p p man and the BBC Documentary

[SexyChele]

I had meant to answer you on the original thread regarding Jews and Palestinians, but that thread appears to have been high-jacked by some one who is proving to be completely clueless.

I've taken a look at the web site that you were kind enough to include, and yes, I do have some comments on what I read. Well, at least some clarification.

First, I would need to state that every country has some darkness in its past - I know the US has done things that came to light later on that shocked people and created a "black stain" on the history of this country. I believe most European countries could also lay claim to this phenomenon. Israel is no exception. She is governed by people, and people make mistakes. Sometimes very bad ones.

The prison you saw on the documentary was located in southern Lebannon. At the time that it was in use, Israel had invaded southern Lebannon in retaliation for terrorist activities having been committed against Israel, with the perpetrators then escaping into Lebannon. Unfortunately, Lebannon was in the middle of a civil war at the time. It is my strong opinion, and most Israelis as well, that Israel had no business invading southern Lebannon the way she did. It was one of those errors in judgement that every country goes through. I may be proven wrong as time goes by, or I may be proven right. Either way, I cannot change what has happened.

Israel, while occupying southern Lebannon, involved the assistance of the SLA - Lebannonese people fighting in the civil war who decided to ally themselves to Israel. Israel set up a prison called Kian to detain and hold political prisoners. The Israeli army used the SLA to run the prison. Israel trained them and put them in charge.

Now, the SLA were also "against" those who were held in the prison, and unfortunately havoc ensued. I would ask people to think of Andersonville as an example of what went on. Actually, both the Union and Confederate states during the American Civil War had notorious prisoner of war camps. They were operated under the most horrendous of conditions. Prisoners were starved and tortured daily. Why? Basically the fox was in charge of the hen house, and those with a grudge, or revenge in their hearts, were given free reign to do as they pleased.

This is what happened with the SLA. They had in their hands the very people they considered their enemies, and sadly there was an abuse of power. Did Israel know what was going on? It would be hard for me to believe that the military officials in charge did not know. I doubt the average Israeli on the street had any idea - but then, most citizens are kept ignorant of their countries misdeeds. Israel has categorically denied having any knowledge of what occurred in southern Lebannon, but I think it safe to assume that most of the "higher ups" probably knew, or at least had some clues as to what might be happening.

The whole issue of the invasion of southern Lebannon can still cause division among some Israelis. Some believe it was justified, most believe it was not. There were many Israeli soldies lost to that invasion, and most Israelis believed those soldiers died in vain. Indeed, Ariel Sharon's actions during that invasion is what puts on the "dislike" list of Palestinians and even some Israelis. Did Ariel Sharon know what was happening? Personally, I know I really shouldn't answer because I really know no other person's mind other than my own. But I cannot see how he could not have known.

Anyway, those are my comments. I wish I could see the documentary in its entirety. I respect the BBC, and it looks as though the story would have been a good one to watch. I'll see if I might be able to see if it is available for viewing here in the States.

But, yes, this was a black stain on the history of Israel, and one that should not be forgotten. For when a country forgets its mistakes, that is when it is most likely to repeat them.

 

[~heyjoe~]

Good reply!

 

[Marxist]

chele, your post was worth reading twice. very very good. were you asleep on the other thread?

 

[sexy-girl]

chele i saw that documentary quite awhile ago and it did paint a very damning picture of sharon ... many respected war generals when asked if what happened would mean that sharon had committed a war crime ... they said yes ... this was the basis of the documentary discussing if the leader of Israel was a war criminal or not



re-reading your post about the running of the prison by the SLA makes me think that maybe its not the same documentary because this one i saw focused on an instance when Israel had a town occupied in southern lebannon and they turned over the occupation of the town to the SLA this was days after the SLA had suffered a heavy defeat and were edgy to get revenge which they did when they occupied the town full of women and children



i am not anti Israel or anti jewish but i think its importent to know what sort of leader Israel has at the moment the people of Israel are living in fear and hatred and i think that is the ONLY reason why a man like sharon could gain power

 

[SexyChele]

Sexy Girl

I was using a link provided by p p man that conected me to various documentaries that the BBC has done. I scrolled down to the one I thought he was talking about. Maybe when he comes on line he can clarify if I did indeed read the correct one.

Sharon is a loose cannon - always has been. While I personally support Israel and her people (both Jews and non-Jews), I really feel that there could have been better choices for Prime Minister than Sharon. But, I do not live there, and I would be highly insulted if some one from another country told me that the leadership of my country was lacking. Just national pride getting in the way sometimes.

