Israel/Palestine Discussion

[Emily B.]

Originally posted by Birdhead:
For example, Israel was created as a- or the, rather?- Jewish state. Um. I have a very, very scanty understanding of Judaism, but in principle it's a religion, right? Along with a race, but primarily a religion- I mean, you can convert to Judaism, although it's difficult (again, anyone who knows more than I do should feel absolutely free to come along and correct me.)

It's not so much difficult to convert to Judaism as it's long and involved in ways that converting to other religions isn't. Judaism is kind of tricky to type as a race, or a religion, or a nation, or a culture, since it has some (but not all) of the characteristics of all of those.

Secondly, Jerusalem is a very important holy place to both Jews and Muslims (and Christians.) Or maybe that should be holy to all three of the religions- I mean, they're all pretty much the same religion with a couple of big schisms, right? (*ducks* Um, kidding, sort of. Well, no, not really, but I accept that in practical terms they're different religions.) I digress- because of the religious importance of Jerusalem (+other parts of Israel? I really don't know) there is never going to be a wholly political and racial solution to this problem, just as there is never going to be a religious one

Yes, Jerusalem is holy to all three religions, but it's definitely secondary to Islam, and Christianity places little to no importance on the holiness of specific locations. For the Jews, however, Jerusalem is the very center of the entire religion. It's the only location where the Temple can be built (which needs to happen for the messiah to show up). The rest of Israel has historic (thousands of years of history, biblical history) importance as the land given to us by G-d, and only a very recent (as in, my grandparents lived here) importance to the Palestinians specifically.

(90 (Was it 90 or 30?) Days War really hammered the point home that the Israelis had far, far superior arms and resources- this was never a fair fight- I mean, seriously, if the Palestinians had aeroplanes don't you think they might have used them at some point? Instead of blowing themseves up on buses?

But fair fight or not, the Arab countries surrounding Israel started it. They figured that Israel was a small country, who had not had any time to organize any sort of defense. They were wrong. Very wrong. And they lost. That's how war works. Someone wins, and they get to keep the land they won. Israel won.

Suicide bombers do not come from wealthy countries, they come from poor ones because the human body is agile, it's useful, it can get anywhere, but most importantly, it's really, really cheap. And, I mean, kind of a last resort because suicide bombers? Not really an effective method of warfare unless all you're trying to do is make a statement (in an incredibly awful, terrible way; but sometimes that's the only choice you have.) or inspire terror, which, really, who wants to do? All you get is a whole lot of trouble. But, think about it, that's notwhat the Palestinians- I think, and remember all my caveats- are trying to do.

But it is what they're trying to do. Not all of them, no, but the ones who are bombing synagogues on Yom Kippur aren't looking for some sort of military victory, they're looking to make a statement. The people who bomb shops, and schools full of children aren't fighting a war against another nation, they're trying to scare Israel into backing down by slaughtering it's citizens.

What they want is their country back, and blowing up a busload of kids and grannies? Terrible, awful, really not that effective. If they had another way to do it, I think they'd be using it.

They have another way, Israel has been offering it for years. Palestine has land now, they are in the process of setting up elections to elect a government, but this hasn't stopped the bombings. It's clearly not just about having a country.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Terrorism is considered a norm in Israel now.

And in Palestine, too.
</div>[quote]
Not the same thing. The Israelis at the very least are making a show of choosing targets that are at the least supposedly a threat. (that was in as general terms as possible so that we can all agree on it, I personally don't think that Israel is looking for reasons to kill Palestinians) The militant Islamic / Palestinian groups are just looking to kill who ever they can, however they can. Also, Israel has been offering peace agreements for decades, I've seen no such offer from Hamas.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There was an equal split of land in 1948, with a shared Jerusalem, and the surrounding arab nations (who are hardly fighting on thier own, they're fighting with the support of all the Muslim countries in the area)

Was it an equal split? I'd love to see some references- I'm not necessarily questioning, it's just been awhile since I studied this.
</div>[quote]
Yep, it was. Here's a map of the original split: Wikipedia map of Israel, showing pre and post 1948 war borders It may not have been exactly 50/50, but you can see that before the war in '48, Israel didn't even have direct access to Jerusalem. It wasn't as if the British drew up the split in a way that clearly and overwhelmingly favored Israel, if anything it slightly favored Palestine.

As for support of Muslim countries- I'd take the support of the USA over the support of the Muslim countries any day, and that's what Israel has, and has had. Let's not forget that Israel is vastly superior in arms and in wealth.

Yes, well, that's what happens when you are forced to be on the defensive for 50 years. You throw a lot of money into the military, and draft every one of your citizens, because it is necessary to the country's survival.

And Lamarquise: Excellent sum up of the issues in modern Islam. It's a gorgeous tradition, which is being tragically misused by a (I hope) small, but all too vocal sect of extremists. One quick note though: Much religious authority is often vested in (essentially) temporal and hereditary leaders.
I think you must have meant "temporary" since temporal would mean that they existed within the flow of time, and that should apply to all people, religious leaders or no.

[Moeen]

Thanks Birdhead for the compliments, and good job Lamarquise on pointing out certain issues with extremist Islam. I'd like to make a few additional points and clarifications.

You're right Lamarquise that sociological factors help in allowing extremist Islam to persist, but it originates basically from the resentment that came from colonialization. If the Allies had decided not to colonize the Middle East and given the Arabs what they wanted and helped set up their governments, the world would definitely be a lot different from what it is today. At the very least, the atmosphere that allowed the creation of extremism would not have existed. So the effects of colonialization are not to be underestimated.

Originally posted by Lamarquise:
In Islam, teaching and doctrine is not centralized. It is handled by a wide, diverse group of (essentially) self-appointed teachers and Imams and Sheiks, and small councils. There is no central leader or governing body of Islam with authority to interpret scripture and holy law or to determine doctrine for all followers of Islam. Much religious authority is often vested in (essentially) temporal and hereditary leaders. Many Muslims rely very greatly on their local leaders to tell them what is acceptable and right in their religion.

It's true that teaching and doctrine is not centralized, Islam is essentially free of clergy as it encourages its followers to find their own ways of understanding and following the religion. Traditionally, Imams are not self-appointed, nor hereditary. A community chooses an Imam based on his knowledge of the religion, so theoretically the Imam should be the one who understands Islam better than the rest of the community. Where there are schools of theology, one gets in based on, and is ranked by, merit. Most Muslims follow schools of thought that were established by theologians some time ago. I'm not sure to what extent being an Imam is hereditary, sure there are some cases where the son of an Imam succeeds his father, but one should have credentials.

Originally posted by Lamarquise:
Traditionally, Islam has made a distinction between infidels and so-called People of the Book (including Jews and Christians), who are supposedly (at least) monotheistic and worship God. Under a Muslim-run state, People of the Book may have certain privileges and protections and cannot always be killed without good reason. Infidels, in the eyes of many Muslims, have no such protection. They are considered, by the extremists at least, as nothing, worse than dogs. At the least, conservative interpretations of the Quran would say you an infidel yourself if you are friends with one.

This needs some clarification. it's true that Islam has distinguished the other Abrahamic faiths (Christianity and Judaism) from other religions. Christians and Jews are sometimes referred to as the People of the Book because they had received scriptures from Allah (or God, if you prefer) before, namely the Gospel and the Hebrew Scriptures. Islam is meant to be the continuation and finalization of one true religion that Christianty and Judaism are a part of. Concerning the status in Islam of what is translated as "infidels," we run into a problem, as the Arabic word for "infidel" really means one that has rejected and is opposed to the faith, not non-believers in general. So we should really distinguish between a non-believer (one who is an agnostic on the issue) and an unbeliever (one who denies the faith and opposes it). A Muslim ruler is responsible for all his subjects, be they Muslim or not. The only exceptions are those opposed to Islam. The Qur'an does advise Muslims to avoid being friends with unbelievers, as they would probably try to persuade believers to deny the faith, but not so for non-believers. Certainly, even the Prophet Muhammad lived among and was responsible for non-believers living with his community. Indeed, it would have been difficult for the religion to spread if Muslims were not allowed to associate with non-believers. For example, Islam spread to South Asia and especially Southeast Asia by trade between Muslim and non-Muslim merchants, and the Mughal Emperors (Muslim Mongol rulers of India for a time) managed to rule peacefully over what was a largely non-Muslim and non-People of the Book population. One would really have to have an extreme perspective to believe that non-Muslims are no better than dogs.

As Lamarquise pointed out, Wahabism is a pretty extreme form of Islam, and one that has managed to spread and gain some acceptance among Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere, partly due to certain social and political conditions. There is a bit more behind it's spread, however.

As one historian put it, "Oil is the curse of the Middle East," and this is true in more ways than one. First of all, if the Middle East did not have oil, then it's unlikely that Britain and France would have colonized them, as the region has little else in the way of resources. This could have prevented the current situation altogether to a large extent. Second of all, because some countries in the Middle East, like Saudi Arabia, made so much money off of oil, they didn't have to tax people. In fact, there is no taxation in Saudi Arabia. We say in the United States "No taxation without representation," well, the reverse is also true. Without taxes, the people had no say in the government, and could not push for any social reforms. Furthermore, by the time the Arab nations were given their independence, extremism had become rooted in Saudi Arabia and the Middle East to the point that the governments had to find ways of appeasing the extremist elements. One of the ways of doing this would be to spread Wahabism ot other Muslim nations. Now, many of these nations are very poor, and have little in the way of formal education for their children. Many families cannot afford to give their children proper schooling, so when Saudi Arabia sent out Wahabis who offered to teach their children at their own schools for free, many children end up going there. So, this has led to an overall increase of extremist Islam throughout the world.

Everything isn't quite as bad as it seems though. Recently, some of the attacks carried out by extremists have lead to the deaths of many Muslims, and this has definitely had a negative effect on extremism. Many countries, including Saudi Arabia, now have anti-terrorism units, and many Arabs are also angry at extremists as a result. Nevertheless, we still have a long way to go.

Since this thread is about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I guess I should say aomething about that and respond to Emily. First I'd like put some facts on the table so we're all clear on the nature of the conflict and it's history. The PBS Series Wide Angle aired an episode about suicide bombers. In particular, they have a detailed timeline that I think you should read before continuing this discussion so you have a better idea of the conflict.

I'll start by replying to some of Emily's points.

Originally posted by Emily B.:
Yes, Jerusalem is holy to all three religions, but it's definitely secondary to Islam, and Christianity places little to no importance on the holiness of specific locations. For the Jews, however, Jerusalem is the very center of the entire religion. It's the only location where the Temple can be built (which needs to happen for the messiah to show up). The rest of Israel has historic (thousands of years of history, biblical history) importance as the land given to us by G-d, and only a very recent (as in, my grandparents lived here) importance to the Palestinians specifically.

How you'd rank the holiness of Jerusalem in Islam and Christianity is questionable, but it's clear that it is important to all the Abrahamic faiths. Whether their needs to be a Jewish state of Israel and whether it is God given is really a religious view of some Jews. There are some Haredi Jews who are opposed to the state of Israel and to Zionism, and to the formation of any Jewish state in Palestine before the coming the Jewsish messiah. Also, the Palestinians have been living in the region for centuries (not just their grandparents) so it holds a great deal of importance to them too. In fact many of the Jews that have moved to Israel are foreigners or are converts that have had no ancestors in the region.

Originally posted by Emily B.:
But fair fight or not, the Arab countries surrounding Israel started it. They figured that Israel was a small country, who had not had any time to organize any sort of defense. They were wrong. Very wrong. And they lost. That's how war works. Someone wins, and they get to keep the land they won. Israel won.

Who started what is questionable, as the Arab nations certainly felt right in what they were doing as the British had promised them some the land of Israel/Palestine. Also, by your logic, if the Arab nations and Israel went to war again, and the Arabs captured land from Israel, they would be right to keep it. The victor is not always right. Israel took about 75% of the Palestinian land under the British Mandate, and it's unlikely the Palestinians will ever be able to claim it for themselves.

Originally posted by Emily B.:
Israel has been offering peace agreements for decades

This is not true. By the late 70's and early 80's Israel had occupied the Palestinian territories and did not make any offers to help create a Palestinian State. In fact, Israel could have ended the conflict then. While they had the territories were under their control, they could have helped the Palestinians build their own state and society, but instead did nothing. The Palestinians had no government, unemployment rose, and for the most part were living in poverty. This lead to more anger against Israel, and by 1987 you had uprisings among the Palestinians. Clashes between Israeli troops and Palestinian protesters left over a thousand Palestinians dead over a period of a few years, and Hamas and other militant groups came about around this time. In the early 90's when there was an opportunity for peace after the Oslo Accords, some Israelis were angered of the giving away of land to the Palestinians and assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and killed some Palestinians.

I'd say, given the history of the conflict, neither side can claim to have the moral higher ground. Israel did nothing to help the economic conditions of Palestinians during the occupation, and the few Palestinians and Arabs that choose to become Israeli citizens face severe discrimination. Hopefully, the Palestinian Authority will be able to create a central government for the Palestinians that Israel will recognize and support, and foreign countries will help improve the economy and help bring the Palestinians out of poverty. There's still a long way to go though.

What is true is that the conflict has helped fuel extremism, and has had the effect of drawing the attention of extremists away from the Arab governments that might have otherwise been accused of associating with the West. Had that been the case, the governments would have had to do something about the extremist elements in the country. Hopefully, at least some them are doing that now, but this won't be resolved in the near future.

[db_pr]

Ajá... pura basofia... INTIFADA!

[Lamarquise]

[Emily B.]

Originally posted by Moeen:
How you'd rank the holiness of Jerusalem in Islam and Christianity is questionable, but it's clear that it is important to all the Abrahamic faiths.

Actually, how I ranked them is fairly simple. Which city is more important in Islam, Jerusalem or Mecca? Any Muslim will tell you without hesitation that it's Mecca. And as for Christianity, it's of historic import, but there's no religious imperitive to go to Israel. In Judaisim, there is.

Whether their needs to be a Jewish state of Israel and whether it is God given is really a religious view of some Jews. There are some Haredi Jews who are opposed to the state of Israel and to Zionism, and to the formation of any Jewish state in Palestine before the coming the Jewsish messiah.

I never suggested that 100% of all Jews are in favor of Israel. That said, it is a majority.

Also, the Palestinians have been living in the region for centuries (not just their grandparents) so it holds a great deal of importance to them too. In fact many of the Jews that have moved to Israel are foreigners or are converts that have had no ancestors in the region.

I would think long and hard before you suggest that converts and "foreigners" have no place in Israel, or no history that gives them reason to belong in the area. Converts are no different from born Jews, they have Jewish parents(Abraham and Sarah), and are fully a part of the Jewish people (with the exception that they, like divorced women, cannot marry one of the Cohenim). And as for what you mean by foriegner, I can only assume you mean non native born Israelis, but that would imply that you have problems with anyone moving out of the nation in which they were born, and I simply can't imagine that any reasonable person would hold a belief like that so I must have misinterpeted. Please explain.

Who started what is questionable, as the Arab nations certainly felt right in what they were doing as the British had promised them some the land of Israel/Palestine.

Well, the arab nations invaded within 6 days of Israel becoming a state. It seems to me like the people who first started killing the other started it. You know, the ones who went and invaded the other country?

Also, by your logic, if the Arab nations and Israel went to war again, and the Arabs captured land from Israel, they would be right to keep it. The victor is not always right. Israel took about 75% of the Palestinian land under the British Mandate, and it's unlikely the Palestinians will ever be able to claim it for themselves.

You have a point there. I guess what I really have an issue with is starting wars, and then complaining that you lost. So if Israel invaded Jordan, and Jordan swept through 75% of Israel, I would be of the opinion that Israel really shouldn't have attacked Jordan.

And the Palistinians are getting the land back. I feel like I keep saying the same thing here:
Israel is disengaging from Palistine. They have withdrawn all settlements and troops back to within the 1948 Green Line. The PA is in the process of holding elections, at which time there will be an official Palistinian state for Israel to recognize, which Israel has every intent of doing.

the few Palestinians and Arabs that choose to become Israeli citizens face severe discrimination.

Can you site a source for that? To the best of my knowlage, arabs who chose to become Israeli were given all the same rights as every other non jewish israeli citizen.

[db_pr]

I guess what I really have an issue with is starting wars, and then complaining that you lost.

So you're saying that the arabs started the war, and then complained that they lost it?
As I said before, some people regard other people moving into some of your land and claiming it as their own an invasion.

And I don't see the conflict as a war, I see a war as an armed and violent conflict between two forces of comparable or almost comparable military/economic resources.
What Israel did was committing the bloody invasion and oppression of a country that didn't have half the tanks, guns, or money that Israel has.

And the Palistinians are getting the land back. I feel like I keep saying the same thing here:
Israel is disengaging from Palistine.

Late's better than never.

"the few Palestinians and Arabs that choose to become Israeli citizens face severe discrimination."

Can you site a source for that? To the best of my knowlage, arabs who chose to become Israeli were given all the same rights as every other non jewish israeli citizen.

They might be given the same rights, yet the hate, rage and prejudice still remains.

[Moeen]

Originally posted by Lamarquise:
And what of someone like me who might learn about Islam but would reject it and maintain my own beliefs? Which would I be considered? Especially by the extremists?

That's a very good question, and I'm not sure there is a good answer to it, or at least, I don't know of one. The idea that someone could come to a complete and proper understanding of the Qur'an, the life of Muhammad, and Islam as a whole, and still reject the religion is one that has baffled Muslims throughout history, as Muslims don't just believe in the religion, but sees it as a fact. To them, knowing Islam, but believing it's not true is like denying the truth. What to do with such people has baffled them as well. I'd imagine that such people would be warned that they would suffer the consequences of their decision in the afterlife, but would nevertheless be allowed to live in a Muslim society as long as they abided by the rules as any other citizen would. However, if someone were to vocally claim that Islam is false or attack it in some way, then such a person has likely forfeited his or her rights and protection, and would be probably be exiled.

The extremists would not be easygoing at all with anyone they perceived as non-Muslim, even some people claiming to be Muslim. Some extremists even go so far as to say that all Shia Muslims are not Muslims, and ironically, there are extremist Shia Muslims. Extremists, however, are really beyond the pale as far as most Muslims are concerned, and are often politically motivated, and simply use the religion to suit their purposes. As a result, extremists sometimes make contradictory religious statements, simply because their goal is not religious, but really political or social.

Originally posted by Emily B.:
Actually, how I ranked them is fairly simple. Which city is more important in Islam, Jerusalem or Mecca? Any Muslim will tell you without hesitation that it's Mecca. And as for Christianity, it's of historic import, but there's no religious imperitive to go to Israel. In Judaisim, there is.

Alright, fine. The main point, however, still stands, namely, while there may be no need for Chrsitians or Muslims to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, it is of key importance to all of the Abrahamic faiths. After all, the Crusades were fought largely for the control of Jerusalem, so it's importance is not to be underestimated.

In any case, if Jews need only go to Israel, there does not have to be a Jewish state of Israel, right? It could be a purely secular state couldn't it?

Originally posted by Emily B.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also, the Palestinians have been living in the region for centuries (not just their grandparents) so it holds a great deal of importance to them too. In fact many of the Jews that have moved to Israel are foreigners or are converts that have had no ancestors in the region.

I would think long and hard before you suggest that converts and "foreigners" have no place in Israel, or no history that gives them reason to belong in the area. Converts are no different from born Jews, they have Jewish parents(Abraham and Sarah), and are fully a part of the Jewish people (with the exception that they, like divorced women, cannot marry one of the Cohenim). And as for what you mean by foriegner, I can only assume you mean non native born Israelis, but that would imply that you have problems with anyone moving out of the nation in which they were born, and I simply can't imagine that any reasonable person would hold a belief like that so I must have misinterpeted. Please explain. </div>[quote]
Okay, I think you completely missed my main point point. I was not suggesting converts and foreigners have no place in Israel, simply that the Palestinians have at least as much a right to live there as anyone else. Certainly many of their ancestors have lived in the region and they consider it to be their homeland as well.

Originally posted by Emily B.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> the few Palestinians and Arabs that choose to become Israeli citizens face severe discrimination.

Can you site a source for that? To the best of my knowlage, arabs who chose to become Israeli were given all the same rights as every other non jewish israeli citizen. </div>[quote]
Sure I have a source, see the 2004 U.S. Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices of Israel and the occupied territories. In particular, Section 5 of the report has details and examples of discrimination against Israeli Arabs. The report, and even the relevant sections are rather long, so I'll give a few examples of discrimination from the report:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>The Orr Commission of Inquiry's report (see Section 1.a.) stated that the "Government handling of the Arab sector has been primarily neglectful and discriminatory," that the Government "did not show sufficient sensitivity to the needs of the Arab population, and did not take enough action to allocate state resources in an equal manner." As a result, "serious distress prevailed in the Arab sector in various areas. Evidence of distress included poverty, unemployment, a shortage of land, serious problems in the education system, and substantially defective infrastructure."
<LI>In November, the Israeli-Arab advocacy NGO Sikkuy's annual report stated that 45 percent of Arab families were poor, in contrast to 15 percent of Jewish families, and that the rate of infant mortality in the Arab sector was 8 out of 1,000 births--twice that of the Jewish population. According to Human Rights Watch, during the year, the Government provided 1 teacher for every 16 Jewish primary school children compared to 1 teacher for every 19.7 Arab children.
<LI>According to a report by Mossawa, racist violence against Arab citizens has increased, and the Government has not done enough to prevent this problem.
<LI>In June, the Jerusalem District Court filed six indictments against fans of a local soccer team for shouting "death to the Arabs" at the local stadium. In May, then-Transportation Minister Avigdor Lieberman publicly advocated the transfer of Israeli-Arab communities to the occupied territories. A Haifa University poll released in June revealed that over 63 percent of Jews believed that the Government should encourage Israeli Arabs to emigrate.
<LI>Israeli-Arab organizations have challenged as discriminatory the 1996 "Master Plan for the Northern Areas of Israel," which listed as priority goals increasing the Galilee's Jewish population and blocking the territorial contiguity of Arab towns. Objections were presented at a hearing in March 2003, but there was no response from the National Council for Building and Planning. The plan had not been implemented at year's end.[/list]
There are plenty of other examples in the report, which you can see for yourself. Well, it's clear that there's still a long way to go.

[Emily B.]

Originally posted by db_pr:
So you're saying that the arabs started the war, and then complained that they lost it?
As I said before, some people regard other people moving into some of your land and claiming it as their own an invasion.

And I don't see the conflict as a war, I see a war as an armed and violent conflict between two forces of comparable or almost comparable military/economic resources.
What Israel did was committing the bloody invasion and oppression of a country that didn't have half the tanks, guns, or money that Israel has.

And that bloody invasion was in 1947? You mean, when the british left Palistine, and within 6 days, all of the surrounding arab nations moved in and attacked Israel? All those poor, small, underarmed arab nations, like Jordan and Egypt? Right, I see now, they were just fighting back against a big bully, the few thousand Jews, still recovering from the holocaust, in a nation not even a week old. Israel was the obvious huge power in the area, it's was clearly an unfair fight, Jordan and Egypt and Lebanon didn't stand a chance of winning, they were out gunned, out manned and outfunded by a brand new country a little smaller than NJ.

Actually, maybe they didn't stand a chance. The Jews have a 4000 year history of winning as the underdog. Moses, Ester, the Maccabees. Maybe having G-d on Israel's side was what did it this time too. Of course, agreeing to that would mean that you'd have to admit that Israel is right in some greater moral sense.

Late's better than never.

Hey, as soon as Palistine was willing to agree to a peace treaty, Israel handed over the land. I guess you're right though. Better peace late than never.

They might be given the same rights, yet the hate, rage and prejudice still remains.

But you have no problems with the hate, rage and prejudice spewed by hamas, islamic jihad, etc? That's somehow ok, somehow justified? Slaughtering jewish school children is ok, bombing shuls on Yom Kippur is ok, but bulldozing the houses of suspected terrorists it right out, as is being angered at the people who did those (to my mind) atroicious, inhuman things? Sorry, I don't get it.

[db_pr]

And that bloody invasion was in 1947? You mean, when the british left Palistine, and within 6 days, all of the surrounding arab nations moved in and attacked Israel? All those poor, small, underarmed arab nations, like Jordan and Egypt? Right, I see now, they were just fighting back against a big bully, the few thousand Jews, still recovering from the holocaust, in a nation not even a week old. Israel was the obvious huge power in the area, it's was clearly an unfair fight, Jordan and Egypt and Lebanon didn't stand a chance of winning, they were out gunned, out manned and outfunded by a brand new country a little smaller than NJ.

Exactly, they were out gunned, out manned and outfunded by a brand new country a little smaller than NJ that had the support of the biggest empire of modern times.

Hey, as soon as Palistine was willing to agree to a peace treaty, Israel handed over the land.

Right.

But you have no problems with the hate, rage and prejudice spewed by hamas, islamic jihad, etc?

I'm not saying that, if a jew lived with the palestines there would also be hate, rage and prejudice. I'm not saying I don't have a problem with it, you misunderstood. I just said that only because they have the same rights doesn't mean they get treated the same; as you said, that's just naive.

Slaughtering jewish school children is BAD, bombing shuls on Yom Kippur is BAD, bulldozing the houses of suspected terrorists--

--is bad as well!

[Emily B.]

Jordan and Egypt only attacked in 1948 because they thought they could get away with it. They took a gamble, and lost. I don't see why you're so upset at Israel for successfully defending itself. And yes, the US supported Israel. So did the UN ( who said that what the arab nations were doing was illegal agression).

( and I meant to respond to this in the last post: Israel has to be a relgious state because 4000 years of history say that the nation of Israel is a Jewish state, not a secular one. Judaism is much more than a religion, it's probably closer to what most people think of as a nation, with a culture and a language, and a set of laws that are in many ways independant of belief in G-d)

[Wilf]

Originally posted by db_pr:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Slaughtering jewish school children is BAD, bombing shuls on Yom Kippur is BAD, bulldozing the houses of suspected terrorists--

--is bad as well! </div>[quote]
Quite right. The key word here is "suspected". If there are terrorists living there, they should be arressted, given a proper criminal trial, and if found guilty, sent to prison. It's a simple thing called "justice" where you ake sure people are guilty before punishing them.
There is also the point that even if Israel has absolute proof that the house contains terroists, and this feels it can do without a trial, there is still the point the house could still be occupied by innocnet relatives, who would be punished for crimes they didn't commit.

[db_pr]

the US supported Israel.

So it wasn't just a small, new, innocent nation, was it?

[Emily B.]

Originally posted by db_pr:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the US supported Israel.

So it wasn't just a small, new, innocent nation, was it? </div>[quote]
Oh my goodness. That's your objection? So, what, if the US had supported Palistine, would they have been wrong to attack Israel then?

[db_pr]

Probably.

[Emily B.]

So it's not that you're against Israel, you're against the US? What's your opinion on the American Revolution?