Israel--current Events

I wanted to post this somewhere, and this seemed as good a place as any. From
The Free Republic:

This seems to be a list that demonstrates it as self evident that Jews have a much greater right or claim to the land than Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular. I think it has to be taken apart item by item, since some of the items are geopolitical and historical, and others are virtually irrelevant, like what direction people pray in, yet they are all mixed together as if they are of equal significance, to make up a list that comes at the reader like an avalanche.

Notably, the Roman period is not mentioned, except obliquely in the following:
". . . AFTER CONQUERING THE LAND IN 1272 B.C., JEWS RULED IT FOR A THOUSAND YEARS AND MAINTAINED A CONTINUOUS PRESENCE THERE FOR 3,300 YEARS . . . "

The Israelites took Canaan (ruthlessly -- as both the biblical and archaeological records show) and held onto it for 1000 years through a succession of increasingly weak and corrupt rulers, as well as a few exiles (also very plain in the biblical record), until Rome conquered and occupied the land, and finally in 72 CE executed or expelled all the religious and civic leaders and intelligentsia, leaving Jewish peasants on the land as being of no consequence and not likely to lead any further uprisings; and indeed, those who were left on the land did not succeed in retaking it, nor ever indeed attempt to in any meanigful way, for almost two more millenia, until the Zionist influx from Europe that didn't really heat up to anything practical until after the assassination of the Russian Tzar in 1881 or so.

It's not clear how much of the Palestinian population is directly and purely descended from Canaanites; but the Jews have not been ethnically pure in all that time either. European Jewry, who were the driving force in retaking that piece of turf, are mixed all over the place with every stock from Spain to Siberia, and are no more pure descendants of the Israelites than modern Palestinians are of the indigenous Canaanites.

All this is merely to illustrate that the Jews have no more right by mere force of historical occupancy or direct descent than the people they conquered, killed and expelled earlier. I think you have to debate the situation now, in the 21st century, in some other terms. (I've already made my point about the relative cogency of religious argument and ownership by divine right.) I think the State of Israel is crucially important in that region and needs to survive, but the justification has to be in the here and now, and justification for ruthless behaviour and lack of international cooperation is not to be found in the historical record.

Being the devil's advocate (so to speak ) I look at this post and see not that the Israelies have more claim to the land but that they have just as much claim as the Arabs.

As far as religeous significance (i.e. which way people face to pray and what they call Holy) That can not be discounted as it is part of the dispute (i.e. part of why each group feels they have a right to be there) at least in the Israelie eyes and the Muslim eyes too. (maybe not quite the same type of reasoning, but at least on some level)

Slainte

Mikel

Equal claim I'll grant you readily, but that's not what the fundamentalist forces on either side want to take the time and sweat to work out. And they must -- there is no other way -- if for no other reason than figuring out how to collectively preserve their ecology and water supply, which is dying very rapidly, and they'll all have to leave if they can't save it.

The religious elements are certainly part of the debate, but the weight of it driving the conflict, in the here and now, is still likely to be more geopolitical and economic. The leaders on both sides, I believe, are mostly cynical (again, except for the fundamentalist elements, and again, on both sides) and use the religious arguments pretty cold bloodedly to whip up sentiment and drive the fighting spirit. Arabs do this a lot more than Israelis, by the way -- Israelis have American evangelical types to do that for them, if they need it (which is debatable). Israeli Orthdox in the debatable territories are another story, and the Israeli government and moderate population at large would frequently like to see them all expelled.

I also think, as I've said before, that the evangelical cohort in this country loudly crying out the biblical justifications for Israel's behaviour in this conflict is a pain in the butt, complicates the situation and makes it hugely harder for the Israelis to function in their own cause (and as I've said, many of them think so too), and Americans should back off that kind of commentary. My opinion, but bigtime not ONLY my opinion.

If I have not made it clear in the past, let me make it clear now.

I do not believe that the Israelies are justified in any agression for Biblical reasons.

On the other hand depending on what account you believe of order and location of events. (which I don't believe at this late date any solid evidence can be presented either way - I tend to believe the popular media version partially because of the Rad Mus sworn to exterminate Israel etc... thing) I can totally understand the Israelie response in every single modern conflict in the region. (and I have been alive for all of them real time so I have that memory of events as well as historical accounts which match up with how I remember them)

It really comes down to who you believe (i.e. which news agency - I don't really see them in conflict appart from those with political/religeous agendas) also the fact that the story may change relatively close to the events can be an indication of cover up or not. This is not a conclusion that I myself would readily jump to without good evidence to support it. (it's not like the media and various govts have not covered up things in the past:))

Good talk

Mikel

I think the problem is that with regard to press and news media in the US, as polarized politically as WE have become, this means virtually everybody.
Reportage about this conflict (and slanting of it) is even getting me off my kibble about NPR, which I like and have always fairly trusted for even-handed news coverage and analysis. You can really hear the disparities when the Washington-generated NPR programs and the BBC programs, both of which are carried on my public radio station, play back to back. It's quite disorienting sometimes.

I totally understand that and I personally generally prefer to listen to/watch the BBC.

I am late to participate in your exchange Mikel and Lynn. I agree Lynn, the part of the list about which direction someone is praying, well that is only pertinent to religious leaders of the region, and perhaps some of the more rabid military officers. As far as your furthering the history lesson goes, I thank you for your efforts, but am also in agreement. The "who, what, when, where, why" of it all, when speaking about history going back that far, should be of little consequence to the current conflicts, operation of governments, or friend/enemy status of any party involved.

Mikel, it is good to see the tone change in this thread. The reason I posted this latest clipping was not in an attempt to say "neener neener, Israel was there first", but rather to help cool some of the acrid speech coming from some of our members that frankly, hate Israel, and do not wish her to remain a sovereign nation. That line of reasoning hasn't helped quell the violence or the tempers of those in that region, and there is no reason to believe it will be any more useful here.

I certainly hope you aren't referring to me, as those conclusions can't be supported by referencing any of my (or as near as I can tell, anyone else's) posts in this thread.

As for your list, much of it is irrelevant, and much of it in error, from a proudly militaristic far-right-wing web site with no supporting citations.

In other news...
America is expediting the delivery of our own version of the Katyusha to Israel; the M26 rocket. It's the primary ammunition for the M270 MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket System). Each of the 12 unguided M26 rockets carries 644 M77 DPICM submunitions ( Dual Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions; cluster bombs).
During much of the 1980’s, the United States maintained a moratorium on selling cluster munitions to Israel, following disclosures that civilians in Lebanon had been killed with the weapons during the 1982 Israeli invasion. Israel has been using cluster bombs; M483A1 DPICM 155mm shells, against civilian targets during their current invasion of Lebanon as well; including their artillery attack on the Lebanese village of Blida on July 19th and unknown Lebanese targets on the 23rd. Human Rights Watch and other groups have campaigned for the elimination of cluster munitions, noting that even if civilians are not present when the weapons is used, some submunitions that do not detonate on impact (around 14%) later injure or kill civilians indescriminately, not unlike ramdomly scattered land mines.
The M26 "is a particularly deadly weapon," Bonnie Docherty, a researcher with Human Rights Watch, who helped write a study of the United States’ use of the weapons in the 2003 Iraq invasion. "They were used widely by U.S. forces in Iraq and caused hundreds of civilian casualties."

State Department officials "are discussing whether or not there needs to be a block on this sale because of the past history and because of the current circumstances,'' but added that it was likely that Israel will get the rockets, but will be told to "be careful.'' Anyone who reads the papers knows how historically "careful" Israel has been to avoid civilian casualties in Lenbanon and Gaza.

New York Times; 8/11/06

Human Rights Watch, 7/24/06

Since I didn't mention any names, you have no reason to feel singled out. Are you trying to prove the idiom that "a kicked dog yelps?"

As for your statement that "...much of it is irrelevant, and much of it is in error..." I will only cede the latter point once you have corrected the information and I have learned that said corrections are, in fact, correct.

You always seem to impugn any source you find in disagreement with your own views. Ok, fine. I knew the Free Republic article would raise someone's ire. However, you post things from sources that many people, even some more liberal than yourself, have problems accepting. The New York Times is not a source I have great difficulty with, although I do feel they have a strong liberal agenda. That said, posting information from HRW is bold, even from you. Here is a little editorial you might enjoy:

Full Story

Did you want to get into a battle over "who was there first", or were you just acting in your normal "I'm better than you" m.o. when you made your trite little statements?

Since I didn't mention any names, you have no reason to feel singled out. Are you trying to prove the idiom that "a kicked dog yelps?"

As for your statement that "...much of it is irrelevant, and much of it is in error..." I will only cede the latter point once you have corrected the information and I have learned that said corrections are, in fact, correct.

You always seem to impugn any source you find in disagreement with your own views. Ok, fine. I knew the Free Republic article would raise someone's ire. However, you post things from sources that many people, even some more liberal than yourself, have problems accepting. The New York Times is not a source I have great difficulty with, although I do feel they have a strong liberal agenda. That said, posting information from HRW is bold, even from you. Here is a little editorial you might enjoy:

Full Story

Did you want to get into a battle over "who was there first", or were you just acting in your normal "I'm better than you" m.o. when you made your trite little statements?

Way to go!

No; simply recognizing your proclivity to try to support your specious arguments with innuendo and ad hominem attacks.

Points 13, 14, and 16 display an interpretation of history which is either blatantly dishonest or shockingly ignorant of the facts. You're obviously computer literate; research them yourself. I've neither the time nor the inclination to educate or entertain fools.

Refutation does not equate to impugning. However, I do impugn sources that are unequivocally stercus tauri.

Somehow I seriously doubt that George Bush & his sycophantic Congress, Morton Klein (Zionist Organization of America), Abraham Foxman (Anti-Defamation League), Marc Stern (American Jewish Congress), or Alan Baker (Israel's ambassador to Canada), are either more Liberal than myself, or reliably unbiased on this issue.

Judith Miller.

Ah yes; whenever anyone utters a cross word about Zionism or questions the unrestrained barbaric behavior of Israel, simply label them anti-Semitic; that will certainly win the argument!

No, simply agreeing with others who have already pointed out that your post was largely irrelevant, added that it was also factually unreliable, and posted something else in the hopes of generating more intelligent topical debate rather than continue to focus on silly tangents.

And somehow supposing those might be directed at you. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! You are a living example of virtually every logical fallacy known. As for labelling anyone anti-semitic...I'm not interested in those labels as anti-semitism is nothing to me. Zionism, anti-semitism, or any other ism is and was not the issue. The issue was your boldness in using HRW as a source after impugning FR. Nice try, but I drank coffee this morning.

Silly tangent? The right to ownership of the land Israel occupies has been one of the main focuses of this thread. I know you wish to only damn Israel for having and using their overwhelming force, but whether or not Israel has a right to secure their continued sovereignty is a valid topic to discuss. One of the arguments from those condemning Israel is that they have no right to occupy the land in the first place. I would be glad to debate this with you or anyone else, and anyone can use any source they choose. I think it lends far more credibility to the discussion to examine the motives behind the enemies of Israel than to simply condemn them for bombing residences as you and others have.

Here, since you do not wish to refute anything from the Free Republic quote, I'll provide another snippet from a site you will find equally stercus tauri. From World Net Daily's Arab-American Editor and CEO, Joseph Farah:

Try attacking the substance this time, and not the source.

Culled from another thread, but highly germane to this topic:

What a terribly hateful and racist thing to say. However, the answer to your curiously phrased question is easy; Lebanon. At least, Lebanon prior to about four weeks ago.
Lebanon gripped by anti-American sentiment

"Last year, Lebanon was the beacon of the Bush administration's vision of a new Middle East. There were free elections without Syrian influence, women's rights, a free press and free speech.
Today, much of this nation feels deserted by America as Israeli warplanes dropping American-made weapons destroy apartment blocks, bridges and roads. After four weeks of bombardment, the feeling is increasingly shared by Shiite and Sunni Muslims, Christians and Druze.
Israeli and American officials thought Israel's counterattack against Hezbollah would turn more Lebanese against the militant Shiite group, but members of the new independent government worry that the war will turn Lebanon into a bastion for extremism. With every civilian death, anger rises, among both the displaced poor living in parks and the well-off still eating pasta salads in cafes."

Democracy has been unequivocally demonstrated to be a failure, as their Western style government has failed to protect the country from this disaster, and the neighboring democratically elected government of Gaza has been kidnapped, assassinated, and bombed into rubble by Israel, and Hezbollah, which only a few weeks ago was a marginalized and increasingly irrelevant minority in Lebanon has now become the folk heroes of a bitterly humiliated and traumatized people, Quixotically defending the country against Israel. There is a distinct possibility that this war will transform Lebanon from the most (the only) progressive Arab democracy favorably inclined towards Israel, America, and the West in general, into another Iran with someone like Nesrallah as ayatollah. Does anyone really think that this will be a "win" for Lebanon, Israel, America, the Middle East, or the world in general?

And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone - let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.now there are some questionable things such as name one Muslim nation


This is a statement that can be fairly disputed. MOST of the nations over in the Middle East do have womens rights, freedom of speech, thought, religion, etc. Jordan is one example. But, ask a Christian who has had to live there. They'll tell you what it's like. However there are some in here who think that even those who have LIVED over there, who have been there, done that are liers. My mother and father inlaw BOTH grew up and HAVE seen and felt what it's like to live in a predominatly Muslim country. Let me just say this. Muslims have it easier living in this country, the USA, then Christians do living in the Middle East.

To name a muslim country that demonstrates the description above, Iran, Saudi Arabia are just 2 to name a few.