But you are very much correct, SG. Israelis were becoming more and more disillusioned with Barak and they were looking for a man who would be more firm and less likely to "give Israel away". There was talk of bringing Netanyahu back, but Sharon manuevered well and won the spot. The strangest factor in all of this is that Barak has become closer in his views to Netanyahu over the past few months.

 

[YogiBare]

SexyChele

I agree with your excellent post on the BBC documentary. It continues to be fascinating to watch how Sharon evolves, particularly in a coalition government with Shamir as Foreign Minister.

It's like watching George W grow into being more and more presidential. The times mold the man at least as much as the other way around.

YogiBare (The server didn't recognize me when I signed in so I don't know if this will post under "Unregistered".

 

[p_p_man]

For those of you who have been viewing...

the thread about Human Rights, Israel and Palestine here is the link that SexyChele is referring to...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/audiovideo/programmes/correspondent/archive/

Copied from the other thread

SexyChele

"This is the link to the BBC Series called "Correspondent". It's the archives and I didn't realise until I saw it that the programme I watched was first broadcast in 4th November 2000 (I saw it 2-3 months ago).

The site has a list of "Correspondent" subjects but the one I'm referring to is called "Israel Accused".

Just scroll down until you come to it."

The programme is well worth reading (including the transcript) and the links to other sites are well worth visiting.

The whole question is that Israel in many people's eyes (including my own) has always been portrayed as the lone fighter in an ongoing war over territory. Surrounded as she is by hostile nations she has always been able to more than adequately defend herself.

She still is in that position. But she is also responsible for the daily lives of a countless number of other races. Is it right that she should use methods reminiscent of Nazi Germany in her treatment of these people?

As the site points out when the prison closed down in May 2000, most if not all of the SLA fled into Israel where they have been living ever since under the protection of the Israeli Government.

And SexyChele, according to the proramme the Israelis did not just enlist the help of the SLA, they created it.

The whole programme gave me cause for thought and that's why I raised the question of Human Rights on the other thread.

 

[KillerMuffin]

I did some reading after the other thread to bone up on the research. I wondered why I had such a bad attitude toward the jews and some, repeat some sympathy for the Palestinians.

Go farther back in history, back to pre-WW1 and the break of of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. Look at the establishment and proliferation of Zionism. The Palestinians never stood a chance, internationally speaking.

In 1914ish the jews made up about 12% of the population in Palestine. Nationalism, as the jews were so interested in, was a foreign concept to the arabs living there by all accounts that I've read. They didn't clue in on the concept of international soveriegnty or even much about irrigation. Prior to that Britian had offered Zion Jews a chance at some serious ground in Uganda, but they turned it down, preferring Palestine their "God given" homeland. So they began slowly immigrating. The League of Nations put pressure on whatever Palestinian governance there was to accept Jewish immigrants. Zionism didn't have much of a case, but it did have powerful international backing in Britian and the LoN.

See, after the break of of the Turkish Empire during WW1 the LoN gave a lot of Arab states to Britian in one of their Mandates. Britian, in turn, eventually gave Palestine to the jews. You've no doubt heard of the Balfour Declaration that passed Palestine off to the jews even though the wording ordered that nothing could be done to prejudice or stomp on the civil rights of the local non-jewish arab population.

Now during WW1, Britain used the arabs against their Turkish government because Turkey was aligned with Germany. But we won't get terribly into that. The caliph Husayn promoted himself to King of the Arabs. Are we seeing where a problem just might be developing? While all this was going on, the British, French, and Russians were signing agreements to oversee Palestine, read own it. This is how the British got their hands on it strongly enough to pass it to the Zionists. The British wanted it because of the Suez Canal and planned conflicts with Syrian arabs nearby and they figured the Zionists would be much better allies. Not to mention the cash flow from rich Jewish Americans and the fears that Germany would pre-empt them.

Now this is kind of important. I'm going to CnP cause it's clearer that way. "Between January 1919 and January 1920, the Allied Powers met in Paris to negotiate peace treaties with the Central Powers. At the conference, Amir Faysal, representing the Arabs, and Weizmann, representing the Zionists, presented their cases. Although Weizmann and Faysal reached a separate agreement on January 3, 1919, pledging the two parties to cordial cooperation, the latter wrote a proviso on the document in Arabic that his signature was tied to Allied war pledges regarding Arab independence. Since these pledges were not fulfilled to Arab satisfaction after the war, most Arab leaders and spokesmen have not considered the Faysal-Weizmann agreement as binding."

