@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
okie wrote:
So what is Israel supposed to do, just give it all up, declare an end to their country, pull up stakes, and go where?
That was the excuse the Protestants of Northern Ireland, who ran the Stormont government there, used for a couple of centuries. Later when they lost all hope of continued domination they gave up. They are still there and doing fairly well - even though they no longer exclusively run the show - as I understand it. It turns out that Justice is less risky and costs less in the long run than injustice and oppression.
First, let me apologize for messing up the my post a little ways back where I wanted to say, "Mea culpa, mea culpa," in response/affirmation to what I brought up in the thread. It was formatted incorrectly, so it looked like another poster stated that.
Anyway, an analogy might also be of the sub-prime mortgages and the Palestineans. The U.S.A. seemed to believe that people who could not afford a house, based on historical standards of financing, should have a house. That evolved into the sub-prime financial mess. And, there seems to be a belief that the Palestineans who cannot afford to run a nation state should have a nation state. This analogy makes sense if we realize that Israel cannot be analogous to Britain in the Ireland/Britain analogy. I say this because Britain originally colonized Ireland, and Israel never, nor wanted to, colonize any lands that Palestineans thought of their own. Unlike Britain, they had nowhere else to go. History is full of people settling on land that indigenous people then lost. That is how we got Europeans, based on those Germanic tribes settling in Europe. And, let us not forget, the world (today the UN) never gave Britain its blessing to colonize Ireland. But the world (the UN) did give its blessing for Israel to exist as a Zionist state.
I do not see how one can compare the two scenes in history, since Israel has Arabs living in Israel as citizens. How did Britain treat its Irish peasant population?
To be perfectly candid, I wonder how much of the world-wide anti-Israel sentiment, and pro-Arab sentiment, is based on some primal fear, that in some future century, Israel, left to its own devices, could take over enough of the region to support a population (of Jews) of a few hundred million. In other words, is there a paranoia about how the world would be if there were many more Jews acting independently in their own country. I believe there are portions of the western world that would not be comfortable with that thought. And, Arabs have proven themselves to be less of a threat, in the eyes of many, I believe.
In other words, rather than say world-wide anti-Zionist rhetoric might include some anti-Semites, it may also include Judeophobia (Jews are okay, as long as they cannot become a threat by increasing in great numbers).
And to all a good night!
