Calor Calor

Why Israel is a threat to world peace

Why Israel is a threat to world peace

It's not antisemitism, it is a balanced look at the Israel/Palestinian situation

    Some people say that Israel gets treated like a second class citizen in the family of nations. That's probably true. But it isn't without reason. I read the pro-Israel articles posted here and using the power of JoeUser, I'm taking advantage of the equal time this site provides to give a different point of view.

    The nation of Israel was a gift. Yes, Jews lived there at the time of creation and those particular Jews have a historical claim to the region. But they didn't get their nation through force of arms. They didn't get their nation through a compelling argument for self determination. They got their nation because 6 million Jews were murdered in World War II. You can debate back and forth all day about whether what mighta, shoulda, woulda been if the holocaust hadn't happened. But the bottom line is that the United States with Britain pushed through the creation of Israel largely out of sympathy. The nation of Israel was thus born. But it was supposed to be 2 nations. Transjordan did indeed occupy some of the territory originally envisioned to be part of a "Palestinian" state. But not all. The Arabs responded the same way they have responded since the original crusades, they tried to push the invaders into the sea. They lost. And Israel, through subsequent wars (that were not Israel's fault) gained additional territory.

    But to leave it at that would be an incomplete picture. The incomplete picture that many Americans cling to.

    To Arabs, many if not most Jews living today in Israel are just plain foreigners. Westerners at that. They're people from Russia, eastern Europe and the United States mostly. Anyone reading this, if they want, can be a Jew. Poof. You're a Jew. You're from China? No problem. You can convert. Move to Israel. Get a settlement in the West Bank. That is how many Arabs look at it.

    Israel is just a Western colony backed by the United States that is full of foreigners. Foreigners who, year after year, take land from people whose descendents have lived in that region for hundreds if not thousands of years. To Arabs, the claim that some European or American calling himself Jewish can therefore have a historical claim to that region is offensive. What? Some ancestor 15 generations back came from that part of the world? You think Ariel Sharon's family has some multi-generational claim to the land that Israel currently occupies? Whatever you want to call the Palestinians, there's no debate about where their ancestors came from.

    I wonder how Americans would feel in an alternative reality where the Ottoman Empire was the world's super power and that the state of New York was designated as a land where "Native Americans" could return and settle (to the exclusion of people who happened to live in New York). How would they feel if most of these "Native Americans" were not actually from North America but in fact came from say China and Russia and the Middle East but still claimed to be "Native Americans" because their families, at some point down the line, chose to Cherokees? What if, in fact that the Native American claim was actually 2000 years old instead of just 100 years? How do you think Americans would react then? In fact, we do know since we can see exactly how Americans dealt with people on lands that they wanted. Live in Oklahoma? Did you know the entire state was originally set up by the United States as a land for American Indians? But they changed their minds later on. Which is particularly galling given the background on how the American Indians got there in the first place.

    This doesn't excuse the terrorism of the Palestinians. And it is that -- terrorism. From their vantage point, they feel like they have no alternative. They're desperate. Israel doesn't exist thanks to its own hard work alone like Draginol claimed. It exists largely thanks to BILLIONS (that's with a B) of dollars in aid from the United States every single year. In Arabic eyes, if it looks like a colony, acts like a colony, maybe it is a colony. A colony that year after year claims it wants peace while not addressing the basic problem: The foreigners who moved in who happen to call themselves "jews" have no more legitimate claim to the lands that Arabs have lived on for centuries than the Chinese do.

    So why do Europeans see Israel as a threat to world peace? Because Israel is a luxury that the west may not be able to afford. Think about it. Where did modern terrorism come from? Northern Ireland? Think again. Suicide bombers are the invention of Islamic fanatics in their attempt to try to reclaim the land of Israel from this latest western crusade. And that instability, that violence, that terrorism has spread across the entire Islamic world. Would it have happened if Israel had never been re-created? Probably not.  Without Israel, the corrupt Arabic regimes would not be able to focus the resentment of their masses on something in order to deflect from their own incompetence. The United States would not have to prop up the petty dictatorships in countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.  In other words, the world, as a whole, has paid a high price for Israel to exist. And has its existence somehow benefited the world in some way that can possibly outweigh the misery it has caused directly or indirectly? I don't see it.

    When Israel is listed as a threat to world peace, it doesn't mean that the people of Israel have intentionally done ill. It doesn't take responsibility for the evils committed by the Palestinians or other Arabs away. It just is a straight forward calculus that regardless of blame, the existence of Israel has created a lot more problems than it has solved. And that there are two sides to any story. It's not anti-Semitism. It's not hatred of Jews. It is just a realistic assessment of world affairs. The policies of Israel and the west have, like it or not, created an environment that has generated 3 generations of terrorists now.  Americans can be for Israel on principle. But Europeans have to deal with the mess created by America on a daily basis because of their geographic closeness. It's easy to have high minded principles when you have an ocean to separate you.

    Israel is a threat because it is seen by many, as a western colony that takes land away from peoples who have lived there for centuries to hand over to foreigners whose families have little or no claim on those lands. From that springs anger and hatred in a region that still remembers previous western crusades. That hatred in turn creates terrorism that affects the entire world. Not everyone cares who's fault the terrorism rests on. They care, however, that it happens and what the root cause of it is.

28,678 views 43 replies
Reply #26 Top
To add some further comparisons to the debate, look at northern Ireland.

At the end of the 16th century there was a large rebellion in Ireland against the English. It went on for many years before it was eventually defeated. In 1603 most of the chieftains in Northern Ireland fled overseas and the English government took the oppertunity to displace the catholics and replace them with Scottish landowners. A plantation occurred. 400 years later and the problems have still not healed. Half the population is catholic, half protestant.

Who has the right to live on that land?

If we compared to Israel, then the protestants should be removed from the land and all Irish catholics should be allowed return. That could be 40 million from the US alone! This sort of thinking however would be totally unacceptable in Ireland, so why was it acceptable for Israel?

The creation of a Jewish state intemingled with Arabs was a mistake. Of course the Jews have a right to statehood, but such a state should have been formed in conjunction with the Arabs and Jewish immigration should have been agreed and facilitated with them.

Well, nearly 60 years of hatred, terrorism, attrocities have come from that initial mess up and the European population feels that Israel (the entire situation, not just the Jews) is indeed the major threat to world peace.

From an Irish point of view it's very sad watching the situation. The Israeli government is worse that the most fanatical nationalist or Unionist. "No surrender" would be an excellent slogan for them. No compromise, no trust, no peace, no hope, would be more realistic. The Arabs are not much better. The prime minister seems to be trying hard but with no help give on the Israeli side how is he ever going to pull the palestinian people away from the extremists?

Paul.
Reply #27 Top
A.K.,

we do know the historical background. We also know that it is constantly misrepresented by anti-semites. And we also know that historical background is largely a matter of opinion.

But current atrocities are not. As I said before I base my opinion on Israel's legitimacy on the current scenario. I don't care about the whereabouts of people that have died decades ago. And regardless of how many Israeli politicians demand that Israel should be the size of the whole territory it was meant to be, and even regardless of what the UN claim, I still believe that killing children is wrong and so is any cause that makes people use them as primary targets.


Zergimmi,

there is a difference between anti-Israel and anti-semitism. It is possible for a Jew to be against Israel (or some of its policies), it is even possible for a Jew to be an anti-semite. However, that doesn't mean that anti-semites can excuse their rascism by stating they are merely anti-Israel.

If you claim that Israel is wrong because it overreacts, you might be anti-Israel. But if you claim that Israel has no right to exist or lie about its history or insist that when Israel does X it is much worse as if an Arab country does X, you are an anti-semite.

What if Israel enacted all the laws against Arabs that Saudi-Arabia has against Jews? Wouldn't that be a fair solution? Shouldn't Israel's prime minister announce that his government found that the Sauds are a wise family and that their decisions are pure wisdom and can be applied everywhere, to any people? Should Israel treat Palestinians the way Saudi-Arabia treated Saudi-Arabian Jews? Should Israel deport all Palestinians and never allow the back (and confiscate their property)? Wouldn't that be a fair solution? I mean, Saudi-Arabia did that (to the Jews) and nobody is complaining. How come Arabs are allowed to do that and Jews are not?


Solitair,

I have lived in Dublin a few years ago. I have been in Northern Ireland often, including Belfast (which Dubliners go to for shopping). The situation is not comparable. Not at all. Not even slightly. For the most part catholics and protestants live there in peace and they don't hate each other. If we could get the Palestinians to behave like them, the problem would be solved.

Who has the right to live on that land? Well, that's simple: everybody does. We all have the right to live there or anywhere else. The only things that could stop us from exercising the right is government interference or some other use of force or the fact that other people are already exercising their right to live there.

40 million Irish could move to Ireland if they wanted to. But the problem does not arise because they don't want to. Nobody stops them from doing it except the fact that Ireland is already full and people have thus no special interest to move there (individually they do, but no large groups). But the same is not true for 2 or 3 million Jews. Israel has room for them. Israel even had room for those Jews that were expelled from other Arab nations.

But if the United Kingdom decided that Ireland, the ancient homeland of the Irish catholics, should be one of their colonies again? What if the UK told protestants in Ireland (and Northern Ireland) to leave temporarily while the UK attack the republic and invade it, and then, presumably, give it to protestants to live in? What if Ireland won that war, managed to even invade Northern Ireland and didn't allow the protestants to come back? Would that make you anti-Ireland or anti-British?

Who's fault would it be? The attacker's or the defender's? Who would have the privilege of living in Ireland? The catholics who were attacked or the protestants who left?

What if the UK expelled all catholics living in Great Britain and they moved to Ireland? Would this mean that

a) the UK should compensate them?

or

b) Ireland should also allow the protestants to come back?

Why would all the problem-solving rest on Ireland's shoulder? Why don't we exspect the UK to do anything about it?

The situation in reality is, of course, different. But that's not because the Irish catholics are more civilized than the Israeli Jews. It's simply because the British are a lot more civilized than the Arabs. That's btw why the UK don't attack their neighbours every ten years; even if they happen to live on land that was once British. Incidentally, the British also don't care if more Irish move to Ireland or even Northern Ireland. And they do not constantly send killers to Ireland to make life misrably there.

So what would you do in that alternative reality? Would you be anti-Ireland but not anti-catholic? Or would you say that the UK should have refrained from attacking Ireland and was right to lose the territory they risked while doing so? Would you demand that the protestants who left Ireland when Britain called for them to should have a "right to return", even though Ireland had to accomodate the catholics expelled from Britain, or would you decide that they are the UK's problem?

As I see it you have three choices now:

1. You can defend the position that both attacked countries, Ireland and Israel were wrong, deserve to be defeated (but aren't), and must allow the protestants/Arabs who left when the UK/other Arab countries called them back.

2. You can claim that Ireland and Israel were right.

3. Or you can claim that in the alternative reality Ireland was right, but in the real world Israel is not. But that would make you an anti-semite.

Have fun.
Reply #28 Top
Did you try living in Ireland in the 1970's? Then there was hatred. Walls were build between communities. Riots were a common occurance. People were being killed on an almost daily basis. Northern Ireland NOW is where Israel needs to be in 30 years time. It can be done!

As for you examples, the UK invading Ireland would be very different from the UK invading Northern Ireland. In one case 95% of the population are Catholic in the other 50% are. Arab countries invading Israel (something which was wrong and I totally disagree with) could at least argue that half the population invited them. That would not be the case with the UK invading Ireland. Consider Ireland as US / Jews abroard, Northern Ireland as the state of Israel (in the 1970's it had it's own government) , and the UK as the Arab countries.

As for your three choices that in itself is the problem. They're al labout right and wrong and not about how to bring peace. It's all apportioning blame. Israel did this the Arabs did that. If Northern Ireland had remained like that we'd still be in a state of civil war! Lets stop the finger pointing and focus on the future.

In a crux that's the problem. Europeans feel that the Israel situation is a threat to world peace because neither the Arabs or the Israeli can do that. Every time some moves are made towards peace and some terrorist event occurs, Israel retaliates, then the Arab terrorists (laughing at how easy it is to derail the peace process) retaliate and bye bye peace moves.

The terrorists on the Arab side don't want peace. They only need to comit a single attrocity to derail any process. Until Israel learns to control it's desire for immediate revenge peace will not happen.

Paul.
Reply #29 Top
Comparing Northern Ireland alone to Israel doesn't make much sense. Israel is neither occupied by another country nor does the majority of its population want to be. Comparing Ireland to Israel and Northern Ireland to the West Bank (once occupied by Jordan) makes a lot more sense.

I did not live in Ireland in the 1970s, but I know many who have. Northern Ireland now is the result of a peace process which could be repeated in Israel IF

a) The Arabs accepted that Israel has a right to exist like the UK always accepted that Ireland does.

b) The Arabs would cease attacking Israel like the UK never attacks Ireland.

c) The Arabs compensate expelled Jews for their losses since the UK never did that to Irish catholics living in Great Britain. (Or at least the Arabs could give that property to the Palestinians.)

d) The Palestinians would have to give up the "right to return" (which is a farce anyway), stop supporting their terrosists or treating them like freedom fighters.

The stage Israel is now in is one that Ireland has never been in. Ireland is still in the "Jordan occupies the West Bank" stage. But since Ireland was never attacked by the UK and never won that war against the UK, Ireland, as opposed to Israel, did never take over these occupied territories or their equivalent.

If we intend to solve the problems in Israel the way it was done in Ireland, a) to d) would have to happen AND we would have to find an original way to solve the West Bank problem.

One solution is to make the West Bank (and Gaza) a Palestinian state. But for that to happen a) to d) must happen first. And it is totally up to the Arabs to do that. It's their choice. They can have peace whenever they want. But they don't want peace.

Israel cannot do anything to help here.

Let's see how far the Arabs have gotten in reaching a) to d) and e) (West Bank):

a) Two Arab states (Egypt and Jordan) have completed that goal. The others have given lip service. This is not enough.

b) The Arabs have not attacked Israel officially for quite a while, but not because they didn't want to, but merely because they have always lost when they tried. This has to change. The Arabs will have to CONVINCE the US and Israel that they WON'T attack Israel even if they could win such a war.

c) I don't ever see that happening. My proposal is that the Arabs give that property to the Palestinians, or even allow them to live on land once owned by Jews in Arab countries. There is no physical reason for why Palestinians must live in Palestine. They can live elsewhere just like the Jews of Arabia. There is nothing in an Arab that makes him more special than a Jew and I think it is time we take that into account when trying to solve the problems.

d) This is up to the Palestinians. Israel can only help by trying to kill all the terrorists or punish Palestiniant when they support them. Israel is already doing that. But Israel can only do as much. It is up to the Palestinian proto-government to stop terrorism and they either can't or won't.

e) An independent Palestine of course requires a) to d). And I think they have to give up Jerusalem. The Arabs did already control Jerusalem a few decades ago and we all know what that meant: no Jews allowed, difficulties for Christians. But Jerusalem is a holy city to many and must be accessible. Only Israel can and did guarantee that. Thus Israel must have Jerusalem. It's quite simple, really.

Muslims can argue that it is a holy city for them and must thus be in Arab hands, however:

1. Jerusalem is a holy Christian city too, as is Bethlehem, but nobody has complained that they are not ruled by Christians in a long time.

2. Jerusalem was a holy place for Jews and Christians long before it became such for Muslims.

3. Jerusalem is only a holy city for Muslims because it was a holy city for Jews and Christians.

4. Arabs have proven that they cannot be trusted to rule a city that is holy for other faiths as well.

I think this would solve the problem and bring peace. But since the Arabs do not want peace, I don't see it happening, except if we beat them up.
Reply #30 Top
well... I am seriously going to look at all of this. I have been watching the middle East and policies for a while now.

I still feel that Israel is ther to stay and what is done is done. I don't think that Palestine can be said to be 'a land of no country'. There are people who have been there for centuries and dispite what others may thing it is important to them to have it.

I would personally suggest that BOTHA sides need to change tactics. Israel ned to get out of 'retaliation' mode and thing strategic and Palestine needs to stop distroying its people and culture by thinking self destruction is the only way to get attention.


End the end, Palestine will become a state, through first being a camp to weed out killer terrorists of which many will not like. By Palestine being a camp, no one can get in or out. Food, work, social, educational rules can be changed and rule of law can happen for them. Right now is someone rons, rapes, threatens, kills.. there is no one to turn to for justice.

The heart of the problem between Israel and the Palestinians IS the Palistinians. No matter what you feel about ethics or "if I can do it you can", when you grow up in a culture of people who have nothing, look forward to nothing, with generations of nothing, no work, lack of education and rights, you end up with a very bad mix.

Palestine having nothing to loose IS the problem and it is being used by extremists, regional powers and terrorists to stay in power for their own means.

Palestine is the pawn. Change it from that stature and you change the game.
Reply #31 Top
Andrew if you read what I said "what is and what isn't" then you would know that what I said is no different to you comment, Jews just like the rest of us can be anti semite, my point is and I'll say it again, people can differ with the policies of the Govenrment without being anti semite, very simple and it is that simple. I fail to see why I can critise any other group, Country and/or religion, and get no label yet to critise Isreal makes me anti semite.

I am not as I am sure most people who disagre with them would fall into the same category.
Reply #32 Top
Zergimmi,

my point was not that you are an anti-semite if you differ with the policies of the government of Israel. However, if you disagree with their actions even though you approve of or accept similar actions of other governments or people in the same region, you ARE an anti-semite, because at that point you judge the Israeli government not for what it does but for what it is (namely, the _Israeli_ government), and that is rascism and WRONG. I hope you get that.

I support Israel and its government because they behave better than Arab governments. Israel critics make demands that Israel change its ways but approve of or ignore when Arab governments do even worse deeds. That's the difference.

And it's the same for critizising other groups in other regions, it has nothing to do with Jews or Israel in particular (and the very act of your behaving as if it did shows what anti-semitism has already done even to the seemingly open-minded). If you critizised, say, Kurds for defending themselves against Iraqi attacks (before the war, obviously), but not Iraqis for attacking them, or claimed that the conflict must be ended by the Kurds giving up defending themselves, you would be a rascist too. It's not at all limited to the Israel conflict.

The idea that, say, blacks are partly reponsible for how whites treated them a few decades ago, and that they should simply do whatever the white men say in order to avoid a conflict, is another example. And very few people would actually subscribe to such a proposal (except rascists, who still do). However, when it comes to Israel, such a solution suddenly becomes practical and possible.

And THAT, my friend, is anti-semitism.

I'm afraid you are right about one thing though: most people who disagree with Israel's policies do indeed seem to fall into the same category. I have met very very few Israel critics who even understood the idea that Arabs must also at some point become more civilized and that Israel can only change its ways when Arabs stop attacking it.
Reply #33 Top
You raised some very good points.
Reply #34 Top
A couple points:

Main Entry: Ar·ab
Pronunciation: 'ar-&b, 'er-; dial also 'A-"rab
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin Arabus, Arabs, from Greek Arab-, Araps
Date: 14th century
1 a : a member of the Semitic people of the Arabian peninsula b : a member of an Arabic-speaking people

Furthermore:

Main Entry: Sem·ite
Pronunciation: 'se-"mIt, esp British 'sE-"mIt
Function: noun
Etymology: French sémite, from Semitic Shem, from Late Latin, from Greek SEm, from Hebrew ShEm
Date: 1848
1 a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b : a descendant of these peoples
2 : a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language

I assume that everyone here who mentions the word "Arab" is referring to a member of the Nation of Islam, Islamic peoples, or members of the Muslim religion. Some Jews are Arabs, some Arabs are also Jews.

For what it's worth, having been to Israel - I've met Muslims who carry Israeli passports and who participate in the free elections as every registered Israeli citizen is allowed to.

Contemplate this - If, in the United States, a paramilitary force was to rise up, for WHATEVER reason, and commited atrocities against the peaceable people of the United States, they would put down immediately, by whatever means neccessary, including deadly military force. There is a precedent for this in history, and noone ever questions the U.S. military when insurgents are put down.

Israel being a democratic country, with democraticly elected leaders, should be any different?

On a side note, in Tel-Aviv - a cab driver who was also a Muslim man, put it succincntly one night when he said, paraphrased, post 9-11 - "noone comes here anymore...they don't understand that we're just people, trying to live our lives, we like art and movies and shows, and enjoy good meals, just like everyone else."

Another man - a very well educated individual, living in Ramat-Gan, well spoken in English, Hebrew, German, and Persian - was very happy with his ability to live and be a productive member of Israeli society.

Seems that the desperate, potentially under-educated, militant peoples with access to weaponry are on the wrong side.

Same thing as in the United States, you don't get to choose your country, but you can work within it's systems to effect change, or you can leave...
Reply #35 Top
Why shouldn't you get to choose your country?

Israel did! Created a new country from scratch, despite being the minority population.
America did! Rebelled against the English and then expanded into Indian, French and Mexican lands.
Half the planet did!

Paul.
Reply #36 Top
The problem from the Arab perspective is that Israel, as a nation, is only Israel in name. They are as much Israel as the new game company called Atari has in common with the original Atari.

It is like they decided to install a European colony and brought back an age old trademark name for its brand name strength and labeled it. Then they brought in millions of Europeans who had, over the centuries, living in Europe, chosen to be Jews.

Why should Arabs have to put up with that any more than Americans put up with say California being given to "Native Americans" and then finding that most of the people claiming to be Indians are really from Greece but happened to have, for whatever reason, converted to Cherokee at some point.
Reply #37 Top
Zerg: "To be truely Jewish you must be able to trace you Jewish blood back to Abraham, it must be uninterupted and must be on your mother's side, Jews are one of the many Tribes/Nations which make up the people of the Middle East, along with Arabs and Persians, these can then be divided up into sub - groups such as Palestinians. So these people in the main do have a direct connection to the land in which they now reside. Other than that the rest of your argument spot on. "

Oh come on, Abraham is reported to have lived what? 3000 years ago? How many people can legitimately trace their family tree back 300 years let alone 3000 years?
Reply #38 Top
Abraham of course lived in the city or UR in Iraq. Does that mean that true Jews can claim part of Iraq but must relinquish Israel?

And before anyone bothers to reply. Of course not! But it does show the whole point of a modern claim on a location which many other races have also lived in.

The bottom line is that both Jews and Arabs live in that land and need a peace solution. Any solution based on ancient claims and rights is unlikely to be accepted by the other side.

Paul.
Reply #39 Top
"To be truely Jewish you must be able to trace you Jewish blood back to Abraham, it must be uninterupted and must be on your mother's side"

Odd, I never heard of Abraham having daughters before
Reply #40 Top
Oh yes anti semitism the jews reply to any arguement they cant win. The majority of jews living in that shitty little country are a turkish mongrel race who cpnverted to Judasim and are not the biblical hebrews and have no claim at all on the land they now ilegally occupy.
Israel is a prosperous cunt rty because of monies being given to it from German guilt due to the massive propaganda of the holo hoax. Also as zog runs practically every western country your coffers have indeed been full. Europes wakening up now so you free loading bastards can start to worry.
The worlds finally waking up to the deceit murder and hatred of your shitty little country and your hateful lying deceitful race
All the best to the Arabs
Reply #41 Top
A fact of history is that the displacement of Palestinians was mostly created when the
surrounding Arab nations urged the arab inhabitants of the newly formed state of Israel
in 1948 to leave the area until they could push the Jews into the sea. That did not happen.
The state of Israel offered to let Arabs return to there homes but most choose not to. The
surrounding Arab countries were not eager to make room for these displaced people that
they had created. Palestinian refugee problem was thus created.
Reply #42 Top
I love ya! LOVE YA LOVE YA LOVE YA! Some of yer facts are a littl;e tweaked...but still!
Reply #43 Top
You sound just like any other Jew hating anti-christ that has the audacity to claim that the Jewish people should just get up and leave their prosperous nation and give it to the Palestinian vermin who will then joyfully turn it into a training ground for terrorists where they can launch attacks on America and it's allies.
If the US does not protect democracy where it is being threatened the most, we will be fighting this war on American soil! Let them blow up the Empire State Building next and so on etc...
Get the facts straight, the Arabs are not our friends and would love nothing more than to see America brought to it's knees. They have no love for democracy or our religion and it's morals.
President Bush is taking the war to the terrorists who just happen to be mostly Arabs and Muslims.
Better to have our troops defend our country over there than here!
Remember, Arab muslims declared war on America on 9/11, not the other way around.
President Bush is keeping his word and is seeing his success in defeating terrorism at it's root.
Israel is the only democratic nation in the middle East, and it is seeking peace with the Palestinian terrorists but having no success and needs us as an ally.
You and the Palestinian mongrels get no sympathy here.