Oh no...not another 'self hating' jew!

Lestat

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 16, 2002
Posts
7,356
Likes
41
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Arsenal
Thread starter #1
Whats going on Miller...seems there's another 'self hating' jew wherever you look. ;)

----------------------------------------------------

Israel and the nightmare of occupation
December 6, 2004

Page Tools
Email to a friend Printer format
Illustration: Spooner
A new chance has arisen to end the obscene and futile violence between Israelis and Palestinians, writes Robert Manne.

On occasion I am asked by people who read my column why I never write about the problem of Israel and the Palestinians. Sometimes the question is raised simply out of curiosity. Sometimes it has an aggressive edge. If I am willing to write about the impact of British settlement on the Australian Aborigines, why do I remain silent about the impact of Jewish settlement on the Palestinians?

Part of the answer to this question is banal. I am not a specialist in the politics of the Middle East. Part of the answer is, however, complex. For a long time I have found the question of Israel and the Palestinians an unusually troubling one. As a post-Holocaust Jew I feel the tug of loyalty to my people. Yet precisely because of what the Jews have experienced at the hands of other people, the brutish behaviour of the Israeli state towards the Palestinians in recent years has seemed to me particularly shameful. The certainties of Jewish nationalists such as Norman Podhoretz and of anti-Israeli Jews like Noam Chomsky are equally alien to me.

Advertisement
AdvertisementMy general attitude to the question of Israel and the Palestinians is most easily explained autobiographically. The explanation must begin with the fact that I am not now, nor have ever been, a Zionist. Zionists believe that because of the inevitability of anti-Semitism, for Jews to become safe they need a national home. This seems to me simply wrong. Since the end of World War II, the place of Jews in all Western societies has been largely unproblematic.

Yet although I am not a Zionist, I have been throughout my life a supporter of the idea of Israel. In the 19th century the Zionist case seemed plausible. As a consequence of the Holocaust it seemed to very many people self-evidently true. In 1947 the international community decided to establish a Jewish state in a part of the British mandatory territory, Palestine. That decision seems to me to have been both just and, as important, irrevocable.

Partly as a consequence of Arab military opposition to the creation of Israel and partly because of the calculated policy of the Jewish leadership, the 700,000 Palestinian Arabs who fled or were driven from their ancestral homes suffered grievously as a result. To the Palestinian question - why should we have been asked to pay the price for the Jewish tragedy in Europe? - I have never heard, or believed there to be, a morally adequate reply.

My deepest pro-Israel feeling occurred in 1967 at the beginning of the Six-Day War. For a brief moment it seemed possible that Israel would be annihilated. As a consequence, however, of its victory in this war, Israel gained control of vast new territory - on the West Bank of the Jordan, in Gaza, on the Golan Heights and in Sinai. It now seems clear to me that Israel's failure to relinquish most of these territories sowed the seeds of future tragedy. It did not seem so clear at the time.

In the mid-1970s I went to Israel on an academic tour. Our group was assured that the "administered territories" were merely being held temporarily, as useful bargaining chips, in future peace talks with Israel's hostile neighbours. I dutifully believed what we were told. In June, 1977, the right-wing "revisionist" Zionist Likud Bloc was elected. Likud had never accepted the legitimacy of the partition of Palestine. It called the occupied territories by their biblical names, Judea and Samaria. Immediately a far more active policy of Jewish settlement, in the lands God was supposed to have given the Jews in perpetuity, was announced.

Sometimes political questions are complicated. Sometimes they are simple. The June 1977 situation was of the simple kind. If Israel had really decided to hold on to the occupied territories on a permanent basis it seemed to me obvious that a tragic outcome for both Palestinians and Jews could not be escaped.

As it happens, at this time I spoke of my concerns to a group of Jewish students. As the talk was published in the Australia-Israel Review I do not have to rely on memory for what I believed.

I believed that if Israel remained in permanent occupation of the West Bank and Gaza it would eventually be forced to decide whether or not to grant these Palestinians basic political rights. Enfranchising the Palestinians would, on demographic grounds, destroy the Jewish nature of the Israeli state. It would, therefore, not occur. The logic of permanent occupation was permanent oppression. In turn this would lead to an Algerian-style resistance movement; to the gradual poisoning of the then still relatively benign relationship between the Jewish majority and the Arab minority in Israel; and to Israel coming to be seen in the eyes of the world as a neo-colonial regime, as the moral-political equivalent of apartheid South Africa.

