From: perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman)
Subject: Re: Israel's peace talks with Syria
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 19:40:14 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.173303.28116@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wmuhanna@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Waleed A Muhanna) writes:
>In article <1992Sep13.182203.17358@discus.technion.ac.il> davidba@carmel.technion.ac.il (David Ben_Ami) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep11.215207.18191@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wmuhanna@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Waleed A Muhanna) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep11.174905.11245@cs.brown.edu> hm@cs.brown.edu (Harry Mamaysky) writes:
>>...
>>>>When Israel has launched attacks against Arab targets it has
>>>>*ALWAYS* done so either in retaliation for past Arab terrorist activity, or
>>>>(as in the case of the Six Day vistory) to insure a strategic advantage in an
>>>>inevitable conflict.
>>>
>>>Hogwash.  Expansionism and colonization ranked high among its motivations,
>>>and sadly it still does today.  Zionists, since Hertzl, make no secret
>>>about this. Ben-Gurion's conception was that "a Jewish state...will serve
>>>as an important and decisive stage in the realization of Zionism," but only
>>>a *stage*: the borders of the state "will not be fixed for eternity,"
>>>but will expand either by agreement with the Arabs "or by some other
>>>way," once "we have force at our disposal" in a Jewish State.  His
>>>long-term vision included Jordan and beyond, sometimes even
>>>"the Land of Israel" from the Nile to the Euphrates.
>>>
>>>As early as 1938, Ben-Gurion had told a Zionist meeting: "I favor partition of
>>>the country because when we become strong power after the establishment
>>>of the state, we will abolish partition and spread throughout all of
>>>Palestine."
>>>
>>>Likud's platform includes the *East* bank of the Jordan river as part of
>>>Israel.  Don't tell me that this is for defensive reasons too.
>>
>>Well, The Jewish people is claiming the whole of Palestine from the
>>early days of Zionism We claim it not only for the current inhabitants
>>but for the whole 13 millions Jews of the world. This is the foundation
>>of Zionism. 
>
>Thanks for supporting what I said.  Not surprisingly, however, you failed 
>to mention one crucial detail: Palestine is already inhabited.  
>``There is one fact which zionists dare not avert their eyes, though they 
>seldom like to face.  Palestine proper has already its inhabitants,'' wrote 
>Israel Zangwill in 1920.   Zionists wish this fact would just go away, which
>partly explains their pathelogical denials of the Palestinians as the 
>native people.  

Of course, Waleed knows this is false, and ignores a huge body of
evidence to the contrary.  Ben-Gurion, for example, thought about the
subject quite extensively (see Shabtai Teveth's work, Ben-Gurion and the
Palestinian Arabs), and there are many other examples.

>The territory in question, Palestine, had a large majority of non-Jews prior 
>to the creation of the zionist state.  This is what makes zionism colonial.

Oh, so in defining it as such you make no reference to the fact that
we Jews were thrown out of Israel by an undoubtedly colonial empire, the
Roman Empire?  That's called a double standard, but we're used to it
from you by now, Waleed.  That makes zionism by definition not only
non-colonial, but anti-colonial.

>If you believe that it was justified to create an exclusivist Jewish state 
>in Palestine at the expense of the indigenous inhabitants, a view which is 
>common to virtually all known strains of zionism, 

You're really a laugh, Waleed.  The fact is that this belief is shared
by very few strains of zionism.  This has been discussed on this net
before, and Waleed has not shown up well in that debate.

>then your views are 
>inherently colonial and possibly racist even if you don't acknowledge them 
>as such.

Since his premise is false, the conclusion is also inapplicable.

>To say that Israelis today, both Jews and non-Jews, have a right to a 
>non-exclusivist state in which *all* have equal rights is a defensible 
>position, one which I wholeheartedly support. 

Of course, this is the situation for which the Israel, in its declaration of
independence, declared it was aiming for, and which Israel approaches far
closer than any other state in the region.

> To say that Jews from all 
>over the world have the right to emigrate to an exclusivist state in 
>Palestine, to settle on land acquired via conquest and "ethnic cleansing"
>or confiscated from subjugated natives, is not defensible from any position 
>of justice, morality, or even political pragmatism.  

Of course, Israel was not acquired through subjugation and/or "ethnic
cleansing."  We've been over that in this forum as well.  Nor was Israel
the aggressor, or aiming for conquest, in 1948 or 1967. 
 
> To say that colonizers 
>deserve special exclusive privilages (such as the right to "return", land 
>tenure advantages, job advantages, much better state funding, etc) over 
>the indigenous inhabitants is racist and colonial.  As you readily admit,
>this is a central tenent of zionism, and this is what makes it a settler 
>colonialist movement (just like the Apartheid movement in South Africa).

Waleed, you're a laugh a minute.  There's nothing racist or colonial
about the law of return.

Rest deleted. 

-- 
"How sad to see/A model of decorum and tranquillity/become like any other sport
A battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee." -Tim Rice,"Chess"
     Eric S. Perlman 				 <perlman@qso.colorado.edu> 
  Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, University of Colorado, Boulder
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast