Self-inflicted 'Nakba'
By Gerald A. Honigman May 17, 2005


When is a catastrophe not so?

When it is -- or was -- totally avoidable and brought about primarily by the oppressive attitudes and actions of the alleged victims themselves.

Such is the case with what Arabs call their 'Nakba,' ('Catastrophe') celebrated each year on May 15th.

While tragedy indeed occurred, it was born of an oppressive, racist attitude and mindset which declared that none besides Arabs -- be they Kurds, Copts, Berbers, Assyrians, Jews, Black African Sudanese, or others -- were worthy of political rights in the region when the empire of the Turks, who ruled the area for over four centuries, was dismantled by the Allies after World War I.

Since the wars of the Jews for their freedom against Rome -- culminating in Emperor Hadrian renaming Judaea Syria Palaestina after the Jews' historic, non-Semitic enemies the Philistines -- to supposedly put an end to Jewish hopes once and for all, the region was ruled by one empire after another. When the Arabs burst out of the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century, they too ruled for the next few centuries via their Caliphal empires based in Damascus and Baghdad. During this time period they conquered, settled, occupied, and forcibly Arabized much of the region.

For Arabs, imperialism is evidently only nasty when someone besides themselves are in control. Which brings us back to the genesis of their "nakba".

May 14th on the Western calendar marks the anniversary of the rebirth of Israel, the sole, microscopic state of the most persecuted people this planet has ever known. So, reading Mahmoud Abbas' nakba comments blasting Israel this past May 15th, placing the usual guilt trip for the Arabs' own refugee status and predicament after 1948 on Israel, made me rethink all this yet again.

I couldn't help, for starters, contrasting the new sweet-talking Arafatian leader's current comments with some he made several decades ago.

The current darling of the West, Abbas, stated in Falastin a-Thaura in March 1976: "The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians... but instead they abandoned them, forced them to leave... and threw them into prisons (refugee camps) similar to the ghettoes in which Jews were earlier forced to live."

Reading this -- and volumes of other well-documented evidence, much of it from Arab sources -- it's hard to buy into Abbas' and other Arabs' current claims that the Jews sought to turn them into homeless victims. Indeed, evidence overwhelmingly shows that the Arabs themselves were primarily responsible for the flight and predicament of their own refugees.

After hostilities erupt in any conflict, no side can claim sainthood. When bullets and bombs start to fly and comrades fall, too often all hell breaks lose. But if Arab armies had not invaded a reborn Israel in 1948, not one Arab refugee would have been created.

Arabs want Jews to say that they were wrong and admit to sinning for wanting in one tiny State the same rights and dignity that Arabs demand for themselves in some dozen gigantic ones of their own. And the moderate Abbas insists that Israel commit suicide by allowing the return of millions of these folks.

Do Arabs acknowledge their sin for denying 30 million truly stateless Kurds the one best chance they had at independence after World War I, when British petroleum politics colluded with Arab nationalism to shaft Kurdish dreams? Or when they gassed and slaughtered Kurds by the hundreds of thousands over this past century for keeping those dreams alive?

Do Arabs acknowledge they sinned when they outlawed the majority Berber population of "Arab" North Africa their culture and language and murdered those who wouldn't be Arabized? Or when they oppress and intimidate Copts in Egypt?

While the world seems to have finally opened its eyes -- if ever so slightly -- to the Arab genocidal atrocities in the Sudan, I see no Arabs beating their chest over this real catastrophe either. Or easily a dozen other examples of true sin which Arabs think absolutely nothing of.

So, regarding those "Palestinian" Arab refugees who suffered the nakba, consider the following:

When the United Nations Relief Works Agency -- UNRWA -- was set up to assist Arab refugees, so many alleged "native Palestinians" were recent arrivals themselves into the Palestinian Mandate that UNRWA had to adjust the very definition of the word "refugee" from its prior meaning of persons normally and traditionally resident, to those who lived in the Mandate for a minimum of only two years prior to 1948.

Now also keep in mind that for every Arab who was forced to flee the fighting that Arabs started, a Jewish refugee was forced to flee Arab/Muslim lands (where they were commonly known as kilab yahud, "Jew dogs") into Israel and elsewhere... but with no UNRWA set up to assist them. Half of Israel's Jewish population consists of these people.

And as just a few of many other examples, greater New York City alone now has tens of thousands of Syrian Jewish refugees and their descendants, and most of France's post-Holocaust Jewish population consists of these Jewish refugees from "Arab" lands as well.

As for those "native Palestinians," Arafat himself was born in Cairo, Egypt.

Scores of thousands of other Arabs came from Egypt earlier in the 19th century with Muhammad Ali and son's Ibrahim Pasha's armies and many, like Arafat a bit later, settled in Palestine. Hamas' patron saint, Sheikh 'Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, was from Latakia, Syria... a neighbor of those Syrian Jews.

During the mandatory period after World War I, the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission recorded additional scores of thousands of Egyptian, Syrian, and other Arabs--with one of the world's highest birthrates -- entering into Palestine and settling there. It is estimated that for each one of these incoming Arabs who were recorded, many others crossed the border under cover of darkness to enter into one of the few areas in the region where any economic development was going on because of the influx of Jewish capital. They would later become known as "native Palestinians" while hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from those same "Arab" countries -- Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Morocco, Yemen, and so forth -- would be branded settlers.

While there were some native Arabs also living in a highly depopulated Ottoman Turkish Palestine, many, if not most of the Arabs were also relative newcomers -- settlers -- themselves. And there were Jews whose families never left Israel/Judaea/Palestine despite the tragedy of the Roman wars and the subsequent great Diaspora as well.

The point, of course, is that if any people needed the protection of their own nation state in the age of nationalism to end their own perpetual nakba, it was the Jews. And the evidence indeed shows -- despite Arab nakba parades, accusations, and such -- that they sought to achieve this in a just and honorable way. Arabs made off with the lion's share of the original 1920 Palestinian Mandate when Colonial Secretary Churchill created Transjordan from 80% of the total area in 1922. Arabs then rejected a partition plan in 1947 which would have given them about half of the remainder. So much for nakba fairy tales about Jews getting all of Palestine.

What compromises did Arabs offer to any of their own perceived competitors? The latter either submitted to Arab subjugation or were slaughtered.

It is hard for a knowledgeable and truly objective observer to support a people who deny all others the same dignity that they themselves seek. This is especially so when you consider that what's at stake here is the creation of the Arabs' 22nd state... on a total of over six million square miles of territory. The sole state of the Jews consists of less than one quarter of one percent of the land in the area... a state that you would be hard pressed to find on a map of the world without a magnifying glass.

Yet the Arabs still insist that their new State will arise in place of Israel -- not along side of it -- as a quick look at any of their maps, websites, and such shows. Or try listening to or reading a sermon given by one of moderate Abbas' imams.

In contrast to the Arabs' largely self-inflicted nakba, forced conversions, being branded the deicide people or killers of prophets and being treated accordingly, inquisitions, demonization, dehumanization, ghettos, blood libels, massacres, expulsions, the Holocaust, and existence as perpetual stranger in someone else's land became the plight of the "Wandering Jew," his own nakba. But not of his own making.

It is estimated that as many Jews were killed prior to the Holocaust, slaughtered in the Muslim East (beginning with Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, himself) as well as the Christian West, as were killed during the Holocaust.

Would that he had possessed some two dozen other states like Arabs have, there would have been no need for the rebirth of Israel. But the Jew did not possess even one state, let alone almost two dozen.

The sad reality is that the alleged Arab nakba occurred because Arabs insisted that the millennial nightmare of the Jews should continue into perpetuity. No compromise was feasible with "their" kilab yahud Jew dogs in the Dar ul-Islam.

Had Arabs been willing to grant Jews a small slice of the same human dignity and justice that they themselves demand, their own nakba could have been resolved decades ago.

Heart, could you give us the link from whence it came?

I googled Mr. Honigman and the Nakba article and the source I came up with is - well - rather bizarre

http://www.theraphi.com/index.html



The site announces it's staunch Zionist persona multiple times. It has essays, jokes, "funny pics" like the one below.

http://www.theraphi.com/1funnypics/funnypics12.html

But even "funnier" than that is his jokes section. Here's one engimatic entry:

http://www.theraphi.com/1jokes/1mmg.html

Now, I failed to see the humor, but I'm just a fifty-eight year old goy and rather naive at times. What does the young Zionist who runs this site mean here? What is this little analogy all about? What's this crap about "True Champion" And, if there can only be one, who could it be?

What do readers think?

Sorry about that, the article was given to me by a Muslim Arab friend of mine who received it from a "Muslims Against Terrorism" email list, and when I copied it I forgot that it originated someplace, but was posted to the Muslim's Arab lists who have HAD IT, with all of the B.S. surrounding the "pan-arabist constant whining" as they put it. It looks like it appeared in the Israel Insider, so maybe Arab Israelis got it started. http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/5585.htm

Now you can attack the source if you want, but you really can't attack the facts.

But the source renders anything found on its pages totally ridiculous. I'm not an expert in the Nakba subject matter. However, seeing the company Mr. H keeps, I don't believe a word of what he says. When I want to criticize Israel I make sure my source comes from a reputable source, let's say Haaretz. I'm not going to go to some Ruby Ridge site.

The Raphi site jokes about nuclear holocaust (funny pics) and delivers a crude analogy supporting the idea of the Zionist master race. That's dangerous talk. Americans have got to be brave enough to speak up against Ziotrash such as the one who runs that site. Hitler should have been stopped, but that horse is out of the barn. What we can do something about is a Zionist-inspired holocaust favored by lunatics like Raphi and Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Michael Ledeen, AIPAC, Irving Moskowitz, Norman Podhoretz, JINSA, Ariel Sharon, David Frum, Benjamin Netanyahu, the Hebron psycohpaths who honor mass-murderer Baruch Goldstein, David Horowitz, West Bank settlers, Irving....well, you get the idea. They are the enemies of the American people.

Anti-Zionism, as I'm so fond of saying, is not anti-semitism.

Yes, you are certainly fond of saying that.

It's not that you have anything against Jews -- It's just that you think they are the one people on Earth who should not enjoy self determination.

Utter nonsense. No one is suggesting that Jews don't have a right to their own homeland. It's the state terrorism that's turning folks off. It's monsters (I mean that) like Michael Ledeen and Richard Perle. Zionism is a political, nationalistic movement. When I say I'm against Zionism, don't' try to pull the old switcheroo that says Zionism = Jews.

If Israel wants self-determination, why don't they quit taking so much from America?

Amen!!

Were you known as Bebe at the Kerry board? You both use the term "Zionism" in the same extrordinarily simple minded manner, both only post on one subject to the exclusion of all else, both and both vociferously deny your obvious antisemitism.

Zionism is the movement to create a Jewish homeland. If you are an anti-zionist, you seek to deny that homeland. All your idiotic denial doesn't change that fact.

I think that the object of the Richard Perle's of the world, if you remember your PNAC subject matter correctly had as one of it's top ten agenda items to "get Israel off of US loan guarentee's" HEHEHE...problem is...the US doesn't want that to happen. Gee...I wonder why the US does everything it possibly can to keep giving Israel money? I know....do you?

If you were REALLY so concerned about foreign aid, I think you would look harshly at Egypt. Egypt gives absolutely NOTHING back to the US for the investment. Rather annoying isn't it? Egypt got the Sinai back, got the whole resort area of Taba back and sits back soaking up 3 billion in Aid all the while the people are poor, destitute and unhappy. It wasn't until we invaded Iraq, that Mubarak decided to undergo a series of reforms. Check the WSJ Feb. 3rd 2005 "Egypt Prime Minister Tries Tough Love" Also, Assad in Syria, having lost Lebanon, has embarked on an intensive 3-9 month crash economic restructuring program because, in Assad's words as per Debka and other monitors "We're going to make these reforms before they come in here and tell us to do them". Yesterday, Assad went to Kurdish Syria where riots and many people were killed last year (or put in prison, never to be heard from again), and promised Kurds to finally allow them to get Syrian Citizenship...you see...the Kurds have always lived there, but in pan-arabism, if you don't learn arabic, take an arab name, and become an arab and insist you are Kurd, refuse to change your name, and speak Kurdish, you have always been denied any card to prove you are a citizen, which prevents you from leaving the country, being officially married, or even sending your kids to school. Nice neighborhood isn't it?

So, don't lose the message. *I*, a KNOWN Jew, have been collaborating with freedom loving Muslim Arabs, Copts, Berbers, Kurds, Alevi's, ect...and THEY sent this to each other. I just happened to be ON THEIR FRIEND LIST! It would seem that the west's love of the Palestinians and their fictions do not always transfer to the people you think would feel just like you do, or those who the intellectuals would like for you to think would hold the same position you hold. They actually know more history about the area, and they do not "buy" all of this crap about the Nakba. They know there is an underlying political game, and they want a peaceful settlement, but they are not sympathetic to the people that are giving them all such a bad name, and THEY see the changes in the middle east and want more of these reforms, not less. They want more freedom, more investment and opportunity, they do not want to hear more of the same ol' crap that they have finally found out is propaganda as the internet has spread. Now, they want to be more like Jews, because they can now see, that Jews have the kind of country they would like to have. These are my friends. The old line socialists/marxists are united with the Islamists to keep the poor of the world eternally poor and only educated to think about "imperialism"...and focus on the past. More and more, people want to focus on the future, and are as sick of hearing about the Palestinian "cause" as an excuse to block reforms.

Sounds to me like he is talking about a "master race."

Oh, I remember my PNAC subject matter all right

http://newamericancentury.org/Bushletter.htm

From the PNAC letter 09/20/01:



Bold highlighting is mine.

The PNAC letter was signed by, among others, the odiferous Richard Perle. The letter called for war on Iraq and, later in the same letter, an increase in the US military. Tom Clancy has related that Perle labeled Colin Powell a wuss for being too concerned about the safety of US troops in Iraq. Perle is an infection on the US way of life. A coward and a traitor. He and those like him should be drummed out of the US decision making process. Perle made the same point (remove Saddam) in A Clean Break, his and Feith's document to the 1996 Netanyahu government outlining the path for , guess what, the safety of Israel.



Give me a second here. Oh yah, is it because AIPAC bribes and threatens the US Congress into giving more money?

Here's a good AIPAC article:

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/flynn.php?articleid=5983

NOPE! I'm not talking about the PNAC letters and policy about Saddam, that was a very long term policy, proposed by many, many people, including Wesley Clark our best Democratic General. What I am talking about is this quote:

"Forge a new basis for relations with the United States—stressing self-reliance, maturity, strategic cooperation on areas of mutual concern, and furthering values inherent to the West. This can only be done if Israel takes serious steps to terminate aid, which prevents economic reform."

This is a paper written for Netanyahu's incoming government by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000." The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm

The above letter was one written as a policy paper FOR Israel, not the US.

Similar to this story, but with a different twist:

Friday December 7, 2001

Israel gets image advice from two former Clinton aides

JERUSALEM (JPS) -- Before this weekend's terrorist attacks, Israel's Foreign Ministry pledged to work with two high-profile Amer
James Carville and Stanley Greenberg, who worked for former Prime Minister Ehud Barak's campaign and before that for former Pres

The two men have been hired by a group of American Jews who believe Israel's public relations in the United States needs improvement, and that Carville and Greenberg are the right men for the mission.

Ministry officials said they expect the consultants to provide them with a specific outline of public relations strategy and estimate of how much such a campaign would cost. It is unclear whether the American Jews will pay the costs of a media campaign as well, or expect the Israeli government to bear all or part of the cost.

Meir said the two consultants do not represent any particular political position. But it is difficult for many Israelis to disassociate them from the left, since they are best known in Israel for advising Barak, and because of their partnership with former Barak advisers Moshe Gaon and Tal Zilberstein.

Others, particularly those close to former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have charged that the two Americans are being brought in to shore up the Sharon government's image, in anticipation of a struggle inside the Likud. In an interview on Israeli television, Carville said, "I'm not working for any politician here, I am working for Israel.

"The wonderful thing about this country is that it's the only country in the Middle East that changes governments every once in a while." Carville insisted he has "no desire" to return to working on projects related to internal Israeli politics.


Now...who is trying to get Israel off US aid, and who is simply trying to work on Israel's image and keep them on US aid. If you want them off US aid, then you end up on the side of PNAC Weird isn't it?

None the less, the truth is...we celebrate fourth of July, though that date meant many other people's loss. The celebration of Bastille Day, also represented someone's loss. The South African independence day, is celebrated, even though it meant many people's loss. No one has a "mirror" holiday to mourn the Fourth of July in England. It was not a catstrophe...certainly it was NOT a catastrophe when the Jordanians formed Jordan, with foreign King Hussein the Hashemite! That alone took about 80% of the land promised for the Palestinian Mandate...you would think THAT would be a catastrophe...but no...the real gripe is because non-Arab people were in charge and in the minds of pan-arabists, that is too much for them to take.

Incidently, when Jalal Talabani the Kurd was sworn in as president of Iraq, an Arab military office committed suicide over the idea that a non-arab was now in a power position in an arab country.

Utterly ridiculous!

The first myth is that the U.S. pours billions of foreign aid into poverty ravaged nations. The US gives less than 1% of its budget to FA. As of 2002, private donors in the US gave twice as much the US federal budget.
I don't have that big a problem with the amount of aid given to Israel and Egypt, who receive the most in US aid, if I read the academic stuff on the net correctly. The problem is that we do not give enough aid to nations who truly need it even more. And when we do give aid to poor nations it is so restrictive that it ofetn does not help the individuals who need it.
Do a 15 minute search of the web on US aid, it could be quite instructive.
Would it not be a novel approach to create a sub-cabinet department within the State department that regulated and fostered U.S. foreign "humanitarian" aid so that we could double our foeign aid budget to gee about maybe 1.5% per cent of the annual budget, direct that absolutely as much as possible get to the ground, and remove the new half from direct military and political considerations.
Let the bureaucrats and policy wonks play with their existing amount, and working with NGO's and the UN, get aid to where it is truly needed. Oversight could be provided in Congress through an evenly balanced subcommittee in each house as part of the foreign relations committees to see the money allocated is kept from both overt and covert political and cultural considerations. G_d, I hate the term, but complete transparency, good will for good will's sake. No, it wouldn't be perfect, but something that we show a true concern for those most needy.
The idea comes from, like what seemed somewhat successful, yes, there were some problems, was the tsunami relief effort. Call it what is should be, a hunger and poverty relief initiative as has been discussed internationally, especially with the 21 nation agreement that has not met its goals.
As far as the topic at hand, let's get real. A two state solution, Israel gives up w. bank , gaza, and golan to the point of virtually agreed to borders as set out in Oslo and Wye river, Palestinians give up all but a symbolic right of return to inside Israel "green line", Jeruselem is divided with what had been functioning for a long time as Israeli-Jeruselem and Palestinian Jeruselem, with free movement within for residents of Jeruslem, (but not dual citizenship) as long as peaceful and safe checkpoints are maintained by both parties and internationally supervised.
As far as the term "Zionism", Zionism means different things to different people. If it is to be a policy that seeks territory beyond internationally approved borders for Israel, it is aggressive. If it means defense of the Jewish homeland now established within internally accepted borders, it is more than fair. It is semantics.

I see where the Israel Vs. Arab disagreements ( to put it mildly ) are back on the CGCS agenda again. Or is it still?

I think we all know that this subject is one that has its own life. It is a perfect circle.

I have asked myself the following question: Is one side right? Is one side wrong?

I know, that's two questions.

In reality, the subject is ideal for those who love endless debate.

My backgound is Lebanese.

AHA - You all know where I stand. Right?

Wrong.

Well, there certainly has been enough wrongs to go around the globe a few times.

Who committed them?

Both sides.

If we all are to be 100% honest with ourselves, here's what we would do.

When we describe an example of how terrible the Arabs are and the horrible things they have done or are doing, we must in the same article counter that with an example of something awful the Israelis have done.

And Vice Versa.

At no time will we set forth a tale of brutality or deceit by one side without a counter balance of more or less the same type of offense the other side has done, either as a cause or result of the incident.

Sounds weird?

Try it.

We might actually find that the conflict is easier to understand.

One example of this might be the recounting of the terrible bloodletting at the Sabra and Shattila refugee camps in Lebanon.

Who is the villain here?

Sharon was castigated severely for his part in this, and rightly so.

The Lebanese Christians ( so called ) actually did the butchering of the men, women, and children. Are they innocent?

If you were writing about this, who would you blame?

Or should you tell both sides of the story?

Think about it.

A.B.

P.S. If you don't know the Sabra - Shattila story, just go to Google.

Thank you. In the states, we have a saying... "another county heard from". Inhumanity to humanity dates to the dawn of humanity itself. At some point in time, while history can be the ultimate tool to prevent history from repeating itself, history should not be used to imprison progress.
Moving beyond historical wrongs does not eliminate them. Rewriting history does not alter it. Living in the past, while comforting for many, locks us into both the good and the bad of that history.
In the Dickens Christmas Carol, when faced with a horrible vision of the future, the lead character asks, "This is the future that will be, or can be?"
By refighting every battle ever fought, the new battles can only continue the litany of trials and tribulations that both sides have suffered, and the innocent today and tomorrow suffer for the mistakes by all sides of the past.

On and On, On and On, On and On...... :crying:

There is a lot of misuse of language on all sides. From a US perspective, there
is no such thing as an Isarael-Palistane problem because by definition, problems
have solutions--predicaments are situations to be coped with. We are not fighting a war in Iraq. We're using up people and material trying to occupy a region we
shouldn't be occupying. The only use of military forces in the middle east is to guard our backs while we bring all of our service men and women home. The money we're spending should be set aside to subsidize the US purchase of oil
whatever the price ends up being after the multinationals pay for their own
security guards.

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1028

Steps Before All-Out War
DEBKAfile Special Report


AND:

Hizballah blasted Israeli positions on Mt. Dov with mortar fire Saturday after IDF fired warning shots over head of Lebanese shepherds who crossed border. No casualties on either side.

Abu Mazen in Cairo Saturday says Palestinian fire on Israeli targets is dying down and he will meet Sharon June 7.

DEBKAfile reports Palestinian leader is smoothing way to his White House visit next week with disinformation. Israeli PM’s office: No meeting scheduled with Abbas. In its Special Report below, DEBKAfile estimated three days of calm would be staged ahead of his Washington visit. Truce deal claimed by Palestinian interior minister Yousef and Hamas leaders is therefore temporary expedient with terrorist group holding options open.

DEBKAfile reports Kfar Darom attack was Palestinian test ahead of resumption of full-scale war. Battlefield debut of Israel’s armed unmanned aerial drone failed to deter continuing Palestinian violence.

Kfar Darom villagers march on UNWRA school in Deir Balah from which Palestinian gunmen fired mortar, gun and anti-tank weapons on their village damaging homes. Attack early Friday claimed by three Palestinian groups Hamas, Fatah’s al Aqsa Brigades and Popular Committees.

One gunmen shot dead, second injured, by Israeli tank. Villagers protest IDF inadequacy in stemming Palestinian violence now in its third day

Also Friday, Palestinians continued shelling Israeli targets in and outside Gaza Strip, staged three shooting incidents in Rafah region. Intelligence of another Palestinian attack impending prompted closure of Karni goods terminal.


Afghan leader Karzai flies Saturday to US for four days under shadow of fresh allegations of prisoner abuse by US troops

Pakistani FM Kasuri says Osama bin Laden is alive and moving from place to place with small band of fighters. He declined to say more about al Qaeda leader’s whereabouts.

Minister added Pakistani army had paralyzed

YEP! On all accounts I'm only laughing because, although I KNOW THIS, it's like a see-saw that everyone wants to put all the weight on one side and then, pretty soon, you feel like it's so unbalanced you have to say something. But, you're right Abu...the only thing I would add, is the Phalange had their serious grievences too and with this "honor" cultural context, it was brutal but it happened a lot in smaller ways just based on "honor". So, I would say that there were three sides to that story. I don't think Sharon was present right? But he should have been.

Words have their meanings, and then people go about intentionally changing that meaning. Just as there are those who wish to redefine the term antisemitism to mean something that it has never meant, so too are there those who wish to redefine the word Zionism from what it has always meant.

Yes, it is true that the word may mean different things to different people, but the fact that there are those who wish to twist the meaning to fit their own agenda really simply says that they do have an agenda. If I were to so wish, I could redefine the word "Lebanese" to mean "Maronite militia" and if millions of people joined me and did this in consistant enough fashion, in years hence one could easily state that he word "Lebanese" means different things to different people. Now, I wouldn't do that, but I might point out that ascribing to an entire term that which makes up just a small part does a disservice to the term in question. In the case of Zionism, one needs to understand the term in order to use it properly, and just as the word "Lebanese" does not mean Maronite militia despite the fact that the Maronite militia has existed within Lebanon, so too does the word Zionist not mean "the most extreme expansionist practitioners thereof" despite the obvious attempts by hateful individuals to paint it as such. The tendency to paint something according to the most extreme examples one can find is the stuff of bigotry, isn't it? If not, bigotry, then what?

As to some of Abu's questions along the line of "Is one side right and the other side wrong", my answer is "most obviously not". It is an easy matter for ignorant people to surf the web and get their head filled with the rhetorec of hatred, though, and then regurgitate what they find in other places on the web such as this one. I might ask anybody here to evaluate the threads in this particular forum rationally, though, and pay some attention to who is initiating the threads, and what bias they show therein. Just total up the threads, see who is posting them, and note who is the target of the thread and of the person who posts it. Folks might also pay some attention to the people who post these threads as to their involvement elsewhere at CGCS. This will tell much if people are rational and intellectually honest.

I might start things out by using myself as one example:

Eugeenie -- total number of postings originated in the Israel/Palestine subsection of cgcs Zero. Total number hammering away at Palestinians zero. Total number hammering away at Israelis zero.

I wil let others do theirr own homework when it comes to those others whose postings fill these pages. There really aren't too many pages to look through, and by looking at who is bringing up certain topics, and whether they are being one-sided when they do so, it shouldn't be too difficult to find a body of evidence to lead to a certain conclusion.