Originally Posted by Chas'88

No offense to those who are Jewish, but Israel has been overly aggressive for a while IMO. Call it "neccessary for survival" or whatever else you wish, but the fact remains that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. It's reaping what its sewn.

Cliche-filled, but to the point.

~Chas'88

The tragedy of Israel/Palestine is that the native Palestinians see the Israelis as colonizers and are applying similar tactics to what drove out colonizers in other parts of the world. However, the Israelis are not ordinary European colonizers. They are a mixture of descendents of Holocaust survivors who are still traumatized and descendents of Arab Jews who were kicked out of their countries. In short, you've got a bunch of traumatized people who have a homeland and by George, they're not going to budge.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

The tragedy of Israel/Palestine is that the native Palestinians see the Israelis as colonizers and are applying similar tactics to what drove out colonizers in other parts of the world. However, the Israelis are not ordinary European colonizers. They are a mixture of descendents of Holocaust survivors who are still traumatized and descendents of Arab Jews who were kicked out of their countries. In short, you've got a bunch of traumatized people who have a homeland and by George, they're not going to budge.

I read something very interesting over the weekend in the leftist Israeli paper Ha'aretz on line. The Palestinians are going to declare their independence. But if that only makes things worse--if, for example, the US cuts off aid to the Palestinian authority, which is quite possible--they may say, OK, we give up. We have been ruled by Israel for 44 years. We want legal rights as citizens of Israel since we can't have our own state.

In a way I'm surprised they didn't do this a long time ago. The Israelis all this time have been steadily taking away Palestinian land, bit by bit. The only reason they can do that is because the Palestinians are essentially stateless--not effectively citizens of anything.

Turkey is suddenly emerging as Israel's leading antagonist and despite the lack of a border, it's the most formidable antagonist Israel has had since the Egyptian peace treaty. Which is on the verge of complete collapse. It's all rather scary.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I read something very interesting over the weekend in the leftist Israeli paper Ha'aretz on line. The Palestinians are going to declare their independence. But if that only makes things worse--if, for example, the US cuts off aid to the Palestinian authority, which is quite possible--they may say, OK, we give up. We have been ruled by Israel for 44 years. We want legal rights as citizens of Israel since we can't have our own state.

NPR did a piece on this last spring where Palestinians in Jerusalem were doing this increasingly so.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

NPR did a piece on this last spring where Palestinians in Jerusalem were doing this increasingly so.

~Chas'88

Which will never happen because I think the majority of Israelis are insistent that Israeli be a Jewish-only state.

IMO Israel is good evidence that the dictum that the victims of abuse often become abusers themselves applies not only to individuals, but also to peoples.

Yitzak Rabin was as willing as he was to work with the Palestinians because he saw the alternative as annexing the West Bank and Gaza, and granting Israeli citizenship to their inhabitants. And he saw that as unacceptable.

Originally Posted by Earl and Mooch

Yitzak Rabin was as willing as he was to work with the Palestinians because he saw the alternative as annexing the West Bank and Gaza, and granting Israeli citizenship to their inhabitants. And he saw that as unacceptable.

That is why the Right prefers no war, no peace. It enables them to keep expanding.

Rabin, keep in mind, was an Israeli GI.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

The tragedy of Israel/Palestine is that the native Palestinians see the Israelis as colonizers and are applying similar tactics to what drove out colonizers in other parts of the world. However, the Israelis are not ordinary European colonizers. They are a mixture of descendents of Holocaust survivors who are still traumatized and descendents of Arab Jews who were kicked out of their countries. In short, you've got a bunch of traumatized people who have a homeland and by George, they're not going to budge.

Jenny, if you're being colonized--and the Palestinians still are as we speak--there's no particular reason for you to care about the colonizers' motivations.

