SSU: You think the UN has an "objective" view regarding Israel? That's laughable. — LD Saunders

You're quite laughable.

I was talking about what UN Peacekeepers on the field reported. Not what something as large and schizophrenic as the "UN" officially views is something else.

Those reports done by individual blueberet soldiers and officers are quite objective because they don't have any own agenda or reasons to distort what was observed. I know many that have served in Lebanon as peacekeepers. A lot of Finnish reservists and active officers served in Lebanon and they didn't have any other agenda than just to report what they saw. Finnish troops have been there in Lebanon from 1982-2001 and 2006-2007 and from 2011 onwards to the present.

And the truth is that what they report isn't what typically is reported in the media.

The difference between these reports and the ordinary media reporting is simply that they are done by military trained people observing a military conflict, not the ordinary journalist take on reporting of the plight of the civilians in the hands of evil warlords/terrorists/Israelis Army/whatever. The judgemental aspect of the conflict is left out.

Let me ask this: If Israel stopped the settlements of the disputed lands entirely and offered the Palestinians full autonomy within the lands generally recognized to be theirs, that is they offered a two state solution, would the sentiment on this Board be entirely in favor of Israel? That is, is it really the settlement of those lands that has caused the negative reaction to Israel? — Hanover

As I said before, the real problem would be for the Palestinian side to stick to the peace agreement. Because once you have the agreement, then that's that. Somewhere Palestine ends and Israel begins. Israel has been capable of removing the zionist religious fanatics quite easily from Sinai, let's remember that. So if there would be a reason for Israel to withdraw, they could do it and it can very well control it's borders. Jordan and Egypt have been able to do this and enforce the peace agreement, even if especially in Egypt populists have a opportunity for their populism in being agaist the Camp David accord. Lebanon is the case example when the government is too weak: Hezbollah has taken over South Lebanon and actually fought very well during the last war.

The truth is that in the Middle East, it takes a lot more courage and political bravery to be for a peace settlement than to be a hawk. It's far more easy to be a hawk and settle to the conclusion that limited wars are just a part of life. Just look at the Arab and Israeli leaders that have been killed by their country's own zealots because they did make a peace agreement.

But of course, there's no need for Israel to do any peace deal. A peace deal is done only when the continuation of the war is intolerable. For Israeli the occasional terrorist attack or rocket attack is a minor nuisance, not something that cannot be lived with.

SSU: There is nothing objective about any UN organization when it comes to Israel. That's one of the issues that the US has with the UN presently. The UN has engaged in criminal behavior against Israel. Literally. From allowing a terrorist tunnel to be dug into Israel from one of its buildings, to providing rockets to Hamas, to promoting signs calling for Muslims to run over Jews in the streets of Israel. The UN is about as anti-Semitic as the Nation of Islam and David Duke combined.

SSU: Tell us all what so-called peace deal the so-called Palestinian Arabs have on the table? Israel has offered the so-called Palestinians a state of their own, on numerous occasions. The state would include all of Gaza, 97% of the west bank, border concessions for the other 3% and east Jerusalem as their capital. The response? The Palestinians turned it down, and demanded the destruction of Israel and all the Jews in Israel. In fact, that is still the official position of both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority to this day. So, how is Israel at fault for their being no peace when the Palestinians turn down such a great offer, and don't even counter, except to demand all Jews in Israel be killed?

There is a reason why Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan all supported Israel during its last war in Gaza. It's because even those countries are getting tired of the Palestinians' crap. It's only the anti-Semitic left in the USA and Europe that supported the Palestinians digging terrorist tunnels into Israel, murdering Jewish teenagers, and violating every cease-fire agreement. Even the Saudis know better than to support such crap.

There is a reason why Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan all supported Israel during its last war in Gaza. It's because even those countries are getting tired of the Palestinians' crap. It's only the anti-Semitic left in the USA and Europe that supported the Palestinians digging terrorist tunnels into Israel, murdering Jewish teenagers, and violating every cease-fire agreement. Even the Saudis know better than to support such crap. — LD Saunders

This answer shows both your utter ignorance and bias about the Middle East perfectly.

