Why people can't discuss Israel without it degenerating into a flame fest

[KaraokeKarlton]

After my participation in the discussion at LBN earlier I decided to venture over here and post these thoughts. It's meant to basically be food for thought and hopefully my post will at least cause a few people to stop and think before they type.

Okay, anyone who has ties, connections or strong support for Israel tends to get very easily offended when someone criticizes Israel. I believe that a lot of the reason this happens is because when people refer to "Israel", a lot of others automatically associate Israel with Jews. Clearly, in light of the history of persecution against Jews, it's going to be somewhat natural for some people to take offense. If those who wish to criticize the behavior of Israeli leadership and government simply chose to use the words "government of Israel" or "Israeli leadership" I think there would be a lot less of the emotional responses to that criticism. Yes, there are plenty of valid criticisms to be made of the Israeli government, as there are with ANY governmental entity. We NEED to discuss these things and make criticism where appropriate...just like we NEED to do regarding the US government and leadership.

At the same time, to jump to the conclusion that anyone who criticizes the political and military behavior of the Israeli government must be anti-semetic is ridiculous and uncalled for. This is NO different than right wingers calling Democrats who criticize Bush as being "anti-American".

These two issues causes so much frustration, anger and resentment that no one can have a civilized and adult discussion about some very important issues. Aren't we bigger people and better than that? Citizens of Israel and the Jews of the world are no more to blame for the lousy behavior of Ariel Sharon than you or I are responsible or to blame for the lousy behavior of George Bush. If everyone who feels strongly about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict would take a minute and think about these things before hitting the "Post Message" button I think it would make a world of difference for everyone who cares about this stuff.

on edit:

I think I may have inadvertently broken the rules by not posting about an article or "op-ed" piece, but I hope that the thread will be allowed to stay just the same as I feel it touches on a couple of very important issues that everyone who discusses these subjects should think about. I apologize if this thread is in violation of the rules for posting.

[wtmusic]

1. LOL 'a lot of others automatically associate Israel with Jews'?

Come off it. Are you familiar with why Israel exists?

[KaraokeKarlton]

3. I think you are missing the point

People who criticize Israel typically are criticizing the government and leadership of Israel, NOT the people of Israel, or Jews. This is why it's really important for people to specify that it's the government and/or leadership they have an issue with rather than just saying "Israel has gone too far this time", or whatever. Besides, there are also muslims and Christians who live in Israel, and not all jews live in Israel. If someone criticizes something the Israeli government does it doesn't mean they don't support Israel's right to exist. Right now there are the citizens of Israel and the Palestinian citizens who are essentially behind held hostage to violence that none of them like or want and it's only a few people on each side that prevent peace. As long as people aren't talking about it, peace will never become a reality. That means that everybody is going to have to listen to the complaints and feelings of those they might not necessarily agree with. Acknowledging someone's feelings doesn't mean you agree with them, it only means that you respect the fact that they feel how they feel. Those feelings aren't something that can just be turned off. Opinions have to change, and that only happens with open discussion and dialogue.

[wtmusic]

5. And the reason the opinions haven't changed

is that they are rooted in deep-seated religious beliefs.

[KaraokeKarlton]

6. To an extent, yes

However, it is possible to listen to and respect people of different religions without abandoning or going against your own religious beliefs. People are needlessly dying and everyone suffers the same pain when they lose a child, parent, spouse or sibling. Everyone suffers the same feelings when they are treated like filth. It has to stop, if for no other reason than for the future of the children. They deserve a future...all of them. The violence is insane. It has to be discussed and resolved, and both sides are going to have to meet in the middle for the sake of both sides.

[Equinox]

17. whatever...

"deep-seated religious beliefs"?

You haven't read up much on the I/P conflict, have you?

[Maple]

2. It's because they confuse the current govt of Israel

with a religion.

And govt actions...with Jewish religious beliefs.

Two separate things.

It wouldn't matter if Israel was Buddhist...it's the govt actions that are the problem.

