Israel, and how no one mentions it

Remove all ads!

@notforyou- I agree with you that Sharon, coming from the right wing, can get the backing to evacuate settlements unilaterally much more easily, while Barak (or Mitza, who pushed the wall and unilateral disengagement long before Sharon) would have faced far harsher condemnation from the right. But I wonder whether the fact the settlers didn't mobilize against Barak reflects a cynicism with regard to the Palestinians accepting Barak's offer of "everything," or whether they actually had no fear that Barak would *ever* be able to pull off his offer, regardless of the Palestinian answer. I mean, Barak was offering the evacuation of heavily populated West Bank settlements, as though he had the authority to do so, while you are arguing that it will take a rightist with Sharon's history, twisting everyone's arms and almost breaking his party in two, to evacuate (with generous compensation) 7,000 people from Gaza. I'd bet at Camp David, Barak and Arafat barely talked about Gaza, as it would have been assumed that Israel would pull out. So did Camp David count as serious negotiations? I kind of doubt it. Camp David, it now seems, was yet another round of speculative and hypothetical diplomacy, the sort of thing that produces an "initiative" rather than a concrete plan of action.

@joacqin- I don't know if I buy your thought experiment here. First of all, conventional warfare would be far, far worse for the civilian populations of either side than the insurgency/counter-insurgency we are seeing now. Unfortunately, modern warfare relies on taking out the enemy's economy, which means that cities become targets, and civilians die on a mass scale.

Second, Israel has already held off a number of conventional attacks; Palestine is now occupied territory as a consequence. Imagine if, after the Allies defeated Germany in WW2, a popular revolt (meaning, a small minority willing to use violence and guerilla warfare to achieve their aims, hiding among a largely peaceful but sometimes sympathetic population) against Allied occupation arose. Putting down such a revolt would certainly involve heavy civilian casualties. Would the solution have been to rearm the insurgents, and hope that they leave the cities and go back to the battlefield? Or would the solution be to put down the insurgency, both through action and negotiation, and hope the defeated population accepts its defeat and moves on to a negotiated peace?

Third, insurgency offers a bit of a catch-22: lacking any other defensive capability, the insurgents hide among the civilian population, essentially using them as human shields. While I would agree that Israel has often been gratuitous in her punishment of the Palestinian civilian population (road blocks, land seizures, etc), it's hard for me to lay the blame for Palestinian civilian deaths entirely at the feet of the Israelis. Who gives insurgents the right to use their home population as a shield? Were they elected democratically, or is it more about the rule of the gun? What sort of damage is this doing to Palestinian civil society, and what effects will this have if and when they get their country?

And I do think that there's something viscerally more nasty about strapping explosives to a young man or woman and having them blow up a bus. Not that I'd want to play down the ugliness of State Power, nor would I endorse that argument that the Palestinians should be given nothing for the fear that it would be "a reward to terror..."

 

I never claimed that I thought they should be armed and trained, I just put forth the thought that if there is something inherently better for the Israeli army to kill people than Palestinian terrorist to kill people it would be better for a Palestinian army to kill people than Palestinian terrorist to kill people.

That is how I see condoning one way of warfare and condemning another. Your talk about the terrorist hiding among the populace and thus making the populace legitimate targets works both ways, heck it even works better against Israelis. Israel is a democracy, thus all Israelis can be seen as supporting what the military and government is doing, you yourself said that many of the Palestinians might harbour the terrorists at gun point.

At a first glance I too think there is something more nasty about brainwashing a young person to go out and blow up him/herself and a bus full of people but the end result is the same as if you brainwash a young person to carry a rifle and shoot wildly at anything which moves. You have just as many "innocents"(I put that in brackets because in a conflict such as this, heck any conflict the large bulk of the dead are innocents from the brainwashed terrorist and the Israeli soldier to the children killed on their way to school on both sides, it is the people in charge who fuel the hate which are the only really non-innocent people)dead by each method.

@BTA, I know that in Sweden there is something called along the lines of "reasonable intent" ie if you shoot someone with a high powered rifle and there is someone standing behind that person you will be charged with the murder of both persons, not of the murder of one and manslaughter of the other. If you (ought to) know that by your actions it is likely that someone will get killed it is murder.