This is a remarkable article by a leftist Israeli about Obama. I don't think it's making nearly enough impression in the US so far what a public relations disaster this UN vote on Palestine is going to be. The Palestinians are asking the UN to make good on what it supposedly offered them 63 years ago--with much less territory to be sure. They are saying, since everyone says they believe in a Palestinian state, why not create it? And the US is apparently going to back the Israelis up by saying, when you be good and agree to a Bantustan (I say that because the Israelis insist on controlling all their borders), maybe you'll get what looks like a state. And all this after the Arab spring and summer! This is not good for the US, not at all.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Jenny, if you're being colonized--and the Palestinians still are as we speak--there's no particular reason for you to care about the colonizers' motivations.

This is a remarkable article by a leftist Israeli about Obama. I don't think it's making nearly enough impression in the US so far what a public relations disaster this UN vote on Palestine is going to be. The Palestinians are asking the UN to make good on what it supposedly offered them 63 years ago--with much less territory to be sure. They are saying, since everyone says they believe in a Palestinian state, why not create it? And the US is apparently going to back the Israelis up by saying, when you be good and agree to a Bantustan (I say that because the Israelis insist on controlling all their borders), maybe you'll get what looks like a state. And all this after the Arab spring and summer! This is not good for the US, not at all.

No it's not, and quite frankly it's stupid for the USA to be focusing on this issue. Let Palestine have their own state.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Jenny, if you're being colonized--and the Palestinians still are as we speak--there's no particular reason for you to care about the colonizers' motivations.

This is a remarkable article by a leftist Israeli about Obama. I don't think it's making nearly enough impression in the US so far what a public relations disaster this UN vote on Palestine is going to be. The Palestinians are asking the UN to make good on what it supposedly offered them 63 years ago--with much less territory to be sure. They are saying, since everyone says they believe in a Palestinian state, why not create it? And the US is apparently going to back the Israelis up by saying, when you be good and agree to a Bantustan (I say that because the Israelis insist on controlling all their borders), maybe you'll get what looks like a state. And all this after the Arab spring and summer! This is not good for the US, not at all.

I hope you realize that I am not defending the settlers in the Occupied Territories, just the people who settled Israel proper after the Holocaust and after the other Middle-Eastern and Northern African countries expelled their Jews. And of course, there was a significant Jewish minority that was living in Palestine prior to the Zionist movement, as well as a Christian minority.

What I would like would be two viable, contiguous States, each with access to the Mediterranean Sea, side by side. Chas and KaiserD47, I assume you both would want the same thing, yes? Or do you believe that the whole project of Israel be dismantled and all Israeli Jews settled elsewhere?

Of course, the entire tragedy of the Middle East is that because both groups (Palestinians and Israeli Jews) are so stiff-necked and stubborn, the chance for the two-State solution gets dimmer by the day. I don't see this ending well at all. If I were Jewish and living in Israel, I'd get out of Dodge as quickly as I could.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I hope you realize that I am not defending the settlers in the Occupied Territories, just the people who settled Israel proper after the Holocaust and after the other Middle-Eastern and Northern African countries expelled their Jews. And of course, there was a significant Jewish minority that was living in Palestine prior to the Zionist movement, as well as a Christian minority.

What I would like would be two viable, contiguous States, each with access to the Mediterranean Sea, side by side. Chas and KaiserD47, I assume you both would want the same thing, yes? Or do you believe that the whole project of Israel be dismantled and all Israeli Jews settled elsewhere?

How you describe the two states is fine, just as long as Israel quits its settlement for "a better defense" program.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I hope you realize that I am not defending the settlers in the Occupied Territories, just the people who settled Israel proper after the Holocaust and after the other Middle-Eastern and Northern African countries expelled their Jews. And of course, there was a significant Jewish minority that was living in Palestine prior to the Zionist movement, as well as a Christian minority.

What I would like would be two viable, contiguous States, each with access to the Mediterranean Sea, side by side. Chas and KaiserD47, I assume you both would want the same thing, yes? Or do you believe that the whole project of Israel be dismantled and all Israeli Jews settled elsewhere?