The only reason Saudi Arabia tolerates Israel (and btw just now the crown Prince has said that Israel has a right to exist) is because of the Shia-Sunni conflict. Palestinians are Sunnis, but Hamas has close ties with Iran, which angers naturally Saudi Arabia. And Saudi Arabia is top of the pack because a) Iraq is down and out and b) Egypt has it's own problems and general al-Sisi is no Nasser.

To think that Saudis and other Arabs would be "tired of Palestinians' crap" is very odd idea.

Israel's Declaration of Independence draws attention to Eretz-Israel, and speaks of the "natural and historic right" of the Jewish Community and the Zionist Movement in connection with the establishment of a Jewish State to be known as the State of Israel.

For my part, I think Israel exists, and is a nation. I think it futile to maintain otherwise. However, I wonder to what extent it can reasonably be maintained that Palestine as a geographic area can be said to be the location in which a Jewish State should exist, or that a "natural and historic right" to the establishment of a state in that area exists. There are problems with taking such a position, and in basing a claim of entitlement to land on such vagaries as natural or historic rights, particularly when they're used in connection with establishing a nation. Bear with me as I indulge in a simple review of history, or pass on--I won't mind.

As I'm not inclined to think of God as a conveyor of real estate, or think that there is a natural right to certain property at a certain location, I think that if any such right can even be conceived it would have to be defended by reference to history. History, though, indicates that Palestine hasn't served as a home to "the Jewish people" or certainly to a Jewish State in an even nominal sense, since at the latest Hadrian was Roman Emperor and the Bar Kochba Revolt was crushed in 135 C.E. Before that, the Second Temple and most of Jerusalem was destroyed by the legions under Titus in 70 C.E. (you can still see the legions carrying the spoils of the Temple in a relief on the Arch of Titus on the Via Sacra in the Roman Forum).

Exiles from Palestine were associated with both those events. Earlier, the Jews were exiled in the 8th century B.C.E. by the Assyrians, and during the Babylonian Captivity in the 6th century B.C.E. Most Jews stayed in Babylon for centuries, though some returned from exile, to be subjected to the rule of Cyrus and other Persians and then one or another of Alexander's successors, for most of the time, until becoming a protectorate of Rome in the 1st century B.C.E.

History seems to indicate that most of the Jewish people lived outside of Palestine, and that no Jewish State existed in Palestine, for the last 2800 years or so.

However, I wonder to what extent it can reasonably be maintained that Palestine as a geographic area can be said to be the location in which a Jewish State should exist, — Ciceronianus the White

The region was governed by the Egyptians and Hittites before there was any such thing as a Hebrew. Per Netanyahu's own expressed logic, the area should be split between Egypt and Turkey and the Jews should evacuate entirely.

There was something of that notion in early Jewish settlements in Palestine, They were taking on unproductive land, so bringing it into production would benefit everyone. — Londoner

This is laughable.
It's the same false argument used by white genocidal maniacs all over the world from South Africa to all the Americas.

The region was governed by the Egyptians and Hittites before there was any such thing as a Hebrew. Per Netanyahu's own expressed logic, the area should be split between Egypt and Turkey and the Jews should evacuate entirely. — frank

Indeed, and the Australians should give Australia back the the indigenous peoples; the nations of the Americas should return the lands to the "Indians", but more in a timeline - since there has not been a Jewish state before 1948 since the time of Hadrian, the English should give back Britain to the Welsh and Cornish folk and return to Germany and Scandinavia.

Charleton: No, it's not true, — LD Saunders

I'm not the only one that cited evidence. If you do not want to read it then that's your problem.

Well, it wasn't that romantic. Palestine was not empty and even those who at first managed to miss this fact, soon enough found out: — Πετροκότσυφας

I did not say it was empty, however it was considered under-developed and thus underpopulated, which indeed it was.

What you do not seem to be able to take on board is that Jewish settlements in Palestine were proposed long before the Holocaust. Nobody expected more than a handful of romantic religious idealists would ever want to leave their comfortable lives in places like Germany to go and live in the semi-desert. As your (unattributed) quote says; This is an infinitely graver difficulty than the stock anti-Zionist taunt that nobody would go to Palestine if we got it; which was indeed the mainstream attitude at the time. Nobody was offering Jerusalem and Palestine to the Jews; there were Jews already in those places, just as there were Christians, just as there had been for centuries, so why would a few more matter?

That was the attitude at the time. After Hitler it is hard for us to imagine a time when it was seriously argued that the spiritual home of Judaism was Germany, or where it was not uncommon for Jews to convert on the grounds that all the worlds religions were merging into one anyway, as reason replaces superstitious elements, but that was the case.

But I get the impression nobody is interested in history, except as ammunition for one side or the other. And where something doesn't fit our preconceptions we close our eyes and stick our fingers in our ears.

There was something of that notion in early Jewish settlements in Palestine, They were taking on unproductive land, so bringing it into production would benefit everyone.

This is laughable.
It's the same false argument used by white genocidal maniacs all over the world from South Africa to all the Americas. — charleton

No, it is the argument made by anyone who knows anything about farming. Land, particularly semi-desert is not valuable, at best in can be used for seasonal grazing. You have to invest in it before it becomes productive.

OK, the people who used to do the seasonal grazing may not see it that way, but it is a very poor living and you don't have to be a white genocidal maniac to argue that life is generally better for everyone in an economically developed country like the USA than the mountains of Afghanistan.

Yes, there is more to it than that, but my point is that you would not have to be a villain to have seen early Zionist immigration as being a potentially good thing.

But because of the nature of this thread it is impossible to accept ideas like that. You have to keep it simple. One side or the other has to be irredeemably evil. If we were discussing any other topic but Israel /Palestine we would see how irrational this is.

No, it is the argument made by anyone who knows anything about farming. Land, particularly semi-desert is not valuable, at best in can be used for seasonal grazing. You have to invest in it before it becomes productive. — Londoner

In other words kick off the dirty Arabs and their goats, and build a weapon's factory.

Indeed, and the Australians should give Australia back the the indigenous peoples; the nations of the Americas should return the lands to the "Indians", but more in a timeline - since there has not been a Jewish state before 1948 since the time of Hadrian, the English should give back Britain to the Welsh and Cornish folk and return to Germany and Scandinavia. — charleton

By Netanyahu's reckoning, yes. As Hanover said, a group comes into possession of a stretch of land by various means, some violent. Israel should repudiate zionism and admit that some of its historic efforts to make Palestinians either move to Jordan or just shrivel up and die were wrong. The Israeli government should embrace all Palestinians as part of Israel and offer reparations.

The east coast of the mediterranean has been under all sorts of management in the last 4,000 years. Egyptians, Hittites, Assyrians, Persians, Jews, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Turks, and... (apologies to those not on the list). At this time the strip of land in question is under the management of German and Russian Jews. Who is not biased about the ownership of this small property? Whether you are in favor of Israel or Arabs, you are biased. So what?

Is there anyone out there (shading my eyes as I look around the 100,000 seat stadium full of philosophers) who has a perfectly neutral position on Israel or Palestine? Come on, raise your hands -- higher, please...

How could anyone be neutral? Unbiased? Not racist? To take a position places one in somebody's negative category box. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Who has a solution that will not be a fresh injustice to someone?

Per Ciceronianus, God didn't convey any land to the Jews. That role (at least in the 20th century) was filled by the British. They were collecting rent on that particular piece of real estate back then, and they widened and narrowed the gap through which refugee Jews (Zionists, sure, but also non-Zionist Jews hoping to get the hell out of Germany before it was too late).

Were the Brits in this discussion occupying high office in the '20s and '30s, would you have let the Jews into Palestine or not, knowing how much the Nazis hated them? How would you have felt after the Holocaust, saying "Hell, no. I'm not supporting this racist, imperialistic deprivation of Arab rights."

People have been moving around the planet for a long time, displacing the resident group, only to be displaced themselves. , were the Welsh and the Cornish the VERY FIRST people to occupy your lovely island? It seems to me pretty likely there was somebody else living there when you all arrived.

Colonialism, or population movement, or population displacement or replacement, is just people doing their thing. Everybody has done it, does it, or will do it sooner or later (going back to the stone age) and totally without respect for UN resolutions for or against it.

I'm biased in favor of Israeli displacement of Arabs; the British, Spanish, and Portuguese displacement of Amerindians, The British displacement of the Aboriginal inhabitants in Australia and New Zealand, the Frisian, Angle, Saxon and Scandinavian displacement of Celts, and the Celtic displacement of whoever was there immediately before. And all other displacements.

