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 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
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 martyr however, this is exactly what Israel have created , before they barricaded him into his office he was always becoming marginalized, 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 martyr just compounds this. SO we can argue the finer points as we see them until the cows come home but we are not going to solve any thing, especially with name calling and accusations, like reptilian 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 martyr however, this is exactly what Israel have created , before they barricaded him into his office he was always becoming marginalized, 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 martyr just compounds this. SO we can argue the finer points as we see them until the cows come home but we are not going to solve any thing, especially with name calling and accusations, like reptilian or anti Semite. Pretty much the same as our pollies, no wonder we get no-where.
on Nov 11, 2003
Back again. Name calling is childish guys.

As for the automatic name tag of ”anti semite”, be attributed to those who level criticism against Israeli policy, well what about the dissenting Jews themselves what are they? I would say that it is about time we learnt to differentiate between what is and what isn't.

I would expect that comments such as all Jews are bad and deserve no less would be, saying that they are a threat or they should change their policy towards others who have a legitime right to share the land on which they live is not. Get a grip guys and use the gray matter a bit more, show some intelligent debate.
on Nov 11, 2003
Sorry about the same submission four times , computer went a bit haywire don't no what happened, no I'm not just trying to make a poit. Again sorry.
on Nov 11, 2003
Yes it's me again, one last point just a correction, Calor, don't get me wrong I agree with you in the main, however, to be Jweish does not come from being of the Jewish faith, in fact many Jews are in fact secular. To be truely Jewish you must be able to trace you Jewish blood back to Abraham, it must be uninterupted and must be on your mother's side, Jews are one of the many Tribes/Nations which make up the people of the Middle East, along with Arabs and Persians, these can then be divided up into sub - groups such as Palestinians. So these people in the main do have a direct connection to the land in which they now reside. Other than that the rest of your argument spot on.
on Nov 11, 2003
Calor - get your facts straight and try again. arabs are not native to the palestine area. they migrated there, just like everyone else in the region. you have been misled by the revisionists... your information seems biased and limited. if you want to make a point, get the facts straight. I gave up on reading part way through because i saw you were just spewing. i know now to ignore your articles
on Nov 11, 2003
I'm sure the Jews disliked it when their land was taken from them, which is why I'm wondering why it's all right when it was taken from them, but not when they take it from those who took it from them.
on Nov 12, 2003
-------------------------
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.
-------------------------

that's a scary line there. israel is the only country i can think of where people in some form or another, question its right to exist. no one asks "does north korea's/iraq's/usa's/your home country's existence outweigh the misery it causes?"

if the palestinians were to concentrate on military targets or do non-violent protests like blacks did in the civil rights era while the media's cameras are on, they would get massive gains. even when it was just kids throwing rocks trying to goad israeli soldiers to fire at them they got higher public opinion. but instead, they spend most of their efforts on killing defenseless targets. the military is too much of a fair fight, so they have to bomb pizza parlors full of civilians.

i used to feel sorry for the palestinians civilian population because they were stuck in such a crappy situation: israel can't give too much leeway to them or they get attacked by terrorists hiding among them. they get shafted by corrupt authorities and used as shields by terrorists. they get driven from their homes and get no help or the help gets taken away for fighting.

then you see video of palestinians dancing in the streets when news of 9/11 arrived. they gained NOTHING from 9/11. freaking less than nothing, and they were dancing. intellectually i know that it is only a small, stupid, part of the population that feels that way. but it has forever colored soiled how i feel about palestinians and their efforts to do anything.
on Nov 12, 2003
Billionaire Soros takes on Bush
BY LAURA BLUMENFELD, THE WASHINGTON POST

George Soros, one of the world's richest men, has ...a new project: defeating President Bush.
"IT IS THE central focus of my life," Soros said, his blue eyes settled on an unseen target. The 2004 presidential race, he said in an interview, is "a matter of life and death."...
'A DANGER TO THE WORLD'
Overnight, Soros, 74, has become the major financial player of the left. He has elicited cries of foul play from the right. And with a tight nod, he pledged: "If necessary, I would give more money."
"America, under Bush, is a danger to the world," Soros said. Then he smiled: "And I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is."
Soros believes a "supremacist ideology" guides this White House. He hears echoes in its rhetoric of his childhood in occupied Hungary. "When I hear Bush say, 'You're either with us or against us,' it reminds me of the Germans." It conjures up memories, he said, of Nazi slogans on the walls, Der Feind Hort mit ("The enemy is listening"): "My experiences under Nazi and Soviet rule have sensitized me," he said in a soft Hungarian accent.
...recently, Soros has grown alarmed at the influence of neoconservatives, whom he calls "a bunch of extremists guided by a crude form of social Darwinism."
Neoconservatives, Soros said, are exploiting the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to promote a preexisting agenda of preemptive war and world dominion. "Bush feels that on September 11th he was anointed by God," Soros said. "He's leading the U.S. and the world toward a vicious circle of escalating violence."
...Asked whether he would trade his $7 billion fortune to unseat Bush, Soros opened his mouth. Then he closed it. The proposal hung in the air: Would he become poor to beat Bush?
He said: "If someone guaranteed it."

From the Washington Post
on Nov 12, 2003
It doesn’t really matter how much money the Democrat party gets at this point, they are stuck in a depression era mindset for the economy, and a Vietnam mindset for national security. This is just a Democrat party that continues to cling to power long after they have failed to inspire allegiance.
on Nov 12, 2003
To add some further comparisons to the debate, look at northern Ireland.

At the end of the 16th century there was a large rebellion in Ireland against the English. It went on for many years before it was eventually defeated. In 1603 most of the chieftains in Northern Ireland fled overseas and the English government took the oppertunity to displace the catholics and replace them with Scottish landowners. A plantation occurred. 400 years later and the problems have still not healed. Half the population is catholic, half protestant.

Who has the right to live on that land?

If we compared to Israel, then the protestants should be removed from the land and all Irish catholics should be allowed return. That could be 40 million from the US alone! This sort of thinking however would be totally unacceptable in Ireland, so why was it acceptable for Israel?

The creation of a Jewish state intemingled with Arabs was a mistake. Of course the Jews have a right to statehood, but such a state should have been formed in conjunction with the Arabs and Jewish immigration should have been agreed and facilitated with them.

Well, nearly 60 years of hatred, terrorism, attrocities have come from that initial mess up and the European population feels that Israel (the entire situation, not just the Jews) is indeed the major threat to world peace.

From an Irish point of view it's very sad watching the situation. The Israeli government is worse that the most fanatical nationalist or Unionist. "No surrender" would be an excellent slogan for them. No compromise, no trust, no peace, no hope, would be more realistic. The Arabs are not much better. The prime minister seems to be trying hard but with no help give on the Israeli side how is he ever going to pull the palestinian people away from the extremists?

Paul.
on Nov 12, 2003
A.K.,

we do know the historical background. We also know that it is constantly misrepresented by anti-semites. And we also know that historical background is largely a matter of opinion.

But current atrocities are not. As I said before I base my opinion on Israel's legitimacy on the current scenario. I don't care about the whereabouts of people that have died decades ago. And regardless of how many Israeli politicians demand that Israel should be the size of the whole territory it was meant to be, and even regardless of what the UN claim, I still believe that killing children is wrong and so is any cause that makes people use them as primary targets.


Zergimmi,

there is a difference between anti-Israel and anti-semitism. It is possible for a Jew to be against Israel (or some of its policies), it is even possible for a Jew to be an anti-semite. However, that doesn't mean that anti-semites can excuse their rascism by stating they are merely anti-Israel.

If you claim that Israel is wrong because it overreacts, you might be anti-Israel. But if you claim that Israel has no right to exist or lie about its history or insist that when Israel does X it is much worse as if an Arab country does X, you are an anti-semite.

What if Israel enacted all the laws against Arabs that Saudi-Arabia has against Jews? Wouldn't that be a fair solution? Shouldn't Israel's prime minister announce that his government found that the Sauds are a wise family and that their decisions are pure wisdom and can be applied everywhere, to any people? Should Israel treat Palestinians the way Saudi-Arabia treated Saudi-Arabian Jews? Should Israel deport all Palestinians and never allow the back (and confiscate their property)? Wouldn't that be a fair solution? I mean, Saudi-Arabia did that (to the Jews) and nobody is complaining. How come Arabs are allowed to do that and Jews are not?


Solitair,

I have lived in Dublin a few years ago. I have been in Northern Ireland often, including Belfast (which Dubliners go to for shopping). The situation is not comparable. Not at all. Not even slightly. For the most part catholics and protestants live there in peace and they don't hate each other. If we could get the Palestinians to behave like them, the problem would be solved.

Who has the right to live on that land? Well, that's simple: everybody does. We all have the right to live there or anywhere else. The only things that could stop us from exercising the right is government interference or some other use of force or the fact that other people are already exercising their right to live there.

40 million Irish could move to Ireland if they wanted to. But the problem does not arise because they don't want to. Nobody stops them from doing it except the fact that Ireland is already full and people have thus no special interest to move there (individually they do, but no large groups). But the same is not true for 2 or 3 million Jews. Israel has room for them. Israel even had room for those Jews that were expelled from other Arab nations.

But if the United Kingdom decided that Ireland, the ancient homeland of the Irish catholics, should be one of their colonies again? What if the UK told protestants in Ireland (and Northern Ireland) to leave temporarily while the UK attack the republic and invade it, and then, presumably, give it to protestants to live in? What if Ireland won that war, managed to even invade Northern Ireland and didn't allow the protestants to come back? Would that make you anti-Ireland or anti-British?

Who's fault would it be? The attacker's or the defender's? Who would have the privilege of living in Ireland? The catholics who were attacked or the protestants who left?

What if the UK expelled all catholics living in Great Britain and they moved to Ireland? Would this mean that

a) the UK should compensate them?

or

Ireland should also allow the protestants to come back?

Why would all the problem-solving rest on Ireland's shoulder? Why don't we exspect the UK to do anything about it?

The situation in reality is, of course, different. But that's not because the Irish catholics are more civilized than the Israeli Jews. It's simply because the British are a lot more civilized than the Arabs. That's btw why the UK don't attack their neighbours every ten years; even if they happen to live on land that was once British. Incidentally, the British also don't care if more Irish move to Ireland or even Northern Ireland. And they do not constantly send killers to Ireland to make life misrably there.

So what would you do in that alternative reality? Would you be anti-Ireland but not anti-catholic? Or would you say that the UK should have refrained from attacking Ireland and was right to lose the territory they risked while doing so? Would you demand that the protestants who left Ireland when Britain called for them to should have a "right to return", even though Ireland had to accomodate the catholics expelled from Britain, or would you decide that they are the UK's problem?

As I see it you have three choices now:

1. You can defend the position that both attacked countries, Ireland and Israel were wrong, deserve to be defeated (but aren't), and must allow the protestants/Arabs who left when the UK/other Arab countries called them back.

2. You can claim that Ireland and Israel were right.

3. Or you can claim that in the alternative reality Ireland was right, but in the real world Israel is not. But that would make you an anti-semite.

Have fun.
on Nov 12, 2003
Did you try living in Ireland in the 1970's? Then there was hatred. Walls were build between communities. Riots were a common occurance. People were being killed on an almost daily basis. Northern Ireland NOW is where Israel needs to be in 30 years time. It can be done!

As for you examples, the UK invading Ireland would be very different from the UK invading Northern Ireland. In one case 95% of the population are Catholic in the other 50% are. Arab countries invading Israel (something which was wrong and I totally disagree with) could at least argue that half the population invited them. That would not be the case with the UK invading Ireland. Consider Ireland as US / Jews abroard, Northern Ireland as the state of Israel (in the 1970's it had it's own government) , and the UK as the Arab countries.

As for your three choices that in itself is the problem. They're al labout right and wrong and not about how to bring peace. It's all apportioning blame. Israel did this the Arabs did that. If Northern Ireland had remained like that we'd still be in a state of civil war! Lets stop the finger pointing and focus on the future.

In a crux that's the problem. Europeans feel that the Israel situation is a threat to world peace because neither the Arabs or the Israeli can do that. Every time some moves are made towards peace and some terrorist event occurs, Israel retaliates, then the Arab terrorists (laughing at how easy it is to derail the peace process) retaliate and bye bye peace moves.

The terrorists on the Arab side don't want peace. They only need to comit a single attrocity to derail any process. Until Israel learns to control it's desire for immediate revenge peace will not happen.

Paul.
on Nov 12, 2003
Comparing Northern Ireland alone to Israel doesn't make much sense. Israel is neither occupied by another country nor does the majority of its population want to be. Comparing Ireland to Israel and Northern Ireland to the West Bank (once occupied by Jordan) makes a lot more sense.

I did not live in Ireland in the 1970s, but I know many who have. Northern Ireland now is the result of a peace process which could be repeated in Israel IF

a) The Arabs accepted that Israel has a right to exist like the UK always accepted that Ireland does.

The Arabs would cease attacking Israel like the UK never attacks Ireland.

c) The Arabs compensate expelled Jews for their losses since the UK never did that to Irish catholics living in Great Britain. (Or at least the Arabs could give that property to the Palestinians.)

d) The Palestinians would have to give up the "right to return" (which is a farce anyway), stop supporting their terrosists or treating them like freedom fighters.

The stage Israel is now in is one that Ireland has never been in. Ireland is still in the "Jordan occupies the West Bank" stage. But since Ireland was never attacked by the UK and never won that war against the UK, Ireland, as opposed to Israel, did never take over these occupied territories or their equivalent.

If we intend to solve the problems in Israel the way it was done in Ireland, a) to d) would have to happen AND we would have to find an original way to solve the West Bank problem.

One solution is to make the West Bank (and Gaza) a Palestinian state. But for that to happen a) to d) must happen first. And it is totally up to the Arabs to do that. It's their choice. They can have peace whenever they want. But they don't want peace.

Israel cannot do anything to help here.

Let's see how far the Arabs have gotten in reaching a) to d) and e) (West Bank):

a) Two Arab states (Egypt and Jordan) have completed that goal. The others have given lip service. This is not enough.

The Arabs have not attacked Israel officially for quite a while, but not because they didn't want to, but merely because they have always lost when they tried. This has to change. The Arabs will have to CONVINCE the US and Israel that they WON'T attack Israel even if they could win such a war.

c) I don't ever see that happening. My proposal is that the Arabs give that property to the Palestinians, or even allow them to live on land once owned by Jews in Arab countries. There is no physical reason for why Palestinians must live in Palestine. They can live elsewhere just like the Jews of Arabia. There is nothing in an Arab that makes him more special than a Jew and I think it is time we take that into account when trying to solve the problems.

d) This is up to the Palestinians. Israel can only help by trying to kill all the terrorists or punish Palestiniant when they support them. Israel is already doing that. But Israel can only do as much. It is up to the Palestinian proto-government to stop terrorism and they either can't or won't.

e) An independent Palestine of course requires a) to d). And I think they have to give up Jerusalem. The Arabs did already control Jerusalem a few decades ago and we all know what that meant: no Jews allowed, difficulties for Christians. But Jerusalem is a holy city to many and must be accessible. Only Israel can and did guarantee that. Thus Israel must have Jerusalem. It's quite simple, really.

Muslims can argue that it is a holy city for them and must thus be in Arab hands, however:

1. Jerusalem is a holy Christian city too, as is Bethlehem, but nobody has complained that they are not ruled by Christians in a long time.

2. Jerusalem was a holy place for Jews and Christians long before it became such for Muslims.

3. Jerusalem is only a holy city for Muslims because it was a holy city for Jews and Christians.

4. Arabs have proven that they cannot be trusted to rule a city that is holy for other faiths as well.

I think this would solve the problem and bring peace. But since the Arabs do not want peace, I don't see it happening, except if we beat them up.
on Nov 13, 2003
well... I am seriously going to look at all of this. I have been watching the middle East and policies for a while now.

I still feel that Israel is ther to stay and what is done is done. I don't think that Palestine can be said to be 'a land of no country'. There are people who have been there for centuries and dispite what others may thing it is important to them to have it.

I would personally suggest that BOTHA sides need to change tactics. Israel ned to get out of 'retaliation' mode and thing strategic and Palestine needs to stop distroying its people and culture by thinking self destruction is the only way to get attention.


End the end, Palestine will become a state, through first being a camp to weed out killer terrorists of which many will not like. By Palestine being a camp, no one can get in or out. Food, work, social, educational rules can be changed and rule of law can happen for them. Right now is someone rons, rapes, threatens, kills.. there is no one to turn to for justice.

The heart of the problem between Israel and the Palestinians IS the Palistinians. No matter what you feel about ethics or "if I can do it you can", when you grow up in a culture of people who have nothing, look forward to nothing, with generations of nothing, no work, lack of education and rights, you end up with a very bad mix.

Palestine having nothing to loose IS the problem and it is being used by extremists, regional powers and terrorists to stay in power for their own means.

Palestine is the pawn. Change it from that stature and you change the game.
3 Pages1 2 3