Not sure if this is an OK topic but is anyone concerned about the Israel incident?

[Jenn in Mo]

How often? I'm not being snarky; I'm still learning my history. Could you share some examples?

[Jyniffrec]

No one is demonstrating with white flags and blue stars saying "death to all who disagree with me" around here.

 

 

a

 

Visit Hebron. The Israelis were doing it when we were there. :glare:

[mcconnellboys]

Yes, I am highly concerned. I pray for peace in the region, even though I don't truly believe it will ever come....

[Donna T.]

Here's one view. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/04/israel/index.html

 

I prefer not to be totally "pro Israel" without learning all the facts. All the boats in the flotilla were checked numerous times in the ports they went thru. I think the people on board, when they saw commandos coming down ropes onto their ships, automatically defended themselves. Sticks, clubs, and deck chairs versus automatic rifles, stun guns, and window breaking grenades? Once the activists were taken to the airport, they claimed Israeli workers there laughed and made fun of the dead. IMO, the Israeli gov't is treating Palestinian citizens in a horrible and cruel manner. And yes, I realize there are Palestinian terrorists, but there are also Israeli soldiers killing many, many innocents. I think Biden is full of poo when he claims the relief ships could unload their supplies and let Israel deliver them. Duh!!! The reason they're doing this is because Israel is NOT allowing water filtration systems, wheelchairs, notebook paper, and meds in to Gaza. I believe there's even a quote from a top Israeli gov't person saying they want to keep "Gaza on a diet, just above starvation level." ????

Israel and Palestine both need to grow up and learn to share. The stupidity and stubbornness on both sides is pathetic. I'm all for cutting back on the hundreds of millions of dollars we give Israel and using it on American citizens.

 

:iagree:

[Donna T.]

:iagree: I don't believe the world would tolerate what's been being done to these people for years by any country but Israel...nor would our country fund this for any country but Israel.

 

:iagree:

[asta]

I think this applies to the US as well. To speak out against the atrocities the Israeli gov't is inflicting on innocent civilians does not mean a person is anti-Jewish. And one can also recognize the murders committed by Palestinians, too, in the whole situation. I think that most of the world is far more educated about what goes on concerning Israel/Palestine than Americans are.

It's heartening to just do a google search and see the condemnation the Israeli officials are getting from so many countries we consider as allies. On democracynow.org, you can also do a search of the past week and see a few interviews with people on the flotilla--Americans, career army colonels, diplomats under several presidents, etc. They're very thought provoking. And yes, before someone shouts that it's a "liberal site", you might want to know the host herself is Jewish. I think it all boils down to the craziness you inherit when a government is run by religious fanatics, no matter what the religion, and the common people who just want to live their lives are the ones to suffer.

 

I think you have made some very valid points. People forget that this is not a one sided issue; both groups of people have been oppressed, for literally thousands of years. The Jewish people have always been called Jewish, the people currently living in Palestine have, at different points in history, been known by myriad names, as the borders have morphed. But people in that area have been trying to wipe each other out for a looonnnnggg time.

 

People in general have been trying to wipe each other out for a long time. This is the point of a classical education, is it not? To teach our children that there is essentially nothing "new" in history? That governments rise and fall. Armies march. They utilize the tools and tactics that work best for them at the time in which they live. And if the civilization they represent is to survive, they adjust lest they perish.

 

We can argue the point of who is right and who is wrong for a hundred pages and never resolve a single thing. My fears are my fears. They stem from real experiences. They do not make anyone else's opinions or experiences less valid. I own my own fears and opinions. Just as people living 100, 500, or 1000 years ago did.

 

Like the Romans and the Greeks, like the Romans and the rest of Europe, Europe and itself, Europe and... until man decides it is simply tired of fighting and dying for an ideal that no one may even give a crap about in a hundred years - this is what we will see.

 

 

asta

[Heather in Neverland]

Just out of curiosity:

 

Does anyone on this thread except Heather actually live in a country where they are having to deal with mobs of people threatening their daily existence?

 

Or even massive demonstrations (5000+ people) scaring the living crap out of their family and community by inciting fear and threatening violence if they don't agree that Israel should be wiped off of the map?

 

If you don't, well, it's a wee bit of a different perspective then just watching the news.

 

 

asta

 

You are right. It is a whole different world over here. I, too, used to sit pontificating from my comfy chair in America, sure that what I was saying was true. But you have to live here. You have to watch them come in huge waves and protest at the AMERICAN Embassy. You have to read the stories about them burning down churches NEAR YOU because they dared to use the word Allah simply as a translation for the word "God" (which it is). You have to receive notices from the embassy telling you that if you are an American it would be best for you to stay home this weekend for your own safety.

 

Americans get all worked up about things and we argue online and on TV. But REALLY, how many Americans are actually willing to DIE for their religion? The people here are and will in a heartbeat. You can't reason with that. It is a mindset Americans cannot comprehend and therefore anything you think you "know" about what is going on in the middle east...you are probably way off.

[Annabel Lee]

Not at all.

 

The Egyptians have accommodated with Israel, and that is not going to change.

 

Same with Jordan. Same with Saudi Arabia.

 

 

Please bear with me; I am still learning history here. I was under the impression that most, if not all of the nations surrounding Israel have demanded & taken land so that Israel has shrunk significantly over the last 10? 25? years. Accomodating? I thought they demanded land in exchange for peace, repeatedly, in an effort to shrink Israel right off the map.

 

I'm interested in hearing your take on this, as well asta & Heather. :bigear:

[asta]

Please bear with me; I am still learning history here. I was under the impression that most, if not all of the nations surrounding Israel have demanded & taken land so that Israel has shrunk significantly over the last 10? 25? years. Accomodating? I thought they demanded land in exchange for peace, repeatedly, in an effort to shrink Israel right off the map.

 

I'm interested in hearing your take on this, as well asta & Heather. :bigear:

 

The BBC has a historical progression of the maps here.

 

And a TOTALLY cool map of the entire middle east here.

 

 

a

Edited June 8, 2010 by asta

[asta]

Visit Hebron. The Israelis were doing it when we were there. :glare:

 

I don't know when you were there, but I do know that, in 2005, terrorists killed a 10 month old baby, and it led to riots in Hebron.

 

The only balanced piece I could find on the population of Hebron:

 

"Hebron (Al-Khalil in Arabic) is located 32 km. south of Jerusalem in the Judean hills, and sits between 870 and 1,020 meters above sea level...

 

The Hebrew word 'Hebron' is (inter alia) explained as being derived from the Hebrew word for 'friend' ('haver'), a description for the Patriarch Abraham, who was considered to be the friend of God. The Arabic 'Al- Khalil' -- literally 'the friend' -- has a nearly identical derivation, and also refers to the Patriarch Abraham (Ibrahim), whom Muslims similarly describe as the friend of God.

 

Hebron has approximately 120,000 (Sunni Muslim) Arab residents [According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) this number reached 166,003 for mid-year 2006]. Hebron's Jewish population, comprised of 45 Jewish families and around 150 yeshiva students, is about 500. Hebron's three Christian residents are the custodians of the city's Russian church. An additional 6,000 Jews [7,000 as of 2007 according to the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics (ICBS)] live in the adjacent community of Kiryat Arba."

 

 

a

[Mejane]

Americans get all worked up about things and we argue online and on TV. But REALLY, how many Americans are actually willing to DIE for their religion? The people here are and will in a heartbeat. You can't reason with that. It is a mindset Americans cannot comprehend and therefore anything you think you "know" about what is going on in the middle east...you are probably way off.

 

Please don't insult everyone's intelligence by insinuating that one has to live in an actual combat zone to feel compassion or to have an opinion on a situation. That's really patronizing.

 

I watched my city burn and fall in 2001 at the hands of those extremists. I'm not complacent nor do I feel "safe and comfy." They may not be marching on my home but they're here, and every time my husband drives over a bridge to go into the city during a code orange, and calls home to tell me about the snipers sitting on the towers and the police checking vehicles, I wonder if that's the day they'll choose to blow it up. America is not the safe haven it used to be.

 

That said, I side with the Palestinians in Gaza. Wrong is wrong, and Israel is wrong.

Edited June 8, 2010 by Mejane

[unsinkable]

Oh, sorry...I thought this was the Helen Thomas Retirement Party.

 

Wrong thread...

 

:auto:

[hornblower]

Please bear with me; I am still learning history here. I was under the impression that most, if not all of the nations surrounding Israel have demanded & taken land so that Israel has shrunk significantly over the last 10? 25? years. Accomodating? I thought they demanded land in exchange for peace, repeatedly, in an effort to shrink Israel right off the map.

 

I'm interested in hearing your take on this, as well asta & Heather. :bigear:

 

You will need to read up on the 1967 war & check out the maps at the BBC that asta posted.

 

Israel has given back land in the last 30 years (the 79 peace process was a big chunk of land returned) BUT it was land Israel TOOK in 1967 when Israel attacked Egypt.

 

It's still not back to the size it was originally.

 

For illustraiton purposes: (all #'s picked at random & do not reflect proportions in the Middle East conflict)

 

So imagine you have a suburban lot. You invade your neighbour's empty back yard of 50x100 feet & fence it in as your own. You plant potatoes, carrots, turnips. Over the years, the neighbour and you negotiate on & off and you retreat 10 feet. Another few years pass & the neighbour (& city hall) convince you to retreat another 10 feet.

 

You moan now about how you're retreating, retreating, retreating & still people are not happy! But you originally took 50 feet and have only moved back 20. The impression to a newcomer to the neighbourhood might be that you're being harassed unfairly, but anyone looking at the history, might draw a different conclusion.

[hornblower]

Oh, sorry...I thought this was the Helen Thomas Retirement Party.

 

Wrong thread...

 

:auto:

 

:lol::lol::lol:

 

She sure went out with a bang. :D

I'm sad for her if she still wanted to keep working but I imagine if she starts writing op-ed, she will find an audience.

 

I don't think she should have been fired - journalists are entitled to have their opinions. Hers was not crazy or inflammatory. It's just that in our current climate, it's an opinion people are not allowed to have.

[asta]

Please don't insult everyone's intelligence by insinuating that one has to live in an actual combat zone to feel compassion or to have an opinion on a situation. That's really patronizing.

 

I watched my city burn and fall in 2001 at the hands of those extremists. I'm not complacent nor do I feel "safe and comfy." They may not be marching on my home but they're here, and every time my husband drives over a bridge to go into the city during a code orange, and calls home to tell me about the snipers sitting on the towers and the police checking vehicles, I wonder if that's the day they'll choose to blow it up. America is not the safe haven it used to be.

 

That said, I side with the Palestinians in Gaza. Wrong is wrong, and Israel is wrong.

 

Not to put too fine a point on it (or derail the thread), but the terrorists involved in the September 11th, 2001 attacks on America weren't from Palestine. They were from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Lebanon.

 

I think we should all keep our data correct (even if Lebanon is on Israel's northern border).

 

 

asta

[Mejane]

Not to put too fine a point on it (or derail the thread), but the terrorists involved in the September 11th, 2001 attacks on America weren't from Palestine. They were from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Lebanon.

 

I think we should all keep our data correct (even if Lebanon is on Israel's northern border).

 

 

asta

 

Correct. I was responding to Heather's statement that since we don't live in an area that's under attack by extremists "willing to die for their religion", that we aren't entitled to an opinion. We do, and we are.

Edited June 8, 2010 by Mejane

[Mejane]

I don't think she should have been fired - journalists are entitled to have their opinions. Hers was not crazy or inflammatory. It's just that in our current climate, it's an opinion people are not allowed to have.

 

:iagree:completely. (She might have worded it a bit differently... )

[angela in ohio]

Hers was not crazy or inflammatory.

 

I found them inflammatory. "Going back to Germany" has a certain connotation to it, imho, in light of what happened to Jews in the past.

[hornblower]

I found them inflammatory. "Going back to Germany" has a certain connotation to it, imho, in light of what happened to Jews in the past.

 

Hmmm. Yes, I see your point.

She didn't just say Germany though, did she? And pogroms against Jews were pretty common throughout all of Europe so how would one phrase this? I don't think she meant 'go and be exterminated'. And the risk wouldn't be from there (Germany or Europe as a whole) now, would it? I still think the biggest risk is from loonies like Ahmadinejad.

 

(btw, my grandfather died in a Nazi concentration camp so I'm not totally insensitive wrt to this subject.)

[Ester Maria]

I've been avoiding this thread but as it seems to be popping up constantly, I thought I'd contribute with an observation or two, against my better judgment.

To speak out against the atrocities the Israeli gov't is inflicting on innocent civilians does not mean a person is anti-Jewish.

I fully agree - a criticism of the concrete acts of the Israeli government is not antisemitism by any stretch of imagination.

 

I would also warn that we must clearly differentiate:

(i) antisemitism in its various forms,

(ii) anti-Zionism in its several forms (including the religious Jewish opposition to the originally secular movement of Zionism - and a decent number of Ultra-Orthodox Jews still vehemently oppose Zionism on religious grounds; google Teitelbaum dynasty of Satmar Chassidim for, probably, the most extreme example)

(iii) "anti-Israelism" in sense of opposing the Israeli government as such or its various acts and/or the state of affairs in Israel (the legal system, the blur and imprecise "Jewish character" of the country and its implications, etc.)

 

We must be very, very careful what we speak about and how we're going to name it.

A BIG PROBLEM is that the rhetoric of many people who say that they "only oppose certain acts of the Israeli government and certain clauses in the legal system" SURPASSES the level (iii) and goes to level (ii) (namely, "Israel should be wiped off the face of Earth") and even to level (i) (or, "Jews are the cancer of the world").

 

Criticizing a country is one thing, and is legitimate as long as you are able to make a coherent argument that relies on certain body of evidence for what you claim; criticizing even the ideology of Zionism is legitimate, as long as it doesn't go in the direction of having double standards for Jews than for the rest of the world (e.g. the idea that Jews are somehow "not entitled" to have a country, especially if we know - and I hope that that's the minimum of the knowledge participants in this thread have - that the idea of the Jewish national home is not a '48 invention and is, in fact, directly related to the Versailles system and to the fact that Jews have never fully left Israel); what's NOT acceptable is speaking on the level of a whole Jewish nation ("Israel xy, ergo Jews xy" - especially if we don't know the context of the event) and that is a kind of "camouflaged antisemitism" - antisemitism which POSES as anti-Zionism or "a legitimate critique of Israel", but is in fact a hatred of the Jewish nation. Politicians of *some countries* have been known for such speeches, too.

 

Next, here you can see pictures of the life in the occupied Palestine, from a Palestinian source (which means, not controlled by the "evil Zionists"). The descriptions of the photos are something like, "despite of occupation people are buying clothes for their kids" or "buying [food names] for the holiday". Note the date (in 2009) and note the prosperity of the shuk, amongst other things.

 

So, to our topic - finally.

A ship with a "humanitarian aid" goes to Gaza. Achla. People are trying to help - great.

BUT. An incident with the IDF soldiers happens, in which a couple of "humanitarians" get killed. All of the liberal world media starts the usual protest about one more "criminal act" of the Israeli government.

 

Now let's look at some facts.

First, among the "humanitarians", we have about a few dozen radical Muslims, and they later appear to be closely connected with the groups such as Muslim Brotherhood and alike.

Second, we know that the humanitarian aid can go to Gaza freely - if the ship comes to Ashdod first, the aid gets checked, then sent; standard procedure. The point of this ship wasn't exactly to send humanitarian aid - which by the way Gaza gets from ISRAEL as well, just as kids go to ISRAEL for medical treatment etc. - it was to BREAK THE NAVAL BLOCKADE. Notice the not so subtle difference between the two. You might also wish to inform yourself on the history of that naval blockade before you quickly label it as another thing that the "evil Zionists" do to harm other people.

 

The ship was, basically, a huge propaganda with an intention to create an incident.

So, Israel gets a notion that the "humanitarian aid" in forms of WEAPONS is on the ship. Wouldn't be the first time. As any normal country would do, particularly a one in a conflict, Israel sends its soldiers to check the ship.

And now we come to the crux.

