Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Should The U.S. Scale Back Relations With Israel?

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Should The U.S. Scale Back Relations With Israel?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 34, 35, 36 ... 38, 39, 40 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

HijackedTw1light

Joined: 24 May 2010
Location: Daegu

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 6:26 am Post subject:

Leon wrote:

I have a hard time telling if you are being disingenuous or not. Something can be a product of colonialism without being a colony, how is that hard to understand? I never said that Israel is a colony, it's not, it's a product of colonialism and neo-imperialism. The fact that the region had been subjugated to colonialism, regardless of who, is what made it so sensitive to colonialism. That is one of the main reason that America is largely unpopular there, it is perceived as a new colonial power. Neo-Imperialism is different than traditional colonialism in that more powerful countries no longer set up actual colonies, but install puppet regimes, or control other regimes. In that sense in some ways Israel was the meeting point of traditional colonialism and neo-imperialism. Neo-imperialism is a powerful source of anger in the Middle East, look at the Shah, look at how no matter how closely regimes work with America in issues like oil, or other things, they can't be seen as too close, or support Israel. You are right about most Jews immigrating during Ottoman rule, but the British could have done more to turn them away. The 1940's was a fervent time for Arab nationalism, a time when colonial powers were losing sway and the world order was being changed. If you don't think that Arab nationalism had something to do with colonialism, or that Arab anger against Israel had something to do with colonialism, then well like I said I can't tell if you are being disingenuous or if I should be embarrassed for you.

This is innuendo and fluff. If you want to string together a bunch of abstract nouns like "neo-imperialism" and "nationalism" and pin them on groups of people, go ahead. Have fun. Wake us when it's over.

Menino80 wrote:

It's seizing of land then and no more reclamation of territory than if Mongolia invaded Ukraine and Hungary.

OK, thanks for your alternative view...

Leon

Joined: 31 May 2010

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 6:50 am Post subject:

HijackedTw1light wrote:

Leon wrote:

Menino80 wrote:

It's seizing of land then and no more reclamation of territory than if Mongolia invaded Ukraine and Hungary.

OK, thanks for your alternative view...

Nationalism is an abstract noun? Ok man. Arab Nationalism in the 1940's is a pretty much universally accepted thing, but that's just my abstract BS.

" To protest Jewish immigration, a general strike was declared and a political, economic, and social boycott of Jews soon ensued.[26] The events in Palestine followed similar anti-colonial activities in Egypt and Syria which helped inspire the uprising. In Egypt, week-long anti-British demonstrations resulted in the restoration of the Egyptian constitution while in Syria, a general strike held in January-February 1936 led to major negotiations on an independence deal with the French government.[25] The British took a firm stance against the nationalist revolt in Palestine; the AHC was dissolved and al-Husayni was forced into exile in Lebanon in 1937.[27] Although al-Husayni leaned more towards Palestinian nationalism and Islamism, he was instrumental in organizing the pan-Arab Bloudan Conference on 9 September 1937 in Syria which gathered 524 delegates from across the Arab world, although al-Husayni himself was not in attendance.[28]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_nationalism

Abstract, hardly. Many historians agree with me, and not just wikipedia. So have fun dismissing me out of hand. It's easier to act dismissive than admit you're wrong I guess. Neo-Imperialism, fluff? just because you don't understand something, or haven't heard of it before, doesn't mean its fluff. I've decided, I'm embarrassed for you.

HijackedTw1light

Joined: 24 May 2010
Location: Daegu

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:05 am Post subject:

Leon wrote:

Wow, you teach English and don't know what an abstract noun is?

You fail.

But just so you can do better next time, here you go:

"An abstract noun is a type of noun that refers to something a person cannot physically interact with. A noun is a person, place or thing. However, in many cases, the 'thing' might be an intangible concept � which means it is an abstract form of noun. In this instance, abstract means to exist apart from concrete existence. A noun that is abstract is an aspect, concept, idea, experience, state of being, trait, quality, feeling, or other entity that cannot be experienced with the five senses."

northway

Joined: 05 Jul 2010

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:16 am Post subject:

Menino80 wrote:

It's seizing of land then and no more reclamation of territory than if Mongolia invaded Ukraine and Hungary.

I seriously hope you're trolling.

Menino80

Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Location: Hodor?

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:02 am Post subject:

northway wrote:

Menino80 wrote:

It's seizing of land then and no more reclamation of territory than if Mongolia invaded Ukraine and Hungary.

I seriously hope you're trolling.

Historical claims are bunk. If you're going to take something, just take it. Don't hide behind the Torah/Bible/Quran, it's a fairy tale.

Leon

Joined: 31 May 2010

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 3:38 pm Post subject:

HijackedTw1light wrote:

Leon wrote:

I fail, dude now you're just grasping for straws. Colonialism is an abstract noun, so it would make sense that when discussing one abstract noun than others would make sense in context. It's easy to tell when someone has run out of things to say, its when they start attacking irrelavent grammar points.

HijackedTw1light

Joined: 24 May 2010
Location: Daegu

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 9:30 pm Post subject:

Leon wrote:

HijackedTw1light wrote:

Leon wrote:

LOL your whole last post was trying to say you *weren't* using abstract nouns. It's hardly irrelevant.

Now you realize you were wrong and you're trying to save face somehow.

When you tried to argue using concrete facts, we could at least have a discussion. Check out the last page, I corrected you line-by-line, post-by-post. It was kind of fun, like playing one of those first-person shooters where you're attacked by zombies.

Now you've changed your tactics and want to speak in abstractions. Not a bad move on your part considering your grasp of facts. But if you're going to speak in abstractions, there's no point in even responding. When people are far apart on an issue, the only way to have a meaningful discussion is to bring things down to the level of concrete issues and facts. Otherwise one gets nowhere.

Leon

Joined: 31 May 2010

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 10:33 pm Post subject:

HijackedTw1light wrote:

Leon wrote:

HijackedTw1light wrote:

Leon wrote:

Ok, well it's a fairly slow day at school, and I have nothing better to do. Firstly, not really trying to save face, I don't care about abstract nouns, I'm not interested in arguing grammar, at all. Do you, or do you not, agree that Arab Nationalism was a major force in the Middle East in the 1940's. Do you, or do you not, agree that Arab nationalism had a strong opinion about colonialism? Can you, or can you not see, how said opinion would influence and shape the reaction to a country of European and American Jews in a British Protectorate, especially one that was heavily propped up by outside powers? You have yet to correct anything, all you've been doing is spouting pedantic replies. I'm sorry if I'm speaking over your head.

Here are the basic facts, as simply as I can put them. If I use an abstract noun, well too bad. In 1922 the League of Nations signed the Balfour memorandum, which asserted the mandate's responsibility to facilitate Jewish immigration and land settlement. In the 1920's and 1930's groups in Palestine engaged in grassroots attacks against British and Zionist forces. These groups and attacks are unquestionably anti-coloniast, as they attacked a colonising force. From 1936�1939, a time known as the Great Arab Revolt or the "Great Uprising", British forces, supported by 6,000 armed Jewish auxiliary police, suppressed riots. The fact that Jewish police supported the British forces intimately ties them with colonialism. During campagins agianst Arab insurgents, and innocent Arabs during village raids, the zionists collaborated with the British forces and the Jewish Agency for Israel signed a security pact with British forces. In the 1940's Many countries emerged from colonialism, such as Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria. In 1945 the Arab league was formed, which was a major source of nationalism. In 1947 the UN created Isreal with the partition plan. This is differnt than traditional colonialism, as it was not one country creating a colony, but the international community creating a new state, but it is still a product of colonialism as a non-local group annexes, and gives authority, on a land that is not its own. The Arab league regected the UNs, and Western colonial powers, authority over the region. Jews had lived peacefully, for the most part, in the region for centuries, so why were they attacked? Racial reasons surely exisited, but it was not a predominate one.

If you can not see colonialism, and a reaction to colonialism in any of this, than you are blind. Note that I never said, or intended to say, that Israel was a de facto colony. Anyways here is your free history lesson, and thanks for providing motivation to refresh my memory on the events around the time period as I hadn't had a reason to read about it or think about it for awhile.
[/u]

HijackedTw1light

Joined: 24 May 2010
Location: Daegu

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 11:56 pm Post subject:

Leon wrote:

You have yet to correct anything, all you've been doing is spouting pedantic replies.

Oh, really? I'm glad you brought this up. Let's review.

1) You said �Europe decided to give the land to the Jews.�

The UN plan divided the land in two, one part for Jew and one for Arab.

And as I have repeatedly pointed out, the Arabs refused this plan and the neighboring armies invaded, so whatever your beliefs about the "arrogant colonial" nature of the plan, it's a moot point. Israel exists because it defended itself successfully, not because of the partition plan.

2) When discussing the fairness of the plan, you said the major difference between the Arabs and Jews was that the Arabs were "already there."

But the Jews were there in the hundreds of thousands. They couldn't have won a war otherwise.

3) You said "ethnic cleansing" was the cause of Arabs leaving their land in '48.

In fact most left voluntarily to flee the war zone, and sometimes with the encouragement of invading Arab armies.

4) You now claim you never said the Jewish presence itself was colonialist. Let�s see what you wrote and let the reader judge what you meant:

Leon wrote:

As a point blank question did Israel make it safer for Jews, the answer is obviously no. It failed in an obvious way in one of it's major reasons for existing. People react harshly to colonialism, it shouldn't have been too hard to guess that their would be significant blow back.

5) You said Israel exists because foreign countries colonized Palestine, allowed the Jews to live there, etc

As I already wrote, foreign countries had �colonized� Palestine for thousands of years. There had not been a sustained indigenous power since the Roman legions sacked Jerusalem. Therefore, to say colonialism is the background of Zionism is true in a sense, but misleading if you are trying to say that the European brand of colonialism in Palestine was some special case. Actually it was probably the most benign of all the occupations, happening as it did by accident (through WWI) and lasting a relatively short time, leading to a plan of divided indigenous rule. The British �allowed� the Jews to live there just as the Ottomans had. The fact that you think the default position should have been to keep Jews out or expel them says more about you than about the Ottomans or British, much less anything about �colonialism.�

Now you want to change the subject, ignore the points where you were refuted, and demand my response to new questions. Sorry, it doesn�t work that way. That�s not honest debate. Why would I want to answer or even refute any new points you bring up? You'll just pretend it didn't happen and make up new arguments. Until you own up to your mistakes, there�s no point in going forward.

Leon

Joined: 31 May 2010

Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:31 am Post subject:

HijackedTw1light wrote:

Leon wrote:

You have yet to correct anything, all you've been doing is spouting pedantic replies.

Yes what you said is true. It in no way corrects anything I said. The Arab league disagreed with the partition plan, said that the UN overstepped its authority. Of course the Arabs refused the plan, that was my point, they refused a international groups dictate. The partition plan was a major cause of the 1948 war, which was what the conversation was originally about. What you said in no way contradicts any of my points or anything I said.

HijackedTw1light wrote:

2) When discussing the fairness of the plan, you said the major difference between the Arabs and Jews was that the Arabs were "already there."

But the Jews were there in the hundreds of thousands. They couldn't have won a war otherwise.

Of course, at the time of the war the Jews were already there. Many of the Jews were fairly recent arrivals whose arrival was facilitated by things like the Balfour plan, starting in the 1920's or so. Some had been there for a long time.

HijackedTw1light wrote:

3) You said "ethnic cleansing" was the cause of Arabs leaving their land in '48.

In fact most left voluntarily to flee the war zone, and sometimes with the encouragement of invading Arab armies.

There are some incidents of ethnic cleansing in Israels history, but I will cop to the fact that it might not have been the most apt word to use. There was definitely efforts to make Jewish areas less welcoming to Arabs, but I'll leave this claim alone.

HijackedTw1light wrote:

4) You now claim you never said the Jewish presence itself was colonialist. Let�s see what you wrote and let the reader judge what you meant:

Leon wrote:

Israel is not a colony, where did I say that? Israel is a product of colonialism, facilitated by colonialism, and formed in the same spirit of colonialism. This is what I mean about you being overly pedantic. I'm sorry that anything beyond the dictionary definition of colonialism is meaningless to you, but it is what it is.

HijackedTw1light wrote:

Yes, I acknowledged all of that. In fact, I think that all of that bolsters what I said. The thing that you seem to be missing is that the 1940's is when colonialism collapsed in the region. This collapse of colonialism gave rise to Arab nationalism. A major goal of Arab nationalism was to have a united Arab peninsula free of outside influence, aka colonialism and imperial powers. There is a difference between Jews who had been in the region for centuries as opposed to those that came from Europe, aka Zionists.

HijackedTw1light wrote:

Now you want to change the subject, ignore the points where you were refuted, and demand my response to new questions. Sorry, it doesn�t work that way. That�s not honest debate. Why would I want to answer or even refute any new points you bring up? You'll just pretend it didn't happen and make up new arguments. Until you own up to your mistakes, there�s no point in going forward.

So, ummm where did you refute any of my points again. I backed down a bit on the Ethnic cleansing line, though not completely. Ok so about those new arguments, too difficult? Anyways have fun and good luck.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:41 am Post subject:

Leon wrote:

[Yes, I acknowledged all of that. In fact, I think that all of that bolsters what I said. The thing that you seem to be missing is that the 1940's is when colonialism collapsed in the region. This collapse of colonialism gave rise to Arab nationalism. A major goal of Arab nationalism was to have a united Arab peninsula free of outside influence, aka colonialism and imperial powers. There is a difference between Jews who had been in the region for centuries as opposed to those that came from Europe, aka Zionists.

So you are trying to tell us that had the Arabs been sucessful in their invasion they would have stopped to ask the Jews where they were orginally from? While there may be some kind of difference it is most assuredly the case that the Arabs would have not bothered and slaughtered one as readily as the other. "Push the Jews into the sea" was the rallying cry...not "push the zionists but leave the others alone".

If you are not trying to say that then what? It doesn't matter anyway because if the Arabs had been succesful the Jews who'd lived there for centuries would be just as dead as those that came from Europe.

Leon

Joined: 31 May 2010

Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 5:30 am Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Leon wrote:

No, I don't ever say that. In fact earlier in this thread, I argued that the Zionists made the Middle East less safe for the Jews already living in the region. I can disagree with Zionism and disagree with what many of the Arab states did at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive positions, as this is a thread about Israel, not necessarily about Arab states I didn't go into detail about that. One of my points, again earlier in the thread, was that the Arabs were not so widely anti-Jewish as many Europeans due to a shared history and culture in the region, but after Israel hatred of Zionism spread to all Jews.

HijackedTw1light

Joined: 24 May 2010
Location: Daegu

Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 6:44 am Post subject:

Leon wrote:

HijackedTw1light wrote:

Leon wrote:

You have yet to correct anything, all you've been doing is spouting pedantic replies.

Come on, be real. You think your statement that, "Europe decided to give the land to the Jews" is consistent with the fact that the land was partitioned into two parts, one for Jews and one for Arabs?

Leon wrote:

HijackedTw1light wrote:

Thank you for saying this straight out. It's not consistent with what you said before, but thank you.

Leon wrote:

HijackedTw1light wrote:

3) You said "ethnic cleansing" was the cause of Arabs leaving their land in '48.

In fact most left voluntarily to flee the war zone, and sometimes with the encouragement of invading Arab armies.

Again, we're making progress. This was really the claim we started arguing about. The others sort of spiraled out of it.

Leon wrote:

HijackedTw1light wrote:

4) You now claim you never said the Jewish presence itself was colonialist. Let�s see what you wrote and let the reader judge what you meant:

Leon wrote:

HijackedTw1light wrote:

And what you, my friend, seem to be missing, is that if Israel was a product of colonialism, then by the same token so was the land designated for the Palestinians. You see, you can't have it both ways. You've stretched the meaning of "product of colonialism" so far that it's basically meaningless.

Leon wrote:

HijackedTw1light wrote:

A fair observer would say I did refute many of your points, and you've now come around on some of them. For that I give you only respect. What can I say, I'm in peaceful mood tonight. As for your new arguments, you wanted me to acknowledge the rise of Arab nationalism and the collapse of European colonialism around that time? Sure, no problem. Done.

Leon

Joined: 31 May 2010

Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 3:53 pm Post subject:

HijackedTw1light wrote:

Leon wrote:

HijackedTw1light wrote:

Leon wrote:

You have yet to correct anything, all you've been doing is spouting pedantic replies.

Yes, because the land was originally desiginated for them through the Balfour mandate. Like I said elsewhere most of thoose Jews were fairly recent arrivals, who had their arrival facilitated by the British. The land wasn't really given to the Arabs, because like I said they were already living on it. When I say already living on it, I mean on a long term continous basis.

