Do you consider Israel a good country

[chucky2]

Who in gods name voted Yes in this?! Are they insane?

 

[Caravaggio]

Caravaggio,

With both sides of the dispute clearly thinking they are the victims and in the right to do what they are doing do you have any thoughts on how to realistically bring about any resolution to the dispute? If neither side is willing to take responsibility for their actions is there anything that we could, as an international community, actually do to make things better in the region?

The only form of solution that I know for people who refuse to shake hands and make up is to separate them. Yet I do not really think this falls into the category of realistic as wholesale moving of one group out of the area, even if you could convince one side to leave without fighting to the death, still leaves you with the problem of where to put them.

That is a very good question, I shall try to answer it. Please let me know if you think my plan is unrealistic.

We need to begin with the realisation that the creation of Israel deprived another community of its own hope for self determination.

The United Nations have long held the view that there should be two states, an independent Palestine and a recognised Israel. After forty-five years of failure to realise this aim I believe we need to consider two things:

1) Israel has no intention of allowing any such state as a free Palestine to exist. By which I mean a state with its own army, navy and airforce. An independent entity with secure inviolable borders, able to trade with the rest of the world without begging for aid.

2) Palestinians dare not recognise Israel because to do so would be equivalent to recognising that the land they lost in 1947/8 will probably never be their's again.

Any reasonable person must see that European Jews have suffered from extraordinary hatred, prejudice and even attempts at their annihilation. But the circumstances of history (the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the Holocaust) have made the wholly innocent Palestinians pay the price for Russian pogroms of the 1880's and Hitler's genocidal plans (1942-45).

The two-state solution is a non-starter. Any Palestine with a US armed Israel as a neighbour would be unviable.
So, where do we go from here? How about a one-state solution with Jews, Arabs and Christians sharing the land to which they can claim familial links in recent memory ( not imaginary links from 3,000 years ago)?

Jews, Arabs and Christians did exactly this for hundreds of years before 1880. Modern Palestinians would probably have had Jewish ancestors many centuries ago. It is religion which loves to create difference and superiority. Religious conflicts can only be solved when peoples recognise their common humanity.
The major bank of the late Ottoman Empire had five Jewish directors. They were respected, even considered essential.

So my model for peace would be based on something like the conductor Daniel Barenboim's East-West Divan Orchestra.
The land of Israel, the West Bank, Gaza would gradually be shared. No Jews would be allowed dual nationality, no new Jewish immigrants would be allowed to enter unless their lives were in danger. Palestinians in camps elsewhere could apply for phased return to the new state if they could claim a link to a village from which they had been removed by force.
The Israeli 'law of return', which is clearly a commitment to unlimited Jewish immigration, would have to be scrapped.

And finally, the USA would be asked to stop providing Israel with free military aid as that gives Israel the basis for never having to compromise.

If Israel was a real nation, not America's 51st state, she would have to negotiate with her neighbours. Only then can peace emerge. How long do we have to wait? My guess is 50-100 years. Hope it's sooner.

 

[Caravaggio]

Caravaggio will not answer you!!

Check out post 202. I did.

Because other than his wall of anti - Israeli sources

If you look, you will see that the bulk of the authors I refer to are Jewish. Many are also Israeli.

 

[KMFJD]

Well this is interesting, not sure if it's a reliable website though...

http://awdnews.com/top-news/9417-sa...-begin-normalize-ties-with-jewish-nation.html

"Referring to the ongoing war in Gaza strip, the Saudi foreign Minster stressed that Hamas authority is the sole responsible for Palestinian calamity and they must brought before the law.

The Saudi official further added that Arab World Increasingly Frustrated With Hamas which is seeking more wars."

 

[JEDIYoda]

If you look, you will see that the bulk of the authors I refer to are Jewish. Many are also Israeli.

That proves what exactly???

Even jews are not 100% in agreement over what should be done.

If you look at most of the books that are anti Obama you will see that most of the authors are American citizen......so??

 

[Rebel_L]

That is a very good question, I shall try to answer it. Please let me know if you think my plan is unrealistic.

We need to begin with the realisation that the creation of Israel deprived another community of its own hope for self determination.

The United Nations have long held the view that there should be two states, an independent Palestine and a recognised Israel. After forty-five years of failure to realise this aim I believe we need to consider two things:

1) Israel has no intention of allowing any such state as a free Palestine to exist. By which I mean a state with its own army, navy and airforce. An independent entity with secure inviolable borders, able to trade with the rest of the world without begging for aid.

2) Palestinians dare not recognise Israel because to do so would be equivalent to recognising that the land they lost in 1947/8 will probably never be their's again.

Any reasonable person must see that European Jews have suffered from extraordinary hatred, prejudice and even attempts at their annihilation. But the circumstances of history (the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the Holocaust) have made the wholly innocent Palestinians pay the price for Russian pogroms of the 1880's and Hitler's genocidal plans (1942-45).

The two-state solution is a non-starter. Any Palestine with a US armed Israel as a neighbour would be unviable.
So, where do we go from here? How about a one-state solution with Jews, Arabs and Christians sharing the land to which they can claim familial links in recent memory ( not imaginary links from 3,000 years ago)?

Jews, Arabs and Christians did exactly this for hundreds of years before 1880. Modern Palestinians would probably have had Jewish ancestors many centuries ago. It is religion which loves to create difference and superiority. Religious conflicts can only be solved when peoples recognise their common humanity.
The major bank of the late Ottoman Empire had five Jewish directors. They were respected, even considered essential.

So my model for peace would be based on something like the conductor Daniel Barenboim's East-West Divan Orchestra.
The land of Israel, the West Bank, Gaza would gradually be shared. No Jews would be allowed dual nationality, no new Jewish immigrants would be allowed to enter unless their lives were in danger. Palestinians in camps elsewhere could apply for phased return to the new state if they could claim a link to a village from which they had been removed by force.
The Israeli 'law of return', which is clearly a commitment to unlimited Jewish immigration, would have to be scrapped.

And finally, the USA would be asked to stop providing Israel with free military aid as that gives Israel the basis for never having to compromise.

If Israel was a real nation, not America's 51st state, she would have to negotiate with her neighbours. Only then can peace emerge. How long do we have to wait? My guess is 50-100 years. Hope it's sooner.

I certainly like your idea of a one state solution where everyone has learned to get along and I think that is the best long term solution for human interaction in general. Out of all the points you listed however, I only see one that could be instituted now by the world at large, and that would be to cut off military aid to Israel.

I believe that at this point we have armed Israel to far for it to make much of a difference. Israel likely being a nuclear power, having enough advanced military tech combined with a large enough army to be a bully on a larger scale in the middle east than they are now could make a play for some of the large lucrative resources in the area. With the level of high emotions involved I would not want to bet that to economically starve Israel would give us capitulation instead of fight response. A solution that involves a not unrealistic chance of a full scale war with Israel is not one that is reasonable to me. (you may disagree on the dangers of trying to lessen Israel's power to wage war, and I would not call myself an expert and am mostly considering how such an emotionally charged situation tends to make people do some really crazy things).

Even if we can successfully find a way to greatly reduce Israel's military power so they have to start finding ways to get a long, the estimated time frame that you give is what makes the solution one that is hard to call reasonable. Having to stand by and watch the continued killing for that much longer does not really seem that reasonable to me, perhaps in the end necessary, but not reasonable. (I hope that comment makes sense)

 

[JEDIYoda]

I certainly like your idea of a one state solution where everyone has learned to get along and I think that is the best long term solution for human interaction in general. <--there is more to this than learning to get along! A one state solution will never ever happen!

Out of all the points you listed however, I only see one that could be instituted now by the world at large, and that would be to cut off military aid to Israel.<--- that will never happen!

I believe that at this point we have armed Israel to far for it to make much of a difference. Israel likely being a nuclear power, having enough advanced military tech combined with a large enough army to be a bully on a larger scale in the middle east than they are now could make a play for some of the large lucrative resources in the area. <--- that's just idiotic talk!! When Israel was formed within days -- The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 broke out when five Arab nations invaded territory in the former Palestinian mandate immediately following the announcement of the independence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948. In 1947, and again on May 14, 1948, the United States had offered de facto recognition of the Israeli Provisional Government, but during the war, the United States maintained an arms embargo against all belligerents.

On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 181 (also known as the Partition Resolution) that would divide Great Britain’s former Palestinian mandate into Jewish and Arab states in May 1948. Under the resolution, the area of religious significance surrounding Jerusalem would remain under international control administered by the United Nations. The Palestinian Arabs refused to recognize this arrangement, which they regarded as favorable to the Jews and unfair to the Arab population that would remain in Jewish territory under the partition. The United States sought a middle way by supporting the United Nations resolution, but also encouraging negotiations between Arabs and Jews in the Middle East.

The United Nations resolution sparked conflict between Jewish and Arab groups within Palestine. Fighting began with attacks by irregular bands of Palestinian Arabs attached to local units of the Arab Liberation Army composed of volunteers from Palestine and neighboring Arab countries. These groups launched their attacks against Jewish cities, settlements, and armed forces. The Jewish forces were composed of the Haganah, the underground militia of the Jewish community in Palestine, and two small irregular groups, the Irgun, and LEHI. The goal of the Arabs was initially to block the Partition Resolution and to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state. The Jews, on the other hand, hoped to gain control over the territory allotted to them under the Partition Plan.

After Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948, the fighting intensified with other Arab forces joining the Palestinian Arabs in attacking territory in the former Palestinian mandate. On the eve of May 14, the Arabs launched an air attack on Tel Aviv, which the Israelis resisted. This action was followed by the invasion of the former Palestinian mandate by Arab armies from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt. Saudi Arabia sent a formation that fought under the Egyptian command. British trained forces from Transjordan eventually intervened in the conflict, but only in areas that had been designated as part of the Arab state under the United Nations Partition Plan and the corpus separatum of Jerusalem. After tense early fighting, Israeli forces, now under joint command, were able to gain the offensive.

Though the United Nations brokered two cease-fires during the conflict, fighting continued into 1949. Israel and the Arab states did not reach any formal armistice agreements until February. Under separate agreements between Israel and the neighboring states of Egypt, Lebanon, Transjordan, and Syria, these bordering nations agreed to formal armistice lines. Israel gained some territory formerly granted to Palestinian Arabs under the United Nations resolution in 1947. Egypt and Jordan retained control over the Gaza Strip and the West Bank respectively. These armistice lines held until 1967. The United States did not become directly involved with the armistice negotiations, but hoped that instability in the Middle East would not interfere with the international balance of power between the Soviet Union and the United States.

With the level of high emotions involved I would not want to bet that to economically starve Israel ...that also would not happen because Israel has always had support from Arab nations and others that agree with Israel. Also who would enforce the economic embargo??would give us capitulation instead of fight response. A solution that involves a not unrealistic chance of a full scale war with Israel is not one that is reasonable to me. (you may disagree on the dangers of trying to lessen Israel's power to wage war, and I would not call myself an expert and am mostly considering how such an emotionally charged situation tends to make people do some really crazy things).<-- you lessen Israels` military power and you do NOT force these people to get along! What happened is you open the door to another war against Israel......

The true and accurate saying goes -- The Israeli`s have tanks and jets and the Palestinians have rocks yet there are still Palestinians.

If the Palestinians had the tanks and jets and the Israeli`s had the rocks, there would be no Israeli`s.


Even if we can successfully find a way to greatly reduce Israel's military power so they have to start finding ways to get a long, the estimated time frame that you give is what makes the solution one that is hard to call reasonable. Having to stand by and watch the continued killing for that much longer does not really seem that reasonable to me, perhaps in the end necessary, but not reasonable. (I hope that comment makes sense)

Pinch yourself and wake up....

 

[Craig234]

The posts are showing why I think the thread topic is a very unhelpful question.

Discussing specific things a country does as things they should do or should not do is a lot more helpful than saying whether the whole country is 'good' or not.

Even take, say, Stalinist Russia. Pretty easy to say 'not a good country' But what good does that do? Does that really provide much in the way of solutions?

There can be some point to this, when you are trying to get people who are locked into a mentality of 'it's a good country, so anything it does is fine with me' way of thinking about it to acknowledge it's not such a 'good country' and does not deserve that sort of blanket approval without looking at its actions.

But even then, after making that point, the issue is to look at specific policies, not just leave it at 'they're not just a good country'.

 

[Rebel_L]

Pinch yourself and wake up....

You really don't think the fighting would stop and a permanent resolution to the conflict would be found if the attitudes of both sides changed to be one of cooperation and mutual respect?

As for cutting of the military aid, it is something Israel has not control over. You do not need to change the mind of anyone involved in the conflict in order to affect it, so it is entirely possible to do before the conflict gets resolved. As for the comment on economically starving Israel, it simply refers to cutting off aid. If the country needs aid to survive then cutting off aid is in effect a sanction.

Your comment about the arab countries in the region is really confusing though... I thought you keep saying that they would attack Israel as soon as they got the chance, but you don't think they would support economic sanctions against Israel?


The real problem is that both sides need to be willing to change in order for a permanent end to the conflict, and like in all other things only Israel can change Israel and only the Palestinians can change the Palestinians. Unless you are willing to make someone comply by force (which most often results in only a temporary change) all you can do is foster an environment for positive change. Caravaggio's idea uses no force but tries to change the dynamic of the two sides involved away from one where the two sides in the conflict are so uneven that one side feels hopeless and ignored because of how overmatched they are and another side that feels no need to consider the other side at all because they have all the power.


Perhaps you could give us what you think might be a reasonable way to end the conflict, or if you think a reasonable way does not exist tell us about the one you find most palatable.

 

[Caravaggio]

To Rebel L. Re; your posts 206 and 209.
Thanks for your comments and balanced critique.
I realise that 206 is addressed to me and 209 is meant for Yoda but I would like to comment on them both.

I accept that Israel has nuclear weapons but I do not think they pose any serious threat to regional peace. You might regard my argument as perverse but I would not worry if Iran had them either. In fact, one could make a case that Iran (a nation of 70 million) should have them, if a much smaller openly hostile nation, Israel (with a mere 7 million people) has been allowed to develop them clandestinely.
We see American double standards at work here, of course. America has known about Israeli nuclear ambitions since the mid 1970's but for geo-political and domestic reasons chose to turn a blind eye, while asking Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (which Israel has never done).
The possession of thermo-nuclear weapons might actually lead to a more peaceful world if those nations which possess them are rational actors. I see Iran as rational. I am more worried about Pakistan having them and I would be very concerned if ISIS ever got hold of them. Given the logic of MAD, rational actors would never be first users.
Back to the peace process. You seem dismayed at the pessimism of my time scale (post 202). I hope I am too pessimistic but it has taken 66 years to reach this current nadir. I sense that you share my wish for an end to America's policy of "Free arms for Israel"? Only when an American President backs rhetoric about 'Peace' in the Middle East with actual sanctions for non-compliance with US wishes, will Israel be motivated to deal practically to establish good relations with her immediate neighbours.

 

[Joepublic2]

As in do you consider Israel an moral and just country and a good and loyal ally to the west?

The only moral responsibility a country has is towards its own citizens. No nation in the world would be "good" if judged by the standards we hold individuals to, not one. And no sane country cares one iota if it's a good ally to the "west" which is currently doing it's damnedest to destroy itself. Best to keep one's distance and avoid being sucked down with it when that ship finally sinks.

 

[Caravaggio]

that will never happen!

You probably said, in 2004 , that Zionist settlers would never leave Gaza.
That did happen, in September 2005. And irony of ironies, Arik Sharon was the one who sent in the IDF to turf them out.
Hitler said the Third Reich would last a thousand years. It lasted less than 12.

The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 broke out when five Arab nations invaded territory in the former Palestinian mandate immediately following the announcement of the independence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948.

What disingenuous nonsense. You really do need to read some proper history, try Gilbert 2008 , Morris 1988 and Kattan and Pappe 2006, from the list below.

Israel was not the "passive victim" of 'Arab aggression' in 1947-8, it was a fully armed belligerent that had planned, for several years, to push-out the bulk of Palestinians from the Mandate territories the moment the British left. (read David Ben Gurion's diaries, he was commendably frank).

They started early with attacks on the British from 1938. In 1939 the Irgun blew-up the Jerusalem Post Office. In August that year they started to murder British troops. In 1942 Lehi and Stern carried out many murders in Jerusalem. In 1944 there were 12 terrorist bombings and assassinations by Lehi and the Irgun.
In 1946 there were over 40 terrorists attacks by bombings, IEDs and sniping, carried out by Lehi and Haganah. The biggest was the bombing of the King David Hotel on 22nd of July which killed 90 and wounded 46. Many of the dead were Jews. Mencahem Begin did that. He was a terrorist before he became Prime Minister.

The Reason that the Arab nations nearby were forced to send help to the Palestinians was because of the outrage of the Deir Yassin massacre on April 9-11th, 1948, which was carried out by Lehi and Irgun. The Jewish terror squads murdered 245 Arab men women and children (see Gilbert 2008, page 169).
Harry Levin, a Jew from Jerusalem wrote in his diary about this "foul thing done by Jews" (Gilbert ibid).
If you like grim reading of rape, throat slitting and dismemberment read the Red Cross report on Deir Yassin (just google Wiki, Deir Yassin Massacre). That massacre was just before Israel stole the whole of Palestine and ripped-up the UN 1947 Partition Plan.

Of course the Arabs came to the aid of their kinsmen. They were poorly armed and posed no problem to the Jews (see Morris 2008, page 261) who had been expecting just such a reaction for years.

Typing falsehoods in capital letters says more about your blood pressure than your knowledge of history

Reading list appears below:

Avi Shlaim (2009)“Israel and Palestine.” (Covers the period 1880 to 2008)
Avi Shlaim (2000)“The Iron Wall:Israel and the Arab World”(Traces the roots of Israel’s uncompromising militarism)
Ilan Pappe(2006)“The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.”
Ilan Pappe “The Idea of Israel” (2014) (Is it possible to imagine a post-Zionist Israel?)
Karl Sabbagh “The British in Palestine 1917-1948. (2002)
Victor Kattan “From Coexistence to Conquest:International Law and the Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1891-1949”(2009)
Simon Sebag Montefiore “Jerusalem: The Biography”.(2011)(The antidote to those who believe that Jerusalem is ‘naturally and exclusively’ a Jewish city)
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt “The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy” (2007). (this book explains why Israel receives the greatest part of US foreign aid)
Greg Philo and Mike Berry “Bad News from Israel” (2004)(Good analysis of the Israeli propaganda machine.)
Joan Peters “From Time Immemorial” (1984)(The classic Zionist myth-history of Palestine.)
Benny Morris (1988)“The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949”
(One of the first works of the Israeli ‘New Historians’, much praised in the academic community)
Benny Morris (2008)“1948: The First Arab Israeli War” (His post-conversion, pro-Zionist account of the birth of Israel. Avi Shlaim called this revisionist history the “work of a genuine charlatan.A betrayal of history”)
Martin Gilbert (2008) “Israel:A History”.(A reliable and balanced account, some data clashes with Morris, 2008, above.)
Shlomo Avieneri (2008 Hebrew, 2013 in English)“Herzl”. (A well-written biography of the founder of modern Zionism and the drive for a Jewish state.)
Patrick Bishop (2014) “The Reckoning”.(A lively and dramatic account of the life and times of Avraham Stern.Stern, an ultra-Zionist gangster, convinced of the likely defeat of the British in WW2, tried to do a deal in January 1941 with the Nazis and the Italian Fascists to speed-up Jewish immigration into Palestine.See esp. pages 108-124)
Norman Finkelstein “Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestinian Conflict” (1984)
(NF’s complete textual demolition of Peters’ book)
Norman Finkelstein(2005) “Beyond Chutzpah”(On the misuse of anti-semitism and the abuse of history. Critique of Dershowitz, (2003) below)
Shlomo Sand “The Invention of the Jewish People” (2009) (Scholarly, and witty, attack on the notion of ‘genetically continuous Judaism’)
Noam Chomsky “Fateful Triangle”.(2000) Good history on the birth of Israel and the growth of Israeli ‘exceptionalism’)
Noam Chomsky and Ilan Pappe(2010)“Gaza in Crisis” (Reflections on Israel’s war against the Palestinians)
Niall Ferguson (1999) “The House of Rothschild” (see especially Volume 2, part three, esp. chp. 14.A good history of the impact of the Balfour Declaration.Includes interesting revelations about opposition to the idea of a Jewish National homeland within the Board of Deputies of British Jews.Shows the British Rothschilds were split on this issue.)
Alan Dershowitz “The case for Israel” (2003)Similar in tone to “From Time Immemorial” by Peters.Shares some of the same quotes.
EyalWeizman “HollowLand” (2007 and 2012) ( Good analysis of Israel’s stratgey of occupation)
Francesca Stavrakopoulou “Land of Our Fathers:The Roles of Ancestor Worship in Biblical Land Claims”(2010) (She demonstrates the absurdity of the notion that ‘descendants of someone with a faith a bit like yours, who once lived in a place thousands of miles away and then left it, two millennia ago, still have a claim to the land they left).Try that in court…

Eran Elhaik (2013)“The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry”in Genome Biology and Evolution.Vol 5, pp61-74.
(this new research shows that the gene mix of Ashkenazi Jews proves the Khazar Hypothesis and refutes the claim of some Jews to a Palestinian/ Rhenish origin.)

___________________________________________________________

“No one has ever thought to look for the Promised Land where it actually is, and it is so near- within ourselves”Theodor Herzl, (Diaries.)

 

[Rebel_L]

To Rebel L. Re; your posts 206 and 209.
Thanks for your comments and balanced critique.
I realise that 206 is addressed to me and 209 is meant for Yoda but I would like to comment on them both.

I accept that Israel has nuclear weapons but I do not think they pose any serious threat to regional peace. You might regard my argument as perverse but I would not worry if Iran had them either. In fact, one could make a case that Iran (a nation of 70 million) should have them, if a much smaller openly hostile nation, Israel (with a mere 7 million people) has been allowed to develop them clandestinely.
We see American double standards at work here, of course. America has known about Israeli nuclear ambitions since the mid 1970's but for geo-political and domestic reasons chose to turn a blind eye, while asking Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (which Israel has never done).
The possession of thermo-nuclear weapons might actually lead to a more peaceful world if those nations which possess them are rational actors. I see Iran as rational. I am more worried about Pakistan having them and I would be very concerned if ISIS ever got hold of them. Given the logic of MAD, rational actors would never be first users.
Back to the peace process. You seem dismayed at the pessimism of my time scale (post 202). I hope I am too pessimistic but it has taken 66 years to reach this current nadir. I sense that you share my wish for an end to America's policy of "Free arms for Israel"? Only when an American President backs rhetoric about 'Peace' in the Middle East with actual sanctions for non-compliance with US wishes, will Israel be motivated to deal practically to establish good relations with her immediate neighbours.

I am probably a lot more pro Israel than would be suggested by my posts on this topic so far. I believe the attitude changes Israel needs to make to be ready for an end to the conflict are pretty minor compared to that of the Palestinian side. I believe that so long as enough of the Israeli leadership had the courage to come to an agreement with the other side, even if the general population was not thrilled about terms, the next elected government would not throw it out pretending it was not legit.

Nukes in general I don't like, MAD in some ways is a great motivation to use diplomacy. With how strictly military structure teaches people to follow orders I do worry that one crazy in charge could start that fatal chain if they ever really felt they had no way to win or save face. Combine that with the amount of crazy's that get in charge all over the world and I would rather see all nukes disassembled and have a few extra conventional wars as a result of the lack of MAD. Maybe I am a little too pessimistic in my thoughts on how unsafe MAD is, but when the consequences can be up to global annihilation of humanity I'm ok with being more bothered by it than others 🙂

As for arming Israel, the country certainly has had a short and rough history, and while they are certainly not an angel when it comes to what they do with their capabilities I do not think they are particularly more irresponsible than the general western democracies in the use of their martial might. I view the Palestinian situation as more of a war against terrorism than a fight against another nation. Now don't get me wrong, I don't condone the killing that is going on and think the strategy they employ is ineffective, I have however also not seen an effective strategy for fighting terrorists in the short term. To me the strategy Israel is currently and has been employing for a long time is to try and get the general Palestinian population to turn on the terrorists by making their lives miserable and trying to blame the terrorists. Trying to make the civilians fear you more than the terrorists is a almost impossible, especially when it comes to nations that generally believe in human rights etc as civilians caught in the middle are pretty sure the government is not just going to march into the village line everyone up and execute them because someone there might be collaborating with the enemy. The more ruthless dictatorships get a lot more mileage out of this strategy because if they are willing to go the distance the fear of the government can be greater than that of the terrorist group for the general population.

The alternatives to trying to be more feared than the terrorists is to be way more loved than the terrorists. This of course is also no easy task, terrorists can be seen as a bit of a Robin Hood type group in the populations they come from or are simply the imminent fear vs the far off appeal to higher ideals. So this strategy requires education, treating everyone every one well and lots of time. If you are treating the general population that is supporting the terrorists with the same freedoms as everyone else you end up leaving yourself very vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

I suppose your third option would be complete isolation from the terrorist supporting population, kind of a ignore the problem until it goes away approach. If however they are physically in close enough proximity to lob mortars and missiles into your territory it is a little harder to isolate yourself.

So to me Israel is currently employing a tactic they can not execute to success with their value system, yet it is also the only tactic that does not make them more vulnerable to more attacks in the short term (people are voted into power because they are doing something that helps now). Its kind of a nasty catch 22 as their current plan does not resolve the problem, yet all ways of resolving the problem that I know of results in more Israeli deaths in the short term and I can hardly blame the Israelis for wanting to avoid that. (Israel really has gotten good at avoiding deaths with their current strategy over the years).


I have not taken the time to research the history of both sides enough to have a good enough understanding to do something like call one side an evil villain (and experience has taught me both sides always have some villains and some heros). Some might say that would disqualify me from talking about solutions, and if I were to be talking about detailed solutions (as in where exactly border lines should be drawn with a two state solution for instance) I would even agree with that. I do know however know that currently only one side has the power/might/influence to actually make any meaningful gesture as an olive branch to the other as a start to a different tomorrow.

 

[Craig234]

The only moral responsibility a country has is towards its own citizens. No nation in the world would be "good" if judged by the standards we hold individuals to, not one.

I very much disagree with that.

Morality is a human issue, not a national issue. While it doesn't mean you can't give priority to your own country, it also doesn't mean the rest of the world is trash you can treat immorally.

Your logic is no better than the con artist who rationalized defrauding people of their money. His only obligation is to his family, not theirs.

This is a basic idea of morality. Nationalism more often gets in the way of morality than morality demands too much of nationalism.

When the United States was founded, part of the thinking was that it was a beacon of liberty for the benefit of the world as well as its own citizens.

There's a reason France sent over the status of liberty to celebrate the advancements for humankind the US had done.

In theory, in democracy, voters have morality to humankind that is reflected in their votes.

In practice, all too often the system encourages selfishness and pandering to the voters without any consideration of non-voters and encourages voters to do the same.

This is reflected in your erroneous opinion about the morality of policies having no responsibility but by nation.

While people can give priority to their own country, they should remember they are first members of the human race and second citizens of their country.

History is filled with nations who failed that moral test. That does not make it right.

How are you to condemn any act of theft, of murder, of aggressive war by a nation if they do it in the name of their own self-interest with your stated morality?

By your argument, the only international crime of Hitler was losing the war. The only problem with the US taking half of Mexico for nothing but theft was not taking it all.

That's all there is to say about the moral issue, but I'll note that being wrong on it has frequent prices to pay - the poverty south of the US that's 'not any concern of ours' feeds illegal immigration and the ease of the drug cartels to operate feeding our drug problem and increasingly, crime and gangs in the US. Overthrowing democracy in Iraq for cheaper oil that 'was just fine because only our interests matter' has led to a hostile fundamentalist government sponsoring terrorism causing problems half a century later. And so on.

 

[Caravaggio]

Morality is a human issue, not a national issue. While it doesn't mean you can't give priority to your own country, it also doesn't mean the rest of the world is trash you can treat immorally.

Good post Craig.

 

[Caravaggio]

To Rebel L. (Re: 213)

There is much there of interest. I'm going to do some thinking about what you say and hope to respond properly tonight.

 

[Caravaggio]

I am probably a lot more pro Israel than would be suggested by my posts on this topic so far.

Fine, I am in the minority here, according to the poll results. You are rational and clear. If your views are informed we can debate.

I believe the attitude changes Israel needs to make to be ready for an end to the conflict are pretty minor compared to that of the Palestinian side

I disagree. Both parties need to confront deeply unpalatable truths. Israel must accept that a Jewish State, run by Jews for the benefit of Jews is a deeply flawed model of nation-building. Pakistan is the Muslim equivalent and it has exactly the same problems of endemic racism and bullying of minorities. Defining a particular religion as ‘naturally in the ascendant’ makes me concerned for the cohesion of that society. (See the recent protest by Lehava Jews at a wedding in Rishon Letzion where the Jewish bride tried to marry a Muslim groom, (see Guardian 18th August, page 14) In their turn, the Palestinians must accept that they will be unlikely to achieve a viable “two-state” solution.

I believe that so long as enough of the Israeli leadership had the courage to come to an agreement with the other side, even if the general population was not thrilled about terms, the next elected government would not throw it out pretending it was not legit.

The existing leadership lacks this courage, but earlier Jewish leaders have made such attempts at dialogue. Netanyahu seems happy to scupper talks. Obama calls for a halt to West Bank settlement building, Netanyahu speeds it up. Hardly a recipe for compromise.

Nukes in general I don't like, MAD in some ways is a great motivation to use diplomacy… I would rather see all nukes disassembled and have a few extra conventional wars as a result of the lack of MAD.

The trouble with disassembly is that something cannot be ‘un-invented’. And disassembled weapons can be screwed back together. There is a sort of bizarre ‘balance of power’ if rational people with opposing ideologies have nukes.
US General Curtis Le May (Memoirs 1965, page 561) wanted to ‘nuke’ Russia in 1949 before Russia had the H-bomb. After Russia had its own stockpile of nukes that no longer made sense. (MAD intrudes on the dynamic). If you inhabit a morality-free headspace like General Le May’s there is a certain logic to that. But as you say, we need to watch-out for the ‘Crazies’.

I view the Palestinian situation as more of a war against terrorism than a fight against another nation.

I view the Palestine situation as a gross injustice yet to be remedied. Talk of ‘terrorism’ is unhelpful in this context since the birth of Israel was itself the result of a very brutal and successful terrorist campaign waged by the Jewish Irgun, Lehi and Haganah organisations. The decisive terrorist attack at Deir Yassin, a month before Israel declared itself the ‘exclusive state controlling the whole Mandate’, was a brutal sustained murder-spree. (see Wiki Deir Yassin Massacre)

Now don't get me wrong, I don't condone the killing that is going on and think the strategy they employ is ineffective, I have however also not seen an effective strategy for fighting terrorists in the short term. To me the strategy Israel is currently and has been employing for a long time is to try and get the general Palestinian population to turn on the terrorists by making their lives miserable and trying to blame the terrorists.

I agree, the endless repetition of the same strategy is not working. Israel drops more bombs, builds higher dividing walls (twice the height of the Berlin Wall) kills another 2,000 Gazans. It is hated more by the Palestinians, the tourist trade is in tatters and Jews get beaten-up in the suburbs of Paris for being associated with their co-religionists in Israel. The local military battle is invariably won (except in Lebanon, 2009) but the propaganda war is usually lost. (Obama has admitted, off air, that he hates getting calls from Netanyahu. Hardly a successful campaign?)

The more ruthless dictatorships get a lot more mileage out of this strategy because if they are willing to go the distance the fear of the government can be greater than that of the terrorist group for the general population.

That reminds me of ‘Big Brother’ in George Orwell’s “1984”. That was an imaginary state which boosted domestic morale with rumours of “Endless War”. I doubt that any Israeli politicians, not even those in SHAS or Likud want to be feared that much.

The alternatives to trying to be more feared than the terrorists is to be way more loved than the terrorists. This of course is also no easy task, terrorists can be seen as a bit of a Robin Hood type group in the populations they come from

Agreed. But prior to love there must be trust and we are many years away from that in Israel/Palestine.

If you are treating the general population that is supporting the terrorists with the same freedoms as everyone else you end up leaving yourself very vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

True, a failed bid for peace through trust will make the cynics call you a ‘sucker’. But the alternative is endless war. Not all Israelis have that ambition. War is also very expensive and disrupts the economy of both winner and loser.

So to me Israel is currently employing a tactic they cannot execute to success with their value system

Yes, I am sure that modern Judaic values extend beyond the horribly bleak “eye for an eye” (or ‘50 eyes for an eye’?). Although there are clearly others who take the notion literally.
Moshe Dayan went one step further by arguing that conquest of Arab lands is a goal that is “Never complete”.

I have not taken the time to research the history of both sides enough to have a good enough understanding to do something like call one side an evil villain.

That’s fine, and commendably frank. We are all entitled to have an opinion as long as we are open to new evidence, discussion and counter-argument. The history of this issue is always changing.

Some might say that would disqualify me from talking about solutions

Far from it you have more original ideas than the delegates at the drafting of the 1993 “Oslo Accords”.

I do however know that currently only one side has the power/might/influence to actually make any meaningful gesture as an olive branch to the other as a start to a different tomorrow.

Well put. It is the victor in a conflict who has the duty to offer magnanimity.
Nor should the loser be ‘crushed’ by the terms of a peace treaty.

 

[Rebel_L]

Fine, I am in the minority here, according to the poll results. You are rational and clear. If your views are informed we can debate.

I was just trying to throw out that I have personal biases in play, but am aware of it. I try to avoid letting them interfere with my stances on the issue, but I am not perfect and I'm sure they still have some influence. I was trying to enter the conversation on a different note than the "blame game" conversations mostly on this forum as they seem rather a waste of time to me.

I disagree. Both parties need to confront deeply unpalatable truths. Israel must accept that a Jewish State, run by Jews for the benefit of Jews is a deeply flawed model of nation-building. Pakistan is the Muslim equivalent and it has exactly the same problems of endemic racism and bullying of minorities. Defining a particular religion as ‘naturally in the ascendant’ makes me concerned for the cohesion of that society. (See the recent protest by Lehava Jews at a wedding in Rishon Letzion where the Jewish bride tried to marry a Muslim groom, (see Guardian 18th August, page 14) In their turn, the Palestinians must accept that they will be unlikely to achieve a viable “two-state” solution.

The existing leadership lacks this courage, but earlier Jewish leaders have made such attempts at dialogue. Netanyahu seems happy to scupper talks. Obama calls for a halt to West Bank settlement building, Netanyahu speeds it up. Hardly a recipe for compromise.

The current leadership does certainly seem to lack the courage, that previous leaders have had it is a good indicator that as a country they are ready to move in helpful direction. Does Israel have strong radical factions? I certainly think they do, but I also think that they can only slow down forward progress rather than stop it.

I find it hard to put into words why I think Israel is so close but I will try. Part of it is that they are a modern nation of laws and freedoms (at least that is the impression I have). This has lots of advantages as I see it. While the people are ok with the chaos in the world outside, inside the country you have to follow the rules. The people elected into power tend to be somewhat moderate, extreme elements exist, but with a system of checks and balances they generally tend to not be able to run totally rampant and while they do have influence on policy they don't just get to have their way. I see Israeli people like harabec on these boards, have the occasional contact with someone from Israel and know people that have visited. I get the impression that most just want a peaceful coexistence and leave the details for the politicians to work out. I only observe them getting overly stubborn and defensive when people start to call them evil for what they are doing to the Palestinians. Evil to me requires bad intent, and for most of them there is no evil intent towards the Palestinians, they really do believe they have no better options. If their leaders show them a better way they will accept it. Does that mean things are going to be all hugs and rainbows from the Israelis towards the Palestinians, certainly not. There will be radical elements that will commit some violence, these will get arrested and processed in the legal system (some will get off, but in general the law will do what it should). There will be institutional racism for a good long time I imagine, but it will diminish slowly as attitudes continue to improve over time, this part will likely take many generations to truly disappear. (The US still has racism issues, but I would not call them a country that supports racism). To destroy their governing system of laws and freedoms to stop this would mean a worse life for everyone and I do not believe the appetite is there, if the radical groups try to start things the rest will slap them down. Now it could certainly be that I have misjudged where the country is at as a whole but I hope gives you some sense of why I am optimistic about Israeli cooperation.

The Palestinian side I think has it a little more difficult. They have had it rough for a long time. They have been mostly ruled by fear, their confidence in government institutions is likely to be very low or non existent. This leads to very little patience for the "system" to do its job. Injustices will still happen and every time they see something not go their way it makes it harder to have faith that the system will make things better. For an example, I live in Canada and we have issues with some employers exploiting foreign workers. When you have foreign workers from countries where the government and police are not people you trust they all of a sudden become very vulnerable here. If their employer tells them they have to work overtime for free, give them their passport and will get deported if they do anything they don't approve of, the foreigners do what they are told even if they know its wrong because they believe if they go to the authorities it will just make their situation worse. So not only do the Palestinians have to deal with their own prejudices against the Israeli people, they have to deal with their mistrust of government. I have no exposure to anyone from the Palestinian side so I have no sense of how the general mood would be for them, are they at this point willing to try cooperation because a chance at a better life is worth it, or is there a strong "Israel is evil incarnate and must be destroyed" attitude among the general population?

The trouble with disassembly is that something cannot be ‘un-invented’. And disassembled weapons can be screwed back together. There is a sort of bizarre ‘balance of power’ if rational people with opposing ideologies have nukes.

US General Curtis Le May (Memoirs 1965, page 561) wanted to ‘nuke’ Russia in 1949 before Russia had the H-bomb. After Russia had its own stockpile of nukes that no longer made sense. (MAD intrudes on the dynamic). If you inhabit a morality-free headspace like General Le May’s there is a certain logic to that. But as you say, we need to watch-out for the ‘Crazies’.

You are right we can not uninvent the weapon, do we have enough countries with nukes to keep people like Curtis Le May from pre-emptively nuking someone? I guess I am not really sure how many countries with nukes is too many and how few is to few. We probably have a decent mix now, although the middle east doesn't have so many players in the game, maybe that does get them bullied more... on the other hand they seem to have more than there fair share of crazies in charge too 😉

I view the Palestine situation as a gross injustice yet to be remedied. Talk of ‘terrorism’ is unhelpful in this context since the birth of Israel was itself the result of a very brutal and successful terrorist campaign waged by the Jewish Irgun, Lehi and Haganah organisations. The decisive terrorist attack at Deir Yassin, a month before Israel declared itself the ‘exclusive state controlling the whole Mandate’, was a brutal sustained murder-spree. (see Wiki Deir Yassin Massacre)

I suppose the term terrorist would bring up the same defensiveness on the Palestinian side that the term war criminals brings up for the Israeli side. Its been my go to word for any sort of unconventional fighting but you are right that its not helpful to use, it is in general way to emotionally charged implying the people are evil, only useful for a PR campaign and I will stop using it.

I agree, the endless repetition of the same strategy is not working. Israel drops more bombs, builds higher dividing walls (twice the height of the Berlin Wall) kills another 2,000 Gazans. It is hated more by the Palestinians, the tourist trade is in tatters and Jews get beaten-up in the suburbs of Paris for being associated with their co-religionists in Israel. The local military battle is invariably won (except in Lebanon, 2009) but the propaganda war is usually lost. (Obama has admitted, off air, that he hates getting calls from Netanyahu. Hardly a successful campaign?)

That reminds me of ‘Big Brother’ in George Orwell’s “1984”. That was an imaginary state which boosted domestic morale with rumours of “Endless War”. I doubt that any Israeli politicians, not even those in SHAS or Likud want to be feared that much.

Agreed. But prior to love there must be trust and we are many years away from that in Israel/Palestine.

True, a failed bid for peace through trust will make the cynics call you a ‘sucker’. But the alternative is endless war. Not all Israelis have that ambition. War is also very expensive and disrupts the economy of both winner and loser.

Yes, I am sure that modern Judaic values extend beyond the horribly bleak “eye for an eye” (or ‘50 eyes for an eye’?). Although there are clearly others who take the notion literally.

Moshe Dayan went one step further by arguing that conquest of Arab lands is a goal that is “Never complete”.

I believe the average joe Israeli would like nothing more than to see and end to the conflict. Its just hard to tell them that there is likely going to be more than usual short term casualties involved. Like I had said they are pursuing a loosing strategy but its the one that is easiest to run a political campaign on... "look we are protecting you", its a great way to get support. And the costs of the strategy are not so apparent (aid makes economic problems less or non existent). Hatred around the world is easy to PR spin into national identity. That is why I think your idea of cutting off military aid is a good one, if they can no longer avoid the problems of their loosing strategy it will hopefully make it easier to consider another without it being political suicide. Its hard to find a politician who is willing to sacrifice his own career for the sake of the country, so if being courageous is a politically viable strategy that can only help.




I spent some time last night thinking about countries under occupation. Most of the time it is a pretty bad failure. Take Iraq and Afghanistan for instance. It seems like we offered the people an opportunity for change, but they did not want it. Then I look at Germany, a country that was carpet bombed by the people who occupied it. Germany certainly took more damage than Iraq, yet with the help of the US rebuilt and prospered. (sometimes I see a bit of irony in that Germany is the economic leader in Europe now, and gets to boss around other countries because of that... their conquering Europe is almost complete 😉. What is the difference that makes US country rebuilding sometimes successful and sometimes not. Does it have more to do with countries they occupy or has the US approach changed since Germany. And if there is any good answers to those question can any of them help with the Israeli/Palestinian situation?

 

[chucky2]

I spent some time last night thinking about countries under occupation. Most of the time it is a pretty bad failure. Take Iraq and Afghanistan for instance. It seems like we offered the people an opportunity for change, but they did not want it. Then I look at Germany, a country that was carpet bombed by the people who occupied it. Germany certainly took more damage than Iraq, yet with the help of the US rebuilt and prospered. (sometimes I see a bit of irony in that Germany is the economic leader in Europe now, and gets to boss around other countries because of that... their conquering Europe is almost complete 😉. What is the difference that makes US country rebuilding sometimes successful and sometimes not. Does it have more to do with countries they occupy or has the US approach changed since Germany. And if there is any good answers to those question can any of them help with the Israeli/Palestinian situation?

[/FONT][/COLOR]

What changed is that the Western powers not only completely beat down the will of the populace but also occupied those countries to such a degree that control could be had. They then didn't play nice Political Correct modern stategery BS, but, told these other countries how it would be. Yes, Germany and Japan had civilian Leadership in place but they in effect report and took marching orders - when necessary - from the Western occupiers.

We suck at nation building today not because we cannot do it, but rather, because we are weak willed as a nation and far too nice.

 

[Sheep221]

Whoever created this thread, there is no such a thing as good country.

 

[paul878]

Israel is bad for the United States period.
They have too much influence in our politicians.

 

[piasabird]

Compared to some countries Israel Deserves sainthood. Remember that when Israel took that land it was because it was attacked by many Arab and Muslim countries all at once. They won the land in a war. Did China give Mongolia back? Hell No! Did the UK give all the countries back it took as colonies? Hell No. Plenty of people have been wronged a lot worse. Israel has made the desert bloom like a rose!

 

[piasabird]

Then give your land back to the Indians.

 

[piasabird]

The USA is a land of occupation. Think the American Natives liked losing their land?

 

[SandEagle]

Then give your land back to the Indians.

nice 3rd grade response there buddy. apologies if i offended any 3rd graders.