Jump to content

Is It Possible To Criticize Israel Without Being Labeled Anti-semitic? ...


snookums
 Share

Recommended Posts

OiVey....

Is that pecular or what?

Pissing me off.....the great taboo of the world is making it hard for people to open their mouths.

 

Oh well....read what Molly says - its much better than me ranting .....

or this guyhttp://www.thespartandaily.com/media/stora...26/Opinion/Can-

Why does there have to be PRO...anyone...I'm not...but I'd like to discuss the issue without people going apeshit....!

 

Pro-Israel ?Nutjobs' on the Attack

Posted on Apr 25, 2006

 

By Molly Ivins

 

AUSTIN, Texas?One of the consistent deformities in American policy debate has been challenged by a couple of professors, and the reaction proves their point so neatly it's almost funny.

 

A working paper by John Mearsheimer, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, professor of international affairs at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, called "The Israel Lobby" was printed in the London Review of Books earlier this month. And all hell broke loose in the more excitable reaches of journalism and academe.

 

For having the sheer effrontery to point out the painfully obvious?that there is an Israel lobby in the United States?Mearsheimer and Walt have been accused of being anti-Semitic, nutty and guilty of "kooky academic work." Alan Dershowitz, who seems to be easily upset, went totally ballistic over the mild, academic, not to suggest pretty boring article by Mearsheimer and Walt, calling them "liars" and "bigots."

 

Of course there is an Israeli lobby in America?its leading working group is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). It calls itself "America's Pro-Israel Lobby," and it attempts to influence U.S. legislation and policy.

 

Several national Jewish organizations lobby from time to time. Big deal?why is anyone pretending this non-news requires falling on the floor and howling? Because of this weird deformity of debate.

 

In the United States, we do not have full-throated, full-throttle debate about Israel. In Israel, they have it as a matter of course, but the truth is that the accusation of anti-Semitism is far too often raised in this country against anyone who criticizes the government of Israel.

 

Being pro-Israel is no defense, as I long ago learned to my cost. Now I've gotten used to it. Jews who criticize Israel are charmingly labeled "self-hating Jews." As I have often pointed out, that must mean there are a lot of self-hating Israelis, because those folks raise hell over their own government's policies all the time.

 

I don't know that I've ever felt intimidated by the knee-jerk "you're anti-Semitic" charge leveled at anyone who criticizes Israel, but I do know I have certainly heard it often enough to become tired of it.

 

And I wonder if that doesn't produce the same result: giving up on the discussion.

 

It's the sheer disproportion and the vehemence of the denunciations of those perceived as criticizing Israel that make the attacks so odious. Mearsheimer and Walt are both widely respected political scientists?comparing their writing to "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is just silly.

 

Several critics have pointed out some flaws in the Mearsheimer-Walt paper, including a too-broad use of the term "Israel lobby"?those of us who are pro-Israel differ widely?and having perhaps overemphasized the clout of the Israel lobby by ignoring the energy lobby.

 

It seems to me the root of the difficulty has been Israel's inability first to admit the Palestinians have been treated unfairly and, second, to figure out what to do about it. Now here goes a big fat generalization, but I think many Jews are so accustomed (by reality) to thinking of themselves as victims, it is especially difficult for them to admit they have victimized others.

 

But the Mearsheimer-Walt paper is not about the basic conflict, but rather its effect on American foreign policy, and it appears to me the authors' arguments are unexceptional. Israel is the No. 1 recipient of American foreign aid, and it seems an easy case can be made that the United States has subjugated its own interests to those of Israel in the past.

 

Whether you agree or not, it is a discussion well worth having and one that should not be shut down before it can start by unfair accusations of "anti-Semitism." In a very equal sense, none of this is academic. The Israel lobby was overwhelmingly in favor of starting the war with Iraq and is now among the leading hawks on Iran.

 

To the extent that our interests do differ from those of Israel, the matter needs to be discussed calmly and fairly. This is not about conspiracies or plots or fantasies or anti-Semitism?it's about rational discussion of American interests. And, in my case, being pro-Israel. I'm looking forward to hearing from all you nutjobs again.

 

www.creators.com.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it is not possible to critizise Israel without being labled anti-semitic. I'm sick of it. The lable is not rational, and just cuts off debate. Pro-Israel folks have almost convinced me that the Palistinians are the good guys, by this black and white behavior.

Most people are on a continum on this issue.

 

In 1967 I was like this Pro-Israel (chef) *********** Pro-Palistinian

 

Now it is more like this Pro-Israel *******(chef)*** Pro-Palistinian. Israel has done little to win my heart and mind in the last few decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chef,

 

When they call you an "antisemite" I have made a remark like, "hmmm...typical remark coming from a closed mind..." That pisses them off but if you say it with a smile and when they raise their voice, just lower yours and they look like fools. After they are frothing at the mouth, just look at them and say something like, "do you have an anger problem?" LOL then they don't know what to say and then you just keep speaking....LOL It works every time...

