Israel, and how no one mentions it

Remove all ads!

The moose not only has training, it also has very sharp and pointy antlers

 

What in the hell would Israel be doing spying on New Zealand? Are they trying to find out if the Hobbits are real or not.

 

Maybe that's what they were doing. Maybe we should have set a few orcs onto them.

 

I honestly have not met any non-Arab American that has expressed support for the Palestinians, and even those condemn groups such as Hamas, Hizbollah, etc. Everyone else either maintains that it is a pointless conflict for which both sides are responsible or that Israel has the moral high ground. Since Jews seem to be in the upper classes (I hope this isn't considered a stereotype; that's just what I see) and be fairly large campaign donors to both political parties, alienating them would be harmful to both parties. Also, turning away from Israel would be almost saying that the U.S. was wrong to support it earlier, something with which Americans would have trouble.

 

Yes, I remember how Bill Clinton spent so much time, energy and put the prestige of his presidency on the line trying to reach an accord, and it was Arafat (not Israel) who walked away from the negotiations at the last moment.

 

You know, I haven't heard anyone bring this up in a while. Perhaps because it seems a little odd in a context where settlers are threatening civil war in Israel over evacuating 7,000 people in Gaza, a territory with little historical significance in Judaism. One wonders whether the "we offered them 95% of what they wanted" was really a substantial offer, if Israel was *really* preparing herself to uproot hundreds of thousands (rather than just thousands) of settlers, and from far more established and historically significant settlements.

Also, Israel is not the only democracy in the middle east; Turkey is also a democracy.

That being said, I think the Israel/Palestine conflict has been used shamelessly as an excuse by a number of middle-eastern countries for their own repressive policies, countries like Syria that have oppressed their own citizens in a way that Israel could never get away with with respect to the Palestinians. I don't think that the middle east would suddenly experience a wave of freedom, democracy, and openness if the Israelis were to finally get their act together and work out a peace deal with the Palestinians. Though of course, it would help...

 

Bion, you bring up some excellent points regarding the use of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by other nearby countries.

However, you got your facts a little mixed up regarding the evacuation of Israeli settlements.

The settlers' threat of physical resistance to evacuation is mostly concerning settlements in the West Bank. Most settlers in the Gaza area came to live there just because they thought they could start a better life there-it was a quiet area,nice beaches,low-cost housing etc. Most of them are not very religious, or not nearly as extreme as some in the West Bank.

Those settlers in the West Bank are now using the (hopeful) up and coming Gaza-evacuation for their political agenda. So why wasn't there threats of resistance bakc in Barak's days? Because it was a left-wing government that did not reach an agreement with the palestinian leader. The offer he was given was most of what he demanded. That's not to say the agreement itself was mostly completed, far from it. So back then the more extreme settlers didn't need to use the "physical-resistance that could lead to civil war" card, they knew nothing would be happening in the near future anyway.

Today Sharon's right-wing government can afford to evacuate settlements without an agreement, something that left-wing Israeli governments could never do, it would be considered treason. A right wing government evacuating settlements will ALWAYS get support from the left wing opposition. A left wing government evacuating settlements will ALWAYS be opposed by the right wing oppositon, agreement or no agreement.That is just the way politics are over here. And that's why some settlers fear evacuation of West-Bank settlements could be closer then ever.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

[ October 06, 2004, 11:38: Message edited by: notforyou ]

 

I found two interesting article on Haaretz about Israel and the US Christian Right. [Pat] Robertson: If Bush 'touches' Jerusalem, we'll form 3rd party :

the other article is titled An unholy alliance with the Christian right :

More article from the Asia Times on that can be found behind these links:
The clash of fundamentalists
US Christian Right's grip on Middle East policy
A poisonous geopolitical jungle

Israels relationship to the US is special. One might think that considering the damage the now unlimited US support to Israel and its repressive policies has done to US standing in the Middle East since the first Gulf War one might wonder if it's worth the hassle.
Looking at the development at the US position one mustn't wonder. When in Camp David the peace between Egypt and Israel was negotiated a long time ago, the US were a more or less (despite some steps to get the jewish vote in the US) neutral intermediary, the 'honest broker'. Today, they are partisan pro-Israel. That's quite a long way and not only Bush's fault, even though he brought the problem to a new height - domestic policy dictated his foreign policy towards Israel.

I once read an article from time magazine on Israel, posten in the asia times article "a poisonous geopolitical jungle" linked above, from January 1952 that pointedly said:

Comparing the situations in 1952 and 2004 that is even more valid today. If one keeps that in mind one starts to be able to comprehend what drives a person like Bin Laden.

 

Bin Laden is a pathological murderer. By "pathological" I mean to say someone abnormal, beyond the system of ethics and morals which one would ascribe to the state of "humaness." To understand what drives such an individual, like what drove Hitler, is to try to understand the nature of evil. This moves beyond politics, and even ideology. A poet can describe it better than a political scientist.

Pat Robertson is an old fool. He is not representative of most Americans, although he does have a cult following. Like most cult leaders, he can only see as far as his ego will allow him. One can still support Israel and not be an "Armageddonist."

 

DMC - It has been noted the Bin Laden's father had an irrational hatred towards Israel. Perhaps he passed it on to him in some way.

 

Almost everyone within the Middle East hold some form of animosity against Israel. It is alot of the basis for the feelings toward the U.S. by so many of them. We supply them with weapons, ammunition, jets, etc, and we back them with just about anything they do. Because of this, Israel(although small) is a juggernaut. They have no fear because the can afford none. They are threatened continually by not only the Palestinians but many others as well. They live in a constant state of awareness and possible war. If you really think about it, although alot of countries do not trust them, Israel may be one of the United States best allies due to the fact of their global position and everyone is scared to death of them.

 

@notforyou- but doesn't that just make my point: if the right didn't take Barak's offer seriously, why should the Palestinians have?

@ragusa, dmc, Chandos- on one hand, I don't understand why one's enemies always have to be portrayed as "pathological" or "inhuman" in order for one to make a case against them. It's always a valuable exercise to try to figure out what is motivating an enemy. On the other hand, I can't believe that OBL was simply motivated by the US's alleged bad treatment of Arabs; remember that France killed far, far more Arabs in Algeria than has the US in the entire 20th C, even if you add in Israel as a supposed puppet of the US, and yet France is considered a "friend" of the Arabs when it's convenient to do so. It seems to me far more likely, and even demonstratable, that OBL is zealously trying to spread a Talaban-esque Sharia law wherever he can, and will use whatever means he can -- including destabilizing middle-eastern governments, and causing discord in the West -- to do so. To explain his actions merely by pointing to the actions of the US is I think to miss the point.

 

Bion - You missed my point. The settlers knew the Palestinians wouldn't except the proposals, as generous as I at least think they were. But today, even with no Palestinian signature on anything they know Sharon is capable of evacuating West-Bank settlements. A right wing government is capable of a "one sided" evacuation of such settlements without needing to show the public what the other side is committing to.

 

I have one, rather provocate question I think to those who so vehemently condemns Palestinian terrorism while at the same time defending Israeli raids and calling civilian Palestinians casualties regretful but unavoidable collateral damage. Seeing as there is no foreseeable end to the conflict would you think it was better if you armed and trained the Palestinians so they could fight the Israelis on even terms with convential weapons instead of resorting to blowing up school kids on a bus? If one views the killings committed by an organised military with high tech technology with the backing of a democratic government as a-ok while the killings committed by fanatical lunatics as horrible atrocities wouldnt it be better to make it so that the Palestiníans could kill with their own high tech weapons and organised military, wouldnt that make it A-ok for them too?

If you find this notion absurd how can you then think one kind of killing is ok while another is despicable? Dead is dead. Would an Israeli child killed as collateral damage by a Palestinian missile attack be better than an Israeli child killed by a suicide bomber? If not why then is it more ok to kill a Palestinian child with a missile?

As long as the fringe lunatics calls the shots on both sides there will never be peace, and the longer the fringe calls the shots the bigger the fringe gets as the other side appears to more and more demonic.

 

The problem with your thinking is that the result is all that matters, if I kill a person by accident with a car(I can't drive, but that's not important here) I should be as dispicable as a palestinian terrorist, after all, dead is dead..

If Palestina would get an high-tech trained army they would equal the Israeli's, and the Israeli's would think twice about attacking, but some palestinians still have some vengeance and virgins to claim so they would keep attacking...
Civilians that is, Israeli's are still Israeli's. Children, women, soldiers all of them are evil enemies in the eyes of a deranged muslim, and every bus blown up is worth the counterattack.

And of course attacking a bus with your new shiny tank is a hell lot easier than attacking an Israeli army base, right?

 

Well you would be if you decided to drive that car right into a shopping mall full of people because the store you wanted was in there and you didnt want to walk all the way, if anyone died it would be regretful but it was not your intention and you really needed to get to that store so it is all ok?

If Palestina would get a high-tech trained army they would have no need to resort to suicide bombings of cafés and buses. Suicide bombings are a weapon of last resort even for deranged lunatics, albeit you need to be a deranged lunatic to consider it even as a last resort. If those deranged lunatics got a hold of shiny new tanks I am rather confident that they would rather turn them against Israeli soldiers than harmless children, even if they are hateful racist the soldiers are at the time being a bigger threat.

I really have trouble seeing that intention has anything to do with it when the result is the same. If it was the other way around I am convinced that there would just as many Israeli suicide bombers who blew up Palestinian busses and cafés and the world would find that as atrocious as we finds what the Palestinians are doing today. Dont you think that even the vilest terrorist would love to be able to shoot missiles at the Knesset or that a fundamental jew would nto resort to suicide bombings if he would not have the military machine to lean on?

I just find it extremely hypocritical to support organised structured warfare and killings while condemning disorganised guerilla warfare aimed at any target within reach. In my mind you either condone it all as part of war or you condemn it all as pointless waste of life.