Israelis See Their Own Nation As "Neighborhood Bully"

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

by Ira Chernus

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0719-33.htm

<snip>

You can see Lebanon from my sister’s backyard. She and her family and thousands of others in northern Israel live with a constant roar of gunfire -- mostly from Israeli cannons aiming to kill Lebanese, occasionally from a Hezbollah shell that might land on them.

But the real threat to Israel doesn’t come from Lebanese rockets. The real threat comes from the Israelis themselves -- and the rest of the world -- forgetting how and why this war started.

Israel does not go to war just to retrieve kidnapped soldiers. In the past, it has been ready to ransom them by returning Palestinian and Lebanese captives that it holds, just as the kidnappers ask. So why war now? For answers I’ve turned to Jewish writers in Israel’s top newspaper, Ha’aretz.

Last month the two main Palestinian factions, Hamas and Fatah, agreed to form a united government and offer Israel a plan for permanent peace. A Ha’aretz columnist observed at the time that the peace offer “should have sparked a wave of positive reactions from Jerusalem … But Jerusalem's ear as usual is blocked to any sound that might advance the peace process.” Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert still insists on his unilateral “convergence” plan, which is merely “a plan to perpetuate the occupation, only under conditions more convenient for Israel. Moreover, at the end of the plan, if it is ever executed, even more settlers will live in the occupied territories than live there now.”...

[Behind the Aegis]

1. What a load of crap!

It is amazing some of the shit passed off here as legitimate. And that graphic...:puke:

[RC]

2. That graphic is a good representation of fact.

Israel does have a shoot first reputation and being the neighborhood bully, along with being the most heavily armed nation in the Middle East.

[Behind the Aegis]

3. It is crappy propaganda.

However, I am not surprised it has an audience here.

On edit: the article is just as crappy and filled with propaganda!

[burythehatchet]

6. With such a gullible audience here

that buys all this crappy propoganda, its a wonder you stick around. Glad to have you though, I'm certain your powers of persuasion have won over many, many people.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

8. SOMEBODY has to stand up to the anti-Semites

..even if he never persuades any of the hate-filled bigots.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[regnaD kciN]

9. I knew it was about time...

...for someone to play the "anti-Semitism card."

:eyes:

[ConservativeDemocrat]

11. You sound exactly like southern racists...

who don't want to acknowledge their racism. And when someone points out that they're racist, they talk about the "race card" - as if pointing out bigotry and hate is some sort of game.

Well, no. Hezboallah - and their allies - will get a ceasefire when they decide to return the soldiers they kidnapped, and obey the binding security council resolution they have chosen to ignore.

And anyone who blames "the jews" for this is anti-Semitic. Plain and simple.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[regnaD kciN]

12. Despicable tactics from ConservativeDemocrat

And anyone who blames "the jews" for this is anti-Semitic. Plain and simple.

...which, of course, is something I didn't say. Not that this would make any difference to you, I'm sure.

Hezboallah - and their allies - will get a ceasefire when they decide to return the soldiers they kidnapped, and obey the binding security council resolution they have chosen to ignore.

Then why was Israel quick to first attack, not Hezbollah or "her allies," but Lebanese civilians and the Lebanese infrastructure? Or is it that, since they're Arab, they must automatically qualify as Hezbollah allies? And you call me racist???

:puke:

[ConservativeDemocrat]

14. Not that I'm expecting any logic from you...

...but just out of morbid curiosity, see if you can get this little quiz right.

Q1: What nationality are Lebanese Hezboallah terrorists?
A. Jamaican
B. Lebanese

Q2: As they are NOT members of the Lebanese military, what are non-uniformed Hezboallah terrorists considered by anti-semites?

A. Members of the Lebanese Military
B. "Civilians" (with a big hobby in rocketry!)

Q3: Bonus question! If the Israeli armed forces could magically only strike Hezboallah, somehow not hurting a one of their human shields in the process, how would anti-semites officially classify those dead gunmen, arms shippers, and rocket operators?

