Question about Israeli "Reprisals"

[George W Bush]

Originally Posted by Aaron Brachowitz

Terrorist nation is not an accurate description. Terrorist nations are characterized by dictatorships which specifically target non-combatants through clandestine, unofficial means. Israel's actions are the result of publicly declared decisions by elected leaders, using the nation's army. Disagree with their actions and motives if you choose, but labelling Israel a terrorist nation is finding a moral equivalency that just isn't there.

I can accept those distinctions.

[George W Bush]

Originally Posted by Battery Park City

While there are many differences, lets start with a few obvious ones:

1. Arab citizens of Israel can and do get elected to Parliament.

What is this different from - the situation in 19th century British rule in India?

2. Israel is surrounded by countries that have had as their goal its annihilation since its inception (actually, before).

While Isreal's goal is the annihilation of the Palestinians.

3. None of Israel's critics have come anywhere close to putting forth a viable compromise that will sufficiently guarantee the Israelis' security.

I assume by critics you mean arab nations. Isreal has put forth nothing that would secure a Palestinian homeland.

4. Many of the Israelis are Jews who immigrated from Arab countries (it would be more accurate to say that they were exiled). If you use words like apartheid or racial discrimination to describe Israel (which I do not), then you are obliged to use these terms to describe Arab Jews' relationships with their countries of recent origin.

I'm not trying to speak for Shekky, but what makes you think he, or anyone would argue that these Arab nations are not guilty of this? The issue is Isreal's treatment of the Palestinians.

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

Originally Posted by Battery Park City

While there are many differences, lets start with a few obvious ones:

1. Arab citizens of Israel can and do get elected to Parliament.

But Palestinians, who have lived in Israeli occupied land for 35 years, don't. This is like giving half of the blacks in the Reconstruction era South the vote. That doesn't justify withholding that right from the remaining half. So, in this case, no matter WHO has a vote in Israel, the fact remains that the Palestinians, who are ruled by and from Israel do not have a vote. That was my point.

Originally Posted by Battery Park City

2. Israel is surrounded by countries that have had as their goal its annihilation since its inception (actually, before).

I don't care if they are surrounded by fire breathing dragons--it doesn't affect the morality of what they do to their own citizens (or in the case of Palestinians, subjects) in their own country.

Originally Posted by BPC

3. None of Israel's critics have come anywhere close to putting forth a viable compromise that will sufficiently guarantee the Israelis' security.

Again...this doesn't change right and wrong. This justification is similar to the justification that the Soviets used to create their "Buffer states" in the Communist Bloc--i.e., they had to guarantee their safety from the West. Of course, if you happen to live in Poland, this would seem a little unfair to you, that YOUR safety and well-being should be sacrificed for the Soviets safety.

4. Many of the Israelis are Jews who immigrated from Arab countries (it would be more accurate to say that they were exiled). If you use words like apartheid or racial discrimination to describe Israel (which I do not), then you are obliged to use these terms to describe Arab Jews' relationships with their countries of recent origin.

Again, how does this affect the morality of how the Israelis treat people they choose to rule by force? I will stipulate that most Arab nations are human rights hellholes--that doesn't give the Israelis carte blanche to create similar conditions for the Palestinians.


This brings me to a simple point, that some people need to take to heart. If you believe--as I believe we all do--that ALL people deserve some basic human rights and human dignity, then it is incongruous to even suggest that we can unilaterally choose to deny those rights to people because they are barbaric, or evil, or otherwise not as great as we are. If you only give rights to those people who you like...the whole concept loses all meaning. It doesn't matter HOW evil you think the Arab world is...they are still human beings.

AND, none of this excuses any of the Arab nations' abuses of human rights...one issue at a time though.

[Laocoön]

Originally Posted by Shekky Tree

I have an honest question about the Israeli "reprisals" that we hear about on the news.

Who(m) are they "reprising" against? Are they killing people that they KNOW have done something wrong...people they THINK have done something wrong...or just killing Palestians for the sake of reprisal.

The reason I ask is that, to put this in context, Israel controls (doesn't it?) the occupied areas. That's why they are called "occupied" isn't it?

Am I missing something, or do these reprisals constitute random acts of violence committed by a government against the nominally governed?

It is ultimately impossible to determine the motivations of other people, but we can look to their histories to get an idea of what patterns seem to be constant in their behavior. Here is a short history of Ariel Sharon's behavior:

http://www.danpal.dk/vidensbase/baggrund/bg-033.htm

My opinion is that Israel was originally composed of idealists and of thugs. Probably the best example of the idealists was Moshe Dayan, who seemed actually to believe that Israel's purpose was to provide a homeland for the Jews, but that this did not mean that it could ignore the rights of the Arabs. Another example was Moshe Sharret. Of the thugs, the examples are too numerous to mention. While it was convenient to do so, the thugs hid behind the petticoats of the idealists, who honestly portrayed Israel as a state that believed in justice. Now, the idealists in Israel could probably all fit onto a large airplane, and the thugs -- who believe only in their own needs and in grabbing power in any form and by any means -- rule Israel with the only limitation on their misdeeds that they rely on US support, which might falter if they start throwing Palestinians into gas chambers, for example. The threat of US support faltering, however, is very slim.

[Laocoön]

Originally Posted by George W Bush

It does appear that there are a lot of people here (both on this forum and in the country) that think Isreal is acting like a terrrorist nation. I wonder if a. thats really true and not just my opinion and b. if it is true, if it will affect US policy on the region.

I don't think there are a lot of people in this country who think about Israel at all, and of those that do, the knee-jerk supporters of anything Israel does outnumber both the non-committed and the opponents of US support for Israel by a wide margin. Ask yourself this: If you were to wear a T-shirt that had "FREE PALESTINE" written on it in big letters, do you imagine for a moment that you could wear it in public without having people shout obscenities at you and throw things at you from passing vehicles? Do you imagine that there are not people on this very forum who would shout obscenities at you and throw things at you from passing vehicles if they saw you wearing such a shirt? And yet, would not many of these same people think that even a much more mild reaction to a T-shirt reading "SUPPPORT ISRAEL" (say, suggesting to its wearer that perhaps the grievances of the Palestinians should be understood more completely before supporting Israel) would constitute anti-Semitism? All without any sense of irony?

No, GWB, the dialogue in the US is too completely skewed in favor of Israel for there to be any change in US policy due to any recognition of Israeli transgressions. This may slowly change, as the television images of even the worst suicide bombings show an economically vibrant community in the background, while the images of the latest Israeli incursions show almost even more strikingly how much had already been destroyed in prior attacks. But the indifference of the American public to international affairs is virtually impossible to overestimate.

[Laocoön]

Originally Posted by Aaron Brachowitz

Terrorist nation is not an accurate description. Terrorist nations are characterized by dictatorships which specifically target non-combatants through clandestine, unofficial means. Israel's actions are the result of publicly declared decisions by elected leaders, using the nation's army. Disagree with their actions and motives if you choose, but labelling Israel a terrorist nation is finding a moral equivalency that just isn't there.

That's not quite right, Aaron. Israel's "publicly declared decisions" are quite often very different from the real motivations for its actions, and they are sometimes based upon circumstances created by Israel solely for the purpose of providing justification for what it intended to do all along anyway. The US sometimes does similar things.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

Originally Posted by Laocoön

Ask yourself this: If you were to wear a T-shirt that had "FREE PALESTINE" written on it in big letters, do you imagine for a moment that you could wear it in public without having people shout obscenities at you and throw things at you from passing vehicles? Do you imagine that there are not people on this very forum who would shout obscenities at you and throw things at you from passing vehicles if they saw you wearing such a shirt?

No, GWB, the dialogue in the US is too completely skewed in favor of Israel...

Why do you suppose the dialogue is "completely skewed in favor of Israel?" The Palestinians have had 50 years to try to get Americans on their side, frequently appearing in the media and other places to make their case, which is actually a decent one. But it doesn't take too many bombings of teen hangouts to completely negate the merits of your case. Americans are appalled by such bombings and see the Israeli actions as a justifiable response. The Palestinians have managed to portray themselves in an entirely unsympathetic light, in contrast to black South Africans, black Americans, Indians and others in past struggles. The path they have chosen leads only to more death and more poverty. Post-9/11, Americans will be even less sympathetic to a people closely associated with the radical Islamic movement.

[E. Blackadder]

Originally Posted by Laocoön

Ask yourself this: If you were to wear a T-shirt that had "FREE PALESTINE" written on it in big letters, do you imagine for a moment that you could wear it in public without having people shout obscenities at you and throw things at you from passing vehicles?

...the indifference of the American public to international affairs is virtually impossible to overestimate.

In fact wearing your t-shirt would not add to your risk of verbal attack in well over 99% of the land mass of America. And even in areas where you would get disapproving looks, you would also get cheers. And these days just about everyone is wearing a "controversial" t-shirt "Free Mumia", for instance...

As for people throwing things at you from passing vehicles, that's more of a redneck thing. Usually it's beer. Even rednecks rarely keep spare bricks in their pickup truck cabins. And it takes a quick mind to 1) figure out that you disapprove of someone you're passing at 45MPH; and 2) accurately throw anything at said person. (my understanding is that it's usually necessary to double back), and in this age of cell phones and concealed weapons, it's difficult to believe that it's as popular a sport as it once was...

Of course, teenagers will yell at (or give the finger to) anyone from their passing vehicles. Especially at pedestrians. It seems integral to the teenage experience.

[Laocoön]

Originally Posted by Aaron Brachowitz

Why do you suppose the dialogue is "completely skewed in favor of Israel?" The Palestinians have had 50 years to try to get Americans on their side, frequently appearing in the media and other places to make their case, which is actually a decent one. But it doesn't take too many bombings of teen hangouts to completely negate the merits of your case. Americans are appalled by such bombings and see the Israeli actions as a justifiable response. The Palestinians have managed to portray themselves in an entirely unsympathetic light, in contrast to black South Africans, black Americans, Indians and others in past struggles. The path they have chosen leads only to more death and more poverty. Post-9/11, Americans will be even less sympathetic to a people closely associated with the radical Islamic movement.

Perhaps the Palestinians are idiots. Do you think that means that they have no rights? I am more inclined to think that they were caught flat-footed -- the Zionists had this big agenda and lots and lots of discussion and organization about what they wanted and what they needed to do to get it, and they launched their agenda on a population of villagers and farmers, most of whom had probably never ventured more than 20 miles from home. And by the time they realized they had a problem, most of them were displaced into refugee camps.

Also, I believe the party line is that the 9/11 attacks had nothing to do with Israel, but that Israel's attacks on the Palestinians have everything to do with 9/11, however that works.

[Laocoön]

Originally Posted by E. Blackadder

In fact wearing your t-shirt would not add to your risk of verbal attack in well over 99% of the land mass of America.

Clever, Blackadder. By "in public," I generally mean, "where other people can see you." Since I seem to need to be very clear, I also meant that the T-shirt would be worn on the outside, where it could be seen, and not under a sweatshirt.

And even in areas where you would get disapproving looks, you would also get cheers. And these days just about everyone is wearing a "controversial" t-shirt "Free Mumia", for instance...

That's the beauty of it -- at present, an anti-Israel position is the just about the only non-obvious one (i.e., not including pro-fascism, for example) I can think of that has virtually no significant body of public support. Liberals and conservatives, as they are commonly designated, all tend to be strongly pro-Israel, albeit often for very different reasons. If you had to defend an anti-Israel position in court, you might be able to get some support from the ACLU as a free-speech matter, much like the neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klan could expect (should I pause here to let the twits harp on the association between an anti-Israel position and neo-Nazis and the Klan? If nothing else, its a useful tool for identifying twits...)

As for people throwing things at you from passing vehicles, that's more of a redneck thing.

Oh -- and the "Chosen People" are above such "redneck" things but not above ethnic cleansing?

In fact, just this past week I saw where someone had put up signs saying "STOP U.S. SUPPORT FOR ISRAELI AGGRESSION AGAINST THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE" in a well-trafficked area (no, it was not me that put the signs up, something that maybe you should worry about) and someone else had taken the time to rip them in half and tear them down. Now, there are signs that I would rip in half and tear down in plain sight of anyone who happended to be around, as I think must have been the case when these signs were torn down, but my attitude in such a situation would have to be that I was also prepared for a no-holds-barred fight over the matter. And when I put the signs back together as well as I could and put them back up, I was indeed prepared for a no-holds-barred fight over the matter, but apparently you were elsewhere at the time.

I should also say that I was thinking of myself when I wrote of throwing things from cars. Most people would be physically confronted with the intent of picking a fight if they wore such a shirt -- are the "Chosen People" above that? -- but if it were me, the would-be enforcers of the pro-Israel terms of discourse would in all likelihood take notice of what was under the shirt as well, and, as you say, double back in a car and throw something at me as they sped by. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.