Why is Israel the good guys????

Not surprising to see a more reasoned post from someone just after he's been accused of extreme bias, but yes, you are. Unfortunately there's no 12 point program, but why don't you start by reading some of the stuff you wrote in the I Don't Understand the Israel/Palestinian Problem thread. Then reread your Message 30 of this thread. Does it all seem rabidly pro-Arab to you? No? Then sorry, guy, can't help you.Look, Holmes, I'm a centrist. If you and Rei want to explore the origins of the Jewish state in greater detail then it sounds interesting and I might participate, but not if at every turn I'm faced with charges of underhandedness and unfairness, like that the UN was just a puppet of GB's desire to satisfy promises to the Jews and so forth, or that what I wrote is "less than totally honest", or even worse, "The first part is a lie."Arab history is just as full of deception, insurrection and betrayal as any other region's history, and their role on the world stage during the formation of Israel was not one of innocent victim. Or maybe it was, but in that case it seems that this should be a realization deriving from the discussion rather than a required a priori assumption.--Percy

This is biased thinking. The Jews certainly cultivated the land (making it good to farm on) but this makes it sound like the land was of no worth at all to anyone. As poverty stricken as it was, people lived there and it was their home.This is like saying, see what a waste those Native Americans were to the US? Now we have factories, townhouses and Las Vegas!Or perhaps more appropriate today, excusing the excesses of corporations in 3rd world countries, just because they had more money than the people living in that country to polish it up.The needs of the Arabs on that land were not the same as the needs for westernized people. The Jews in that region brought in technology and knowledge to turn the land into what they desired. They were also able to do this with money unaccessible to the Arab population (which had little ties to western nations, much less bankrolls).This is one reason Arab farmers became a bit upset. Jewish farmers were getting help they could not get, and being pretty cliquish about it too. This is not to say that gave them any right to do anything about that anger other than try and raise money themselves.I dislike the culturally biased rhetoric which views the achievements the Jews managed to accomplish, as some sort of sign they were working harder than Arabs, or have more rights or investment in the land than the Arabs.To repeat, the needs of the Arabs were different (they were not western style farmers), and so were their assets. Personally, I would prefer to live on the Israeli cultivated land, but hey I like oranges and apartments and not goats and tents!After the war(s), Israelis have not let all displaced people back onto their lands. This is one of the major issues/obstacles. They do not do so because it will eventually lead to Jews not being a majority (or a clear majority) in the government. This is stated by the hardliners who are ruling Israel right now.Moderate Israelis have come out on this issue, admitting the people are getting screwed and that Israel should let them back in.If this were any other country in history we would call it like it is... it was a purge. Even the US can admit it screwed the Native Americans in a purge.This is not to say Palestinians aren't being a bit overdramatic and extending claims of the problem beyond what they really are, or trying to sneak in people that don't have real claims. That is also an issue.But Sharon and other hardliners, under the guise of war, did take land and removed the rightful owners from the state of Israel. Moshe Dayan not only helped in this purge, but admitted this is what was happening and vocalized his sympathy for them.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 10-25-2003]

