Israel vs. Palestine

Remove all ads!

So I've been doing some reading about the formation of Israel in an attempt to get a better grip on the whole problem over there. And I came across this story in The Economist, a well-respected British weekly.


http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1097250

What most interests me is the poll at the lower right of "Whom do you sympathize with?"

Code:

Now I've heard the theory that the US is pro-Israel because there are so many powerful Jews in our country. Surely there are, but there also lots of powerful Anglicans, which doesn't make us any more pro-Canterbury. I'm interested in what reasons others give for the disparities above. Why are the Germans more sympathetic to Israel than other European countries? Guilt? Is the French result largely because of immigration from Algeria and Morocco?

Let's hear your opinions.

[This message has been edited by Shralp (edited April 19, 2002).]

 

I also think that on top of the relative power of jews in America, they also have strong, well organized, and well funded lobbying groups in DC which ensures aid/protection/support from the US.

As for the lower corresponding rate for the Palestinians - I personally believe it stems partly from September 11th. I still remember the footage from the West Bank that day - people dancing in the streets of Ramallah. Those memories tend to leave me slightly disinterested in the plight of the Palestinian people.

Additionally Israel offered pretty much everything Arafat wanted at the last meeting in Belgium...and Arafat walked away. That has led me to believe that Palestine does not want peace or self-determination, they want to expel Israel from the Middle East and they are comfortable doing that through violence - so I guess I number them amongst the same terroristic groups that are responsible for the WTC and Pentagon attacks.

As for the European numbers...I have no clue. Germany may feel some guilt, and France stills has ties to Arab/Muslim states in North Africa so I can understand their support of Palestine. Also, France has had a brush with anti-semitism in its past as well, which was highlighted by the Dreyfus affair. So who know?

As for Italy - they are geographically closer to the problem, and I think the closer you get the more middle of the road I think you become.

 

I think that a large number of people in the UK feel (particularly at the minute) that Israel is a symbol of inappropriate US intervention, and many question the intent of the Americans (the Jewish group in DC is not, we a re led to believe, as powerful as American actions would have suggest) who have previously only ever taken action twice against Israel - once when they felt the Suez canal was threatened, and again when Israel threatened to disrupt the sale of AWACs to Saudi.

Both sides want to expel the other from the nation that they share, however, sympathy over here is firmly on the side of the Palestinians. There is a feeling that they deserve National Self Determination (a phrase coined by an American President, at the end of the First World War). There is also an acute feeling that the Israelis are acting unjustly, combined with feelings of horror at recent War crimes (I honestly don;t know how much the Americans are hearing about Jenin), and that the Palestinaians have every right to defend their territory.

France and is traditionaly more Anti American than other European countries, as well as the reasons stated above with N African conections.

 

That West Bank footage was disturbing, so that may have an influence on many Americans.

Here is a link to an article on Natalie Portman's rebuttal to an argument concerning the conflict. Natalie is a Jew.

From a Biblical standpoint, the Jews have brought their persecution upon them and that's the way it has been and will be - until Babylon is destroyed and New Jerusalem descends (specifically check Revelation for this.)

 

See, I find that fascinating because Israel is almost wholly a British creation. It was the Brits and French who re-wrote the boundaries in the area and erased Palestine. Sure the US came along years later and started giving them huge amounts of aid, but we give tons of aid to other countries in the region as well. (Egypt gets $2 billion/year. I don't have the numbers handy, but I'm sure a similar amount goes to Saudi Arabia and Jordan.) I'm surprised that the Brits haven't stuck by the nation they helped create.

 

I think in general we are sticking by it, to our shame. The press and politicians are heavily pro Israeli, at least until recently; whether this is due to how they feel or due to their desire to cosy up to US again...

Also, I am not anti an Israeli state - of course they have a perfectly legitimate claim of national self determination themselves... I just believe that they are showing no respect for the Palestinians' own claim. They are going to have to recognise each other.

Having said that, we appear to be more even sided than the USA, according to the GWB speechs, and the impresion given in the media.

However, most people I know do not agree with this.


Also ,Im not entirely convinced that Natalie Portman is the best commentator [sorry! - wasn't meant as a dig! ]


[This message has been edited by Christopher_Lee (edited April 19, 2002).]

 

Thank you Shralp. The anti-American rhetoric gets pretty thick around here. It would be just as easy to get all over England for the actions that they have taken throughout history. Germany anyone? The Dutch have blood on their hands, as do the Spanish, Italians, Russians, etc.

I posted similar sentiment in another topic. Nobody here comes from a country that has not done something that someone else thought was wrong. Read your own countries history before you off too much on America. Our track record is better than most.

[This message has been edited by Jack Funk (edited April 19, 2002).]

 

Chrisotpher_Lee, no offense but I didn't say she was the best commentator. Shralp was looking for various views. A good view would be from a Jew herself.

You may discredit her for being an actress. But she is an actress and juggles going to Harvard as well.

Yeah I've seen that pic so many times I sometimes forget these things . Ahh spoiled rotten, and luvin' it.



[This message has been edited by Big B (edited April 19, 2002).]

 

Plus, her belly button is showing in the interview photo!!! I mean, if that's not credibility, I don't know what is?!?!?

 

What just gets me is, why the hell did the Dutch hand over those refugee guys to the israilies when tthey knew that they were going to be butchered?

 

You really expect Britain to stick by Israel? While Britain held the mandate of Palestine, Jewish terrorists murdered and humiliated the British troops. During 1946, 73 British subjects were brutally murdered by Israeli terrorists. In 1947, two British sergeants were kidnapped and murdered. Their bodies were used to lure their comrades, who merely wanted to give the fellow soldiers a proper Christian burial, to a minefield. All these atrocities against our own soldiers, but we should still stick by them?

And Britain should not be held to blame for the ‘erasure’ of Palestine. That was the Jews, who drove Britain out of Palestine, with their constant acts of terrorism, and American Jews backed these acts of terrorism. American Zionists were regularly given space in the newspapers to encourage further acts of terrorism against British. One such person, a famous Hollywood scriptwriter, Ben Hecht, printed this:

“The Jews of America are with you. You are their champion. You are the feather in their hats. Every time you blow up a British arsenal, or wreck a British jail, or send a British rail-road sky high, or rob a British bank, or let go with your guns and bombs at the British betrayers and invaders of your homeland, the Jews of America make a little holiday in their hearts.”

With Britain unwilling to stay in Palestine, a committee from the UN was sent to Palestine, and they decided it was best if Palestine should be partitioned, and following approval by the General Assembly, Britain left their mandate in 1948. Britain did not make the decision to partition Palestine, and America worked hard to convince the smaller states to support the vote for partition in the general assembly. Does that suggest to you that it was more Britain or America who was responsible for the ‘erasure’ of Palestine?

This is exactly true. This is a direct quote from President Truman when his advisers pointed out to him that he might damage American interests by offending the Arabs:

“I am sorry, gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands of those who are anxious for the success of Zionism; but I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents.”


[This message has been edited by Wildfire (edited April 19, 2002).]

 

That area of the world has changed hands about every 200 years. You can wallop back to 2000ad, and sure enough: it was *owned* by someone else.

Where does it end?

Historically: Someone has to start dealing with it, or someone's got to move out.

 

Christopher_Lee, in response to your aside, "I honestly don;t know how much the Americans are hearing about Jenin": I'm currently living in Canada, and the climate here is "if you even mention Jenin, you are anti-Semitic and should be shot". I imagine it's similar in the United States but I couldn't say for sure. One of our members of parliament recently said that an investigation was necessary as war crimes may have been committed, and he was relieved of his post. Many people think his punishment should have gone farther than that. I rarely hear a Canadian openly criticise anything about Israel- the only time we hear about it is when those terrible, terrible Palestinians have wronged it again- or when our many Jewish neighbours are raising money for the Israeli Defence Fund. My last client carried on an anti-Palestine tirade ("they aren't interested in the peace, or the land, their sole purpose is to exterminate the Chosen of God!") at the start of a board meeting and no one seemed to blink.

Shralp, I am from France originally and my take on the numbers from France is that, simply, most French people have Palestinian friends or acquaintances, and almost no French people know any real live Jews. The ones that weren't killed during the Nazi occupation are in the United States, Israel or eastern Europe now. The average American has a fair knowledge of Judaism just from everyday contact- the average Frenchman is surprised when a Jewish acquaintance does not eat pork, and asks if he is Muslim. Familiarity breeds content, or at least a certain level of tolerance.

 

I wont really get into this discussion but I must say that the picture of cheering people in Ramallah after 9/11 is a fake. The photographer had given a poor family some treats and told them to dance in the streets, oblivious of the fact that the twin towers were razed. I dont have the sources here but afaik it is true. Should be able to find out by a search or something. Pretty big news here atleast when it was found out.

Oh well here I go, I am not a supporter of anyone in that bloody conflict they are equally bad. BUT the israelis have it all, the military power the infrastructre you name it and they are better ecquiped to deal with a war than the palestinians, the only weapon they have is suicide bombers. A despicable thing, but it is more despicable than a soldier shooting a little boy with an assault rifle or tanks demolishing palestinian buildings??

Edit: Those numbers are severly flawed, what about the other percentages? The numbers dont add up, beware when you look at numbers they may lie more than anything else.

[This message has been edited by joacqin (edited April 20, 2002).]

 

I'm actually quick sick of the whole situation. Trying to trace back to who is right and who is wrong is a meaningless and futile exercise. They're like two spoiled kids: they get all the world's attention, but they still can't share their toys. So they should have their toys taken away.

Hmm...here's an idea...take them all, Israeli and Palestinian both, remove them from the state of Israel and the occupied territories, and put them in Greenland to cool off for a while. Nobody really cares what happens in Greenland, so they can bang heads for as long as they like, while they freeze their butts off. The good people of Greenland, who've never done anything to anyone, surely would enjoy a warmer climate for a while.

 

Guilt. Interesting point Shralp. And I even think you're at least partly right:

I remember a Palestine discussion on TV with Avi Primor, the Israeli ex-Ambassador in Germany, the representative of the PLO in Germany, plus some middle east experts and journalists. At one point one of the scientists, a professor of political sciences, said in a frustrated tone that he don't understands how the Israeli people, after the terrible experience of the holocaust, can treat the Palestinians not much better than cattle.
Mr. Primor immediately said that the Israeli politic in Palestine cannot be compared with the holocaust - and he's right. But the professor didn't compare it. But the reply had it's effect: The man didn't say another word that discussion.

IMO the Israelis have found the guilt complex a suitable intimidation tool to deal with Germans. As a German it can happen to you quickly to be called a Nazi for criticizing Israel - and since on one likes that, the critic is silent. The origin of the use of that tool is most probably the holocaust itself: After having almost been slaughtered by Germans the survivors had good reason to dislike being morally judged by Germans who lived in that time. And to them any comparison of the holocaust with anything else, must seem like the attempt of the exculpation of the inexculpable. This however permits analysis - any objective and rational comparison brings with it a gain of insight.
I think that our 68er left wingers feel much more pro Arab as they say, a result of their the anti-imperialistic revolution against establishment that eventually brought them into government ...

Israel has done some very remarkable things since it's foundation. Outnumbered, it had to defend itself against hostile neighbors three times and did so gloriously. These wars were all morally justified. The Israelis were faced with international terrorism and dealt with it appropriately when the rest of the world hesitated.
With messing up Lebanon they started a new course - of unjustified military actions. Personally I think Israel is not acting much different than other countries ruled by agressive right wing governments. The fundamentalist Jews and settlers in Israel are not better than other fanatic racists or religious fanatics all over the world - including their arab counterparts.

I accept the necessity for defence in face of the terrible arab bombings in Israel. But what hope for peace can be, when the Israelis systematically humiliate the Palestinians? That was the point the professor wanted to point out: Plenty of Israelis have experienced the terror of the nazis - so who should better know that terror is no way to treat anyone?

However, I can also understand the anti-Arab sentiment among some Israelis: They have experienced Arab terror for about 4 decades now ... as civilians and combatants! That entrenches points of view, giving them the feeling to stand with back to the wall, defending their bare lives alone. This is of course radicalizing - with that attitude you will fight any opponent agressively.

Most Palestinians of my age have only experienced Israeli riot squads, the israeli army, Israeli police, tanks, bombs and such. They don't have a job perspective in their isolated piece of desert, except for poorly paid farmhand work in Israel. So I don't wonder there are plenty of warheads among the Palestinians.
But I don't sypmtathize with the Palestinians either, for me Arafad is and has always been a terrorist. It's just a pity for the people who have to live in that mess. IMO the only hope for peace in the region is to settle the dispute diplomatically, including Saudi Arabia, Iran and Israel's neighbor countries.

Good morning btw ...

[This message has been edited by Ragusa (edited April 20, 2002).]

 

Yeah, Wildfire, I know about the Jewish terrorist group Irgun, which committed those atrocities. But as Palestinian supporters are always saying, the terrorists are not representative of the people. And the British and the French worked with the Israeli government in the Suez Canal.

The borders were indeed drawn by UN committee, but that would not have been possible without British agreement.

Back in President Truman's day the Jewish vote was indeed in important factor in highly-populated states like Illinois and New York. This is far less so today.

And quoting a Hollywood writer as a gauge of American Jewish opinion is a bit like quoting a Catholic in Northern Ireland in order to gauge British opinion.

But here's a thought: Just because Jews support something doesn't mean it's wrong.

[Edited to add: One more thing, trying to get at the truth of what happened at Jenin has been the headline of most American media for days. I find it interesting that so many of you have already decided that the Jews just slaughtered people for no reason when there is no evidence to support that. Oh, but of course we must immediately believe everything the Palestinian witnesses say because they're paragons of moral rectitude while Israel is full of evil Jews. Please. At least wait to see some evidence.]

[This message has been edited by Shralp (edited April 20, 2002).]

 

If there is a british responsibility for the middle-east conflict, you have do dig deeper. IMO the seed was brought out in the WW-I period. A brief sketch:

In the WW-I period the british, caught in tradiotional victorian imperialist thinking, did a few devious moves:

• McMahon's writing to the high sherif Hussein of Mekka from 1915 in which he promised the arabs the control over some territories in palestine as a reward for support to drive out the turkish. (Mind that at that time the Osman Empire was close to a coalition with the germans and austrians during WW-I)
• Sykes-Picot treaty from 1916 further fed arab hopes for sovereignty and independence for a time after a defeat of the Osman Empire.
• Balfour declaration from 1919 granted the Jews a nation state in Palestine. That fed the hopes of the zionists for own territories what, not surprising, antagonized and deeply hurt the Arabs, especially since the british stood to their word to the Zionists while ignoring the arabs.
• The 20s: At that time the british never seriously thought about giving independence to anyone in the region. The treaties had some effect despite that: they disappointed and encouraged both sides and in the time of the golden 20s, when an increasing number of new jewish settlers came to Palestine, the first acts of arab terror and israeli counter-terror took place.
• This erupted in the great arab revolt from 1936-39 and showed that a peaceful coexistance between arabs and Jews was near impossible, as documented in the report of a british Palestine comission.
• The british Whitebook from the eve of WW-II on the other hand showed sympathy for the arabs and frustrated the Zionists, eventually paving the way for them to turn against the british.

I took this from my history books just to illustrate that the british had the traditional problem of someone who tries to herd fleas Unfortunately they made some things worse - I think the awakening arab nationalism and the jewish Zionism had resulted in conflict sooner or later anyway ... with or without british and french new borders.

[This message has been edited by Ragusa (edited April 20, 2002).]

 

"So they should have their toys taken away"

*sigh*

Remember the movie "Aliens"?

Ripley: "I say we take off, and nuke the entire site from orbit."

Ripley: "It's the only way to be sure."

 

After reading wildfire's comment, i think that both the Isrealis and the Palestinians should just be left to burn. Stop the aid, stop the contact, stop caring. They wanna fight, let them. Let them wipe each other out for all i care, US and Britain have got enough to worry about without trying to stop their petty little war.