonsense. Soveriegn countries have the right to set whatever immigration policies they please. Countries can accept no immigrants, all immigrants, or choose to accept immigrants based on any criteria they like.

Again, you hide behind a professorial lecture on logic. If Israel's policy of choosing immigrants is immoral, what is the PA's policy of demanding that Jews by expelled from the WB and Gaza? What is Saudi Arabia's policy of not permitting non-Moslems to visit Mecca or Medinah? What is Islam's policy of not permitting Jews to visit the Temple Mount?

Just as France has a right to maintain France for the French, Israel has the right to maintain Israel for the Jews.

It is militant Islam, not Judaism, that calls everyone else "infidels." These people believe it is their religious duty to conquer the world for Islam. Israel is just the first target, as it is conspicuously located in the middle of a predominantly Moslem region.

[A-Palestinian]

I will first address Ibrodsky, since his post is quite irrational.

Idrodsky,

"If you are appalled by people whose actions are based on an ends-justifies-the-means philosophy, you are missing a wonderful opportunity to condemn militant Islam. Specifically, look at the PA which encourages the murder of defenceless civilians and glorifies suicide bombers. "

Yes, militant Islam's ends-justify-the-means is also immoral, as is the PA/PLO's strategy. But I already said this exact thing before, and thus, I would strongly recommend that we read past posts first, before wasting my time and yours.

"Your arguments rest on two key assertions:

(1) the Jewish national home was established on land already inhabited by others; and

(2) Zionism is immoral because the Israel seeks to maintain its Jewish identity. "

You are correct on point one, but wrong on point 2. Re-read Statement 3.

"I think there is some truth to number 1. However, it isn't that simple. The people who were "already" living there were largely nomads with no land ownership in the modern sense. And the population of Palestine increased as Jewish immigrants created urban commerce. "

Re-read Statement 2. Weather or not the populus lived in trailers, or skyscrapers, is irrelevant. Either you can make them part of the new nation, in which case they stay, or they are not made part of the nation, in which case they cant stay. This is assuming that all of them were bedouins, which is not the case - many of them were city dwellers too.

"The fact is that most countries evolved -- people were displaced and borders were changed through wars. Once you decide to go back more than a couple of biologic generations to determine the rightful owners of land, it's anyone's game. "

Under this false logic, then suicide bombs are "ok", since "people are displaced, and borders are changed through wars." If you decide that it is simple "tough luck" that people are displaced when a country is created, then those displaced people can also say that it is "tough luck" that they are trying to displace you. This Subjectivism okays suicide bombs, and hence, your statement is wrong. (Who "deserves" the land, I have not gotten to yet.) (But I will.)

"Your second argument is total nonsense. Soveriegn countries have the right to set whatever immigration policies they please. Countries can accept no immigrants, all immigrants, or choose to accept immigrants based on any criteria they like. "

Yes, countries can set whatever immigration laws they want, once established. This is a proper right. However, not allowing the return of original inhabitants is not a right. Indeed, it is the robbery of that right.

"Again, you hide behind a professorial lecture on logic. If Israel's policy of choosing immigrants is immoral, what is the PA's policy of demanding that Jews by expelled from the WB and Gaza? "

Your snide remark is not conductive to this conversation. There is no "Hiding" involved. You have commited the logical fallacy of:

"Ad Hominem."

An ad hominem is a personal attack on the arguer (or his intentions), in the hope of weaking the argument he presents.

Israel's policy of choosing immigrants is not immoral, since it can dis-allow outside people from entering by right. The PA's policy of evicting Jews however, is immoral. You are confusing the eviction of insiders through force, (which is immoral), and the non-entry of outsiders through right. (which is moral).

"It is militant Islam, not Judaism, that calls everyone else "infidels." These people believe it is their religious duty to conquer the world for Islam. Israel is just the first target, as it is conspicuously located in the middle of a predominantly Moslem region. "

True, but Non-Sequitor.

Perhaps if you stopped stating the obvious, and give out significant rebuttals, we would get somewhere. So far, you have demonstrated an inability to do so.

I will now address Shanonbn, and re-itterate my original points, that show Zionism to be inherently immoral.

[victot]

zionism is beautiful.
it's unfortunate that the palestinians were living there, but if indeed the jews have a claim to the land, if it is theirs, then how is it immoral to take back what belongs to them?
i think the fact that jews have at least some claim to the land should be included in your morality formula.

anyways A-palestinian, i think it's a neat idea that your discecting the arguments these ways, if nothing else, maybe we'll come to a clearer view on what specific points pro-zionists and anti-zionists agree and disagree on...
but ps:
if you can, try to use a less complicated way of speaking when you get into your arguments...
pretend your trying to get your arguments to reach the common man, it shouldnt take too much away from what you actually have to say.

heh, i have a suspicion that A-palestinian is not so much a palestinian... BUT A LEFTIST!!!

curse them buggers, why are leftists notoriously anti-israel while those at the right are notorisously more pro-israel?

[sharonbn]

A-Palestinian,

The PA's policy of evicting Jews however, is immoral.

Am I to assume you're talking about the Jewish settlements in the occupied terittories?

You think these places, and the people living there are original inhabitants of the land?
If so, I whole heartedly disagree with you - IMO, the settlements are the major obstacle for lasting peace. These settlements, and the people living there represent not Zionism, but Colonialism in its worst racist and brutal form (Zionism != Colonialism)

I believe the Palestinians demand that the settlements be dismantled and evicted is just. It is also a moral demand, regardless of the means the Palestinians are taking to achieve this goal.
I can only wish that it was practical to dismantle all settlements. As we are talking about some 120,000 settlers, it is probably possible to perform only partially.

Correct me if you were talking on something else.

[ibrodsky]

A-Palestinian,

Under this false logic, then suicide bombs are "ok", since "people are displaced, and borders are changed through wars." If you decide that it is simple "tough luck" that people are displaced when a country is created, then those displaced people can also say that it is "tough luck" that they are trying to displace you. This Subjectivism okays suicide bombs, and hence, your statement is wrong.

This is nonsense. I never said that forcibly evicting people from their land was OK. What I said was that if you choose to revisit all past injustices, then every country on earth will go up in flames.

There is a longstanding debate about whether Palestinian Arabs left Israel voluntarily or were driven away. The historical record suggests both occurred. However, there are one million Arabs living within Israel today, which is fairly convincing evidence that a good number did not feel they were being evicted.

My saying that you are hiding behind professorial logic is not an ad hominem attack. I am discussing what you are saying and how you are saying it. Your "logic" is flawed.

The bottomline: instead of discussing the issues in a straightforward manner, you present yourself as the Grand Wizard of Logic in order to create the impression that we are your students. There is a logical fallacy here, too, but it has been nearly 30 years since I took two courses on logic... I will let the professor tell us the Latin name for it.

[ibrodsky]

sharonbn,

If so, I whole heartedly disagree with you - IMO, the settlements are the major obstacle for lasting peace. These settlements, and the people living there represent not Zionism, but Colonialism in its worst racist and brutal form (Zionism != Colonialism)

You are ignoring that Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza in a war started by the Arabs. Actually, Israel has the right to annex all or any of this land. Clearly, Israel has decided not to annex all of it in the hope that some of it can be used as a bargaining chip.

What is immoral is saying, as Nasser did, "We will drive the Jews into the sea."

Your claim that the settlements are "colonialism" is silly. Israel did not establish settlements on the West Bank and in Gaza in order to rule and exploit the Palestinians. A fact routinely ignored is that the Palestinians rule their own cities. Plus, the settlers have never demanded that all settlements be incorporated in Israel. I personally know settlers who say they would be willing to live within a Palestinian state as long as they are accorded the same rights as Arab Palestinians.

[sharonbn]

ibrodsky

Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza in a war started by the Arabs
Technically, you’re wrong. Israel started the six-day war with a surprise air attack on Egypt and Syria. Later on (in the sixth day) Israel invaded Syria and took over the Golan Heights. This move wasn’t even part of the Israeli offensive plan at the beginning of the war (the Israeli plan included Egypt alone). The move came after the request of the kibbutzim of the north who suffered harassments from the Syrian army.
During the second day of the war, the Jordanian legion took over UN posts in Jerusalem and other positions along the border. After issuing an ultimatum, IDF started the offense in Jerusalem, Latrun, Jenin and other places.

Israel’s justifications for the initiative were:
- Closing of the Tiran straits in Sinai for ships heading to Eilat port
- The eviction of UN forces from Sinai and the position of 2 Egyptian armies there – supposedly as a preparation for an invasion.
- The proclamations of the Egyptian president, Nasser, that Egypt is preparing an invasion, together with Syria.

Some historians today say that Nasser did not intend to really
invade Israel (since he didn’t believe he has the power to successfully complete such an invasion). His speeches and actions were made to strengthen his position as the leader in the Arab world – but this is just one interpretation.

Actually, Israel has the right to annex all or any of this land
Why is that?
You are cutting the branch on which you sit – If a land belongs to whoever is currently ruling it, then the Jews have no right to claim the land of Israel, after loosing it to the Babylonians in 1000BC. The Geneva convention clearly states that land ownership is not determined by political borders (i.e. if someone owns a piece of land and flees his home because of war – he remains the owner of the land by law).
What Israeli settlers did over the past 35 years was forceful annexation of Palestinian land (usually without any retribution.) In some extreme cases, the settlers didn’t even bother to evict the land owner, but rather built their houses on his fields, cutting away his life support (this was called “nochechim nifkadim” or present absentees)

A fact routinely ignored is that the Palestinians rule their own cities
What is ignored is that this is a relatively new situation. Before the Oslo accord of 1993 (i.e. for 26 years), Palestinains didn’t rule zit.

Plus, the settlers have never demanded that all settlements be incorporated in Israel
Wrong again, Greater Jerusalem and The Golan Heights were officially annexed to Israel by a vote in the Knesset. It was the initial intention of the settlers to annex all occupied territories to Israel. This was one of the reasons they started this mess.

I personally know settlers who say they would be willing to live within a Palestinian state as long as they are accorded the same rights as Arab Palestinians
To my delight, I don’t know any settlers personally, However, During Camp-David talks in September 2000, I have heard them in the media state that they will forcefully reject any eviction/relocation from their homes (Yes, they said they will shoot at Israeli soldiers if they will come to evict them under the pretence of unlawful order.)

Therefore I believe:
- The Jewish settlements in the occupied territories are immoral. This is a historical fact regardless of current events.
- Palestinian terrorist attacks are immoral regardless if the goal behind these attacks is moral and just (The end DOES NOT justify the means).

[ibrodsky]

sharonbn,

You choose to believe that Israel started the '67 war. Actually, closing the straits of Tiran was causis belli. And contrary to your claim, the Arabs were massing forces for an obvious attack. Countries that build up their military, mass troops on their border, and proclaim they are going to destroy another country must assume that that country will take such actions and claims seriously.

Israel annexed the Golan Heights because the Syrians used the Heights to shoot at Jews living below.

I have doubts about claims that settlers "confiscated" Palestinian land. Having been to the West Bank, I know that it is mainly hilly and rocky, and most of the land is neither inhabited nor farmed. I have also learned over the years that Palestinian Arabs will lie about events to (they hope) get their way. So if Israel wins a battle, it was a "massacre of Arabs," and if Israelis build a settlement on uninhabited land, suddenly the "owners" step forward. But when asked to present documentation proving ownership, they say "I don't need no stinkin' deeds. Everyone in my village knows I inherited that land from my grandfather."

I agree that Jerusalem and the Golan were annexed. Furthermore, they should never be returned. The Arabs tried their best to massacre the Jews of Jerusalem, and Syria used the Golan to stage attacks. When the Arabs ruled East Jerusalem, did all religions have access to holy sites? Have you noticed that Moslems built a mosque on the Temple Mount and they prohibit non-Moslems from walking anywhere near their mosque?

You seem to think that Israel steals land, while Arabs simply want their land back. I think you are in a state of denial regarding Arab and Moslem culture. There is a large minority that believe they are right to seek to destroy the West and kill Jews "wherever you find them."

The only peaceful solution is two countries side by side. The people who are most against this, who knowingly harbor and encourage terrorists, and who "negotiate" by presenting the same unyielding list of demands over and over, are the Arabs.

[A-Palestinian]

Victot,

"it's unfortunate that the palestinians were living there, but if indeed the jews have a claim to the land, if it is theirs, then how is it immoral to take back what belongs to them? "

This is wrong. However, for the time being, (and only for the time being), I will refuse to correct you on this, since I have not gotten to that part of "Who owns the land" yet. But I will address this issue in time.

"heh, i have a suspicion that A-palestinian is not so much a palestinian... BUT A LEFTIST!!! "

You are commiting a form of the "Falsification by Association " fallacy. (If A holds view q, and B holds view q, then B is A). The reason, is that there is no reason why "view q" is Exclusive.

Ture, you might have ground to suspect it, and in order to remove such suspicion, I will tell you, that I am far from a leftist. ;)

"but ps:
if you can, try to use a less complicated way of speaking when you get into your arguments...
pretend your trying to get your arguments to reach the common man, it shouldnt take too much away from what you actually have to say. "

Thank you for the feedback. I will try to be clearer.

(FYI: Leftists, do not make arguments. They only state arbitrary claims, with no rational derivations. Because of this, most leftist claims are of the form "The ends justify the means". As such, most leftist claims are irrational, and thus evil, and immoral).

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

"Am I to assume you're talking about the Jewish settlements in the occupied terittories? "

No.

The statement: "The PA's policy of evicting Jews however, is immoral ." is attributed to its policy of evicting all Jews, regardless. That (only specifically), is immoral.

Regarding settlers, I have not gotten to that yet, and so I will not address them for the time being.

[A-Palestinian]

Hmm, I have chosen not to address the arguments between ibronsky and Sharonbn, since both of them are jumping ahead, and talking about the reality, rather than the theory. While it is extremely important to address the reality, I have not gotten past the theory yet, so until that is done, talking about the reality would be a waste of time.

I will first adress ibronsky:

"I never said that forcibly evicting people from their land was OK.

You never explicitly said it, yes. Do you imply it? YES. (Implication, can be intended, or unintented). This particular implication, is unintended, since you are crying about not "meaning" it. Thus, you mean that it is OK to evict people forcibly. There is no way around this. This conclusion is further rein-forced, when you state:

"What I said was that if you choose to revisit all past injustices, then every country on earth will go up in flames. "

By this rationale, If person A kills person B, then person C should not bring person A to justice, since it is a "past wrong", and doing would make the city "go up in flames". Therefore, the next time you are successfully mugged in a downtown alley, do not attempt to go after the mugger, (since it is now a "past injustice"), and do not even attempt to call the Police, (since attempting to bring the mugger to justice would "revert the area into flames").

It is now safe to say, that ibronsky, does not seek Justice - rather, he seeks to IGNORE justice. His bloody conclusions are anti-LIFE, and thus, pro-DEATH.

This can be attributed to him either by:

1) Inherently being Pro-Death.
2) Engaged in very sloppy thinking. (and thus, irrational thinking).

"There is a longstanding debate about whether Palestinian Arabs left Israel voluntarily or were driven away. The historical record suggests both occurred. However, there are one million Arabs living within Israel today, which is fairly convincing evidence that a good number did not feel they were being evicted. "

True. The historical records show that Palestinians either:

1) Voluntarily stayed.
2) Were forcefully evicted
3) Voluntarily ran away.

"The bottomline: instead of discussing the issues in a straightforward manner, you present yourself as the Grand Wizard of Logic "

There is no Wizardry involved here. The only rabbits I pull out of the hat are rational conclusions. But to someone who REJECTS reason such as yourself, it may appear as magic.

...I hope you do not file the next magician you see for attempted murder when he sticks a sword through a box with a hot chick in it.

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

This is in continuation with the "theory". Once we have gotten past the theory, then we can address the reality.

I have looked your post over, and I have addressed them, as such:

Your main rebuttal is over Statement 1. At the end of this post, I will address your rebuttal. For now, I will address the minor ones:

"It is indisputable that on the day of the declaration of the state of Israel in May 1948, 600,000 Jews, who mostly came from outside Israel, found a place to live without needing to remove anybody. "

If True, then Non-Sequitor . If false, then Non-Sequitor. The reason is because we are not talking about reality yet. We are talking about Zionism in theory still. However, we will, (and absolutely must) address the reality, but we can only reach rational conclusions on reality, after we have reached rational conclusions on the theory. (Since the reality of a theory, is nothing but implementation of said theory).

Basically, you are putting the donkey before the carriage. You are jumping ahead.

"I go abroad on a long trip. I come back to find some drifter has moved in to my apartment. I claim ownership of the place is my claim valid? is it moral? according to you - it depends on what I do next
I can speak with him and try to persuade him to move out - in this case I am a moral person and my goal (to get what's mine) is moral.
OR
I can take my gun and shoot both his legs. In this case I am not a moral person and my goal (to get what's mine) is immoral. "

Notice, that the reason you cannot understand this, is because we have not talked about "who owns the land yet". I have not addressed it, but will. However, to answer your question, if a thief enters your house, then it is MORAL of you to FIGHT the thief off, IF you can show a VALID and a JUST (right) ownership of your house. (Thus, you have an ownership claim to it).

This, regarding a house. But I have not yet addressed the issue of "who owns the land" on the subject which we are discussing yet. So gain, you are jumping ahead. (Yes I will address it).

Statement 3: If a new nation is formed, with the intention for being solely for the "X" people, then it can be formed on previously un-inhabited land. (Like Mars). If the new nation for the "X" people is to be founded on land previously occupied by the "Y" people, then the "Y" people must somehow be removed. If the "Y" people can be persuaded into leaving, then the new Nation for the "X" people can be formed. If the "Y" people cannot be presuaded to move, then force must be used to remove the "Y" people.

You state to this: "Again, your statement lacks a third possible condition – Y can stay while X forms its new nation. I showed how this condition is not only possible, but that is what actually happened. "

You make a very subtle mistake here. Read on to find out how.

When I stated this, (as an exmple to show you your fallacy): "I am a moral person, since I want to save my mother by giving her a kidney transplant. (intention), via, killing someone else in order to get a kidney. (means). My intentions may be sound, but my means not. Thus, I cannot be a moral person. "

..you stated in reply,

"You take “The means justify the ends” and give it a twist: “the means valid the ends”. Basically your saying – regardless if the end is moral or not, if the means chosen to pursue this end are immoral – so is the end itself. "

You mean "The means justify the ends". And No, I meant "The ends justify the means". The ENDS are "Saving mama." The MEANS are : "Kill another person for his kidney."

This is an example of the ENDS justifying the MEANS, and as such, is immoral and evil.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, those were the minors. Now, consider those: (they are self explanatory).

Consider:
Case 1 (http://mason.gmu.edu/~tziyaee/theland.jpg)

then,
Case 2 (http://mason.gmu.edu/~tziyaee/X.jpg)

Now,
Redefine Initial (http://mason.gmu.edu/~tziyaee/Y.jpg)

Thus,
Conclusion (http://mason.gmu.edu/~tziyaee/PC.jpg)

Do you agree with the above? If yes, please state so. If no, please state so, AND pinpoint exactly what you disagree with, and most importantly, where your disagreement lies.