[quote="HijackedTw1light"]

Leon wrote:

HijackedTw1light wrote:

Thank you for saying this straight out. It's not consistent with what you said before, but thank you.

Leon wrote:

HijackedTw1light wrote:

3) You said "ethnic cleansing" was the cause of Arabs leaving their land in '48.

In fact most left voluntarily to flee the war zone, and sometimes with the encouragement of invading Arab armies.

Again, we're making progress. This was really the claim we started arguing about. The others sort of spiraled out of it.

Leon wrote:

HijackedTw1light wrote:

4) You now claim you never said the Jewish presence itself was colonialist. Let�s see what you wrote and let the reader judge what you meant:

Leon wrote:

Why so defensive? All I did was quote you.

You may never have said Israel was a colony, but you suggest the Zionists were colonialists, and this is inconsistent with a reasonable definition of colonialism. [/quoute]

There is a form of colonialism called settler colonialism.

Settler colonialism is a global and transnational phenomenon, and as much a thing of the past as a thing of the present. There is no such thing as neo-settler colonialism or post-settler colonialism because settler colonialism is a resilient formation that rarely ends. Not all migrants are settlers: settlers come to stay, and are founders of political orders who carry with them a distinct sovereign capacity. And settler colonialism is not colonialism: settlers want Indigenous people to vanish (but can make use of their labour before they are made to disappear). Sometimes settler colonial forms operate within colonial ones, sometimes they subvert them, sometimes they replace them. But even if colonialism and settler colonialism interpenetrate and overlap, they remain separate as they co-define each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settler_colonialism

The Zionists are settler colonists. They also were installed through the help of the former colonial power, Britian. One group of Europeans are in charge, they leave, but they leave land to another group of Europeans to be in charge of. That would surely inspire anti-colonial feelings.

HijackedTw1light wrote:

Leon wrote:

HijackedTw1light wrote:

In some sense Palestine was a product of Colonialism, in so much as borders and shared colonial experience, but the people of Palestine would have been there regardless of colonialism. Israel is there only because of it. They immigrated with the sanction of a colonial power, they practiced a form of colonialism, settler colonialism, they were, mostly, recent arrivals to the land. It's not the same.

HijackedTw1light wrote:

Leon wrote:

HijackedTw1light wrote:

Well that's a start, but the entire crux was that the rise of Arab Nationalism was intimately intertwined with the fall of colonialism, and that the attack on Israel in the 1948 war was an out come of said nationalism and ferverent anti-colonial feelings.

Adventurer

Joined: 28 Jan 2006

Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 6:27 pm Post subject:

Leon wrote:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Leon wrote:

In a sense people treat the Arab rejection of the 1947 General Assembly plan as if to say that there was some deficiency in the Arab culture leading to such a reaction. It comes from many Jews who use hind-sight and WASPs who support Israel. The Arabs of Palestine did not have hind-sight. They were 68% of the population at the time a partition was suggested, and if we went back 30 years or so before that the Arabs would have been close to 80% as many European Jews were immigrating to Palestine. The Arabs were told by Britain that if they fought Turkey, they would become free. It was a lie. The Arabs had a right to be angry with Britain and against the idea of having their homeland partition where they are the majority. The desire of a minority was used to ignore the demands of the majority. Those who say that the Arabs rejected a state in 1947 are the same people who would reject it if they were Arabs, too.
Anyway, the Zionist leadership was not satisfied with the 1947 borders. They accepted it as a suggestion point.

The Arab speaking Jews - the Mizrahim and Sephardim did suffer as a result of Zionism both from Arab Muslims then European Jews - the Ashkenazim. The Arab-Israeli conflict has not only affected Jews in the Middle East, but also Europe. The reality is the behavior of states and their citizens does affect the perceptions will have of the people. It's unfortunate that people will generalize other people. Many Arab Muslims, though not all, assumed Mizrahim Jews sympathized with the actions of he Ashkenazim Jews in Palestine and some took it out on the Arab-speaking Jews and Jews did get killed. It doesn't mean the majority of the non-Jewish population supported such behavior, but it happened.
I do not accept prejudice, but I know how human beings can be. We all do.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 34, 35, 36 ... 38, 39, 40 Next
Page 35 of 40

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe