The Economist - Israel's security barrier. A safety measure or a land grab?

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Sardinia, Oct 10, 2003.

  1. Dan Loney

    Dan Loney BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 10, 2000
    Cincilluminati
    Club:
    Los Angeles Sol
    Nat'l Team:
    Philippines
    By what, armed invasion? Conquest of the same Saladin that defeated Richard the Lion-Hearted?

    Jews have been bodily thrown out of, what, half the countries in Europe? England, France, Spain...the Pope had to arrange special, separate safety areas for them, hence "ghetto."

    Moving in and taking over didn't work for the vastly better-armed and savagely bloodthirsty Christian Crusaders, it certainly wasn't going to work for the Jews. (If only because those same Crusaders used to practice on Jews before arriving at the Holy Land. Maybe they left their game in the locker room, so to speak.)
     
  2. Sardinia

    Sardinia New Member

    Oct 1, 2002
    Sardinia, Italy, EU
    This is nonsense.

    Even if they 60 or 100 or 200 years ago thought they were part of Syria, Lebanon, the great arab nation, Mars, still they owned their land.

    Names are just names.

    Arabs (and also the old jews) are divided in tribes and families.

    Those precise tribes and families didn't claim anything they were the legitimate owners of that land for millennia.
    The most clear and legitimate claim to a land.

    Just think about this issue forgetting that you are talking about Israel.

    I guess the word "Israel" transform some usually rational ppl in irrational ones.
     
  3. Sardinia

    Sardinia New Member

    Oct 1, 2002
    Sardinia, Italy, EU


    They should. I think Europe lost a big part of its tradition and culture.
    Reading the beautiful work of Isaac Singer testify it.

    2 wrongs don't make one right.

    If there was still jewish communities in Poland, Ukraine etc. fighting for their land I would be supporting them.

    The borders must be those of 1967.

    Israelis think palestinians want to destroy them.
    Palestinians think israelis are stealing endlessly their land and actually want to destroy them.

    You can't see a correct description of issues in the ground if you forget about "settlements policy".

    Israel is actually the only military superpower there.
    There's no need to take others land to defend Israel.
    Stop this nonsenses.

    It's easy for Israel to show the world they're not aggressors.
    They keep the IDF occupation of west bank and gaza for defensive reasons but dismantle the illegal settlements.
    Unfortunately all the israeli governments have acted to expand them not to stop or dismantle them.

    What both parts think (or fear) of their counterparts cannot influence the steps of those that want to help and try a viable solution.
     
  4. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    For once, we totally agree.
     
  5. Dan Loney

    Dan Loney BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 10, 2000
    Cincilluminati
    Club:
    Los Angeles Sol
    Nat'l Team:
    Philippines
    So did the Jews. Existing population aside, Zionism was based on legal immigration. They bought the land they emigrated to. To which they emigrated. Where they went. Whatever.

    Now, this doesn't factor in the 1948 war - which frankly to me falls under the heading of the reaction Robert E. Lee would have received had he complained that the Union took over his Virginia estate and made it into a cemetery.

    It doesn't factor in post-1967, where you could absolutely make the case that Israel has been land-grabbing, of course. Certainly during the 1970's and 1980's, they were in love with putting "facts on the ground." But as long as there's a civil war going on in the West Bank and Gaza, Israel's military is going to be the main real estate agent. If they use William Tecumseh Sherman's gentrification policies, again, them's the breaks. Surrender and negotiate.

    As far as 1967 borders - those borders weren't good enough for the Arabs in 1967, why are they going to be good enough now? And since, before the Six Day War, Jerusalem wasn't under Israeli sovereignty, why on earth would Israel have any incentive to leave, now that they are absolutely entrenched there? Besides, if the 1967 borders are so sacrosanct, why are the Palestinians also insisting on a right of return?
     
  6. Again, I do not doubt the emotional attachment on the part of some Jews.

    Again, however, you have not answered the question your argument begs: If the land itself is so important to them, why haven't/aren't the vast majority of them moved/moving there? My answer is that for the vast majority, other things are more important to them. As you seem to disagree, please offer your explanation.

    This actually hurts your argument rather than strengthens it because it begs the question: If they were in such danger all the time, why didn't they move when they had the chance? Why stay in a place where you can expect only oppression and slaughter? By your own argument, they had every reason to leave, and it's not like the Christians would have been exactly sorry to see their backs. And yet, despite a supposedly all-encompassing lust for their homeland and the violence they endured at times in their "exile", they stayed in exile. Why?

    As long as you can admit that the Jews have no unique objective claim to the land, I'm happy. If only more people on both sides could bring themselves to see how irrelevant ancient history is to what is happening now, they would not be such slaves to this delusion.

    Historical fact does not support your assertion. Permanent Jewish communities were to be found all over the Mediterranean, Black Sea and Mesopotamian areas long before the destruction of the temple. Also, the Roman removal of Jews from the area was neither as complete nor as long lasting as you seem to believe.

    Jewish "diaspora" was caused by the same economic and social factors that many other peoples have experienced - lack of land for an increasing population, the prospect of more prosperous economic conditions, political fallout from internal disputes, and, yes, enforced migration imposed by external forces. Given these facts, the most you can legitimately claim is that the consequences of the disastrous failed rebellion accelerated the process. If what you say is true, however, all Jews would have back in "Israel" within two generations. This didn't happen. Some returned, most did not. This is not what you'd expect given your assertions and you have yet to explain the difference.

    I'd suggest that you abandon your historical and ethnological rationalizations for Israel's necessity not only because they are historically unfounded but because they are also irrelevant to the current modern situation, as much as the people there seem trapped by such "explanations".

    It is sufficient that Israel has a moral right to exist. The other claims are superfluous and only contribute to the violence. Israel is necessary as compensation to world Jewry not only for the crimes of the past, mostly the Holocaust, but also because neither Christians nor Muslims, as much as it pains me to say that, can be fully trusted not to engage in antisemitic violence in the present or future. That alone justifies Israel.

    No grandiose theological or amoral realpolitik claims are needed as they are not only irrelevant and evil respectively but because they are part of the problem, not part of the solution. They do not help avoid violence, they help cause it. It is better to leave them in the dust and concentrate on mindsets that will help, not hinder. Recognizing that both sides have legitimate arguments as well as responsibility for the the present conditions will help create a better future. Trying to blame one side 100% or even 90% while painting the other as blameless or nearly blameless victims is simply counterproductive.
     
  7. Sardinia

    Sardinia New Member

    Oct 1, 2002
    Sardinia, Italy, EU
    Well I'm talking about what looks right to me.

    Following the both extremist claims is depressing.

    Ok for Jerusalem, but to act in order to depalestinize (forgive this neologism) East Jerusalem is just a part of settlements policy.

    I think palestinians must low their claims in the issue "right of return", some symbolic return (very small number) and repayments.

    I don't share the same views of Gush Shalom or Peace Now. They're all with palestinian position.

    It's understandable that the palestinian refugees dream about going back home, but Israel makes no sense if it is not a homeland for jews.
     
  8. DoyleG

    DoyleG Member+

    CanPL
    Canada
    Jan 11, 2002
    YEG-->YYJ-->YWG-->YYB
    Club:
    FC Edmonton
    Nat'l Team:
    Canada
    I'm blaming the Arabs in the region, not Muslims. You really need to learn to find the difference.

    It's hard to believe the Arabs when you see things like this.
    [​IMG]

    Then why don't we now talk about Arab Jews and everything they lost.
     
  9. Matrim55

    Matrim55 Member+

    Aug 14, 2000
    Berkeley
    Club:
    Connecticut
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think you use some dishonest sophistry here: in the first response you use the word "some", and in the other you use the words "vast majority".

    The segment of the population Demosthenes' referred to was "people who feel passionate... about being Jewish." The vast majority of that segment have deep (as in "would give their lives for it") attachment to Israel; the vast majority of Jewish people as a whole, however, feel about Israel as Irish-Americans do about Ireland. Fondness but not devotion.

    You twisted her words to suit your argument. You're smart enough and educated enough not to do that.

    Because for most, the place they were in was their home. And for those "who feel passionate about being Jewish" - next year, Jerusalem.

    Again, you're twisting her words to suit your argument. You know she wasn't making a blanket statment about the entire Jewish people, so shooting down what she said on those terms is counter-productive.

    See above.

    Amen.

    Oh come on. Economic factors, social factors, and the fact that if the Hebrews had stayed in Judaea after Bar Kochba they'd have been wiped out to a man. Throughout the history of the Hebrews to 135 c.e. there had been "economic" and "social" factors galore to oppress and subjugate them; you know that as well as I. The difference this time, the end game as it were, was that the weight of the entire freaking Roman army was set upon them. No people at that time could have withstood that, and downplaying its influence to try to score points on a message board is sloppy.

    Yeah, but that's not what she said. It's what you said she said. You've created a straw man and you're really beating the hell out of it.

    You took a completely rational explanation of passionate Jewish belief and turned it into the rantings of a zionist lunatic. No where did Demosthenes justify the nation of Israel on biblical grounds; instead, she pointed out the fallacies in your argument, and explained upon which biblical grounds "passionate" Jews support the state of Israel. She explained the roots of zionism - does that make her a zionist?

    I've defended Israel's right to exist on this board before and it's been assumed I'm Jewish. I'm not. All Demosthenes had to do was explain zionism, and it's assumed she's a zionist. She's not.

    You praised Allah in one of your previous posts; should I assume you're an Islamofascist as a means to discredit your argument?

    And if only the argument - from both sides - would stop there. Sadly I don't think that has the most remote chance of happening.

    You're smart enough to argue a point using the information given, not the information you want to be there. Especially if it's a point that the person you're arguing with agrees upon!
     
  10. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
     
  11. house18

    house18 Member

    Jun 23, 2003
    St. Louis, MO
    Amazing!!! You have proven why everyone disagrees with you. We present facts and you present lies which apparently look right to you! You and your thinking are irrational. Go back and read all of your posts about Israel and see all of the irrational things you have written. Go back and look how you responded to me asking a serious question about your interest in this subject and see how irrational you are!
     
  12. Sardinia

    Sardinia New Member

    Oct 1, 2002
    Sardinia, Italy, EU
    [​IMG]

    Don't make the mistake to think that what you can't understand is automatically irrational.
     
  13. house18

    house18 Member

    Jun 23, 2003
    St. Louis, MO
    ladies and gentlemen above is an example of a poster named Sardinia. He is well known for not answering others comments or for using "facts" that are even known to be false in the most oppressed countries. Sardinia has a complex that when people state thier opinion it is wrong because no matter what the basis is it doesn't fit his agenda or if they prevent facts they are obviously just out to get him. (see poster: Matt Scholer) Another excellent example of Sardinias complex is when this author honestly asked him what his affiliation to this topic was and his response was:

     
  14. Dan Loney

    Dan Loney BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 10, 2000
    Cincilluminati
    Club:
    Los Angeles Sol
    Nat'l Team:
    Philippines
    He said Valium, not OxyContin.
     
  15. Sardinia

    Sardinia New Member

    Oct 1, 2002
    Sardinia, Italy, EU
    House18, I promise I'll let you write my biography if you promise me that one day I won't find you at my home door holding a machine gun.

    Not that I don't like the idea in theory, it's just that I'm allergic.

    p.s. House18 whenever you will post some real argument and not "look everyone, how awful that man is" I will answer seriously.
     
  16. house18

    house18 Member

    Jun 23, 2003
    St. Louis, MO
    I have posted many real arguments. You are the one who throws out bible quotes when it suits you, who throws out false histories of wars when it suits you, you are the one who answers questions when it suits you. Anyone can go look at your previous posts and see all of this. Why is it that in these threads it is always you against everyone else???? Oh and once again you prove my "irrational theory" with your machine gun line above.
     
  17. DoyleG

    DoyleG Member+

    CanPL
    Canada
    Jan 11, 2002
    YEG-->YYJ-->YWG-->YYB
    Club:
    FC Edmonton
    Nat'l Team:
    Canada
    This was the map for the partition ofthe region in 1947.
    [​IMG]
     
  18. Sardinia

    Sardinia New Member

    Oct 1, 2002
    Sardinia, Italy, EU
    :D

    They're all "against" me because they hate my freedom.
    The whole world envies my brilliant cleverness.
    A shame isn't it?

    Luckily I have also devoted fans like you.

    What will I do without your posts?

    The others mostly ignore my posts and I cry alone in the darkness but you have always kind words for me.

    Thank you, House18. Don't ever abandon your undervalued friend.

    God bless Louisville, Kentucky.

    p.s. thank you also for keeping this thread visible and alive.
     
  19. Demosthenes is a woman?

    Her claims are that the land is Israel is so important to Jews that the vast majority of them have had a constant, burning desire to return there. At least, it only makes sense if the vast majority of Jews have this primal connection to that particular plot of land. I can't see an argument like "we must have this land because 30% of us have a burning desire to live there" as having an overwhelming force. The hidden assumption in her argument is that the vast majority of Jews feel this. This is what she is basing her historical argument on.

    My view is that some Jews have felt this desire but some do not. I had not made a claim as to the perecentage prior to that post but I stated there for the record that I doubted it is the majority or they'd already have been there long ago.

    So, you see that the "vast majority" is her view and the "some" (later amended to "not the vast majority") is mine. I hope that clears it up for you.

    If you believe that only the aftershocks of the Bar Kokhba revolt caused the diaspora, then how do you explain the presence of permanent Jewish communities all around the Mediterranean, Black Sea and Mesopotamia long before then? As I said, certainly the Romans reponse to the failed revolt increased the effect, but it did not cause what has already been happening for hundreds of years. Archaeology has proven this beyond dispute. To their credit, Jews both in "Israel" and in the hundreds of settlements outside it from Babylon to Tyre to Gilbraltar were more cosmopolitan and "plugged in" to the larger Mediterranean culture before the Birth of Isa than you seem willing to allow them to be.

    Attempting to claim it as the sole influence is even more so.

    See above. Her argument makes no sense if she means that less than a large majority felt the way she claims they did.

    Her claims are based on a view of the Jewish people as isolationist and absolutely insular that have only recently been conclusively shown by archaeology and other sciences to have been incorrect. The Jewish diaspora had been going on long before the failed revolt. That does not make her a lunatic, a bad person, or a liar. It only means she is not au courant with the latest scholarship.

    I cannot find where she has been willing to admit that other forces were at least as responsible for the Jewish diaspora as the failed revolt. She seems reasonable. Hopefully she'll check my assertions, find them true, and modify her views accordingly.

    All I was saying, originally, was that Muslims (even Palestinian ones, DolyeG) are not 100% to blame for the situation in Israel. This is merely a minor side argument on the special historial claims made by some people for Jewish claims to the land. I say that these cliams are incorrect and irrelevant even if they were correct. If you're reading anything beyond that, you're making unwarrented assumptions.

    See above. The world has too many "Islamofascists" (and Judaeofascists) as it is. You don't have to create one more, please.

    Incipet tragedeia.

    Every once in a while, it is good to steer people back to my original point so we do not lose the forest for the trees.

    By the way, I find your attempt at being the White Knight quite gallant of you, Sir Mattrim. (You'll have to imagine the winky face thing here).
     
  20. Demosthenes

    Demosthenes Member+

    May 12, 2003
    Berkeley, CA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You're not reading carefully enough, and I don't think I'm being terribly unclear. It's not "some Jews." Jerusalem wasn't just the capital of Judea; it wasn't just a "holy city" for the Jews in temple times. It was Judaism. After it's destruction, the religion went through massive changes just to survive. The essential tenet of Judaism - "Here o Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one" - remained, but a new one was added: "Next year in Jerusalem." You can't have Judaism without the idea of the ultimate return to Jerusalem. I'm not commenting on the validity of this belief and I'm certainly not saying it entitles the Jews to any political or moral claim on Jerusalem. That's another discussion, actually. But you simply cannot argue that the Jews had forgotten about their connection to Palestine and did not genuinely hope to return there for the last 1800 years. You seem to want to imagine that the Jews had put the Holy Land behind them and hadn't thought about going back there until a radical fringe group came up with the idea. As I said before, that's partially true. Most Jews had not thought returning to the land of Zion as something they might actually try on their own, until Zionism came up with the idea. But you have to take my word for this: Jews always thought of that land as their homeland and always believed they'd get there one day -- NOT through immigration or invasion or a UN mandate, but through God's will. They really honestly believed that.

    I think I've answered that, at least regarding why Jews didn't move there in the past. The reason they don't move there now is pretty self-evident too. A Italian American doesn't have to move to Italy to prove that he believes in that country's right to exist.

    I answered that and I don't feel like repeating myself. I'm sorry you don't like the answer. I'm sure if you had been a Jew in Europe in the 18th century or before, you would not have waited and prayed for the Messiah. You would have made the years-long, treacherous journey to Palestine. You would have found money to buy land and figured out how to farm it, even though you'd never farmed before in your life. You would have gone against all the rabbinical teachings, against what all your peers believed was the will of God. (In fact, a significant number of people did do that. It's not hard for me to see why more didn't.)

    I'm in agreement with you there. I don't hold that the existence of the ancient kingdom of Judea constitutes a unique objective claim to the land on the part of the Jews. However, given that we agree that there is a moral reason why the state of Israel must exist, it makes a certain amount of sense (to me) to place that state in the location of the last existing Jewish state. Again, that doesn't constitute a real claim on the land. But the Jews would not be satisfied with any other location.

    I think Matrim answered this pretty well. You're partly right - as I understand, a lot of Jews remained in Palestine during the early centuries of Christianity. However, the coming of the Muslim Arabs and then the crusades probably wiped most of them out. None of that is the point though. The Jews didn't just drift away out of lack of interest in the location which had been the political and religious center of their culture.

    Whoa. Rationalizations? Let's not forget what this discussion is about. Someone said that a people who cry "Next year in Jerusalem" for a couple thousand years are bound to get there. Clearly history has shown that to be true. You speculated that Jews don't really believe in "Next year in Jerusalem." All I'm saying is that nothing could be further from the truth.

    Yeah, I pretty much agree with you there.

    Yes, on that we are agreed. All I'm trying to contribute is a little perspective about how Jews feel about this. It would be a mistake to underestimate the devotion that Jews - especially American Jews - have to Israel. Even though they don't move there, amazingly enough. Zionism may not have existed until recently, but Jerusalem is as vital to Judaism as Mecca is to Islam, and it always has been.
     
  21. Demosthenes,

    I've addressed most of your arguments in my response to Matrim.

    I will only say that my argument has been that "next year in Jerusalem" has not been a strong enough belief for most of the Jews for them to actually act on it. This "historical" claim, usually offered by zionists, is extremely weak and easily and effectively countered. It certainly has no objective validity to anyone outside Judaism. By no means am I denying the place that that Israel has in the hearts of most Jews. Yes, Jews have an attachment to the place, but it is just not strong enough to have made most of them go live there.

    If you've found someone stupid enough to believe that Israel has no right to exist, you're better off using the moral justification as it alone is sufficient. Only the rankest historical revisionist can argue that Jews do not need a place where they can safe until the other religions around them grow up and stop acting like bullies. To try to use the "historical" argument, however, is to weaken an otherwise iron-clad case. Even worse, it is also one of the sources of the violence happening there and does nothing to promote peace. Israel is needed now, regardless of what happened 2,000 years ago. Live in the now, not in the past. That is your best bet.
     
