Warning: Hot Topic! (Israel, 9/11, terrorists, etc.)

[Geotpf]

I just watched a thing on MSNBC about all the ways Israelis have to watch for or be inconvienced by (or be killed by) terrorism. And I realized, that, I, an American, want no part of this crap. I don't want to be afraid of the guy with the big jacket (well, any more than I am afraid with guys with big jackets now). I don't want to be searched when entering a supermarket, a movie theater, a coffee shop. I also don't want people walking into supermarkets, movie theaters, and coffee shops and BLOWING THEMSELVES UP.

I searched to find the source of all this terrorism. I determined the problem is that Israel STOLE the West Bank from what was then called Transjordan and the Gaza Strip from Egypt in 1967, and they won't give them back. Or even let those who live there any say in the greater Israeli government, because they aren't the right religion. So, people of that religion, from neighboring countries, tried to invade Israel in 1973...and got thier butts royally kicked, mainly because the United States gave Israel enough tanks and guns and missles and stuff to be the kicker and not the kickee. So, Muslim/Arab hatred of Israelis/Jews (and, by proxy, of the United States) festered, and grew, until they started terrorist attacks against Israel. And whenever Israel fought back, and fought back hard, (like the recent IDF activity in the West Bank)...they fought back with American weapons, which the US government provides the Israeli government free of charge. Gratis. Almost every single bullet or tank shell fired in Jenin, etc., has the words MADE IN THE USA stamped on it. This is one of many reasons that 9/11 occurred. Bin Laden had other reasons as well (our support for the sanctions against Iraq (which he, and I, think contribute, in at least an indirect fashion, to the suffering of the ordinary people of Iraq...I don't like the sanctions against Cuba either), as well as our support for the current (corrupt) Saudi government). I can't believe I agree with Bin Laden's complaints (although of course not his means). (I need a shower after making *THAT* statement.)

And what makes this even worse is there is no way (even after 9/11) that our military support for Israel will end. 9/11 didn't matter one way or the other, quite frankly. Basically, enough Jews (who tend to be Democrats) who think God gave Israel (including the West Bank and Gaza) to the Jews, and conservative, right-wing Christians (who tend to be Republicans) who also think that God gave Israel (including the West Bank and Gaza) to the Jews, vote for both Republicans and Democrats, that the vast majority of politicians will even consider cutting the military aid to Israel, no matter what the Israelis do or have done in the past. In fact, this blind support might make the Biblical Apocalpyse a self-fullfilling prophesy.

Now, if Israel's fight was moral and just, I would have no problem supporting them (well, I still would probably think $3 BILLION a year is too much, but...). But Israel's fight is neither moral nor just. They stole the land in 1967. And Arabs/Muslims want thirty five years of payback. For example, if Israel retreated behind the "Green Line", I would support them 100%. And the terrorism wouldn't die down completely. But it would die down significantly (and America's appearance as a supporter of Israel would die down even more)-plus they would be morally just in defending against what terrorism that would occur. Right now, they are just an army that is on land that isn't theirs.

Also, keep in mind that, no matter how horrible the Palenstinian terrorists are, Israel is still in the wrong. The terrorists are in the wrong, the Israeli government is in the wrong. Everybody except oridinary citizens in both countries are in the wrong. And two wrongs don't make a right-on either side.

Another thing. The more I think about this, the more I believe that organized religion only causes pain and suffering, particularly the conservative side of any religion (the touchy-feely left-leaning churches are harmless, because they promote tolerance, not hatred of whomever doesn't obey whatever particular dogma you believe in). Jews steal land that isn't theirs. Muslims kill thousands of innocents. Hell, Catholics molest little children (ok, now I'm wandering a bit off-topic...).

In any case, my point is that I don't want suicide bombers roaming nearby streets (or nuclear weapons exploding in nearby cities) or whatever due to my government's support of what the French embassador to the UK called a "s****y little country". I don't want my government to support Israel (or the Palenstinian's, for that matter...we should just butt out). Or more precisely, I want my government to say what I'm about to. That is, "F*** you, Israel." Of course, it'll never happen, for the domestic political reasons I mentioned earlier. I just hope something happens before the seemingly inevitable deaths of thousands of Americans. Or shall I say thousands MORE...we already have two thousand plus dead on 9/11.

Flame away, folks...

NO Geotpf, there will be NO FLAMING and flaming will not be encouraged (title edited) - Fingers

[Knothead]

You know, Geotpf, you spell quite nicely. Additionally, I cannot help but notice your sentence structure is quite well thought-out. If you would consider re-studying your history as it pertains to the middle East, why, I believe we could have quite a lively discussion here!

Best, Knot (wet blanket) head

[Gomer]

Almost every single bullet or tank shell fired in Jenin, etc., has the words MADE IN THE USA stamped on it.

Can't be us giving it to them... everything the US has has MADE IN CHINA stamped on it =)

[RADAR1797]

Your premise that the Israelis stole the land in 1967 is flawed at best. They were attacked, the Israelis won and the spoils of war mean you keep the land as a buffer for your security. You see the justification for the Egyptians, Syrians, etc is that Israel was an illegal state to begin with. So your premise that if the Israelis were to move back to the green line, that the terrorism would subside is naive. Once the Israelis move back to the green line, they will be seen as weakening and will likely be attacked or the terrorism will escalate. Why would the Palestinians stop their current operations if the are making progress? Why would they be happy with just the West Bank and Gaza, when they believe the whole country should be theirs?

