An alternative view on life, politics, and computers
It's not antisemitism, it is a balanced look at the Israel/Palestinian situation
Published on November 11, 2003 By Calor In Politics

    Some people say that Israel gets treated like a second class citizen in the family of nations. That's probably true. But it isn't without reason. I read the pro-Israel articles posted here and using the power of JoeUser, I'm taking advantage of the equal time this site provides to give a different point of view.

    The nation of Israel was a gift. Yes, Jews lived there at the time of creation and those particular Jews have a historical claim to the region. But they didn't get their nation through force of arms. They didn't get their nation through a compelling argument for self determination. They got their nation because 6 million Jews were murdered in World War II. You can debate back and forth all day about whether what mighta, shoulda, woulda been if the holocaust hadn't happened. But the bottom line is that the United States with Britain pushed through the creation of Israel largely out of sympathy. The nation of Israel was thus born. But it was supposed to be 2 nations. Transjordan did indeed occupy some of the territory originally envisioned to be part of a "Palestinian" state. But not all. The Arabs responded the same way they have responded since the original crusades, they tried to push the invaders into the sea. They lost. And Israel, through subsequent wars (that were not Israel's fault) gained additional territory.

    But to leave it at that would be an incomplete picture. The incomplete picture that many Americans cling to.

    To Arabs, many if not most Jews living today in Israel are just plain foreigners. Westerners at that. They're people from Russia, eastern Europe and the United States mostly. Anyone reading this, if they want, can be a Jew. Poof. You're a Jew. You're from China? No problem. You can convert. Move to Israel. Get a settlement in the West Bank. That is how many Arabs look at it.

    Israel is just a Western colony backed by the United States that is full of foreigners. Foreigners who, year after year, take land from people whose descendents have lived in that region for hundreds if not thousands of years. To Arabs, the claim that some European or American calling himself Jewish can therefore have a historical claim to that region is offensive. What? Some ancestor 15 generations back came from that part of the world? You think Ariel Sharon's family has some multi-generational claim to the land that Israel currently occupies? Whatever you want to call the Palestinians, there's no debate about where their ancestors came from.

    I wonder how Americans would feel in an alternative reality where the Ottoman Empire was the world's super power and that the state of New York was designated as a land where "Native Americans" could return and settle (to the exclusion of people who happened to live in New York). How would they feel if most of these "Native Americans" were not actually from North America but in fact came from say China and Russia and the Middle East but still claimed to be "Native Americans" because their families, at some point down the line, chose to Cherokees? What if, in fact that the Native American claim was actually 2000 years old instead of just 100 years? How do you think Americans would react then? In fact, we do know since we can see exactly how Americans dealt with people on lands that they wanted. Live in Oklahoma? Did you know the entire state was originally set up by the United States as a land for American Indians? But they changed their minds later on. Which is particularly galling given the background on how the American Indians got there in the first place.

    This doesn't excuse the terrorism of the Palestinians. And it is that -- terrorism. From their vantage point, they feel like they have no alternative. They're desperate. Israel doesn't exist thanks to its own hard work alone like Draginol claimed. It exists largely thanks to BILLIONS (that's with a of dollars in aid from the United States every single year. In Arabic eyes, if it looks like a colony, acts like a colony, maybe it is a colony. A colony that year after year claims it wants peace while not addressing the basic problem: The foreigners who moved in who happen to call themselves "jews" have no more legitimate claim to the lands that Arabs have lived on for centuries than the Chinese do.

    So why do Europeans see Israel as a threat to world peace? Because Israel is a luxury that the west may not be able to afford. Think about it. Where did modern terrorism come from? Northern Ireland? Think again. Suicide bombers are the invention of Islamic fanatics in their attempt to try to reclaim the land of Israel from this latest western crusade. And that instability, that violence, that terrorism has spread across the entire Islamic world. Would it have happened if Israel had never been re-created? Probably not.  Without Israel, the corrupt Arabic regimes would not be able to focus the resentment of their masses on something in order to deflect from their own incompetence. The United States would not have to prop up the petty dictatorships in countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.  In other words, the world, as a whole, has paid a high price for Israel to exist. And has its existence somehow benefited the world in some way that can possibly outweigh the misery it has caused directly or indirectly? I don't see it.

    When Israel is listed as a threat to world peace, it doesn't mean that the people of Israel have intentionally done ill. It doesn't take responsibility for the evils committed by the Palestinians or other Arabs away. It just is a straight forward calculus that regardless of blame, the existence of Israel has created a lot more problems than it has solved. And that there are two sides to any story. It's not anti-Semitism. It's not hatred of Jews. It is just a realistic assessment of world affairs. The policies of Israel and the west have, like it or not, created an environment that has generated 3 generations of terrorists now.  Americans can be for Israel on principle. But Europeans have to deal with the mess created by America on a daily basis because of their geographic closeness. It's easy to have high minded principles when you have an ocean to separate you.

    Israel is a threat because it is seen by many, as a western colony that takes land away from peoples who have lived there for centuries to hand over to foreigners whose families have little or no claim on those lands. From that springs anger and hatred in a region that still remembers previous western crusades. That hatred in turn creates terrorism that affects the entire world. Not everyone cares who's fault the terrorism rests on. They care, however, that it happens and what the root cause of it is.


Comments (Page 1)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Nov 11, 2003
Look into history and you will find that there has never been an autonomous Palestine. The Palestinians have no legitimate claim to this land.

In 70 A.D the Romans conquered the region and slaughter thousands of Jews. The Romans renamed the land Palestine, in an attempt to further erase the Jews from the land. Palestine was a name inspired by the “invaders” or “Philistines.” The Philistines were dreaded and frowned upon as a people; the Romans were trying to add insult to injury.
Today’s Palestinians have no relation or blood tie to the Philistines.
on Nov 11, 2003
Excuse me but did you read the article or is your reptialian neo-conservative brain incapable of such lofty things?

Did I say that Palestine was ever an autonomous state? No. Did I imply it? No.

What I said is that the peoples who are losing their lands to settlers have lived in that area, regardless of what it was called for generations. The settlers moving in, the "jews", by contrast, are mostly foreigners from Russia, Europe and the United States who have no historical basis for living there outside a religious identity.
on Nov 11, 2003
Calor,

your "balanced view" is only as "balanced" as any Palestinian Web site.

And since we have already been through all this, I do not want to repeat everything again. Let's just say that I wished you had paid more attention to what was written in the other comments and had done some fact-checking before you posted that unfortunate article.

Also let's make one thing perfectly clear: I do NOT CARE whether Arabs think it is offensive that Europeans or Russians or whoever should live in that region. I find it offensive that Arabs living in that region behave they way they want to behave.

And as for your comparison to New York, well, you got it. This is almost exactly what the city was about. It was indeed a haven for "Americans" from China and Russia and the Middle East. It is no alternative reality, it has happened, without the Empire thing, of course. No such mechanism was required in America.

And if having to live with Jews makes Palestinians desperate, well, tough. We've all had this problem. One can get used to it. Even if it means having to live with a democratic neighbour that brings freedom and prosperity in the region.

As for Israel's claim to the land, I do not personally believe that the ancient claim is of any value, and neither is the Arabs more present claim. The people who lived then are long dead. For me the fact that Israel is a democracy makes it legitimate. That's all.

As for the luxury statement, I guess this is where we will have to agree to disagree.

You see, for me, people are NEVER something one might not be able to afford, and a democratic country, even in that region, should NOT be a luxury.



on Nov 11, 2003
Let's see.
The Israelites want peace, but the Arabs refuse to give them peace because they don't like foreigners living there, so Israel is the bad guy?
Islamic fanatics create suicide bombers to attack Israel, so Israel is the bad guy?
Arab countries will attack Israel and other countries with terrorism, so Israel is the bad guy?
When another country kills Jews and takes their land, it's all right, but when Jews take back that land, they're the bad guys?
I don't know. It sounds like anti-Semitism to me.
on Nov 11, 2003
Reptilian… that’s a new one. I made an assumption that you were pro Palestinian because you believed they had a legitimate claim to the land. You claim Israel is a liability for America, we would be better off without them. You twiddle your thumbs and wonder, what would happen if Israel didn’t exist? Well, for one thing Saddam Hussein, a man who murdered his eleventh grade teacher in a fit of rage would have developed nuclear weapons. Israel’s unilateral action to take out Hussein’s weapon sites may have saved millions of lives. Hussein would have thought nothing of nuking a few million people and the praising Allah for a wonderful days work.

on Nov 11, 2003
Oh right, those evil Arabs. Disliking having foreigners moving in and taking lands that their families have lived on for generations is so uncharacteristic for people.

The Arabs aren't the ones who have wiped out millions of people for being the wrong race, Andrew. You of all people should recognize that people don't appreciate foreigners moving in and taking their lands at gun point.

Did I excuse Palestinian terrorism? Nope. It's evil wrong vile inhumane .

But arguing that Jews have a historical right to Israel is idiotic to the extreme. So, Andrew, tomorrow you convert to Judaism. You going to start sayiing that you and your family have an ancient RIGHT to live in Israel now? Do you realie how insane that is?

A literal hand ful of people got handed a chunk of land that was already occupied by other people. Those people fought to kick the foreigners who started swarming in out and lost and were ejected.
on Nov 11, 2003
Now you complain about Israel’s immigration policy, Israel believes in accepting any Jew from anywhere in the world, no matter what condition they are in or how oppressed they are. If only the Arabs were so humane to their own, then there would be no Palestinian refugees.
on Nov 11, 2003
My only question is what exactly is your definition of 'modern terrorism'? Suicide bombing, after all, isn't a requirement of it, is it?

I am assuming you mean acts of terror against civilian rather than State targets - since you didn't say the various 19th century Anarchist movements throughout Europe, the US and Russia. Even IIRC factories and such were also fair game to them. And of course, they aren't even the earliest example of state-directed terrorism.

So, against civilians then? There's the IZL, the Irgun. They didn't limit their activites to military or police targets.
on Nov 11, 2003
War Guilt in Iraq

War guilt addresses a broader question that historians and sometimes jurists like to ask: which government? Since war is generally considered an awful thing, it becomes crucially important to decide which country is finally responsible for its occurrence. It is a matter of justice, and important for trying to achieve peace on earth, that everyone understand which government is responsible.

We know the answer here too, but the war party is constantly trying to muddy the waters. The war party says that Saddam was uncooperative before the war, that he harbored WMDs, that he was itching for a war, and even George Bush said before the invasion that it was in Saddam's power to stop a war if only he would comply with US demands. But was it really? Even if you believe that the US is granted some divine right to tell other countries what to do, could US ultimatums be taken seriously?

We've already seen how the WMD claim didn't hold up. It is tough for Americans to admit it, but Saddam was telling the truth, and US leaders were not. It turns out that there is much more to the story. It seems that the Iraqi government did everything it could to avert a war, even aside from revealing all known details about its weapons' programs in its accurate 12,000-page weapons declaration to the UN. It tried old-fashioned backdoor diplomatic maneuvers as well, further establishing that the issue of war guilt firmly lands on the US.

As has been widely reported, last March, as US troops gathered on Iraqi borders, Saddam sent a message to the Bush administration through Imad Hage, a Lebanese-American businessman, who had met with Saddam. It had first reached the office of the under secretary for planning and defense, in February. The message: Iraq has no WMDs, Saddam would permit US troops and experts to do a search of the country, and Saddam would even permit free elections – anything to avert a war. The same message was delivered in London a month later to Pentagon adviser Richard Perle.


In addition, the Iraqis were prepared to hand over a man being held in Baghdad on suspicion of involvement in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. They were ready to sign up in the US-led global war on terrorism. They were ready to offer "full support for any U.S. plan" in the Arab-Israeli peace process. It gets more astounding. Iraq was prepared to offer US companies "first priority as it relates to Iraq oil, mining rights."

Maybe Iraq would not have followed through with all these promises, but the offer alone shows that Iraq wanted to make a deal, that it wanted to avert war. That is the crucial thing.

The list alone reveals another interesting component so far uncommented upon. As you go through the list of concessions – all now in the hands of Senate investigators – it seems that government leaders in Iraq, including Saddam himself, were as confused as anyone else was about the real reason the US was threatening war. Was it about terrorism? Ok, we'll fight terrorism. Dictatorship? Ok, we'll hold free elections. Iraqi support of the Palestinian cause? Ok, we'll switch sides. WMDs? We would gladly dismantle them if we had them. Oil? You can have it.

The communications hit all the bases, just in case one of these reasons was the real reason for war. What we have here is a regime desperate to avert a war, ready to do anything and everything to stop destruction, invasion, mass death, and occupation. Moreover, members of the Iraqi regime must have been scratching their heads to figure out precisely what was really driving the Bush administration, and figured it was worth the effort to go all out for peace.

The US intended to go to war regardless of what the opposing country would or would not do. There is precedent of course – the US government has a long history of maneuvering itself into avoidable wars – but rarely has the hunger for war been more open or more voracious, more public and more aggressive.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/war-guilt.html
on Nov 11, 2003
I have only one comment, the world should be a place where all can live, people who have a constant 2000 year heritage in one place do have some rights to live right where they are, no matter who created the state or its name, however people who have a conection to this land by direct pure linage, which you do have to have to be Jweish, do also have a right. From here on it is a matter for the two groups to understand, and the rest of us can go suck eggs. What we do have a duty to do is try to bring these two groups together. The answer is not so simple and I do not pretend to have the answer. However no matter what one does to the other and vice versa, it does not give the other any more legitimacy. However sooner or later one side or the other needs to realise this or they will ned up destrying each other.
on Nov 11, 2003
As for histroy we can argue the finer points and give our own opinions till we are all in wheel chairs and retirement homes, while innocent people on boths sides suffer. I might add while I do recoginise the legitimite rights of Israel to exist both we in the western world and Israel need to learn that you do not turn and expect the people living there to put out the welcome mat and invite you to take over. Both sides have no intention leaving so then they need to learn a comprimise. I do disagree with the assertation that a majority of ARABS are anti Jewish, yet they like innocent Israeli civilians are both at the mercy of the monority. Which is the real shame.
on Nov 11, 2003
Calor,

did you not read what I wrote? I specifically said that I do NOT believe in a legitimate historical claim to the land.

As for "foreigners moving in and taking lands", you might want to check the facts. The land was the Ottoman Empire's, not Arab land. Jews and Arabs have lived there for centuries and after the empire collapsed, Jews have taken exactly the land they got from the protectorate. If this was about "kicking" foreigners out, the Jews have exactly the same right to do as the Arabs, as they are both native and foreign, depending on individual origin.
on Nov 11, 2003
Anthony and Andrew, you really don't seem to have any understanding of the historical background of the conflict; you are merely basing your opinions on the recent atrocities you have witnessed on television.

Here's an interesting articles about the early policies of the Jews towards the Palestinians (when they were under British occupation) summing up the roots of the conflict

http://www.wrmea.com/html/focus.htm#Policies

Chaim Weizmann (first president of Israel) 1937 :
"In the course of time we shall expand to the whole country ...this is only an arrangement for the next 15-30 years."

David Ben-Gurion (first prime minister of Israel) 1938 :
"After we become a strong force, as a result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine."

United Nations (resolution 3379) 1975 :
"Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination"

A.K.
on Nov 11, 2003
Israel as a nation is not a threat to the world as such, by this I mean that in general these are a race of people who in general and history bears this out , are peace loving. However the conflict which they are a part of is a threat. I am sure that many people in Europe would mean this when they answer yes to the question above. I do not believe these people are anti semites, however like most people they do not agree with the tactics of either side.
What does strike me as rather stupid , was the treatment over the past two or three years. No I do not see him as innocent , nor do I see him as a martyer however, this is exactly what Israel have created , before they barricaded him into his office he was always becoming marginalised, even though he was involved with terrorists, and his tenure as head of state was shaky at best. Then he is given this treatment, what happens, bang he right back up there and leading the pack, the terror pack that is. Now it is almost impossible to get any agreement with his government due to his new found power, which means no matter how well intentioned the Government or parts of it may be it will always be undermined by his appointees.. While he is in power there will be no peace, however making him out to be a martyer just compounds this. SO we can argue the finer points as we see them until the cows come home but we are not going tosolve any thing, especially with name calling and accusations, like reptillian or anti semite. Pretty much the same as our pollies, no wonder we get no-where.
on Nov 11, 2003
Israel as a nation is not a threat to the world as such, by this I mean that in general these are a race of people who in general and history bears this out , are peace loving. However the conflict which they are a part of is a threat. I am sure that many people in Europe would mean this when they answer yes to the question above. I do not believe these people are anti semites, however like most people they do not agree with the tactics of either side.
What does strike me as rather stupid , was the treatment over the past two or three years. No I do not see him as innocent , nor do I see him as a martyer however, this is exactly what Israel have created , before they barricaded him into his office he was always becoming marginalised, even though he was involved with terrorists, and his tenure as head of state was shaky at best. Then he is given this treatment, what happens, bang he right back up there and leading the pack, the terror pack that is. Now it is almost impossible to get any agreement with his government due to his new found power, which means no matter how well intentioned the Government or parts of it may be it will always be undermined by his appointees.. While he is in power there will be no peace, however making him out to be a martyer just compounds this. SO we can argue the finer points as we see them until the cows come home but we are not going tosolve any thing, especially with name calling and accusations, like reptillian or anti semite. Pretty much the same as our pollies, no wonder we get no-where.
3 Pages1 2 3