Please explain the Middle East crisis

[Loopydude]

@Sevastopol

There is nothing intractable or ranting about anything I’ve posted. Each post has been a model of decorum. The facts as to the 93% claim are well established and it is surprising to hear them challenged.

Again, the guarantee of a failed state is conjecture.

And again, Barak made an offer. Arafat threw right of return back at them and walked away, having made no counteroffer. That was, effectively, the end of the ME peace process. Whether or not you or I think Barak’s offer was reasonable is really quite moot when all parties know full well the right of return issue is DOA. Fair or not, that’s the reality. If the Palestinian side won’t budge on that issue, there’s really nothing to discuss, and negotiations are little more than a charade. I see no evidence whatsoever that Arafat was interested in anything more than political theater, having never renounced the portions of the PLO charter which would effectively remove the nation of Israel, nor bent one inch on the right of return. It’s an impossible goal so long as Israel exists, everyone knew it, and hence the entire exercise was doomed to fail before it started. I put the blame squarely on Arafat and the rest of the Palestinian leadership, who, apparently, were willing to take nothing over something if it means Israel continues to exist, and made the failure of even the hope of a Palestinian state a certainty.

[BrainGlutton]

@DragonAsh

Will have to do a bit more reading. One more question - Isreal and the US are supposed to be allies - why? What’s in it for the US?

1. American Jews are (mostly) highly sympathetic to Israel, and as a group they are prosperous, hard-working, well-educated, and influential.

2. Many in the religious-conservative community support Israel for (highly disturbing) reasons of their own. (See Christian Zionism.) And in the past three decades, religious conservatives have found ways to exercise political influence far out of proportion to their very considerable numbers.

3. It is strategically and politically useful to the U.S. to have at least one ally in the MENA that is a prosperous, militarily strong democracy and which is very beholden to the U.S.

4. Since we have some general consciousness of the Holocaust, and since all of Israel’s neighbors have tried so many times to gang up on Israel and destroy it, in America we have long thought of the Israelis as the “good guys,” and it’s part of our popular political culture to side with the good guys.

Can’t think of a fifth reason.

[Little_Nemo]

Can’t think of a fifth reason.

If we don’t support Israel, the Jews who control the media will cancel the upcoming season of Lost.

[Sam_Stone]

@BrainGlutton

1. American Jews are (mostly) highly sympathetic to Israel, and as a group they are prosperous, hard-working, well-educated, and influential.

2. Many in the religious-conservative community support Israel for (highly disturbing) reasons of their own. (See Christian Zionism.) And in the past three decades, religious conservatives have found ways to exercise political influence far out of proportion to their very considerable numbers.

3. It is strategically and politically useful to the U.S. to have at least one ally in the MENA that is a prosperous, militarily strong democracy and which is very beholden to the U.S.

4. Since we have some general consciousness of the Holocaust, and since all of Israel’s neighbors have tried so many times to gang up on Israel and destroy it, in America we have long thought of the Israelis as the “good guys,” and it’s part of our popular political culture to side with the good guys.

Can’t think of a fifth reason.

How about because Israel is a modern democracy with civil rights, a well functioning economy, and people who are very much like us? You might as well ask why we are allied with Japan, or Britain, or many of the former Soviet countries who are now moving towards NATO.

Historically, Israel was critically important to the U.S. because most of the Arab countries sided with the Soviet Union during the cold war. This is also the source of our strong ‘friendship’ with Saudi Arabia, despite the mischief they’ve gotten into lately.

And speaking as a person who grew up in a fundie Christian community, I can tell you that the honest affection for Israel has little to do with the belief in the imminent second coming. What I learned in church is that the Jews are God’s chosen people, and as such they didn’t need to come to Jesus for salvation like everyone else did. People in the church also recognized that the Jews had been great stewards of Christian relics and holy sites, and that the Arabs were not. Jews may not be Christians, but they are fellow travelers. The Arabs were often seen as the enemy, the people who would like to kill Christians and Jews or turn them into second class citizens. That alone made Jews and Christians allies.

[BrainGlutton]

@Sam Stone

How about because Israel is a modern democracy with civil rights, a well functioning economy, and people who are very much like us?

Comes under (3).

@Sam Stone

You might as well ask why we are allied with Japan, or Britain, or many of the former Soviet countries who are now moving towards NATO.

Likewise comes under (3), except that WRT most of the former Soviet republics, “democracy” does not apply (but strategic/political advantage still does).

@Sam Stone

Historically, Israel was critically important to the U.S. because most of the Arab countries sided with the Soviet Union during the cold war. This is also the source of our strong ‘friendship’ with Saudi Arabia, despite the mischief they’ve gotten into lately.

Fifteen years after the Cold War ended, I would hope we would have learned the folly and shame of that kind of thinking!

But hopes are often disappointed . . .

@Sam Stone

And speaking as a person who grew up in a fundie Christian community, I can tell you that the honest affection for Israel has little to do with the belief in the imminent second coming. What I learned in church is that the Jews are God’s chosen people, and as such they didn’t need to come to Jesus for salvation like everyone else did.

:dubious: You do realize, don’t you, that the latter makes not one more whit of sense than the former?!

[Sam_Stone]

I never said it made any sense. But the claim that fundamentalist Christians support the Jews because they think Jews are a critical cog in an imminent judgement day is just a little less - charitable. The people in the community I grew up with had a genuine affection for the Jewish people. There was nothing ‘strategic’ about it. They believed that they were people of God, and that they were good and just people. Pilgrimages to Israel were common, and therefore there was plenty of contact between Jews and the community, and it was always good.

[rjung]

@Sam Stone

How about because Israel is a modern democracy with civil rights, a well functioning economy, and people who are very much like us?

So it’s okay to blow up A-rabs 'cuz they’re different? :dubious:

[BrainGlutton]

@Sam Stone

I never said it made any sense. But the claim that fundamentalist Christians support the Jews because they think Jews are a critical cog in an imminent judgement day is just a little less - charitable. The people in the community I grew up with had a genuine affection for the Jewish people. There was nothing ‘strategic’ about it. They believed that they were people of God, and that they were good and just people. Pilgrimages to Israel were common, and therefore there was plenty of contact between Jews and the community, and it was always good.

That’s a commendable attitude but – unlike the other theory – it has nothing to do with the idea that Palestine should belong to the Jews, or that Palestine is the place for Jews.

[XT]

@Sam Stone

How about because Israel is a modern democracy with civil rights, a well functioning economy, and people who are very much like us?

@rjung

So it’s okay to blow up A-rabs 'cuz they’re different?

:rolleyes:

Sam claims (in easily understood english) support Israel because they are like ‘us’. This could be a debatable point (though I agree its a factor myself). How does this statement in any way say its ok to blow up Arabs…for whatever reason? Answer? I’ll leave it to other imagination as to why you would post a one liner like that here…

(as a point of interst, are we allowed to say ‘troll’ in GD now…or is that only in the Pit?)

-XT

[BrainGlutton]

@xtisme

:Sam claims (in easily understood english) support Israel because they are like ‘us’. This could be a debatable point (though I agree its a factor myself). How does this statement in any way say its ok to blow up Arabs…for whatever reason?

Easy. Taking sides as between Israel and the Arabs inevitably involves blowing up Arabs, or at least condoning it when Israel does.

[Malthus]

@BrainGlutton

True, but not the whole truth. Historically, Muslims never had much interest in killing Jews until the state of Israel was founded on land they consider the eternally indefeasible territory of Dar al-Islam. Irrational – but no more so than the attitude of (some) Jews who think the land should be theirs because God promised it to Moses.

Irrational, but with a slight difference - the irrationality of (some) religious Zionists does not require killing the other off.

[Malthus]

@BrainGlutton

Easy. Taking sides as between Israel and the Arabs inevitably involves blowing up Arabs, or at least condoning it when Israel does.

Or, looked at differently, involves recognizing the legitimate right of Jews to defend themselves from attack.

It is all in how you phrase it.

[RedFury]

@Malthus

Or, looked at differently, involves recognizing the legitimate right of Jews to defend themselves from attack.

And great “defenders” they are!

Fleeing civilian vehicles hit by Israeli missiles

WITH an expression of utmost calm on her blood-masked face, the woman allowed herself to be gently lowered from the minibus into the waiting arms of two Lebanese Red Cross volunteers.

The rescue workers had extracted her through a jagged hole in the roof of the crumpled bus, created by a missile fired minutes earlier by an Israeli helicopter that had blasted the vehicle off the road. Left behind in the vehicle, slumped over each other and soaked in blood, were the bodies of three people.

The narrow roads that meander through the valleys and undulating chalky hills east of Tyre were a place of terror and death yesterday as Israeli helicopters attacked civilian vehicles fleeing Israel’s 11-day onslaught in south Lebanon.

Dr Ahmad Mrowe, director of the Jabal Amel hospital in Tyre, said: “Today is the day of the cars. It has been very bad.”

By early evening, the Jabal Amel hospital alone had received 41 wounded, most of them serious, according to hospital sources, all thought to be civilians seeking refuge north of the Litani river after heeding Israeli warnings to leave the area.

The stricken minibus was hit along a road cut into the side of a steep valley beyond Siddiqine village, where Israeli artillery shells exploded in thick, dirty, white plumes of smoke and dust.

One man, his face half torn off by a missile, sat in his seat, his yellowing hand hanging from the window.

Beside him, covered in the dead man’s blood, a woman moved slightly back and forth.

<snip>

An officer with the UN peacekeeping force in south Lebanon said that the Israelis had told them they would not hinder cars travelling north on the main roads.

But the evidence yesterday suggested that cars were being attacked regardless of their occupants and direction of travel.

[DSeid]

So DragonAsh, the answer is “No. No one here can explain the ME conflict … without succumbing to political grandstanding anyway.”

Try Brief History of of Palestine, Israel and the Israeli Palestinian Conflict (Arab-Israeli conflict, Middle East Conflict) for a fairly balanced historical overview, though.

My short answer:

Jews, despite being kicked out of the region nearly two thousand years previous, had both always maintained a presence in palestine and never relinquished their claim To them it was always the homeland. End of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century they began in small numbers moving into Palestine. Palestine was at that point a region of the Ottoman Empire inhabited by a variety of Arab groups in fairly small numbers. Where Jews moved in, Arabs moved in as well, as Jews brought with them investments and jobs. Problems really began when certain elements of the Arab leadership of the time saw, in these Jews, an opportunity for personal political hay, and began to stoke up fear of this “other” for personal purposes. most notorious of these was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalum, who spearheaded quite a few riots and massacres before joining up with the Nazis. Some Jewish elements fought back and some choose to go the route of reprisals. There were early self-defense groups and early Zionist terroist groups both. Jewish immigration increased of course during HaShoah.

I suspect you know about the promises made by Britain … suffice it to say that a small Israel was born and that Arabs of the region left. It is a mattter of debate as to how much they left at encouragement of Arab leaders and how much they were “encouraged” none too gently by Zionist interests. Meanwhile no debate an equal number of Jews were forced out of Arab lands.

Arab leadership did not absorb the refugees nor create a Palestine out of the areas then controlled. It served leadership to keep the refugees there and to keep the conflict up. Israel turned out o be a tough nut to beat though, and what was possibly originally felt to be a short-term starage issue until the whole region was Arab, turned into a persistent issue, as multiple wars failed to destroy Israel.

The Six Day War changed the dynamic. Arab governments gave up destroying Israel, but were still well served by maintaining a conflict with an “other”. They refused to recognize or to negotiate with Israel but also gave up the fight to beat her. Israel made the same mistake with the refugees that early Arab leadership made: they assumed that this was a short-term situation until arab leadership came around and appeased elements within the country by building settlements. Big mistake, IMHO, both ethically (annex or don’t; if not then you are stewards serving the interests of the occupied.) and strategically. Palestinians (for that is what this previously ragtag mixed bag of Arabs had become, a distinct identity) went into the terror tactic resistence mode. Israel ceased being the underdog and became the big dog.

Throughout too many seperate groups have had their self-interests served by keeping the conflict alive and Palestinians have been manipulated throughout, to this day. now it is not that the big governments need the ditraction of the other to rally against to distract away from their own despotic ways, but that Islamist fundamentalists need a boogeyman to rally people against modernity and the West with.

Peace is ill-served by trying to make up for percieved past injustices, accurate or fictional. Someday the planets will align and each side will have leaders that care more about a shared future of mutual benefit than short term gain or revenge for what they think is the past. When Jupiter aligns with Mars.

[XT]

@BrainGlutton

Easy. Taking sides as between Israel and the Arabs inevitably involves blowing up Arabs, or at least condoning it when Israel does.

I think I’ll pull a patented rjung one liner and simply say: Horseshit.

-XT

[BrainGlutton]

@Malthus

Irrational, but with a slight difference - the irrationality of (some) religious Zionists does not require killing the other off.

It does if the “other” insists on living on the West Bank.

[WindFish]

The situation is very complicated. To me, it’s oversimplifying to consider Israelis as European colonists and Arabs in Israel as having no rights. Israeli Arab citizens participate in the democracy. Sure, they have “second class citizen” problems but so do Sephardic or “oriental” Jews in Israel.

And those non-Eurpoean Jews came from Arab lands, Africa, and the Soviet Union. The Palestinian demand for right of return or compensation – I wonder if the same benefit would apply to Iraqi or Syrian or Yemini Jews who had to flee their homes?

There’s also a lot of cultural clashes. Tolerance of “humiliation” is viewed much differently in Western (including Israeli) culture and the Arab and Muslim culture. In the West, we wonder why didn’t Arafat come with a counter-offer at Wye? To some part, it’s because the initial offer from the Israeli side was “humiliating”. It’s tough for us in Western cultures to understand (I don’t think I really understand it very much myself).

[BrainGlutton]

@Malthus

Or, looked at differently, involves recognizing the legitimate right of Jews to defend themselves from attack.

[shrug] Which necessarily involves blowing up Arabs. A “legitimate” explosion is still an explosion.

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

http://www.ajds.org.au/intifada/bargwarti.htm Simple isnt it.

[Little_Nemo]

Simple isnt it.

What I read is that every time a deal is offered to the Palestinians, they’re in a worst position than they were the last time and less is being offered. Leaving aside any issues of “fairness” you’d think they’d see the direction of the trend and try to stop it.