Rabbi Hier is great. How'd that end up in the WSJ of all places, though?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I don't know. Someone I'm friends with on Facebook had posted it to her profile, or I never would have seen it.
He really cut right to the chase, though. I get that not all criticism of Israel is antisemitic, but the insanity that's going on right now is simply not explainable as anything but an antisemitic double standard.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That is fascinating.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
It couldn't possibly that people are critical of Israel because they can count and don't think that Hamas killing a dozen people over the past 4 years with rockets justifies Israel killing over 500 Palestinians. It has to be that we are irrational anti-Semites.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Did you read the article, Rabbit? It doesn't seem like you did -- you're reacting to the thread title, not the specific claims in the article.
Your skewed view of the situation is another story altogether.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Just look at the spate of attacks this week on Jews and Jewish institutions around the world: a car ramming into a synagogue in France; a Chabad menorah and Jewish-owned shops sprayed with swastikas in Belgium; a banner at an Australian rally demanding "clean the earth from dirty Zionists!"; demonstrators in the Netherlands chanting "Gas the Jews"; and in Florida, protestors demanding Jews "Go back to the ovens!"
This makes me sad. I wish this sort of thing didn't come along with the protests.
I'm not going to comment on the rest of the piece beyond noting that I don't agree with a fair amount of it.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
500 Arabs get killed by Israel while Israel attempts to protect itself and the world goes berserk. The Arabs kill thousands of their own for reasons far less pure, and the world is silent.
Rabbit, you say 12 is nothing compared to 500. Well, 500 is nothing compared to the thousands of Arab-inflicted casualties.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Did you read the article, Rabbit? It doesn't seem like you did -- you're reacting to the thread title, not the specific claims in the article.
The Rabbit didn't choose the thread title.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Did you read the article, Rabbit? It doesn't seem like you did.
Your skewed view of the situation is another story altogether.
Yes I did read the article and I think that in many places Rabbi Heir is seeing only what he wants to see. He is equating things that simply aren't equal.
I will agree that having rockets fired on your cities is terrible and that the international community should have spoken up on it. But thousands of people not being able to sleep at night because they are afraid rockets might hit simply isn't the same as thousands of people injured in hospitals, homeless, without food and shelter. To say that making a big fuss about the later than the former represents a double standard is stretching the truth. I am not anti-Israel, in fact I have always been an Israel supporter and have visited the country several times. I think that Israel not only has a right to exist but a right to safety and security.
But I do think that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians who live in Gaza is inhumane, disproportionate and unjustified by the threat that Hamas rockets pose to Israel. I think Israel's leaders have chosen a coarse of actions that is not only unethical but will also fail in the long run Israels. This disproportionate response in Gaza is more likely to degrade Israeli security than improve it. Any security solution for Israel that does provide a just and humane solution for the Palestinians will not be succeed.
I also suspect that some of the opposition to Israel is in fact rooted in anti-Semitism but I think assigning the majority of the opposition to that motivation is as ill founded as those who claim Israel is bombing Gaza because they hate Muslims or think Palestinians don't have souls.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Just look at the spate of attacks this week on Jews and Jewish institutions around the world: a car ramming into a synagogue in France; a Chabad menorah and Jewish-owned shops sprayed with swastikas in Belgium; a banner at an Australian rally demanding "clean the earth from dirty Zionists!"; demonstrators in the Netherlands chanting "Gas the Jews"; and in Florida, protestors demanding Jews "Go back to the ovens!"
This makes me sad. I wish this sort of thing didn't come along with the protests.
Seconded.
Two other relatively recent cases that drew world wide protests were the Tibet protests leading up to the Olympics, and the protests around the invasion of Iraq. I know the Chinese felt extremely victimized by the former; although I'm not sure that the US much cared about the latter.
Are the current protests substantially different in mood or magnitude than these other cases? - this is not a loaded question; I genuinely don't know.
Finally, is it a surprising double standard that the world expects more from a first world country with a fully fledged democracy and one of the most educated populations in the world, than from the thuggish Hamas?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: 500 Arabs get killed by Israel while Israel attempts to protect itself and the world goes berserk. The Arabs kill thousands of their own for reasons far less pure, and the world is silent.
Rabbit, you say 12 is nothing compared to 500. Well, 500 is nothing compared to the thousands of Arab-inflicted casualties.
You are right Lisa, I do hold Jews to a higher standard. What do you expect when you claim that you are the people chosen by God to teach us what he expects. I expect a people who have experienced what the Jews have through history to have more compassion and understanding for other displaced and suffering people. And in fact many of the Jews I know live up to that expectation, some of them are even more appalled by Israel's current actions than I am.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Just look at the spate of attacks this week on Jews and Jewish institutions around the world: a car ramming into a synagogue in France; a Chabad menorah and Jewish-owned shops sprayed with swastikas in Belgium; a banner at an Australian rally demanding "clean the earth from dirty Zionists!"; demonstrators in the Netherlands chanting "Gas the Jews"; and in Florida, protestors demanding Jews "Go back to the ovens!"
This makes me sad. I wish this sort of thing didn't come along with the protests.
I'm not going to comment on the rest of the piece beyond noting that I don't agree with a fair amount of it.
It saddens me as well. I put it in the same category as the attacks against Muslims in the US that happened following 9/11. One of my students was beaten up walking home from the week after 9/11 for looking Muslim.
Shortly there after another student of mine was saying his evening prayers on the lawn outside the Engineering building. The next day when I was in my office I asked him if he had had in problems since the attacks. He said a few people had yelled things but that many others were very supportive. He said he understood that those who were responding with violence and hatred were a small minority just like terrorists are a tiny minority of the billion Muslims in the world. I wish there were more people like him.
