I strongly disagree with much of what habiba says in response to the question about why the West supports the state of Israel. I thought someone should say something, and I was hoping that it wouldn’t be me. I hardly know where to begin. The question assumes that there is support for Israel outside of the United States, Canada and Australia. Unfortunately, for decades now other nations have found it more to their self-interest to support the oil rich Arab nations.
Habiba asserts that “The support is quite obviously NOT based on moral grounds.†I believe that in fact United States support IS partly based on moral grounds. As her first reason for her remarkable assertion habiba says that “The flagrant violations of huge sections of the Geneva Conventions and other international codes should be obvious to anyone.†Unless she is talking about the flagrant violations by the Arab nations, it is only an opinion held by the anti-Israel and anti-American crowd. How she can criticize Israel’s self-defense against the indiscriminate terrorist attacks on civilians and the irrational efforts to annihilate the Jews in the world, “driving them into the sea†I don’t know. Israel’s moral right to exist, and the flagrant violations of laws and conventions by Israel’s neighbors, should be obvious to anyone.
Habiba: “However, we send about as much aide and funding to Israel each year as we send to the entire rest of the world combined.â€
We do give a large amount of foreign aide to Israel, but not as much as habiba claims, and not as much as we give to Israel’s neighbors. According to the State Department, in FY07 (the latest figures for the total allocations of Foreign Operations programs and P.L. 480 Title II) we spent about $28 billion in foreign aide (including supplements). Of that amount less than 10%, about $2.4 billion, went to Israel. More than twice ($5.3 billion) what we gave to Israel went to other Middle East countries, particularly Egypt and Jordan. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/101408.pdf
Habiba: “Governments do not make that sort of investment if there is not something in it for them also. Period. Ever. Benevolence is not a valid political motivator. The costs are too high.â€
I’m sorry she is such a cynic.
What are the supposed self-interested motives we have in supporting Israel, according to habiba?
“1. Syria. This goes back to Cold War days, when Syria was a Russian ally. Syria and Israel are almost always at odds with each other, and the continual friction has kept Syria in check from becoming too powerful in the region. Syria is a fascinating country. Its involvement in Lebanon and with Hizbollah and Hamas is the stuff that makes history geeks and political nerds drool.â€
It appears that habiba is in love with Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas. But if we were giving aide strictly out of political self-interest, wouldn’t it make more sense to support Syria instead of Israel? That’s what other nations have done. What better way to control Syria then making the nation dependent on us? That’s the Russian strategy.
“2. Weapons testing. What better way to test out how new weapons work than in real battle? If you're not aware, Israel frequently gets some of the latest and greatest in weaponry. They test it out for us, and all it costs us is the cost of the actual weapons. We can then improve on them before giving them to our own soldiers.â€
We don’t give Israel our latest and greatest weaponry. Our defense contractors are prohibited from doing that by various regulations (for example, ITAR – International Traffic in Arms Regulations) that are seriously enforced. By law we must do our own testing through acceptance testing, qualification testing, and operational evaluations. Occasionally, we serendipitously obtain useful feedback from weapons we have sold to our allies. This is an uncontrolled experiment, however, and it is difficult in this manner to obtain useful information about what is inadequate with the weapon systems. When a “real battle†test is helpful we have our own armed forces which for a long time now have been keeping pretty busy with our own battles. When our troops use the weapons we have much more control over the test.
“3. Intelligence. The Israeli intelligence service does a whole lot of the U.S. intelligence's dirty work over there. We get huge amounts of intelligence from them at relatively small cost to us.â€
Israel has an awesome intelligence service, but it doesn’t work for us, and shares little with us.
“4. Us supporting them and giving them some of our best weapons gives us a sort of free base in a region where bases don't come easy. Israel has missiles capable of reaching anyone in the entire region. We essentially still hold the trigger on those missiles. You can't buy that kind of strategic placement. Their air force also dominates the region, and we very nearly hold them in the palm of our hand.â€
They don’t get our best weapons. We don’t get any bases there. In the last five years we’ve had access to better bases in Iraq than Israel. We have no additional power because Israel has missiles. Strategically it is more of a liability to us as we try to restrain Israel from escalating violence for retaliating when they are attacked by neighboring countries. The Israelis would laugh to hear someone claim that “we very nearly hold them in the palm of our hand.†We have some influence in holding Israel back, but they tend to act in accordance to what they perceive to be in their best interest instead of what is in the interests of the United States.
Similarly in response to habiba’s reasons 5 and 6, I claim that Israel does what is best for Israel. Israel doesn’t do our bidding anywhere in the world.
I think that ultimately it is in the interests of the United States to support free and independent democracies from the attacks that come from the kind of countries Israel has for neighbors. And that, plus the fact that it is the morally correct thing to do, is why the United States supports Israel.
“That being said, can we please all pray for those in Gaza who are under attack? The civilian death counts are on the rise and there's no telling how high it's going to get.â€
Let’s add “and Israel.†Can we please all pray for those in Gaza and Israel who are under attack? The civilian death counts are on the rise and there’s no telling how high it’s going to get.
Well, enough for this post.
#49535 Israel
Moderator: Marduk
-
Darth Fedora
- Posts: 341
- Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:43 pm
- Location: Provo, UT
Also, modern-day Jews aren't strictly from the tribe of Judah. It's a common misconception that all the other tribes were carried away and lost, but there was enough intertribal mixing and people living in places other than their tribal heritage lands (like Lehi, who lived in Jerusalem even though his heritage land was elsewhere) that when the Assyrians attacked Israel and Judah and basically destroyed all of it except for Jerusalem (from like 730 BC-701 BC), there were people from all the tribes who were spared in Jerusalem. See 1 Nephi 22:4 "...Yea, the more part of all the tribes have been led away; and they are scattered to and fro upon the isles of the sea..." Notice that he doesn't say all of most of the tribes, he says most of ALL of the tribes.
Just an interesting correction, but I didn't feel like being nitpicky in a comment.
Just an interesting correction, but I didn't feel like being nitpicky in a comment.
Pretend like there's some witty or significant opening line here, since the one's that are coming to me will inevitably involve inserting my foot in my mouth later. The great thing about this open forum is that you get the chance to call us out if we're wrong or call us flaming idiots if that's what you think. However, sir, I do not appreciate your condescending and sarcastic tone and because this is and open forum, I get to argue back.
So let me tell you a bit about where I'm coming from. This stuff is my life. This is what I study, this is what I do. I have spent a great deal of time learning about international affairs and the Middle East from the people who know it best and from the people who have lived it and are living it now. I have developed my own opinions about the subject, just as everyone does, and I welcome disagreement because that's how we learn and make progress. I delight in stimulating intellectual friction. But do not take me for a fool and talk down to me as though I simply don't understand.
SUPPORT ON MORAL GROUNDS:
I stand by what I said. If you were familiar with the Geneva Conventions, you would be familiar with the clear guidelines for occupied territories, which the West Bank and Gaza are. There are specific internationally agreed upon standards for dealing with an occupied territory. The disregard for them is astounding. You're entirely wrong about it being an opinion exclusive to the anti-Israel and anti-American crowd. I've never had a professor or met an expert that thought otherwise.
Let me tell you how I can criticize Israel's "self-defense against the indiscriminate terrorist acts on civilians and the irrational efforts to annihilate the Jews in the world, 'driving them into the sea'". Because I don't think it's self-defense. Before you freak out, here's why. The Israeli government has openly stated that they intend to make life a living hell for the Palestinians until they give up and leave. And they have. They've made it absolutely intolerable, especially in Gaza. Don't make the mistake of assuming that Israel as been the good guy in this situation. Nobody has been the good guy. Gaza and the West Bank are occupied. They're surrounded by Israeli military. The Palestinians can't travel, participate in commerce, assemble together, etc., etc., etc. They have virtually no civil liberties and are living under severe, active, military occupation. Nothing has changed for the last few decades, so some of them fight back. They are desperate. When they fight back, and Israel retaliates with many more times the damage, you can't call it self-defense. The magnitude of the response takes away all pretense of self-defense. The first intifada began with simple, non-violent civil disobedience. Israeli troops were instructed to break the bones of demonstrators. So the Palestinians began throwing stones and putting up barricades. The military responded with live ammunition. It's escalated from there to what it is now. As of a few minutes ago, the BBC is reporting 13 dead Israelis and approximately 1000 dead Gazans. That's not self-defense.
You mention Israel's moral right to exist. I really hate that phrase. They had no specific claim on Palestine, they took it and ran with it. Why was it that the Palestinians had to forfeit their land to compensate for Europe's crimes against the Jews? Now they certainly have the right to exist as a country because they won that battle for territory and history can't be magically reversed, but there wasn't much morality in the process on any side. I'm not really sure what you mean by the flagrant violations of Israel's neighbors. Egypt is fairly cooperative. Jordan is friendly. Lebanon is perennially screwed up, and Syria diplomatically remains distant but has formerly fought surrogate battles through Hizbollah (it's very similar to what the U.S. did with the mujahideen in Afghanistan). Hizbollah is really the only neighborly thing that I can think of you'd be referring to, but they're not a state or recognized body and are not held to laws and conventions.
AIDE:
The figure comes from the notes from two different professors, a documentary on the conflict, and a state department guest lecturer. If they're all wrong, then I'm wrong. Stranger things have happened.
CYNICISM: Actually, I'm not being a cynic. It's a well understood fact in the field of foreign affairs and diplomacy. Benevolence and other values can typify a society, but diplomacy is meant to be their protector and not their exemplar. I wish that benevolence could be a strong enough motivator, but the potential costs are far too high, especially where military involvement is concerned. The purpose of government is to further and protect the self-interests of their country, not 'do the right thing even though it's going to cost us economic stability, 10,000 troops, or something else we value'. It's something that's important to understand in foreign policy and diplomacy. There are books upon books written on this topic.
SYRIA:
It appears.....nevermind. It's quite fascinating because it's an entirely unique situation. The dynamic is unlike any other. If you can't appreciate that, I can't help you. That's what other nations have done? That's the Russian strategy? Tell that to Iran or Turkey.
WEAPONS, ETC.:
Again, from lecture notes, state department guest lecturer, and two friends in the Israeli military. Take it as you will. I should have explained better about bases and air force and such. We do hold influential power because of Israel's arsenal. The amount of control we have over it is debatable, but you have to look at it from the other perspective. It is perceived by much of the region that Israel is simply an extension or little sister of the U.S. military. That perception gives a pretty big bargaining chip and does provide additional power. The threat of force is a more powerful motivator than its actual use. Of course Israel does what's in its best interest, but often enough those interests align with U.S. interests, or are manipulated to. Sometimes Israel's best interest is to do our bidding. If it wasn't they wouldn't have fought surrogate wars for us in various places across the globe, or wouldn't have backed off of Lebanon when Reagan slapped an embargo on them.
FREE & INDEPENDENT DEMOCRACY:
Can we really say that Israel is a free and independent democracy? I'm not entirely convinced we can. There is politically sanctioned discrimination. What about the wall around the West Bank? The Israelis call it "the Security Wall", the Palestinians call it "the Apartheid Wall", and it's frequently compared to the Berlin Wall. There is a whole population that has no say whatsoever in the government or their situation. There are significant elements that are undemocratic. It may have lived up to the definition of a democracy before the abolishment of slavery or the civil rights movement, but I'm not so sure that it does now. Having elections doesn't make you democratic. Iran has elections, and not many would call them a free and independent democracy.
I'm trying to get you to look at this from another perspective than the one FOX News puts out. It's an incredibly complicated situation and there is no good guy. There is no easy solution, and there won't ever be one if certain grievances aren't put to rest and until peace negotiations are really about peace. I've invested a lot of time and effort in understanding the history and current status of this conflict. You can't just listen to the neo-con or Christian right's stance and take it as truth. You can't just take Al-Jazeera's stance on it either. You'll learn more by exploring all sides and finding the truth somewhere in the middle.
So let me tell you a bit about where I'm coming from. This stuff is my life. This is what I study, this is what I do. I have spent a great deal of time learning about international affairs and the Middle East from the people who know it best and from the people who have lived it and are living it now. I have developed my own opinions about the subject, just as everyone does, and I welcome disagreement because that's how we learn and make progress. I delight in stimulating intellectual friction. But do not take me for a fool and talk down to me as though I simply don't understand.
SUPPORT ON MORAL GROUNDS:
I stand by what I said. If you were familiar with the Geneva Conventions, you would be familiar with the clear guidelines for occupied territories, which the West Bank and Gaza are. There are specific internationally agreed upon standards for dealing with an occupied territory. The disregard for them is astounding. You're entirely wrong about it being an opinion exclusive to the anti-Israel and anti-American crowd. I've never had a professor or met an expert that thought otherwise.
Let me tell you how I can criticize Israel's "self-defense against the indiscriminate terrorist acts on civilians and the irrational efforts to annihilate the Jews in the world, 'driving them into the sea'". Because I don't think it's self-defense. Before you freak out, here's why. The Israeli government has openly stated that they intend to make life a living hell for the Palestinians until they give up and leave. And they have. They've made it absolutely intolerable, especially in Gaza. Don't make the mistake of assuming that Israel as been the good guy in this situation. Nobody has been the good guy. Gaza and the West Bank are occupied. They're surrounded by Israeli military. The Palestinians can't travel, participate in commerce, assemble together, etc., etc., etc. They have virtually no civil liberties and are living under severe, active, military occupation. Nothing has changed for the last few decades, so some of them fight back. They are desperate. When they fight back, and Israel retaliates with many more times the damage, you can't call it self-defense. The magnitude of the response takes away all pretense of self-defense. The first intifada began with simple, non-violent civil disobedience. Israeli troops were instructed to break the bones of demonstrators. So the Palestinians began throwing stones and putting up barricades. The military responded with live ammunition. It's escalated from there to what it is now. As of a few minutes ago, the BBC is reporting 13 dead Israelis and approximately 1000 dead Gazans. That's not self-defense.
You mention Israel's moral right to exist. I really hate that phrase. They had no specific claim on Palestine, they took it and ran with it. Why was it that the Palestinians had to forfeit their land to compensate for Europe's crimes against the Jews? Now they certainly have the right to exist as a country because they won that battle for territory and history can't be magically reversed, but there wasn't much morality in the process on any side. I'm not really sure what you mean by the flagrant violations of Israel's neighbors. Egypt is fairly cooperative. Jordan is friendly. Lebanon is perennially screwed up, and Syria diplomatically remains distant but has formerly fought surrogate battles through Hizbollah (it's very similar to what the U.S. did with the mujahideen in Afghanistan). Hizbollah is really the only neighborly thing that I can think of you'd be referring to, but they're not a state or recognized body and are not held to laws and conventions.
