My Argument with an Anti-Zionist

FR ^ | June 9, 2003 | me

[risk]

I warned about people who scream for peace. They are the ones who will murder you in the end. --Charles Bukowski

Recently I had a disturbing encounter with an anti-Zionist. I'll present the discussion as well as I can, both in hopes that I can respond to anyone else who thinks the same way, and so that I can organize some of the thoughts I was not able to articulate during the discussion itself. I also welcome corrections to my limited understanding of mideast history. I know that my point of view may be different from those who are religious, but please keep in mind that the conclusions are the same -- as long as your world view does not call for the destruction of Israel due to prophecy.

An old acquaintance from college dropped in for a visit over the weekend, and after he found out that I'm involved with both my neighborhood and company emergency response teams, he scoffed. Right away we began to argue about the causes of terrorism, which he claimed was 100% preventable and unnecessary. For purposes of anonymity, I will call this person John, because he is a non-practicing Christian, and it suits him well.

Our first disagreement was whether or not we needed homeland defense and emergency response teams only for terrorism. Despite the events of 9/11, John disputed it, saying that terrorism had thus far represented an infinitesimal amount of suffering and death in our country. Second, he asserted that America could stop the threat of terrorism if we would only stop interfering with other countries. Third, he asserted that terrorism is driven by human suffering rather than any ideological bent. Finally, John thinks that people are ultimately reasonable creatures who would not do horrible things unless they were given good reason to do so. This is the basis of his position that Israelis have hurt Arabs in so many ways for so long that their only remaining solution is to resort to suicide attacks.

I disputed all four points of view. Automobile accidents and smoking hazards, which he mentioned as examples of threats we face willingly every day and are much more dangerous than terrorism, are met willingly by the endangered participants. Moreover, terrorists have stated that NBC (nuclear/biological/chemical) weapons are their ultimate goal. Whole cities and populations could be decimated by future terrorism. Next, I disagreed that terrorism would stop if Americans stopped supporting Israel and defending its oil interests in the Gulf. I argued that terrorism is largely ideologically motivated, and that it is based on a clash of civilizations rather than mistreatment of Arabs, Persians, and Pakistanis. I suggested that the enmity between Arabs and Jews had been very old, and its vitriol had been updated by recent infusions of Nazism via the Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin-al-Husseini. This, too was met with scoffs. John could not believe that there might be a continuance of the Nazi conspiracy against Jews. The issue of Nazism is appropriate, because it serves as one of the most disturbing counter-examples to John's hope that people are basically rational creatures who will not stoop to depravity unless driven by unfair treatment. The spread of the Axis forces around the globe between 1937 and 1945 may have even been slowed by their insistence on rooting out and killing Jews. Yet they used the threat of a Jewish world conspiracy to motivate their citizens to hideous and time-consuming crimes against humanity.

The toughest point of disagreement between John and me went to the root of our arguments. John offered two solutions to the problems facing the peoples of the middle east. I will get to the second, more chilling "joke" he continued to push all night later. His most "reasonable" idea was to ask Israelis to continue supporting true democratic values, and allow Palestinians and other Muslims within Israel to vote. John suggested that now would be a good time for Israel to "learn to get along with its neighbors because their strength and number was growing faster than theirs." I strongly disagreed with this point of view. I reminded him that I believed that the struggle between Muslims and Jews was ideologically based, and that Israelis had a right to protect themselves and their culture against infiltration and birthrate attacks. I suggested that under the circumstances, the best way for Israel to deal with this threat would be to deport all non-Jewish people and discontinue hiring migrant Palestinians for cheap labor. I also expressed fear that Israel couldn't make this difficult choice because of its own history with genocide and ethnic cleansing. I think I horrified John at this point.

John had begun his attack on my pro-Zionist position by asking me how would I react if Israelis came and pushed me off of my land? I answered that force was a viable means for defending a homeland, but that as large as the Arab world is, and as many places that are just as hospitable as Israel, there ought to be other places for Arab Palestinians than Israel. I further asked John to see that after WW2 and the horrors of the Holocaust, it was fair to ask for just one place for Jews to go that they could call their own. The location on the earth where they had been before the Diaspora seemed fair to me, and I pointed out that my father and his brothers had gone to war to fight Nazism and anti-semitism. We had an investment to protect in the Jews, which is why we support Israel. I would have added that access to mideast oil is indeed worth defending, and that given the Anglo history of finding and exploiting it efficiently, we had a stake in ensuring continued access to it, so long as we were fair in our compensation of the native peoples who possessed the mineral rights. John disagreed, saying that we will continue to pay in blood for our support of Israeli oppression of Arabs and our continued interdiction in Arab affairs related to oil resources. I agreed that terrorism would continue to be a threat, but I pointed out that we must be willing to pay the price.

Our disagreements had a fundamental root, and the argument deepened. John said that no culture had a right to survive over any other. For example in America, Irish culture was not inherently superior to Italian or Polish. I pointed out that Americans had a right to defend their use of the English language, as Anglos had come here first and built the entire nation and its set of laws and standards of public exchange. John suggested otherwise, and said that we had no right to keep Irish Americans from outpacing Anglos in their birthrates and overtaking English-speakers. He said eventually in this hypothetical situation, reinstituting Irish as the primary language for our country could be quite normal. He also made the point that we had unfairly decimated the Indians in this country, and that this wasn't the best way to go about integrating cultures.

My response is probably the most controversial, but I suggested that the culture that is most powerful has a right to win if it can. And I said that force to secure and hold the peace was justified. If I had believed John would listen, I would have said that western democracy, namely American democracy, had a right to exist because it was a quantum leap forward in human liberty. I knew John would not listen, because he repeatedly offered culturally relative assertions throughout the discussion, such as the idea that American liberties might not be interesting or useful to other cultures. I disagree, but I can not prove my beliefs that our founding fathers created the most advanced form of freedom possible for human beings in 1776 when they offered our Declaration of Independence. Such a point would be lost on the likes of John.

Our disagreements continued. To get to each one, I must address the subjects that we agreed were true:

1. Forming the state of Israel in 1948 displaced Palestinian Arabs who had been citizens of Transjordan, Syria, Egypt, and Lebanon.
2. Israeli democracy is seriously threatened by Muslim Arab population growth within Israel and in the disputed areas, which is outstripping Jewish birthrates.
3. Islamic terrorism against Americans has been (either partly or totaly) in response to its interference in the mideast related to oil resources, anti-communist and anti-Islamic counter-revolutionary activities, and support of Israel.
4. Religious zealots, including Christians, Jews, and Muslims have frequently clouded peace negotiations by declaring this or that spot "holy" and by claiming God had promised them this or that, and then following up on their assertions with deadly attacks on parties thought to be violating the divine promises.

Our agreements lead nowhere, however. Again, I argued that the world owed Israel at least one place to exist in peace. I could think of no better place for them to live than where they had been before the Diaspora. I went so far as to say that Arabs who couldn't offer a small place on the earth for Jews after what had happened to them during the Holocaust were heartless. I know this is a lot to ask, but it will remain my position until the day I die.

I continued to suggest that Israeli democracy had a right to be defined on the basis of cultural and racial principles. One way to see this is to look at it from the opposite point of view. If Israel weren't defined in terms of Jewishness and Jewish racial heritage, their right to practice their beliefs could be destroyed by Arabs, many of whom teach their children that all Jews are evil and should be killed.

I also argued that terrorism against Americans was based on more than just our mishandling of people in regions where our anti-communist and critical natural resources existed. The communist threat was brought into the third world from outside. We met it with equal, if not clumsy use of force. John and I agreed that in the future, we should fight threats like communism much more directly, and attempt to be more honorable in that endeavor. However, I doubt that we agree on what that means. To him it might mean winning hearts and minds. To me, it means identifying where our enemies are and calling in more effective B52 strikes.

Finally, religion is a point that we both agree has been used to stir up the contention. But I pointed out that Christians and Jews are a part of my culture, my civilization, and my heritage. These people are not trying to kill me, Muslim extremists are. We are not teaching our children to kill Muslims; it's quite the other way around.

At various points throughout the evening, John revealed that his opinions were extreme. For example, John argued that Jews would probably start killing Christians if there were a Christian dispute over the ownership of Jerusalem, for example. He is not totally incorrect on that point since Zionists helped motivate the British to see that it would be in everyone's best interest to let Israel come into existence.

John's most violent position, which he presented with a sly grin and repeated several times during the evening, was most disturbing. He joked that we should strike a forcibly unoccupied Jerusalem with nuclear weapons, thereby causing it to be too radioactive for healthy occupation. This would solve the problem of disputed holiness, he laughed. I'm certain that looking for a location outside the mideast for Israelis to move has crossed many minds, but to put it in these terms was hideous. Just because muslims claim any land they ever occupy is holy, Jerusalem should be rendered unlivable? Just because muslims are allowed an unlimited number of holy sites, Jews are allowed none? Just because Jews had been driven away from Jerusalem more than once, they should never be able to come back again? Just because Jews think they are different from other people due to their culture and sometimes their religious beliefs, they should be forced to allow muslims to make the same claims, yet drive them out of their hard-fought homes and establish a theofascist state where eventually every Jew would be either murdered or driven away?

And what about other groups and nations that wish to stop American influence in the world? Like Noam Chomsky, they cry imperialism and commercialism, and they offer ideological reasons for United States citizesn to return to their homes and even be pushed back across the plains of North America. Envy, a desire for totalitarian power, and fear of competition are behind all of these insults. Americans are not imperialists, and no force in the history of human beings has stood against imperialism more strongly than Americans. These are lies, damned lies, and their culmination is the assertion that America didn't need to enter WW2, didn't need to defeat the Soviet Union, and shouldn't defend itself and its allies today. Our academics will supply the intellectual engines of our own destruction, and our multinational corporations will supply the machines to bring that destruction home.

I took the hint that no further argument could make any difference that night. I smiled and offered Nebraska as an alternative for Jewish people under the circumstances; we laughed together, and our conversation turned to other things. But my confidence in American people was seriously diminished that night. There will be no help for world democracy if we allow people who reason on such terms to regain power. This is what Carter and Clinton had in mind. This is the doctrine of multipolarity, and unchecked, the first result would be the destruction of Israel, and the next would be the fall of South Korea. And finally, our enemies would overwhelm us and defeat America itself and all it stands to defend. John had in the same conversation denounced Patrick Buchanan's ideologies (for other reasons) and then justified his isolationism with a most bitter form of anti-semitism cloaked in an argument that we should abandon our Jewish brethren in arms just because we may again be attacked by theofascist criminals.

Americans did not win the second world war to be intimidated again by the sordid ideologies of Mein Kampf. We will crush this disease again and again if we have to. And we must keep an eye on our isolationist Americans, as well. It is clear to me that their beliefs are centered on themselves, and none of the core values on which this great nation was founded are present in their personal justifications for abandoning Israel.

Finally, I was incensed by John's failure to recognize the horror of 9/11, and the intense psychological pain it has wreaked on the American mind. Regardless of the causes of this pain, it has been intense, and our efforts to both defend against it, and activities such as homeland volunteerism are meaningful. These are practical steps each of us can take to prepare for its almost inevitable recurrence.

I realize that John has been busy with his work over the past three years, and may have not understood how much 9/11 has meant to the average American. We do not take attacks lightly, and I believe 9/11 was 10 times worse than Pearl Harbor. People who fail to realize this have little to offer the American voter. People who ask us to act as if it will never happen again are a danger to the Republic. One thing John and our theofascist muslim enemies fail to realize is that our unity increases exponentially with each attack.

[risk]

Perhaps the best counter to the anti-Zionist are Dr. Martin Luther King's own words.

  From http://christianactionforisrael.org/antiholo/ml_king.html

"Anti-Zionism = Anti-Semitism"

- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

". . . You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist.' And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God's green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--this is God's own truth.

"Antisemitism, the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of mankind. In this we are in full agreement. So know also this: anti-Zionist is inherently antisemitic, and ever will be so.

"Why is this? You know that Zionism is nothing less than the dream and ideal of the Jewish people returning to live in their own land. The Jewish people, the Scriptures tell us, once enjoyed a flourishing Commonwealth in the Holy Land. From this they were expelled by the Roman tyrant, the same Romans who cruelly murdered Our Lord. Driven from their homeland, their nation in ashes, forced to wander the globe, the Jewish people time and again suffered the lash of whichever tyrant happened to rule over them.

"The Negro people, my friend, know what it is to suffer the torment of tyranny under rulers not of our choosing. Our brothers in Africa have begged, pleaded, requested--DEMANDED the recognition and realization of our inborn right to live in peace under our own sovereignty in our own country.

"How easy it should be, for anyone who holds dear this inalienable right of all mankind, to understand and support the right of the Jewish People to live in their ancient Land of Israel. All men of good will exult in the fulfilment of God's promise, that his People should return in joy to rebuild their plundered land.

This is Zionism, nothing more, nothing less.

"And what is anti-Zionist? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and freely accord all other nations of the Globe. It is discrimination against Jews, my friend, because they are Jews. In short, it is antisemitism.

"The antisemite rejoices at any opportunity to vent his malice. The times have made it unpopular, in the West, to proclaim openly a hatred of the Jews. This being the case, the antisemite must constantly seek new forms and forums for his poison. How he must revel in the new masquerade! He does not hate the Jews, he is just 'anti-Zionist'!

"My friend, I do not accuse you of deliberate antisemitism. I know you feel, as I do, a deep love of truth and justice and a revulsion for racism, prejudice, and discrimination. But I know you have been misled--as others have been--into thinking you can be 'anti-Zionist' and yet remain true to these heartfelt principles that you and I share.

Let my words echo in the depths of your soul: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--make no mistake about it."

From M.L. King Jr., "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend," Saturday Review_XLVII (Aug. 1967), p. 76.
Reprinted in M.L. King Jr., "This I Believe: Selections from the Writings of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr."

[risk]

Some personal thoughts. I welcome support and criticism if it can help us help Israel. If we don't help Israel, our own destruction is surely next. If we can not stand against the enemies of freedom for Jewish people, then we will forget how to stand for ourselves.

[dixiechick2000]

Marking for tomorrow.

I'm sorry...it's just too late for me, now. ;o)

[risk]

The quote at the top: they are the ones, not the...

[happygrl]

I think you fought the good fight. Your friend "John" articulates the brainwashing so typical of leftist thought, unconcious of it though he might be.

I think that you have identified part of the problem though, in stating that these people believe that the opposition to the US and Israel is rooted in some rationality. He is commiting the fallacy of believing that the world view of these opponents of our is like our world view and that they can be reasoned with.

That is an inaccurate belief. The evidence of this is the vitriolic, hysterical anti-Semeitism which is propagated in the sermons at mosques, the educational material for schools, and in the newspapers of the Arab and Muslim world.

My own belief is that there is a Diabolical Spirit behind this, but that is another discussion.

The anti-Semitic vitriol is evidence that the palestinians do not want to make peace. It is also evidence of their long term intent. It is also evidence that there is no moral equivalancy between the palestinians and the Israelis.

[tictoc]

Good essay; worth reading twice, and then a third time.

My dim memory tells me that the Martin Luther King quote is not authentic, but that there exists another MLK quote which, while less forceful, does support the establishment of Israel and is provably authentic. (Sorry, no link; my synapses may be wrong.)

[ETERNAL WARMING]

and allow Palestinians and other Muslims within Israel to vote. John suggested that now would be a good time for Israel to "learn to get along with its neighbors because their strength and number was growing faster than theirs."

Will read the rest tomorrow. But this caught my eye. When Israel became a nation, it invited the Arabs living there to be a part of the new nation. Those that did are known as the Israeli Arabs. They have not only the right to vote, but representation in the government. Those who didn't reacted precisely like Arafat is doing today.

I think your friend is too far gone. He needs to read the history of Israel. He is obviously ill informed if he thinks Israel does anything wrong but simply exist, and the Arabs just can't stand that fact.

[man of Yosemite]

If we announced to the world that our nation had embraced Islam, do you think they would stop? NO, the attacks would continue because they hate to the depth of murder and blindness. Let them be as Afghanistan and Iraq if they pollute the world with this garbage. Shall we apologize to those who send their youths off to blow up women and babies, promising them a paradise with 70 virgins waiting for them. What utter nonsense! There is a time for peace, and a time for war. Nobody who thinks like this should prevail, and they won't. I'll stand with Israel, even against Americans if I have to.

[risk]

My dim memory tells me that the Martin Luther King quote is not authentic...

I see you are supported by at least one online resource at the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), via Wikipedia. I include it below, without any further interpretation, with some superficial formatting for readability.

Objet: Lettre à un ami antisioniste : texte réconfortant et
canulard,excepté une phrase

Attention : un texte qui circule sur le net "Lettre à un ami
antisioniste" de Martin Luther King ne serait pas authentique. Une
phrase du texte a bien été prononcée par King mais pas plus. Les
recherches d'un organisme aussi sérieux que CAMERA ne sont pas
concluantes quant aux sources du documents. Lire texte en anglais
ci-dessous Pinhas Konopnicki CID
----- Original Message -----
From: 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 10:36 PM
Subject: CAMERA: MLK letter a hoax, but King did say same message at Harvard

> Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America
>                                www.camera.org
>
> Shalom CAMERA E-Mail Team:
>
> I am sorry to inform you that the "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend"
> allegedly written by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is apparently a
> hoax.  Although, the basic message of the letter was indeed, without
> question, spoken by Martin Luther King, Jr. in a 1968 appearance at
> Harvard, where he said: "When people criticize Zionists, they mean
> Jews, You are talking anti-Semitism." [ from "The Socialism of
> Fools: The Left, the Jews and Israel" by Seymour Martin Lipset; in
> Encounter magazine, December 1969, p. 24. ].
>
> We were initially doubtful of the authenticity of the "Letter to an
> anti-Zionist Friend" because the language in the first paragraph
> seemed almost a parody of language used in Dr. King's "I have a
> dream" speech.  And it was an odd coincidence that the "Letter" was
> listed as being published in one of the few magazines whose archives
> are not able to be checked online. Additionally, we could find no
> reference to the "letter" prior to 1999, which was odd because the
> text is such a dramatic denunciation of anti-Zionism -- one that
> would have been cited widely.
>
> However, we then found the "letter" in a reputable 1999 book
> ("Shared Dreams," by Rabbi Marc Shneier) whose preface was written
> by Martin Luther King III.  Since the King family is known to be
> extremely careful with Dr. King's legacy, we assumed they must have
> verified the accuracy of the book before endorsing it.
>
> Additionally, we found that quotations from the "letter" were used
> on July 31, 2001, by the Anti-Defamation League's Michael Salberg in
> testimony before the U.S. House of Representative's International
> Relations Committee's Subcommittee on International Operations and
> Human Rights. The same "source" (Saturday Review, August 1967) for
> the "letter" that was mentioned in the Schneier book was also cited
> in the testimony.  Since many in the Anti-Defamation League had
> actually worked with Martin Luther King, Jr in the civil rights
> struggle, we assumed again they would be very knowledgeable about
> King's work and would have thoroughly checked anything they chose to
> read before Congress.  Based on the apparent verification of the
> "letter" by the King family and the ADL, we sent the "letter" to you
> on MLK Day.
>
> However, because we do not ordinarily rely on anyone else's
> research, we decided to double-check, by searching back issues of
> Saturday Review (Rabbi Shneier's book had referenced the "letter" as
> being published in the August 67 Saturday Review).  Lo and behold,
> there is no such letter in any of the August issues, nor do the page
> and volume numbers cited conform to those actually used by that
> publication. CAMERA also checked with Boston University, where Dr.
> King's work is archived.  The archivists too were unable to locate
> any such letter. We can only conclude that no such letter was
> written by Dr.  King.  (Please note we are not implying that the
> apparently bogus "letter" originated with Rabbi Schneier.)
>
> Since the message of the letter (Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism) was
> one Martin Luther King, Jr. had indeed articulated, we can
> understand why the King family and the ADL did not feel the need to
> verify the "Letter to an anti-Zionist friend."  We at CAMERA
> apologize, though, for not looking past their endorsement when we
> had initial doubts about it.  This episode is a reminder of the
> importance of verifying the authenticity and accuracy of sources,
> even when they appear to be solid.
>
> Below is a January 21, 2002 op-ed by U.S. Rep. John Lewis, who
> worked closely with Dr. King.  In the op-ed, he shares Dr. King's
> views on Israel, views which stressed Israel's democratic nature and
> Israel's need for security. And he also relates that Dr. King said,
> "When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking
> anti-Semitism."
>
> This quotation has been confirmed, so you should feel assured that
> you can use the quotation in letters. Just be sure to mention that
> it came from Dr.  King's 1968 Harvard University appearance, so that
> no one will think it is from the debunked "letter."
>
> The op-ed by Congressman Lewis appears below.
>
> With our sincerest apologies,
> Lee Green
> Director, National Letter-Writing Group
> CAMERA
>
> Monday, January 21, 2002 (San Francisco Chronicle)
> "I have a dream" for peace in the Middle East
> King's special bond with Israel
> by John Lewis
>
> 
> THE REV. MARTIN Luther King Jr. understood the meaning of
> discrimination and oppression. He sought ways to achieve liberation
> and peace, and he thus understood that a special relationship exists
> between African Americans and American Jews.
> 
> This message was true in his time and is true today.
> 
> He knew that both peoples were uprooted involuntarily from their 
> homelands. He knew that both peoples were shaped by the tragic 
> experience of slavery. He knew that both peoples were forced to live 
> in ghettoes, victims of segregation.
> 
> He knew that both peoples were subject to laws passed with the
> particular intent of oppressing them simply because they were Jewish
> or black. He knew that both peoples have been subjected to
> oppression and genocide on a level unprecedented in history.
> 
> King understood how important it is not to stand by in the face of
> injustice. He understood the cry, "Let my people go."
> 
> Long before the plight of the Jews in the Soviet Union was on the
> front pages, he raised his voice. "I cannot stand idly by, even
> though I happen to live in the United States and even though I
> happen to be an American Negro and not be concerned about what
> happens to the Jews in Soviet Russia. For what happens to them
> happens to me and you, and we must be concerned."
>
> During his lifetime King witnessed the birth of Israel and the
> continuing struggle to build a nation. He consistently reiterated
> his stand on the Israel- Arab conflict, stating "Israel's right to

> exist as a state in security is uncontestable." It was no accident
> that King emphasized "security" in his statements on the Middle
> East.
> 
> On March 25, 1968, less than two weeks before his tragic death, he
> spoke out with clarity and directness stating, "peace for Israel
> means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect its
> right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel as one of
> the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous
> example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into
> an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means
> security and that security must be a reality."  During the recent
> U.N. Conference on Racism held in Durban, South Africa, we were all
> shocked by the attacks on Jews, Israel and Zionism. The United
> States of America stood up against these vicious attacks.
> 
> Once again, the words of King ran through my memory, "I solemnly
> pledge to do my utmost to uphold the fair name of the Jews --
> because bigotry in any form is an affront to us all."
> 
> During an appearance at Harvard University shortly before his death,
> a student stood up and asked King to address himself to the issue of
> Zionism. The question was clearly hostile. King responded, "When
> people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking
> anti-Semitism."
> 
> King taught us many lessons. As turbulence continues to grip the
> Middle East, his words should continue to serve as our guide. I am
> convinced that were he alive today he would speak clearly calling
> for an end to the violence between Israelis and Arabs.
> 
> He would call upon his fellow Nobel Peace Prize winner, Yasser
> Arafat, to fulfill the dream of peace and do all that is within his
> power to stop the violence.  He would urge continuing negotiations
> to reduce tensions and bring about the first steps toward genuine
> peace.  King had a dream of an "oasis of brotherhood and democracy"
> in the Middle East.
> 
> As we celebrate his life and legacy, let us work for the day when
> Israelis and Palestinians, Jews and Muslims, will be able to sit in
> peace "under his vine and fig tree and none shall make him afraid."
> ***
> 
> U.S. Rep. John Lewis, a Democrat, represents the 5th Congressional 
> District of Georgia and worked closely with Martin Luther King Jr. 
> during the civil rights movement.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.313 / Virus Database: 174 - Release Date: 2/01/02

[American in Israel]

John had begun his attack on my pro-Zionist position by asking me how would I react if Israelis came and pushed me off of my land?

I figure you are spinning your wheels, this guy is so full of false information and half lies that a decent conversation is impossible. For example the quote above, if the Jews had pushed the Arabs off of the land there would not be a problem would there? The fact is that the Arabs pushed the Jews off of the land and the Jews did not. That is why all areas that Arafat now controls are Jew free and the areas that Israel controls contains Palestinians.

The problem with this guy is that he has already chosen to hate the Jews and filled his head with mush to back up his pre-chosen position. The above quote is a perfect example of ignoring reality to grasp for a talking point. His head is full of them, easily refuted lies. But you will find yourself batting at windmills all day if you argue with him on this level. As fast as you disprove a lie, two more will be generated to take their place.

You are forgetting the main point of your own argument, this is an ideological battle. What causes the real difficulty, is in trying to handle a spiritual battle from a secular viewpoint. The Spiritual world is very real, to deny that is to place yourself on very shaky ground. Things will happen that seem to make no sense, and other things that seem unimportant, the opponent will fight to the death to defend.

Let me try to lay out the spiritual background of the "big picture". Realize that I am trying to describe color to the color blind, no slight intended.

The Jews are the Chosen people of God, Chosen not because they are special, but because God chose them to tell the world about Him. Chosen is not an honor, or a title, it is a Job. What they represent is the foundation of the Judeao-Christian ethic, an ethic that is diametrically opposed to the standard world view of liberalism, Marxism, evolution, abortion, communism. It is the foundation of conservative thought, that is why you find so many Christians on Freeper, we are at home here.

In politics you will find an irrational, (from a non-spiritual perspective), drive for the world to turn against America and Israel. For example, the liberal hearts internal drive to back the terrorist scum of the earth, the Arabs of Palestine, against the most restrained army on earth, the democracy Israel. Logic clearly shows which side is right, yet the leftists flock to kiss the arse of Arafat. That is a clear indication that the spiritual drive is greater than the logical drive.

You are fighting a spiritual battle with a temporal club, you will only wear out the club. As you get closer and closer to pointing out the error in logic of your opponent, you will find not acquiescence but a further retreat into the illogical to even hysterical levels. If you could stop the conversation at that point and question why the hysterics the subject of the emotional meltdown could not tell you the answer. The answer is deeper than logic, it is the spiritual foundation of the soul being shaken. Your logic shakes the foundation of their world view, they are simply responding to that.

There is a great battle shaping up between those aligned with God, and those aligned against. Most people are aligned against by nature. Very few at this point are wandering in the middle of the street. It seems you are one of the few wanderers left.

God gives man free will to make a choice to serve him or not. Not making a choice falls under not. But God is very merciful and grants grace to those still searching. Those who have not formed the question yet, they still wander. As time goes on you will find yourself painted into a corner with the question before you and no way to avoid it.

My suggestion is to look into the difference between Judeo-Christian ethic and the rest of the world. Which way do you want to go? Then pick a way to go there. As time goes on, the strain of the spiritual will shatter the ability to ignore it. Logic is a very shallow construct in the face of reality.

In short you need to look into the spiritual aspect of the argument to discern the difficulty you are facing in communication.

[tictoc]

Thank you, that is what I remembered.

[risk]

I really appreciate your response. However, were one of the faithful, I would be of the persuation that with the coming of the messiah, true believers became the chosen, and the Jews, while enjoying the status of having been the original people of God, would need to come to Christ on their own, on the same terms. But I am not convinced that either Jews or Christians have a closer walk with God than anyone else. I just don't think American foreign policy should be dictated by interpretations of the bible or beliefs in "chosen" people. If anyone is chosen, it is those who believe that freedom to worship (or not worship) is a God-given right that none can take away from anyone.

I am most moved by your core model of spiritual conflict, however. I agree that making an intellectual argument for the sake of morality without it is more difficult. I refuse to give up trying, however. I believe it is my existential duty to try to choose the right path. Furthermore, it's clear that "John" is neither taking inspiration from Christ, nor is he able to have faith that God would protect a free people on the basis that they wanted to escape genocidal tyranny and enjoy their liberty to worship him as they pleased.

Above all, "Praise God and pass the amunition!" should be every Christian's motto. And to those who believe in pacifism, please -- stay out of the way. Someone will die for you and yours so that you do not need to break your faith.

Finally, I also agree that further argument with "John" would not be fruitful. He will have to think through some of his ideas much more carefully before I'm willing to discuss the mideast with him again. But there are others, and I see we are going to have to do a lot of explaining to our fellow citizens while we lock and load.

[risk]

>>>> Thank you, that is what I remembered.

Thank you! I would have gone on believing those were Dr. King's very words indefinitely, and I probably would have misquoted him again and again without your correction.

[American in Israel]

I would be of the persuasion that with the coming of the messiah, true believers became the chosen, and the Jews, while enjoying the status of having been the original people of God, would need to come to Christ on their own, on the same terms.

With the coming of the Messiah, according to scripture they will. You are correct

But I am not convinced that either Jews or Christians have a closer walk with God than anyone else.

Not a problem, first you must discern the difference between HaShem and all the other Gods before you can compare walks.

I just don't think American foreign policy should be dictated by interpretations of the bible or beliefs in "chosen" people.

Neither do I, I would be happy if American foreign policy was based on who is a terrorist and who is not. But the spiritual implications are stronger than that in this case, and is why the obvious truth is not the pattern, deeper "truths" drive them.

The basic foundation of Christianity and Judaism is a pacifistic one, but Like Christ said to the soldier when asked what should the soldier do, "be a good soldier", not 'don't be a soldier,' also I do not forget the lesson to sell your cloak and buy a sword.
Blessings, and good luck in your travels...

[risk]

Thank you! As I told "John," my secular conviction that Israel is worthy of American protection, and the religious convictions are one and the same in terms of their outcome.

[risk]

I think you fought the good fight. Your friend "John" articulates the brainwashing so typical of leftist thought, unconcious of it though he might be.

I don't think I made it clear that "John" is a leftist. It's interesting that you classified him as such so quickly.

I have a theory that gains evidence almost every day: the resistance to Vietnam came not from true pacifism on the left, but a mere selfish mistrust in our intentions in Vietnam. This has had two implictions that have been repeated again and again for both Americans and our client states:

1. American young people figured out that the State Department was toying around with human life in Vietnam, and might throw theirs away instead of using their deaths effectively. They figured out that it was smart to come up with some belief system that allowed them to salve their selfish consciences and stay home for "peace."
2. Losing faith in American institutions was one thing, but a faux pacifism was another thing altogether. The net result was an ideology of selfishness and greed that has led us to where we are now: a Democratic party that is often on the wrong side of both foreign and domestic policy to the point of evil.

And to the left of the Democratic party, there are 10,000 professors spewing anti-American and anti-Semitic hate lectures daily, telling us that our freedoms and our priviledges are illigitimate and bloodstained.

I think the left's brief flirtation with self-told lies about why they wouldn't go to fight Stalinism/Maoism in Vietnam spawned an endless cycle of deception that will only end when they realize that it was their fathers and grandfathers who paid for their freedom to recycle fascist and communist hatred in new and amazing ways.

We will always need a progressive element in our society, but progressiveness is dead in the Democratic party, and Republicans have had the baton since Reagan took office. I now believe that nothing surprasses his faith in a "Shining City," and his commitment to national missile defense. There are plenty of other issues to debate, but the Democrats are only moving their mouths; nothing but dispondency and fear is coming out.

[TopQuark]

Lacking time, I cannot do justice to your thoughts in my reply. I'll try to get back to this essay, but in the meantime would like to thank you for it.

[ALOHA RONNIE]

Praise GOD...

as HILLARY is now reminding us of how the CLINTONS-3 did not protect US from Terrorism during the 1990's...

while President and new First Lady BUSH are promising FREEDOM's Return to:


-Communist Cuba
-Communist Vietnam
-Communist N. Korea


for our own Best Defense against future Terrorist Attacks in a new Century of FREEDOM.


NEVER FORGET this during Election Year 2004 as HILLARY tries to ride the crest of the Woman's Vote in America back to the Oval Office.


Sigend:..ALOHA RONNIE Guyer / Vet-U.S. 7th Cavalry's Opening Days of the Vietnam War 1965-66
http://www.lzxray.com/guyer_collection.htm

[ALOHA RONNIE]

NEVER FORGET


'TELLTALE Photo Proves HILLARY Rage a LIE'


(The Photo)
http://www.newsmax.com/archive/print.shtml?a=2003/6/5/173040


(The Thread)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/923978/posts


NEVER FORGET

[happygrl]

You have written an insightful, even brilliant repsonse.

We will always need a progressive element in our society, but progressiveness is dead in the Democratic party, and Republicans have had the baton since Reagan took office. I now believe that nothing surprasses his faith in a "Shining City,"...

Your frame of reference is very perceptive. Let me say that this reference by President Reagan is a Biblical phrase, out of the Letter to the Hebrews. This underscores a significant difference between those who support the Republicans and those who support the Democrats (or even further left). That is the role of religion in their belief systems. This was the most significant difference in those who voted for Republicans and Democrats. Even for people, like yourself, who state that they do not believe in a religious reason for supporting Israel, you are influenced by a religiously based world view whether you know it or not !

Democrats and other leftists depise America and its religious roots, and the world view that comes out of those roots.

[Joy Angela]

Hillary is focusing on the economy
but not on National Security issues.


We are instructed in the bible to not
take the mark of the beast in our
right hands.

"Mark" was the german word for money.

Judas' right palm was crossed with silver
after betraying Jesus.

If we allow our palms to be crossed with silver, or the mark of the beast, then this means we allow money and wealth to determine our allegence instead of being faithful to God.

Hillary and her handlers are hoping to seduce Americans
into coveting money and be resentful that they might have less now, then they had in the 90's.

However, money is of little importance, when we remember September 11, 2001.

3000+ people would be alive today, including Barbara Olsen (Hillary's main media opponent) if the Clinton's had not destroyed our National Security!

Never Forget

[ALOHA RONNIE]

Positively brilliant, JOY, Positively

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[MrsEmmaPeel]

Third, he asserted that terrorism is driven by human suffering rather than any ideological bent.

I don't subscribe to the Romantic notion of the Noble Terrorist, as many on the left do. Roman Catholism would teach that nobility comes through suffering, therefore, since these poor terrorists have really suffered, they must be noble. The equations poverty=virtue; poverty=goodness are just as strong prejudices as beauty=goodness. These kinds of associations have been with man for centuries.

Personally, I don't agree with the initial premise, so for me, there would really be little room for discussion. I'm a "you make you're own reality" kind of a gal. For me, Nobility of spirit has nothing to do with suffering.

I follow simple rules. Actions=intentions. If Hamas wanted peace, they would resist being provoked or provoke. They don't. They simply want bloodshed.

I also remember a quote from Queen Elizabeth I's advisor that has been with me for years. Frustrated that a peace between England and the Netherlands was not happening smoothly, the queen turned to her advisor and asked: "How long does it take honest men to agree?" The answer came back: "If they be of like mind, your Majesty, a half hour should be sufficient". I've seen this time and time again. Put 2 honest people in a room and they will hammer out the most detailed agreement in under a half hour. Put a snake and honest man in a room and negotiations will always fail.

[agrace]

Forming the state of Israel in 1948 displaced Palestinian Arabs who had been citizens of Transjordan, Syria, Egypt, and Lebanon.

Discussion of displaced Arabs should always include discussion of displaced Arab Jews, about 800,000 of them, who were forcibly removed from their homes and kicked out of their middle eastern countries in response to Israel declaring herself a nation. Jews from Iraq, Iran, Yemen, SA etc were stripped of their assets, businesses, residences and shown the border. Note that they were assimilated into the newborn state of Israel or elsewhere, such as the US, rather than kept as pawns indefinitely in "refugee camps," and currently there is no talk of retribution for the untold millions they lost, or an insistence to return to their homes, now no doubt occupied by Muslims who will of course insist that no Jew ever lived there.

Also, with regard to discussion of terrorist motivation, John should be made aware of the contemporary (if not ancient) history of Islam. A dozen countries can be immediately brought to mind with regard to treatment of non-muslims, laws against leaving Islam, speaking against Islam, violence perpetrated against non-muslims and ignored by officials or sanctioned by them. Civil wars in half a dozen more places, militant muslims determined to islamicize secular govts, exterminate dissention, convert by force. Interesting that about the only place where Muslims can practice freedom of religion (or freedom of just about anything else for that matter) is within the Great Satan which they profess to hate. They have been raised to despise America and destroy Israel. No amount of troop withdrawal or aid package will make any difference. Terrorism is a state of mind, not a state of human condition.

[risk]

They have been raised to despise America and destroy Israel.

Indeed. Thanks for the informative comments.

[veronica]

There are no anti-Zionists, only Jewhaters who use the mask of "anti-Zionism" to hide behind.

[risk]

I don't agree with the initial premise, so for me, there would really be little room for discussion.

Yes, I understand. First, I had to be civil, and second, I felt I had to offer an explanation for my differences. Aside from who started what and when, and ignoring the inexorable muslim population growth, I knew I had to explain why I side with Israel. Why should a non-Jew care? On the surface, the isolationist perspective is reasonable if selfish. Digging down into the anti-Zionist position, one can see a rejection of history, a denial of the origins of our culture, and an aching hatred of Western civilization's achievements.

When civilizations collide, ugly things happen. I think visitors from outer space would bet on the west in this situation. Yet I see us slipping. France is already beset with hundreds of mosques. Immigration is rampant in all capitalist democracies states except perhaps Japan and Taiwan. And since our protest generation has taken charge, we've been getting softer and softer. Since the Vietnam war, mere survival has become a crime. Faint hearted ideologues have emerged as our political correctness thought police.

I see the ugliness in the left's knee-jerk resentment of Israel. And "John's" idea to nuke Jerusalem is proof that at least his anti-Zionism has no limits in its depravity. Although I am not Jewish, I see the tragedy in this "joke." With Jews in charge in Israel, everyone from all walks could have been allowed to visit historic places there. With Muslim anti-Zionists in charge, history would be cut off from most of those whose ancestors lived it. Where is the progress? Where is the classical liberalism in that? How can an "intellectual" defend such an outcome?

I would rather die with my strong brothers and sisters in Israel than live under the tyranny of the timid American leftist. But I doubt that will be necessary. All Americans need to do is let Jews defend themselves. We have our own enemies here at home. We'll be lucky if the Republic can survive their treachery another generation.

[yonif]

Let me just add that Arab citizens of Israel, who make up 1.5Million, are allowed to vote.

[yonif]

Ping.

[risk]

Let me just add that Arab citizens of Israel, who make up 1.5Million, are allowed to vote.

Thanks. I was aware that some Arabs lived in Israel, and that they were allowed to vote and hold office. I was also under the impression that their birthrate was higher than that of the Jews. Are they comfortable living in a state with a flag that bears the Star of David? Are they proud to live in Israel? I would be if I were them, but I am not so optimistic about Arab peoples; if they were, it would be great news, very encouraging in fact. But looking further out, this could become another serious problem, don't you think? My suggestion was that a well-defended Israel would probably need to deport all Arabs, if it were clear that birthrate was being used as an attack on the social structure of the nation. However, if the situation with Arabs living in Israel is working out well, I could be wrong. I'm all for coexistence of all cultures in situations were one doesn't harm the other.

I don't consider myself a racist or a religious bigot. I just think that both in America and in Israel, we have to take care of ourselves. We have to define who we are and defend that. Certainly it will change and develop, and certainly we want positive outside influences. But for one culture to devour another is war, and should be fought accordingly. There is nothing like seeing an Imam on TV telling me that I, a Welsh American, must convert to Islam. That would be a cold day in hell.

Defending Israel is about Americans recognizing who they are and why they love liberties, such as freedom to worship as one chooses. Defending Israel is about knowing who our true friends are. Defending Israel is about defending ourselves.

[dennisw]

Number one: You neglect to tell your friend about the 700,000 Jews driven from, displaced from Arab nations.

Number two: Going by his "jokes", your friend is an idiot and prolly an atheist. I do not find such people witty and entertaining. I would have jousted with him 10 minutes tops.

[dennisw]

Discussion of displaced Arabs should always include discussion of displaced Arab Jews, about 800,000 of them, who were forcibly removed from their homes and kicked out of their middle eastern countries in response to Israel declaring herself a nation. Jews from Iraq, Iran, Yemen, SA etc were stripped of their assets, businesses, residences and shown the border.

---

EXACTLY!!!

[dennisw]

Discussion of displaced Arabs should always include discussion of displaced Arab Jews, about 800,000 of them, who were forcibly removed from their homes and kicked out of their middle eastern countries in response to Israel declaring herself a nation. Jews from Iraq, Iran, Yemen, SA etc were stripped of their assets, businesses, residences and shown the border.

________________________


EXACTLY!!!

[risk]

I do not find such people witty and entertaining. I would have jousted with him 10 minutes tops.

I had two purposes for posting this essay. First, I was frustrated with a fellow American, and discouraged about the prospects for us to maintain our consensus about Israel. In short, I was chilled by the argument. I wanted reassurance from other patriotic FReepers that my responses were shared by others.

Also, I wanted to learn from fellow FReepers more about the situation, and that I have. Thanks. By the way, "John" claims to be the Christian, but he doesn't sound like one. I share my father's secular point of view about geopolitics: religion shouldn't be our driving factor in our foreign (or domestic) policy.

My father is a devout 79 year-old Christian who believes strongly in separation of church and state. He agrees with me that we should be defending Israel because they are a staunch ally, and because they are a vulnerable democracy. I can't think of better reasons to help a friend. America should be a beacon of freedom to all humanity, including Arabs and other traditionally Islamic peoples as well. When we stop defending our friends and fellow democracies, our day of destruction won't be far away.

[yonif]

Thanks. I was aware that some Arabs lived in Israel, and that they were allowed to vote and hold office. I was also under the impression that their birthrate was higher than that of the Jews. Are they comfortable living in a state with a flag that bears the Star of David? Are they proud to live in Israel? I would be if I were them, but I am not so optimistic about Arab peoples; if they were, it would be great news, very encouraging in fact. But looking further out, this could become another serious problem, don't you think? My suggestion was that a well-defended Israel would probably need to deport all Arabs, if it were clear that birthrate was being used as an attack on the social structure of the nation. However, if the situation with Arabs living in Israel is working out well, I could be wrong. I'm all for coexistence of all cultures in situations were one doesn't harm the other.

Arabs currently have 10 memebers in the Knesset (out of 120). Their birthrate, versus the seats the will get in the parliament, shows that by the year 2025, Arabs will have the majority in the Knesset, therefore Israel will have an Arab PM, they will change the flag, get rid of the army, etc. you know what I mean. Most Arabs in Israel, currently, like to be in Israel and do not want to live under the PLO. They do not serve in the Army, as the government does not want them to have a conflict of interest. There are also Christian Arabs living in Israel too. The 10 members in parliament, support the intifada. Furthermore, they refuse to sing the national anthem or view Israel as a Jewish state. To ensure the Jewish state, the Arabs will have to be deported in the future, or have their voting revoked in some way.

[Burkeman1]

Your friend sounds like a leftist. But some observations. We didn't fight Germany because they were killing Jews. In fact Roosevelt tried to down play the Death Camps in the American press lest it appear that we were fighting the Germans to "save Jews." Even when the "Front of Decent People" in Germany tried to contact Roosevelt time and again about killing Hitler and thus saving millions of Jewish, Polish, Gyspsie, Russian, and others lives he refused. Even after the last ditch effort of this group to kill Hitler in 44 that resulted in the arresst and execution of over 7000 Germans - The allied response was to mock their deaths and cheer on Hitler indirectly.

The Jews of the world have suffered an enormous loss that won't or can't easily be forgotten. This loss is reflected in Israel's foreign policy and it's paranoia. Couple this with the Palestinians being held up by the entire Arab world as symbols of their culture and we have a problem isn't easily solved.

[risk]

You keep bringing this up, but you have no idea what was really in the mind of FDR. He may have been saying to himself, as my father was, a 19 year-old uncolleged boy, "Gee, if they're going to kill the Jews, then who's next?" Remember, FDR did as much as he possibly could to bring America into the war. The practically illegal lend-lease program was something he strongly encouraged. The men who led us into WW2 knew about the plight of the Jews, and most of them were horrified. Remember, Mein Kampf spells out exactly what Hitler wanted to do with Jewish people.

Throughout WW2, Americans learned more and more about the Axis' treatment of its prisoners and forced laborers. Remember what Patton did when his third army liberated the deathcamp at Ohrdruf? His commander Walker ordered the burgermeister to bring in the townsfolk and inspect the death. Later, the burgermeister and his wife returned home and committed suicide.

The understanding Americans have developed about the Holocaust has taken us years. I would argue that our recent invasion of Iraq and the new Roadmap for Peace are further steps on our own road to national understanding of the Holocaust, and how it continues even to this day.

There is plenty of revisionist history to go around. While our lack of support for Jews right before and during the war was heartless, it does not prove that we weren't fighting Hitler partly because of anti-Semitism. Far from it. I know we were, because my father enlisted knowing he would be fighting to liberate deathcamps. I trust his word much more than yours.

[tictoc]

Arabs currently have 10 memebers in the Knesset (out of 120). Their birthrate, versus the seats the will get in the parliament, shows that by the year 2025, Arabs will have the majority in the Knesset

From 10 to 61 in 22 years? That must be a mistake.

[yonif]

What I meant to say was, that they will have a majority by having a coalition with leftists parties, therefore leading it to have a PM (as it will be the biggest party in the Knesset). Here are 2 points from a website that does not exist anymore:

point #1:

In 2000, the State of Israel had a million Arab citizens—roughly 16% of the country's population.

Bolstered by a robust birthrate, the Arabs of Israel are expected by 2020 to comprise 21% of Israel's population. In fact, demographers estimate that by 2020 a third of Israeli citizens will be non-Jews [i.e. East European non-Jews, Druze, and foreign laborers in addition to Arabs].

Ominously, the Jerusalem Post of August 6, 2001 reported: "Population projections presented to the Knesset recently show that Arabs will outnumber Jews within the Green Line by 2035 and that there are already as many Arabs as Jews when the West Bank and Gaza Strip are included."

The Jewish majority of Israel dwindles away with the passage of time.

point #2:

The State of Israel is a democracy. It is a Jewish State because the majority of its voters wish it to be so.

Israel had a substantial Jewish majority at its founding in 1948. It may not in 2048.

[risk]

This is why I encourage Israel to take three steps to protect its legacy:

1. Offer incentives for and eventually force non-Jews to leave.
2. Discontinue employment of Arabs, namely imported Palestinians.
3. Close off the north and south borders, and lay minefields.

Israel can be humane about this. It may have to fight wars to have the ability to continue doing so.

Good luck, my friends. You're going to need it.

[Alouette]

From M.L. King Jr., "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend," Saturday Review_XLVII (Aug. 1967), p. 76.
Reprinted in M.L. King Jr., "This I Believe: Selections from the Writings of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr."

risk, as much as I appreciate you efforts with "John", the Martin Luther King "Letter to an Anti-Zionist" is bogus. I even looked up the Saturday Review for 1967 (it was a weekly, not a monthly) and no such letter was published. There is also no anthology of MLK titled "This I Believe"

"Letter to an Anti-Zionist" not written by Martin Luther King

[risk]

Yes, thanks -- as also noted by tictoc and acknowledged here.

[MrsEmmaPeel]

How can an "intellectual" defend such an outcome?

My only answer is that these "intellectuals" are so full of hate/ignorance, they are blinded from exercising logic. Its no different than an "intellectual" leftist, very pro-"woman's issues" was totally mute with Clinton and his sex crimes and abuse of women.

Personally, I see your discussion with the anti-Zionist as an offshoot of a very old argument, -- the Platonists vs the Aristotleans. Aristotle taught that man was born in a vacuum, that his personality is the result of environmental factors. Put a man in a bad environment and he’ll fail. Plato taught the opposite: man is a function of his soul. That the soul is an independent being from the physical body. Put a powerful soul in a man born in a poor environment and he will succeed on his own.

Soul vs Environment is a simplistic way of categorizing the differences between the two, but the left adamantly refuses to consider the concept of a soul – or that a person can pre-disposed to commit a crime. The concept of “sexual predator” for example is an anathema to the left. The concept that a group of bad souls can gather, plot “evil” (another judgmental word hated by the left) and commit destruction is simply not possible. These bad deeds can only happen because of environment of the “bad” people. And the environment of the “bad” people is controlled by the Israelis, therefore its all the fault of the Israelis. This Romantic notion of the Noble Terrorist is nothing more than a re-hash of Rousseau’s Noble Savage ideas (which I see as a romanized version of Aristoleanism).

For me, that logic is too torturous. Until a person is willing to make this kind of discussion outside the realm of their own prejudices, there is no point with the discussion. Your friend should visit the philosophy section of the local library and start reading – unless he’s afraid that works by great thinkers will cause him to doubt his own narrow arguments.

[Alouette]

Israel had a substantial Jewish majority at its founding in 1948. It may not in 2048.

The Israeli government is not helping matters by importing huge crowds of non-Jewish Slavic Russians and pretending they are "grandchildren of Jews"

[abu afak]

Thank you Risk for the Articles and position.

I see I'm a Year late in responding, but stumbled across the string while doing a search.

Your argument would be bolstered greatly if it was not just based on "1948", The Holocuast" and the "Sudden appearance" of the Jews.

The Jews were the Greatest constituent of the Population of palces like Jerusalem sice the 1840's. (LINKS AVAILABLE)
They did not just suddenly appear in the 1930s and 1940's, tho the numbers did swell during/post WWII.

The Jews wre promised a State by the British and UN Predecessor the League of Nations:

""""""Largely as a result of Britain's victories over the Ottoman Turks, more than ten million Arabs were liberated from Turkish rule. The total area of Arab lands in (now Saudi) Arabia was 1,184,000 square miles. Palestine, the only portion of former Ottoman territory that was set aside for a Jewish national home, covered less than 11,000 square miles! Besides his infamous 1917 declaration, Arthur Balfour on July 12, 1920 reminded the Arabs:

""''"So far as the Arabs are concerned, I hope that they will remember that it is we who have established an independent Arab sovereignty of the Hedjaz. I hope that they will remember it is we who desire in Mesopotamia to prepare the way for the future of a self-governing, autonomous Arab State, and I hope that, remembering all that, they will not grudge that a small notch - for it is no more than that geographically, whatever it may be historically - that small notch in what are now Arab territories being given to the people who for all these hundreds of years have been separated from it." """"""""

http://user.dtcc.edu/~berlin/palestin/history.htm

So 'risk' your argument really lacked an historical perspective of the land and it's political history, weakening the Jewish claim by suggesting it was New in 1948/solely based on the Holocuast.

Thank you.

abu afak

[risk]

Thank you. I'll take a look at Palestine Coins and Banknotes - History of Palestine.

[abu afak]

ALSO THESE:

The Growth of Jerusalem

... . Jews Muslims Christians Total
1838 6,000 5,000 3,000 14,000
1844 7,120 5,760 3,390 16,270 ...1st Offical Ottoman Census
1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030 .... 2nd...
1905 40,000 8,000 10,900 58,900 ...3rd and detailed in Link Below
1948 99,320 36,680 31,300 167,300
1990 353,200 124,200 14,000 491,400
1992 385,000 150,000 15,000 550,000

http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm


OR ... (Catholic Encyclopedia)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08364a.htm

""...Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. The total population is estimated at 66,000.
The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures:
Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000; Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly half the present population...""