Anti-Semitism like all prejudices continues because people see others as mono-lithic groups, if a few persons in the group do something bad -- it is presumed the whole groups must do similar things. If a one person in the group has committed an atrocity, the whole group deserves punishment for it. If people are serious about trying to eliminate anti-semitism, that mentality has to be fought even when the groups being stereotyped are anti-Israel.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Does being disgusted with both sides qualify me as anti-Semitic? I have yet to be particularly impressed by the positions of either. It would be enough at this point for either to convince me that they are at least really hoping for peace (and not just the lack of violence, you understand, but peace). Somehow though, I think the attraction of violence and reprisal is going to keep things going for another, oh, 4 thousand years or so.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: It couldn't possibly that people are critical of Israel because they can count and don't think that Hamas killing a dozen people over the past 4 years with rockets justifies Israel killing over 500 Palestinians. It has to be that we are irrational anti-Semites.
I'm not really familiar enough with the situation there to know the truth of his claims, but I do think that it would be more convincing if you had addressed his direct rebuttal to this argument.
quote: Many people ask why there are so few Israeli casualties in comparison with the Palestinian death toll. It's because Israel's first priority is the safety of its citizens, which is why there are shelters and warning systems in Israeli towns. If Hamas can dig tunnels, it can certainly build shelters. Instead, it prefers to use women and children as human shields while its leaders rush into hiding.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by ricree101:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: It couldn't possibly that people are critical of Israel because they can count and don't think that Hamas killing a dozen people over the past 4 years with rockets justifies Israel killing over 500 Palestinians. It has to be that we are irrational anti-Semites.
I'm not really familiar enough with the situation there to know the truth of his claims, but I do think that it would be more convincing if you had addressed his direct rebuttal to this argument.
quote: Many people ask why there are so few Israeli casualties in comparison with the Palestinian death toll. It's because Israel's first priority is the safety of its citizens, which is why there are shelters and warning systems in Israeli towns. If Hamas can dig tunnels, it can certainly build shelters. Instead, it prefers to use women and children as human shields while its leaders rush into hiding.
This shows that Hamas is bad, not that Palestinian fatalities don't matter.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Many people ask why there are so few Israeli casualties in comparison with the Palestinian death toll. It's because Israel's first priority is the safety of its citizens, which is why there are shelters and warning systems in Israeli towns. If Hamas can dig tunnels, it can certainly build shelters. Instead, it prefers to use women and children as human shields while its leaders rush into hiding.
This is a gross simplification of the situation and smacks of blame the victim. I'd also like to see some data to back it up but I can't find anywhere that is comparing the amount of collateral damage on both sides. And comparing the numbers in monetary terms wouldn't be quite fair since homes and Businesses in the Israeli area are more expensive. I'd like to see numbers that compare the number of homes, businesses, schools, roads, government buildings and so so forth that have been destroyed. If the numbers are comparable on both sides then Rabbi Heir may have a valid point but until there are numbers to back it up its just speculation.
Even if the collateral damage numbers are similar, it isn't fair to claim that Israel is better able to protect its civilians because it cares more about them. Gaza simply does not have the infrastructure that Israel has. Israel is a fully developed country with infrastructure and a strong well organized army. if Gaza were a country, it would be very low on the development scale and one which has been under siege for most of its existence. This is a true David and Golliath situation only this time, Golliath is on the Jewish side, David is the Philistine and David is loosing.
[ January 09, 2009, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
loosing what? Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Did you read the article, Rabbit? It doesn't seem like you did -- you're reacting to the thread title, not the specific claims in the article.
The Rabbit didn't choose the thread title.
Hence the word reacting.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: loosing what?
The fight? Lives? Property? Control over their territory? You name it, right now (at least for the short term perspective), Gaza is loosing this fight pretty decisively.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Rabbit, the word you want is "losing".
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Or loosing the dogs on those damn kids that won't get off their lawn.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Ah yes!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Ah yes! Don't you that is my signature error?
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Ah yes! Don't you that is my signature error?
What, omitting the word "know?" Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
By the way, all you people who think there's anything wrong with Rabbit's spelling, grammar or syntax are only demonstrating your rabid anti-leporiditism.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: This shows that Hamas is bad, not that Palestinian fatalities don't matter.
Rabbit's argument (as I understood it) was that Israel had earned criticism because of the disparity in casualties between the two sides. I think that the article's author raised a good argument. If one side has taken great pains to shelter and protect their civilians, and the other side has made an effort to put their own into harm's way, then it is not necessarily unreasonable or disproportionate if one side has greater casualties than the other.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Did you read the article, Rabbit? It doesn't seem like you did -- you're reacting to the thread title, not the specific claims in the article.
The Rabbit didn't choose the thread title.
Hence the word reacting.
Well why wouldn't she react to the thread title. Presumably, it was chosen to evoke a reaction. The title is part of the message that the OP was trying to convey, wasn't it? Or are we to ignore the implication that the whole reason everyone is so mean to Israel is because the whole world hates Jews and that perhaps if a chunk of Palestine had been given to Baptists, everything would be sunshine and flowers.
It is a very bad thing that the protests are degenerating into anti-semitism, but that is the branches of the tree, not the roots.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
it's only impossible to explain the current situation as anything other than an anti-semitic double standard if one is actively looking only to explain the current situation as the result of an anti-semitic double standard, to the purposeful exclusion of any other possible factor.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: that is the branches of the tree, not the roots.
I believe that is the crux of the disagreement.
And I never said anyone should or should not react to anything. I am rather confused as to why you think I did. I do think reacting solely to the title of a thread and ignoring the OP's content or that of linked articles is fairly silly. But silliness is certainly permitted. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I will gladly admit that my reading of the article was colored by Lisa's choice of thread title. I'm fairly confident that is what Lisa intended in choosing that title. I also think Lisa's response to Heir's article, as captured in the thread title, is not irrational and probably intended by the author even though he is much more subtle and persuasive than Lisa. That may be an unfair judgement of Heir and if so I owe him an apology.
I'm am very disappointed that people are responding to the current crisis by striking out of against Jews and find the revival of anti-Semitism saddening. I do however think it is dangerous of Israel and Jews to presume that this is the root of peoples objection to Israeli actions. I can guarantee you that I would feel even stronger opposition if an LDS country were bombing and killing and hundreds of Palestinians.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: ... Two other relatively recent cases that drew world wide protests were the Tibet protests leading up to the Olympics, and the protests around the invasion of Iraq. I know the Chinese felt extremely victimized by the former; although I'm not sure that the US much cared about the latter.
Are the current protests substantially different in mood or magnitude than these other cases? - this is not a loaded question; I genuinely don't know.
Hmmm, the media coverage of the Tibet protests was at the beginning significantly more biased than that of Gaza. Of course, the the Gaza situation is much more predictable than the Tibet one. The Tibet situation was initially reported as almost a second Tiananmen Square and it took until the first Westerners to report from out of Tibet before they realised that they had simply cocked up and to change the reporting accordingly.
Afterwards, I would say that media coverage was predictably biased but not out of what would normally be expected. After all, both the Palestinian and Israeli communities have large and influential groups of sympathizers here whereas Chinese Americans are notoriously unpolitical and the Free Tibet people are simply silly.
Personally, I think what the comparison shows is that as far as incidents on the street, I think there is a far larger and more violent anti-semitic population that is engaged in these protests than with the other protests. This is pretty horrific.
However, as far as the media is concerned, I don't buy it. Especially where the American media is concerned, there are certainly many more hawkish pro-invasion voices. If the American media is biased against Israel then it must be amazingly biased against China. In reality, I'd probably say not biased and moderately biased respectively.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: ... Or are we to ignore the implication that the whole reason everyone is so mean to Israel is because the whole world hates Jews and that perhaps if a chunk of Palestine had been given to Baptists, everything would be sunshine and flowers.
A fairly simple experiment would be to simply move from watching news coverage of Israel and Gaza from sources with multiple conflicts of interest to those without.
For example, if the American media has a history of being anti-semitic, simply watch some news from India, China, Hong Kong, or Japan and see if there is any disparity, whether they are more or less approving of the invasion.
I don't actually know the answer to this. I should check out some TVB tonight.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
I just have to know...For those who think the response is out of proportion...What should Israel have done instead?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: I just have to know...For those who think the response is out of proportion...What should Israel have done instead?
The missile attacks prior to this current assault were provoked by an Israel embargo and blockade of Gaza. What do you think Gaza should have done about the blockade that was devastating their economy and causing shortages of essential goods?
I will agree that there isn't a simple answer to that question but neither side is fighting without provocation. This fight has been going on long enough that both sides can legitimately believe the other side started it. Responding by escalating the violence (which is what both sides are doing) just exacerbates the problem.
What is needed is real peace talks that recognize both legitimate Palestinian claims and the right of Israel to exist. I've been studying this conflict for sometime and it still astounds me how desperately differently the two sides view the "facts" of the issues. Its very very difficult to tell where the truth actually lies. Both sides have built up an enormous mythology about the 1948 war and the 1967 war that makes it very very difficult to understand objectively what happened. I think that someone needs to broker an objective resolution of some of these factual issues so that both sides can begin to believe in the same "reality" of their shared history.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
This (the extended conflict, not only this little part of it) is one of the more ludicrous wars in Earth's history.
As much as I would like to bang certain groups' heads against the wall, I don't think that it is possible to untangle the mess in any rational sense.
I don't think Israel is responding to rocket attacks, or really responding at all to attacks.
What Israel is doing is doing an all-or-nothing attack. They knew that going in they were going to kill many civilians, and to raise the ire of the world, but I think the ultimate goal is to finish "it" once and for all. That's why they're ignoring the UN, ignoring everything. They've got a plan and they're going to finish the plan no matter what anyone else says.
Now, I don't think they're thinking entirely straight. I don't think that scouring out Hamas even to the very roots will prevent the inevitable anger from continuing to fester. I don't think that whoever made the decision really thought what civilian casualties look like in real life. I think that Israel still deeply believes that certain bits of land are "theirs" and even if they've politically relinquished control there's a sense of "that's ours" lingering, so they regard everything there- even people- as a kind of property. I think these various conceptions ("If we succeed it will be worth it.") enable them to make this kind of invasion and believe they can get away with it.
I think that doing the reverse would have been more effective (e.g. flooding the area with help, removing blockades, building schools and hospitals etc.). Undermining Hamas control simply by slowly eroding the need for an angry leadership at all would have more lasting success, I think.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I tend to agree with you on that last point Teshi. That said, if Israel can do some serious military damage to Hamas, then withdraws and lifts the blockade... this might work.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: I just have to know...For those who think the response is out of proportion...What should Israel have done instead?
Jimmy Carter suggests an answer to this question in the article An Unnecessary War. Its one of the most fair and balanced things I've read and is definitely worth reading if you want to understand what's been happening on both sides.
