Palestine - Israel.. You want the truth?

[Jenna]

I reckon there are many of us in the west who are happily ignorant of the reality of the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but should there be any who doubt the media driven, propaganda-centric views we are fed then please read this article.

It is far from new but its veracity is reinforced because of how it reveals the depravities of western-sponsored Israeli colonialism AND YET is written by a Jewish group, Jews for Justice in the Middle East. The historical roles of both the British and the Americans is nigh on despicable.

If you have some spare time and the stamina to read the pdf document then you owe it to yourself to get enlightened..
I hope this is of interest to someone out there.. then again..

http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html

Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna

 

[Sukerkin]

Hi Jenna

I've downloaded the pdf but not read it yet, so this is coming from a position of ignorance of it's contents.

Not so long ago, I dipped my toe into a thread on this subject and got my ears pinned back by some fairly vehement counter-arguments that, in essence, stated that my 'conventional' view, that the conflict was created and fueled by the Western Powers, was incorrect. The Arab nations have more than a fair share of the burden to bear it was put to me.

I confess that the exigences of normal working life have stopped me re-researching this topic, so I'm both hoping that this article will simplify things for me and also that a hint of criticism for Israel doesn't earn you a flamming.

 

[exile]

It is far from new but its veracity is reinforced because of how it reveals the depravities of western-sponsored Israeli colonialism AND YET is written by a Jewish group, Jews for Justice in the Middle East. http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html

Jenna, just remember that Karl Marx was Jewish, and wrote some of the most hateful pseudo-scientific anti-Semitism of the 19th century. I know a number of Jews in my field whose hostility to Israel is a direct reflection of a 1940s style party-line Stalinist doctrine on Jews, Judaism and the supposedly bourgeoise reactionary perspective on world politic taken by other Jews.

I think you need to perhaps get a more general perspective on the role of ideology in framing the issues of what is, in fact, a conflict among contending legitimate claims in the Middle East. Sounds to me, though, as though you've made up your mind already. So be it...

 

[Sukerkin]

Good points, Exile :tup:. I'd forgotten the fact that Marx was quite strongly anti-semitic (tho' generally from an anti-capitalist stance, if I remember rightly those dimly recalled lectures of nearly thirty years ago ).

 

[exile]

Good points, Exile :tup:. I'd forgotten the fact that Marx was quite strongly anti-semitic (tho' generally from an anti-capitalist stance, if I remember rightly those dimly recalled lectures of nearly thirty years ago ).

Yes, it's a bit troubling reading Marx talking about `the Jew', in much the same way as Jules Streicher and a good deal of subsequent hate literature of the 20th c. Marx's anti-Semitism, like that of many Stalinist/Stalinoid intellectuals, was predicated on the assumption—shared, ironically, with many right-wing hate groups of both the 19th c. and the 20th—that `Jews' ran the world economy. At the same time, there were a large number of right wing outfits whose hostility to the Jews was predicated on the claim that they were subversive, radical and commited to the destruction of—guess what?—respectable bourgeoise society; and what was the centerpiece of their argument? Why, that Karl Marx himself was Jewish!

So you see, as they say, you can't win for losing... :wink1:

 

[Sukerkin]

We need a smiley for 'shrugs shoulders in a Gallic fashion whist raising hand's and saying "Oi Vey!"' (apologies as I don't actually know how to spell that, only that that's what it sounds like :O).

 

[exile]

We need a smiley for 'shrugs shoulders in a Gallic fashion whist raising hand's and saying "Oi Vey!"' (apologies as I don't actually know how to spell that, only that that's what it sounds like :O).

:rofl:

Yup, we do!

 

[Jonathan Randall]

The truth is far more complicated than one side all good/the other side all bad. Both sides have their share of extremists who would work to (and have done so) torpedoe ANY compromise. To be frank, I don't feel like rehashing this debate one more time on an Internet forum - been there, done that, got the torn t-shirt.

 

[exile]

The truth is far more complicated than one side all good/the other side all bad. Both sides have their share of extremists who would work to (and have done so) torpedoe ANY compromise. To be frank, I don't feel like rehashing this debate one more time on an Internet forum - been there, done that, got the torn t-shirt.

Jonathan, you have my most heartfelt agreement on that. This is a tragic issue of enormous complexity... and you are dead right: the rejectionists on both sides love each other because each makes the other's work so much easier. Once again, you hit the nail on the head (much rep warranted when again deliverable). Really, can't we just go back to issues like whether the `art' part of Korean Martial Arts requires you to command a stock of at least 100 or so vocabulary items in Korean for the names of various techniques?

 

[Tez3]

Exile and Jonathan have both expressed my views succinctly.I can't download PDFs without my computer having a hissy fit but the title alone puts me off. If this subject is pursued I can see some vitriolic arguments ahead which frankly we don't need!
On the subject of using Korean (or Japanese) words how does one go about ensuring they are pronounced correctly?
No apologies for going off subject!

 

[tellner]

I've known plenty of self-hating Jews. Used to be one myself.

This thread can't go anywhere good. It would probably be best if the moderators deep-sixed it.

 

[Sukerkin]

I think we'd all reached that conclusion mutually. We'd had a look at the noted article, took an assessment of how 'hot' an argument about this could get and decided to leave it be .

Like Exile said, when one 'face' of the argument walks both sides of the street then the target has no chance of counter-argument (and my jesty following post was meant to agree (in a "resigned to a no-win situation" kind of way) rather than ridicule just to be clear).

I don't know that axing the thread would be a good idea - locking it so that it gradually sinks might be tho'.