Eye On Israel/Palestine

georgeob1 wrote:

New Orleans Jazz is great, as are its several other varieties. Interesting to me to note how well Germans (as opposed to the French, English, or others) take to that form of music. Now Germany is reexporting really good jazz performers to the U.S.

I've got some hundred cd's - partly thanks to my membership to two UA-American collector clubs :wink:

Quote:

In 1972, the Council of Europe (the same body that designed the European flag) adopted Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" theme as its own anthem. The well-known conductor Herbert Von Karajan was asked to write three instrumental arrangements - for solo piano, for wind instruments and for symphony orchestra. Without words, in the universal language of music, this anthem expresses the ideals of freedom, peace and solidarity for which Europe stands.

In 1985, it was adopted by EU heads of State and government as the official anthem of the European Union. It is not intended to replace the national anthems of the Member States but rather to celebrate the values they all share and their unity in diversity.

Source

0 Replies

George,
My responses to your ideas on Israel and the Palestinians were largely predicated on statements such as:

Quote:

This is not a modern state: it is a tribal anachronism, not far removed from some of the Moslem states, which it criticizes so assiduously.

and your belief that the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only really be solved when Israel becomes co-opted into a "Greater Palestinian" state.
As I have stated, I believe that the latter may eventually happen, but the former is totally untrue.

My problem with your line of reasoning is twofold.
You seem to be questioning Israel's viability as a country based on their conflict with the Palestinians.
And you do not seem to be taking into account the larger Arab/Muslim issues which make the Palestinians simply another Arabic/Muslim peoples who are affected very strongly by these larger issues, in the exact same way as are the Syrians and the Jordanians and the Saudis, etcetera.

Israel's viability or justification or right to exist or whatever other word one might use to describe the status of an independent nation does not depend on its conflict with the Palestinians or its Arab neighbors.
To use your example - Ireland became an independent nation in spite of the IRA, not because of it. The ongoing Irish revolts did not free Ireland. The particular revolts in the Twentieth Century when the world was giving up its colonial conquests, particularly England, particularly after a World War helped create its independence - but, a government; a declaration of independence; and a tradition of laws were all also necessary. There would be no Ireland, if it had not had laws and institutions and viable traditions to draw upon.
And, England still retains Northern Ireland.

My point is and was that Israel is actually the only nation in the Middle East that has maintained its own nation, in spite of European meddling and the European division of the Middle East, not because of it.
Israel is an independent nation because it has laws, institutions, an economy, a viable government, etcetera.
The Arab states surrounding Israel from Africa to Asia, struggle to maintain their existence and viability day to day and year to year. These are not countries that have created the same viability that Israel has. And these are all countries that have had major, far more serious conflicts than Israel has, with their own either native or displaced populations. They are not integrated societies. They are not just societies. They are nations that have existed based on corruption and greed and the attempted accumulation of someone else's land.

I don't know how to be more plain without going into the specific history of each nation state in the region.

In other words, Israel is a truly legitimate and viable nation state. The surrounding Arab/Muslim states, including the Palestinian non-state, have not yet proven to be vibrant, viable, legitimate countries.

These nations may never achieve that status because, historically, they never have. There is no tradition of nationhood and laws for Egypt or Libya or Iraq or Saudi Arabia. They have always been a flux of Islamic sultanates or kingdoms or empires (until the 19th century). Their traditions; their laws; their values; have been based on a variety of Islamic legal influences for a thousand years. Western traditions have been imposed upon these modern day countries and they have not yet intergrated these traditions.
The one country that had a very long tradition of values both Islamic and from "the West" was Lebanon. The Palestinians destroyed it and Syria currently occupies it.
Oh well......

0 Replies

Moishe;

Interesting comments.

First with respect to Ireland, that lovely country gained its independence from Great Britain after about four major armed revolutions and uprisings, at least three major organized political movements over a 400 year period that involved more or less continuous mass emigration of a large fraction of the population and an economic/agricultural famine during which about 25% of its population (or 2.5 million people) perished from starvation while the country remained a large net exporter of food (mostly grain, and animal products). During much of that period it was illegal for the Irish to hold public office, use their native language, get an education, or to pass their property intact to designated heirs. They were also taxed to support a religious establishment to which they did not adhere, (and which was in effect a retirement system for Anglcan vicars).

Independence finally arrived shortly after WWI at the end of a combined military and political resistance, which finally wore down an England exhausted after WWI. Murder and terror was practiced on both sides and particularly by the IRA which by now is one of the oldest terrorist revolutionary movements in the world. (There are substantial similarities between the Zionist struggle with the British and the resident Palestinians in the late 1940s and the final stages of the uprising that led to Irish independence in 1921 - Both the Irgun and the Stern Gang had relevant practical examples in the actions of the Seinn Fein and the IRA.) . The resulting Republic of Ireland emerged as a fairly progressive state, relatively free of political or religious hatreds or revenge. (St Patrick's cathedral in Dublin is still a Protestant Church.).

The problem in Northern Ireland was different. After a failed 16th century uprising in Ulster, the British systematically displaced the resident population and "implanted" (hence "The Ulster Plantation") several hundred thousand Scottish & Dutch Calvinists who were given control of the land and whatever local political structure existed there. The society that evolved was forever scarred by the effects of this mass displacement and importation of people, The dominant Calvinist ("Orange" - from William of Orange and the so called "Glorious Revolution") part of the population became increasingly intolerant, insular, and in the grip of a siege mentality as a result of the ever present surly resentment of the oppressed Irish underclass, always on the brink of rebellion.

As part of the internal political struggles in Great Britain, and motivated by the political action of the Orangemen, most of the province of Ulster was, at the last minute, withheld in the settlement that created the free Republic of Ireland. This set in motion a civil war in the Republic over acceptance of the settlement with Britain, and froze the IRA as a permanent revolutionary movement with murder and terror as its chief weapons. The struggle in Ulster continued at varying levels of intensity for the next 75 years, escalating in the 1970s until finally the British removed the Ulster government and established a provisional government and military occupation. Finally in the last decade both sides, exhausted with hatred, murder, repression and revolution, began to value peace more than victory. They are slowly and cautiously evolving a civil government and the habit of mutual toleration and political equity. One of the factors in the solution was the significantly greater birthrate in the poorer Catholic underclass relative to their oppressors.

I believe the situation in Northern Ireland is in many ways a model for Israel/Palestine. The grim part is that such hatred and oppression can last for centuries undiminished.

I truly don't follow your suggestions that the MidEast was a formless "Arab sea" without laws, custom or legitimacy. These were real people with real customs and laws, real systems for administration of property, justice and public order. All happened to be quite different from those in use in Europe then and throughout the world today. That, however does not render them void. They and the Ottoman Empire existed and thrived for centuries before WWI and the beginnings of the Zionist movement.

It was only the Allied conquest and the British protectorate that gave the appearance that there were no established subdivisions within that Empire. The fact is there were. It suited the Zionists to build on this illusion an edifice of rationalizations for their takeover and expulsion (through terror and assassinations) of the Arab Christian and Moslem population. However this doesn't make it true. It remains error and deception

0 Replies

Will Arafat's death (whenever it is) improve chances for peace?

I think it will. I think the old SOB has been milking it to get rich.

0 Replies

There will be a void without him, even if he was only the a fatherfigure with some authority.

Might be, after elections we know more.

0 Replies

Quote:

I truly don't follow your suggestions that the MidEast was a formless "Arab sea" without laws, custom or legitimacy. These were real people with real customs and laws, real systems for administration of property, justice and public order. All happened to be quite different from those in use in Europe then and throughout the world today. That, however does not render them void. They and the Ottoman Empire existed and thrived for centuries before WWI and the beginnings of the Zionist movement.

It was only the Allied conquest and the British protectorate that gave the appearance that there were no established subdivisions within that Empire. The fact is there were. It suited the Zionists to build on this illusion an edifice of rationalizations for their takeover and expulsion (through terror and assassinations) of the Arab Christian and Moslem population. However this doesn't make it true. It remains error and deception

Okay, this is what I meant by read Arab/Islamic history.
You have posted two interesting contentions.
One is that:
"the appearance that there were no established subdivisions within that Empire. The fact is there were."
The other is that: "These were real people with real customs and laws, real systems for administration of property, justice and public order."

You are absolutely right on both points.

Now, if one were to investigate what the laws were; what the subdivisions were; what the customs were; what the systems for admininstering property were; what the concepts of what justice and public order were - one would have quite a different picture of what is commonly considered civilized and just.
You could, of course, reply that it is not fair to apply 21st century standards to Islamic values, but that is exactly what is going on today in our current, and Israel's current, wars against Islamic fascism.
We are indeed examining the Islamic system of justice; administration of property; the concepts of right and wrong; and the radically different ethnic and religious wars within the Islamic world.
And we are finding them wanting.
It is a broken system of religion and culture that does indeed, in all of its fratricidal differences, date back to Mohammad.
As in all cultures, Islam has had its great moments, but its current valuation of death, despair and destruction as a legitimate way of life is not one of Islam's crowning moments.

I mentioned the history of Saudi Arabia before, because it is a prime example of Islamic dysfunction.
Modern Saudi Arabia was founded on an unholy alliance between the House Saud, a minor tribal group in what is now Saudi Arabia, and the (House of) Wahhabis, a cultic Islamic group that pronounced ALL those who did not believe in that particular cult as infidels - liable for death. This of course included Jews and Christians, who were not liable, under ordinary Islamic Law, to death. It also, of course, included Shia Muslims, but it also included ALL Muslims who did not believe as the Wahhabis did.
This Wahhabi/Saudi alliance rebelled against the Ottoman Empire, succeeding until they were largely wiped out by the Ottomans. They continued their war against Egypt.

To wit:

Quote:

Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703-1792) joined forces with a tribal chief, Muhammad Ibn Saud, to lead a militant reform movement in Arabia. Although known to us today as the "Wahhabi" movement, they called themselves Muwahidun: "those who advocate oneness," i.e. strict monotheists based on the Islamic doctrine of Tawhid which Abd al-Wahhab understood not merely as the "oneness" of God, but, the exclusiveness of the One God. Influenced by the thought of medieval theologian Ibn Taymiyya, the Wahhabis practice a form of legalism somewhat resembling the Hanbali School of jurisprudence. An innovation of theirs, however, is the exclusion of the normal Islamic practice of ijma ("consensus") as the basis of Islamic Sharia law.

Wahhabis in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries went on an uncompromising campaign against sufis, Shiites, and all others deemed unfaithful to the Wahhabis' strict interpretation of the sunna ("custom") of the Prophet Muhammad. The ways of Muhammad and his community at Medina were the only acceptable models for the Wahhabis, and, all Muslims, in their view, should be compelled to follow them. Many practices of Muslims who came after the Prophet were labeled bida'a, "objectionable innovations." At first, these included the building of minarets (acceptable to Wahhabis today) and the use of funeral markers. Wahhabi zealots even tried to destroy the tomb of the Prophet in Medina and were narrowly prevented from doing so through the intervention of King Abd al-Aziz al-Saud. Religious police, called mutawi'oon ("enforcers of obedience") were responsible for maintaining Wahhabi moral order. Today, Wahhabi standards have moderated somewhat from what they were, but the mutawi'oon remained a pillar of the religious Saudi establishment in the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.

Ibn Abd al-Wahhab labeled all who disagreed with him heretics and apostates, which in his eyes justified the use of force in imposing both his beliefs and his political authority over neighboring tribes. This in turn led him to declare holy war (jihad) on other Muslims (neighboring Arab tribes), an act which would otherwise have been legally impossible under the rules of jihad.

In 1802, the Wahhabis captured Karbala in Iraq and destroyed the tomb of the Shiite Imam Husayn. In 1803 the Wahhabis captured Mecca. The Ottoman Turks became alarmed and dispatched Muhammad Ali, the Ottoman ruler of Egypt, to challenge the Wahhabis in 1811. He succeeded in reimposing Ottoman sovereignty in 1813. Nearly a century later in 1901 with Wahhabi help, Saudi amir Abd al-Aziz al-Saud recaptured Riyadh. Saud's sovereignty over the Arabian peninsula grew steadily until 1924 when his dominance became secure. The Wahhabis went on a rampage throughout the peninsula at this time smashing the tombs of Muslim saints and imams, including the tomb of the Prophet's daughter Fatima. (see Wahhabi raid of 1924) Saudi Arabia was officially constituted as a kingdom in 1932.

And:

Quote:

Battle of ad-Dir'iyah, (1818), major defeat dealt the Wahhabis, fanatical and puritanical Muslim reformers of Najd, central Arabia, by the forces of the Egyptian ruler Muhammad 'Ali Pasha; the Wahhabi empire was destroyed, and the Sa'udi family that created it was virtually wiped out.

Wahhabi attacks on pilgrim caravans crossing Arabia concerned the Ottoman Turkish government at the end of the 18th century (the Ottoman sultan was protector of Mecca, Islam's chief holy city). When the Ottomans attempted to invade al-Hasa', eastern Arabia, the Wahhabis responded by seizing the holy city of Karbala' in Turkish Iraq (1801), then capturing Mecca itself (1802). Preoccupied in other directions, the Sultan did not send another force into Arabia until 1811, when he consigned to Muhammad 'Ali Pasha, the virtually independent viceroy of Egypt, the task of crushing the "heretics." For the next four years, the balance of power shifted back and forth between Muhammad 'Ali and Sa'ud.

In 1815 Sa'ud's successor, 'Abd Allah I, sued for peace, and the Egyptians withdrew from Najd. The following year, however, Ibrahim Pasha, one of the Viceroy's sons, took command of the Egyptian forces. Gaining the support of the volatile Arabian tribes by skillful diplomacy and lavish gifts, he advanced into central Arabia to occupy the towns of 'Unayzah, Buraydah, and Shaqra'. Joined now by most of the principal tribes--Harb, 'Unayzah, Mutayr, Banu Khalid--he appeared before the Wahhabi capital ad-Dir'iyah in April 1818. After six months of intermittent and desperate fighting, 'Abd Allah surrendered (Sept. 9, 1818) and was sent to Constantinople, where he was beheaded. Ad-Dir'iyah was razed to the ground, and Egyptian garrisons were posted to the principal towns. Several members of the Sa'udi family managed to escape before the surrender; the rest were sent to Egypt to prison.

It is estimated that the Saudi/Wahhabis murdered well over 100,000 Shia in what is now Northern Saudi Arabia and Southern Iraq.
They drove the Hashemites from Mecca who were then given the lands of Iraq and Jordan. The "Palestinians," by the way, did not approve of these foreign rulers and tried to wipe them out in what is now called Black September in Jordan. Arafat the Not Dead Yet was their murderous leader at the time. They were destroyed by the Hashemite Jordanians and driven to Lebanon, where they destroyed that country, with the help of Syria, who now occupies Lebanon.

Saudi Arabia is now an absolute monarchy based on Islamic tradition where approximately 30,000 members of the House of Saud rule over a country of 25 million people. The sole reason that Saudi Arabia exists is to support and maintain the House of Saud. It is their personal kingdom. Period.
This cultic oligarchy of absolute power that is allowed to continue based on its incredible oil resources and wealth is the model that demonstrates the fact that:
"the appearance that there were no established subdivisions within that Empire. The fact is there were."
and,"these were real people with real customs and laws, real systems for administration of property, justice and public order."
Yes, true as true can be. But it is corrupt and dysfunctional model.

However, Saudi Arabia is one the most stable and consistent models of Islamic rule in the entire Middle East. The rest are even worse!

When you try and claim: "the Zionists to build on this illusion an edifice of rationalizations for their takeover and expulsion (through terror and assassinations) of the Arab Christian and Moslem population."

Not only are you posting ridiculously false information, you are claiming that the "Zionists" behaved precisely in the exact same manner as every other peoples in the Middle East. You are claiming that the "Zionists" fit in perfectly with all Middle Eastern morays and traditions.
You are claiming that they belong there.

I disagree.
I believe that Israel is indeed an anomaly in the Middle East and that it will take some very hard work to get the rest of the Middle East up to Israel's level of tolerance for Christian and Muslim minorities; to their willingness to accept peoples of all faiths and beliefs into their society; of their rejection of terror as a way of expressing hatred.

I have given factual data that portrays the disparate tribal cults of Islam and its degenerative effect on the Middle East.
Israel's cultic activity, be it violent or religious, is and always has been, confined to a tiny minority and has always been condemned and often legislated against by the majority.

My original question, which still remains, is why would anyone single out Israel to condemn for its activities against the Palestinians, when there are far more egregious activities against native and neighboring populations by countries all over the world, particularly in the Middle East?
This question remains unanswered.

0 Replies

Moishe3,

I enjoyed your very interesting tour de force concerning the history of Arabia since the late 18th century, together with the supplementary anecdotes about the surrounding Arab states and Israel. The 18th and early 19th century details were new to me, but I am quite familiar with all the rest including the very interesting alliance between old Abdul Asis and the Wahhabbis and the struggle with the Hashemites for the control of Arabia.

Evidently we agree that the Arabs of the region, including Palestine, did not lack for laws customs and modalities for civil order. I don't, however understand your meaning when you assert

Quote:

When you try and claim: "the Zionists to build on this illusion an edifice of rationalizations for their takeover and expulsion (through terror and assassinations) of the Arab Christian and Moslem population."

Not only are you posting ridiculously false information, you are claiming that the "Zionists" behaved precisely in the exact same manner as every other peoples in the Middle East. You are claiming that the "Zionists" fit in perfectly with all Middle Eastern morays and traditions.
You are claiming that they belong there.

0 Replies

Quote:

It is true that there are many more egregious examples of cruelty and oppression in the world than those in Israel/Palestine. Why single out Israel? Because Israel is a modern, Western state, born out of European Jewish tradition and people. The world properly expects more from such states.

Ahh, but of course.
Now I understand.
Single out Israel because you expect more from Israel than from...
Germany - no need to say more
France - Algeria yesterday? Liberia today? (Sorry, need to add Ivory Coast today...) Or simply ordinary French society and its present attitude towards its ethnic populations.
Belgium perhaps? Ze Hague with its high moral values?
Or perhaps Russia? No, no, entirely unfair.... Soviet Union and all. Tut, tut, what can one expect from the Russians... ?
But wait, how silly - the Swiss! The paradigm of fair and decent moral values, no? The absolute pinnacle of treating ethnic or religious minorities with fairness, yes?

George,
You appear to be holding up European values as the standard to which Israel should be held.
I am afraid that Europe, the whole corrupt and degraded landmass, should be held to the standard of Israel.

You single out Israel because the world properly expects more from Israel. Period.
The world expects from Europe exactly what Europe has given the world.
I do not believe that you would find many takers for your value comparison in Asia, or the Middle East, or Africa, or anywhere.

If you wish so to claim that the world demands a higher standard from the Jews than is exhibited anywhere on this planet, then I suppose I have no argument whatsoever. This is true. And it should be true.
But forgive me if I do not hold your world, including the rather degraded and barbaric Palestinians, blameless for their lack of values and standards.
You recognize the ideal. Recognize its opposite and stop trying to bring your ideal down into the sewer.

0 Replies

Moishe3rd wrote:

I am afraid that Europe, the whole corrupt and degraded landmass, should be held to the standard of Israel.

So Europe should:

-come up with some targeted killings
-use ethnic and racial criteria for determining who can get citizenship
-punish whole families for crimes commited by one of its members
-hold the territory of, say, Eastern Europe under a harsh and brutal occupation for decades
-build settlements in Poland, protected by the military
-set up checkpoints all over that territory, that local folks have to get past on a daily basis and stand in line for hours, a source of constant humiliation (visit Machsom Watch for details on how to do that).
-of course deny the people of Poland the right of voting

etc. etc.

We don't demand more of Israel than of any other state. But if you call yourself a western democracy, you have to meet certain standards, like respect for basic human rights (even those of "degraded and barbaric" people). If there's a problem with terror, you deal with it like with any other crime: with police work, not with setting the army on a rampage, infringing on the human rights of civilians and constantly increasing the grievances that lead people to resort to acts of terror. Try and find the perpetrators and bring them to justice. And take a look at and deal with the grievances that lead to terror, some of which may be legitimate (although the acts themselves are always a crime against humanity). That's (to some extent) what the British did in Northern Ireland, that's overwhelmingly what Spain does in its fight against ETA.

If you want Israel to live, as I do, and the overwhelming majority of Europeans does, you shouldn't support most of what's going on now in Israel.

0 Replies

lodp wrote:

We don't demand more of Israel than of any other state. .

Who is "we"?

0 Replies

lodp wrote:

Moishe3rd wrote:
I am afraid that Europe, the whole corrupt and degraded landmass, should be held to the standard of Israel.

So Europe should:

-come up with some targeted killings
-use ethnic and racial criteria for determining who can get citizenship
-punish whole families for crimes commited by one of its members
-hold the territory of, say, Eastern Europe under a harsh and brutal occupation for decades
-build settlements in Poland, protected by the military
-set up checkpoints all over that territory, that local folks have to get past on a daily basis and stand in line for hours, a source of constant humiliation (visit Machsom Watch for details on how to do that).
-of course deny the people of Poland the right of voting

etc. etc.

As the nations of Europe have indeed done all of those things you mention, even as to the specifics of Poland - even more specifically, involving your country, Austria, I am not quite cognizant of your point.

I don't think that Israel should participate in those atrocities you mention that Europeans have participated in and they don't - With the exception of killing terrorist leaders who are responsible for the deliberate cold blooded murder of innocents, be they Israeli or any other nationality, be it in Israel or any other nation. I believe that those responsible for such indiscriminate wanton murder should indeed be eliminated. The world is a far better place as each one (especially Arafat the Dead, But Unable to Be Buried) passes on to Muslim Hell. This is a good thing.
The destruction of terrorist homes is also a good thing. You would prefer their families get arrested and tortured as the Europeans have advocated and done for a few thousand years? Nahhh, I didn't think so.

0 Replies

Moishe3rd wrote:

Ahh, but of course.
Now I understand.
Single out Israel because you expect more from Israel than from...
Germany - no need to say more
France - Algeria yesterday? Liberia today? (Sorry, need to add Ivory Coast today...) Or simply ordinary French society and its psent attitude towards its ethnic populations.
Belgium perhaps? Ze Hague with its high moral values?
Or perhaps Russia? No, no, entirely unfair.... Soviet Union and all. Tut, tut, what can one expect from the Russians... ?
But wait, how silly - the Swiss! The paradigm of fair and decent moral values, no? The absolute pinnacle of treating ethnic or religious minorities with fairness, yes?

George,
You appear to be holding up European values as the standard to which Israel should be held.
I am afraid that Europe, the whole corrupt and degraded landmass, should be held to the standard of Israel.

You single out Israel because the world properly expects more from Israel. Period.
The world expects from Europe exactly what Europe has given the world.
I do not believe that you would find many takers for your value comparison in Asia, or the Middle East, or Africa, or anywhere.

If you wish so to claim that the world demands a higher standard from the Jews than is exhibited anywhere on this planet, then I suppose I have no argument whatsoever. This is true. And it should be true.
But forgive me if I do not hold your world, including the rather degraded and barbaric Palestinians, blameless for their lack of values and standards.
You recognize the ideal. Recognize its opposite and stop trying to bring your ideal down into the sewer.

Basically I agree with all of the above. The historical standards of Europe reflect systematic exploitation and oppression of others. The 20th century was filled with war, oppression, and suffering, almost all of European origin. At the same time we do attempt to judge and deal with the worst aspects of that history. Germany has paid a high price for the grotesque excsses of the Nazis; Russia for the Soviets; there is no absence of judgement and reaction to these wrongs.

That, perhaps is the central point here. Israel too must be held accountable (at least in the judgement of the relatively free world)for its cruelties and attempts to exploit others to advance the selfish interests of its more zealous chauvinists. Israel is not above criticism for its actions any more than are or were any of the developed countries. Israel does not deserve special treatment in the world: its aims are intrinsically no more sacred or noble than those of other nations that compete with it. The presence of an element of historical hypocricy on the part of some of its critics does not itself absolve Israel of historical accountability for its wrong actions. In short I do not advocate holding Israel to a higher standard than to any other country on the planet as you assert: I advocate holding Israel to the SAME standard which we apply to other developed nations.

I notice that you have retreated from several claims that have proved untenable iin this dialogue. On other issues you greatly exaggerate my arguments, find a contradiction, and then announce that, -- voila! they are false. This is sophistry. You can do better.