Here are a few excerpts discussing the conditions prior to last June's cease fire agreement.
quote:After visiting Sderot last April and seeing the serious psychological damage caused by the rockets that had fallen in that area, my wife, Rosalynn, and I declared their launching from Gaza to be inexcusable and an act of terrorism. Although casualties were rare (three deaths in seven years), the town was traumatized by the unpredictable explosions. About 3,000 residents had moved to other communities, and the streets, playgrounds and shopping centers were almost empty.
quote: . . . the 1.5 million inhabitants of Gaza were being starved, as the U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food had found that acute malnutrition in Gaza was on the same scale as in the poorest nations in the southern Sahara, with more than half of all Palestinian families eating only one meal a day.
Palestinian leaders from Gaza were noncommittal on all issues, claiming that rockets were the only way to respond to their imprisonment and to dramatize their humanitarian plight.
quote:On another visit to Syria in mid-December, I made an effort for the impending six-month deadline to be extended. It was clear that the preeminent issue was opening the crossings into Gaza. Representatives from the Carter Center visited Jerusalem, met with Israeli officials and asked if this was possible in exchange for a cessation of rocket fire. The Israeli government informally proposed that 15 percent of normal supplies might be possible if Hamas first stopped all rocket fire for 48 hours.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Israel has a right to exist. It has a duty to defend itself. They have, over the many years, shown more humanity and patience in dealing with their enemies than any other nation on earth ever has before. They are dealing with an enemy whose stated purpose is to destroy Israel, who breaks every agreement, who disregards the safety of its own people, who engages in (and pioneered) the tactics of terrorism. Their goal is to kill innocent civilians; there is not even the subterfuge of legitimacy in their actions. Of course the death toll is disproportionate. This is an enemy which has long been known for using its civilians as shields for the sole purpose of being able to claim that Israel is killing its innocents. Against an organized military force attempting to root them out, of course the death toll is disproportionate.
What is the alternative? To go on forever without ever asserting a defense would be for Israel to doom itself. It can't reasonably do that. Is the current offensive and overreaction? I don't know. But when you're dealing with two sides -- one who wants to live in peace (as I believe Israel does) but is faced with constant attacks from the other side -- an enemy whose stated purpose is to destroy the other... I tend to take the side of the nation which wants peace.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Israel has a right to exist.
What makes you think that's true?
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
It's self-evident.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Do you disagree with the statement?
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Do you disagree with the statement?
I don't think any nation has a "right" to exist because of what that word implies about the human condition. However, with Israel it is different. I think the major road-block to peace in the Middle East is the outside world, as I posted before, but I also think that the one thing that Israel must recognize is there is a difference between forcing Middle Eastern nations to recognize it's existence and forcing Middle Eastern nations to recognize it's "right" to exist. By forcing the latter, Israel would basically force the Palestinians, the Middle East, and the rest of the world to accept that the root cause of the problem was the Palestinians, and that Israel's right to exist makes what happened to the Palestinians in 1947 morally righteous.
You know what I think TL? I think there are extremes on both sides, and as usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Of course, we are never going to solve those problems if people stop reading articles because they disagree with whats argued.
Instead, what we will get are protests like the ones above. On both sides. And nothing will ever get done...
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote: Of course, we are never going to solve those problems if people stop reading articles because they disagree with whats argued.
That is absolutely nonsensical. Choosing to read or not to read a particular piece of propaganda -- on either side of the argument -- has no bearing on the eventual solving the problem.
Out of curiosity, what were you attempting to communicate with the link to the article about the London Protests?
Edit: Oh, I see that you were saying that people choosing not to read particular pieces of propaganda to which they are linked are the cause of such protests.
...Um, I'm gonna have to disagree with you there.
I get what you're trying to suggest -- which is that people who refuse to hear both sides of the argument are not doing their due diligence. And that their being closed to the position of opposing ideas only leads to insular defensive thinking, which leads to the vilification of the other side.
In general, you may be right. Certainly you can't paint everyone who picks a side with that brush, and of course your position doesn't account for actual rightness.
Every time there is a conflict, the truth does not always rest in the middle. Sometimes one party actually is in the right.
In terms of not giving the propaganda of one side or the other fair shrift, I can only shrug.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:In terms of not giving the propaganda of one side or the other fair shrift, I can only shrug.
My point certainly entails the notion that we must listen to both sides, but it also wonders how you know that the article I linked too is propaganda in the first place.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I read it. What is this? Are you insane?
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
I thought you stopped when you read about Arafat? You didn't read it, you read 1/3 of it.
But that's not my point. You used the term propaganda to dismiss the argument presented in the article concerning Israel's "right" to exist, your answer to my post about Israel's "right" to exist was to stop reading the article and later call it propaganda, and thus, I wonder whether simply dismissing arguments is part of an overall dogmatism and absolutism that fails to get to the heart of the issue.
I would hope that's not an insane view...
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: Israel has a right to exist. It has a duty to defend itself.
Israel has a right to exist but it has no right to seize the property and territory that rightful belongs to Palestinians. It has no right to deprive Palestinians of their basic human rights. The Palestinians also have a right to defend themselves and seek restitution for damages that have been done -- something which Israel has denied them for decades.
quote:They have, over the many years, shown more humanity and patience in dealing with their enemies than any other nation on earth ever has before.
This is at a minimum debatable. I do not know of any other country which in modern times has stolen land from a people, denied their every effort to be compensated for that theft and punished every attempt to seek redress of grievances. I can not think of a situation in the past century that is remotely comparable.
quote:They are dealing with an enemy whose stated purpose is to destroy Israel, who breaks every agreement, who disregards the safety of its own people, who engages in (and pioneered) the tactics of terrorism.
They are dealing with 4 million refugees, at least some of whom were driven from their homes at the point of Israeli guns. Many of those people have a stated purpose of destroying Israel but many others simply want safety, security and human dignity that is being denied them.
The Palestinians aren't the only ones who've broken every agreement. The Oslo accords broke down in part because Israel broke agreements to stop building new settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. Israel broke the most recent cease fire agreement last November and has never kept the promise open border crossings to humanitarian supplies.
quote:Their goal is to kill innocent civilians; there is not even the subterfuge of legitimacy in their actions.
Did you read the article by Jimmy Carter. There goal isn't to kill innocent civilians, it is to pursuade Israel to open the border crossing so that people can get food.
quote:Of course the death toll is disproportionate. This is an enemy which has long been known for using its civilians as shields for the sole purpose of being able to claim that Israel is killing its innocents. Against an organized military force attempting to root them out, of course the death toll is disproportionate.
The Gaza strip is one of the most densely populated areas of the world with over 12 times the population density of Israel and nearly as densely populated as the city of Hong Kong. Border closures prevent them from fleeing the area. Where exactly do you expect them to take refuge?
Israeli targets have included government buildings, the homes of government officials even a UN school. I suspect some of the Israeli homes that were hit were also the homes of soldiers.
This is one of the oldest tactics in the world -- our enemies don't care about human life the way we do. BS.
quote:What is the alternative? To go on forever without ever asserting a defense would be for Israel to doom itself. It can't reasonably do that.
Carter suggested a very reasonable alternative. Open the borders to allow humanitarian supplies at levels comparable to those that existed in 2005 (700 trucks a day) in exchange for a cease fire.
Turn the question around. According to UN reports, Gaza suffers from malnutrition as severe as the poorest countries in Africa. Half of all Palestinian families in Gaza have only one meal a day. They agreed to a 6 month cease fire in exchange for opening the borders to humanitarian supplies but the Israelis did not follow through on their end. They never allowed in more the 20% of what existed in 2005 before the Israeli withdrawal.
What is their alternative? To go on forever without adequate food and medicine. They can't reasonably do that.
quote:Is the current offensive and overreaction? I don't know. But when you're dealing with two sides -- one who wants to live in peace (as I believe Israel does) but is faced with constant attacks from the other side -- an enemy whose stated purpose is to destroy the other... I tend to take the side of the nation which wants peace. [/qb]
The way I see it, we are dealing with two sides both of whom have legitimate grievances and reasons for fighting. Many on both sides refuse to recognize the humanity of their enemies and the legitimacy of the grievances of the other side.
By labeling all Palestinians irrational terrorists, Israel has found away to justify the unjustifiable -- refusal to talk with your enemies and seek a diplomatic solution. Until Israel is will admit that the Palestinians are not solely motivated by irrational anti-semitism but do in fact have legitimate grievances which must be redressed in order to establish peace -- peace will be impossible.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I can guarantee you that I would feel even stronger opposition if an LDS country were bombing and killing and hundreds of Palestinians.
"Tonga bombs Palestine" Yeah, it would upset me very badly too. It bothers me how many LDS seem to think torture is okay here in the U.S.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
" I do not know of any other country which in modern times has stolen land from a people, denied their every effort to be compensated for that theft and punished every attempt to seek redress of grievances."
Fortunately, Israel hasn't done any of these things, either.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: " I do not know of any other country which in modern times has stolen land from a people, denied their every effort to be compensated for that theft and punished every attempt to seek redress of grievances."
Fortunately, Israel hasn't done any of these things, either.
Yes they have. I have a personal friend whose father was driven from his home in Israel at gun point in 1948. That home is now occupied by Israelis citizens. The family has never been offered compensation for the lost property and was exiled and is denied the right to return to Israel even as visitors. There was a brief period in 90s when some Palestinians were allowed to return to Israel on tourist Visas. My friend who is now a US citizen (and a model citizen whose won awards for community service at that) applied for one of these visas so that he could see his ancestral home. His application was denied because his family has not given up their claim on that home.
This is only one case, but in this case at least every accusation I made against Israel is true. I am confident that not every Palestinian was driven out at gun point. I'm sure that some left voluntarily even though neighbors begged them to stay -- but some did in fact have their property homes stolen at gun point.
What's more, none of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank are legal under international law nor any concept of property rights. That land was taken illegally by force from its rightful owners and given to Israeli citizens (the equivalent of theft). Owners of the land have never been offered compensation nor allowed to seek redress for their loss.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
After catching up on this thread, I'm inclined to agree with The Rabbit's Friday posts. Specifically, the reaction the article and nothing about policy towards Israel.
I think the article was too charged with emotion when more powerful arguments could be made. I too cringed when I read the comparison between the thousands who couldn't sleep at night and the "humanitarian crisis" that is compared to in Gaza.
When I read criticisms of Gaza, either by The Rabbit or by others here on Hatrack, i am disappointed and frustrated. Not because I think you are fools, I do not. I understand that this situation is complex and that a large perspective with many facts is necessary in order to reach a pro-Israel position that doesn't include ignoring Gazans and their plight.
However, when I read about the world-wide protests, about how in my own country, someone says that the Jews should go back to the ovens, I get scared. Maybe because I was raised this way, the grandson of 3 holocaust survivors, to live in fear. When the 6-day war began in Israel, my Grandfather divided up gold coins and diamonds between my mother and her brother and placed it in the false-heels of shoes he had been saving for such an occasion. Should Israel be destroyed, he had prepared his children, my mother, to run again.
