Israel a pariah nation

[Misty]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 195838.stm

It is a great pity Israel was ever permitted to create their own nation without the same privilege being granted to the Palestinians. If the US hadn't supported them over the years maybe they would be so militant. I don't support violence from either side, but Israel seems to be the aggressor in most conflicts.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 45:

Yes, the term "Arab" was inaccurate and offensive...
..."The Arabs," in this context, has no more racist significance than "the Germans" did in World War II....

I'm sure we're all guilty of not putting in proper modifiers such as "some", "a few", "most", etc. I see nothing in cnorman18's referenced remarks to suggest a "blanket" term applied to all Arabs, but note his willingness to concede the possible or real misunderstanding.

When, exactly, have the ARABS, in the person of their spokesmen and leaders, ever kept a single ageement? When have they ever showed the least willingness to stop murdering Jews?

That is indeed the whole point, and history indicates it will continue to be the case.

How SHOULD Israel defend itself?...

I propose by any legitimate means at its disposal.

Oliver Wendell Holmes once noted in a Supreme Court decision that detached and objective reasoning cannot be expected in the presence of an upraised knife. Israel, under unimaginable pressure from all sides, is going to make mistakes. That will probably continue as long as the vicious and murderous attacks against its citizens continue.

Even in the face of provocative acts under the guise of "humanitarian aid". Israel's enemies find newer and more subtle means to seek its destruction with each news cycle.

Do you have any concrete, practical suggestions on how to stop the murders and finally get started on a real "peace process"?

Concrete and practical I can't comment on, but "STOP LOBBING OR TOTING BOMBS INTO ISRAEL" needs to be said, apparently loudly and often.

Israel has repeatedly shown it is willing to cease their attacks, cede land for peace, and work towards stability in the region, if only folks'd quit trying to annihilate them. I propose that time has long passed.

[Solon]

In the interest of brevity:

I would concede that you've made a number of good points here. Israel, as I have said often, is not perfect; but they are struggling to survive when surrounded by vicious and intractable enemies. If you want to justify Arab terrorist atrocities by saying they are provoked and made necessary by Israeli actions, how about applying that same standard to the Israelis? You seem to be saying that egregious wrongs don't justify other wrongs - but that only seems to apply to Israel.

No not at all. It applies to everyone, but my first post was mainly concerned with a specific action I thought was short-sighted and cost Israel more than it gained them. The flotilla raid. I think I've said as much I I'd like about what I think could have been done differently. As I have stated before, if you want to start a thread on other nations actions and policies I will hold forth on their failings as well there.

Yes, the term "Arab" was inaccurate and offensive. I have very often here spoken out about anti -Arab and anti-Muslim prejudice, and I regret that I didn't amend those sayings to read "Arab terrorists." That said, so amended, those statements are absolutely factual. Further, the fact that surveys show that support for suicide bombing and terrorism against Israel is overwhelming among Arabs all over the world rather indicates that, though still an unfair generalization, the sayings are largely true even as stated.

"The Arabs," in this context, has no more racist significance than "the Germans" did in World War II. There were Germans who opposed Hitler too, and everyone knew that, but everyone knew what it meant, including Germans opposed to Hitler. "The Arabs" is likewise just shorthand for "the enemy," and in the context of this conflict, it seems perfectly acceptable to me, and I suspect clear to everyone.

Except German is not just an ethnic identity, but a national one, the proper term for a citizen of Germany, even if they are an immigrant citizen from Japan is German. Not so with Arab. It is mild, but the prejudice is there in those sayings. They are too glib and don't help. It certainly won't help Israel to alienate Israeli Arabs with such sayings.

Also, what percentage of the people in Gaza are "the enemy"? How many of the 680,000 children 14 and under living there are the enemy? Are they "the Arabs" you speak of? What about the people who are Hamas police officers because there is no one else hiring in Gaza since they aren't allowed raw materials to have any kind of industry. No cloth for clothing, no animals or seeds to maintain farms, but a need to work for a living.

More to the point: I asked you to state specifically what Israel can DO to solve these problems. From what I can see here, your only concrete suggestion is for Israel to relax its security restrictions. Since that has consistently and invariably resulted in more, and more vicious and murderous, attacks, that makes no sense whatever.

You want a concrete solution with immediate results? There are none. This isn't a puzzle we're putting together, there may be no "solution". It is entirely possible that the only end will be fire and death. I tend to think that is likelier than other outcomes actually.