These predictions have all turned out to be true. They required no expertise or perspicacity. Yet among the supporters of Israel they were angrily denied.

Ten years after Israel succumbed to the temptation of permanent occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, a Palestinian uprising began. If anything, I was surprised by how long it took to come.

Since that time I have never wavered from support for the idea of a two-state solution to the problem of the Palestinians and the Jews, on the basis of an Israeli withdrawal to something like the borders of June 1967 and an unambiguous Palestinian recognition of the Jewish state of Israel as a permanent fixture of the political geography of the Middle East. As a moral equivalent of the Palestinian renunciation of the right of return to Israel - a requirement of any peace - what I believe is asked of Israel is an admission of the many great wrongs that the Palestinians have suffered at Jewish hands since 1948.

Since the first intifada erupted in 1987 the nightmare of the Israeli occupation regime has grown ever more grim. On one side there have been Israeli military strikes, targeted assassinations, mass arrests, house demolitions, curfews, checkpoints, daily humiliations. On the other side there have been Palestinian terrorists' savage suicide bombings of innocent Jewish civilians. All this had led to a climate of fearful hatred, whose depth outsiders find difficult to fathom and which even decades might not be able to erase.

As I write, a new government is being formed in Israel and post-Arafat elections for the presidency of the Palestinian Authority are being prepared. Once more there is talk of peace. Whether all this will once more end, as have all previous initiatives, from Oslo to Taba, in blood and acrimony, no one - not even the experts, far less a non-expert like myself - can possibly know.

Robert Manne is professor of politics at La Trobe University.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Rober...e-of-occupation/2004/12/05/1102182152001.html
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Tim56

Premiership Player
Joined
Aug 30, 2003
Posts
3,195
Likes
6
Location
On the fine line between
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Melbourne
#2
It just goes to demonstrate that Jews are more likely to think for themselves, whereas Muslims and Arabs simply repeat the same typical anti-semitic vitriol in all of their writings about Israel/Palestine.
 

BlueMark

Club Legend
Joined
Feb 22, 2003
Posts
2,233
Likes
12
Location
MELB
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Carlton
#3
Tim56 said:
It just goes to demonstrate that Jews are more likely to think for themselves, whereas Muslims and Arabs simply repeat the same typical anti-semitic vitriol in all of their writings about Israel/Palestine.
Yes of course Tim :rolleyes:
 

Bombers 2003

Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Posts
34,490
Likes
4,769
Location
Yatala
AFL Club
Essendon
#6
Tim56 said:
It just goes to demonstrate that Jews are more likely to think for themselves, whereas Muslims and Arabs simply repeat the same typical anti-semitic vitriol in all of their writings about Israel/Palestine.
But being continually persecuted and their existence being denied by the Zionists and their friends does wonders for the soul.
 

Mr Q

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 27, 2002
Posts
10,984
Likes
29
Location
Wombling Free
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
East Perth
#8
Well Miller's posted a couple in the past. There's not as many, although that doesn't actually surprise me in any way.
 

demon_dave

Club Legend
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Posts
2,727
Likes
2
Location
Highett
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory,Chelsea
#11
Tim56 said:
It just goes to demonstrate that Jews are more likely to think for themselves, whereas Muslims and Arabs simply repeat the same typical anti-semitic vitriol in all of their writings about Israel/Palestine.
you read them all hey tim?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

demon_dave

Club Legend
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Posts
2,727
Likes
2
Location
Highett
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory,Chelsea
#12
I have a good friend who is jewish and thinks exactly the same way as Manne, what Israel is doing at the minute is the same behavior they have suffered in the past, terrorism
 

dan warna

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 13, 2003
Posts
20,557
Likes
190
Location
melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
#13
Part of the problem with the need to create israel was two fold.