You have to understand. Most Jews have this mindset. Bringing up anti-semitic remarks at an anti-Israel rally really SCARES me.
I attended a rally myself in NY this past week, a pro-Israel one across from the Israeli consulate. The first speaker got up and talked about how he lost a friend in the WTC on 9/11. That friend, was Muslim. He spoke about how this friend was a TRUE Muslim, peace-loving, etc. He explained to us that we should not confuse Muslims with terrorists, and that our fight is against Hamas.
Throughout the rally, the police were keeping the sidewalk open for traffic to pass through. One man, there because he was passing through, shouted "Destroy Gaza" - as if he were at a baseball game, trying to get a rise out of the crowd. Literally, EVERYONE in his vicinity whirled around and shot him hundreds of dirty looks.
So yea, im sad, and a little scared.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
So, in other words, your original statement is not true. Your complaint is true of SOME people, not "a people," as you originally said.
You also said you know of no other country which in modern times has done these same things. If we're applying the standard to what happened to SOME people, I have a partial list for you: Every muslim country in the middle east. Targeted people? Jewish people. In fact, in many of those countries, Land and property was stolen by many arabic governments from all jewish people living within their territory, with no compensation.
Under international precedent, israel can consider all of the property and land stolen from those jews, who came to settle in israel, against the land and property taken from arabs who settle in those arabic countries. Under that precedent, the arab world owes israel hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars, and israel owes nothing.
This of course leaves aside the fact that the arab nations were the agressors in an illegal war in 1948, and as such under international law are due no compensation for anything they lost in the waging of that war.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
Armoth, you captured a lot of how I feel.
My rabbi announced today that he will be travelling to Israel tomorrow to bring supplies and comfort to many who have been affected by this terrible war. Among the places he'll be visiting is Sderot. He'll be keeping a blog, which I'll be happy to share if anyone is interested (as soon as it's up). He'll also be able to pray for me and the babies at the exact time I'll be giving birth, which is very special.
This is a very interesting blog article from GayConservative.org. Mel has been doing a series since the rocket attacks began and I find his prespective extremely interesting.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The Gaza strip is one of the most densely populated areas of the world with over 12 times the population density of Israel and nearly as densely populated as the city of Hong Kong ...
Completely aside from the debate, as a statistics wonk, I was kinda curious about the latter part of this claim and to be honest it seems kinda misleading.
When one thinks of Hong Kong, one probably thinks of the areas of Mongkok or Central, the former of which IS the world's most densely populated area. Wikipedia gives 130,000/km^2.
However, Hong Kong as a whole includes land stolen by Britain over a total of two Opium Wars. Thanks to fairly good city planning and preservation of green space, this area which includes the New Territories, many islands, and economically uninhabitable peaks is actually fairly not dense at 6,352/km^2.
For example, if you look at a list of cities sorted by density, say here Hong Kong would only reach rank 39 (if it were considered a city, which on this list it is not).
So what is going on here? The Gaza Strip only reaches 4,118/km^2. As far as cities go, the whole of the Gaza Strip is only roughly half the size of Toronto which has a similar density of 3,972/km^2. Any respectable city in the US or Canada should have roughly the same density and many including at a quick glance like New York or Chicago have more.
Well, what is going on is that if we treat Gaza as a country (and not as a tiny city as it more closely resembles demographically) then Gaza would have come in behind Singapore and Hong Kong pretty much by default since there are precious few (what are actually) cities which are classified as countries.
None of this is to dispute the basic claim that there's not much room to run to, but simply to note that The Gaza Strip resembles something more like a smaller American city under siege than anything like what mentally comes to mind when you think of Hong Kong.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Paul, Look at a map of the 1947 boundaries set up by the UN and the current boundaries of Israel not including the occupied territories? How did Israel end up with all that additional territory? Negotiation? Treaties? Did they buy it? Is there some other legal means by which you obtained this land? If not, I'll stick with the word theft.
quote:You also said you know of no other country which in modern times has done these same things. If we're applying the standard to what happened to SOME people, I have a partial list for you: Every muslim country in the middle east. Targeted people? Jewish people. In fact, in many of those countries, Land and property was stolen by many arabic governments from all jewish people living within their territory, with no compensation.
I am aware of this and find it an atrocity. But you are still ignoring what has happened in the occupied territories. Point me to another country which has in this century taken territory from another people in an military action and continues to occupy that territory, refuses to grant citizenship to residents of the territory but gives land in that territory to its own citizens without compensation to the original people who occupied the land.
Certainly many countries have committed and continue to commit inhumane acts. But the Israeli situation is truly unique in todays world. For the Israeli's to maintain that they are better than any one else in the same situation is ridiculous because there is no one else in a truly comparable situation. You are the nicest in a party of one.
quote:Under international precedent, Israel can consider all of the property and land stolen from those jews, who came to settle in israel, against the land and property taken from arabs who settle in those arabic countries. Under that precedent, the arab world owes israel hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars, and israel owes nothing.
I'd like to see the numbers on that. If Israelis are actually only occupying the property of people who have been given "Jewish homes" in other Arab countries, then it seems fair but I am skeptical that this is what has happened.
There are still at least 2 and a half million Palestinians living in Israeli occupied territory who have not taken residence in any country that has expelled its Jewish population. Many of them have been living in refuge camps for decades. If its actually international precedent to give peoples property away while they are still living in refugee camps, then the precedent is unethical.
