Go Israel, Go!

[Benko]

PS,

1.  history is all well and good, but as Bill Mahr (not exactly a rightie)  pointed out, if you attack someone, repeatedly it is war and WTF do you expect to happen? 

2.  Back in the Arafat day, didn't the Israel basically concede everything asked and the palestinians still walk away from the table?

3.  OTOH has anyone met Isreali's?  I've met 6 and they were all arrogant people (I was raised jewish in case you wish to imply bias).  A friend who converted to judiasm and has considered moving to isreal says her experiene is the same i.e. many are arrogant/rude people.  That can't help.

[Pointedstick]

3.  OTOH has anyone met Isreali's?  I've met 6 and they were all arrogant people (I was raised jewish in case you wish to imply bias).  A friend who converted to judiasm and has considered moving to isreal says her experiene is the same i.e. many are arrogant/rude people.  That can't help.

Yup. It's pretty true. I have Israeli relatives and regularly work with Israelis in my job. They are very brusque and direct, often becoming rude. Just a cultural trait of theirs, it seems.

[Reub]

yes and Americans are fat stupid and spoiled. They curse a lot, drive badly, have children out of wedlock, and do a lot of drugs. They live off of the government and sre ignorant about the rest of the world.

[Kshartle]

yes and Americans are fat stupid and spoiled. They curse a lot, drive badly, have children out of wedlock, and do a lot of drugs. They live off of the government and sre ignorant about the rest of the world.

Reub now we're back to agreeing.

[Reub]

Haha!

[Benko]

yes and Americans are fat stupid and spoiled. They curse a lot, drive badly, have children out of wedlock, and do a lot of drugs. They live off of the government and sre ignorant about the rest of the world.

Reub,

If you labeled the two sides A and B and described the two positions blindly (if it could be done i.e. if you could find people who didn't realize what you were talking about) it would be clear how completely BS many of the views of the mainstream people (including I suspect many in this thread--suspect, I have not read the whole thing) are and how mainstream anti-semitism is.  Of course they insist they are objective just as they are objective about Marx, alinski, etc etc.

OTOH  ALthough what you say is frequently true of americans, it does not seem to be as uniformly true and to the extent it is true, the traits don't make americans as unpleasant to deal with as Isreali's seem to be.  Sorry. This is just an observation, and I certainly ain't saying they deserve extermination for their style.  I mention this because A. it is the whopping elephant in the room which many don't know and gets left out of these discussions and B. perhaps it explains to some extent why the antisemitism is so pervasive.

[Reub]

I think that it is more uniformly true of Americans! We can discuss the French, Germans, Irish, Africans, Mexicans, Russians, British, Arabs at a later time.

[Libertarian666]

3.  OTOH has anyone met Isreali's?  I've met 6 and they were all arrogant people (I was raised jewish in case you wish to imply bias).  A friend who converted to judiasm and has considered moving to isreal says her experiene is the same i.e. many are arrogant/rude people.  That can't help.

Yup. It's pretty true. I have Israeli relatives and regularly work with Israelis in my job. They are very brusque and direct, often becoming rude. Just a cultural trait of theirs, it seems.

Yes, from my reading, it sounds like Israel is very much like New York City, for what should be obvious reasons.

[Libertarian666]

Yup. It's pretty true. I have Israeli relatives and regularly work with Israelis in my job. They are very brusque and direct, often becoming rude. Just a cultural trait of theirs, it seems.

Yes, from my reading, it sounds like Israel is very much like New York City, for what should be obvious reasons.

By that logic, the rudeness in NYC is a result of Catholicism, not Judaism.

Religious though New York City may be, its mix of religious, as with its mix of residents, differs greatly from the rest of the United States. New York City is much more Catholic (62 percent versus 44 percent) and much more Jewish (22 percent versus 4.3 percent) than is the rest of the United States.

http://www.gothamgazette.com/index.php/ ... gious-city

Yes, but according to that table, the Jewish proportion in NYC is about 5x that in the US, whereas the Catholic proportion is only about 50% above the US proportion.

[Libertarian666]

By that logic, the rudeness in NYC is a result of Catholicism, not Judaism.

http://www.gothamgazette.com/index.php/ ... gious-city

Yes, but according to that table, the Jewish proportion in NYC is about 5x that in the US, whereas the Catholic proportion is only about 50% above the US proportion.

My post was sarcastic, because I thought yours was kind of racist.

Then I would have to be self-hating, which I'm not. 

[Libertarian666]

Apologies then Libertarian666, I must have misunderstood your point. Perhaps you could clarify?

I am ethnically Jewish and have lived in NYC in the past. So I can definitely say that the stereotypes of pushiness, brusqueness, etc., are not arbitrary.

Does that clarify my point?

[Libertarian666]

Not really.

Yes, from my reading, it sounds like Israel is very much like New York City, for what should be obvious reasons.

What obvious reasons?

NYC has a large Jewish population.
Israel has a large Jewish population.
Q. E. D. 

[Mountaineer]

Neither group's rudeness is a function of either religion. NYC's is IMO from living in an overcrowded environment, but I could be wrong. I have no idea why the Israelis are like that, but I'm sure someone here has a more reasonable theory. Anyone?

I have never lived or spent much time in NYC or Israel, but I have lived and/or worked in a variety of urban, suburban and rural locations across the US.  My observations would support the hypothesis of "rudeness is a function of population density".  However, I am basing my observations a little more on driving behavior than sidewalk behavior of pushing and shoving or ignoring you.  Most rural environments with very low population density tend to have very polite drivers that adhere to the traffic laws.  The opposite seems to be true in suburban and really more so in urban environments - complete with shooting the bird and honking horns at every opportunity.  The worst urban areas for rudeness seem to be the ones in CA from San Francisco south and almost all of the cities in the northeast from Richmond north to Boston.  The Philadelphia (city of brotherly love!) metro area seems to be particularly rude.  And, driving I-95 between Philadelphia and Baltimore is like being at the Indy 500 unless it is 3am - then you just see a few probable drug runners that tend to drive sanely  .  Just my two shekels 

... Mountaineer

[dualstow]

I think both assertions are wrong. Neither group's rudeness is a function of either religion. NYC's is IMO from living in an overcrowded environment, but I could be wrong. I have no idea why the Israelis are like that, but I'm sure someone here has a more reasonable theory. Anyone?

Since you asked... (I'm back in and unwanted like Ross Perot)
There is another theory.
#1 I thought Libertarian666's posts sounded vaguely racist, too. I also think that NYC's "brusque" environment has everything to do with being densely packed + everyone's in a hurry. Nothing to do with Jews. The Italian market in Philly is the same.
#2 Every Israeli I've ever met has tended to be somewhat abrasive and pushy. Granted, some were selling Dead Sea salt at the mall or t-shirts in Key West, but others were classmates at university.

Basically, when Jews flooded into Israel from Europe, a lot of them were wiped out by the heat and sunlight of the desert. Others survived but failed to scratch a living out of the soil. Let's face it, they weren't all Daniel Boone's.  Those that survived tended to be extremely tough and determined.

The downside is that they weren't generally pleasant to be around. That is part of the reason you may sometimes come across the nickname sabra, a local cactus that is tough and prickly on the outside but sweet on the inside.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_(person)

[dualstow]

By the way, Hamas recorded a tune, with lyrics in Hebrew, to scare the Israelis. It became a popular ringtone and topped the Israeli pop charts. Not kidding.
http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-08-13/h ... summer-hit
(second clip on page)

[dualstow]

Israeli Army Sees Rise in Christian Arab Recruits (Time magazine)
http://time.com/15479/israeli-army-christian-arabs/

"
Last year 100 Arab Israelis joined the Israel Defense Forces, double the number of each of the preceding three years. All were Christians, “a minority within a minority,”? notes Gabriel Naddaf, the Greek Orthodox priest who is promoting enlistment, and with it a controversial separate identity for the 160,000 Orthodox and Catholics among the 1.7 million Israeli citizens who regard themselves as Palestinian.
"

[moda0306]

I thought I'd dredge up some old Israel topics.  This isn't a fun one, but I've been listening to Glenn Greenwald lately, who is an argument-powerhouse on national security and domestic surveillance topics (he's the guy who brought out the Ed Snowden NSA stuff).  Another topic he hits on regularly is that of Israel v Palestine.  He raises some extremely cogent points about Israeli actions.  I'll just bump you all to one of his articles.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015 ... lity-gaza/


I'd definitely read through it... much of the article is not his words, but the words of the Israelis.
They warned us, they told us that after a ceasefire the population might return . . . . The instructions were to open fire. They said, “No one is supposed to be in the area in which you will be” . . . .

[W]e asked, “Will the civilian population return? What will the situation look like now when we go in [to the Gaza Strip] again?” And they said, “You aren’t supposed to encounter the civilian population, no one is supposed to be in the area in which you’ll be. Which means that anyone you do run into is [to be regarded as] a terrorist.”

The instructions are to shoot right away. Whoever you spot – be they armed or unarmed, no matter what. The instructions are very clear. Any person you run into, that you see with your eyes – shoot to kill. It’s an explicit instruction.

No incrimination process is necessary?
Zero. Nothing.

It was during our first Sabbath. Earlier that day one of the companies was hit by a few anti-tank missiles. The unit went to raid the area from which they were fired, so the guys who stayed behind automatically cared less about civilians. I remember telling myself that right now, the citizens of Gaza, I really don’t give a fuck about them. They don’t deserve anything – and if they deserve something it’s either to be badly wounded or killed. . . .

So this old man came over, and the guy manning the post – I don’t know what was going through his head – he saw this civilian, and he fired at him, and he didn’t get a good hit. The civilian was laying there, writhing in pain. We all remembered that story going around, so none of the paramedics wanted to go treat him. It was clear to everyone that one of two things was going to happen: Either we let him die slowly, or we put him out of his misery. Eventually, we put him out of his misery, and a D9 (armored bulldozer) came over and dropped a mound of rubble on him and that was the end of it. In order to avoid having to deal with the question of whether he was booby-trapped or not – because that really didn’t interest anyone at that moment – the D9 came over, dropped a pile of rubble on his body and that was it. Everyone knew that under that pile there was the guy’s corpse. . . . .

What came up during the investigation when the company commander asked the soldier, was that the soldier spotted a man in his late 60s, early 70s approaching the house. They were stationed in a tall house, with a good vantage point. The soldier spotted that guy going in his direction, toward his post. So he shot in the direction of his feet at the beginning. And he said the old man kept getting closer to the house so he shot a bullet beneath his left ribs. Kidney, liver, I don’t know what’s in there. A spot you don’t want to be hit by a bullet. That old man took the bullet, lay down on the ground, then a friend of that soldier came over and also shot the man, while he was already down. For the hell of it, he shot two more bullets at his legs. Meanwhile there was a talk with the commander, and because this was happening amidst a battalion offensive, it really didn’t interest anyone. “We have casualties up front, don’t bother us, do what you need to do.”

There's more... and it ain't pretty.  I'd highly recommend exploring more of Greenwald's articles and videos on YouTube.  He's a huge civil libertarian and anti-war advocate.  But unlike many people on both sides of any issue, he knows his $hit, and makes very good arguments... usually making a bit of a fool of anyone he debates.

[Pointedstick]

It's definitely true that Israel has committed numerous war crimes. But then again, so have the Palestinians. In fact, their entire strategy revolves around it--firing rockets into towns, kidnapping civilians, blowing up restaurants, and the like. You can argue that these are the only tactics they have available, but they're still war crimes. That's why it's a clusterfuck. Neither side is really able to claim the moral high ground at this point. Not much is gained IMHO by pointing out that either side does nasty things to their enemies' innocents.

[moda0306]

It's definitely true that Israel has committed numerous war crimes. But then again, so have the Palestinians. In fact, their entire strategy revolves around it--firing rockets into towns, kidnapping civilians, blowing up restaurants, and the like. You can argue that these are the only tactics they have available, but they're still war crimes. That's why it's a clusterfuck. Neither side is really able to claim the moral high ground at this point. Not much is gained IMHO by pointing out that either side does nasty things to their enemies' innocents.

