It goes to show you how volatile this issue is when an OP that is obviously trolling actually succeeds and no one notices.
Rock throwing and the death penalty??? Come on people.
And on a side note, I have vehemently diagreed with cmkeller on several occasions, but he is absolutely correct.
Both sides were firing at each other. Say whatever you want about the Israeli armed forces, they are highly trained and given the choice to shoot at an unarmed boy and man or a group of men with guns firing at them what do you think they would choose?
In spite of my feelings that this is a trolling thread, I do feel obligated to comment that I think that sailor’s quote “No sooner do they get the land when they start the violence all over again.” is quite a simplistic way of viewing things.
As I have siad dozens of times, both sides have a measure of culpability in these issues.
Nobody will flame you Edwino especially as you have been concise, articulate and polite.
I disagree, however, with much of what you say.
Let’s begin…
“This I believe has been their attitude since 1948, when many of the people who would become the refugees left their homes voluntarily because the invading Arab armies told them that they would make short work of Israel.”
This is an incomplete statement. Many of the Palestinians who left were forced out by an advancing Israeli army.
“The Jews, in my opinion, have mostly been on the side of peace, from the beginning.”
This too, I believe, is quite broad. I would have agreed if you had said that “The Jews…on the side of SELF PRESERVATION…” The Stern Gang and Irgun are two rather intriguin examples of this.
I also disagree with this statement because of the stance that the state of Israel takes on the settler issue. While they have taken action against the more radical groups, they continue to treat the majority of settlers with disgression at the expense of the peace process.
Actually I don’t think it was a successful example of trolling. If it were we’d be in the Pit by now.
This discussion certainly has some strong opinions at its base, some of which I strongly disagree, but on the whole it’s been relatively flame- and aggression free. Pretty decent, at least as far as I see it.
I agree that my statement was incomplete, but true at the core. I think that there was a lot of urging and persuasion for them to leave by people leading the Arab world, such as the Mufti (sp?) of Jerusalem. IIRC, the land gains in the 1948 War of Independence were modest or nonexistant. I’ll agree with you more about the refugees in 1967. I’ll just point out that they were treated perhaps far worse in the refugee camps in Jordan than they were in Israeli occupied territory.
I should have been more clear. Irgun and Stern Gang were before 1948, which is what I use as “beginning”. Besides a few regrettable incidences, I think that Israel has pursued a course of action not far removed from any democratic state faced with daily threats of extinction. I agree that neither side is sinless, but by and large the Israeli populace is less likely to resort to terror attacks against schoolchildren to get their way.
I have mixed feelings about the settlers. While I am not a particularly observant Jew, I still feel that it is a defendable human right for Jews to be allowed access to all of their holy sites, even if it is in “disputed territory.” Just like Israel has never restricted access to Muslim holy sites for Arabs. This doesn’t mean I side with every settlement on every hilltop in the West Bank. This means that I believe, given 1948-1967 and the treatment of Jews in most Arab countries throughout the 20th century, that the only way to guarantee access to these sites is to put the Jews who actually care about the sites at the sites.
The problem is that I also feel that I am a “realist” when it comes to Israeli politics. I want a left-wing government who is willing to make peace. In order for such a government to have a mandate, they need to make coalitions. In modern Israel, these governments are centered around Labor but usually depend on an assortment of religious parties to prevent votes of no confidence. So, I want a peace making government. The only way I see that one can exist is with some support from the settlers. So, while against most settlements in theory, I can see why the Israeli government backs most of them in practice.
Me: Let’s start waaaay over here: If the colonies had lost the Revolutionary War, would we be British today?
You: No, they wouldn’t. What’s the connection?
I think you’re wrong. If the colonies had lost the Revolutionary War, Britain would have maintained control in the New World, and I would be British, not American.
Of course, that is a silly assertion, as meaningless as it is speculative, and I only use it to raise a single point: Israel is a hot offering… lots of people have wanted it for a long time. In 1948, the Zionist fought for it and won. Since then, lots of people have tried to conquer them. To date, no one has.
Period.
It’s really that simple. The Palastinians have begun a Revolutionary War for Independence. It is a war that they have not, to date, been able to win. If they win, they get their own Nation. If they lose, they become Israeli Arabs, just like the Israeli’s wanted them to be loooong ago.
That is the connection. The problem now is that they don’t know that they can’t win.
Grendel said: I think that sailor’s quote “No sooner do they get the land when they start the violence all over again.” is quite a simplistic way of viewing things
Yes, it was meant that way. I cannot summarize such a complex problem in a short sentence.
cmkeller and edwino have done a better job than I can.
I am not saying this is black or white but in general the israelis have been above the palestinians in every sense. They have about the only democracy in that part of the world and are much more cpable of respecting their treaties. The palestinians are quite disorganized, signing agreements with them is poitless and they cannot even get organized in the parts they already control. I saw some news that palestinian police were thugs preying on their own people.
I know this issue has two sides but, IMHO, the Israelis have somewhat more respectability in this.
Okay; there was no revolution in Canada, but it’s no longer British. There was no revolution in Australia, but it’s no longer British. What colonies does Britain have left that aren’t miniscule, dinky islands like the Falklands?
This is all true, I guess, but your disagreement was with this statement I made:
I fail to see how I’m wrong. This problem is going to go on for decades and decades, mark my words. And yes, I think they’re both responsible for the mess.
Your assessment of the situation sums it up very nicely. More than one group wants essentially exclusive ownership of the same land. Unless one or both sides will concede land, it’s irresolvable.
I know this sounds like a simplistic approach, but the entire situation is such a mess I don’t have the energy to comment on the details. I spent years trying to explain the Bosnia situation to people (I was an intelligence analyst) and after awhile it just boiled down to “these people want it all for themselves and those people want it all for themselves and it won’t end until one wins or we kill them all ourselves.” It was a depressing subject to be an expert on.
Hardly surprising, considering that the U.S. pours more military and economic aid into Israel than any other of its allies around the world. Without that kind of backup they wouldn’t have lasted this long.
From edwino:
In my experience, I find that ‘realism’ is a thin veneer for cynicism. ‘The Zionists have a firm hold over Palestine, there’s no chance the Palestinian Arabs will ever change the situation, so let’s just try and hope that the Zionists can be convinced to be nicer. Let’s just try to make the best out of the situation we have instead of trying to change it if it’s not good to begin with.’
It’s not going to happen. The Zionists are an invasion force that conquered a native population, and bloodily so. This kind of situation naturally creates resistance and it’s no surprise that they’re ‘faced with the threat of extinction’, as you put it.
The Zionists wanted a homeland because they argued that it was not possible for Jews to exist harmoniously alongside the rest of the world. The horrors of the Holocaust lent credence to their argument, but sixty years on it’s pretty clear that Jews, Christians, Muslims, and everyone can live together without serious conflict. The logic underlying Israel’s existence is seriously flawed, and I cannot hold the Israelis either blameless or above the Palestinians.
Unfortunately, while cherry-picking my quotes, you don’t mention having visited the link I provided. On the other hand, I can’t entirely blame you for that, because when I tried the link just now, it didn’t work, so maybe you just didn’t see it fit to mention getting another good ol’ 404 error. Obviously Newsday’s archive doesn’t use a static naming scheme. I’ve re-hunted down the article, and am providing more quotes to address the new points you mention, rather than merely addressing your denial that the child was accidentally killed in the middle of a gunbattle between other parties, which had been the point of that previous post of mine.
He was caught in the crossfire. I mentioned the stone-throwing because you insisted, in your pro-Palestinian way, on insisting on the child as “innocent.” While his death might have been an accident, he was hardly innocent prior to that. Here’s the relevant quote from that Newsday article (in the issue dated 10/4/2000, since obviously my attempt at a link didn’t work):
End Newday quote. Back to your message:
This is what I meant when I said:
Since my intent was obviously not clear to you then, I’ll restate it more simply: If the person who fired the fatal shot into the kid had not been aiming for him, it was an accident, and not “tolerated behavior.”
No, but it is what I call decrying Israel for Dir Yassein while ignoring such Arab-perpetrated anti-Palestinian violence such as King Hussein’s (eulogized as a great peacemaker!) “Black September” massacre in 1970 and others. It is what I call calling the Palestinian stone-throwing following a non-violent visit by an Israeli politician (and an opposition politician, at that, who is clearly working against his own government) “Palestinians’ obstinate refusal to be steamrollered into submission.” While I think that Sharon’s visiting the Haram-al-Sharif compound extremely stupid, because he should have realized it would give rise to violence amongst the extremely touchy Palestinians, I certainly think that a visit that began and ended without the slightest hint of violence does not imply a “steamrolling into submission” that needs to be responded to by stone-throwing.
I meant that the Zionists were certain that anti-Semitism couldn’t be successfully fought and therefore the Jews should close themselves off in their own country where nobody would bother them.
While it’s true that anti-Semitism still exists, it’s possible to fight it successfully. A refuge from anti-Semitism in the form of a homeland for Jews isn’t necessary. The Zionists were wrong.
You mean like they did in Germany in the 30s and 40s?
Obviously, they were not. Modern Zionism started in the late 1800s. By 1930s there was still no homeland for refuge from antisemitism. We know the result of that over the next 15 years. The Zionists were right.
No, to be honest, I didn’t visit the site you’d provided a link to. Then again, I haven’t heard that you viewed the article I linked to, either.
So what? You think that was the first time any of the Israeli soldiers involved in this particular gunfight killed a Palestinian?
…but if the little snotnosed bastard had been throwing rocks at the heroic Israeli soldiers two minutes previously, it justifies blowing his brains out?
Ariel Sharon has a past far more violent and bloody than Mohammed al-Durra’s. I’m hardly surprised the Palestinians felt his visit to be a provocation - “we can go where we want when we want and you can’t stop us”. You can’t gloss over Mohammed’s death by citing his ‘checkered’ past on the one hand and say the Palestinians shouldn’t view Sharon’s visit through the screen of his past on the other. That’s a double standard and quite unacceptable.
I certainly don’t think the “Black September” massacre is any more palatable than the massacre at Dir Yassein. Nor is “Black September” really germane to this discussion.
All nation-states are more or less founded on violence. Israel is a modern nation-state founded on violence against a specific indigenous population and as such begets the violence of that population’s fightback. Israel provoked the intifadeh and is responsible for it.
Edwino…
The land gains made by Israel in the 1948 war were at the very least 5000 square km. It was a relatively large expansion that displaced somewhere near (according to the UN) 850,000-1,000,000 Palestinians. in '67 approximately 300,000 Palestinians were displaced.
As for how they were treated in Jordanian refugee camps , that is quite complicated. Jordan wasn’t necessarily equipped with an influx of 1,000,000 (more than doubling the countries population in the span of a several months) so to utterly blame them is probably not the best approach.
Hussein’s black September was precipitated by the Palestinian terrorist activity in which they would attack Israel and then flee back into Jordan while Jordan would then be subject to Israeli retaliation. Hussein made a choice. He chose to avoid war with Israel. unfortunately it resulted in approximately 3,000 deaths, many of the innocents.
As per Stern Gang and Irgun…They didn’t cease to exist in 1948. Many members of both groups were incorporated into Haganah and sunsequently the IDF. While Haganah has been blamed for incidents like Deir Yassin, it is suspected that the “Haganah forces” present at the massacre were primarily composed of old members of the Stern Gang and Irgun.
On the settler issue I am less educated and will refrain from further commentary unless it is generally applied.
I think it’s unfair to label the Israeli history as “a few regrettably incidents”. Many people on both sides like to assert that “both sides have committed atrocities, but then they claim that the other side has done these things to a much greater extent.”
This,IMHO, is bullhonky and a poor analysis. Where is the justification and proof? Simply saying “I saw some news that the Palestinian police were thugs preying on their own people” isn’t enough in my opinion. And to say “I’m not saying this is black or whit but in general the Israelis have been above the palestinians in every sense.” is, for one thing, a bit paradoxical, but more than that it is this unfounded assertion that is fostered by the perpetual 60 Minutes interviews with the Hamas terorist of the week. In other words, where is your proof?
CMK…I think that you are ignoring some thing’s about Sharon’s visit. Whether or not it began or ended with non violence is tertiary to the issue. This wasn’t a trip in which he was accompanied by a cadre of bodyguards. He had 1000 soldiers with him!!!
If I were a Palestinian, I think that would signal something akin to steamrolling to me
I said it was possible to fight anti-Semitism successfully. I didn’t say that success was guaranteed. The Holocaust had a number of social and political causes, none of which was some sort of ‘inherent’ German anti-Semitism.
That’s because Zionism really didn’t enjoy widespread support from the general Jewish population until after the scope of the Holocaust became clear. Zionism provided an answer that made the most sense at the time, though it was incorrect.
You really think the Jews stood a chance in Germany?
Even if so, all it means is that the Jews were complacent. It’s like someone who doesn’t get renter’s insurance until after he’s been robbed. Sure, it would have been nicer to have it beforehand, but that doesn’t negate the argument of having it now.
Not by themselves, of course not! That’s the whole point of fighting anti-Semitism - it’s not just the job of the Jews, it’s the job of everyone who’s against it in the first place. Besides, if the Germans were that rabidly anti-Semitic by nature, would the Jews have been able to stay in the country for the 700-1000 years that they did beforehand?
Oh, HELL, no! As a matter of fact there were thousands of Jews in the KPD and the SPD in the decades before the rise of Hitler. Let’s not forget the Bund, either. The Jews were anything but complacent.
Do you have any knowledge of the history of the Jewish people in Europe in general (not just Germany) during the middle ages? It’s a miracle that they survived at all.
OK, agreed, they weren’t complacent. Still doesn’t answer the argument I presented.
