I don't see how this cuts Shi'ite/Sunni. Most Palestinian Muslims are Sunni. The Egyptian Brotherhood in Egypt is Sunni and has been consistent in supporting the Palestinian cause. As is Shi'ite Iran and (mostly) Shi'ite Iran. The heart of the conflict in Palestine is between the Zionists and the Palestinians, both of which claim the same land and water resources.
I don't see how this cuts Shi'ite/Sunni. Most Palestinian Muslims are Sunni. The Egyptian Brotherhood in Egypt is Sunni and has been consistent in supporting the Palestinian cause. As is Shi'ite Iran and (mostly) Shi'ite Iran. The heart of the conflict in Palestine is between the Zionists and the Palestinians, both of which claim the same land and water resources.
The Palestinians are being used by Hamas. If Egypt is such a big supporter of the Palestinians, then explain why they’ve blockaded Gaza. This latest conflict is Iran using Hamas as a proxy to wage war because they (Iran, a Shi’a state) does not want Saudi Arabia, a Sunni state to gain any power in the ME.
If the Arab states cared so much about the Palestinians, they wouldn’t have exiled them and made them languish in camps for all this time. Israel’s hands are far from clean. Their actions in the West Bank are appalling and worthy of international condemnation.
Not all Palestinians support Hamas. Hamas rules over Gaza like a criminal gang and takes humanitarian aid for themselves, rather than using it to benefit the population of Gaza. Which Israel pulled out of in 2005.
Your use of the word, ‘Zionists’ is quite revealing, BTW.
I'll come directly to you. What do you know about Zionism?
Zi·on·ism
/ˈzīəˌnizəm/
noun
a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.
I wasn't lecturing you but sharing the meaning of Zionism because I couldn't understand why called Roger Evans an anti-Semite, and you didn't explain why. Why?
Ok, Maria. When I use the word "Zionist", I use it like Golda Meir (Great movie, by the way) used it about herself, and as I sometimes see it used on the comment threads of Ha'aretz. ("I speak as a proud Zionist"). I understand it to mean a Jew who believes in and supports a Jewish state in the land of Palestine. Not all Jews are Zionists of course, and not all the Jewish residents of Israel are Zionists - some say that Israel cannot be reborn before the Messiah comes. Do you seriously maintain that the name has no proper use? Or just that the Goyim shouldn't use it? The "Z" word, as it were?
We've all had a "bellyful" of anti-semitism and other forms of racism while growing up. Which is why I think it is unfortunate that you resort to a slur to attack me. This is no way to move the discussion forward.
When blacks were registering to vote in South during the struggle for Civil Rights, they were accused of being used as puppets by bad actors among the Yankees.
The situations are not analogous. Unless the use of the word puppet is misread to apply to every use of the word ever throughout history. I was talking about Hamas genocidal terrorists/cowards who attack others knowing return fire is the inevitable result then hide behind innocent Palestinians - Hamas terrorists who have historically withheld humanitarian aid from the Palestinians they purport to protect, then point to their suffering and blame Israel. Hamas terrorists who cut off the access of UN Aid workers helping the Palestinian people then blame Israel for the suffering. Who have time and again rejected and/or sabotaged a two state solution. Who are so dangerous that the Egyptians have blocked their access through Egypt. Who deny Israel’s right to exist and call for the extermination of all Jews. Who have continued to wage war and terrorist attacks for 75 years. Let me be clear that I deplore discrimination of any kind against any minority group: black, brown, asian, muslim, jew and anyone I may have left out. I am referring only to deplorable actions and deplorable tactics employed by Hamas and their supporters.
I don't disagree with most of what you write, Maria. Except the first sentence: that Palestinians are being used by Hamas (and the last sentence, too - but more about that further down in the thread). That is like saying the Irish are being used by the Irish Republican Army. I don't know enough about Hamas to say whether you are right about Hamas being a criminal gang and taking humanitarian aid for themselves. I've never met a member of Hamas to my knowledge. I do know they have offered Israel a 10 yr. cease fire to give some space for reconciliation, and were rejected. My reply to you has to do with your looking at the conflict in Palestine/Israel as a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. I think that is a profound and dangerous misunderstanding. These parties would be fighting with sticks and stones even if the U.S., Iran and Saudi Arabia were completely uninvolved. You don't have to go outside of the immediate area to find a bogeyman. And you can't understand the viciousness of the current attacks without first acknowledging the change in Israel that has happened since Netanyahu came back into power.
