What Does Support For Israel Really Mean?

[hrdguera]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

So in your world the bullies and the strong win...and you're comfortable with that?

It isn't that simple. It is a fact whether I'm comfortable with it or not.
The strong and the one willing to use the strongest weapons in the most effective way will survive.

Here, in 1776, American rebels hid in the forests and ambushed the English soldiers. They struck the garrison's encampments at night too instead of on the battlefield. They used hit and run guerrilla tactics on a formal battlefield opponent!

Even before that the French made alliances with the Indians here and fought the same kind of guerrilla war against the English. It changed the map of North America when France ceded French Louisiana West of the Mississippi River to Spain. Britian became the biggest power in in settled North America.

In China, Mao's little book On Protracted War taught an agrarian society how to fight and defeat an entrenched and armament superior force. They are now the largest and might be most superior force on the planet.

So who or whom were the bullies? IMO It pretty much depends on whose history written by which side you read. As I said earlier ... the victors write the history that gets read and they rarely identify themselves as the bullies in any conflict. It isn't good for morale or nationalism.

As for the Israelis and Palestinians I can safely predict that the Jews are most likely going to win any conflict. Why? Because of the tribal and religious factionalism that keeps the Palestinian Arabs continually fighting among themselves. Although it was that factionalism that first created their identity only after 1918; it was that same factionalism that really led to their defeat in 1948. Plus, although the Jews may argue in the Knesset; on the battlefield they strike as one under a unified motivated leadership. That also includes actions not on the battlefield.

History will repeat itself because it always does against a divided opponent.
As long as there are tribal differences and religious factional differences; the Arabs will lose. Even if you study the current various Arab factions as they try to rally and rile up their assorted bases; they seem to be doing it for their own factional gain instead of uniting to counter their common perceived enemy. About the only thing all the factions have in common is none of them are willing to "out" or control the "Jihadists" in their midsts. That in turn, just gives them more real enemies, like the US and all civilized nations. Maybe one day they will get their act together but I really doubt it. Even today, Egypt is in turmoil internally instead of trying to unite. Because Egypt broadcasts all over the Arab world; their internal disputes just delay any real Arab unification.

[pgh69]

Originally Posted by hrdguera

The Jews had a plan. They worked it well and accomplished their immediate goals. That they had long term goals was to be expected except to the uninitiated. Plus they had a couple of allies to help them. Whether it was legal, ethical, or morally correct is really not relevant. It is the way of nations, every nation. We are seeing the same thing happening right now in Egypt. We have seen it in every nation that has come about since the 1600's. The world bends to those that have a plan and the will to see it through. Some could call it part of the human condition to make a nation out of an idea. We did in a time when most of the world still believed in the "Divine right of Kings."

I'm really surprised by your "might makes right" argument. By your logic, Germany was just "making a nation out of an idea" when it unleashed the blitzkrieg on Poland, Germany, Russia, etc. According to you, whether Germany's actions were moral is "not really relevant." I don't think there are many other human beings who agree with your belief that strength and power justify conquest.

Originally Posted by hrdguera

The strong survive and prosper. That some countries disappear is not a crime except to victims of nostalgia. I think that we might have to think of it as human nature. Monarchies have come and gone. Nations have come and gone. Whole civilizations have come and gone. Remember this the next time you vote or support a political entity. Do you want to persevere? Vote for strength not weakness. Study the past to know why some fail and go extinct. Ask the Dali Lama what happened to his country? If he had been stronger it would still be his country. Yea, it is a shame, but it is a fact. Reminds me of a song .... "Don't cry for me Argentina!"

So, pick a side and fight. Pick the wrong side, the weak side and you lose. The survivors and the winners write the history.

Does it really all come down to weakness and strength for you? Does morality never into the picture? Do you believe that the Soviets had the right to install puppet governments in Eastern Europe simply b/c they had the military strength to do so? What about the rights and liberties of the people who lived behind the Iron Curtain? Aren't they every bit as entitled to the freedoms that we enjoy? Should they have been denied those freedoms just b/c they were unfortunate enough to live in countries that didn't have the military power to oppose the USSR? Come on Hrd, did you really think this through before you posted?

[Sapphire]

Israel is the Promised Land GOD gave to the Jews.

All the political hype and lies will NEVER stand.

[pgh69]

Originally Posted by Sapphire

Israel is the Promised Land GOD gave to the Jews.

All the political hype and lies will NEVER stand.

Shh, the grown-ups are talking now, Sapphire. Play w/ your crayons for awhile and we'll call you when it's story-time.

[hrdguera]

Originally Posted by pgh69

I'm really surprised by your "might makes right" argument.

No, I didn't say "Might Makes Right." I said that is the just way governments, despots, and even morally straight governments work.

Originally Posted by pgh69

Does it really all come down to weakness and strength for you?

I was taking the viewpoint of say, the last 4,000 years of human history.
As you might have already assumed by your own indignation, I too am appalled by the death, the terror, and the mistreatment on both sides of this particular situation.

It is like when you study American Diplomacy for the first time and it suddenly strikes the student that our America has not always been on the side of "right" or been morally correct in all their decisions.
How else would someone explain why our government was supporting dictators, despots, or just plain murderers?

I figured that where governments are concerned it comes down to expediency, or at least it did until someone like Ghandi comes on the scene and with the help of some well placed media people; the world gets to see (or hear in his case) the true brutality of a governments and its policies in action. Or how we, as a county ignored the pleas of the Nisei at the outset of WWII. Or what happens when our government supports industry that exports products that are not legal or healthful to sell here, (like condemned baby formula). This entire type of story was played out right here in my own country during the 1950's and 1960's regarding civil rights. I remember watching the people get sprayed with high pressure water and the barking dogs. It all had a profound impact on our national psyche, and me.

No, I am not insensitive to the plight of innocents or even the guilty. But if anyone thinks governments are not pragmatic; then they are naive.
So, take that in context with my previous comments and at least take a more pragmatic view and understand why governments, and our government, acts the way it does.
But you already know this. So if anyone expects Israel or the Palestinians to act any different; then they are engaging in fantasy. It will continue until they are forced to stop it.
Just like Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Batista, Mugabe, Zenawi, Bashir, Afwerki, Mubarak, and Biya continued until they were forced to stop (at least I think they have all been stopped by now).
I haven't even listed the most famous crazy Caesars of Rome either! Sometimes our own government even acts in harmful hurtful and inexcusable ways towards it own citizens.
Cops bust heads in Chicago; National Guardsmen shoot girls and students in Ohio; poisons and psychedelics are tested on unaware residents; Black syphilis patients are left untreated; and who knows how many more are injured by bad water, radiation, and legally allowed pollutants?

And relax, although I understand why Israel acts the way it does; it doesn't mean I condone their actions any more than I condone the Palestinians sending rockets into Jerusalem's populated areas.
All war is horror. But I believe it happens so others that rule can live the life they seek whether it is right or wrong. I also believe it happens because good people stay silent.
I also figure it will continue until our "childhood ends." (yes, that is a reference to Arthur C. Clark).

BTW I quit being naive about how great our government was when my dad ("my country right or wrong") and I used to argue about Vietnam, Johnson, Cambodia, Bay of Pigs, Nixon, and hundreds of other topics.
I figured then that all governments are the summation of the lowest common denominator as far as ethics and morals are concerned. In others words, not too hot.
And concerning the last election I would say that I am still batting 1.000 and it wouldn't have changed even it the outcome would have been different.

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by pgh69

I'm really surprised by your "might makes right" argument. By your logic, Germany was just "making a nation out of an idea" when it unleashed the blitzkrieg on Poland, Germany, Russia, etc. According to you, whether Germany's actions were moral is "not really relevant." I don't think there are many other human beings who agree with your belief that strength and power justify conquest.



Does it really all come down to weakness and strength for you? Does morality never into the picture? Do you believe that the Soviets had the right to install puppet governments in Eastern Europe simply b/c they had the military strength to do so? What about the rights and liberties of the people who lived behind the Iron Curtain? Aren't they every bit as entitled to the freedoms that we enjoy? Should they have been denied those freedoms just b/c they were unfortunate enough to live in countries that didn't have the military power to oppose the USSR? Come on Hrd, did you really think this through before you posted?

Couldn't have put it better.

Originally Posted by hrdguera

I was taking the viewpoint of say, the last 4,000 years of human history.

....and this IMO are where you are going wrong. It was perfectly acceptable to behave as you described hundreds or thousands of years ago. It is not acceptable now.

Do you agree that Israel is contravening international laws...laws that it has agreed to obey as a member of the UN?

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by pgh69

shh, the grown-ups are talking now, sapphire. Play w/ your crayons for awhile and we'll call you when it's story-time.

lmfao!

[hrdguera]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

Couldn't have put it better.

....and this IMO are where you are going wrong. It was perfectly acceptable to behave as you described hundreds or thousands of years ago. It is not acceptable now.

Do you agree that Israel is contravening international laws...laws that it has agreed to obey as a member of the UN?

Both sides feel they are right.
Both side are contravening International Laws.
I feel both sides are wrong based simply on the fact that they refuse to coexist peacefully.
They will probably both end up dying in an exchange of nuclear fire.
Nobody will win. Why? Because, as I said, governments are the lowest common denominator of human interactions.
Plus, when you add the differing religious convictions that are uncompromising and diametrically opposed to each other- the outcome is already foretold unless someone, something, or some third party makes them stop by shaking the foundations of both of their religious hatreds by exposing them for what they really are; an excuse to hate one another.

And saying "shame on you" is not going to change what they do.
Let me up, please. I will not condemn one side unless I can condemn both sides! That is my point and that is why I expect both side to eventually perish.

Both of you have made great points but I am not the enemy. The combatants are headed towards self destruction. I may even go so far to call it the effect of the human condition left untreated!

[Morbidus]

Originally Posted by Sapphire

Israel is the Promised Land GOD gave to the Jews.

Yea, that's all fine and good, but HE took it away from them TWICE!

************************************************** ********
1 John 4:1 "BELOVED, DO NOT BELIEVE EVERY SPIRIT, BUT TEST THE SPIRITS TO SEE WHETHER THEY ARE OF GOD; FOR MANY FALSE PROPHETS HAVE GONE OUT INTO THE WORLD."

[pgh69]

Originally Posted by hrdguera

No, I didn't say "Might Makes Right." I said that is the just way governments, despots, and even morally straight governments work.

Reviewing your post again, it certainly seems that you were advocating the philosophy of "might makes right." Take a look at these statements that you made again and tell me you weren't arguing that to the victors go the spoils...

Originally Posted by hrdguera

The Jews had a plan. They worked it well and accomplished their immediate goals. That they had long term goals was to be expected except to the uninitiated. Plus they had a couple of allies to help them. Whether it was legal, ethical, or morally correct is really not relevant..

Originally Posted by hrdguera

So now the Jews are strong enough, connected enough, and willing to fight to preserve their nation. All this talk about what is legal, what is right, is really immaterial.

Originally Posted by hrdguera

The strong survive and prosper.... Do you want to persevere? Vote for strength not weakness.

Originally Posted by hrdguera

So, pick a side and fight. Pick the wrong side, the weak side and you lose. The survivors and the winners write the history.

But putting that point aside for a moment, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and accept your statement that you were, perhaps somewhat inartfully, simply providing a commentary on human history rather than advocating the position that "might makes right." That's all very interesting and to some extent I even agree with you. But, that's not the debate that Plad is inviting. Plad is seeking to debate the moral issues surrounding Israel's conduct. In the broad sense, he's questioning the morality of Israel's existence. In a more narrow sense, he's questioning whether Israel has a moral - and legal - obligation to return lands that it acquired in the Six Days War. That is not an esoteric debate on the nature of man and government. The issues that he is raising are very real and very ripe for debate.

If you agree with Plad, you should say so.

If you disagree, and feel that Israel has a right to exist and/or has the right to keep the territory that it acquired, then defend that position. But, do so without a diatribe on the nature of man and governments. The fact that Israel COULD do what it did, or that nations have, throughout history, conquered other nations, is irrelevant to the questions in this debate.

Or,if you simply don't know enough about the issue to defend a particular position - as Wouldhe candidly admitted - then simply say so. I will admit that I, like Wouldhe, don't feel that I am well educated enough on the issue to advocate a particular position. (I do, however, think that the US tends to have a knee-jerk, pro-Israel reaction to any crisis in the area and that such a reaction is often unjustified.) Nonetheless, I readily admit that I don't know enough about the conflict to advocate a particular position. As he often does, Plad has given me a good bit to think about and I have a much greater interest now in reading up on the history of the conflict in Palestine/Israel.