Why is there such a strong reaction to Israel on PF?

[kyleb]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
kyleb, I don't see how the roman times are relevant. It doesn't matter whose ancestors were where.

i think you mean GENIERE; and no kidding, if the roman augment holds then i want to bring up the fact that my great grandmother was full blooded Cherokee. so if any of you Israili appoligies get in my way, by your own arugments i am totally justified in killing you to defend my rightful homeland.

 

[Zero]

Ok, everyone cut and paste this to your desktop, so i don't have to say it again: I DO NOT SUPPORT PALESTINIAN SUICIDE BOMBERS NOR DO I SUPPORT THE LEADERS OF ANY GROUP WHO SUPPORT SUICUIDE BOMBINGS OR ISRAELI GENOCIDE.


Now that I've said it in caps, can we move on?

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Zero
I DO NOT SUPPORT PALESTINIAN SUICIDE BOMBERS
NOR DO I SUPPORT THE LEADERS OF ANY GROUP WHO
SUPPORT SUICUIDE BOMBINGS OR ISRAELI GENOCIDE.

Are you sure about that ?
And btw, so you have no problem with Arafat do you ?

 

[BoulderHead]

Is this thread reducing into that 'knee-jerk' thing which Zero spoke of in the first post?

Anyway, wasn't this thread NOT supposed to be about which side is wrong or right, or what the problem in the Israel/Palestine conflict is, BUT rather whether Israel should get some sort of special treatment?

Exactly my thoughts too, Dan.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by kyleb
please look at http://www.ccmep.org/delegations/maps/palestine.html#2 again and note that the UN partition plan does not call for Israeli occupation of the Gaza strip.

Kyleb, the map has no relevancy to whether occupation is legal or illegal. Nobody here, to my knowledge, has disputed that there is occupied territories, nor does any map change the reason that this house was being bulldozed. Again, the reason this home was bulldozed had nothing to do with building anything.

furthermore, i think it is a bit late to be pointing fingers as the ones who created Israel are mostly dead and gone but the fact is that Jewish people were living in that land of thousands of years without such issues; not until the formation of Israel did those organizations come to be. so how can you say the Palatines resistance is the root? is not the formation of Israel actually that not actually "the root" of this? i am not trying to insult you here by any means kat; as humans we are all blind to some things, and sometimes that can drive haltered. i am just calling it as i see it in the hopes that balance to this issue might be found; but i do not believe that is not going to happen so long as America keeps supporting Israel over Palistine the way we have been.

If you think it's too late to start pointing fingers, then I'm unsure why you would then turn around and point them.
At any rate "those organizations" came for numerous reasons, not all Israel related, much to do with France/Britian partitioning and competing dictatorships, egos, and conflicting beliefs. Also, there was less reason to have terrorist organizations to suppress Jews while they were already living under the auspices of Dhimmi and subject to the whims of the ruling Arab majorities which also culminated into slaughtering large qauntities of jews on numerous occasions.
Also, I think I should point out Hezbollah did not originate only as response to Israel but to Lebanon, it is a extremist group dedicated to creation of Iranian-style Islamic republic in Lebanon and removal of all non-Islamic influences from the area(In Lebanon this would tend to concern a large population of Maronite Christians, although there was a small Jewish population of which most fled). Subsections of the PLO have caused huge conflicts in many countries including Jordan which finally culminated into what was called "Black September".
Lastly, I don't claim "palestinian resistance" to be the root, I claim that organizations and men like Arafat, the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah etc continue to ascerbate the situation PURPOSELY to increase their own personal profit, keep themselves in power, continue their own rascist mandate to commit genocide (not just against the Jews either), all of this at the cost of many INNOCENT palestinian lives...this does not mean that there is no GUILT for men like Sharon, but that as long as there are men within the Palestinian camp that continue to literally FEAST on the situation it will not end, cannot end...because never in a million years will men like this allow it to end. This I firmly believe through my own personaly study of the situation and this I very DEEPLy feel due to personal loss and listening to very, very many stories from those close to me who have experienced horrific events and some who also, early on, partook in such occasions as bribary, illegal importation, threatening for monetary gain all with and from these very same men and organizations in the neighboring country of Lebanon. I won't go into how young men, or rather I should say children and now even young women are initiated into these organizations, but apparently the stories that I hear seem to parallel those that I remember hearing about young teens inducted into religious cults (Moonies?) in the U.S.