One major problem is waiting for all attacks to stop. If I were a lone discontent, or even a minority in a group that otherwise is willing to agree to an official cease-fire I could ruin it all through one rocket sent over the border. So how will Israel ever know if Hamas really isn't sending the rockets? They can't. So long as one malcontent exis5ts in Gaza he or she can hold up any forward motion.

Absolute security is impossible in the presence of others. The only way Israel can ever be certain that no attacks will come from an enemy in Gaza that looks just like the civilians there is to do something monstrous, depopulate Gaza entirely. Barring that, there is no guarantee. And doing so will lead to the end of Israel.

I don't know what will definitively lead to peace, no one does. Calling to stop the attacks is well and good, but Israel can't make that decision. Nothing it has tried so far has worked. I think the situation will only get worse for the demographic reasons I mentioned before. Demographics is the key I think. Gaza needs educated leaders who have seen the world and interacted with other cultures, and who remember something of Israel other than the IDF bulldozing their home or disallowing paper and pens for even schoolchildren. It will take generations maybe, but contact with outside will tend to make Gazans more liberal. Why else do totalitarian and authoritarian regimes control movement and isolate their people so much? It creates an echo chamber where theirs is the only message heard clearly. Gaza is largely a Hamas echo chamber.

Work with international aid agencies to control building materials for homes and hospitals and schools. Get faster responses for Gazans who need medical evacuations. Put out an actual list of banned materials for the blockade instead of deciding on a case by case basis. Something which is required by law anyway I might add.

The next thing is to get opportunities for some kind of self-sustaining industruy in Gaza that provides employment opportunities other than Hamas, who is the largest employer in an area with massive unemployment. Let cloth and sewing machines in so that some kind of textile industry can get going. Allow animals and seeds so that farms can expand and hire more workers. Find as many opportunities for Gazan children to get out and see Israel as possible. Get them to schools in other countries, allow them opportunities to become educated and exposed to other cultures when they are younger. Stop using house destruction as a tactic. It doesn't work as a deterrent and it only compounds tragedy.
Work with Egypt, they might be willing to have Gazan children attend Egyptian schools and universities, and they are no friend to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Do all this and give it one generation. You may not like that it doesn't stop attacks today, but that might not be possible. I want to think long term. There is too much resentment and too many entrenched positions in the current generation on both sides. Big social changes require a generational turnover, they need fresh young open minds to be changed before age sets them in their ways.

I don't think these things are too likely. I think, before I am dead I will see nothing but more suffering all around. Israelis killed by rockets and bombs, Gazans without homes and hope. I really wish my cynicism didn't serve me so well.

How SHOULD Israel defend itself? How is it to remain in existence and its people unmurdered when its enemies will only be satisfied when they are all dead or in exile? How is Israel to make peace with people who are still obsessed, after 60+ years, that it ought not exist and should be eliminated and erased from the map?

I said before that this situation is right or fair. Would you or I be any different? You who wish to bar no weapon or tactic from Israel to preserve itself? Would that include terrorist tactics if it were conquered by an outside force and the Israelis penned up in Gaza and the West Bank, unable to bring to bear an army and forced into irregular warfare? When has any conquered people not resorted to such tactics when they have no others left? Why should they pay for another countries war crimes? Explain to them why they were not permitted to form a nation there fro the ashes of the Ottoman Empire like the Turks, but instead fall under the power of the British.

I don't agree that Israel should be wiped out. I don't agree with using terror tactics, targeting civilians or any of that, but I wonder if I would feel differently if I grew up in Gaza. I don't know that my character is sufficient that I could be pushed to such things in rage, despair or desperation. I don't ask that you condone their acts or their policies, but can you understand the source of their anger and hate given the narrative of their history? I can only be thankful that the remaining Cherokee and Apache in America are not bitter enough to start a terror campaign. The Japanese should be glad the Ainu don't inflict such things on them.

I would love to see one state solution. An Israel that is not explicitly a Jewish State, I find asking me to support that asking me to support an inherently discriminatory idea of a nation. I support Israel as a nation, no modifiers, which covers the area of "Greater Israel", if I may use that politically charged term here, and has a parliament consisting of representatives of Israelis and Palestinians. There is no need to share Jerusalem in my best of worlds for there aren't two nations to split it between. (I'd also like to see a bicameral legislature, but that is a personal preference that doesn't really effect peace)

More likely is a two state solution, but the current generation cannot even reach this place in my mind. A new generation could, let's try building that new generation and hope they get farther than we can. People will die while we wait for them to grow up. The real test is not loosing hope for peace or being blinded by (justifiable) anger at the crimes of those who will not live to see a better world. It's easy for me to say this, sitting safely in my house far from trouble, and to ask so much that I don't know I could give, if asked, myself. But this isn't a fair situation. Israel needs to be Jackie Robinson, better, faster and able to take the insults and injuries of the people who hate them. It isn't fair to ask, but what if the only path to peace isn't a fair one?

I said you made a lot of good points, but not all of them were. Two corrections of fact:

First, the Gaza-Egypt tunnels have been around for at least twenty-five years. They have been used to smuggle arms since at least 2001.

I was wrong about that, you're correct. They made the existing tunnel network more extensive and cut through an underground barrier Egypt had place along a part of the border, but the tunnels had been operating for years. Consider that claim withdrawn with an apology for the bad information.

Second, the article you linked said nothing about Hamas stopping the rocket attacks; it seem clear that their concern is that they be in charge of them. It's hard to see that the attacks have stopped, since you can read here, here, and here about rocket attacks from Gaza taking place this week. In the past, a cessation of rocket attacks that lasted as little as 24 hours has resulting in shipments of supplies and the relaxing of security; but that hasn't happened here.

Didn't I link this article? The one that reads:

Hamas is forcing other Gaza Palestinian factions to guarantee they do not launch rockets or mortar bombs at Israel, a source told the French AFP news agency on Monday.

and

The Hamas forces arrested several militants linked to a radical Islamist group in the northern Strip, the report said, an area in which the ruling movement has recently bolstered its security presence to prevent rocket fire.

That's not them trying to stop rocket attacks?

Though honestly I'm surprised that there wasn't more violence coming out of Gaza this week. Perhaps Hamas has decided PR is deadlier than rockets.

[Solon]

How SHOULD Israel defend itself?...

I propose by any legitimate means at its disposal.

The question is what the definition of legitimate here. I'd encourage you to weigh in though.

Even in the face of provocative acts under the guise of "humanitarian aid". Israel's enemies find newer and more subtle means to seek its destruction with each news cycle.

And so knowing that their every decision is under a microscope now, fair or not Israel must weigh their options with an eye towards PR. That is the new field of battle against Hamas.

Concrete and practical I can't comment on, but "STOP LOBBING OR TOTING BOMBS INTO ISRAEL" needs to be said, apparently loudly and often.

Good, now who is doing that. How many out of 1.5 million in Gaza are the ones who do so. How many more who aren't angry enough yet will become so while under a siege they had no hand in causing as they were, say, 14 when it started, but now are approaching 18 and the only available job are from guys who seem to be willing to stand up to the guys who bulldozed your childhood home because someone they thought might have something to do with a rocket lived on the floor above you? If the solution to rockets today guarantees people willing to fire rockets tomorrow that isn't much of a solution.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 48:

I 'preciate Solon taking the time and effort to address my concerns, and I agree he makes some dang strong points...

How SHOULD Israel defend itself?...

I propose by any legitimate means at its disposal.

The question is what the definition of legitimate here. I'd encourage you to weigh in though.

What works? A nation has a responsibility to defend itself.

I present "legitimate" to mean in accordance with international law, but realize a nation at war for its very existence must ultimately make that determination.

Even in the face of provocative acts under the guise of "humanitarian aid". Israel's enemies find newer and more subtle means to seek its destruction with each news cycle.

And so knowing that their every decision is under a microscope now, fair or not Israel must weigh their options with an eye towards PR. That is the new field of battle against Hamas.

Agreed with caveats. The history of the Jews, and Israel as a nation, is such that what seems a perfectly irrational method to me may seem proper to them.

Concrete and practical I can't comment on, but "STOP LOBBING OR TOTING BOMBS INTO ISRAEL" needs to be said, apparently loudly and often.

Good, now who is doing that. How many out of 1.5 million in Gaza are the ones who do so.

How many do you find acceptable? I prefer 0.

How many more who aren't angry enough yet will become so while under a siege they had no hand in causing as they were, say, 14 when it started, but now are approaching 18 and the only available job are from guys who seem to be willing to stand up to the guys who bulldozed your childhood home because someone they thought might have something to do with a rocket lived on the floor above you?

Plenty fair. This is indeed why Israel should consider its options with a very critical mind. This doesn't mean they should bind themselves to thinking that just not defending themselves will solve things.

If the solution to rockets today guarantees people willing to fire rockets tomorrow that isn't much of a solution.

That's just it, even if Israel could stop the attacks even though they offer land and other concessions, why would they bother changing their position?

I do agree both sides seem "locked in" to their methods, and no easy solutions are available. My contention is that until folks decide they'll stop trying to annihilate Israel, Israel should not be held responsible for defending herself, such defense to include a mighty offense.

[Solon]

The question is what the definition of legitimate here. I'd encourage you to weigh in though.

What works? A nation has a responsibility to defend itself.

I'd say the responsibility is to defend its citizens. Not to suggest Israel is a tyrannical rogue state, it is not, but does a tyrannical rogue nation have a responsibility to defend itself against the attacks of a revolutionary force trying to free itself from oppression?

I present "legitimate" to mean in accordance with international law, but realize a nation at war for its very existence must ultimately make that determination.

So international law until you decide otherwise? What limit when fight for existence? Is there no line not to be crossed? Is any weapon and any tactic too heinous to ever be used?

There is a saying, "Character is who you are in the dark." Perhaps we could say that character is the line you will not cross, even to save yourself. There are things I could do, even if to preserve my life that would render it not worth saving in my eyes. Perhaps you feel differently.

Agreed with caveats. The history of the Jews, and Israel as a nation, is such that what seems a perfectly irrational method to me may seem proper to them.

I don't deny subjectivity and very different perspectives, but I think it is a fact that reality doesn't check to see if it's being fair. I did invoke Jackie Robinson as an example in a response to cnorman.

Good, now who is doing that. How many out of 1.5 million in Gaza are the ones who do so.

How many do you find acceptable? I prefer 0.

So would I, but that wasn't my point. Rather that is how many people are in Gaza. How many of them deserve to be under siege or have any control over the rockets? How many people, innocent of attacking Israel, is it acceptable to punish for actions not their own? Give me a number.

That's just it, even if Israel could stop the attacks even though they offer land and other concessions, why would they bother changing their position?

I do agree both sides seem "locked in" to their methods, and no easy solutions are available. My contention is that until folks decide they'll stop trying to annihilate Israel, Israel should not be held responsible for defending herself, such defense to include a mighty offense.

I'd like to refer you to the section of post 47 where I mention that I don't think peace can come from this generation and then outline ideas to help a young generation have hope at getter further than this one in moving towards peace. I don't know how to link to the middle of a post or a section so I hope you don't mind scrolling up.

[cnorman18]

I'll be bowing out of this debate now.

After some consideration, I find my position unchanged. No building materials, no jobs, no school supplies? Boo, hoo, hoo. Stop killing people and turn in those who do and you'll have all you want.

Let me quote from a PM I just sent to Solon:

"Thanks very much. I'm not at all offended by anything you've written: I'm not even offended by Misty's remarks, though I regard her as one who has simply swallowed the Palestinian propaganda line and doesn't have much regard for facts.

"I could be criticized as swallowing the pro-Israel line too, I suppose; but then I happily admit my bias. Those are my people over there. I also acknowledge that intelligent people of good will can disagree.

"Fanaticism annoys me, including my own - which is why I don't usually get into Israel threads.

"Thanks for the private word. I have a great deal of respect for you as well - no fanatic, you, but thoughtful, intelligent and principled, and a person debating with good will and in good faith. If you've been around here long, you know that that isn't always the case.

"The only thing that really enrages me is blatant antisemitism. The only reason I am participating in this thread is that I haven't seen it."

I've enjoyed the thread: but my own convictions, or biases if you like, are not likely to further this debate. So, without prejudice to any conclusions, I respectfully absent myself with good will to all.

[Solon]

I'll be bowing out of this debate now.

After some consideration, I find my position unchanged. No building materials, no jobs, no school supplies? Boo, hoo, hoo. Stop killing people and turn in those who do and you'll have all you want.

The people doing the killing aren't the ones who need it most. We should punish children because their parents are afraid of Hamas retaliation for turning in their fighters? How is that a tenable situation? I find my position hasn't changed either, I guess we're just stubborn. (Although stubborn in our carefully examined positions)

I've enjoyed the thread: but my own convictions, or biases if you like, are not likely to further this debate. So, without prejudice to any conclusions, I respectfully absent myself with good will to all.

Thanks for the compliments. I have enjoyed the thread as well, we all have our biases; they are unavoidable. Knowing them is something not everyone does. You have a leg up on a lot of people there. As I mentioned in my PM I have a great respect for your intelligence and the level of discourse you bring to the table. I'd be lying if I didn't say I wasn't a little nervous about engaging you in this thread. I think I've said about all I'd like to for now on this as well. Be well cnorman.