 

 

I agree! I think the administration's unquestioning support for Israel is a major source of our nation's problems in foreign affairs, but that's a topic for a different thread. As to the anti-semitic charge, I find that particularly annoying because Israelis (and Jews in general) are no more semitic than all the peoples who they're fighting with. According to the first definition for the word in my dictionary, a semite is "a member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it is not possible to critizise Israel without being labled anti-semitic. I'm sick of it. The lable is not rational, and just cuts off debate. Pro-Israel folks have almost convinced me that the Palistinians are the good guys, by this black and white behavior.

 

You said it. The behavior of the Israel-is-faultless crowd really makes me think twice. The first ones to scream "hatred" are the first ones to practice it, especially in how they demonize anyone who criticizes Israel. As if they are somehow more worthy than the rest of humanity to exist :Wendywhatever:

 

In my rabid fundy days, I used to be all behind Israel. They were "Gawd's Chosen™" and anything they did was good - especially if it helped bring about the Second Cumming of Jebus.

 

In my neo-Nazi days, I was anti-Israel (naturally) because of all the facts that were ignored by lots of people in the West about how Israel commits much of its own terroristic acts - killing civilians at the top of the list. Then again, I also believed the Jews were the authors of every evil in the West, an attitude that took about as much blind faith to believe as the fundy Xian position I held previous to this.

 

Today, I may have dropped my anti-Jewish bias, but retained the opened eyes I received regarding Israel's behavior in the Middle-East. They may not be the spawn of Satan™ orchestrating the downfall of the White race, but they are still a pack of terrorists every bit as much as any Mooselim radical - only they have a slightly different religion and massive funding and weaponry from the US. And that only makes them more dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it is not possible to critizise Israel without being labled anti-semitic. I'm sick of it.

In 1967 I was like this Pro-Israel (chef) *********** Pro-Palistinian

 

Now it is more like this Pro-Israel *******(chef)*** Pro-Palistinian. Israel has done little to win my heart and mind in the last few decades.

 

Yes..metoo...sick of it! I also have had a similar transition. I still love the culture, food etc...but you can shove the politics up their bums!

 

I think this is the crux of it......

It seems to me the root of the difficulty has been Israel's inability first to admit the Palestinians have been treated unfairly and, second, to figure out what to do about it. Now here goes a big fat generalization, but I think many Jews are so accustomed (by reality) to thinking of themselves as victims, it is especially difficult for them to admit they have victimized others.

 

Yep....the victim of genocide mentality is wearing very thin.....especially since the sad/tragic historical truth is that the Jews are not the only victims of genocide/ethnic cleansing in the worlds history . I can't see how the Jews still see themselves as 'choosen' or somehow 'special'...

 

Strange? how there seems to be a mythology surrounding the Jew....and similarily influencing popular culture or non jewish life. Even the Neo Nazi movements can be seen to fit in with that.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find that I care less about possibly being labeled a jew-hater with every passing day of fighting and slaughtering down there. Not that the Palestinians/Arabs are totally innocent either, but I'm mostly willing already to tell anyone who wants to discuss that with me "Yes Israel is wrong. Yes Israel does commit war crimes down there and needs to be stopped. And I don't care a flying fuck that the ones I criticize here happen to be jews. I'd think just the same about Americans, Brits, French, my own fellow Germans, younameit. If you can't live with that, bite me". :vent:

 

If someone wants to point me out to the authorities over here for supposedly being neonazi scum, they're welcome to wonder why I have a crossed-out swastika in the back window of my car, and why my copy of "Mein Kampf" is stuffed away along with all those bibles et cetera in the "enemy propaganda" box. Should send a message to them or twenty-three. :Hmm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Shiva H. Vishnu

I can scarcely imagine a more racist idea than that any race is above criticism. The idea that any particular state is above criticism because of the SINGLE RACE that represents that state is just a bunch of inane BS. The fact the so many of our neighbors have been trained to respond with poisoned quills and noxious clouds to the criticism of a particular monoracial theistic state is as befuddling and dismaying as learning that many of my neighbors don't want gays to marry.

 

Where does this crap come from if not from a Judeo/Christian mythology?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where does this crap come from if not from a Judeo/Christian mythology?
Jew got that right! :woohoo:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree that not siding with Israel is anti-semitic but according to news around the world....didn't Hazbullah first bomb Israel and then kidnap Israeli soldiers? How do you all think this should've been handled by Israel?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bombing is just the top of the iceberg. The anger, frustration and violence has been building up for 40 years, on both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bombing is just the top of the iceberg. The anger, frustration and violence has been building up for 40 years, on both sides.

 

I tried, really really tried to do some historical research on these countries and I was totally lost. Seems tensions have been very strong for longer than even 40 years. I'm having trouble though finding whether or not Israel has terrorized its enemies....outside of the bible of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very true. The tension is several thousand years old. The Jews have been oppressed so many times and for so long, so now they easily turn around and become the oppressors themselves. The fear and hate that has been shown towards them, have created a group of people that fear and hate just as much back. I really don't see any solution to the problem. And in the Old Testament we can see that Israel would conquer and start wars too. They're not without guilt anymore than the rest of us. We all start wars based on our ideologies or religions. They're no different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried, really really tried to do some historical research on these countries and I was totally lost. Seems tensions have been very strong for longer than even 40 years. I'm having trouble though finding whether or not Israel has terrorized its enemies....outside of the bible of course.

