If it all boils down to Israel, how would you handle it?
 

rather than hijack the If you were the US President, how would you handle Terrorism? thread:

a lot of folks contend that israel -and US support of israel- is the root of the problem with global terrorism.

you can be president of any country you want or not, but how would you play the israel card in your plan for middle east and world peace?

The Israeli question cannot be understood without reference to the holocaust, and the particular effect on the Jewish people of the overall lack of co-ordinated resistance to Nazi atrocities.

Any any sane person could only encourage Jewish and Muslim people to understand the closeness of their religions.. and to understand that what differentiates them is meaningless compared to what unites them.

The ordinary people only want peace... it is the zealots and the madman who blow up school buses to incite rage and war.... this element must be removed, socially, from society.

I disagree that it all boils down to israel. And I won't even call you anti-semitic if you disagree with me ;)

I'll say it again:
*cut and pasted from above thread*

I would argue that Israel is the perfect excuse necessary for every dictatorship in the m.e. to 1) foment hate, and thereby remaining popular with their people to stay in power and retain their domes, 2) keep their societies barbaric, broken and dysfuntional. (except for bahrain, which hosts a formula one race now )

The only thing the dictators in the m.e. hate more than israel is each other, which explains the continued existence of 5 million israels against 200 million arabs surrounding them on all sides. I see israel as god's micro-experiment where he is testing the resilience of a tiny, civilized, intelligent society pitted against the barbarian hordes. Im a big fan of the underdog, and a big fan of israel.

I just read today that the emir of kuwait is staying in the same hospital as clinton, and for the same reason. Everyone over there loves to hate the corrupt, infidel US, but whenever they're in need of the state of the art, they hop on the fastest plane bound for america.

I like Israel, I like them a lot. They're scrappy and resilient. I would always stand behind Israel as an ally in the Middle East, thats not to say I would not work to help out the Palestinians.

People in the Mid East need a reality check, Israel is here to stay, and if they feel so inclined they can try and do something about it again, and get the snot kicked out of them for the 5+ time in 50 odd years.

I would hope the Palestinians would one day wise up and realize just how big of a douche Arafat is, and at the same time realize that groups like Hamas, Al Aqsa, and Hezbollah are not a means to help their situation. Also I would suggest that they turn their attention to how their "neighbor's" and "Arab brothers" and "Muslim brothers" are pimping the fuck out of them and their horrible plight.

Isreal has been an opportunist, using the Arab's unreasoning hatred against them. Had the Arabs not attacked in 67', they would be enjoying the borders that they pine for today.

If they had accepted the Oslo accords, they would have a Palestinian state today.

I have no illusion that Isreal wants all of it's historical land, but it is the Arabs who are giving it to them on a silver platter by continuing trying to destroy them.

I feel, as most know, that Israel has no real claim to their land, and that they don't deserve it. They are the most hated country in the middle east, and we support them because our government is controled and our populace is influenced to a massive degree by the jews. We are force feed this holocaust rhetoric every year, and are made to pity the jews for something that is vastly exaggerated.

Believe what you want, I know I will.

If our populace is influenced and government controlled by "the Jews" then why do I hear such an overwhelming amount of anti-Israel sentiment in the major media networks? Your tinfoil-hat Jew-luminati conspiracy theory doesn't seem to hold up very well.

Careful, folks.

Just a friendly, "we don't wan no trouble" kinda warning :D

I just wanted to say "Jew-luminati." ;)

After several statement made by yourself, in seperate threads, basically lamenting your racist beliefs, I am going to do something I have never done before.......use the ignore option.
I can only hope it is effective.
Believe what you want, I know I will.

Jews have been there for over 2000 years, and their ancestors' origins in the area can be traced back 2000 more years. Due to their relatively small numbers, they were constantly invaded, occupied, enslaved or displaced, first by the romans, seljuk turks, christians (crusades), egyptians (who, ironically, were tolerant of their presence), then ottoman turks. What the brits did after ww2 was send the jews back to where they had been for the past 4000 years. The modern arab cry of "occupation!" is a phobic, premeditated political response to the fact that after centuries, their historical presence in the region was formally acknowleded.

Not to mention that the hebs had also legally been acquiring land from 1879 on in mass quantities.

It must be your imagination. There are 3 Palestinians who die for every Israeli, but from our media coverage you'd never know without looking it up yourself. Whether it's reporting deaths to using vague terminology the U.S. media coverage of the middle east has been abysmal. How many people here have even seen a map before, showing all the illegal Israeli settlements? I know I hadn't before looking it up. Is it any wonder with all those dots that the Palestinians could possibly be a little mad about the Israeli occupation?

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

The problem with this argument is that a person can no longer legitimately criticize Israel without being called Anti-Semitic or a Neo-Nazi. At the same time, the actions of a few Islamic terrorists have shifted public opinion to the point that people tend to look down on all Arabic countries and people. On the other hand, there are some in our country who believe in a Jewish Conspiracy and hate anyone who is Jewish or associated with Israel.

What needs to happen is that people need to stop blindly supporting one side or the other and call for the election of two moderate leaders who will work together to bring peace to a region that is so important to so many religions and cultural groups. Extremists on both sides should be denounced worldwide.

(For the record, I am Jewish, and there are members of my family who did not make it though the Holocaust.)

I cannot back Israel in its current form. Putting away the historical context in which Israel was formed, Israel has systematically violated the human rights of the people living in occupied Palestine Israel fought a war and won and therefore may have a clam the West Bank and Gaza. This does not give them a right to contain Palestinians to camps in were living conditions poor. The cycle of violence in Israel could be slowed if both side truly came together and made a good faith effort in finding peace. One cannot take seriously promising of peace while the Israeli government builds a wall though neighborhoods, houses, and streets. The wall undermines family and economic structure because it cordons of common groups.

Suppose -
We stopped supporting Israel and the rest of the ME was plunged into war. Would we stand on the sidelines?

Respectively now and in the past territories such as west bank and gaza are respectably under control of Egypt and Jordan (despite the occupation). Those countries don't help the Palestinians, Palestinians living in refugee camps in Jordan are not granted citizenship and widely shunned. Israel is more welcoming then the Arab fraternity, I find that horribly fucked up.

I've said it before and i'll say it again. When it even looks like impartiality may be impossible one should abstain. If a judge is on a case and there is a teneous connection between him and the defendent a new judge is assigned (ideally). We should abstain from UN resolutions (we all know they never do much anyways). Isreal is perfectly capable of defending it's self. And if a large arab army attacked isreal you can bet the UN would step in.

Your response is what makes this topic hands off. The comment was not racist...it may be the opposite of your belief but it is not racist.

My reply is that an ally is an ally yet this situation needs more scrutinization because there is a heavy Israeli influence in American Politics. US taxdollars..taxation without representation, our money is funding a situation which borders ethnic cleansing.

that's just plain hilarious. you are a master wordsmith.

http://www.postdiluvian.org/~gilly/S...ix/conjunc.gif

Please elaborate what you menat with "vastly exaggrated"

we're kind of off track here, i didn't start this thread to be a an israel-love-it-or-hate-it semite-antisemite slugfest. if someone else wants that, a poll might be more appropriate. i'm looking for constructive and -as arttv would appreciate- pragmatic plans and proposals for dealing with a very contentious issue in judeo-christian-muslim relations that has challenged geopolitical stability for millenia.

here's a suggestion to try to move the discussion around:

what if we started with jeruselam and made it into a completely separate international city-state?

we don't have to follow the precendents of the allied occupation of berlin after WWII, but it does provide some conceptual framework for consideration. we might also look to the example of the creation of the district of columbia when the united states first transitioned from confederacy to federacy and there was a great deal of concern of which state would house the seat of central government.

since jerusalem is a major holy city for each religion, perhaps a global district under the jurisdiction of the united nations is a possible compromise. i would propose a triumvirate for civic governance, but i would suspect that the islamic leg would be wary of doubleteaming by the judeo and christian legs... perhaps having a secular authority to balance that would help.

The USA's support of Israel is definetly a fueler of anti-US sentiment in the middle east, a more even handed approach to the issue would surely lower hatred. As mentioned above, moderation is the key. The issue isn't really the cause of international terrorism, what caused this phenomenon was failed states after the cold war, as well as a terrorist response to their enemy on the enemies playing field, a global one (after the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia). International terrorism no longer has a national objective, rather an international one, due to the internationalisation of our current uni-polar world, it is directed at the one pole.
I think that a two state solution isn't liable in the current situation of distrust and the unwillingness to make concessions. A single state solution is also not feasible, although i think less concessions would have to be made then.

first thing that would have to happen is for sharon to get booted from power.
he has been even better than the folk who stage manage the bushimage have been in exploiting peoples fear to his own political ends. and it seems obvious that so long as sharon is in power, nothing will happen that will reduce hostility.

btw, i do not think arafat a prize either.

the wall should be dismantled.

the settlements should be dismantled and the programs of encouraging them stopped.

i think the israelis have no long-run choice but to concede right of return.

i would support gibingus' suggestion concerning the status of jerusalem, but no-one will like it.

the only way around or out of this is for the palestinian population to be accorded dignity, which under present conditions is stripped from them every day. if there is to be a seperate state, it would have to be economically viable--something which the israelis seem to oppose. the outline of such a state, floated in the period around the oslo accords, did not seem to meet this criterion.

i have no illusions about the viability of these ideas---but they would seem to me to function as a baseline set of conditions for anything approaching a resolution of these conflicts.

aside:
diverting consideration of this onto religious grounds gets nowhere quick. it has been functional for both sides to revert to racist understandings of the other--each serves to obscure what is happening on the ground, to make any resolution even more difficult to reach. it is easier to kill people that you distance via such categories. it is the basic discourse of legitimating massacre. on both sides.

as to the gambit of trying to conflate critique of the policies of the israeli government to questioning the legitimacy of the state itself to antisemitism---the linkage is always possible, and is a problem that you have to be aware of. particularly given that sliding from one term to the next seems to not be a particular problem for many people.

the seperation of terms is also possible. it is perfectly possible and reasonable to criticize, and harshly, the repressive (often barbaric) policies of the sharon government, for example, without any of the other terms coming into play at all.
i am inclined to be far more critical of the israeli state in generating and maintaining conflict with the palestinans than the other way around simply because israel is a regional superpower--the sharon "solution" to the conflict seems to be to brutalize the palestinians in the hopes of making almost any coherent state building impossible.

i also think that any coherent understanding of this conflict requires that you jettison the discourse of "terrorism". but every politics that tries to look at conditions in real life and not content itself with war fantasies has to reject the discourse of "terrorism" as well.

I think the UN is very important to the resolution of this issue. From a symbolic standpoint, I think only blue-hat soldiers should be deployed in the area to drive home the point that this is not only the US getting involved, but the entire world has a stake in the constant fighting in that area.

I also slightly question the validity of the Israeli's claim to that particular bit of land. Calling back to roots from that long ago, aren't we supporting a dangerous idea? Does that mean that we owe Native Americans land? What empire constitutes original ownership? Our whole concept of the political break up of the world is based on conquerors and the conquored. Since when do people get to call long ago "dibs" on land?

But that is beside the point, Israel exists now and the problem needs to be delt with through the United Nations.

Sharon was elected by the Israeli people, so nobody will boot him from power. Besides (as you state yourself), Arafat and the entire Palestinian leadership should be booted too.

Why? If the wall runs along the original, UN-backed lines, I have no problems with a wall; if it keeps the Israelis from being blown up, it's their right to build a wall.

Agreed, but not realistic in some cases - the settlers are typically extremists, who don't need any encouragement.

I strongly disagree. Thanks to a lot of people claiming they're "Palestinians" (when they were really workers coming from the surrounding countries), and a lot of births since then, Israel has no choice but to oppose the right of return. If all the "Palestinians" return, there won't be an Israel left. It'll turn into yet another Muslim state very quickly (simply demographics - Palestinians have way more kids than the Jews).

If noone likes it, it's not going to happen.

The only way out of this is for the Muslims in the m.e. to accept Israel for what it is, and stop their endless anti-Jewish rhetoric. The people there are force-fed this crap from birth, and will never be content as long as there's a single Jew left in Israel. Giving "dignity" to the Palestinians won't change that at all.

You (along with many others) seem to be under the impression that Israel is the source of the problem, and the poor Palestinians the victims. In reality, both sides are to blame, and both sides are victims. Israel shouldn't be forced to give up anything as long as the Palestinians and the surrounding states won't accept Israel's right to excist in the first place. If you ignore that last bit, and let Israel concede everything, the end result will be the destruction of Israel, and the murder of most of the Jews living there.

IMO, the Muslims in the m.e. can't stand the idea that a small group of infidels has been able to survive their attempts to drive them out. They're angry that someone has dared to "invade" their precious little desert, and want their land (pride/honor) back at all costs. That's pretty much the same reason many Muslims/Arabs resent the American presence in Iraq - fellow Muslims have been beaten by infidels, who are now in control of part of *their* land - the positive sides are ignored for the sake of Muslim pride.

Yes, but Sharon is a warmonger, he has no intrest in deescalation. With him in Power no peace will be possible.

No, the wall runs over palestinians grounds, thats why the UN criticised it. You cannot build a wall on your neighbors ground.

The same can be said about Arafat and the Palestinian leaders. So why focus on Sharon. He may be a hawk, but he's not going to be around forever. Arafat has been in power for a longer time than Sharon, so I'd say he is more responsible for this mess than Sharon is.

Hence my statement that the wall should be allowed if it ran along the UN-mandated frontier. The current wall doesn't help the peace process one bit, but it stops terror attacks. And it's not like the wall is the *cause* of the Arab hatred of Israel, now is it? It's just another excuse to attack Israel.

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

You know, perhaps Israel should give the conquered lands back to the original owners: Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt. Let's see how the Palestinians would like *that* scenario...

Because he is the leader of a constitutional state while the Palestinian leaders are terrorists or former terrorists.
There has to be a difference between them.

oh ok, i misunderstood you.

I think we would be wise to strategically lower our support of Isreal, while investing in a plan to promote Palestinian statehood. It would seem The United States is supporting the existance of Isreal with loan guarantees and Arms. This has created much of the discomfort the Arab World feels towards us. It is my opinion that ANY state that cannot become self sufficient after half a century of existance , is fundumentally flawed.
We have allowed ourselves to Adopt an entire population of non- U.S. citizens, and support them for decades, for what amounts to colonial reasoning. If there is to be change in this section of the world, it will by definition, have to come from the Isreali government. This is unlikely while they have the military, and financial backing of the United States, as they have no need to negotiate while the worlds' Superpower has their collective backs.
It would also be of benefit to the peace process if the American President actually decided to pay attention to the conflict.....and decide on a policy that has some chance of creating a fair, and just reconciliation between the parties involved. Perhaps more attention will be focused here....after the election.....one would hope.

But Tecoyah, there *won't be* any reconciliation between the two parties, simply because one of the parties (Arabs) teaches their children that the other party is subhuman, while the other (Israelis) won't exactly trust people that hate them...

From a strategic stantpoint, Israel is surrounded by enemies. Given the history of the Jewish people there, it's not very realistic to expect them to lower their weapons without some security arrangements with their neighbors...

Agreed.....for the most part.

Isreal is indeed in the midst of an unfriendly (to them) section of the world. My idea was not for them to disarm, but rather for us to stop arming them, and forgo the favoritism we as a country portray towards Isreal. It is my opinion that the blatant support we show, towards a State which is in regularly dismissive, if not aggressive, towards its neighbors, has a great effect on our standing in this part of the world.
I feel that if the United States were to attempt to take the Arab nations, and those working towards such seriously, we might gain a bit of respect in the region. Respect is the Key to some level of stability in the Middle East. Without mutual respect there will be no worthwhile diplomacy. Without Diplomacy there will be no communication. Without communication there can be no resolution.

On a worthwhile Tangent......My main reason for wishing Bush out of office has little to do with individual policies. Rather it is because of the General lack of diplomacy our country has used in the last four years. Diplomacy is THE most powerful tool a superpower has at its disposal, due to economic, as well as military muscle. I find it disturbing that this administration has abritrarily ignored the options negotiation can open up, and has decided instead to use destruction as the primary motivator.
Colin Powell could have had an enormous impact in several of the "Mistakes" this term has created, but was not allowed to do so, WHY?

The issue of lowering weapons, is certainly not on the table at this point. It must however, be there eventually for peace to prevail. Without some level of discourse this simply cannot happen, and I find this quite frustrating.

so where, after the holocaust, were the European Jews to go?

To Israel of course! :D :D :D

There was a larger Jewish population in New York than Palestine. Maybe they should have gone there?


SLM3

And this would solve the Jewish problem, you think?

The last person who spoke of the "Jewish problem" was....well you know, I don't want to invoke Godwin's Law.

come, come now... that wasnt the last person.

great, just what we need... more new york jews. :|

Why shouldn't they have gone back to the lands they once came from? Or don't the Jews have a right to return? :)

The lands they came from? You mean Central Asia?

Actual thread.....
 

I was wondering if we might discuss the issue addressed by the thread starter

You know....like this

And this.......

if i were pres, i'd support isreal pretty much as it is now. i'd try to nudge them, gently, into allowing the palestinians to build up their infrastructure and have a better standard of living with basic necessities like water, roads, etc., but i would not remove aid from isreal. i would try to increase humanitarian aid to the palestinians. from my understanding, right now the second largest amount of aid we give is too egypt (second to isreal) because they're willing to play nice (although i'd also want to try to get them to stop teaching to hate jews in school). i think helping the palleys out more might also help turn terrorrism off to some people, they might see the palleys doing better and think "gee, if they'll do that to them for playing well with others, maybe they'll help us out."


- my .02 shekels.

A city can never have too many good delis.
:)

I wouldn't think that everything boils down to Israel, or jews in general, but it could be argued that way. Like the adage,.." Any publicity is good publicity",..is always a win win for Israeli's and jews in general whether seen in a positive light or not. This is especially significant when it comes to political policies. Once a statute or precedent is set, it is very difficult to overturn or even change in part or whole that motion.

With George Bush as president, the Israeli's have done very well in receiving what seems at times, complete unconditional support while the rest of the middle east has almost been effectively snubbed diplomatically speaking. For Bush to host Ariel Sharon 7 or 8 times at the White House in a year and a half span while delegating the Palestinian prime minister's only visit and to be briefed by Colin Powell is one shining example. Does anyone remember the road map?

This may not be a problem for this administration, but could be for future administrations if down the road a president actually pushes for balance in the mideast. That I think was a mistake made by Bush. Playing up to the Israeli's and the ever powerful jewish American lobby groups who now expect and will continue to expect preferential treatment or at least the same as per, or will be quick to chastise the unfairness and hypocrisy of the U.S flip floppy of an ally fighting terror.

In my opinion, the plight of the Israeli's is so blown out of proportion that their supposed significance preceeds their actual importance. But then again, I don't think Israel would ever be content if it were just another country on this planet, just as every other one is.

Anyone else find it funny that perhaps the most major lobby for Israel in America isn't a jewish delegation, it's christian. It's the same group of "nuts" who compromised a 1/4 of 2000 voting population.

at this point, i do not think the general "israel question" or any of its derivative formulations are still relevant. israel is a fact.
no-one who at this point is still talking about driving the israelis into the sea.
it seems to me that if you maintain this idea when you think about the conflicts ongoing there, you box yourself into an all-or-nothing logic that serves to reinforce the impression that the conflicts are intractable, there is nothing to be done, blah blah blah.

dragonlich:

i am under no illusions about sharon as elected--geez. my point was that so long as he is in power, i see no hope of any resolution. so long as likud is in power--particularly in a situation like the present one, wherein they rely on a far right coalition, there is no hope.
sharon props himself up by exploiting fear--he is a more extreme manifestation of the same kind of exploitation of fear for political ends that is so central to the bushcampaign.

you position on the wall is contrary to the facts. the wall functions as de facto annexation. it is an enormously damaging act, its construction, politicall, psychologically. i would maintain that i must be dismantled.

as for this:

i think you are wrong.
at this point there is no question that it is israel that is brutalizing the palestinian population.
it is a colonial power enforcing a horrific kind of occupation.
it is israel that creates and maintains a political situation the outlooks within which are so utterly bleak that people would consider blowing themselves up--a nihilist act only imaginable in a context of total domination. think about the material disparities that separate the israeli state from the palestinians. just think about it. to attempt to shift understanding of this conflict to a level that imagines anything approaching symmetry between the opponents is delusional.

that the rhetoric of many surrounding countries too often moves from political opposition to antisemitism is not in doubt. that this slide complicates things is also not in doubt. but i think it all too easy, and all too facile to go from that to ignoring the facts of the matter in this particular conflict.

I read through this entire thread and rather than try to put a bunch of quotes from everyone into one; I'll just answer the ones I feel I need to offer MY OPINION on by again. I’ve never posted like that but there is alot being said here.

*Mods if this is unacceptable; please PM me let me know and I wont do such again, but I didn’t find mention of it in the rules.


I start out by answering the creator of this thread.

I don’t feel the holy land is the root of global terrorism; as everyone knows so many groups have their causes in different directions. It’s hard for me to conceive what percentage of terrorism would be attributed to it. I will admit I haven’t researched any other area as much as this. My views about the situation are founded from researching records, maps, and other forms of media from multiple sources. While doing so; taking into account the base for these some sources have agendas- others are what I would consider neutral documentation; or as close as possible (like that of the British Mandate and similar) I have also had the privilege of traveling there many times seeing most aspects of the territory. Obviously I have not returned since the violence erupted again.

Is it the root of global terrorism; I don’t think so---- not yet. Do I think it has the potential of becoming or greatly influencing such; absolutely.

If I were president and congress actually agreed without lobby influence; I would suspend all funding to Israel until every last settlement was out of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Once that occurred financial and other type of aid would continue. If there were to be any type of attack from the Palestinian side after that; I believe Israel would have the support the UN as well.

That’s not going to happen though; which means a lot of bad things will continue to happen for alot of innocent people, and probably continue to get alot worse.


For any person’s quote I respond to; if you want me to post applicable sources; I will. I have many times- a search of this subject to the beginning of TFP v3 will show them all. With the very same debate many times over as well. The wording of the thread titles different; or maybe an incident happened worth mentioning- but in the end; it’s the same debate every time.

When using the internet for source biblio I make every attempt to post with sources that don’t show do have hidden agendas; but as I have found so many times before- when someone believes something strong enough it boils down to there interpretation of history and what’s going on with what they are watching on CNN, FOX, etc. I’m also up for any data that may help shed some new light; because believe me I striving to find it. I think things are getting worse than many think- that’s just IMO. For those that think conspiracy theory or anything in that direction- I truly hope your right- that would be a good thing.

The holocaust was undoubtedly a horrible part of human history. I’m not exactly sure what your stating here though. If your referencing the fact there was a mass migration of European Jews to (I’ll just call it the Holy Land for now) following the that terrible event; I understand a part of what your saying. But in saying the Israeli question can not be answered without referencing the Holocaust; doesn’t make complete sense to me. As I understand there are many Jewish people that see Israel as being illegitimate; that the true kingdom of Israel will not ”be” until the coming of their Messiah; while others believe that it is their right by the word of God; that every inch of the area belongs to them.

In either case religion is being used to shape global policy. The problem with that is; what if one doesn’t subscribe to the other religious beliefs? In referencing what you stated about what divides them: I disagree. There are things that would make them seem so alike- there were many times I would mistake a Palestinian for an Israeli and vice versa; aspects of the language sound similar, the same for other elements. However the foundation of what seems to be the very reference for being right on one side and the last crutch for the other- religion; states their origins are of the same father; but then casts the Arabs down on every level. For me it’s a story; kind of like Homer’s Odyssey. In fact; I interpret the view many aspects of the Torah are actually borrowed from the Sumerians. While its not the first time; this “story” now wields the power of Pandora’s Box whether or not you agree or disagree; believe in it or not. The irony the many don’t realize is that there are also a large number of Palestinians that are Christians.

I’ve heard the view that because of the atrocities inflicted upon them; the Jews deserve a land to call their own. Taking nothing away from the suffering inflicted upon the people that were murdered; there were also 5,000,000 people that were murdered who weren’t Jewish. Take make a very long point very short; outside of the agreed immigration caps set forth by the British and reluctant indigenous population; other than pure conquest (whether blessed by singular religion not) there is no just reason for what occurred.

I don’t want to put words in your mouth; can you further explain what your point is; thanks.

Thanks

I'm unclear on what you mean about Israel being the perfect excuse. As for the rest; I guess it boils down to ones own personal definitions of what things are. What are you rating as being barbaric? Not trying to be a smart ass; but you must be in a truly good place to cast judgment such as that. Let me be clear; blowing up buses with innocent people is barbaric; but so is politically correct genocide. There are many cases in the past and many to come where technology failed to raise the standards of humanity. Broken and dysfunctional is pretty straight forward- it may be a little difficult to be otherwise when there is closure of educational institutions, destruction of civil infrastructures, and other key elements to a cultures survival.

Im curious; do you have the view that people from. . .say Norway are not Norwegian, people from Denmark are not Danish, people from Russia are not Russian – they are Caucasian? This is referencing your “surrounding 200 million” statement. Without agreeing or disagreeing; the remainder of what you state here stands alone and speaks a lot for itself. Admiration for the underdog is sometimes a trait I follow as well, it depends. In this case I compelled to think when a indigenous culture (including many of it’s children) are throwing rocks at an opposing forces tanks leads me to believe the opposite.

I'm an American that served honorably in the military, pays taxes, and contributes to my local community when I can- I think a large portion of my governement is corrupt- this view states nothingabout how I feel about the people or the spirit we carry.

I know your obviously very pro Israel, I’m glad your have a constructive view of the other side as well. I agree with you; Israel is here to stay. Who is they? The Palestinians or the surrounding countries in general? I think many do understand Arafat needs to "retire". I believe the ones that matter most in influencing policy want him gone. The populous in general view him as a symbol in a situation where they have been ignored. If not it’s my belief he would have been overturned long ago. He is also every bit of extremists as Zionists are; believing that the entire are is Palestine. That surely doesn’t help them.

The groups you mention differ from Arafat in their agenda is not to reclaim what they had prior to WWII, but to have control and sanctuary in the areas set forth by the UN; the same entity that recognized Israel's statehood. It's hard to gauge whether attacks would continue if the illegal settlements would just leave, because it will unfortunately; never happen. The bottom line is if this continues or it is allowed to continue to the end; the superiority of the IDF via the US will overtake the Palestinians. It seems the only way that will happen is to completely exterminate them which is also feasible. It is not unreasonable to think that as a general view the Palestinians will fight to their death; this equals a significant loss of innocent life by all accords. This also takes into account that it’s probable the rest of Earth may not agree and who know implications that can mean.

In the occupied territories; the Jewish settlements are expanding. In simple terms- daily Jewish settlers construct simple fencing expanding the area they have settled on. The problem is this expansion is going on someone else’s property. If the Palestinian farmer protests the settler who sees his action ordained by God; he is seen as a terrorist. He then has to contend with the IDF. This is going on every day in the West Bank and still in Gaza (which is a joke, but another issue). Take this situation and fast forward a little- isn’t it pretty clear what’s going on here. If your neighbor decided to extend his property by cutting into yours with his fence what are you going to do about? What is you were arrested if you did; and found by a group of his peers that you have no right to contest it; where does that place your mindset? What do you think the Palestinians should do?

Can you explain how they are being “pimped”?

I don’t think they would. Reviewing the actions the incoming immigrants taking, the blatant disregard for agreed immigration caps, and reference to UN addresses by the founding Zionists paint a clear picture of intentions. IMO terrorist groups Hagana, Irgun, and Stern Gang combined with the perpetuating Zionist philosophy of then and now; I humbly disagree.

The Israeli’s retaliate when innocents are killed. Prior to the aggression in 1967 you mention; terrorist attacks like: King David Hotel, July 22, 1946. Sharafat, Feb. 7, 1951. Deir Yassin, April 10, 1948. Falameh, April 2, 1951. Naseruddine, April 14, 1948. Quibya, Oct. 14, 1953. Carmel, April 20, 1948. Nahalin, March, 28, 1954. Al-Qabu, May 1, 1948. Gaza, Feb. 28, 1955. Beit Kiras, May 3, 1948. Khan Yunis, May 31, 1955. Beitkhoury, May 5, 1948. Khan Yunis Again, Aug. 31, 1955 Az-Zaytoun, May 6, 1948. Tiberia, Dec. 11, 1955. Wadi Araba, May 13, 1950. As-Sabha, Nov. 2, 1955. Gaza Again, April 5, 1956. Houssan, Sept. 25, 1956. Rafa, Aug. 16, 1956. Qalqilyah, Oct. 10, 1956. Ar-Rahwa, Sept. 12, 1956. Kahr Kassem, Oct. 29, 1956. Gharandal, Sept. 13, 1956. Gaza Strip, Nov. 1956. Gaza Strip, Nov. 1956. occured.

This combined with the same unwarranted expansion that occurs to this day left the Palestinians little choice. What other options do you think were available?

Let's take a look at that HERE

Again the intentions show that they indeed would not have have a state; if they did- it was set to fail by sheer design. Its very apparent the goals were the same as they've always been.

Thanks for being the first to at least see it; for what it is. I"ll humbly comment that Israel wants all of what the Zionist view as being their historical land. If historical value is being place upon religious story; then by their very own source and nature; the Canaanites and those descended are the rightful heirs.

What reaction do you think the Palestinians should exhibit? Theres a word for whats happening to them; it seems to me if it were any other culture that would be apparent. As always thats my opinion.
They

Do you? Im not seeing it. Since its a given that FOX is predominately Conservative; I'll assume that is supports Israel. Or that more than CNN; I thought this may be interesting to you

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,53785,00.html

I good source I found for some data was

www.aipac.org

Is it your belief that the level of Israeli lobbying is slight?

Acknowledged by whom? Israelis?

I’ll assume you base this on religous philosophies from the Old Testament. You seem to be dismissing who was historically documented being there first in the land of Canaan. Placing the Bible as historical fact is also riddled with problems.

Here’s my historical interpretation: The Bible has not always existed in the form in which we know it today The various books which comprise the Bible were first bound together as pages in a single book in the fourth and fifth centuries BC. Prior to this, the sacred texts of both Judaism and Christianity consisted of a library of separate texts, each written on a scroll. These scrolls made up a collection or library of sacred texts, but different congregations have different collections of scrolls that are considered sacred. It was not until the year 90 BC in a council held at Jamnia ( Palestine) that the Jewish community achieved agreement on which works were to be considered to be canon, scriptures that are binding in matters of doctrine and practice. It was even later, in the second century AD that Christian scholars decided that only writings by Apostles would be accepted as Christian scripture, an idea that excluded the writings of other early church leaders such as First Clement which was written in the early second century by the bishop of Rome to the church at Corinth.

The formulation of the list of sacred works was not a straightforward one or without controversy for either the Jews or the Christians, although the Torah, the first five books of the Bible, was universally accepted as sacred text by Jews.

The Book of Ezekiel was problematic for the Jews because its description of the Temple differs from that found in the Torah, and it was not until an agreement was achieved that Ezekiel could be reconciled with the Torah that it was accepted.

The Book of Ecclesiastes was questioned by some because they felt that its pessimistic outlook was at variance with Judaism.

The Book of Esther was debated for well over a century after Jamnia, because the word God did not appear in it and because it introduced the feast of Purim, a feast that was not set forth in the Torah. There was general agreement that inspired scripture had ceased to be written at the time of Ezra, so (with the exception of Jonah and Daniel, which were written somewhat later) works written after about 400 BC and the council at Jamnia were not accepted as inspired.

With that being said most of the above problems for the Jews, the different Temple described by Ezekiel and other historical places and other problems, were based on the that the real homeland of the was not Canaan (Palestine), but Asir, a province of Saudi Arabia situated at the coastline of the Red Sea and the mountains land inwards south of Mecca to the north of Yemen.

You can prove it to yourself by reading the Apocrypha book of Judith and Esther. The cities and other facts are clearly located in Asir.

The Church-fathers new that already in 200 AD but it was already to late to correct their first belief that the history of Israel took place in Palestine (Canaan) and they declared these books not canonical. This was done with full agreement of the Jewish religion leaders at that time.

This is a CNN & FOX news viewpoint. You cant be serious in your belief of this. Both sides teach HATE for eachother.

True, maybe; But somehow I don't think the Israelis would hate the Palis as much if they stopped trying to blow them up all the time. As far as 'teaching hate', the Palis have taken this, literally, to a frightening new level:

Inciting and Educating Children Towards Hate, Anti-Semitism Violence in Palestinain Authority

Excerpt:

whatever you might think of basing political claims in real time on religious texts--a move which, in principle, i would deplore--the fact is that it is no longer relevant, like i said above: israel is a fact, it is a regional superpower, no combination of neighboring states is in a position to do anything to remove them, and most have stopped even considering it.

nothing--nothing--justifies the treatment being handed to the palestinians.
nothing justifies the settlement program.
nothing justifies the wall.


however, since so many posts act as though it is impossible for the posters to seperate israel as it current is from the longer-term narratives that situate it for them, let's think about some of what has been said above:

if one of the main justification of the state of israel sits on the basis of the holocaust, on the basis of having experienced in horrifying measure the effects of racism/religious persecution, why would the same state then allow itself to become party to this kind of conflict, to inflict it on another group--who should know better the consequences of it than israelis? why is this religious/racist discourse around at all?

even if you blame the surrounding countries for starting it by referring to teh antisemitism that too often permeates their opposing discourse, even then, why on earth would the israeli right in particular allow themselves to drift into this kind of discourse themselves? how is this not a betrayal of the most fundamental principles on which the state was founded in the first place?

and as an aside:
there IS an israeli left.
these kinds of questions a very prominent within that political space--i think they are fundamental issues that need to be thought about, need to be addressed--just as there has been a significant element of zionism that worked for a coexistence with the palestinians--an element that seems to have lost, sadly for everyone..the obvious point here is that neither israeli politics nor zionism is a single thing.

Roachboy, one of the principles that Israel was founded on is: "Never again". Never again will they be herded into extermination camps without a fight.

Thus, when Israel's neighbors keep repeating their wish to "drive Israel into the sea", Israel has no other option than fight them.

Idealism is great, but in this case, reality gets in the way. Without moderation in the Arab world, Israel will never feel secure. If Israel doesn't feel secure, they're not going to stop their current policies, and you can hardly blame them. I feel very sorry that the Palestinians are cought in the middle, but *they* aren't exactly helping the situation with their Intifada.

so what you are saying, then, dragon, is that the racism/religious discrimination you refer to was only a problem insofar as it resulted in the holocaust, but in every other case not a big deal?

what possible purpose does it serve to not be critical of the dehumanization of the palestinians day to day by the idf, to ignore the racist discourses that circulate--particularly in the united states on the topic of israel--when it is applied to the them?

or are you saying that the lesson of being on the recieving end of racism/religious persecution is that you should acquire lots of arms so that later on you get to do it to other people?

i would have thought that one of the things people should learn from the fact of the holocaust is that racism in itself is evil, and that the bureaucratic acquiescence to racism is all too easy--that the diversion of a sense of duty (institutional/national) to racist ends is all too easy, given the proper political conditions. and that these discourses need to be opposed whenever they appear, regardless of the source.

but you are saying that it only really mattered once.

and then you blame the folk who are being brutalized by a vastly superior force under the cover of the same set of assumptions.

great position, dragonlich--have fun trying to defend it.

What the Holocaust taught the Israelis is that the only people in the world looking out for them is themselves. If you are raised in a tough neighborhood and were persecuted to the extent they were, and thus had to look out for themselves, it stands to reason that a large part of your identity will be of a fighter's mentality.

The Israelis aren't practicing racism as much as they are trying to stay alive. One can distort the situation to suit them - as the critics of Israel like to do - but when was the last time that an arab country has reached out to israel and offered a peace treaty? Israel is always the one offering peace, land, concessions, and the arabs are always the ones rejecting them. The only thing that will satisfy the arabs is the destruction of Israel, and it isn't going to happen, and the Palis refuse to organize themselves and carry on. They pout, bitch and moan like a roomful of toddlers - then whine about the results.

I wish the Palis and Israelis could live in peace someday sooner than later, and that both societies can prosper. I would imagine that its no fun being an Israeli who has to live daily under the constant stress of being killed. And I acknowledge the existence of extremism on both sides. But Israel has offered the olive branch over and over and over again, only to be met with hate and suicide bombings.

powerclown---please. that is complete nonsense.
what kind of "olive branch" are you talking about?
the expansion of the settlements?
the daily oppression?
the attempts to economically drive the palestinians off the land?
or do you mean the formal gestures made without any relation to what has been happening on the ground--yes that must be what you are referring to. here, we want peace---but while you think about it we will put some more settlements in place--great deal, eh?

i think the idea that it is israelis who live under constant pressure as a result of the conflicts is absurd--they are not the ones under military occupation, they are not the ones whose houses are being bulldozed--i agree that it is tragic that the situation is such that people would consider suicide bombing, but there is no comparison between that and the state-sponsored brutality visited upon the palestinians of the west bank in particular by the idf. the present policies of the israeli right is creating the situation--the bombing etc. are a reaction to it.
and on top of all this, you have the settlers themselves.

get off the israel as victim trip--it might have made sense through 1967 (i might even have agreed with you, had something like this conversation happened before that time) but now it is just crap, pure and simple.

israel is not the martyr here. just look at what is happening in reality.

your characterization of "the arabs" has more to do with your interior world than anything happening out there. i dont know what motivates it--certainly not any recent close look at what is happening.

Don't forget that Israel currently has peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt, both initiated by Israel. As for what is happening on the ground, what is happening is that the Palestinians don't want to deal with the Israelis at the barganing table and by so doing, they are keeping themselves in a state of ruin. When Israel finds tunnels dug under people's homes used to infiltrate illegal weapons and bombs to be used on Israeli citizens, the house, as far as Im concerned, deserves to be bulldozed and eliminated as a source of violence. When Yassin was blown to bits in his wheelchair on the way to mosque, I say he deserved as much for setting an agenda of hate and intolerance that keeps millions of his own people in the state of misery and squalor they find themselves in today. When leaders of armed militias bent on the destruction of Israel are targeted and killed off, I say they deserved to have their messages of extremism and murderous underlings neutralized. Ordinary Palestinians deserve better than the type of thugs they have for leaders, and they are the ones who are suffering because of it, is the way I see it.

And try to put yourself in the position of an Israeli who - to get to work everday - relies on the public transit system which, though guarded heavily, is nevertheless a primary target of suicide bombers. Imagine having lunch in a cafe and having to wonder if it and you will be blown to pieces before you are through. Teenagers dancing in clubs are seen as legitimate targets to be blown up by religious fanatics. Armed Palestinian lunatics storm into a Jewish wedding ceremony and light the place up with automatic gunfire and you're saying its nonsense to suggest that the Israelis aren't being victimized? The way I see it, Israeli citizens are as much a victim of the corrupt and morally bankrupt Palestinian leadership as the Palestinians themselves are. I would suggest that your version of the 'reality on the ground' over there differs greatly from that which would be characterized by any one of the 6 million Israelis having to live this nightmare daily.

i said when i first posted here that i do not think arafat any prize.
but you use arafat to avoid thinking about the fact of occupation.

i do not understand your committment to painting israel as a victim.

i try to point discussion at what the idf is doing every day to people on the ground in the west bank primarily, and you shift things back to a vague image of israelis as victims.
i do not see it, not because i doubt that what you say about living in a tense situation on account of bombings, etc., but because you will not look at either the overwhelming material and logistical assymetry between the idf and palestinians, you will not address the every day brutalization of palestinians--militia and civilians alike--by the idf under the veil of counter-terrorism.....
and you will not talk about one of the real causes of this whole problem---israeli settlement policies----which i have to assume you do not address because you support them even as you recognize that they are responsible for rendering every single israeli move for peace hollow.
yet somehow you find a way to try to paint israel as the dame edna, who, like her, gives and gives and gives.

you will not even start to consider that it is not only possible but is simple fact that israeli actions create and maintain the conditions that prompt people to nihilist actions like suicide...you seem almost unwilling to think about palestinians caught in this absurd, brutal situation as human beings, preferring to focus on general denunciations of the plo leadership, as if that was not in itself and already caught up in the deflecting of opinion away from the israeli role in creating the situation that results in civilian deaths on both sides.

You are completely ignoring the plight of the other party involved here, and if thats the tactic, then so be it. It isn't occupation when you've been there for 4000 years. 'occupation' is a political term used by the entire M.E. to blame their failures on israel. as to my turning to a 'vague image of israelis as victims' what is so vague about a busload full of body parts? blown up nightclubs? bomb smuggling tunnels? as for palestinian brutality at the hands of the idf, how would you choose to treat an adversary that resorts to such desperate tactics? you want to play hardball? the idf will play hardball, as a matter of survival. you want to behave like an anarchic beast, you will be treated like an anarchic beast. on the other hand, if you want to talk peace, the israelis are there waiting to talk. regarding your final point that it is israel that is creating the suicide bombers, et al., I would say this: there is no excuse. why a group of humans would choose to promote and celebrate death, instead of celebrating and striving to construct for themsleves and their children a better way of life, is beyond rational thought.

Roachboy, I understand what you're trying to say, and do feel sorry for the Palestinian people as a whole. However, I don't feel sorry for their treatment by the Israelis, but for them being held hostage by Arab extremists, who use the Palestinians as a political (and physical) weapon against the Israelis.

As for my post, I have no problem defending it. I don't believe that the Jews should somehow learn what *you* want them to learn, and become peaceful, friendly people who'll do anything to avoid killing anyone. I think they should be allowed to defend themselves from irrational hatred and violence.

In the past millenia, Jews have been killed in the millions for being different, and for being easy targets. I applaud Israel's attempts to defend themselves, and have no problem with them attacking militant Palestinians and their supporters. If you feel that point of view is somehow evil/wrong/undefendable, that is your right, but IMO, that's *your* problem.

I feel that the Israeli government has a duty to protect it's citizens from harm; therefore, if a Palestinian terrorist/freedom fighter tries to kill Israelis, he should be taken out. If innocent Palestinians get hurt/killed in that act, so be it - it's not the fault of the Israelis that Palestinian extremists hide amongst civilians, it's the fault of those extremists, who force the Israelis to kill these innocents, and then use that as yet another propaganda tool.

powerclown, you have the floor. :)

dragon:
i not sure why you would imagine that having been the victims of racism/religious persecution would result in only one kind of lesson--but maybe you are sure of it, and there we are.
it is not a good position to argue from, however. because you in a backhanded way legitimate the racist discourse of the israeli right (even as you express horror at its double coming from the other side, when it does) and evacuate the problem of racism as such. i dont see the point of that move.

btw, i have no problem with your position, what you claim is **the lesson** of the holocuast, but i see it as partial.
depends what you feel is important.
i would rather focus on explanations/"lessons" that would prevent anything like that from happening again, to any group.
if that is not a concern for you, then so be it.

as for my position regarding the treatment of the palestinians by the idf (this primiarly directed at powerclown) nothing in what you say speaks to the argument i am making, i dont think. i was trying to talk about conditions of possibility, causes, and you talk about effects, and that in a one-sided manner. it is not like i am unaware that it is a crappy situation to be in, being confronted with the possibility of being blown up by a suicide bomber--but you seem unwilling to link that kind of act to a context.

maybe here is a real problem created by the current discourse on "terrorism".

or maybe we are just talking past each other.

anway, i do not see the point of repeating the arguments i have made.

so i'll take a breather and see if the ground changes to open up possibilities for further discussion.

interesting conversation, however. thanks.

Yeah sorry to burst in like that Dragonlich, when the response was yours.

Just a quick comment, then to make room for other opinions: everyone is aware that the situation has been characterized as a 'vicious circle', and I wouldn't disagree, to an extent. For every stupid thing the Palestinians do, the Israelis have been guilty of inflaming the situation by doing something they know will incite even more mindless violence. Where I draw the line, though, is on the official stance of the Palestinian leadership in refusing to acknowledge the right of Israel to exist. Arafat needs to go -- the sooner, the better for everyone involved.

I like the Israelis. They've got moxy. They hold their own in one of the most inhospitable places on earth for them to exist.

This is slightly off topic for this thread but I say if we're having doubts about the legitimacy of the Iranian "nuclear power generation" program and the true intent of their soon to be restarted urnanium enrichment endeavor -- we should cash in a chit with ol Israel. Tell them that we've got their back while they go and disrupt the processing facility in Iran with the occasional garden variety air strike. Of course we would do the right thing and let the Iranians know that they should sound the all clear in that general area.... :D

*pausing to contemplate -- scratching beard and pondering with wistful countenance .... should I hit submit?* Yeah...what the hell. This thread needs a little irreverance.

I agree with that but what about the Israeli hard line, like Benjamin Netenayu. He has stated repeated that the Palestinian's should neither be recognized as a sovereign state nor should they ever be recognized as a people. Funny eh? When Netenayu speaks as such, his comments are unconditionally accepted,.. but any word of that same premise being applied to Israel is well,...you pick the standard buzzward. Anti-semitism? Anti-Zionism? Anti-Jewish? Racist? Neo-Nazi? Hate propaganda? etc,..etc,...etc,..

And his stance has nothing to do with "STOPPING THE TERROR" and then peace negotiations can proceed. Bullshit. He is exactly like a suicide bomber. He would love to kill as many Palestinians as he could. He preaches hatred and division which is why he is gaining support for not only keeping the illegal settlements in place, but for promoting the building of more. Just ask the 75,000 odd at a rally in support of. Netenayu= Arafat.

Double standards? I'd laugh but it isn't funny.


[QUOTE=Dragonlich]
I feel that the Israeli government has a duty to protect it's citizens from harm; therefore, if a Palestinian terrorist/freedom fighter tries to kill Israelis, he should be taken out. If innocent Palestinians get hurt/killed in that act, so be it - it's not the fault of the Israelis that Palestinian extremists hide amongst civilians, it's the fault of those extremists, who force the Israelis to kill these innocents, and then use that as yet another propaganda tool.[QUOTE/]

I agreed up until you said "propaganda tool." That is one condition that both the Israeli's as well as Palestinian's have perfected, certainly regarding the partisan media among others, with their vested interests and their musings over who is the bigger victim this week in relation to other weeks.

It's interesting how one side could be so powerful and the other so subordinate, yet in the end they both lose since they can't define peace, mainly because both sides don't want it. Such a spectacle for the rest of the world to observe and pontificate too. Call it what you will. I call it pathetic, so much to the point that either side doesn't garner much of my respect, and probably never will.

I'm a big fan of Benjamin Netanyahu. This guy is the real deal. One of Israel's best and brightest. He has a Master's from M.I.T. He has a degree in Architecture. He studied at Harvard. Served in an elite Israeli commando unit as a young man. Wounded rescuing hostages from a hijacked plane at an Israeli airport. He's written several books. Eyes wide open in regards to what's going on in the Middle East at the moment.

I dont want to assume; so I'll guess this view stems from using the Old Testament as historical reference vs "a story". If so by the same source the Canaanites are the true indigenous population.

To reference what you state about the arabs teaching theiryoung that Jews are subhuman; can you please provide where you are getting that info. As I understand its the other way around. My source for that statement is the Torah; the base for most of the Jewish philiosophy and spirituality- or as I understand. If you have a Bible; read Genesis chapter 16. Having that background may change your mind on who's really teaching who is subhuman.

The irony is that most aspects of the Old Testament are borrowed from other cultures like the Sumerians. The changes and reasons for them become apparent.

1922 census was taken in the month of October. It showed a total population of 757,182, of whom 78% were Moslems, 11% were Jews and 9•6% Christians (of which contain some Arab). There were agreed caps put on immigration for the influx of European Jews going into Palestine. Initially there was land legally sold to the new IMMIGRANTS, by the INDIGENOUS populants. When the Zionists took charge the caps were exceeded, and their philosophy gave them the right to seize land they saw as theirs (even though it just happen to belong to someone else).

Look at the progression; it doesnt take much research to clearly watch who is throwing who into the ocean. Its difficult for me to understand how this is intrepeted anything other than it is.

I say back off and Let Israel do their thing. That country has shown great maturity and responsibility when it comes to a show of force. They have the ability to nuke the hell out of the rest of the M.E. but haven't despite the constant attacks on the civillians.

I think that something that gets widely overlooked is 99.9% of the time Israel only retaliates against military forces whereas the Palestinians are attacking primarily civillian targets. Quite a difference.

Sun Tzu, as enlightnening as they might be, I generally don't use 2000+ years-old books to provide me with my knowledge of current events. You might consider doing the same.

Some small titbits of info: In schools in Iran, amongst many others, kids are taught that Jews are evil - Saudi-Arabia recently promised to change this in their schools (meaning: they did the same). in Egypt, Mein Kampf is a best-seller, and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is seen by many as being real. In most of the Arab world, the numbers of Jews have dropped dramatically in the past decades, which might have something to do with them being kicked out of the country, or being murdered. In the Arab world, a lot of people belief that the Jews were responsible for 9-11, the attacks in Madrid, and even the school siege in Beslan.

Now, I'm pretty sure your historical texts make no mention of these things, but they are in fact real. But if you want some historical texts, you might want to read the Koran, which is pretty damning of the Jews, going so far as to say they should be exterminated.

You see, I can't *prove* that "the Muslims" in general think that Jews are subhuman, because there wouldn't ever be any research done to prove that, and I suspect many people would deny it. But I can see the small details that paint a larger picture of anti-semitism in the M.E. Whether the Jews think the same of Arabs is pretty much irrelevant to that question, now isn't it? It's not like that would somehow make things better...

Your history stops quite a long time ago. Things have changed since then, as you probably know. Since Israel was founded and recognized by the UN as a nation, they have been under constant attack. Your facts about their history don't change that a bit.

I suggest you look at the Arabs and their history for a change - it doesn't take much research to find out about their intentions, and their previous actions - I can't understand how you could interpret *that* as anything other than it is.

Couple of questions for the EXPERTS on the ME crisis:
1. Explain (possibly with links although who wrote what will be scrutinized) the current Israelis "right to return" as compared to the Palestinian claim to the land.
2. Explain how the bloodlines of the current "Israelis" are linked to the Jews/Israelites who will have been promised the land in biblical times in the answer to question #1.
3. Where are Palestinians to go? Were they not there at the turn of the century?
4. Explain how suicide bombings are more terrible than the Modernized military tactics used by Israel. I find the suicide bombing tactic DISPICABLE and the LOWEST form of warfare YET it may just be DESPERATION that drives a people to do this. Lets put aside all the "this side hates us and they say this and tell their kids this" CRAP and break down the simple emotion of PRIDE and INTEGRITY. What is really cowardly and what is really honorable.
5. If people could agree (people have not for the last century) that the Palestinians should leave the land...where do they go (asked again).

Bookman, I'll try to answer some of them.

#1: I see no reason to answer this question, because I believe both sides are allowed to stay in the land.

#2: only if you explain how *all* of the current "Palestinians" are linked to the people living there 2000 years ago. Not to mention the fact that it really doesn't matter. Or would you suggest that "Americans" shouldn't be allowed to live in the USA because they weren't there 2000 years ago? Arabs weren't living in Africa 2000 years ago, yet they're there now, slaughtering innocent civilians in Sudan - should *they* be forced to return to the original Arabia?

#3: according to the 1922 census Sun Tzu mention, there were some 550,000 Palestinians living in the area. Most of the people currently living there, or living in refugee camps all over the M.E. are people who came to Israel to work there *after* it was made a state. Arafat himself is an Egyptian. So no, most weren't there at the turn of the century. That doesn't mean they aren't entitled to live there, though. They're welcome to stay if they were to acknowledge that the Jews are entitled to live there too. And to ask you a question in return: where are the Israeli Jews to go?

#4: suicide bombings are more terrible than the tactics used by Israel because they deliberately target civilians, and try to kill as many as possible. The intent is evil. I don't care how desperate people are; nobody should be allowed to do that. If you try to understand why they'd do things like that, you are in a way saying that sort of makes it okay. I'll say it again: nothing justifies *deliberately* killing as many civilians as possible, NOTHING.

#5: see nr. 3 - They're entitled to stay if they can live in peace with their neighbors. If they can't, they're fully responsible for what happens to them. Repeat of question about the Jews - where do they go?

Quite a difference indeed. Terrorism is a tactic of the ignorant and the weak.

1-2) You answered #2 with #1.
3) The majority of the Palestinians are from Jordan, who have the land to take back their own refugees, but they don't want them back. Maybe they know something the rest of us don't.
4) Again you answered your own question. Suicide bombings ARE despicable and the lowest form of warfare, and cowardly too. What is honorable is to take a stand and protect your citizens from these despicable tactics.
5) See #3.

dragon: on your response to no. 2

so far i had tried to avoid this...on what basis is a religious text a legal admissable claim to property or land? i do not see how the claim could possibly work, shifting from one genre to another (religious text to secular law)--that is why i repeatedly argued that this does not matter, that the state of israel is a fact, a political reality, the backstory of which does not make the slightest difference.

on your response to no. 3: this sounds dangerously like the kinds of arguments made to justify apartheid, which often referred to the "lost race of white people" to explain a prior claim--often this "lost race of white people" are invoked in colonial explanations of great zimbabwe. do a search. you presuppose the legitimacy of a prior claim (see above) and then deploy a series of further arguments that appear bizarre unless you accept the premise of your argument.
i do not accept your premise.
could you try to explain your position another way?
is there another way?

on no. 4: the counter to this should be obvious to you. it was at the center of the discussion we had earlier. it seems still like an arbitrary distinction you make--it is ok for the idf to bulldoze houses, for settlers to attempt to starve out palestinians by taking land on control spots for water supplies, (for example--and these are only examples, the list coudl go on and on) both of which can be seen as acts of war on an entire people--but not ok to respond in kind? this is a two-sided conflict--it makes no sense to act as though it is otherwise. if the state is condoning explicitly or looking the other way and therebyt indirectly condoning brutality, then why should it surprise you that, as the situation gets more desperate, you see desperate horrible acts in response.

this is NOT to say that it is ok to blow up civilians.
but it is to say that you will get precisely nowhere by pretending that these acts are undertaken without motive.

and what is the point of putting palestinians in scare quotes?

powerclown:
these kinds of actions are undertaken by people who see no alternative.
they are undertaken by people jammed into a position of weakness, of powerlessness in which their dignity is stripped from them.

they are the result of occupation.

you reap what you sow.

The alternative for yourself, your children and the future of your society is to acknowledge and respect the existence of your neighbor. Until this happens, at the highest levels of Palestinian leadership, the Palestineans will indeed continue to reap what they sow. And its tragic I agree.

What aspect do you want to examine? The 1922 census shows what the picture was. The immigration caps set by the British were agreed to by both the incoming Jews and the ARABS. Many arabs even sold land to the newly arrived immigrants. There wasnt a problem until the Zionists began acting on their Manifest Destiny vision. I dont consider myself an expert, so Im open to any area you feel I should look at. What aspect of Arabic history are you referring?

I actually would rather not go back that far in history; mainly because since Canaan, the land has changed hands so many times- ancient history really shows it doesnt hold bonds to anyone. The other reason much of the history is of for debate because the Bible is being used as a source for histrical documentation. Like I state many times; history is up for individual interpretation. So anything I state is how- I've interpretated from my own research and experience. I will state that interpretation is free of any bias. If you knew me on a personal level you might wonder why I have the views I do. Certainly many of my peers wonder why I "stick up" for the Palestinians; 10 years I certainly did not. Its because I strive for the truth in situations, and I believe I've found it.

The reason I would even bring up history that far back; is if someone is going to mention that area as "belonging" to the Israelis; I'm going to assume they are referring to their religious call to it. IMO ithat doesnt hold weight- there are thousands of Jewish people that feel the very same.

I'm glad you mentioned the UN; its a point Ive brought up often. By stating that point is means it holds some weight with you. The issue here; is the very same entity that granted Israel its statehood also granted the Palestinians the areas known as the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

IMO its not that partitioning of land that sparked the wars (the ongoing war) its the Zionists (not Jewish) refusal to recognize the West Bank and Gaza strip doesnt belong to them. It may be worth while to investigate this period of time. Its not hard to discover "terrorism" has been going on long before the last few decades, and didnt start with the Palestinians.

I understand my facts dont change the fact Israel has been under constant attack- Ive never promoted that stance. Its sometimes difficult for me to understand how some miss the "whys".

In agreeance by what you state referencing the UN; I think Israel has every right to exsist in peace and security; but so does the indigenous population. The settlements need to come out of the West Bank and Gaza strip completely.

powerclown: the only thing i agree with is that the situation is indeed tragic. every other word you wrote can and should be applied to the israeli leadership and (especially) the settlers.
every word.

again, you do indeed reap what you sow.

Do you agree or disagree that its OK for settlers already there and those to come to annex land that belongs to the Palestinians on a daily basis? Any land owners resistence as being viewed as an act of terrorism?

No you should read the questions again.
How are the bloodlines matched to those people of Biblical times. A very much avoided and infuriating question it is, yet very valid. I wonder if Jews were indeed promised the land (the basic claim which Israel uses as justification for the settlements) and furthermore how can Sharon and his people prove they are indeed descendants of those people?

I completely disagree that its the Palestinean's land. This area of the world has been contested, invaded, conquered and immigrated to and from for 1000s of years. The jews have been linked to the land since the time of the writing of the old testament (religiously) and since the time of historically recorded jewish communities in the area that is today Israel, which goes back at least 4,000 years. I just don't buy the argument that the Israelis came out of nowhere to displace the Palestinians as if they were hostile invaders from Mars; its historically and intellectually dishonest. What the whole middle east is so pissed off about is that after all this time, Israel was formally recognized as a viable, successful and productive democracy.

Bookman-
The lineage between yesterday and today is one of religion, namely Judaism. It is the common link amongst peoples from places all over the world, and to which they see Israel as their religious homeland.

If you are right we are ALL screwed. :confused:

By your logic, the americans should give their land back to the indians and move back to euroup. The fact is the old kingdom of Israel has been dead for over 1000 years. The plastinians who live there have been considered indiginous people. Using some 4000 year old book and holocost to justify the genocide of indiginous habitants is highlyimmoral.

And for those that dont consider the Bible an accurate source of historical documentation? If one doesnt believe that man dame from a pile of dust and woman from one of his ribs they have less credence? How about the hundreds of thousands of Jewish people that interpret that there is no state of Israel until the Mesiah comes? Its no wonder the story of Post Canaan starts with "God" stating the Hebrews will rule all nations and Arabs resemble the "wild ass" of man. A "story" such as that would seem to give alot of leeway wouldnt it. Whether one is reading the Torah, the Talmud, or the Odessy by Homer it doesnt change the facts.


http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/cf0...2561150071fdb0!OpenDocument

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/cf0...256ddb007bb36f!OpenDocument

Just a couple of sources of hard data. The reason I would provide a UN source is because may still give it credability being it was the UN that recognized Israelis statehood. Most Zionists Ive debated with finds records and historical document created and kept by Zionists will be more accurate.

My answer to that is go to UN address made by the founding Zionists to the entire assembly. You may find them insightful.

You may also research into how the Old Testament came about; then again the right to the land of Canaan starts to disolve as one digs a little deeper. The Jews didnt just come out of nowhere try looking into Asir.

You are right about Jews living in Palestine for hundreds of years; they did so as a minority in peace with Arabs. It wasnt until Zionism ariived that the trouble began.

why is that?


you seem okay with land taken by force by one group (americans) but not by another (isreal, the whole if you want or just the gaza strip and west bank). why the hypocrasy?

who at this point actually approves of the doctrine of manifest destiny? it was a cover for genocide....i dont see the difference between that and visions of the "greater israel" if that vision requires and legitimate the continued social and economic pulverization of the palestinians.

if the alternative version of zionism, the one that imagined coexistence, was still operative (dominant would be better still) maybe this whole scenario would be otherwise than it is....

since the thread started off in an "as-if" mode, perhaps within it one is permitted to dream....

I have a great idea....
The Middle East could be one big democracy with states. They could have a state of Israel and Jordan and Syria etc. There would be a bill of rights and elections and everyone could prosper in peace WITHOUT KILLING EACH OTHER!

Then I woke up. :hmm: