Helen Thomas Retires Effective Immediately

[Mark Stapleton]

Gandhi also thought the Czechs would do best to sacrifice themselves before the onslaught of the Third Reich and Einstein wasn't much interested in politics, but did enjoy Yiddish music from what I hear.

Yes but Ghandi was still opposed to the formation of the Jewish State, regardless of whatever else he advocated.

The Zionists tried to change his mind--to no avail.

[Mark Stapleton]

I reject the idea that Israel is illegitimate because it is an "artificial state."

I never claimed Israel is illegitimate because it is an artificial state. I believe the creation of Israel was a disastrous and costly mistake that was set to fail from the start. You're way off beam there.

[Mark Stapleton]

And Sir Bacon's New Atlantis, the Hudson's Bay, Massachusetts and all the other corporations in North America? Please name me one "organic" state. I can counter that every state is an artificial construct. The UN also had little to do with it. The forces of Zionism assembled before the UN was even created. Ben-Gurion made his unilateral declaration of independence before the UN had a chance to declare a two-state formula. From the Zionist perspective they didn't get the UN the satisfaction of co-opting their movement toward a new state.

Ben-Gurion and his supporters were actually a bit disappointed with the partition deal, although it was generous considering they were outnumbered in the region by the Arabs and Christians. They knew they could take more land by force later.

I know BG declared unilaterally but the partition deal gave him the foot in the door he needed. As you say, it was the product of 70 odd years of Zionist activism which predated the UN and the League of Nations.

[Magda Hassan]

[You are being selective about how far to look back. Jews lived in that area long before the UN. Jews and Arabs always lived together and always fought.

My point exactly. Jews and Arabs have always fought. So why plonk a new Jewish state into the middle of an Arab neighbourhood? It's asking for trouble.

And I'm not being selective about how far I'm looking back. Perhaps you are.

Did you ever read the Bible or a history book? That's where the ancient tribes of Israel ended up. Muslims invaded Jewish territory and built their monuments on the destroyed remains of Jewish monuments. The Jews were already there when the Romans conquered the entire area and kicked them out. Islam was a late-comer in 610.


Maybe the whole point of plonking Israel down in the midst of the Arabs was to stir up trouble.

I wouldn't be surprised to find it was just to cause trouble. The divide and rule concept has worked brilliantly for the Brits particularly and Israel was primarily their creation after all. As are so many other places of conflict because of their mapmakers dividing up the globe to plunder. Plonking a European outpost in the middle of a bunch of Arabs you had just lied to and cheated was bound to cause some trouble. It was also just a way of warehousing the Jews left destitute, angry, homeless and broken after the holocaust rather than dealing with the consequences within Europe, though many of the refugees were very pleased to see the back end of 'civilised' Europe, understandably Most still wanted to go to the US, Canada and other places. But I don't think the creation of Israel has benefited Jewery in the long run because of its illegitimate beginnings and it still lets Europe off the hook and drags an innocent party into the morass. It never had the support of the Rabbis. When presented with the option of Palestine as a Jewish homeland by Hertzl they said something like "The bride is very beautiful but she is already taken by another man".

The Palestinians were there when the Israeli tribes and the Romans arrived. Muslims did not invade Jewish territory. They invaded Christian territory. The Jews were long gone. Or converted. Just because the ancient tribes of Israel ended up there at some point during their nomadic travel, and they were nomads like many other tribes in the area, that does not mean they have automatic rights to it 2,000 years later. The tribes of Israel also ended up in many other places, Babylon, Egypt, India, Spain, Poland, Lithuania. Does that give them rights to these places now? The Romans were in Britain and France and Palestine as well. Does that make it okay for Italy to reclaim them? The Romans married and had children with the locals and their descendants have lived there continuously as well. While there may have been some Jewish presence in the area all the time for much of that time it was sometimes just a few families as was chronicled by the Christian pilgrims. While in other places the Jewish community thrived in the millions. It was the Palestinians who have had continuous occupation of the area and had no diaspora until now when they were chased out by the Israeli terrorists and military (and let down by the Arab states).

You don't base foreign policy on a book as dodgy as the bible. It is not an historical record but a mish mash of myths, fairy tales and proscriptions. Nor do you base foreign policy on so called bible prophecy.

Most Jews do not want do live there anyway. There are more outside Israel than inside. A good chunk of those that do live there don't want to live there either but are stuck there. It is a pretty miserable existence for many Israelis though better by far than a Palestinian refugee camp. Certainly the wealthy Jews sure don't live there permanently. In my discussions with representatives of the PLO years ago it was understood and accepted that the Jews are not leaving and that there was nowhere for them to go. It is a reality the Palestinians are prepared to live with. There is much compassion for what happened to the European Jews. But what Palestinians are not prepared to put up with is the status quo. They want their own state. They have been promised their own state, first by the British, who lied and cheated them, then through the UN, who have never really come through in any meaningful way. The debate now is whether it is a one state or two state solution. I can't see the two state scenario getting off the ground even if worth having as it is not by the looks of it. Given time the birth rate of Israeli Palestinians they will out number that of Israeli Jews in the not too distant future, but whether there is still a Jewish state left by then I can't say. It needs the support of the US militarily and the Jewish dispora morally (and financially) and there are now plenty of Jews in the diaspora having doubts about continued support. It may yet go the way of US occupation of Vietnam when it was the US soldiers themselves, not just the Viet cong resistance, who refused to fight any more and the costs of continuation outweighed the gains of quitting.

I wouldn't say that Jews and Arabs have always fought. At least until the creation of Israel. There is nothing particularly pathological about either group in that respect. Jews lived for centuries in African, Turkish, Arab and Muslim lands and though less than perfect or equal to the indigenous or ruling group it was on the whole much more peaceful than the European and Christian experience of pogroms and the holocaust. Iran still has the largest Jewish community outside Israel and the US. Most of the Sephardi would have continued on living in their ancestral homes but for the confiscation of Palestinian lands and homes in the creation of the state of Israel and the driving out of Palestinians from their homes during subsequent wars against Arab neighbours caused many to turn on their Jewish residents in these countries. With their farms, business and homes confiscated or destroyed and Israel offering transport and safety and accommodation many left to live in Israel where they continue to be second class citizens.

[Magda Hassan]

Love that map Mark!
Hey, the Egyptians were there before the Israelites and I'm sure their god/s told them that all the land as theirs too.

[Helen Reyes]

You can if you try! And also with the Boer trek in South Africa.

Not even if you try.

Here you go: all modern humans originated in Africa. Thus the boer trekkers were returning to their ancestral homeland, as the Jews did in Israel. The difference is 2,000 years vs. oh let's call it 2 million just for the sake of a round number. But in the lifetime of an individual, is there a difference between 20 generations ago and 2,000 generations ago? Of course not.

[Helen Reyes]

Gandhi also thought the Czechs would do best to sacrifice themselves before the onslaught of the Third Reich and Einstein wasn't much interested in politics, but did enjoy Yiddish music from what I hear.

Yes but Ghandi was still opposed to the formation of the Jewish State, regardless of whatever else he advocated.

The Zionists tried to change his mind--to no avail.

Gandhi was arguing for the rights of Muslims in the Dar el Salaam for political reasons, to placate the Mulsim minority and separatists inside British India in order to create preconditions for a more unified state, and to draw Islamic activism against British colonialism to his side.

[Helen Reyes]

I reject the idea that Israel is illegitimate because it is an "artificial state."

I never claimed Israel is illegitimate because it is an artificial state. I believe the creation of Israel was a disastrous and costly mistake that was set to fail from the start. You're way off beam there.

Two things:

1) I never said "I reject Mark's idea that...", I said I reject the idea that some states are not artificial.

2) You called the UN partition plan for Palestine an "artificial construct" as if the borders of the other states in the Middle East drawn up by the colonial powers were somehow more natural. I challenge the idea that the failure was due to some "artificiality."

[Helen Reyes]

And Sir Bacon's New Atlantis, the Hudson's Bay, Massachusetts and all the other corporations in North America? Please name me one "organic" state. I can counter that every state is an artificial construct. The UN also had little to do with it. The forces of Zionism assembled before the UN was even created. Ben-Gurion made his unilateral declaration of independence before the UN had a chance to declare a two-state formula. From the Zionist perspective they didn't get the UN the satisfaction of co-opting their movement toward a new state.

Ben-Gurion and his supporters were actually a bit disappointed with the partition deal, although it was generous considering they were outnumbered in the region by the Arabs and Christians. They knew they could take more land by force later.

I know BG declared unilaterally but the partition deal gave him the foot in the door he needed. As you say, it was the product of 70 odd years of Zionist activism which predated the UN and the League of Nations.

Right. Again, it's a fine point: any sovereignty "granted" by an entity can be withdrawn by that same entity. It wasn't the UN partition deal that was the Zionists' foot in the door, it was the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the British Mandate under the League of Nations and settlers already on the ground during the period of Ottoman rule.

I'm not sure how much force entered into the picture in the early days. I haven't made a good study of the Jewish immigration to Palestine but from what I've gathered the first real center was created by buying up land north of Joffa which later became Tel Aviv.

Was contemporary Zionism allergically opposed to Jerusalem's status as an international city? I don't know.

[Helen Reyes]

Love that map Mark!
Hey, the Egyptians were there before the Israelites and I'm sure their god/s told them that all the land as theirs too.

Phoneicians, Moabites, Caananites... After the Babylonian exile the Jews who returned from Babylon most likely thought the Jews left in Palestine were not Jews but some kind of natives. This has probably happened over and over again, as new orthodoxies aka clubs with exclusive memberships come and go.

I realized you are probably Palestinian, Magda. Is that correct? I was interested by what you said about Palestinians being there before the Jews. Of course there is no one answer, but how do you perceive the origins of the Palestinian people? Do you identify them with one or another of the ancient peoples in the area, or with the Greeks from Cyprus, or another group? I'm really curious and don't have an ax to grind on this issue. My own thoughts run toward the Greek but with a strange conundrum, that the Palestinians today are probably genetically more Jewish than the majority of the Jews in Israel, and not because of the Christian Identity nonsense about Khazarian Jews, which is false, the Khazarians were a very small group and genetically isolated for the most part from the Ashkenazim, but simply because of normal dillution over time in the European environment, just as many African Americans are more European than African, in the genetic sense. Which has little to do with people's self-identification of course, which is a product of the human imagination, and the human imagination to my mind is worthy of the greatest respect, much more than accidents of birth and genetic descent. I am probably a minority of one in this belief but I would love to hear your take on Palestinian origins.