Posted on 12/21/2001 7:40:52 AM PST by BenF
The reason is that leftist ideology is not based on reason or experience but is a religion in itself with roots in a pathological character structure that is prevalent among leftists. Interestingly, the Bible's Ecclesiastes warned against this very warped human character when he urged, "Be not over righteous or wise over much, for why woulds't thou destroy thyself?" The persons addressed are those who crave to exalt themselves as mentally and morally superior to those around them and to see as proof of this their secular doctrines of the universalistic nature of good in the hearts of all, including the Arabs that embrace terrorism and would destroy Israel without a pang of guilt. From this mental pathology springs the fanatic leftist program of coddling savage enemies to draw out "their good."
I thought this might apply to the Democrats and other "liberals" within American society as well as the leftist Israelis. It could explain much.
Please help me understand why the leftists Jews would have "anti-Jewish policies". My sister and her husband are both left-leaning Jews and I would like to be informed on the issue. Thanks.
Exchange of Populations
For every refugee - adult or child - in Syria, Lebanon, or elsewhere in the Arab
world who compels our sympathy, there is a Jewish refugee who fled from the
Arab country of his birth. For every Arab who moved to neighboring lands, a Jew
was forced to flee from a community where he and his ancestors may have lived
for two thousand years. The Jews escaped to their original homeland, where
their roots are even older; the Arabs also arrived where they were in the majority,
where they shared the same language and culture with fellow Arabs, and often
only a few dozen miles from their places of origin.
An exchange of populations has in actuality taken place and been
consummated; by coincidence, even the total number of Arabs who reportedly
left Israel is almost exactly equaled by the number of Jews exchanged. There
has been a completed exchange of minorities between the Arabs and the Jews,
and a more-than-even tradeoff of property for the Arabs. The Jews who fled
Arab countries left assets behind in the Arab world greater than those the Arabs
left in Israel.1 Jewish property that the Arabs confiscated in Iraq, Syria, Libya,
and Egypt apparently has more than offset Arab claims of compensation from
Israel. In fact, the concept of an "exchange of Arab and Jewish populations" was
introduced by an Arab leader as a solution to the "disturbances" in the Middle
East long before Israel or the actual exchange came about. In 1939, Mojli Amin,
a member of the Arab Defense Committee for Palestine, drew up a proposal,
published in Damascus and distributed among Arab leaders, entitled
"Exchange of Populations." Amin proposed that
all the Arabs of Palestine shall leave and be divided up among the
neighboring Arab countries. In exchange for this, all the Jews living in
Arab countries will go to Palestine....
The exchange of populations should be carried out in the same way
thar Turkey and Greece exchanged their populations. Special
committees must be set up to deal with the liquidation of Jewish and
Arab property....
I fear, in truth, that the Arabs will not agree.... But in spite of this, I
take upon myself the task of convincing them ....2
At least a decade before the 1947 resolution to partition Palestine into a Jewish
and an Arab state, the British had proposed the exchange,of "Arab population in
Palestine" for Jews elsewhere."3 In 1945 Herbert Hoover stated that "The Arab
population of Palestine would be the gainer from better lands in exchange for
their present holdings. Iraq would be the gainer, for it badly needs agricultural
population. Today millions of people are being moved from one land to another."
Therefore, Hoover suggested "financing" Iraq to "complete" the population
transfer with greater facility.4
From the time Israel attained modem statehood, independent humanitarian
pleas attempted to reveal the actualities of all the "Middle East refugees" and to
spotlight the potential permanent relief. One example was clergyman Carl
Hermann Voss, who hoped through his books to change the world's faulty
perception. He wrote,
Some appeals for aid have implied that there is only an Arab
refugee problem, enabling Arab propagandists to blame the Arab
refugee plight on Israel. If proper attention is called to both Jewish
and Arab refugee problems, much ill-will may be avoided and
genuine human need, regardless of race or creed, will be served.5
1.Maurice Roumani, The Case ofthe Jewsfrom Arab Countries. A NeglectedIssue, with Deborah
Goldman and Helene Korn, vol. 1, World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries (WOJAC),
Jerusalem, 1975, p. 82.
2.Transmission from Damascus, political agent, Political Department of the Jewish Agency, to
Elialm Sasson, Political Department, Palestine, May 16, 1939 (from the English translation),
CZA-525/5630 (Central Zionist Archives).
3. For example, see Permanent Mandates Commission, Minutes of the 32nd Session, pp.
111-118; particularly August 13, 1937: Lord William Ormsby Gore advocated the transfer of the
Arab population of Palestine, who "had not hitherto regarded themselves as 'Palestinians' but
as part of Syria as a whole, as part of the Arab world. ... They would be going only a
comparatively few miles away to a people with the same language, the same civilisation, the
same religion . . . " cited by Martin Gilbert, Exile and Return: The Strugglefor a Jewish
Homeland (Philadelphia and New York: J.B. Lippincott, 1978), p. 185. Also see reactions to
Ormsby Gore, PRO FO, 371/E71 34/976/31, minute, E.W. Rendel, December 8, 1937:
According to British Foreign Office official Rendel, the transfer of "the Arab population from the
Jewish state ... seems clearly to have been regarded as a matter of enforcement by his
Majesty's Government," judging from Lord Ormsby Gore's statements in the cabinet and his
interview in the Jewish Chronicle of August 13, 1937. Rendel feared it would "be very difficult to
answer the Saudi Minister's inquiry." In 1944, the British Labor Party officially endorsed the
proposed transfer of Palestinian Arabs to Arab countries, and a year later the British
Commonwealth passed a similar resolution. Schectman, European Population Transfers
1939-1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1946), p. 457.
4. Interview, New York World Telegram, November 19, 1945.
5.Carl Hermann Voss, The Palestine Problem Today: Israel and Its Neighbors (Boston: Beacon
Press, 1953), p. 36.
This page was produced by Joseph E. Katz
Middle Eastern Political and Religious History Analyst
Brooklyn, New York
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/exchange.html
It was the leftists that had their own staged plan for Israel's incremental surrenders to Arafat. The leftists colluded with these Arab enemies for the purpose of destroying Jewish Israel and discrediting any semblance of leadership that professed Jewish roots.
I dunno... this sounds more like conspiracy quackery to me. The left, I think, was hooked on the "land for peace" promise, and was willing to sacrifice the religious settlements to get it. To say that they colluded with the Arabs with the goal of destroying the settlements is, frankly, hooey.
Be not over righteous or wise over much, for why woulds't thou destroy thyself?"
Why wouldn't this sentence apply to those advocating transfer? It seems that if Israel were to unilaterally embark on a forcible transfer of the Palestinians, they would cut themselves off from most of the world. Perhaps even the USA. It is a high stakes game of chicken that could cause her own demise.
Isreal could possibly survive such rebuke. But the loss of it's trading partners & tourism and other important industries would severely alter their way of life. Perhaps this is the only way for the nation to survive, but I am not sure it is. It could create a wider regional war that could destory Israel.
You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I have to agree with the author on this one. The hatred of the leftist Jews towards the "settlers" and the religious Jews borders on the fanatic. I have heard horror stories. For example, a religious school opening up in a mostly secular neighborhood reported instances of secular adults throwing objects at religious children walking to school. Is this believeable? Having had some experience with leftist American Jews, I would have to say it is.
Because they hate Judaism and what it represents, i.e., law, responsibility, accountability, and a moral code that they find loathsome.
As I said above, I am not necesarily in agreement with the transfer idea either. The reasons you mention below are some of the practical objections. There are moral objections as well.
What I found interesting was his take on the leftists. I think that's very accurate.
The time for transfer in a peaceful sense has passed by. Noted in the above exerpt I posted was legitimate discussion from all parties, including Arab, that transfer was the most feasible solution. The Yishuv and then the state of Israel did not have the military means to a enact transfer process in the war of independence.
Clearly, transfer was not something the Pan Arabists and guys like the Grand Mufti supported. The only transfer these supported was the transfer of Jews out of the Mandate or their dhimmization and a moratorium on further Jewish immigration. The Arab world, contrary to the processes which shaped the Islamic-Hindu transfers in Asia, purposed to continue using the Arabs in the Mandate to further their Pan Arabism and extinguishing the Jewish state.
It would take nothing less now, then a full-scale war declared by the Arab states against Israel to cause a major shift in population by the Arabs from Judea and Samaria to Arab countries. The Pan Arabists will never allow a peaceful transfer and Israel would never forcefully transfer in "peacetime" (if we can refer to the Intifada as "peacetime").
The other process, is that if the Arab States and Arab people will not conclude peace with Israel then Israel should try to win the demographic process and continue to build settlements slicing up Judea and Samaria further and further.
fyi/bttt
Yep!
To be blunt, it ain't gonna happen.
If the transfers wouldn't have happened it would have resulted in endless bloodshed with multiplied millions more. Simple math.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.