Israel and Palestine: Abandoning God One Bullet at a Time

With Israel, I don't think it has ever been an issue of God. I'm not saying that Palestine is the model of peace and justice either. I am just tired of Israel's garbage.

Throughout history, people of the Jewish faith have had a nack of always getting themselves into trouble. If you are going to constantly see yourselves as victims, then you fulfill your own damn prophecy. I am personally tired of the negative ramifications our alliance with Israel has brought to this country.

Israel figuratively needs to get their head out of their ass. They need to get out of occupied Palestinian territory, recognize Palestine as a state, and stop responding to violence with violence. Didn't Gahndi, Dr. King, and Cesar Chavez teach us the benefits of non-violence?

The Jews, I am not refering to anyone specifically on this forum, here seem to believe that they are the only people that have been persecuted throughout the history of mankind. You would think that the people of Jewish faith and in positions of authority, with there history, would practice a little more humility.

Their problems have been galvanized by their own feeling of superiority and self- rightousness. As well, when did Jews become a race of their own? Judaism is a faith not a nationality and I am tired of them being classified as the Jewish race. Is their a Catholic race? A Muslim race? A Buddist race? A Protestant race? A Mormon Race?

I don't hate Jews but I am sick of this crap. My brother in-law is Jewish and I make this classification because I know someone is going to accuse me of being a Nazi. I would wish that this would not insult anyone but how is someone to express themselves when frustrated?

Israel needs to settle this problem once and for all. Sometimes you have to lose to win in the long run. If the Palestinians keep on terrorizing you after the use of non-violent tactics then, and only then, am I supportive of US involvement.

We all have to eat humble pie sometime in our lives. What makes you special? You are not the only one's to have experienced genocide, racism, humiliation, degredation, and degeneration so get over yourself and follow what the Torah teaches because it sure doesn't advocate violence.

Remember, this is only my point of view. the only thing I want is peace. Once again, I appologize for having been offensive if that is the way my thread is interpreted. But, I think it is important for people of jewish faith to understand why some of us are frustrated.

Peace

 

Where did you hear that the plan was not accepted, Tukafo?

 

Tukafo, sorry to talk toyou in the same post as the rest of this, but if Sharon wanted Arafat dead, he would be long gone by now. Its a simple fact.

Waning Drill, Sharon has stated that primarily because the Arabs want right of return for all 3.7 million Palestinians, it is unworkable be Israel.


LMU-Lion, I have to say that was one helluva pathetic commentary.

"Throughout history, people of the Jewish faith have had a nack of always getting themselves into trouble"

Yeah, I admit it. The Spanish Inquisition, Our fault. The Russian Pogroms, our fault. The Holocaust, yup, it was us again. We just cant do anything right. Sorry. Our bad.

I think that says as much as what needs to be said for the validity of your whole commentary, but I shall go on.

"They need to get out of occupied Palestinian territory, recognize Palestine as a state, and stop responding to violence with violence"

1)The Palestinian terrorists have vowed to keep on attacking Israel regardless of if they withdraw or not. They have stated time and time again that they want to drive Israel and the Jews into the sea. A Palestinian state should be recognised, yes. But only when they stop the terrorism.

2)Since Zinni has been negotiating, Israel has held back more than ever. They had 3 suicide bombings, multiple gun attacks on citizens, and numerous thwarted terrorist attacks. Israel responded by holding back in order to not cause problems. To promote peace. Arafat, however, refused to declare a ceasefire in that time. He kept allowing terrorist attacks
How was it answered? By a major terrorist attack on a holy day.
And you say Israel is the one that needs to stop the violence?

"If the Palestinians keep on terrorizing you after the use of non-violent tactics then, and only then, am I supportive of US involvement. "

They were answering terrorism with non-violence, and this is what happened. Yet you are just condemning Israel.
Which is it then?

"when did Jews become a race of their own?"
The one thing I agree about. Religion, not race. But what difference does that make?

"The Jews, I am not refering to anyone specifically on this forum, here seem to believe that they are the only people that have been persecuted throughout the history of mankind"
Actually, by generalising, you are referring to EVERY Jew on this forum, and around the world.
And we are not the only religion to be persecuted, but to be persecuted CONSTANTLY for well over 2000 years, to have numerous countries put you in a Ghetto, purge you from their society, try and destroy your religion, try and kill you. Yeah, Jews have a right to feel highly persecuted.

"Their problems have been galvanized by their own feeling of superiority and self- rightousness"
"I think it is important for people of jewish faith to understand why some of us are frustrated. "

Yeah, good work mate. Pretty impressive load of crap you have just regurgitated.

 

from Israels point of view,killing Arafat would be the biggest mistake they could ever make.Israel would be know more.

Sharon needs to act in the interests of his people.Killing and bombing innocent Palestinians is only making international opinion turn against himself and Israel


With his actions of today,i think he has made a real mistake,which is sad for the poor peace wanting Jews of Israel!!!

 

I think Israel jumped the gun this time, ironic how this happened the day of a unamious Arabian peace plan with Israel. How do we know it wasn't a Jew not wanting peace? Like the guy that assassinated Rabin in 1995.

I have a gut feeling telling me Arafat was atleast partially serious with his ceasefire issue, what his real agenda is, I dont know, but I believe Saudi Arabia when she says she will work to restrain Palestine if the US works to restrain Israel.

Four countries are the key to peace in the middle east, and Israel, US on one side and Palestine and Saudi Arabia on the other. Saudi and US are willing, perhaps if we can get rid of Sharon (replace him with the President, he really liked the Saudi peace plan) and get rid of Arafat (he has a deputy somewhere in his chain who just wants statehood, he could care less if Israel is there or not, or so he says in public).

And yes Israel did reject the plan, I dont remember Sharons exact words but he doesnt think the Arabs are serious, he thinks they will use it to arm Palestine and go into war with Israel. Throughout history, any nation once recognized by other nations have normally lived peacefully, it is rare another nation invades for the heck of it. And plus Saudi Arabia doesn't want to have the US as an enemy, the US and west keeps them wealthy, and I truley believe them in this cause, I think they really want peace.

Makes you kinda wish Rabin was still PM, doesnt it?

 

Yes,i had a huge amount of respect for Mr Rabin !!!

 

Certainly things have been going down since Mr. Rabin has been murdered.
He was replaced by Mr. Peres, who was competent but just not as good to broker deals as Rabin.
Mr. Peres gave way to Mr. Netanyahu, who was at the least clear about his intents whenever he was bargaining with Arafat : he said no on a certain number of points before they were discussed every time ; it was unfair, but at least his intents were clear. And he did improve security.
Mr. Barak toppled down Mr. Netanyahu mainly thanks to shady material on his predecessor's private life. He never was clear when negociating, and created almost twice as many settlements in the occupied territories as had been created since 1967 - better not to say he wanted peace...
Mr. Sharon has been out to get Mr. Arafat for thirty years, and was elected on the promise of restoring security, after having himself lit the fires of Intifada through blatant provocation of muslims in front of one of their holy sites in Jerusalem. He is also stupid enough not to understand that it's not through destroying all of Arafat's means of control of Palestina that he will enlist his help to put an end to terrorism. He even does not bother any longer, and the only reason why Mr. Arafat is not dead yet is because Mr. Bush Jr said him a flat "no".
Likely to be back next is Mr. Netanyahu, who plans to occupy permanently 50% of the Palestinian state he would let be created, and who says he'll deport Mr. Arafat and all other Palestinian "terrorist leaders", be they terrorist or not, as soon as he is PM again.

Chances of peace going down...

 

You do realise that the 'provocation' of the Palestinians was because Sharon visited the Temple Mount, the holiest site for Jews?

Why shouldnt a Jewish man be allowed to visit a Jewish holy site?

The intifada wasnt because Sharon visited the Temple Mount. It couldnt be. If it was, it means that the Palestinians didnt want to let Jews visit the Temple Mount.

So why did this intifada begin?

Because Arafat got tired of negotiating. He got tired of discussing things like an adult, and decided to act like a petulant kid.

 

Remember what's almost at the exact same spot as Temple Mount ? And he did openly say that it was an excellent thing the whole Jerusalem was under Israeli control on that day in front of the muslims, which earned him the first stones.

Yes, Arafat did help maintain the fires since then. What else could he do, with his public opinion 99% for the Intifada ?
You'll also notice that when Arafat did order attacks, they were all aimed at Israeli soldiers in the occupied territories and settlements, not at civilians (that was his strategy last month, and it almost worked, only Sharon's invasion of refugee camps convinced the Islamic Jihad and Hamas that Arafat's strategy's a complete failure and had them resume attacks on civilian targets - which was probably what Mr Sharon was after, since he could less and less credibly portray Arafat as a terrorist when there were only attacks against occupation forces, which is called 'resistance' and not 'terrorism' everywhere else in the world).

 

You name me one Arab leader who wouldnt say that it would be best for the area to be under Palestinian control.

Both sides want control. Sharon kicks off an intifada because he says that? Thats a bit weak if you ask me.

Which of the terrorist attacks did Arafat order? He seems to deny that he has anything to do with any of them.

I would estimate that at least 80% of the attacks are against civilians over the course of the intifada. Nothing to do with the last month.

And I, for one, refuse to believe that 99% of Palestinians want the intifada. I believe that a majority want peace and not fighting.

Btw, we are having a good time between here and the JCC, arent we

 

Remember there are very strong religious feelings involved there, and that even so little a faux-pas is enough to create a lot of trouble when religion and Good (as all religions claim to represent and defend) is involved. And because there's a religious problem there, Sharon's words are far from being weak.

Arafat likes to deny he's behind any terrorist attacks, and it's better for his image, but he and his Fatah nonetheless ordered the killings of several Israeli occupation troops.

I'll go and fetch the figures for the military/civilian attack ratios, but we're agreeing on this point, and this is because the Hamas and Islamic Jihad did a wonderful job at playing in Sharon's hands, never breaking the "eye-for-an-eye" cycle that's been a pretext both for terrorist acts and Israeli attacks over the last two years.

The problem with Mr Sharon's words at Temple Mount is that they were words of contempt, when one reads past the words. And contempt is an excellent way to flare anger. Even if 99% of Palestinians were not supporting the beginning of the Intifada (a metaphorical figure) it's very realistic to consider that at the least three good quarters did not want Sharon's blunder go unpunished. The support for Intifada has steadily dropped since, mainly because Palestinians have hardly a better life than the Russians had had in Leningrad during the Nazi siege of the city in 1941-1943, and unlike the Russians they have no hope of winning the war in the end, which is a deadly blow to morale.

 

That is simply unbelieveable, and nakedly pathological. To blame the Intifada on Israel, or Sharon, is to ignore facts in favor of bias.

The intifada is nothing more than the attempt to negotiate for a Palestinian state through violence. Barak and Clinton offered Arafat full statehood and compromise on the important issues at Camp David, and Arafat decided to try to get a better deal through the Intifada. I have read numerous quotes from Palestinian Authority leaders that indicate the the Intifada was planned strategy, intended to get what they couldn't get through peace.

Think about it. The Palestinians answer an offer of full statehood with attacks upon civilians and violence?? Why is public support for such an action even mentioned as justification?

Both sides have added fuel, wood, coal, tinder and gunpowder to the fire over the past few years, and placing blame accomplishes little; but, it is intellectual folly to let such the deliberately misguided sentiment that ultimately Sharon is responsible for the intifada to pass unrebuked.

 

R7, please do me a favor and read above, and do mind that 40% of the territory the Palestinians were to be given would not have belonged them... if that's not a good reason not to call that treaty a joke, from an unbiased point of view, then there's nothing unbiased down here on this world.

Yes, the Muslims do have a lot of reasons not to be proud of what's happening but Israel, the US and Europe all have reasons not to be proud too, and it's not by seeing only what hurts not to see that we'll be achieving anything good.

Intifada did become a planned strategy after the first bouts. But it's come to a dead-end just like all former negociations came to a dead-end. Why ? Because if the Palestinians were wrong to go terrorist, we "civilized westerners" were wrong not to realize that through the agreements we proposed we were doing little better than insult them.

 

To call the Camp David offer a 'joke' basically rejects the entire Oslo process. The opinion that Camp David was grossly unfair or not serious is simply not the consensus. Those that criticize the Israelis for not granting the Palestinians statehood forget that they've already made a serious offer in good faith, and the response has been violence.

Certainly, Arafat and/or the Palestinians thought they could get more land, or more concessions. However, we're talking about details in the treaty, not fundamental differences in ideology which are mutually exclusive. In NO WAY is violence justified or excusable in these circumstances.

Thomas Friedman of the NYT said it best in his recent editorial: if the strategy of suicide bombing is allowed to work in Israel, it is only a matter of time before it is deployed in America. And, as Friedman notes, it is not some ad hoc strategy concocted by the Palestinians. It is a conscious, premeditated war-plan devised and supported by almost every Arab state.


So, was Arafat wrong to reject Camp David? I think that he was, but that doesn't matter. It is WELL within his purview of leadership to reject that offer, and to try to acheive more concessions from the Israelis (though, what he would have compromised to achieve these concessions eludes me). But, to reject the peace process and treaty and initiate violence is despicable, and he should be held culpable.



How to go forward? I've lost faith in Arafat and Fatah and Hamas and Hezbollah and the regional dictatorships. I've never had faith in Sharon. What can be done?

I believe Israel should announce an immdediate cessation of settlement construction. Tell the Palestinians and Arabs and world that no more settlements will be constructed for 6 months, and that time will be used to give the Palestinians an oppurtunity to start confidence building measures. The IDF will have to still have the ability to defend Israel, especially since the current PA is unable and untrustworthy in this area. However, stopping settlement construction will send the clearest diplomatic signal to the world that they are serious about getting a cease-fire and moving toward a Palestinian state created in peace, not with a gun to their head.

If the attacks continue after such a good-faith announcement, then it is time to abandon the most isolated settlements, expel Palestinians from select areas, and form a continuous and defensible border.

 

"The opinion that Camp David was grossly unfair or not serious is simply not the consensus."
-> That's my whole point : we made the error of calling fair something that's objectively unfair (regardless of any course of action Israel or Palestina take after the proposal).

"Certainly, Arafat and/or the Palestinians thought they could get more land, or more concessions. However, we're talking about details in the treaty."
-> See above. <sarcasm> It would surely have been regarded as a detail if the UK had kept 40% of the newfounded US territory </sarcasm>
Now, seriously, you can't be calling such an issue a detail. Right now it's not only 40% but more than 50% of the West Bank and Gaza stripe that are occupied by settlements - and they're still Palestinian lands, according to the UN.

"But, to reject the peace process and treaty and initiate violence is despicable, and he should be held culpable."
-> He should, and no less should Mr Sharon for his own part in the starting and upkeep of the Intifada.

"Thomas Friedman of the NYT said it best in his recent editorial: if the strategy of suicide bombing is allowed to work in Israel, it is only a matter of time before it is deployed in America."
-> This sentence is a perfect example on how you get people to support your opinion regardless of what it is (my commentary does not apply only on this particular case) : you scare them out of their wits. I am not dismissing the possibility that this could happen, I'm just voicing that Thomas Friedman is a skilled journalist.

"I believe Israel should announce an immdediate cessation of settlement construction. Tell the Palestinians and Arabs and world that no more settlements will be constructed for 6 months, and that time will be used to give the Palestinians an oppurtunity to start confidence building measures."
-> The strongest bargaining chip would be having the Israeli settlers pull back entirely from their settlements and give back the land to Palestinians. If they don't accept such a boon and push for more, then I would regard a permanent Israeli occupation as legitimate, and it would be good for everyone having the Palestinians note that this time, it would be "either you accept what's offered you or you're dead meat" (this is, without the threat, the substance of the Saudi proposals).

 

Jedi Xen: You've done well in contesting much over Vietnam, but you completely ignored Riley Man's points on the issue, which are really the key concepts of what is going on. In 1880 there has been no significant Jewish presence in that part of the Middle East for many centuries, and what was there over the past 2000 years was sparodic at best. Often Jews that did live there did so under more moderate Muslim regimes-- which were often toppled by less moderate Muslim regimes.

Contrary to popular belief, the Jews and Palestinians have not been fighting since the dawn of time: this is only an issue stretching back to 1880. Then there were very few Jews: and then somehow 50-60 years later, in just over a generation, they have thier own state? It just wasn't a very wise decision on anyone's part. What's doubly troubling is that the entire issue is paralyzing the US government from taking care of extremists in places where the local governments refuse to do anything about them. East of Iran and west of Libya the US can hold sway: these places are removed enough from the Arabian peninsula. Mousharraf may-- though I say only may-- in fact cooperate with the US in cracking down on his militants, who unlike in Israel have absolutely no moral leg to stand on (and India will make certain he does it, too. I can't possibly imagine any world opinion siding with Pakistan, who created the entire Taliban problem to begin with).