Of course, the entire tragedy of the Middle East is that because both groups (Palestinians and Israeli Jews) are so stiff-necked and stubborn, the chance for the two-State solution gets dimmer by the day. I don't see this ending well at all. If I were Jewish and living in Israel, I'd get out of Dodge as quickly as I could.

I certainly agree that that would be the best solution. I think both sides have done many things to make that solution impossible to achieve, and I think the present Israeli government is doing that and is not seriously interested in that solution. I would quibble with your history on one point. I think you probably know that Israel was created by people who had been living there for 20 to 40 years, for the most part. It wasn't created mainly by Holocaust survivors, it was created for Holocaust survivors, and yes, then in the years after it was created, Jews left the Arab countries and came to Israel as well.

The question of whether Israel should continue is now for the Israelis to decide, individually and as a group. I've known some who left and I know many more will fight to the death to keep it. As an American I regret terribly that we did not give the Holocaust survivors the opportunity to settle in the United States instead, but we had a tough immigration policy at that point and we weren't going to make an exception for them. I don't know whether it would have made any difference or not. But as an American I am also not interested in joining Israel in an endless war with the whole Muslim world so that Israel can build all the settlements it wants, annex Jerusalem, and control the eastern border of the West Bank. And at the rate things are going, we may in fact be faced with that choice. The shifts in Egypt and especially Turkey are extremely serious.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I would quibble with your history on one point. I think you probably know that Israel was created by people who had been living there for 20 to 40 years, for the most part. It wasn't created mainly by Holocaust survivors, it was created for Holocaust survivors, and yes, then in the years after it was created, Jews left the Arab countries and came to Israel as well.

I will also quibble with the last part. In many cases, Jews were expelled from the Arab countries and Israel took them in. There are several members of my synagogue who were Jews expelled from their home countries.

This is important and not often recognized. Much is made of Palestinians who either were expelled or left voluntarily (assuming they would quickly overwhelm the Jewish State back in 1948) -- both happened. I never see the Jews who were expelled from the Arab countries acknowledged. Many lost homes, money, and goods.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I will also quibble with the last part. In many cases, Jews were expelled from the Arab countries and Israel took them in. There are several members of my synagogue who were Jews expelled from their home countries.

This is important and not often recognized. Much is made of Palestinians who either were expelled or left voluntarily (assuming they would quickly overwhelm the Jewish State back in 1948) -- both happened. I never see the Jews who were expelled from the Arab countries acknowledged. Many lost homes, money, and goods.

I am not denying that, but I doubt, frankly, that they would have been expelled if Israel hadn't been created in the first place. That changed their status.

My own background inevitably makes me prefer states where religion is a private matter and all citizens have equal rights to states defined by religion. I would never live in a country where I had to put a religion on my child's birth certificate. Some Jews--the late Tony Judt is one--have actually recommended making the Palestinians Israeli citizens. How do you feel about that, Jenny?

Another story by way of explanation--a few years ago my wife and I watched an excellent Israeli movie called The Lemon Tree. An Israeli minister decides to build a new house on the west bank, adjacent to a lemon grove owned by an Arab woman. (This is apparently based on something Sharon did in real life.) The security people announce that for safety, her trees are going to have to be cut down. She finds an Israeli lawyer who will take her case to the Supreme Court, and there are many complications on all sides. You get an acute sense of how tragic it all is, and how the Israelis don't want to give way on anything, because if they did, the same principle could compel them to give way on everything. In the midst of all this, the AraB woman gets a call from her young son, who is working in a restaurant in Washington, D. C. He tells her to forget the whole thing and come to the US. I immediately thought of my Ukrainian Jewish grandfather who came over, and I exclaimed, "How did he get in here? A sane man! He came to America!" His mother does not take his advice.

I believe I remember reading that, though WWII was a great equalizer among many nations, pushing them into a 1T High relatively simultaneously, the Middle East, in general, was one Turning behind the U.S.

Given the circumstances arising in various Middle Eastern nations, are some of these countries moving in to their own 4T? I realize this is a matter of opinion, but I'm curious what others believe about this.

Originally Posted by BookishXer

I believe I remember reading that, though WWII was a great equalizer among many nations, pushing them into a 1T High relatively simultaneously, the Middle East, in general, was one Turning behind the U.S.

Given the circumstances arising in various Middle Eastern nations, are some of these countries moving in to their own 4T? I realize this is a matter of opinion, but I'm curious what others believe about this.

It seems like that at the very least north Africa is in a true 4T. The acid test of "is it 4T" ia after all, are systems changing or at least reforming themselves quickly after yeats of in (3T) inertia.
Wha tis happening now in north Africa definitely meets the test.

TnT on the spiral of violence thread asked me why I don't stop posting about gun control, because it is hopeless. I wrote that things that are stuck for decades can change quickly. That's what's happening in some Arab states now. Qaddafi is dead.

The solution to the Palestine problem is clear, as I have written before. The problem is that the two sides are stuck in a religious as well as political battle and have a heritage of hostility. Reasonable solutions don't apply. Unless the people wake up one day and decide they can just move on.

When they do, they can enact the following solution: Make the Temple Mount in Jerusalem an international park administered by the United Nations. Return the rest of the city and the land to the 1967 borders, roughly. Allow Israeli settlers to live in Palestine, provided they agree to live under the Palestinian State, just as many Palestinians currently live under the Isreali state. Perhaps the settlers can form cities with their own police. But they or their state should compensate all Palestinians whose homes were confiscated and/or destroyed. Any future settlement should be approved by Palestine, and paid for by settlers. Palestinians should be able to return to Isreal if they wish too, if they can afford to, under the same conditions, but not given back their former land by "right of return." Israel should be able to build a wall for protection with security checks if it wants, but only on the 1967 borders, or virtually those. There should be no more embargoes and blockades by Israel. Each state should recognize the other's right to exist. They should cooperate in hunting down any remaining terrorists.

Hope springs eternal! Even for the wisdom of abandoning the American gun culture! So....

Thanks, Eric and herbal tee, for the responses.

My curiosity really stems from wondering how other nations, especially those with which we have a contentious history, will impact our own 4T. I recognize that battles can be fought between nations in various stages of their own differing saeculums. However, the potential that several nations, each amidst their own Crisis, that time when people are emotionally in a place to take giant risks in effort to establish what they hope will be a new and better norm, then engage in battle, is admittedly terrifying.

Regarding Palestine and Israel. Oh, the tiresome lengths I could go to talking about that. Eric, I think you have very practical solutions. I've heard many practical solutions to the matter. The dilemma is that this issue is not rooted in practicality. Eric, your statement that each nation should acknowledge the right for the other to exist is one that I don't know will ever come to fruition. The emotional, psychological and religious feuds that are parts of the umbrella over this whole dynamic is, in my opinion, what makes a diplomatic and practical solution virtually impossible.

How many million plane tickets to NYC? The smart ones will get out. Everyone who got out of Europe, pre-1939, saw it coming. The same applies now. What if Egypt and Syria unite with Iraq and Iran to start something?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

TnT on the spiral of violence thread asked me why I don't stop posting about gun control, because it is hopeless. I wrote that things that are stuck for decades can change quickly. That's what's happening in some Arab states now. Qaddafi is dead.

The solution to the Palestine problem is clear, as I have written before. The problem is that the two sides are stuck in a religious as well as political battle and have a heritage of hostility. Reasonable solutions don't apply. Unless the people wake up one day and decide they can just move on.