Dan- As for "Is Israel Special", I've posted my response to that question previously, it did not seem to interest anyone enough to respond specificly to my post..*shrug*

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by drag
Are you sure about that ?
And btw, so you have no problem with Arafat do you ?

Whatever...read what I posted.

 

[damgo]

kat -- The the? [?]

Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and 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;

I know exactly nothing about international law, but it doesn't seem to say anything about who should do what first. Anyways, that 91% seems misleading -- that's land area, no? Most of that would be the Sinai, which is pretty much totally worthless except as a buffer -- kinda like southern Israel. Gaza was annexed to Egypt before '67, too, right? And the West Bank to Jordan? BTW, do you know if Israel ever offered to return these territories to Egypt/Jordan with/after the peace, or what those countries and the Palestinians' views on that were?

BTW, here is a good set of maps -- UT's collection is great: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/israel_hist_1973.jpg

GENIERE... Huh? That area of the Levant -- Judea, Palestine, Eretz Yisrael, whatever you want to call it -- was briefly again under Jewish rule around the beginning of the Roman Empire's expansion. It existed as a client state with varying degrees of independence during the warring between Rome and Parthia, eventually becoming a Roman province. The Romans didn't find them a "religious threat"; they administered Judea the same way they did their other provinces: keeping local institutions around, being tolerant of local culture, only demanding 1) peace and 2) taxes. Many Jews of the time objected to living under the rule of pagan imperialists (sound familiar? ) and increasing tensions culminated in the briefly successful revolt of CE 66, which ended with the orgy of bloodshed common to ancient wars, the destruction of the Temple, and beginning of the Diaspora.

IIRC the Philistines were originally some of the "Sea Peoples" who settled all along the Levant and Egypt long before Roman times. There's no connection AFAIK.

russ -- Yeah; my point was that the Israeli government has not supported the idea of a Palestinian state until rather recently, and quite possibly won't in the near future (especially given how Labour got whacked last election.) Also, they did intend to rule a country full of Jews; at least back then. As has been pointed out, many of the other Arab states have sizable Jewish populations; and then Jews were largely outnumbered by Arab Israelis and Palestinian refugees. Now, I don't know; there is so much hatred and resentment built up... But they are not openly calling for it.

re: whether Israel should get special treatment. Yes; they are the only functioning liberal democracy in the region, a shining example of a successful capitalist economy, and an ideological and military ally. They are on my list of "properly-run countries" along with most of Europe, USA, Canada, Japan, etc.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by damgo
BTW, do you know if Israel ever offered to
return these territories to Egypt/Jordan
with/after the peace, or what those countries
and the Palestinians' views on that were?

I bet the Egyptians and the Jordanians would
just LOVE to have them...

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by drag
Are you sure about that ?
And btw, so you have no problem with Arafat do you ?

He omitted the "but..." part.

Originally posted by damgo
kat -- The the? [?] I know exactly nothing about international law, but it doesn't seem to say anything about who should do what first.

Damgo, the wording of that resolution, like most others, is extremely soft. It does not demand any action. All it says is any peace "should include..." So there is no demand to break.

I'm not saying that you have claimed that, but others have. I can't tell you how many times I've heard "Israel is in violation of XX UN resolutions. Bzzzzt. Wrong. You can't violate something that doesn't demand action.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by damgo
kat -- The the? [?] I know exactly nothing about international law, but it doesn't seem to say anything about who should do what first.

Damgo-I have to agree with Russ, that's what happens with many UN resolutions, they leave vague wording to satisfy all of those supporting it, and when it comes to analysis or implementation, the vagueness complicates things even further and becomes a further antogonist to an already difficult situation.

Anyways, that 91% seems misleading -- that's land area, no? Most of that would be the Sinai, which is pretty much totally worthless except as a buffer -- kinda like southern Israel.

actually 91% may be off, I've read updated % at 93% (includes % of Gaza and of West Bank), but in regards to the Sinai, I'm not sure I would call the Oil fields and Jewish settlements that were dismantled totally worthless.(dismantled by Sharon, I believe, isn't that ironic?)

Gaza was annexed to Egypt before '67, too, right? And the West Bank to Jordan? BTW, do you know if Israel ever offered to return these territories to Egypt/Jordan with/after the peace, or what those countries and the Palestinians' views on that were?

I believe that Egypt occupied the Gaza strip from 1949 to 1967 except for the short period in 1956, it did not annex it.
Jordan occupied the West Bank from 1949 to 1967, and unilaterally annexed. The annexation was not recognised (except by Pakistan and the UK), that territory was generally considered as occupied. After the 1967 war, Israel proposed to withdraw to the pre war cease fire lines in exchange for a negotiated peace, I believe the proposal was rejected by the League of Arab States.

BTW, here is a good set of maps -- UT's collection is great: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/israel_hist_1973.jpg

Good maps here as well: http://www.mideastweb.org/maps.htm

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by kat
but in regards to the Sinai, I'm not sure I
would call the Oil fields and Jewish settlements
that were dismantled totally worthless.

Indeed. There were also huge resources put into
building roads there which the Egyptians are still
using today. And between the six day war(1967) and
the yom kipur war(1973) there was also the Suez Canal.

Live long and prosper.

 

[damgo]

kat, russ -- Exactly, that's the point I was trying to make about 242... it was mainly in reponse to whoever brought up international law prohibiting the occupation. I don't know if it should legally be read as "we officially call on you to do these things now" or "hey, maybe you guys oughtta think about this stuff," but in either case it doesn't support the claims the left usually uses it for.

re: Sinai doesn't have much oil I thought... google says it accounts for like 5% of oil production. And the settlements were mainly defensive, military, ones, right? IIRC they didn't work too well in the October War. I'm not trying to say that the Sinai was a trivial concession; especially security-wise it was a big deal, but the densely populated areas that are important to the Palestinians (as opposed to the surrrounding Arab states) are Gaza and the West Bank, not southern Lebanon, the Sinai desert, or the Golan Heights. So saying "91%" can IMO be misleading... what would the percentage be as measured by population, do you know? If you're going to give one figure, give both.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by damgo
So saying "91%" can IMO be misleading... what would the percentage be as measured by population, do you know? If you're going to give one figure, give both.

GAH! Which population? which years? Are we talking Jews, Arabs, Palestinians measured by what, birth, descendancy, years residence during a certain time period?? present population, past population, including-excluding what?? gah! gah! gah!?

 

[kat]

Originally posted by damgo

re: Sinai doesn't have much oil I thought... google says it accounts for like 5% of oil production. And the settlements were mainly defensive, military, ones, right? IIRC they didn't work too well in the October War. I'm not trying to say that the Sinai was a trivial concession; especially security-wise it was a big deal

Damgo- It was a big deal both in security and economics, Israel put itself at risk and opened itself up to a new round of shipping blockades, military assaults, and terrorist attacks. They also gave up direct control of shipping lanes to and from Eilat, over 1,000 miles of roadways, homes, factories, hotels, hospitals and health facilities, and farming villages.

The Alma oil field in the southern Sinai was discovered AND developed by Israel. When Israel gave up this field it was the country's largest single source of energy, it supplied half the country's energy needs. Israel had projected that continued development there would make the country self-sufficient in energy by 1990. No matter how you may add it all up and compare it, the capability of achieving energy self-sufficiency is not a small concession.

Around 7,000 Israelis were removed from their homes and businesses, which they had spent years building in a desert. The Israeli's of Yamit were forcibly removed by Israeli soldiers lead by Sharon.

On top of the removal of civilians, Israel relocated close to 200 military installations, airfields, and army bases after it's withdrawal.

I won't even get into PROJECTED benefits, I don't think I need to tell you that historically Israel has had amazing success at turning barren desert patches into highly productive areas.

 

[damgo]

GAH! Which population? which years? Are we talking Jews, Arabs, Palestinians measured by what, birth, descendancy, years residence during a certain time period?? present population, past population, including-excluding what??

I dunno, pick anyone -- present total population, total population in 1967, whatever -- something else if you think those would miss important factors. Quick googling gives for current pops in millions:

~2.2 West Bank
~1.2 Gaza Strip
~0.2 Golan Heights
~0.3 Sinai Pensinsula

So that's like 8% population-wise that has been given up.

The only reason I brought it up is that 91% land area seemed like an awfully misleading figure to use in this case... so my scientific aversion to abuse of statistics kicked in. I'll take you word on the Sinai stuff.

I don't think I need to tell you that historically Israel has had amazing success at turning barren desert patches into highly productive areas.

Sure, but there's a huge ecological/geological/etc difference between the coastal/northern areas, and desert wastelend like the Negev and Sinai. My old roommate who spent a while traveling around Israel said that the land south of Beersheeba was the most barren and desolate he'd ever seen (in a little more colorful language.)