Europe and the USA had strong anti semitic feelings and had done so pretty much since the dark ages, and were glad to 'dump' the jews elsewhere and secondly the pay for the collective guilt caused by the crimes of Nazi Germany.

hence foisting the problem onto the middle east instead of europe.

up until the middle end of the 19th century in many european countries jews were not allowed to own land, farm, or vote and were often proscribed from many trades hence jewish enclaves arose throughout europe.

This led to additional hatred and jealousy, why? possibly because the jewish villages in europe were often more successful and viable than their own? who can tell.

but the violence and persecution of jews occured in england, france, csarist russia, germany etc, basically they were second or third class citizens in europe.

Further to a lesser degree this happened in the USA also, where jews were one step above the african american and two steps below the dog.

often signs such as 'no jews or fellows' were hung over restaurants, bars, etc.

so dumping the what was left of the jewish population on the middle east made the 'white' man feel less guilty, and foist the problem on the ME.

if the jews were wiped out or the arabs were wiped out. who cared? it was a plan replicated throughout asia, africa, central america etc by the european powers as the receded in relevance.

While I disagree with the actions and policies of the jewish government, how much of the primary and secondary blame belongs to England? Germany? france? USA? russia? romania? spain? Portugal? etc

I do not think what the jews have done over the 50 odd years since the creation of israel is right, but they were pretty much told, through no fault of their own, that the rest of the world didn't want them.

and they can kill towel heads, or get killed by towel heads, but we are washing our hands of the whole situation....

IF israel was to be returned to its state prior to european intervention, where would you relocate several million jews?

will you give them back their homes in the berlin? moscow? london? etc

History is full of crimes against jews! even as far back as King John (Lionhearts snivelling brother by the story books) there are obscene crimes against the jews, and as replicated throughout history.

I hate what the jews are doing, but I hate more the crimes that created this situation.

I will continue to argue and debate against the actions of sharon who I believe is a war criminal scum, but that is only a fraction of the picture that created the situation.

unfortunately the perpetrators of the current mess in the ME are long dead and burning in hell if you follow that sort of thing.
 

Bombers 2003

Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Posts
34,490
Likes
4,769
Location
Yatala
AFL Club
Essendon
#14
dan warna said:
History is full of crimes against jews! even as far back as King John (Lionhearts snivelling brother by the story books)
Probably wasnt as 'snivelling'as the story books say,just unlucky in some regards,not his fault,he was brave and probably a better general then his brother.As i say he was unlucky,but he had to fight Philip II of France.
Back on topic.
Yes,he he did expel the Jews from England.
 

dan warna

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 13, 2003
Posts
20,557
Likes
190
Location
melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
#16
Bombers 2003 said:
Probably wasnt as 'snivelling'as the story books say,just unlucky in some regards,not his fault,he was brave and probably a better general then his brother.As i say he was unlucky,but he had to fight Philip II of France.
Back on topic.
Yes,he he did expel the Jews from England.
I did mention the fact it was snivelling in the story books, but he was an interesting king by all accounts.

the Magna Carta was signed during his reign, also the first unwinding of the ducal system and also many of the justice system of courts got a leg up and evolved considerably under his reign.

this could be due to the fact he required the support of many to maintain his kingship and that came at a price of greater liberties.

His crimes against the jews were astounding as he borowed heavily off the jews originally.

some history claim he ejected them not on religious or moral grounds but to avoid his and englands debts to them.

I might do some more reading over the next few days but this was just off memory.

cheers

Dan
 

UNIT

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Nov 9, 2004
Posts
7,941
Likes
14
Location
Fighting the good fight
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Swan Districts - St Kilda
#17
There was a Documentary on ABC TV a few weeks ago about some Australian Jewish youths visiting Auschwitz, Mydanak, etc etc as part of the 'March Of The Living' commerations. The whole point was to decide who owns the legacy of 'the Holocaust' and how can third generation 'survivors' ensure the horrors of the holocaust are not forgotten. As these kids went into these places they bawled and had to have 'alone time' and said they felt they hated someone for the first time in their lives. The fact that there 'people' are effectively doing the same thing in the present day (albeit with Apache attack helicopters instead of Gas chambers) was never mentioned as these poor victimized kids travelled through Poland on there air conditioned coach arguing things like 'i know my Grandad better than you know yours and he was in Auschwitz so therefore i have the right to shed more tears over the holocaust then you'.
Until Jewish people cease to play the victim card across the world and act as if they have a patent on being a victims of genocide and oppression and can embrace some level of empathy for people of other religious persuasions then nothing in Palestine will change.
 

Roylion

Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
13,030
Likes
8,627
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Moderator #20
Bombers 2003 said:
Probably wasnt as 'snivelling'as the story books say,just unlucky in some regards,not his fault,he was brave and probably a better general then his brother.
King John??? A better general that his brother Richard Couer-de-Lion? Absolutely not.

Bombers 2003 said:
As i say he was unlucky,but he had to fight Philip II of France.
So unlucky that he was called John Softsword by his contemporaries due to his perceived lack of military skill.

Richard Couer-de-Lion also had to fight Philip II, but did it with much more success than John.

Bombers 2003 said:
Back on topic.
Yes,he he did expel the Jews from England.
King John did not expel the Jews from England. Indeed they were under his "protection", as they were a convenient cash cow. For example the Jews could be levied with an arbitrary tallage at any time at the King's discretion. Therefore borrowing money from Jews with interest (a practice forbidden to Christians) meant that the King also indirectly benefited. Furthermore the King was every Jew's heir. So the king not only took all the Jew's goods when he died, but also inherited his debtors, which meant that the money (and interest) was therefore paid directly back into the Royal Exchequer.

John's grandson Edward I Longshanks expelled the Jews in 1290. He had developed a new system of banking using Italian cash advances by 1275 and no longer needed to protect the Jews. As well as this general feeling was rising against the jews and Edward's mother Eleanor of Provence was known to be virulently anti-Semetic.
 

Roylion

Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
13,030
Likes
8,627
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Moderator #21
dan warna said:
I did mention the fact it was snivelling in the story books, but he was an interesting king by all accounts.
He was. And probably harshly judged in many respects.

dan warna said:
the Magna Carta was signed during his reign, also the first unwinding of the ducal system and also many of the justice system of courts got a leg up and evolved considerably under his reign.
Not sure what you mean by the 'Ducal system'. The first Duke in England wasn't until the creation of the Duchy of Cornwall in 1337. The justice system of the courts had their beginnings in the reign of Henry II, (John's father), although it is true that he was a very good administrator and lawmaker. Unfortunately it appears he had the mindset of a petty tyrant and as a result often ruined the good work he did indeed do.

dan warna said:
His crimes against the jews were astounding as he borowed heavily off the jews originally.
What were his crimes against the Jews?

dan warna said:
some history claim he ejected them not on religious or moral grounds but to avoid his and englands debts to them.
England as such (or more accurately the Crown), didn't have any debts to the Jews. Jews were legally Crown property to be taxed at any time by the monarch. The more debt that other classes had was probably better for the Crown.
 

Bombers 2003

Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Posts
34,490
Likes
4,769
Location
Yatala
AFL Club
Essendon
#22
Roylion said:
King John??? A better general that his brother Richard Couer-de-Lion? Absolutely not.



So unlucky that he was called John Softsword by his contemporaries due to his perceived lack of military skill.

Richard Couer-de-Lion also had to fight Philip II, but did it with much more success than John./QUOTE]

1-REALLY,would never of Guessed that.But then Richard was such a good general that he stopped Philip's advances in Southern France,RIGHT.
2-He was able to prevent William'the Lion' of Scotland from occupying Northern England and Alexander II had little success against him either.
3-He had to help Alexander against the MacWilliams and their allies in 1213-1214.
4-He defeated John de Courcy without much trouble in Ulster.It's true de Courcy helped John against the next earl of Ulster,Hugh.
5-He saved his family's throne after the death of Richard,Philip of France and his allies would have occupied the entire angevin 'empire'in France in 1199-1201 if John hadnt siezed the throne from Arthur of Briitany and his supporters.
 

Roylion

Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
13,030
Likes
8,627
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Moderator #23
Bombers 2003 said:
1-REALLY,would never of Guessed that.But then Richard was such a good general that he stopped Philip's advances in Southern France,RIGHT. .
That he did. In fact he stopped Philip's advances everywhere and recovered much of the land that has ben lost during his captivity. Upon Richard's return to his lands after being released as a prisoner from Germany, he quickly defeated Philip at Verneuil. After driving Prince John out of Evereux, Richard recaptured Loches a major fortress from Philip. He then subdued the rebels in Aquitaine (south-western France). He then defeated Philip's army near Freteval. . He then captured Tailleburg, Marcialloc, Angouleme, Montignac, capturing 300 knights. By July 1194, Philip was driven out of all the lands he had occupied when Richard was a prisoner. During that time Philip defeated Prince John (who had reconciled to his brother Richard) twice (once at Everuex and once at Vaudriel). By 1196, Richard recovered from Philip a further six castles that were captured by Philip, when Richard was a prisoner. Moreover Philip was forced by Richard to recognise that the Counts of Angouleme and Perigueux were the vassals of Richard and not of Philip. When war broke out again in 1198, Philip was soundly beaten again by Richard twice in the Vexin. Philip had to make peace. Poitou was only lost by John, it wasn't lost by Richard.

Bombers 2003 said:
2-He was able to prevent William'the Lion' of Scotland from occupying Northern England and Alexander II had little success against him either.
Through statecraft against William the Lion, and not war. Alexander had joined the rebellion against John in 1215 and when John advanced against him refused to meet John in battle. As soon as John returned south, Alexander advanced again, shortly before John's death.

Bombers 2003 said:
3-He had to help Alexander against the MacWilliams and their allies in 1213-1214.
But didn't do so personally.

Bombers 2003 said:
4-He defeated John de Courcy without much trouble in Ulster.It's true de Courcy helped John against the next earl of Ulster,Hugh.
It wasn't John who defeated John de Courcy. John never visited Ireland at that time. It was the de Lacy brothers, Walter and Hugh that did so.

Bombers 2003 said:
5-He saved his family's throne after the death of Richard,Philip of France and his allies would have occupied the entire angevin 'empire'in France in 1199-1201 if John hadnt siezed the throne from Arthur of Briitany and his supporters.
Hmmm. I'm not sure he 'saved' the 'family throne'. Arthur of Brittany was John's nephew (the son of John's elder brother Geoffrey) after all. If John had not been king, Arthur certainly would have been. Arthur after all did homage to King Philip for Normandy, Anjou, Maine, Touraine and Aquitaine.

And of course John lost Normandy, Anjou, Maine, Touraine and Poitou outright in 1204 instead, something Richard never did, even while in captivity.

Richard outshone John as a general, in the same way the sun outshines the moon.
 

Bombers 2003

Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Posts
34,490
Likes
4,769
Location
Yatala
AFL Club
Essendon
#24
1-No ,he provided Alexander with Flemish and Brabantine mercenaries.
2-But John was in Ireland in 1210,when he defeated the de Lacys,with de Courcy's help.
3-Arthur was a child and was encouraged against John by his mother,Constance of Brittany[daughter of Conan IV]and his grandmother,Eleanor of Aquitaine.And,unfortunatly,John had Arthur murdered in 1205.
 

Roylion

Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
13,030
Likes
8,627
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Moderator #25
Bombers 2003 said:
1-No ,he provided Alexander with Flemish and Brabantine mercenaries.
But this isn't an example of John's ability as a great soldier.

Bombers 2003 said:
2-But John was in Ireland in 1210,when he defeated the de Lacys,with de Courcy's help.
He was. And the help of Cathal Crobhderg, King of Connacht


Bombers 2003 said:
3-Arthur was a child and was encouraged against John by his mother,Constance of Brittany[daughter of Conan IV]and his grandmother,Eleanor of Aquitaine.
Not his grandmother. Eleanor of Aquitaine favored her son John, over her grandson Arthur. In fact Arthur was defeated and captured by John at Mirebeau, where he was attempting to capture his grandmother.

Arthur was 16 years old in 1203, so officially an adult by the standards of the time.

Bombers 2003 said:
And,unfortunatly,John had Arthur murdered in 1205.
Possibly by John's own hand and most probably in 1204.
 
Top Bottom