Skipping a bunch of time to the Palestinian Revolt. The arabs didn't want the Jews moving in and taking a bunch of land and claiming soveriegnty. Well think about it, who would? Anyway, a loose coalition of arab groups brought up the AHC. They revolted, boycotted, and got generally pissy. The started some terrorist tactics. Please be aware that I consider any attack on non-combatants to be terrorism. Sojers fight sojers, they do not blow up civilian busses. Anyway, the AHC wanted three things, no more jewish immigration, no more land sales to jews, and the establishment of an arab government. See, no one wants to work together anymore.

Britain's problem was that this all happened in 1937. They were dependant on arab oil and the Jews were NOT going to oppose Britain in favor of Germany were they? So the Brit's had to make some concessions to the arabs to keep them happy and the highly pro-zionists in power in Britain were retired. Britain sent in the Peel commission to evalutate what was going on and came to the conclusion that, "in July 1937, the Arab and Zionist positions and the British obligation to each as irreconcilable and the existing Mandate as unworkable." The solution? Partition Palestine. The Jews were for it, arabs against it. Arabs would get half, Jews would get half, and Jerusalem would be Internationalized. And it was done by UN mandate.

All of this was brewing during WW2 when a bunch of Jews were highly understandably moving to Palestine. With the US and Britain on the arab side at this time, the Jews didn't have much backup, but they were well armed, sophisticated, and had a better military. The arabs weren't. The violence on both sides had escalated nastily and people were dying. By 1949 the Jews controlled 77% of Palestine. Over half the indigenous (read native) arab population either fled or were expelled. The Egyptians and Jordanians occupied the other 33% of Palestine until 1967 when Israel took control of all of it. The partition never actually happened and the soveriegn state of arabs in Palestine never actually happened either.

Anyway, that's ancient modern history. That's how we got into this nasty little jewish/arab problem in Israel. This is pre-Mossad, pre-holocaust, pre-nazi Germany, pre-extreme Jewish persecution. This is where I have problems with the Jewish side of the question. Have they really played fair with the arabs? I don't know much more of this history than the glossing over the one or two non-partisan websites have thrown up. They each blame the other and the arabs were never willing to negotiate and the jews really had no right to Palestine to begin with.

http://memory.loc.gov/frd/cs/iltoc.html
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html

 

[YogiBare]

Good research, KM

but please accept an addition and a correction toward the end.

When you talk about the pre-WWI, the growth of Zionism, and Jewish immigration to the Holy Land, there was a familiar (to Jews) motivating factor. Persecution in Eastern Europe during the early 1900s was driving us from our homes to find safety. Both of my paternal grandparents (plus a host of other family members) fled the Ukraine because of pogroms, government sponsored terrorism, in which Cossaks (sp?) on horses murdered our people and burned our villages. You see, there was a critical need for a safe haven.

BTW, conditions for Jews in America was not so great at that time either. We were second-class citizens (just above the African-Americans), denied entry to schools, clubs, and communities without anyone thinking anything of it.

The partitioning of Palestine did not take place until after WW II and after the Holocaust. The U.N. was created after the war and had to find a way to handle all of the Jewish refugees from all across Europe. Arab terrorism began immediately and coordinated all-out warfare was begun jointly by all of the Arab states with the exressed intent to destroy Israel and to push the Jews, many recently rescued from Hitler's concentration camps at the end of WW II, into the sea. Land that was intended (by the U.N.) to become the Palestinian state was lost in this war.

KM, you refer to 1967, when more of Palestine was occupied by Israel. Why did this happen? Because the united Arab countries again attacked Israel with the intent to destroy it. And lost more territory in the process of losing the war.

In all honesty, KM, I think that you have to look much further back in history to understand the emnity toward Jews. Oppression of my people goes back thousands of years. As the first monotheistic religion, we were hunted and killed for refusing to pray to the multiple gods of the Roman emporer. Later, when first Christianity and then Islam grew out of Judaism, each took the position that theirs was the only correct faith and branded Jews as every bad thing under the sun, forcing Jews to convert to their religion or face death. Hitler's hatred for Jews was rooted in Christian theology. (He believed that Jesus' only mistake was in allowing the Jews to live.) And this we have lived with - and died with - for 2001 years. And it still goes on today.

KM, you wondered at the beginning of your post why you had such a bad attitude toward we Jews. May I gently, and very respectfully, suggest a possibility? Did you know that Judaism is the only one of these three religions that teaches that righteous members of other religions can go to Heaven? Think about the implications and ramifications of that!

YB

 

[p_p_man]

So far no-one has answered the question.

Beautiful research, well written and interesting posts, fascinating theories, but I can only see a row of 'F's in front of me for not reading the paper.

We are not talking history here we're talking present.

Is there any particular reason why Israel should treat it's non-Jewish citizens as portrayed in the BBC documentary?

I'll add a further two questions.