I agree with much of what you say.  But in the context of our government's tight relationship with Israel, and that we share illegally-obtained raw intelligence with them, that to the extend we are having a government policy debate here, we have more to talk about when it comes to Israel.

Also, it probably serves the argument to point out the elements of desperation that exist.  If, for instance, a society engages in war to, in-part, simply expand its real-estate position, vs the other side living on the edge of starvation, I think there is perhaps an unexplored element to all this.  This is a more prickly topic that is bound to be fraught with subjective preferences of desperation with subjective weight to be put on that desperation.

But digging further, this isn't just an "Israel v Palestine" issue.  This is "people willing to murder without due process" vs "people who aren't."  The actors within the Israeli military and government have an agenda... and it's one that might be counter to U.S. or general Israeli population interests.  It may be "ugly," but if ugliness by your opponents (people launching rockets) warrants ugliness on your behalf (killing children to kill those rocket launchers (and just because it's easy), enacting blockades that starve the population, etc), then we really have to wonder whether our support of Israel is worth it, or morally justifiable.  And we also have to wonder, as always should have been the case, whether this really can be viewed in a binary sense, where you have two sides.  That mindset has been used to justify genocides, wars, and just general slaughter for thousands of years, and it's one that reinforces the state as a legitimate organization entity with which to build your identity around, which in libertarian terms should throw up huge red flags (for good reasons, IMO).

[Pointedstick]

Is there such a thing as legally-obtained raw intelligence?

The really awkward thing about the Israelis vs Palestinians conflict is that it exposes how when it comes down to it, "might makes right" is the most basic and primal way to solve problems. These are groups of people we're talking about who both have legitimate grievances and positions, and both have legal cases that at least started out being fairly legitimate. But when that peaceful process of conflict resolution breaks down, the guns come out, and, well, we donte like to think about it, but there's really no other way.

There's a flip side to everything in this issue. It's very easy to say, "Oh, those poor Palestinians are starving, oh, they don't have access to education and building materials," but the history of the reason for that is because before the blockade (which, I might add, Egypt enforces too; it's not just Israel), the Palestinians used that to acquire weapons to attack Israel with. Since the Palestinians' neighbors hold all the cards, and the deal appears to be "trade and relative peace" or "blockade and continuous suffering", it seems obvious that they've chosen the latter. While their suffering is sad, they've had numerous options to renounce the violence that causes it. Because in the end, they're weak and they have no chips. They make think that attacking Israel giving them leverage at the negotiating table, but they would be wrong. It's stupid. What have they gained since the Clinton peace process was torpedo by Arafat wanting more than he could get? Nothing.

[moda0306]

First off, the Egyptian government is essentially a U.S. puppet state.  I don't put much weight on their enforcement of a blockade like that.

Further, I think it remains up for debate whether Palestinians have had any real options.  The more I listen to sources outside the mainstream Israel-friendly U.S. media on all this, the more I'm convinced that the narrative we're being sold on this being a case of Palestinians being their own worst enemy is a huge farce, and is once-again trying to make two sides of a conflict of which there is essentially many.  I'll perhaps post more on this... as I've heard Noam Chomsky weigh in on it and he seems to know his history well.  I just haven't organized my thoughts on it all well enough, nor do I think most of us really know enough hard FACTS to really know what's going on.

But as I've said in the past, one can really work up so much sympathy for a topic so complex with no clear "rights" for property on either side (but for the right to life, I'd hope).  But my government doesn't take that view.  It sides with Israel in huge ways.  With that, and considering this is a public policy debate in the backdrop of a media that tends to support Israel, I'd have to say the focus on Israel's actions is a very pertinent one.  When the U.S. government stops getting sucked into their garbage, then perhaps we can re-assess our focus... IMO anyway.

[Pointedstick]

Further, I think it remains up for debate whether Palestinians have had any real options.  The more I listen to sources outside the mainstream Israel-friendly U.S. media on all this, the more I'm convinced that the narrative we're being sold on this being a case of Palestinians being their own worst enemy is a huge farce, and is once-again trying to make two sides of a conflict of which there is essentially many.

Can you provide some examples of this? I'd be curious to hear your perspective.

[moda0306]

Between Greenwald, and especially Noam Chomsky and some other sources I honestly can't remember, I'm hearing a very different narrative.  Chomsky has extreme opinions, but he is very, very fact-based in his analysis.  I'll listen/read up and post some links as I have time.

[Pointedstick]

The thing is, Moda, I really do have sympathy for the Palestinians as a people. I have moderated my stance a lot too, and my current position is that ignoring religion, the Jews basically arrived as at the very least unwanted and at times illegal immigrants. Their written declaration from the British Empire that the land would be theirs after the Ottoman Empire fell was issued years after a similar one went to the Palestinians (those British jerks). So, the fact that the area was predominately peopled by Palestinian Arabs, coupled with the fact that they had a prior promise from the new post-Ottoman owner, means that probably the Palestinians have the greatest right to the land.

But, as all we Americans know, a right to land doesn't mean diddly squad without the power to back up those claims. The history of our own nation proves that! This is a country that today is owned and operated by European-derived peoples, descendants of their African slaves, and more recent Asian immigrants. The people who lived here before we arrived and who really have the greatest right to the land itself are today small, weak, broken, and marginalized, blighted by poverty, poor nutrition, and disempowerment. "Right" means precisely jack shit when you're not strong and you don't have any benefactors who are. If only it were not so… but it is. That's the world we live in. If you want to be able to assert your rights, you need power. That's what the Palestinians are trying to do today, I think, by attacking Israel. But it's futile. That ship has sailed; at this point, they're never going to have the military power necessary to impact Israel's policy. They didn't even have it in 1948 and they certainly aren't any stronger today. The Palestinians need to acquire power in other ways, and Israel's barbarities provide them ample fodder, if only they would fully take advantage of it! But they are arabs, and as such are a proud people, more inclined to passion and action than the kind of calm non-violence that's needed today. Morality and rights are irrelevant when the chips are down, and they very much are down for the Palestinians. They need a jolt of realism if they want to survive. Time will tell if they're capable of it.

IMHO.

[Libertarian666]

The thing is, Moda, I really do have sympathy for the Palestinians as a people. I have moderated my stance a lot too, and my current position is that ignoring religion, the Jews basically arrived as at the very least unwanted and at times illegal immigrants. Their written declaration from the British Empire that the land would be theirs after the Ottoman Empire fell was issued years after a similar one went to the Palestinians (those British jerks). So, the fact that the area was predominately peopled by Palestinian Arabs, coupled with the fact that they had a prior promise from the new post-Ottoman owner, means that probably the Palestinians have the greatest right to the land.

But, as all we Americans know, a right to land doesn't mean diddly squad without the power to back up those claims. The history of our own nation proves that! This is a country that today is owned and operated by European-derived peoples, descendants of their African slaves, and more recent Asian immigrants. The people who lived here before we arrived and who really have the greatest right to the land itself are today a small, weak, broken, marginalized people, blighted by poverty, poor nutrition, and disempowerment. "Right" means precisely jack shit when you're not strong and you don't have any benefactors who are. If only it were not so… but it is. That's the world we live in. If you want to be able to assert your rights, you need power. That's what the Palestinians are trying to do today, I think, by attacking Israel. But it's futile. That ship has sailed; at this point, they're never going to have the military power necessary to impact Israel's policy. They didn't even have it in 1948 and they certainly aren't any stronger today. The Palestinians need to acquire power in other ways, and Israel's barbarities provide them ample fodder, if only they would fully take advantage of it! But they are arabs, and as such are a proud people, more inclined to passion and action than the kind of calm non-violence that's needed today. Morality and rights are irrelevant when the chips are down, and they very much are down for the Palestinians. They need a jolt of realism if they want to survive. Time will tell if they're capable of it.

IMHO.

There's another issue that I haven't seen discussed in any detail here, not that the current discussion is too simple.

Namely, where are the Jews supposed to go? Arabs are hardly a tiny minority in the Middle East, and lots of predominantly Arab countries could take in the Palestinians, if they wanted to. They don't want to, for reasons that are possibly outside the scope of this discussion.

But the Jews don't have any other reasonable options than Israel. Should they all move to the US? If they do, what happens if a future US becomes anti-Semitic?