h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Israel might well be a racist state, but that does not make it a fascist state. I got me a posting I did on fascism somewhere here, I'll try and seek it out. Fascism is a worked-out political ideology believing in Superiority and Realism - it is not necessarily racist

Zagreb

I didn't have a problem with the posting by Flinch. I was mildly annoyed when it was taken off. I read it, but didn't see anything all that offensive.

I agree; it should be returned.

It's the totalitarian nature of their oppression of both Palestinians and leftist Israeli groups that makes me use that phrase as much as anything.

Flinch, I have to agree that in my opinion Israel is a totalitarian state, tho' one does feel guilty saying so, whether or not one ought to...

When the first notions of zionism were put to the British government under whose protectorate Palestine fell at the time they issued the Balfor Declaration which stated that they would not oppose the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, but voiced concernes for the civil and religious rights of the natives, and instisted that ensuring the liberties of Palestinians must be paramount. But in the event neither Britian nor the US were prepared to see the declarations implememntation.

When Israel declared control of Palestine and it's Arab neighbours stepped in to defend Palestinian rights they were immediately branded as Nazi's, and the terror that had haunted the jewish people for the previous couple of decades was used as a tool to demonise the Arabs and polarise popular consenus against them.

I quote from Julian Barnes (1989):

"The Jews learned at the hands of the Nazis that the only way to survive was to be like Nazis. Their militarism, expantionism, racism. The pre-emptive strike on the Egyptian air force at the begining of the Six Day War being the moral equivalent of Pearl Harbour. The camps. The theft of land. The artificial support of the Israeli economy by the dollar. The attrocities commited against the dispossessed. The Arabs only asking from the western powers the same justice in the middle east as had already been accorded to the Jews. The regretable violence, a lesson taught the Arabs by the Jews, just as it had been taught the Jews by the Nazis."

It's a painful and unpleasant senario, but one which is all too true.

About the Israeli/Palestenian conflict.

Could it be that just as a victim of, say, child abuse, can grow to be the abusing part, so can a people grow to inflict it´s own wounds on another people?

Just a thought.

Promises, promises ; who learns lessons from whom.

It was only after WW1, at the Paris Peace Conference, that the name "Palestine"was applied to a clearly defined piece of territory. This area to-day comprises Israel and Jordan.

It was agreed by ALL CONCERNED PARTIES that "Palestine"was to become a League of Nations Mandate, entrusted to Great Britain. Under the terms of the Mandate, Britain's principal obligation was to facilitate the implementation of the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917, which pledged "the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people."

No territorial restrictions whatsoever, neither East nor West of the Jordan River were placed on the Jewish National Home. In fact, the Mandate stipulated: "his Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object."

In July 1922, the British divided Palestine into two administrative districts, East and West of the River Jordan. Jews would be permitted only west of the Jordan.

In spite of the determination of the League of Nations (Later the United Nations) and the Balfour Declaration, Britain gave 78% of the Land of Israel to its Arab friends.

The Eastern region became know as "transjordan". The British installed a Hashemite ruler named Abdullah, who had been expelled from the Arabian Peninsula.(Sound familiar?) By making this division the British reduced the area available for the Jewish National Home to only 22% of the entire area of Palestine.

In 1946 Britain unilaterally granted Transjordan its independence. With Transjordan's independence, the British had partitioned Palestine and created an independent Palestine-Arab State.

and the games began.....

Nice to read that Zev, sucsinct and clear. Do you have a fuller copy of the Balfor declaration? I can't seem to find anything but short quotes from it at all in any of my books. I guess i should look online shouldn't i, i always forget to do that.

On the Jews becoming Nazi's / Abused becoming abuser issue, it is perhaps ironic to quote Nietchze, but i will anyway:
"Battle not with monsters, least you should become a monster, and remember as you gaze into the abyss, that the abyss gazes back also."

Autist, as requested. Volumes have been written as a result of this simple letter.

The Balfour Declaration
November 2, 1917

During the First World War, British policy became gradually committed to the idea of establishing a Jewish home in Palestine (Eretz Yisrael). After discussions in the British Cabinet, and consultation with Zionist leaders, the decision was made known in the form of a letter by Arthur James Lord Balfour to Lord Rothschild. The letter represents the first political recognition of Zionist aims by a Great Power.


Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour

You are a star.

This was all pre-League of Nations though wasn't it? I thought they were a post war idea.

Eeeeh.... I had asked a pretty simple kinda straight question. We are waxing lyrical here.
To summarise again: the nation of Israel is "terrorising" (no pun intended) the Palestinians but the world dare not raise a finger coz the US are their allies? That death of a people is not actually important but to WHICH people? If I may quote Albright when asked about the 500,000 Iraqi kids who had died then "...it was a tough choice but we think it was worth it..."
So when millions die (someone mentioned Rwanda), there is no real cause for alarm, but when CERTAIN people die, then we all stop and mourn? Or isnt death no longer what it used to be? I like thinking of it as a robber, never knocking. Looks like thats a "romantic" view I have.
I hear here the UN is powerless, so why have it? And this veto thing, does it really make sense if one person constantly uses it while the rest (yes the whole dan rest) have voted the other way?
Maybe we deserve the "leaders" we have? Coz we keep silent when we can SEE bad happening but since its not to us, its not really that bad?
I have lots of questions, and I see very few answers. maybe I do but I dont want to "see"

I'm going to do what my granparents called talking from the side of my mouth. So this will kind of by seat of the pants talking here...take it with a grain of salt.


I think you've raised a point here that I agree with Ahmed.(I hope you are sitting down, course, nowhere is it written that we have to disagree all the time). The fact that we can decide who to be concerned about when they die is quite a failing. Death is an equal opportunity employer, however murder or war is not. These days it seems that we go to war whenever our interests (read oil/money) are infringed upon. This new "war" is different, but I'm not going to touch on that today. I don't really think America had any interests in Rwanda, thus we did very little. I'm not really totally sure why we went to Somalia, so I'll leave that alone, and as I think back, yep, the Croatia/Serbian mess didn't have much to do with oil so we sent aid there too. Gee guys I don't really know what to tell you about that, except that you have a point there Ahmed, why is it that we only go to war when it means something to us? Shouldn't death by civil unrest and wars somehow upset us enough to want to do something? But then on the other hand, a lot of Americans feel that since they don't even know where Rwanda is on a map, let alone where Croati/Serbia whatever the hell it is now, why should they send our boys to die there? That's a tough call. Somehow saying to a mother that her son had to die in some war cursed countryside because, " it was the right thing to do" seems a little to idealistic to most people. I wouldn't want to tell them that. Let alone fund the damn thing. Armies travel on their stomachs said Napolean, but they sure can't throw stones when they get there, the equipment is EXPENSIVE and it uses OIL. So CATCH-22. What would you do? I don't have a clue. I'm not afraid to go to war when someone attacks my country, but I'd have a hard time justifying going to war when someone doesn't even want me there, like Somalia. And then on the other-other hand, peace talks would be nice in many instances, but then why would I want to do that as the USA gov't when I'm hated for interfering? Damned if you do damned if you don't.

Bottom line it is pretty easy to criticise, there is much to point fingers at. It is really difficult to come up with a solution. And I for one haven't thought of one, I doubt anyone else has either. And if that doesn't make you lie awake at night I don't know what will.

No one? Have you read anything on this board? Did you notice the UN Conference on Racism? People point it out. Of course, they brought up silly stuff like repatriations along with it.

It's interesting to note, that we've used force in order to protect Muslim people several times over the last decade in Bosnia, Kuwait, there was another one that I forget.

If we were to deploy troops to every tragedy in the world, we'd be seriously over extended.

In my view, there are some people who are more important than others. If it was between saving my wife and any other two people on Earth, I'd save my wife. If it's between protecting American lives and Afghani lives, I choose Americans. I'm sworn to protect America, I'm not sworn to protect Afghanistan.

I don't trust the UN enough to not have that veto power. We fund something like a quarter of their operations. I think that kind of money deserves some input on how its spent.

Realistically, the veto power is to keep us from having the rest of the world from declaring war on the great and near great powers. What would have happened if a majority of the Security Counsel members voted to attack China for its human rights abuses.

Without their veto we might wind up in an unwinnable and extremely nasty war. Worse yet, what if the rest of the security counsel were to vote to go to war against the US. The UN is an extremely anti-US organization, but again, no one would win that war. We're probably the only country in the world with the power to destroy civilization, if not life on this planet through the use of nuclear arms.

Two Bit Trigger Pumping Moron
The strong take what they will; the weak endure what they must.

Ahmed, did Allbright really *say* that? Un-be-flipping-lievable! I am stunned by peoples' attitudes - the deaths of any number of people from any race/culture/nation matters! That's my view. We have noticed that on NZ/American TV (same thing here in NZ a lot of the time) that 1 American or NZ life is worth 10 foreign lives .. are all countries' media like that? BTW can anyone answer - is the Balfour Declaration and history of Israel/Palestine *the* reason Americans hate the British? An American did once tell me that was *his* reason... I always thought it was the War of Independence, that a lot of Americans were still carrying emotional baggage from 1776... That Americans do hate the 'Brits' is indisputable, watch any American movie or TV show - who are the villains? NZers obediently follow suit - look at shows as diverse as Xena and Shortland St.

A word of warning for our Yankee friends. Do NOT take a look at Shortland Street... or Neighbours.

It's only fair Looney, given the rubbish they send us

Correct me if i am wrong (probably no need to put that bit in ) but prior to the formation of Israel were they not looked on as being similar to what the Palestinians are now?

That view should be universal. What's the point of being in a group, if the group doesn’t place more value on your life then someone outside the group? Say the United States was in the mist of a drought, and we only had enough to feed ourselves. Still, there are people in the rest of the world who are used to receiving food aid from the United States. Who should we feed first? American nationals, or someone in another country.

I chose us. No offence, I'm sure you're perfectly nice people. I'm going to look to my family first, community second, country third, and the rest of the world when it affects my interests.

Of course, this is America, so the food is actually going to go to whoever can pay the most for it anyway.

Who hates the British? I didn't know we were supposed to hate them. I thought we idolized them for their traditions and cultured accents.

Since we have more than enough food to feed everyone in the world several times over already, I would hope that the aim in all cases could be to feed everyone in the world. That way, no matter which country or state happens to suffer a drought, everyone will eat. Which would have to be good, no?

Greed isn't good...

You can all stop arguing now...I've come up with the solution to all of our problems! Isn't that convenient for you? Well, not all of our problems, but I did have an epipheny last night. I was watching a story on Afghan women, and they were talking about how the only thing the Taliban lets the women do is raise children, but they are not even freely allowed to do that since they aren't allowed to teach them anything. Sons are taken from mothers at a very young age to go to school at a Taliban religious school. There they are brainwashed to believe radical religious stuff. But here's my point: When are boys taught to hate women? In school by the Taliban. More importantly, where are they taught to LOVE women? They aren't even allowed to love their mother! Many of them don't see another woman besides their mother until they are out of school! Imagine a nation of men where they have never known the affection of a woman...just a thought?

Della

Where is the world did you get that Americans hate the British or NZ?
Britain is the #1 tourist destination for American youth. It is like a right of passage. I think we admire the UK if anything. You should see the American woman fall for guys with British accents.

Australia and New Zealand if anything is view very similar to the US in its roots and how it was formed. I have never been but many people who have been to Australia say it's people and country are most like the US. (I know you hate to hear that but it has been spoken by many visitors to particularly Australia).

With that in mind I wonder where you got that notion from. TV, movies. Is it because the Brits are always viewed as smooth and charming?