0 Replies

Meanwhile:

Hezbollah plane flies over Israel

Quote:

Caution prevailed Sunday along the Lebanese-Israeli border after Lebanon's Hezbollah group said it flew its first reconnaissance plane over northern Israel.

Security sources in southern Lebanon said Israeli patrols and armored vehicles were seen moving in an Israeli settlement near the border and reported troop movements in three different points.

They said Hezbollah guerrillas were on high alert near the border with Israel in preparation for a possible Israeli incursion into the Blue Line, the international border the U.N. drew in May 2000 after the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon that ended 23 years of occupation.

They described Hezbollah's move to fly a surveillance plane over Israel as the "first significant development in changing the equation of Israel's violation of Lebanese airspace."

Meanwhile, Israel Radio quoted Israeli army sources as saying a small unmanned plane crashed in Lebanese territories." But it did not say whether such an aircraft had gone into Israeli airspace.

An official Israeli statement said it would not comment on Hezbollah's claim, which said that its drone had returned safely to base.

Source

0 Replies

Moishe3rd wrote:

As the nations of Europe have indeed done all of those things you mention, even as to the specifics of Poland - even more specifically, involving your country, Austria, I am not quite cognizant of your point.

Your line of reasoning is basically - Europeans committed crimes in the past, so it's right for Israel to do it now.

I'm perfectly aware of the fact that Europe has a history of violence and oppression, especially my country with its involvement in WWI and WWII. We're not proud of it. In fact, many despise members of the generations involved in those events for not having done anything about it. The difference between Europe and the US/Israel in this respect is that as losers of the war, we were forced to face our crimes of the past. And to some extent, that taught us a lesson.

Moishe3rd wrote:

The destruction of terrorist homes is also a good thing. You would prefer their families get arrested and tortured as the Europeans have advocated and done for a few thousand years?

The fact that sippenhaft was common practice across Europe in past centuries doesn't make it right for Israel to embrace it now. Apart from the fact that it's immoral and counterproductive on a purely pragmatical level, it was wrong for Europeans then and it is wrong for Israelis now.

You ask why there's such a focus on human rights violations on the part of Israel and Saudi Arabia, Russia etc. get less attention. I'll tell you why. Saying that Russia is violating human rights in its armed operations in Chechnya or that Saudi Arabia violates women's rights is repeating conventional wisdom among westerners. Everybody agrees. But when it comes to Israel, suddenly people like you pop up and declare clear cut cases of human rights violations a legitimate means of providing security. That's why we "single out" Israel - because there are people like you, who refute what basically should be a truism among rational non-indoctrinated people.

0 Replies

The two main power holders in Palestine after Arafat, Ahmed Qureia (Abu Ala) and Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) are endeavoring to maintain unity and order amid Arafat's immanent and consequential demise.

Qureia will continue in his post as Prime Minister, and chairman of the National Security Council; and Mahmoud, the number two man in the PLO who was once appointed PM by Arafat but quit after a row with him, has been named acting head of the PLO committee, the most powerful Palestinian political institution. Mahmoud is calling on all factions, including Islamist groups such as Hamas, to act responsibly to avoid a state of tension and confusion at this momentous time.(NPR)

Hamas and other factions have agreed to avoid infighting, but some have rejected pressure to curb attacks on Israel. Hamas said it would commit itself to a truce only if Israel was a party to it, a move rejected by Ariel Sharon, Israel's prime minister. (The Guardian)

Palestinians Stress Unity in Arafat's Absence

Hamas agrees to avoid infighting

0 Replies

lodp

Thok wrote:

lodp wrote:

We don't demand more of Israel than of any other state. .

Who is "we"?

0 Replies

Quote:

The presence of an element of historical hypocricy on the part of some of its critics does not itself absolve Israel of historical accountability for its wrong actions. In short I do not advocate holding Israel to a higher standard than to any other country on the planet as you assert: I advocate holding Israel to the SAME standard which we apply to other developed nations.

I agree.
This brings me back to the question - why single out Israel?
For example:
It is a fact that Palestinians (and other neighboring Arab friends) try to murder innocent people everyday.
It is a fact that this murder is indiscriminate - If they murder Israelis, they believe that this is good, but if they murder non-Israelis, so be it, they believe this is good also. If they murder people inside of Israel, they believe that this is good, if they murder people outside of Israel, so be it, they believe this is good also. They believe that murdering people anywhere and everywhere is good as long as they claim that it is to strike a blow against Israel.
The major contribution of the Palestinians to the world is the suicide/homicide/terrorist/Murderer.
They have been emulated all over the globe.

In the face of this relentless, continuing, ongoing, everpresent threat - Israel finally decides to build a fence to keep the murderers OUT.
Israel is universally condemned for this action - by the (corrupt) UN; by the EU; by the (ridiculous) World Court; by the international community.

This is not unusual. Israel is always condemned - unlike Sudan or France or Russia or Iran or China, etcetera, etcetera, as I have mentioned before.

So, the question remains on the table - how do these actions by the world, including Austria, "hold Israel to the SAME standard which we apply to other developed nations?"
If you were applying the SAME standards to Israel as you were to any other nation, then these other nations would be condemned and castigated by the EU and Austria for the far more heinous crimes that they commit against either their own peoples or other nations.

Why is this concept so difficult to understand?

Israel, like every other nation, does things that are not worthy of a civilized country.
Hoever, Israel is the ONLY nation that is universally condemned.

Why is this concept so difficult to comprehend?
Why?

Quote:

I notice that you have retreated from several claims that have proved untenable iin this dialogue. On other issues you greatly exaggerate my arguments, find a contradiction, and then announce that, -- voila! they are false. This is sophistry. You can do better.

I attempt to address specifics. I have neither the time nor the inclination to address everything. What points would you like clarified?
What points that I wrote above do you disagree with and why?

0 Replies

Quote:

You ask why there's such a focus on human rights violations on the part of Israel and Saudi Arabia, Russia etc. get less attention. I'll tell you why. Saying that Russia is violating human rights in its armed operations in Chechnya or that Saudi Arabia violates women's rights is repeating conventional wisdom among westerners. Everybody agrees. But when it comes to Israel, suddenly people like you pop up and declare clear cut cases of human rights violations a legitimate means of providing security. That's why we "single out" Israel - because there are people like you, who refute what basically should be a truism among rational non-indoctrinated people.

And, this does not answer the question.
You contend that Israel is condemned because: "suddenly people like you pop up and declare clear cut cases of human rights violations a legitimate means of providing security. That's why we "single out" Israel - because there are people like you, who refute what basically should be a truism among rational non-indoctrinated people."

So therefore, these other countries are not condemned because there are no "pop up" people?

Or they are not condemned because their egregious crimes are "repeating conventional wisdom among westerners."

So, the slaughter of hundreds of thousands in Sudan is merely conventional wisdom and who should care?

The daily attempt by Palestinians to murder innocents is simply conventional wisdom?

The homicidal attacks against innocents all over the world by Muslim fascist fanatics is merely conventional wisdom and therefore irrelevant?

Maybe you could flesh out this point in a more logical fashion.

Why single out Israel?

0 Replies

You should read my statement more carefully.

I say that you and I agree on what suicide bombings targeting civilians are - they are vicious crimes against humanity. Therefore we both condemn them as a non-legitimate means of achieving political ends. Everybody with the least bit of rationality will agree on that. That's what I call conventional wisdom: suicide bombings are wrong. No further thought has to be put into the assessment.

When it comes to the horrendous crimes of the IDF, it's all different. I say, they should be stopped. You say they are a legitimate means of protecting Israeli citizens. The difference here is that unlike the cases of suicide bombings or, say, Chechnya, THOSE crimes are going on with continued support by your country. That makes it a totally different issue. You are directly responsible for your own actions. There are massive shipments of arms (e.g. the Apache Helicopters that were engaged in the Jenin Massacre), massive economic and diplomatic support. Israel serves as an US-Imperialist outpost to control a region of great strategic significance. If it wasn't for the massive US support, Israel could never have extended the brutal occupation for so long and would have had to find some way of getting along with the Palestinians peacefully.

0 Replies

Thok wrote:

lodp

Thok wrote:
lodp wrote:

We don't demand more of Israel than of any other state. .

Who is "we"?

The overwhelming majority of Europeans, without any reasonable doubt.

0 Replies

Eye On Israel/Palestine

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know