Not a flame - but why should the Arab world recognize Israel?

[BushOut06]

This whole issue of the UAE and much of the Arab world not recognizing Israel got me thinking. Of course my knee-jerk response was they are wrong not to recognize Israel as a nation. But then I started thinking a little deeper, and it really kinda left me seeing this from their point of view.

Let's say that the United Nations decided to take a portion of the United States and give it to a group of people who hadn't had a country in several thousand years. Let's just take the Aztecs, even though the geography doesn't work, but just go with me here. And the UN doesn't just give them a section of US land, it also gives them New York City as well. Suddenly Aztecs from all over the world start flooding into land that once was yours. I think most of us would be pretty darn upset about it.

I'm not legitimizing any of the anti-Israeli violence that has occured over the past several decades, nor am I giving any credence to the leader of Iran's statements that Israel should be relocated to Europe. I'm just saying that there is a legitimate anger and resentment towards Israel in the region, and to simply dismiss it as anti-Semitism is doing the entire issue a huge disservice.

[tatertop]

1. interesting discussion to follow

[displacedtexan]

2. Popping the corn.

[BushOut06]

4. True, there are definitely strong feelings on both sides of the equation

I think many people have a tendency to overlook WHY a large number of people feel the way they do.

Like I said, I'm not condoning the violence or military actions that have been undertaken against Israel. Far from it, I've always been a very staunch pro-Israel defender. But if we are going to ever have any hope of securing peace, we have to understand WHY they feel the way they do.

[Coastie for Truth]

20. What if a person of Good Will (Muslim, Xtian, Jewish) said

1. I can never forgive the Xtian world for the Libel of Judas' Betrayal.

2. I can never forgive the Xtian world for the Crusades.

3. I can never forgive the Xtian world for the Inquisition.

4. I can never forgive the Xtian world for the Blood Libel.

5. I can never forgive the Xtian world for the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

6. I can never forgive the Xtian world for (sitting on their collective hands during) the Holocaust.

[RethugAssKicker]

3. I agree with your premise wholeheartedly

Actually, I am so pissed off that Bush has gotten us involved with the Arab-Israeli conflict. I always knew however, that it was just a matter of time until we were completely in it.... Now we can never get out of it and the fight will go on for a thousand years!

[BushOut06]

5. I thought Carter and Clinton did a pretty decent job

At least they got the two sides together, had them hash out some of their differences. Much of what we are seeing today is the result of the groundwork Clinton laid back in the 90s, with the territoy handovers.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. A little bit of history to add...

Before WWI, the Middle East was part of the Ottoman Empire. During the war, TE Lawrence made a deal with the Arabs to fight the Turks (the Ottomans had sided with Germany), thus helping Britain and her allies. He promised them their independence after the war. However, around 1916, other diplomats from France and Britain made a different agreement, carving up the Middle East into French/British spheres of influence. It was during these secret negotiations that it was decided to allow Jews to emigrate to the area, the idea being this would appeal to America and might entice them to enter the war. After the Armistace, Britain and France followed their secret agreement, thereby enraging the Arabs.

I don't pretend to know or understand the history of that region from 1916-1948, when the state of Israel was created. But I do know that small pockets of Jews had lived in the Middle East for hundereds of years without incident. I'm thinking that another factor in this whole equation is the importation of European rule, ideology, and individuals to the Middle East. I hope someone with more historical expertise can tell me whether this theory is valid or not.

[bluemarkers]

8. history is very important

I'm thinking that another factor in this whole equation is the importation of European rule, ideology, and individuals to the Middle East. I hope someone with more historical expertise can tell me whether this theory is valid or not.

great post

To see the influence look at Jordan- their military ceremonies include the bag pipes!

I think too, Arabs have the impression that their influence in the world had been decreasing until they figured out how to manipulate the oil markets. However, oil weath has not been distributed equally through out the Middle East. MegaRich families control money and morals. Their sense of entitlement engulfs the rights of their people at every turn. So it is far better for the masses to be angry at some outside "injustice" rather than an inside one. For countries that do not have oil, it's the same principle. Focus on the outside, so the inside can do what ever they want to. Bush is trying it out here.

just my two cents.

[BushOut06]

11. Does Israel have oil fields?

You never really hear anything about Israeli oil, but yet they sit in a very oil-rich area, surrounded by OPEC members.

[bluemarkers]

14. not as much as they would like

http://www.zionoil.com/industry/exploration.html

[Coastie for Truth]

31. No

No. They gave the Sinai fields back to Egypt (Read some history). Read An Introduction to Economic Geology and Its Environmental Impact by Anthony M. Evans which is sorta kinda a "Schuams Outline of Geology" or a "Geology for Dummies". Read it.

"Coastie",
PhD - Chemical Engineering (which is petroleum refinery centric engineering)
And I suffered through geology. :(

[Coastie for Truth]

32. Keen observation

You posted

I think too, Arabs have the impression that their influence in the world had been decreasing until they figured out how to manipulate the oil markets. However, oil weath has not been distributed equally through out the Middle East. MegaRich families control money and morals. Their sense of entitlement engulfs the rights of their people at every turn. So it is far better for the masses to be angry at some outside "injustice" rather than an inside one. For countries that do not have oil, it's the same principle. Focus on the outside, so the inside can do what ever they want to. Bush is trying it out here.

The Saudi royals have been masters of this. My prediction is that the Saudis are on borrowed time - like the Romanovs.

Want something scary? Read Marx's Communist Manifesto and plug Saudi society into every reference to European society.

[pelsar]

24. facts?....

But I do know that small pockets of Jews had lived in the Middle East for hundereds of years without incident.

i really dont want to give a history lesson...but blool libels against the jews in various formats were not uncommon....along with a whole host of anti jew laws (citizenship etc.)

of course if living as a second class citizen is considered good...than perhaps this is the wrong discussion group for me

[murray hill farm]

7. Ask an american indian...

how it feels!

[demigoddess]

9. Israel blew it when in 1948 they did not recognize that they were getting

their country at the expense of others. They should have stood for the right of all people to have their own country then the arab nations would not hate them so much. It was a case of I got mine and I dont care about others in the same position. Bottom line Israel blew it and we blow it by supporting them unconditionally.

[cali]

13. Congratulations!

This may be the most ignorant and insensitive post I've seen in a while.

[TabulaRasa]

22. How is this remotely ignorant or insensitive?

The most ignorant suggestion in this thread is the one you made below, that some people have an intrinsic right (because of their genetic constitution, or religion) to some section of land, which is their "historical" and "spiritual" home. (Is this because God gifted the land of Israel to the Jews? If you think this, you and Pat Robertson should get along great. He spouts that gibberish all the time.) Hitler had similar ideas about a Greater Germany being the intrinsic and "historic" right of a certain "race" of people. Btw, the people of Palestine were semitic people and likely descendents of Jews who converted to Islam because of persecution and other factors. They certainly have as much if not more right to live there as anyone else.

And as for the person who talked about not living in a refugee camp trying to get back their plantation, I think your point is somewhat valid. There is a "shelf life" on the "right of return". 200 years exceeds that shelf life. And so did the supposed Jewish right of return to Palestine from a thousand years ago, or whatever, which was the underpinning of Zionism. 50 years is still valid I think. However, I think the right of return for Palestinians to Israel is politically unrealistic, and should probably be abandoned. However, the most important point is that there is NO shelf life for the right to self-determination. And this is what Israel has consistently been denying the Palestinian people!

[pelsar]

27. shelf life?.....

200 years exceeds shelf life?...so all israel has to do is keep the palestenains "out" for 200 years and "bingo"...they no longer have a right to return.....interesting theory.

as far as their self determination goes...thats what the war is all about....in the meantime they've got gaza as a first step and a new govt...both signs of self determination

[TabulaRasa]

30. It's repugnant but

it's basically what Israel's policy is. Wait them out. I don't favor that, as I'm always in favor of immediate justice.

And yes, you have to admit there is a shelf life. Maybe not 200 years, but we can't trace our ancestry back indefinitely, find people who were displaced, and demand our right to that land. It would be preposterous.
But you would also have to admit that people do have a right to return to land they have been driven from. When does that right go away? I'm welcome to hear your suggestions. There's no set date; it's a psychological thing ... the bonds with the place of displacement have receded. Clearly, the guy who mention his ancestor's plantation has no real bond with that place or time. Hence, we don't feel he has a right to return there.

And the Palestinians have self-determination, now, like South African blacks had self-determination under the Bantustan regimes. Compare their policies, and then come back to me.

[Coastie for Truth]

23. Actually

played some part, as did MP Ernest Bevin, OBE, VC.

