Israel: what right to defend itself?

Off Topic
21

If the Palestinian terroists didn’t constantly attack Israelis, then it’s not irrational to think that Israeli soldiers wouldn’t be killing their leaders, or blowing up the homes of terrorists, or shooting tear-gas at angry mobs. It’s the Palestinian violence that begets the Israeli response.

This goes back to pre-Israel days, when Jews in Hebron and Safed were massacred (1921) by Arabs because the Arabs felt that these ancient Jewish communities didn’t fit in with their pan-Arab poltical view of the world. Or we can go back about 80 years before that, when Jews were a majority in Jerusalem, even though the Muslim Turks held control of the land. No “zionists” or “illegal settlement” excuses were used back then by Muslims…the Jews were just forced out of the city so the Muslims could exert their “rights” over the city “once again.” What a tolerant religion, that Islam!

NOTE: there were no Arabs or Muslims that went by the name “Palestinians” back then. That wouldn’t happen until after Israel came into existence. Before that, these Arabs had no national identity, because they were never a nation!

I doubt that there will ever be peace between Palestinians and Israelis, because the entire Palestinian identity is built upon a belief that they are victims of Israel, and will remain so until Israel no longer exists. That’s pretty hard to reconcile, folks!

I think the goody two-shoes types here (you know the kind: “can’t we all just get along…both sides are guilty…might doesn’t make right”) need to actually familiarize themselves with the facts of the conflict, rather than the willy-nilly arguments that grotesquely seek to equivicate one side to the other.

…this process is called taking a realistic view of the facts!

~Yawn~

22

Musclerob Buffpants (MB from now on, dude…I can’t keep typing that name out, even if it is better than that “kike” dude’s name that doesn’t belong in a thread involving Jews. The irony is just too thick!

I appreciate your attempt to reason with some folks here over the “occupying” land issue, but bear in mind 3 things:

  1. Israelis (Jews) were living in the land loooong before Palestinian Arabs were (before Islam, as a matter of fact), so that has to be considered when talking about who the native people are…

  2. Israelis speak a language and practice a religion that are both native to the land in question. Palestinians do not. Period.

  3. All those funky little places in the “Old Testament” are actually part of Jewish history, and most of them are inside what is now Israeli-controlled territory. So Israelis being asked to give up permanent claim to the cradle of their ethnic, religious and national identity is far more painful than the so-called experts would have one believe. I won’t even mention the security implications…

So, the Native American Indian analogy really isn’t correct. I’ll soon post one possible analogy…

23

Little Jay, Kike is Mexican. It’s Ki Ke.

24

Brian: She mentions diversion of water in several places. When she viewed the areas that her “grandmother had so breathlessly described” as being cultivated into lush areas by the Jews, for example, she says her grandmother omitted the part about the settlements diverting water to make them so lush.

As far as disagreeing with Jessica Stern, yes I do on some of the issues. I wasn’t making an argument from authority (which would require subscribing to the resultant logical conclusions), but rather giving a source for fact. Her book is certainly much better footnoted than anything I will post in an Internet forum, and so you can feel free to look up and research her sources. LittleJay has hit on the reason that diplomacy probably would NOT work for the Palestinians… the lands are in dispute for religious reasons. Many Zionists feel that in order for the Messiah to come, they must reclaim all the Biblical lands and rebuild the temple. Some Muslims feel the same thing (but it has to be their temple).

I do not, by the way, think terrorism is a viable mode of political dissent. My argument would be that there is no secular, non-radicalized (and uncorrupted) organization or governmental body through which the Palestinians could air their concerns. As a result, it is unsurprising that they express themselves through violence. Modern world: see Maslow.

25

Isreal-Palestine: An Analogy…

In this brief short story, the part of the Israelis will be played by the Native American Indians, and the Palestinian part will be played by the “East Enders” which are a ficticious people. For arguments sake, the East Enders share the same religion with most Canadians, British and Mexicans, as well as the Americans.

[u]Part IV: A New Hope[/u]
The Native Indians will become real powerful over the next decade what with all the casinos and cigarette sales! At first, they peacefully buy back their ancestral land from the ever-greedy American capitalist piggies, but eventually the UN gets wind of this diabolical plot to “take back” New York and violence ensues.

[u]Part V: The Empire Strikes Back[/u]
After some turbulent years of dramatic struggle, during which time millions of Native American Indians are massacred (aka: the Navaholocaust), the Indians win back all their land in say… Greater New York…then rebuild it while fighting off American suicide-bombers, as well as Canadian, Mexican and British Military attempts to destroy them.

The UN condemnations of the continuing Indian “aggression” comes rolling in (it turns out that the British and Mexicans have a lot of influence there due to their dominance in the “soccer ball commodity” that is so essential to 21st century life). Various trade embargos also threaten Indian independance, as do repeated Wars with the British, Canada and Mexico.

The Canadians, who by this point are all French speaking, start a war with the Indians and immediately capitulate without firing a shot, while the British and Mexicans (who came to the aid of Canada) fight and lose many, many times against the Indians. It turns out that China, a major superpower, supplies the Indian hordes with weapons, while the hapless British and Mexicans buy theirs from Iceland. It turns out that Iceland sucks at making weapons.

Also, the world learns that the Indians won the land back from the post-American rulers, who are the French-Canadians from Quebec! Most of the actual New Yorkers gave up all claim to the land and moved to Florida years before the conflict began, so they could retire in air-conditioned condos while watching Yankee games on cable! This fact is hushed away, as the world is now lining up the Indians for a final confrontation!

[u]Part VI: Return of the East Enders?[/u]
Fast forward about 100 years. Now, at the height of their newfound freedom, the “illegal” Indian occupiers are asked to “give the land back” to some new people called East Enders who swear that they are the true natives. These East Enders have become a major terorist threat, as they like to send small kids and rabbits into the Indian Tee-Pees with explosives strapped to their bodies. After all, they are small and weak, and those damn Indians are just so powerful. Can’t you understand, Obi-Wan: It’s there only hope…

Rumor has it that these Indian “Navahoists” control the media as well as the global economy…and that the “Navaholocaust” is all just a big hoax, meant to justify the suffering of the East End kids and their rabbits so that Indians can have nice swimming pools and Tee-Pees, while the East Enders know only misery in their swine-infested refugee camps (these refugee camps, interestingly enough, have been operated continuously for over 50 years by the UN, earning them a spot in the Guiness Book of World Records for being the most blatant failure to rehabilitate a people ever).

In exchange for promises of peace and an “internationally guaranteed” treaty recognizing the right of Native Americans to live in peace as a sovereign nation…and after they move “back” to the reservations and resign themselves to selling cheap cigarettes and managing Casinos…the Indians decide to begin negotiations for dividing the land of their ancestors in exchange for peace.

This process fails, and war ensues once again…

The international community decides that the Indians are the obstacle to peace, and eventually leads a war to “liberate” the East Enders, thus ending their suffering. The international community then watches on in horror as the East Enders, Mexican, British, Canadians and Americans slaughter the de-militarized Indians.

The UN’s reaction to this second “Navaholocaust” is to build a shiny new memorial in New York, and keep a sweet little candle lit for all eternity.

The East Enders celebrate by blowing up some ancient Tee-Pees and cooking a fine Rabbit stew, only to deny the whole episode, and swear that it was all lie meant to rob them of their national pride. Besides, they argued, whatever fate the so-called Indians suffered, it was probably brought on by their poor diet and training regimes!

The End.

Ain’t I annoying?

LJ

26

I just wanted to clarify further that I do NOT condone the use of terror as a means to political “discourse.” I instead contend that there are few avenues for the poor, impoverished Palestinians to pursue, as almost all people in positions of power above them are either militant radicals, or completely corrupt and taking where they can get it. Both of these types are taking advantage of the disenfranchised Palestinians. Period. And that the “common man” on the street, uneducated, desperate, and without any real guidance, should feel that militant opposition to the perceived oppressor (sometimes justifiably) is the only outlet, does not surprise or shock me in the least.

27

1948,1956,1967,1973.
'Nuff said.

Here’s an animated analogy: www.shagrat.net/html/cows.htm

28

“Many Zionists feel that in order for the Messiah to come, they must reclaim all the Biblical lands and rebuild the temple”

FYI, I don’t think this is true. I think the Jews believe that the Messiah himself is supposed to reclaim all the Biblical lands. I defer to LittleJay.

Maslow? Do you mean the psychologist? I guess I could offer the “hierarchy of needs” as a justification for many diverse ideologies. However, with statements from Hamas and al-Quaeda that go simply, “You love life and we love death,” (in fact, Qutb, the father of Islamism, wrote of the Jews’ “craven love for life”) we have to ask whether Islamist ideology has added a special need over and above the hierarchy:
nihilism and totalitarian ideals in religious garb.

BTW, I don’t protest too much when Palestinians target Israeli SOLDIERS. That’s a big moral improvement! It would also be nice if Palestinians phoned warning calls in from time to time before they blew infrastructure up, like the Irgun did to the British at the King David hotel, and the ANC did in South Africa. But this would require a moral fastidiousness that only one side practices thus far, and to an extent greater than any standing army.

29

Yet again, we’re arguing different things. I never said that Hamas and Al-Qaida were anything other than scum. My point is simply that people in dire situations tend to become radicalized, if that is their only perceived exit. I am not, nor do I claim to be, an expert on Islam. But from my readings of Alfarabi and other Islamic thinkers, I do not believe that some love of martyrdom is endemic to the Islamic world.