If John is forced from his home by Peter, and Paul is forced from his home by Mary, it doesn't constitute justice for Mary to give Paul's home to John while Paul is still left homeless -- even if Paul and Peter happen to belong to the same ethnic group.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:None of this is to dispute the basic claim that there's not much room to run to, but simply to note that The Gaza Strip resembles something more like a smaller American city under siege than anything like what mentally comes to mind when you think of Hong Kong.
Thanks for the clarification on that. I've never been to Hong Kong and did not realize how misleading the numbers were.
Its still worth noting that Gaza is not only a densely populated urban area, its under siege. People can't flee, they aren't allowed to.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:However, when I read about the world-wide protests, about how in my own country, someone says that the Jews should go back to the ovens, I get scared. Maybe because I was raised this way, the grandson of 3 holocaust survivors, to live in fear. When the 6-day war began in Israel, my Grandfather divided up gold coins and diamonds between my mother and her brother and placed it in the false-heels of shoes he had been saving for such an occasion. Should Israel be destroyed, he had prepared his children, my mother, to run again. . . .
So yea, im sad, and a little scared.
The outburst of anti-semitism scares me too. My family was never taken to the concentration camps, but I do have a very deep understanding of the horrors of holocaust. When people allow themselves to strip any group of their humanity, no one is safe.
I really hope that no one here interprets my comments as being anti-Israel or anti-Semitic. Its just that I have studied this issue long enough to know that both sides have legitimate grievances and until both sides are willing to admit that, peace and security won't be possible for either side.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Paul, Look at a map of the 1947 boundaries set up by the UN and the current boundaries of Israel not including the occupied territories? How did Israel end up with all that additional territory? Negotiation? Treaties? Did they buy it? Is there some other legal means by which you obtained this land? "
Yes. Captured in wars of agression waged against israel.
"If not, I'll stick with the word theft. ""
Thats the wrong word. Theft is illegal. Occupying territory in a defensive war is legal.
Look, whats going on in gaza is awful.
But Israel agreed to a partition in 1947 that the arab nations did not. Instead, they sought to "drive the jews into the sea," and failed... and in so doing, lost territory.
In 1967, Jordan and Egypt again sought to "drive the jews into the sea," and failed... and in so doing, lost territory. Israel offered most of it right back... but no one was interested. It was only after this war that there became an organization Israel could have negotiated with on behalf of the palestinians... and it took over 20 years before that group thought negotiation was even an acceptable idea. In the meantime, israel managed to conclude peace treaties with the nations that lost the west bank and gaza to israel, but neither particularly wanted those territories back.
I think the whole foundation of your perspective is wrong, from an historical perspective, and from an international law perspective. That doesn't mean I think Israel has done nothing wrong, and it doesn't mean I disagree that the settlements are illegal... they are.
But the problems that the palestinians face are primarily due to bad leadership that has consistently endorsed violence, and especially against civilians, as a means of achieving its ends, as well as being abandoned by most of the arab world except for propoganda purposes.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Going back a bit, this related to my previous comments on other parts of the world. However, the top news item on Global Voices (an aggregate of blogs from around the world) is a compilation of China and Hong Kong: Views on Gaza Conflicts
The summary is while there is a lot of apathy,
quote: ... many in Hong Kong and Taiwan condemn Israel for invading Gaza and killing of civilians, the position and opinions in Mainland China are rather ambivalent. Most of the articles are speculations on the reason behind the military action.
By contrast, another blog translated a few mainland Chinese comments under a few graphic pictures of the aftermath of the destruction of a Hamas (police station?).link These were originally posted on a mainland Chinese BBS.
quote: Reader comments:
- You can't do anything unless you have power.
- The place is hell anyway, and the elimination of the demons can return it to the human world.
- Israel is cleaning out the cancer on Earth
- It would be great if the world permits Israel to conduct precision bombing! America can lend them a few B52's and the cancer of the Earth will be eradicated by Israel within a few days!
- Israel was targeting the Hamas police station. There is only one photo with police casualties, so you are being biased. People die in war, so wars should be avoided from the humanitarian view. In reality, war is sometimes unavoidable.
- I hate Israel! I hate Israel for being too soft and weak!! I hate Israel for not completely eradicating the Hamas terrorist organization!!!! The people of China firmly supports the righteous actions of Israel!!!! We support the almighty Israel, and justice will triumph over evil!!!!!
- Hamas provoked this action.
- I don't feel any pity, I only feel joy! That bunch of misogynist trash deserve to die!
- Why not send in a nuclear bomb? This is not exciting.
- There were old people, women and children in there. This is too tragic!
- Israel was making a precision attack on a military target. If there are women and children in there, then they had been placed there intentionally.
- When the action is so drastic, civilian may be inadvertently hurt. But is there another way to deal with terrorists?
- Democracy is so wonderful because you can kill people anytime.
- Hamas fired rockets in Israel several days ago. Israel has warned them many times that they will act against Hamas. If Israel does not have a democratic government, they would have wiped out Hamas a long time ago. You should be saying that democracy is a nuisance because you cannot retaliate at will even after you were attacked by rockets.
- After seeing the injured women and children, I am more certain that Hamas is just a bunch of cowards who hide behind women and children.
Granted, this could easily be the mainland equivalent of Orney, but its fascinating to see the unintended consequences in action. Its like the flipside of the "city upon a hill" rhetoric.
I'm kind of curious if the Indian reaction is now more sympathetic to Israel's actions due to the Mumbai incident or not. But they don't seem to have a similar aggregate on GV.
