?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

copied from weirdjews

What do you think of this statement, particularly in the context of the disengagement?

If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel.

EDIT: I'm not saying this is what I think. I'm just wondering what other people think about this statement.

Tags:

Comments

( 8 comments — Leave a comment )
gegenschein
Sep. 9th, 2005 10:29 am (UTC)
I fully agree. Just woke up, too tired to say much more right now, but I do agree.
masterwolf
Sep. 9th, 2005 01:49 pm (UTC)
I think that the statement makes perfect sense, it's true even. However, the same argument could have been used in the 1940s, but violence prevailed and was successful. A country gained through war and terrorism has no moral position to tell others not to use the same means.

That's the short answer. I'm sure people will disagree with me, so I'll elaborate later.
subjectivity
Sep. 10th, 2005 12:48 am (UTC)
Israel was given to the Jews under a UN agreement. As soon as it was independent it was attacked from all sides.

I'll repeat that. Israel was given to the Jews under a UN agreement. As soon as it was independent, it was attacked from all sides.

This is historical fact.

Even though land around there was originally supposed to be two separate states, for Jews and Arabs, the Arabs did not want the Jews there at all and made the first attack. Israel fought back. Then In 1967 Egypt vowed to destroy Israel, again, and started mobilizing forces and cutting off Israeli shipping. Israel made a preemptive strike, was again attacked on all sides and in that war Israel took extra land to protect itself. Keep in mind that if the Arabs had won they would have taken ALL of Israel. The goal was to destroy Israel, not to get a buffer to protect Arabs from Israeli attack. Fighting back to save your life and country is not the same as terrorism, which I would define as purposely targeting and killing innocent people in order to gain power and promote fear.

masterwolf
Sep. 10th, 2005 04:44 am (UTC)
Israel was given by UN mandate after decades of violence and "freedom fighting" against both the British and Arabs who had ruled the region for many years. That's like saying the Christians "agreed" to give Saladin Jerusalem after that war.

If the UN were tomorrow to decide to give Israel to, let's say, Egypt, and make it part of that country, I do not think the Jews would accept the decree and ship out. There is only so far that people are willing to go along with the UN. Surely you must agree with me that Israel (now or in the past) is not subject to be "given" by any outside party...

The problem with your "historical fact" is it begins in 1948, ignoring the past. "originally" supposed to be two states? In the history of the Middle East, Israel/Palestine has been one state, for EITHER Jews, Muslims, or Christians, almost exclusively throughout its history. Only for 20-30 years, out of over a THOUSAND has it been 2 states. "originally"? Arabs making the first attack? After Israel was "created", yes Arabs made the first attack. However, that is a very shortsighted viewpoint. Jews (the Zionists of the early 1900s) had been attacking Arabs and British both for around 20 years before Israel was created.

The Stern Gang and Irgun are well-known historically-documented Jewish terrorist groups from the 1920s-1950s. Historical fact. Irgun bombed a hotel and an embassy. The Stern Gang carried out two assasinations of British officials, putting pressure on England to get out of Palestine and stop negotiating with Arabs. Terrorism is terrorism. Historical fact.

*****Personal Note*****
I am not against the existance of Israel at all. I believe that the violence being perpetrated is wrong, and that the killing of innocents is the worst crime possible. I think that Sharon is a horrible leader, and whoever that Palestinian clown is even worse. Neither will be capable of bringing peace to the region. A two state solution is the only fair one at the moment, and I hope and pray that it can be achieved with as little violence and as little time as possible. However, I do not believe in throwing all the blame for a conflict on one side nor ignoring certain facts for others. I think both sides have had their fair share of bigots, extremists, terrorists, and idiots. I can only hope that the Jews and Arabs of our generation in the Middle East can put aside the past and work towards the future.
tevarin
Sep. 10th, 2005 04:26 pm (UTC)
I think you make a good point. No Israeli politician would now accept the UN's judgement on who should get what land; after all, the UN said Israel should give back the West Bank years ago. It seems inconsistent for them to argue that the local Arabs should have just accepted the UN's decree back in '48.


Israel/Palestine was a real mess in the 30's and 40's. Arab terrorists, Jewish terrorists, British diplomats that were variously biased, dishonest, and remarkably decent.

I recommend "One Palestine, Complete" by Tom Segev. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0805065873/104-6701337-8613553?v=glance

I would argue that the Jews gained legal control over the land through having much better lobbyists and organization than the Palestinian Arabs, not because of any superior moral claim.

Which is not to say that their claim was inferior, either. There's too much tangled history and religion there for me to give an objective answer.

I would say that the land has been divided before. The Crusader kingdoms grabbed chunks of it (but not the whole thing) for a century or two. Way back in the time of Solomon's heirs, it was two Jewish kingdoms, then one Jewish kingdom and one Assyrian one. Babylonian, Persian, Roman/Jewish, etc.
negativeneve
Sep. 9th, 2005 05:14 pm (UTC)
I don't agree with it.
tevarin
Sep. 9th, 2005 09:07 pm (UTC)
I think the first half of the statement stretches the truth. The Arabs were quiet during the Gaza disengagement, and there were still a few nutcases on the Israeli side killing them.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1440200.htm

More generally, there are anti-Arab racists and "Greater Israel" fanatics among Jews. Maybe not many, but enough to cause trouble. I don't think they'd give up if the Arabs put their guns down.

I think the second half of the statement is thoroughly true. And it sucks, but I don't think that's going to change for a generation at least.
masterwolf
Sep. 10th, 2005 04:47 am (UTC)
I think I agree with this opinion.
( 8 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

botticelli
thisgirliknow
Much like pineapples, I am hardcore.

Latest Month

March 2019
S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by yoksel