Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Exactly. Why/how what the Nazis did in Germany ended up to be a problem for the Palestinians and Arabs in what is now Israel continues to be a significant starting point issue when it comes to now negotiating peace in the ME. Would have been far easier to understand and far less a problem, if in fact a Jewish homeland was deemed necessary (not), to establish her somewhere in Germany after WWII! Not the ME for crying out loud!
Such a view ignores historical reality.
First, the Jews didn't come from Germany, and therefore had no desire to migrate to a place that was never their ancestral home. The Jews are Palestinians from antiquity. Jerusalem was the capital of Israel in the time of Christ, and it was Europeans (the Romans) who ran the Jews out of Jerusalem.
Second, it wasn't just the Germans. It was the Arabs, the Turks, the Romans, the Spanish, the English, etc, etc.
Third, the Jews didn't suddenly migrate to Israel after the Nazis. There were at least six waves of Jewish migration to Palestine from the late 1800's to 1948. From eastern Europe and Russia in the first ones, then from Germany in the last one after WW2. But the first 5 waves of immigration came mainly from what later became the Soviet satellite states of eastern Europe like Hungary and Poland, as well as Russia, in response to violence and persecution against them there . The last one after the Nazis was simply the most notable one and the one that broke the camels back, so to speak. The killing of 6 million Jews became too much to ignore.
The modern day equivalent of this would be the US exiling all the Sioux for warring against them, the other tribes moving in to the lands the Sioux were forced off of by the US in its Indian wars mentality days, and then the Sioux migrating back into their old lands once the US attitudes changed and became more modern and peaceful. The other tribes claiming the Sioux were interlopers that had no right to be there would be making a ridiculous claim.
So are the people claiming the Jews had no right to return to Palestine.
In this case, he knew exactly what he was doing. He finally did what other presidents promised, but never followed through with. Now it is done and there is no turning back, and I think it was the right thing to do. Just because you don’t like what he is doing, doesn’t mean that he doesn’t know what he is doing.
Interesting perspective...
When we all heard and did not like when Trump said this about women; "Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything." Should we conclude that just because we don't like what Trump is doing "doesn't mean that he doesn't know what he is doing?"
Can we stop excusing Trump's every bonehead move with the explanation that we don't really know what he is doing? That's equally bonehead.
I commend you for attempting to be a pragmatist. And yet I find that people's view of the conflict, and its rights and wrongs, is almost always colored by how they see the origins of Israel. For those who think that the founding of Israel was an "original sin", that it is a foreign colonial enterprise implanted in an area where it has no right to be, Israel can do nothing right. For them, everything Israel does is automatically filtered through a presumption of guilt, and they exhibit an almost pathological inability to assess events in proper context and to apply the same standards to Israel that they apply to every other nation on earth.
True. Of course "the starting point" is relevant when considering the right or wrong of any chain of events, and also of course people can be very self-serving and selective when it comes to choosing that starting point, essentially not much different from two kids explaining to the playground monitor who started the pushing...
Much you write about how Israel is viewed, however, can be argued about how the Palestinians are viewed. All depends on which side of the divide you're from. Right?
Getting caught up in who is held up to what standards is another mistake in my opinion. When it comes to what is right or wrong, there are simple basic standards that most reasonable people can agree upon. That some get away with wrongs better than others is again nothing more than a "two wrongs makes a right" sort of argument that gets no one anywhere. It's an excuse for bad behavior and a bad one. Where Israel has done wrong, the recognition of that wrong needs to be recognized and corrected! Regardless all the past and present historical wrongs being committed.
Right?
Much like we judge anyone, regardless what wrongs (crimes) others may commit and somehow get away with, none of that is any excuse for anyone being above the law or being excused from wrong behavior.
Otherwise, we fall into a rule of judgement that only drives us to the least common denominator, a path toward the gutter rather than the high road, war rather than peace.
When we all heard and did not like when Trump said this about women; "Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything." Should we conclude that just because we don't like what Trump is doing "doesn't mean that he doesn't know what he is doing?"
Can we stop excusing Trump's every bonehead move with the explanation that we don't really know what he is doing? That's equally bonehead.
You are basically saying what the other poster said. You call it a bonehead move. You think he doesn't know what he is doing. And in some instances, I might agree. Not this one.
This is not a new issue to me. I have wanted this for a long time.
He only doesnt know what he is doing, if you dont agree with what he did.
You ask me if I see any historical wrongs committed by Zionists. Of course the history of Zionism contains some ugly and regrettable moments. What national movement doesn't? Can you name one that has a perfect record? Look at the history of the US or South America, look at Eastern Europe and Africa, look at India and Pakistan. The world is replete with violent national and religious movements, artificial boundaries, population displacements etc. that make whatever wrongs the Zionists committed truly small potatoes. Yet Israel is the only nation whose legitimacy is constantly questioned, and whose every action is scrutinized without context or any sense of historical perspective. One has to ask why. This is not just an exercise in "whataboutism" -- it is essential to understanding the crux of this debate.
Again the excuse for more bad behavior...
Yes, of course we can match any historical wrong with many others, but are we not supposed to be moving forward, making progress over time? Though true, over 200 years ago, we did bad things to the native American Indians, we had slavery, women couldn't vote, etc., all true, but are we not supposed to evaluate more modern problems in a different context than we do those injustices prevalent centuries ago?
This is what makes the Israeli/Palestinian conflict somewhat unique compared to the "national movement" that founded America. I mean right? 1948 was not over 200 years ago. Respect for human rights today is not what it was over 200 years ago.
International law, the UN, is supposed to stop the days of "might makes right" or "anything goes."
The important "standards" you mention are not only supposed to be applied equally when considering the right or wrong committed by any nation, but those standards are today far different than 200 years ago! This is why, current problems like the Israeli/Palestinian problem are scrutinized by "the world community" compared to even 100 years ago. The standards with respect to international law, human rights, are higher now -- as they should be!
I would say given that the Zionist project -- to carve out a tiny state for an eternally persecuted and abused people in their ancestral homeland, where they would at last become masters of their own destiny -- was right and noble in its objectives, and given the increasingly urgent dimension brought to it by the Holocaust, far be it for me to criticize its strategy and methods. The key, from my perspective, is that it succeeded. And if there was ever a case of "the end justifying the means" that was it. [A sidenote: I always find it curious that so called anti-Zionists, like yourself, never tire of reminding everyone about the King David Hotel bombing that took place 72 years ago (which, let's remember, was directed at a non-civilian target and preceded by numerous warning phone calls) while glazing over, rationalizing and excusing the hundreds and hundreds of the most horrific terrorist attacks perpetrated by Arabs against Jews through the decades. What are we to make of that selective outrage? Does that also not strike you as a double standard?]
Perhaps this is where you and I simply share different values about when the ends are justified by the means...
Terrorism, as done by the early Zionists in order to make Israel possible is not excusable according to my code of conduct, no more than any form of terrorism is excusable as far as I'm concerned no matter what justification the terrorist may gin up as righteously or eloquently as they might!
As explained before, I sympathize for all who have suffered from "man's inhumanity to man," but that is no "green light" in my opinion to follow with yet more wrong-doing, and in no way is any injustice cause for not criticizing any strategies or methods that are born from that injustice. Quite the contrary!
Or should we not, for example, judge a woman who shoots her husband because he abused her?!?
Perhaps this is where you and I simply share different values about when the ends are justified by the means...
Terrorism, as done by the early Zionists in order to make Israel possible is not excusable according to my code of conduct, no more than any form of terrorism is excusable as far as I'm concerned no matter what justification the terrorist may gin up as righteously or eloquently as they might!
As explained before, I sympathize for all who have suffered from "man's inhumanity to man," but that is no "green light" in my opinion to follow with yet more wrong-doing, and in no way is any injustice cause for not criticizing any strategies or methods that are born from that injustice. Quite the contrary!
Or should we not, for example, judge a woman who shoots her husband because he abused her?!?
If he is beating her to the point she legitimately fears for her life, then of course she would be justified in shooting a much stronger attacker who has a history of trying to harm her, and may end up killing her if she doesn't act. In todays world, the Palestinian side would blame the woman for not continuing to take the abuse.
The first terrorist orgs in Palestine were Arab ones formed to attack the kibbutzes , the Green Hand and then the Black Hand. The Jews formed militias in response to these attacks, and so it has been ever since.
King David Hotel bombing that took place 72 years ago (which, let's remember, was directed at a non-civilian target and preceded by numerous warning phone calls) while glazing over, rationalizing and excusing the hundreds and hundreds of the most horrific terrorist attacks perpetrated by Arabs against Jews through the decades. What are we to make of that selective outrage? Does that also not strike you as a double standard?
Please. This is not my version or the anti-Zionist version. This is well documented history!
"Non-civilian target" you say? Why? Because the Hotel was also British administrative headquarters?
Ninety-one people of various nationalities were killed and 46 injured.
The King David Hotel bombing was a terrorist attack carried out on Monday, July 22, 1946, by the militant right-wing Zionist underground organization, the Irgun, on the British administrative headquarters for Palestine, which was housed in the southern wing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.
I condemn the bombing for the same reasons the British government did, and all else who know terrorism by no other name regardless of cause!
And to think Israel actually honored the 60th anniversary of this act of terrorism. Revolting!
Even more revolting is to suggest that these other acts of terrorism, like 9/11 for example, are somehow "glazed" over by me or anyone so very sick and tired of this nonsense! That notion is not only very insulting but truly demonstrates how inclined you are to justify and/or reconcile these wrongs with other wrongs that truly just serves to foster more wrong!
They already had their elections, which Bush / Condi insisted upon, and Israel said was a bed idea. They elected Hamas, which was disappointing, and Bush admin poured money and weapons into supporting Fatah.
Their last elections were in 2006. The next elections were supposed to be in 2010. The terms for the President and Legislative council have expired. Thus what they have now is two Dictatorships. One in the Gaza Strip controlled by Hamas and one in the West Bank controlled by Fatah (PLO). Hamas was voted in as the majority of the Legislative council as they presented themselves as religious and not corrupt. The 2007 Gaza Coup by Hamas showed them to be extremists and more corrupt than Fatah. As Israel left in 2005, the territory was left alone. The UN did nothing to remove Hamas as their leader was not the elected president of the Palestinians at the time.
But I agree with you in principle that if this region is ever going to see peace, pragmatism will have to rule the day. For the Palestinians (and, make no mistake about it, the onus to be pragmatic is primarily on the Palestinians at this stage) that means, first, recognizing that Israel (with Jerusalem as its capital) is here to stay and is not going anywhere and, second, understanding that wars have consequences -- that means that when you keep attacking your neighbor and losing, do not expect to get everything you want in a peace deal (assuming you actually want a peace deal); get what you reasonably can and move on with your life.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure we do agree even in principle...
We certainly don't agree about much else you establish as who needs to do what here, but I do know that to move on BOTH sides need to do far better than they have to date. Far more, far better.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