Hamas have appropriated humanitarian aid meant for the Palestinians in Gaza and used it for arms and munitions, rather than to build much-needed housing, supply food, hospitals, health care and job opportunities to the Palestinians. living there. They (Hamas) are a criminal gang of terrorists with one goal--the destruction of Israel.
Meanwhile, the head of Hamas is sitting in luxury in Qatar, far removed from danger and any action, barking out threats to kill hostages and civilians.
And, yes, this is a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, with the Palestinians caught in the middle. From the time of Partition in 1948, all of the Arab countries surrounding Israel expelled not only their Jews, but when the Palestinians living in what is now Israel fled, they were herded into camps because the Arab states assured them that Israel wouldn't last and they could easily go back home. The Palestinians have always been caught in the middle of the power struggles in the ME.
Not every Palestinian supports Hamas. They're often victims of Hamas, as well. Hamas is known for executing Palestinians they deem as insufficiently loyal to their cause.
I had a college professor for International Relations who was a Palestinian who was arrested multiple times by Israel and he and I had some very enlightening discussions; mostly about resistance. I, too, have been arrested by my country for resistance.
I am revolted by Netanyahu's actions in the West Bank and elsewhere and his continued grasping for power in the face of criminal investigations (sound familiar?). But what happened this weekend only put all that on hold.
If this were a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, you would hear Saudi Arabia condemning Hamas and Iran. Saudi Arabia would be sending help to Israel to crush the "Iranian puppets" in Gaza. But you won't find that. Here's what I picked up from a Fox News site:
"Saudi Arabia's foreign ministry in a statement soon after the attacks did not condemn Hamas. Instead, the ministry noted that it had repeatedly warned that Israel's 'occupation, the deprivation of the Palestinian people of their legitimate rights, and the repetition of systematic provocations' led to this moment.
White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby declined to comment on the Saudi response."
There's really not much daylight between Iran and Saudi Arabia when it comes to supporting Palestinian resistance. This is why the idea of a proxy war is so dangerous - it is the narrative of the Neocons in both U.S. parties who want a war with Iran. Such a war would be a disaster as much for Israel and the US as for Iran.
Roger, your use of the word "Zionists" is a dog whistle indicating that whatever Jews do to protect themselves is wrong. In actuality, Zionists tried to stay within the law and within the boundaries existing in Palestine in the early 20th century. They bought land from those who claimed to own it (maybe even vetted by the local British authorities). Those "owners" didn't bother to tell the migrant Palestinians who were already there, and a natural conflict arose. Arab leaders exploited this conflict after Israel was created while ignoring the Palestinians' basic human needs.
Then again, there is a huge problem with the modern Likud Party in Israel supporting expansion of Jewish settlements at the expense of Arab residents who have been there for generations. That faction is as cynical, self-serving, and cruel as the earlier Arab muftis that took Jews' money and let individuals sort it out themselves.
And what about Arafat's expulsion of over 700 Christian families from Ramalla? What about Arab countries' repeat invasions of Israel and then whining when Israel won territories in defensive war?
It's much more nuanced than two sides claiming the same land and water. It's really more like one side trying to live within its borders and the other side claiming its own land AND the other sides.
Your use of the word "Zionist" tells me you accept the sensational claims of what appears to be the underdog. That's like MAGA folk accepting Trump’s claim of victim hood. It's also a tired 1970's vintage argument of antisemites.
Jerry, I do not understand your reply to Roger Evans. Why is it a 'dog whistle'
to call people who live in Israel, support it and protect it Zionists? You have presupposed Roger's position, which he did not state. It was rather inflammatory to claim, as you did, 'Your use of the word "Zionist" tells me you accept the sensational claims of what appears to be the underdog. That's like MAGA folk accepting Trump’s claim of victim hood. It's also a tired 1970's vintage argument of antisemites.'
You did not query Roger to learn how accurate or not your opinion was of his views.
