response 425 of 604:

May 22 06:35 UTC 2002

I have no idea where Leeron's claim that I believe in 1-9 comes from.  I
certainly never said any of those things, well 1-8 at least; there's
probably a good chance at least half the world is descended from
"canaanites" by now, whatever they were.  Perhaps I should be asking
Leeron if he's stopped beating his wife yet.

I'm not arguing, by the way, that because everyone disagrees with Leeron
he is somehow automatically wrong.  What I'm arguing is that of the
small number of people who have read & commented on Leeron's stuff here,
none of them seem to find Leeron's arguments at all compelling.  Perhaps
there's something crucial Leeron has left out that would convince all of
us instantly of the truth of everything Leeron is saying.  Perhaps
there's something else happening.  I've no idea what Leeron really hopes
to accomplish here.  From a purely functional standpoint, if Leeron was
hoping to convince everyone that he is telling the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, then, even ignoring me, it's still
obvious Leeron has utterly failed, and more than failed, he's working
directly against his own goals.  Indeed, it would almost be tempting to
conclude that Leeron is actually a rather sophisticated sort of
disinformationalist: bent on discrediting Israel by overenthusiastic
proselytizing.  I'd rather believe that Leeron is merely guilty of
failing to solve the initial premise problem.  People commonly believe
that merely by applying logic, it's possible to arrive at one consistent
self-evident truth.  Nothing could be further from the truth, and the
19th century arguments over whether light was a particle or a wave is
one particularly blatant example of the fallacy of such arguments.

response 427 of 604:

May 22 13:04 UTC 2002

Leeron, you haven't answered my question.  Do you think your arguments here
on Grex help's Israel's image?  Yes or no, not some evasion.

response 429 of 604:

May 23 00:14 UTC 2002

Leeron, I think you are sadly mistaken if you think "most americans"
agree with you.  I can assure you, most americans have no idea at all
what you're talking about.

Americans, as a whole, receive very little education on "world history",
and much of that history is focused on what's relevant to the history of
this country.  Things like the discovery of civilization, writing,
democracy, and european history are all discussed mainly in this
context, if they are discussed at all.  If there is an attempt to
broaden that history, it may include scraps of history of china and
africa, and perhaps south america.  Palestine, as a rule, receives
little attention, because it gets intertwined with religion and things
controversial far too fast.  Most people's exposure to palestine is
going to be in bible school, and will, as a rule, end about 30 ad, and
generally won't be any too scientific before that.

Most people in this country are "favorable" towards Israel because of
ww2, because of bible school, and because people in Israel often speak
english, are educated, have white skins, and generally look and act like
western people.  A minority of US residents will be jewish, have
relatives, or other factors.  Even within that tiny minority, you will
find much ignorance since many fell asleep in class, don't attend
regularly, don't care, etc.  Except for that tiny minority, I suspect
very few people in this country have any idea about how the modern state
of Israel got founded, or what happened in the 1900 years between the
crucifixion of a minor religious cult leader in a small roman province,
and the arrival of boat people just after ww2 at a much disputed chunk
of arid dirt in the middle east.  Leeron may eat, sleep, and bleed
british mandate, but to most americans, the british mandate is either a
giant "huh?", or perhaps it's related to the american colonial pine tree
trade with england.

Before Leeron's arrival in the grex scene, I wouldn't have considered
grex to be any big exception to the general picture of american
awareness of the middle east.  Some of us are better read, and some of
us have been accused of having a liberal influence; but if anything,
these factors should have both predisposed us to be more favorable
towards Israel than "average".  I personally grew up in a neighborhood
that was 50% jewish, and I have jewish friends today.  I don't think,
even now, there is any big anti-Israel movement on grex.  None of us
here are advocating the violent overthrow of Israel or asking anyone to
shut up.  I think what most of us are reacting to, more than anything
else, is Leeron's presentation of facts -- and I think Anne's response
#428 is as good a summary as any I've seen.

response 431 of 604:

May 23 05:09 UTC 2002

Dunno - I'm not a european.  But I think it might well have something to
do with that english bit - the british seem nearly as well disposed
towards Israel as the US.  It might also be interesting to correlate
present-day european opinion of Israel with the extent and depth of
hitler's power in ww2.

response 433 of 604:

May 23 05:19 UTC 2002

So you are claiming Jordan now too?

response 435 of 604:

May 23 05:38 UTC 2002

For my part, I agree with most (if not all) of what Leeron says. I don't
contribute to these discussions much not because I feel scared to do so or
somesuch, but because I quite simply have better places to direct my
writing, and Leeron seems to be willing to discuss the issue to an extent
and to a depth that would make most of what I have to say redundant.

Some people have made remarks to the extent that most non-Jewish Americans
support Israel because all they know about it is what they learned in
"bible school," which makes them ignorant of the "real history" of the
situation. This is, to put it simply, a crap argument. The reason most
Americans support Israel is not because of ignorance, but because they see
the issue with a moral clarity that most Grexers and other far-leftists
simply do not. 

response 437 of 604:

May 23 06:04 UTC 2002

And I would venture to guess that most of those americans who 'support'
Israel (such as myself) also do not approve, lock-step and blindly,
of everything Israel does in advance.  Indeed, I have found that many
supporters of Israel are taken aback when presented with a simple 
map showing the vast extent and number of 'settlements' - its not
common knowlege it seems (aaron should repost the URL in a separate
item about the question, or it is in one of the many item on the
subject of the middle east).  Personally, I support the right of
Israel to exist securely and INSIDE its own borders.  And to the 
extent this involves military operations outside its own sovereign
territory I support that as well.  I don't however think that Israel
has the right to colonize the west bank and gaza and I think it is
stupid for the IDF to waste huge amounts of forces 'protecting'
those colonys - it is a bad idea both politically and militarily.

 

response 439 of 604:

May 23 07:54 UTC 2002

It's quite easy to present a whole range of different options while
sticking to "the truth" - which parts you say, which parts you don't,
the words you use, all can majorly influence the final meaning that is
conveyed.  In this country, we have not 1, but 2 major professions
dedicated to just this: advertising and lawyering.

As a general rule, newspapers are not the most accurate repository of
truth; usually they concentrate on timeliness more than accuracy.  In
theory, newspaper reporters are supposed to corroborate their stories
with 2 sources; but this does not always happen in practice.  All
newspapers are "biased"; this is the job of a newspaper editor.  In
selecting which stories to publish, which stories not to publish, their
arrangement and order of presentation in the paper, etc., he is
"filtering" what you read, and can make a considerable difference in the
appearance of news.  Additional issues with modern US newspapers is that
most are owned or controlled by assorted large corporations; this is a
fairly recent phenomena, and it's not clear exactly how corporate ethics
are going to mix with newspaper ethics (although many fear the worst).
Another issue has to do with the source of all those newspaper stories;
there is, for instance, a huge corporate industry concerned with
"feeding" stories of corporate interest to the media.  Newspapers should
indicate when they get stories from such potentially biased sources, but
they don't always do so.  Gov'ts have also gotten into the act; it's
pretty well known that the US orchestrated most of what the media saw in
Afghanistan, for instance.  It's pretty obvious Israel is doing the same
thing for stories in areas it controls.

Sorry, Leeron, I already explained my opinion on Jenin.  Find it and
read it if you care.  Display evidence that you comprehend it if you
want me to say more on it, though I can't imagine what else I could
possibly add to what I said.  I don't even want to know what you mean by
"non-area".

