| 
Posted Oct 29, 2002 by the autist formerly known as flinch
I got quite a bit of flak recently for for using the phrase "those nations Israel has chosen as it's enemies". I'd like to jstify that sentence for a start.
When Israel declared itself a nation, it did so in breach of the then current UN resolutions on peace in the region. The lines of control between Israel and Palestine set down by the UN, and the proposed rights of Israeli arabs within the new state were unacceptable to both sides it appeared. Both sides being not only the Palestinians (who were essentially 'stateless') but also many of the neigbouring arab states. The Israelis took control of those lands it considered itself entitled to unilaterally, rather than seek further dialogue on the matter, choosing militancy against it's neighbours rather than mediation.
There are those who might suggest that this was direct provokation of those countries who then declaired war with Israel - but to be fair these nations were pushing hard before Israel pushed back. However at this point these nations did not per se object to an Israeli state in any form. Israels decision, to abandon the hope of peaceful relations with its neigbours by turning to military action, had predictble consequences which the state chose were acceptable. The UN's decision to allow Israel to exist in the form it had imposed against its nighbours will was equally a decision which ignored the obvious immediate and long term problems of the region.
This assumption that 'the wrong solution now is better than no decision until the right one can be found' is the locus arround which the problems in the middle east have formed.
Though political tensions between arabs and jews were tense at time religious relations were fairly calm. During ww2 the arab nations were the only occupied countries in which pogroms had proved imposible, because the arab people as a whole refused to take part in the extermination of "a people of the book". The nationalism which unfortunately seems inevitable in times of military action however changed all of that, and religious militancy became the fulcrum of that nationalism.
Arab anti-Israeli feeling has two stems - firstly the origonal feeling that Israel 'attacked' them - in taking Palestinan land within it's authority and by initiating military action (within it's own borders, but against local arab interests); and secondly as part of an ongoing arab/US hostility, in which Israel was a significant pawn. This is not a personal anti-Jewish feeling, but a distinct anti-Israeli/Zionist feeling. The view that i have found throughout the arab world is that the US is somehow controlled by Israel, and US agression is an extentision of Israeli aggression. My own belief is the opposite, that Israeli agression is an extension of US aggression in the middle east. However in the nationalism born of war, oppinion seems to polarise any political and religious pressure against that nation with whom you are at war.
Anti-arab feeling amongst Israeli's seems to be born again partially in the kneejerk oppostion of wartime nationalism. But also seems much more tempered amongst the population as a whole. As a state the Israelis perform ritual oppression of their Palestinian 'guests' and infringe their Arab citizens' rights. This seems to be at the behest of a tiny but influential group of religious fundementalists, who have little support from the mass of the Israeli population, but who have an exaggerated political will and, vitally, are backed by the US.
Israel cannot put it's house in order until it is released from the yoke of the US. Until the religious extremists in Israel are relegated to their rightful place they will continue to provoke disruption. As long as the oppression of the Palestinians continues the nationalist / religious hatered will polarise the situation. No political solution is available while religious and racial divides remain the issue. Until a political solution in reaced the arab nations will retain hostility to Israel. Until the Arab nations cease hostility the Israeli's will not emerge from behind the protective skirts of the US.
Catch 22.
|
 
|  | |
| |
Posted Oct 29, 2002 by Zagreb - go and see "Moon", you won't regret it!
Autist,
First off, I would disagree with your idea that Israel is an extention of US aggression. Israel eventually emerged as a US ally (after siding with the UK and France) but it understands it's position. It knows the US disapproves of many of it's actions (which it does, believe it or not) but that the US is incapable of military action against Israel and will not do anything to upset Israel as it's most important link in the Middle East. This, I believe, is why Powell was given the brush-off by Sharon. The US loses little by giving Israel carte-blanche so it lets it keep happening and hopes things will change one day. It's tempting to believe in an "evil empire" but I think no empire exists. The US has a heck of a lot less "stranglehold" than anyone, including the US, likes to believe.
As for Israel v Arabs. My sympathies erred with Israel until Sharon changed tactics and started deliberately targetting civilians. I still can't sympathise with the Arabs. They refuse to condemn suicide bombing and the murder of Israeli civilians. Israel may have "oppressed" the Arabs, but it didn't try and liquidate them. Arab policy towards Israeli's is exactly that. As far as I know, no Arab state wishes Israel to exist.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 30, 2002 by Batty, ACE - Keeper of the Holy Tail, Pirate, Thingite, Priestess of Bleep, Born Again Tart
Zagreb as one researcher pointed out to me in the wake of the WTC discussions last year there is what happened at Sabra and Shatila. (I hope I spelled that right.) Isreal, and Sharon specifically, was responsible for 'liquidation' tactics in that issue.
I'm not going to discuss my own beliefs in the matter. I am an American and I have friends and loved ones who are dear to me from all countries and beliefs. Well okay, probably not all - that might just be impossible. But of a wide variety anyway.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 30, 2002 by Alex PN
The Palestinian-Israeli disputes are extremely difficult and I suspect past the point of any reconciliation. Events are in a positive feedback spiral.
There have been many entries which are all partially true. Unfortunately, the reasons for these problems are complex, and explanations that does not include at least the issues below are invariably incomplete (and mine may also be not totally inclusive):
1. ethnic differences
a. the Arabs don't like the Jews (not since their founding father was diddled out of his inheritance by the Jews founding father) - nor do most other nations in fact! COme to think of it, the Arabs aren't endearing themselves either - but then I don't think that that would concern an Arab anyway.
b. I suspect that the Palestinian issue will not be settled until the Arabs have excluded/eradicated the Jews, and is not primarily an issue of 'our homeland'
c. the ethnic patterns of comunication are likely to be counterproductive. Arabs are not known for their truthfulness. Jews are not noted for their cooperation with outsiders (look at the trouble the Romans had).
2. religious differences
a. they are offspring of the same father Abraham, Judaism v Islam
b. their religious differences are held firmly and are not compatible with any reconciliation
3. prophetic future
a. David Ben Gurion used Ezekiel as the mandate for re-establishing of the Israeli state)
b. biblical prophesy actually predicts that Israel will become much larger - yes, there is more to come.
4. historical facts
a. the Palestinians were not pushed out by Jews - they left on the advice of surrounding Arab nations, pending the great Arab onslaught that was going to push the Jews out of the land. Unfortunately it wasn't successful, leaving the palestinians outside - now whose fault is that? I have been led to believe that there is evidence to show that Jews actually asked the locals to stay (I have no proof).
b. a race such as the Jews, who had no home, were subject to systematic genocide. Is it any wonder that some thought that the Jews had earned a place of refuge and self-protection? When a homeless people are given a home, accommodation is required. I think that it is true to say that the neighbours weren't very accommodating
b. the Palestinians were there before the Israelis BUT .... the Jews were there before the Palestinians BUT .... the Philistines were there before the Jews BUT ... Abraham's God gave the land to Abraham's descendents (it is impossible to divorce the historical and religious from this).
c. conquering nations don't give things back - that's why Egypt, Syria, etc have gone to war against Israel. The Israelis have taken property to which they can justify rights (whether you like their justification or not) and continue to hold it. Pragmatically they have the power to settle and administer the areas, in the same way that the Arab nations have the power to attack (6 Day War, etc).
d. there was no nation of Palestine. While the area was occupied, it was no adminstrative or national identity or boundaries for the area.
e. if you bomb/shoot/kill my people in a seemingly indiscriminant pattern, I am likely to take up the same tactic against you. When will I stop? When I feel that I have paid you back for your worng-doing against me.
5. achievements
a. the Palestine area under the Arabs was an unproductive desert like much of the arab world
b. Israel under the Jews is productive land (will the Arabs pay compensation?), and while this may take money (US?), the Arabs have plenty with their oil reserves but no comparable development.
6. alliances
a. Israel stands alone and falls alone. I can recall no instance where any one has fought along side Israeli troups in an Israeli war, but am prepared to be corrected.
b. allies provide assistance, not orders.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 30, 2002 by combattant pour liberte
I have my sympathies mainly on the Palestinian side, but I'm strongly against suicide bombings and any other tactics that target civillians (which, aside from obviously being the war crime of murder, actions targeting civillians also harm the Palestinian's cause - at least in the West) - which are also used by the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which are part of the Fatah faction of the PLO (which is supposed to have renounced terrorism). Of course, the Palestinians are not the only ones who target civillians.
I am also against groups, like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, who want to dismantle the whole state of Israel, rather than create a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza - Israel's here now and it's not practical or right to change it.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 30, 2002 by mariah_arron
As a Jewish person and a member of a family that lives in Izrael...where my oung cousin was seriously injured during a suicide attack I cannot feel any sympathy for Palestine.
I realise that I am biased, and I have grown up hearing only bad things about Palestine I have to put my four cents into this discussion from my point of view. Sorry to offend anyone in advance.
It was Britain and America that decided that the only place for the Jews to go was "Palestine" in other words it was not the Jews choice, but it seemed best there because it had once been the Jewish holy land and would be more suitable for us. It is the USAs and Britains fault...and it seems the Jews and Palestine are now the ones left to sort it out. What gets me is that the Palestine are not happy with whatever we try to do...we try and get a peace contract...we move out make more room for them...and they continue to bombard us with these murder campagnes so we have to hit back...if we let them walk all over us then we would look like we were tolerating their terriosm.
Im talking about now...not the past or who belonged where...in my eyes Izrael is jewish land...we were there way before the palestines but we were later kicked out...after the war we were placed there...because it was our land. I admit..it must be horrible for the older palestians who lost their land...but the people who plan these sucide attempts are young youths who know nothing about the ancient laws and only care about creating a war.
Why do the Izraelians get so muh flack for fighting for what is theres? How would the palestians like it if we attatched nail bombs to us and kill the innocent? The only reason we go in an bomb, gun down these people is because they are part of terrist organisations....however the palestians just come into our land and kill innocent people on purpose.
Not until the palestians realise that they can never have the whole of Izrail to their selfs can an pace plan be settled. They want all of it...and they cant have it...atleast the Izrailians are willing to share.
mariah
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 30, 2002 by the autist formerly known as flinch
Zagreb:
<<I would disagree with your idea that Israel is an extention of US aggression.>>
What i was trying to say was twofold -
Firstly that the arab states have been greatly wronged by the US, and that the arabs tend to blame Israel for this, as they see America as carrying out Israels wishes (because of course America is run by the jews), where in fact the US is following its own agenda in it's relations with the Middle East based upon preventing the spread of Communism and Democratic Socialism in the region, and the supply and control of oil and gas. This US agenda is invisible to most arabs and most arab nations, who can only see two jewish nations acting as one against Islam.
Secondly Israel has been as much a pawn of the US in their pursuance of this agenda. Part of the reason that the US backed the religious right in Israel was the fear that Israel would be a communo-socialist county. And the US has never been coy about encouraging Israel to do it's dirty deeds, but the relationship is somewhat one sided, and the US has worked against Israel in the region when it has suited them, something of a fairweather ally.
I don't entirely understand your reference
<<Israel eventually emerged as a US ally (after siding with the UK and France)>>
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 30, 2002 by Zagreb - go and see "Moon", you won't regret it!
<<Israel eventually emerged as a US ally (after siding with the UK and France)>>
I was talking about the 1956 Suez crisis, when the UK and France joined Israel in a secret alliance against Egypt. The US was furious and punished Britain and France (still relatively weak from WWII) for their interfering. At the time I think the US was trying to woo Egypt as a friend in the region (I think the Soviets attempted to woo Israel for a time, too). Eventually, the US befriended the Israelis and it has been an alliance of Israel getting involved in scraps and the US biting it's nails from the sidelines and trying to poke it's oar in whenever possible.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 30, 2002 by the autist formerly known as flinch
Right. Yeah, i think that analasys is pretty much right, though the US's desire to beat the soviets to both countries seems to have been their main drive.
Mariah, it's an interesting post with lots of obviously very emotional points in it which i'd like to discuss, but while we're clearing up historical points, you said:
>>It was Britain and America that decided that the only place for the Jews to go was "Palestine" in other words it was not the Jews choice, but it seemed best there because it had once been the Jewish holy land and would be more suitable for us.<<
My understanding is that it was the Zionist movement that promoted a return to Palestine and initiated colonisation and the political movement for sovereignty rights under Theo Hertzl in the 19th century. The Balfour Declaration seemed to me to be little more than a statement that the British didn't object to their plans. By the time the UK got round to encouraging imigration in 1923 most of the organisations which now run Israel were already formed!
>>It is the USAs and Britains fault...and it seems the Jews and Palestine are now the ones left to sort it out.<<
I do agree here that the UK should have been bound by the declarations intent that "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may predjudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-jewish communities". That Britian failed to balance it's promises to both sides, or deliver any kind of equity in the mandate leave the blame fairly squarely with them i think.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 31, 2002 by Zagreb - go and see "Moon", you won't regret it!
"I do agree here that the UK should have been bound by the declarations intent that "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may predjudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-jewish communities". That Britian failed to balance it's promises to both sides, or deliver any kind of equity in the mandate leave the blame fairly squarely with them i think."
We were in a tough situation, we were bankrupt by WWII and had little means of policing the more rowdy parts of our Empire. The Jews were kicking up real trouble against us in Palestine and I think we just pulled out and washed our hands of the situation, not because we were being immoral, but because there was little we could do. 
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 31, 2002 by the autist formerly known as flinch
Yeah, but i don't think you can blame WWII - we were happy to let Irgun do all manner of terrorism to non-British targets before that, and once we realised post-holocaust immigration was going to be real hell for the Palestinians we weren't prepared to counter terrorism from the religious right at all (sorry i can't remember the other right wing terrorist group which formed Herut with Irgun - but i put the blame firmly on Herut and it's antecedents anyhow).
>>we just pulled out and washed our hands of the situation<<
Yeah. like we did in India.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Dec 7, 2002 by combattant pour liberte
I offer my sympathies that your cousin was killed and condemn the suicide attack that killed him, as well as all attacks on civilians. I hope that someday there will be a just peace in the Middle East for all sides.
|
| | |
| |
| |
Key |  |  |
A: An older reply to the parent Posting
B: The parent Posting, to which this is a reply
C: A newer reply to the parent posting
D: The first reply to this Posting
| | |
Click on this icon to make a complaint about a specific Posting | |
|
Home
Reply