To say that the UN process was fair to the Arabs, when it was approached with an a priori-nonnegotiable point that a state of Israel (whose gov't had to be Jewish dominated, but by necessity of borders include nonJews) is less than intellectually honest. I stand by this statement.To say that the UN process was fair to the point that it upheld democratic principles, especially in the way I had discussed, is either a lie (to yourself or me I cannot say) or based on a totally misunderstanding what I meant. If it was a misunderstanding then I apologize.I admit that I get heated about this subject. And that heat may lead to hyperbole on my part. For this I also apologize.HOWEVER, in every case... including the other thread... if the heat is removed there are clear factual statements which must be addressed and they happen to support the position I hold. They cannot be dismissed because of the heat and hyperbole which might accompany them.I have removed the heat and hyperbole and I wish you would address my points. I will grant that you are much more diplomatic and less hyperbolic in your language. But not taking sides is not truly being a centrist. There is enough evidence to figure out which side has better claims. A centrist at that point should take a side.An extremist would say the "right" side gets everything it demands. A centrist would mete out justice within a boundary of pragmatism. I grew up with the vision that Arafat was some looney bent on killing Jews. I grew up being taught that Israel was a nation (like it had a contiguous existence from ancient times) and the Jews had a special right to the land. I was also fed (as people still are today) propaganda that Arabs are unreasonable and only listen to force.It was only within the last... 5 years (a little more or less)... that I began researching the facts at all, and even more so since 9-11.I went in with a bias against Arabs (on the issue of Israel).The evidence is shocking, and it is solid. It is so solid that I find myself getting redhot because of the casual dismissal most people in the US have toward the profound amount of evidence out there.Rather than saying I am the extremist with an a priori agenda, you may want to consider why most of the entire world holds the same opinion I do, and why if not for the Veto power of the United States, Israel would already be dealing with the issues I have mentioned.Is the rest of the world extremist and anti-Jewish? Or necessarily anti-Israel?The moderates in Israel voice the same things I do. They are some of the sources I used to come to my opinion I hold now. Even some hardline pro-Israelis as Moshe Dayan have given this evidence.The VIOLENCE is horrible and both sides clearly have blood on their hands. This will probably never get worked out as "who is most guilty of killing" (although Sharon as a singular murderer is clear).But the evidence of whether Arabs have proper claims that the founding of the state of Israel (as it was) was unjust, as well as current practices that disenfranchise palestinians are also unjust... the rest of the world has voted on the matter several times within the UN and the vote is over 90% on my side.While I believe 90% of people can be swept up in a furor and extremism so as to miss evidence, I do not believe this is the case here. There are many nonProArab states which hold the same opinion on this matter.My opinion was formed a posteriori and unless you address me with evidence or logic... such as addressing the points in #40, what am I left with as counterevidence? I did not use the word puppet and I would hesitate to use that word. GB at that time had immense power within the UN to address the "Jewish situation". The Zionists had the ear of GB and the US, as well as the sympathy of much of the world, after the treatment of Jews by Nazis in WW2.GB was the major player in what is now Palestine/Israel. They were the ones allowed to make major policy there, or should I say what they wanted went a very very very long way.GB helped devise the plans according to wishes of Zionist leaders, with payback in mind for Jewish help in that very region. The US supported the plans because Zionist groups heavily lobbied the congress and the president.This information is not only pretty readily available on the internet, you can watch it on History Channel documentaries regarding the formation of Israel... I would hope you agree this is not a biased source.I don't believe the mindset of GB or the US was "screw the Arabs". I believe it was the same MO they have practiced in that region forever, and why we have the problems today... blatant disregard for the situation on the ground to formulate "feel good" or "look good" decisions for public consumption at home, or immediate security desires with little longterm thinking.My entire criticism... if it is to be viewed properly... is a scathing indictment of English/US/Western meddling/colonialism in that region. In the specific case of Israel, Zionist extremists have so far brilliantly used this meddling to their advantage and so the great disadvantage of Arabs in that region.Islamic extremists did the same thing in Afghanistan and then blew it by biting the hand that fed them.I think it is high time to reevaluate strategic thinking in that entire region, including Israel. I think it is also hightime to change UN rulemaking so that the plans of powerful members don't continue being the a priori frame other nations (or people) MUST work within or be called intransigent.Hopefully all of this was more light, less heat. And next time you see pure hyperbole from me, feel free to chastise me on it. I am trying to use debates on this forum to clean up my act.------------------
holmes

Concerning google:
http://images.google.com/images...
{Shortened display form or URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}Concerning the lack of anchors:
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/images/maps/02MAP_pg55.gifI would like to apologize if you really did not realize that you were linking to a web page (not a map, but a web page that just happened to contain a map halfway down) from an Israeli lobbying group. I would just ask that you be more careful next time, when you're accusing people of pro-arab bias and portraying yourself as a moderate.

quote:

---

But quit this silly "you're getting your information from biased sites" garbage. I haven't gotten information about Arab/Israel affairs from anywhere other than the daily news for over a decade. (If your answer is, "Aren't you aware that all the major news outlets are controlled by the Jews?" then all I can do is roll my eyes.

---

Percy, you of all people should know what a straw man is - I never once claimed that "the major news outlets are controlled by the Jews." The pro-Israel faction has *far* stronger of a lobby than the pro-Arab side, but they don't "control" the news. Of course, if you think lobbying by a 65,000 strong group from one lobby alone is irrelevant, well, you're free to have that viewpoint. If you want to talk about US media (versus foreign media) coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that in itself could use its own thread. My favorite commonly occuring line in articles is the "relative calm" line - for example of this type, NPR's Linda Gradstein's "You know, there's been actually three weeks of relative quiet. Only one Israeli has been killed in those three weeks, as opposed to 44 Israelis who were killed when Zinni was here last time in November and early December.". It's apparently only "relative quiet" when Israelis aren't dying; 26 Palestinians were killed during this "quiet", of which most were unarmed, 6 of whom were minors), starting with the shooting of 13-year-old Rami Khamis Al-Zorob (shot in the head while playing near his home). Unfortunately, there's not much of an organized effort to hold the media accountable for things like this, and so they keep happening. We can go into the coverage of numbers of killings on both sides, number of minors on both sides, the ratio of reporting on civilian versus military deaths on both sides, etc - take your pick, there've been plenty of counts done.I would ask what your opinion would be as to why there is such a difference between US coverage of Israel/Palestine, and most of the rest of the world's (such as even Israel itself. Do you ever read Haaretz Daily, the Jerusalem Post, or any of those papers?).

quote:

---

I thought finding the map was important because it shows how small a part of the originally planned Arab state Israel took in the 1948-1949 Arab/Israeli war.

---

They expelled a massive number of people from the territories, Percy - the region has, and had, a very uneven population density. Rabin himself admits to being involved in the expulsion of 50,000 from just two cities. There were over a hundred cities in which the Israelis rolled up and drove the residents out of their homes in mass, killing any who resisted. They siezed the very richest farmland in Palestine - about 80% of cultivatable land, 50% of the citrus production, 90% of the olive groves, etc. This is just 1948. In the current situation, they even monopilize the supposedly Palestinian territories - for example, in the West Bank, Israeli settlers use 80% of the water supply, mostly for their agricultural exports. I'm extremely thankful to the ISM members for chaining themselves to the wells after the Israeli army began shelling them, destroying abut 50% of the city's water supply before they got there (I bet you'll see this as meaning I'm rabidly pro-Arab - wanting the people of Rafah to be able to have drinking water).Unfortunately, so many people that are pro-Israel see themselves as moderates. My only response, really, is to summarize: Read what the rest of the world thinks about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - read their newspapers, they're mostly online just like ours - and then see how toward the "middle" of world public opinion you are.(edit: After reading over this again, I would like to stress again that I apologize if a inadvertently pigeonholed you into a role that you don't want to be in, in this debate. I know you want to be evenhanded, and I assume that your posting of propaganda was just inadvertent in looking for a map.)------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 10-25-2003][This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 10-27-2003]

I've been left troubled by this whole thing.If someone acts irate in a post, and then is told they are irate, why should they be made to look bad for having corrected that error in their next post? It seems to me a correction of tone and an outlining of real points of discussion should be commended and rewarded, not made to look like further bad behavior (and more reason to end discussion).I realized I was being hot and have apologized for this.Having read through my posts I still do not see why I should be considered rabid pro-Arab. My TONE may seem that way, but my actual points of argument have not been. And certainly the facts that I presented (which come from Israeli sources as well as other nonArab international sources) cannot be proArab, or proIsraeli.I pose this question to you. On any highly controversial subject, how can you tell a person who has properly reviewed the evidence at hand and made a valid decision, from a person who never reviewed the evidence in order to validate an a priori position?Especially on controversial subjects, I do not believe it can be from tone, or the fact that they start an argument from one position.The latter will always be true for someone who has made a decision before the argument starts, but that does not mean the person did not have meaningful research prior to that particular argument, nor that they will be unreceptive to new information.The former problem--- tone--- if unable to be stripped from the argument, may be an indication of some bias, but does not necessarily indicate bias during the early stages of argument.Israel is a hot button issue for me, and so sometimes I adopt much stronger tones than necessary for argument, because I am used to extreme personal prejudice against ME just for trying to find facts. It has been my experience that this has happened to others as well. Because I started looking I was called anti-semitic. Because I found evidence that was pretty solid and asked for a response I was called anti-semitic (not by you but by others).When this has not occured then I have also faced a wall of silence as people wave their hands and say "it can't be figured out." Just raising questions gets shut down with this argument.To my mind it is as irritating as being surrounded by people that don't believe the holocaust happened. You start to ask questions and they say its just the Jew's word against the German's. It was a long time ago. How can we really know anything?Then when you start to look at the evidence yourself, which isn't hard to find, it becomes pretty obvious. Yet you are still faced with that attitude. And worse they say you must hate Germans, or be some "Jew lover" to have simply come to a conclusion based on the facts.It is very upsetting and eventually one vents along with delivering the info. This is what happens with me on this subject.So when reminded I am yelling I calm down and repeat the facts. Are the facts wrong? Don't they merit discussion among rational people, rather than just with rabid people of the opposing side? I would hope so.I read through my posts and as I said I did not find anything beyond tone, to consider my position rabid anything. Was it my use of the term Zionist? I know crackpot Nazis use that term all the time... the vast Zionist conspiracy. But then they are referring to Jews. That is not what I am trying to talk about, or how I use the term.Jews are simply Jews, and Israelis are simply Israelis, and I want to avoid lumping moderate and liberal Jews or Israelis with the hardcore extremists determined to found a National Jewish Homeland. It is the hardcore extremists that I term Zionists. And I do not think this is an unfair term, since this is what they call themselves. Sharon frequently refers to Zion in both this poetry/writings and in his public statements.If you think it would make my position more palatable to use another term, I would be open to any and all suggestions.I dunno why I cared to post this. I guess I just hate to see a debate end so miserably, and would like to understand what is wrong or extremist for having the opinion that the evidence is conclusive... and presenting evidence along that line.------------------
holmes

"Why Is Israel The Good Guys"1. Which side purposely targets innocent civilians and uses women and children as shields to protect the guys with the guns?2. Which side has Russia, Iraq, Libia and other totalitarian enemies of freedom traditionally supported?3. Which side made the land productive and built it up? Which side did little in this respect?4. Which side kept the land from being one more fundamentalistic Islamic dictatorship to solidify the entire Middle East to freedomless tyranny with oil for leverage for world conquest?4. Which side names streets after suicide bombers and teaches their children that doing so is noble?5. Which side has consistently declared that Israel has no right to exist and has consistently taught this in their schools to the children?6. Which side refused to sign a treaty when offered all the specific demands they had called for?

Both sides. One more overtly. At least the Arabs don't try to hide it. Check out the frag meter for both sides, I think you can see isreal is scoring way higher. The US has supported Irag, Libia, and other so calld "enemies" at one time or another. Oh? So farmers are better than Nomads, so they deserve the land? BS. Who cares who built it. If someone takes your farm and puts in a strip mall, does it make it better cuz he made your land "more productive"None the less, as it was pointed out earlier in the thread, the Arabs didn't use the land for the same purposes. What??? SO now you have a Jewish theocracy. And don't you realize that most islamic fundamentalits dictatorships that we deal with today arose after isreal, arguably as a result of our supporty for isreal. Syria is a good example. Don't we have heros who "fought and died for their country" etc. That's what they are doing. What's the diffrence? They feel they are opressed, so they are fighting against it.The isrealies kill just as many palestinian civilians all the time. I think you would be pushed to your limits too if a govt. were buldozing your neighborhood everywhere you went.Do you think suicide bombers come from nowhere? It's an act of desperation by a desparete people, with no real military infrastructure! They belive this, so what! Are they wrong? It has still yet to be shown that somehow Isreal deserves a state. They could have just integrated with the arabs who are the majority. HEll, break enugh treaties and anyone will bitch about signing them dony ya think?

quote:

---

1. Which side purposely targets innocent civilians and uses women and children as shields to protect the guys with the guns?

---

Israel: Sharon Investigation Urged (Sabra and Shatila Massacre)Amnesty Report: Israeli Military Committed War Crimes (use of human shields, a sample case)Challenge: For every one case of Palestinians using human shields, I'll give you 10 the other way around.Which side has the vast majority of Planet Earth apart from America and Israel itself supported?

quote:

---

3. Which side made the land productive and built it up? Which side did little in this respect?

---

Do you have any clue how many dunams of Palestinian farmland (olive groves, greenhouses... not much citrus, because Israel already stole most of the citrus-growing region) have been destroyed in this conflict alone? Or how many are being siezed by the "Separation Fence"/"Apartheid Wall"? Or how much Palestinian water Israel diverts for their farming? I find your notion that the Palestinians didn't farm before Israel got there patently amusing. Why don't you just go and claim that their century-old olive groves were used for sacrificing babies?

quote:

---

4. Which side kept the land from being one more fundamentalistic Islamic dictatorship to solidify the entire Middle East to freedomless tyranny with oil for leverage for world conquest?

---

1) Which side committed ethnic cleansing on their siezed land so that they could establish a religious state?2) (different answer): Who overthrew the only major Arab democracy in history?

quote:

---

4. Which side names streets after suicide bombers and teaches their children that doing so is noble?

---

1) Who had tens of thousands of pilgrims who visited the grave of a mass murderer every year?2) Whose children have trouble being taught anything because entirer cities are often kept in long-term lockdown, and tear-gasses schools during it? (Nablus was kept in lockdown for over 100 contiguous days at one point; Bethlehem was in lockdown last Christmas - you should have seen the Palestinian Christians protesting, I should try and track down some of the pictures).

quote:

---

5. Which side has consistently declared that Israel has no right to exist and has consistently taught this in their schools to the children?

---

Which side's dominant party has sought the ethnic cleansing of the entire territories, and actually has a chance to accomplish it?

quote:

---

6. Which side refused to sign a treaty when offered all the specific demands they had called for?

---

LAF, "Barak's Generous Offer" rears its ugly head again. The West Bank and the Gaza Strip compose 22% of historic Palestine. In Oslo, they conceded that other 78% (which includes most of the good land in the territory). Barak further demanded an additional 10% of the 22% as "permanent settler blocks". Not only is this losing another 10% of the land, but it slices the country into pieces, making travel from one part to another a long arduous process. Then there's another 10% "temporary Israeli Control" regions, which have no time limit on the "temporary" part, making them effectively permanent - and these further slice up the nation. To compensate for the land losses, as almost a mockery of good faith, Barak offered some land that Israel had used as a nuclear waste dump. Israel was to retain complete control over Palestine's borders on all sides, the right of return had to be given up.Buz, give up the Israeli propaganda.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Hmm, lets see what's been going on in Israel today - from live reports. Israel supporters, please feel free to post your own reports of what has gone on in Israel today. Perhaps this should be a regular thing - reports, just to make the current status clear. Things like this (or worse) happen every day in Palestine, so if the two nations' plights are on par, we should expect daily things like this to Israelis as well, shouldn't we?INTERNATIONAL VOLUNTEERS BEATEN BY SETTLERS[Einabus, Awarta, West Bank]International and Israeli volunteers were beaten by a group of young
Israeli settlers while they were accompanying Palestinian farmers
picking olives at midday today. As a result of the destruction of
approximately 250 trees by settlers, farmers from the Einabus area
were afraid to harvest their olives without the presence of
observers from Rabbis for Human Rights (RHR) and the International
Solidarity Movement (ISM). Palestinian farmers are frequently
attacked on their land by settlers who are not held to account for
their actions.Sixty-six year old John (ISM) from San Francisco and Rabbis
Ascherman and Nir (RHR) were beaten with stones and clubs by young
men (some with masked faces) from Izhar settlement. John has a
badly injured leg and is currently being treated in Rabin Medical
Centre (Beilinson Hospital) for a suspected fracture. The Rabbis
have suffered bruising but have not required hospital treatment.For further information please call:ISM Media Office +972-2277 4602------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Today's Israel/Palestine news:Permits ordered for Palestinians | Palestinian territories | The GuardianThe Israeli military is ordering 12,000 Palestinians to get permits to live in their own homes, whose homes are near the "security fence". The number is expected to rise to near 40,000 within months. This is the fence that is confiscating a huge amount of Palestinian farm land, as it's not being built on the green line, and is maneuvering around towns and villages so as to cut them off from their fields.Only Israelis and Jews can enter the area without such a pass.Also, from Sunday:Page Not Found | Reuters.comIsrael demolishes, in one swipe, the homes of 156 families in retaliation for an attack against one of Israel's illegal settlements. Need I remind people that collective punishments are illegal under international law...[This message has been edited by Rei, 10-28-2003]

Just to let you know I tried this but gave up when I realized the only people reading what I wrote (or responding to it), were members of the choir.If you have the time and energy, then go for it. If so, maybe you should open your own thread so people know what's going on there by the title itself.------------------
holmes

Probably a good point. I think the main reason that this happens is that there typically isn't anything that goes on in Israel that isn't widespread knowlege. When there's a suicide bombing that kills a half dozen people, it's front-page news. When 40,000 people are required to get permits just to live in their own homes (while their land is cut off from them), hundreds of families have their homes taken away from them, children are shot-up by the IDF, etc, it's just another day.Any person who leans toward the Palestinian side of the conflict is going to horribly outpace Israeli supporters.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

While it may be considered "preaching to the choir", I for one am very interested in reading what you and Rei post on this issue. Please don't stop.------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

Being an admin, do you think it should be in a new thread somewhere?------------------
holmes

I don't know Holmes. I think this topic is fine as it is. The powers that be might have a different opinion.------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato