Reviews for Israel: A Stolen Home
Crunch chapter 8 . 4/24/2006
As a quick addendum after reading further chapters, I'd like to amend my last review. I do mean to be so harsh. Seldom have I read an essay on this site that is so intellectually worded, yet so fundamentally flawed.

Your arguments about the difference between occupation of Native American Land verses occupation of Palestinian land is heavily deluded; the tribes that comprised the Palestinian state weren't much more cohesive than that of the Native American tribes. Yes, they were further along in terms of military and political developments, but it was, I feel sorry to have to point out, quite some time after the Native Americans were displaced. It was a later era, but a similar hotbed of conflict between tribes. This may seem unimportant, but to argue otherwise is simply an example of your error in the name of self-delusion.

You argue that the countries which have been mentioned by those who reviewed before me, and recently myself, are MUSLIM states, not ARAB states. Alright. So the conflict is Muslim nation vs. Jewish nation, not Arab vs. Jewish. This isn't simply semantics ... I would never dumb such a complex issue down to its lowest common denominator, because there is far too much of THAT going around. But it very nearly is. And playing with semantics when you're discussing the fate and extermination of a race is a VERY dangerous, calous game to play.

You say you fear the imminent, inevitable use of Israeli nuclear warheads, or something of a similar caliber, against the Palestinians. Sorry to break it to you, but the largest current threat of Nuclear war in the middle east is the one the Iranian government has threatened against Israel as soon as their program is developed, which, at a conservative estimate, is in the next three years. Please extend your thirst for knowledge to the bigger picture.

Your next fallacy I will quote directly:

"If the Zionists hadn't been allowed to launch their unsavory colonization scheme, it would have had no excuse for not doing so."

If I've heard racism parading as common sence used to more damaging effect since George Bush's last speech, I can't recall it.

Now I do need to end this responce, because my composure is rapidly leaving me, and I want to cut and run before I let my own moral outrage promote fiction as fact. I see you haven't updated in some time, so I don't in all fairness expect a responce to this post. If you feel the need to tear through my review for ammunition, please do.
Crunch chapter 5 . 4/23/2006
I commend you on your thorough and unbiased quest to fully understand the complexities of the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict. I know you've done your research, and taken both sides into account ... though I do find it puzzling that you chose to exclude the information that, at the same time Palestinians were exiled from the single Jewish nation-state in the world, thousands of Jews were being exiled from Arab countries such as Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia, Yemen, and the Palestinian territories.

Well. I'm sure you had a good reason.

Because you did come across this information in your research, correct? I'm positive your "research" didn't consist of a single article in a prominent magazine, and your own moral outrage as an AMERICAN citizen. I'm certain of this, because so much information is out there to those with the mental capacity and the moral depth to comprehend it all.

What this information adds up to is that in the Israeli/ Palestinan conflict has a lot of sides to it, and few sides are very right, while many sides are very wrong. The Israelis have been wrong. So have the many Arab countries who'd rather keep displaced Palestinians as a bargaining chip, and spend billions on the destruction of Israel, while spending almost nothing to assuage the suffering of the Palestinians by caring for them or offering them entrance into their brother countries. Which they haven't.

It includes the Palestinians who would rather see Israel destroyed than return to it. It includes the UN. The U.S. It includes those small-minded enough to think they're offering a unique and just solution - the destruction of the Jewish state, which in essence, would lead to the destruction of the Jewish people.

It's been presented before. About fifty years back. It went under the name "Final Solution" then.

Yes, the Israelis have wronged the Palestinians. Even if what you presupposed was true, that Israel is 100% wrong in this conflict, the solution you offer is very, very troubling to me. The complete destruction of a state and its people, the "burning down of the bell" you suggest, is never an acceptable answer from a human being. To suggest that it is is to promote the injustices and tradgedies you stand on your soapbox and pretend to object to.

I don't mean to be so harsh. I just mean for you to see the complexities inherant in this conflict, and to consider them all before you propose to know the answer.
MagenDavid chapter 1 . 8/5/2004
I completely agree with Sunflowerphilosiphy's and Steven Lawrence's reviews and would like to add:
To Sunflower's first review-
Israel, before the jews came was one big disgusting swamp. It's true! Mark Twain came here when Israel was occupied by the arabs and he was disgusted! When the jews came they did some MAJOR handiwork on the place! I mean look at the arab states now-they're all 3rd world countries! And no they don't only want Israel but they also want Israel's democracy. They want a country like ours but refuse to work themselves to get it.
To Steven's first review-
The jews are the only ones who are civilized enough to allow arabs anywhere near their state and how do they repay them? By cutting off parts of Israel in their children's gepgraphy books! Oh and thanks a ton for that one!
To Sunflower's second review-
When the arabs started the intifada all was well untill Israel retaliated. Then the whole world made a big stink "How dare we deffend ourselvs! What kind of barbarians are we?"
And may I remind you that most retaliations were preformed in non populated areas or on strict military targets. For example, we once retaliated in bombing an EMPTY police station. We did this specifically at NIGHT so that there would be no major casualties!
Oh and next time you decide to rant mindlessly do it on a site where drunks and dregs hang out cause this kind of bull doesn't cut it in the world of facts!
S. T. Lawrence chapter 5 . 11/17/2003
I decided to check out more of your lovely work and leave yet another review on this essay on a few things you've clearly gotten wrong. And you can respond to me, if you plan on it, on another essay if you'd like, etc.

"The Egyptian and Iraqi contingents were presumably better than territorial militias, but they had poor leadership and poor-quality weapons."

Listen, I don't know about you, but the Egyptian army did not have "poor-quality" weapons-unless you count RAF Spitfires and British and American tanks "poor quality"? Oh, you didn't know that the Egyptians flew Spitfires, the proven British dogfighter that established air superiority against it's rival the German Me-109...the same aircraft flown by the Isralis in 1948.

"Sorry, victory in war does not give the victor the right to do whatever it chooses with occupied land."

Tell to the rest of the world. Britain wanted control of the Falkland Islands-remember?

"In the modern era, international law forbids an occupier's annexing such land, making demographic changes, or making any permanent changes not intended to benefit the population it found living there."

You're right, that's fine. Palestine was never a country-therefore Israel "technically" occupied it's own areas.

"Going further...Osama bin Laden has said that America's and its allies' killing of Muslim innocents in Iraq (over the last dozen years), Palestine, and elsewhere has given Islamic militants the right to kill our innocents. I don't like that premise, not a little bit; but I can't seriously disagree with it."

Yes you can. His argument is because he is a wahabi and feels that if an Arab Muslim buys a hamburger, its the infidel infecting the Muslim world-he wants a re-establishment of the Caliphate...or did you not know that either?

"But neither was it unprovoked. And the uncomfortable truth is that it required something that drastic-and the U.S. response to it-to make me investigate and learn what was going on"

Do you know WHY they attacked the US? Again, refer to the above. It's amazing that all of a sudden militant groups (i.e. the factions of the Muslim Brotherhood, the international mujahadeen, etc) after the Soviets fell? It was bin Laden and his second, Al-Zawhiri (two of the three founders of Al-Qaida) who decided to take on the remaining super power after the Soviet Union collapsed-something they contribute to themselves, not to anything else. So no, ma'am, it was not "unprovoked"-they chose to do it this way: they launched attacks on the US-and I'm not talking about 9/11. I'm going back to the 70s/80s with Abu Nidal (a Palestinian terrorist) and Hezzbollah.

And hey, while I'm at it: anything on the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre? Or was that justified too?

"But their misbegotten state can't be gotten rid of overnight."

You're so full of shit, it's ridiculous. So Palestinians shouldn't have anything against them right? No dismantling of Hamas, or attacks on Israeli school children on buses? Or Orthodox Jews leaving the Western Wall? You and your anti-Israeli/Anti-Semitic views can go over there and cheer all you want. Tell Yasser I said hi.

-Steve
jk-89 chapter 8 . 10/28/2003
I commend you for this excellent essay. You have clearly researched this very thoroughly.

Sunflower: Your argument is pretty weak. Basically you are saying that Israel should go to the Jews because Jews used to live thier thousands of years ago. What a load of rubbish. I also see that Wilusa has argued against very well. It's like saying some Frenchmen come and demand Northern England, because thier ancestors used to be Anglo-Saxons. Rubbish.

You Jews have the support of America, what more do you want? But if they really were your friends then why do they not let the Jews come to America? I wonder...

Steven Lawrence: Yous said 'Palestinians are seen as the lowest of the lows in the Arab world'. Yet another load of absolute excrement. I ask you: where did you get the facts from? Saddam Hussein does in no way represent the Arab world you plonker. What he says is his own opinion, not the opinion of millions of Arabs. I know for a fact the Palestinians are greatly respected for their courage and bravery in face of the Israleis, especially in Lebanon, where the people have been through similar experiences. Get your facts right before spewing out your garbage.

Well done Wilusa!
Sunflower Philosophy chapter 7 . 8/2/2003
Hello.

First of all, let me say that I HAVE studied Zionism, living here. And a Jewish state WAS "needed"- not a requirement by Jewish law! Requirement by lack of choice! Throughout history, Jews have been persecuted and then used for their skills and then persecuted again. They did well only in certain eras. Think of the Crusades. Think of the Spanish Inquisition.

And by the way, saying that Palestinians were welcomed into other States is downright wrong. I have studied this. The other Arab states (or Muslim states, it doesn't matter) refused to take in any Palestinians. The reason there are 3 million in Jordan is because that was originally intended to be the Palestinian State in the first place, and there were already millions living there when Israel became a state!

Yes, I am referring to the Intifada- my friends' parents, friends and siblings. And most of those were citizens of the perfectly legal cities of Tel-Aviv, Jerusalem and Netanya.

I can see by your arguments that you have researched the Palestinians side well but have completely neglected the Israeli side. The terror of which you speak regarding 1940 was against military targets, might I remind you. I'm not saying that that justifies it and I am sorry about it. But the people the Palestinians have killed were innocent people riding on buses. Check the list. 15-year-old Orthodox Jewish girl on the way to school. 14-year-old Russian boy on his way home. These are not military targets.

I understand your argument and I agree that it is not fair to take someone's homeland. But I can see that you haven't researched Israel's side at all. Read up on Zionism and Jewish history and then we'll talk.

And you still have not justified the murders of innocent people for land.

Be appalled, but I think that the world needs to take necessary measures to stop terrorism. There is no good, saintly way to deal with these people and we all make mistakes. I think it's about time a country rose up to stop terrorism, because all this time, they've been proving that terror really works. And it still does. Look at the situation here.

And if war never justifies stealing land, I ask you to explain why it's not okay for Jews to take a strip of Palestinian land when they had none originally, but you completely fail to mention that the Jews WERE there in the first place and got kicked out first by the Babylonians (who had plenty of living space), then by the Romans (same goes for them), then by the Crusaders (who didn't satisfy themselves by kicking people out, but murdered them all instead of wasting all that time and effort)...

What's the difference? The Palestinians were there for several hundred years. Jews were there for a thousand, long before them.

Israel was the only state that offered refuge to the Palestinians. Look it up.

m* Sunflower, anyone?
S. T. Lawrence chapter 7 . 8/1/2003
It's amazing to see how quickly people flock to the sides of the Arabs and their plight to regain Palestine, when in fact-something not mentioned by this author-Arabs exist in the same manner as you described Native Americans. Palestinians are seen as the lowest of lows in the Arab world. Hussein himself has said that in recently released interviews that can be seen on the History Channel or looked up.

To continue, if you wanna play the geography game, then the entire Middle East shouldn't exist at all. If we're simply using pretense and the past to justify-then once the Ottoman empire came into exist, the Middle Eastern countries lost their individuality. So i would even applaud Britain for at least returning the Middle East to a somewhat reasonable state after WWI.

If you want to understand why America and her allies have responded harshly to terror groups and those who support it, try looknig up names like Force 17, Abu Nidal, Black September, and groups that existed even prior to that. To even agree with a movement such as the intifada (the first one of which the Jordanians didn't care for and quickly attacked THEIR OWN FELLOW ARABS in a lovely thing called "Black September)is complete idiocy, and it felt as though i was reading something CNN would have posted. If you wanna write something that yuo feel passionate about, do me and the rest of the readers a favor and research BOTH sides of the argument, and not the side you care to root for. -S.L.
Mbwun chapter 7 . 7/31/2003
Admittedly, I'm more knowledgable in Israel's military history than anything else, but...

There's not much I can respond to your response with. I suppose my point was just the hypocrisy of the Arab nations. Well done!

The Palestinians would almost certainly succeed using the tactics of Gandhi instead of those of Arafat. The disparity in their fighting equipment and capabilities makes armed resistance futile-they will never kill enough Israelis to force the parties involved to solve the situation. On the other hand, Israel is powerless against peaceful resistance. If they react with violence, they lose their footing as the Middle East's "lone democracy," and (hopefully) the support of the U.S. They'd have no other alternative but to finally give those people their land.

Now, that sounds like I don't support a Jewish state-but I do. It exists, and should continue to, but so should Palestine.

And as long as we're on the subject of the '67 Six Days War (and we are, in a roundabout sort of way), that was a victory snatched from the jaws of defeat if ever there was one. Two brigades against half of the Syrian Army, with no air support... and they still held out.

He Who Walks On All Fours
Mbwun chapter 6 . 7/29/2003
The thing about the Middle East is that its development has been severely stunted by Western intervention. The same effect can be seen in Africa. Living under the yolk of European oppression, the peoples of the regions were unable to grow, and now we're dealing with their modern equivalent of medieval feudalism. And it's a problem that won't be going away anytime soon.

He Who Walks On All Fours
Mbwun chapter 5 . 7/29/2003
First off, while I don't agree with all of it, this is a superbly written essay. Your points are well made, and lots of thought was put into your arguments. You identified yourself in the summary as 60-ish, which makes this college student a little hesitant to argue with you, but here goes...

Regarding the Arab-Israeli War of 1948:

The sovereign Palestinian state (and eastern Jerusalem) was gobbled up by Jordan-a fellow Arab nation-which, to me, makes the Arab states' support for a free Palestine today more than a little hypocritical. I mean, if not for the Jordanian conquest of Palestine, the country might still exist today-of course, then again, it might not, since Israel later took the territory during a subsequent war with Jordan.

And you're absolutely right about the Israeli advantage in the '48 war-at first glance, one would assume the disparity to be in the Arabs' favor, but when the facts are revealed...

He Who Walks On All Fours
my two centavos chapter 6 . 7/27/2003
I guess you have a point that the Israelis "stole" the Holy Land. Although partitioning Israel to the 1948 plan is a good solution, peace will never be achieved unless both Israelis and Palestinians agree to forgive and forget. No matter how much their governments try to resolve the issue, as long as there are suicide bombers going on kamikaze missions or laying sige to cities on the West Bank and Gaza, I see no permanent solution to this problem. If both sides want to be narrow minded then no one there deserves to live in peace.
PhiloNysh chapter 6 . 7/27/2003
I completely agree with you, but I see the side of the Israeli's too. I mean yes, they live on stolen land, but what had they to do with it? It is not the fault of the innocent people.

You what I really hate? The way that USA seem to think that the Israelis are so much better than the Palestinians. And that the Palestinians are assumed to bethe root of all these problems. BOTH parties are to blame.

Of course, because of this 'stolen' land, there will probabaly NEVER be peace in the Middle East
Sunflower Philosophy chapter 1 . 7/27/2003
Hi.

I can really identify with the problem of "theft of other people's land", okay? I can understand that the Palestianians were there before the State of Israel came into existence.

But please. I ask you to take a look at a map of the world for a minute. How many Arab states do you see? Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq... can you see Israel? It's hard to spot- a little strip of land by the Mediterranian.

I am American Israeli, and I moved here six and a half years ago. The drive from the bottommost city to the topmost is an 8 hour drive. By car. And across? 3 hours at most. This is a tiny, tiny dot on the map. The Palestinians could have been welcomed into any of the given Arab states to be with their "brothers", who obviously care about them so much that they refused to take them in and left them wandering around in the Jewish State.

Nothing can excuse the theft of another people's land? War. After World War I, the British were in control of the Ottoman Empire. They promised to give all of what is now Israel and Jordan- the "Palestine mandate"- to the Jews, as a homeland. The Jews had NOWHERE ELSE TO GO. And it still took quite a while to get around to forming a state, and in the meantime, you say you know perfectly well what happened to Jews across Europe. They needed somewhere to go, to escape. So they took their mandate.

I know, I know. Other people were living there. And I'm sorry about that, but we have to learn to deal with things as they are right now.

Nothing may excuse the theft of another persons land, but NOTHING at ALL can excuse the theft of 700 innocent people's lives. NOTHING. Not even theft of land. The difference between land and lives is a great one. As an American, you should understand what it's like to lose an enormous amount of people to terror- and relating the numbers, the WTC was absolutely nothing compared to the population dent we've had.

NOTHING can excuse terror. And giving them a state is exactly that- giving in to terror and letting it win.

I think the Palestinians would probably do a lot better if they were deported to Iraq, where they could get a state much larger and nowhere near the cursed Jewish State. I don't think they deserve to die or to stay cooped up forever. But I don't think they deserve a country using terror to get it.

Jordan was the mandate originally intended for them, and what did the British do? Gave it to a wealthy family that had nothing to do with the Palestinians. It's the Brits' fault all of this happened. If you ask me, I'd complain to Jordan, which is much bigger and Arab anyway.

m* Sunflower, anyone?
brianhalo3 chapter 4 . 4/24/2003
Very good, I think, think the recommendations are good, that Palestine should receive its own state in the paritioning of Israel. Granted the US will never let that happen...
jk-89 chapter 4 . 3/27/2003
I liked this. I am also against Israel. I am from Lebanon so I have seen what the Israeli government is capable of! You made many good points here and it was easy to understand.

In rely to lurker6: The Arab nations DID attack Israel shortly after it was formed, this stopped the Israelis from occupying the entire country. But they were defeated by the Hagannah. Only very small areas of land were left in Arab hands.
17 | Page 1 2 Next »