 

Don't feel bad, everyone is a bit lost when it comes to the twisted dynamics involved in the modern history of Israel. The Jews haven't exactly been great landlords when it comes to the Palestinians though. They have broken international treaties and built settlements in P territories. Then when the Ps protested with rocks they answered repeatedly with rockets; killing even small children hurling pebbles. Truly though, it's much more complex and I don't pretend to have a grip on the truth in this matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got this off another forum.

 

__________________________

 

 

1948 War of Independence

 

On 14 May 1948 the State of Israel was proclaimed according to the UN partition plan (1947). Less than 24 hours later, the regular armies of Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq invaded the country, forcing Israel to defend the sovereignty it had regained in its ancestral homeland. In what became known as Israel's War of Independence, the newly formed, poorly equipped Israel Defense Forces (IDF) repulsed the invaders in fierce intermittent fighting, which lasted some 15 months and claimed over 6,000 Israeli lives (nearly one percent of the country's Jewish population at the time).

 

During the first few months of 1949, direct negotiations were conducted under UN auspices between Israel and each of the invading countries (except Iraq which has refused to negotiate with Israel to date), resulting in armistice agreements which reflected the situation at the end of the fighting. Accordingly, the coastal plain, Galilee and the entire Negev were within Israel's sovereignty, Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) came under Jordanian rule, the Gaza Strip came under Egyptian administration, and the city of Jerusalem was divided, with Jordan controlling the eastern part, including the Old City, and Israel the western sector.

 

 

1956 Sinai Campaign

 

The 1949 armistice agreements had not only failed to pave the way to permanent peace, but were also constantly violated. In contradiction to the UN Security Council resolution of 1 September 1951, Israeli and Israel-bound shipping was prevented from passing through the Suez Canal; the blockade of the Straits of Tiran was tightened; incursions into Israel of terrorist squads from neighboring Arab countries for murder and sabotage occurred with increasing frequency; and the Sinai peninsula was gradually converted into a huge Egyptian military base.

 

Upon the signing of a tripartate military alliance by Egypt, Syria and Jordan (October 1956), the imminent threat to Israel's existence was intensified. In the course of an eight-day campaign, the IDF captured the Gaza Strip and the entire Sinai peninsula, halting 10 miles (16 km.) east of the Suez Canal.

 

A United Nations decision to station a UN Emergency Force (UNEF) along the Egypt-Israel border and Egyptian assurances of free navigation in the Gulf of Eilat led Israel to agree to withdraw in stages (November 1956 - March 1957) from the areas taken a few weeks earlier. Consequently, the Straits of Tiran were opened, enabling the development of trade with Asian and East African countries as well as oil imports from the Persian Gulf.

 

1967 Six-Day War

 

Hopes for another decade of relative tranquillity were dashed with the escalation of Arab terrorist raids across the Egyptian and Jordanian borders, persistent Syrian artillery bombardment of agricultural settlements in northern Galilee and massive military build-ups by the neighboring Arab states. When Egypt again moved large numbers of troops into the Sinai desert (May 1967), ordered the UN peacekeeping forces (deployed since 1957) out of the area, reimposed the blockade of the Straits of Tiran and entered into a military alliance with Jordan, Israel found itself faced by hostile Arab armies on all fronts. As Egypt had violated the arrangements agreed upon following the 1956 Sinai Campaign, Israel invoked its inherent right of self-defense, launching a preemptive strike (5 June 1967) against Egypt in the south, followed by a counterattack against Jordan in the east and the routing of Syrian forces entrenched on the Golan Heights in the north.

 

At the end of six days of fighting, previous cease-fire lines were replaced by new ones, with Judea, Samaria, Gaza, the Sinai peninsula and the Golan Heights under Israel's control. As a result, the northern villages were freed from 19 years of recurrent Syrian shelling; the passage of Israeli and Israel-bound shipping through the Straits of Tiran was ensured; and Jerusalem, which had been divided under Israeli and Jordanian rule since 1949, was reunified under Israel's authority.

 

 

From War to War

 

The war over, Israel's diplomatic challenge was to translate its military gains into a permanent peace based on UN Security Council Resolution 242, which called for "acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." However, the Arab position, as formulated at the Khartoum Summit Conference (August 1967) called for "no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel and no recognition of Israel." In September 1968, Egypt initiated a 'war of attrition,' with sporadic, static actions along the banks of the Suez Canal, which escalated into full-scale, localized fighting, causing heavy casualties on both sides. Hostilities ended in 1970 when Egypt and Israel accepted a renewed cease-fire along the Suez Canal.

 

 

1973 Yom Kippur War

 

Three years of relative calm along the borders were shattered on Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), the holiest day of the Jewish year, when Egypt and Syria launched a coordinated surprise assault against Israel (6 October 1973), with the Egyptian army crossing the Suez Canal and Syrian troops penetrating the Golan Heights.

 

During the next three weeks, the Israel Defense Forces turned the tide of battle and repulsed the attackers, crossing the Suez Canal into Egypt and advancing to within 20 miles (32 km.) of the Syrian capital, Damascus. Two years of difficult negotiations between Israel and Egypt and between Israel and Syria resulted in disengagement agreements, according to which Israel withdrew from parts of the territories captured during the war.

 

 

 

1982 Operation Peace for Galilee

 

The international boundary line with Lebanon has never been challenged by either side. However, when the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) redeployed itself in southern Lebanon after being expelled from Jordan (1970) and perpetrated repeated terrorist actions against the towns and villages of northern Israel (Galilee), which caused many casualties and much damage, the Israel Defense Forces crossed the border into Lebanon (1982).

 

"Operation Peace for Galilee" resulted in removing the bulk of the PLO's organizational and military infrastructure from the area. Since then, Israel has maintained a small security zone in southern Lebanon adjacent to its northern border to safeguard its population in Galilee against continued attacks by hostile elements.

 

 

Take a close look at this PRESENT DAY MAP of the Middle East. Israel in yellow is surrounded by 24 Arab nations. Arab countries occupy 600 times the land mass as does Israel and outnumber the Israelis by nearly fifty to one.

 

Now notice the TOTAL area of Israel (in yellow) and Jordan (in red). This was referred to as "Palestine" and mandated under British administration following World War I (see next map below) .

 

 

 

During World War I (1914-1918 ), Turkey (a.k.a. Ottoman Empire) supported Germany. When Germany was defeated, so were the Turks. Control of the southern portion of their empire was "mandated" to France and Britain. The area under British supervision was referred to as "Palestine." Because no other peoples had ever established a national homeland here since the Jews had done it 3,000 years before, the British "looked favorably" upon the creation of a Jewish National Homeland throughout ALL of Palestine. The Jews had once again begun mass immigration into Palestine in the 1880's in an effort to rid the land of swamps and malaria. (There was never an attempt to "rid" the area of what few Arabs there were!) This encouraged an equally large immigration of Arabs from neighboring areas who were attracted by employment opportunities and healthier living conditions.

 

 

 

In 1923 the British "chopped off" 75% of the proposed Jewish Palestinian homeland to form an Arab Palestinian Nation of "Trans-Jordan," meaning "across the Jordan River." The Palestinian Arabs now had THEIR homeland... the remaining 25% of the original Palestinian territory (west of the Jordan River) was to be the Jewish Palestinian homeland. However, sharing was not part of the Arab psychological makeup then or now and they were determined to get ALL of that remaining 25%. Encouraged and incited by growing Arab nationalism throughout the Middle East, the Arabs of that small remaining Palestinian territory launched never-ending murderous attacks upon the Jewish Palestinians in an effort to drive them out. Most terrifying were the Hebron slaughters of 1929 and later the 1936-39 "Arab Revolt." The British, at first tried to maintain order but soon (due to the large oil deposits being discovered throughout the Arab Middle East) turned a blind eye. It became obvious to the Palestinian Jews that they must fight the Arabs AND drive out the British.

 

 

The Palestinian Jews were forced to form an organized defense against the Arabs.... thus was formed the Hagana, the beginnings of the Israeli Army. There was also a Jewish underground called the Irgun led by Menachem Begin (who later became Prime Minister of Israel). Besides fighting the Arabs, the Irgun was instrumental in driving out the pro-Arab British. Finally in 1947 the British had enough and turned the Palestine matter over to the United Nations.

 

 

 

The U.N. Resolution 181 partition plan was to divide the remaining 25% of Palestine into a Jewish Palestinian State and a SECOND Arab Palestinian State (Trans-Jordan being the first) based upon population concentration. The Jews accepted --- the Arabs rejected. They still wanted ALL. On May 14, 1948 the Palestinian Jews finally declared their own State of Israel. On the next day, Israel was at war with seven Arab armies... Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen. Most of the Arabs living within the boundaries of "Israel" were encouraged to leave by the invading Arab armies to facilitate the slaughter of the Jews. When the war ended, Israel survived even with a loss of 1% of it's entire population. Those Arabs who did not run away became today's Israeli Arab citizens. Those who fled became the seeds of the so-called "Palestinian Arab refugees."

 

 

 

 

The end result of the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence was a Jewish State slightly larger than that which was proposed by the United Nations two years before. What remained of that almost-created 2nd Arab Palestinian State was gobbled up by Egypt (Gaza Strip) and by Trans-Jordan (the "West Bank" of the Jordan River). At that point, Trans-Jordan became known as just "Jordan" since its borders now extended west of the Jordan River. In the final analysis, the Arabs of Palestine ended up with nearly 75% of the original territory of Palestine. But that was still not 100% and thus the conflict between Arab and Jew for "Palestine" would continue through four more wars and continuous Arab terrorist attacks upon the Israeli citizenry to this day!

 

So when you hear today's Palestinian Arabs crying out for "rights to self-determination" and "legitimate right to a homeland," remember that they wanted it all and got nothing. Well, not really nothing... they still have an Arab Palestinian nation called Jordan in 75% of Palestine. In reality, Jordan) IS their "Palestine" in every way but name.