The Rabbit: Indeed.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Umm, so, one guy on ornery advocating genocide against the palestinians, and like 10 guys on another forum advocating genocide, makes this other forum the chinese ornery?
sigh.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Mainland Chinese equivalent of Orney, not Chinese equivalent of Orney.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Fine. Sorry. My point still stands.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm not really sure how given that you accept the latter point. Maybe you could explain?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
You know what, I'm an idiot. I'm sorry. I totally read your post wrong Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I am aware of this and find it an atrocity. But you are still ignoring what has happened in the occupied territories. Point me to another country which has in this century taken territory from another people in an military action and continues to occupy that territory, refuses to grant citizenship to residents of the territory but gives land in that territory to its own citizens without compensation to the original people who occupied the land.
The vast majority of so-called Palestinians did not own any of the land there. Some of them lived there, yes, but the land was owned by rich Arabs in Syria. And they'd stolen the land there in the first place.
The irony is that even though we were simply coming home, we paid exorbinant prices for our own land, because we wanted to be better than everyone. The Arabs simply couldn't stand the idea of a non-Arab/Muslim polity in an Arab/Muslim sea, and they reacted by killing us.
We owe them nothing. There was no Palestinian nationality, no Palestinian polity. There were some poor Arabs who lived in southern Syria, in the Palestine district. They were more than happy to see the Jews get slaughtered by the six Arab armies that invaded in 1948. That's their "naqba". That's their disaster. Instead of standing with their neighbors, they stood with others against us. And they lost everything. Pardon me while I pretend to weep.
I know a woman from Upper Nazareth. It's a town near the Arab village of Nazareth that was built by Jews. She used to have an Arab next door neighbor with whom she was on friendly terms. One day in the weeks leading up to the Six Day War in 1967, she came into her kitchen and saw the neighbor rummaging through things. When she asked her what she was doing, the Arab woman told her very matter-of-factly that after the Jews were cleaned out, this home was going to be hers, so she wanted to familiarize herself with it.
This was before the "occupied territories of 1967", Rabbit. When Arabs held Gaza and Judea/Samaria (the "West Bank"), what was bugging them then? Those horrible Israelis and how they treated the occupied Arabs?
Israel gave full citizenship to every Arab within the 1949 armistice lines. We have a f*cking Arab minister in the government. Meanwhile, Jews are not allowed to own property in Jordan, with whom we supposedly have peace.
The Arabs want Israel destroyed. They have zero interest in allowing any Jewish state to exist in the region, and they will fight and die to destroy us.
I used to visit a kibbutz called Ein Tzurim, over by Ashkelon. The original Ein Tzurim, along with the whole settlement bloc of Gush Etzion, south of Jerusalem, was built and settled by Jews prior to 1948. They bought the land that was owned by others, and they took land that was unowned, and they built thriving towns.
In 1948, the Arabs came in and massacred all of the Jews there who didn't manage to escape. And when I say "massacre", I don't mean that they were killed during air attacks, I mean they were butchered with full intent.
Some of the people who managed to escape founded a new Ein Tzurim on the coast. And in 1967, when the Arabs tried -- again -- to wipe Israel off the map, we resettled Gush Etzion, and built a new kibbutz called Rosh Tzurim where the original Ein Tzurim had been.
Occupied territory my arse.
We had settlements in what is now Jordan. Do we get those back? We lost them, not because we launched a war against Jordan, but because Great Britain decided to give 79% of what was then Palestine to an Arabian prince named Abdullah as an emirate called Transjordan. When the UN decided to give Israel less than 50% of the land west of the Jordan, that wasn't 50% of Palestine, Rabbit. That was 50% of the 21% that was left. The Palestinians have had a state longer than Israel has existed. It's called Jordan. Those who chose to stay in Judea/Samaria after we took it back from Jordan in 1967 and those who chose to stay in Gaza after we reclaimed it from Egypt in 1967, well, that was their choice. It doesn't confer any kind of rights on them.
Incidentally, in the town of Efrat, in Gush Etzion, where I used to live, an Arab man showed up one day and said that an area near the center of town was his property. He was asked for proof, and he presented papers. The town council looked at the papers, which were for a small vineyard, less than a city block on a side, and saw that he was telling the truth. So they made sure that all building the area would bypass the piece of property, and every day, this Arab man would come in and tend his vines.
This was a town where every adult male was required to do guard duty on a rotation schedule throughout the year to protect us from terrorist attacks. These were right wing "settler extremists".
We have more than bent over backwards for the Arabs. But they don't want anything less than everything. And they can't have that.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: There are still at least 2 and a half million Palestinians living in Israeli occupied territory who have not taken residence in any country that has expelled its Jewish population. Many of them have been living in refuge camps for decades.
By choice. Israel has, over and over, tried to build towns for these Arabs to live. And every time, the Arabs have gone berserk at the suggestion. Because to accept nice homes would be to acknowledge that Israel is there to stay. And they can't do that.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If John is forced from his home by Peter, and Paul is forced from his home by Mary, it doesn't constitute justice for Mary to give Paul's home to John while Paul is still left homeless -- even if Paul and Peter happen to belong to the same ethnic group.
Right. Mary (Rome) forced Paul (the Jews) out of our land. While we were forceably exiled, the Arabs came in and conquered it. We do not lose our ownership of our land under such circumstances. International law speaks about how long such claims are considered valid, and it's so long as the forceably exiled people continue to vocally maintain their ownership and intent to return. Which we've done more than 3 times a day since the Romans booted us out of our own land.
I'm so very sorry about the Arabs who were squatting on our land, but we're home, and they have no rights to our land.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: You know what, I'm an idiot. I'm sorry. I totally read your post wrong
Thats quite alright, no apology is needed. I thought there was a miscommunication, but didn't know what.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)