If this is our future

[shira]

<snip>

None of this is to suggest that Israel is blameless in the ongoing conflict with the Palestinians, or that the present government has a plan for ending it. Those are entirely different matters. The point is that even if these students hold Israel partially (or even largely) accountable for the intractable conflict with the Palestinians, even if one believes that it should have conducted Operation Cast Lead differently, or even if one disapproves of its policies in the West Bank, for example, it is a devastatingly sad day for world Jewry when those issues are the only ones that one associates with Israel, when mere mention of the Jewish state evokes not the least bit of pride from students graduating from a prestigious institution long associated with the very best of American Jewish life.

WHAT WOULD have happened had Brandeis invited President Barack Obama to deliver the commencement address? Obama is, after all, not exactly a non-divisive figure. He is president of a country at war in Iraq and in Afghanistan, places in which (a small number of) American troops have committed their share of atrocities, a country in which civil rights issues are still far from resolved, in which the bounty of America is still far beyond the reach of millions of its citizens.

One suspects that the students would have been thrilled to hear Obama, despite the fact that many do not agree with his policies. They would have been honored to host him despite the fact that some must be disappointed that he has not lived up to his campaign promise to call the Turkish treatment of the Armenians a “genocide,” despite the fact that he is intent on pursuing the war in Afghanistan, to which many of the students must certainly be opposed. They would have been delighted by Obama’s presence because even if they disagree with some of his views or some of America’s actions, they understand that the US is more than Obama, and more than this war or that policy. And they are, quite rightly, enormously proud of what America stands for and what it has accomplished.

But that kind of instinctive pride in the Jewish state is, sadly, a vestige of days gone by, even for many American Jews.

<snip>

http://www.jpost.com/Home/Article.aspx?id=174863

[T Wolf]

1. Israel has created its own image through their crimes against the Palestinians and other

non-Jews living in the territories they were given and those they took over via military aggression.

I have an almost-total negative view of that country, and I am not a young Jew, but an old one. I grew up with pride in the Jewish state, primari;y because I was not told about the true history of that region.

Once I learned the truth, my views changed drastically.

Now, its primary identity IS as a danger to world peace because of its actions.

They made their bed, let them lie (and die) in it. I just don't want my tax dollars supporting that regime. And I certainly do not want their actions to trigger the Armageddon that Christists so desperately want.

[shira]

2. Is your view of the USA almost entirely negative due to the Japan nuke, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan

Add to that Indian lands illegally occupied by the USA, which indigenous American Indians claim as their own due to binding legal treaties later violated by the USA. Of course, a coalition led by the USA is currently occupying Iraq.

If you're not almost entirely negative WRT the USA, then why not?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. Ones in the past I care less about.

My view of the US is partially negative due to Iraq and Afghanistan; I think that America is - like all nations - a nation with crimes in its past but that crimes over and done with matter incomparably less than ongoing crimes.

[shira]

5. So the crimes of Israel since the mid 1940's are worse than the crimes of the USA during

...the same period of time (see post #2 above) in your opinion?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. For once, I partially agree.

The one thing that I would add is that the sad thing is that association with Israel is something to be ashamed of, rather than the that students are ashamed of it even though it isn't.

What needs to change is Israel's behaviour, not the condemnation of it.

[shira]

6. Israel's "behavior" has to change

Again, see post #2 above WRT the USA since the mid 1940's. Does the USA need to change as much or more than Israel?

How about Britain? What's that country been up to lately that isn't as bad as what Israel is currently doing? Do they need to change as much or more than Israel?

Just curious.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

7. Neither country is behaving nearly as badly as Israel.

While both are doing a great many things they shouldn't be, neither is conducting an illegal occupation intended to be permanent, and neither is an inherently racist state.

There are a great many countries whose governments are behaving a great deal worse than that of Israel, but none in the first world. Also, in most cases the crimes of those governments are not representing the will of the people.

[shira]

8. Really? They're conducting 2 occupations and killing hundreds of thousands of people

...thousands of miles away from their homeland. Against a race of people different than their own. In fact, at least 10x more Iraqi and Afghani people have been killed over the last decade than whatever Israel is responsible for since 1948. Immigration of foreigners to both the US and Britain are increasingly 'problematic', to say the least.

