Israeli Gaza Pullout

[pigeonmeister]

Jeff, you are in deep denial about the role of your nation in the world, and are still trying to cover it by claiming I am not aware of the ills others of other nations. The Brits, Japanese, French have all had empires that have produced countless massacres, economic rape and have constructed artificial goverments (even states) to suit their own world agenda. Saying that America is some kind of benign fairy godmother of democracy dedicated to the selfless goal bettering peoples lives was the justification during the cold war. It wasn't true then, but the US people believed it, It still isn't true. Arguing that Iran wants nuclear fuel, or China invaded Tibet, or Korea is a brutal dictatorship doesn't change the essential selfish nature of American policy. OK all nations foreign policy is basically based on self-interest, it's just not all follow it with such huge resources, hypocritical rhetoric, or wild belief that they have the right (and more importantly ability) to employ a wide range of political, economic and military tools to influence the internal affairs of other countries.

I am glad that perhaps one of the most balanced pieces of analysis on this forum has come from an Israeli. I obviously never believed that Israeli people were all religious zealots that felt god had given them palestine exclusivly. That's why I said Sharon has cynicaly used a tiny minority of those who do believe that, to bolster the physical defenses for secular jews. I know that the settlers have little domestic support.

Yet the original zionism was based on the consideration that jews, after thousands of years of having no country of their own, and years of persecution, deserved a homeland of their own. The geographical location of this homeland was based on the idea that they should return to their ancestral homeland, where they had lived until the Romans kicked them out almost 2000 years ago. Like it or not there was a biblical jusitification for this. So whilst it is correct to say that most secular Israelis don't believe God promised them Palestine now, the secular zionists did have this general belief then. Traditional Jewish belief, before the establishment of Israel, was that Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel) was given to the ancient Israelites by God, and that therefore the right of the Jews to that land was permanent and inalienable. The major disagreement was that some orthodox jews believed that the messiah must appear before the jews could return to their homeland. Yet the fact remains that the religious jews didn't really support zionism until after the start of Nazi persecution. That was because the early zionists were more secular in outlook and broadly socialist. Doesn't mean they didn't have any religious justification within their ideology.

The majority of zionists just wanted their own country, but were happy to believe the religious justification. Some (not very many) even argued that a jewish homeland could be in Russia or Argentina. Either way there was a sense of jewish destiny based on religion and ancient occupation that took no account of the Arabs.

That was probably because the area was first under control of the Ottomons (who were happy to sell Palestinian land to jewish immigrants) And then the British (who the zionists could say were colonial overlord and that the jews would actual liberate the Arabs and improve their lives). The Holocaust gave the zionist movement world wide support for the first time. Again the idea of Israel, as a haven for the jews, largely ignored the fact that there were Arabs living there.

So the foundation of Israel, in terms of location, was always based on a mixture of religious justification and a 2000 year claim of occupancy. The early zionists believed the Palestinians had no concept of a Palestinian state, and had been happy to sell small areas of land to the jews at the turn of the century. Therefore the Jews believed that Arabs would benefit from an Israeli state. This meant that their actual occupation was ignored, leading to Israel Zangwill's famous slogan "A land without a people, for a people without a land". Generally though, such statements were propaganda invented by leaders who did not foresee the subsequent conflict with the Arabs and thought of them as allies against the big empires whom they viewed as the main obstacle. Agreements with the Ottoman authorities, or with Arab rulers outside Palestine were their main concern and concerns of the local Arabs were overlooked. The myth that Arabs weren't bothered about the land of Palestine is a myth that stil exists.


So the foundation of Israel, in terms of location, was always based on a mixture of religious justification and a 2000 year claim of occupancy. More importantly it always assumed that the Palestinains would be happy to share there land, they ignored any future belief that Arabs might resent this.

So given all this, on what grounds should people demand that Arabs accept the legitimacy of the state of israel.......Oh yea you lived here 2000 years ago- have your house back. What benefit have the Arabs got from the results of events that were beyond their control? Can nobody see why Arab might resent Jew here?

So we get to where we are now. Sensible secular Israelis like reposte just wanting to get on with their lives and Arabs still wanting their land back. Arabs have got to accept Israel, but you can't say that Israel has made it easy for them -when at no time did it even consider them. I don't think some people on this forum have ever considered why Palestinians are attacking jews. Universally condemning terrorism is a correct moral response, yet the world has shown that a response that is purely military and largely disporportional is counter productive.

[jeff]

I said before that you shouldn't exagerate my position (see top of page), so avoid making that the basis of your argument in future. Ignoring my points just so you can repeat your attacks again is not a fruitful discussion tactic either.