 

Throughout much of May 1967, the Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian armies mobilized along Israel's seemingly indefensible, narrow borders in preparation for a massive invasion to eliminate the State of Israel. The battle cry heard throughout the Arab world was then, as it continues to be... "Slaughter the Jews" and "Throw the Jews into the sea!" But the Jews of Israel, remembering 2,000 years of being butchered, gassed, burned and skinned (eg. The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, the Arab rampages of early Palestine and particularly The Holocaust), planned and executed perfectly a pre-emptive strike against Egypt. Within two hours the Egyptian Air Force did not exist... most of its planes destroyed while still on the runways! (Good news for its pilots who would have otherwise lost their lives.) And, unaware that the Egyptians had no more air force, King Hussein of Jordan launched his attack into Israel's belly while Syrian troops descended down the Golan Heights mountain range into northern Israel.

 

 

After ONLY six days of armored, air, sea and hand-to-hand warfare, Israel defeated all three Arab armies along three separate fronts and took control of the entire Sinai Desert from Egypt, the Golan Heights from Syria and the West Bank from Jordan. The God of Israel was surely watching over his children! Most importantly was the return to Israel of its holy 3,000 year old Jerusalem along the western edge of the West Bank... the same Jerusalem from which all Jews had been denied access for 19 years since Jordan seized it during the First Arab-Israeli War of 1948-9.

 

 

Unfortunately, Israel was now an "occupier" of 850,000 Palestinian Arabs from both the West Bank and Gaza Strip. These Arabs would refer to themselves as "refugees" and join the masses of refugees from the previous war of 1948-9. Once again we see Palestinian Arabs becoming refugees not by the actions of their enemies, but by THEIR OWN actions or the actions of their leaders.

 

Israel also was responsible for bringing about some of its own problems. The Arabs in the West Bank were packed and ready to leave when General Moshe Dayan persuaded them to stay. This singular act stunned no one more than the Arab enemy who could not believe that manifestation of Jewish madness. After all, the Arabs knew what THEY would have done to the Jews if THEY had won. However, Israel educated them and tried to live amongst them in hopes of building a bridge to the Arab world. Israel is now paying dearly for this "Leftist" gesture... this pathetic Jewish guilt for being a fighter and winner! That "bridge" led to the Intifada and world-wide Palestinian terrorism. From a frightened and defeated enemy, they turned into a confident, hateful and dangerous enemy now on their way toward forming a terrorist state determined to destroy Israel.

 

 

Usually when one side starts a war and loses both the war AND some territory, no one on the planet would expect the winner to give back anything! This not only sounds preposterous, it is preposterous! But the Jews (I hate to admit) have this insane obsession of wanting the world to love them and therefore were willing to give back the entire Sinai (oil fields, air bases and all) to Egypt for a piece of paper... the Camp David Accords signed in 1978. Thus in 1982 Egypt regained their Sinai (although they did not want Gaza which was filled with 800,000 fanatical Palestinian Arabs) and Israel lost a massive buffer against any future Egyptian aggression.

 

Israel still maintains occupation over Syria's Golan Heights which had been used solely for terrorist incursions and artillery bombardment of Israel's northern settlements.

 

 

 

 

As far as I'm concerned. Israel have spilled a lot of blood just to claim what was rightfully theirs to begin with. Even when they were nice to the arab nations that still to this day want nothing but complete extermination of the jews all they did was stab them in the back. Israel deserves to decimate its arab neighbors are rule the middle east.

 

You can call that a bigot statement I don't care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I'm concerned. Israel have spilled a lot of blood just to claim what was rightfully theirs to begin with. Even when they were nice to the arab nations that still to this day want nothing but complete extermination of the jews all they did was stab them in the back. Israel deserves to decimate its arab neighbors are rule the middle east.

 

You can call that a bigot statement I don't care.

 

PED, I don't think that it's biggoted at all. Thanks for the excellant and informative post. From that detailed history it appears as though Israel has tried for peace but EXTREME Muslims don't want that, they just want to butcher all in site be it Jew, Christian, infidel,etc. You simply cannot reason with people like that.

 

Let me make myself VERY CLEAR...I'm referring to the MUSLIM Extremists that seem to be running everyone over there. Many Muslims are peaceful BUT they are being oppressed and mistreated by the Extremist and the only way they can ever be free is to fight for it. I just wish it could be done peacefully. However, freedom can only be won if the people stand up to oppression, but the Extremists have so many weapons and such that I can't see an end to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My brother is reading a book about the 6 Day War and how it shaped the Middle East. It's rather light on the military action that we all know about and have easy access to--instead it concentrates on the politics.

 

He's unseriously warned me against the book--says if I think the situation is fucked up and unsolveable now, I'll just want to sit down and cry after reading it.

 

I think the comment made by Pete in reply to the article Ex-COG posted nailed it on the head. Both sides have done terrible things, there's no (easy) solution, and the only practical course of action left to the rest of the world is to develop an independent energy source and wipe our hands of the whole mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree that not siding with Israel is anti-semitic but according to news around the world....didn't Hazbullah first bomb Israel and then kidnap Israeli soldiers? How do you all think this should've been handled by Israel?

 

Who the hell knows who dropped the first bomb, it was so long ago. Both sides are being very biblical - an eye for an eye. Seems they can't quite get even.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me make myself VERY CLEAR...I'm referring to the MUSLIM Extremists that seem to be running everyone over there. Many Muslims are peaceful BUT they are being oppressed and mistreated by the Extremist and the only way they can ever be free is to fight for it. I just wish it could be done peacefully. However, freedom can only be won if the people stand up to oppression, but the Extremists have so many weapons and such that I can't see an end to it.

 

Ouch.... you touch on another taboo subject. ie. Is it possible to Criticize the US without being labeled an "Extremist'?

 

...I have a huge problem with the way the US have managed the 'terrorist' problem since 9/11 and if I were to say so in the middle of an American group like this, in all possibility I would be labed someway or at least told I was unpatriotic.

( Of course I can safely assume the US has a stake in it all .....)

 

but the Lebonese people live in a democracy...they didn't invite the Israelis to come and 'help' them wipe out the 'extremist'. Lebanon is a popular holiday destination! Its been a shock to them. Is WAR and nothing else. What a strange way to think of it. I guess people have been feed the idea that other stronger nations can do that at anytime and that their values are 'right'.

 

If this was only about 'muslim extremists' and rescuing 2 prisioner's - the Israelis could have used far less force and intelligence.

This is OVERKILL......the count so far is 300 innocent victims/bystander's....how can that be justified.

 

Peace is always possible but not if people remain emotional or unmoveable. I believe without the support from the US - Isareal would not be a strong military force in the Middleeast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all likelihood, without the direct support of the U.S., Israel would have been wiped off the map almost as soon as it was created.

 

There's no solution to the Middle East, just a record of unspeakable violence pepetrated by all parties going back thousands of years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all likelihood, without the direct support of the U.S., Israel would have been wiped off the map almost as soon as it was created.

 

 

Yes...I think I just said soemthing like that...

I believe without the support from the US - Isareal would not be a strong military force in the Middleeast.

 

So...why not add another star (of david) to the american flag? :wicked:

There's no solution to the Middle East, just a record of unspeakable violence pepetrated by all parties going back thousands of years.

 

Well......that's not quite true....Israel was only formed as a result of the Second world war...and the US is only 300 or so years old....

doesn't make sense....? all parties weren't in existence.

 

 

 

 

(fuck!...I'm trying to split this post....the program isn't working correctly)

 

this is supposed to appear on a separate reply!!

 

from...http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?C...5#Post294775305

 

Attention Deficit Americans Are Being Misled to War

by Paul Craig Roberts

A terrible thing is happening, and not enough Americans are aware to be able to do anything about it. Zionists in Israel and in the Bush administration are leading America into war with Iran, Syria, Hizbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine. The consequences for America, Israel and the Middle East will be disastrous, but as long as Washington is in thrall to Zionist paranoia, nothing can be done about it. Bush made this clear on July 14 when he rejected the plea from Lebanon’s prime minister to pressure Israel to stop its attack on Lebanon.

 

The war began when Bush’s neoconservative government invaded Afghanistan and Iraq under the pretense of "fighting terrorism." Neither front has gone well for America. The Israelis, seeing the growing domestic opposition to Bush’s wars of choice, concluded that they are in danger of losing America’s military intervention in behalf of their Middle East interests. Israel decided to force the issue.

 

Israel did this by bombing and invading Gaza, from which they had just withdrawn as part of a "Palestinian settlement." Israel’s pretext was the capture of one Israeli soldier in Gaza in retribution for Israel’s genocidal policies toward Palestine. Few Americans know that Israel has forced Palestinians into ghettos and walled them off from their farm lands, schools, and medical treatment.

 

By slaughtering scores of civilians and destroying the infrastructure of the fragile land in response to the capture of one Israeli soldier, Israel has made it clear that its policy is fire and sword.

 

Under international law – the identical law that was used to try Nazi war criminals after World War II – Israel’s invasion of Gaza is a monstrous war crime. The United Nations top humanitarian official, Jan Egeland, said that Israel’s attacks on civilians and infrastructure violated international law.

 

On July 13, the UN Security Council tried to condemn Israel for its criminal invasion of Gaza, but US Ambassador John Bolton, a rabid pro-Israeli zealot, vetoed the Security Council resolution that would have required Israel to halt its illegal and criminal actions in Gaza. Bolton is the UN ambassador who could not get confirmed even in a Republican Senate and was given a recess appointment by Bush in defiance of Congress.

 

On July 12, Israel invaded Lebanon. The pretext was the capture of two Israeli soldiers in Israeli-occupied Lebanese territory by Hizbollah. In two days Israel has slaughtered scores of Lebanese civilians, destroyed bridges and power plants, attacked the Beruit International Airport and blocked Lebanese ports.

 

Israel’s over-reactions are calculated to start a wider war. Israel has asserted that the two soldiers captured by Hizbollah are being held in Iran. Israel blames Syria for Hizbollah’s acts. Both Israel and its neoconsevative allies in the Bush government blame Iran and Syria for "attacks on Israel" by Hamas and Hizbollah. No one, least of all Bush, blames Israel’s Palestinian policy.

 

Israel’s American agents, the neoconservatives, have made it clear for years that their goal is to eliminate every Middle Eastern government that is not ruled by an American puppet friendly to Israel. The people who hold the important positions in Bush’s government have frankly stated this position over and over. For example, a decade ago in 1996 a group of American neoconservatives who have comprised much of the sub-cabinet in the Bush administration wrote that Israel could gain American sympathy by blaming aggression on Hizbollah, Syria, and Iran and then seizing the strategic initiative by "engaging Hizbollah, Syria, and Iran as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon."

 

First, however, Iraq would have to be taken out. The first focus, said the neocons, should be "on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq – an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right."

 

Gentle reader, does it not strike you as strange that US citizens, most of whom have held presidential appointments in the Bush administration, are so concerned to plan how Israel can draw upon US blood and treasure to achieve Israel’s objectives in the Middle East?

 

We certainly have to hand it to Israel and its American neoconsevative agents. They have succeeded on entirely false pretenses in launching two wars in the Middle East and now they have prepared the ground for a general conflagration.

 

Who is to stop them? The Condi Rice State Department? Be serious.

 

The Democratic Party? What a laugh!

 

The power mad Republicans who have sold their souls?

 

The Christian Evangelicals who believe the destruction of huge numbers of people in the Middle East is the lead up to "the Rapture" in which they will be wafted up to Heaven?

 

The UN Security Council, where the US never fails to veto any resolution or sanction against Israel?

 

The US and Israel haven’t the troops needed to defeat and occupy Syria, Hizbollah and Iran with conventional forces. Pentagon documents have described two ways in which the Middle East can be secured for Israel. One is the use of nuclear weapons. The other is the destruction of all infrastructure – power plants, water and sewage systems, hospitals, schools, roads, bridges, ports, and a reduction of much housing to rubble by powerful conventional bombs. In other words, an air war that never ends.

 

Most Americans are incapable of identifying their own US Representative and Senators. Everything they "know" about the Middle East comes from Israeli propaganda: Israel is the innocent victim, and all Arabs are terrorists with suicide bombs.

 

America is being led by a handful of traitors into participating in "regime change" that might succeed or might dethrone our bought and paid for puppets in Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. If Pakistan were to fall to Islamist forces, Muslims would have a nuclear capability as a counterpart to Israel’s and America’s.

 

Muslims have many reasons to hate us for generations of oppression and interference in their internal affairs. As Iraq has proven, it is not easy to break their spirit. Out-gunned and out-manned, they still resist, motivated by anger and pride.

 

Many Americans may think that "ragheads" mean nothing to them. But when $200 oil means Americans cannot commute to their jobs in their gas-guzzlers from their far-flung suburbs, or Russia and China intervene because American-Israeli interests conflict with their own, the world becomes a different place for inattentive, uninvolved, complicit Americans.

 

What do you think....interesting!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it interesting to compare what Bush (& his cronies) with what the Europeans like Putin says...

 

"Bush held Israel blameless for its punishing attacks in Lebanon and said it was up to the militant group Hezbollah to lay down its arms. Putin was critical of Israel's use of force and said the violence "should stop as soon as possible." "

 

At the same time," the Russian leader said, "we work under the assumption that the use of force should be balanced." The European Union and France, in particular has condemned Israel's attacks as excessive, putting Bush at odds with key allies"

 

from....

 

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?C...1#Post294775321

 

(i hope this appears in a separate reply? )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was actually referring to the peoples and cultures of the region rather than the specific political entity, but even within the narrow confines of the past 50+ years there have more atrocities and "eye for an eye" behavior than any other region that comes readily to mind.

 

The Middle East is just one big cluster-fuck. Not only is there no viable solution anywhere in sight, were we to find one the people there would probably vehemently reject it out of hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The west must recognise that Israel's agenda is in conflict with its own

 

The Olmert government, Hizbullah and Hamas are tacitly united in rejection of any moves towards a compromise peace

 

David Clark

Monday July 17, 2006

The Guardian

 

 

Whatever else can be said for or against Israel's escalation of military action against Lebanon, there is little prospect that it will achieve its stated objectives. If Israel couldn't defeat Hizbullah after 18 years in which its army occupied large swaths of Lebanese territory, it is not going to succeed with air strikes and blockades, or even another occupation. The same point applies even more forcefully in the case of Gaza. Every time Israel applies the iron fist in an effort to beat the Palestinians into submission, their resistance simply re-emerges in a more extreme and rejectionist form. Far from fearing Israel's wrath, Hizbullah and Hamas must be rather pleased at their success in provoking it into the sort of over-reaction from which they have always benefited.

 

Nor does it seem plausible that military action will enable Israel to secure the release of its captured soldiers. The civilian victims of Israel's indiscriminate retaliation have no real influence over the militias that hold them, while the militias themselves are untroubled by the spectacle of public suffering. On the contrary, they thrive on it. In the case of Lebanon, it is possible that acts of collective punishment, such as the destruction of Beirut airport and yesterday's killing of yet more civilians, might divide Hizbullah and its supporters from the rest of the country, but only at the risk of triggering another civil war and creating a vacuum that Israel's enemies in Syria and Iran will find easier to exploit.

 

In view of all this, it is valid to ask what Israel thinks it is doing. Indeed, this question is implicit in the statements of world leaders at the G8 and elsewhere who have called on Israel to use force proportionately, avoid civilian casualties and refrain from acts that might strengthen Hamas or destabilise Lebanon's fragile political settlement. No one quibbles with Israel's right to defend itself, but doesn't it understand how irresponsible and immoral it is to deliberately escalate the conflict in this way?

 

The problem is that the premise of the question is false. It assumes that Israel shares our view that a de-escalation followed by negotiation is the best route to a settlement. It assumes, therefore, that when Israeli ministers complain of having "no partner for peace", they actually want one. A much more sensible approach would be to credit them with having the intelligence to know exactly what they are doing and to work backwards from there.

 

If so, it might become apparent that far from wanting a partner with which to negotiate, the Israeli government is acting with the specific intention of forestalling that possibility. There is nothing particularly new in this. The extremists on both sides have always formed a kind of tacit alliance, with the supporters of "greater Israel" and "no Israel" understanding their joint interest in preventing any moves towards a compromise peace. That is the main reason why Israel encouraged the growth of Hamas as it emerged in the 1980s. Unwilling to negotiate with the secular nationalists of Fatah, even as they were moving towards support for a two-state solution, the Israeli authorities thought it would be a clever idea to promote their Islamist rivals.

 

In the case of the current crisis, it is no accident that it occurred at precisely the moment when the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, was gaining the upper hand in the latest round of that struggle. By using the threat of a referendum to force Hamas to accept the existence of Israel as the basis for a final settlement, Abbas had created the most promising opening for peace in six years. Faced with internal division and the loss of political initiative, Hamas militants understood that the only way to prevent it would be to trigger another cycle of violence. In turn, the Israel government, whose interests were also threatened by the Abbas initiative, recognised that it had an equally good reason to oblige. The effect of Hizbullah's intervention and Israel's over-reaction has been to put peace even further down the agenda.

 

The plain truth is that Israel thinks that it can get more by imposing a solution through force than by negotiation and is not interested in any kind of peace process. The Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, pays lip service to the road map, but he has already received American endorsement for his fallback position, artfully dubbed "unilateral convergence". George Bush has described it as a "bold idea". Armed with the knowledge that he will continue to enjoy American patronage if the road map fails, Olmert has set out to ensure that it does just that. Bush's diplomacy has been truly inept.

 

It's high time western governments grasped the fundamental truth that Israel is pursuing an agenda that conflicts directly with their own. In the context of the fight against terrorism and the need to promote international cooperation, the west's interest must be to remove the Palestinian question as a source of grievance among mainstream Muslims in a way that guarantees justice for the Palestinians and security for Israel. A settlement of this kind is perfectly feasible and has been outlined in countless documents and initiatives over the years, most recently in the Geneva accords. But the main reason it has proved illusive is that Israel is not, and never has been, prepared to make the territorial compromises required. It still believes that it is entitled to the victor's spoils by annexing large tracts of Palestinian land.

 

This situation will persist as long as the west remains in denial about the reasons for the ongoing conflict and until the Israeli political establishment is forced to pay a price for its obstinacy. Yet the US remains entirely complicit in its role as Israel's main strategic ally. In the midst of last Friday's onslaught, in which Israeli bombers killed dozens of Lebanese civilians, the Pentagon announced the export of $210m of aviation fuel to help Israel "keep peace and security in the region". Even Britain and other European countries indulge in a form of diplomatic misdirection by focusing one-sidedly on the roles played by Syria and Iran.

 

The key to resolving the situation in Lebanon lies, as it did throughout the 1970s and 1980s, in finding a solution to the Palestinian question. A viable and successful Palestinian state would rob Hizbullah and its sponsors of the conceit that they are defending helpless Muslims and make it easier for those in the region who oppose them to gain the upper hand. Mahmoud Abbas is the only leader currently working for the kind of negotiated two-state solution the Middle East and the wider world desperately need. But he is being let down by the west at the moment when he had earned the right to expect better. The Palestinian president needs a partner for peace. If Israel will not play that role, the international community must.

 

· David Clark is a former Labour special adviser at the Foreign Office dkclark@aol.com

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/st...1822145,00.html

 

Follow the link to again read many comments on this conflict. The more you look at it, the more of a mess it is. Thank whatever that I wasn't born in the Mid-East.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Arabs have a TON of land that surrounds Israel. Israel is a freakin' little sliver of land for cryin' out loud. Greed causes so much needless pain and destruction. Both have been wrong over the centuries, it's time for them both to just stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.