For an in-depth historical understanding, I have found The United Nation's 'Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: 1917-1947 (Part I)' worthwhile. The link is below.
Thanks, Fern. I note that when I use the "Z-word", it's a dog whistle, but when Jerry uses it in the very next sentence, it's "in actuality"- the subject of a historical fact :-)
Hello, Roger. I took the opportunity to look into what appears to be charged responses by some to the use of the word 'Zionists' and learned that it has been used as a slur, including, perhaps, by several officials in the UK. It led to them being rebuked and in a couple of instances other negative consequences as well. The apparent increase of antisemitism and attacks against Jews may be a part of the sensitivity about the use of language concerning Jews.
Thank you for your attention to my exchanges on the subject. I don't know if Jerry will reply to me, but if he does, I may excuse myself for intruding on his communication with you. I may encourage more conversation between the two of you.
That UN report lists a litany of complaints about the devious Jews and their British enablers and seems to express surprise that the Balfour Declaration was adopted as policy after all the complaints about it. No analysis or history FOR creation of a Jewish State was made. No mention of how the British tried to keep Jewish refugees out until after the end of WW2. There was no description of where Palestinians were .concentrated and their location to Jewish settlements. There was mention of land purchases for Jewish settlements, but not discussion of who sold them land and why the sellers might have flouted their supposed leaders' wishes.
One might say the battle is between Zionists and Palestinians. But it's more accurately between Israelis and their enemies. The first Zionists were early idealists with political connections. Later Zionists would have been the early pre WW2 settlers. Holocaust survivors were the next wave. We're past Zionism now. It succeeded in realizing the dream of a Jewish state. It's over. Don't define Israelis. They can do it just fine by themselves.
I don't see how this cuts Shi'ite/Sunni. Most Palestinian Muslims are Sunni. The Egyptian Brotherhood in Egypt is Sunni and has been consistent in supporting the Palestinian cause. As is Shi'ite Iran and (mostly) Shi'ite Iran. The heart of the conflict in Palestine is between the Zionists and the Palestinians, both of which claim the same land and water resources.
The Palestinians are being used by Hamas. If Egypt is such a big supporter of the Palestinians, then explain why they’ve blockaded Gaza. This latest conflict is Iran using Hamas as a proxy to wage war because they (Iran, a Shi’a state) does not want Saudi Arabia, a Sunni state to gain any power in the ME.
If the Arab states cared so much about the Palestinians, they wouldn’t have exiled them and made them languish in camps for all this time. Israel’s hands are far from clean. Their actions in the West Bank are appalling and worthy of international condemnation.
Not all Palestinians support Hamas. Hamas rules over Gaza like a criminal gang and takes humanitarian aid for themselves, rather than using it to benefit the population of Gaza. Which Israel pulled out of in 2005.
Your use of the word, ‘Zionists’ is quite revealing, BTW.
What does Roger Evans' use of Jewish movement members called 'Zionists' reveal to you Marla?
Plain and simple…he’s an anti-Semite.
But let him come here and respond to me directly.
I'll come directly to you. What do you know about Zionism?
Zi·on·ism
/ˈzīəˌnizəm/
noun
a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.
Don't need any lectures on Zionism, thanks. I am acutely aware what the word means and its origins, thanks.
I wasn't lecturing you but sharing the meaning of Zionism because I couldn't understand why called Roger Evans an anti-Semite, and you didn't explain why. Why?
I'm with Fern on this one.
Fern, good question.
Ok, Maria. When I use the word "Zionist", I use it like Golda Meir (Great movie, by the way) used it about herself, and as I sometimes see it used on the comment threads of Ha'aretz. ("I speak as a proud Zionist"). I understand it to mean a Jew who believes in and supports a Jewish state in the land of Palestine. Not all Jews are Zionists of course, and not all the Jewish residents of Israel are Zionists - some say that Israel cannot be reborn before the Messiah comes. Do you seriously maintain that the name has no proper use? Or just that the Goyim shouldn't use it? The "Z" word, as it were?
'Zionist' when used in this fashion, as in Palestinians and Zionists is a slur. The statement, 'in the land of Palestine' is a dead giveaway.