 

[kat]

Originally posted by damgo
I dunno, pick anyone -- present total population, total population in 1967, whatever -- something else if you think those would miss important factors. Quick googling gives for current pops in millions:

~2.2 West Bank
~1.2 Gaza Strip
~0.2 Golan Heights
~0.3 Sinai Pensinsula

So that's like 8% population-wise that has been given up.

The only reason I brought it up is that 91% land area seemed like an awfully misleading figure to use in this case... so my scientific aversion to abuse of statistics kicked in. I'll take you word on the Sinai stuff.

uhh...I was being a bit offhanded about the whole population thing, I don't really believe population is relevant to transfers of territorial occupation or ownership. Before I would even begin to consider spending time delving into any population analysis you really will have to explain to me how population effects % of territories taken and returned, I could see derived income, agricultural production, natural resources, security, etc. but I don't see the population=% territories.

You also must realize that by the time of the Israeli/Jordan peace agreement Jordan renounced its claims on the West Bank and was not interested in reclaiming it. Egypt after agreeing to peace with Israel was also not interested in re-occupying Gaza. From that standpoint, UN Resolution 242, was fulfilled with Jordan and Egypt. Both acquired all of the land that Israel had captured from their control except for those areas that they did not want Israel to return to them. So, of course, that is where it really gets legally hazey.

 

[Moetasim]

Israel is an evil supported by US for its own interests...

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Moetasim
Israel is an evil supported by US for its own interests...

Hmmmm...too easy. Israel isn't a single entity, and treating it as such is too simplistic. Just as in anything else, there are good points and bad, and you would probably get along with 90% of teh population over drinks.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Moetasim
Israel is an evil supported by US for its own interests...

*edited for PF guidelines violations*(1) Support of Israel in reality does not bring the US much gain. (2) All nations act in their own interests, what did you expect. (3) Never call a nation evil. Their leaders may be foolish, their policies harmful, their culture alien. But you can't say that Israel is evil. To do this is to over-simplify.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Moetasim
Israel is an evil supported by US for its
own interests...

And pink ellephants can fly.

 

[LURCH]

A co-worker and I were engaged in a discussion on this topic when he asked, "but why does the U.S. always seem to support Israel, with all their suicide bombers?", and I was forced to ask myself when I had ever heard of an Israeli suicide bomber. I was unable to think of a single instance, and so I decided I should ask here, where there are people a little more in touch with the international scene than I. has anyone here ever heard of an Israeli suicide bombing?

I have already tried a Google search for the words "Israeli suicide bomber"; it turned out almost 53,000 news articles which contained the phrase "suicide bomber" accompanied by the word "Israeli", in reference to those who had been killed or injured.

BTW-the reason I consider this question important to this topic:
If Israel is the only nation in that region who cannot list "suicide bombers" among their chief exports, or the only people group specifically targeted by these attacks, or the only nation in that area that does not target hospitals, nursery schools, or busloads of civilians, then my answer would have to be "yes"; this does make them "special". Not "perfect", but certainly "special".

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by LURCH
A co-worker and I were engaged in a discussion on this topic when he asked, "but why does the U.S. always seem to support Israel, with all their suicide bombers?", and I was forced to ask myself when I had ever heard of an Israeli suicide bomber. I was unable to think of a single instance, and so I decided I should ask here, where there are people a little more in touch with the international scene than I. has anyone here ever heard of an Israeli suicide bombing?

I have already tried a Google search for the words "Israeli suicide bomber"; it turned out almost 53,000 news articles which contained the phrase "suicide bomber" accompanied by the word "Israeli", in reference to those who had been killed or injured.

BTW-the reason I consider this question important to this topic:
If Israel is the only nation in that region who cannot list "suicide bombers" among their chief exports, or the only people group specifically targeted by these attacks, or the only nation in that area that does not target hospitals, nursery schools, or busloads of civilians, then my answer would have to be "yes"; this does make them "special". Not "perfect", but certainly "special".

What you fail to realize is that Israel is too rich to have suicide bombers, because they ACTUALLY HAVE BOMBS. And, of course, they sure don't mind dropping them on civilians. Ask yourself: why is it that troops are gunning down children on an almost weekly basis, and people still focus on teh suicide bombers as the ONLY atrocity? And why are teh Israelis killing 3-5 times as many Palestinians as they are losing their own, and are still somehow seen to be the only ones threatened?

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by FZ+
*edited for PF guidelines violations*

Wohoo! Well, it wasn't really that bad. Just my opinion on the statement.

 

[drag]

Edit