Nobody gives a damn about the religion.

[KaraokeKarlton]

4. This is why it might help to always try to point out it's the govt.

Like I just pointed out in the last post I made...people can't just turn their emotions and feelings off. For people to be able to talk about these things and actually be heard, I think care needs to be taken in the language chosen to make points.

[Gimel]

9. Except

when it comes to the Temple Mount.

Atheists don't "give a damn", but the two peoples do. It goes beyond religion to become a heritage and an identity.

[bpilgrim]

7. good point...

it is important to be descriptive

peace

[eablair3]

8. you need to recognize

using that language you suggest won't matter for the most part. After participating in discussions on boards on this topic for years, there are many that don't want any criticism of Israel at all. Period.

Their tactic is to just disrupt and cause the thread to be locked. They then have accomplished their goal by shutting down the criticism of Israel. If the mods crack down on them, they yell "anti- you know what".

Referring to the "government of Israel" or "Israeli leadership" won't matter to them. Criticism of Israel is criticism of Israel. Many of these people have been raised (or brainwashed) from a very early age to worship and support (in many ways, financially and other ways) the Jewish state. It's part of their being almost. They take any criticism as a sort of personal attack. They don't want any criticism or any discussion of whether America should support Israel and pay Israel BILLIONS. If it happens, one tactic that is used is to disrupt the thread to get it closed and thereby end the discussion.

Obviously, I'm speaking in certain generalities, but I believe this is accurate to a certain large, active and vocal segment of the pro-Israelis.

[Gimel]

10. Good criticism

There is criticism which is honest, and that which is based on a conviction that one side is wrong, the Israeli side. The alignment with a firm "liberal" stance that they feel is necessary and wholly on the side of the Palestinians. This is a non-thinking stance and promotes opinions which are simply biased.

Thinking people will look at both sides, and may not always come out on the Israeli side. Several posters in this forum are, IMO, thinking, and are honest in their criticism of Israel. I may disagree with them, because I have another view-point. However, I respect their criticism more than those who see Israelis as evil aggressors, and see no fault with Palestinians or Arafat.

[eablair3]

11. you forgot

"There is criticism which is honest, and that which is based on a conviction that one side is wrong, the Israeli side."

There is also plenty of criticism by some that is based on a conviction that one side is wrong, the Palestinian side.

And, you know, for the most part, ... the Palestinian side may have some notions of justice and right on their side. Think about that one, ... honestly.

[Gimel]

13. I have given this thought

Much that you deny it. Of course, the plight of the Palestinians is tragic. The right way to resolve their situation is the question in dispute. Every proposal is rejected because of basic "red lines" on both sides. So of course, both sides "get screwed" in a compromise. Arafat won't accept a compromise, although he signed the Oslo Accords. He failed to stop the terror, which is the cause of "Israeli Aggression". Israelis have a right to live also.

[eablair3]

15. why does Israel keep building settlements and moving Jews into the ...

occupied territories? why does Israel settle on this land?

Arafat had for the most part stopped much of the hostilities. It may be impossible to stop all of it. Israel did not stop Baruch Goldstein, did it? Arafat did accept a compromise. He stood up with Clinton present and got the entire Palestinian legislative body to vote on and amend their constitution to recognize Israel. Video exists of this. Of course, certain segments of Israel didn't want peace and assassinated their own Prime Minister, Rabin.

Throughout Oslo, Israel kept taking the Palestinian lands, destroying their homes and crops and building settlements. Why? Today, Israel continues to build settlement housing. It's been ongoing for 35 years.

You said wrt Arafat, ...
"He failed to stop the terror, which is the cause of "Israeli Aggression". Israelis have a right to live also.

Israel engages in its own "terrorism." And, none of the "terrorism" is the cause of the Israeli aggression. The cause of the Israeli aggression is those people's motivation (like Sharon) to take and build settlements on the Palestinian lands. That's at the heart of the dispute.

Israel wants that land. "Targeted assassinations" and "terrorism" are a convenient excuse to keep the hostilities going while Israel builds settlements and attempts to make life miserable for the Palestinians with the intent and the hope that the Pals will leave.

So, answer me ... why has Israel built all those Jewish settlements, and they just approved another 323 settlement houses in the last day or two. Why?

[bluesoul]

16. Why?

So that the Palestinians that lived there would never return and change de-facto Palestinian territory into Israeli by further occupation and settlement building, that's why..Who will stop them?

[Equinox]

18. Are you kidding, Gimel?

At one time the whole of Israel belonged to indigenous Arabs/Jews. The Arabs for the most part were expelled. You say that they won't compromise? What, because the won't give an inch on the remaining 22% of their land?

I'd say that's a hell of a bargain, but the GOI can't have it. Hence, the settlements to ensure annexation. The Palestinians are weary because they've been driven, not once, but twice from their lands and there's talk that they will be driven or imprisoned once again.

You talk about compromises as if the playing field was even. Your notion of compromise is "I'll steal your bread and then we may talk about how many crumbs I give back to you.

:eyes:

[Gimel]

25. Falsifying history

At one time the whole of Israel belonged to indigenous Arabs/Jews. The Arabs for the most part were expelled.

This is the basis of disinformation.

First of all, the Ottoman Empire hardly was benevolent for the people who lived in Palestine. Arabs were not expelled unless they proved to be opposed to a Jewish state. Many continued to live in Israel.
Paletinians rejected peace numerous times.

I'm not saying that Israelis didn't make statements that seem radical today. However, if the history of 1945-1948 is studied, then you'll have a clue as to what happened, and not before.

[thebigidea]

12. what does the increased respect get?

"because I have another view-point. However, I respect their criticism more than those who see Israelis as evil aggressors"

But this increased respect would never allow you to say, agree or perhaps TRY to see the situation from a different point of view, yes?

Have you ever changed your mind due to polite criticism here?

[Gimel]

14. Is the criterea here that you win?

I have a different point of view. I live in Israel, not the US. Therefore experience the cultural setting of the conflict.

PS. I have given more in depth thought ot the issues due to the discussions here. I don't think that I've "changed my mind" due to the discussions, but perhaps the on-going events bring to light more aspects of the conflict. It is not static, and neither am I.

[Equinox]

19. What is static, however, is the 4 billion Israel receives annually.

Some of that money is mine. That gives me all the right in the world to hoot and hollar and wail and moan and criticize Israel to my heart's content. And you can sit in Israel and reap the benefits of my tax dollars.

[Gimel]

22. You have the right to hollar

No one denies that. I have the right to disagree. Do you really believe that if it wasn't for the grants Israel that you would pay less taxes? Do you think that Israel is paying for your opinions? Israelis pay higher taxes than you do. If it wasn't for US oil consumption, the Middle East would have remained paeaceful.

This is the exact bias that makes the discussion more extreme.

[seventhson]

24. Gimel - Have you read: "The Secret War against the Jews:

by John Loftus?

He says it is the secret deals with the Saudis by Wall Street for oil which created this hell for you AND for the Palestinians.

It is not so much that we are overconsumptive here in the US of oil -- we are -- but that our governmenbt BELONGS to the oil and energy industries (probably just as Israel's government does). They keep us from getting a society where we reasonably plan an energy strategy that focuses on conservation and passive and other energy means that do not rely on nukes and oil.

When JFK tried to change that he was gunned down by the oil interests. When Rabin tried to make peace he was gunned down.

BUT we, like you, must bear some responsibility for the evils our government does even when we disagree with those actions.

[Gimel]

27. The global picture

Building up the Moslum empires with oil revenues has to be considered as part of the overall global picture. No, I haven't read that study/analysis. However, it is not far fetched.

Israel is an oil consumer, though not at the pace per citizen as the US. Solar energy is widely used in Israel also. Natural gas from the Egypt pipeline is a major source, and most oil is imported from Russia (as far as I have discovered so far).

