hiredgun

This article from the NYT is an interesting discussion of the broad support for Israel among American evangelicals. This support is not new; it goes back to Christian Zionism and has long been a part of the US evangelical landscape in one form or another.

What concerns me is the substance and organization of this support, which seems now to be highly organized and mobilized. The bits I've bolded - detailing strong financial ties and the opening of a new edition of the JPost (a relatively right-leaning paper) particularly targeted at American Christians - are a few new pieces of evidence for this.

The reason it worries me is that the political stance of this group comes from a context that is almost entirely scriptural; it bears no real connection to the political realities of the conflict, or to any real facts. When (and if - because it's not entirely clear that this is the case) that kind of thinking influences the country's policy in a region that is absolutely critical to our image in the world, I worry that we are going to make some bad choices.

This speaks to a broader trend, I think, in which substituting religious doctrine for political views is not seen as fundamentally problematic. I'm hoping you guys can help me make some sense of it.

jorgelito

There's nothing out of the ordinary here. They are just like every other interest group out there. What exactly are you worried about? This is an American interest group that supports Israel (our ally). I would be more concerned with and interest group that supports our enemies like Iran or North Korea.

hiredgun

Certainly in their organization and method, they are much like other interest groups. I am not disputing that. The structure of the group is not the cause for concern.

As I said in the OP, what bothers me is the possibility that US policy will ultimately be influenced or even determined by an idea that has no grounding in a factual understanding of the Middle East or the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but rather is entirely pulled from a scriptural ether in which Christians are commanded by God to defend their "older brothers", or worse, to support the Jewish state so as to help bring about the apocalypse.

If these kinds of ideas as sources of policy don't bother you, I'm not sure what you and I would be able to discuss.

I also take exception to this little tidbit of non-thought:
Israel is our ally; therefore Israel is right and ought to be supported.
(i.e. Nations allied with the US are right and ought to be supported.)
Since Israel is the victim in the right and ought to be supported, the US is allied with Israel.

This linguistic game completely separates the question of supporting Israel from any examination of what is actually going on in the Mideast, and what actual effect is has on American interests.

Incidentally, do you actually believe that unqualified support for Israel, ally or not, has any sort of potential to lead to a peace agreement? Was it that kind of support that led to successful peace deals in the past?

mixedmedia

I agree with you, hiredgun, that this sort of thing is troubling.

They are not "supporting Israel, our ally." They are supporting a hysterical theological precept. If you consider that twenty years ago this sort of political activism would have been the sphere of a marginalized sideshow group, perhaps you will be at a vantage point to better survey the implications of such a group being entertained by key figures in Washington, DC.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Seaver

Hiredgun, just because they have a network does not mean said network garners any actual influence.

I believe most decisions are made by looking at the political and social facts. Israel is the strongest democracy in the Middle East. Israel was a faithful partner throughout the Cold War in balancing the Soviet's influence over Syria/Iraq, as well as over Egypt.

While many political problems are caused by Israel, such as Lebanon, very few people will argue against it. If we were getting daily attacks from Mexico, and the Mexican Government refused to stop it, I guarantee you that we would invade to stop it. Israel had put up with these attacks for the last 20 years, MUCH longer than ANY country would put up with.

I think it is simply that this lunatic fringe group comes up with the same conclusion, with DRASTICALLY different methods of calculations. This, in turn, can easily be seen as the primary (or at least influencing) reason for the US-Israeli support by those who oppose it. It's as inane as saying OBL wants the Dems to win because they promise to withdraw from Iraq. While their goals are the same, the reasons have nothing to do with each other.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

roachboy

the curious thing in the nyt article really is that it provides very little sense of how to situate the positions it outlines in the context of the broader spectrum of conservative groups/interests/populations that scuttles about beneath the rubric of the republican party's populist coalition.
in the end, this is a recurrent problem with articles of this kind that refer to rather than analyze the role of protestant evangelicals in the right's coalition.

this evangelical unconditional support of the most reactionary vision of israel---one that coincides with ultra-right wing settler dominated small parties in israel---is not new. i remember running into it when i was in high school, during my little passage through an evangelical group, by way of the writings of that famous far right nutcase hal lindsey....and it has been consistent for some 30 years. probably longer.

i suppose that an implicit cross-over point would be speculations as the personal religious convictions of george w. bush--but i think bush is the main speaks in ways that are very tightly calibrated to reference various elements that comprise the right coalition--to such an extent that i do not know what he actually believes himself and so tend to treat explicit or implicit recourse to him as a way to tying evangelical politics into american state policy and such logic as it has as speculative. it doesn't do the analysis. it transposes a non-analysis to a different register.

so far, then, i basically an running parallel with seaver.

where i diverge from his position--and more sharply than i can say--is on the characterization of the situation israel finds itself in--that israel is the victim of unprovoked actions when the simple fact of the matter is that israel is a colonial presence and has been carrying out a brutal occupation of gaza and a colonial style annexation in the west bank. going any further would no doubt entail a threadjack so i'll leave it at that. suffice it to say that israeli civilians have been killed NOT because the state of israeli is some kind of victim, but as a direct function of israeli state policies. viewing it in this way seems to me a simple acknowledgement of the historical facts of the matter and need not extend into any cheerleading at the level of tactics.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Seaver

Roach I dont want to threadjack either. But the justifications given to constantly attack Israel are not dissimilar to us with Mexico, which is why I used it as an example. If Mexican radicals claimed that we held no right over what was Mexican land, would we accept their justification for lauching missiles? Or would we simply strike back and strike hard?

Everyone has justifications, no one has clean hands.

Back to the thread, once again because people have similar conclusions does not mean said people share philosophies or methods of coming to said conclusion.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

bleatbot

It's akin to admiring the scent and shape of one's bowel movements.
The same group of dull, unintelligent people pontificating about the weather.

I propose a new rule: for every post in Politics, one must START 10 posts in the Titty Board.

Hanxter

"Titty Board"??? we have a "Titty Board"??? what the hell is that???

bleatbot

Titty Board...

mixedmedia

We all suffer from a propensity for self indulgence, most humble bleatbot.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

bleatbot

Like farting under the sheets.

roachboy

bleatbot: are you actually talking about anything?

this business about contemplating your own shit, for example...
it seems to me that your post referred to itself, and summed itself up pretty accurately.

the problem with that is simple: it isn't interesting.

hey i know--why dont you stretch yourself a little and say something that's at least *potentially* relevant to the discussion?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

bleatbot

Please stop excreting stinky boluses in public.
It's poor form.

roachboy

nice bleatbot....12 year-old stuff.
does your mom know you are playing here?
she be snippy if she finds out....so why dont you run along like a good little boy and go play somewhere else?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

mixedmedia

Yes, I'm a true believer that everyone should have the chance to live up to their greatest potential.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

jorgelito

Ah, I see what you are saying now, it wasn't very clear in the original post. Still, I really don't think there is much cause for concern here, they are such a fringe group. APAIC is more influential than these evangelicals are.

So we can only have a discussion if I agree with you?

How is this non-thought? I assure you, I am most certainly a thinker, thank you very much. It appears you're the one who did not "think"/read my post and decided to put words in my mouth. Where did I say that Israel is a victim and is in the right? Either you are overly paranoid or have some sort of chip on your shoulder here. Why are you so anti-Israel anyways? Israel is indeed our ally and it is normal to support our ally. I don't understand the problem you have here.

Whatr are you talking about?

Unqualified? Why don't you tell me? First of all, I don't believe that our support for Israel is unqualified (as a general statement). Wow you are really having a field day with your assumptions and putting words in my mouth.

Peace will come when the extremists on both sides stop fighting or the moderates make a stand. In my opinion, the biggest hindrance to peace in the Middle East is the inability of the muslims to curb their terrorism. Each time peace comes to the table, Hamas or some other org either refuses to even try for peace or commits some terror act. Maybe when they stop kidnapping soldiers and blowing things up then Israel will stop retaliating and peace will come.

bleatbot v2.0

hiredgun: just another retarded, wolf-in-sheeps clothing, zit-faced, teenaged partisan hack on the net.

"non-thought"...heh.

"jorgelito! that was a non-thought you just had there!" Now you're going to watch as I take a dump here on the sidewalk, and your going to listen, and your going to respect and admire my beautiful steaming pile of shit there on the sidewalk!

carry on, special olympians.

hiredgun

Um, yes. That's not meant as an indictment of you. But if by some chance you honestly think that the apocalypse is a sound basis for policy (which is what I was referring to there) then as a matter of fact, there isn't room for discussion because we're already at an impasse. To clarify, I don't think that's actually the case.

I can only go on what you actually said, not on what you might have been thinking. What you said (and here, still are saying) was essentially this: Israel is our ally, therefore they deserve our support. That's it, the entire logical chain. It makes no reference to anything outside of itself, certainly not to any actual, concrete American interests. ("Israel is our ally, and it's normal to support our ally." Period. It is as if the status of 'ally', once conferred, is never again subject to any critical examination, nor are any of the actions of said ally. In the interest of 'supporting' that ally, no action of that ally may ever be criticized, and 'ally' status may never be re-evaluated.) Rather, it gives the impression that being an 'ally' is some sort of natural, immutable quality like being 6 feet tall or having brown hair, and that 'support', since it was raised in defense of the group in the article, is unqualified support, as that group advocates. If it means something else, then talking about 'support' in this vague context is as nonsensical as the slogan of 'support our troops', which, while it sounds nice, really doesn't mean anything.

The point is that if you didn't mean unqualified support, then your answer ("Israel is our ally, therefore we support them") doesn't actually say anything, because we haven't gotten into any specifics over what, specifically, we are supporting.

The point is not necessarily that I disagree with your conclusion, but that I think you've given me a one-word slogan (ally!) instead of an argument.

Anyway, we should agree to disagree on that, because rehashing American support for Israel is not really the point of the thread. The point is my worry about another avenue in which faith is being inserted into politics as a substitute for thought.

Seaver and Roachboy, your common point is well taken. I didn't mean to imply in the OP that I actually think that our current policy is determined by this demographic. Still, when large numbers of organized voters believe in something, that belief is likely to be translated into policy, whether or not the people carrying out policy - say, the Bush administration, or any other White House - choose those policies for the same reasons as their fringe supporters.

Whatever it is that our leaders actually believe, I don't want the electoral leverage of a group aiming solely for the apocalypse to be a decisive factor in shaping US policy, which I think is possible as a simple function of electoral politics and not necessarily an ideological alignment.

More broadly, I'm concerned with the idea that 'because God said so' is an increasingly acceptable substitute for political thought. I don't see that attitude as a healthy one for our democracy because it makes certain views all but immune to outside facts. Perhaps though I am being too paranoid that this is actually the case among a growing number of people.

Willravel

I worry when anything clouds anyone's judgment. Israel isn't by any means perfect, but we back them consistantly. We arm them. We protect them. We champion them when others question the bulldozing of buildings or the erection of walls around Palestianians. I think that a good ally has even handed involvement. Help when needed, but call them on their bullshit aswell. A nation-to-nation friendship should be as a person-to-person friendship. We seem to be in a codependant relationship with Israel, who is passive aggressive. I find the implications from the article in the OP facinating, if telling about the dangers of blind loyalty.

jorgelito

Ah, ok, I think I see what you are saying now. Hiredgun, thanks for the clarification I appreciate it.

There isn't much of an impasse as you may think. Certainly there is plenty of room for discussion.

I don't think you are being too paranoid in this context. Having religion dictate policy (as far as I can tell) does not seem to be a wise idea and I would agree, that it is not a "substitute for political thought". However, I think you may be giving too much credit to the evangelicals (as far as I can tell), at least when it comes to Israel. At the moment, it does not appear that they wield too much influence (yet).

I would agree it is something to watch due to George Bush's association with them and previous committment to religion as a guide for his administration.

There should definitely be a concern for religion dominating political decision-making. Just look at the extremists in the Middle East as an example of "because God said so" as an acceptable subsitute for political thought. It is most certainly not healthy for democracy over there.

However, it's not just relegated to Islam, it could conceivably happen here with Christianity as the extremist group in government.

Will, this is a very interesting topic you raise (and what Hiredgun and I briefly touched upon). We may have to open up another thread on it though to elaborate more fully.

roachboy

hiredgun: trying to work out something like a weighting (not sure if this is the clearest way to say what i am getting at...a way of assessing the relative influence/importance) of far right protestant millenarian ideology in making far right american foreign policy toward israel would be tricky, i think. alot of conservative ideology mimics the structure of protestant evangelical views, so the relationship appears tight--but it is not obvious that the relationship goes further than that really--in other words, conservative ideology is built around a particular relationship to political statements that lets that enables them to work categories like nation as if they were transcendent. i think this has alot to do with the bizarre variant on identity politics the right has been trafficking in the past 15 years or so. alot of its appeal seems to be to hinge on it. and alot of ugly political consequences follow from it as well.

but that doesnt mean that evanglical ideology proper is shaping what the right does in the exercise of power. not even in the bizarre-o case of the bush administration's passivity last summer as israel bombed the shit out of lebanon.

i think sometimes it looks as though the bush policies are so completely fucked up that disaster is the goal, and on that basis you can slot the information contained in the nyt article into an explanatory role.

but i am not sure how it would actually work if you were to try to make something more concrete of it. how would you go about it? sociology? would you gather information about the religious preferences of various bush people and use to attribute causation? that would assume that people can only occupy one relation to the world and that religious committments determine that relation. but you couldn't assume that, so you'd have to gather data and then make an argument about the correlation--and the argument would be tricky to do.

just saying i think this is more complicated than it appears to be.
this not so much a critique of you or what you are saying in this thread as much as it is thinking about what the thread raises as roachboy unfolds himself.

a parallel question about will's post: i dont understand the premise. i understand the parallel, but not how you could make it more than a parallel. this most because i am suspicious of anthropormorphisms, particularly of states. i dont see what it accomplishes, really. that said, what will posted is as interesting as anything i have heard or read by academic types in history or poli sci who try to explain this relationship. they use the category "special relationship" hedged round with a bunch of historical boundary conditions and then wander away from trying to explain it.

i was going to write "they throw up their hands" but it sounds funny.
and with the continued presence of different versions of bleatbot the scatboy in this thread, i figured it would just engender another juvenile joke. so i made the juvenile joke.


hmm....

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

jorgelito

Don't worry Roach, b;eatboy the Scatman is gone.

We can resume uninterrupted by his postings.

Willravel

Okay, so I wrote a post that made sense, but upon rereading it I think that co-dependant is the wrong label for the situation. If we're to delve into the parallels between the bahavior of indivituals and nation-states, I have to get my terms right. Apologies.

Let's do a breif overview of the situation. We all know about WWII and how millions of Jewish people were displaced, harassed, beaten, or killed. It was a horrible time. In the wake of WWII, the League of Nations passed a Congretional resolution to create a Jewish state. We, the members of the League, decided to give them the lands occupied and owned by Palestinians, who had formerly been under the Ottoman Empire. The US was actually the first nation to recognize the country of Israel. The first veto that the US made in the UN was to block the Syrian and Lebanese complaint against Israel. As a matter of fact, MOST of the US activity in the UN between 1967 and 1972, be it supporting or abstaining resolutions, were in support of Israel. The US was the first country to leave the weapons embargo, when in 1962, we sold the Israelis the HAWK anti-aircraft missile. The US was involved in helping Israel in the Yom Kippur War. We resupplied them against Egypt. After the conflict, the US multiplied it's aid to Israel by a factor of 4, and we became Israel's leading arms supplier, replacing France (they're still mad about it). We continue to this day to give military and economic aid, cumulatively giving over $70 trillion, and essentially making Israel the 5th most powerful military power on Earth.

Okay, so the US bassically does everything it can to help Israel in every way, we back them when they're right, we back them when they're wrong. Israel really doesn't give the US anything in return. We've never seen stability in the region change because of actions taken by Israel. If anything, conflicts like that between the Hezbollah and Israel a few months back illustrate that Israel has often enflamed the situiation in the Middle East, on occasion to the point of all out war. Israel is continually condemned for their continued human rights violations against Arabs, particularly agains the Palestinians that they displaced (not unlike the Native Americans that were displaced by Eurpoeans). They builldoze homes, they build walls around Palestinain slums, and because of that they see terrorist suicide bombings carried out by the desperate Palestinians. They live in a constant state of violence begitting violence that shows no sign of slowing.

So what does this all have to do with my point? A few things. Sympathy was the inital reason for US support. Nothing wrong with that, they went through something truely horrific and needed help. The US also figured that a stratigic ally in the Middle East would be benifical. The problem is that it wasn't just sympathy and strategic allignment, it was guilt. Not only that, but when anyone over the past 50 years has suggested that Israel was making a mistake, they were instantly labelled an anti-Semite. Let's face it, no one wants to be labelled an anti-Semite. Moving beyond that, there must be a reason beyond name calling or generations-old guilt that the US is satisfied being at the beck and call of Israel. The Senate never stops the massive aid. The president always backs them publicly.



Let's say we have two people. Let's call one Shlomo and one Steve. Shlomo was treated like garbage as a kid, and so Steve always stuck up for him. Steve thought it was unfair how people treated Shlomo, espically Adolf, and that Schlomo obviously needed a defender. Shlomo was pleased and went about his business. Shlomo was moved into an apartment with Muhammed, who had been living alone for quite some time. Muhammed didn't really get along with Shlomo, and neither did their neighbors. Ra, the downstairs neighbor got pissed and tried to kick Shlomo out of the building. Steve helped out Shlomo. Since then, Shlomo has turned the apartment with Muhammed into a virtual prison. All of Muhammed's actions are monitored and Muhammed will occasionally lash out at Shlomo. Shlomo, because of Steve's help, has become really powerful. Muhammed doesn't really have the strength to stand against Shlomo anymore, and routinely get's a beating. Everyone else is really pissed that Shlomo is being so cruel to Muhammed, but Steve is always there to defend Shlomo no matter what. Recently, Shlomo attacked Sayyed, his upstairs neighbor. Sayyed tripped Shlomo in the hall, and then Shlomo gave Sayyed a beating so bad that Sayyed landed in the hospital. Everyone condemned the act as savage and overkill as a response to being tripped. Steve still stands by defending Shlomo.

Breaking that all down, it's clear that Shlomo has gone from the recipient of bullying to being the bully, and Steve is satisfied to support the bully. Neither Steve nor Shlomo are even considering counseling, as they are in what they believe is a symbiotic relationship. If they were on my couch, I'd guess there was some sort of buy-in for Steve besides guilt. It's not that simple. What does Steve get out of this relationship? There has to be some power in the alignment with Shlomo that Steve believes that he is benifiting from. My thought is that Steve is a passive manipulator of Shlomo, and that Shlomo has become a puppet for Steve. The buy in is that Steve never gets blamed for the actions of Shlomo. Shlomo gets power, Steve gets away with manipulating people without being heald responsible for it. Steve is just considered to be too loyal if anything. It's clear that Steve doesn't really care when Sayyed or Muhammed are in trouble. Steve is apathetic and passive aggressive, empowering Shlomo to do damage. Steve has created a relationship of dependance. Meinwhile, Shlomo is a possibly a victim of or a whitness of domestic violence and now he's taking on the characteristics of the abusors including the belief system that he has the right to have power and control over others. This suggests low self esteem, and they are compensating with a sense of entitlement. How would one treat this? The patterns have to change. The hatred, violence, power, control patterns have to be addressed. Basically, there needs to be an intervention. It would take a co-op (mulitlateral involvement) with parties that actually have some level of power and influence. The problem is finding parties that have that power....moving back to reality...economic sanctions against Israel AND the US. That's what it would take. Steve and Shlomo are so strong that they can ignore everyone.

hiredgun

Thanks for the post, will. I think it's a little problematic to tell this story by treating these different actors as people. It's just not a very precise analogy; when we talk about Shlomo, he's not really a single continuous entity but a string of Jewish social leaders and then successive Israeli governments from opposing parties and with different approaches to the conflict. Muhammad also has internal schisms at various times (the largely external PLO until Oslo, internal modernists and reformers, internal radicals). There's also no real extra-regional context in your story, except the United States and WW2 Europe; i.e. no Arab-league or regional politics, and no USSR.

I just think it's too complicated a story to boil it down to a character-based parable, at least if you're going for political accuracy. What stories can do is tell a different kind of truth altogether, and if nothing else I think your narrative gives a very accurate version of the terms in which most Arabs view this conflict.

Mojo_PeiPei

Will a few things, first and most important is the complete lack of accuracy of your post, and it's less then even keeled nature.

To start in your post you put forth what I have dubbed the "Magically appearing jew theory". Zionism started in the 19th century, on top of that Jews have always lived in the land of Palestine, thousands of them. To boot, Palestine never existed as a sovereign nation, and even more problems with the local arab population stems from the British protectorate that was established in the region effectively miffing the borders with Jordan and all that jazz.

After WWII the UN, not the league of Nations, went into deal with the escalating tensions between the populations of jews (old and new) and arabs, they came up with two ideas, partition or single state; it memory serves the palestinan Arabs refused either idea, at which point the partition was put into effect. Once the Jews declared their independence as a sovereign nation state, they were invaded by several neighboring Arab countries, America recognized the infant Jewish state, they repelled the invaders and took gains. The Palestinians not being a sovereign nation were screwed, they just tried to eradicate the Jewish state and lost, bad. The rest from there is history, filled with four more conflicts with Israel and it's Arab neighbors.

Building off of that more accurate "overview" of the Jewish states foundation we need to analyze the cold war, and how the MIddle East was a effectively a satellite war between the two super powers where America was behind Israel and Russia backed the Arabs up until Sadat signed up with America and recognized Israel (later getting him killed), and later Jordan.

As far as aid for ISrael goes, yes they are our biggest recipient in foreign aid, all of which is in loan form and defense contracts for American products; as an aside Israel is the only nation to have never defaulted on a loan from us. The amount of aid given to Israel is no where near the ballpark of 70 trillion, I don't even believe it is close to 70 BILLION annually, it is more around 20 Billion (from what I've heard more like 16 billion). The second biggest recipient of American aid is Egypt, a country that is at peace with Israel.

I don't see how Israel inflames situations. Their mere existence is the problem, I don't see how it is their fault when Hezbollah a terrorist organization fucks with state sovereignty, effectively fucking Lebanon just like the PLO did in the 70's/80's. You bring up the constant condemnation of Israel, especially how it pertains to the UN, well if you pay any attention all vetoed motions from the UN are horribly one sided in favor of the Arabs with pretty much zero culpability towards Palestinian/Arab actions. You talk about the Wall that was constructed (which was found illegal by the Israeli SC, don't know the status of it atm) but your comment about that sparking Palestinian suicide bombings is uneqivocally(sp) wrong, if you have paid any type of attention to the situation you would notice a ginourmous decrease in Palestinian suicide activity, the wall has worked superbly.

Israel is not going anywhere, they have rights as a sovereign nation. They have the responsiblity of providing for the common defence of their people, when terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah, the PLO, Hamas act, especially in an extra-national sense, Israel has every right to go gangbusters on the sovereign nations (or in the historical case of Palestine having not been a sovereign nation until recently) that aggress towards them.

More to come later.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

roachboy

two quick things.

1. mojo---i felt the pull of yet another donnybrook on israeli/palestinian...um..issues on this thread as well, but am so far trying not to go there. it is difficult. i disagree with almost everything in your post from about the first sentence of your third paragraph (counting the opening line as one) at the level of interpretation of the historical situations you sketch (more accurate than outline) but i wonder if this is the place to duke it out (again) over this--or if another thread would be better.

2. will: the metaphor is interesting, and does say useful stuff, but i still dont get the premise. basically, hiredgun stated the problem that i have, so i'll leave it at that for the moment.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

I'm sorry you are only able to read what you want. That must be a terrible afffliction. 1) Nevfer did I say that the Palestinians had their own country. I was clear that they were formerly members of the Ottoman Empire, and were on their own. The land was occupied by Pelstinians, though, be they Jewish, Christian, or vastly Muslim. Jews have not always lived in the land of Palestine. They moved there after the Exodus, if you belive in that sort of thing. Palestinian is the name given to the peoples that lived in the area now called Israel. I'd call them Jewish Palestinains, which do exist.
It started in 1922, with the League of Nations. Are you familiar with the Palestine Mandate?
http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm
Israel created the Hezbollah when they invaded Lebanon just before I was born. Israel still holds the Shebaa Farms to this day. In the most current micro war/invasion of Lebanon goes, Hezbollah had no confirmed kills in Israel. Israel killed thousands of Labanese (only a few hundred confirmed as Hezbollah) and displaced millions. That's what I mean when I say Israel inflames situations.

As for the wall that has been condemned by international courts as a human rights violation, yes, they have decreased sucide bombings. You know what else would stop suicide bombings? Genocide. So why isn't genocide a viable solution? It's morally reprehensable and a crime against humanity. You can't do whatever you want to decrease crime. The wall is an illegal imprisonment of the Palestinain people in their own land by the occupying Israeli government. Do you know how many people have died because of those walls? No? I wonder why not. Could it be that an Israeli life is more important that a Palestinain life to you?
Israel is an occupying force in what should have been Palestine. Their rights are built upon more of the bullshit manifest destiny attitude of western governments who figured that the Palestinains wouldn't care if their land was given to someone else. It's absurd. Israel should have no rights as a nation because it shouldn't exist. Let them find their own land that's not already occupied by a population and claim it as their own. Maybe I should move into your living room and claim it as my own becuase you happen to be on my holy land.

mixedmedia

Mojo_PeiPei,

I agree with most of the content of your post. But where I diverge most acutely is with your assertion that the deterrence of suicide bombers (by a wall or any other measure) is anything other than a temporary reprieve. Not to say that it is not welcome or significant, just not a long-term solution. But perhaps that is not what you meant by that?

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Mojo_PeiPei

Agreed

Your exact words in the post I responded to stated, "In the wake of World War II". The jewish state was created by UN mandate in 1948/49.


What about this? It agrees with what I said. That since 1949 Israel has recieved 74 Billion in aid. And as it goes I was wrong, since most of our dealings with Israel are in the form of loans it doesn't count as foreign aid, so looking around the web it appears Israel rakes in about 3 billion dollars in aid for the coming year of 2007.

Israel created Hezbollah... Right. It had nothing to do with say the fractured Lebanese government and civil war, coupled with destabilization by the PLO, and the countering of foreign involvement from Syria.

In regards to the most recent conflict.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualt...banon_conflict

States that Israel had 44 civilian deaths and 1500 wounded from Hezbollah rocket attacks. I see no problem with the Lebanese casualties, as Hezbollah is an actor of the state, the Lebanese government did nothing to curb their actions such as the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, nor stop the firing of rockets, Israel had every right and violated no law with their actions.

No life is more important to me then another, I just don't believe in faulting a nation for taking actions to do its most basic and fundamental job, protecting its citizens.

How is it manifest destiny? Granted you have the fringe people who go in an build settlements in various parts of Palestine, I'm not defending them, I don't defend any Israeli action past or present to defend those settlers. Again what I do defend is Israel occupying Gaza/West Bank/wherever as a measure to curb Palestinian violence following two Intifada's. Palestine can not now, nor have they ever in the past been able to curb the "radical" terrorist elements; the fact that they elect Hamas into power is something brought on themselves. I don't put defensive occupation into a category which violates human rights, what about the rights of Israeli citizens, nobody seems to be doing much for them in regards to the Palestinian terrorism; however I should mention as an aside I recognize the fact that they are entwined in a vicious cycle of violence.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Willravel

Maturity alert! How can we continue partison bickering when people act li9ke adults and agree from time to time!?
Hahaha, you got me there. I goofed. It was the UN that actually created the Jewish state, I got confused.
The question still remains: why? If they are able to pay us back so easily, then why do we give them so much?
[QUOTE=Mojo_PeiPei]Israel created Hezbollah... Right. It had nothing to do with say the fractured Lebanese government and civil war, coupled with destabilization by the PLO, and the countering of foreign involvement from Syria.[/QUOPTE]
Syria had nothing to do with the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, and it definately had nothing to do with the thousands left dead in Lebanon, most of which were civilians that had little or nothing to do with the Hezbollah. I suppose you can argue from a different perspective about Israel creating the Hezbollah, but Israel had to know that invading and occupying a forieng land would ahve consequences. It's like the US in Iraq. The only insurgency in Iraq before 2003 was the growing rebelion against Saddam. Now there is a very strong resistence force there that formed as a direct result of US action. I'd go as far as saying that Israel is responsible for the Hezbollah in the same way that the US is responsible for the insurgency in Iraq.
The Lebanese government is not completly run by the Hezbollah, as a matter of fact, their influence had been steadily dropping for the past 6 years. Imagine that the US was attacked because of the democrats, and the attackers killed everyone stating that we have a Democrat government. It doesn't really work that way. The Hezbollah influence on government before the 2006 conflidt was negligable.

The thing is: Hezbollah was and is a terrorist organzation working outside of the jurisdiction of the legitimate Lebanese government. Their actions are not the actions of the Lebanese people. So when the Hezbollah attacks Israel, then Israel strikes back at Lebanon as a nation...that's a mistake at best. It would be like the US attacking the whole of Iraq because of the insurgency.

Israel killed a lot of civilians that had nothing to do with the conflict. Israel invaded Lebanon. Israel blocaded Lebanon by sea. Israel even created one of the largest eco-disastors in the history of the ME when they hit a power plant spilling 15 tons of oil into the Mediterranean. The blocade made it impossible for relief efforts.
Just so we're clear, the order of events is as follows:
1) Israeli soldiers kidnapped by Hezbollah for the purpous of prisoner exchange.
2) Israel attacks Lebanon with missiles, tanks, ground troops.
3) Hezbollah starts firing missiles into Israel.

If Israel wanted to protect it's cizitens, they wouldn't have all out attacked Lebanon, where they knew they'd get fired upon by Hezbollah that were, up until the attack and invasion, inactive.

Or they could just leave the Shebaa Farms.
What right did the UN have to create an Israeli state where people already lived? I've been trying to get an answer for this for a long time. The Ottoman Empire was not a member of the UN. The Palestinians had no interest at the time of joining the UN. The UN ahd no real claim on the land, as WWII was a war to stop German, Italian and Japanese aggression. The area probably would have developed into a Palestinian state, let's call it Palestine, and they would have become another country in the Middle East. Why did the UN have the power to declair a state like that?

Mojo_PeiPei

Stop it lest my ice water blood warms.




When I reference Syria, I'm referencing what happened in Lebanon after America started dicking around in their affairs in the 50's which led to civil war. Syria thought they could seize on the oppurtunity and moved into Lebanon. The presence of the PLO, Syria, and the Arab-Muslims forced the Christian factions to turn to Israel who then came in in 82'.

I don't know if their hold is dwindling, by all accounts I've heard and read, they've made gains in Parliament in every elections since 92', they hold 20 some odd seats out of 100(+). On top of that there are several cabinent level ministers affiliated with Hezbollah. Hezbollah operates as a terrorist organization, they also operate as a political party in the government. Since Lebanon is a sovereign nation they have the responsibility to reign in militants, regardless of who they act for extra-national or not; the Lebanese government was not doing anything.

One fact that I am unsure if you are aware of is regardless of the lineation of events, Israel and Lebanon as two sovereign actors were at a state of war before the last situation, there was no standing peace, no cease fire, no armstice agreement. As such any action taken against Lebanon is legal as Lebanon is a belligerent nation. Since that is the case I don't see what the issue is with Israel holding the Sheeba farms which are a defensive/military/strategic position which has historically been used by Hezbollah/Lebanon to aggress towards Israel.

Like I stated the Jews lived there too, more just happened to be coming. Tensions started raising amongst both populations and the shit hit the fan, the UN intervened to try and create some type of stability. You are right in that the Ottoman Empire was not a nation state of the UN, this is due to the fact that the sick man had died 20 years earlier. As a result of WWI, the British took a bunch of gains, Palestine, Egypt, Iraq, Iran... again the situation in Palestine was too much for them to handle as such they turned it over to the UN. I don't see what your problem is with that, I'd think you and a lot of others on the board here would favor such an action, rather then continuing their Colonial dominanting (or lack thereof) presence, the British a member of the UN turned a major problem to a extra-national government organization whose foundation and purpose was to address such issues, what else could they have done? The British trying to maintain their protectorate would make our current situation in Iraq look like a trip to DisneyLand as the both jewish and Muslim-Arab populations were getting extremely hostile and aggressive towards each other and the British.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

roachboy

ok so we are going to do this. fine.
barging in on a conversation requires that you say something
so let me dispense with the static being caused already by my old pal, the noun "terrorism"

there are no terrorist organizations.
there are political organizations that sometimes use terrorist tactics.
a terrorist tactic is in general the targeting of civilians.

it is obvious that in practice the word "terrorism" only obtains when a non-state organization that is not officially sanctioned by the united states acts in a way that do not further the interests of the united states.

and of course we know that states have recourse to the notion of "total war" and they get to sanction their military actions my assembling factions of the ruling class to pass nice laws and promulgate Impressive Declarations and when these Impressive Declarations are written they go on the nice stationary and when they are printed they get set in Suitably Martial Typeset and so obviously when a state attacks a civilian population it is necessarily within the purview of war---so when israel dropped cluster bombs on southern lebanon it was collateral damage---but because of the lack of nice laws, Important Promulgations, affirmation by members of the ruling oligarchy and nice stationary, a hezbollah rocket shot into israel is terrorism blah blah blah.

and we have also had a six year piece of performance art undertaken by those fine fellows in the bush administration called "the war on terror" that gives everyone a good idea if just how effective this word is in getting people to understand fuck all but be afraid anyway.

so if there is to be a discussion of the conflicts that set israel against arab, and in the course of that conversation the word "terrorist" is going to float around, that conversation can and will go nowhere.

to say an organization is "terrorist" and then pretend to say something about it analytically it is like being asked to analyze the biological organization of the pole bean plant and responding: "i dont like them"

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Sun Tzu

Mojo
A conclusion I had to reach when I was debating this issue here 3 years ago was people are going to interpret history as they choose. While it is similar to selective listening it also can have great differences. Selective listening is when one will only hear what they choose to hear. I view selective interpretation when applied to this particular subject is where one has researched multiple sources through various avenues.
It reminds me of how the movie Brave Heart opens “I shall tell you of William Wallace. Historians from England will say I am a liar, but history is written by those who have hanged heroes.” Not calling either side of this a hero, but the state of possible inaccuracies holds apparent truth that can be seen today. Go to a book store and purchase 2 books on history. They may have differences in them. That presents a problem- which one is correct? Which one is accurate? Which one really happened? Does the author have an agenda? What were their sources for compiling this gather documentation that is being presented as the truth? This practice can be seen right on your monitor. Go to various sites about history of the Holy Land. You will find great differences on how things are to have gone down. After reading through them check the source of the website. That’s why multiple sources can provide a foundation to better reach what is going to be registered as factual. In the end it’s going to be the individual that decides what they believe in their heart and mind of what they are going to interpret as the truth.
Hopefully anyone that is going to enter into a discussion of this subject has done some research. I think most here have. That tells me that no view is going to change. History already happened obviously, there is a wealth of information out there and everyone has access to it.

With all that said what I say here is how I’ve interpreted the information leading to my beliefs. Just for the sake of not having to put IMO before every statement or similar anything referencing history is how I read the information. So I am not throwing statements out there trying to school you, or tell you how “things are”. At this point in time same as 3 years ago I know we are going to maintain believing what we each believe. In the times I traveled there I met kind people who were both Jewish and Arab.

Do you think someone can not be anti-semetic but oppose Zionism? Do you think there is a difference between someone who is Jewish and someone that titles themselves as a Zionist?

In accordance to what has already been stated by someone else the census taken by the British in the in the early 1900s paints a pretty clear picture. Ofcourse the Zionist Organization of America states that it is inaccurate and the Jewish census is the correct one.


Aside and before this Arabs were actually selling land to incoming immigrants. I see that statement escalating tensions being accurate, but what is not being looked at here is the reasons for the tensions. There were immigration caps put into place. These were openly ignored by the British. One of their greatest mistakes. The Zionist movement caused such a tidal wave of incoming immigrants the British were either overwhelmed or didn’t want to be a force that went after a culture that had just taken such a beating (the Holocaust).
Most of indigenous populace (the arab majority) obviously saw foreshadowing of things to come and stopped selling land.
The influx of immigrants was only part of the issue. The Zionist movement fueling it is very apparent when you read any UN assembly addressed by the founding Zionists. They had no problem stating to the world exactly what their views were about the people that were living in the land they claimed as being rightfully theirs.


Herein lies a common disagreement. One that continues to unfold. Ofcourse the arabs weren’t happy. The land that had been allotted to them was still being settled on. The common phrase I hear “they want to throw us into the ocean” really seemed the other way around. So as I see it, looking at the reasons WHY they were invaded holds some importance. Was it because they hated Jews? or was it because the newly formed and recognized state was carrying on operations that expanded into areas that had been allotted to the indigenous population?




What does sovereign really mean? Not being recognized by “whoever” doesn’t change the fact of all the lives that exsist there. Have you ever seen a map the towns that exsisted there? Israeli education has painted them right out of exsistence. Eradication or self defense?


What ever the case is, they have been caught spying on the US. Our great ally spying on us. It doesn’t seem to have affected aid though. I see this as being particularly F**ked up.

I do want to point out that this was created by an Israeli source. Gaza; the most condensed place on earth; ironically described as a large Ghetto by IDF soldiers that refuse to serve in the occupied territories--- was given to them, or more accurately they were allowed to stay. The Zionists view this as a gracious act and they should feel lucky. Heres a look at the other area that was given to them as Israel was recognized.


<object width="550" height="400">
<param name="movie" value="barak_eng.swf">
<embed src="http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m214/bushwhip/barak_eng.swf" width="550" height="400">
</embed>
</object>

Im only guessing here, but you probably think the data here is wrong or inaccurate. My question is if what you read through was the truth would you see evidence of possible genocide, or results of Israel defending itself? What is this process going to look like if allowed to continue?


1. Palmach, Irgun Tsvai Leumi, and Haganah exsisted before the PLO, Hamas, and Hezbolah.

2. You have to admit at least Native Americans got casinos



I will state if the Palestinians were given the land the were supposed to given, and Israel didnt carry clandestine operations against them-- and the Palestinians attacked them; Israel has every right to defend itself.

Rocketeers and gunmen have appeared to have turned into a successful justification to raze any infrastructure or educational system the Pals have left. Does security ever have the possiblity of becoming a slippery slope?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

In reference to the title of this thread:

To me the Bible holds as much historical truth as greek mythology. (As a side note- I will comment that I have seen and experienced things that I don’t have an explanation for in the times I had been there mainly with this man http://www.wyattmuseum.com/

But my views are the same none the less; that it is difficult to believe that there is going to be a supernatural exsistance after the battle of armaggedon. (or why there even has to be one) Me being a former Christian I used to have the belief that Jesus is going to rule over the world.

It is one of the big questions I used to have in how Jewish and Christian people could get along or be potlical allies. The nation of Israel bases the justifiable claim to the land on a spiritual belief. (well some of them do--- there are plenty of Jewish people that defend Palestine, and believe Israel to be an illegal state in that Israel is not suppose to exsist until their messiah arrives) Basically everything about the God-Jesus connection is a lie in the eyes of someone who’s Jewish.

I later came to learn that most Christians believe in order for the end of the world to occur and Jesus to return; Israel has to be a nation.

This is why I feel that the Christian influence is stronger than anyone on this thread realizes. I see what is happening now in that small stretch of land unfolding and bringing everyone and everything in to it. I don’t think it is Zionist lobbying that is letting this situation to go on.

Its apparent the rest of the world views this and the theme of what America is supposed to represent as being a hypocracy. Even our other ally the UK is one of the biggest factors of Israels current PM pushing for the west bank settlements to be disbanded. I dont see this ever happening. (he holds a 20% approval rating in Israel now) I see the Christian influence possibly superceding those with the power to carry reasonable actions. This being done because they see the New Testment coming true as being reasonable, or unavoidable. This is what I meant in the thread about a President being a Christian. Someone who is a devot Christian believes the New Testament is real and things to come are very real. So where is the line drawn between trying to lead and avoid world war and hopefully progress civilization into the ages with our own hands or making choices with the belief that God is going to come clean up our mess because we just cant help the fact that we are inherent sinners. (sorry ahead if you are christian and Im am offending you- this is MO only)

There lies the inherent danger. Events are going to unfold to self fufill a prophecy. I think what will really be left is a dead planet. If that is to be our fate, then we probably deserve it for allowing it to happen.

A great way to honor a creator, if there is one . . .

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

Sticky

I am sorry, I have to back up a bit.
The following comment was made and probably due the the fact the there were so many other details to discuss, it was completly missed or ignored (maybe rightfully so).

I will remember this one.
It will help me appropriately frame any of your posts.

Are you saying that:

If things did not work out the way they did and Israel did not become a nation for all the reasons you believe it should have happened then they would not have any rights as a nation.

or

Do you believe that the nation of Israel (which exists toda) should have all it's rights taken away becuase it should never have come into existence?

or did you mean something else entirely?

__________________
Sticky The Stickman

Willravel

I'm saying that the UN massively overstepped it's authority when it declaired that a land already occupied by a people was to be given to the Jewish people in order for them to establish a Jewish state. What if I were to give my neighbor's house to a friend of mine, even though I have no claim to the house at all? No one would recognize the gift because it's not mine to give. I'm basically saying the first one. It's hardly Israel's fault that the UN stole the land out from under the Palestinainas, though they are very much responsible for the human right's violations against the Palestinians. I'm sure they were greatful for the gift. I do think that, because the land should belong to the Palestinians, they should seek peaceful concessions more often than murders, bombings, bulldozings, walls, and other war crimes. I realize that the PLO and Hamas are seriouly dangerous organizations, but look at what Clinton tried to do over a decade ago in September of 1993. It was a rather weak agreement, but it was something. It represented a major step forward towards peace.

Sticky

it seemed from your comment that you were saying thesecond one. Thanks for clarifying.

The Israelis went along with it in 1993.
They went along with it in 2000 as well.

What was this thread about again?

__________________
Sticky The Stickman

Willravel

OH yeah. It's way too late now. It'd be like trying to give the US back to the Native Americans. It wouldn't work. It'll have to be just another injustice that goes down in history. Which is not to say that we can't do anything about it now, we just can't unmake history.

roachboy

if this thread is now a discussion about israel/palestine and no longer about the op, then: the situation in which israel operates was fundamentally redefined after 1967. questions linked to its origin seem interesting but irrelevant in explaining post-1967 problems.

since 1967, you have israel in a colonial position and its exercize of power a central motor---THE central motor--in creating conditions that spawned the types of tactics people call "terrorism"---the big marker being the black september action in 1972.

if you were living under colonial conditions, under a brutal occupation, and you saw--clearly--that those conditions did not exist outside your immediate environment because they were not covered by the "free press"--and you saw that conventional political action offered you no hope of political redress--what would YOU do? sit around and take it? wait for some interest group style movement to knock hard enough top be let in to some process that would maybe at some future date result in the recognition of the fact that you were a human being endowed with certain human rights that were being violated by the occupation? well then chances are that you would suffocate, in silence, waiting...

and if you were moved to consider tactics like those of black september and their descendents, why do you think you would do so? is it a rational decision to underake such actions, one rooted in the oppressive character of the immediate reality, or is it an irrational type of action undertaken out of some spite?

oppression, direct and indirect: poverty, political marginalization, the lack of any sense that coherent political redress is possible, the politics of impunity as expressed every day by the occupying power: these are the kind of things that are the conditions of possibility for what the americans like to call "terrorism" for therapeutic reasons.

if you want to end such actions, undo the conditions that generate them.
like anything else, these conditions are the results of choices made by human beings in complex situations, and they can be undone by human beings. there is nothing necessary or given in advance about any of this.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Sticky

I agree.


This is not correct and I disagree.
The PLO, whose stated goal was the destruction of the state of Isreal through armed struggle was founed by the Arab league in 1964. That is 3 years before 1967.
In 1964 the Isrealis were not in control of the West Bank, they were not in control of Gaza, they were not in control of the Golan Heights, they were not in control of the Sinai, they were not in control of East Jerusalem, and they had no control or accees to the Old City of Jerusalem including the Western Wall and Temple Mount.

It is, therfore, not correct to say that the events and results of the 6 Day War were what "spawned the types of tactics people call "terrorism" "

There must have been some reason for the creation of the PLO with those goals.


You are right. But, what are "the conditions that generate them"?
It is not what occured after the Six Day War it is the existance of the State of Israel.

Unfortunately, as you and willravel showed, not necessarily but by your arguments (and I am not at all saying that you agree with the following), the only way that these issues will be resolved for most of the arab world would be for Isreal to just dissapear.


I agree, but this only works when the poeple who are involved are at least more rational then they are emotional (at least 50% plus any fraction rational to 50% less any fraction emotional).

__________________
Sticky The Stickman