In article <1993Apr16.225910.16670@bnr.ca> zbib@bnr.ca writes: >Adam Shostack writes:  >> Sam Zbib writes >   >>I'm surprised that you don't consider the acquisition of land by >   >>the Jews from arabs, for the purpose of establishing an exclusive >   >>state, as a hostile action leading to war.  >>	It was for the purpose of establishing a state, not an >> exclusive state.  If the state was to be exclusive, it would not have >> 400 000 arab citizens.  >Could you please tell me what was the ethnic composition of  >Israel right after it was formed.   	100% Israeli citizens.  The ethnic composition depends on what you mean by formed.  What the UN deeded to Israel?  What it won in war?  >> 	And no, I do not consider the purchase of land a hostile >> action.  When someone wants to buy land, and someone else is willing >> to sell it, at a mutually agreeable price, then that is commerce.  It >> is not a hostile action leading to war.  >No one in his right mind would sell his freedom and dignity. >Palestinians are no exception. Perhaps you heard about >anti-trust in the business world.  	Were there anti-trust laws in place in mandatory Palestine? Since the answer is no, you're argument, while interestingly constructed, is irrelevant.  I will however, respond to a few points you assert in the course of talking about anti-trust laws.   >They were establishing a bridgehead for the European Jews.  	And those fleeing Arab lands, where Jews were second class citizens.   >Plus they paid fair market value, etc...  	Jews often paid far more than fair market value for the land they bought.  >They did not know they were victims of an international conspiracy.  	You know, Sam, when people start talking about an International Jewish conspiracy, its really begins to sound like anti-Semitic bull.  	The reason there is no conspiracy here is quite simple. Zionists made no bones about what was going on.  There were conferences, publications, etc, all talking about creating a National home for the Jews.  >>>Israel gave citizenship to the remaining arabs because it >>>had to maintain a democratic facade (to keep the western aid >>>flowing).  >>	Israel got no western aid in 1948, nor in 1949 or 50...It >>still granted citizenship to those arabs who remained.  And how >>is granting citizenship a facade?  >Don't get me wrong. I beleive that Israel is democratic >within the constraints of one dominant ethnic group (Jews). [...] >'bad' arabs. Personaly, I've never heard anything about the >arab community in Isreal. Except that they're there.  So >yes, they're there. But as a community with history and >roots, its dead.  	Because you've never heard of it, its dead?  The fact is, you claimed Israel had to give arabs rights because of (non-existant) International aid.  Then you see that that argument has a hole you could drive a truck through, and again assert that Israel is only democratic within the (unexplained) constraints of one ethnic group. The problem with that argument is that Arabs are allowed to vote for whoever they please.  So, please tell me, Sam, what constraints are there on Israeli democracy that don't exist in other democratic states?  	I've never heard anything about the Khazakistani arab population.  Does that mean that they have no history or roots?  When I was at Ben Gurion university in Israel, one of my neighbors was an Israeli arab.  He wasn't really all that different from my other neighbors.  Does that make him dead or oppressed?   >I stand corrected. I meant that the jewish culture was not >predominant in Palestine in recent history. I have no >problem with Jerusalem having a jewish character if it were >predominantly Jewish. So there. what to make of the rest >Palestine?  	How recent is recent?  I can probably build a case for a Jewish Gaza city.  It would be pretty silly, but I could do it.  I'm arguing not that Jerusalem is Jewish, but that land has no ethnicity.  Adam    Adam Shostack 				       adam@das.harvard.edu