As everyone knows, I’m very much an independent who basically rarely ever votes Republican anymore. To some here, they consider me a conservative because I don't just take the Democratic party line across the board; which to me is just being hyper-political. I truely consider myself a progressive independent that identifies much closer with the Democratic party than the Republican party. But there are, issues where I just feel the Democarts are wrong; like gun control.

But one issue I have with the Democratic party is their tendency to side with the “Palestinians” on the issue of Israel/Palestine. I think it’s because the Democratic party tends to follow the lead of Europe on most things (which generally is a good idea). But Europe has always been anti Semitic, which is the whole reason for the mass emigration to the area now known as Israel; essentially the Zionist movement.

The Jews did NOT move in and kick the “Palestinians” out of their land, those people we now know as the Palestinians emigrated to Palestine from the surrounding Arab lands before they all became the nations we know today. The Jews emigrated to an area that was sparsely populated, nearly abandoned, and bought the land, mostly at horribly inflated prices. Once they had moved there, they established a bristling economy which prompted mass immigration to the now thriving Palestine. After the 1948 war the people we now refer to as “Palestinians” (there is no “Palestinian” indigenous people for the most part) are those who chose to not live under Israeli rule, but were not allowed to return to their original homes. The Palestinian people exist because the Arab nations wanted to create a huge problem for the newly established nation of Israel (and it worked). ARABS are the REAL oppressors (and I’m not hinting for even a moment that the Israeli’s are saints; they’re not). The Arab nations have created a refugee populace, and ensured that they are under-fed, but never under-armed. Israel offered full citizenship to the Palestinians and these are the people who refused, mostly because they were threatened by the surrounding Arab regimes. These poor people are between a rock and a hard place.

It’s my contention that Israel is “blamed” and the world always pushes Israel for concessions strictly because Israel is the only nation in the region who has shown any interest in acting responsibly; and for that, they’re punished. Europe continues to exert more and more pressure on Israel, the US Democratic party seems to be following Europe’s (anti-semitic) lead, and generally gives the REAL bad guys a pass. EVERY LAST Arab nation has 10x more land to offer the Palestinians than Israel, yet no one is exerting pressure on the Arabs to take their people back; why is that?

I hate to say it, but I tend to think this is a case of racism. The anti-semitism of the Europeans is being transferred to American Democrats, and I’m not sure American’s realize the racist nature of being Anti-Israel. Please take that for what I said, not what you think I said. I’m not saying being anti-Israel is by itself racist; but that following Europe’s lead is actually supporting a position that is largely racist in nature.)

So would someone please educate me as to why the Democrats tend to lean more toward the Palestinians? Israel is the most stable, practices democracy, and really does some of the LEAST amount of oppression of all the nations in the region. What we condemn Israel of in their treatment of Palestinians pales in comparison to the treatment of differing Muslim religions, Christians, or even Athiests in many of the Arab nations (Saudi Arabia & Iran are good examples). Truly Israel has a LONG way to go in their human rights department. But I can’t help but wonder why American Democrats are basically rooting for the bad guys over there; help me out here?

For the same reason we hold such a high standard of our own soldiers and why things like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are black eyes to our reputation. We're in the middle of an asymmetric war where battles are won by converting locals to your cause. That's the only way you can fight ideas. If we're trying to convince the Arab world that we're not against Islam, and one of our largest allies is decimating Arab neighborhoods for its own people to move in to new suburbs, what kind of message do you think that sends? The Israelis say "never again" in reference to the Holocaust, but how are their actions any different? Granted they're not putting people in ovens and such, but they're still forcing people from their homes, killing civilians and the like.

Oh no this hornets nest again.

I think everyone needs to move on from what has happened in the past, whether you think it's legitimate or not. Things are not going back to the way they were.

I tend to side with Israel in terms of their right to exist and protect themselves, but I understand their humanitarian treatment of the Palestinians is poor at best. I think Palestinians are just a political tool for the Arabs and Persians anti-semitism. Palestinians should have their own state, but with that they have to give up their destruction of Israel sentiment. I do think that Israel should stop their settlement expansion though.

I got kicked off huffington post a few months ago, someone posted Israel's response was not proportionate to Palestinian attacks, and all I said was countries don't spend billions on military and defense so they can have a proportionate response.

Their are no "good guys" in this fight. Both sides live in fear, and fear breeds, ignorance, repression and hatred (just look at republicans ).

One day Israel and the world will learn to get along. One day.

Having stood at the gates of Dachau, I think I have a very small sense of understanding about the kind of resolve that fills the Jewish heart. At least as much as a Gentile can.

Though I have never seen Sabra or Shatilla, I believe that the Palestinians know that same resolve.

It would be helpful if both ends of this spectrum would put as much energy into looking forward as they do looking back.

To be fair, we DO have gun control, and necessarily so, hence people need to be specific when talking about aspects of gun control that they disagree with.

Regardless of how modern Palestinians came to be in the region, they do have claims to parts of the region that Israelis occupied, if purely from historical reasons that Israelis also have used as justification. There has been a region called Palestine in biblical days, just as there has been a Land of Israel. If Israel has successfully re-established itself in the region as a country, then Palestine shouldn't be such an offensive concept. There is still evidence of both sides' claim to the region, the partitioning of Jerusalem is one case in point.

Israel is blamed for its treatment of Palestinians, who want to be recognized as a distinct group of people with the same rights, just like Israelis do. It's not anti-semitic to do so, and the other Arab countries have no more responsibility for them than Israel does. The question "what will Israel do about this" is appropriate.

There is no racism involved here, strictly speaking. There is no such thing as a Jewish race, or a Semite race. It's all about religion, or ethnicity (but it does not make it any less disgusting or wrong). In the context of the Middle East, there is also a lot of politics involved, and encapsulating it into an accusation of racism against Israelis is much too simplistic and inaccurate. Being against some of the things Israel does, and has done, is not being anti-Israel, no more than being anti-Iraq war is being anti-American.

Israel does not get a free pass when it comes to human rights oppression - it seems to me that they need to be held to even higher standards because they know better. And to lump Palestinians who want land of their own, to farm and raise their families in, as "bad guys" is being dyslexic about the whole thing - from oppression come resistance and extremism, the latter is not representative of the whole. And Israel does come under a lot of pressure because it's a continuous recipient of a whole shitload of aid from the US; one can argue that Israel would not have existed had it not been the US ' intervention in the 1967 war, and would not have continued to exist without US aid. Hence Israel's actions directly reflect on the US, which directly influences the latter's acceptance and influence in the Arab states.

I think the US has a very strong pro-Israel stance, not the other way around. If there really was an anti-Israel sentiment prevalent in the government, you would have seen it in massive cuts to Israel aid packages especially in light of these economic times, yet we don't hear anything about that.

I disagree that Democrats are in any way pro-Palestinian.

Both mainstream parties tilt very heavily toward Israel. The difference is that the Rethugs/Neocons tilt toward Likud and the most extreme right-wing tendencies in Israel, and most Democrats tllt a bit more toward the center of the Israeli political spectrum.

But, perversely, the range of allowable debate within the mainstream U.S. parties and media about Israel is MUCH narrower than the debate within Israel itself.

As a progressive American Jew, I strongly support the voices within Israel and Palestine working for the legitimate aspirations of both peoples. You can read about this guy, for starters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uri_Avnery

What those voices urge progressive Americans to do is to stop U.S. aide and support for the most retrograde elements blocking a just peace in the Middle East meaning, in practice, the current government of Israel.

Some day I'll sit down and research this weird relationship the US and Israel have going. I openly admit there's plenty I don't know but what it appears to be is Israel taking advantage of some Americans' idea that they must maintain Israel in a certain form as part of the end times myth.

How sad it would be if the US has been paying to play in the the christian drama.


Reminder- I'm in the dark on this one.

I was brought up as a Jew in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn. As a teenager I was keenly aware of Meyer Kahane whose movement was just beginning. His organization's treatment of non-Jews in the neighborhood was despicable and when his group emigrated to the West Bank, their treatment of Palestinians was even worse. Because of the narrow left and right balance in Israel, Lechud has disproportional power in elections. The are very much like the Tea Party here.

Simmer down wrote:Some day I'll sit down and research this weird relationship the US and Israel have going. I openly admit there's plenty I don't know but what it appears to be is Israel taking advantage of some Americans' idea that they must maintain Israel in a certain form as part of the end times myth.

How sad it would be if the US has been paying to play in the the christian drama.


Reminder- I'm in the dark on this one.

I don't think that it is too weird a relationship. Granted there are complexities, but the simple thing is this. Isreal is the non-Arab and non-Muslim country in the area. The US wants a country in the region from which to protect its interests in the oil there. Israel provides that place and in return the US provides billions in aid, and political cover for Israel.

If there were NO oil in the region, we would not give two shits about any country in the area.

This is an extremely complicated issue and there is no clear answer. The Jews have fundamentalists just as the Christians do. Fundamentalist Jews believe that God commanded them to kill or drive all Arabs out of Israel in the 613 Mitzvot. Many Arabs can trace their family homes in Israel back 4,000 years and life for them there today is very dangerous and uncomfortable. Most fundamentalist Christians believe that Christ won't return to earth unless there is a secure and independent Jewish state in Israel. The USA, along with the other Allies, is responsible for creating the state of Israel after WW II. Jews believe that God gave them that land, many Christians believe that God gave the Jewish people that land, and many Muslims believe that Allah gave it to them. Jerusalem is, after all, a holy city to Jews, Muslims, and Christians.

The USA tends to be pro-Israel generally because we have so many Christians who side with the Jews, we have a large Jewish population, and we have an historical obligation to Israel because of our help in creating it. Consequently, the USA gives as much as $6 billion a year in military aid to Israel. Israel agreed in Oslo, many years ago, to return to its 1967 borders and thereafter has refused to do it. The military aid we give Israel and the failure to force them to return to the 1967 borders has made the Arab world very angry at the USA. Some factions in the Arab world -- Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda -- believe that Israel shouldn't exist at all.

A lot of us, including quite a few more liberal Jewish people, believe that we should not be providing military aid to Israel. But, we are going against both a perceived historical duty to protect Israel and a large population of fundamental religious people who believe otherwise.

marcgo2 wrote:Oh no this hornets nest again.

I think everyone needs to move on from what has happened in the past, whether you think it's legitimate or not. Things are not going back to the way they were.

I tend to side with Israel in terms of their right to exist and protect themselves, but I understand their humanitarian treatment of the Palestinians is poor at best. I think Palestinians are just a political tool for the Arabs and Persians anti-semitism. Palestinians should have their own state, but with that they have to give up their destruction of Israel sentiment. I do think that Israel should stop their settlement expansion though.

I got kicked off huffington post a few months ago, someone posted Israel's response was not proportionate to Palestinian attacks, and all I said was countries don't spend billions on military and defense so they can have a proportionate response.

Their are no "good guys" in this fight. Both sides live in fear, and fear breeds, ignorance, repression and hatred (just look at republicans ).

Good assessment

ABNinfantryman wrote:For the same reason we hold such a high standard of our own soldiers and why things like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are black eyes to our reputation. We're in the middle of an asymmetric war where battles are won by converting locals to your cause. That's the only way you can fight ideas. If we're trying to convince the Arab world that we're not against Islam, and one of our largest allies is decimating Arab neighborhoods for its own people to move in to new suburbs, what kind of message do you think that sends? The Israelis say "never again" in reference to the Holocaust, but how are their actions any different? Granted they're not putting people in ovens and such, but they're still forcing people from their homes, killing civilians and the like.

I think you just re-inforced my supposition. I don't see anything in that attitude that holds the REAL culprits even slightly responsible. Israel didn't create the Palestinians, do you get that?

FrontSight wrote: Israel didn't create the Palestinians, do you get that?

Maybe not, but that doesn't change the fact that Palestinians moved into the area and are being forced out by tanks and put into camps so the Israelis can build suburbs for Jews. Imagine if the US went into a Jewish neighborhood and forced every Jewish person out, tore down their homes, and then built suburbs for gentiles, oh and did it with the military. Or lets do something a little more realistic, imagine if the US went into every hispanic neighborhood, kicked them out of their homes, put them in camps along the border, tore down their homes and built new ones at the end of an M4 and a tank. Could you fault the hispanics for fighting back?

Much of the Palestinians and certainly the other Arab states are AGAINST a Palestinian state. To have a Palestinian state, you have to recognize that Israel has a legitimate right to their state, and the Arabs are unwilling to make any such concession. As it stands, the HAMAS charter still to this date calls for the complete destruction of Israel as a nation; with such a charter, there is no such thing as negotiating in good faith. Every agreement, the Palestinians have broken.

AdAstra wrote: Israel does not get a free pass when it comes to human rights oppression - it seems to me that they need to be held to even higher standards because they know better

Agreed on this point.

AdAstra wrote: And to lump Palestinians who want land of their own, to farm and raise their families in, as "bad guys" is being dyslexic about the whole thing - from oppression come resistance and extremism, the latter is not representative of the whole.

I somewhat agree here, but who are the REAL oppressors. Basically, the Arabs have been given a complete pass on their treatment of the Palestinians, because they supply all sorts of rhetoric in favor of the Palestinians, but refuse to actually do anything meaningful to help them. Still, a Palestinian (or any Arab for that matter) is viewed and treated with complete suspicion, treated as a second rate citizen in Israel. Some of that is through necessity, but some through sheer hate.

AdAstra wrote: Hence Israel's actions directly reflect on the US, which directly influences the latter's acceptance and influence in the Arab states.

That’s a damn good point

AdAstra wrote: I think the US has a very strong pro-Israel stance, not the other way around. If there really was an anti-Israel sentiment prevalent in the government, you would have seen it in massive cuts to Israel aid packages especially in light of these economic times, yet we don't hear anything about that.

I agree. I’m just trying to understand why so many on the left tend to side with the Arabs. And I’m not trying to raise hell, I’m genuinely trying to understand it.

Black Eagle wrote: The USA, along with the other Allies, is responsible for creating the state of Israel after WW II.

My Israeli friends would dispute this point. The Israelis were fighting a war for independence against the British back into the 1920's (interesting stuff if you care to learn about it) and were already fighting the Arab states by the time they got UN recognition.

I'm not going to say anything except that there is a LOT of history you need to know before you can even begin to have an idea of how complicated this mess is. I agree with FrontSight that the real villains here are the Arab states. One thing everyone likes to forget is that the territories were occupied by the Jordanians and Egyptians from 1948-1967, and they were quite brutal in their treatment of the Palestinians.

ABNinfantryman wrote:

FrontSight wrote: Israel didn't create the Palestinians, do you get that?

Maybe not, but that doesn't change the fact that Palestinians moved into the area and are being forced out by tanks and put into camps so the Israelis can build suburbs for Jews.

Why can't Israelis be building suburbs for Israelis, when you put it like that it sounds like anti-semitism to me. No Christian or Muslim has ever lived in any of these settlements?

marcgo2 wrote:Why can't Israelis be building suburbs for Israelis, when you put it like that it sounds like anti-semitism to me.

Holy fuck, really? Sorry, the spiritually Abraham inclined.

I have never cared enough to understand the intricacies of why the people there hate each other as much as they do, but it's obvious that it serves a purpose for each of them. Maybe it's similar to our fixation with Russians back in the day.

I agree with Larrymod on this, Democrats are not against Israel in the least bit. AIPAC has become a phenomenon in American politics that affects both parties. If the US were serious about the peace process we would have cut foreign aid to Israel long ago - using the old carrot and the stick approach.

As for all of those who state that Arab states are the real problem... i partly agree. However autocracies in the Arab world historically support Israel and its existence despite the rhetoric. Take for example the Palestine papers where Livni suggests that the West Bank should be supported and made more like Jordan. Or look at the Israeli government's panic during the Egyptian revolution.

This argument to support a lone bastion of western civilization in a sea of brown people is not a new one. It was used time and time again by South Africa.

On the two state solution: A Palestinian state hasn't been able to manifest because it cannot be sustained. Israel has already annexed huge swaths of fertile lands from Palestinian farmers and harasses daily the fishermen in Gaza. How can you have a country when the people cannot have food or clean water? The 1967 borders are the only means for the two state solution to be viable... if the '67 borders are rejected then we're looking at a one state solution which means that the Palestinians will have to be given civil rights as Israeli citizens - but that would contradict the idea that Israel is a "Jewish State."

What I see is:

Two kids fighting over a sandbox. Each is screaming and crying about how the invisible man said that they have exclusive rights to the box. Being that I don't believe in invisible men, I discount that out of hand. The slightly bigger one says that some of the older kids up the street also said he could have it.

Each also claims to have been there first, and all the witnesses around the area confirm that they have both been there for a very long time. It really doesn't matter to me who was there first.

The bigger of the two crying, screaming children has the other one pinned down in a corner of the box, and is choking the smaller one. When asked to play nice, the bigger one concedes that the little one can play right there in the spot he is in, but that the bigger one will not release the choke hold. The bigger one also continues to kick and punch the smaller one who is struggling for air, and refuses to give him water either. The bigger one who is clearly dominating, claims that if he lets the little one up, he will just keep hitting him and trying to get more of the box for himself.

As a reasonable adult, I don't care about the invisible man or who was there first. I care about the fact that the bigger kid is choking the little one, and continuing to hurt him, and push him out, even though he clearly said he wouldn't and signed a contract saying as much. The bigger kid is in the wrong.

As for the State of isreal, they are committing human rights violations on a daily basis, and the atrocities taking place under their rule invalidates their claim to anything, particularly to an upperhand in negotiations pertaining to the land granted them by the international community. In my opinion they shouldn't even have a say in the matter, and since all of this was setup by the UN in the first place, let them preside over the nation.

I am particularly disturbed and disgusted that my tax dollars are funding an officially religious state. Even more so because of the horrors being committed by it because of what the invisible man said.

AmirMortal wrote:What I see is:

Two kids fighting over a sandbox. Each is screaming and crying about how the invisible man said that they have exclusive rights to the box. Being that I don't believe in invisible men, I discount that out of hand. The slightly bigger one says that some of the older kids up the street also said he could have it.

Each also claims to have been there first, and all the witnesses around the area confirm that they have both been there for a very long time. It really doesn't matter to me who was there first.

The bigger of the two crying, screaming children has the other one pinned down in a corner of the box, and is choking the smaller one. When asked to play nice, the bigger one concedes that the little one can play right there in the spot he is in, but that the bigger one will not release the choke hold. The bigger one also continues to kick and punch the smaller one who is struggling for air, and refuses to give him water either. The bigger one who is clearly dominating, claims that if he lets the little one up, he will just keep hitting him and trying to get more of the box for himself.

As a reasonable adult, I don't care about the invisible man or who was there first. I care about the fact that the bigger kid is choking the little one, and continuing to hurt him, and push him out, even though he clearly said he wouldn't and signed a contract saying as much. The bigger kid is in the wrong.

As for the State of isreal, they are committing human rights violations on a daily basis, and the atrocities taking place under their rule invalidates their claim to anything, particularly to an upperhand in negotiations pertaining to the land granted them by the international community. In my opinion they shouldn't even have a say in the matter, and since all of this was setup by the UN in the first place, let them preside over the nation.

I am particularly disturbed and disgusted that my tax dollars are funding an officially religious state. Even more so because of the horrors being committed by it because of what the invisible man said.

That is simplistic.

Sometimes it is beneficial to simplify a problem to see what is at its core.

FrontSight wrote: The Jews did NOT move in and kick the “Palestinians” out of their land, those people we now know as the Palestinians emigrated to Palestine from the surrounding Arab lands before they all became the nations we know today. The Jews emigrated to an area that was sparsely populated, nearly abandoned, and bought the land, mostly at horribly inflated prices. Once they had moved there, they established a bristling economy which prompted mass immigration to the now thriving Palestine. After the 1948 war the people we now refer to as “Palestinians” (there is no “Palestinian” indigenous people for the most part) are those who chose to not live under Israeli rule, but were not allowed to return to their original homes.

First, let's admit we both are not completely aware of all the facts. I freely admit that of myself. You very much need to do the same:

The Balfour Declaration of 1917 (dated 2 November 1917) was a formal statement of policy by the British government stating that
"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

The jews most certainly did not happen to pick up their stuff and immigrate to a section of the failing Ottoman Empire, during an era of Turkey waging a civil war for it's own independence, and just happen to be the beneficiaries of the will of the Crown of England.

Look, the short story is the Ottoman Turkish Empire started falling apart around 1908 and finally died around 1922. During that time Balfour got his declaration of what was then Ottoman land to be used for jews.

That ain't an organic happenstance creation of Israel through individual jews and their families buying plots of land. Israel is an engineered state, and the native residents were pushed off by the newcomers, which is no new thing: Native Americans.

One thing that should not be allowed, is for Israel to eradicate the "Natives" through any sort of oppression, trade blockade, raid, etc. The idea that the 67 borders are indefensible is bullshit. Those borders were not only defensible in 67, Israel managed to expand beyond them and take more land from it's warring neighbors. Furthermore, it's also a bullshit idea that Israel may not be able to defend any border at all... A nuclear armed state can defend just about any border merely by having mushroom clouds in the arsenal. Anyone really wanna bet that Israeli submarines don't have some nukes? For that reason, a nuclear armed Iran is also not a concern - should Iran get anywhere near the actual eradication of the state of Israel, I am sure that the expected Nuke Sub can unleash a final FUCK YOU to any and all of the enemies of the area. Scorched earth would be the description of the day.

Israel, armed with nukes and a military that is stupendously more powerful than the very successful military of 1967, is in no danger of being destroyed. So what does it do with this secure position? Beats up on the children of the original palestinians who had their land reassigned out from under them, the window of opportunity for self determination and self government upon the fall of the Ottoman empire closed for them and opened for incoming jews.

Just sayin, it didn't happen as nicely sweet-as-you-please through a bunch of land purchases. Much like geopolitics of today, things were messy, there were winners and losers, and a fair amount of blood.

marcgo2 wrote:

ABNinfantryman wrote:

FrontSight wrote: Israel didn't create the Palestinians, do you get that?

Maybe not, but that doesn't change the fact that Palestinians moved into the area and are being forced out by tanks and put into camps so the Israelis can build suburbs for Jews.

Why can't Israelis be building suburbs for Israelis, when you put it like that it sounds like anti-semitism to me.

Actually, no.....if anything it's anti-Zionist. BIG difference.

AmirMortal wrote:What I see is:

Two kids fighting over a sandbox. Each is screaming and crying about how the invisible man said that they have exclusive rights to the box. Being that I don't believe in invisible men, I discount that out of hand. The slightly bigger one says that some of the older kids up the street also said he could have it.

Each also claims to have been there first, and all the witnesses around the area confirm that they have both been there for a very long time. It really doesn't matter to me who was there first.

The bigger of the two crying, screaming children has the other one pinned down in a corner of the box, and is choking the smaller one. When asked to play nice, the bigger one concedes that the little one can play right there in the spot he is in, but that the bigger one will not release the choke hold. The bigger one also continues to kick and punch the smaller one who is struggling for air, and refuses to give him water either. The bigger one who is clearly dominating, claims that if he lets the little one up, he will just keep hitting him and trying to get more of the box for himself.

As a reasonable adult, I don't care about the invisible man or who was there first. I care about the fact that the bigger kid is choking the little one, and continuing to hurt him, and push him out, even though he clearly said he wouldn't and signed a contract saying as much. The bigger kid is in the wrong.

As for the State of isreal, they are committing human rights violations on a daily basis, and the atrocities taking place under their rule invalidates their claim to anything, particularly to an upperhand in negotiations pertaining to the land granted them by the international community. In my opinion they shouldn't even have a say in the matter, and since all of this was setup by the UN in the first place, let them preside over the nation.

I am particularly disturbed and disgusted that my tax dollars are funding an officially religious state. Even more so because of the horrors being committed by it because of what the invisible man said.

Excellent! Sometimes a return from the pathologies of nuance-run-amok reveals extreme clarity. Well said.