A. As dead Jamaican Members of the Lebanese Military
B. As dead Lebanese "Civilians"

Get back to me if you ever figure it out.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[regnaD kciN]

15. I don't even know why I bother responding to this nonsense...

Q1: B. They were Lebanese just as members of the Michigan Militia were Americans -- does that mean that it would be justified to kill any random groups of Americans, or even a random group of Michigan residents, in retaliation for the OKC bombings?

Q2: I don't even know what you're trying to get at with this one. Since you've already predicated that they are not members of the Lebanese military, the only logical answer would be B -- but, since you imply that your famous hypothetical "anti-semites" would answer B, does that follow that answering the question the only possible way you set it up makes one an anti-semite? Or is it that by answering "civilians," it follows that any actions taken against Lebanese civilians are justified? On that possibility, see the answer to Q1 above. The whole framing of the question is dishonest...not that I'm surprised.

Q3: Once again, a completely dishonest question. The proper answer would be C (Dead members of a radical Islamic paramilitary group -- and, not incidentally, a rare attempt by Israel to actually strike back against those attacking them, instead of any and every Arab who just happens to be in the vicinity). But, of course, you have no interest in a real answer to your "question."

-----

O.K. Now it's my turn.

Q1: A radical paramilitary group under the control of country X attacks an Israeli base and captures two soldiers. The Israeli government responds by destroying the airport, highways, power and water facilities of country Y, which does not control, and is in fact the opponent of, that paramilitary group. Is this...

A) An unjustifiable case of collective punishment.
B) Who the hell cares? They're all just Arabs anyway.

Q2: An unarmed Palestinan father and his 12-year-old son come under fire from an Israeli military outpost. Despite the fact that no shots come from the corner where the father and son are cowering and calling for help, the IDF continues firing at them for a half-hour, until the son finally falls dead from his wounds. An ambulance driver seeking to come to the aid of the two is also shot dead by the IDF. Is this...

A) A morally reprehensible targeting of innocent civilians
B) Who the hell cares? They're all just Arabs anyway.

Q3: After Israel invades Lebanon the last time, they allow their Phalangist allies to rampage through Palestinian refugee camps at Sabra and Chatilla, killing thousands (primarily women, children, and the elderly) over a multiple-day period. During this time, Israeli forces keep guard over the camp entrances so no Palestinians are able to flee, and send up flares at night so their allies can continue their "job" in the camps. Afterwards, Israel denies knowing that a massacre was taking place. Is this...

A) A clear war crime.
B) A tragic mistake -- after all, the IDF troops thought the gunfire and screaming were the sounds of a toga party.
C) Who the hell cares? They're all just Arabs anyway.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

19. I shouldn't bother either...

since you obviously are so blind with hate that it's readily apparent that it's affected your ability to find objective fact.

So let me finish this conversation with you by making things plain. With a few exceptions associated with attempting to eliminate Hezboallah's lines of resupply, Israel - by its usual practice - has obviously tried to restrict itself to military targets. However, as Hezboallah never abides by the Geneva conventions, hiding military equipment in the civilian homes of its supporters, Israel has resorted to bombing entire villages and towns like Tyre, from which hundreds of rockets have been fired, and continue to be fired.

The responsibility for the inevitable loss of life from these human shields, however, does not reside with the Israelis. It's all part of the propaganda campaign, in which even Hezboalla terrorists themselves are suddenly declared uninvolved "innocents" once they're dead.

Well, the D.U. anti-Semitic left may be fooled, but the Lebanese certainly aren't. While no one likes their country bombed, it's plainly obvious where the Druze, the Christians, and the Lebanese business community are laying the blame. They'd just finished rebuilding the country and were gearing up for a badly needed tourist season, when the assholes did something no country could ignore.

Even moderate Arabs are incensed at the unprovoked attack that led to this. For the first time in history, a leading Saudi Cleric has issued a fatwah against an ostensibly Muslim organization while it is fighting with Israel. If you had even the slightest clue about religious politics in Saudi country, you'd be absolutely stunned.

This would not be the reaction if the Israelis were targeting Lebanese at random, as you assert. Everyone knows who they're going after, and how it can be stopped: 1] Hezboallah returning the soldiers they kidnapped, and 2] Hezboallah agreeing to the same binding security council resolution that called for both the IDF to withdraw from Lebanon and all paramilitary groups to be disarmed. OR as an alternative... if Hezboallah chooses.. 3] War until either Israel decides to stop, or the surviving Shi'ia supporters of Hezboallah can be controlled one way or another.

Oh, and just for fun, let me answer your questions:

Answer to Question 1: Acts of military necessity are not "punishment". Knocking out a bridge to prevent rockets from being trucked into range of your cities may cause extreme hardship on civilian populations (innocent or not) that use that bridge, but that is not what is meant by the term "collective punishment" in treaty language.

Answer to Question 2: The answer is "A" - A morally reprehensible targeting of innocent civilians LIKELY PERPETRATED BY A PALESTINIAN GUNMAN LOOKING FOR A PROPAGANDA COUP. (In case you don't read the link, the bullets that hit Muhammad al-Durrah and his father came at the wrong angle. It didn't come from the direction of the Israelis in the firefight.

Answer to Question 3: A clear war crime - by the Phalangist militia leaders. How everything ends up being the responsibility of Israel for failing to stop the Phalangists, is something only an anti-semite can explain. Oh wait! Lebanese Phalangist Christians are Arabs! So maybe it's answer C) Who the hell cares? It's OK if you're NOT a JEEEEEEEW

Right?

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

p.s. There are so many things you don't know about the region, I could have written an article twice as long as this. But it really isn't worth it.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

13. An effort to persuade would...

...suggest some kind of accompanying argument. Please feel free to offer one if you're so inclined.

[regnaD kciN]

16. Why bother with trying to present a cogent argument...

...when all you have to do is call your opponent an "anti-Semite" instead?

I seem to recall, some time ago, that it was considered a violation of DU rules to call someone "anti-Semitic" simply for opposing policies (including the decision to use military force) of the Israeli government. You could call that person's opinion wrong (especially if you could marshall an argument against it), you could call their priorities messed-up, but you couldn't call them an "anti-Semite."

I wonder when that policy went by the boards? Because it sure isn't being followed now.

:shrug:

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

18. I really don't understand where he gets...

...anti-Semite. It seems to me a true anti-Semite would be cheering Israel's militarism and continually encourage more of it, the reason being such a course, as anyone who's studied history knows, can only lead to a never ending, escalating cycle of violence that will eventually be her downfall. I think the more enlightened members of the Jewish community, of which there are many, both in the U.S. and Israel, know this all too well and do not support the overreaching, unbridled, militaristic approach Israel consistently takes in dealing with her Middle East neighbors.

[Stuckinthebush]

5. I don't really have a dog in the DU fight over this...

but the article seems sound. The author is a professor of religious studies at the Univ. of Colorado at Boulder, so is an academic and used to writing for peer review. He also has real connections to Israel - family members living there in the shadow of the conflict. He sources Ha’aretz writers, who surely aren't anti-Israel.

As I look at this conflict and argument from the safe distance on top of the fence, I can see both sides and can empathize with both arguments. I do wonder at the aggressive stance of Israel to the civilians in the area. I agree that if a terrorist kidnaps soldiers or civilians, then the State should do what it can to get those individuals back, or at least prevent it from happening again. However, the full scale destruction of towns seems to be both foolish and terribly wrong.

It is an unfortunate situation and has been for a very long time. The cycle of violence never ends. Israel will never eradicate all the "terrorists" and the "terrorists" will never buckle Israel's resolve. As Jon Stewart said the other night, "Round 9274 in the fight is about to begin. There is no doubt that it will end the same way that the other 9,273 rounds ended."

[gaspee]

4. More fighting over Israel

If progressives on DU can be so divided over Israel, imagine living in that part of the world. I have no desire to. Competing groups of people claiming the same land as their holy ground. Because of "faith" the only outcome is mutual assured destruction.

I think Americans in general have been conditioned to support Israel unconditionally. I used to. I don't anymore.

If someone can refute this, my understanding of bare bones facts in the ME, I might change my mind.

Israel was created after WWII to give the jewish diaspora a homeland. One they lay claim through religious tradition. Only, people were already living there. But to the vcictors go the spoils and the protectorates all over the middle east were the spoils of the latest conflict going back to the crusades, changing hands and rulers every couple of hundred years over the centuries.

The people who lived in the land israel was carved out of, were left without a country (which they didn't have previously, since the British, French and Ottoman empires controlled over the past few centuries.)

Israel is occupying land that until 75 years (give or take a decade) ago, belonged to various peoples, but mostly palestinians.

The side you come down on, I think, comes down to whether or not you think Israel has a right to the land. If they do, they can do no wrong. If they don't, everything they do is wrong.

I think the US supports Israel for one reason only --- to have an ally in the middle east. The US would do and has done, almost anything to keep the oil flowing. If that means supporting Israel, right or wrong, then that's what it means.

I don't think Israel has an inherant right to the land because of religious dogma. However, according to international law, once the new country lines were drawn up, israel has a right to the land.

It's a vicious circle.

but ask yourself this. If Israel has the right to that land because of the bible, or history, or some other reason you believe they have the right to the land, where do we stop? Do we give North and South America back to the native americans?

Do we do genetic testing and find picts to give scotland to? Do we give parts of china back to the native tribespeople?

It gets pretty ridiculous.

I don't have the answers, never claimed I did. But something different needs to happen if the region is to avoid mutual assured destruction, taking the rest of us with them.

And I think telling the Palestinians to just get over it and accept the life they have now, with no rights, homeland or self determination isn't the answer. The more they are oppressed, the more of them are going to become religious fanatics. I can't stand religious fanatics of any stripe -- they are willing to do anything if they think they are right. And they sure all do think they are right.

[megatherium]

7. I think your description of the formation of Israel need a bit

of clarification. The land there was controlled by the Ottoman Turks for centuries, until WWI when the British gained control of the land. The Palestinian Arabs did not control the land, and so I gather, much of the land was owned by absentee landlords who sold it to Jewish settlers, displacing Palestinian Arabs. Eventually (1947) the British wanted to hand the problem of Palestine to someone else, and asked the UN to deal with it. The UN recommended that Palestine be partitioned into Jewish and Arab sections. The Palestinian Arabs never consented to this, nor the surrounding Arab states; thus when Israel declared its independence, a war ensued.

So from one point of view, the formation of Israel was perfectly legal, and Israel was quickly recognized by the US and other countries. But from another point of view, the Palestinians certainly have a legitimate sense of grievance, as they never gave their consent to Jewish immigration into Palestine nor the formation of the state of Israel.

Someone with a more detailed knowledge of this history please correct this.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

10. Pretty close...

A few more details.

1] The absentee landlords were Muslims who wanted to cash in. Initially, nobody was displaced.

2] After the cease-fire (the Arab nations refused any actual peace treaty), Israel found itself on more territory than it has been initially granted by the UN. But it was equally obvious that the UN plan had been based on the assumption that this new patchwork micro-state was going to be accepted. Since it was not, Israel needed the territory to defend itself. So it felt justified in keeping the territory - EXACTLY what the Arab states would have done had their positions been reversed.

3] While Israel claims it never actually physically displaced Arab civilians off their land in the 1947 war, there is conclusive evidence that this did happen in some areas. Again, nothing different than would have happened in reverse had the Arab war against Israel turned out differently. Still, in many places there is a large "Israeli-Arab" population in Israel. This is unique in the area. There is no corresponding "Jewish-Saudi" population, for instance.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[jonnyblitz]

17. progressives fighting? I don't think everybody here is a

progressive. I don't know too many progressives with "conservative" in their screenname.