By the way: there are no such things as 'draws' in war. The American experience in Vietnam was one fighting on the ultimately losing side. But in doing so, they met thier original objectives-- the American Objective was not to conquer North Vietnam, but to make South Vietnam so difficult for the communists to take that the Soviets would be discouraged from trying to ferment Communist movements elsewhere.

 

Edgads!

Man!

That was a load of tripe.

The only thing I agree with you about is the part of the Jews not being a race. That, I agree with. We are not a race. It is a faith. I agree. I never say I am of the Jewish race and I never will. Hell, if someone tells me that my blonde haired and green eyes sister is a direct connection to the original Hebrew tribe, I will laugh.

But that is the only thing I agree with you about.

And I am sorry, pulling out the old "Yeah, a have a Jewish friend, or black friend or an ex girlfriend who was Indian or brother in law is Jewish" is as lame as can be. It is the ultimate excuse done by people. It is a sbad as usuing the Hitler argument whenever people get into a debate of any sort or type.

I am sorry, but that was tripe.

 

I have no bias,but i belive that Sharon is the main cause of the current problem in the East at the present moment.


if,you read my posts,i look at both sides of the coin,all i want is peace.

But,today i was told by a Zionist Jew that Sharon was acting like a NAZI.

to me that say's it all !!!

 

Well, yes, Sharon is a kook and he is also a war criminal.

 

Of all the interesting and diverse points made in this thread, I'm going to focus on one that has thus far received no counter-point.

I have seen not only in this thread, but others I have read over the past few months, lamenting criticism of the idea of Jewish "chosen-ness". I feel I must set the record straight, as the disparaging remarks in regards to this issue have little to do with the actual ideology and more to do with ignorance of what the idea of being "the chosen of God" means.

Let me start out by reiterating what it does NOT mean. It does not mean Jews are of elevated stature among people. It does not mean they are deserving of special advantages, that they are always right, nor does it mean they are above reproach when they act reprehensibly.

What is does mean is based in biblical text, that I regret I am unable to quote by passage because I am without my copy of Torah at the moment. But there is/are a passage(s) alluding to the fact that God states something to the effect of "if (IF!) you accept my laws and statutes... I will take you to be my special people.... and you will be unto me a holy nation, a nation of priests".

The rabbinical interpretation of this has concluded that by 'special' it is not meant as 'privileged' or 'better', it is meant as 'different', as is the idea of being ?holy?. By that, it is taken that the agreement between God and the Jews is one in which the people take on a divinely appointed 'role', to bring to all humankind the idea of monotheism and universal morality.

This means that to be 'chosen' is not to be accorded special 'passport' to political imposition or even to salvation, but is to take on a responsibility and a burdensome (restrictive) lifestyle, in order to be "a light unto the world", as is stated by the prophet Isaiah. Jewish sources do refer to Judaism as an 'ohl', a burden. How many people would willingly accept the idea of being responsible for 613 commandments on a regular basis? (Ok, knock out about a third, since we don't have a Temple anymore.... still leaves a lot to do, if one is observant.)

I would have to say, considering the success of Judiasm and it's offshoots, Christianity and Islam (regardless of the differing ideology) the Jews have succeeded in their 'chosen' task most impressively.

The bottom line of all this to me, is that I see this idea of the Jews being a 'chosen' people bandied about much more by Gentiles, and usually in a negative context, than by Jews themselves. I can't think of a single incident where any Jews I know acted like they thought the sun shone out their behinds simply because they were one of the 'chosen'. That's not to say none do, but IF they do, they are not correctly interpreting their own ideology, along with those who use it as an excuse to accuse Jewish ideology as being 'arrogant'.

 

Holy crap, Sharon's going ape *.

 

heh

Dude, Sharon was ape **** from the start. I prefered Barak to Sharon. Sharon is a freaking war criminal.

 

Oh I know, he's always been a butcher but right now he's going nuts.

And I'm sure the US is supporting whatever he's doing like the good little lap dogs we are.

 

It is a shame the once-noble ideas of a new Israel were destroyed by militant bigots and corrupt officials (on both sides, though I tend to give Palestine a bit more of a claim to the land).

 

So do I but my sympathy for their cause is waning to the point where I'm starting to not give a damn which side wins. Even though I know that it's the actions of a few that are causing me to think that way and that we tend to only see the arab atrocities in the media. I just think the whole situation is irredeemable and we need to stay the hell out of it.