[enigma000]

10. But that's how it has always been done

My ancestors lived in the original 13 American colonies back in the late 18th century. They, as a matter of conscience, sided with the Crown in the Revolutionary War. Consequently they were, um, "asked" to leave and come north to Canada. Two centuries later, I'm not living in a refugee camp on the Niagara Peninsula next to the American border waiting for the US to dissolve so I can get my family's plantation back, if they had one. (And maybe compensation for any lost slaves?)

Life went on. The British accepted the USA was here to stay. Eventually so will the Middle East when it comes to Israel.

[cali]

12. Someone once described the formation of Israel to me

with the following metaphor: Someone jumping out of the window of a burning building and landing on someone safely below. Europe, of course, was a burning building for the Jews, and Hitler although the worst manifestation of persecution was only another iteration of such treatment. It's important to understand that after WWII, no one wanted the Jews.

I agree that your Aztec/NY scenario is flawed; Jerusalum is both the spiritual and historic 'home' to the Jews. In addition, your analysis leaves out a preceding crisis that had just happened.

None of this negates the fact that the formation of Israel was traumatic and terrible for the Palestinians. Nevertheless, it's been fifty years. Other Arabic countries, notably, Egypt and Jordan. It takes goodwill on both sides to advance the cause of peace.

[BushOut06]

15. True, but the Jews had been gone for over a thousand years

Even though some still lived in the area, by and large they had been scattered around the globe long ago - I think it might have been the Romans who scattered them, but I'm not sure.

I will concede that this is a very unique set of circumstances, as I really can't think of any other groups who have been displaced thousands of years ago, but still maintaining their own identity over the same period of time - not to mention reclaiming their old lands.

[cali]

17. Actually, that's not entirely true

Yes, Jews were dispersed around the world, but there was always a Jewish presence, particularly in Jerusalem.

Wikipedia has a basic article about Israel. Here's the link.

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

[Coastie for Truth]

19. Wrong - read any serious, academic history of the Ottoman Empire.

[morgan2]

16. Of course your right

and of course there is legitimacy to arab violence against Israel. Obviously many people dont agree with the tactics of suicide bombings against civilians, but the fact that Palestinians want to fight the Israelis is only natural. The only good solution is a mixed culture state, which is a challenge in itself because neither group is anywhere near even considering. Some kinda mixed up dotted mixture of two states on one land is only destined to fail.

[Coastie for Truth]

18. NOT A FLAME - BUT I REMEMBER WHEN PROGRESSIVES HAD READ WIDELY

1. Caroline Finkel, OSMAN'S DREAM

2. Maria Rosa Menocal, THE ORNAMENT OF THE WORLD

3. F. William Engdahl, A CENTURY OF WAR: ANGLO-AMERICAN OIL POLITICS AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER

NOT A FLAME - BUT I REMEMBER WHEN PROGRESSIVES KNEW SOME "LIBERAL ARTS" HISTORY

1.

NOT A FLAME - BUT DO YOU JOIN WITH A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF CALIFORNIANS IN CALLING THE TREATY OF GUADALUPE-HIDALGO ILLEGAL?

[catnhatnh]

21. For an easy insight into the formation of a Jewish State

...Read Leon Uris' "Exodus"....One important point is that the Palestinians were not chased out of Israel,rather they were asked to stay.Most exiled themselves at the urging of their "arab brothers" who vowed to drive the Jews into the sea and return their land...58 years later they are still waiting.

[TabulaRasa]

26. That's a flat-out falsehood

It's been debunked by most modern historiography, much of it Israeli. Pure nonsense. These were the mythical "radio broadcasts". And the absurdity of the suggestion that Israel asked the Palestinians to stay is mind-boggling. And even if the tale about Palestinians leaving voluntarily were true, it wouldn't justify Israel's behavior any more. If a robber invades my house, and cops say come out of there until we arrest the guy, wouldn't it be a legitimate thing for me to leave? I'm not relinquishing my house by leaving. That's the way the Palestinians probably viewed the situation. The world powers decided to relieve their guilt about the murderous and despicable policies carried out against one oppressed people by dispossessing another one. It's not terribly surprising that the Palestinians weren't overcome with sympathy for the idea.

[pelsar]

29. it was actually a combo...

some stayed some left...some were killed some lived out the war in peace.....some welcomed the jews, some didnt.....the reactions were very local....

but your cop analgy is rather absurd. The invading armies of jordan, iraq, egypt, syrian lebanon werent doing it for the palesteanins, they were going for the spoils...as is evident by egypt and jordan keeping what the managed to take....and tossing the palesteanins in camps

[TabulaRasa]

33. What's absurd is your idea that

every aspect of an analogy has to fit. I never suggested that the Arab states were anything but corrupt monstrosities. They were completely complicit in the subjugation of the Palestinians, and they certainly weren't interested in Palestinian rights. Your idea that either Israel is good and the "Arabs" are bad, or vice-versa demonstrates a profoundly silly world-view. They both can be bad, and are (in this case the Arab states, and the state of Israel). They were all out for power, wealth and territory, and it didn't have pretty consequences for any of the people of that region. I wasn't offering apologetics for the Arab states. But the apologetics for Israel do rise to the level of Stalinist lunacy at times. Do you honestly believe that Israel asked Palestinians to stay? What planet are you on? They wanted a Jewish state. They made no bones about it.

[On the Road]

25. Well, as Chomsky Says

The Israeli insistence on its right to exist being recognized, however understandable, is historically bizarre and almost unprecedented. Enemies typcially want to destroy each other. They're enemies. That's the whole reason negotiation is needed.

Israel's right to exist is pretty much founded on the 1948 UN resolution. What you never hear mentioned in all these discussions is that the UN resolution created TWO entities. In my mind, it takes unmitigated gall on Israel's part to insist on accepting one of the two bodies before any discussion can start while forbidding all discussion of the other body. The Arabs are not the only rejectionists.

[pelsar]

28. good point....

The Israeli insistence on its right to exist being recognized, however understandable, is historically bizarre and almost unprecedented. ...what other country in the world has to "insist" on being recognized...what other country in the world has a nearby country saying its going to wipe them off the map..and has suicide bomber sign up sheet to help it along...what other country has won every war it fought, pulls back on some borders to intl borders and is STILL attacked from every border?

and the UN....whatever did happen to that second state that was to be created?....didnt jordan take it over?....at least they kept the parts when they couldnt wipe israel of the map....

[Spinoza]

34. Of course the word 'Arab'

comes from "Arabia". The Arabians (now called Arabs) conquered the rest of the Middle East beginning in the 7th century and (often forcibly) "converted" the indigemous non-Arab populations to Islam. They were the "Imperialists" of that era. For Arabs or Muslims to complain about imperialism is inconsistent to say the least. The Arabs should start by giving up Egypt and the Muslims by giving up Constantinople. Then we can start talking about really big things like getting the influence of Muslim conquerors out of India. For that matter, the Japanese should give Hokkaido back to the Ainu and the Russians, Siberia back to the Chukchi. All persons of Spanish decent must leave Latin America. For that matter, the Anglo-Saxons should give Britain back to the Britons and Celts. And we don't have to even talk about Native Americans, do we?

But of all the nations on earth it is fair and right and moral that Israel not be recognized as a sovereign state.

[TabulaRasa]

35. Yes you're right.

Why don't we put Arabs and Muslims in jail for the crimes their ancestors committed in the 7th century?

I daresay we all have pretty repugnant ancestors ... the history of our species ain't pretty. If my ancestor was a monarch, would that make me hypocritical if I were to speak out against monarchy? If not, why is your suggestion (and marshalling of historical facts) any less silly?

[centristo]

36. from what I understand of Palestine

prior to 1948, the area was more like Wyoming than New York City. That is, all of the infrastructure and development, or most, was done after Israel won its war of independance. The population exploded from 1948-2000 as well.

Your analogy would also have to factor in that a deal to share (or split) the land was offered to the Americans and the Aztecs. The Americans rejected it and launched an attack on the Aztecs. The Aztecs won the war.

So the Aztec nation is now in the middle of our American Empire. Throw conflicting religions into the mix and you start to see how convulted and messed up this situation is.

Like most conflicts between nation-states, I don't think right and wrong matter a whole lot. Was France ever "right" to attack England? India and Pakistan? America and Mexico, Vietnam, Korea, etc.? History will note the reason why nations fought, but the lines on the map are only drawn by the victors.

[Lithos]

37. Locking per I/P guidelines

Not based on a recent news or op-ed article

Lithos
I/P Moderator