You point to USA's selfish foreign policy, and in the next sentence point out that all nations policies are selfish, which proves my point that the US is not unique in this regard. Obviously the US is unique today by fact of its military and economic power, but the exclusive and continuous complaint about the US as a menace to the world while heinous behavior by second-class powers is studiously ignored shows my point. Imagining the behavior those countries would exhibit if they had the USA's power serves to show the lack of balance. Somehow those countries, despite their lesser abilities, manage to have slave labor, ethnic cleansing, concentration camps, mass rape, and other horrors I mention. Focusing on the US while ignoring this isn't bias?

The remainder of your post seems to be that the state of Israel is illegitemate and therefore continued Palestinian terrorism is understandable, and that in your opinion Israeli response to terrorism is excessive. Easy for you to say.

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by reposte

Israel and the Palestinians share the same land in terms of wealth.
.

I am afraid they dont and this has been a huge factor in the conflict. You have to see Gaza (I know not now) and the West Bank, in terms of occupation and thus land wealth for the Palestinians. In 1967 Israel declared all water resoutces to be state owned and controlled by the military. Yet, Israelis in Gaza had no restrictions on water consumption. Rather, their consumption was subsidised, encourgaing overuse and misuse.They have also been favored through selective appropriation of agricultural land having the best groundwater quantity and quality, and uneven pricing schemes. Gaza Palestinians paid up to $1.20/cubic meter while Israeli settlers only pay $0.10/cubic meter for water. Elmusa (1994) states that "relative to per capita income, Palestinians pay as much as twenty times what Israeli settlers pay for water."

Discriminatory Israeli water policies in Gaza can be viewed as an attempt to transfer the brunt of water scarcity to Palestinians while buffering Israelis. As such, Israeli settlements prosper in the midst of a faltering Palestinian economy. This widening gap can only continue to foment substantial conflict between the two communities.

Since the beginning of the second Palestinian intifada in 2002, Israel has employed policies of home demolitions and razing of Palestinian agricultural land. Israel has pursued these policies for a number of reasons, including: demographic control, the construction of settlements, military compounds, roads, and the separation wall; the creation of “security strips” and buffer zones; and direct and indirect retaliation. The consequences of these policies have included depopulation of Palestinian villages and cities, as well as endangerment of the food security of the entire Palestinian population

Ultimately, though they represent 20% of Israel's population, Arab citizens have jurisdiction over only 3% of the land in Israel.

Arab towns are heavily discriminated against when Israel considers future planning strategies. Most, if not all, are completely ignored. As a result, many Arab towns languish under antiquated land use patterns and restrictions, some dating back as far as the British Mandate period.

Number of positions in the civil service: 55,448
Number of Arabs in the civil service: 3329
Number of university faculty members in Israel: 5,000
Number of Arab university faculty members in Israel: 50
Number of Israel Electric Corporation employees: 13,000
Number of IEC Arab employees: 6 (0.00046%)
- Sikkuy


Even the UN has declared Israeli land and economic distribution, as well as the irrigation of crops, unequal. There are many economic inequlaiities for the Palestinians.

For most Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Jerusalem is offlimits;
the city has been annexed by Israel and Palestinians from East Jerusalem now
have Israeli ID cards. Palestinian farmers, unable to get to market or with their
harvest rotting at a checkpoint, cannot compete. Between 1993 and 2002,
agriculture fell from 27 per cent of GDP to just 7 per cent as farmers found
themselves on an uncreasingly unequal playing field.

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by jeff

I said before that you shouldn't exagerate my position (see top of page), so avoid making that the basis of your argument in future. Ignoring my points just so you can repeat your attacks again is not a fruitful discussion tactic either.

The remainder of your post seems to be that the state of Israel is illegitemate and therefore continued Palestinian terrorism is understandable, and that in your opinion Israeli response to terrorism is excessive. Easy for you to say.

I don't think we are getting anywhere here. I think we are both accusing each other of the same thing. You obviously havn't listened to me, I'm sure you think the same.

[reposte]

Yet the original zionism was based on the consideration that jews, after thousands of years of having no country of their own, and years of persecution, deserved a homeland of their own. The geographical location of this homeland was based on the idea that they should return to their ancestral homeland, where they had lived until the Romans kicked them out almost 2000 years ago. Like it or not there was a biblical jusitification for this. So whilst it is correct to say that most secular Israelis don't believe God promised them Palestine now, the secular zionists did have this general belief then. Traditional Jewish belief, before the establishment of Israel, was that Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel) was given to the ancient Israelites by God, and that therefore the right of the Jews to that land was permanent and inalienable. The major disagreement was that some orthodox jews believed that the messiah must appear before the jews could return to their homeland. Yet the fact remains that the religious jews didn't really support zionism until after the start of Nazi persecution. That was because the early zionists were more secular in outlook and broadly socialist. Doesn't mean they didn't have any religious justification within their ideology.

I am a little apprehensive to tackle this since it is a rather well informed opinion of the evolution of the zionist ideology, but I must say that it serves not so much as an accurate historical analysis rather as a common poiltical narrative of the liberal Euro-American Left of said process. I'll explain:

True, the Zionist Movement was happy to adopt biblical conotations to the zionist oeuvre, but that should be considered a temporal process which has its basis in the classical resorgimento mechanism of a national culture.
Just like Sienkiewic's Lithuania is Poland, or the modern Egyptians claiming descendence from the Pharaons, whilst being almost all of them ethnically Arabs, without any connection whatsoever to the ancient Egyptian culture.
This process was very typical to the early years of the state of Israel, and very a-typical to the larger part of the zionist movement's existence, nor for that matter, modern day Israel.
The map of 1948 U.N settlement (which, to remind you, was rejected by the Arabs who responded by invasion) was based on legitimate land purchase.
The various bodies - the Jewish Agency , Keren Kayemet LeIsrael etc. had for 150 years been busying themselves with aquiring land from Arab villages or from whatever local authoroty in existence. It was a Jewish cluster of population which was acquired without any need for self justification, biblical or otherwise.
The assumption that the Zionist movement could have chosen just as easily any other piece of land on the globe - there by invoking the historical "Diplomatic Zionism" vs. "Classical Zionism" debate - is, in my view, academic, since no such solution could have been seriously and practicaly conceived. It was unrealistic to expect any government to allot any piece of land for the establishment of a Jewish state. The gradual migration of Jews towards Palestine is therefore a perfectly natural process, in view of the fast deteriorating status of the Jewish assimilation in Europe, beginning with the Russian pogroms and ending, well, not really ending to this very day.
The process of the Jewish settlment in current Israel is a much longer process then you may imagine, begginng nearly 200 years ago.

As you are certainly aware, the Holocaust was the one most defining moment in Israel's history, bringing with it the largest influx of populace as refugees, and probably leading to the decleration of the state. The two largest targets of Jewish immigration post ww2 are Israel and the U.S.
The latter was chosen for obvious reasons, and the considerations that made so many choose Israel over the relative comfort of the U.S, despite the near disaster that Israel seemed to face from an imminent Arab invasion is that those remainng Jews saw value in living where they are no different in ethneticity and religion from the majority of the state's citizens. In short, never again to be a minority at the mercy of a more powerful majority which regards their claim to the land as superior to all others'.
That too is an understandable choice, legitimate, and indipendent of any biblical conotations, regarding Israel as merely the largest concentration of Jewish populace on the way of fulfilling a vision of an Independent state.

Besides, can it not reasonably although somewhat rehtorically be claimed that the events of the 20th century proved that after 2000 years of Jewish existence in Europe, it was still considered a foreign element in every country in Europe? This despite the fact that no ethnic minority in the history of Europe was more willing to assimilate as the Jews?

I am afraid they dont and this has been a huge factor in the conflict. You have to see Gaza (I know not now) and the West Bank, in terms of occupation and thus land wealth for the Palestinians. In 1967 Israel declared all water resoutces to be state owned and controlled by the military. Yet, Israelis in Gaza had no restrictions on water consumption. Rather, their consumption was subsidised, encourgaing overuse and misuse.They have also been favored through selective appropriation of agricultural land having the best groundwater quantity...

Whilst undoubtedly true, I was reffering to the fac thtat there are no natural resources with which Israel can pride itself and the Pale' authority can not.

As for water, that is a political state of affairs, not a geological one.
The remainder of your post by no means pertains to natural resources, while having considerable veracity to it.

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by reposte

The process of the Jewish settlment in current Israel is a much longer process then you may imagine, begginng nearly 200 years ago.

As you are certainly aware, the Holocaust was the one most defining moment in Israel's history, bringing with it the largest influx of populace as refugees, and probably leading to the decleration of the state. The two largest targets of Jewish immigration post ww2 are Israel and the U.S.
The latter was chosen for obvious reasons, and the considerations that made so many choose Israel over the relative comfort of the U.S, despite the near disaster that Israel seemed to face from an imminent Arab invasion is that those remainng Jews saw value in living where they are no different in ethneticity and religion from the majority of the state's citizens. In short, never again to be a minority at the mercy of a more powerful majority which regards their claim to the land as superior to all others'.
That too is an understandable choice, legitimate, and indipendent of any biblical conotations, regarding Israel as merely the largest concentration of Jewish populace on the way of fulfilling a vision of an Independent state.

Besides, can it not reasonably although somewhat rehtorically be claimed that the events of the 20th century proved that after 2000 years of Jewish existence in Europe, it was still considered a foreign element in every country in Europe? This despite the fact that no ethnic minority in the history of Europe was more willing to assimilate as the Jews?



Whilst undoubtedly true, I was reffering to the fac thtat there are no natural resources with which Israel can pride itself and the Pale' authority can not.

As for water, that is a political state of affairs, not a geological one.
The remainder of your post by no means pertains to natural resources, while having considerable veracity to it.

Some excellent points again.

I think what lies at the basis of the problem is 2 very different levels of political consciousness. Essentially, after the 18th century, the jewish outlook was polarised. The majority believed that the answer to anti-semitism was greater assimilation. This followed the emancipation of jews starting in France in 1791. After having lived for centuries in the confines of Jewish ghettos, Jews living in Western and Central Europe now had a powerful incentive to enter mainstream European society. Jews, who had previously been confined to petty trade and to banking, rapidly rose in academia, medicine, the arts, journalism, and other professions. Sadly, however, the econmic success that this brought fueled resentment and further anti-semitism. This coinceded with the birth of new kind of ethnic (not just religious) racism, this radically changed the status of jews in europe.

The vast majority of jews, and this is a further indictment on european tolerance, reponded with trying to assimilate even more. Yet a minority were influenced by the expanding political ideas of nationhood, state democracy and national self-determination. To these early zionists the source of anti-semitism was jewish statelessness, to stop it there had to be a Jewish state established.

Thus you are right about the role of the bible in early zionism. It was a factor, and they certainly felt God promised them the land of their ancestors. Yet, Zionism in its West European Jewish context envisioned a purely political solution to the Jewish problem: a state of Jews rather than a Jewish state. The reason why, however, the bible stil played an importnat role. Is because, Eastern European zionism developed in a very differrent vein. It dealt not only with the plight of Jews but with the crisis of Judaism. Thus, despite its secularism, East European Zionism remained attached to the Jewish biblical home in Palestine. After the porgroms in Russia this group had more influence. It wasn't until after the Holocaust that the really orthodox religious european jewry (what was sadly left of it) came on board proplerly. It is still correct to say that the bible was a key factor in chosing the geographical location of where the jewish state (or state for jews) was to be. Much more so for the eastern europeans who were the majority of settelers from 1880's- 1903

Yet in terms of the early zionist settlers. It is more useful to see the issue as a clash of political consciousness. On one hand you have a group of highly conscious radicals who believed in concepts of the state in the western modern liberal democratic model. On the other hand you have a load of Arabs devoid of any understanding of a political state, national identity or representive instutions. Basically a load of famers.

The problem is that Israel took advantage of this. They didn't walk up and offer a wholesale price for what we now call Israel. They knew that the Arabs were not politcaly conscious, they didn't want a Palestinian state and they had no concept of a future Israeli state. So what Israel does is gradually buy small bits of land, over a century or more, from different officials (be it the Ottomons or who ever), different families and in differnent places. The arabs couldn't stop the ottomons from selling much of their land. In any case the Arabs were basically tricked, they were not united and had no concept of the state- so the didn't fear that there was an attempt to make their homeland into a Jewish one. The Jews themselves basically ignored the Arabs, they had their own justifications, looked down on the less politicaly conscious Arabs and basically felt they would improve their lives anyway. By the time the Arabs saw the threat is was too late.

So those who see the Arabs as nothing but malevelant now, should understand that they were not considered in anyway in the establishment of Israel. Israel took advantage of their lack of political consciousness. But more importantly they cemented this totaly arrogant approach with efforts to erode the Arabs livelihood, something which still exists. In the early years of the 20th century the Zionists attempted to develop an economy in which Arabs were largely redundant, such as the "Hebrew labor" movement that campaigned against the employment of Arabs. I have provided figures already to show the employment inequalities that stil exist. The severing of Palestine from the rest of the Arab world in 1918 and the Balfour Declaration were also seen by the Arabs as proof that their fears were coming to fruition.

All this was done under the pretense that they were improving the lives of Palestinians. The underlining factor behind the conflict, that very few people on this forum contemplate, is that the Arabs have never ever benefited from the establishment of Israel and were not factored into its establishment. There are no justification, in the eyes of the Palestinians, for the fact that since the jews claimed Palestine as their state, the lives of Arabs have got worse and worse. The Arabs have no reason to repect the moral, political, bibilical or theological justification for the establishment of Israel. That said attempting to destroy something that, like it or not exists, is both futile and cruel. It is not good enought to just blame the Palestinians for all all this suffering. I don't just blame the Israelis.

[jBirch]

A couple of comments:

1) The establishment of the state of Israel in it's present geographical location is very much akin to the establishment of the state of Acadia from Louisianna or New Brunswick. Does it make sense to cede Louisianna because China is killing Acadians by the hundreds of thousands?

2) Arab states didn't exist until post WWI when Britain, France and Germany saw the strategic value in the region for global projection of power and an opportunity to set the pieces in their favour with the defeat of the Ottoman empire in WWI. Specifically, they were interested in securing control over the Suez canal and the vast oil fields which would be crucial in the 30's and during WWII. States were built around individual leaders' ability to control these assets and the Grand Game played out. Jordan made a wise play to integrate Palestine into it's territory but was thwarted by the rest of the League who didn't want to increase Jordan's prominence.

After WWII when Britain gave up on the problem of managing Jewish nationalists and Israel won the day against seemingly overwhelming Arab forces (mostly with the help of Jewish WWII veterens from Europe, the US and Canada), she earned a place of hatred amongst the rest of the region as a direct threat to the Arab League (which, interestingly, was established at the insistence of the UK in an effort to simply the management of the Suez canal). Surrounding Arab nations refused to take in the Arab refugees created from the loss of that conflict (and their subsequent virtual expulsion from Israel) and have, instead, continued to use them in an effort to regain the land that was lost. I find it interesting that the major conflict surrounding the creation of Palestine is actually from within the League of Arab nations and I'm not sure why. I'm curious if anyone has any insight on what advantage the league gains by keeping the Palestinian issue live.

At any rate, subsequent to WWII and the Suez Crisis, the entire region became a proxy for Soviet and American conflict with the same lessons learned and structure in place from British and French power games. Isreal became a target when she decided to protect her new found status by extending the state to control the Suez canal after Egypt exerted her control over the canal and prevented Israeli shipping. Ironically, it was the USSR that came to the rescue by threatening to side with Egypt in the conflict and forcing the US to pressure UK and France to abandon the fight. Thus entered the USSR and US into the region in an effort to control the oil and transport through the canal; both pursuing a geopolitical policy of regional instability to thwart either side gaining any significant advantage over the other. The USSR entered on the side it chose when it sided with Egypt against Israel and the US chose the left over: Israel. Though the US was often involved in thwarting Israeli attempts to occupy Sinai and partially control the Suez canal.

Enter the current problem with Palestinian refugees existing in a virtual state created entirely from terrorism and tacit Arab League support. The fledgling state of Israel is mostly secure from invasion and conquest thanks in large measure to her alliance with the US (who use Israel to help buffer against the old Soviet threat and as a regional proxy for securing the canal and the oil supply), a large influx of immigrants and her increadible martial prowess.

With the US invasion of Iraq, I'm wondering if Israel is feeling the pressure to cut her reliance on the US as US interest in the nation becomes less important given the ability to project power and influence from Iraq and Kuwait.

So yes, it is started due to the bloody British. *grin*

James.

[reposte]

pigeonmeister, while you show great erudition, your narrative is in itself biasedin a way typical to the liberal global left, and I will demostrate.

Firstly, as a matter of clarification, when you state:

Thus you are right about the role of the bible in early zionism. It was a factor, and they certainly felt God promised them the land of their ancestors. Yet, Zionism in its West European Jewish context envisioned a purely political solution to the Jewish problem: a state of Jews rather than a Jewish state

That is a stereotypical view, not based in fact and a misunderstanding of my comment. What I had meant was that the biblical conotations between the times of yore and the modern settlement of Israel was done in a context of a resorgimento movement, seeking to fill gaps in a time and space continuum of a national movement. There was a great demand for a sense of continuity to strengthen the link between the mostly Europeanised Jews and the last time a soverign Jewish state was recorded in History. It has very little to do with religion and indeed the target audience of this enterprise was the secular portions of the population. btw, if you know a lot of Israelis, you'll notice that religious Jews rarely have names derived from the old testament, not to mention orthodox Jews. Biblical names are mostly found in educated secular families, the type which usually comprise the intellectual elite of a national movement.

to continue, you speak of :

The problem is that Israel took advantage of this. They didn't walk up and offer a wholesale price for what we now call Israel. They knew that the Arabs were not politcaly conscious, they didn't want a Palestinian state and they had no concept of a future Israeli state. So what Israel does is gradually buy small bits of land, over a century or more, from different officials (be it the Ottomons or who ever), different families and in differnent places. The arabs couldn't stop the ottomons from selling much of their land. In any case the Arabs were basically tricked, they were not united and had no concept of the state- so the didn't fear that there was an attempt to make their homeland into a Jewish one. The Jews themselves basically ignored the Arabs, they had their own justifications, looked down on the less politicaly conscious Arabs and basically felt they would improve their lives anyway. By the time the Arabs saw the threat is was too late.

What is this "they", "It", "Israel", which you keep referring to? The Zionist Oeuvre is a work spanning over centuries, comprised of a tapestry of different groups - traditionalist Russian Jews escaping from Russian anticemitism (First alya), idealistic socialists seeking to found an utopic Jewish socialist society (Second Alya), German refugees and assimilation disallusioned groups (Third Alya), messianic yemenites, sephardic Jews etc. to interpret the Jewish entity in the way you have is a classical political narrative. For Example, the I Alya regarded themselves as a Jewish population living on the land of their ancestors and a loyal part of the Ottoman Empire, which is evident from the treatment that the more Zionist activist Nil"y group received when attempting to assist the British at WW1.

Besides, why is the Arabic lack of poitical consciousness anymore deserving of recognition then Israel's existence thereof? Again, I put to you that you adopt, once more of political reasons, the Israeli narrative on the matter, adopted originaly to discredit Palestinian claims of past wrongs. revisionist research will show that there was indeed an Arab poiltical consciousness, every step of the way.

The last thing I put to you is this: What use is there in an Historical debate on the legitimacy of a nation? Israel IS, no amount of pseudo historical undermining of its legitimacy can serve in anything else but increase of prejudice in tackling of present issues. Do you suppose that I, a second generation Israeli, will shrivei up and die or, pack up and go back to Europe (where the grief stricken European governments after the war, prohibited the restoration of land and property as first order of business) only to satisfy some peoples notion of a more "just" course history ought to have taken? What use is am American state department official in aiding a peace process if he is biased against the very existence of Israel? Any attempt at creating a nhistorical narative to justify or infame a current political entity is in itself poiltical and subjective, truth is in the eye of the beholder etc.

[reposte]

James, your remarks are excellent, but I feel you stress to much Israel's dependency on the U.S, and underestimate U.S interest in Israel.
The new front of global terror stresses the co dependence between the security issues of both states, and it's Israel's military prowess that keeps her safe of invasion, a U.S support to compliment it. I doubt very much that the U.S will come running with the cavalryif Israel's attacked, when Israel was close to disaster at 73 all the U.S did was to supply it, never suggesting to activly interfere.
For my part, I believe a more self relient Israel will be much stronger on the long run.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by reposte

James, your remarks are excellent, but I feel you stress to much Israel's dependency on the U.S, and underestimate U.S interest in Israel.

Historically, I think that Israel needed the US way more then the US needed Israel. I think that the US siding with Israel is based more on nationalistic and cultural parallelism then on more concrete security and economic matters. Beyond that, the big thing that Israel gives the US geopolitically, I think, is a moral excuse to occupy various bits of the region for strategic control and a huge market for advanced weaponry.

I'm not Israeli though and am only basing this opinion on the barest of research. What other interests does the US have in Israel beyond these?

The new front of global terror stresses the co dependence between the security issues of both states, and it's Israel's military prowess that keeps her safe of invasion, a U.S support to compliment it. I doubt very much that the U.S will come running with the cavalryif Israel's attacked, when Israel was close to disaster at 73 all the U.S did was to supply it, never suggesting to activly interfere.

I'm not sure the Israeli model will help the US fight against terrorism, though that's a topic for a different political thread. The geographic and demographic differences are just too vast.

For my part, I believe a more self relient Israel will be much stronger on the long run.

I think every nation should strive to be self-reliant and able to chart their own course. Israel, certainly has earned that right through blood and pain. The problem is that any nation that is self reliant is less of an advantage to other nations who wish to exploit the power relationship so certainly no other nation is going to *help* any nation become self-reliant (regardless of the rhetoric).

James.

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by reposte

pigeonmeister, while you show great erudition, your narrative is in itself biasedin a way typical to the liberal global left.

What is this "they", "It", "Israel", which you keep referring to? The Zionist Oeuvre is a work spanning over centuries, comprised of a tapestry of different groups - traditionalist Russian Jews escaping from Russian anticemitism (First alya), idealistic socialists seeking to found an utopic Jewish socialist society (Second Alya), German refugees and assimilation disallusioned groups (Third Alya), messianic yemenites, sephardic Jews etc. to interpret the Jewish entity in the way you have is a classical political narrative. For Example, the I Alya regarded themselves as a Jewish population living on the land of their ancestors and a loyal part of the Ottoman Empire, which is evident from the treatment that the more Zionist activist Nil"y group received when attempting to assist the British at WW1.

Besides, why is the Arabic lack of poitical consciousness anymore deserving of recognition then Israel's existence thereof? Again, I put to you that you adopt, once more of political reasons, the Israeli narrative on the matter, adopted originaly to discredit Palestinian claims of past wrongs. revisionist research will show that there was indeed an Arab poiltical consciousness, every step of the way.

The last thing I put to you is this: What use is there in an Historical debate on the legitimacy of a nation? Israel IS, no amount of pseudo historical undermining of its legitimacy can serve in anything else but increase of prejudice in tackling of present issues. Do you suppose that I, a second generation Israeli, will shrivei up and die or, pack up and go back to Europe (where the grief stricken European governments after the war, prohibited the restoration of land and property as first order of business) only to satisfy some peoples notion of a more "just" course history ought to have taken? What use is am American state department official in aiding a peace process if he is biased against the very existence of Israel? Any attempt at creating a nhistorical narative to justify or infame a current political entity is in itself poiltical and subjective, truth is in the eye of the beholder etc.

I had to look up erudition.

I have little time for the right or the left, I am cetainly not part of some global liberal organisation or agenda. It's a pretty standard response, after criticising either America or Israel, to be labled as part of some fictious liberal conspiracy against Israel/US. I note that I have already been accused of the other standard responses: being an apologist for terrorists or desiring the destruction of Israel.

My comments were in response to a number or posts that seemed to blame Palestinians for the vast majority the problems in the region. They did so, in my opinion, without any attention to the historical context of how the state of Israel resulted in the material, physical and emotional deteriotation of the standard of living for the Arabs living their. Furthermore this was done in the arrogant belief that they didn't want the land and that they would thank them in the end anyway. I have tried to show that the state of Israel came about because of two processes:

Firstly a mixture of political, religious and moral justifications that were comlicated but exclusive to the various jewish socal and political groups. I have argued that these justification can mean little to non jews, less so Arabs living in the region. In fact they were born of the single minded belief that Israel needed a state at all costs and, if necessary by force. Many early zionists always expected Israel to be won by force- precisley because they knew that the Arabs would not recognise their claim. The evidence that at no point were the Arabs considered, is seen in the descrimatory treatment of Arabs living in Palestine, from day 1 of the Jewish migration. The justifiction for this was that, given the previous treatment of jews in the world, Israel was to be established for the exclusive security and material benefit for jews, run by jews for jews. This explains the employment inequality that still exists amongst Israeli Arabs. Yet this exposes the zionists initial assertion, that a modern democratic state of Israel would actually benefit the Arabs, as just propoganda. This was further seen by the fact that Israel was set up basically as a military state, in recognition that (as zionists has always predicted) Arabs would resent the nature in how Israel was established.

Secondly pragmatism. In this sense religion and politics were not important. It was a recognition that now a state of Israel could be achived in the region because:

1)The Arabs were not united, individual farms could be brought off over a process of decades. This happened thus. You buy a farm, then the next farmer dies so you buy his farm. The next Arab farmer's son is now going to town to seek work and the farmer needs money. He sells up, but then the next Arab neighbour is surrounded by new people, he wants to move to an Arab area. The jews buy his farm and then build on the land that nobody owns. They have a community. These communities are then joined together over a period of years. In between there are still Arab villages, isolated and under pressure to move. They nolonger can compete with the big jewish farming communities so they have to move. Anyway you look at it it was divide and rule and saying that "it's not our fault the Arabs were stupid and didn't realise what was happening" just underlines the initial belief that the Arabs could be exploited thus. Anyway- I'd like to know what percentage of Israeli controled territory was actually paid for?

2) The early zionists knew that they could exploit the crumbling Ottomon empire, who they could buy more land off. Later Ben-Gurion knew he could exploit the British occupation. Israel then knew that America was keen to support an anti-colonial, non Arab, middle eastern state in the post war geo-political climate. Understandable sympathy after the war then provided the final practical dynamic in the establishment of Israel.


I have at no stage argued that Israel is an illigitimate state that should be dissolved. I think you know that I don't think you should shrivel up and die or return to where your grandparents emmigrated from. I think that israel exists and that is all the justification that is important. Doesn't mean we should ignore any unfair ideologies, policies and actions that have characterised its establishment. They were being ignored.

If at any stage anybody had acknowledged any inequality, descrimination or single minded cynical exploitation of a peoples situation, that has characterised the origins of Israel. Combined, in various degrees, with exclusive political, religious and historical convictions that deliberalty took no account of the people who were living in the area they wanted for themselves. If they acknowleged that the huge disparity in Palestinian civilian deaths (compared to Israeli) was not just their own fault. If people would acknowledge emplyoment and natural resourse inequlaity and descrimination, buttressed by Illlegal occupation. Finaly if people could acknowledge that it is not just me saying this. THEN I wouldn't have to fill so many post with criticising Israel and I would be happy to attack the Brits, Koreans, Iranians, Palestinians in the interest of politcal discourse.

[reposte]

I have little time for the right or the left, I am cetainly not part of some global liberal organisation or agenda. It's a pretty standard response, after criticising either America or Israel, to be labled as part of some fictious liberal conspiracy against Israel/US. I note that I have already been accused of the other standard responses: being an apologist for terrorists or desiring the destruction of Israel.

Not at all what I claim. I give you full credit for truly believing in something which you obviously took great pains at studying, what I was - not accusing but suggesting - that the claims you make are a part of an historical narrative which is created and adopted by a certain ideology, which is, to characterize it in terms of poiltics and cultural context, a Euro - American left doctrine . Indeed, I feel that the claims you enumerate at the continuation of the post are a perfect demostration of my claim, I dispute them as scholastic contentions if nothing else.
I certainly appreciate the high level of involvement on this thread by you and all the rest (save perhaps one) and must admit that I came to enjoy a situation which is usually disagreeable, namely, an ideoloical poiltical argument.

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by reposte

Not at all what I claim. I give you full credit for truly believing in something which you obviously took great pains at studying, what I was - not accusing but suggesting - that the claims you make are a part of an historical narrative which is created and adopted by a certain ideology, which is, to characterize it in terms of poiltics and cultural context, a Euro - American left doctrine . Indeed, I feel that the claims you enumerate at the continuation of the post are a perfect demostration of my claim, I dispute them as scholastic contentions if nothing else.
I certainly appreciate the high level of involvement on this thread by you and all the rest (save perhaps one) and must admit that I came to enjoy a situation which is usually disagreeable, namely, an ideoloical poiltical argument.

I see where your coming from. Yet I think there is a slightly different ideological dynamic in Europe. Namely, that sympathy for the Palestinian people is not restricted to the political left. There is nothing like the close association of militantly pro-Israeli to the right wing media and government. A lot has been said about Christian Zionists and how Bush thinks Israel must retain its bibilical borders in order for the second coming to happen. Whilst some attached to the periphery of the Bush admininstration might believe this, I think that this is an example of liberal paranoia/conspiracy theory. Yet the point remains, non-negotiable Support for Israeli is a characteristic of the American political right in a way that has no european equivalent. Nearly all key architects of US foreign policy: Feith, Perle, Wolfy, Bolton, Libby, Leeden have been charcterised by not just staunch pro Israeli support and membership of powerful jewish lobbying groups. But genuine attempts to establish a common cause with the Likud Party. You then have a right wing media dominated by people of the same conviction (Kristol, Kagan, Krauthammer)

In Europe there is no such association, yet genuine support for the intifada is a universal characteristic of the far political left (such as George Galloway). In this sense I understand why you would interpret my analysis as left orientated- in that I respected the Palestinian people's right to resist occupation through military (obviously not civilian) targeting of that occupation force (and not in Jerusalem or tel aviv).

Whilst this, in America, would be a characteristised as 'leftist'. In Britain, and I would suggest much of Europe, this is a pretty mainstream view. Rightly or Wrongly there is overt criticism of Israeli policies in a broad political spectrum of the British media. That is not to say that there is not also overt criticism of Palestinian actions or that terrorist atrocities are justified any more than attacks on London, Madrid or NYC. It's just that the plight of the Palestinian people is highlighted in a way that it is not in the American media. There is no right wing media machine, or powerful jewish lobbying groups, or inter governmental links, to stop this.

In terms of the academical points on the legitmacy of the state of Israel, they are my own and based on my own observations. I have consistently stated that this is a theoretical point that cannot be used to justify the actions of those who genuinly seek to destroy the state of Israel. To be honest the British media does not share my preocuppation with history, nobody has questioned the legitmacy of Israel. Israel exists and terrorists exist. Most commentary is short term and suggests that there is a correlation between the increased instensity of carnage that coincided with the coming to power of a right wing government percived to inact cynical, disproportionate and counter-productive policies. The callous slaying of British journalists, by IDF forces, hasn't helped either. There is also a belief that the close links between likud and US neo-cons has resticted efforts to establish peace in the region by delaying what Tony Blair has always said is a hugely limiting factor on US policy (namely the lack of a Palestinian state). As well as the fact that neo-cons have, since the creation of the Project for the New American Century, consistently argued that Israel should repudiate the Oslo accords and seek permanent annexation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Thus, due to the influences on the US govenment and its media machine that I have highlighted, my views are characterised as leftist. In the absence of these forces, in Britain at least, it is more the case that opposition to Israeli policies is based on observation and not ideology. Even our government ministers condemned the assassination policy in a way that no US official could contemplate.

The British Conservatives are lead by a Jew, yet their stance on Israel is comparable to Labour. Traditional, aristocratic, Mandate era Conseratives had been were very anti-zionist (in fact many crossed the barrier into anti-Semitism). This basically remained, without (largely) the anti-semtism, until Thatcher's close relationship with Reagan alligned British policy (to Israel), closer to American. There is now a political consensus in British politics that is charcterised by several observations:

1)Israel is seen as a cause as well as a victim of radicalism, instability, and anti-Western feeling in the Arab world. A solution of the Arab-Israeli co