I may seem to be overly sensitive, but I had a bellyful of anti-Semitism growing up and I know it when I smell it.
BTW, Golda Meir or randoms in Ha'aretz using 'Zionist' is like Black people using the 'N' word. OK for them, for white people, not so much
We've all had a "bellyful" of anti-semitism and other forms of racism while growing up. Which is why I think it is unfortunate that you resort to a slur to attack me. This is no way to move the discussion forward.
I agree. The Palestinians are being used as puppets by the bad actors in the Islamic/Muslim world.
When blacks were registering to vote in South during the struggle for Civil Rights, they were accused of being used as puppets by bad actors among the Yankees.
The situations are not analogous. Unless the use of the word puppet is misread to apply to every use of the word ever throughout history. I was talking about Hamas genocidal terrorists/cowards who attack others knowing return fire is the inevitable result then hide behind innocent Palestinians - Hamas terrorists who have historically withheld humanitarian aid from the Palestinians they purport to protect, then point to their suffering and blame Israel. Hamas terrorists who cut off the access of UN Aid workers helping the Palestinian people then blame Israel for the suffering. Who have time and again rejected and/or sabotaged a two state solution. Who are so dangerous that the Egyptians have blocked their access through Egypt. Who deny Israel’s right to exist and call for the extermination of all Jews. Who have continued to wage war and terrorist attacks for 75 years. Let me be clear that I deplore discrimination of any kind against any minority group: black, brown, asian, muslim, jew and anyone I may have left out. I am referring only to deplorable actions and deplorable tactics employed by Hamas and their supporters.
I don't disagree with most of what you write, Maria. Except the first sentence: that Palestinians are being used by Hamas (and the last sentence, too - but more about that further down in the thread). That is like saying the Irish are being used by the Irish Republican Army. I don't know enough about Hamas to say whether you are right about Hamas being a criminal gang and taking humanitarian aid for themselves. I've never met a member of Hamas to my knowledge. I do know they have offered Israel a 10 yr. cease fire to give some space for reconciliation, and were rejected. My reply to you has to do with your looking at the conflict in Palestine/Israel as a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. I think that is a profound and dangerous misunderstanding. These parties would be fighting with sticks and stones even if the U.S., Iran and Saudi Arabia were completely uninvolved. You don't have to go outside of the immediate area to find a bogeyman. And you can't understand the viciousness of the current attacks without first acknowledging the change in Israel that has happened since Netanyahu came back into power.
Hamas have appropriated humanitarian aid meant for the Palestinians in Gaza and used it for arms and munitions, rather than to build much-needed housing, supply food, hospitals, health care and job opportunities to the Palestinians. living there. They (Hamas) are a criminal gang of terrorists with one goal--the destruction of Israel.
Meanwhile, the head of Hamas is sitting in luxury in Qatar, far removed from danger and any action, barking out threats to kill hostages and civilians.
And, yes, this is a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, with the Palestinians caught in the middle. From the time of Partition in 1948, all of the Arab countries surrounding Israel expelled not only their Jews, but when the Palestinians living in what is now Israel fled, they were herded into camps because the Arab states assured them that Israel wouldn't last and they could easily go back home. The Palestinians have always been caught in the middle of the power struggles in the ME.
Not every Palestinian supports Hamas. They're often victims of Hamas, as well. Hamas is known for executing Palestinians they deem as insufficiently loyal to their cause.
I had a college professor for International Relations who was a Palestinian who was arrested multiple times by Israel and he and I had some very enlightening discussions; mostly about resistance. I, too, have been arrested by my country for resistance.
I am revolted by Netanyahu's actions in the West Bank and elsewhere and his continued grasping for power in the face of criminal investigations (sound familiar?). But what happened this weekend only put all that on hold.
If this were a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, you would hear Saudi Arabia condemning Hamas and Iran. Saudi Arabia would be sending help to Israel to crush the "Iranian puppets" in Gaza. But you won't find that. Here's what I picked up from a Fox News site:
"Saudi Arabia's foreign ministry in a statement soon after the attacks did not condemn Hamas. Instead, the ministry noted that it had repeatedly warned that Israel's 'occupation, the deprivation of the Palestinian people of their legitimate rights, and the repetition of systematic provocations' led to this moment.
White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby declined to comment on the Saudi response."
There's really not much daylight between Iran and Saudi Arabia when it comes to supporting Palestinian resistance. This is why the idea of a proxy war is so dangerous - it is the narrative of the Neocons in both U.S. parties who want a war with Iran. Such a war would be a disaster as much for Israel and the US as for Iran.
Sounds so familiar, huh?
Roger, your use of the word "Zionists" is a dog whistle indicating that whatever Jews do to protect themselves is wrong. In actuality, Zionists tried to stay within the law and within the boundaries existing in Palestine in the early 20th century. They bought land from those who claimed to own it (maybe even vetted by the local British authorities). Those "owners" didn't bother to tell the migrant Palestinians who were already there, and a natural conflict arose. Arab leaders exploited this conflict after Israel was created while ignoring the Palestinians' basic human needs.
Then again, there is a huge problem with the modern Likud Party in Israel supporting expansion of Jewish settlements at the expense of Arab residents who have been there for generations. That faction is as cynical, self-serving, and cruel as the earlier Arab muftis that took Jews' money and let individuals sort it out themselves.
And what about Arafat's expulsion of over 700 Christian families from Ramalla? What about Arab countries' repeat invasions of Israel and then whining when Israel won territories in defensive war?
It's much more nuanced than two sides claiming the same land and water. It's really more like one side trying to live within its borders and the other side claiming its own land AND the other sides.
Your use of the word "Zionist" tells me you accept the sensational claims of what appears to be the underdog. That's like MAGA folk accepting Trump’s claim of victim hood. It's also a tired 1970's vintage argument of antisemites.
Jerry, I do not understand your reply to Roger Evans. Why is it a 'dog whistle'
to call people who live in Israel, support it and protect it Zionists? You have presupposed Roger's position, which he did not state. It was rather inflammatory to claim, as you did, 'Your use of the word "Zionist" tells me you accept the sensational claims of what appears to be the underdog. That's like MAGA folk accepting Trump’s claim of victim hood. It's also a tired 1970's vintage argument of antisemites.'
You did not query Roger to learn how accurate or not your opinion was of his views.
For an in-depth historical understanding, I have found The United Nation's 'Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: 1917-1947 (Part I)' worthwhile. The link is below.
https://www.un.org/unispal/history2/origins-and-evolution-of-the-palestine-problem/part-i-1917-1947/
Thanks, Fern. I note that when I use the "Z-word", it's a dog whistle, but when Jerry uses it in the very next sentence, it's "in actuality"- the subject of a historical fact :-)
Hello, Roger. I took the opportunity to look into what appears to be charged responses by some to the use of the word 'Zionists' and learned that it has been used as a slur, including, perhaps, by several officials in the UK. It led to them being rebuked and in a couple of instances other negative consequences as well. The apparent increase of antisemitism and attacks against Jews may be a part of the sensitivity about the use of language concerning Jews.
Thank you for your attention to my exchanges on the subject. I don't know if Jerry will reply to me, but if he does, I may excuse myself for intruding on his communication with you. I may encourage more conversation between the two of you.
Salud!
It's not a slur in Israel. But it wouldn't be the first time that the British think they know more about a former colony than its inhabitants.
No apology necessary! I felt protected.
That UN report lists a litany of complaints about the devious Jews and their British enablers and seems to express surprise that the Balfour Declaration was adopted as policy after all the complaints about it. No analysis or history FOR creation of a Jewish State was made. No mention of how the British tried to keep Jewish refugees out until after the end of WW2. There was no description of where Palestinians were .concentrated and their location to Jewish settlements. There was mention of land purchases for Jewish settlements, but not discussion of who sold them land and why the sellers might have flouted their supposed leaders' wishes.
One might say the battle is between Zionists and Palestinians. But it's more accurately between Israelis and their enemies. The first Zionists were early idealists with political connections. Later Zionists would have been the early pre WW2 settlers. Holocaust survivors were the next wave. We're past Zionism now. It succeeded in realizing the dream of a Jewish state. It's over. Don't define Israelis. They can do it just fine by themselves.