15
   

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

 
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Apr, 2009 08:23 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

It's not about choosing sides; it's about equal rights to property and treatment.
It's about discrimination against the occupied citizens of a country; now a minority.

It doesn't matter whether the minority discriminated against are black, brown, red, white or yellow. It's about who's doing the discriminating, and who suffers from it.


My post was about the side chosen by posters. Your comment regarding my post was a non-sequitor to my post.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Apr, 2009 10:38 pm
@Foofie,
Was it now? And your answer to my post is what exactly? You deny that the Jews are taking away Palestinian lands? You deny that Palestnians do not have the same legal protections of their lands? You deny that Palestinians are free to move from one place to another in Israel? You deny that more innocent Palestinians have been killed by the Jews than the other way around?

What is your point?

I choose the side that are being discriminated against in Israel; that would be the Palestinians. In our country, I advocate for gays and lesbians to be able to marry; have a "marriage" and enjoy all the same rights and privileges of a marriage. I advocate for the minorities like blacks and hispanics who still do not enjoy the same "equal opportunities" concerning all aspects of life in this country. They are most often targeted by police for being black or brown, and not because they broke any laws.

Yes, I do choose sides against bigots.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Apr, 2009 08:05 am
@cicerone imposter,
How is Israel discriminating against its Pal citizens? Does Israel do it by excusing the Pals from military service? Pals are a minority in Israel because, in 1948, so many chose to abandon their country at the behest of the invading armies.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  3  
Reply Sun 12 Apr, 2009 10:18 am
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:

What is interesting in reading George's posts, in my opinion, is that while I do not seem to discern a pro-Palestinean position, I do seem to discern a continued critical eye towards Israel. Now this does not make him an anti-Semite. But, it does put him, I believe, in the separate category of one who does not seem to be either pro-Palestinean, nor pro-Israel. Just critical of Israel, it seems to me. Now that is not an anti-Semite. How would I know how George feels about Jews?

But, since so many of the Middle East news fans (another baseball reference) do take sides, and wear their rally caps, so to speak, whenever news comes out of the Israel/Gaza ballfield, I do scratch my head as to what George's feelings are based on?

Perhaps, without his specific education, I do not see the world as he does. But then again, many must not either, since so many are choosing sides. They are pro-Israel, or pro-Palestinean, and therefore anti the other side. George does not seem to be pro-either side, only a critic of Israel.

So, I wish George can share with readers what motivates his concerns regarding Israel? I am guessing, but perhaps, he sees his viewpoint as not a subjective viewpoint, but an objective viewpoint, based on a lifelong belief in certain moral/ethical/religious teachings? I hope he never therefore had a moral/ethical dilemma when he served the nation, since his morals and ethics appear to me, in my opinion, to be so highly refined.


Amidst all the shouting and invective that too often infests these threads it is pleasant to encounter a relatively dispassionate inquiry, particularly one that doesn't appear to prejudge the response.

I am very critical of Israel, chiefly because I believe that it is Israel's insistence on its continued existence as a Jewish or Jewish dominated state, combined with continuing expansion into the former West bank territory through usually government-sponsored settlements that for the past few decades has been, and continues to be, the chief barrier to any progress towards peace and justice in the region - for itself and for its neighbors. I believe that Israel made a fateful error of profound consequence after the 1967 war when it took control of the external boundaries of the West Bank and began the systematic settlement of Jews there and the attendant isolation of the Palestinain population , initially through checkpoints and roadblocks and now through walls and limited access roads throughout the area. This was a clear message of permanent apartheidt readily detectable to all, particularly the subject Palestinian population. Add decades of military rule with no political rights and a physical arrangement that precludes normal economic development, and you have the present situation. These are the conditions for hostility and insurrection that history repeatedly shows us can last for centuries.

There is plenty for which one could criticize the Palestinians and their external Arab supporters. However, it is Israeli intransigence on the above issues, that limits progress today and has prevented it for the past forty years. Worse, as time passes and Palestinian resistence continues, the body of self-deceptive rationalizations with which Israel reassures itself and its remaining supporters in the world becomes ever more a grotesque distortion of truth and common sense. One here is reminded of Oscar Wilde's "Picture of Dorian Grey".

