Danny, baby, if you want to know true irony, come to the Middle East. The most the rest of the world can achieve is a mild incongruity.
Alessan: How’s the Middle East this time of year? Do you think that idiot Clinton can broker any kind of lasting deal with some of the world’s oldest continuous enemies? I hope America doesn’t have to go over there again. By the way, how did somebody living on your side of the Mediterranean hear of the SDMB? Were you an American at one time?
-
Hot. It’s July, for God’s sake.
-
If Clinton can’t, I don’t know who can. BTW, he’s a lot more popular around here than you’d think.
-
Me too. I have to say, though, that we had a great time the last time you were here.
-
I came, I surfed, I found. I guess I’m just a factoid junkie.
-
I was born here, but my parents are from New Jersey. I hold an American citizenship, and I spent a few years there as a little kid.
Say, should I start an “Ask the Israeli Guy” thread, or is that getting old?
Yeah, I kind of thought it’d be hot as hell over there. Heck, it’s even pretty hot here in Montana (90sF, average for this time of year in this region but it’s still hot). As for Clinton, I guess y’all have forgiven the old letcher. At least he isn’t trying to take away your constitutional rights. I have plenty more questions, but I’ll let the hijack die here. If you want to start your own thread, I’ll be one of the first responders.
Dan, as to your 2:13 AM post, that means might makes right. If whoever lives by the sword, dies by the sword is true, that is not a long term modus vivendi.
Al, technically the Spanish threw out Moors, North African Muslims who moved into Spain, ruled over most of it, but never broke the will of the indigenous people and were under pressure from surrounding countries who were co-religionists of the people the Moors were ruling. Hmmm
Touche, mipsman. I should analyze my analogies more closely. Still, I’ve always thought of the saying “history repeats itself” less as of a rule and more as of a guideline.
Rysdad:
-
It’s only sacred when it’s in Hebrew. I’m sorry if I offended anybody else.
-
Bubba’s popular because he’s pro-Israel. That’s the only criterea.
-
True - having a Scud fly over your house is not fun, especially with your 3-tyear-old brother in the closet with you. Still, it sure was fun watching you folks kick all that Iraqi butt.
-
Hey, achi, achla galim!
-
I’ve been living here since I turned six, and yes, I’ve done my 3 years of service. I still have to do 3-4 weeks of reserve duty every year, though.
I think I’ll wait a bit for my own thread; the western hemisphere has yet to wake up.
more importantly, why the hell do we [the US] care about Israel?
Just a little factual correction.
QUOTE: They bought the land from the Arabs, who thought they were cheating the Jews by selling worthless swamp and arid lands at high prices.
As in the other thread, that is not the whole story CKD. Most of the land in that area was controlled by a small group of elite landlords who had leased the land out to the local tenant farmers for centuries. The Jewish National Fund offered to pay high prices (they were not forced) to this minority of elite lanowners.
99% of the Palestinians who lived on the land had no choice as to whether or not it was to be sold. Once purchased, this land became the property of immigrant Jews who, with the assistance of massive financial aid from Europe and the States, cultivated it out the wazoo.
The process was legal as we would regard it today, but the Palestinians regarded it a bit differently. They had been living under the Ottomans for the past several centuries. The Ottomans had established property laws that forced the landed elite and the farmers to have a symbiotic relationship. In other words, if there was a bad crop, the landlord did not have the right to evict the farmers. This also meant that the land owners were not allowed to sell the land and remove the local farmers.
When the Brits took over, this precedent went out the window in favor of a rawer form of capitalism allowing for the sale of the land and the removal of the locals in favor of immigrants.
It’s a darn good thing that Israel wasn’t founded in Bavaria in 1948. Sure, the Germans have changed a lot, but in 1948 the camps had only been shut down 3 years ago. I’d imagine that people would have been somewhat reluctant to move there at the time.
My best guess for Mr. Z’s question is that the American Jewish community votes, and expresses an interest to its representatives and senators that U.S. support for Israel should continue. Also, in the '70s Israel was one of the few allies we had in the Middle East (Turkey and Iran were others, and every other country was either suspicious of America or an active Soviet ally), and we needed to support what few allies we had in a critical region.
There have also been a couple references to the U.S. ‘going over there’ or ‘risking our lives fighting arabs.’ The U.S. sold and gave weapons to Israel, but no U.S. troops fought in the Arab-Israeli Wars. IIRC, the only American servicemen to die in those wars died at Israeli hands (the USS Liberty) in a bizarre and controversial incident.
I figure Israel has as much right to exist as any other nation, but is just unusual because of the unique conditions under which it was founded. Now I just hope it can find a way to peacefully co-exist with the Palestinians.
Every square mile of land in the Old world has been taken by force, repeatedly, from somebody else. Since to argue “moral” right is meaningless in this instance, we can only assume that the current squaters have a right to any land they squat on.
At least those Congressmen are listening to somebody, eh?
My own guess would be that the opinions of a minority of American voters matters little to Congress (unless, of course, that minority happens to be in charge of a big industry, like cigarettes or guns.) Israel does, however, serve a role in the local power dynamic, and I don’t think Congress would be happy to see us lose a friendly country in the region.
-Ben
Also don’t forget Israel’s role in supporting so caled “rogue” states. The United states used Israel to funnel weapons to South Africa and other countries that the United States didn’t want to be seen actively supporting.
One apartheid based state supporting another. Classic.
In what sense do you feel that Israel is based on Apartheid?
-Ben
I’m just going to be lazy and post an article. Why? Because I sprained my fucking hand, and I hate it when I can’t tpe as fast as I think. So here goes.
So far, it seems that the most common answer has been along the lines of, “why does any country have the right to exist?” That valid argument, and my amoralistic and subjectivist view, aside, I think everybody knows what I meant. Most countries fell along more or less cultural/geographical lines, and when those borders were changed or revolts attempted to change ownership of land, a good reason was readily apparent (the U.S., for example, wrote its reasons down for all to see; “When in the course of human events. . .”).
The only attempt at an answer has been that the Jews were already there in large numbers, but that hardly seems sufficient. They weren’t (and aren’t) the only ones on the land. The U.S. pulled a similar trick wih the southwest against Mexico (settling a region, with a certain understanding that it belonged to someone else, and then claiming it to be ours because we’re there), leading eventually to war, which anyone with a lick of sense protested (the fact that relatively few did doesn’t say much for my forefathers).
I still haven’t seen a good reason as to why the Jews have any more claim to that land than anyone else. I hardly think that Israel’s existence can be supported from a Utilitarian position (except perhaps for the citizens of Israel, but even that is debatable). The ability to keep everyone else out militarily isn’t sufficiently conducive to human happiness, and it isn’t an objective moral justification that any Judeo-Christian theologian would accept.
I don’t know that this is either here nor there, but I’ve always found the American media to be horribly biased when it comes to Israel and the Middle East. Israel is nearly always portrayed as the scrappy, honorable little country that has to fend off its barbaric, terrorist neighbors. They never even bring up that the Arab nations might have a legitimate reason to hate Israel (note: this does not mean “hate the Jews”). This probably has more than a little to do with the fact the Arabs are somewhat browner than we are, with a religion that we’ve never particualrly trusted. Historically, America wasn’t exactly fond of Judaism either, but at least we think that we understand the Jews (and, in today’s televisual society, I’m sure the fact that the Jews look comparatively white helps. When in doubt, rely on the ignorance of the American public.)
So come on: offer a justification for Israel the way that nations usually try to justify their existence. If it boils down to “Because God gave us the land Himself,” at least I could understand the rational, though I would have to disagree. After all, there is no god. (I don’t like typing smiley faces, but if I did one would go right there.)
Dude, either you are on crack, or we are not subject to the media at all. I don’t know where you live, so maybe this is true, but I generally see Israelis portrayed as tyrants, keeping the poor Palestinians down, etc., etc. When I tell people (in the U.S.) that most of the Israelis I know favor the creation of a Palestinian state, they are usually surprised. While hiking in the Golan Heights, my madrich (tour guide? I don’t know how to say it in English) told me that when he was in the Golan, he knew he was in Syria, that it didn’t properly belong to Israel. I bet that sentiment surprises a number of the people who read this, who see only the newspaper reports about the 10,000 Israelis who rally for the Golan. They don’t see the people who vote Meretz and Shinui, who would rather give up land than fight for another fifty years to keep it. Newspaper reports show Palestinian kids throwing stones at soldiers, but do they mention that these soldiers are 19-year-old kids whose parents were in the army and grandparents were in the army and their brothers and sisters and cousins and friends were in the army, and maybe by the time they get to college, they will have bullet wounds, and they will have had friends die? My university held a memorial day ceremony that no American would recognize. The veterans weren’t old and gray, wearing uniforms that no longer fit, remembering wars fought before I was born, but kids. They were my age, dressed in jeans and t-shirts and sunglasses, and they cried remembering their own time in the army. Newspapers show - and rightly so - the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza refugee camps, etc. - but they ignore the suffering of Israelis who live on the other side of the line. The media is sensationalist in nature, and IMO, ignores that most people in that little part of the world are tired of conflict and would rather have peace. The few ultra-zionists and ultra-islamists who’d rather kill everyone and themselves before giving up an inch of land make for better press, you know?
The American media biased in favor of Isreal? What possible reason would they have for – oh, never mind.
Umm, I believe that many here would call me a “Judeo- Christian theologian”, and tho I am not always either “objective”(altho i am on this issue) or “moral”, I certainly accept this arguement. It is not the best arguement, but it is the only arguement that really counts.
By why does Isreal have to BE justified? So many other countrys cannot either. So, can YOU justify your home country?
Dan,
I’m not saying that there is any reason at all that it has to be justified, and it hardly matters anyway since Israel won’t be dissolved if no one can come up with a good reason for its creation in the next couple of days. It’s still an interesting topic.
I couldn’t give you a detailed philosophical proof for the justice of the United States and her existence, but I could say what we’ve been saying for 234 years now: We formed a country because British tyrrany was not bearable. It’s not an infallible argument, but at least we’ve got a reason.
If it helps, think of the question like this: how would the British government of 1948 justify its creation of Israel, especially in light of the fact that it has hardly worked out as they planned. After all, isn’t part of the reason for a “homeland” the idea that said homeland is a relatively safe place? The Israelites may not be in very immediate danger of being overrun, but their situation is precarious at best in the long term.
Or, if you prefer, figure out how Israel would be justified by an ethicist, not a Utilitarian; by Socrates, not Thrasymachus (my apologies to those who haven’t read Plato’s Republic. Incidentally, Dan’s argument, which boils down to, “justice is merely the interest of the stronger party,” is quite in line with Thrasymachus’ position. I happen to agree with Thrasymachus, but I would still like to know how someone who doesn’t could justify the creation of Israel.)