One thing we have seem to have forgotten in the civilized world is that war, while rarely desirable is necessary. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians are fighting a war. The Israelis are fighting to secure their land and have a sense of peace. The Palestinians are fighting to reclaim their land and establish some autonomy. Those two goals are divergent, hence a war ensues.

You say the Israelis are not moral. I would differ that the Israelis are the moral party. While many believe they stole the land, they took over with a relatively peaceful establishment of government, they have maintained mostly defensive military postures (yes defense includes going on the offensive against your attackers).

The Palestinians are portraying themselves as the victims while sending their young adults and children to go blow themselves up in the name of Allah or a Palestinian state. Not only is the tactic flawed (does little to advance the military or political goals), it shows that the leadership of the Palestinians cares nothing for their people. They have land, they are living on it, they have options, but instead they look at every deal presented to them as an affront and refuse to make things better so as to stoke the ire of their people towards the Israelis.
Look at it this way, if you raised a child from day one that they will never be able to prosper because of the Jews, then you have a child that only knows two things. They cannot get ahead and Jews are evil. Difficult to build a nation with that education.

The history can be irrelevant and probably should be. Building the hate and then making suicide missions against the Israelis will not win the war. If this were 200 years ago, before we became sophisticated, the stronger party would have annihilated the weaker party and likely expelled those that lived. In the end, the Palestinians are not really sending a handful of individual suicide bombers with their current tactics; they are really sending the whole populous.


-RADAR

[ClubMed]

*

[daveleau]

RADAR1797 said it well. And as I suspected, you liked the initial post CM.

Arafat = bin Laden

Arafat trained bin Laden, has funded terrorists, has funded the terrorists in his nation and they are commiting terrorist attacks against the one nation in the world that is like us (Israel is as close to our democracy as you can get). Not to mention the religious ideals where Israel is God's nation (read the Old Testament).

The US's next target should be ... well Iraq. But after Iraq, we should focus on erradicating the terrorists in Palestine. These are not freedom fighters. A freedom fighter does not kill women and children like the Palestinians do with indiscriminate vigor...well, not indiscriminate...they focus on the women and children of Israel...that is not indiscriminate. Calling these terrorists "freedom fighters" gives a bad name to a real freedom fighter that attacks military targets, not focusing on the weak in the populace.

I went to a rally this weekend where my pastor spoke. He handed out signs for those who wanted to attend. I kept the signs and disply them proudly in my third story apartment window. They say:
CHRISTIANS FOR ISRAEL
and
AS CHRISTIANS WE STAND WITH ISRAEL

[ClubMed]

*

[Theophylact]

Boy, I'd love to stay out of this one, but I just can't.

As a left-wing Jewish atheist, I'm immune to arguments based on the Bible (either one). I find the claims of both the Ultra-Orthodox Gush Emunim and the Apocalyptic Evangelicals unacceptable: "This land is ours because G-d said so, and that's it!" is not a basis for rational diplomacy or politics.

Same goes for the Islamists who want to reestablish a Caliphate that died in the First World War but that was moribund since the 1400's: "No inch of ground that was ever Muslim may be ruled by the infidel!" That means Spain, guys.

The problem here is not which side is right; it's that both sides are wrong.

For there to be anything left in the Middle East except eternal war or a smoking, glowing plain, both sides have to reject mythology (and by that I mean history-as-taught-in-the-schools as well as Holy Scripture) as a basis for land claims. At some point, de facto borders have to become de jure ones.

Anyone who doesn't have an agenda based on something other than dogma realizes that a settlement requires, at a minimum, two things:

(1) Removal of all Israeli settlements from the West Bank and Gaza;

(2) Abandonment of all Palestinian claims to a right of return to lands occupied before 1967.

Other issues (reparations, Jerusalem, the Golan, you name it) are negotiable. But without those two, there's nothing.

I'm not talking about Justice. I'm talking about Peace. ANY peace will leave some -- many -- perhaps all -- unsatisfied with the details.

But except for those who want Armageddon or unending Jihad (and their number is, I fear, large), there really isn't any alternative.

(Sorry for all the italics -- I got carried away.)

[ClubMed]

*

[Theophylact]

I don't have a problem with a Palestinian state. I just can't see it happening without the preconditions I mentioned, because

(1) a Palestinian state with Israeli settlements throughout it like raisins in a rice pudding would be an unworkable, Bantustan-like fraud; and

(2) a Palestinian state that insists on the right to resettle refugees in Israel is a state that in effect would be denying Israel's right to exist.

As Amos Elon (I think) points out, Israel is insisting on a two-Israel policy -- an Israel within the pre-1967 borders, and an Israel in the occupied territories. And the PLO is insisting on a two-Palestine policy -- a Palestine in the West bank and Gaza, and a Palestine-to-be in Israel once the resettled refugees with their high population growth become a voting majority.

Both sides are going to have to settle for at most one country.