The real reason for Anti-americanism: Israel.

This is one of your comments that led me to make my comment, Frank.
____________________

One reason for anti-Semitism -- and the supposed "rise" in anti-Semitism is that it is almost impossible to discuss Israel with many Jews and not be suspected, indeed accused, of being anti-Semitic unless you agree with the Israeli position in almost every instance. As far as I am concerned, lots of supposed anti-Semitism is simply inflexibility and paranoia on the part of many Jews.

In any case, the United States has NOT been even-handed in the Middle East -- and our stance on the issues is indefensible. Isreal is far from blameless for much of the nonsense going on there -- making their bed and then complaining because they have to sleep in it.
______________________

I stand by my rather mild statement that you seemed to prefer to step over the issue of individualized attacks on Jews, and pin the thing largely on Israeli politics.

As I have said what was on my mind, and have no desire to engage in an ornery conversation, I shall take leave. No bad feelings intended. Just another opinion on an opinion board.

0 Replies

Sofia

Go in peace.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

The Arab Israelis are, for the most part, suprisingly loyal to Isreal.

They are not. Several Israeli Arabs were recently arrested and prosecuted for assisting Palestinians in performing terror attacks. Israeli Arab parliament members openly solidarize with enemies of the country: Hizballah, Syria, etc. Such behavior of theirs caused a lawsuit against participation of Azmi Beshara and Ahmed Tibi in the recent elections as candidates on grounds of their open denial of the basic laws of the country, and the Israeli court permitted them to participate only under pressure of the EU. Polls show that majority of the Israeli Arabs define themselves as Palestinians.
Israeli Arab education is not specifically underfunded: underfunding affected both Jewish and Arab educational institutions in Israel due to economic hardships having affected the country since late 2001.
Israeli Arabs should make a decision: whether they are loyal to Israel or to the Palestinian Authority. If the latter thing is right, then they should better move across the Green Line and give up their Israeli citizenship. But they would never do this since living standards and human rights situation in Israel is much better than in the PA (or the future Palestinian State).
Existence of Israel is really a cause of rise of anti-Semitism in Europe, but actual Israeli policies have nothing to do with this. Europeans got accustomed for centuries to treat Jews as permanent scapegoats and to kill them without any reason whenever they consider this being necessary. Existence of Israel provided the Jews with an alternative to being a "professional victim", gave them ability to defend themselves and not ot be dependent on attitudes of any particular European ruler, and this makes some of their European haters extremely angry.

0 Replies

Interesting statement, Steissd. I think you've shown very clearly where the problem lies.

0 Replies

steissd wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
The Arab Israelis are, for the most part, suprisingly loyal to Isreal.
: Existence of Israel is really a cause of rise of anti-Semitism in Europe, but actual Israeli policies have nothing to do with this. Europeans got accustomed for centuries to treat Jews as permanent scapegoats and to kill them without any reason whenever they consider this being necessary. Existence of Israel provided the Jews with an alternative to being a "professional victim", gave them ability to defend themselves and not ot be dependent on attitudes of any particular European ruler, and this makes some of their European haters extremely angry.

Perhaps the question of "why there?" should be addressed.

Jews certainly have a right to live in that area -- as you and others have pointed out, there has been a Jewish population there right along.

But there has not been a "state of Israel" there "right along."

By now everyone should have come to the realization that there will never be peace in that area so long as the state of Israel exists there -- and Arabs live there also.

The idea of two states living side by side -- Israeli and Palestinian -- is absurd. That solution will breed more problems than it solves.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

The idea of two states living side by side -- Israeli and Palestinian -- is absurd. That solution will breed more problems than it solves.

Does this mean, Mr. Apisa, that you support an idea of transfer of Arabs that is advocated by the Israeli extreme right? Or do you give preference to final solution of the Jewish problem proposed during the WWII (by the way, it has nothing to do with any religion, and definition of the Jew in the Reich was based on some alleged racial features)?
Israel is a part of modern mideastern reality; there is no other acceptable solution except creating two states for two peoples: any other thing may cause very dangerous consequences, and not only to the Jews.

0 Replies

Quite apart from the Palestine/Israel problem, your response, Frank, raises a question which from time to time I think about but have never come up with an answer to:

What gives persons and groups a right to claim residency in a particular area on a particular piece of land?

This comes up in arid states in the US where people build and then import water from elsewhere, dessicating those elsewheres. It comes up with respect to the native Americans. To the rights of foreigners to own land in Mexico... etc. Rights have not been inherent but rather the result of political, economic and/or military muscle.

But I think Steissd's statement...

Quote:

"Existence of Israel provided the Jews with an alternative to being a "professional victim", gave them ability to defend themselves and not ot be dependent on attitudes of any particular European ruler, and this makes some of their European haters extremely angry."

...is completely off-center, given that the British and Western Europeans, not to mention the US, have helped Israel to stay independent. Israel has indeed depended -- politically, economically, and militarily -- on each successive government within these countries. That indeed may be a reason for Israeli resentment and the old cry of "anti-Semitism" -- precisely because this in many ways very European country isn't wholly separate from its "parents."

0 Replies

steissd wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
The idea of two states living side by side -- Israeli and Palestinian -- is absurd. That solution will breed more problems than it solves.

Does this mean, Mr. Apisa, that you support an idea of transfer of Arabs that is advocated by the Israeli extreme right?

You are not even close, Steissd.

Quote:

"Or do you give preference to final solution of the Jewish problem proposed during the WWII (by the way, it has nothing to do with any religion, and definition of the Jew in the Reich was based on some alleged racial features)?

Even further off the mark.

The basis of what I wrote was predicated on the initial comment of my post: "Perhaps the question of "why there?" should be addressed."

The two options you offered were absurd.

Israel could exist elsewhere -- and no Palestinian state should be allowed to come into existence. The entire area, since the people living there cannot play well with others, should become a United Nation's protectorate -- with free access quaranteed to Arab and Jew alike.

Just with no states there.

Quote:

Israel is a part of modern mideastern reality; there is no other acceptable solution except creating two states for two peoples: any other thing may cause very dangerous consequences, and not only to the Jews.

Nonsense in a couple of ways.

You are correct that Israel is a part of modern mideastern reality -- but not too many decades ago it wasn't -- and it is entirely possible for it not to be once again.

And I think that is a better solution than two states -- which I consider no solution at all.

0 Replies

One last thought:

That does not mean that Isreal cannot exist as a state -- just that I suggest it would be better if the state of Israel existed elsewhere -- with Jews guaranteed the right to live in a non-state.

Frankly, I think Israel should exist within the borders of the United States. Much has been made of the fact that Jews BOUGHT much of the land over there -- so buying a large tract of land in the United States OR ELSEWHERE shouldn't be a problem.

Jews are saying that the Palestinians and Arabs are the problem, right?

So they should be able to set up a state somewhere else without a problem.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Frankly, I think Israel should exist within the borders of the United States. Much has been made of the fact that Jews BOUGHT much of the land over there -- so buying a large tract of land in the United States OR ELSEWHERE shouldn't be a problem.

First of all, this hardly can be a solution. For example, I have insufficient funds to buy a chunk of the U.S. territory, therefore your solution is intended to extremely rich people, leaving middle-class and lower class Israelis in hands of some bloodthirsty Arab regime that will appear in the Israel/Palestine in spite of all the attempts of the world community to establish some "non-state" here (by the way, only state can provide to its citizens protection of law enforcers and social security; if there is no state, who will take these functions? UN is not a trustworthy organization, it failed to prevent any humanitarian disaster (take, for example, Rwandan genocide that occurred under tacit consent of the current Secretary General of the UN (at that time he was some official in charge of African affairs) Nobel Prize winner Coffee Annan)).
One more consideration: no real estate owner on the territory of the USA (except foreign embassies) has exterritoriality rights on his/her property, therefore your proposal is not realistic. I think, the best way of preventing the humanitarian disaster in case of dismantling of Israel is issuing to all the Jewsih citizens of this country permanent residents' permission of the leading First World countries (except France, that is openly anti-Semitic).

0 Replies

Whatever, Steissd.

I know I would work 'til my hands bled and my mind numbed in order to give any dispossessed Israelis a permanent home here in the United States.

I also advocate a state of Israel.

But I just cannot see it staying where it is -- unless everyone acknowledges that fear, hatreds, violence, hit and hit back -- will be the norm.

I am of Italian decent.

I know what the mindset is of people who live on the Mediterranean littoral ---- and I can see no hope of any reconsiliation.

I think the radical Islamic -- if they had been born Jews -- would be radical Israelis. I think the radical Israelis -- if they had been born Arabs -- would be Islamic radicals.

There is no solution that I see that includes Israel in place where it is -- and any Arabs living anywhere in the Middle East at the same time.

And as you pointed out, Steissd, the alternatives of "kill all the Arabs" or "kill all the Jews" is a non-starter.

We could arm both sides and demand that they fight to the death.

We could give both sides nuclear weapons for the fight.

Perhaps turning the whole area into an uninhabitable nuclear waste site is the most humanitarian solution.

But I personally think "no states -- not Israel; not Palestinian" is the preferred way to go.

As for moving Israel to the United States (or somewhere else) -- I don't see that the objections you raised truly shows that idea to be un-doable.

0 Replies

Quote:

Israeli forces storm Gaza camp

Israeli troops backed by tanks and helicopter gunships have raided a refugee camp in the Gaza Strip in one of their biggest operations of recent months.
Five Palestinians and one Israeli soldier are reported to have been killed during the assault, which appears to have targeted one of two suspected militant strongholds in the Rafah refugee camp.

The BBC's James Rodgers in Gaza says that, according to medical staff at the main hospital in Rafah, a 15-year-old boy is among the dead and more than 40 Palestinians have been injured.

The raid comes as arguments continue between Palestinian prime minister designate Mahmoud Abbas and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat over the formation of a new cabinet - a row which threatens to delay plans to publish Washington's so-called roadmap for peace.

Rocket attack

Following the incursion, Palestinians fired three Qassam rockets from the Gaza Strip at the Israeli town of Sderot, the town's mayor said. At least one woman was injured.

Palestinian security sources have described the raid as one of the largest Israeli incursions into Rafah during 30 months of conflict.

A force of up to 50 tanks and armoured vehicles entered the town and nearby refugee camp from three directions under cover of darkness and a fierce battle ensued.

Tanks reached the centre and surrounded the main market.

The crackle of gunfire could be heard all around, residents said.

"I was sitting outside with some friends playing cards when suddenly we came under fire," said Marwan Khatib, 39.

"Bullets hit the wall next to us and tanks were coming toward us very fast."

Increased tensions

A Palestinian official told the BBC that ambulances had not been able to collect wounded people - and hospitals were appealing for blood donors to come forward.

Three Israeli soldiers are also reported to have been injured.

Witnesses said the Israelis had brought empty buses with them, apparently because troops were planning to detain suspected militants.

Our correspondent says there are reports that Israeli soldiers carried out house-to-house searches.

The densely populated Rafah refugee camp, close to the Israeli-Egyptian border, is home to about 60,000 people.

Our correspondent says tension has increased in the area since the Israeli army began building a security fence to protect its forces.

During this process, Israeli troops have demolished houses which they say were used as firing positions by Palestinian fighters.

This has left many civilians homeless and apparently increased the determination of militant groups to strike at the Israeli army.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/2961525.stm

And i thought the US wanted peace in the region? Why are those incursions not condemned by Bush?

0 Replies

US gives Israel $9 Billion. And where do you think that money goes? To education? To health care? To culture or sports? NO

THIS is the destination for that money

http://www.flonnet.com/fl1723/17231082.jpg

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/08/10/mideast.israel/story.israeli.attack.jpg

http://cms.bigbuzz.com/contentImages/walk4israel/602/doritz.jpg

http://www.embassyofisrael.org/images/Jerusalem-020618-02.jpg

http://www.smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1032055004515_2002/09/22/wld_isrtoops.jpg

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020221/wd4.jpg

Quote:

Ha'aretz Service
Following talks over the weekend between Israeli and U.S. delegations, the agreement granting Israel $9 billion in U.S. loan guarantees is expected to be signed this week, Israel Radio reported on Sunday.

The Israeli delegation, headed by Finance Ministry director-general Ohad Marani, were presented with the U.S. conditions for transferring the loan guarantees, which include a demand that the principles of the government's economic austerity plan be passed by the Knesset. According to Israeli sources, the U.S. officials said that the most pressing conditions were the privatization of government corporations, cutting the public sector, and a deficit reduction.

The U.S. Congress approved $9 billion in loan guarantees and $1 billion in security aid to Israel a few weeks ago. The guarantees are to be given in three installments over a three year period, at a rate of interest linked to the U.S. government bonds on the day of issue. The U.S. president will have the right not to approve any new Israeli issue of guarantee funds if Israel fails to keep its commitment to implement its economic austerity plan.

U.S. representatives informed the Israeli delegation that they were satisfied with the economic austerity program, but questioned whether it would be passed by the Knesset in its current form, the radio reported. Marani stated that the basic principles of the plan could be passed, though some details of the plan could be modified as a result of compromises reached with the Histadrut labor federation as well as with various Knesset factions.

The Treasury favors strict U.S. conditions for transferring the loan guarantees, as it believes that this may push Knesset members to support the economic program in its current form, and may encourage Histadrut Chairman Amir Peretz to compromise and give up some of his demands for modifications to the program.

0 Replies

Well done, Frolic.

0 Replies

Frolic wrote:

And where do you think that money goes? To education? To health care? To culture or sports? NO

It goes to a program of structural reconstruction of the Israeli economy, to improvement of civil infrastructure in Israel in borders of 1967, to creation of jobs by means of support of small and medium businesses (current unemployment rate is 10.5 percent, so creation of jobs is vital for the Israeli society). By the way, $9 billion are not granted to Israel, we shall have to borrow this money from the bank, U.S. is just a guarantor.
U.S. government objects to usage of this money for any activities in the settlements, and Israel complied with this requirement. Therefore, picturesque and emotional presentation of Frolic is nothing except figment of his/her imagination.
Palestinian Authority has regularly got aid from both USA, EU and even Israel. And it used money for purchasing weapons

Quote:

The United States wants Arafat to provide an explanation for a ship, the Karin-A, which was carrying 50 tons of weapons when it was intercepted by Israel earlier this month in the Red Sea, apparently en route from Iran to the Palestinian territories. The Bush administration has demanded that Arafat arrest those responsible for the arms shipment, even if it implicates some of his top deputies.

U.S. urging Arab leaders to pressure Arafat.
The weapons being bought are used for homicide bombings. Why did not Frolic post pictures from Tel Aviv teenagers' disco, where dozens of Israeli kids were killed and maimed by the Palestinian terrorist?

0 Replies

I agree with steissd. It's very common to say our money goes to harming Palestinians but out money comes with strings attached that are generally to the Palestinian's indirect aid.

Where I disagree with steissd is that Isreal has fully complied with the attached strings and that aid to Palestine is clearly shown to be going to weapons etc.

It comes down to an accounting grey area. Sure our money is not earmarked for Isreal's occupation but Isreal does spend money on it and our money frees up their money.

The same can be said of Palestine. The aid money is not earmarked for weapons. But Palestinians buy weapons, as do Israelis and everyone.

Isreal witholds Palestinian taxes regularly (because of concerns about how it is spent as well as an effort to pressure Palestine).

All of these things complicate the money factor.

My qualm with the situation is:

A) I don't mind Isreal controlling the Palestinian money. It's part of the process already agreed to.

B) I think our strings should be tighter. Isreal repeatedly ignores our requests to not use our airplanes to bomb residential areas in their "targeted killings". This type of thing should be tied into our strings.

What I would do is simply withold ALL aid to both parties till they resolve the conflict. Both sides have people willing to draw out the conflict until their territorial conditions are met and those people need to be forced to worry less about territory and more about settlement.

The short term results of witholding aid would be hard on both parties but this conflict is hell and contagion makes it a world wide issue.

0 Replies

Steissd, you better examine those pictures. The bus is a Israeli bus blown up by a suicide bomber. If i'm correct the woman crying is an Israeli. There is pain and grieve on both sides. I'm the first to admit that.

But why does Israel need a program of structural reconstruction of the Israeli economy?

Because the illegal occupation of Palestinia costs loads of money. Money that could be used for other constructive projects.

0 Replies

Mr. de Kere, Israel is reducing security related spending in the budget for 2003.
Usage of sophisticated warplanes and "smart" ordnance decreases collateral damage rate; if Israel does not use these weapons, number of civilian casualties may be much higher. I am not discussing why do the Palestinian terror leaders establish their strongholds in the middle of the urban areas, but this is the reality (by the way, deployment of military facilities in the populated areas is per se a war crime), and precise weaponry permits fighting terror causing minimum harm to terrorists' neighbors (it is impossible to avoid any collateral damage, but the main effort is to minimize it). If IDF uses domestically manufactured Howitzers and MLRSs instead of American smart bombs and missiles, this will cause thousands of civilian casualties per week.
By all means, if Abu Mazen and Dahlan succeed in straining terror, IDF will withdraw from Palestinian towns, and there will be no need in usage of any weaponry against Palestinians. Mr. Sharon is determined to cooperate with the new Palestinian government in everything that may help to stop mutual violence.

0 Replies

Frolic wrote:

But why does Israel need a program of structural reconstruction of the Israeli economy?

Israeli economy is hi-tech oriented. The recent crisis in the world hi-tech (mainly in the telecommunications field) caused serious damage to Israeli economy. Such Israeli companies as Comverse Technologies Inc., ECI, Gilat Satellite Communications, Check Point Software Ltd., Rad-Bynet Group, etc., lost billions of dollars in their market capitalization. Restructuring is needed for solving internal problems fo the country (unemployment, for example), and not for fighting against Palestinians.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

What I would do is simply withold ALL aid to both parties till they resolve the conflict. Both sides have people willing to draw out the conflict until their territorial conditions are met and those people need to be forced to worry less about territory and more about settlement.

The short term results of witholding aid would be hard on both parties but this conflict is hell and contagion makes it a world wide issue.

I don't see it happening, but it's the only thing that has ever made sense to me. Both sides need to be forced to settle. Both sides need to face the fact that neither will win without being supported by others. They need to face it, deal with it, and move on to settlement. As the lovely mrs. hamburger has said to me so often "move on".

0 Replies

The real reason for Anti-americanism: Israel.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know