I will readily concede that, if Israel were to do as I wished, a host of Palestinian/Arab issues would come to the fore and become limiting factors. However one must begin, and the sequential resolution of these contradictions and the attendant beginnings of mutual trust and tolerance are inescapable precursors for peace and justice in the region, however it is eventually organized.

Instead, the parties are merely intensifying the conflict, each behind walls of increasingly intransigent, false and destructive ideas. When in a hole, one should stop digging.

I have outlined before how I see powerful analogies between the situation in the Middle east and that which existed in Northern Ireland until recently. It didn't end until the external sponsor (the UK) became weary and disguisted with its oppressive client state (the Stormont government) and the parties in the struggle each gave up their extremist dreams. Though it was labelled as a religious/cultural struggle between Catholic Irish and Protestant Scots (or whatever) it was, in fact, a political and economic struggle between "haves" and "have nots" who could merely be readily identified by religion. I believe that, beneath all the inflated rhetoric, this is the essential reality today in the Middle East.

I am attracted both by the historical logic of that analogy and my own experience of it. My parents were both immigrants from Ireland who came here as children during the civil war there.

We all have only one life. The treasured (and often carefully selected) cultural memories of past sufferings, indignities and oppression are just that - memories. They don't really enter into the equations for our own lives.

I am reminded of a verse from a pretty good song that came out of the "troubles" in Northern ireland in thw 1970s "The Town I loved so Well".
The verse was;

"What's done is done; what's won is won;
And what's lost is lost and gone forever."

I don't think my views on this issue or my moral sense are particularly "highly refined" as Foofie suggests: merely practical and vetted by history and common sense.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Apr, 2009 10:54 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:


I am very critical of Israel, chiefly because I believe that it is Israel's insistence on its continued existence as a Jewish or Jewish dominated state, combined with continuing expansion into the former West bank territory through usually government-sponsored settlements that for the past few decades has been, and continues to be, the chief barrier to any progress towards peace and justice in the region - for itself and for its neighbors. I believe that Israel made a fateful error of profound consequence after the 1967 war when it took control of the external boundaries of the West Bank and began the systematic settlement of Jews there and the attendant isolation of the Palestinain population , initially through checkpoints and roadblocks and now through walls and limited access roads throughout the area. This was a clear message of permanent apartheidt readily detectable to all, particularly the subject Palestinian population. Add decades of military rule with no political rights and a physical arrangement that precludes normal economic development, and you have the present situation. These are the conditions for hostility and insurrection that history repeatedly shows us can last for centuries.

There is plenty for which one could criticize the Palestinians and their external Arab supporters. However, it is Israeli intransigence on the above issues, that limits progress today and has prevented it for the past forty years. Worse, as time passes and Palestinian resistence continues, the body of self-deceptive rationalizations with which Israel reassures itself and its remaining supporters in the world becomes ever more a grotesque distortion of truth and common sense. One here is reminded of Oscar Wilde's "Picture of Dorian Grey".

I will readily concede that, if Israel were to do as I wished, a host of Palestinian/Arab issues would come to the fore and become limiting factors. However one must begin, and the sequential resolution of these contradictions and the attendant beginnings of mutual trust and tolerance are inescapable precursors for peace and justice in the region, however it is eventually organized.

Instead, the parties are merely intensifying the conflict, each behind walls of increasingly intransigent, false and destructive ideas. When in a hole, one should stop digging.

I have outlined before how I see powerful analogies between the situation in the Middle east and that which existed in Northern Ireland until recently. It didn't end until the external sponsor (the UK) became weary and disguisted with its oppressive client state (the Stormont government) and the parties in the struggle each gave up their extremist dreams. Though it was labelled as a religious/cultural struggle between Catholic Irish and Protestant Scots (or whatever) it was, in fact, a political and economic struggle between "haves" and "have nots" who could merely be readily identified by religion. I believe that, beneath all the inflated rhetoric, this is the essential reality today in the Middle East.




Yes, there are some very attractive analogies to Israel and the Northern Ireland history. Both are Celts, divided by religion. And, in Israel, both are Semites, divided by religion. The Scots are the haves backed by the strength of Britain. And, Israelis are the haves backed by the strength of the west.

However, I believe, what is left out of your equation, but perhaps alluded to when you talk of the situation in the Middle East also can go on for centuries, is the inability of many an "outsider," to the problem, to use nothing but hard logic, and perplexed why it is not applied.

Let me give an analogy to this. Catholics came to the U.S.A. and found more than a bit of anti-Catholic prejudice. It would have been very easy to end that prejudice by just adopting some denomination of Protestantism. Most did not do that. And today, one can meet many lapsed Catholics who, for a litany of reasons, do not subscribe to much that the Catholic Church espouses. However, they may still believe in Jesus, and the basic tenets of Christianity, but will not become a Protestant. Why? I believe there is an emotional attachment that defies anyone's logic.

Similarly, the Palestineans and the Israelis are locked in an emotional dance, so to speak. So, when we in the west look at their shenanigans (a bit of Gaelic), we wonder why the self-defeating behavior? That, I believe, is because we are outside the maelstrom of emotional attachment to the issues.

But, just because there are meaningful analogies to Northern Ireland, I do not believe the outcome will necessarily be the same. There is something called Chaos Theory. That theory explains why the day before the dinosaurs disappeared from the Earth, no dinosaur had any reason to believe they were not going to be rulers of the Earth for a few more million years. Something happens unexpectedly, not necessarily man made.

But, I ask you. If you ever chose to make a pilgrimmage to the Holy Land, would you feel as comfortable/safe in a Palestinean section, as a Jewish section, post some resolution of the conflict? Well, you might be a stalwart fellow, but I believe many prefer Jewish hosts to their pilgrimmage; call me crazy!
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Apr, 2009 11:26 am
@georgeob1,
It is so telling that you don't provide a single criticism of the Pals. Nor do you say that they, in any way, stand in the way of peace. Your bias is overwhelming.
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Apr, 2009 11:31 am
@Advocate,
Advocate said "Your bias is overwhelming. Laughing Laughing Drunk Laughing Laughing "
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Apr, 2009 11:53 am
@dyslexia,
How did you communicate before emoticons? I think they add nothing to one's message. English can be so much more precise.
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Apr, 2009 11:59 am
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:

How did you communicate before emoticons? I think they add nothing to one's message. English can be so much more precise.
your point being?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Apr, 2009 12:56 pm
@Foofie,
Foofie, Read Susan Nathan's book "The Other Side of Israel." It's about her living in a Palestinian village and readily accepted by the Palestinians, but scorned by the Jews.

You are incapable of understanding the truth about Israel if your life depended on it.

When I visited Israel, we had the opportunity to talk to a young Palestinian woman in the old city. Her family has lived in "Palestine" for many generations, but she is not free to move around in her "own" country. Do you honestly believe that is fair treatment?

Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Apr, 2009 01:22 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Would it be fair for her to carry a bomb into a pizza parlor? Israel, like any other country, has to have security.

Hooray for the Navy Seals who freed the merchant captain.
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Apr, 2009 02:36 pm
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:

However, I believe, what is left out of your equation, but perhaps alluded to when you talk of the situation in the Middle East also can go on for centuries, is the inability of many an "outsider," to the problem, to use nothing but hard logic, and perplexed why it is not applied.
It is always easier for an outsider - one happily detached from the emotional and subjective issues that sustain such conflicts - to see the real logic of any such situation. The continuing conflict in Northern Ireland seemed quite incomprehensible to outsiders, who saw only the religious labels attached to the conflict (which were exploited so assiduously by the extremist leaders on each side). However, when the issues were properly deined (and subsequently resolved) in terms of political and economic equality for both sides , the so-called religious issue suddenly became irrelevant to everyone involved. That is the essential reality.

The realization of the aspirations of Zionists for a homeland for Jews does not require the displacement and oppression of the Palestinian residents of the area. Defining those aspirations in a way that does require such oppression is a formula for failure and war without end.

Foofie wrote:

Let me give an analogy to this. Catholics came to the U.S.A. and found more than a bit of anti-Catholic prejudice. It would have been very easy to end that prejudice by just adopting some denomination of Protestantism. Most did not do that. And today, one can meet many lapsed Catholics who, for a litany of reasons, do not subscribe to much that the Catholic Church espouses. However, they may still believe in Jesus, and the basic tenets of Christianity, but will not become a Protestant. Why? I believe there is an emotional attachment that defies anyone's logic.
I don't know the statistics for Catholics and Protestants who have adopted the other's religion, but I suspect the numbers are small. Organized religion is in decline in our country among both Christians and Jews. Conventional Protestant Churches have declined the most, with newer evangelicals and other like things taking their place. The latter seem very strange to me, and I have no interest at all in them. However, people of all denominations have stopped judging others by such things - much to everyone's benefit.

Foofie wrote:

Similarly, the Palestineans and the Israelis are locked in an emotional dance, so to speak. So, when we in the west look at their shenanigans (a bit of Gaelic), we wonder why the self-defeating behavior? That, I believe, is because we are outside the maelstrom of emotional attachment to the issues.
Agreed. However, like the people of Northern Ireland, they need to get over it - or they will just go on killing each other, while the world increasingly learns to despise both.

Foofie wrote:

But, just because there are meaningful analogies to Northern Ireland, I do not believe the outcome will necessarily be the same. There is something called Chaos Theory. That theory explains why the day before the dinosaurs disappeared from the Earth, no dinosaur had any reason to believe they were not going to be rulers of the Earth for a few more million years. Something happens unexpectedly, not necessarily man made.
I agree that if some great geological catastrophe occurs, we may see the problem swept away. However, if you wish to pursue the analogy with highly non-linear and coupled systems (i.e. those subject to chaos) - and I believe there is one given what we know about human behavior, you must recognize that chaotic systems, though each different in detail and unpredictable in the small, are, in their gross characteristics, self-regulating and often self-similar. Thus individual tornados are distinct and unpredictable, but tornatos generally all behave similarly. (Applications of chaos theory to fluid mechanics was the topic of my PhD dissertation). The chaos of the situations in Northern Ireland and Israel/Palestine will and have yielded similar results -- and very likely their correction will require similar actions.

Foofie wrote:

But, I ask you. If you ever chose to make a pilgrimmage to the Holy Land, would you feel as comfortable/safe in a Palestinean section, as a Jewish section, post some resolution of the conflict? Well, you might be a stalwart fellow, but I believe many prefer Jewish hosts to their pilgrimmage; call me crazy!
I have done so twice - once as the guest of the IDF (visits to various airbases, training facilities & outposts; the standard helo trip to Massada, etc.) - the second as a tourist in which I did travel around the West bank, though that was before the Intifada.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Apr, 2009 02:38 pm
HOW CAN ANY RATIONAL PERSON CONCLUDE THAT A SINGLE STATE SOLUTION FOR PALESTINE WILL PERMIT THE JEWS TO SURVIVE IN PALESTINE AS A MINORITY?
1841 AD: Ottomans conquer Palestine.
1918 AD: Ottoman governance of Palestine ends.
1918 AD: British Protectorate of Palestine Begins.

1920: 5 Jews killed, 200 wounded in anti-zionist riots in Palestine.
1921: 46 Jews killed, 146 wounded in anti-zionist riots in Palestine.
1929: 133 Jews killed, 339 wounded; 116 Arabs killed, 232 wounded.
1936-1939: 329 Jews killed, 857 wounded; 3,112 Arabs killed, 1,775 wounded; 135 Brits killed, 386 wounded; 110 Arabs hanged, 5,679 jailed.

1947: UN resolution partitions Palestine into a Jewish State and into an Arab State.
1948: Jews declare independence and establish the State of Israel.
1948: War breaks out between Jews defending Israel and Arabs invading Israel.
1948: State of Israel successfully defends itself and additionally conquers a part of Palestine originally granted by the UN to the Palestinian Arabs. Some of that conquered land is returned to the Palestinian Arabs as the result of negotiations for peace that were subsequently followed by more murders of Jews by Palestinian Arabs.

A MINORITY OF THE PALESTINIAN ARABS HAVE REPEATEDLY DECLARED THEY'RE OBJECTIVE IS THE EXTERMINATION OF THE JEWS IN PALESTINE. A MAJORITY OF PALESTINIAN ARABS HAVE SHOWN THEY WILL DO NOTHING TO PREVENT THEIR MINORITY FROM TRYING TO EXTERMINATE THE JEWS IN PALESTINE.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Apr, 2009 03:03 pm
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:

Foofie wrote:

How did you communicate before emoticons? I think they add nothing to one's message. English can be so much more precise.
your point being?


Perhaps his point is that it isn't easy to be PWEFT !

(That's an old Navy acronym for "precisely wrong every ******* time") Wink
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Apr, 2009 03:05 pm
@georgeob1,
or perhaps "skidmarks in the sky"
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Apr, 2009 04:12 pm
@Advocate,
That's your problem; you deem all Palestinians to be terrorists which only shows your bigotry and nonsense. Your kind of thinking also allows me to think you can "also carry a bomb into a pizza parlor." Illogical and absolute nonsense.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Apr, 2009 05:51 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I have never thought of all Pals as terrorists. But Israelis, not being mind readers, need fences to protect themselves. They have had enough bombings, and now need some peace of mind.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Apr, 2009 07:12 pm
@cicerone imposter,
CICERONE IMPOSTER: you deem all Palestinians to be terrorists which only shows your bigotry and nonsense.

ICAN: A MINORITY OF THE PALESTINIAN ARABS HAVE REPEATEDLY DECLARED THEY'RE OBJECTIVE IS THE EXTERMINATION OF THE JEWS IN PALESTINE. A MAJORITY OF PALESTINIAN ARABS HAVE SHOWN THEY WILL DO NOTHING TO PREVENT THEIR MINORITY FROM TRYING TO EXTERMINATE THE JEWS IN PALESTINE.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Apr, 2009 07:13 pm
@georgeob1,
Since you seem to put great value on the analogy of Northern Ireland to the situation in Israel/Gaza/West Bank, there is one dissimilarity that can make the analogy problematic (aka, not work for purposes of extrapolating a conclusion). That is that the Jews do have a psychic wound, in my opinion, due to the Holocaust. Now, the Irish also are aware of their history, and what the British did to them over centuries.

Now it seems your analogy equates Israel to the Scottish Protestants, and the Palestineans to the Irish Catholics. However, the problem is that Israel has the Holocaust, and the Irish Catholics have the famine (not to mention the conscription into the British navy). So, when it comes to psychic wounds, Israel and the Irish Catholics both have a history to emotionally deal with.

That is where, I believe, the analogy breaks down. Or, perhaps, that is what makes the Israel/Palestinean situation LESS solvable than the Northern Ireland situation was. In effect, Israel has the psychic wounds of its history, just like the Irish Catholics, yet also has the military might of the Scottish Protestants (with British backing).

Yet, the Palestineans have the paucity of military hardware like the Irish Catholics had, but not true historical psychic wounds like the Irish Catholics had. It seems that only when it comes to military hardware are the Palestineans like the Irish Catholics of Northern Ireland.

That might be why the Palestineans feel that they can go on forever being intransigent - no history to have closure on. They are making their history now. They have not yet reached a point of emotional saturation, perhaps.

And, Israel, with its psychic wound from the Holocaust, may be collectively, on an unconscious level, getting closure on the Holocaust where they could not show much resistance to the Final Solution.

So, I am not sure if at this juncture in history, logical thinking will prevail. Both sides might have their collective conscious/unconscious thinking to deal with: a) the future in the minds of the Palestineans - not yet ready to lament a past b) the past in the minds of the Israelis - not yet ready to have closure on the past and just look to the future?

georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Apr, 2009 09:21 pm
@Foofie,
Interesting observations, and they likely have some merit. Your point about the non analogous placement of the "psychic wounds" is certainly valid, though I wonder just how great and lasting are its effects. Despite this, I believe the Palestinian population of the West Bank and Gaza has accumulated some psychic wounds of its own since 1967.

Certainly the generation of Israeli settlers who arrived from Europe in a flood immediately after WWII were in the grip of some unique motivations following what they had endured. It is very hard to fault them. However, my impression is that the next generation and the one after emerged with different viewpoints.

I believe the principal difference between the situation in Northern Ireland and that in the Middle East is the passage of time since the "plantation" began - the acute hostilities that started it all faded with time and finally only the contemporary intolerance and inequity remained. That, however, is a reminder that the hostilities in the Middle east could, unresolved, last a very long time indeed.
 

Related Topics

Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
THE WAR IN GAZA - Discussion by Advocate
Israel's Shame - Discussion by BigEgo
Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/23/2019 at 10:09:03