When they do, they can enact the following solution: Make the Temple Mount in Jerusalem an international park administered by the United Nations. Return the rest of the city and the land to the 1967 borders, roughly. Allow Israeli settlers to live in Palestine, provided they agree to live under the Palestinian State, just as many Palestinians currently live under the Isreali state. Perhaps the settlers can form cities with their own police. But they or their state should compensate all Palestinians whose homes were confiscated and/or destroyed. Any future settlement should be approved by Palestine, and paid for by settlers. Palestinians should be able to return to Isreal if they wish too, if they can afford to, under the same conditions, but not given back their former land by "right of return." Israel should be able to build a wall for protection with security checks if it wants, but only on the 1967 borders, or virtually those. There should be no more embargoes and blockades by Israel. Each state should recognize the other's right to exist. They should cooperate in hunting down any remaining terrorists.

Hope springs eternal! Even for the wisdom of abandoning the American gun culture! So....

I agree on everything here, including gun control. I will take it a bit further. The Israeli state was a bad idea from the onset. There will never be peace in the middle east as long as there is not an equitable solution to the land grab that created Israel.

"Our revenge will be the laughter of our children.”

Originally Posted by TeddyR

I agree on everything here, including gun control. I will take it a bit further. The Israeli state was a bad idea from the onset. There will never be peace in the middle east as long as there is not an equitable solution to the land grab that created Israel.

"Our revenge will be the laughter of our children.”

In several Alternate History Timelines on AH.com, I've seen the rump of Prussia as an alternate place being given for Jews. Would that have been possible and/or a better situation?



~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

In several Alternate History Timelines on AH.com, I've seen the rump of Prussia as an alternate place being given for Jews. Would that have been possible and/or a better situation?



~Chas'88

Well, it would have been a more equitable solution. As has been said before, the creation of Israel was shifting Europe's errors to the Middle East. However, doing this would have created a whole new set of inequities.

A better option would have been to carve out sparse land in the USA or elsewhere.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

I agree on everything here, including gun control. I will take it a bit further. The Israeli state was a bad idea from the onset. There will never be peace in the middle east as long as there is not an equitable solution to the land grab that created Israel.

"Our revenge will be the laughter of our children.”

As it turns out, most of the cosmopolitan, relatively westernized Jews who founded Israel might indeed have been happier in the United States or Western Europe, but in 1948 they couldn't come to the United States, and Western Europe didn't seem like a realistic option. At the rate things are going Israel may become a second, Jewish Saudi Arabia--theocracy is on the march there on many fronts. If it does, the secular types will leave by the tens of thousands at least. This is already happening to a certain extent. But meanwhile, the headlines tell us we are indeed preparing to join Israel in war on Iran, which will be catastrophic for all.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

As it turns out, most of the cosmopolitan, relatively westernized Jews who founded Israel might indeed have been happier in the United States or Western Europe, but in 1948 they couldn't come to the United States, and Western Europe didn't seem like a realistic option. At the rate things are going Israel may become a second, Jewish Saudi Arabia--theocracy is on the march there on many fronts. If it does, the secular types will leave by the tens of thousands at least. This is already happening to a certain extent. But meanwhile, the headlines tell us we are indeed preparing to join Israel in war on Iran, which will be catastrophic for all.

NPR was doing a story this morning on how ultra-Orthodox Jews are starting to rise in terms of population & influence like the Conservative Christian Coalition did here in the 1980s. It sounds like Israel's 3Ting is moving along quite well IMO.

~Chas'88

The return of Medievalism in the Middle East.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

Well, it would have been a more equitable solution. As has been said before, the creation of Israel was shifting Europe's errors to the Middle East. However, doing this would have created a whole new set of inequities.

A better option would have been to carve out sparse land in the USA or elsewhere.

Had the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem remained neutral during WWII as Turkey did, something like this probably would have happened - and a Jewish state could not have been placed in Palestine in that case because the Peace of Westphalia that ended the Thirty Years' War in 1648 established the precedent in international law, never since violated, that in no case can a neutral entity be deprived of territory in any post-war peace settlement (indeed, Denmark - neutral during WWI - actually gained northern Schleswig from Germany at Versailles).