 

@BTA- hmmm, I get the intention argument, but the Morgoth manslaughter/murder thing doesn't quite capture the issue, I think. How 'bout this belabored scenario:

Morgoth is part of some Deathrace 2000 type scenario, which involves two teams, consisting of both drivers and pedestrians. Team A drives combat-ready Hummers, while Team B drives jury-rigged 1970s Ford Pintos. Team A believes that all combat should occur between strictly between vehicles; this is also to their advantage as their HumVees drive over Team B's Pintos like a knife through butter. Lacking any better defence, and driving cars that do a max of about 50 km/h, Team B hides it's Pintos within a throng of peds. Also, given that Team B's Pintos can barely scratch the paint of the Team A Hummers, Team B's Pintos begin to purposefully target Team A pedestrians, sometimes blowing themselves up in the middle of crowds. Team A wants to get rid of Team B's Pintos, but can only do so knowing it will almost certainly run over a Team B pedestrian or two before it can get to a Pinto and take it out. So the question is:

Is it morally equivalent if Morgoth: 1) targets Team A peds by driving his Team B Pinto into a crowd; or 2) targets a Team B Pinto with his Team A Hummer, knowing well that he will most likely run over Team B peds in the process.

One is the straight-forward premeditated killing of civilians, the other involves the killing of civilians as a secondary but unavoidable (and so to some degree premeditated) side-effect of another action.

What conclusions can we draw from this? Aside from:

1) Deathrace 2000 was a terrible movie;
2) My analogies leave much to be desired; and
3) It always sucks to be a ped;

We might also find that:

4) The issue might hinge on the difference between premeditated collateral damage -- where we would rather avoid civilian casualties, but know they will happen and go ahead with our actions anyway -- and premeditated killing;
5) The issue might also involve assigning relative responsibilities for the safety of the civilians being used as human shields;
6) Balance of power most certainly pertains to this issue; and
7) It would be best if Team A and Team B could agree to another sport with which to resolve their differences.

 

Bion - your scenario was well constructed, entertaining, and thought-provoking.

 

Bion- You must understand the profound changes in the Israeli public's opinion in the last years.

During Barak's days, most of us here (moderate right and left) were optimistic regarding our long stupid land-is-worth-more-than-lives conflict with the Palestinians. We felt there was actually a chance of resloving this. And YES, we believed Barak's offer was genuine and included painful sacrifices of both sides, but could lead to an actual understanding. And YES, we believed it was doable despite would be opposers on both sides. I am truly sad that you find this so hard to believe. After Arafat's refusal many very much lost all hope. We felt we offered pretty much all we could, and if that's not good enough, then what now?

I think this led to a lot of people feeling we had no real partner to negotiate with, which ultimately led to the current situation - right wing government with no hope for a left one in the near future. And this is why today even a relatively small evacuation is so difficult to undertake. Ok, so we'll get out of Gaza. Are we getting at all closer to a final resolvement of this situation? And what would be the next step?

Arafat's historical mistake just pushed more Israelis to the right, and pulled his own people away from the freedom they deserve. He wanted it all, and got everyone nowhere.

To summorize, feelings of despair led to drifting of *many* towards right-wing agendas. These right-wing governments are stuck - they have the left's almost automatic support for evacuation, but their own (growing) voters' opposition for any such move.

 

Murdering thousands of people who have never done wrong to one is usually considered to be both inhuman and pathological. Often it goes beyond mere politics. You either get that, or you don't.

 

@notforyou- I can understand the profound disappointment that must have come with the breakdown of Camp David and the start of the Intifada. And I would also agree that Arafat has been a disaster for the Palestinians; I wonder how much power he really has now, as someone who's identified himself as a secular Arab nationalist, to reign in the islamic fundamentalists, who would no doubt be even more of a disaster. But I still wonder whether Israel could have pulled off Barak's plan without serious difficulties. I can only hope that the current path that Sharon is now on will eventually lead to the same ends. It seems to me that the hardliners can't run the agenda forever; Israel is too small for such an agonistic approach to last, and at some point, a reconciliation will have to occur. I hope.

@Chandos- I wouldn't hesitate to describe certain actions as inhuman or pathological, nor would I say that there are certain kinds of hatreds that I simply would not want to even try to empathize with. I just wonder whether it's necessary to discursively exclude someone from the bounds of humanity. I somehow think that it is well within the range of human capability, and so very 'human,' to commit atrocities or to behave inhumanely. The banality of evil, perhaps...

 

What I always wonder about is that so many people seemingly didn't get what problem OBL and his goons have with the US. They certainly do not hate freedom. And they give a sh*t about the US allowing gay marriage. They don't care about the westerners drinking alcohole and I daresay that they do not want to run over the west to make everyone on earth muslim.

Instead, why not listen to OBLs speeches - he very pointedly sais what he takes offense at. The problem is that IMO in the US population the perceptioon of having made mistakes in the past isn't there.

This is not 'blame the victim', just an expression of the simple rule in life that your actions have consequences, and good intentions are pretty irrelevant when the consequences are grim.

Some of it started when Truman - to get the jewish vote in the US - pressured the UK to allow 100.000 jewish refugess to Palestine in 1949 even though the brits have granted the Arabs nothing of that kind would happen. Domestic politics f*cking up geopolitics. Todays support of christian right positions towards Israel is another example for this. As the Time Magazine article said: "The US sin was not to help the jews, but to help them at the expense of the arabs."

The US can't have it both ways - be loved by Arabs AND help Israel kill them - because Israel for some Arab countries has immediately to do with their sorrows. How got Lebanon so ****ed up that Israel felt it had to attack it in 1982? Because of some 2 million refugees from palestine, parked ther without perspective, destabilised it. Why was Jordan also almost plunged in mayhem? Because of 1 million refugees from Palestine, parked ther without perspective, destabilised it.
And people who are pissed about the US support for Israel are irrational? Why? There are things that can be criticised and deserve to be criticised in both US and Israel's foreign policy, current and past.

US and western perception won't bring you further all the time.

One example: In the rush to the war in Iraq Bush made the argument that as the UN didn't find WMD that clearly meant that Saddam was hiding something and that again was proof for his evil intentions. And because Saddam was so evil he sure would cooperate with other evils like OBL.
So why - if Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction before the 2003 invasion - did he not simply comply with U.S. and U.N. demands in an attempt to avert the war? The second US weapons inspector Duelfer said Saddam's instincts were always to negotiate - to seek something in return before giving something up. Until the end, Saddam saw himself as a great leader of a great nation. With an eye to history, he had bricks made for use in the historic city of Babylon molded with the phrase, "Made in the era of Saddam Hussein," mimicking the ancient bricks there.
That much for the evil maniac willing to spread WMD to give them to terrorists because he hated the US. Saddam was much more afraid of Iran than of the US. Try this link for more.

That is, when Bush went to war he didn't understand Saddam's character, perceiving him as a threat way out of proportion. And Saddam didn't comply because he errantly thought Bush was a rational man. In fact it is hard to say who acted more irrational. Paranoia vs. Narcissm. Huh. Make your pick.

The point is this: That you don't understand someone doesn't mean he is irrational. That is the essential pun of the idea of reason - being reasonable you think you're the epitome of rationality. But that leaves out you could err - which is the weak spot about it Adorno pointed out.

Same for OBL - when he's driven by hatred, which seems plausible because he does despicable things, we don't need to even try to understand because he's crazy anyway, and the only way to deal with crazies is to pre-emptively attack them.

But what if he isn't crazy? I think a good deal of the appeal his these have is that he is not crazy, that his ideas are pretty clear and persuasive to Arabs who perceive the US meddling in the Arab world as humiliating or outrageous. And in some sense they are right even though that sure doesn't justify murder. OBL has some points to make and you better listen to him or you end up fighting the wrong enemy - like Saddam.