  22. NER_MCFC

    NER_MCFC Member

    May 23, 2001
    Cambridge, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    While I am tempted to point out that many devout Jews had no use for Zionism long after 1948 (Jerusalem being as much metaphor as geography) so that Jerusalem as a home address is a far more ambiguous issue than even than it appears to be in the above discussion, I think it would be more valuable to get back to the original question: Is the Fence primarily intended to eliminate the possibility of a viable Palestinian state? Any points of historical dispute simply pale in comparison to questions about the actual intent of the Sharon government and the reality that Israel's neighbors do not present a valid military threat to it and haven't in 30 years.

    As I have said before, terrorism is best defined as the war of the weak against the strong. The best way for a country to guarantee that it will be subject to terrorist attacks is to treat people as the Israeli government has treated Arab Muslims under its control. As things stand now, the Arab residents of Gaza and the West Bank have no hope of real control over their political or economic lives and some are regularly evicted from their life long homes because of what amounts to electioneering.

    Sharon appears to be hell-bent on making sure the Palestinians have nothing left to lose, and the security barrier appears to be a major part of that strategy. People who believe they have nothing left to lose tend to be unwilling to negotiate, and they tend to be uninterested in peace. If Sharon really wants peace (personally, I doubt it), then he must offer the Palestinians options worth having. There is very little that the Palestinians can do right now without cooperation from Sharon's government. There is a great deal that Sharon's government can do to move toward peace with or without immediate cooperation from the Palestinians. Unfortunately, Sharon seems to prefer going in the other direction.
     
  23. Sardinia

    Sardinia New Member

    Oct 1, 2002
    Sardinia, Italy, EU
    So you're saying israelis are going to leave Tel Aviv and the coastline (which never was jewish)?

    You know is very depressing to see fiction history played on and on.
    This sometimes after saying we all agree that historical claims are useless.

    But if you want to play history, it's better to be fair.

    Saudi arabs didn't practice ethnical cleansing, They just ruled.

    Nor they were a sufficient number to substitute the populations from southern Iran to Morocco(who were basically semite - phoenicians, babilonians etc.)

    http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm

    The historian is an israeli one. Ami Isseroff.

    One who share exactly the point of view of Sheikh Djabouti (and mine).
    Stop nonsenses, stop playing with faked history.
    Coexistence.

    Jerusalem is very important also for christians.

    Let's hope that noone uses anymore your way of reasoning like in the old good times of crusades.

    Jews are not special human beings. They are human beings like all the others.

    There's no religion more religion than the others.

    And to determine facts (above all if violent) based on a religion is fundamentalism.
     
  24. house18

    house18 Member

    Jun 23, 2003
    St. Louis, MO
    Well said!
     
  25. Demosthenes

    Demosthenes Member+

    May 12, 2003
    Berkeley, CA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States


    At the risk of painful redundancy, I have to address this, because you are refusing to listen to the simple and largely irrelevant point that I'm making. The statement above is as nonsensical as saying, "If Christians believe in Christ so much, why don't they cause his second coming to happen?" Of course Jews did not act on their belief - the belief is/was that God would return his people to Jerusalem eventually - NOT that the people would get there themselves. That hardly makes the belief "not strong enough." The Jews have always wanted to return to Israel, as much as Christians want to go to Heaven.

    You are talking about a "Zionist" impulse to claim the land, which is not what I'm talking about at all. The former belief clearly morphed into the latter. But I never said that Jews always intended to re-establish Israel on their own, which is what you are trying to pretend I said.

    Please see above. Perhaps this is an argument of sematics or of degrees - but it appears you're not genuinely interested in a Jewish perspective about the role of Israel in Jewish religion and identity.

    I reiterate - once again (and this is getting tiresome) - I'm not making an historical nor any other kind of claim on behalf of the Jews. I'm just trying to characterize the attachment that Jews have historically felt and still do feel to the land. Take it for whatever it's worth to you.

    Gee, thanks for the advice. On the other hand, I think keeping a good overview of the history of the region is helpful. We can best understand the situation we're in currently when we understand completely how we got here.
     

Share This Page