Moreover, DO NOT rebut with "But Israel didn't do blah blah blah, and they did yadda yadda yadda." This is a case for reality, while you are being asked only to deal with the above theory. (for the time being).

[ibrodsky]

I will first adress ibronsky:

The name is ibrodsky.

You never explicitly said it, yes. Do you imply it? YES. (Implication, can be intended, or unintented). This particular implication, is unintended, since you are crying about not "meaning" it. Thus, you mean that it is OK to evict people forcibly. There is no way around this. This conclusion is further rein-forced, when you state:

Now class, here are some wonderful examples of false logic.

A-Palestinian declares that I "implied" it is OK to forcibly evict people from their land. Never mind that I explicitly said I do not believe this; only A-Palestinian knows what I really meant. Besides, it is more convenient for A-Palestinian to adopt a false premise.

This is an example of the logical fallacy known as doubtful statement.

In fact, I said it is not right to forcibly evict people from their land, but that going back more than two biologic generations to right such wrongs is problematic because we are likely to run into multiple and sometimes conflicting occurrences. Namely, Jews were evicted from the very same land!

By this rationale, If person A kills person B, then person C should not bring person A to justice, since it is a "past wrong", and doing would make the city "go up in flames". Therefore, the next time you are successfully mugged in a downtown alley, do not attempt to go after the mugger, (since it is now a "past injustice"), and do not even attempt to call the Police, (since attempting to bring the mugger to justice would "revert the area into flames").

Now class, here we are simply dealing with a lack of reading comprehension. I made it very clear that the problem arises when we go back two or more biologic generations. A-Palestinian purposely misinterprets what I said and then attacks the misinterpretation.

This is an example of a classic logical fallacy: the straw man argument.

Here is a more accurate symbolic representation of what I said. Consider the case in which person A kills person B. Two generations pass. Now person B's grandson, person F, wants to bring person A's grandson, person E, to justice. Does anyone see a problem with this? (A-Palestinian: consider this your homework problem for tonight.)

It is now safe to say, that ibronsky, does not seek Justice - rather, he seeks to IGNORE justice. His bloody conclusions are anti-LIFE, and thus, pro-DEATH.

Well, this is a hasty conclusion based on a doubtful statement compounded by a straw man argument. (I'll ignore the fact that it is also an extremely mean-spirited comment -- given your inability to think logically.)

Had you paid attention to what I actually said instead of rushing to refute me, you would have noticed that I concede the founding of Israel involved some injustice towards Arabs.

By the way, since you are most appalled by those who are "anti-LIFE" and "pro-DEATH," I think I should bring to your attention the fact that Palestinian culture has whole-heartedly embraced the idea that it is noble to kill oneself and as many Israeli civilians as possible. They call people who committ such barbaric acts "martyrs." It is hard to imagine a more "anti-LIFE" and "pro-DEATH" ideology.

This can be attributed to him either by:

1) Inherently being Pro-Death.
2) Engaged in very sloppy thinking. (and thus, irrational thinking).

Now class, this is an example of the logical fallacy known as false dilemma. A-Palestinian hopes that by giving you just two choices, both of his making, that you will overlook the fact that these are not the only possible explanations.

True. The historical records show that Palestinians either:

1) Voluntarily stayed.
2) Were forcefully evicted
3) Voluntarily ran away.

I don't know if it was intentional, but A-Palestinian has falsely re-presented my position. I didn't say it was either A, B, or C; I said it was probably a mixture of A, B, and C.

There is no Wizardry involved here. The only rabbits I pull out of the hat are rational conclusions. But to someone who REJECTS reason such as yourself, it may appear as magic.

Well, you are certainly anxious to convince everyone you are a Master of Logic.

You remind me of someone who is anxious to convince others he is honest and tries to do so by repeatedly announcing that he is honest. In my experience, that's a big red flag. Genuinely honest people have no need to keep announcing that they are honest.

[A-Palestinian]

" "Here is a more accurate symbolic representation of what I said. Consider the case in which person A kills person B. Two generations pass. Now person B's grandson, person F, wants to bring person A's grandson, person D, to justice. Does anyone see a problem with this? (A-Palestinian: consider this your homework problem for tonight.)

Your straw man is humerous at best. This is immoral, since justice can only be served towards individials. Or, "The sins of the father are not the sins of the son." However, in REALITY, those people who were forcibly removed still do exist, and thus, my claim is valid.

"A-Palestinian declares that I "implied" it is OK to forcibly evict people from their land. Never mind that I explicitly said I do not believe this; only A-Palestinian knows what I really meant. Besides, it is more convenient for A-Palestinian to adopt a false premise. "

"You never explicitly said it, yes. Do you imply it? YES. (Implication, can be intended, or unintented). This particular implication, is unintended, since you are crying about not "meaning" it. Thus, you mean that it is OK to evict people forcibly. There is no way around this. "

When I said the above, I meant it. You can INTEND an implication, or you can NOT INTEND an implication. In your case, your implication is (I take it from your childish rants), to be UNINTENDED. However, they ARE the rational conclusions to YOUR faulty and bloody premises.

Since your premises are flawed, all other false conclusions must follow. This is the way things currently stand.

Clean up your act.

"You remind me of someone who is anxious to convince others he is honest and tries to do so by repeatedly announcing that he is honest. In my experience, that's a big red flag. Genuinely honest people have no need to keep announcing that they are honest."

Ad Hominem

I wonder, do you try to win all arguments by attacking the arguers? How shallow. But then again, you do have a bloody premise, so I can only expect that you would attack arguers.

[ibrodsky]

Your straw man is humerous at best. This is immoral, since justice can only be served towards individials. Or, "The sins of the father are not the sins of the son." However, in REALITY, those people who were forcibly removed still do exist, and thus, my claim is valid.

Now your argument is that "since justice can only be served towards individuals" it's OK to punish the sons for the sins of their fathers? Incredible.

There are probably a few Palestinian Arabs still around who are older than 54 and were forcibly evicted from their land. But the people doing the evicting would have to be at least 70 years old today -- unless you imagine that Palestinian Arabs were evicted by six-year old children.

Thus, the conclusion that you believe it is right to punish the sons for the sins of their fathers seems inescapable.

When I said the above, I meant it. You can INTEND an implication, or you can NOT INTEND an implication. In your case, your implication is (I take it from your childish rants), to be UNINTENDED. However, they ARE the rational conclusions to YOUR faulty and bloody premises.

We were talking about what I meant -- not what you meant.

Now who is straying from facts and reason? It seems that when you are unable to defend your arguments you resort to accusing me of "childish rants" and "faulty and bloody premises."

But the fact remains that you constructed your entire argument based on a false premise.

Since your premises are flawed, all other false conclusions must follow. This is the way things currently stand.

Clean up your act.

Admittedly, since you start with false premises and then apply false logic, there is always the slim chance you will accidentally speak the truth. But so far, it hasn't happened.

"You remind me of someone who is anxious to convince others he is honest and tries to do so by repeatedly announcing that he is honest. In my experience, that's a big red flag. Genuinely honest people have no need to keep announcing that they are honest."

Ad Hominem

You need to brush up on your logic. The above statement is not an argument or response to an argument. I'm simply alerting others that just because someone goes to great lengths to convince us he is a Master of Logic, it doesn't mean he is.

I wonder, do you try to win all arguments by attacking the arguers? How shallow. But then again, you do have a bloody premise, so I can only expect that you would attack arguers.

You respond to my arguments by calling me "immoral," "shallow" and "pro-death," and then you accuse me of resorting to ad hominem attacks.

Let me guess... are you Hanan Ashwari?

[sharonbn]

ibrodsky,

You choose to believe that Israel started the '67 war. Actually, closing the straits of Tiran was causis belli. And contrary to your claim, the Arabs were massing forces for an obvious attack.
What you say is that Israel had a good reason to start the 67 war. That does not contradict the fact that it was Israel which fired the first shot. I was pointing out an error in your post #22.

Israel annexed the Golan Heights because the Syrians used the Heights to shoot at Jews living below.
The fact that Syrians used the Golan heights to shoot at Jews living below may give Israel the right to invade the heights or even conquer the heights, but not to annex it.

I have doubts about claims that settlers "confiscated" Palestinian land.
I don’t. For one famous example – take a look at the villages of Ikrit and Bira’am. These villages are located in northern Israel. During the war of 48, the villagers (Christian Arabs who did not participate in any violent actions against Jews) were asked by IDF to move out of their home “until the military situation is stabilized.” They did so, with the belief that soon they will be allowed to return. To this day, they are still “akurim”. Their fertile land was given to neighboring kibbutzim and their houses were demolished (all is left now of Ikrit is the church.)

I agree that Jerusalem and the Golan were annexed. Furthermore, they should never be returned. The Arabs tried their best to massacre the Jews of Jerusalem, and Syria used the Golan to stage attacks.
I believe the Jewish settlements are used by Jewish right extremists to forcefully drive away Palestinians from their land. Baruch Goldstein is a mass murderer who is viewed by the majority of Israelis as a ruthless terrorist. However, the settlers call him “Baruch hagever” (Baruch the man), they built him a memorial garden around his tomb and every year they attempt to rally on that garden to commemorate him and his legacy.
Moreover, this view was publicly expressed in the petition of the IDF officers who are refusing to serve in the occupied territories, claiming the IDF is doing the settlers’ job.

Have you noticed that Moslems built a mosque on the Temple Mount and they prohibit non-Moslems from walking anywhere
Not true, Before the Intifada, I visited the temple mount. Before the first Intifiada, I even went inside the mosque of El-Aqsa.

There is a large minority that believe they are right to seek to destroy the West and kill Jews "wherever you find them."
There is a growing minority in Israel that believes the same about Palestinians.
It’s always easier to point out the errors and weaknesses of your rival, then to look and acknowledge your own.

The only peaceful solution is two countries side by side. The people who are most against this, who knowingly harbor and encourage terrorists, and who "negotiate" by presenting the same unyielding list of demands over and over, are the Arabs.
Again, I will state my belief that that both Israelis and Palestinians are to blame for the prolonging of the conflict.
I also want to mention that this whole debate does not belong to this thread and the main discussion of Zionism.

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by A-Palestinian
Sharonbn,

"Am I to assume you're talking about the Jewish settlements in the occupied terittories? "

No.

The statement: "The PA's policy of evicting Jews however, is immoral ." is attributed to its policy of evicting all Jews, regardless. That (only specifically), is immoral.

Regarding settlers, I have not gotten to that yet, and so I will not address them for the time being.

A-Palestinian,
I did not know that PA's policy is to evict all Jews from Israel. I thought they wanted the eviction of all Jewish settlements in the occupied territory. I don't recall Arafat making such statements. If what you say is true, then PA's policy is not only immoral, its also impractical and very dangerous since this means there will never be peace between us.

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Now class, this is an example of the logical fallacy known as false dilemma. A-Palestinian hopes that by giving you just two choices, both of his making, that you will overlook the fact that these are not the only possible explanations.


I have to say I agree with you on this one.

[ibrodsky]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sharonbn

What you say is that Israel had a good reason to start the 67 war. That does not contradict the fact that it was Israel which fired the first shot. I was pointing out an error in your post #22.

No, what I said was that the Arabs started the '67 war. The side that starts a war is not necessarily the side that fires the first shot.

I don’t. For one famous example – take a look at the villages of Ikrit and Bira’am. These villages are located in northern Israel. During the war of 48, the villagers (Christian Arabs who did not participate in any violent actions against Jews) were asked by IDF to move out of their home “until the military situation is stabilized.” They did so, with the belief that soon they will be allowed to return. To this day, they are still “akurim”. Their fertile land was given to neighboring kibbutzim and their houses were demolished (all is left now of Ikrit is the church.)

We were talking about the settlers in the territories captured in 1967. (Please stop trying to make your points by changing the subject.) I confess I don't know anything about Ikrit and Bira'am. What is your source?

I believe the Jewish settlements are used by Jewish right extremists to forcefully drive away Palestinians from their land. Baruch Goldstein is a mass murderer who is viewed by the majority of Israelis as a ruthless terrorist. However, the settlers call him “Baruch hagever” (Baruch the man), they built him a memorial garden around his tomb and every year they attempt to rally on that garden to commemorate him and his legacy.
Moreover, this view was publicly expressed in the petition of the IDF officers who are refusing to serve in the occupied territories, claiming the IDF is doing the settlers’ job.

Your blanket statement that the settlers honor Baruch Goldstein is a big fat lie. I personally know settlers who consider Goldstein a terrorist.

The left-wing extremists who refuse to serve in the territories are a tiny minority. You confuse the fact that Israel is a democracy with the opinion that Israel is wrong. There are Palestinians who don't support the PA and Hamas. But to do so openly is to risk one's life.

Not true, Before the Intifada, I visited the temple mount. Before the first Intifiada, I even went inside the mosque of El-Aqsa.

Really? I tried to visit the Temple Mount and was stopped by a Palestinian policeman. I am not religious, was by myself, and wasn't trying to cause a riot -- just walk around.

I also heard a radio report by a European reporter who was on the Temple Mount with Palestinian rioters. He suddenly told the audience he was being forced to leave because he was not a Moslem.

I don't know how you visited these places... perhaps before the first infantifada the Palestinians didn't think they could enforce their ban on infidels. Anyway, everyone in the world knows this is Moslem policy except you. Maybe next you'll tell me about the wonderful time you had in Mecca and Medinah...

There is a growing minority in Israel that believes the same about Palestinians.
It’s always easier to point out the errors and weaknesses of your rival, then to look and acknowledge your own.

True. But not without extreme provocation.

Well, some people would rather point out the errors and weaknesses of their own side.

Again, I will state my belief that that both Israelis and Palestinians are to blame for the prolonging of the conflict.
I also want to mention that this whole debate does not belong to this thread and the main discussion of Zionism.

I can't disagree with your first statement. The naive "peace now" camp has led Israel into a real quagmire.

I like how you complain that this debate doesn't belong in this thread... after you give me an earful. If this upsets you don't you reply to me!

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

Please take a look at post#28. Im not sure you have, which is why I state it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

ibrodsky

I am going to turn EVERY logically flawed "point" of yours on its head right now.

Hehe. Boy! You have ALOT to learn about proper arguments. First off, let us say I am the "Master of logic" like you put it. How is this relevant to the conversation? Also, say I am *not* the "Master of logic" like you put it. How is this relevant to the conversation?

They are only relevant, if you can show, through proof, that the logical statements I make regarding the arguments are false. (or true).

But you dont do this. You simply make sideline smears and remakrs such as "he thinks he is master of logic". That is simply an

Arbitrary Assertion .

Simply, this particular assertion, hopes to Undermine the arguments, by undermining the "honesty" and "rationality" of the arguer (without proof). Excellent Ad Hominem. Actually, it is subtle, but it exists. It is the Ad Hominem Subfallacy of:

Tu Quoque

Or, "Circumstantial: A Circumstantial Ad Hominem is one in which some irrelevant personal circumstance surrounding the opponent is offered as evidence against the opponent's position. "

Nice try.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Also, when you state:

"You remind me of someone who is anxious to convince others he is honest and tries to do so by repeatedly announcing that he is honest. In my experience, that's a big red flag. Genuinely honest people have no need to keep announcing that they are honest." "

Remember, you said:"Genuinely honest people have no need to keep announcing that they are honest."

(And to which I didn't imply that I was honest, until after the fact that you stated I wasnt.)

"This is the Red Herring logical fallacy.

It goes like this:

Person A makes no claim to q
Person B says A is not q.
Person A corrects B, stating A is q.
Person B concludes, that since person A corrected
B on q (after that fact), then A is not really q.

Hehe. It is quite subtle, but its still there. Again,

NICE TRY.

Notice, that in the above, B point to no evidence. Simply, he maks arbitrary assertions, that lead to a false conclusion.

------------------------------------------------------------

One more thing about Ad Hominems. An Ad Hominem is an attack on the arguer, with hopes of disloging his arguments. (Something you have mastered).

However, if one is to state to someone else, that his arguments lead to something "bloody", or "faulty", that it not an ad hominem, for reason that it is the persons ARGUMENTS, and NOT himself, that lead the results to become bloody.

As such, when I state that your arguments, the way they currently stand, lead to massive bloodshed, then that is not an ad hominem. That is a FACT.

Moreover, *insults* are not ad hominem, (if not in the context of trying to dislodge an arguers arguments.) If I say that you're an idiot, but you really ARE an idiot, is that an insult, or a statement of FACT? If someone kills, and you call him a "cold blooded murderer", is that an insult, or a statement of FACT?

So, you have falsely concluded that anything said against you is an ad hominem. Its a lovely tactic one can use, when he gets pissed everytime he cannot create a proper argument. THIS, is the tactic you have chosen, which is why your posts are REPLETE with false conclusions.

-------------------------------------------------------------

When I stated:
"This can be attributed to him either by:

1) Inherently being Pro-Death.
2) Engaged in very sloppy thinking. (and thus, irrational thinking)."

You stated:

Now class, this is an example of the logical fallacy known as false dilemma. A-Palestinian hopes that by giving you just two choices, both of his making, that you will overlook the fact that these are not the only possible explanations.

If it is a false dilemma, then there are more than 2 conclusions here. But you have not stated what they could be, or what they are. You simple make an Arbitrary assertion . The question is, How else can one reach irrational conclusions, if he does not hold inherently irrational views, or is engaged in mistakenly irrational thinking?" What third option is there?

If you are going to cry over "but I meant this!", then wipe your tears, and State, Correctly, and CLEARLY, what exactly you MEAN. Unless you do this, the other party CANNOT be held accountable for any false conclusions, since the only conlcusions that can come out, are from what YOU have said. (i.e, garbage in, equals garbage out).

Take your trash out - its accumalating.

------------------------------------------------------------

You have one more chance to prove to ME, that you are interested in rational talk, on Zionism. You have the chance to correct yourself, re-state, and ammend yourself (and your statements) in any way, so that we may continue - err.. start (since it never started in the first place), communicating with reason.

If you fail, subsequent to this post, then I will purposely ignore you, for the reason that you are irrational, and it is impossible to communicate with irrational people. Irrational people
can have a talent at Red Herrings , where they divert the argument from what is relevant, to what is irrelevant, as I have shown in ample above.


- The ball's in your court. Throw it IN the court.

[ibrodsky]

A-Palestinian,

I'll leave you with this logical dilemma:

You are either a knave or a fool.

And that is a fact.

[sharonbn]

A-Palestnian,

I think I understand the confusion (between reality and theory.) However, after giving the issue some thinking I conclude that you are also mixing the two a little.
What I mean is that Zionism as an ideology does not address the question of the people that inhabit the land of Israel in any given point of time - simply because this is not an idealistic question.

Let us revisit the Definition of Zionism (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Zionism/zionism.html):
Zionism, the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, advocated, from its inception, tangible as well as spiritual aims. […] ultimately, the common goal of a Jewish state in its ancient homeland was attained.

The issue of “dealing” with whoever resides on the land is never mentioned as part of the Zionist ideology. This whole question, with all possible answers, together with the issue of the borders of the Jewish state (they don't have to be the whole of biblical Israel) and any other geographical, demographical and sociological issues are not "idealistic" questions but practical ones and go to the greater issue of the means by which the goal of a Jewish state in Israel will be attained. The only thing that can be derived from the ideologist statement is that the Jewish state (the goal of Zionism) should be Jewish in its character. This implies a Jewish majority, a Jewish government, A link to the Jewish faith, etc.

Moreover, the focus of Zionism was always the fate of the Jewish people, not of the land of Israel. This is why the Uganda option was raised by Benjamin Hertzel as a viable answer to the Zionist goal. This option was rejected by the Zionist congress since it was decided that the only land the Jews will accept is the land of Israel. This does not conflict with the beginning of this paragraph.
To explain this point, I have drawn my own diagrams. You will see that the focus in then are the people, not the land.

Initial state (http://www.geocities.com/sharonbn/Initial.jpg)

Ideology and Mean (http://www.geocities.com/sharonbn/IdeologyAndMean.jpg)

For the record, I will state clearly and explicitly:
The goal of Zionism was never the eviction of Palestinians from their land. It was never explicitly proclaimed, nor was it implicitly intended. The goal is to gather all Jews from the Diaspora to the land of Israel. Zionism as an ideology did not address the issue of the fate of Palestinians at all.

You seem to think that the only mean by which the gathering of the Jews to the land of Israel could be accomplished implies the displacement of Palestinians. This is your personal assumption. This assumption, however, conflicts with what actually happened, as I detailed before.

------------

Regarding the issue of “The ends justifies the means”:
Maybe I wasn’t clear enough before: IMO, the end should never justify the means. Similarly, the morality of the means should never affect the morality of the end.

I go back to your example:
"I am a moral person, since I want to save my mother by giving her a kidney transplant. (intention), via, killing someone else in order to get a kidney. (means). My intentions may be sound, but my means not. Thus, I cannot be a moral person. "
[...]
This is an example of the ENDS justifying the MEANS, and as such, is immoral and evil.

My point is:
1) Your wish to save your mother’s life is moral.
2) You chose to kill someone to achieve your goal – this is immoral.
1 and 2 do not conflict. Moreover, they don’t even relate to one another.
If you choose this or other means (giving your own kidney for example), it does not change the morality of your goal. Similarly, regardless of the goal (money for example), killing someone usually cannot be justified (with ther exception of self defence.)

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

I would like to fully address your post, but I cannot, because the links you have provided go nowhere. (They dont work - I get a make up commercial when I click on them). Please see to it that they are corrected so that I may reply.

:)

[victot]

Statement 1: From 1800, and especially since then, there have always been people residing in any given part of the temperate world (in varying numbers), that is, in any part of the world excluding and the Antarctic.
Statement 2: Thus, any attempt to create a nation on Earth, (excluding the Antarctic) must at some point also take into account the native populus on said piece of land. "Accounting" for the natives, means that when a new nation is formed, they are either part of it, in which case they can stay, or they are not part of it, in which case they cant stay.
Statement 3: If a new nation is formed, with the intention for being solely for the "X" people, then it can be formed on previously un-inhabited land. (Like Mars). If the new nation for the "X" people is to be founded on land previously occupied by the "Y" people, then the "Y" people must somehow be removed. If the "Y" people can be persuaded into leaving, then the new Nation for the "X" people can be formed. If the "Y" people cannot be presuaded to move, then force must be used to remove the "Y" people.
Statement 4: By the second line of Post number two, a Zionist state's majority populus must remain Jewish. Since a Zionist state is to be formed in an area of land previously occupied by "Y" people, the only hope for a Zionist, is for the "Y" people residing in ancient Israel to go away. Since the "Y" people in ancient Israel will not go away, then a Zionist (if adamant enough), can use force to evict the "Y" people.
Conclusion: Zionism, to take effect on Earth, is immoral.

hey A-palestinian, i shall attempt to logically dual you using these points you mentioned.

btw, i took a course in philosophy once a few years ago...
there are a bunch of differant ways of determining what is moral...
which one do you prefer going by? kant? i sorta forget all that stuff.

anyways, i guess the question is, is it necessarly immoral for 1 people to take land away from another people? well, throughout human history this kinda stuff went on all the time... conquering was the rule of the jungle... it probably wasn't considered immoral before...
i don't know, how immoral was it considered before the last few hundred years to conquer and displace a people?

but it is true, in the last few hundred years, there have been these new "codes" in societal conduct which says things along the lines of "you can't conquer and displace people's populations, it is immoral"

since the jews took israel away from the palestinians by force, is it therefore immoral? if the palestinians kill israeli civilians, is it ok, since they are reverting to the "law of the jungle" rules which israel started when it conquered and displaced the palestinians?

well...
here is my 2 cents on it. if you agree that the arabs living there, migrated there from the rest of the middle east... if they didn't develop their own religion, language, customs...
they weren't "a people" so much as a bunch of arabs living there...
then it can sorta be argued that the extent of zionism's evilness, is once upon a time, 600,000 lives were negatively affected by it.

that is to say... perhaps zionism would have been more immoral if the jews came had conquered and displaced a people who weren't surrounded by ?300 million? of their brothers.
there was no need for the refugee problem, that was an unfortunate, unforseen consequence.

making arabs leave their houses so jews can live there is pretty unfortunate... it is an injustice to those lives which were affected, but perhaps coming out of the ruins of the holocaust, jews in 1948 were entitles to be a little selfish... thinking along the lines of arabs control 799/800ths of the land in the middle east, and outnumber jews ?150? to 1...
perhaps these particular arabs living in this very particular piece of land, could afford to move somewhere else in the middle-east.

i think world history has shown that jews need a country of their own... to protect themselves from a world which continually persecuted them; israel is in a strong position to protect jews around the world from persecution...
as long as there is a strong israel in place, there won't be another holocaust.

jews do have some claim to the land of israel...
they were there long before arabs were... isnt that true?

anyways, i think there are enough variables here for whatever it is that determines what is moral or immoral ?g-d? to have some kind of sympathy for zionism, which gave jews the modern state of israel.
i don't think the arabs living there, what came to be known as palestinians should be forgotten...
they can have the west bank, gaza...

but i think given that
1)jews have at least some claim to the land
2)self-defense, in 1948 jews needed their own country to protect themsleves as a people against a cruel, anti-semetic world...
3)israel has tremendous significance to jews... they face it when they pray, for thousands of years they've dreamed of coming back there...
4)arabs who were living in palestine lost their homes, but at the time they didnt really lose their identiy as a people... they just lost their homes...
(not saying they didnt have a connection to the land... it's just that taking away land from isolated people living somewhere shouldnt be considered the same as taking away land from a people with an orgainzed and unique identity; doing that necessairly has future significance... as opposed to arabs living in palestine could theoretically have been absorbed into another another arab country.)

i guess, i hope palestinians can look at the story of the jews, and just plum open their hearts to their story, give jews this tiny portion of the middle east, and let them live in peace.

[sharonbn]

ibrodsky,

what I said was that the Arabs started the '67 war. The side that starts a war is not necessarily the side that fires the first shot.
YES, whoever fires the first shot – starts the war. The Japanese started the war vs. USA in 1941 (the reason for it being the USA’s extreme pressure on Japan to cease colonial actions in Asia.) You can only say that Israel was provoked to start the 67 war.

We were talking about the settlers in the territories captured in 1967. [...] I confess I don't know anything about Ikrit and Bira'am. What is your source?
Oh, I see, my example shows nothing about Israel’s policy regarding land owned by Palestinians. If you must go to the nibbles – MOST of the settlements in the occupied territories were built on land occupied by Palestinian peasants (one example being Kiryat Arba). And Yes, if they worked the land for several generations – it is theirs by moral argument.
The issue of Ikrit and Bira’am is famous since it was debated numerous times in Israeli courts and in the Knesset. Take a look at this (http://www.israelinsider.com/channels/politics/articles/pol_0057.htm) article.

Your blanket statement that the settlers honor Baruch Goldstein is a big fat lie. I personally know settlers who consider Goldstein a terrorist.
Your words suggest you don’t live in Israel and see what other people know here. The big garden surrounding the tomb was displayed in the news. Also, each year, the news cover the attempt of former “Kach” members and followers to perform a memorial service to Goldstein on the site of the tomb.

The left-wing extremists who refuse to serve in the territories are a tiny minority.
NOT TRUE. On 23/2/02 a demonstration was held to support what you call left-wing extremists (they are battle-hardened army officers, “salt of the earth”, not some hippies), some 50,000 people showed up, leading artists sang songs, etc. - quite a big demonstration. As a result of this initiative, several groups of people formed political movements to push the ides of withdrawl of Israel from occupied territories. The most faous one being led by Ami Ayalon - former Shabac leader.

Before the Intifada, I visited the temple mount. Before the first Intifiada, I even went inside the mosque of El-Aqsa.
Really?
REALLY, first-person reporting.

There is a growing minority in Israel that believes the same about Palestinians.
True. But not without extreme provocation.
Even without extreme provocation – don’t forget the Jewish underground who committed several terrorist attacks in the 80s against Palestinian civilians, including shooting at a girls’ school. Also, the underground group from which Igal Amir rose, was practicing firearms in preparation for committing terrorist attacks against Palestinian targets.

Finally, I will state my opinion that PM Binyamin Netanyahu’s way of deliberately violating the Oslo agreement is one of the major causes for the eruption of the current Intifada.

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by A-Palestinian
Sharonbn,

I would like to fully address your post, but I cannot, because the links you have provided go nowhere. (They dont work - I get a make up commercial when I click on them). Please see to it that they are corrected so that I may reply.

:)

Try this link:
http://www.geocities.com/sharonbn/forum.html

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

Thanks. (Were your images originally bitmaps? I only ask because the quality of the images is poor, so perhaps in your conversion to jpgs or html, some quality was lost. I am offering to change them to proper jpgs, if in fact they were bitmaps. Send to my email account. microwarp@hotmail.com)

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

Im sorry, I made a subtle error in Case2, Post#28. Instead, "Movement X"'s Ends should read:

"The creation of a Nation on all of Land "A", for and only for People "X" ".

Given this ammendment, would you like to change your response to it, or would it be the same as Post#38?

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by A-Palestinian
Sharonbn,

Im sorry, I made a subtle error in Case2, Post#28. Instead, "Movement X"'s Ends should read:

"The creation of a Nation on all of Land "A", for and only for People "X" ".

Given this ammendment, would you like to change your response to it, or would it be the same as Post#38?

A-Palestinian,

What is all of Israel? Is it biblical Israel? (whatever this means), Is it Ottoman-ruled Israel? Is it British-ruled Israel? (this would include Jordan.)
Do you see what I’m gaining at? The question of the space to be occupied by the Jewish people is a practical one to be determined by the course of real events, not an idealistic theoretic one.

Also, I must note that you added the “all” word to your diagrams. In the definition of Zionism as I posted (and seen in other articles and commentaries), it is not mentioned that all of the land of Israel is to become home to the Jewish people.

Similarly, I believe that the Palestinians do not demand all of the land of Israel to be their home land. Their demand, as recently expressed by the Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, are the territories occupied by Israel in 67.

PS,
regarding the diagrams, they are jpgs of good quality, the problem lies with the builtin HTML editor of Yahoo.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by sharonbn

Similarly, I believe that the Palestinians do not demand all of the land of Israel to be their home land. Their demand, as recently expressed by the Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, are the territories occupied by Israel in 67.

Gee, that's not what Hamas and Islamic Jihad say. It certainly isn't what their Hezbollah, Syrian, Iraqi, and Iranian allies say.

Do you deny that the PA's schools have used textbooks showing maps of the area with Israel conspicuously absent?

The debate between the PA/PLO and the other groups has never been about whether Israel has a right to exist, but whether the best strategy for destroying Israel is to first grab as many concessions as possible through a "peace process" or just fight straight through to victory.

It is understandable that some Israelis would like to believe that their hopes for a peaceful settlement are shared by the other side. It is understandable, given the way Europe and the UN have accepted the term "illegal occupation," that some Israelis would believe that if they just give back all of the territory captured from invading Arab armies that everything will be OK.

But at some point you have to come to grips with militant Islam. These people slaughtered 3,000+ Americans just to make a political point. You have to honestly ask yourself why they purposely target the most defenseless members of Israeli society and why they encourage and celebrate such deeds.

The goal of militant Islam is the exact opposite of what you apparently surmise. They are determined to create a situation in which no settlement is possible. They are not trying to convince the Israeli people that they must withdraw from land captured from aggressors; they are trying to convince the Israeli public that they hate all Jews and will not rest until Israel goes