One key problem of Israel and US foreign policy is that you cannot discuss it openly in the US - because you'll have the wardogs from AIPAC and the Christian Right at your heels and will be smeared as an anti-semite. That is one of the reasons why it isn't a topic in US elections.
Bush can't afford it to lose the Christian Right, Pat Robertson is crazy enough to make his 3rd party and deny Bush votes he relies on (that is my counterpoint to you Chandos - sure he's a fool - but he brings with him votes which gives him power). And AIPAC is spreading fear on the hill because of its tendency to fund the opposing candiate when you vote or say something against Israel, not to mention the smearing. A good article on this is here.

 

Too many words. I'll help you along:

"Terrorism? Pah! The US are getting what they rightfully deserve for helping a country running amok and killing arabs."

It's cosy in your world, Ragusa. Maybe I'll stay for awhile...

 

Nope Darkthrone. The point is that when the US go and say that terrorists attack them because they hate the US for no other reason that they are mad and crazy they'll miss the point and won't solve the problem and will continue to wonder about "why do they hate us" for some more 20 years.

As Chandos has said so well in another thread on Kerry's apporach to fighting terror:

When America can't or doesn't want to see the points pissing Arabs off they can't win them back to their side, thus not make them allies and friends again - and I'm not talking about gvts but the people.

It is an odd way to find allies to go to the candidates for an alliance and say: "Look I'm not going to change or show regret or offer compensation for mistakes - I don't make mistakes - instead I want you to change and join and help me because I'm so f*cking great. God bless America." It doesn't work that way.
The Arab-Israeli coflict is a core issue in the middle east and the US isn't going to help their standing in the region by giving Sharon a free pass on his rampage - which isn't going to solve the problem anyway - and standing is exactly what the US need atm.

When the problem of Arab sympathy to OBLs cause isn't solved the US will not be able to defeat Al Quaeda. Successful counter-terrorism operations have always and ever included driving a wedge between the terrorists and the supportive population to isolate and weaken them and eventually crush them and bring them to justice.

PS: And you entirely miss my point as far as blame the victim is concerned - the US have made mistakes, sure, but what has happend has happened there is no way to change anything about it. Heaping blame won't change anything. What I am intent on is to line out that mistakes mustn't be made twice - big difference. It is about learning from the past.

[ October 07, 2004, 16:48: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

@Ragusa- I have no problems granting you that 1) tying Saddam to Bin Ladin was more about political expediency than fact; that 2) the "they hate us for our freedoms" line is an exaggerated; and that 3) AIPAC is a powerful lobbying group.

None of these, however, in any way bolster your claim that OBL is mainly motivated by the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Certainly you can find evidence in speeches where he weighs most heavily against the US, both for its support for Israel and its military and economic presence in the Gulf, in a way that would seem to let Europe off the hook.

However, to believe this is absolutely unrealistic, as it ignores nearly all of OBLs career, his intellectual underpinings, etc.

If the Arab-Israeli conflict is his main concern, why was he so tied to Afghanistan, from the 80s on?

Why does Al-Qaida operate not only in the Gulf, but also in North Africa, South Asia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and of course, Europe and the West?

Why is one of its primary goals to destabilize, and bring down if it can, any and all of the Gulf region states?

Al-Qaida, like any institution, has a history, which is to say that it is part of a lineage of institutions, and that these institutions have shaped its character and methods of operation. Likewise, OBL isn't known as an original theorist: most of his positions were adopted.

Of course it would take a while to trace all of these out, as institutional histories have a way of being complicated, but we could just look at the Muslim Brotherhood and their most famous intellectual Sayyid Qutb.

The Muslim Brotherhood has a history which stretches to the 1930s. It began in Syria, where it participated in the Arab-Israeli War of 1948, but it also had a strong presence in Egypt, where it sought to bring down Nasser's government. It is now politically legitimate in some countries (Jordan, Saudi), where it has an active political wing and where the ruling governments have had to accomodate it, and outlawed in others (Syria, where it was violently wiped out). It has been active in a number of conflicts, not just the Arab-Israeli, but also Kashmir, Afghanistan, etc.

It is thus not only pan-Arab, but pan-Muslim. Qutb, its most famous intellectual, who was eventually executed by Nasser in the 60s, held that human life can only find meaning through Islam, and critically, through following the code for living that is Sharia. Having lived in the US for two years, he had become convinced of the moral vacuity and decadence of the West. He subsequently criticized, and later violently resisted, all attempts to secularize Muslim countries, whether socialist, nationalist, or democratic. The end goal was the restoration of the Islamic Caliphate, and so, the dissolution of all Muslim nation-states into one Muslim land governed by Sharia. Of course, it would go without saying that this Caliphate would be expansive; afterall, it would only be for the good of the West that they live under Sharia as well.

The influence of Qutb on OBL is clearly demonstrated, as is the growth of splinter groups like Al-Qaida from pioneering institutions like the Muslim Brotherhood.

In any case, it seems to me absurd, a screaming case of wishful thinking, to think that Al-Qaida would "leave us alone" if only the US were to get its act straight vis-a-vis the Arab-Israeli issue. Far more likely is that this position is merely being spread to cause internal dissent in the West.

The US supports tyranny in the Middle East? So does every government that does business in the Middle East. One can only hope that continued pressure to democratize pays off, as it seems to be in Bahrain, etc.

 

I know that. Yes, he is pan-islamic. Even Palestinian officials will admit that Osama bin Laden is only paying lip service to the Palestinian cause, using the unsettled dspute to play on Arab and Muslim sensitivities and to recruit followers who remain influenced by what they see as continued injustice to the Palestinians.

I'm not sure if you are aware of the situation in Israel as it is atm. In 2010 there will be more Arabs than Israelis living within Israels borders, and they will live in walled bantustans or ghettos and will be denied basics like clean water and sanitation. They will have no perspective in life to ever start a career or earn their keep there. The typical 25 year old Palestinian in the occupied territories is unemployed. In the meanwhile Israeli settlers control 70% of the Westbank while making up some 5% of the total population.

The problem will be between the privileged Israelis with western living standards living in their fair cities on the hills with swimming pools and Palestinians in primitive favelas down in the valley - it'll be an apartheid like system.

I cannot see how bombing the Palestinians, or walling them in, is in any way a solution to the problem that Israelis will soon be a minority on their own soil. Aiding Sharon on his rampage means contributing to the perpetuation of this conflict, rather than to solve it.
Eventually the South-African apartheid regime had to cave in as well. You cannot deny a majority in the population rights eternally. But as I feel it the solution the hard right wing seeks is indirect ethnic cleansing - to make life of the common Palestinians so miserable they leave eventually.

IMO it is a pity to see how among the hard right wing in Israel a grand old moral religion like Juadism has degenerated to a zealous religious blod-and-soil nationalism. Israeli settlers do seek conflict with Arabs. If you love peace you do not go into a hostile neighbourhood to provoke the people there.
All that would be impossible without money from the US because Israel has long become unable to finance itself, too expensive is it to maintain that crack army and to perpetually occupy the territories.

It is this one-sided nature of the conflict and the emotions it arouses beyond its boundaries have helped bin Laden achieve the fourth and most important of his objectives: polarisation.

By going on, as Bush will likely do, he will help OBL to achieve his goal - that is polarising the world between Islam and the West - and ring the bell for a clash of the cultures. That mustn't happen. There is a tendency in the West to play down - or ignore - the extent of bin Laden's success - but just look at recent polls.

US policies toward Israel certainly help create an environment conducive to recruiting people to commit acts of terror. The resolution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict is the only immediate way of reversing the dangerous polarisation of the world that bin Laden seeks.

 

I agree with everything you say about the oppressive nature of the occupation, and about how poorly this plays to the Arab world.

However, I can't help but think that alot of Arab suffering is self-imposed, both in political and economic terms, in the kinds of governments they have in place, and in cultural terms, especially with regard to the status of women.

I simply can't see how the presence of Israel, even if seen as a purely colonial power, could in any way be a primary cause or justification of either governmental oppression or economic and cultural stagnation in the Arab world outside of occupied Palestine. In this sense, Israel is used shamelessly by incompetant governments to draw the attention of their citizens away from their own failures.

I sometimes read Al Jazeera, and found it typical that Darfur was barely covered, and often only to present the justifications of the Sudan government, while the Arab-Israeli conflict is shown day after day in excrusiating detail.

Also, it seems to me almost self-evident that a culture that denies women basic rights will remain stagnant. A society that concerns itself with maintaining patriarchy at all costs will simply be incapable of producing new ideas, and of any kind of growth other than demographic. This has to change, and I'm glad that a number of secular or moderate Muslims out there see the need for this.

I would grant that the Arab-Israel conflict has great symbolic weight in the Arab world, and that it has curtailed the freedom of millions of Palestinians, but I also think it's often blown way out of proportion as to its actual effects on the region.

 

Bion - You got me to thinking more about Hitler than about Bin Laden with your remark. How we define "humaness," or the quality of being human, is important. It's often noted that Hitler used the hatred of Jews to suit his political purpose, and I argee with this to a certain extent. But then one gets to the end of WWII, as Germany was crumbling, and how Hitler and the SS became obsessed with wiping out every Jew before the end came crashing in about them. It was no longer a matter of politics, but a journey into utter depravity - the heart of evil, if you will allow me a certain latitude of expression.

Here was manpower, resources and vital needs that were diverted from the defense of Germany and the Nazi regime itself. The only objective that seemed to matter was how many Jews could be killed and how quickly.

What are we left with in the face of such an event? Can we still say it was politics? or about world conquest? IMO, we must say that they abandoned humanity for a substitute, for something different - something not human. Of course, I am an idealist, and believe that by the state of being human, I mean to say that which is most excellent in the nature of our humaness. Yet, some, (as to your comment) who are not so optimistic, may say that that IS the state of humaness, that which is also the most vile. That is what I meant by, "you either get it, or you don't." I hope that makes better sense.

[ October 08, 2004, 07:39: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

I hear you, Ragusa. Cheers to Bion for addressing the most pressing issues your posts have raised.

I'll throw in a couple of well meant kicks in the groin as well. Here we go:

Please be more specific with regards to the mistakes we should discuss in your opinion. Is it

or rather

Ragusa, all I can see in your posts is how your cognition of Middle Eastern history starts with Israel sending millions of Palestinians on the run with the US by their side to help them. All the while ignoring up to 60 UN resolutions at a time. Ah, wait – no, even in your world something happened before these events: the Jews came to Palestine. Unspoken by you, but clear enough in your post, that was a wrong that has been done to the Arabs.

So, as always, it is Israel and the US who are acting – whereas the rest of the world, especially the Arab world, has no choice but to react.

Maybe the mistake you're talking about is the foundation of Israel?

The whole conflict in the Middle East boils down to a simple question: do you believe the Jews have a right to claim Israel as their country? Answer yes, and you’re Pro-Israel by definition. Answer no, and, well, what are you? “A thinking person” in any case, you will claim. All the while these same old thoughts have been buzzing around for years and years… well, well…

But please, we should spare ourselves the humiliating procedure of presenting each other the same old arguments we’ve heard already a 1000 times before. I doubt something new would come out of this, like our comrade Dendri would say.

You insinuate that someone who is criticizing Israel in public will be deemed anti-Semitic reflexively by those who support Israel or are of the Israelite persuasion. Of course, “we all know that there are no Anti-Semites on these boards” (well, maybe apart from Sarevok*, that is…). Hence, no one may ever point to certain anti-Semitic connotations in any critic against Israel, because you made it clear from the very beginning that such an objection would be purely reflexive and not rational. To make it even simpler: you claim being non-anti-Semitic so anyone coming afterwards stating your arguments might be slightly anti-Semitic nevertheless has to be wrong. On a first-come-first-served-basis.

BTW, it’s not even your own idea; the tactic has been around since Israel came into this plane of existance. You forgot to mention the second important standard repertoire of the good people reason why no one is allowed to place some well founded critic on Israel: the holocaust, of course! It’s a pity…

Yes, the topic is a highly complex one. And yes, arguments for both sides have their strength and weaknesses. There’s a myriad of facts, splinters of truth and semi-facts out there, we’re all hard pressed to extract the truth out of them – most of the time it’s impossible to do so anyway. The way I see it, anyone can present arguments pro or contra any side at will. As a result, the selection of arguments and “facts” you present (read: your emphasis on the topic) becomes more important than the “facts” themselves – and give away more about your thoughts, feelings and intentions than the pure contents of your arguments ever could. In this light I will oppose anyone claiming Bin Laden is forced to kill people because of ignorant American foreign policy – even if certain parts of such an argument may ring with a certain truth (in a certain light) to them in general.

I haven’t seen any Middle American or North Korean suicide bombers lately. It just might be that the handling of foreign policy by the US Americans has been ideal in these cases. Although I rather doubt it. Could it be that there’s more to Osama’s intentions than shaking of the chains of oppression?

I'm not quite finished yet.

It's a good thing the swimming pools in Germany are more remote when it comes to a clash of 1st and 3rd world, eh? At least, we don't have to look down at the primitive favelas down in the valley.

No, it is not. The reason for the "objective: polarisation" is: polarization. I.e. the cultural backgrounds of the participants differ. They are polarized to begin with. Cf. Bion's remarks about women's rights.

 

Comrade Darkthrone, that is only so because the Germans deem it problematic to display wealth and superiority in the face of the misery of a humilated people surrounding our settlements on occupied territory. You never know when these provocations will turn against you. Its also considered doubtful such displays are the best of symbols that we Germans as a whole wish for de-escalation and that this is recognized by others (read: we dont **** on a good standing with other western nations as well as their support).
If they dont wish for a clash of worlds they better not built their homes on palaestinian soil. But they did, and still do. Whatever that may imply.

In this case it is best not to disagree with Israel. Right? Best ignore that there are flaws, intentional or created by their beleaguered situation, in Israels policies. Doing otherwise will necessarily reveal your anti-jew bias, no matter the existing flaws. A fine argument, really.

I wouldnt be so quick to graciously proclaim there are no anti-Semites on these boards (except for Sarevok - you have nerves, Darkthrone). What are the motives of those opposing Israel then? It certainly cannot be something else. You must know, were Israel an european country composed of christans but using the same tactics I am sure there would be no critizim at all.
And what about you? Arent you an anti-Semit, too? You defend the Israeli situation so decisively, placing the blame on the arabians - unless I have misread that is. Last time I checked the arabs are Semites themselves. Now what? Best be candid and call the critics anti-jew. I am sure Germans especially will appreciate that.

 

Cheers, Dendri. Now who's acting on reflexes rather than thougtful pondering?

I'm sure that this is the case. Just ask Dieter Bohlen on this topic. Just kidding. If the Israelians are like you assert- which I can't really know -, they are a disgrace, sure enough. Let notforyou answer to this, I'm not the judge. However: how can there be no border between the rich and the poor in the Middle East? Is it depending on the swimming pools being inside Palestinian territory or 15 miles remote? Should every Israelite live in poverty to suggest they don't want to offend someone?

That, standing for itself, would be a good thing. But I can't help the feeling that de-escalation in this context leans more heavily towards the Israelian side than to the other. All I'm saying is that de-escalation in this case should be a case of give and take on both sides - the Palestinian side giving, however, seems to elude everyone's grasp. Especially in Europe. The US stance in this case is a welcomed counter weight, I feel.

As to your last paragraph: a witty, ironical masterpiece, eh? May I guide your perception to the following fact: the term anti-Semite was not brought into the discussion by me, but rather by Ragusa when he claimed the reason for no one taking a contra-Israel-position in the US would be that anyone trying to do so would be branded and exiled. I tried to counter this pathetic argument - which is hard to do without referring to it, you know.

In any case I haven't resorted to refuse the critic by deeming it anti-Semitic. I just pointed to the mechanism found behind that kind of arguing.

Next: yes, I'm biased. Just to even the odds, you might say. Normally, people in Europe point to the flaws in US and Israel foreign policy. Those exist, needless to say. But why stop there and suggest that this half truth is the whole answer to the current problems in Middle East? We are all leftists, we share a certain romantic notion that we have to support the weak and oppressed. How comes we think the Arabian side is weak in this conflict whereas the Israelian side is strong? A land surrounded by hostile forces that are working towards its total destruction. A land that tries to honour democratic values as opposed to countries that suppress women, homosexuals and infidels. Please, I know it's not that easy. Could you indicate the same understanding for your position? Just once?

Then we have the good old "Arabs are Semites so they can't be anti-Semitic" argument. Did I read the word "stereotype" somewhere in one of your posts? We all share a common heritage somewhere. In your line of reasoning there could never be any racism - because, clearly, the cradle of humankind stands in Africa. We're all negros. Enough of that stupidity.

Point is, it is not enough to single out the "tactics" of Israel and see how nicely it fits the image of the imperialistic oppressors. It would be better to take into account that the whole situation is singular in today's world and cannot be transfered to any other European country easily. I do acknowledge that the creation of Israel that lead to today's struggle was extraordinary. How could you say the same for, say, Poland or France?

Te central part of my argument has not been addressed by you, however. First, we need to make sure we share at least some common ground, before we can go on and argue about where Sharon is mad and where Arafat is nuts. Shall we? So, what do you say to what I feel is lying underneath the Middle Eastern conflict in all its glory; what do you answer to the question of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of Jewish claims in what is often called Palestina?

 

*laughs*
You know of Broder AND Bohlen. I am scared right now.

No, not Israelis as such, nor was I talking about the core of Israels homeland. I had the settlers and their supporters in mind. Not really the same. It is known there are quite a few in Israel who oppose their government and the settlers… why, even in their military there is opposition.
Thus I don’t need to hear notforyou on this as our media is rather informative.

Where the… pools are build matters, Darkthrone. Very much so, I would think. A thoughtful person like you even asking me this is odd.
Founding a settlement with all its finery next to a slum populated by a people with the background of the Palaestinias, on the ground belonging to them no less – and you see nothing wrong with this.
Is this worthy of a democratic nation? Because that is what Israel gets lauded for. To me this is a message, one with less than de-escalating effects, surely nothing a western nation craving for reconciliation would do. As a modern state that is organised around the same values we uphold Israel gets measured in a different way than a group of desperate refugees.

And this is all I am holding against Israel. Outrageous and willfull actions. Not their attempts to make a secure life for themselves, but what they are putting the Palaestinians through with the excuse of self-defense (and settlements are seen as part of defense). You know, like, when they send their tanks into refugee camps under the guise to locate obscure tunnels which are never found. Of course they leave lots of dead civilians and destroyed homes in their wake when the international outcry has finally become too loud to ignore. Things like this. I see Israel breeding more and more suicide bombers, doing its share to keep the wheel spinning.

Then you say effort for de-escalation has to be reciprocated.
Like

I say the actions I described make it impossible.
And I would also say that only Israel as a stable and democratic nation can stop this from going on. The Palaestinians have been driven too far in recent years and lack the organized structure to do so. But then, who knows, this may be true for Israel as well. Again, all I see is both of them do is trashing everything. Could be there is little else to do with the situation as it is. I don’t know.

Do not look for witty irony where a mere reflexive post was intended.

So sorry if I got you wrong in the quote in my above post. However, after you sent Broder over to me the other day I couldn’t help but think that you are wielding this heavy club again. Of course you don’t.

But… well, I don’t get this. Who halts the criticism when it comes to Hamas, bombing busses, corruption in Arafats regime or the less than progressive nations surrounding Israel? Not the Europeans, that’s for sure. The only answer I can offer to this misconception: It is drowned in the anger tantrums we get to enjoy after our politicians have pointed out that Israels iron fist-tactic is unsuccessful. Deaf ears and all.

Absurd?

Oh boy, what imperialistic oppressors? No need to even mention this rubbish in a post written in response to me. You seem to read too much into my opinion here. How… unexpected.
To the rest: The harshness of Israels past excuses nothing. Or does the poverty and hopelessness in palaestinian day-today-life justify blowing up Israels children?

Hehehe. Oh yes, we shall. Errr… no. I meant, we shant. We dont need to in this aspect...

... for I have nothing to say to this matter. I don’t dispute Israels right to exist. Wish it could be so much more than it is right now. Common ground here. In other points as well, but your kind of debating makes it hard to agree. Which is, I assume, not your intention.