Using The Holocaust To Ward Off Criticism

[Violet_Crumble]

by Amira Hass
March 21, 2005
Ha'aretz

The crowd of world leaders visiting the new Holocaust History Museum at Yad Vashem attests to the strength of Israel's position in the West.

Israel is often criticized in the home country of these leaders, but many Israelis and Jews will, as usual, attribute such criticism to anti-Semitism. Palestinians and left wingers including Jews will discover that the knowledge about the Israeli occupation in these countries is meager, and the public's interest in it is weak.

The pilgrimage to Jerusalem of so many European leaders shows that they are not deterred by the criticism of Israel - they are taking part in a media event that can only be interpreted as support for Israel, as it is today.

At best, the visit can be seen as encouragement to both sides to stick to the "renewed peace process." But encouragement for what? For the meetings between Mohammed Dahlan and Nasser Yousef with Shaul Mofaz? For the separation barrier, whose construction is continuing with vigor, contrary to the verdict of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague? For the condescending Israeli "gestures" - 200 more movement permits to merchants, a road open to private Palestinian vehicles, not only to public ones? Or for the continued mashing of Palestinian East Jerusalem and severing it from the rest of the Palestinian territory, in violation of the international demand that East Jerusalem serve as the Palestinian state's capital?

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=7490

[simcha_6]

1. What's the point?

So the leaders shouldn't visit Yad Vashem? Or they shouldn't go to Jerusalem, where many are probably celebrating Easter in the most appropriate place? Or they should sever ties with Israel while continuing to support the countries listed below(1)?

And public interest in the Israeli occupation in the world. Please. Give me a break. The I/P conflict is possibly the hottest issue on the world stage, for reasons unknown to me, seeing how many are as bad or so much worse (see below 2).

Yes, the situation in the territories is a shame, but to harangue world leaders for visiting Israel is foolish. Please remember, Israel is not an apartheid state like South Africa. Apartheid is racial, and this is a national conflict, no worse (and actually more justifiable than the situations seen below (3). In Israel's case, the conquest of Gaza and West Bank were justified by the right to self-defense.

(1) Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, India, Indonesia, Sudan (we're still at fault for allowing subsidiary trade with Sudan), Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, China, Uzbekistan.

(2) Chechnya, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karahbakh (Armenia), Kashmir, Tibet, Xinjiang, Sudan, Western Sahara.

(3) All the members of list (2) (minus possibly Xinjiang) plus Burma and Indonesia.

[newyorican]

3. Look! Over there!

Nevermind the irony in comparing Israel to the rogues gallery. Anything to make Israel look marginally better, I guess.

However, as to your assertion:

In Israel's case, the conquest of Gaza and West Bank were justified by the right to self-defense.

Someone that knows a little more about the situation than yourself thinks otherwise.

"The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war." Israeli General Matityahu Peled, Ha'aretz, 19 March 1972.

I will wait for the inevitable, "What he really said was..."

[pelsar]

7. newyorican.....

in the "comparison" of rogues states...the question which i too have yet to even be answered, is why does israel get such an overt out-of-proportion amount vs other countries who are so much worse. Its not 'deflection of critizim of israeli policies, its a legitimate question, which I have even yet to get a response.

as far as the 6 day war goes....first off, no country goes to war with the idea of losing...i doubt that was in Egyptian/Syrian and Jordan plans.

More so, nothing is certain in war....Peled believe that israel would win...just as did his counter part - the arab generals. And if you talk to israelis of that period, many were hardly a confident as Peled. Israelis on the front/mobilized for months, those who survived the camps....that "sure thing" is "looking back".

Add to that, the absurdity that surrounding neighboring countries can threaten a 3rd country with anihilation and "get away with it"......I've never heard of such a thing happening anywhere else.

[simcha_6]

10. My response

"Never mind the irony in comparing Israel to the rogues gallery"

India, Azerbaijan. Not usually considered rogues, at least in my experience. Russia and China are debatable.

As to the 6 day war and the justification for taking the OT's. Regardless of the fact that Egypt had used Gaza as a jump-off point for terror attacks (I'm not sure if the same thing happened from the West Bank), it seems to me you're saying that, because the Arab nations weren't going to commit another genocide, Israel shouldn't have tried to defend its citizens. Ignoring the obvious question "Why were the Arab nations attacking if not to destroy the 'physical existence' of Israel?" the fact is the Arab nations had attacked Israel (tanks were on the border, and I believe closing the strait of Tiran constitutes Casus Beli), and had continuously attacked Israel, at least from Gaza and the Golan. The pre-1967 borders are not very defensible, and while this doesn't matter now, it certainly did matter when Israel's neighbors had a stated policy (we disagree as to whether they really meant it, obviously) to destroy the state of Israel.

Finally, I'd just like to point out that, had Syria, Jordan, and Egypt agreed to make peace with Israel after the war, Gaza, Sinai, and most of the West Bank (probably barring E. Jerusalem) would have been returned. But they didn't agree, and Israel was left holding land that didn't really belong to anyone. There was no PA to claim it yet, and the nations that wanted the land refused to make peace with Israel. Keeping the OT's made sense from the standpoint that

A) They could be used to defend against future attacks, and

B) They would give the three erstwhile attackers a reason to make peace. Ultimately, this strategy worked when peace was made with Egypt.

[MsMagnificent]

57. How does "defending' one's country

translate into seizing (via war, no less), occupying and claiming (by God-given right!) more land?

Canada won't support us in out Holy War, and I think they may attack us!
We should take Toronto, that'll solve the problem completely!
We take their land, they won't attack us
if the land happens to be Bizzaroland

[Colorado Blue]

59. I hope Simcha doesn't mind if I answer. I hope he will too!

The problem is the border. If you look at a map, you will see that the shape of Israel is very narrow, it looks like a dagger and the "handle" is only about 6 miles wide. I write about this below, to answer your questions about the 6 Day War.

At the time the land was siezed, Jordan had attacked Israel already and it was feared an all out attack, perhaps involving other states using Jordan as a launching pad, so to speak, could cut the state in half in less than a few hours.

Syria was attacking from the north, shooting at people from the Golan Heights. The Heights were siezed to protect the people below. Egypt was attacking across the Sinai, which is perfect tank territory. Tanks can roll unimpeded across the desert and wind up downtown. Finally, in Lebanon, the PLO, having been evicted from Jordan, took up residence and started shelling Israel from the north. This was during the Lebanese Civil War and was the immediate reason Israel entered that war. Let me know if you need a link.

In any case, Israel kept a strip of land in Southern Lebanon, to protect the northern border from attack. This is Hizbollah territory, still vowing to destroy Israel.

Also, of course, there are planes and missiles.

I wish I had a decent map, showing the relative size of this place. It's TINY.

Hang on...AHA.

http://palestinefacts.org/pf_basics.php

This is a good map, plus it give you a size idea - smaller than Lake Erie.

Here's a whole list of maps + info:

http://palestinefacts.org/pf_maps.php

This site also has timelines, the history of the various wars, so forth.

Here's one relative to surrounding Arab/Muslim world:

http://www.masada2000.org/geography.html

Now, I will admit the above map contains some verbiage, from the Jewish POV. The facts are the facts, though; the map shows the relative size of Israel plus has relevant demographic data, and perhaps can answer some questions about the idea of Israeli expansionism.

Masada, by the way, was the last ditch stand of the Jewish people, before the Romans threw us out. I hope this last snippet isn't considered off topic. It's a story that is important to Israel, though, and symbolizes the desire of the Jewish people to live in a free land. So I hope nobody minds that I'm including it. It helps explains the mindset.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Archaeology/Masada1.html

"According to Josephus Flavius, Herod the Great built the fortress of Masada between 37 and 31 BCE. Herod, an Idumean, had been made King of Judea by his Roman overlords and was hated by his Jewish subjects. Herod, the master builder, “furnished this fortress as a refuge for himself.” It included a casemate wall around the plateau, storehouses, large cisterns ingeniously filled with rainwater, barracks, palaces and an armory.

Some 75 years after Herod’s death, at the beginning of the Revolt of the Jews against the Romans in 66 CE, a group of Jewish rebels overcame the Roman garrison of Masada. After the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple (70 CE) they were joined by zealots and their families who had fled from Jerusalem. With Masada as their base, they raided and harassed the Romans for two years. Then, in 73 CE, the Roman governor Flavius Silva marched against Masada with the Tenth Legion, auxiliary units and thousands of Jewish prisoners-of-war. The Romans established camps at the base of Masada, laid siege to it and built a circumvallation wall. They then constructed a rampart of thousands of tons of stones and beaten earth against the western approaches of the fortress and, in the spring of the year 74 CE, moved a battering ram up the ramp and breached the wall of the fortress.

Josephus Flavius dramatically recounts the story told him by two surviving women. The defenders – almost one thousand men, women and children – led by Eleazar ben Ya’ir, decided to burn the fortress and end their own lives, rather than be taken alive. “And so met (the Romans) with the multitude of the slain, but could take no pleasure in the fact, though it were done to their enemies. Nor could they do other than wonder at the courage of their resolution, and at the immovable contempt of death which so great a number of them had shown, when they went through with such an action as that was.”

The Zealots cast lots to choose 10 men to kill the remainder. They then chose among themselves the one man who would kill the survivors. That last Jew then killed himself."

[Coastie for Truth]

2. Thank you for posting this excerpt from Z/Net

As one who follows Z/Net - I know they have a viewpoint and "agenda", just as I realize that the Rapturist-Apocalptic theology of John Nelson Darby, C.I. Scofield, Edward Irving, Henry Drummond and the like created an agenda and a bizzaro type of support for Israel's actions on the West Bank.

I try to perceive the agenda and use it as filter to uncover the kernel of value.

[Jim Sagle]

4. Rotsa ruck.

;)

[bemildred]

5. I dunno why, this made me think of this story:

Raving Israelis Want the Right to Party

The headline is a bit sensational, but I find it pleasant to think
the younger generations are not interested in all this sectarian
bickering.

In the 1990s, upward of 10,000 young Israelis would gather on an open beach and dance for days to trance-style music. These rave parties were the inspiration of young people who, fresh from two years of required army service, had traveled to Goa, India. Partying in such exotic, tranquil surroundings left a deep impression, and the raves they put on after coming home attracted perhaps 200,000 young Israelis overall, and put Israel on the global youth map. Tel Aviv became as important a stop as Ibiza, Amsterdam and Berlin.

Some saw the raves as mere hedonism, and there was that. But, as one organizer told me, they also symbolized a desire to live normally, in coexistence with Arabs: "We simply want to have fun together, that's the kind of Israel we want to see." This phenomenon was one aspect of something called "Israeliness," a youthful embrace of a lifestyle of culture and music that transcended national borders. Israeliness arose among the nation's elites at the beginning of the Oslo decade — the last attempt at a comprehensive peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. Its advocates argue that the Zionism that fulfilled the long-held goal of returning the displaced Jewish people to Palestine also created a culture. They coined the term "Israeliness" to define it.

---

Reaching that goal would, of course, strengthen Israel's economy and ease global integration. It would also keep young Israelis from moving overseas to escape the army and the difficulties they now face. But the transition toward normalcy has been frequently disrupted, most recently by the Palestinian intifada. Along with so much else, the raves died. The DJs who had traveled from city to city, followers in tow, stopped coming. As the rest of the region sank into tribal warfare, Israel too reverted to a tribalism that put Jewish identity above all else.

Now there's hope again. No one would suggest that a sense of universal brotherhood is about to envelop the Middle East. But with two war horses — Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas — prepared to give peace a chance, perhaps someone will also give the young another chance.

LA Times

[Colorado Blue]

6. As to the Six Day War, I guess hindsight is 20/20. Here is

an excerpt from Wikipedia on the subject:

Israel's own sense of concern regarding Jordan's future role originated in Jordanian control of the West Bank. This put Arab forces just 17 kilometers from Israel's coast, a jump-off point from which a well co-ordinated tank assault could cut Israel in two within half an hour. Although the size of Jordan's army meant that Jordan was probably incapable of executing such a maneuver, the country was perceived as having a history of being used by other Arab states as staging grounds for operations against Israel; thus, attack from the West Bank was always viewed by the Israeli leadership as a threat to Israel's existence. At the same time several other Arab states not bordering Israel, including Iraq, Sudan, Kuwait and Algeria, began mobilising their armed forces.

Israel watched these developments with alarm, and tried various diplomatic routes to try settling them. The U.S. and U.K. were asked to open the Tiran straits, as they guaranteed they would in 1957. Jordan was asked by the Jewish lobby in the USA through numerous channels, weeks before the war, to refrain from entering the conflict. All Israeli requests for peace were left unanswered, creating a feeling of grave concern for the future of the country. Israelis claimed that the closing the Straits met the international criteria for an act of war. On June 3 the Johnson administration gave its acquiescence to an operation against Egypt, and plans for war were finally approved. Israel's attack against Egypt on June 5 began what would later be dubbed the Six-Day War.

***

Key points in this verbiage: the very slim distance between the border and the coast, the pleas by Israel for peace, the total disregard of those pleas.

Not quoted here but present in the article: the dastardly deeds of the Soviet Union, stirring the Arab pot. This was at the height of the Cold War and those of us now living in the 21st Century may have forgotten - or may never have known - the tension that existed at that time and the sub rosa warfare conducted by the US and its allies and the Soviets, using client states as chesspieces.

Needless to say the fears of nuclear annihilation were ever-present.

It is pointless in this day and age to say, we shouldn't have done such and such in 1967. The fears and threats were VERY real. The purpose of the occupation was obvious then and it remains obvious to this day. The shape of Israel without the West Bank is the same as always. The DIFFERENCE in the situation lies in two facts: several of the Arab states seem to want to join the 21st century and make peace with Israel, regardless of the wishes of the Islamist and terrorist groups. And secondly, the Soviet Union is dead and no longer has the power to start an arms war with its inevitable tragic consequences, in the Middle East. (One is tempted to say the US can do that by itself but one doesn't wish to appear cynical:)

***

Absolutely, the oppression of innocents on the West Bank and in Gaza is to be deplored. However, we must NOT forget that the preconditions for this situation didn't occur in a vacuum and the hopes for peace, while as great as they were in 1967, remain fragile.

Finally, I absolutely fail to see why world leaders SHOULDN'T visit Israel. I just wish they'd work harder to help the situation. That means doing whatever it takes, diplomatically and economically, to help convince the radicals to disarm. This would go a LOT farther than an annual trip to Jerusalem.

One indeed senses a gathering cloud of antisemitism, here in the States as well, rather than the sanguine view of Israel's power as put forth by the writer.

[MsMagnificent]

50. So THAT preemptive war is GOOD?

HOW could "The fears and threats (be) VERY real" when the ONLY nuclear weapons in the continent (AND its neighboring continents -- heck practically the WORLD!) belonged to Israel?!

Of course her supporter, the U.S., had them as did the Soviet Union, but the war between the USSR and the US remained Cold!
I cannot fathom the reasoning behind why the Soviets would back some small Arab nation(s) in which they had little or no vested interest in (back them with nuclear weapons no less!) seeing as especially Israel was backed by we Americans. Or that government at least.

Especially after Korea and Vietnam. Even Cuba!

Despite its ubiquitous posturing and sabre rattling I cannot comprehend the US going into WWIII ESPECIALLY after the brutal, deadly Israeli attack and attempt to totally destroy the USS Liberty, along with her entire crew. As well covered up as that scandal was, still, dozens (I believe 38 dead, hundreds wounded -- that's just off te top of my head but it is close) of our American sailors died in that attack. Even with the political scrambling and cover-up in the White House, by a Democratic President no less, does not change the fact that that incident FAR from sat well in the Pentagon!

Kindly quote your sources to prove my, as I'm sure it shall be termed, anti-semitic doubts! I shall be eagerly waiting the proof.
Truly, it would be fascinating!



As an exercise, cut and paste in that entire diatribe you posted, just changing 'America' for 'Israel' and you've got the same lame rhetoric used by the pResident and his cadre to invade Iraq. Perhaps you back the preemptive invasion of Iraq? A strange thing for a Democrat to do, but I suppose anything's possible...

Please do not make the mistake of considering that people who are against Israeli apartheid are anti-semitic (which is a fundamentally wrong, yet commonly used term -- the Arabs are also Semitic people! ). There are many fine Jewish people, groups and organizations, both within that state and without, who denounce what the state of Israel has done and is still doing to the Palestinian people.
{b]

If it was WRONG for the Nazi's to do to the Jewish people, gays, gypsies, Poles, Slav's etc. what they did, if the Berlin Wall was WRONG,
Then it is ALSO WRONG for the Israeli’s (hell, ANYBODY!) to do!.

Period.
Full stop.

But then that's just my opinion.

[Colorado Blue]

58. Of what possible use is an atomic bomb, if one wants to

continue living? Who would get bombed, that the fallout wouldn't hurt Israel? And who would want to live, after having used the bombs? Really, it's unthinkable.

The purpose of Israel was not to make enemies, nor to exist in a state of perpetual war. It was to find a peaceful home for people who could find no peace, anywhere in the world.

The Middle East has always been home to the Jewish people, even after the Diaspora. Arab hostility to the Jewish state is explained by several factors, but one that won't fly is the idea that Jews are interlopers or strangers to the region. Many peoples live here, not just the Muslim, Arab majority, and ALL have rights in the region.

There are several articles in the "apartheid" thread detailing the plight of the Middle Eastern Jews in the 20th century, and their expulsion from Arab lands. Most troubling was the spread of the Nazi infection, throughout the Middle East. That most definitely has affected events before, during and after WWII.

European antisemitism, the Holocaust and its effects were by no means limited to Europe. Don't forget the presence of Vichy France and Nazi Germany in the region. That most definitely affected Arab attitudes toward Jews, and made their lives throughout the M.E. really miserable, particularly in occupied North Africa.

If you're interested in reading these posts and can't find them, please let me know and I'll direct you to them. In case you're worried about the veracity of the information, several of the documents cited came from the United Nations, others from university sources.

In any case, here is a link to the 6 Day War:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Six_Day_War

"... in response to Israel's construction of the National Water Carrier, Syria initiated a plan to divert the waters of the Dan/Baniyas stream so that the water would not enter Israel and the Sea of Galilee, but rather flow through Syria to Jordan and into the Jordan river. In addition to sponsoring attacks against Israel (often through Jordanian territory, much to King Hussein's chagrin), Syria also began shelling of Israeli civilian communities in north-eastern Galilee, from positions on the Golan Heights. Although Israel destroyed the water-diversion facilities in 1964, the border remained a scene of constant conflict.

snip

The Soviet Union actively backed the military needs of the Arab states. It was later revealed that the Soviet Union had intentionally escalated the situation in the Middle East by sending false messages to the various Arab states that the Israelis were massing their forces at the border with Syria.

snip

On May 23, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran (Israel's main shipping route to Asia and other major places of trade) to Israeli shipping, and also blockaded the Israeli port of Eilat at the northern end of the Gulf of Aqaba...President Nasser, who had called King Hussein an "imperialist lackey" just days earlier, declared: "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight." <1> (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/30/newsid_2493000/2493177.stm)

snip

Israel's own sense of concern regarding Jordan's future role originated in Jordanian control of the West Bank. This put Arab forces just 17 kilometers from Israel's coast, a jump-off point from which a well co-ordinated tank assault could cut Israel in two within half an hour...thus, attack from the West Bank was always viewed by the Israeli leadership as a threat to Israel's existence. At the same time several other Arab states not bordering Israel, including Iraq, Sudan, Kuwait and Algeria, began mobilising their armed forces...Israel watched these developments with alarm, and tried various diplomatic routes to try settling them. All Israeli requests for peace were left unanswered, creating a feeling of grave concern for the future of the country. Israelis claimed that the closing the Straits met the international criteria for an act of war."

***

If you read these few paragraphs, then proceed to the article in full, I think you'll get a sense of what the Israelis were dealing with. The article details the several casus belli, including Syrian attacks on Israelis from the Golan, plus meddling with Israel's water supply and shipping routes; the Soviets; the narrowness of Israel.

Most telling, is the quote of Nasser, "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight." <1>

***

How could this war have been avoided? If you have any ideas, I'd sure like to hear them.

***

Whether one likes it or not, the Soviet Union was very much involved in the M.E. and in the above war, and in the Lebanese civil war. The prize, of course, was the oil fields. And, weak, constantly warring nations can't form a powerful, united regional power to challenge the great powers! I've always thought, if the M.E. could really get its act together, it could light the world, as it did in the past.

Unfortunately, I think the major powers fear the same thing.

Beyond that, unlimited US/NATO/British power in the region was to be feared. Additionally, the M.E. borders the Russian regions of the Caucasus and the "stans" - oil rich, yet troubled, primarily Muslim states. Later on, the fall of Iran to the extreme Shi'a mullahs would provoke the Soviets to attack Afghanistan and the US to create and arm Saddam Hussein. Again, Russia was protecting their vulnerable southern flank - ironically, that war destroyed the Soviet Union. It was their Vietnam but proved far more deadly to the Soviets than Vietnam did to the US. Now, the US in turn is stuck in Iraq!

In any case, this was a shadow war being fought via the little states of the region, who by that time were effectively pawns in this larger conflict, while simultaneously acting out their own dramas - dramas that had their roots early in the 20th century, and came to tragic bloom in the years surrounding WWII.

***

The ship you mention was a spy ship. I don't know much about this incident, beyond that, and other posters in this forum have explained that the Israelis were afraid of the role it might be playing in the war. Nevertheless, I believe it was claimed that the attack was an accident.

If indeed it WAS a deliberate attack, it must be remembered, that at this time the US was not really that firm an ally of Israel. Probably the Israelis were afraid. If they killed the ship, they did it because they feared it would harm them.

None of the major powers really had been a staunch ally - Britain had been downright duplicitous, and played a major role in fomenting trouble throughout the region. The Brits have been playing "The Great Game" as they call it, since early in the 19th century, and their goal has been 1) trade routes to India and East Asia 2) control of the eastern Med 3) oil.

The only way for a power like Britain, tiny really, to control an enormous empire, was to play divide and conquer. They are still at it.

Oil was and remains, the primary whale in the soup in the M.E. If you are seeking the motivation for major power involvement, seek no further, although other geopolitical factors I have mentioned are relevant. Moreover, the M.E. provides a perfect testing ground and a ready market, for the best weapons money can buy.

***

I do not feel it is antisemitic to be concerned about the situation of the Palestinian people on the west bank. There can be no happiness for Israel unless the Palestinian people are secure, as well.

I do feel, however, that one must see the present situation in the light of two factors.

1) The geopolitical and social and religious factors that constitute the Middle East as a whole. Israel is not isolated, it is inextricably interwoven with the region, which is volatile, complex, warlike and extremely hostile to Israel and her people.

2) The history of the region. One could go back all the way to the Diaspora but a good grasp of the 20th century would do.

We didn't get to this point overnight or in a vacuum!

***

One final note: Since you mention Iraq, and attempt to draw a parallel between Israel and the US invasion of Iraq, the situations are so completely different. If you need to look at a map to understand why, please do so. Israel is a tiny place!

Iraq was not massing its armor at our borders.

Israel is smaller than Massachusetts, only about 6 miles wide in places. There is absolutely no room for error. In fact, during the Yom Kippur War in 1973, in which Israel was attacked by several Arab states - by surprise on the holiest day of the year - things really looked grim. The nuclear option was considered, but rejected by the Prime Minister (thank god).

Since then, attempts have been made to exchange the OT for peace treaties. Still no peace treaties. The OT officially belong to Egypt and Jordan. Maybe, someday? It sucks for the Palestinian people and it sucks for the Israeli people.

No comparison to the situation of the US and Iraq at all.

[Coastie for Truth]

62. A bit off on the facts

Once again the canard

" ESPECIALLY after the brutal, deadly Israeli attack and attempt to totally destroy the USS Liberty, along with her entire crew. As well covered up as that scandal was, still, dozens (I believe 38 dead, hundreds wounded -- that's just off te top of my head but it is close) of our American sailors died in that attack."

The canard. I was a Coast Guard Comm Watch Officer when that attack occurred. I WAS FOLLOWING THE MESSAGE TRAFFIC!!!! My dad was a retired US Navy Intelligence Officer who the Naval Intelligence "Command Structure" tried to kill by the same kind of screw up (denying that he was on a misison, denying that his aircraft was missing, denying that his aircraft even existed)

The Israelis saw a ship - went to the Defense Attache in Tel Aviv (he said no US ship was there - and that there were Russian "False flag" ships in the region).

The Liberty Looked like a Russian intelligence ship. (I am a Coast Guard Veteran - LIEUTENANT - I did the Cuban blockade - I shadowed Russian intelligence ships --I have an Underway Officer of the Deck letter- I have seen my share of false flagged Russian intelligence trawlers - off of Florida and of the Carolina Outer Banks - I have had the Conn when the Navy and Coast Guard shadowed them)

Israel's defense ministry contacted the Fleet Commander at Naples - repeat - no US ship there.

Israel's defense ministry then contacted Commander, US Naval Forces Europe in London. Again - no US ship there.

Israel's defense ministry then contacted both Commander in Chief Atlantic and Commander in Chief Atlantic Fleet -- again. No US ship there.

Israel's defense ministry then contacted the Chief of Naval Intelligence -- again denial that a US ship was there.

BTW - check this out in the Unclassified Report on the USS Pueblo (the sister ship that was captured by the North Koreans in Feb 68). I was at the Command Center on Treasure Island when the Pueblo was captured -- and the Navy didn't even know that there were intelligence assets there. Also check it out in Lloyd Boucher's book.

That's the way Naval Intelligence operates - that's how they almost killed my Dad.

Your interest in the Navy and Coast Guard is appreciated.

Lieutenant, USCGR (honorably discharged with a friggin DD214CG)

[centristo]

8. the author has a very good point, however

she simplifies one step too many.

"This widely covered event shows that Israel has turned the liquidation of Europe's Jews into an asset. Our murdered relatives are being enlisted to enable Israel to continue not giving a damn about international decisions against the occupation. The suffering our parents endured in the ghettoes and concentration camps that filled Europe, the physical and mental anguish and torment that our parents were subjected to every single day since the "liberation," are used as weapons to thwart any international criticism of the society we are creating here. This is a society with built-in discrimination on the basis of nationality, and the discrimination is spreading on either side of the Green Line. This is a society that is systematically continuing to banish the Palestinian nation from its land and usurp its rights as a nation and its chances for a humane future."

Israel is not a society with built-in discrimination on the basis of nationality, as she claims. Israel discriminates on the basis of security. The Palestinian nation is compromised of certain elements bent on the destruction of Israel and of Jews in general. Also around 20% of Israel is non-Jewish so that argument just doesn't hold up.

However it is sad to see the Jewish nation adopting the tactics of its greatest enemies. The OT are basically the modern day Middle East version of Poland's 1930s ghettos. I hope the peace process succeeds so this analogy doesn't proceed any further...

[simcha_6]

9. Pretty good post: Thanks n/t

[Coastie for Truth]

11. I beg to differ

Your analogy fails on the observable facts of the Palestinian diaspora --> who can leave the West Bank freely ---> I just don't understand your statement

"However it is sad to see the Jewish nation adopting the tactics of its greatest enemies. The OT are basically the modern day Middle East version of Poland's 1930s ghettos. I hope the peace process succeeds so this analogy doesn't proceed any further..."

The Palestinians can leave and be welcomed in many countries outside of the ME. Look at South Eastern Michigan, a thriving Iraqi and Palestinian community. Look at Oakland County Michigan. Look at UofM- Deraborn and Wayne State Univ and Lawrence Tech. Look at Ford Motor Company.

Do you want to see what Palestinians can do outside of the Middle East ---> http://www.fordvehicles.com/escapehybrid/home/

Or how about ---> http://www.ltu.edu/facultyandstaff/

Or try ---> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/9series/player.aspx

Or try (Palestinians in Cairo and Silicon Valley) ---> http://www.line56.com/articles/default.asp?articleID=4469&TopicID=3


Nobody would take the Jews from Poland's 1930s ghettos. Even the refugee laden SS Saint Louis was turned away from Western Hemisphere Ports.

Your analogy fails.

[Colorado Blue]

12. Good points! There is a VAST difference between the

situation of the Palestinians today and that of the Jewish people in Europe. For one thing the Palestinians are virtually surrounded by allies and for another, are heavily endowed by many charities. They share economic and social ties with the "enemy", and have, I think, the highest literacy rate of any Arab community. Their plight is anything but ignored in the world press. Indeed, the Israeli army can't MOVE without appearing on international TV; even when action is justified it appears to be, and is framed as, unprovoked brutality.

This is not to say one approves of the heavy-handed tactics when they appear. Yet even those at their very worst do not begin to approach those of the Germans and their allies in WWII, nor do they have the same purpose. Let's get serious here! The Nazis stripped MILLIONS of their homes, their businesses, their property, their TEETH, even; then enslaved them and when they were too tired and sick to work, they killed them. By the MILLIONS.

I agree with Centristo as well, though, that the discrimination within Israel and toward the Palestinians in general, has to do with the security issues. And moreover, until the Palestinian community itself, and its supporters, realizes that what Centristo says is true, that there is within this community a violent element that threatens the peace of all, it's going to make going forward very difficult.

The Jewish community is busy beating itself up all the time over the mistreatment of the Palestinians. We go so far as to call ourselves Nazis and the people of Israel as well as the Jewish communities abroad are most definitely uncomfortable with the idea of hurting our neighbors. That's obvious from these discussions as well as from the Israeli press and the actions, since the death of Arafat, of the Israeli government. Admittedly it's slow going. There is anger and reluctance among our communities. But the intent is clear: MAKE PEACE. That's been the intent for decades.

I would like very much to hear from some of our counterparts among the Palestinian community, or from amongst their supporters! Will you come to terms with this violent element and its bloody history, and admit that it's cost thousands of lives and decades of pain?

[Violet_Crumble]

13. A few quick points here...

For one thing the Palestinians are virtually surrounded by allies and for another, are heavily endowed by many charities.

The Palestinians are not surrounded by allies. They're used as pawns by most of the surrounding states, and while the people may give a toss, the governments don't. And correct me if I'm wrong, but there were many Jewish organisations and charities in Europe prior to the war...

This is not to say one approves of the heavy-handed tactics when they appear. Yet even those at their very worst do not begin to approach those of the Germans and their allies in WWII, nor do they have the same purpose.

From the article: "The suffering our parents endured in the ghettoes and concentration camps that filled Europe, the physical and mental anguish and torment that our parents were subjected to every single day since the "liberation," are used as weapons to thwart any international criticism of the society we are creating here." As long as people say: 'The actions of Israel may possibly at times seem a just a little bit heavy-handed, even if many times it is justifiable due to security fears, but (insert big long spiel as a finale about how nothing compares to the Holocaust).' then that's acceptable. The minute they cease to measure the treatment of the Palestinian people by the yardstick of the Holocaust, then all is lost. Never mind that it was never once pointed out that the treatment of East Timorese for example was on a much lesser scale and nowhere near as horrific as the Holocaust...


I agree with Centristo as well, though, that the discrimination within Israel and toward the Palestinians in general, has to do with the security issues.

The security issues excuse is a good all-purpose one. After all, Bushco uses it to justify all sorts of nasty things and there's people out there who totally agree with it. There's been discrimination towards Palestinian Arabs since the beginning of the 20th century. What security issues were there back then? And if this vague term security issues can be used to justify discrimination against Palestinians and Israeli-Arabs, then why is it that the same term would never ever used by folk fond of it to justify discrimination against Israeli-Jews by some Palestinians?

And moreover, until the Palestinian community itself, and its supporters, realizes that what Centristo says is true, that there is within this community a violent element that threatens the peace of all, it's going to make going forward very difficult.

Yep. Once they realise that it's their fault there's a violent element that causes this discrimination and once they realise that the violent element in Israeli-Jewish society is a completely different matter and not to be held up to the same standard, then they can shut up and realise that their complaining about discrimination just makes things more difficult for them. Seriously, do you really believe that the Palestinian community isn't aware that just like Israelis they've got violent extremists in their midst?

The Jewish community is busy beating itself up all the time over the mistreatment of the Palestinians. We go so far as to call ourselves Nazis and the people of Israel as well as the Jewish communities abroad are most definitely uncomfortable with the idea of hurting our neighbors.

I hope that comment isn't aimed at Amira Hass and this particular article, because that's not what she was saying...

But the intent is clear: MAKE PEACE. That's been the intent for decades.

Even the most extreme of the settlers would want *peace*. But their version of *peace* is a completely different one than someone on the fringes of the Israeli Left. The only thing both versions of peace have in common is that attacks on Israelis stop. The version I hope most folk at DU hope to happen is one where two viable, independent and peaceful states co-exist. The Israeli state withdraws to the Green Line with only minor deviations mutually agreed to, and there's a mature and FAIR resolution to the refugee issue and Jerusalem. A peace where Palestinians wanting to live peacefully in Israel can do so, and Israelis wanting to live in Palestine can also do so, as long as both agree to abide by the laws of the state they're in and are there with the agreement of the state in question. Does that pretty much line up with yrs?

I would like very much to hear from some of our counterparts among the Palestinian community, or from amongst their supporters! Will you come to terms with this violent element and its bloody history, and admit that it's cost thousands of lives and decades of pain?

Are you talking to us? Or are you asking this as a broader type of question? Are you saying that Palestinians don't acknowledge there are violent extremists amongst them?

Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

14. Some gems of truth

The Palestinians are not surrounded by allies. They're used as pawns by most of the surrounding states, and while the people may give a toss, the governments don't.

The Palestinians, and the Zionists (and the Kurds, and the Iraqi and Syrian and even the Lebanese Christians) have been used as pawns in the "Balance of Power" games between the British, the French, and the Russians both before and in the aftermath of WW1, and in dividing up the Ottoman Empire. In the "Bipolar" world after WW2 the Israelis and the Palestinians have been used as pawns by the Soviets and the West.

While mainly talking about "Petroleum Politics" some very good books on the Israelis and Palestinians as mere pawns in a bigger battle include A Century Of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order by F. William Engdahl, Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power by Daniel Yergin, and House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties by Craig Unger

"And correct me if I'm wrong, but there were many Jewish organisations and charities in Europe prior to the war...

Most of the communal assets were seized by the Nazis early on. This has been well documented. The litigation is still going on to recover communal assets.

[Colorado Blue]

18. I agree, with the statement that people are being used as

pawns. I have ordered the book Coastie mentions and am awaiting its arrival.

Nevertheless - even assuming that - and even assuming the reprehensible treatment and misuse of the Palestinian people by many Arab states - as political fodder - the situation of the Palestinian people in no way is the same as that of the Jews in WWII.

And I find articles that compare the two to be reprehensible. I do not care if they appeared in ha'arretz or not. I also find it reprehensible that people conflate the actions of the Israelis, who are trying to defend their people and their nation, with that of the Nazis.

Again, I do not care if articles making these claims were written by Jewish persons. They are full of shit.

Simply because a position is assumed, such as that of Ward Churchill claiming that the victims of 9/11 were little Eichmanns and thus deserved their deaths, or that 9/11 wasn't caused by Arabs but by Jews, or if Arabs did it, Jews sent them, or that it was the neocons and Dick Cheney, or that it was Landlord Lightening, or WHATEVER, doesn't mean that the position has any merit whatsoever.

Part of political posturing on the far edges of ANY movement is to provoke comment, to get attention - at best it may make people think. That does not make it TRUE.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. The Amira Hass article wasn't doing what you claim it was...

Can you point me to the bits in the article where you think she compared the Holocaust to the treatment of the Palestinians by Israel? That wasn't what the article was about...

Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

36. This whole paragraph implies - no STATES - that Israel

is using the Holocaust to justify acting like the people who tried to exterminate us. She most absolutely is conflating the two issues, by implication at the very least.

"This widely covered event shows that Israel has turned the liquidation of Europe's Jews into an asset. Our murdered relatives are being enlisted to enable Israel to continue not giving a damn about international decisions against the occupation. The suffering our parents endured in the ghettoes and concentration camps that filled Europe, the physical and mental anguish and torment that our parents were subjected to every single day since the "liberation," are used as weapons to thwart any international criticism of the society we are creating here. This is a society with built-in discrimination on the basis of nationality, and the discrimination is spreading on either side of the Green Line. This is a society that is systematically continuing to banish the Palestinian nation from its land and usurp its rights as a nation and its chances for a humane future."

I find the first sentence in particular to be ridiculous. How can ones murdered parents be an asset? That's absurd. There are people around here with tattoos on their arms. One weeps. There are other aspects to the extermination you perhaps haven't considered, and that is the number of babies that aren't being born, the generations never conceived. Women go without husbands here, men without wives.

People who wanted families, are unmarried and childless.

One does NOT recover from such a thing, not even by establishing a nation.

And MEANWHILE, she completely ignores the fact - as do many - that the Palestinians have had chances for a state in the past and that Palestinian violence has had SOMETHING to do with the civil rights violations that occur today. She also ignores the fact, when speaking of the settlements, that Jewish people have lived on the West Bank since Biblical times. There ARE differences of opinion as to whose land is whose. Not all of these can be dismissed as spurious.

Furthermore, if terrorism and war can be considered civil rights violations, I would say that the problem cuts both ways.

***

However, many of the discriminations she speaks of are real and of course, this is tragic. Hopefully if something other than a state of war should ever arise, the discrimination will wither and die.

Even peaceful, strong nations suffer from internal discrimination, though, so I think a 100% perfect society in Israel/Palestine is an ideal to be wished for but not likely to occur.

Maybe SOMEDAY. But maybe someday America will not be rascist, Australia will not be rascist, Europe will not be rascist or xenophobic, and Arabs will be egalitarians who respect women and Jews. Russia and the "stans" will all be on equal footing. African tribes won't hate each other. Religious sects won't murder each other.

You see where I am going with this? What, exactly, do you expect here?

[Violet_Crumble]

37. Yr reading it very differently then...

What she's doing is arguing that Israel uses the Holocaust as a weapon to deflect criticism of its treatment of the Palestinians. That's a completely different thing than equating the two, btw...

When it comes to the settlements, trying to claim that the settlers go back to biblical times does not change the fact that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are NOT part of Israel, and Israel has acted illegally allowing and encouraging settlers to go there. The only difference of opinion is the same sort as when most folk point out that the invasion of Iraq was illegal and neo-cons have the differing opinion that it was legal. The West Bank and Gaza Strip are NOT Israel and are both Palestinian territories. Any argument to the contrary is spurious, and more than likely will start turning into an argument that ends up with an Israel that's no longer a liberal democracy...

Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

39. I agree about the territories. The sooner the settlements

are vacated the better, IMO. That excepts the ones I think are needed, to beef up the "waistline" that is so narrow; I think that is a legitimate security concern. However, if I were the Prime Minister, I would make Jerusalem available to all, assuming I had iron-clad peace agreements in place with all and sundry!

It's not going to be easy to get people to leave their homes, though.

I found out, on the West Bank the settlements account for some 2% of the land, according to a recent map I dug up, which was produced by the BBC. So, while they are scattered and numerous, the actual land area affected isn't huge. I understand, however, that water and other access rights are affected and that it's a mess.

BTW - the settlers don't go back to biblical times. The presence of Jews, living continuously in West Bank towns, DOES go back to biblical times. That's not supposition, that's fact.

These people have been victims of war as well. Of course there have been Jewish people in Jerusalem and in Israel proper, too, all along.

Ultimately, I think it would be ideal if people could live wherever, and go back and forth. IMO this planet is too damn small for this kind of aggravation! And, we have too much to offer each other.

Ironically, I think we're seeing what's happened in Iraq: people who had gotten along for ages, if not perfectly at least alright - are at each other's throats. This is what happens when major powers get involved, exploiting the fault lines. And, there have been aggressors on both sides, who have badly damaged the cause for peace.

[Violet_Crumble]

41. A question about Jerusalem...

When you say if you were the PM you'd make Jerusalem available to all, does that mean that you think both East and West Jerusalem should be part of Israel, and that you'd allow Palestinians to live there if they were allowed in by Israel?

I expect it shouldn't be difficult to 'persuade' the illegal settlers to leave their homes. After all, Israel has had no problems in the past 'persuading' Palestinians to leave their homes. A subtle turning off of power and water and removal of troops put in harms way to guard them should persuade most of them to leave...

While the settlements may account for that much (I honestly don't know and don't care), it's the land around them and the roads that cuts up the West Bank and has been done in an attempt to cut off Palestinian towns and cities from each other and to make any chance of a viable Palestinian state totally impossible...

Yes, it's a fact that there's been a Jewish presence in some West Bank cities. It's also a fact that Arabs have lived continuously in what is now Israel.

The idea of living wherever and moving back and forth will never eventuate while we've got nation-states in place. When it comes to Israel and Palestine, I'd be hoping that in a few generations the bitterness and distrust would have eventually vanished and there would be a free flow of people so that the two states pretty much become one in all but name...

Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

44. If I were the PM, I would want both nations to share the

capital. It is important to both, it is the best long-term idea regarding the happiness of both communities, and that would be good for peace in the long run.

This means of course, both peoples would be able to live, work, shop and worship in Jerusalem. Would it be technically part of Israel or a shared city politically? I really don't know. One thing is for sure: security is a major headache.

Infiltration of extremists via Jerusalem and its environs has been a problem for Israel and Israeli extremists pose a threat to Arabs and to their places of worship. Hardliners will need to compromise. This may take years but it would be worth it, if in the long run one had a capital city that truly is a monument to the many long years, and the great diversity, of its history.

Maybe we need a bunch of female politicians, to nurture and to dream:)

***

As far as making Palestinian lives miserable on the West Bank, obviously that needs to change. I'm sure the vast majority of people there just want to go to work and visit with their families and do their shopping. That in and of itself would probably improve the security issues. At some point there's going to have to be some trust. This, of course, is the sticky part: neither side is going to want to risk their neck. The roadblocks, so forth, were put there for a reason. Both sides need to feel safe.

I wonder, should some security be provided by NATO or by the UN? Could it hurt?

In any case, someday, somebody is going to have to say, OK, I am lowering my weapon and my guard. The sooner the Palestinian police get up to snuff, the better. Ultimately, though, it will be the ordinary people who decide the fate of these lands. They will say, OK, enough, we have too much to live for!

***

People should be able to live where they want. Arab Israelis are valued citizens; I would hope, someday, Jewish Palestinians would be welcome as well. Driving people out of their homes can't be the best solution, whether they are Palestinians in Jerusalem or settlers in the territories. Can anything be done, so that at least some people can retain their homes?

Obviously, if people DO remain in each other's territory, they would be citizens of that land, vote there, and so forth. That can't be a bad long-range strategy!

***

The best possible security for both nations is to have friends and family interwoven into each society. All, having a stake in each other's lives, will work to maintain peace and build prosperity, educate their children and build a better future.

The economic and environmental challenges facing this region - including neighboring countries - are not to be underestimated. Water is a prime concern. The population of the region has boomed. War has kept industries out, who could help improve the economy.

I know that tourists would come in droves, small businesses would spring up, if only the calm will hold long enough for things to unsnarl themselves, and for the extremists on both sides to calm down and see that they are anachronisms.

One prays!

[centristo]

16. security issue excuse?

"The security issues excuse is a good all-purpose one. After all, Bushco uses it to justify all sorts of nasty things and there's people out there who totally agree with it."

I'd love to hear your alternative. Should we have not attacked Afghanistan? Iraq is well deserving of criticism, but was the war in Afghanistan ok for security issues?

Should Israel allow Palestinians a 100% complete right to return and in so doing allow Hamas and Al Aqsa unrestricted access to the streets of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem? Would that really be a great thing for the people of Israel? What do you think would happen? I'd be like allowing Al Qaeda full visas and citizenship in the United States. It'd be a stupid and suicidal move.

If you fail to see how important the "security issue" is that you mocked than you fail to see Israel's viewpoint entirely. Violet, this is a fundamental pillar of the M/E conflict and is not a point the Israelis will allow to be brushed aside.

[Colorado Blue]

17. Right on. I don't have much to add to this - except for an

observation: people whose security ISN'T being threatened can't possibly comment with complete insight on the actions of people who are under attack.

But we should surely TRY.

Even a grave personal misfortune - meeting head-on the violence of the city, perhaps - can help one empathise. Lacking that experience, however, I am not sure how one can sit on one's safe continent and laugh off the security concerns of the Israelis OR of the US.

The risks to both are quite real. The experience of the Israelis, since the end of WW, and overlapping WITH the Holocaust, has been one of non-stop war and terror. America has been deeply scarred by ONE attack. Pearl Harbor launched an all-out war. Can you really blame the Israelis for wanting to survive? As to Violet's interpretation of my statement, that Israeli violence is OK but Palestinian violence isn't - that is NOT what I said at all.

But I do have a question: is there a way to deal with violence that ISN'T violent? Would lying down like good little ghetto residents and permitting the terrorism and the warfare, be more acceptable to the world community?

As far the violence WITHIN the Arab community - I refer you to the recently posted article in this forum: people within the Palestinian community have now attacked Assad.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. Does that observation apply to everyone?

Or just folk you disagree with? It's just that it seems pretty flawed on first reading. People who comment on issues like security don't tend to claim they're talking with complete insight. And as *experience* is by this theory the sole factor in understanding security issues, how is it then that someone sitting in Country A could in the same breath claim that someone 'on one's safe continent' doesn't understand the security concerns of those in Country C because they're not living in Country C, yet appear to overlook the fact that using their own argument they themselves living in Country A and not either of the other places, have just informed everyone that they don't understand the security concerns of either those living 'on one's safe continent', nor Country C...

I did not interpret what you said to support violence from one group over the other, which is a good reason not to get into the habit of informing other posters of what I say. They can read it themselves without any sort of slant on it. What would make you think that I'd interpret what you said as that?

Violet...

[simcha_6]

24. I think is argument is valid

If you don't live in a place with a serious security situation, you can't be a perfect judge. You should judge, but bear in mind you can't understand the psycology completely. The U.S.'s existence hasn't really been threatened since 1812 (or the 1860's, depending on how you define the U.S.)

It seems to me you're saying that post 17 is invalid because he has no experience with Israel psycology (I don't know if that's true or not), when he/she is really just telling you to reserve some judgment for the same reason. It's like Fox scolding the MSM for being unobjective when they're objective.

[Violet_Crumble]

25. The argument is plain silly...

And I think you may have missed the point of my post, btw. Where did I say I or anyone that the poster disagrees with is a perfect judge? As for what it seemed to you that I was saying, I wasn't saying that at all. I was trying to show how illogical the argument is, not using it as an actual argument...

btw, my comment about security being made as an excuse was made about the comment about discrimination against Palestinians. I asked the poster to explain what security issues were involved in the discrimination against the Arabs of Palestine in the early part of the 20th century as discrimination isn't something that is recent, but goes back to the times of the Second Aliyah, but I didn't spot any response.

Violet...

[simcha_6]

40. You didn't say you're a perfect judge

But you are judging, seeminly disregarding how history and mentality might react to your judgments.

[Violet_Crumble]

42. I'm not sure what you mean...

History doesn't react to my opinions (not judgements - opinions). My opinion tends to react to history rather than the other way round. And what mentality am I disregarding?

Violet...

[simcha_6]

45. Sorry, I mis-typed

I meant that people who carry within them the mentality based in Israeli/Jewish history might not react favorably. Namely, that's a siege mentality. Surrounded by millions who hate them and threatened with genocide repeatedly (we seem to disagree on whether the threats were serious or not, but whatever) it makes sense that Israel is going to be reluctant to make concessions that might endanger its security. Look at what happened in Lebanon. The Israelis pulled out, and now Hizb'Allah is attacking again, saying it wants more land (in fact, I believe they still have or until last month had the stated goal of destroying Israel completely.) Since pulling out didn't stop Hizb'Allah attacks, it would be foolish to think that disengaging from the territories would create real peace, considering Hamas seems to be trying to follow Hizb'Allah's tactics. (They're going about it the wrong way, admittedly, but I never said Hamas was intelligent. Hizb'Allah was at least a bit better than Hamas.) Even I, who would be thrilled if Israel pulled out from of off Gaza, 99% of the West Bank, and turned East Jerusalem into an international city (or gave it all back) don't expect Hamas to stop. Understanding this would explain why those who would suffer from terrorist attacks don't want to make concessions that would prove to do little but dampen support for terrorists while simultaneously inspiring the extremists to do more.

[Colorado Blue]

34. OK, here's a direct quote, your own words:

"The security issues excuse is a good all-purpose one. After all, Bushco uses it to justify all sorts of nasty things and there's people out there who totally agree with it."

You are saying the security issue we mention is an "excuse", a justification for nasty things. That's tantamount to saying the security issue isn't a real issue! Hence, my response.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. And how do you come to that conclusion...

I really want to know how my statement on security being used as an excuse in conflicts gets magically morphed into me supposedly interpreting you as saying that Israeli violence is okay but Palestinian violence isn't. More importantly, why, when you are aware of my views from discussions we've had, would you even attempt to read something like that into it??

Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

38. I'm confused, Violet. I wrote a long post that has

vanished, I don't know why, and it might have answered your questions. I'm sad because I spent over an hour writing it, alas.

It also spoke pointedly to the article, and clarified what I'm trying to say about it, as well as answering some of your other questions. However, I didn't save it to the hard drive so I can't reconstruct it, even to send it to you privately.

In any case I'm not trying to pick a fight here! And I have a headache. But briefly, I think your comment about security implied that Israeli concerns about security were merely an excuse for violence, that the concerns therefore aren't real, so forth, and that the violence is egregious.

We're saying, the security problems are real, and that they are the primary cause for the Israeli reaction.

It does appear, often, that discrimination and violence are one-sided or assymetrical, when one side is a state and the other is an occupied territory. It's hard not to get the impression that the force used is excessive. Sometimes it is, I'm sure! For sure, one has that impression in Iraq, or when Russia attacked Afghanistan - both situations were just brutal.

On the other hand, it's hard to know what to do when confronted by violence. Rocks can kill, after all, let alone bullets and bombs. In the case of 9/11 at least, the philosophy was to strike back so overwhelmingly it hopefully wouldn't happen again. Also I think sheer frustration kicks in - people are probably wondering - WHEN will this end already?

In any case, discrimination is an evil that plagues most of the world. I think, in the case of I/P, apart from all the wars, etc., there is a cultural gap that is contributing greatly. It probably goes both ways, too, especially perhaps in the case of women and how they behave and how they are treated. I think this goes way back, to the early part of the 20th century at least.

It will be an interesting experiment, in the years ahead, to see how these countries bordering the Mediterranean, culturally various, evolve. There are similar conflicts all across North Africa, involving Arabs and the old Berber matriarchies, which are slowly vanishing, and I imagine there are similar stresses within Lebanon and Egypt. Ironically, in the time of the old Ottoman Empire, these cultures thrived, side by side.

Ideally, people would learn to appreciate each other, without one group trying to dominate or wipe out the other. Unfortunately, I think population pressures alone are making things harder.

Sigh.

Later!

[Violet_Crumble]

43. I think I replied to that post...

And my rather long-winded reply vanished as well. I kind of suspect it was the first few lines of each post that sealed their fates, though I'll point out for any lurkers that neither CB or my post were attacking or nasty to each other. If it was that post, no, it didn't really answer my questions...

Okay, I'll try to explain what I was saying differently and hope this makes it clearer for you. This is possibly one of those times when I've not been clear. While Israel definately does have legitimate security concerns, both the Israeli govt and US supporters tend to use security as an excuse (though in hindsight I'd change the word 'excuse' to 'reason') for some of the more unsavoury actions - in this case, discrimination against Palestinians. An example of what I'd see a legitimate security concern to be for Israel would be the separation barrier. Israel would have had every right under the circumstances it was in to have built that barrier. What it didn't have the right to do was build it deep into the West Bank. The separation barrier was an example of something that if built along the Green Line, would have been wholly legitimate and when the Israeli govt claimed it was being built for security reasons, they would have been believed. But taking the route it did changed it to what appeared to be defacto annexation with security being thrown out as an excuse for the swallowing up of Palestinian territory...

I've rethought my view that Israeli discrimination against Palestinians is a response to violence from Palestinian militants. That makes sense. After all, discrimination against Arab-Americans in the US is a response to Sept 11. Discrimination, dislike of Israel etc from Palestinians is a response to the violence from Israel...

On Sept 11 and the response to it, I think the philosophy was to kick a country that wouldn't give any sort of fight and portray that as the Ultimate Smackdown, so that the average American would be kind of satisfied that justice had been done. And if Afghanistan had attacked the US, it would have been quite a reasonable action. But it wasn't another state that attacked the US, and reacting as though it was makes me think the US military really only can grasp the idea of fighting if there's another state on the other end with a military of their own...

Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

46. Thank you for the clarifications. I'm glad you didn't find my

response offensive, nor did I find your questions to me offensive.

Oh well.

I think, besides fear, so forth, (ie, security concerns) there's another reason for discrimination - probably mutual - and that's the cultural barrier. These things happen everywhere - here, too, where we live in a very diverse community - this isn't exactly fear, it isn't racism - it's dealing with something that seems strange. But in a war zone - everything becomes magnified. It becomes easier to dehumanize people. Also, when some customs seem strikingly different from one's own - they in themselves seem to present a threat.

***

The barrier - it will come down. I know this. Give it time. As I've written elsewhere, IMO the best security lies in people who are working and living together, who share a future. I can't imagine that, over the long haul, walls and barriers are the best solution. Right now, calm is needed, though.

As far as the territory-grabbing thing: I'll look at a map. I can't comment intelligently; I had assumed security was the reason. Attacks are down, greatly. Some credit the wall.

I'm wondering - someday - if a canal or river couldn't be made? It could be beautiful, besides providing irrigation, and provide a sort of barrier as well.

***

Afghanistan: of course the US didn't want to attack Afghanistan per-se, the country itself had nothing to do with 9/11. It was the presence of Al Qaeda, hosted by the Taliban, that caused the attack. Afghanistan itself fell prey to extremists due to the Russian war, as you know, that completely messed it up.

I wasn't happy with the idea of going to war after 9/11, and made a lot of enemies, people who no longer speak to me, by begging for calm and a "turn the other cheek" approach. For one thing it seemed they determined who was guilty awfully fast. Of course they'd had AMPLE warning, grrrrr.

Whether that would have been smart militarily is another story, it's just that the idea of poor Afghanistan being creamed again broke my heart. Also, one fears breeding more terrorists, down the line, by the sheer use of force.

But there was no way to go to Saudi Arabia and arrest the financiers, as we are in bed with them; ditto Iran, and Iraq really had nothing to do with it. That left the al Qaeda hangouts.

On the good side, the Taliban really were not nice people and their record on women's rights was appalling. Women aren't doing all that well there now either but I believe it's a little better, at least I hope so.

In any case, there was NO WAY the majority of people in the US were going to take that lying down. Had we limited our involvement to chasing terrorists and rebuilding the Afghan infrastructure and economy, that would have been sufficient, even good, I think.

[eyl]

47. Regarding the barrier

I addressed reasons for its routing in this thread.

You can find what seems to be an up-to-date map of the route here.

While your canal idea has some artistic merit, I'm afraid it would have to remain a dream; assuming you want to run it on the Green Line, you'd have to cut through mountains on the way, you'd need to drown several towns if it was wide enough to be effective, and it would probably waste too much water.

[Colorado Blue]

48. Well, so the water wasn't such a good idea:) But I

appreciate your link. Your arguments make sense.

Unless or until somebody can effectively refute these arguments, I think we should assume they are logical and correct.

Simply accusing Israel of a "land-grab" under these circumstances, which have included razing Israeli homes and property, and which take into account the topography of the region, is not a refutation.

So, I'm listening.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. Why do those arguments make sense?

Isn't something being illegal under international law refutation enough? What else is needed?

Also, far be it from me to take something at face value just because it's something I want to hear. But I'd like to see some links or something to info on where Israeli homes and property in Israel itself have been confiscated and destroyed the way that has happened to Palestinians...

So, I'm listening :)

Violet...

[eyl]

51. No

First of all, assuming that the barrier is a violation of international law - an assumption I don't necessarily accept, given that the ICJ decision contained some serious flaws - as Dickens says, sometimes the law is an ass. I'm sure you can think of situations were something was legal, but wrong.

As for confiscation of Israeli property: from an decidedly anti-barrier article:

85% of the land confiscated for the fence in its first stage of construction was expropriated from Palestinians, while just 15% was taken from Jewish communities.

[Violet_Crumble]

52. What serious flaws?

Sometimes the law can be an ass, but in that case after reading the ruling, I think it was spot on...

The article you posted pretty much states what my view is on the barrier. But there's not much about these Israelis who had their homes and lands taken from them inside Israel to make way for this barrier. If they're Israelis living inside Israel and they were treated the same way as Palestinians have been, that truly sucks, but somehow I'm getting the feeling it's nowhere near the same sort of situations...

Violet...

quick p.s. - is it just my pc playing up or is the link to the recent version of the map of the barrier giving anyone else a 404 error?

p.s. v2 - Okay, I found another recent map of the barrier that's pretty detailed. http://www.btselem.org/Download/Separation_Barrier_Map_Eng.pdf

I've got a personal interest in Battir. What's happening with the barrier in that area? It looks like Palestinians in that part of the West Bank are being nearly cut off from Israel and totally cut off from the rest of the West Bank. That's if I'm reading all the spaghetti lines correctly, which I hope I'm not...

[eyl]

53. About the map

the link works for me. The Btselem map is the same one, but it takes a lot longer to load; try the Google cache.

As for the ICJ decision; the following is a critique I wrote regarding it:

First of all, procedural elements:

1) The Court created the appearance of bias (at the very least), by its refusal to recuse Judge Elaraby (and his refusal to recuse himself). The fact that one of the presiding judges in a court session to determine the legality of a certain issue had declared it to be illegal (or the equivalent in a criminal trial, that the judge had declared the defendant guilty) beforehand would have likely been enough to void the trial in most Western domestic law systems.

2) Reading the witness list for the Palestinian side, you'll see a lengthy list of countries, most of which have nothing to do with the issue (e.g., Madagascar). However, the Court allowed their testimony (IMO, at least, anyone other than Israel, the Palestinians, Jordan, and possibly Egypt should have been limited to affidavits, if that, especially regarding substantive matters rather than procedural matters such as the Court's jurisdiction), as well as Palestinian testimony, but refused to hear testimony from Israeli terror victims, which are surely at least as relevant.

3) The issue of jurisdiction has been mentioned above. The ICJ supposedly has jurisdiction only when two states consent to appear before it. Technically, this wasn't relevant in this case, since the Court was purportedly giving an advisory opinion on a point of international law (its second function). However, looking at the reactions before, during, and after the trial, including the Court's opinion and the judges' separate opinions, it seems obvious this was a successful attempt to effectively pass a "resolution" against Israel in an end-run around the Security Council - and that the Court was aware of this (see, for example, paragraphs 12-13 of Judge Higgins' separate opinion).

4) The status of Palestine - throughout the ruling, as well as in various procedural matters, the Palestinians' status was inconsistent. The Court basically considered them as having the rights of a country, but not the obligations (for example, by allowing them to testify, or indeed by even hearing the case in the first place - see also below).

On to the ruling itself (in no particular order):

1) Most seriously, in paragraph 139, the Court determined that Israel could not invoke the right of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, on the grounds that the Palestinians do not form a state. This is absurd on several levels. First of all, Article 51 (which paragraph 139 quotes) reads

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security".

Nothing in that requires the attacker to be a state (or a member of the UN, for that matter). Second of all, as I noted above, the Court did consider the Palestinians to be sufficiently a state to hear the case as well as their testimony. Third, by ruling this, they undercut any element of military necessity to the barrier (see below also). Fourth, nothing in their ruling limits the nonapplicability of Article 51 to the issue of the barrier; they ruling effectively states Article 51 has no applicability to the situation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In other words, this disallows any Israeli military actions beyond the Green Line (and quite possibly within the Green Line as well). This ruling also has much wider implications - it means that no state has a right to self defense against attacks carried from the territory of a second state which denies supporting the attackers. In such a situation, if diplomatic solutions do not avail, then unless the UNSC intervenes (which it may not, for various reasons, and even if it does it may not be in a timely or satisfactory manner), that first state has no recourse. See also paragraph 34 of Judge Higgins' and paragraph 6 of Judge Buergenthal's separate opinions.

2) Some provisions of international law can be suspended in the case of military necessity. This is addressed in paragraph 140. The Court stated Israel could not invoke that necessity in justification, because

"In the light of the material before it, the Court is not convinced that the construction of the barrier along the route chosen was the only means to safeguard the interests of Israel against the peril which it has invoked as justification for that construction"

However, nowhere does the Court did not explain why the Israeli argument is not convincing.

3) In addition, the Court ruled on the barrier without taking into account developments since the passing of UNGAR ES-10/14. Namely, the reduction in successful terrorist attacks due to the barrier, and, even more importantly, the fact that the route of the barrier was significantly changed in the interim. Both of these fact bear directly on paragraph 140.

4) In paragraphs 114-137, the Court discusses various violations of international law and hardships for the Palestinians caused by the fence. Nowhere is that section is terrorism mentioned, except for paragraph 116 which mentions it as an Israeli "claim". For that matter, throughout the entire ruling, terrorism against Israel is mentioned only in passing (see also paragraphs 3 & 7 of Judge Buergenthal's separate opinion). This is akin to trying a man for murder, and then ignoring his claims that it was in self-defense. Some have argued that the Court should not have addressed terrorism because the issue before it was the legality of the barrier, and terrorism is irrelevant to that. But if that were so, the Court should not have ruled on the settlements' legality or lack thereof (as it did in paragraph 120), since that is even less relevant to the narrow issue of the barrier.

5) While on the issue of hardships, the ruling was a bit misleading in paragraph 84, where it stated that approximately 237,000 Palestinians would end up west of the barrier without mentioning most of them were concentrated in Jerusalem (this isn't a legal problem, but more of an appearance thing).

6) The term barrier - the Court deliberated between addressing the barrier as a "barrier", as a "fence", or as a "wall". In the end, they chose the latter - the term most prejudicial against the Israeli case - despite the availability of the far more inclusive term "barrier", and the fact that "wall" describes roughly 3% of the route (again, this relates to appearance).

7) In determining the precise status of the Territories, the legal significance of the Green Line which demarcates them is surely relevant. Article VI, paragraph 9 of the Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement of 1949, which established the Green Line, state:

"The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto."

In other words, the Green Line is explicitly not a border. But while paragraph 72 of the ICJ ruling mentions this, nowhere does the ruling address its significance.

8) The applicability of the 4th Geneva Convention - Article II of GC4 states:

"In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof".

In paragraph 95, the ruling determines that this means that GC4 applies in any situation where there is a conflict between two signatories and a territory is occupied, regardless of whether the territory in question belongs to one of them. This is, frankly, a stretch. Also, the Court never addresses Article IV of GC4, which states:

"Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are. "

In other words, the Court ruling that GC4 applies creates a paradox which can only be resolved in two fashions; either the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank was legitimate, in which case Israel has precedent on its side, or the absurd conclusion that GC4 applies to the territory but not to the people living on it.

10) The Court failed to address Israel's response that it took measures to avoid various violations of international law the ruling accused it of (see paragraph 8 of Judge Buergenthal's separate opinion).

11) Both Judge Buergenthal's and Judge Owada's separate opinion state the Court did not have all the information it needed (though the latter states he still agrees with the ruling)

Links
1) ICJ decision, separate opinions, and other associated documents
2) 4th Geneva Convention
3) UNGAR ES 10-14
4) Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement
5) UN Charter
6) IDF presentations on the barrier

[Violet_Crumble]

54. You deserve some thanks for that post...

That must have taken you some time and research to put together, and unless it was a paper you had to write, you have my respect for getting yr teeth into something like that and raising the quality level of things here from what's lately become a numb and boring roar. I can already see some bits I disagree with, but I'm way too tired tonight to do that post any justice, so I'll disagree in some detail when I'm feeling a bit more perky...

Violet...

[eyl]

55. Thanks

It wasn't a paper; I just collected points I addressed at various times into a single whole a while ago (and, as usually happens, came upon several otehr things in the process). I await your (and others') responses with interest.

[eyl]

56. Oops

last line in 2 should read "However, nowhere does the Court explain why the Israeli argument is not convincing."

[Violet_Crumble]

60. I've got to read the decision again...

Hope this isn't too annoying for you, but rather than do a massive longarse post before I've finished reading it and some other stuff to do with it, I'll do a dribs and drabs job on things point by point. Let me know if you'd prefer it in all one burst though, okay?

On point 2 of the procedural stuff: I thought the way the International Court worked with advisory opinions was that it's members of the UN and international organisations that provide written and/or oral submissions, not private organisations or individuals. As far as I'm aware, individual Palestinians couldn't have testified even if they'd wanted to, which makes sense considering the Court is ruling on a point of international law and it seems to be pretty high level stuff...

Violet...

[eyl]

61. I don't mind

do it either way, as you prefer.

Regarding your point; I'm not sure. I've been slogging through the Statute and Rules of the Court, and some stuff seems to imply both ways. For example, Article 66(2) of the Statute would seem to support your position. OTOH, Article 43(4) seems to me to imply a greater range of possible witnesses; Article 57 of the Rules would also seem to allow it if one of the parties backs them. More importantly, Article 66 specifies "state entitled to appear before the Court or international organization"*. I haven't been able to find an exact definition of either of these, but from implications in other places, I believe the former refers to the 189 member states of the UN plus Switzerland, and the latter refers to 16 UN organizations. If that is correct, the Palestinians were not entitled to appear before the court. If "international organization" is broader in definition, I assume there are some survivor organizations who might fall under the definition.

In any event, my primary point was that the witness list of the Palestinian "side" was loaded with states which could have no relevance to the substantive issues before the Court.

*Another problem is that some parts apply only to the Court in its arbitration function, while others apply to both arbitration and advisory opinions, and it's not totally clear which is which

[Violet_Crumble]

64. The Court's decision about Palestine giving evidence...

They cover it in paragraph 4 of the ruling:

"By the same Order <19 Dec 2003> the Court further decided that, in the light of resolution ES-10/14 and the report of the Secretary-General transmitted with the request, and taking into account the fact that the General Assembly had granted Palestine a special status of observer and that the latter was co-sponsor of the draft resolution requesting the advisory opinion, Palestine might also submit a written statement on the question within the above time-limit."

As yr primary point is that you parties not directly affected by the question sent to the Court shouldn't really be submitting statements, wouldn't that mean that there could have been a scenario where only Israel could have given a statement as Palestine wouldn't have been able to, not being a state, and other states wouldn't because it doesn't affect them?

On other states submitting statements, I went and took a look at the other advisory cases, and they all have long lists of other states all submitting statements, so it's clearly something that's done as a matter of course, and isn't something where the rules were bent or changed for the case we're discussing...

Back to yr original set of points about the ruling.

"11) Both Judge Buergenthal's and Judge Owada's separate opinion state the Court did not have all the information it needed (though the latter states he still agrees with the ruling)"

I've read Judge Buergenthal's separate opinion and from what I can understand of it, that whole thing seems ultimately unfair and defeats the purpose of the Court. The Court didn't have all the information it needed because Israel opted not to provide it with information that (I assume) the Court requested from it. Israel couldn't be forced to co-operate, but neither should Israel then force the case to be dropped, knowing full well that it's refusal to co-operate could technically lead to that. I'm not fond of technicalities with things like that. Israel should have been forthcoming with information, as I don't think it looked all that good not doing so...

Violet...

[eyl]

65. Your text in red

As yr primary point is that you parties not directly affected by the question sent to the Court shouldn't really be submitting statements, wouldn't that mean that there could have been a scenario where only Israel could have given a statement as Palestine wouldn't have been able to, not being a state, and other states wouldn't because it doesn't affect them?

Yes, such a scenario could have occurred (mind you, I'm not saying other states should absolutely not testify, and even under the strictest interpretation of this condition Jordan and maybe Egypt could still testify). As you point out, that situation would have been problematical. Therefore, the Court decided to bend the rules for the Palestinians. Given that, I'm confident that they could have found justification to hear at least some of the terror victims, or at least someone who could speak on their behalf (probably under the heading of "international organizations") if they so chose, like they did for the League of Arab States and the OIC.

On other states submitting statements, I went and took a look at the other advisory cases, and they all have long lists of other states all submitting statements, so it's clearly something that's done as a matter of course, and isn't something where the rules were bent or changed for the case we're discussing...

I admit I didn't look at the witness lists for previous cases. However, it doesn't matter if they only did it here or they have a habit of doing so; it's screwy either way (keeping also in mind that the ICJ is not bound by its precedents, something else I think is screwy, though not relevant right now). The only difference is that in that case it's a systemic flaw rather than one specific to this case.

I've read Judge Buergenthal's separate opinion and from what I can understand of it, that whole thing seems ultimately unfair and defeats the purpose of the Court. The Court didn't have all the information it needed because Israel opted not to provide it with information that (I assume) the Court requested from it. Israel couldn't be forced to co-operate, but neither should Israel then force the case to be dropped, knowing full well that it's refusal to co-operate could technically lead to that. I'm not fond of technicalities with things like that. Israel should have been forthcoming with information, as I don't think it looked all that good not doing so...

Were this a civil case before a domestic court, you would have a point. In such a court, the burden of establishing the facts lies on the advocates for both parties; the judge or jury merely decide which side is more convincing. However, the ICJ - especially when it's acting in an advisory capacity - is more akin to a commission of inquiry. It's ultimately up to the Court to establish the facts. Even though Israel chose, as was its right (and FWIW, I agree with the reasoning behind that decision), not to participate, that does not absolve the Court from using all means at its disposal to establish all the facts relevant to the case - for both sides*. I don't know of any request the Court made to Israel for facts beyond what was in the written statements. Nor was Israel the only source at the Court's disposal. The Court could also summon witnesses on its own authority (as per Article 66 of the Statute)**. There are any number of public documents it could access, such as the Israeli Supreme Court decision on the barrier. And so on. It chose not to do any of this.

*Note that technically, in an advisory opinion hearing, there aren't any "sides"; the Court is merely hearing testimony from various parties so it can reach a conclusion.
**This may seem to be a contradiction with my earlier point regarding irrelevant witnesses, but in this case, the Court would be summoning them because it believed they had something relevant to add; the states which did appear all "volunteered".

[Violet_Crumble]

21. Yep, excuse...

In this thread security was used as an all-purpose excuse of discrimination against Palestinians, but security does have a long-running history world-wide of being used to excuse some pretty nasty stuff...

In answer to yr questions:

No, I don't think the US should not have attacked Afghanistan. Bombing Afghanistan had zero to do with US security, and everything to do with keeping the masses panicked and angry and thinking that Bush was actually doing something...

No, I don't think an 100% physical right of return is fair or realistic, and I've talked a lot in the past about the refugee issue in this forum and have never supported anything like that. I can go find some old posts for you if you like...

In saying that security is used as an excuse, I'm in no way saying that Israel doesn't have legitimate security concerns. Every state does, and Israel has every right to protect itself using legitimate means. Unfortunately, the I/P conflict produces folk who develop a habit of using security as an excuse for most if not all of Israels actions eg, the killing of Palestinian civilians, the settlements, racist grafitti, etc...

Violet...

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Coastie for Truth]

26. Dig Deeper beyond blaming mostly Israel for Palestinian Statelessness

Colorado Blue posted:

So one can't blame the LACK of a Palestinian state entirely or even mostly on the Israelis.

To which Violet_Crumble responded:

Yes, one can blame the lack of a Palestinian state mostly on Israel. There's quite a few other blamees as well, but Israel's on the list too. Maybe we should get together and do a hierarchy of blame? It's always so much fun to play the blame game! And I'm willing to do an alternate hierarchy from a 'pro-Israel' American POV, which only consists of one line: 'I blame anyone but Israel!!!!'

To find the real villain, I would start with the British Colonial Office and Sir Mark Sykes (of Sykes-Picot Agreement infamy). Reference: A Century Of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order by F. William Engdahl. This carried England's pre-WW 1 "Balance of Power" model into the Post- WW 1, Post-Ottoman Empire context of the oil states of the ME.

Next I would look at the real players in world of "Petroleum Politics". Israel and the Palestinians are not "Petroleum Politics" players. No way. References: (a) House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties by Craig Unger, (b) Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed--and How to Stop It, by Rachel Ehrenfeld, and (c) Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power by Daniel Yergin.

If one wants to dig through really dull stuff to "follow the money" down and dirty (and from Australia) one might try http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=shell&CIK=&filenum=&State=&SIC=&owner=include&action=getcompany
with "SIC:2911" and do word searches for "reserves" and also for "Philippines" and "Australia" -- with an eye on an elementary economic geology text like An Introduction to Economic Geology and Its Environmental Impact by A.M. Evans, along with such "Peak Oil" books as: (a) Beyond Oil : The View from Hubbert's Peak by Kenneth S. Deffeyes, (b) Hubbert's Peak : The Impending World Oil Shortage by Kenneth S. Deffeyes, and (c) Out of Gas: The End of the Age Of Oil by David Goodstein.

I would recommend that a serious student of the origins of the structure of animosity read Engdahl's book for the Britain's policy of "Balance of Power" in the ME, and balancing off France and Russia, and the creation of non-Muslim buffers in the Eastern Mediterranean, and protecting trade routes to India and Australia.

One does not have to scratch far beneath the surface to get beyond "Yes, one can blame the lack of a Palestinian state mostly on Israel."

My POV is as a member of the green, renewable, alternative energy industry. (I have spent 3/4's of my professional engineering life in the green, renewable, alternative energy industry - doing battle with the fossil fuel industry; I know how they play and how they buy and sell Presidents and Prime Ministers and Kings and Shahs).

[Violet_Crumble]

27. Try reading what I said...

Which was: There's quite a few other blamees as well, but Israel's on the list too.

Unless you actually are of the belief that Israel has little to nothing to do responsibility-wise for the still-birth of the Palestinian state, then it'd appear we're pretty much in agreement, aren't we? That's why it helps to read past the first sentence :)

Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

28. The adverb "mostly" was in your append which I then quoted.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. It helps if you read all of what I said...

btw, I used that particular adverb because the person I was replying to had used it. Guess I should put dit-dits around it for those who only read the first sentence of what others say...

Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

31. I am not going to play sentence diagramming games

--- much of the blame (I would say the overwhelming portion of the blame) goes to Britain and France and the WW 1 era power politics to keep one another - and Czarist Russia - off guard, protect oil sources, and protect eastern trade routes. "Balkanizing" the Eastern Mediterranean served their mutual short range interest as the Ottoman Empire was collapsing.

Subsequent massive dependence on ME oil, and bipolarization of the US/NATO against the Soviets (played out to some extent by ME proxies and pawns) exacerbated what was already an explosive situation.

The Israelis and the Palestinians were - and are - victims of those World War 1 "Balance of Power" and "Balkanization" schemes.

[Radio_Rick]

30. I read

Goodstein and Deffeyes and Unger (obviously - since I am a "contributing DUer") - and I just Googled Sykes-Picot. And my 401(k) has some "oil companies" in it.

Not having done the extensive partisan research of many appenders to the IP forum -- it looks to me that the Israelis and the Palestinians (like the Quebecois and the South Africans generally and South Asians generally) were all victims of Britain's "Balance of Power" doctrines.

So, I can not "... blame the lack of a Palestinian state mostly on Israel" but more on soccer Moms driving Hummers, and the West's need for weak states in the ME.

[Coastie for Truth]

32. Cleaning up the mess of WW 1

combined with "Petroleum Politics" has victimized both Israelis and Palestinians. And any attempt to assign blame exclusively - or even primarily to the Israelis and/or the Palestinians ignores the "Power Politics" of Post WW 1 Europe and the geology.

[Colorado Blue]

33. Yes! We're all part of this problem. The sooner we go

green the better, difficult though that may be in the short term.

Unfortunately, the Hummer drivers are often absolutely, willfully blind - they either can't, or do not WANT, to accept any responsibility whatsoever for their role in the geopolitical situation or for pollution.

I hope people wake up before it's too late and the fish are all dead, nobody can breathe and people around the world are at war!

As far as Britains "Balance of Power" doctrines - grrrrrr. You are too right. It's difficult for an English speaker, citizen of an English-speaking nation, to see this and come to terms with it.

England is our "mother" in a sense! So it smarts.

[centristo]

15. my analogy wasn't meant to be exact

I was just thinking of the similiarities between the OT and Nazi run Poland. I was thinking of the checkpoints when I was writing that. The paperwork necessary to go from point A to point B. The humiliation of not having freedom in your own land. The knowledge that your children may not have any brighter prospects than you do. The shame, the fear, the heartache. These are the similiarities to Warsaw. The similarities are in the innocent victims caught up in the politics.

Of course there are obvious differences as well, your point being just one of many...

[Colorado Blue]

63. Speaking of the Holocaust - we need to consider the fact

that WWII and even before that, Nazi philosophy and European antisemitism had been seeping into the Middle East.

I've been doing some research on the matter, I'll see if I can find some books.