The reduction in the oil dependency is also a must for the survival of the planet. The Saudis are just too rich. They produced Osama bin Laden.

[Equinox]

26. That money could be reinvested in our economy...

or go to such trivial matters such as healthcare, something of which I don't have.

But as long as we can pay for your oppression and occupation, who cares right?

[Gimel]

28. Much is reinvested

Most of the grant money goes to purchase US made military equipment. Trade between Israel and the US has increased dramatically since the free trade agreements of ten years ago. Chin up, Equinox.

By the way, deductions in assistance are made for settlement activities. Do the research. Of course, some won't be convinced because they have a firm opinion that they refuse to change.

[seventhson]

20. There're many different Israeli viewpoints as there are many American..

viewpoints and perspectives and it is simply inaccurate to paint with too broad a brush.

Democratic Underground is an important public relations zone.

It is clear that the debate here is now becoming a focus point much like a focus group with push polling and all that: porobably the most significant and influential political site in all of democracy because of the substantial freedom of expression here.

Dean's position on Israel, or Kucinich's or Clark's -- all of these can and will come under scrutiny here. And the political winds will FOLLOW the discussions here just as WE at DU are often the first to know many many things (I look at the morning paper and there is never anything NEW there anymore thanks to DU).


Gimel is in a place which is at war. Conceding anything to the "enemy" is inherently dangerous - so he must defens his position. It would be the same of he were Palestinian.

The real question in my opinion here is the question asked by many on the left in Israel: Is it in Israel's security interests to continue the conflict without negotiation and compromise? Most Israeli's seem to be willing to compromise on the settlements but not on the issue of negotiating as long as the terror is continiung.

From where I sit - terror is war and war is terror: both sides use terror as their modus operandi here. Both sides do it offensively and defensively. Same with the United States. Or any state at war.

There is so much animosity and hatred that some Israelis are abandoning Israel and other Jews are now unwilling to go there.

But trying to say that only one side is using terror when two groups are at war is ludicrous. Killing civilians to demoralize and beat down the will of your opponent IS modern warfare. Read Hemingway's war dispatches in the 1930's and '40's: It is what WE do in the United States (and we bear responsibility for Bush as much as the Iraqis bear responsibility for Saddam Hussein and ther Israelis for Sharon and the Palestinians for Arafat)

But I do not expect Gimel to share my opinion any more than I would expect a Palestinian to say suicide bombings are not legitimate:

both sides are doing what they believe they need to do to end the conflict and to gain security.

But brute force does NOT bring security. Mutual compromise and cooperation between the peace-desiring entities among the opposite forces is what will bring security.

Some will NEVER cease from war and those people, people like Sharon and Bush and probably Arafat, are the true enemies of Israel and the Palestinian people and the enemies of peace.

Only peace will bring security to Israel and Palestine. But I do NOT expect Gimel to be the first to put his gun and his guard down. First there must be leaders who are willing to compromise: Both Sharon and Arafat are puppets for Bush and the other international powers that pay to prop them both up on both sides (who seem to be working together behind the scenes much as Netanyahu helped Bush I arrange the arms deals with Iran).

Who killed Rabin? Those opposed to peace on religious grounds.


It is also not productive to be critical of Israelis as a whole because they are as much at the whim of Bush and the policies of the US as Americans are. Israel is a client state of the United States powers just as the Saudis are. The real problem, in many respects, is right here in the US. Until we have a progressive government which will promote peace instead of war and a society willing to spend tens of billions to help stabilize security and democratization for poorer nations around the world, we are going to be in a perpetual war.

Gimal does not want that.

Neither do I.

But he is willing to live with it in order to prevent Israel from Dying. Just as any decent Palestinian would.

To me, the two peoples are cousins fighting over the inheritance. We should stop them by removing the incentives for their violence.

We should create new incentives for peace and isolate those who promote violence on both sides (not just the Palestinian side).

If the Israelis and Palestinians could agree to isolate their own terrorists and oust them from power; mutually and with international support, then I believe the peace loving people could reach a compromise.

I happen to believe that the UN created Israel (with the strength and spirit of the survivors of the Holocaust) and the internatiuonal community is responsible for stopping the bloodshed on both sides.

But Israelis must ask themselves the funadamental question: Is Sharon and his blind rush into chaos and violence and revenge nmaking them more secure? Is it winning the peace?

Palestinians really have nowhere to go. Other countries do NOT want them. So they have their backs against the wall and will fight to their last breath.

Sharon knows this and so he will continue to kill, I believe, until there are none to resist. Israelis, IMHO, must know that there will ALWAYS be someone seeking revenge, though, in a multimillenial eye for an eye bloodfest. Until the pinciple of compromise takes over and there is an acknowledgment of the futility of violent means to secure peace, Israelis and Palestinains will continue to bleed incessantly.

I think the left in Israel can do it. They are trying. And I think the Israseli people are seeing Sharon for the danger he is and he will soon be gone.

[bluesoul]

21. Wonderful

Excellent post Seventhson! :toast:

[seventhson]

23. Thanks I just revised it

I have traveled in Israel/Palestine and the violence there breaks my heart as it is breaking the spirit of Israelis AND Palestinians

The Holy Land should be a Mecca for Jews Christians and Muslims as well as Bahai, Buddhists and people of all faiths.

It is the heart of holiness. Unfortunately holiness also attracts evil as evil tries to overcome holiness.

We in the world should not so much criticize the people as the leaders and we SHOULD offer a way out for both sides.

[Resistance]

29. I apologize

for any role I have played in allowing discussions to become the 'flame-fests' which you are upset about. Yes certain things do anger me, and before posting this I asked myself -- Is it necessary to detail the things that are so angering? At first I thought, No this isn't the appropriate place, but upon more consideration, I think Yes it is necessary to give what I think is the most basic problem.

The most basic issue is that Democrats are no different from Republicans in their unconditional, almost gleeful support of everything Israel, which includes recently the missile strikes into crowds of civilians and many of the various things that Human Rights groups and International bodies so frequently condemn. The blind eye to Israel's aggression, ethnic cleansing, and often outright terrorism is what infuriates me, and the fact that so much of the aggression and war crimes are not only supported here but are vigorously defended as if it's the progressive thing to defend war crimes and violent atrocities, makes the entire issue a 'fire just waiting for a match' (as someone put it the other day).

If Democrats could at least display some humanity towards the Palestinian side, I think things would be different. But they don't. They're just as supportive of the destruction of Palestine and the murder of Palestinian civilians as Republicans are.

I've asked this question here a few times before, and have never got an answer: How are Democrats different from Republicans in their stance towards Israel/Palestine?

I've never seen a reply, and I don't expect one now. We all know the ugly truth.

[Lithos]

30. Locking

As it is deteriorating quickly.

But, before I lock this a couple of thoughts.

First realize the I/P conflict and the I/P debate here are two different things. The former is a kulturkampf (war of cultures) between many different cutures, whose only peaceful outcome is through rapprochement and learning to co-exist.

Realize too, I am not just talking about kulturkampf between the Israelis and the Palestinians, but also include other orthogonal lines which are raging inside of both Israel and Palestine and include: secularism/religious, nationalism/socialism, racism, and economic divisions.

These are for the most part being played out by small groups whose influence is far greater than their size would indicate because of their ability to leverage fears and concerns of the larger I/P conflict.

The majority of people on both sides are innocent bystanders being manipulated, usually by fear.

But you asked about the I/P debate here - the panoply of views here have little to do with the above. It would be unfair to try and generalize the motivations of the posters here other than to say that people use different heuristics to judge the moral relevance of the situation.

If you have any questions please feel free to PM UGRR or myself.

Lithos
FA/NS Moderator
Democratic Underground