Israel, the Palestinians, and America

[Plette]

Israel has just assassinated Abdel Aziz Rantissi, one of the Hamas leaders, and has stated its intent to kill all leaders of this and similar groups. Most world leaders have expressed their objection, with the notable exception of America.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 636207.stm

Related is the announcement made by Bush last week which expressed approval of Israel's intent to keep some settlements in the West Bank. Anyone who has followed this conflict for a reasonable length of times recognises that as a substantial policy change on America's part from recent years. I do not think that it would be an overstatement to say that this action has discredited America as a potential facilitator of an equitable peace in the eyes of any Palestinians who had any faith in them in the first place.

For anyone not familiar with the conflict and its history, the BBC has an extensive site about its background you may want to check out:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/mid ... efault.stm

I'll refrain from giving my opinion now, as I would like to hear first what others have to say. Do you feel Israel is justified in such acts? Do you believe that groups such as Hamas are trying to better the lives of Palestinians, or simply trying to destroy Israel? How do you feel about America's stance and involvement? Etc.

[Biitchboy]

[s]Plette wrote on 16:21, 18th Apr 2004:
I'll refrain from giving my opinion now, as I would like to hear first what others have to say. Do you feel Israel is justified in such acts? Do you believe that groups such as Hamas are trying to better the lives of Palestinians, or simply trying to destroy Israel? How do you feel about America's stance and involvement? Etc.


Israel is justified in very few of it's actions in regards to the Palestinians. It has continually breached international law over the decades. After the area's partition, Israel would still promote Israelis to settle in Palestinian land, and once towns were founded, use this as a basis to argue that the land is now theirs. The West Bank being the main example of this. I won't even get into the politics of the way they went about giving them the State of ISrael in the first place.

As for Hamas, they are a hinderance to the peace movement, and are essentially a terrorist, radical group. They are not willing to negotiate with Israel to any large extent, unlike other more official Paletnian political authorities.

And as for the US, well, nothing George Bush does surprises me anymore. But the US clearly is, and always will be, biased in favour of Israel, but I think this latest policy shift is exceptionally damaging to the peace process. I don't know why they have done it.

[hr]
If I gave a shit, you'd be the first person I'd give it to.

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~lgbtsoc
*This post does not necessarily reflect the views of the society*

[marsbarboy]

America's pro-Israel stance is despicable. They have indeed shot themselves in the foot as credible peace negociators. Ariel Sharon is probably using the 'Road Map for Peace' as lavatory paper.

A neutral negociator (e.g. Switzerland) should be working with both sides in a real effort to broker peace. We've all had enough of this, why can't something solid and credible be done about it? I suppose America doesn't really care about it's citizens that have been killed by Isrealis while they were in Palestine?

Who else started a world war by annexing parts of countries next door to theirs?

[Prophet Tenebrae]

America's pro-Israel stance is hardly new and Israe's "defensive" actions are hardly new...

It's inevitable that things will get worse before they get better - in fact, I'm actually surprised that they (the Israelis) haven't engaged in full genocide yet... but I'm sure that's for later.

[someone]

Besides stating my support for the Palestinian cause, I've only one thing to say really about the Israeli-Palestinian situation.

If you think Bush is bad on this issue, take a look at Kerry--- who makes Bush look rosy.

[hr]someone--- disco inferno.

[Biitchboy]

Really? What is Kerry's stance on the whole thing?

[someone]

The traditional "Israel has a right to defend itself" line, but because he's trying to one-up Bush on terrorism at the moment, I believe he added, "by any means necessary."

They had a nice little soundbite of his on Channel 4 this afternoon. He's a hawk by any standard, and supports these targeted assassinations that Israel has such an affinity for these days.

So much for due process of law and the American way.

[hr]someone--- disco inferno.

[Ewan MacDonald]

I fear that I am exposing myself to massive retaliation, but I broadly agree with Israeli policy at the moment.

This is not to say that I object to a two state model, it is the only possibility, but Sharon's idea is simply to leave large sections of land for the Palestinians. While in no way a perfect solution, I do not believe it deserves the vitriol that has been sent its way.

In my view the problem is not caused by the Palstinian people, or the Israeli, instead the aggressors are the criminal terrorist groups such as Hamas. The distinction between freedom frighters and terrorists is that terrorists his 'soft targets', civilians, schools, cinemas, as opposed to military targest. It is also noteworthy the efforts that the leaders of Hamas and the other groups go to great lengths to ensure that their children are not the ones who give their lives as suicide bombers. Perhaps if Yaser arafat wou;d crawl out of whatever hole he is hiding in and stopped this then Israel would be ale to negotiate.

States cannot allow themselves to be ictated to by terrorists. In Israels case this is een more important as much of the Arab world will stop at nothing except the total obliteration of the Israeli state. America, and Britain, have an obligation to prevent that happening. Until the terrorists stop their killing, there can be no oportunity for negotiation.


[hr]In matters of grave importance, style, not sincerity, is the vital thing.
Oscar Wilde, The Importance of being Earnest (III)

[penfold]

In the eyes of the UN The occupying forces within Gaza and the west bank are the only criminals

[The Cellar Bar]

[s]penfold wrote on 01:15, 20th Apr 2004:
In the eyes of the UN The occupying forces within Gaza and the west bank are the only criminals


to the tune of 21 UN Resolutions dating back to 1967 which the US has persistently vetoed or blocked in defence of ..well, something or other since there seems to be no rationale behind defending or supporting the regime there.

Except maybe a presence on one side of the Suez Canal and access to the Indian Ocean. And the predictable genuflection when it came to throwing in on the opposite local side in a dispute which involved the Soviet Union. But even then, that ceased to be relevant once they had been heaved out of Egypt.

Mind you, I suppose with the billions of dollars of orders for weapons and equipment, bought out of grants given to them in the first place by various Administrations in behalf of the American tax payer, I guess it gives some American workers a reason to get up in the morning.

[Al]

I have always found it puzzling that successive Israeli governments, and their apologists, have tried to justify their actions through the need for defence against terrorism. If this were the case then why does Israel commit so many acts of terrorism? Or is their terrorism better, and somehow ethically purer, than that of the Palestinians?

And another thing. The Israeli government have done nothing but seek to undermine Arafat's authority. They have isolated him, ridiculed him, and sought to replace (or worse) him. It can, therefore, hardly be unexpected that other people, over whom he has no control, arise to fill the gap.

[hr]Life is too important to be taken seriously.

[oddly familiar]

Why exactly is it that america is so pro isreal? I mean, basically Isreal has one of the best equipped armies in the world, because the americans have sold them all their stuff. so, why? i am a little ignorant of the history between isreal and america here, but there must be a reason why the US is so pro Isreal, even to the point of going against the opinion of the entire world that sees what isreal is doing as wrong?

[hr]When she walks,
Oh the wind blows and the angels sing,
But she doesnt notice me

[The Cellar Bar]

I reckon it all began shortly after the end of the 2nd World War and the US saw an opening to replace (especially) the British Empire in terms of world wide influence. Singapore was another example of how the US FLeet for instance was directed to effectivelyu blockade the port and prevent the Royal Navy getting in to rstore things to the way they were.

Similarly, the US saw the chance to diminish French and British influence in the Middle East through its stunt at Suez when it pulled the rug out after tacit suggestions that it would assist them after Egypt had the audacity to nationalise the Suez Canal.

Thereafter, they've been saddled with continuing the support. And in most cases, that's been the right thing to do in support of an Israel where Jews can live in peace and stability. The problem is that as time has gone on, the Zionists, from Ben Gurion onwards have done all they can to extend that "land" to what they actually want. Which is a massive piece of territory extending into Lebanon and Syria and parts of Jordan. Buried deep in the background, that bunch have never really given up on that dream and have bided their time while the more typical and liberal Jewish community have supported the openness and freedom most of us would want out there.

Sharon, aside from being a murderous, conniving SOB, is the latest version of that Zionist thread and remains a blight on what most Jews would want for their country and its relations with their neighbours.

[Ewan MacDonald]

[s]oddly familiar wrote on 21:36, 20th Apr 2004:
Why exactly is it that america is so pro isreal?

[hr][i]When she walks,
Oh the wind blows and the angels sing,
But she doesnt notice me
[/i]
At least in part it id due to the Holocaust. After the events of WWII there was a collective feeling that this could never be allowed again. As a result the US is generally more indulgent of Israel.

I disagree with the above post purely on a matter of perspective. The Israeli wish to expand through miltary means is, I believe, not a fair comment. The only occasions when Israelis have invaded other states is after the Arab staes have declared war
(I'm thinking of the six day war here). After defeating Syrian armies intent on destroying the Jewish state, the Israeli's advanced until Wasshington advised them that the Arab world would not look kindly on a Israeli parade through Damascus.

In short, America supports and equips Israel because a.) The US believes it owes the Jews; and b.) A larg proportion of the arab world wants to wipe out Israel.


[hr]
In matters of grave importance, style, not sincerity, is the vital thing.
Oscar Wilde, The Importance of being Earnest (III)

[The Cellar Bar]

it's a boring way of doing it I admit but ther following are quotes from Ben Gurion on his views for "Israel" and how to achieve it.

"Definition of “The Land of Israel”..........
"to the north, the Litani river [in southern Lebanon], to the northeast, the Wadi 'Owja, twenty miles south of Damascus; the southern border will be mobile and pushed into Sinai at least up to Wadi al-'Arish; and to the east, the Syrian Desert, including the furthest edge of Transjordan"

A partial Jewish State is not the end, but only the beginning. I am certain that we can not be prevented from settling in the other parts of the country and the region. - David Ben Gurion,

"Having Lebanon as a neighbor ensures the Jewish state faithful ally from the first day of its
establishment. It is not, also, unavoidable that across the northern side of the Jewish state border in southern Lebanon the first possibility of our expansion will come up through agreement , in good will, with our neighbors who need us."

"Palestine is not an end, but a beginning ..... Our possession is important not only for itself ... through this we increase our power, and every increase in power facilitates getting hold of the country in its entirety. Establishing a [small] state ..… will serve as a very potent lever in our historical effort to redeem the whole country."

From Menachem Begin
"Israel will not transfer Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza District to any foreign sovereign authority, [because] of the historic right of our nation to this land, [and] the needs of our national security, which demand a capability to defend our State and the lives of our citizens."

From Moshe Dyan
"Our American friends offer us money, arms, and advice. We take the money, we take the arms, and we decline the advice."

Buried in the background, as I said, there is a still current, very strong element, especially among the settlers there now, who still subscribe to the views and the establishment of this "Greater Israel". In terms of military conquest, Lebanon is an example of how to use current circumstances to fulfill what they see as the ultimate goal.

And in terms of the Holocaust, a phrase unknown anywhere until AFTER the 6 Day War and its cultivation by the Zionists, that would work fine in terms of the guilt factor were it not for the fact that a) it tars every single European who fought and died in the War with the same brush as the Nazis and b) ignores the fact that Ben Gurion actually negotiated a deal with the Nazis that his groups, including the Stern Gang, would fight alongside the Nazis and against the British and others in return for a Homeland in Palestine.

I've no problem with the ned of the Jewish people of this world having a land and a country they can call home but I have real problems with dealing with those whose ugly head is occassionally reared as they push on with an ideal that will see far more chaos out there than we already have.

[Biitchboy]

[s]oddly familiar wrote on 21:36, 20th Apr 2004:
Why exactly is it that america is so pro isreal?

It's also a result, I'm sure, of some very effective Jewish lobbying groups.

[laphroaig]

[s]oddly familiar wrote on 21:36, 20th Apr 2004:
Why exactly is it that america is so pro isreal?

Yes, and Bush's need to gain Jewish and Right-wing Christian votes in the Presidential election in November is a very big factor. Uncompromising support for Israel is a big vote-winner in the US whereas good relations with the Arab world is not.

The influence of some very odd fundamentalist Christians on the Bush administration (and previous ones) is possibly the most significant factor.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Co ... 27,00.html

[iohannes]

I'm glad someone pointed out the Devil's pact between some groups in WW2 Palestine and the Nazis. Oh, and by the way, that would mean that those groups were terrorist groups. Is it no wonder that some Palestinians resort to terrorism. They look around them and say "well, it worked for Israel!"

As an aside, the Suez crisis is an interesting turning point in British and French foreign relations. After America let them down, Britain decided it could never act internationally without American support. France decided it could never trust American support again.

[hr]http://www.crumble.org
That is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Exactly, iohannes. Israel is a nation founded on terrorism and sustained by brutal repression.

Think about it this way - if you were just hanging out in the Middle East, minding your own business being a good Muslim etc and then all of a sudden you've got a whole lot of Jewish people setting up their own country and putting you into a box and subject to just about all the human rights violations the UN has got on its books, I'd say that you'd be pretty pissed off too.

While no one can dispute the fact that historically the Jewish people have suffered on persecution on a vast scale, as they say - two wrongs don't make a right. I mean, the modern day Welsh used to live in modern day England up until maybe 1500 years ago. I'd say that if they invaded and said "well, it used to be our land" that it wouldn't wash.

In the final analysis, terrorism can never be justified but in Israel, it seems much like the harsh Israeli repression is being met with equally brutal terrorism. Both sides are as bad as each other and the only real solution - apart from genocide - is mediated negotiation. Of course with people like Sharon in charge, hope remains scant.

[When will it be over?]

I think one element of this long running dispute has been entirely overlooked. And that is Biblical history. According to the Bible, the Jews were granted land by God and now they want it. They believe it was stolen by the Arabic world. There has always been, and will probably always be, a conflict between these two groups, namely Arabic nations and Israel, because they are trying to regain land disputed over long before the time of Christ. And, let's face it, it seems literally impossible to rationalise with religious fervency (see Al-Qaida). So regardless of what any country does or does not do to alleviate this situation (or aggravate it), this is a battle that we cannot justify or deny on that grounds that we simply do not understand it from the perspective of someone who feels that their given land has been taken away (on either side). And frankly, regardless of which side "wins," they will still try to get more land because that is the nature of the game. One quick question: If America is coming under criticism for helping erect a Jewish state after WW2, what should they have done instead? I don't believe that Great Britain, or any other nation, for that matter, invited the Jews to join them. Should America have? It seems like in this instance, America was damned if it did, and damned if it didn't.