I hope I’m not expected to defend the Arabs’ actions now.
Yes, many horrendous deeds have been conducted by Arabs. The one most vivid in my memory is the lynch in Ramallah on October 2000.
You’ll never find me defending religious rule or law – Islamic or other – anywhere either.
The thing that I object to is the concept of the Arabs as a whole being immature or worse. That’s what I understood from eleanorigby’s post. In later post (the one starting with the ever-winning argument “You fucking fuck” ) she referred to “mentally challenged” people (on both sides) as being responsible for the continuation of the conflict. Maybe I got it wrong, but that’s my impression of her views. And to those views I object.
Sure, Arabs can be brutal. Sure, the way some of them “solve” their problems is not expectable in my view. But that does not mean that the whole Arab people are backward or incapable of modernization. I believe (and hope) that it’s a matter of proper education. You see, they are people like you, like it or not. They were raised and educated differently.
Except that Iraq didn’t sponsor terrorism against Israel - no more than the Saudis did, anyway. The Scud attacks were more against us. It’s not like the Saudis are big buddies of Israel, and we’re not attacking them.
Sure. The attack was neocon revenge for not “finishing the job” in GW I. However they may have thought that the oil was a benefit - forcing someone else to sell their oil below OPEC prices could drive down prices. If so, they screwed that up as well. There are lot’s of stupid reasons that could have motivated the invasion, but Israel had nothing to do with any of them.
Actually, we supported them both before the peace. Jordan always, Egypt when we wrested them from the Russians after Nasser died. The peace was possible because we had influence with both sides.
We can at least agree that naivete must needs be remedied. The naive wind up as pawns.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, OK. Except, all countries practice immigration rules, that may or may not favot certain groups. Israel’s just happens to favor Jews. The law was passed in the 50’s in the aftermath of the Holocaust (sorry to bring it up), so I think it’s rather reasonable.
But, once more, the topic has its own thread. Let’s not hijack this one.
Ah, yes. Well, that’s probably one of the major obstacles. Israel’s view is that Jerusalem in not part of the west bank, and shall always remain Israeli. The US (as well as most of the rest of the world) doesn’t agree. Nor do the Palestinians.
And, in some Israeli’s view, that particular settlement is part of the “major Jerusalem” area.
I, as an Israeli, accept the view that Jerusalem should not be considered a part of the west bank in future negotiations with the Palestinians. If for no other reason, the Arab rule of the place (Jordan till the 6-day war) did not allow freedom of religion in the area. Jews were not allowed to pray there (while Arabs are allowed to under Israel’s rule). Maybe a special status of Jerusalem is the solution, but I doubt it. After all, in order to make peace, both parties need to make concessions. The two major red lines, IMHO, for Israel are the “right to return” (which will, in effect, eradicate Israel as a Jewish state), and the future status of Jerusalem.
But in any case, I think Maaleh Adumim was the exception to the rule. See, for example, from the Peace Now site (Peace Now is a pacifist Israeli organization, that is probably one of the worst enemies of the settlements. For example, the boycott products form the settlements. They refuse to go there except when doing so in order to protest or document.)
Bolding mine.
And you really can’t stop your citizens from giving birth in a democracy. And the hard-core of the settlers can have 5-10 kids !!
You do realize that 4 months after the speech (which was delivered in a certain context, hence should be taken with a grain of salt) Sharon had a stroke and went into coma, right? Not much chance of keeping his word – even if he meant it outside of Maaleh Adumim.
You don’t have to trust someone to see if he will act. I didn’t trust Sharon to evacuate the Gaza strip initially. But he did.
I don’t want to address your specific points, as each can develop to a full-scale debate. But I will say this: trust has nothing to do with it. Of course the Palestinians don’t trust the Israeli Government, just as the Israelis don’t trusty the Palestinians. Hack, I don’t trust my government (or any other government). But I will give people a chance to act on their word. Otherwise, I wouldn’t agree to enter a peace order negotiations with the Palestinians (they didn’t fulfill their side of previous agreements, and they will probably say the same about Israel). If you don’t agree to give someone a chance, even if you don’t trust them, all is lost.
And, as I said, giving Israel that chance could give them much and cost them nothing. Not giving the chance cost them dearly.
God has nothing to do with it. This is not a religious conflict.
Israel is a secular society. Until the recent rise of Hamas, the Palestinians were led by the PLO, which is a secular movement.
In fact, before the establishment of the state of Israel, in general, Jews fared better in Arab states than in Europe.
This is dispute about land, not god.
Saddam was paying rewards/pensions to the families of suicide bombers.
I don’t mean to imply that Israel is the only reason we’re at war. There is a constellation of interests: The defense industry seeks conflict; here was a convenient one. Halliburton obviously benefits. The oil industry benefits. Israel benefits. So there’s a whole pack of lobbyists at work.
As I understand it, US aid stopped during the '67 war. It resumed in '75 after disengagement agreements between Israel and Egypt. (Resulting from Kissinger’s shuttle diplomacy.) There is an apparent connection between aid to Egypt and peace with Israel.
Similarly, ebbs and flows in aid to Jordan have always been closely tied to its relations with Israel.
I don’t fault Israel and its supporters for lobbying for US support. Israel is pursuing its interests, as every nation should be expected to do. Israel is very effective at it.
However, I don’t believe that US interests and those of Israel necessarily coincide. For instance, I believe it is in Israel’s interest for the US to go to war with Iran and/or Syria. I do not believe that course of action would serve US interests in any way.
It is one thing for the US to devote financial aid to the goal of peace for Israel. It is another thing to go to war.
Any actual proof that the US is acting as a puppet for a foreign power, rather than pursuing self-interest, in opposing these countries - Iraq, which has demonstrated a willingness to invade its oil-rich neighbours; Syria, lead by the same sort of Ba’athist regime, recently ejected from its colonial experiment in Lebanon; or Iran, which quite openly denounces the US as the “great Satan”?
I thought not.
I guess the oil embargo of the '70s was all in our imaginations. :eek: Could not have happened, nosiree.
Look, we have at least two possible explainations - (1) that the US is acting in a self-interested manner; and (2) that it is, for reasons unknown, acting wholly gratutitously in the interests of a foreign power. It seems to me at least that if you expect us to believe #2, that is a quite extraordinary claim, requiring some serious proof (rather than the “none” offered).
Nonsense. Unless, of course, you happen to believe that “peace in the ME” is something which only favours Israel.
If US support for Israel was unconditional like you say, should not the US give Israel all the shiny weapons - rather than spreading them around to Israel’s former deadly enemies (who still don’t much care for Israel)?
Seems to me that a more logical way of looking at it is that the US favours regimes in the ME willing to be peaceful, and will support & stengthen them - against those with a proven track record of shit disturbing. So Egypt, Jordan and Israel are favoured; Iran, Iraq and Syria are not.
The excessive focus on Israel to the exclusion of other factors in the ME, as evidenced by your post, strikes me as bizzare.
Religious fundie nuttiness, perhaps? Of the same sort that has already lead to attacks on the US?
Even if they “merely” carry out their announced goal of using nukes on the “little Satan” Israel, are you of the opinion this is something the US should not work to prevent? After all, Israel would be bound to retaliate, leading to a neat little nuclear war right over the oil supply which fuels the US.
I wouldn’t go so far as to accuse you of being a pawn.
Seems to me everyone is treating anti-semitism as a big bugaboo, the one thing that is truly unthinkable - because of its association with Nazism. No-one wants to be accused of that. But reasonably, what difference does it make whether one irrationally hates Jews, Israelis, Israel or any other nation, nationality or division?
Strikes me that there are at least three different types of irrational bigotry which could be at work. Consider the following three positions:
I hate Russia. In all its history, the Russian nation has been a force of evil in the world. I am willing to believe anything bad said about Russia, and nothing good. I hold Russia to different standards than any other nation.
I hate Russians. They are a brutal and degenerate group. In any situation, I will favour a non-Russian over a Russian.
I hate slavs, as a race. Wherever slavs settle, they are a worthless people, deserving of scorn and persicution.
Obviously, these are different types of ignorance. Just as obviously, one may hold to one type without holding to the other types - but some may suspect that a person likely to hate Russia irrationally, is more likely to also hate Russians from Russia irrationally, and to generally hate Slavs - though of course it does not necessarily follow.
However, such distinctions are not really all that important from the POV of ignorance-fighting, because to hate Russia irrationally is just as ignorant, in terms of a motivation for policy, as to hate Russians or Slavs.
The real distinction is between those who hate a nation/nationalism/ethnicity irrationally, and those who have a rational reason for deserved critique of a nation’s actions.
As I see it, it does not really matter if someone is an “opponent of Israel” or an “anti-semite” for the purposes of the validity of their arguments - what is important is whether they are acting out of a desire to rationally criticize, or if they have taken a position of irrational or unreasonable dislike. If they are being irrational, what real difference does it make what motivates that irrationality?
Strikes me that some “opponents of Israel” are in the position of announcing that they hate Israel, but not Jews; that is, they are bigots of type 1 above, and not type 3. I am certainly willing to believe that is true (for one, some of the most vociferous Israel-haters are in fact Ultra Orthodox Jews!). However, it strikes me that while the two positions may be vastly different in moral terms, they are both, at base, equally irrational.
The antidote, IMO, for one accused of bigotry is not to angrily argue about the type, but to deny the charge altogether; rather than saying “I may hate Israel, but I don’t hate Jews”, as some do, to say “I oppose the following Israeli actions and policies for the following rational and defensible reasons”.
“Now”? That’s the entire purpose for which Jordan was created in the original partition when the Brits pulled out. Ergo, if they don’t take their Arab brothers in, they’ve forfeited the basis of their right to exist as a state.
Really? :dubious: I need a definition of religious law. Or don’t you keep kosher? (not a snark, just asking).
Thank you for this–because I now understand. You have completely misread my statements here. I never used the term “mentally challenged” in any post. I said that if I could see the senselessness of escalating violence, then surely those involved could see it too. I am wrong in that, apparently.
What I am struggling to reconcile in my mind is someone who supposedly holds such open-minded (dare I say liberal) views re the whole Arab people (I suppose you include Persians in there), and them being products of their upbringing etc–you can’t see that the choices made by Israel also stem from your culture and upbringing?
I have no idea where you got the notion that I consider Middle East people cartoonish blockheads who are incapable or sub-human. I think you are conflating posts and I’ve become the poster child for the dissenting to view.
And please don’t tell me that this doesn’t have religious basis. The whole damned reason Israel was put there was because of the ties the Jews had to that land. Or do you discount the efforts of the Zionists? You can’t say with in one breath that Jews deserve a place and then in another say that it’s got nothing to do with being Jewish. I myself have never been able to figure out why so many groups historically villified Jews. (yeah, the whole they killed Jesus nonsense, but that doesn’t explain the Muslim dislike). I don’t understand any religious intolerance, but I’m veering OT.
This conversation is wearing, so for brevity, here it is, my bottom line: I do not approve of Israel’s approach to foreign policy in the region, nor do I approve of the blanket approval by the US of everything Israel does. I do not approve of Palestine’s approach to foreign policy in the region. I do not approve of the US’s treatment of Palestine-hell, I’ll broaden that to say most Middle Eastern nations.
I am more concerned with people than politics. There was some talk about textbooks and what they “teach” kids. I was dismissive of that, and was called out for it. Here is why I was dismissive. Texts can and do say anything. Should they try to be as accurate and as PC as they can? Absolutely. But.
But no amount of texts anywhere is equal to what is learned at home, in the neighborhoods, and in the (insert building of worship here). It is through culture that children are taught values–and how those values are reinforced. We have any number of PC textbooks here–and that is not a bad thing–but prejudice remains entrenched in our society.
Is it as bad as the years prior to Civil Rights? No–but it is surprisingly resilient(sadly enough). So, to my mind, you can have all the books saying whatever you want, until the people-every single person-stops portraying Palestinians as evil pigs (or whatever the insult is) and Israeli’s as miserable dogs of Satan–you aren’t going to get far. The insults don’t even have to be so blatant. It usually is much more subtle–which is harder to spot and harder to stop. So, given that there is such a lack of trust and goodwill between these two factions–textbooks are a pittance. It’s a squirt gun when multiple fire engines are needed.
As for the OP, I think that some of those claims of anti-semitism can be not just wrong, but counterproductive. The more often anti-semitism is claimed, the more often an argument becomes personal and/or critics of Israel, or folks who are anti-Israel will be able to preemptively whine about how their claims will be dismissed out of hand as “anti-semitism”.
Yes, a great deal of the debate is based on ignorance. But the best way to go, IMO, is to fight that ignorance. (And sometimes people for spewing it), but stay focused on the facts.
In addition, Malthus’ points are all excellent.
Oh, and, eleanorigby, you might want to study the actual history of Zionism, which was almost uniformly secular in its ideology and goals. It was, and is, essentially a nationalistic movement. Remember, Jews can be considered a religion and a people, and neither definition is a particularly good one.
Actually, I don’t. I keep several family traditions, but I don’t keep the full set of rules.
However, I meant religious law as in Saudi Arabia, where the Islam is Law.
I accept that I did not understand you.
I, as someone involved, can see the senselessness of escalating violence. However, I’m yet to see a solution. My view (if you’ll excuse the rhetoric) is for Israel to reach an olive branch in the left hand, while holding a massive sword in the right. That’s our only way to survive.
And one more thing. You may have written it in a state of anger, and maybe did not mean it. And maybe I didn’t understand your point. But in post #126 you wrote:
Bolding mine.
Naturally. But I see my culture and upbringing as being the correct one: democratic, pro-freedom, pro-peace, pro-human rights. So, while I disagree with many of the decisions made by my government, I still think that in the overall sum Israel comes on top as compared to our neighbors.
I take your word, and accept the blame for misunderstanding you.
Finn addressed that, I noticed.
That’s, off course, is a fully legitimate approach. I don’t approve of everything Israel does either.
Now, I will not talk about the US foreign policy, as I know next to nil about it except when it comes to Israel.
But, with regards to Israel, if you wish, I’ll happily discuss with you anything you want, as long as we can promise to remain civil to each other.
The textbook subject is a complicated one. I grew up near Tel-Aviv, and now I live in it. It’s considered the most liberal part of Israel. But, FWIW, I can tell you that my surroundings see Palestinians as human beings. Many may bear grudges against them, and some even hate them – but as two human being feel for each other.
Part of it is textbooks. The textbooks, if nothing else, reflect the official position.
The Palestinian textbooks display Jews as sub-human, and Israel as an illegal entity that will be eradicated to make place for the Great Palestine. Starting there and then receiving more extreme views at the Mosques (and probably at home) practically ensures these kids will grow up hating Israel and Jews, so the chance of peace in my kids generation is, unfortunately, very small.
No, there is a third possibility: that we are driven to war by a constellation of special interests, both domestic and foreign, as I outlined in my last post.
And let me be clear: I am not positing some dark conspiracy; rather, it is a convergence of interests. Each interest pursuing its particular goals. All those interests converge to create pressure to go to war. One of those interests is Israel and its supporters. Another is weapons manufacturers. Another is Halliburton. Another is US oil companies. But Israel is certainly one of the parties that benefits from the US going to war against Israel’s enemies in the Middle East.
Did I miss a news cycle? When did Iran even admit that it was pursuing nuclear weapons? When did it announce a goal of using those weapons on Israel?
Oh yeah. It didn’t.
I fully believe Iran is pursuing nukes. I also believe it seeks them not to use offensively, but as a deterrent to an attack by Israel or the US. Iran has been paranoid about a US attack ever since its revolution, much as the Soviets used to be paranoid about a US attack (and much as the US used to be paranoid about a Soviet attack).
I put no stock at all in anti-Israel rhetoric from Iranian politicians. I don’t take seriously fire-eating politicians trying to stir up their base. Particularly when I see that in the first round of Iran’s presidential election 80% of the votes went to candidates who supported better relations with the US.
When we respond in kind to Ahmadinejad’s bellicose rhetoric, we are playing right into his hands. A scared US population supports Republicans. A scared Iranian population supports Ahmadinejad.
Iran would have to be suicidal to use a nuke offensively given the retaliatory capabilities of Israel and the US. I do not believe Iran is suicidal. (Speaking of extraordinary claims…)
I see myself as more of a Jack of hearts. But who knows?
The same guy who is busy telling the world that he isn’t making nukes, and in any event, he won’t use nukes “even on Tel Aviv”:
I think one has to be naive indeed not to see this fellow (and the regime he heads) as a threat.
So, you don’t believe Iranian leaders when they say they want to destroy Israel, while busily making nukes? What proof would convince you they are a threat - short of an actual nuclear attack itself?
These guys are way more nuts than the Soviets.
I hope they keep you in a lead-lined deck - when Iran gets nukes, you may need it.
But this is crazy. Do you take AMERICAN fire-eating politicians trying to stir up their base seriously? Or do you just dismiss them? Like, when Bush tried to whip up anti-Iraq sentiment, don’t you think that might have eventually lead to war with Iraq? Or was all that hot air about how Saddam was a terrorist-loving bad guy with WMD nothing to worry about? Wait, Bush wanted a war with Iraq, and he got himself a war with Iraq. And we’re still fighting.
Leaders pander to their irrational base, but sometimes they have to take irrational actions to placate their irrational base. The US would suffer terribly if we invaded Iran, that doesn’t mean we won’t do it if certain people feel they would benefit from that invasion. Iran would suffer terribly if they bombed Israel or whoever, that doesn’t mean they won’t do it either.
I guess I don’t understand those who have no problem believing that US leaders can be corrupt incompetant lying weasels who drag our country into counterproductive wars, but foreign leaders always act for the good of their country, as they see it. Sometimes foreign leaders are corrupt incompetant lying warmongering weasels too.
Lemur866, the difference is that Bush might have rationally looked at war against Iraq as a winning proposition. He might have truly believed that victory would be quick, and that we would be welcomed as liberators. (That mode of thinking turned out to be horribly wrong-headed, of course). In other words, I don’t believe Bush was 'irrational" or “crazy.” I just believe he was wrong.
No Iranian could rationally believe that a first strike on Israel or the US would result in anything but the utter destruction of their regime. I do not believe the Iranians are “irrational” or “crazy” any more than I believe that of US leaders. I also do not believe they are suicidal.
So no, the prospect of an Iran with nukes does not strike terror into my heart.
And I’ll take my chances without the lead-lined deck, Malthus.
First, that is pretty feeble support for terrorism. Second, I know the Saudis send money to the Palestinians - I’d be surprised if some of it didn’t wind up in this charity. Anyjow, if the widow of a sniper in the US gets social security, would you consider the government as supporting murder?
Iraq was far from Israel’s greatest fear. If they had such power, you’d think Syria or Iran would be higher on the list. In any case, we have documented evidence of the neocon desire to invade Iraq even before Bush took office. Do you have any cites at all that support for Israel was a major (top 5) reason?
Much more to do with the Russians. I can’t conceive that Kissinger’s “realism” based foreign policy would let Israel influence his decisions regarding the more important issue of the Cold War. They might spin it that way for the press and the lobbyists.
Of course they don’t. But consider Syria. If the US invaded Syria, don’t you think the war would spill over into Israel? As bad as things are today, don’t you think they’d be worse for Israel if Syria collapsed into chaos the way Iraq has? Invading Syria or Iran wouldn’t help anyone - except maybe Haliburton.
Quite right, and the point is that we didn’t go to war for Israel.
I realy think those who complain about the influence of the Israel lobby have a hard time understanding why the US naturally supports a Western democracy over a bunch of monarchies and dictatorships. I suspect we’d be even less friendly to them if it wasn’t for the oil.
) she referred to “mentally challenged” people (on both sides) as being responsible for the continuation of the conflict. Maybe I got it wrong, but that’s my impression of her views. And to those views I object.