One might as well be since it's not going to be reversed.

I don't understand how a species that flew to the moon could be so dysfunctional. — Andrew4Handel

The people who didn't live on the moon can be grateful they weren't there when we arrived -- else they would find themselves an earthy possession, at this point, and would be at the UN complaining that their lunar rights were being violated--to no avail.

Flying to the moon is proof of being functional, true enough, and so is operating am empire on which the sun never sets. So is carrying out Manifest Destiny or turning the desert green one kibbutz at a time.

Your mistake is assuming that People In their right minds are sensitive, caring, law-abiding, justice-seeking creatures who wish the best for everyone, and are quick to place others' needs before their own. Homo sapiens in their natural element (planet earth) are an invasive species, and if need be will get rid of the native opposition if they do too much bitching and carping about the new regime. They should be grateful, the bastards. This is not unusual behavior among species, certainly not this one.

It is only with the greatest of difficulty and the most severe cognitive dissonance that we manage to tolerate everyone on this over-populated celestial ball. We can actually like some of the people some of the time, but liking all of the people all of the time is just not within our genetic or learned behavioral repertoire. Consequently, we need a pressure-relieving war every now and then.

[Delete] @Baden

[Delete] @Baden

So, you'd be able to define what under-developed/underpopulated means, to provide the corresponding sources which show that it was underdeveloped/underpopulated and also give an argument why it matters. Since it was Ottoman land, you couldn't just move there. — Πετροκότσυφας

You can tell it was underpopulated by the fact that it is now able to support a lot more people that it did at the time. Yes; it was Ottoman land which is why the early Zionists requested the Sultan's permission to settle there. There was nothing remarkable about that, there were already Jews living throughout the Empire as there had been for centuries.

Eastern Europe and the Islamic world was nowhere homogeneous; It is only that way now because we have had a long period of 'ethic cleansing'. So, for example a Greek city like Salonika could have a majority Jewish population, there were Greek cities in Turkey, Christian communities in Iraq...nobody yet has the idea that one geographical area has to have one ethnicity.

Your quotes refer to Eretz Israel and a far more ambitious plan to create a new nation with a Jewish majority. That was not yet a serious option; the idea that any Jew would want to go there was considered doubtful, let alone masses. You pick on these quotes with the benefit of hindsight, because we now know that is indeed what would happen, but that is not how it seemed at the time.

"Do you imagine that in the past people did what they did because they woke up one morning and thought 'Let's be evil'?". It seems like you imagine this exact thing in the case of Germans; one day they offer Jews a comfortable life, the next they slaughter them without anyone seeing it coming. — Πετροκότσυφας

If you had wanted to pick a nation where Jews were most emancipated, where they played a prominent part in cultural life, you would have picked Germany. During WW1 Germany could credibly appeal to American Jews that Germany was the side they should be supporting. The archetypal anti-Semitic nation was Russia (an ally of France and Britain).

And yes, in a few short years this changed absolutely. There are heart-rending stories of German Jews who waited too long to escape because they simply did not believe what was happening. Once again, because we know Hitler is coming we look into the past and pick out signals of that coming, but that is not how it seemed at the time.

Germany changed. Not because they decided to be evil but because when people get into difficulties they will follow the politician that gives them a simplistic explanation for their problems. People are like that, all people. The liberal reforms were just as real as Hitler, but they turned out to be fragile. And fortunately, so was the Nazi regime; Germany today is again a liberal country.

You expect a clear narrative from history, where the actors have fixed characters and you can prove and disprove things and detect clear lines of cause and effect. I don't. I see it as chaotic.

How could anyone be neutral? Unbiased? Not racist? To take a position places one in somebody's negative category box. ↪frank? ↪Ciceronianus the White? ↪ssu? ↪LD Saunders? ↪Hanover? ↪Πετροκότσυφας? ↪Andrew4Handel? ↪SophistiCat? ↪René Descartes? ↪Benkei? ↪aporiap? ↪charleton? ↪unenlightened? ↪Londoner? ↪CuddlyHedgehog? — Bitter Crank

I view that the existence of nation states or countries simply cannot reasoned from a moral perspective. They surely can be reasoned, but morality isn't a defining factor. This is because basically every nation that has gained independence has gotten that after some kind of war or conflict. Hence anybody declaring one state to be more "legitimate" than other is absurdly confused. In fact, I tend to think that those people talking about the legitimate rights are usually the ones who start wars.

Existence of a state as a sovereign is an issue of practicality. Westphalian sovereignty can be reasoned by it's practicality and usefulness.

Neither can the borders of a country be justified to be legitimate on some higher moral ground. It doesn't have to do with morality, but of convenience and realpolitik. Who won and who lost in the last conflict.

That's not an answer though. So was the rest of the planet. So is the rest of the planet. I don't see populations emigrating to Mongolia, Australia or Sahara. — Πετροκότσυφας

They do if investment can open opportunities for work. I would have thought Australia was a prime example.

Nah, that "there" is false. The Ottoman decree allowed Jews from Europe to settle anywhere in the empire, except... Palestine. And later prohibited even Ottoman Jews from buying land in Palestine. — Πετροκότσυφας

What is false; my saying that they wanted to be allowed to settle in Palestine or that there were already Jews in Palestine? That the Ottomans may not have been willing to take Zionist settlers does not contradict either of these. Other suggestions for Jewish settlements were Kenya and Argentina; once again the notion at the time was that it would be beneficial to these places.

Except that these quotes didn't have the benefit of hindsight, they were well known views based on the analysis of the situation. It seems like some people still avert their eyes. — Πετροκότσυφας

The hindsight is in your selection of those quotes, rather than quotes from the much larger mass of people who saw no point in a Jewish homeland - and some danger. Because we know what is going to happen it doesn't follow that people at the time knew it too. Now somebody like Herzl is considered an important figure because of the way things turned out. But in his own time his vision for a Jewish homeland was not something like modern Israel but what was satirised as 'an imbecile prospectus for a Jewish Switzerland on the instalment plan'. And for those that did give it consideration, is was often as somewhere to put Russian and Romanian Jewish refugees, to relieve their condition, rather than somewhere a middle-class German Jew would ever want to go. Real history is all mixed up; what we now see as a clear process was a collection of different people, all with their own assessments and plans, often talking a cross-purposes. Just like in normal life.

Or maybe it is you who expect a clear narrative and just ignore everything else. It seems quite obvious that were you living back then, you wouldn't have paid any attention to those who were actually right in their assessment. — Πετροκότσυφας

That's right! If I was living back in those times I probably wouldn't have paid any attention to those who were actually right in their assessment....because at that time I wouldn't have known that they were right. Just as if I had attended a meeting of a tiny right-wing fringe party in 1918 I would have probably failed to realise than one day one of the speakers would become dictator of Germany or that there would be a world war.

And today when I read the various stock market tips I am unable to tell who is actually right from the rest, which makes investment a chancy business. Yes, some of them will be right, but I do not know which. I will only know that in retrospect. If that isn't the case with you, you must be enormously rich, and I would have thought you would have had better places to spend your time than arguing on an internet discussion board..

I haven't seen any stateless ethnic or religious group, with anything similar to the zionist agenda, emigrating to any of these places. — Πετροκότσυφας

Now you are just twisting your argument to score points. The issue was whether investment in unproductive areas could create a net benefit or whether development is always a zero sum game. That an area can only have a fixed economic output, so that any immigration must always deprive whoever is already there. Now it may be that the immigrants colonise the area and suppress the original population, but it need not necessarily be the case. And that was not how the Zionist project was originally imagined; it was meant to create a new kind of non-nationalistic state, hence the reference to a 'Switzerland' in my previous post. Right up until the end of the mandate there were attempts to build joint Jewish-Arab institutions, because the expectation was there would be a mixed state. Sadly, that wasn't what happened, but once again we only know that with hindsight.

Nah, I'm actually poor. Yet, for some reason, I know that the current resurgence of reactionary ideologies will end up in something bad if folk won't stop normilising them. Really, I'm no magician! — Πετροκότσυφας

I would say that what characterises reactionary ideologies is their simplistic portrayal of history; "All Jews have always been wicked. They are the source of all our problems." Or alternatively "All Arabs are evil and only want to kill Jews and anyone who sympathises with them must be an anti-Semite". I suggest a more nuanced picture, which is why I annoy both sides.

How could anyone be neutral? Unbiased? Not racist? To take a position places one in somebody's negative category box. ↪frank? ↪Ciceronianus the White? ↪ssu? ↪LD Saunders? ↪Hanover? ↪Πετροκότσυφας? ↪Andrew4Handel? ↪SophistiCat? ↪René Descartes? ↪Benkei? ↪aporiap? ↪charleton? ↪unenlightened? ↪Londoner? ↪CuddlyHedgehog?

How does making a judgement on an issue make someone bias? Assuming common agreement on a set of shared human rights, there is a correct assessment of the situation which holds regardless of sentiment. Condemnations are not disproportionately dolled out. Europeans committed atrocities to local populations throughout the colonial period and [to my knowledge] no western state denies this was a dark period. Since this thread is about Israel, that is what we are focusing on.

Israel is suppressing the development of an acknowledged nation state - Palestine - through neglect of its internationally determined duty to condemn and sanction fanatic Jews who think they have a title to west bank land. It committed atrocities during the campaign for its own establishment and still denies legitimate property rights to natives. It displaced, what could have been, a people that developed into an otherwise multicultural, multi-religious diverse state that would've had no pretext for maintaining the dominance of a given component ethnic or religious group unlike Israel which was established under the pretext of maintaining Jewish cultural and ethnic dominance within the state itself. Considering most of this colonization has happened post UN establishment, after the our attempt at holding high enlightenment ideals, it is like almost a slap in the face.

Rene: How about you actually stop using double standards in judging Israel? Name a single time when you have ever evaluated a position by only looking at the costs, and not the gains? Saying the US gives aid to Israel and none to the Palis is also 100% false. In fact, for years, the USA was funding the bounties the Palestinian Authority placed on Jews, so families of murderers of Jews could get life-long pensions, as high as $15,000.00 a month. It was only recently that the Congress cut off such funding. The US gives a huge amount of aid to the Palis, as well as the Egyptians, and many other nations. In fact, the USA gives far more to Germany than to Israel, just calculate the costs of those military bases in Germany to the US taxpayer. But, noticeably absent from your calculation is any inclusion of the benefits Israel has for the USA. How much does Israel benefit the USA in terms of military information, military technology, as well as being an R & D pipeline for numerous US companies? Are you aware that basically every week technology flows from Israel to the USA, which even includes medical advances used in US hospitals? Of course not.

Now, when you buy a car, do you say, "well, this car costs $10,000.00, so I'm not buying it?" Or, do you say, "well, this car costs $10,000, but it will also provide me with $10,000 worth of benefits, so I'll buy it?" You always include a cost-benefit tradeoff, except when you discuss Israel, when you employ an irrational double-standard of only looking at costs, but no benefits.

By the way, most Zionists in Israel have wanted nothing from the USA, PROVIDED the USA stops financing Israel's enemies. That has never happened. The USA actually gives far more to Israel's enemies than it does to Israel.

All I've done is suggested, modestly as always, that the claim made in the Declaration of the Jewish State in Eretz-Israel to be known as the State of Israel, that it is established based on "natural and historic right," is questionable. Does that establish a bias? I suppose it might to some at least. But a claim of bias on that basis poses a danger to those making the claim.

I question whether there are any rights which are not rights recognized in law, and maintain that any claim that there are rights which are not, in fact, legal rights is simply a claim that there are certain things which are not legal rights which nevertheless should be treated as if they were legal rights. So when I question the existence of a right which isn't a legal right, I show no particular bias against those claiming such a right exists.

The claim that any group of people have a "natural and historic right" to a nation in a certain location, separate and distinct from a legal right, is necessarily biased, however, as it favors a particular group of people over other groups. In other words, it's a claim that a particular group of people, and no other group of people, are entitled to a nation at a certain place. So, I think reference to rights in these cases is best avoided. Israel simply exists.

Basically, on this forum, as on almost every social media platform, there is an enormous amount of anti-Semitism. It is basic for the left to be anti-Semitic, and it's not just in the USA, but throughout the western world, just look at the anti-Semitism in Britain's Labour Party. The modern-day anti-Semitism was noted by such anti--racists as Martin Luther King, Jr., who stated that anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism. Basically what happens is people tell lies about Israel, in an effort to dehumanize all Jews globally and to "justify" attacks against them. This is why in Sweden, after Trump announced he was moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, a crowd gathered around a synagogue, lit it on fire, and started chanting that Jews should be shot. Similar occurrences happen throughout western Europe, especially France. Why didn't the protestors protest at the American embassy? Because Israel is the modern focal point for anti-Semites. It's not that people hate Jews because of Israel. Israel is no worse than any western nation, and it's history is far more justified than many western nations. Instead, Israel is hated because that is where the Jews are. It's just easier for anti-Semites to hide behind an anti-Zionist claim. Yet, anti-Zionism literally means the destruction of Israel which can only occur if millions of Jews are slaughtered and their property confiscated. These same anti-Zionists never protest against Egypt that kicked out its Jewish citizens and stole their homes from them. This has occurred throughout the Arab-Muslim world, yet, this cleansing of Jews has raised no complaints by those in the anti-Zionist camp who falsely claim that they are interested in social justice.

Bullshit. They don't even care about the Palis. When Egypt bombs Gaza, no one bitches. When Syria bombs Palis, no one bitches. When Lebanon abuses Palis and treats them like shit, no one bitches. People don't bitch in those cases because the Jews can't be blamed for those abuses. This selective concern for the so-called Palis, a group made-up in the 1970s, gives away the plot. The so-called concern for Palis is only expressed when it can be used to harm Israel and Jews. Otherwise, no one gives a shit about them.

This is my take, and I would have thought that my view would have been extreme on this Board in its support of Israel, but then I read your posts and wasn't so sure.

There is tremendous bias against Israel by the Arabs against the Jews in Israel because the Jews are not Muslim and Israel is seen as a satellite state for the US, which represents an entirely different culture and value system. If an Arab nation, with all its perceived backwardness by the Western world, was felt to have encroached on US soil, there would be less than a warm welcome. The U.S.'s interest in Israel is based upon the strong political involvement of Jews in the US as well as it being in an oil rich region.

So, we have an incendiary mix of hatred and this has resulted in violent reactions by the Palestinians, with the rest of the Arab world sympathizing with them, or at least superficially so. The rest of the Western world sees the Arab world destabilized by Israel's presence and they no doubt largely blame the US for that, considering the Israeli political and military power flows directly from Washington.

Does this mean that there is no link at all between the Jewishness of Israel and world reaction? No, but I don't think that if Israel secularized entirely and were populated by a majority Lutheran population you'd see a much different result in either the Arab reaction or the rest of the world.

I also think that the world reaction will rise and fall on pragmatics more than ideology, meaning that regardless of where this problem came from and regardless of who the land rightfully belongs to, the world mostly just wants to see the violence, regardless of who's at fault, end. The real truth is that no one cares for the Jews or the Palestinians as much as they do themselves, meaning they just want the problem resolved. It's a problem that needs to be fixed, but instead it's just something argued about.

I have a case in my office right now where water is running from my client's land onto his neighbor's. Both have all sorts of creative explanations for why the other is at fault, and I'll spend the better part of a year or two litigating and pointing fingers. I'm not sure who is right, but one day a jury will tell me who it is. What they need is to buy a shovel and fix the problem, but they'd rather be right than fix the problem.

It is basic for the left to be anti-Semitic — LD Saunders

This may or may not be true -- I don't know everything about the Left. But to whatever extent it is true, why do you think is it so? I would think all these neo-Marxists would at least be aware that Marx himself was a Jew. Doesn't that count for something with them?

This may or may not be true -- I don't know everything about the Left. But to whatever extent it is true, why do you think is it so? I would think all these neo-Marxists would at least be aware that Marx himself was a Jew. Doesn't that count for something with them? — Bitter Crank

Well, you have to first start with the assumption that anti-Israel equates to anti-Semitism. The left in the US has been strongly opposed to American Middle East policy since at least GW's days and the neo-con movement. They were so relieved when Obama came into office that they gave him a Peace Prize only to see him largely adopt GW's strategies, although toward the end he seemed to just let things go. The strongest allies of Israel tend toward the fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews, neither friends of the left, so there's that too.

In terms of thinking Jews always embracing Jews, yeah, not my experience.

Do you think peace is possible for Israel? If so, how?