"Our statements as a council reflect the majority view of our community."

Regrettably, it seems to me as an outsider that Jews are allowed to say what they like, so long as it conforms to the Zionist view point.

End of story.

There is much conspirational dialect going on about zionism. Is it a fact, that it has connections with the Council of Foreign Relations which is not truly a democratic organisation, and is said to have its roots in a declaration by Cecil Rhodes giving intimation that the future world will be in dire need of a group of international watchkeepers.

From the Council of Foreign Relations is said to have also grown both the Bilderbergers and the Trilateralists, the latter having very strong connections with the US Federal Reserve which as we all know is privately owned.

It is said also that both George W Bush and Tony Blair have been or are still members of the Trilateralists, as well as Henry Kissinger. Also it has been reported that John Howard has attended meetings of the Bilderbergers.

Most political philosophers shy clear of joining these groups, owing to the very fact that they are non-democratic and very elitist, and could be the very reason the UN has been accused of just being their political plaything.

I've never heard the Zionist Council of Victoria endorsing an opinion on limiting Israel's borders to '67, nor have I heard of it condemning the occupation, nor have I heard it accept Palestinain and Arab demands for peace nor a cessation of arrest and detention of Palestinians without trial nor a condemnation of the illegal settlements nor of that invasion in Lebanon nor ... oh well the list is damn near endless and it just shows what Danny and his bunch of numbskulls are all about when he says

'...our representative role (as the Zionist Council of Victoria) requires careful consideration of issues and the views of our affiliates to ensure that our statements as a council reflect the majority view of our community.'

So bloody true. Their non criticism of Israeli policy, it's land stealing and it's war crimes show this lot aren't for peace in the region. They represent the majority view which is wanting a Greater Israel and that the majority believe peace only comes through militarism, occupation, suppression and domination.

Nice one Danny, you own words condemn both your council and your majority as warmongers!

To all.. what was the likelihood of the early Australian settlers and colonialists 'negotiating' with the Aborigines about mutually agreed borders ?

Pretty slim.

Why ? 'power'. We had it..they didn't.

Vk3 I really don't know why you poo poo'd my 'religious bs' as you put it in the other thread. I was giving a far reaching context and philosophical background without which one cannot understand the events in the middle east.

I don't think you appreciated what I was actually saying.

Keith bemoans the lack of discussion about borders, you bemoan the 'zionist veiwpoint' but neither of you really tries to understand it's deeper aspects. All you do is look at the symptoms and then inject a secular western understanding of things into it. That is as brilliant as the USA thinking Democracy can work in tribal Iraq.

VK on the religious bit, I showed that the 'divine mandate' aspect is critical for many Jews. Mainly the orthodox and settlers. If you don't 'get' that, how can you consider ways of exploring solutions ?
If you did understand it, you would quickly realize that the only other solution is one based on power....*clout* if you will.

Failure to understand the concept of "Islamic Waqf" on the Palestinian (hamas) side is the equivalent of not 'getting' the idea of divine mandate on the Jewish side. Both sides DO claim a divine mandate. But they are not the 'COMPLETE' side. They are both minorities.

But the success of any negotiated settlement depends on how much influence these minorities have, and how rigidly they are willing to persue their agenda's.

F.H. enjoy the sun and sand..but keep away from 'ladies' in burkahs ok.... never know what is underneath.

Re this article, does it really matter how representative they are ?
Israel is a democracy, so it boils down to the the available voting power.

BOAZ, I understand it all right. I was just trying to point out the shaky ground on which the Zionist cause is founded.

I can't see that there is any solution to the conflict between the Arab Palestinians and the Zionist Jews, The Jews have all the power and the Arabs have too much angst. Neither side is prepared to concilliate.

That is what this thread is all about. The Zionists "know" that they are right and they don't want to listen to anything contrary. When they complain about anti-semitisn, what they see is just someone who has an alternative point of view.

David

I don't bemoan the lack of discussion about borders.

I think they should be set at the '67 lines without negotiation or discussion of any sort.

The deeper aspects? What? You want the thing settled on the basis that an unprovable biased entity, an Israelite God, gave the land to the Israelites, simply because some ancient Israelite wrote a book, thousands of years ago and claimed it to be the Israelite God's will and testament. Give us a break David. You're simply a misguided fundy nutter, who rambles on about the Palestinian problem, final solutions, camps, deportations and ...well that's how the Jewish Problem was discussed in Nazi Germany...wasn't it? And they claimed your Christian God was on their side too!

VK3AUU

As an outsider perhaps your impressions are somewhat inadequate. You would be limited perhaps to what the newspapers are prepared to publish and they are very selective. On the question of Israel there is a high degree of agreement even when other values are not shared. This does not mean any limit on expression.

There is only one country in the world where Jews are a majority. A tiny land which a few countries want to obliterate. The statements by Keith for example are so vehement, no one would say the same about any other country or make such bitter accusations. No other country that I know of has its very legitimacy questioned. No other country has been so vilified for occupying neighbours who threatened to destroy it. The allied occupation of Germany and Japan- not generally questioned.

Why is Israel so vilified by the left?

Logic

Your accusations of my hate for Israel have no substance. I despise the Israeli illegalities and your justification of the it's criminalities.

Your comparison of the occupation by Israel of Palestine and the Allies of Germany and Japan are quite stupid.

The Allies endeavoured to rebuild both Japan and Germany and indeed contributed huge sums. They encouraged democracy. They didn't suppress the people of those countries with checkpoints and arbitrary detention without trial. The didn't occupy those countries for 40 odd years. They didn't steal land and create settlements in those countries.
For you to claim a comparison is merely dispicable and stupid propaganda.

You are a justifier of criminality and oppression. You prefer war instead of peace. You are a disgace for attempting to besmirch my honourable and peaceful intentions with your muck-raking and baseless accusation.

For you to continue in this vein shows you to be a bigoted fool.

keith

Israel did not steal Arab land any more than the Arabs stole Jewish land. (Hebron, Tiberias). Also Islamic regimes throughout the region (Yemen Egypt Iraq Iran) had a history of denying non-Muslims full and equal rights. (Dhimmies).

Jewish communities in the area predate Islam, as do Christian communities. The Druze also suffered discrimination. Jews lived continuously in Israel and more arrived during the Caliphate and the Turkish rule. European Jews arrived more recently and bought properties from local and Turkish landowners. All completely legal according to the existing laws.

Mnay Muslem Arabs tried to use force to remove these legal settlers. This continued after the creation by the UN of a Jewish state. Naturally the Jews fought back. Questionable things were done by both sides. The attempts by the surrounding Islamic administrations continued, leaving refugees in roughly equal numbers on both sides. Israel showed superior battle skills and defeated their sworn enemies.

That is why they then occupied territories for protection against belligerent states. They obtained some new lands, particularly around Jerusalem but against that they sheltered Christian and Druze communities who were treated unacceptably (by modern standards) under Islamic rule. I agree that the occupation went on for far too long but the Palestinians positively refused to accept Israel and still do.

Israel finally built a wall AROUND ITSELF to stop the obscenity of suicide bombing (often by children).

You Keith cannot accept any of this. For examples of hatred do a Google on Antisemitism, Islam and you will be shocked by the filth and hatred you see. It is paranoid.

Keith

The point about my comparison with the defeat of Japan and Germany is this.

Both countries accepted defeat, silenced the extremists who caused the trouble, and moved on. Germany did not clamour for the return of the Sudatenlands, the Rhinelands or parts of Poland nor Japan the return of Taiwan. Neither side preached poisoned hatred of the allies or fired rockets at them, certainly neither sent suicide bombers against them. Thus they were able to move on and prosper in harmony with their former enemies.

Otherwise the allies would have again moved on them again with a force that makes Israel's efforts look like a picnic.

The Palestinians could be now living in comfort if they had done the same. Before you explode (I hope I have not given you heart failure I do not dislike you) consider this. You make much of the displacement of Muslim Arabs but reject the displacement of Christians, Jews and Druze from the surrounding areas. If that attitude is general how can peace ever be established?

Logic

Take some history and geography lessons. Your lack of knowledge of basic facts underlies and highlights your basic misunderstanding of the mid east crisis.

keith

I have read much of history. And I have a good understanding of logic. In fact I have a University Degree.

You are denying my comments not arguing against them. Your cheap jibes and lack of arguments are such that you are not likely to be taken seriously. Give me some reasonable facts I will debate them with you. You have simply used the abuse approach that has unfortunately become a stock in trade of the Palestinian lobby. I think it reveals that the Palestinians have to get a life, suppress the extremists in their midst and get to some useful work.

Their Arab friends should show a bit of charity and help them instead of blaming Israel the US and past colonialism for their failures. If they would do that the pressure would then go off Israel who would be in a better position to control their extremists.

You seem to be too busy excusing the Arabs and blaming Israel and the US. I bet you don't in your blindness even recall that I referred to Israeli failings.

Stop being so pathetic and take part in a real debate. And read a few interpretations of history that are not written by Islamists.

A university degree yet you think Taiwan was part of Japan. The Japanese thought that for a while too. Did they tutor you?

What sort of degree allows you to think it logical to equate a liberating occupation with an oppressive occupation.

What sort of degree allows you to mouth off stupidities. Circumstances, decency and good intention allowed democracy and freedom to be installled and flourish in both Germany and Japan within ten years. Yet you claim that is somehow equivalent to an indecent, land grabbing, oppressive military occupation of forty years that supresses expressions of democracy.

What sort of degree allows you to logically argue the annexation of Palestinian land by building a wall around parts of it somehow equates to 'Israel .... (building) a wall AROUND ITSELF'.

Those really display the unique logic of logic.

keith

Taiwan was first annexed by China and then occupied by Japan and more recently by a Chinese army. They did not spend their time seeking revenge but moved on to become a major manufacturer and achieve a high standard of living. The Palestinians were offered the same but chose to continue a Jihad against Israel even though that country was providing refuge for large numbers of Jews, Christians and Druze from other Arab countries. Many of the Israeli Arabs including Muslims prefer to be in Israel rather than in Palestine and some join the Israeli army.

I supply two links but you have either swallowed whole the Muslim hate propaganda or are to blind to see.

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2534#Israeli_Arabs

http://www.pmw.org.il/asx/PMW_mamareem2007.asx

Keith

I mentioned God's promises to Israel, AND the 'Islmic concept of Waqf' as BOTH being part of, or the major barrier to resolving the problem to_your_satisfaction.

Its not that I 'want' the situation to be resolved in terms of the borders established by Yahweh (if they were it would include all land to the Euphrates mate)

No.. I'm saying 'this is the problem' there are 2 competing theological views at work. The Islamic and the Zionist/Orthodox.

Personally, I dont' believe anything we do will change the course of salvation history and Gods providential dealings with Israel, except for one. -The acceptance of Christ as Messiah by all sides.

So, for the record the 'Christian' (or as you put it 'fundy religious nutter' :) approach is to point all parties to Christ as Saviour and Lord. At the same time, there are ELEMENTS of the Christian community/body, which have a particular eschatological/(last days) view of things which causes them to support Israel in practical ways as well as morally.

Whether they do or don't I feel it will make no difference in the long run, though I concede if you look at this problem from a purely secular viewpoint, such assistance could be seen as unhelpful.

Your view of '67 borders' is just that.. 'your view' its one of a number of competing views. I suggest that in the real world, the only thing which will bring ANY view to fruition is power. Even if they mangaged to negotiate an outcome as you prefer, there would be the hard core Hamas-ites who would bitterly resent ANY Israelite presence in an "Islamic land", and they would feed their miserable hearts with all the Islamic traditions of the various battles Mohammad fought, with partICular emphasis on Khaybar where the last of the Jews were turfed out of the Arabian peninsula after all their lands and goods were thieved by the Muslims.
I remind you that one of the long range missiles of Hezbollah was named "Khaybar II" that chunk of history is VERY close to their modern minds.

Daniel pipes offers only opinion and admits such himself in this article when he says in his first paragraph,

'No opinion surveys cover this delicate subject...'

He relies on mere anecdotal evidence and personal experience. And David Pipes is of course recognised as biased in his views. Doubting Daniel Pipes 'facts' tends to indicate I haven't a problem with swallowing propaganda. It appears you've pointed your finger regarding swallowing propaganda at the wrong person. Look to yourself logic...do you believe Pipes biased opinions on this matter? I think you might as you've used him as an authority.

Palestinian Media Watch...really logic...do you think that website isn't a propaganda front? But you do have a point about the Palestinian media though. I agree they are definately biased, but I'd add they are definately as biased and discrinminatory as many of the official Israeli media outlets, the official policies of the Israeli Government and the oppressive activities of the Israeli Military Occupation machine in occupied Palestine.

Why don't you do as you advise me. Stop swallowing hate propaganda.
I rarely read websites or propaganda outlets. I do read publications such as the NY Times, Washington Post and the Guardian. I watch closely the unfolding of mid eastern events and as often as possible seek out sources that detail the records of leaders involved in those events. Then logic after a dispassionate thought process and from an independant stance ( I by the way am in no way of Middle Eastern heritage) I make up my own mind as to the probable unfolding of issues. I try never to put much weight in obviously biased reports or reporters. They've usually got some other agenda and are usually quite wrong.

Take my advice...read more widely, think for yourself and discount the propagandists, especially governments and their official spokespeople. And make sure you never quote them for they tend to destroy the argument one wants to promote.

Nice postings, Logic. To your list you could add the Samaritans. They also survived 1400 years of Islamic oppression, but chose not to leave the area, as many jews did. The new state of Israel has taken the remaining Samaritans in, after they had dwindled to around 200 people.
Of course, there are probably many peoples who did not survive the Muslim oppression - Jihad and Dhimmitude - which the Muslims would like to reimpose.
If Zionism means a democratic jewish state, this is a recipe for survival of the jewish people in their own land.
I've read elsewhere that the moderates within Hammas expect it to take 500 years to reconquer Israel. If Muslims have one thing, it's a long memory.
If Muslims can't take Israel militarily, they will take it demographically. This is the reason for their insistance on a right of return for those displaced in the creation of the state of Israel.
There are many more so-called Palistinians (Muslim by a very large majority, with a tiny christian number) than there are jews in Israel or jews prepared to put their lives at risk by moving into a war zone.
Muslims wish to re-impose dhimmitude upon their former subjects, the jews. This attempt at re-imposing oppression must be resisted.