Thanks for the question,

“Notwithstanding your anti-imperialism of fools contention that the US is not only an empire, but the “biggest baddest empire”, how do you reconcile the historical fact that Jewish settlement in Mandate Palestine and then the State of Israel from the late 19th c. to the 1950’s long preceded any active US backing of Israel, or US arms sales to Israel?”

Virtually every nation that recognizes the State of Israel views May 14, 1948, the date of it’s declaration of independence, as the date of its establishment.

You are, of course, free to believe what you choose to believe as to when the statehood of Israel actually occurred (I often toy with the date of establishment of the first Temple, but my buddies tell me that’s way too old school), no matter what an insignificant minority opinion you embrace.

But people that hear you say it may tend to discount, however unfairly, whatever else you may have to say on that or any related topics.

- I may be confused, but perhaps you can explain to me your definition of a “biggest, baddest empire” that would exclude a nation with more than 60 military bases overseas, with the largest army in the world (that in size is a significant multiple of any other), and with over 300,000 fighting troops and mercenaries in the middle east and Afghanistan alone ? Please advise.

And, by the way, as an american that reaps the benefit of the extent and reach of my country’s economic and military empire, I’m only occasionally displeased by the exercise of that power in pursuit of my interests (sometimes mere self-interest, sometimes altruism – it depends).

Seems to me that empire, imperialism, or whatever one names it isn’t per se bad. It depends who’s got the power. I like that my people have it. Plus, last time I checked, Israel is pleased with being the nation that’s got it (well, at least the bomb and the leanest, toughest fighting machine within a continent or two) in its neighborhood.

[As perhaps an elderly gentleman or lady, you may not have understood that, in the vernacular of today's youth and middle-aged, "baddest" has in recent decades come to mean "most formidable" or "most powerful". Sorry to have unintentionally mislead you into thinking I thought the term was pejorative.]

Oh, and some might say your recklessly throwing around “fools” epithets, unless you have some demonstrated prospect of of being able to back them up, “does you no favours”.

But I’m delighted you do seem to be enjoying yourself doing it !

As for the USA being “on Israel’s side”…well, let’s just say it’s open for debate.

Notwithstanding your anti-imperialism of fools contention that the US is not only an empire, but the “biggest baddest empire”, how do you reconcile the historical fact that Jewish settlement in Mandate Palestine and then the State of Israel from the late 19th c. to the 1950’s long preceded any active US backing of Israel, or US arms sales to Israel?

Israel is a majority settler state just like the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It seems ridiculus to deny this

No David All, you are sorely mistaken. The US, Canada, Australia, etc., were all settled with the financial and military guidance and backing of major world powers (eg. Spain, Holland, Portugal, France and Great Britain). Contemporary (late 19th c-pre WW2) Jewish settlement in Israel was organized and realized by a stateless, persecuted and mostly impoverished minority. That you apparently can’t tolerate that these migration streams are not even remotely analogous does you no favours.

I do agree it is all legal mumbo-jumbo – just an attempt to elevate the discussion a bit by raising generally a relevant legal principle (sorry not to provide a dissertation, as well).

As you mention, the use of coercion can be excellent theoretical defense to a claim of adverse land possession within the UK or the US judicial systems, but in the anarchistic world of nations, it’s useless to assert unless you happen to have the biggest, baddest empire on your side (Israel’s got that one !).

This “historical” rights thing you raise has a charming ring to it – perhaps you could briefly explain what that might possibly mean. Or perhaps not.

Oh, and thanks for clarifying that bit about anybody buying into the notion that any western jews are “settlers” has “blood on his hands”.

I think you’ve made yourself quite clear.

David All and Stan,
You are suffering from politicianese: you don’t like my historical argument, so you seek to dismiss it with nonsense such as ‘knee-jerk’ and ‘ideological’. You really should sit on the government front bench.

Words matter. The whole thesis of the original post, which is spot on, is that hijacking Jewish historical terminology – and that of genuine anti-Apartheid – has allowed the Arabs to persuade much of the Western media that they are poor natives being crushed by Jewish colonialists. Countless people have been murdered as a result of the boost this gave to Arab intransigence. Anyone who knowingly buys into this propaganda war against Israel has blood on his hands.

I am saying that they have no right to a new state.

Stan

Unfortunately, under a widely accepted principle in most legal systems (and definitely in public international law), failure to assert one’s rights in a timely manner can result in a claim’s being barred or “estopped” (you snooze, you lose).

Under the common law, that meant with respect to a land dispute that, if somebody squatted on your land for a decade or two (in “open and notorious possession”) and you didn’t kick him off, the courts would let him keep the land.

The use-it or lose-it principle makes the definitional distinction between “settle” and “resettle” all but meaningless in the context of competing sovereign assertions of land ownership (although war has always been the venue of final appeal in international law disputes).

Probably better to stick to the “our guns are bigger than your guns” argument than pretend this psuedo-intellectual stuff is at all meaningful for justifying whatever Israel is going to do or has done.

Such exchange has been the only resolution to the problem of intertwined, hostile populations.

When carried out haphazardly, they create untold misery. However, in the Greco-Turkish case the exchange put an end to hostilities. I therefore don’t know why the afferent Treaty should not be considered a starting point for resolution of the Jewish-Arab population exchange:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_exchange_between_Greece_and_Turkey