AIDE:
The figure comes from the notes from two different professors, a documentary on the conflict, and a state department guest lecturer. If they're all wrong, then I'm wrong. Stranger things have happened.
CYNICISM: Actually, I'm not being a cynic. It's a well understood fact in the field of foreign affairs and diplomacy. Benevolence and other values can typify a society, but diplomacy is meant to be their protector and not their exemplar. I wish that benevolence could be a strong enough motivator, but the potential costs are far too high, especially where military involvement is concerned. The purpose of government is to further and protect the self-interests of their country, not 'do the right thing even though it's going to cost us economic stability, 10,000 troops, or something else we value'. It's something that's important to understand in foreign policy and diplomacy. There are books upon books written on this topic.
SYRIA:
It appears.....nevermind. It's quite fascinating because it's an entirely unique situation. The dynamic is unlike any other. If you can't appreciate that, I can't help you. That's what other nations have done? That's the Russian strategy? Tell that to Iran or Turkey.
WEAPONS, ETC.:
Again, from lecture notes, state department guest lecturer, and two friends in the Israeli military. Take it as you will. I should have explained better about bases and air force and such. We do hold influential power because of Israel's arsenal. The amount of control we have over it is debatable, but you have to look at it from the other perspective. It is perceived by much of the region that Israel is simply an extension or little sister of the U.S. military. That perception gives a pretty big bargaining chip and does provide additional power. The threat of force is a more powerful motivator than its actual use. Of course Israel does what's in its best interest, but often enough those interests align with U.S. interests, or are manipulated to. Sometimes Israel's best interest is to do our bidding. If it wasn't they wouldn't have fought surrogate wars for us in various places across the globe, or wouldn't have backed off of Lebanon when Reagan slapped an embargo on them.
FREE & INDEPENDENT DEMOCRACY:
Can we really say that Israel is a free and independent democracy? I'm not entirely convinced we can. There is politically sanctioned discrimination. What about the wall around the West Bank? The Israelis call it "the Security Wall", the Palestinians call it "the Apartheid Wall", and it's frequently compared to the Berlin Wall. There is a whole population that has no say whatsoever in the government or their situation. There are significant elements that are undemocratic. It may have lived up to the definition of a democracy before the abolishment of slavery or the civil rights movement, but I'm not so sure that it does now. Having elections doesn't make you democratic. Iran has elections, and not many would call them a free and independent democracy.
I'm trying to get you to look at this from another perspective than the one FOX News puts out. It's an incredibly complicated situation and there is no good guy. There is no easy solution, and there won't ever be one if certain grievances aren't put to rest and until peace negotiations are really about peace. I've invested a lot of time and effort in understanding the history and current status of this conflict. You can't just listen to the neo-con or Christian right's stance and take it as truth. You can't just take Al-Jazeera's stance on it either. You'll learn more by exploring all sides and finding the truth somewhere in the middle.
allahu akbar
As far as I see it, both sides have committed some fairly grievous faults. I find the US's nigh-unto-unconditional support for Israel somewhat surprising, but I would have to read up on the issue more before I came down one way or the other. I nominated this question as my favorite, because I was wondering very similar things, and I think it's an issue that needs to be addressed, even if it brings more questions than answers.
A letter to the Daily Universe on Monday did a good job of showing how this current war is affecting everyday people, I think. I can't say I'm overly optimistic about them finding any sort of lasting solution, though. Aren't there Israeli parliamentary elections coming up soon? Does anyone have predictions on the effects that could have?
A letter to the Daily Universe on Monday did a good job of showing how this current war is affecting everyday people, I think. I can't say I'm overly optimistic about them finding any sort of lasting solution, though. Aren't there Israeli parliamentary elections coming up soon? Does anyone have predictions on the effects that could have?
-
NerdGirl
- President of the Lutheran Sisterhood Gun Club
- Posts: 1810
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:41 am
- Location: Calgary
Habiba, I must say that I really appreciate your comments and thoughts on the matter. I don't know as much about the situation as I should, but you seem to have a lot of credibility and experience and you know what you are talking about (and I've thought so for a while). So thank you for helping me to understand the situation a bit better. And Vorpal, I appreciate your comments as well, even though I don't always agree you. Your willingness to keep discussions going is also appreciated.
-
Nanti-SARRMM
- Posts: 1958
- Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:02 pm
- Location: Beyond the Mountains of the Copper Miners into the Desert of Absolute Boredom
- Contact:
I agree with NerdGirl; I also don't know as much as I would like and am grateful for the information provided.
Also, Habiba, do you agree with The Captain's assement of the situation?
Portia, from what I have heard from CNN, many Israelis support what their government is doing. Though I can't find the article that said that.
Also, Habiba, do you agree with The Captain's assement of the situation?
Portia, from what I have heard from CNN, many Israelis support what their government is doing. Though I can't find the article that said that.
This site, and the opinions and statements contained herein do not necessarily reflect on my sanity, or lack thereof.
Wow. I hadn't seen that before. I absolutely do not agree with The Captain's assessment. The question asked was not fair, and neither was the response. In fact I found it downright hateful. Calling the Palestinians Nazis and pro-Holocaust bothers me, and is untrue. It seems like The Captain was fighting hate with hate, which just causes more hate.
If you're interested in a fairly short but very informative read, I would highly recommend Blood Brothers, by Elias Chacour. It's an autobiographical account from a Palestinian Catholic priest who has lived through much of the modern history. It's very well written and offers a very fair and hopeful message.
Israel holds elections again in February. Olmert previously resigned as Prime Minister and elections were held, but the victor (Livni) couldn't put together an acceptable coalition and they have to have elections all over again. I think the outcome will largely be affected by how the situation in Gaza goes and how it's publicized. Olmert's time in office has been very interesting and all over the map. He's offered to negotiate with Palestine on more issues than virtually anyone before him, but has also been very security-focused (the current Gaza campain, "The Wall"). After the 2006 ordeal with Hizbollah, his approval ratings were only 3% (and you thought Pres. Bush had it bad...). I think we may be likely to see another hawk Prime Minister in Israel if the current situation drags on through elections.
If you're interested in a fairly short but very informative read, I would highly recommend Blood Brothers, by Elias Chacour. It's an autobiographical account from a Palestinian Catholic priest who has lived through much of the modern history. It's very well written and offers a very fair and hopeful message.
Israel holds elections again in February. Olmert previously resigned as Prime Minister and elections were held, but the victor (Livni) couldn't put together an acceptable coalition and they have to have elections all over again. I think the outcome will largely be affected by how the situation in Gaza goes and how it's publicized. Olmert's time in office has been very interesting and all over the map. He's offered to negotiate with Palestine on more issues than virtually anyone before him, but has also been very security-focused (the current Gaza campain, "The Wall"). After the 2006 ordeal with Hizbollah, his approval ratings were only 3% (and you thought Pres. Bush had it bad...). I think we may be likely to see another hawk Prime Minister in Israel if the current situation drags on through elections.
allahu akbar
-
vorpal blade
- Posts: 1750
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:08 pm
- Location: New Jersey
Thank you for finding this response of the Captain. I thought the response was excellent, and well researched.Nanti-SARRMM wrote:I agree with NerdGirl; I also don't know as much as I would like and am grateful for the information provided.
Also, Habiba, do you agree with The Captain's assement of the situation?
Portia, from what I have heard from CNN, many Israelis support what their government is doing. Though I can't find the article that said that.
There are just two areas where I think the Captain may have gone too far. Not all of the people of Palestine supported the Nazis. Some of them actually fought with the Allies. Probably many of the Palestinians didn’t really care to get involved in the conflict which seemed remote to them. And many were undoubtedly hoping that the conflict would weaken the control the British had over them and were willing to throw there lot in with the Nazis.
It is easy to believe that most of the Arabs really hated the Jews by the time World War II came. It wasn’t always this way. For centuries they had been able to live together in peace. But by the 1940s it does seem that most Arabs were willing to exterminate all the Jews.
I expect that not all of the Arabs who became refugees did so willing. I can believe that most left because of the threats and promises of their Arab leaders who expected a quick victory. One of the tragedies of a civil war, like the Israeli-Arab war of 1948, is that whole segments of the population become displaced. It is hard to trust anyone. The Jews had purchased lands in Palestine, and many of them had lived there for generations. Now suddenly groups find themselves cutoff from supplies by newly hostile towns along the supply routes. I can believe that some Arab settlements were destroyed, and the inhabitants forcefully evicted, because military requirements couldn’t allow these towns to continue to harass and threaten the Jews and Jewish supply lines. I’m also sure panic and misinformation were also responsible for Arabs fleeing for safety. It is tragic.
What I find even more tragic is the shameful way the surrounding Arab nations handled the refugee problem. Rather than allow the refugees to assimilate into the population, these nations kept the refugees virtually prisoners in horrible refugee camps. I saw one of these camps in Jordan.
-
vorpal blade
- Posts: 1750
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:08 pm
- Location: New Jersey
Habiba,
Here are a few witty opening lines:
â€But we are all that way: when we know a thing we have only scorn for other people who don't happen to know it. – Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc by Mark Twain
“It AIN’T so much the things we don’t know that get us into trouble. It’s the things we know that just ain’t so.†Often attributed to Mark Twain.
Vizzini: “There's nothing to explain. You're trying to kidnap what I have rightfully stolen.†The Princess Bride.
Professor Kirk: “I wonder what they do teach them at these schools.†C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.
Perhaps I should have begun my first post with the things that habiba said that I agree with. Here are they are:
In my studies of the Middle East, I've discovered that the average American citizen has a remarkably over-simplistic and shamefully uninformed view of the Arab-Israeli conflict. We tend to place a much greater emphasis on the religious aspect of the conflict than is really there. Also, there are a great deal of false pretenses that are even taken by some news agencies as fact. For example, if you've ever heard that this conflict goes back to Isaac and Ishmael, you've been fed a load of junk. This conflict didn't begin until the very late 19th/early 20th century. Straight up.
However, it is important to recognize that although there are many things we may not agree with, there are logical reasons and merits to almost everything.
Did we really help them? To some extent yes, to some extent I think you over-estimate the amount of help that was given. When Palestine was a British mandate, they actually halted Jewish immigration into Palestine. When Israel declared its independence in 1948, the Western powers were working out a two-state solution in the United Nations.
Israel's contention is that it is Divine Will that they own that land. Since when is that a valid diplomatic argument for taking control of another country?
This is VERY over-simplified. It's not a valid diplomatic argument for taking control of another country. BUT, you need to realize that Palestine was not in fact a country at the time. … Also, Israeli society is very diverse. There are some very religious Jews. There are Jews that don't give a rat's tail about religion. Zionism actually began as a secular movement. Religion or divine will was not even remotely a part of Hertzl's intentions.
As my own side note, there's a very important point that is all too frequently over-looked by Latter-day Saints. The land of Canaan is indeed part of the inheritance of the House of Israel. The House of Israel consists of 12 tribes. The Jews consist of the tribe of Judah, which is only ONE of the tribes. Speaking scripturally, the Jews do not have exclusive rights to that land. The entire House of Israel does. The political state of Israel and Israel-God's-people are two entirely different things. DO NOT MIX THE TWO. Especially not in Sunday School, or I will find and slap you myself. If you really want to get technical, consider who really is the House of Israel. YOU ARE. The Church IS the gathering of the House of Israel. So really, the land belongs to us.
Why are they prepared to fight to the death with nuclear weapons to defend the Jews of Israel when in the Arab world's eyes, the Jews were clearly the aggressors and diplomatically were in the wrong?
Where did you get the idea that the West is willing to fight to the death with nuclear weapons? That's absolutely absurd. Let's get something straight. Nuclear warfare is the singularly most serious issue there is. Period. It is something that is NEVER taken lightly. It hasn't ever been used since Japan. I assure you that the only people that would ever be worth protecting to that extreme are their own, and then only in incredibly dire circumstances. Nuclear weapons are not a game, they're not something to be thrown around, and their use is only feasible in an absolutely desperate situation. You have either been listening to propaganda or are naïve enough to not understand the seriousness of nuclear weapons. They can be used as bargaining chips in vital emergency situations, but their use is only an option when there are no other options.
But why help the Jews infiltrate and take over Palestine to begin with? Guilt from not having done more to stop the Holocaust?
Read your history. Jewish immigration absolutely flooded into Palestine in the early 20th century. I've addressed this above, but will say again that the creation of Israel was not a notion conceived by Western powers….
You've brought up a very important point about the Holocaust. Remember, the West really didn't know that the Holocaust was happening until after the war. I don't think that we can understand the horror and the immense sense of guilt that must have come with the revelation of what was done. It was absolutely shocking and disturbing and evoked a tremendous amount of sympathy. We can't understand what they went through. The Holocaust did influence policies. I don't know how it could not have. The Holocaust is still a raw and difficult topic. Imagine how it must have been to learn about it as it first came to light. How would you have looked at the survivors? How would you deal with them?
What on earth gives with this deal?
You're angry. I get that. I understand where you're coming from. I have strong feelings that run along similar lines but that are perhaps better informed. You're never going to be able to begin to wrap your head around this conflict until you can understand where the Israelis are coming from as well. I would very strongly recommend learning more about the history and current situation. Look for reliable sources that aren't going to feed you a bunch of bull.
That being said, can we please all pray for those in Gaza who are under attack? The civilian death counts are on the rise and there's no telling how high it's going to get.
-habiba
My comments again.
I was concerned when I started this topic that I was challenging someone who is very knowledgeable in her field. I felt that I might be biting off more than I could chew. But I felt that someone should do it. I didn’t know about the Captain’s response or I might have just referenced it.
I am not an expert in Middle East affairs. It certainly isn’t my life; I have a more distant and objective view of events there. Since habiba has given her credentials, perhaps I should give mine. I’ve been following current world events for about fifty years now. I’ve lived in a foreign country for more than 30 months. I think that gives me a certain amount of perspective. I’ve always been especially interested in Israel. My first visit to Israel was in December 1968, not too long after the Israeli Six Day War. I spent a couple of weeks touring the country and talking to the people. My last visit was in 1983 when I also visited Jordan and Egypt. I realize this in no way qualifies me to speak knowledgably, but I have studied the issues on my own. Give me credit for a long exposure to Israel.
I might add that for more than 33 years the stuff of my professional life has been the latest and greatest weapons, and military matters in general, including to some extent the Israeli military and intelligence. I’m not your average American citizen with a remarkably over-simplistic and shamefully uninformed view of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Here is what I found in your response to me that I don’t necessarily disagree with, or what I accept that you believe:
Pretend like there's some witty or significant opening line here, since the one's that are coming to me will inevitably involve inserting my foot in my mouth later. The great thing about this open forum is that you get the chance to call us out if we're wrong or call us flaming idiots if that's what you think.
So let me tell you a bit about where I'm coming from. This stuff is my life. This is what I study, this is what I do. I have spent a great deal of time learning about international affairs and the Middle East … But do not take me for a fool and talk down to me as though I simply don't understand.
SUPPORT ON MORAL GROUNDS:
I stand by what I said. …. I've never had a professor or met an expert that thought otherwise.
As of a few minutes ago, the BBC is reporting 13 dead Israelis and approximately 1000 dead Gazans.
You mention Israel's moral right to exist. I really hate that phrase. … Now they certainly have the right to exist as a country because they won that battle for territory and history can't be magically reversed…. I'm not really sure what you mean by the flagrant violations of Israel's neighbors. Egypt is fairly cooperative. Jordan is friendly. Lebanon is perennially screwed up, and Syria diplomatically remains distant but has formerly fought surrogate battles through Hizbollah …. Hizbollah is really the only neighborly thing that I can think of you'd be referring to….
AIDE:
The figure comes from the notes from two different professors, a documentary on the conflict, and a state department guest lecturer. If they're all wrong, then I'm wrong. Stranger things have happened.
WEAPONS, ETC.:
Again, from lecture notes, state department guest lecturer, and two friends in the Israeli military. Take it as you will. I should have explained better about bases and air force and such…. It is perceived by much of the region that Israel is simply an extension or little sister of the U.S. military. …. Of course Israel does what's in its best interest, but often enough those interests align with U.S. interests…
It's an incredibly complicated situation and there is no good guy. There is no easy solution, and there won't ever be one if certain grievances aren't put to rest and until peace negotiations are really about peace. I've invested a lot of time and effort in understanding the history and current status of this conflict. You can't just listen to the neo-con or Christian right's stance and take it as truth. You can't just take Al-Jazeera's stance on it either. You'll learn more by exploring all sides and finding the truth somewhere in the middle.
Okay, back to me again.
You claim that the way Israel has dealt with the occupied territories, by which you mean the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, proves that Israel is not on the moral high ground. I claim that Israel’s behavior has not been that bad, and has certainly been better than that of the Palestinians. Perhaps some other time I’ll talk about my own first hand experience in Hebron. I don’t derive my morality from what is in the Geneva Conventions. But your very use of the phrase “occupied territories†shows an anti-Israeli bias. The UN may use the phrase, and journalists may use the phrase, but as it is used in the Geneva Conventions it refers to the situation where a hostile foreign nation takes control from the legitimate authority in a region. As you well know, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are disputed territories with no permanent lines, at the insistence of the Arabs. The armistice lines of 1949 explicitly refer to temporary lines, and both sides reserved the right to call the entire region their own territory.
So, even if I relied on the Geneva Conventions to define the moral ground, it doesn’t look to me that the Geneva Conventions even apply as you would use them, because the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are not technically “occupied territories.†I think it says something ominous that apparently none of the professors you’ve had or experts you’ve met have presented to you the Israeli point of view.
For the present I’ll skip some of the other things you’ve said that seem slanted, biased and unfair toward Israel.
In regard to foreign aid, I’m concerned when I give you a primary source of fact and you reply complacently that you’ve taken the word of a couple of professors, a documentary of unknown reliability, and a nameless state department weenie. I’d like to suggest, in a fatherly sort of way, that you check out the facts yourself, although that probably wouldn’t make you popular with your professors, who ought to know better.
In regard to the weapons, I’m again disturbed that you’ve taken the word of a professor, someone from the state department, and a couple of friends in the Israeli military. Tell me, do you always believe everything your Israeli friends tell you? The funny thing for me was imagining these two friends bragging about the “latest and greatest weapons†that they test out for us. I’ve known some Israelis, and can well imagine the scene. I wonder if they could possibly have believed it, or just thought you wouldn’t ever find out the truth. I’m sorry if I sound a little condescending here, but I really do think I know something about this topic. Just give me some specific weapon examples with some evidence that the Israelis had it before our troops and I’ll learn something. I’ll be astounded.
In my opinion the perspective that needs to be given here is the truth, and not the popular and trendy anti-Israeli perspective. The fact that all your professors and experts are telling you the things you are telling us should indicate the particular need for my perspective. And don’t trust your professors.
By the way, I did not see any condescension or sarcasm in my original post. Nor did I think I was taking you for a fool or talking down to you. I didn’t see anything hateful in the Captain’s response, either. The Captain wasn’t fighting hate with hate; he was fighting error with truth. I think that what happens is that when someone criticizes us or a position we cherish we mix up the message with the messenger. My ideas put down your ideas, so you think I must be putting you down. The Captain’s message puts the Palestinians in a bad light and that light is hateful to you, so you think the Captain’s response is hateful. It’s called shooting the messenger. I had similar thoughts about you talking down to me in your response to me.
Here are a few witty opening lines:
â€But we are all that way: when we know a thing we have only scorn for other people who don't happen to know it. – Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc by Mark Twain
“It AIN’T so much the things we don’t know that get us into trouble. It’s the things we know that just ain’t so.†Often attributed to Mark Twain.
Vizzini: “There's nothing to explain. You're trying to kidnap what I have rightfully stolen.†The Princess Bride.
Professor Kirk: “I wonder what they do teach them at these schools.†C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.
Perhaps I should have begun my first post with the things that habiba said that I agree with. Here are they are:
In my studies of the Middle East, I've discovered that the average American citizen has a remarkably over-simplistic and shamefully uninformed view of the Arab-Israeli conflict. We tend to place a much greater emphasis on the religious aspect of the conflict than is really there. Also, there are a great deal of false pretenses that are even taken by some news agencies as fact. For example, if you've ever heard that this conflict goes back to Isaac and Ishmael, you've been fed a load of junk. This conflict didn't begin until the very late 19th/early 20th century. Straight up.
However, it is important to recognize that although there are many things we may not agree with, there are logical reasons and merits to almost everything.
Did we really help them? To some extent yes, to some extent I think you over-estimate the amount of help that was given. When Palestine was a British mandate, they actually halted Jewish immigration into Palestine. When Israel declared its independence in 1948, the Western powers were working out a two-state solution in the United Nations.
Israel's contention is that it is Divine Will that they own that land. Since when is that a valid diplomatic argument for taking control of another country?
This is VERY over-simplified. It's not a valid diplomatic argument for taking control of another country. BUT, you need to realize that Palestine was not in fact a country at the time. … Also, Israeli society is very diverse. There are some very religious Jews. There are Jews that don't give a rat's tail about religion. Zionism actually began as a secular movement. Religion or divine will was not even remotely a part of Hertzl's intentions.
As my own side note, there's a very important point that is all too frequently over-looked by Latter-day Saints. The land of Canaan is indeed part of the inheritance of the House of Israel. The House of Israel consists of 12 tribes. The Jews consist of the tribe of Judah, which is only ONE of the tribes. Speaking scripturally, the Jews do not have exclusive rights to that land. The entire House of Israel does. The political state of Israel and Israel-God's-people are two entirely different things. DO NOT MIX THE TWO. Especially not in Sunday School, or I will find and slap you myself. If you really want to get technical, consider who really is the House of Israel. YOU ARE. The Church IS the gathering of the House of Israel. So really, the land belongs to us.
Why are they prepared to fight to the death with nuclear weapons to defend the Jews of Israel when in the Arab world's eyes, the Jews were clearly the aggressors and diplomatically were in the wrong?
Where did you get the idea that the West is willing to fight to the death with nuclear weapons? That's absolutely absurd. Let's get something straight. Nuclear warfare is the singularly most serious issue there is. Period. It is something that is NEVER taken lightly. It hasn't ever been used since Japan. I assure you that the only people that would ever be worth protecting to that extreme are their own, and then only in incredibly dire circumstances. Nuclear weapons are not a game, they're not something to be thrown around, and their use is only feasible in an absolutely desperate situation. You have either been listening to propaganda or are naïve enough to not understand the seriousness of nuclear weapons. They can be used as bargaining chips in vital emergency situations, but their use is only an option when there are no other options.
But why help the Jews infiltrate and take over Palestine to begin with? Guilt from not having done more to stop the Holocaust?
Read your history. Jewish immigration absolutely flooded into Palestine in the early 20th century. I've addressed this above, but will say again that the creation of Israel was not a notion conceived by Western powers….
You've brought up a very important point about the Holocaust. Remember, the West really didn't know that the Holocaust was happening until after the war. I don't think that we can understand the horror and the immense sense of guilt that must have come with the revelation of what was done. It was absolutely shocking and disturbing and evoked a tremendous amount of sympathy. We can't understand what they went through. The Holocaust did influence policies. I don't know how it could not have. The Holocaust is still a raw and difficult topic. Imagine how it must have been to learn about it as it first came to light. How would you have looked at the survivors? How would you deal with them?
What on earth gives with this deal?
You're angry. I get that. I understand where you're coming from. I have strong feelings that run along similar lines but that are perhaps better informed. You're never going to be able to begin to wrap your head around this conflict until you can understand where the Israelis are coming from as well. I would very strongly recommend learning more about the history and current situation. Look for reliable sources that aren't going to feed you a bunch of bull.
That being said, can we please all pray for those in Gaza who are under attack? The civilian death counts are on the rise and there's no telling how high it's going to get.
-habiba
My comments again.
I was concerned when I started this topic that I was challenging someone who is very knowledgeable in her field. I felt that I might be biting off more than I could chew. But I felt that someone should do it. I didn’t know about the Captain’s response or I might have just referenced it.
I am not an expert in Middle East affairs. It certainly isn’t my life; I have a more distant and objective view of events there. Since habiba has given her credentials, perhaps I should give mine. I’ve been following current world events for about fifty years now. I’ve lived in a foreign country for more than 30 months. I think that gives me a certain amount of perspective. I’ve always been especially interested in Israel. My first visit to Israel was in December 1968, not too long after the Israeli Six Day War. I spent a couple of weeks touring the country and talking to the people. My last visit was in 1983 when I also visited Jordan and Egypt. I realize this in no way qualifies me to speak knowledgably, but I have studied the issues on my own. Give me credit for a long exposure to Israel.
I might add that for more than 33 years the stuff of my professional life has been the latest and greatest weapons, and military matters in general, including to some extent the Israeli military and intelligence. I’m not your average American citizen with a remarkably over-simplistic and shamefully uninformed view of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Here is what I found in your response to me that I don’t necessarily disagree with, or what I accept that you believe:
Pretend like there's some witty or significant opening line here, since the one's that are coming to me will inevitably involve inserting my foot in my mouth later. The great thing about this open forum is that you get the chance to call us out if we're wrong or call us flaming idiots if that's what you think.
So let me tell you a bit about where I'm coming from. This stuff is my life. This is what I study, this is what I do. I have spent a great deal of time learning about international affairs and the Middle East … But do not take me for a fool and talk down to me as though I simply don't understand.
SUPPORT ON MORAL GROUNDS:
I stand by what I said. …. I've never had a professor or met an expert that thought otherwise.
As of a few minutes ago, the BBC is reporting 13 dead Israelis and approximately 1000 dead Gazans.
You mention Israel's moral right to exist. I really hate that phrase. … Now they certainly have the right to exist as a country because they won that battle for territory and history can't be magically reversed…. I'm not really sure what you mean by the flagrant violations of Israel's neighbors. Egypt is fairly cooperative. Jordan is friendly. Lebanon is perennially screwed up, and Syria diplomatically remains distant but has formerly fought surrogate battles through Hizbollah …. Hizbollah is really the only neighborly thing that I can think of you'd be referring to….
AIDE:
The figure comes from the notes from two different professors, a documentary on the conflict, and a state department guest lecturer. If they're all wrong, then I'm wrong. Stranger things have happened.
WEAPONS, ETC.:
Again, from lecture notes, state department guest lecturer, and two friends in the Israeli military. Take it as you will. I should have explained better about bases and air force and such…. It is perceived by much of the region that Israel is simply an extension or little sister of the U.S. military. …. Of course Israel does what's in its best interest, but often enough those interests align with U.S. interests…
It's an incredibly complicated situation and there is no good guy. There is no easy solution, and there won't ever be one if certain grievances aren't put to rest and until peace negotiations are really about peace. I've invested a lot of time and effort in understanding the history and current status of this conflict. You can't just listen to the neo-con or Christian right's stance and take it as truth. You can't just take Al-Jazeera's stance on it either. You'll learn more by exploring all sides and finding the truth somewhere in the middle.
Okay, back to me again.
You claim that the way Israel has dealt with the occupied territories, by which you mean the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, proves that Israel is not on the moral high ground. I claim that Israel’s behavior has not been that bad, and has certainly been better than that of the Palestinians. Perhaps some other time I’ll talk about my own first hand experience in Hebron. I don’t derive my morality from what is in the Geneva Conventions. But your very use of the phrase “occupied territories†shows an anti-Israeli bias. The UN may use the phrase, and journalists may use the phrase, but as it is used in the Geneva Conventions it refers to the situation where a hostile foreign nation takes control from the legitimate authority in a region. As you well know, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are disputed territories with no permanent lines, at the insistence of the Arabs. The armistice lines of 1949 explicitly refer to temporary lines, and both sides reserved the right to call the entire region their own territory.
So, even if I relied on the Geneva Conventions to define the moral ground, it doesn’t look to me that the Geneva Conventions even apply as you would use them, because the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are not technically “occupied territories.†I think it says something ominous that apparently none of the professors you’ve had or experts you’ve met have presented to you the Israeli point of view.
For the present I’ll skip some of the other things you’ve said that seem slanted, biased and unfair toward Israel.
In regard to foreign aid, I’m concerned when I give you a primary source of fact and you reply complacently that you’ve taken the word of a couple of professors, a documentary of unknown reliability, and a nameless state department weenie. I’d like to suggest, in a fatherly sort of way, that you check out the facts yourself, although that probably wouldn’t make you popular with your professors, who ought to know better.
In regard to the weapons, I’m again disturbed that you’ve taken the word of a professor, someone from the state department, and a couple of friends in the Israeli military. Tell me, do you always believe everything your Israeli friends tell you? The funny thing for me was imagining these two friends bragging about the “latest and greatest weapons†that they test out for us. I’ve known some Israelis, and can well imagine the scene. I wonder if they could possibly have believed it, or just thought you wouldn’t ever find out the truth. I’m sorry if I sound a little condescending here, but I really do think I know something about this topic. Just give me some specific weapon examples with some evidence that the Israelis had it before our troops and I’ll learn something. I’ll be astounded.
In my opinion the perspective that needs to be given here is the truth, and not the popular and trendy anti-Israeli perspective. The fact that all your professors and experts are telling you the things you are telling us should indicate the particular need for my perspective. And don’t trust your professors.
By the way, I did not see any condescension or sarcasm in my original post. Nor did I think I was taking you for a fool or talking down to you. I didn’t see anything hateful in the Captain’s response, either. The Captain wasn’t fighting hate with hate; he was fighting error with truth. I think that what happens is that when someone criticizes us or a position we cherish we mix up the message with the messenger. My ideas put down your ideas, so you think I must be putting you down. The Captain’s message puts the Palestinians in a bad light and that light is hateful to you, so you think the Captain’s response is hateful. It’s called shooting the messenger. I had similar thoughts about you talking down to me in your response to me.
One comment I want to add is a thanks to habiba for explaining some of the pluses for the US because although I too have probably spent a lot more time readingbooks/watching documentaries about the situation (Occupation 101 is actually one of my favorites documentaries for a Palestinian view) most of the material I have dealt with doesn't really show that side (probably because the majority is recommended to me by Palestinian friends...).
-
vorpal blade
- Posts: 1750
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:08 pm
- Location: New Jersey
These are pluses for the U.S. as claimed by the Palestinians. Habiba's claims are not what the U.S. says about it's interests in Israel.Werf_Must wrote:One comment I want to add is a thanks to habiba for explaining some of the pluses for the US because although I too have probably spent a lot more time readingbooks/watching documentaries about the situation (Occupation 101 is actually one of my favorites documentaries for a Palestinian view) most of the material I have dealt with doesn't really show that side (probably because the majority is recommended to me by Palestinian friends...).
-
vorpal blade
- Posts: 1750
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:08 pm
- Location: New Jersey
Actually habiba appears to have "borrowed" her comments from Stephen Zunes, far left wing Professor of Politics at the University of San Francisco.
Here is what habiba wrote on the 100 Hour Board:
Here is what habiba wrote on the 100 Hour Board:
Here is the misinformation Dr. Zunes wrote in "Why the U.S. Supports Israel," found in http://www.fpif.org/papers/usisrael.htmlSo if we're making such huge investments and take such care to maintain good relations with Israel, there must be solid motivators that serve our own interests. Strategically, Israel is vital to have as an ally if we're going to be involved in the Middle East. Here are some of the strongest strategic arguments as to why:
1. Syria. This goes back to Cold War days, when Syria was a Russian ally. Syria and Israel are almost always at odds with each other, and the continual friction has kept Syria in check from becoming too powerful in the region. Syria is a fascinating country. Its involvement in Lebanon and with Hizbollah and Hamas is the stuff that makes history geeks and political nerds drool.
2. Weapons testing. What better way to test out how new weapons work than in real battle? If you're not aware, Israel frequently gets some of the latest and greatest in weaponry. They test it out for us, and all it costs us is the cost of the actual weapons. We can then improve on them before giving them to our own soldiers.
3. Intelligence. The Israeli intelligence service does a whole lot of the U.S. intelligence's dirty work over there. We get huge amounts of intelligence from them at relatively small cost to us.
4. Us supporting them and giving them some of our best weapons gives us a sort of free base in a region where bases don't come easy. Israel has missiles capable of reaching anyone in the entire region. We essentially still hold the trigger on those missiles. You can't buy that kind of strategic placement. Their air force also dominates the region, and we very nearly hold them in the palm of our hand.
5. Israel can intervene in local politics much easier than we can. They've been successful in stifling radical nationalist movements in Jordan and Lebanon. It's in our interest to keep that sort of power available.
6. Israel has also served as a conduit for U.S. intervention when the cause was too unpopular in the U.S. for us to directly grant assistance. If it would cause considerable protest in the U.S., we can send Israel in our place. This has happened with situations such as: the Islamic Republic of Iran, South African apartheid, Guatemalan military junta, and the Nicaraguan Contras. We've also sent Israeli military commanders to advise with other groups that we won't want to dirty our shoes with. This is amazingly convenient for us and is very smart politics, though it sounds underhanded.
Why did you say, habiba, that this comes from "lecture notes, state department guest lecturer, and two friends in the Israeli military." Do you even have Israeli friends?Strategic Reasons for Continuing U.S. Support
There is a broad bipartisan consensus among policymakers that Israel has advanced U.S. interest in the Middle East and beyond.
• Israel has successfully prevented victories by radical nationalist movements in Lebanon and Jordan, as well as in Palestine.
• Israel has kept Syria, for many years an ally of the Soviet Union, in check.
• Israel's air force is predominant throughout the region.
• Israel's frequent wars have provided battlefield testing for American arms, often against Soviet weapons.
• It has served as a conduit for U.S. arms to regimes and movements too unpopular in the United States for openly granting direct military assistance, such as apartheid South Africa, the Islamic Republic in Iran, the military junta in Guatemala, and the Nicaraguan Contras. Israeli military advisers have assisted the Contras, the Salvadoran junta, and foreign occupation forces in Namibia and Western Sahara.
• Israel's intelligence service has assisted the U.S. in intelligence gathering and covert operations.
• Israel has missiles capable of reaching as far as the former Soviet Union, it possesses a nuclear arsenal of hundreds of weapons, and it has cooperated with the U.S. military-industrial complex with research and development for new jet fighters and anti-missile defense systems.
Actually I just grabbed notes from my last class that dealt with the topic and copied them over. I've never even heard of Dr. Zunes, although apparently that professor has. I find that fairly amusing, considering the professor is a very active right-winger.
Yes, I do have Israeli friends. Real live ones.
I wasn't suggesting in the slightest that just because a professor, etc. said it meant it was infallible. I even said, "if they're wrong, they're wrong".
I don't think they teach an anti-Israeli rhetoric. On the whole it's very balanced, very much more so than it used to be. But they are sure to cover both sides.
I was at a lecture given by Nick Kristof recently and he said some things that I think are applicable. He said that whenever you tell a story, you betray someone. (You can't tell the Israeli story without betraying the Palestinians. You can't tell the Palestinian story without betraying the Israelis.) To minimize that, you have to go in without a pre-conceived narrative and learn to see what they see, and not what you see. I think we can all learn something from that.
Yes, I do have Israeli friends. Real live ones.
I wasn't suggesting in the slightest that just because a professor, etc. said it meant it was infallible. I even said, "if they're wrong, they're wrong".
I don't think they teach an anti-Israeli rhetoric. On the whole it's very balanced, very much more so than it used to be. But they are sure to cover both sides.
I was at a lecture given by Nick Kristof recently and he said some things that I think are applicable. He said that whenever you tell a story, you betray someone. (You can't tell the Israeli story without betraying the Palestinians. You can't tell the Palestinian story without betraying the Israelis.) To minimize that, you have to go in without a pre-conceived narrative and learn to see what they see, and not what you see. I think we can all learn something from that.
allahu akbar
-
Nanti-SARRMM
- Posts: 1958
- Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:02 pm
- Location: Beyond the Mountains of the Copper Miners into the Desert of Absolute Boredom
- Contact:
I agree with habibia, that we need to see things from the others' perspective.
As I see it, both sides are in the wrong and the reason why nothing is solved is because fingers and blame keep being pointed at something that happened decades ago. Yes it is good to study it, but it happened and in order to go forward into the future, we need to stop dwelling on the past.
As far as left wing or right wing goes, who cares? Why assume that the person is anti-jew if their view doesn't throw light upon Israel as being perfect?
As I see it, both sides are in the wrong and the reason why nothing is solved is because fingers and blame keep being pointed at something that happened decades ago. Yes it is good to study it, but it happened and in order to go forward into the future, we need to stop dwelling on the past.
As far as left wing or right wing goes, who cares? Why assume that the person is anti-jew if their view doesn't throw light upon Israel as being perfect?
This site, and the opinions and statements contained herein do not necessarily reflect on my sanity, or lack thereof.
-
vorpal blade
- Posts: 1750
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:08 pm
- Location: New Jersey
Let me see if I have this straight. Before, you said that you got this from lecture notes, a state department guest lecturer, and two friends in the Israeli military. Now you are saying it comes from one very active right-winger professor. This professor provided you with a list of six reasons why we support Israel, apparently obtained from a professor Zunes who has a well-known pro-Arab bias and believes the U.S. is a fault for 9/11. The reasons Stephen Zunes gives for our support of Israel are all bogus, misleading, and unfair toward Israel, but your very active right-winger professor is unaware of this. Neither your professor, nor Dr. Zunes chooses to give the real reasons we support Israel, or even the official reasons.habiba wrote:Actually I just grabbed notes from my last class that dealt with the topic and copied them over. I've never even heard of Dr. Zunes, although apparently that professor has. I find that fairly amusing, considering the professor is a very active right-winger.
And then you take your lecture notes and in many cases use almost exactly the same word-for-word phrases as Dr. Zunes. Forgive me if I sound a bit suspicious.
I guess you are unaware that you have been giving us Palestinian propaganda. It isn’t balanced, it is very much one sided. In other statements you have shown that you hadn’t even heard the Israeli point of view. “I've never had a professor or met an expert that thought otherwise.â€I don't think they teach an anti-Israeli rhetoric. On the whole it's very balanced, very much more so than it used to be. But they are sure to cover both sides.
I think that is a terrible excuse to give only one side of the issue and make it sound like it is supposed to be balanced and fair.I was at a lecture given by Nick Kristof recently and he said some things that I think are applicable. He said that whenever you tell a story, you betray someone. (You can't tell the Israeli story without betraying the Palestinians. You can't tell the Palestinian story without betraying the Israelis.) To minimize that, you have to go in without a pre-conceived narrative and learn to see what they see, and not what you see. I think we can all learn something from that.
Betray has several meanings: "deliver to an enemy by treachery, reveal unintentionally, cause someone to believe an untruth, disappoint, prove undependable to; abandon, forsake, give away information about somebody.†I’m not sure in what sense Nick Kristoff was using the word, but in my case it is not the right word to use. I could certainly tell the true Israeli story, or the true Palestinian story without treacherously delivering anyone to an enemy. Telling the truth would not prove undependable. I would not abandon or forsake anyone, because neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians are my people.
In your case “betray†might be the right word to use. You don’t seem to have any problem criticizing the Israelis, but you can’t seem to criticize the other side except in a general way, “there is no good guy.†I’m not sure what your background is, but your writings definitely indicate a strong sense of unity and identity with the Arabs. Even your chosen ‘nym shows that.
I don't know anything about anything, but I was just wondering what you find contradictory about this. "Lecture notes" and "a professor" seem to be the same source, unless I'm missing something.vorpal blade wrote:Before, you said that you got this from lecture notes, a state department guest lecturer, and two friends in the Israeli military. Now you are saying it comes from one very active right-winger professor.
-
vorpal blade
- Posts: 1750
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:08 pm
- Location: New Jersey
I agree with you that we need to see others' perspective. What I am trying to accomplish here is to clearly identify that what habiba is saying is not balanced and fair. It is Arab propaganda, and it isn't right. Once understood as such it is a good thing to hear what they have to say.Nanti-SARRMM wrote:I agree with habibia, that we need to see things from the others' perspective.
As I see it, both sides are in the wrong and the reason why nothing is solved is because fingers and blame keep being pointed at something that happened decades ago. Yes it is good to study it, but it happened and in order to go forward into the future, we need to stop dwelling on the past.
As far as left wing or right wing goes, who cares? Why assume that the person is anti-jew if their view doesn't throw light upon Israel as being perfect?
Unfortunately all the wrong didn't happen decades ago. It is still happening today. I'm all for moving ahead into the future without holding the grudges of the past. Easy for me to say. Not so easy for others whose memories of past wrongs, real or imagined, spans thousands of years.
The purpose of pointing out a bias is so that you can be aware of the fact that you aren't getting a fair and balanced viewpoint. I haven't used the expression anti-jew, and being anti-Israeli is not necessarily the same thing. I certainly feel free to criticize Israel for mistakes they have made, as I feel free to criticize mistakes the Arabs have made. But some people can't seem to find fault with the side with whom they identify. They constantly apologize for their side, ignore the problems with their side, and put the other side in a bad light. People can believe that Israel isn't perfect without being anti-Israeli. But you can be so pro-Arab that you believe the U.S. was at fault for 9/11. That to me shows an unreasoning prejudice for Arabs.
-
vorpal blade
- Posts: 1750
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:08 pm
- Location: New Jersey
Just wondering how the state department guest lecturer and the friends got dropped off the list of suppliers of information. If there were multiple suppliers then it lessens the probability of having habiba's answer so exactly match that of Dr. Zunes.krebscout wrote:I don't know anything about anything, but I was just wondering what you find contradictory about this. "Lecture notes" and "a professor" seem to be the same source, unless I'm missing something.vorpal blade wrote:Before, you said that you got this from lecture notes, a state department guest lecturer, and two friends in the Israeli military. Now you are saying it comes from one very active right-winger professor.
-
Nanti-SARRMM
- Posts: 1958
- Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:02 pm
- Location: Beyond the Mountains of the Copper Miners into the Desert of Absolute Boredom
- Contact:
Dude, what is balanced and fair concerning Israel and the situation they are in? Even if it is Arab propaganda, it at least lets us hear what the other side says.vorpal blade wrote: I agree with you that we need to see others' perspective. What I am trying to accomplish here is to clearly identify that what habiba is saying is not balanced and fair. It is Arab propaganda, and it isn't right. Once understood as such it is a good thing to hear what they have to say.
There is Israeli propaganda, and Arab propaganda, and you seem upset that at what you think habiba gave us as pro-arab propaganda.
This site, and the opinions and statements contained herein do not necessarily reflect on my sanity, or lack thereof.