In the end, the message of the latest incident, in which a flotilla that was supposedly filled with aid for the people of Gaza, but in fact had weapons and a crew full of thugs and jihadists, is pretty simple. For the most part, the world has turned its back on Israel. This cartoon from Michael Ramirez pretty much sums up the state of play.
33 comments:
I've always wondered why people of Jewish descent consistently vote for Democrats, when Israel seems to get so little support from Democratic regimes. Would anyone care to expound on that topic for me?
Dennis Prager, I believe, wrote about that--more or less, it has to to with a Talmudic understanding of the Books of Moses, and how that is typically applied in terms of government.
What baffles me is why Jews don't call for the shelling of the United Nations. Close to 100 resolutions against Israel, none against those who so consistently attack her. Kinda shows that it's not exactly the last best hope for peace, to put it mildly.
If we quarantined the United Nations for 1 year, would the world be a better place? No question the streets of Manhattan would be safer.
June, 1948: East Germans Shoot Aircraft Bringing Humanitarian Aid to West Berliners out of the sky over West Germany for threatening to violate Communist Blockade. American Conservatives Cheer.
Regards,
Rich
Interesting anecdote, Rich. Has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I support Israel and what they did. I'm deeply unhappy that so many people in the world have turned against the Israelis, who are merely defending themselves.
i want to know who was the smarty who didnt expect zionist comandos sliding down ropes to be turned into pinatas.
for a second or two, i thought it was mexican birthday party.
Rich, who were the American Conservatives who cheered? What does this have to do with Israel, and how can you possibly compare the two events. Expound upon that if you would be so kind.
Rich, I'm going to quote Deming on you:
"In God we trust. All others must bring data."
Evidence, please.
Merely defending themselves...from the million and a half Palestinians being driven to poverty in Gaza, thanks to the blockade?
Perhaps if the Palestinian leadership would spend less time lobbing rockets on Israel, Israel might not feel the need to have a blockade. Just a thought.
Bubba,
I think you've made a reasonable request. I did a brief search this morning for the incident that Rich references but didn't find anything.
Rich,
Who were the conservatives in question? I'd genuinely like to know, even though it still doesn't have anything to do with the original topic of this post.
Amanda, they're driven to poverty by their tendency to launch rockets from elementary schools and hospitals into other peoples' homes.
One infamous incident (which of course the idiots in the MSM portrayed as Israel's fault) featured an Israeli rocket launched at a place from where rocket attacks had been launched. It happened to be an elementary school, but it was telling that the video showed the rocket hitting, and then a series of explosions.
In other words, those idiots in Gaza were using an elementary school as an ammunition dump.
And as long as they pull stunts like that daily, I'm sorry; I really don't care if they're poor. People who act like barbarians shouldn't complain when they're not welcome in civilized countries.
both sides are barbarians. the only difference is who's got the power to act differently at the moment.
but sometimes, even the opportunity to act differently gets pushed aside: remember chatila and sabra?
or an apartment building full of families that was leveled to get to one guy?
the only difference is who's got the power to act differently at the moment.
Well, they both do, now don't they?
Just a guess -- if various people stop trying to push the Israelis into the Mediterranean, the Israelis will act differently, too. The Israelis tend to see things as an existential struggle, and given the history of the past 77 or so years, I can't really blame them.
Mr. D - Just a thought - maybe Israel could possibly stop doing things like building settlements in areas they've previously returned to the Palestinians - stuff like that?
And maybe it's not as simple as everyone leaving the Israelis alone? (If only.) Fact is, Palestinians deserve to be condemned for promoting and committing violence - and SAME with the Israelis. (Right?)
Otherwise, what are we saying, as Americans, when we say that it's "okay" to come along and chop up an Arabic country and drive the inhabitants off their land? We need to reconcile the current situation with the complete and utter screw-up perpetrated by our forebears in 1947, and quit pretending there are *any* good guys or bad guys involved.
(Gino's ref to the Sabra and Shátila massacre is exactly the kind of thing that pops into my head when thinking about this issue. A film recommendation about that conflict: "Waltz With Bashir" - an animated documentary from the POV of an Israeli soldier - it's artful and powerful.)
Amanda,
I understand all of that, but it's not a matter of "good guys vs. bad guys." The primary issue that must be dealt with, before there can be any hope of a resolution, is whether or not Israel has a right to exist. I think it does. Many other players in the Middle East don't. That's what makes this an existential matter for the Israelis.
As long as those who carry the Palestinian banner, and those who purport to support the Palestinians, continue to reject the idea that Israel has a right to exist, there's no chance for peace. You can't negotiate with someone whose endgame is your destruction.
the question also is: what israel?
nations have defined borders. that point seems to be lost on the israelis, and has been lost on them since 1947.
you are demanding the palestinians accept and recognize a country that refuses to be properly defined.
you are demanding the palestinians accept and recognize a country that refuses to be properly defined.
We have to start somewhere. How about defining whether or not Israel has a right to exist first? The Palestinians and those who purport to support them (but don't, really -- the Arab world has been crapping on them for over 60 years now) don't seem to be able to get past the first question. We have to start there.
Amanda, given that where many of those settlements were built is places from whence attacks on Israel were launched, I really don't see settlements as anything to get worked up about. You attack innocents, especially from a hospital or elementary school, you lose the land from which you attacked them. That's how it works in civilized countries.
And Gino, there is no moral comparison with Israel and Hamas here. You will not find purposeful attacks on civilians from Geneva-banned targets by Israel, and you definitely will not find anything like the use of "Mein Kampf" and blood libels against the Palestinians.
I'm sorry, but it's moral blindness like that which enables the Hamas Nazis and gets thousands of Palestinians killed, and millions impoverished.
Isn't it strange! Many of the parties in the middle east basically support and provide assistance for the complete and utter destruction of Israel and their people. There was another group that essentially came up with the same solution in Europe in the 1940's. The group from Eurpose is otracized, while many people defend the groups of today. Some of the groups of today even claim that the 1940's events never happened.
I don't think you can say that peace is the goal of some of these people.
first, israel needs to define itself.
like i said, borders.
but, given the zionist history, there is no reason upon which to believe them when they say 'we only want 'this'.
its the cart before the horse to demand the arabs accept a right to exist without first defing what borders that right entails.
and this is troublesome, because, as i've said... zionist history being what it is...
Okay Gino, I'll bite -- which part of Zionist history is troublesome?
the part of them not wanting to stay within their borders.
this is not disputable.
when they can convince the arabs of otherwise, then maybe they'll have a point from which to start negotiations.
Which borders specifically? The ones from 1947? 1967? 1973? 1978?
What should the border be? I'm really trying to understand the objection.
all of them. and this is my point.
where is israel?
where is it be later on?
for me, personally, as you know i'm not in this fight, and think nobody but arabs and jews should be.
(as a catholic, i dont get why some christians think their holy lands need to be under the control of a faith that is no longer 'it'.)
but, since the claim to a state of legitimacy is made based upon the UN charter, then israel should only exists within the lands defined in the charter, that is, if they want to be consistent.
there are more inconsistencies to israel, but i'm just bringing up this one.
now, if israel wants to claim a legitmate right to exist based upon the historical old school method of wars and conquest, then they should have no beef with the arabs using the same methods to deny that right, as is equally historical and old school.
but now you tell me, cause you havent yet, under what authority do they have this legitimacy that you believe they have?
Now we're getting somewhere, Gino. Let's respond to a few points:
as a catholic, i dont get why some christians think their holy lands need to be under the control of a faith that is no longer 'it'
That really doesn't enter into my thinking one way or another.
since the claim to a state of legitimacy is made based upon the UN charter, then israel should only exists within the lands defined in the charter, that is, if they want to be consistent.
Maybe. Then again, the Israelis took over additional lands in wars they did not initiate. And they hold places like the Golan Heights for what seem like very legitimate reasons to me. I think Bubba's comments are spot-on in this regard.
now, if israel wants to claim a legitmate right to exist based upon the historical old school method of wars and conquest, then they should have no beef with the arabs using the same methods to deny that right, as is equally historical and old school.
Home truth. The reason the Arabs have been using other means is because the Israelis routinely kick their asses when it's a mano a mano. And I'd have a lot more sympathy for the Arabs if they'd learn from the ass-kickings. But they haven't, with the possible exception of the Egyptians.
but now you tell me, cause you havent yet, under what authority do they have this legitimacy that you believe they have?
There have been Jews in the Holy Land for thousands of years. There have also been Arabs there, too. And Persians, Turks, and Romans, the Crown and God knows who else. They all can make a claim, and have. I see no reason why the Zionist claim has any less purchase than any other.
What it comes down to for me is this: we've seen what anti-Semitism can do in the last 75 years. We still remember the Zyklon B and the ovens. I say, never again. I may not have a dog in the fight per se, but when you compare Israel, with all its contradictions and bad behavior, against the behavior of its enemies, it's not even close.
And when I have an anonymous poster putting blood libels on my blog, as happened earlier today, it underscores why I feel the way I do.
"The reason the Arabs have been using other means is because the Israelis routinely kick their asses when it's a mano a mano."
yeah, its all part of war.
this thing will never end until the jewish state is eliminated cause both sides are dominated by real estate minded faiths, though the war is a entirely a religous one for the jews, and less so for the palestinians.
(20% of those displaced were christians, so the religious angle doesnt burn quite so bright.)
i think it wise not to dump anymore of our national treasure into this mess.
a mess that can only be settled one way.
this thing will never end until the jewish state is eliminated cause both sides are dominated by real estate minded faiths, though the war is a entirely a religous one for the jews, and less so for the palestinians.
There's more to unpack in this statement than I have time to do right now, Gino. Suffice it to say we'll have to agree to disagree about this.
i think it wise not to dump anymore of our national treasure into this mess.
That's the classic libertarian argument and I understand it. Getting to that point is pretty complicated, though.
its not complicated, you just get to that point by going there.
and yes, the unpacked 'statement' has a whole discussion within itself.
The "define your borders" point might be better taken, Gino, if Israel hadn't done so repeatedly, with no change in behavior by Hamas and the PLO except for what tactics they'd use to try and drive them into the sea.
So, again, the relevant thought in my mind is that if you use Hill A, elementary school B, or hospital C to launch mortar attacks in civilian targets, don't complain when people decide that Hill A, elementary school B, or hospital C really ought not be controlled by you. People have a right to self-defense, including the right to make it impossible for a certain group of offenders to attack in certain ways.
Interesting to revisit a thread after so many more comments are added.
I *completely* agree that there can be no peaceful resolution until Israel's neighbors acknowledge their right to exist.
and egypt was bought off with yearly aid payments from the US.
well, they were tired of it anyway, and would have accepted peace, but carter sweetened the deal. like a signing bonus that keeps on giving.
is it worth it. to me, not a cent.
Post a Comment