Is there any particular reason why people who have taken part in the other post on Human Rights and this one (also on Human Rights) do not seem to be able to face up to the fact that in many cases Israel is today just as bad as Nazi Germany was?

If there were war crime trials at Nuremberg. Why not war crime trials at, say, Tel Aviv?

 

[Myrrdin]

Re: So far no-one has answered the question.

If there were war crime trials at Nuremberg. Why not war crime trials at, say, Tel Aviv?

The War crime trials after World War II were based on a Christian/Western philosophy. The Muslim code of ethics for waging war seems very different. It would certainly be a clash of ideologies.

Was reading these sites for background on the occupied areas.
The Six Day War
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/67_War.html

Yom Kippur War
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/73_War.html

Can certainly see why Israel feels it needs a buffer zone between itself and all the Arab states trying to sweep them into the sea.
The rhetoric seems very familiar, despite these events happening forty years ago

 

[KillerMuffin]

Looking at this all from an Arab perspective, you can see how much this history ties in with most of today's problems. The arabs believe that the western powers will steam roll over them and their concerns in favor of the money and where it lies. They gave a chunk of arab land to a group of people whose historical precedent to said land is essentially religious. If you step outside of yourself, you can understand that the arabs over there have an extremely strong reason to mistrust the western world. Corollize it with Afghanistan. If we follow precedent, the US will take over Afghanistan and give it to westerners and the Afghanis will no longer have a homeland.

No, the arabs are not innocent in all of this, but neither are the Jews. The AHC attacked first using terrorist tactics. However, as far as they were concerned, the west attacked first by not living up to agreements arrived at during World War 1 and by giving away their sovereignty to their land.

The partitioning never actually happened from all accounts. The arabs refused the compromise and the war in 1948 really got nasty. By the time it was over none of the native arabs held any soverignty and Israel controlled 77%. Why did they feel the need to control 77% when they'd agreed to the partition? Why not stop at the agreed upon border and keep the Palestinians out? Why did, in 1967, did Israel feel the need to extend its sovereignty to the entire region? The arabs behaved badly so therefore the jews are excused from acting civilized about things?

When you step outside yourself and your narrow point of view and look at things through the eyes of others, you can see much more deeply how the world works and then you can truly understand people. Until then you only understand yourself. I can't stand the terrorists who did the WTC thing. But I can understand them very well now. I know why they did and why they hate us. I know why we were wrong in certain ways. I know why we were right in others. It does not mean that I condone or excuse their behavior, it means that I can see beyond their behavior to my own.

So, Yogibare, in answer to you. The arabs say that Zionists stole Palestine. How do you refute that? By the fact that Jehovah gave it to the Jews? Allah said no such thing, you know. If Jewish religion is a valid reason, then so is the Islamic religion when there is a question of legality and rights. It's called fairness.

Quite frankly, one thing that bothers me a lot is the use of the Holocaust as justification for anything the jews do. Yes, it was a horrible atrocity. Yes, it was one of the worst persecutions against a group in history. However, it is not a valid reason to behave badly or carry on as if one's suffering mitigates one's responsibility to the rest of the world. Otherwise, let people like Edmund Kemper go free. He suffered like you and I can never imagine. Of course, he's a sexual serial killer now. Jews do not have a franchise on suffering.

You see, there are two sides to this story and neither side is right. us-israel.org is not a reliable source of information because it is partisan to the jewish side of the issue. palestine.org isn't either for the opposite reason. If you wish to cite a source, please do so. Just realize that jewish or palestinian citations are not acceptable.

 

[SexyChele]

Whoa! p p man!

Now, just when I thought we could actually dialogue and get along, you throw that last post at me! Was that really nice?

Ok, first: in the documentary site that you gave to me, the people that were being abused were not "non-Jewish citizens". Unless I was reading the wrong thing, the people detained in that prison were Lebanese within Lebanon. True, I don't think Israel should have invaded Lebanon. And I believe that the higher military officials had to have known. But I also made that abundantly clear with my opening post. Or so I thought.

Non-Jewish citizens within Israel are treated the same as any Israeli citizen. As a matter of fact, non-Jewish citizens are often given more leeway within Israel in some regards. Example: Israeli bedouins. They are citizens of Israel, not Jewish, yet they do have the compulsory military duty placed upon them. They can volunteer if they choose, and many do, providing valuable skills as trackers and within desert operations. But they have the ability to decline military service.

So I'm a little confused about the idea that Israelis somehow mistreat non-Jewish citizens???

Second, Israel like Nazi Germany? I really do have to take exception to that remark. Nazi Germany exterminated people based on some concept of what was the "perfect" individual. Jews were not the only ones singled out for this destruction. 11 million people perished - 6 million of them Jews. Who were the rest? Some were prisoners of war, yes. Others were the mentally insane, the elderly, the homosexuals, and Christians speaking out against the Third Reich and/or hiding individuals.

How is this like Israel? Does Israel kill people? Would you like that blatant a statement? Yes, she does. Who does she kill? The leaders of terrorist organizations that have committed terrorist crimes against Israelis. Most recently (within the past day) a leader of HAMAS was the victim of a car bomb. The Israeli government has said that he was responsible for the killing of 48 Israelis. He created the bomb that was used in the suicide bombings of both the disco in Tel Aviv and the pizzeria. It is also known that he personally outfitted the men who wore these suicide bombs.

There is a huge difference between killing some one for the color of their skin, or the creed they follow, or their sexual lifestyle, and killing some one who poses a threat to national security. Big difference. These men are not killed because they are Arab. They are killed because they are terrorists.

Now, do I agree with this practice? On the surface, I would say no. But then, I've been present during a terrorist attack. I know the fear, the closeness to death one feels. Seeing people die. I can understand how people would want the masterminds to be eliminated. Just as Americans want Osama bin Laden eliminated. And because the US is bombing Afganistan, killing innocent civilians, would you say that the States are acting in the capacity of Nazi Germany? Maybe the US should be brought before a war crimes trial?

As to the third question: who would Israel be tried for at a war crimes trial? Which victims? The ones mentioned in the documentary? There already are trials underway - in Lebanon, in abstentia. And why Tel Aviv? Why not the capital, Jerusalem? Or Gaza City? Unless you are telling us that you do not believe that Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel? Or is because only 2 countries in the world recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel? Just curious on that point.

Well, I hope if I didn't get an "A", that I at least got a passing grade? Maybe?

 

[SexyChele]

KillerMuffin

I must say, you have truly impressed me with the amount of study you have put into this topic. I really think that, considering the time element, it speaks volumes about your character. And that is something I can respect.

First, it is commonly thought that the Zionist have some high-minded religious zeal towards the Land. In fact, it comes as a surprise to most people that those who consider themselves Zionists are often atheists. They long ago gave up on religion - if they ever believed at all.

When the first Zionists arrived in Palestine, they were actually more enamoured of Communism or Socialism than religious fervor. If you have ever seen how a kibbutz operates, you understand. Kibbutzim are perfect examples of communist communities on a small scale. But religious? Nope, hardly.

In fact, the majority of Israelis are not really religious. Most would describe themselves as we Americans do for the most part - we have faith, but we really don't practice it. (by practice, I mean going to religious services on a regular basis, and observing all the rules of one's personal religious convictions)

No, one of the motivating factors behind Zionism was to return to the Land. Not simply go to the Land, but return. Return in the way that Jews were exiled thousands of years ago. I know, ancient history. But that is where Zionists, and most Jews, are coming from. It has very little to do with religion.

Now, yes, there is a faction called "religious Zionism", and those that prescribe to this view believe there is a divine reason that the Jews should be in the land. This view is not as wide spread as most people thing, however.

Second, to understand 21st century Jewery, one must include the Holocaust. It shapes almost everything Jews think and feel. Do Jews "harp" on the subject? Maybe more than Gentiles woud like. But, as YB has stated, by remembering it, we keep in mind that there is always a chance of that insecurity happening again. Being taken from our homes, losing our families, being lost in the world, and no one caring. And it is important to note that while 11 million people perished, most people did not give one thought to it. Even still, it is denied today, a mere 50 years afterwards. If people can believe that something did not take place 2 generations after it did, then, yes, there is a need to keep "harping" on it.

Also, when the Holocaust ended, people were afraid, terrified, traumitized. They had no home, no money, no belongings, no family. The countries they had called home still hated them. Countries they sought to gain entrance closed their borders. The only option? Go back to the Land. Palestine in 1946 was not exactly paradise. Underdeveloped, very little in the way of luxuries outside of Jerusalem. No real business or manufacturing. Not a plafe I would chose to go to. Yet many did. And did back-breaking work to make it the nation it is today.

The Holocaust is not an excuse. It is a remembrance - we must never allow mankind to do such things again. But look, in Kosovo, in Serbia, in Croatia. The same thing. Man does not learn his lesson. That is why we must try to always remember. And never forget.

 

[p_p_man]

Re: KillerMuffin

I must say, you have truly impressed me with the amount of study you have put into this topic.

I would like to extend that to include everyone who took part in both debates.

The quality of the posts and the research into the topic were truly amazing.

And they call this a porn site!