But you don't think that's worse?

That's fascinating.

--------

As to your accusations of Israel being inherently racist, it's hard to take such an accusation seriously from someone hellbent on defending a slimy person like Goldstone, who is now proven to be an unrepentant racist and bigot.

I mean, who are you - as a Brit whose country is responsible for FAR worse than Israel in the last decade alone - and who is someone like Goldstone - a proven unrepentant racist - to judge Israel?

[LeftishBrit]

10. Anyone has a right to judge Israel or Britain or anywhere

It would be hypocritical to slam Israel for its wars and occupations while supporting our own - but many people oppose all of these.

[shira]

11. The difference is many here think Israel's actions are worse than the UK and US

I agree with you that it's fine to criticize all 3 nations, however the disproportionate focus on Israel is irrational due to the US/UK causing damage many magnitudes greater than Israel.

[LeftishBrit]

9. The USA and UK are conducting illegal occupations, and wars that have killed many people

I'm not sure that debating 'who is worse' is all that profitable ultimately. ALL our countries need to change.

[shira]

12. Yes but Israel is much worse because that's what Afrikaners like Goldstone say

...and we should give people like Goldstone the benefit of the doubt, because what's a few whipped and hanged black people between good liberals who are pro-peace and human rights?

:sarcasm:

[LeftishBrit]

13. I don't think Goldstone said that Israel was worse than Britain or America.

'what's a few whipped and hanged black people between good liberals who are pro-peace and human rights?'

We could say a lot about Britain and America with regard to THAT too. (Thatcher regarded Mandela as a terrorist.) And Israel for that matter.. Once again, no worse than the rest of us, but no better either.

[shira]

14. Here he is in an interview

BILL MOYERS: Let me come back to some of that criticism, because I've tried to read as much as I can of the response to your report, as well as reading the report, which is compelling and terrifying, actually, but Israelis claim that if you hold them to this standard that you'd just described, that law prescribes for conflict, any democracy that's fighting terrorism is likely to find itself dragged into an international court of justice. I mean, do you consider that a valid concern?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: No. Absolutely not. Take the United States fighting wars in Kosovo and Iraq and Afghanistan. They have certainly at a high level, gone to extremes to protect innocent civilians. Where they've made mistakes, and mistakes have been made, in Kosovo, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, apologies have followed. The United States, in general, has accepted and tried its best, with the assistance of military lawyers, has tried its best to avoid violating international humanitarian law. So, it seems to me this is a smokescreen. I've got no doubt that the laws of war are sufficient to cover the situation of fighting what is now termed asymmetric war. It's not easy; I concede that. But there's a line over which you just don't transgress, without clearly violating the law.

http://www.goldstonereport.org/pro-and-con/defenders/309-transcript-of-moyers-goldstone-interview-92309

[shira]

16. In addition to what Goldstone said WRT the USA....

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/25/60minutes/main3411230_page2.shtml

Marc Garlasco of HRW said...

"There's this macabre kind of calculus that the military goes through on every air strike, where they try to figure out how many dead civilians is dead bad guy worth," says Marc Garlasco, who knows the calculus of civilian casualties as well as anyone.

At the Pentagon, Garlasco was chief of high value targeting at the start of the Iraq war. He told 60 Minutes how many civilians he was allowed to kill around each high-value target -- targets like Saddam Hussein and his leadership.

"Our number was 30. So, for example, Saddam Hussein. If you're gonna kill up to 29 people in a strike against Saddam Hussein, that's not a problem," Garlasco explains. "But once you hit that number 30, we actually had to go to either President Bush, or Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld."

Garlasco says, before the invasion of Iraq, he recommended 50 air strikes aimed at high-value targets -- Iraqi officials.

But he says none of the targets on the list were actually killed. Instead, he says, "a couple of hundred civilians at least" were killed."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/25/60minutes/main3411230_page2.shtml

One standard for the rest of the world vs. one standard for Israel.

That's apartheid.

[Dick Dastardly]

15. Israel is not conducting an illegal occupation nor is it an inherently racist state.