Other European countries. OK now? 
Damn Belgians …
Let’s see… The U.N. and the most of the world recognize Israel as a country. It is attacked in 1967 and 1973, and it’s Israel that was no longer willing to live with the will of the international community?
Israel has always been willing to live by its agreements. Unfortunately, it is surrounded by countries that ignore the ‘will of the international community’ and attempt to destroy Israel in any way they can. Any ‘analysis’ that does not consider this as a major factor is useless.
Ridiculous. According to the treaty? Does a treaty supercede the right to defend oneself against those who consider any such treaty so much scrap paper?
Israel claimed territory in a defensive war. That territory was clearly of strategic value to the enemy and serious risk to Israel so long as it remained in enemy hands. Every time Israel has relinquished territory it has held, its enemies have used that territory to continue to attack Israel. Israel has recently been ceding territory back like crazy - how’s that working out for them? They’ve now got thousands of rockets within range of major cities, and an enemy who is not shy about using them. When Israel withdrew from Palestinian territories, the Palestinians immediately began fortifying them, arming them, and using them as bases to attack Israelis.
The only way you can paint Israel as an aggressor is to ignore the entire context within which it is forced to exist. If it were not surrounded by hostile nations wanting its destruction, Israel would be as peaceful as any other modern democracy. As it is, Israel has reacted with more restraint against the threats it faces than any of its neighbors would, or probably more than most other democratic powers. Can you imagine what France would do under that situation? Or the U.S.? Or Great Britian? Or even Canada?
Israel is us. It’s a democracy full of modern people who respect modern conventions of humans rights, but stressed to the breaking point by constant threats and attacks from barbaric people still living in a 14th century world of blood libels, tribalism, racism, religious intolerance, and hatred.
I know, but according to international law, it’s not allowed to keep it. And if Israel is interested only in protecting its citizens rather than annexing territory, why has it been relocating hundreds of thousands of settlers into the occupied territories, where they are much less safe than in Israel proper and require a massive security apparatus to guard them?
Actually, there’s one very important aspect, central to the topic of this thread, in which Israel isn’t us.
It is possible, in Israel, to express criticism of Israeli policy without being branded by your political opponents as an Israel hater or an anti-Semite.
While American supporters of Israeli foreign policy would like us all to believe that every Israeli thinks the same way as they do about the Palenstinians and about the Middle East more generally, the fact is that the range of debate on this issue is actually far broader within Israel itself than it is in the United States.
Positions critical of Israeli policy, which are shouted down as anti-Israel or anti-Semitic by the ideologues in the US, are accepted (even when disagreed with) as a normal part of the debate in Israel itself.
Read the Israeli press (English or Hebrew), and you’ll see a far broader spectrum of opinion on these issues than you will in the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal or on US network news. Sure, there are conservatives and liberals, and other political groups in Israel, but the overall tone of the debate is much more multi-faceted and multi-vocal than it is in the mainstream US press.
The entry for Thursday, Nov. 18 could be instructive, if you have any interest in learning what the results of that sort of action tend to be.
'Course, it’s possible that Eat the State operates on a different business model than does The Orange County Weekly.
Really? Every time? What about the Sinai Peninsula, captured by Israel from Egypt during the Six-Day War and restored with the Israel-Egypt peace treaty in 1979?
See, this is the kind of broad-brush victimology that makes many people, even those sympathetic to Israel, distrustful of some of its claims. Any reasonable person certainly recognizes that Israel has a lot of legitimate security concerns and has had to suffer a great deal from its neighbors. But these assertions that Israel has never done anything wrong itself, that it’s never been unfair or harsh to anybody, that it’s always honored all its responsibilities and always taken only the bare minimum of defensive actions to protect itself… sorry, things just aren’t that black and white.
Neither Israel nor any other country can simultaneously claim the status of an enlightened, humane democracy and demand a permanent exemption from the usual standards of enlightened, humane, democratic behavior on the plea of exceptional circumstances. In the long run, Israel as a state has only three choices: 1) to work out with its neighbors a compromise all can be reasonably satisfied with, and put up with whatever security risks that entails; 2) to pursue what it considers its own best interests in spite of its neighbors, and put up with whatever it costs in terms of international public opinion; or 3) to take up that option for a Jewish state in Idaho or Saskatchewan instead. At present, the Israeli people seem to be split between choices (1) and (2), with the government firmly in the (2) camp.
And unfortunately, many in Israel and many of its supporters seem to have evolved a rationalization strategy wherein any negative public opinion about any of Israel’s actions is chalked up to some combination of anti-Semitism, liberal pro-Arabism, and Muslim barbarism. (As mhendo points out, this phenomenon is much more marked outside of Israel itself, a case of the outsiders being “plus royaliste que le roi”.) It’s a classic paranoid response: “anybody who opposes me is obviously just out to get me, so the more they criticize, the less I should listen”. This, I fear, is a recipe for even more tragedy for Israel and its neighbors.
That’s true. But it’s also probably a reflection of the fact that Jewish people are much more free to criticize their own country, because they won’t be branded anti-semitic.
You see the same thing in the U.S. with regard to minority communities. It is very hard for a white person to make comments critical of black society without running the risk of being labeled as a racist. Blacks such as Bill Cosby are much more free to be critical of black society and culture. It’s always been that way. The harshest criticism of the excesses of some native American and native Canadians comes from leaders within the culture.
And unfortunately, there IS a lot of anti-semitism in the world, and it seems to be growing rapidly. Therefore, it can be hard to distinguish honest criticism of Israeli policity from criticism based on anti-semitism or a general antipathy against Israel.
Excellent points, Evil Captor and Kimstu. I would only add that it is not anti-Semitism or anti-Iraelism that is prevalent in “other European countries”, but segments of the population of those countries–of which an even smaller subset can be said to be both.
That’s one of those double-edge swords you get with democracy–you have to allow people to air unpopular views. You get neo-Nazis marching in Skokie here. But you also get the freedom to spread your own message of peace and tolerance(if that is indeed your message; I don’t presume to speak for anyone here).
Well, at least you admit that there is such a thing as honest criticism of Israeli policy. Your previous posts appeared to attribute it all to leftist “anti-militarism”, “the left’s natural tendency to side with the underdog”, “the reflexive anti-Americanism by proxy, which the exteme left often uses to hate any country that is friendly the U.S.”, “honest-to-god anti-semitism by a bunch of fellow travelers”, and “threats and attacks from barbaric people still living in a 14th century world of blood libels, tribalism, racism, religious intolerance, and hatred”.
If we can all admit that in fact there are legitimate points to be made both pro- and anti-Israel, we may start to get somewhere.
All my posts are cogent, they’re just sometimes cogent in ways that are difficult to understand. 
A pretty valid set of points.
I’ll be interested to see, next time Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton accuses some critic of black society of being racist, whether you and other conservatives cut them as much slack as you cut the pro-Israeli folk with their accusations of anti-Semitism.
After all, “there IS a lot of [racism] in the world, and it seems to be growing rapidly. Therefore, it can be hard to distinguish honest criticism of [African American society] from criticism based on [racism] or a general antipathy against [black people].”
I don’t see growing racism re Jews. I do see growing anger and frustration at Israel.
What I also see growing exponentially is anti-Muslim sentiment globally, and the number of fundamentalist religions-- all the Judeo-Christian ones. Not a good setting for amicable negotiations and accord.
And at the risk of being called all manner of nasty names (and I’m working tomorrow, so internet for me)–doesn’t (or shouldn’t it) give any one group pause, if their stance on something causes so much rife and violence? I’m willing to believe that some of the terrorists are sociopaths or whathaveyou, but surely not all. This question applies to any group, not just Israelis.
America should have paused, and many of us did and wanted the rest of the nation to do so, when it came to invading Iraq, for example. UK needed to examine its treatment and stance re Ireland before and during the Troubles. But so did the IRA. I don’t see anyone in this thread condoning or sympathizing with suicide bombers. What I cannot understand is the lack of objectivity when it is Israel that strikes-sure, their attacks may not be a lone suicide bomber on a bus, but the end result is the same. Why should I approve and back such aggression on the part of Israel? Riddle me that.
I don’t sympathize with terrorism. I deplore it. It is wrong on all levels. But it is a human response --and we need to understand the reasons for it and the root causes of it-in order to eradicate it as best as can be done. Creating a second class citizenry and attacking your neighbors is not the way to eradicate terrorism–indeed, it would seem to invite it, IMO.
Just to nitpick, strictly speaking Israel attacked Egypt first in 1967. Now, they had blocked Sharm-al-Sheikh (sp?) and had caused the UN peacekeeping force to leave, and would have no doubt attacked soon, but we should be accurate. Jordan did attack first, after Israel had communicated to them, by diplomatic channels, that attacking would be disasterous - which it was. That was how Israel came into possession of the West Bank.
I wonder what other country is expected to give up territory to one still in a state of war with it? When the war with Egypt ended, remember, the Sinai went back.
Of course. And I’ve lived in Africa, so I appreciate the absurdity of this proposal.
Actually, before the British government had anything to do with it. The British took over after WW I, remember. The original Zionist movement dealt with the Ottoman Empire. The Balfour Declaration certainly encouraged things.
And not all Palestinians fled. I don’t know if you think those who stayed and lived under a Jewish state were better off than those who lived in the camps for decades. And many fled, not because of direct threats, but because of panic calls from the Arab leadership, with assurances they could return once the Jews were wiped out.
Movement of populations is never pretty - and there was plenty of it at the time, as the result of WW II. But there are two choices as to what to do with the DPs. You can integrate them into the community, or you can segregate them. Many Jews fled Arab states, (and many stayed) but they were not put into camps.
The refusal of Israel’s right to exist began, not with refugees, but at the moment of independence.
One has to expect a certain degree of wariness when large chunks of a population still want you dead. (Not the case for Egypt and Jordan, and thus no issues like this.) Would you really just trust them if the survival of your nation was at stake? When the rockets and kidnappers were coming from Gaza, would you do nothing? What the hell did Hamas expect? Like the scorpion in the fable, some Palestinians seem to keep on destroying progress because it is their nature.
I’m not excusing all Israelis. The settlers should give up and leave already. Going to the Temple Mount in a provocative way was just stupid (as was the Palestinian over-reaction.) I don’t think the Lebanon campaign was conducted with great skill.
No, the heart of the problem is what “never again” implies. There are norms of civilized society which we all thought were inviolable. We were wrong. What it means is that if people tell Israel that no one really wants to push them into the sea, Israel doesn’t believe it anymore.
If by some magic 98% of Palestinians granted Israel a right to exist, and renounced support for suicide bombing and the like, the problem wouldn’t go away tomorrow, but it would be headed that way. (I don’t know what percentage of Israelis are rabidly anti-Palestinian, but let’s say that goes down to 2% also, if it is actually that high.) Don’t you agree that there would soon be peace?
Here’s a link about this. Terrorism was not the thing that stalled it, it was undertainy about what they meant by refugees, and the quite odd way it was proposed. (The link talks about Syria, but I don’t recall it being a stumbling point.) This was an Arab, not a Palestinian initiative, and I wouldn’t say being lukewarm was throwing it back in anyone’s face. If the Saudis were serious, there are many back channel diplomatic avenues they could have used.
Nice try, but I don’t think this counts.
Where the fuck did you see me say anything about Israel being there for ever, the Jews having a superior claim to the land, or anything even hinting at it? Hmm? Where?
That’s right. Nowhere!!! :mad:
And you know why?
Because I, unlike other posters here (yes, ** ElvisL1ves**, I am looking at you!) never presented, nor defended, a clearly factually wrong stand.
No, Israel was not there always. It exists as a sovereign state since 1948, not sooner. OTOH, there was never a sovereign Palestinian state. Never! And that’s all I said.
Does it mean there should not be one? No. I, for one, believe the solution would be a two-state solution.
However, trying to make me justify a point I have never made, nor support is dishonest – to say the least. :mad:
Oh, and since I see that for reason this is still in the Pit:
** ElvisL1ves**, you motherfucker lying asshole !!!
:mad: :mad:
Israel does not practice religious / ethnic discrimination. All citizens enjoy equal rights. The place where Jews are favored is in immigration.
You may be interested in knowing there’s a current thread about this issue.
True.
False.
Well, Israel did pullout of the Gaza strip. And the major political party was elected on the ticket of withdrawal from the west bank as well.
Those plans are now “on hold”, as the current political situation in Israel will not allow it. I mean, try to look at it from my eyes – a liberal Israeli, who believes in the two-state solution: Israel made a first step. An overdue, hesitated first step, but a step in the right direction nonetheless. How did the Palestinians react? With shelling of Israeli cities and towns, and with kidnapping of an Israeli soldier from an Israeli territory. Not really a major incentive toward further concessions.
I agree.
But now, try to look at it from a reasonable Palestinian’s eyes. Israel pulled out of Gaza. They declared they will pull out of some parts of the west bank. Doesn’t it make sense to keep relevant quite while they do? At least, it will mean a better opening position for future peace negotiations.
If you agree, then why to you think they didn’t act like that?
And if you don’t where did I get it wrong?
I agree.
I agree.
However, Israel is here, so the point is kind of moot, no?
I agree.
But what do you do when the other states refuse to take back the occupied lands?
I agree on both points.
The only thing I beg to differ from you is that from my (an Israeli) POV, Israel’s security and continued existence was never ensured. And I feel that throughout Israel’s existence, there would have been a lot of people who would not have shed a tear for our fate were we to loose a war and be “driven to the sea”. You’d probably call me a paranoid for saying that, but I hold that being paranoid doesn’t mean you’re not being chased 
.
Yes, I suppose technically Israel attacked first. But the aggression was all on the part of the Arabs. They were massing for war, and everyone knew it. Israel just refused to roll over and take it. Had Israel not struck first and dealt a crippling blow to Arab forces, that war might have turned out differently, and we’d have a second Jewish genocide to talk about.