 

What happens is that the IDF soldiers cannot really normally check the ship by getting there from a boat, because they're being "welcomed" by "peaceful humanitarians".

"Humanitarians" from the ship shoot at Israeli soldiers. Another

. I can guarantee that the translation from Hebrew ("true guns" etc.) is accurate.

 

The third

is the most transparent one, as the day is closer and the soldiers are forced to enter the ship by landing on it. They're being "welcomed" by "humanitarians" which started beating them, in the true "humanitarian" spirit. They also throw one soldier off the ship. You can see rather clearly on the clip.

 

And AFTER ALL THAT, I repeat, AFTER ALL THAT, Israeli soldiers started shooting.

Two important points. One, Israel has a right to check any ship that enters their waters, especially being a country in a conflict; and two, everything that happened is documented.

 

I'm not talking about the Israeli-Arab conflict in general here, because it's a topic way too complex to deal with on the boards, and such a topic requires a knowledge of history, international relations, languages and media coverage of all sides, and various other things which I'm, for one, not sure *I* can follow with ease for a discussion of that length and complexity; I'm talking ONLY about THIS SPECIFIC incident here.

[angela in ohio]

Hmmm. Yes, I see your point.

She didn't just say Germany though, did she? And pogroms against Jews were pretty common throughout all of Europe so how would one phrase this? I don't think she meant 'go and be exterminated'. And the risk wouldn't be from there (Germany or Europe as a whole) now, would it? I still think the biggest risk is from loonies like Ahmadinejad.

 

(btw, my grandfather died in a Nazi concentration camp so I'm not totally insensitive wrt to this subject.)

 

She said Germany and Poland. No, the same risk isn't there, but I think the phrase shows insensitivity (and I'm usually not that PC.)

 

Live by the sword, die by the sword. If you make your living picking apart what other people say (as she did,) you have to watch what you say.

[Spy Car]

Please bear with me; I am still learning history here. I was under the impression that most, if not all of the nations surrounding Israel have demanded & taken land so that Israel has shrunk significantly over the last 10? 25? years. Accomodating? I thought they demanded land in exchange for peace, repeatedly, in an effort to shrink Israel right off the map.

 

I'm interested in hearing your take on this, as well asta & Heather. :bigear:

 

Actually none of the neighboring countries has taken lands that belonged to Israel and Israel has not shrunk as a nation.

 

The Israelis did withdraw from the Egyptian Sinai. This was territory captured in war-time, but was never territory that was considered part of Israel. Egypt has not taken (or demanded) any Israeli territory.

 

The Israelis also pulled out of it's "security zone" in Southern Lebanon. But this was "occupied territory" and not part of Israel. Lebanon has not taken (or demanded) any Israeli territory. Actually, there is one very small tract of land that is claimed by Lebanon (but is really part of Syria, although the Syrians back the Lebanese claim to keep Lebanon in the dispute) that remains in Israeli control.

 

Syria lost the Golan Heights to Israel. Israel has annexed the territory. A peace deal with Syria most likely means returning this captured territory, but no one is holding their breath. Syria does demand a return of the Golan, but there has been no return of land.

 

Jordan, which administered the part of Palestine referred to as the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) lost that territory in the 1967 war, and Jordan has since given up its claim to the land, saying it is Palestinian territory.

 

That's it for neighbors, aside from Palestine.

 

The West Bank has progressively been encroached upon by Israel settlements that run counter to international law. East Jerusalem, the largely Palestinian portion, was annexed by Israel (an act condemned as illegal by the UN as nations are disallowed from annexing territory captured in war).

 

The Israelis did withdraw from Gaza (including abandoning settlements there) and pulled out of parts of the West Bank (while maintaining most of their settlements and strategic military control.

 

From some perspectives the partial pull out from the West Bank can be seen as an abandonment of land that is a vital part of Eretz Israel. Those who believe the Israelis have a god-given right to all the land of Judea and Sumaria pulling out of West Bank (partially) might be called "shrinkage", but even the most nationalist-expansionist Israel governments have never tried to annex these territories (with the obvious exception of East Jerusalem).

 

Most international observers, and most Israelis would not call pulling out of the occupied West Bank or Gaza a "shrinkage" of Israel, but there is a passionate minority of Israelis who strongly disagree.

 

I hope this helps a little.

 

Bill

Edited June 12, 2010 by Spy Car

[hornblower]

She said Germany and Poland. No, the same risk isn't there, but I think the phrase shows insensitivity (and I'm usually not that PC.)

 

Live by the sword, die by the sword. If you make your living picking apart what other people say (as she did,) you have to watch what you say.

 

 

True!

 

(& I'm usually pretty PC so this is funny that we've sorta flipped :lol:.

I know - & I'm not too big to admit it - that I shoot my mouth off a fair bit. I'm the type of person who needs a Canadian senate: "a chamber of sober second thought", following me around & shutting me up once in a while. :D SO, I kinda attributed Thomas' comments to that sort of brain burp exasperation. With the instant media and recordings etc, it's a good thing I did not go into politics or journalism. I'd have gone up in flames pretty fast.)

 

I did read an interesting commentary this morning : If Helen Thomas, Then Why Not Pat Buchanan?

[angela in ohio]

True!

 

(& I'm usually pretty PC so this is funny that we've sorta flipped :lol:.

I know - & I'm not too big to admit it - that I shoot my mouth off a fair bit. I'm the type of person who needs a Canadian senate: "a chamber of sober second thought", following me around & shutting me up once in a while. :D SO, I kinda attributed Thomas' comments to that sort of brain burp exasperation. With the instant media and recordings etc, it's a good thing I did not go into politics or journalism. I'd have gone up in flames pretty fast.)

 

I did read an interesting commentary this morning : If Helen Thomas, Then Why Not Pat Buchanan?

 

And that's why I don't make the big bucks in the front row at the White House. It's a risky job, one of those ones where you have to consider the hefty salary hazard pay. :D

 

And why not Pat? Because MSNBC decided the heat helps ratings, and Thomas' employer decided it wouldn't. Let's not pretend that either of them retiring would be about actual concern for the feelings of a group of people. It's about damage control, it's about who will take the public outcry and spin it in which direction. There's no comparison, as they are different "news" organizations.

 

As a side note: I find it intersting that the article's author chose to focus on Buchanan's comments about African-Americans. Buchanan has had just as much problem with his comments about Jews. You'd think that that would have made a better comparison. It's almost like he was trying to prove a different point. ;)

[Spy Car]

I don't know when you were there, but I do know that, in 2005, terrorists killed a 10 month old baby, and it led to riots in Hebron.

 

The only balanced piece I could find on the population of Hebron:

 

 

 

 

a

 

The situation in Hebron is quite bad.

 

Unfortunately a group of the most militant and extremist Israel settlers founded a settlement called Kiryat Arba outside Hebron. The settlers included those from an extreme movement called Gush Emunim and members of the late Meir Kahane's Kach party. The Israeli government eventually outlawed the Kach party for being anti-democratic and racist. These groups do not represent Israeli society generally, and are condemned by people of goodwill, but they do exist still in Hebron.

 

And a previous poster was quite right that they do march with Israeli flags and chant: "Death to the Arabs!"

 

What is also very unfortunate is that a party that holds these views holds the balance of power in the current Israeli administration, and it's leader, Avigdor Leiberman, holds the positions of Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs. So there are hate-mongers in power on both sides of this conflict (which certainly includes the leadership of Hamas).

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

I've been avoiding this thread but as it seems to be popping up constantly, I thought I'd contribute with an observation or two, against my better judgment.

 

I fully agree - a criticism of the concrete acts of the Israeli government is not antisemitism by any stretch of imagination.

 

I would also warn that we must clearly differentiate:

(i) antisemitism in its various forms,

(ii) anti-Zionism in its several forms (including the religious Jewish opposition to the originally secular movement of Zionism - and a decent number of Ultra-Orthodox Jews still vehemently oppose Zionism on religious grounds; google Teitelbaum dynasty of Satmar Chassidim for, probably, the most extreme example)

(iii) "anti-Israelism" in sense of opposing the Israeli government as such or its various acts and/or the state of affairs in Israel (the legal system, the blur and imprecise "Jewish character" of the country and its implications, etc.)

 

We must be very, very careful what we speak about and how we're going to name it.

A BIG PROBLEM is that the rhetoric of many people who say that they "only oppose certain acts of the Israeli government and certain clauses in the legal system" SURPASSES the level (iii) and goes to level (ii) (namely, "Israel should be wiped off the face of Earth") and even to level (i) (or, "Jews are the cancer of the world").

 

Criticizing a country is one thing, and is legitimate as long as you are able to make a coherent argument that relies on certain body of evidence for what you claim; criticizing even the ideology of Zionism is legitimate, as long as it doesn't go in the direction of having double standards for Jews than for the rest of the world (e.g. the idea that Jews are somehow "not entitled" to have a country, especially if we know - and I hope that that's the minimum of the knowledge participants in this thread have - that the idea of the Jewish national home is not a '48 invention and is, in fact, directly related to the Versailles system and to the fact that Jews have never fully left Israel); what's NOT acceptable is speaking on the level of a whole Jewish nation ("Israel xy, ergo Jews xy" - especially if we don't know the context of the event) and that is a kind of "camouflaged antisemitism" - antisemitism which POSES as anti-Zionism or "a legitimate critique of Israel", but is in fact a hatred of the Jewish nation. Politicians of *some countries* have been known for such speeches, too.

 

Next, here you can see pictures of the life in the occupied Palestine, from a Palestinian source (which means, not controlled by the "evil Zionists"). The descriptions of the photos are something like, "despite of occupation people are buying clothes for their kids" or "buying [food names] for the holiday". Note the date (in 2009) and note the prosperity of the shuk, amongst other things.

 

So, to our topic - finally.

A ship with a "humanitarian aid" goes to Gaza. Achla. People are trying to help - great.

BUT. An incident with the IDF soldiers happens, in which a couple of "humanitarians" get killed. All of the liberal world media starts the usual protest about one more "criminal act" of the Israeli government.

 

Now let's look at some facts.

First, among the "humanitarians", we have about a few dozen radical Muslims, and they later appear to be closely connected with the groups such as Muslim Brotherhood and alike.

Second, we know that the humanitarian aid can go to Gaza freely - if the ship comes to Ashdod first, the aid gets checked, then sent; standard procedure. The point of this ship wasn't exactly to send humanitarian aid - which by the way Gaza gets from ISRAEL as well, just as kids go to ISRAEL for medical treatment etc. - it was to BREAK THE NAVAL BLOCKADE. Notice the not so subtle difference between the two. You might also wish to inform yourself on the history of that naval blockade before you quickly label it as another thing that the "evil Zionists" do to harm other people.

 

The ship was, basically, a huge propaganda with an intention to create an incident.

So, Israel gets a notion that the "humanitarian aid" in forms of WEAPONS is on the ship. Wouldn't be the first time. As any normal country would do, particularly a one in a conflict, Israel sends its soldiers to check the ship.

And now we come to the crux.

 

What happens is that the IDF soldiers cannot really normally check the ship by getting there from a boat, because they're being "welcomed" by "peaceful humanitarians".

"Humanitarians" from the ship shoot at Israeli soldiers. Another

. I can guarantee that the translation from Hebrew ("true guns" etc.) is accurate.

 

The third

is the most transparent one, as the day is closer and the soldiers are forced to enter the ship by landing on it. They're being "welcomed" by "humanitarians" which started beating them, in the true "humanitarian" spirit. They also throw one soldier off the ship. You can see rather clearly on the clip.

 

And AFTER ALL THAT, I repeat, AFTER ALL THAT, Israeli soldiers started shooting.

Two important points. One, Israel has a right to check any ship that enters their waters, especially being a country in a conflict; and two, everything that happened is documented.

 

I'm not talking about the Israeli-Arab conflict in general here, because it's a topic way too complex to deal with on the boards, and such a topic requires a knowledge of history, international relations, languages and media coverage of all sides, and various other things which I'm, for one, not sure *I* can follow with ease for a discussion of that length and complexity; I'm talking ONLY about THIS SPECIFIC incident here.

 

Over-all a very good analysis. There is,however, one point that I believes gives a false impression. It is true that the attempt to run the Israeli blockade, and the violence that ensued and the international repercussions has led to Israeli offers to allow inspected humanitarian supplies into Gaza through the Israeli port of Ashdod. But this was not the status quo ante. Rightly or wrongly, from a strategic sense, Israel has kept Hamas controlled Gaza in a situation where food supplies are kept just above starvation levels, and any material that could conceivably have a "dual" military purpose has been banned. So, for example no concrete to rebuild homes destroyed in the last Israeli military incursion has been allowed into Gaza on the grounds it could be used for tunnels, bunkers, mortar emplacements and the like. Which is probably true.

 

Since the incident, Israel has softened the policy and is allowing in concrete and other material that would not have been allowed to pass previously. There really was no free flow of aid into Gaza before this past week.

 

One can argue over whether by supporting Hamas the people of Gaza are getting what they deserve (or not) but there is no disputing the fact that on a humanitarian level there has been great suffering in Gaza.

 

War is hell.

 

Bill

[sheryl]

just as no 2 snowflakes are alike, so too God made each person unique and individual....so, we will all differ on at least one aspect or another. I know y'all seem highly intelligent over this situation. I've yet to hear a news story as I truly don't watch that much TV.

 

I guess what I'd like to share is this.....with respect to everyone who's contributed to this thread.

 

To me I trust God, not man. I know that many of you will disagree, or all of you and that's fine, but God has "given the land" to Abraham that is the Abrahamic covenant. Now we can talk borders. We can talk names of cities....as you know some of the names given to ancient cities have new modern names, but the land belongs to Abraham and his descendants. Who are his descendants? The Hebrew people as described in Genesis. The ancient Jewish nation/Canaan which was to become modern Israel was given to them.

 

Now I fully understand if you don't believe in the Bible, then you are may not agree with the above. But, I trust God knows what He's doing. Please don't be offended by any of this....I just wanted to share from my heart.

[Spy Car]

just as no 2 snowflakes are alike, so too God made each person unique and individual....so, we will all differ on at least one aspect or another. I know y'all seem highly intelligent over this situation. I've yet to hear a news story as I truly don't watch that much TV.

 

I guess what I'd like to share is this.....with respect to everyone who's contributed to this thread.

 

To me I trust God, not man. I know that many of you will disagree, or all of you and that's fine, but God has "given the land" to Abraham that is the Abrahamic covenant. Now we can talk borders. We can talk names of cities....as you know some of the names given to ancient cities have new modern names, but the land belongs to Abraham and his descendants. Who are his descendants? The Hebrew people as described in Genesis. The ancient Jewish nation/Canaan which was to become modern Israel was given to them.

 

Now I fully understand if you don't believe in the Bible, then you are may not agree with the above. But, I trust God knows what He's doing. Please don't be offended by any of this....I just wanted to share from my heart.

 

According to the Bible stories (and those in the Qur'an) the Arabs are also children of Abraham.

 

If the guidepost for the future of the region is based on the notion that "God gave all the land to us" then we can look forward to a violent and bloody future in the Middle East.

 

Reason could prevail, but there are alternatives.

 

Bill

[sheryl]

According to the Bible stories (and those in the Qur'an) the Arabs are also children of Abraham.

 

If the guidepost for the future of the region is based on the notion that "God gave all the land to us" then we can look forward to a violent and bloody future in the Middle East.

 

Reason could prevail, but there are alternatives.

 

Bill

 

 

Yep, you are right! Abraham's descendants are the Jewish and Arab people!! However, consider this.

 

The covenant God made with Abraham called "The Abrahamic Covenant" was a promise (found in Genesis) God gave Abraham....then thru Issac (not Ishmael)....and then through Jacob (not Esau).

[Spy Car]

Yep, you are right! Abraham's descendants are the Jewish and Arab people!! However, consider this.

 

The covenant God made with Abraham called "The Abrahamic Covenant" was a promise (found in Genesis) God gave Abraham....then thru Issac (not Ishmael)....and then through Jacob (not Esau).

 

I'm familiar with the claims to the land make by both Jews and Muslims. I'm just saying the position that "God gave it all to us" and the other guys be ****ed will only lead to ongoing blood-shed and violence.

 

Bill

[sheryl]

I'm familiar with the claims to the land make by both Jews and Muslims. I'm just saying the position that "God gave it all to us" and the other guys be ****ed will only lead to ongoing blood-shed and violence.

 

Bill

 

I hear what you're saying and understand. It's more than a claim, though. God promised a geographical area that is "reserved" for the Israel nation "only". That is the section that was given to Abraham and Jewish descendants, not to the Arabs. However, the Arabs do have their own territory, just not what God promised in the Abraham's line in the Abrahamic covenant.

 

Truly I wish there would be no more violence. These 2 "peoples" have been at odds for thousands of years (according to the Bible). However, there are many Jewish/Arab friendships....I'm referring to the general population/group.

Edited June 8, 2010 by sheryl

[Ester Maria]

So a few pictures of happy campers and that's proof that Palestinians are fine? I think that's one big jump of logic. There are also differing accounts on who actually attacked first. Have you seen any interviews of people on board? Why is there a 3 year blockade if people can donate aid and the Israelis will gladly deliver them? Why did a spokesperson say they are keeping the Palestinians on a diet just below starvation? Why do they have calculations about caloric intake, enough to keep them alive but not really thriving? Why are some food items blocked, but not others? I don't think anyone has double standards for Jews. I do think millions of people are wondering why one group of people is collectively punishing another group, denying them basics of life. I think the Israeli government is a group of right wing zealots who believe in an eye for an eye, who will do ANYTHING to keep land that others claim, too, and that Palestinian leaders are just as pathetic. "We'll win this, because God's on our side" is such an insane concept to me.

As you might have noticed in the response you quoted, "I'm talking ONLY about THIS SPECIFIC incident here.".

 

Which translates as: not about the blockade and/or occupation PER SE. I am NOT interested in discussing those issues online, particularly not based on the Western media coverage of what's going on in the region. My post was about THIS INCIDENT (save the general first part in which I agreed that criticizing Israel is not an antisemitic act per se).

 

Regarding the last few sentences you wrote (Israeli government etc.), they are rather simplistic and overgeneralize a very complex conflict; I'd be tempted to put a ":lol:" if they situation were not tragic rather than comic. Sorry. When you write something like that, I get extra encouraged NOT to discuss these issues (even when, if we talked about it, you might be surprised - I might agree with you on a LOT of things), because I see what perspective you come from, and I think that talking on that 'level' does more harm than good to both sides (and talking on a different level might not be ideal for the format of the forums). This conflict is a great example on how things are often faaaar from black and white - for any side involved. But I still remain at the "I don't want to discuss it" position and my contribution to this thread was to be exclusively regarding the flotilla incident (and, maybe, clearing up what's antisemitism, what anti-Zionism and what opposing certain Israel's acts).

Edited June 8, 2010 by Ester Maria

[sheryl]

I don't think God promised squat. The authors of the Bible said he did.

 

Sorry you feel that way! I take comfort in God's promises. It would be a sad world indeed without them. The "authors" were men under the direction of God to write the Scriptures. But, I don't want this to turn into an argument. It's not what I say anyway, it's what God says in His Word!!! Check it out for yourself.

[hornblower]

Surely telling others that their opinions are simplistic, black and white or somehow not on your "level" is just insulting & does nothing to further any sort of dialogue.

 

I think most people here understand that it is a complex topic on which lots of big fat books have been written and which has no simple answer.

 

Doesn't mean we can't toss the issue around a bit.

[Mejane]

This conflict is a great example on how things are often faaaar from black and white - for any side involved.

 

I couldn't disagree more. Israel is clearly in the wrong here. They are occupying Palestinian territory in violation of a UN resolution and international law (and have been for 35 years), denying basic sustenance and dignity to millions of people, committing war crimes against those people, and then spinning it to make it look like the Palestinians are the bad guys when they rebel. Pretty darn black and white if you ask me. :glare:

[MagistraMichelle]

I don't think God promised squat. The authors of the Bible said he did.

 

 

WOAH!!!!

[pqr]

Interesting tidbit.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/06/08/reuters-fake-photos-ihh-gaza-blockade-commandos/?test=latestnews

[Jenny in Atl]

Sorry you feel that way! I take comfort in God's promises. It would be a sad world indeed without them. The "authors" were men under the direction of God to write the Scriptures. But, I don't want this to turn into an argument. It's not what I say anyway, it's what God says in His Word!!! Check it out for yourself.

 

But, only if in the end they (the Jews) all convert to Christianity... right?

[Jenn in Mo]

I couldn't disagree more. Israel is clearly in the wrong here. They are occupying Palestinian territory in violation of a UN resolution and international law (and have been for 35 years), denying basic sustenance and dignity to millions of people, committing war crimes against those people, and then spinning it to make it look like the Palestinians are the bad guys when they rebel. Pretty darn black and white if you ask me. :glare:

 

Not to change the subject, but this makes me wonder what all of this will look like in 200 years. If you think about it, we were once occupying British land. Actually we were once occupying Native American land and mistreating them to boot.

[ImmigrantsWife]

I think it's a big deal. The naval blockade has been going on for a long time, and there are frequently "humanitarian aid" ships lurking off the coast (my husband grew up in the area) but this is the first time in a long time that the Israeli soldiers actually forced their way onto their ships. It's shameful to hear the UN denounce Israel's right to defend itself. Everyone in that area knows it's a 99% chance that these ships contain more than food and water.

I have a hard time believing that I am getting the straight story from the American media, due to biased reporting (Helen Thomas, case in point, and also the AP admitting that they cropped out the weapons wielded by the Turkish "peace activists"). We often get our news from international websites.

[Mejane]

Interesting tidbit.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/06/08/reuters-fake-photos-ihh-gaza-blockade-commandos/?test=latestnews

 

I have to wonder if anyone wouldn't try anything after 35 years of such treatment.

 

Btw, Fox as a reliable news source? Really?

Edited June 9, 2010 by Mejane

[ImmigrantsWife]

I respectfully disagree that it isn't important that a renowned news organization like the AP got caught altering official news photographs. I don't need or want a sanitized Orwellian version of international news- give it to me straight and let me make up my own mind.

If we cannot count on unbiased reporting (from everyone, including Fox) we are in big trouble, IMHO.

[staceyobu]

I hear what you're saying and understand. It's more than a claim, though. God promised a geographical area that is "reserved" for the Israel nation "only". That is the section that was given to Abraham and Jewish descendants, not to the Arabs. However, the Arabs do have their own territory, just not what God promised in the Abraham's line in the Abrahamic covenant.

 

 

Can you tell me where in scripture it states that a modern day nation of Israel will be created? I'm always confused on this point...

[Spy Car]

Yep, you are right! Abraham's descendants are the Jewish and Arab people!! However, consider this.

 

The covenant God made with Abraham called "The Abrahamic Covenant" was a promise (found in Genesis) God gave Abraham....then thru Issac (not Ishmael)....and then through Jacob (not Esau).

 

Yes, but the Muslims have other ideas about what God promised to whom. I just don't think the line of argument that God promised it all to me is going to be a fruitful one if there is going to be a chance of peace (which is not an impossible dream).

 

Bill

[LibraryLover]

Yes, but the Muslims have other ideas about what God promised to whom. I just don't think the line of argument that God promised it all to me is going to be a fruitful one if there is going to be a chance of peace (which is not an impossible dream).

 

Bill

 

 

 

l

Edited June 9, 2010 by LibraryLover

[Spy Car]

I couldn't disagree more. Israel is clearly in the wrong here. They are occupying Palestinian territory in violation of a UN resolution and international law (and have been for 35 years), denying basic sustenance and dignity to millions of people, committing war crimes against those people, and then spinning it to make it look like the Palestinians are the bad guys when they rebel. Pretty darn black and white if you ask me. :glare:

 

To play devil's advocate, what is a nation to do when it had conquered territory where the leadership of the opposition has a charter that seeks to destroy their state, and is willing to use terrorism and violence to achieve their aims?

 

Believe me, I'm not overly pleased with many aspects of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories or with the treatment of Palestianians in Israel proper, but the Palestinian people have their own share of the blame for some of the misery they have endured, as they have chosen violence as the means of their national struggle, and that choice has natural repercussions that the Israelis would be foolish to ignore.

 

This struggle is sad for me. Rather unusually I have deep ties in both the Jewish community here (including Israelis and supporters of Israel) and have a great number of Palestinian friends both here and in Palestine. I know that there are amazing people on both sides of this conflict who under different circumstances could be friends and partners.

 

The tragedy is the hard-men of violence manage to steer the fate of the relationship. But these peoples have so much in common that there is no reason (beyond the "God says it's all ours" attitude) that prevents a real peace from emerging in the region.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

You might enjoy the documentary Armegeddon on Netflix. Some Americans are praying for that area of the world to burst into flames, because that means Jesus is coming, and all the good Jews convert to Christianity. One guy says, "It's going to be a lot of fun watching the war from heaven...well, not fun...but interesting". He has a giant grin on his face. There are lots of folks in the US awaiting The Rapture and then the big fun war (well, not fun, but yk, where the gays and abortionists die when the believers come down from heaven and slash them with swords) in Israel when all the non -believers get theirs. A lot of folks are looking forward to it.

 

Unfortunately I'm well aware of it. And I warn my Jewish Zionist friends that these fundamentalists (who they tend to appreciate for their "support" of Israel) are the most false-friends they could possibly have.

 

Bill

[LibraryLover]

Unfortunately I'm well aware of it. And I warn my Jewish Zionist friends that these fundamentalists (who they tend to appreciate for their "support" of Israel) are the most false-friends they could possibly have.

 

Bill

 

Oh, they know it. The documentary interviews a couple of these folks. It's hard to pass up 75 million/year.

 

If you start talking about peace, where with the rapture be then?

Edited June 9, 2010 by LibraryLover

[ImmigrantsWife]

There must be men on both sides who are willing to meet on middle ground, and it doesn't seem to be happening, at least not now. Each side would have to truly embrace a "land for peace" deal, not just pay it lip-service. The fanatics on each side refuse to even give an inch (Rabin's assasination is a sad example of that). When you add in the potent anti-Israeli sentiment in nearby Iran (and I would add Syria), it makes it look like peace is getting farther and farther away. The fact that Achmedinejad (sp?) continues to call for the death of Israel is pretty scary to me, and I don't even live near the Mediterranean.

[Spy Car]

Oh, they know it. The documentary interviews a couple of these folks. It's hard to pass up 75 million/year.

 

If you start talking about peace, where with the rapture be then?

 

Hey, there were people who WANTED the US economy to collapse (and thus opposed the government interventions to prevent such) on this very forum, because (from what I gather) such tribulations might usher in the end-times.

 

What can one say?

 

Bill