Supporting Israel

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Not surprised that Israel, its people and its government and many of its supporters, swing to over-protectiveness.

This is important point. The flip side of the phenomenom that nel raised is that there is a parallel tendency to over-criticize Israel. The U.N. has virtually made a cottage industry out of condemning Israel. Not that I don't believe that Israel has done things worth condemning, but it is so out of proportion to the condemnation of other nations that it simply cannot be ignored. And there is no more popular target among the "Berkeley progressives" that nel mentioned. I agree with Impy that it is no wonder that people react with over-protectiveness.

[vison]

IAWV

[Crucifer]

I'll admit that I don't know a HUGE amount about Israel, but an ex-lecturer of mine (one of Israel's leading musicologists) was from Israel, and he had a lot to say both for and against Israel, just as any truly patriotic person will have to say about their country. According to him, the prevailing attitude of the average Israeli is that everyone needs to calm down; Israelis, UN, US and everyone else, and instead of using biblical rhetoric and political sanctions etc., Israel, its critics, and its supporters need to start focusing on what Israel has to offer the world as a nation, not simply as a territory. Granted, it is a young nation (or the oldest surviving?), but it is a nation nonetheless, and polarising arguments on its legitimacy detract from the fact that it is, in fact, populated by normal human beings too.

Edited to fix some punctuation...

[Holbytla]

Diplomacy, at home and abroad, regarding the Middle East and Israel, always seems to ignore the underlying fact, or maybe chooses to couch words....but in any event at the end of the day, we are faced with the reality of centuries old dyed in the wool hatred for one another.

From my limited life experience, it seems to me that there can be no right with so much hatred involved. This is has and always will be a give and take or tit for tat relationship. Too often I have heard spin spoken in place of truth because of diplomacy, and to this point nobody is better off for it.

In some ways America and the West and East of the democratic peoples, are right to try and find a middle ground, but we have to face reality as well.

As sad as it is, I sometimes think the only true solution is for one side to obliterate the other. I am too sceptical to think that there could ever be peace if one were still alive. This may be the one instance where winner takes all and the loser is no more.

That's how dire I think the situation is.

[River]

That's my feeling too, Holby.

[vison]

Well, I don't think so. There have not been centuries of hatred between Jews and Muslims. This is not "age old". This is fairly modern, actually. Christian Europe was much more savage to the Jews, ending at least a millennium of brutality with the Holocaust.

While there is little point in assigning "blame" or attempting to say one side is "worse" than the other, in fact had the Arab states accepted the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 the problems would have been solved decades ago, including "what to do with the Palestinians". Since some of those Arab states were as much creations of the West as Israel, it's ironic that it's fashionable nowadays to assert that Israel was created without consideration for borders, boundaries, and/or tribal territories.

Until all the Arab states recognize Israel's right to exist, there is, of course, little hope of any real peace. And given the turmoil in the Middle East at present, one might be forgiven for pessimism.

Israel will not be obliterated and Israel will not obliterate the other states in the region: some solution will be found.

[Alatar]

Holby, what you state would have been true of Northern Ireland in the Seventies and early Eighties. Neither side recognised the legitimacy of the other's position. On the one hand you had the IRA stating that the British Army was an occupying force. On the other hand you had the British Government stating that the majority of N.I. Citizens wished to remain part of the U.K.

I still find it amazing that the Good Friday agreement ever happened. But where there's the political will, and the willingness to compromise, it can be achieved. For all that I abhor the tactics of the IRA, I respect their ability to put their guns beyond use and embrace diplomacy through Sinn Fein. However, that only happened because the British were willing to negotiate in a real and substantive way.

What remains to be seen is whether Israel will afford Palestine the same genuine negotiation opportunity.

[Holbytla]

That's a good point. I wasn't very optimistic about the situation in Northern Ireland and yet that seems to have been a peaceful solution.

There are a lot of similarities between the situation in Israel and Northern Ireland, so maybe I will be pleasantly surprised again. And yet the Middle East seems to be more widespread and involves many countries which complicates things.

We will see I guess, but it is hard to be optimistic since this has been a contested land for a long long time.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I obviously don't know as much about Ireland as Al does (that almost goes without saying), but my understanding is that as longstanding as that dispute was, it doesn't go back millenia as do the competing claims to Palestine. But I would be glad to be educated otherwise.

[Alatar]

Well, Ireland was occupied for 800 years, but obviously partition began in the early 20's, and the troubles began in earnest in the late 60's and early 70's. Prior to that there was constant rebellion and uprising among the Irish population as a whole, rather than in the North.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That's pretty consistent with my understanding. It is, of course, arguable how truly relevant claims to Palestine that go back several thousand years are to todays situation, but they certainly get brought up.

[Holbytla]

Not unless you count the Normans and the Vikings. And even then I would say not as much history. But I also don't think it has to take eons to develop an antagonistic cat and dog mentality.

The peoples involved in the Middle East have proven that they are willing to fight to the death and will do whatever it takes to win. I think that was also true in Northern Ireland. I just think the Middle East encompasses a broader scope because of the number of countries involved. And yeah it certainly does have a very long history with religion playing no small part either.

[Túrin Turambar]

Do the issues of competing claims to Palestine really go back that long, though? Obviously it hasn't mattered for most of that time as the region was always part of some Empire or another. It seems to me that the dispute over Palestine really only began when significant Jewish migration in the 1880s and came to a head after the First World War when it became clear that some sort of successor state to the Ottoman Empire was going to be created in the area.

[vison]

Do the issues of competing claims to Palestine really go back that long, though? Obviously it hasn't mattered for most of that time as the region was always part of some Empire or another. It seems to me that the dispute over Palestine really only began when significant Jewish migration in the 1880s and came to a head after the First World War when it became clear that some sort of successor state to the Ottoman Empire was going to be created in the area.

Exactly.

[Impenitent]

Do the issues of competing claims to Palestine really go back that long, though? Obviously it hasn't mattered for most of that time as the region was always part of some Empire or another. It seems to me that the dispute over Palestine really only began when significant Jewish migration in the 1880s and came to a head after the First World War when it became clear that some sort of successor state to the Ottoman Empire was going to be created in the area.

Exactly.

Quite so. The Kingdom of Transjordan was carved from 80% of the former British Mandate of Palestine, so Jordan is as much a fabricated construct of the British Mandate as Israel. Yet no one is jumping up and down yelling that the country didn't exist before 1921 (or 1928, if you take independence as year one) and should therefore revert to the original owners/inhabitants/denizens of the British Mandate of Palestine.

Nor is there ongoing international angst over the forced mass eviction of Palestinians from Jordan in 1971. King Hussein of Jordan moved against militant Palestinian organisations which sought to overthrow the monarchy. The violence resulted in the deaths of thousands of people, the vast majority Palestinian. The armed conflict ended with the expulsion of the PLO and thousands of Palestinian Jordanians, many of whom sought refuge in Lebanon. (Anyone wonder why Jordan is now relatively peaceful and has cordial relations with Israel, while poor Lebanon is now the seat of so much exported violence?)

Oh, there's no way I can untangle the dreadful mess in one incoherent post.

My point is - Israel is not the bad guy in this morass. Certainly not squeaky clean, but not the villain either.

[Holbytla]

It is easy to point to a significant point in history and say, "AHA!", but I think that is more convenient than accurate. Pointing to 1948 is easy to do, but there was quite a lot of history preceding that year and quite a history of tumultuous times.

There have been any number of people claiming Palestine as their own throughout the centuries and as far as I can see, there has been relativley few times where there has been a decisive claimant.

1948 was preceded by the The Balfour Declaration 30 years prior, or maybe came about because of that, which was in place because of happenings during WWI, which came about because of the rise of Zionism in the 1800's, which ultimately stemmed from Napolean and the Romans and the Crusaders and the .......

Call the conflict whatever you wish, but the history proves this story is agelong.

[Impenitent]

Not sure that anyone is arguing with you about that, Holby. My post was addressing nel's original post, exploring the issue of Israel and its supporters/detractors on either side of the great divide. Seems to me people swing to one or the other, with few giving heed to the possibility of shades of grey.

[Holbytla]

Well I tend to run into a lot of apathy and disdain for both sides, but take that for what it is worth. The declaration of a state of Israel, while supported is not without its detractors and not anything like it was drawn up to be. The Israelis hold occupied lands according to the UN, and they are beset with loads of terrorists that won't rest until they are exterminated or cede land.
Call it what you will, but I see it as two big heads butting and they are joined by many nations for the sake of ?????????? Scripture? Rights? Due process? Humanity?

Whatever it is, people are still being needlessly blown to bits.

[eborr]

The Balfour declaration was the act of a discredited politician trying to secure influence with the wealthy Rothschilds.

However I don't want to go over the history save to say that without the Balfour declaration the Welsh have a more legitimate claim to England, the Aborigines to Australia and the Native Americans to the US, than many of the Israeli's to the land called Palestine.

I say many because I would suspect that there were a number of Jews who settled in Palastine, through the times of the Sultanate.

I think that the problem in Israel are a microcosm of what happens elsewhere in the world, in that the people who chase after power are often those who the least capable of managing it.

Certainly none of the Israeli's that I met on my vsits to Israel, wanted anything other than peace and were happy to make concessions, and had a very low opinion of the "settlers" who for largely idealogical reasons wanted to settle on Palestinian lands. I would have to say my contacts were largely limited to highly educated urban business people living in Tel Aviv and Haifa.

They informed me that political parties were having to become increasingly strident to secure the votes of more recent immigrants.

This has an interesting paralell with Northern Ireland, where the changing demographics mean that within the next 40 years the Catholic population will out-number the protestants.

This gave the republicans the opportunity if they embraced legitimate politics to assume power within the lifetime of many of their leaders.

The changing voting population was something that the protestant politicians were aware of and recognised that though the balance of power was in their favour at the moment, that was going to change, so it was better to adopt the concept of power-sharing now, demonstrate to the country that they could work together, which potentially gives them the best chance of remaining part of the UK.

Certainly the antics of the Eire Govt, ( much admired by Geo. Osbourne) should proves a powerful disincentive to union.

On a side note the First Minister Robinson is changing a centuries old predjudice by attending the Funeral Mass for the policeman recently murdered. This is an act which should be admired

[nerdanel]

Roger Cohen asks questions that many of us have been wondering:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/08/opini ... 08.html?hp