ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
As far as my exposure to the events surrounding Israel, yes I do have access to European TV and newspapers on a daily basis. So, I will stick to my claim that our media is not objective when it comes to this subject matter because I do witness the difference in the approach or lack thereof.
A few decades ago, it was in Europe that the fight started for Jews to have their homeland, possibly fueled by guilt as well as the righteousness, the moral superiority of the cause.
America followed suit, afterwards.
Now, the Europeans are exposed on a daily basis to the atrocities and the loss of that very same moral superiority and again we are following suit in that it is no longer taboo to bring it up; even though one will surely and unfairly be called an anti-semite by some, for even discussing Israel doing wrong.
I do not buy into anyone having the right to commit atrocities because they may be paranoid. Leading by example, tolerance and willingness to achieve peace will in the long run prove much more effective than guns, and that goes for both sides.
I have provided a few links that will hopefully shed some light as well as offering an alternate point of view than what we are accustomed to.
Again, I feel I should point out that I am fully supportive of Israelâ€™s right to exist as a sovereign nation and condemn any and all terrorist activity that targets her citizens.
Where I differ from most here is that my condemnation includes that of the Israeli soldiers who fire upon women and children as well as the idiots that blow themselves up to pay them back.
Not all camps are outside of Israel.
I donâ€™t know if you have ever been there, but the difference in the day to day life of a Jew and an Arab is comparable to what we see in movies about the second world war times that Jews (rightfully so) will never let the world forget. That is why it is so hard for me to comprehend as to why Jews of all people would be the perpetrators, in this instance. If there is one people in the world that should not, it is the Jews.
You are correct in that Palestinians had to leave their homes because they would have been right smack in the middle of the battle fields, had they stayed.
They were misled and exploited by their Arab brothers in neighboring countries, no question there either. But why would they not be allowed to return to their homes?
What Arab country today does not recognize Israel?
As far as the peace process is concerned, we were so close just a few years ago.
Clinton had made huge progress, the only one before him who had made similarly significant progress in this matter was Carter, under whom the Egypt Israel war ended and peace had begun.
Here is my favorite article (analysis) in regards to the current situation in Israel.
It is only when we dismiss the notion of hatred between cultures and deal with an even hand that we will see progress in the region and peace in that region will go a long, long, long way in our image amongst Muslims.
I certainly hope that you are correct in your opinion of extremism being on the decline amongst Muslims, and expand upon it my wish of extremism and fundamentalism being on the decline for all religions. It is only when we all come together and join hands that we will achieve what was meant for us, what we were promised by the very same God that is in all three great religions.
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
"I do not buy into anyone having the right to commit atrocities because they may be paranoid. Leading by example, tolerance and willingness to achieve peace will in the long run prove much more effective than guns, and that goes for both sides." -- Turk.
I agree with you Turk, but paranoia is not the same as genocide. In this case, genocide is the cause of the paranoia. I don't forgive atrocities, no matter who commits them, but understanding the underlying cause is useful.
I also agree that tolerance and willingness to achieve peace is more effective than guns. If you are as well informed as you say, you know that this has been and continues to be a subject of great public debate in Israel. I wish the debate were as visible in the Arab world, especially among Palestinians. However, the Palestinian people have just elected a government in favor of exterminating Israel rather than one committed to making peace.
"...it is so hard for me to comprehend as to why Jews of all people would be the perpetrators, in this instance. If there is one people in the world that should not, it is the Jews." I agree with that statement, and so do most Jews. However, there is a compelling answer to it, in two words: never again.
In Europe, in fact throughout history, the Jews have been anything but aggressive and warlike. That passivity got six million of them dead. So it doesn't seem so surprising that they are inclined not to be passive again.
"Where I differ from most here is that my condemnation includes that of the Israeli soldiers who fire upon women and children as well as the idiots that blow themselves up to pay them back." - Turk
Where we differ here, Turk, is that I believe the initial violence came from the Palestinians. In recent years, it began with the Infidada. I also believe that Israeli soldiers do not purposely target civilians, although mistakes and "collateral damage" are inevitable in any war. However, for Palestinian terrorists, Israelis eating in a pizza joint, or celebrating at a wedding reception or going to school on a bus are not collateral damage. They are the target.
At this point, though, it does not matter who started what and when, or whose land was taken from whom. What anybody did in the past is not relevant. Placing blame does not solve problems. The only question worth answering is "What do we do NOW?"
This is a question both Palestinians and Israelis must answer, and the right answer will mean victory for no one. It will mean hard decisions for the Israelis--the abandonment of most of the West Bank settlements, for instance, and hard decisions for the Palestinians--the genuine acceptance of Israel's right to exist, for example.
To answer your question: Yes, I have visited Israel. I've seen the places I'm talking about. In fact, I have quite a few relatives there, most of whom--like the majority of Israelis--are very much in favor of a Palestinian state. Their wishes are simple: they want to live their lives without fear. I don't think that's an unreasonable hope.
By the way, Israel is NOT one of my major life interests. To be truthful, I spend much more time thinking about the Patriots.
Not only do you live in my favorite state but also it was a pleasure having this discussion with you.
I think we agree on most if not all points in that all we want is peace and your point in the making of the hard decisions by both sides is precise and fair.
By the way, what did you think of Andy Martin's view that Hammas' election should/could be viewed as an (new) opportunity?
The Hamas' election victory is a tremendous opportunity, in my opinion. Once they become truly involved in governing their people, once they feel they have something to protect and something to lose, they will come to the conclusion that peace is the best solution. From what I read, that's happening now. And when they conclude that nation building is more important than fighting for unachievable goals, the anti-Israeli feelings in the rest of the world will fade away as well.
If Fatah had been elected, Hamas could have continued to promote its extremist views. The Palestinian would always be divided. But with Hamas in power, I think the chances are good that over the next few years, vocal majorities in both countries will be sueing for peace and expecting their governments to provide it.
I'll look through the rest of your information bit by bit, but one glaring error presented itself on the face of your argument, one that's perhaps indicative of a somewhat rosier outlook on this problem than I hold. Egypt is the only Arab nation that recognizes Israel. I believe there's a sort of de facto recognition on the part of Jordan, and some informal ties with countries like Morocco.
You ask which Arab nations do not recognize Israel. I'll provide a partial list:
United Arab Emirates
I challenge you to find one among these Muslim nations which are not Arab, which recognize Israel (there may actually be one or two, but I do not think so.) I've left off the former Soviet republics of Central Asia and a number of sub-saharan nations, because I'm not at all sure of their stances on recognition. I think you'll find most or all of this list to be against recognition:
Bosnia and Herzogovenia
I think all told I'm short about 15 countries, all of Muslim or Arab makeup.
The recognition issue is at the heart of the conflict for Israelis. It's not just a diplomatic nicety, especially in this conflict. Repeated calls for the extermination of Israel, and sometimes of all Jews particularly during Israel's War of Independence, do not sit well with a population in large part composed of Holocaust survivors and their progeny. To miss this point strikes me as a smidgen beneath the level of objectivity you claim in your approach to the conflict.
As to Israel being a "colonial creation," I find that a difficult characterization to swallow, given that she fought for her own independence, was comprised of a majority Jewish population within her borders, and has behaved as an independent state since independence. If you mean that the Ottoman Empire should have continued to run Palestine from Istanbul, I think you quarrel might be with the Turks for losing World War I. All Britain did in favor of Israel was to "Look with favor upon a Jewish homeland in Palestine," and the Jews of Palestine bought the land they settled on. They were to be part of a majority Jewish state in '48, which became larger than the UN plan, because invading Arab armies lost the bloody war. The UN called for "mutually indefensible borders." It had become clear that Israel's borders needed to be defensible.
We're pretty much in agreement, and I know how hard it is to get everything into one big history-based post. But I have to split a couple of hairs with you:
1) The U.S. played no meaningful role in Israel's War of Independence, so it's hard to see us as Israel's midwife. No American or European troops intervened on Israel's behalf, and Israel began the war with only black market and homemade weapons and ammunition. During the war, not before, the Israelis were able to buy Czech weapons. The Arab League began the war assuming an easy victory for this reason. They had more men under arms, more and better weaponry, and an assurance of non-intervention on Britain's part. Britain maintained an arms blockade to the Palestine mandate prior to the war -- but this meant nothing in terms of the armaments of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, or Syria. It only meant the Jewish community in Palestine -- the Yishuv -- could not arm themselves.
2) Irgun was indeed a terrorist organization, full stop. The same is true of the Stern Gang. They were, however, not the foremost components of what became the Israel Defense Forces. That would be Haganah, a Jewish organization that, like Irgun, was formed to protect the Jewish community in Palestine from the periodic pogroms that lasted from the 20s up until independence. Haganah and Palmat became the core of the IDF, and upon independence they actually risked civil war by disarming the terrorist factions.
3) The notion that Israel was established out of guilt or pity - no matter whether one's humanity demands that response - is faulty. The moment in history was certainly right, but the great powers stood back and watched the war, after the Brits washed their hands of the mandate and put it in the U.N.'s hands. I do not think Slovakia is independent of the Czech republic out of "pity," and I do not think Israel came about that way either. She fought a street-to-street war, lost 1% of her population (for modern America, the equivalent of 3 million people,) and faced down invading Arab nations that promised (once again) Jewish genocide.
It's not surprising to me that Europe is "shocked" at Israeli "atrocities," given that European Jewry was nearly destroyed by some of these commentators' fathers and grandfathers. I, too, would want to be free of that feeling of guilt, and if Israel is demonized, I would be halfway there. But guilt didn't create Israel, and Israel won't be destroyed for that emotion either.
Finally, on the subject of anti-semitism - for Turk again -
To say that Jews of all people should be sensitive to persecution is a subtle and no doubt unintended form of anti-semitism, even an admiring form. But think of what you're saying: That Jews alone, of all peoples, should be held to a higher standard, and damned for slighter abuses.
To be objective, we cannot judge Israel by a higher standard because she is inhabited by Jews. Israel does, however, hold herself to a higher standard for that reason. If you doubt this, compare the number of noncombatant deaths Israel has inflicted since '48, in the midst of a life-and-death struggle, to those inflicted by our own nation in Iraq in the last three years. Estimates will no doubt be varied; but in every case, I believe you will find the Iraqi numbers to be at least an order of magnitude greater.
I've already taken a long time on this post, so I'll have to get back to this later. We had flooding, and one of our cars is under three feet of standing water. It's an old beater, so the only solution is really to go out and (gulp) replace the damn thing. The she-PFnV has been very patient as I attend to this less urgent, but no less important, subject.
PFnV--obviously we're on the same page here, even with two of the three points you bring up (I'd covered them, but you can only post 10000 characters on this board and I had to cut them).
I do think that guilt was a factor in Israel's founding, especially in the UN vote that partitioned the land. But you're absolutely right, no nation, including us, came to Israel's assistance during the War of Independence.
I also want to salute you for coming up with the Arab/Muslim states that don't recognize Israel. I was too lazy to do it. Did you say you'd worked in journalism for awhile? Me too.
Some valid points in your well written post.
I was mistaken in that I was under the impression that only a handful Arab States were still refusing to recognize Israel, now I know better.
However badly worded though, my point was in regards to Israel's neighbors as far as recognition, and by the way Jordan does have full diplomatic relations with Israel, but your point is also well taken in that many of our so called allies are still refusing to recognize her. I believe that the current Palestinian issue is at the heart of this matter and once resolved, many more will follow suit.
As to Israel being a colonial creation, that was not a point made by me but since you have brought it up, yes it was by the Ottoman Sultan's consent and upon his "fetva" that the move began to what is now Israel, just like when the Spaniards were committing the earlier genocide upon Jews during the Enquisition days in Spain, Turks extended a hand.
Hence the centuries old partnership and close ties between Israel and Turkey. We are not in disagreement in regards to the history and righteous existence of the State of Israel.
All the English did was get the hell out of Dodge and leave the mess in someone else's hands, just as they had done for the umpteenth time all over the world.
As far as Israel having to defend herself, you are absolutely right. Just as any other sovereign nation, Israel also has the right to defend herself and she has done just that, valiantly, against all odds.
When it comes to what you may and did view as an anti-semitic comment, I disagree. Jews have suffered like no other. Their suffering and endurance has been longer than any other as well. If we agree on those facts, then we should also agree that they would know what suffering is, more than any other people. That's all I stated, and there is nothing anti-semitic about that.
I never claimed that Jews alone, of all peoples, should be held to a higher standard, and damned for slighter abuses. That is entirely different than what I said.
Anyhow, this has gone on for long enough.
I believe that the bottom line is all of us wanting a peaceful solution to this coflict and wanting to see it in our lifetime.
Turk, you're right, in that I jumped to an implication from a general mindset, and a mindset that's easily enough arrived at. I guess my point of view is that this is something outside the realpolitic we expect nations to live by. We can't give anybody a pass for paranoia, but at the same time we can't expect a nation to act unlike other nations simply because individuals in those nations could sympathize with the refugee's plight.
But again, you didn't make that claim, it's just an extension of a viewpoint you held. Even though I did use the phrase "subtle and unintentional," probably the charge of "antisemitism" in this context is going too far. It just points toward a double standard.
I do agree with you guys that we would probably all be happy as that most unkosher of animals in that most unclean medium (i.e., pigs in ****,) were there an independent Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace. Please don't read my enthusiasm on my point of view as vitriol - even if it came off that way.