Regarding "boat people" - from what I've heard, one of the crucial steps
to the formation of the modern state of Israel was the "Exodus 1947", in
which 4515 immigrants attempted to "illegally" enter Israel.  They
didn't make it, but the whole incident was extremely embarassing to the
UK.  Most of the people aboard the Exodus 1947 did later enter Israel,
along with a lot of other people, although mostly after Israel was
founded in 1948.  Many did in fact come by boat, especially in the first
few years.  Most people in Israel today are descendents of people who
entered Israel after 1948.  I went into this in more detail elsewhere,
and there are plenty of Israeli sites that go into this in considerably
more detail - so far as I can tell, this is as big a story there as the
american pioneers pushing westward is in the US, or perhaps the
mayflower is an even better comparison.  I don't really understand what
your problem with my term "boat people" is; but this seems to be an area
where your bias is showing up in 12 foot tall glowing neon letters: you
just don't seem willing to admit that most of the people in Israel today
are the result of *recent* immigration, *after* the founding in 1948.

response 441 of 604:

May 23 16:19 UTC 2002

Leeron, as for the argument about the Jews stealing Arab land, I do not 
subsrcbe to that.  However, you go back far enough, and someone was 
displaced in order for the original Jewish state to have been created.  
And why shouldn't the Palestinians get a piece of that land.  It's not 
their fault that the Romans pounded Palestine into the dirt in 70 AD, 
is it?  They have as much right to live in that area as do the 
Isrealis, many of whom had never set foot on that soil until after 
1948, displacing families that had lived there for generations.  Sure, 
it's not that black and white, but it is true.

People have pointed out time and again places where you've misquoted 
their previous statements and sidestepped questions, and do generally 
dismiss their arguments as invalid.  I stopped adding to posts not 
because you're at all intimidating, but because my time was more 
valuable used in other ways.  People here respect you enough to debate 
with you and give their opinion on the matter.  But we know that there 
is never going to be more than a group of people weighing both sides of 
the matter debating with someone who made up their mind a long time ago 
and does not agree with any argument that has even the tiniest 
criticism of Israel or it's policies.  No one but you yourself seem to 
take the tone that what comes out of your mouth is irrefutable fact.  
You seem to try to establish yourself as a teacher trying to set us 
poor misguided children to rights.  It does not work that way.

Re: #435  "The reason most Americans support Israel is not because of 
ignorance, but because they see the issue with a moral clarity that 
most Grexers and other far-leftists simply do not."

The same reason why most Americans don't vote?  Your argument is just 
as ludicrous as the one you're attacking, though I commend you for 
speaking your mind.  "Most" grexers choose not to post on these items, 
so you cannot claim any real knowledge of their morals.  The same holds 
true for "most" Americans.  Furthermore, the argument that support of 
Israel is due to greater moral clarity has no factual basis whatsoever.

response 443 of 604:

May 23 17:25 UTC 2002

bhelliom:

>  They have as much right to live in that area as do the Isrealis

I've never disagreed with this, yet many here seem to think that the Israelis
don't have as much right to live in that area as do Arabs.

> [Israelis] displacing families that had lived there for generations.

British inquiries in the 1930s showed that Arab immigrants were being
displaced not by Jews but by other Arabs:

The Peel Commission reported in 1937 that the "shortfall of land is, we
consider, due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase
in the Arab population." [Palestine Royal Commission Report, p. 242]

Arabs immigrated from surrounding Arab countries (until 1939, the British
authorities didn't even keep figures on those entering western Palestine from
eastern/Transjordanian Palestine), drawn to Palestine by Jewish and British
development. The Arab population between the world wars grew precisely in the
areas of Jewish development (e.g. 290% in Haifa but only 40% in Jenin). 

response 445 of 604:

May 23 19:23 UTC 2002

(Thank you, Scott, for inserting your typical response. Always talking
about having provided examples, but never able to do so.)

response 447 of 604:

May 23 21:48 UTC 2002

You mean that the Jews didn't show up "out of nowhere"
(=Europe/USA/USSR/africa/etc.) after 1948?  Then where, pray tell, *did*
they come from?

response 449 of 604:

May 24 00:30 UTC 2002

re "There is very little Christian religious influence in Europe these
 days"  OK  So what excused does the Vatican have, then?