What do YOU think is the basis for their hatred of Israel? Certainly these countries were not less hospitable to Jews than most European countries up until the creation of the state of Israel. And while Europe’s anti-semitism is still pretty bad, its better than it was a century ago, the anti-semitism in the arab community seems to have accelerated considerably since about 1948 or so.
I’m not saying that correlation implies causation but the fact radicalism in the middle east seems to start with the Palestinian conflict and expand outwards from tehre gives you reason to at least investigate whether there is some causation there.
This doesn’t mean that an equitable solution to the Palestinian conflict will put the geni back in the bottle but continuing the current attitude and approach is likely to accelerate radicalism and undermine attempts by more moderate elements to reverse this radicalism.
I’m assuming nothing of the sort. The statement was that the jews had bought the land and i am showing that they owned a tiny pittance of the land outside of some areas in the north and along the Mediteranean.
I would also like to point out that all that “government owned land” was owned by Palestinian communities. Fee simple is not the only form of property right. If I have the right to occupy land, farm that land (or graze my goats there) and I can pass down that right to my heirs, then I have a property interest in that land despite the fact that the land registers record the land as owned by the government subject to my rights to occupy.
When was the last time Jordan or Yemen has said anything of the sort?
Which in turn would mean the utter destruction of Israel. Good luck with that attitude.
Well, I hope the shoe is never on the other foot because for all the equity that Israel has shown, I don’t know how much it can expect in return.
No, its not useless to have normalized relations with every member of the arab league (other than Lebanon). Israel has other borders you know. The sympathy for Israel among diplomats has considerably evaporated since Israel has rejected the [flashy blinky lights] ArAb PeAcE InItIaTiVe [/flashy blinky lights]
Your position seems to be: Until we can get a guarantee fof peace from Hamas and hezbollah, we do not want think peace with anyone else has any value.
I don’t know how to tell you this but there are elements of the Lebanese and palestinian population that will never ever be at peace with Israel and their numbers grow with every generation that Israel digs in its heels.
Entirely dismissing the arab peace initiative with no explanation other than “well get back to me when Hamas and hezbollah have signed on” certainly doesn’t make you seem like you are (how did you put it?) “acting like an adult”
Do you think other Muslim nations will jump to the defense of Iran after Iran attacks Israel? I’m pretty sure they have a better sense of self-preservation than that.
I’m sure Israel is used to it.
Well, let those surrounding nations repudiate and condemn the actions of Hamas and Hezbollah. Then Israel can establish peaceful, mutually profitable relations with these nations. and H&H can go fuck themselves.
Note that, prior to the arrival of 1,000,000 Russian Jews following the fall of the Soviet Union, more like 70% were of middle-eastern origin:
Compared with:
It’s only a wiki article, but the facts are not controversial.
I don’t understand. Israel needs no “justification”, any more than any other country does. Does anyone ask whether Jordan is “justified”? It is what it is.
The facts are that, until quite recently, the majority of the population of Israel was descended from Jews who had always been in the Middle East. Even today, that is 50% or so.
The perception that Israel is made up solely of a buncha Europeans who moved in and kicked out the locals is simply factually false. Not that debunking this is necessary for justification, mind. It is simply a false perception.
In reality, European Zionists made up the catalyst for a more complex reaction. There were always Jews living in Israel, as there were throughout the ME. Jewish nationalists attempted to set up a “national homeland” for Jews under Ottoman ageis. This was part-and-parcel of a general stirring of ethno-nationalism throughout the ME and beyond - one profoundly distasteful to Ottomans, who saw the potential for ethno-nationalism to tear their multinational empire apart … which, encouraged by the Brits and others during WW1, it duly did.
Not least to be afflicted with ethno-nationalism were the Turks themselves, who soon enough contracted to a “nation” - Turkey.
The Brits were soon enough sorry and sore about that, since it worked the same magic eventually in its own multi-national empire - hence, India and Pakistan.
Everywhere that ethno-nationalism ‘happened’, you got the same thing - population transfers. Be it Greeks and Turks, or be it Pakistanis and Indians, everywhere you got ethno-nationalist borders, some folks fell on the wrong side of them. In some places, like India/Pakistan, these were conducted with ferocity and massacre; in others, like Israel/Arabs, not so much; more the fear of ferocity and massacre.
In some places, the ethno-nationalities were evenly balanced and a modus vivendi was attempted - such as Lebanon. Only, it did not work out so well for them.
Point being, the Israeli situation is by no means exceptional; the only unusual element is that the ethno-nationalism was, if you like, introduced from outside.
As stated above, ethno-nationalism. This developed in ME countries at the same time as it developed in Israel - but that is because they were both part of a larger pattern: the development of ethno-nationalism generally among folks who had previously not experienced it. The same thing - ethno-nationalism - happened in, for example, India, at much the same time: correlation is, in this case, not causation.
The development of Islamic radicalism. This too is not “caused” by Israel; it is a development internal to Islamic nations.
Both Arab ethno-nationalists and radical Islamicists have one thing in common (though often they hate each other like poision): they both find in Israel, as both a secular and religious “other”, the perfect folk devil.
Thus, no amount of appeasement on the part of Israel is going to make the slightest difference (though as I said, various measures may be good to take for their own sakes).
Again, there is nothing to investigate. Arab nationalism doesn’t “start” with Israel - both Zionism and Arab nationalism are simply two faces to the same ethno-nationalist coin, if you will. Islamic radicalism predates Israel by a considerable margin in its influences and post-dates Israel in its current manifestation.
I suspect that the currents of radicalism are very little affected by concessions (or lack of concessions) made by Israel. The reason Israel is interesting to radicals is because it acts as a folk devil.
As with any folk devil, it really does not matter whether the target makes concessions; if they do so, it is because they are afraid of your rigteous wrath, which increases your reason to be radical.
Are you claiming that the Ayatollah was a product of the Palestinian conflict?