Why don’t you name some Palestinian peace initiatives that have been thrown in their face? There have been some, true, after all these years. Maybe you count rockets, kidnapping and suicide bombers as peace initiatives.
Not only that, but when the Arabs controlled the West Bank and Gaza their treatment of the Palestinians was not so nice. Black September, if you remember it, does not refer to anything to do with Israel.
Look, people, the Zionists did not invade Palestine - they moved there and bought land, all legally. Israel was created by a UN resolution - so it has at least as much right to exist as the United States, created by an illegal rebellion. The Arabs voted against the resolution, of course, then showed their displeasure at losing by invading. It’s gone downhill from there.
If you don’t know about the history of the peace process, you’re probably not really interested in being educated.
Anyway, the main point of my post was to point out how easy it is to make the sort of stupid generalizations that weirddave came out with. What’s even funnier is that his assertion that “Every move Israel has made toward peace has been thrown back in their face” was made as part of a post criticizing someone else for a mischaracterization of Israeli-Palestinian relations.
I was merely making a “Physciain, heal thyself” type of observation.
If that were the reason for its existence, it would be a damn stupid reason, Israel being where it is. Like keeping your ice in an oven for safekeeping.
No, that would only be true if you believe that killing of Israeli citizens was justified because they were Jewish. Furthermore, your statement makes even less sense when you realise that at least 20% of Israeli citizens are not Jewish.
Poppycock. There are any number of races and religions that don’t have their own nation. It does not mean that one does not like people of that race or religion to say that one does not believe they should get or have their own nation.
Furthermore, one might think that the Jews should get their own nation, but still not think that the type or place of nation they should have is Israel.
When I criticize Israel or particular Israelis, it is because of what it/they have done. I would pass the same comments if Israel’s established religion was Jedi and the predominant race in Israel was Khoisan.
Jews are generally remarkably studied, logical and knowledgeable. It is unfortanate that some of them share the usual human trait of being unable to apply basic rationality and logic to themselves and their own situation.
I have a strong suspicion your problem is not liberals being inconsistent when it comes to Israel. It is you being unable to take a liberal point of view when it comes to Israel.
How “universal”? Just asking out of curiosity and because I know the definition of “universal” can change a lot. After all, many countries where women could not vote still claimed to have “universal” elections.
One of the problems Spain is having with immigrants is that their relatives who come visit have an inordinate amount of conditions that would be untreatable or very expensive to treat in their home countries. These people come “to visit great-niece Dorinda”, see a GP (paid by Dorinda and by every other taxpayer in Spain), the GP refers them to a cardiologist (and they go to the front of the line, since they have to leave the country), they get a bypass (again, paid by Dorinda and by the rest of us).
If any tourist gets sick here, that tourist has 100% free medical treatment. Not for “elective” procedures, but for anything that’s considered unelective. If a tourist, or a soldier from a Nato base, or whomever, is in a car crash, reconstructive surgery is on us. If anybody doesn’t like the nose genetics gave him, then he’s got to pay.
How “universal” is Israeli universal health care?
It amazes me that there are some who are blind to all the shady shit Israel pulls. Every time Israel is attacked they cry out that they’re being unjustly assaulted, and then when the attackers are being restrained Israel reaches over the shoulder of it’s defenders and sucker punches the attackers. How is that acting in the name of peace?
eleanorigby raises many of the same issues I have with this situation, especially in regards to why it’s so hard to criticize many of the Israeli policies. It was overkill to respond in that manner to Lebanon as well.
Anytime someone says anything remotely negative pertaining to Israel they are met with cries of anti-Semitism, Nazi, racist, or reminders of the Holocaust. Most decent people are so horrified that they would be labeled like that they clam up and just buy into whatever story they can use to rationalize what’s going on.
It’s sad but the middle east almost needs a reset button with how bad things have gotten over there, just scrap it and start over. I’m going to try to find a video I saw of both Palestinian and Israeli children spouting off how they would die as heros fighting one another and how the other side was nothing more than animals. These kids have been bred from the get go to be willing to die fighting each other, it’s hard to stop that kind of hatred. The video was only from a couple years ago proving there is a long way to go until were even close to peace. Israel should be the one to make the first step in my opinion.
Not nearly as Universal as what you people have in Spain (which sounds rather excessive to me – does this mean that if I’m feeling bad while a tourist in Southern France I can just hop over the border and get free treatment? :eek: )
Basicly, all citizens and permanent residents pay 5% of their income (unemployed, students, pensioners, etc… pay a flat ~$20 or so a month; children under 18 are included as part of the household. Soldiers are cared for through the army, a completely separate system) and get “basic” coverage through the Health Fund of their choice (there are 4 of them). This is mandatory, you can’t “opt out”. This “basic” coverage pretty much assures you won’t be left to haemorrage to death on the road in case of an accident, but, frankly, not that much beyond (I mean, you’ll get your antibiotics if you catch pneumonia, but not all forms of Cancer treatment and medication, e.g., are covered); anybody who can afford it has some additional (privately purchased) health insurance.
But it is “universal” in the sense that it covers everyone living here permanently.
Legal aliens get a different kind of coverage through their employers – I’m not sure about the details – but again, this is compulsory coverage.
Illegal aliens…? Not covered. Tourists? Not covered.
And I honestly don’t know what’s up with Health in general (and coverage in particular) in the Palestinian Authority, but that is an aspect in which the PA is truly autonomous, so I don’t think it’s relevant to the discussion.
[hijack]Did you know that Nava is a perfectly good Hebrew name? And that it means “Beautiful Woman?” :)[/hijack]
You’re wrong. First off, the people who blow themselves up in Israel intend to kill Jews. They may accidentally kill Arabs, but if Israel were all Arabs, they wouldn’t be setting bombs off. Second of all, the hatred of Israel is largely based on the fact that it is a Jewish state, not a Muslim state. The idea of a sovereign non-Muslim nation offends the Arab world, so they kill the citizens of the nearest one (Israel) in cold blood. You could argue that hating a religion is not the same as hating members of that religion, but that would be irrelivent hair-splitting, especially when civilians are dying because of it.
Even if one’s mentality is so far into outer space that one believes that it is okay to kill civilians that are part of a nation that you hate, it is still hard to contend that Palestinian suicide bombers are not committing hate crimes.
Yes, there are ethnic groups that do not have nations. There are also ethnic groups that used to not have nations, but now do, and few are saying that they don’t have a right to exist. If the Lapps decided to zone off a a chunk of Sweden to call their own, their might be a civil war, but the entirety of Europe wouldn’t travel north just to blow up a few men on Raindeer.
There is no nationale (other than that the Arabs hate Jews with a vengeance!) for not having the Jewish nation be Israel. The Jewish people have a connection to the land, and, as Israel has existed for fifty-summat years, most of the world’s Jews think of it as their homeland. Even if we once had no homeland, we now do.
The people of Israel should not have to pick up and leave just because the Arabs are pissed because we stole a chunk of their land that is equal in proportion to the Arab world as Rhode Island is to the United States. Where would they go to, anyway? The world is running out of places that are frendly towards Israel.
I suppose your superior rationality allows you to block out everything that the Palestinians have done to the Israelis, and focus solely on the reverse? I never said that the Jews have done everything right: I said they haven’t done everything wrong. The Arabs were ahead of the world intellectually for much of the time since the birth of Christ; it is a shame that they have succumb to stubborn religious ferver.
My point of view is that Israel has done some things wrong, and has sometimes been too aggressive, as well as sometimes mistreating the Palestinians. It is also my opinion that the Arab world is anti-Semitic to the extreme, supports few government systems other than theocratic ones, and has a history of horrible human rights, not to mention the way they act towards Israel.
Perhaps you believe that a liberal should only support one side of this complex conflict, but I disagree. I associate liberalism with rational, analytical thinking, and there is no way a thoughtful person could look at the Middle East and think only Israel is to blame for what is going on.
Pardon some errors.
OK, let’s lay this part to rest. Israel is where it is because it has always been here. The fact that for significant chunks of our history the territory was conquered and held by more powerful entities does not change this fact, and I’m sick and tired of hearing this “well why didn’t the Jews set up shop someplace else.” It’s like asking why the Poles didn’t just set up someplace in Patagonia after they got overrun by Germans, Russians, Germans, Russian, lather, rinse, repeat. OK?
As for the rest – while I agree that being anti-Israeli is not necessarily anti-semitic, there sure seem to be a lot of anti-semites using Israel as a convenient PC outlet for their hatred. To the extent that it’s difficult to tell legitimate criticism of Israel (some of which I even agree with – Americans aren’t the only people who don’t always like what their government does!) from the anti-semitic rants and tirades. I’m afraid it’s up to the legitimate critics of Israel to distance themselves somehow from the relatively large contingent of anti-semitic coat-tail riders – only you people know who you really are, I can’t always tell the difference.
I think you’re giving the system here short shrift. The supplementary insurance is provided by the same privately-owned, government-funded agencies that provide the basic insurance, and the costs are ridiculously low. I’m paying, what, $20 a month for my Maccabi Magen plan and the level of treatment and service I’ve received is much better than what I got for $500 a month in New York. Plus, perscription medicines are so heavily subsidized that even if your insurance doesn’t cover them, they’re still cheaper than just about anywhere else.
Anyway… I’m constantly baffled by people who say that because my parents weren’t born here*, I have less of a right to my home. Here’s a tip - I am not my parents. I was born here. That’s all that matters. I am a native. There is no-one on this green Earth who has more of a right to live here than I have.
*Which is not that usual in my age group. I remember doing a poll back in high school- about 75% of my classmates were second-generation at least; some much more.
All I can say is, if you’re happy with Maccabi… 
– good thing you’re Young and Healthy 
You’re right about the quality of health care here relative to the U.S., of course – but the question came from Spain… And we’ve got to bitch about something, anyway!
Plus, as I noted, the fact that we didn’t have a country here because erstwhile powers prevented it, not because we weren’t here or didn’t want to be here (and in control of our destiny) in the past. By the logic of those who would send us elsewhere, the (Chrisitian) Spanish should never have been allowed to re-capture Iberia from the Muslims. They should have settled someplace else, not in Muslim Lands, dammit! Bin-Laden would heartily agree with this POV, BTW.
What a spectacular dodge and weave. The subject of your OP was liberals. In particular, since you were talking about a Seattle liberal newspaper. Without in any way stating that you were now changing the people the subject of your OP to suicide bombers and Arabs, you then said
“Another thing people say is “it’s not anti-Semitic to be anti-Israel.” Yes, it is not anti-Semitic to be critical of Israel. It is anti-Semitic to believe that the killing of Israeli citizens is justified under any circumstances, and it is very, very anti-Semitic to believe that Israel should not exist.”
I called you on this unqualified piece of non-logic, and lo and behold, suddenly the people the subject of your comment were suicide bombers and the Arab world.
So first we hear the Jews need a safe haven (no problem with that) then we hear that there is no rationale reason for not placing that “safe” haven smack bang in a heavily populated, under-resourced, religious powder keg?
I understand the Jews have a connection. I understand that Jews may want to set up camp in Israel for various reasons. But if you think there is *no * rational reason for not having a Jewish nation in Israel, I have to ask: what, precisely, are you smoking?
and
What these paragraphs show is a remarkable flying leap to the conclusion that - because I indicated that I was a person capable of criticizing Israel - I must think that only Israel is to blame and be incapable of criticizing Arabs (a conclusion you *cannot * rationally have reached from my last post). I did not purposely set out to provide you with an opportunity to show that you are a one eyed prat, but you seem to have managed to do a good job of showing that anyway.
Congratulations, numbskull.
My post was in response to Elmwood’s suggestion that the rationale for Israel was as a “truly safe place to go”. If that’s not the rationale, then fine, but don’t imply that I ever thought that it was.
Or alternatively, there sure are a lot of Israeli’s who use the “anti-semite” excuse as a way of brushing off any otherwise legitimate criticism. I’m afraid it’s up to Israelis to respond to criticism using facts and logic. If the best you can do is come up with ad hom attacks (and that’s all it is when you try to discredit someone by saying they are an anti-semite) then you’ve lost the debate.
Sorry, those last two quotes were of course from Noone Special, not FrantzeJ.
What is this “want”? You talk about Israel like it’s an imaginary, hypothetical place. It’s not: it’s a real country with real citizens. Not an attack on Princhester, this is just an example of a common attitude in these arguments. You can’t make Israel go away with arguing that it has no right to exist, or that it should be somewhere else.
Well, last I was there, it certainly appeared to be there 
But you’re right: my tenses were pretty shot to hell in the bit you quoted. Although, there are plenty of Jews from other places arriving in Israel all the time. So at least for them, future tense is appropriate.
Palestine has always been there, too.
Do you see the other side of that assertion as well? Israel, a more powerful entity than Palestine, conquered and still holds its territory, and is even moving people into it.
Yet we still hear suggestions from some people (if not you) that the Palestinians should simply accept that Jordan is their homeland now, and essentially just clear out.
Be more careful about your terminology. Being pro-peace, pro-fairness, and pro-recognition-of-fundamental-human-rights is NOT the same as anti-Israeli, anti-Israel, anti-Likud, or even necessarily anti-Zionist. It’s the ability to see clearly that the recent actions of the current Israeli administration have contributed to making the region and the world a more dangerous place. You’re not the good guys just because you’re you, or because that’s been the traditional attitude. You have to act like it, too.
I certainly understand my beloved US has been deeply at fault lately in its own, not-unrelated ways. It’s painful to see those of us who question or criticize our own government’s actions condemned by fellow Americans as “anti-American” - but of course it is deep *love * of America *and the human ideals it represents * that motivates us. It is no more acceptable to hear that criticism or questioning of the current Israeli administration’s actions is merely “anti-Semitic” - in fact that’s worse, since it implies hatred of an entire ethnic group and not just a government. But the “you’re either with us or against us” attitude only makes any situation worse, not better, and needs to be resisted vigorously. I understand there is a Jewish concept of “chastisement from love” (and no, I don’t know the Hebrew for it) - that’s what’s being applied to Israel, and it is hardly “anti-semitism”.
No, cop-out. If Israelis can tell what’s legitimate criticism of Israeli actions and what’s sheer hate speech, there’s no need for that, and no excuse for dismissing legitimate criticism.
Just to add my totally unhelpful cheap shot…
Anti-Semitism became a Leftist (not “liberal”) idea when the Lefties realized that Jews wrote that nasty homophobic misogynist racist creedist screed called…
the Bible.
Just doin’ my part for The Pit!
Most American “lefties” are either Christian or Jewish.
I don’t know if the establishment of the Israeli state, at the end of World War II, was a good thing. I can certainly understand why European Jews chose to leave their anti-semitic homes during the 19th and 20th centuries and start a new life in the homeland of their ancestors. But I’m not sure if it was wise of the international community to eventually allow them to form a Jewish state in the region. It’s quite certain that the Holocaust is the reason why this was allowed.
This said, Israel exists now. It has existed for a few decades, and it is the home of many people. There is no way that destroying Israel could be a good thing. Maybe it was wrong to create it in the first place, but two wrongs don’t make a right.
This said, you’ll find precious few liberals (and indeed, people in general, in Western countries) who believe that Israel should be destroyed. There is a lot of criticism of Israel’s government’s policies, true. But criticism of Israel doesn’t mean hate for it, or for Jews, as people have already said, and I’m sure everyone here will recognize it.
And why are liberals criticising Israel? Well, maybe for some people there is the “rooting for the underdog” that someone mentioned, but for most people, it’s a honest belief that Israel’s government could do more in favour of peace in the Middle East. Yes, I know, someone will respond that Israel has already tried working towards peace several times, and everytime the Arabs have kept attacking. That may be true, but it hides the fact that many times the Israelis haven’t been so peaceful, and that “the Arabs” isn’t some kind of homogeneous block. And I do believe that Israel, as one of the few free, democratic countries in this part of the world, should be held to a higher standard. This doesn’t mean I want them to give in to terrorist attacks or let themselves be destroyed. They have the right to defend themselves. But they have to look at the bigger picture when they do so.
Right now, the impression that I’m getting (which comes partly from the Israeli dopers’ comments I’ve read) is that Israel is tired of striving towards peace and has decided that it will never happen. So they’ve just decided to strike hard, every time one of their neighbours, or a faction inside this neighbouring country, attacks. The hope is that eventually the Arabs, while continuing to hate Israel, will just be too scared to attack. Then Israel might know peace, while the Arab countries will be fourth-world countries with no infrastructure, plenty of poverty, no democracy, and possibly disease, but who cares about them, right? This, in my opinion, not only won’t work (I don’t think a hard response is likely to stop terror attacks), but is also wrong, since I want the Arab countries to eventually be democratic and free too. And I think it’s in Israel’s own interest to work towards this goal too.
Now, I’ll probably get the answer that the Arabs just don’t want freedom and democracy. They want dictatorship and theocracy, why would they vote for Hamas and Hezbollah if not? I think the reason is that they just don’t see these groups the same way as they are seen here. I remember hearing here that the reason why the Palestinians voted for Hamas at the last election was that it was the only viable alternative to a corrupt Fatah government. And they were running on domestic issues, not on the destruction of Israel (which is of course still part of their platform). As for the Hezbollah, yes, I can see why they would get close to 99 % approval in some parts of Lebanon, namely those where they do their charity work. The problem is that these groups are also terrorist groups. We don’t want to negociate with them, at least for as long as they keep up their terroristic activities, but in the end we might have to do it.
But I must also mention that I find offensive this viewpoint that Arabs, or Muslims in general, just don’t want democracy or freedom, and are fundamentally violent. I’ve seen it in this thread, and it is quite obvious in this current GD thread. To me, this is simply fear and hatred of Islam. And we will have to recognize that this is bad, as bad as anti-Jewish prejudice. Not to mention unproductive, since in my mind, an important part of the process towards democracy in Middle Eastern countries will be to let more liberal forms of Islam develop and gain followers. So when we hear that Islam is the “religion of peace :rolleyes:” (which is something I especially hear conservatives say), or when people are looking in the Qur’an for the proof that this religion is fundamentally incompatible with freedom and democracy, the only thing that it does is infuriate Muslims who would be sympathetic to liberal values. I mean, I read the linked thread, and some of these posts make me wonder what their author thinks would be necessary to ensure peace in the Middle East. Genocide against all Arabs from Morocco to Iraq (or all Muslims from Senegal to Indonesia)? Or merely an Ann Coulteresque “invade, kill their leaders, convert them to Christianity”?
Now, to finish, the claim that we can find left-wingers expressing support for Hezbollah and other terrorist groups. Sometimes it is due to these people being misinformed, but other times it is simply observers who misinterpret the situation. I will offer an example: Gilles Duceppe, leader of the Bloc québécois, a Canadian federal political party that advocates Quebec independence. Duceppe is quite left-wing in his politics. During the recent crisis in Lebanon, he participated in a peace rally in the streets of Montreal. It then came to light that some supporters of Hezbollah had also been part of this rally and had waved flags and chanted slogans. The Israeli ambassador to Canada then criticised Duceppe for his participation. Duceppe replied that he had accepted to be part of the rally on the condition that no Hezbollah supporter would be allowed and that security had tried several times during the rally to expel them, but that some of them slipped through anyway. He also showed a letter from the Canada-Israel Committee sent him, congratulating him for his unambiguous denounciation of Hezbollah. This, of course, did not stop right-wing pundits from the rest of Canada claiming that Quebec francophones are fundamentally anti-semitic, as they never lose any opportunity to do. :rolleyes: