Mark: Why do you feel compelled to include a criticism of Israel when you find fault with some aspect of Arab culture? You're creating the impression that there is some sort of moral equivalence between the two parties.
Vodkapunditgets it (ViaInsta):
If you think that the West Bank is an occupied nation, then you naturally think that all Israel has to do is to pull out -- and peace will suddenly break out like a pimple the day before Senior Prom. The problem is, the Palestinians, by and large, think that Israel isn't just occupying the West Bank, it's occupying, well, all of Israel. So simply pulling back to the Green Line won't end the war.
And that means that to Israel and Palestine, this is a war of survival.
And that makes this a very modern war, which won't end until one side or the other is burned, occupied, and crying uncle. Fact is, the Palestinians can't do that to the Israelis. Another fact is, the Israelis won't (but could) do it to the Palestinians.
And that is why you almost never see me write anything about the Middle East "peace process." The only process towards peace is the kind of war one sid
Because I write a blog read by people who are extremely ready, willing and able to see the picture as the summation of all Palestinian culture, who believe that Israel is capable of sin against Palestianians in theory, but never in practice, and who have given me very little reason to believe that they take seriously the desperate plight of Palestinian Christians.
sorry...
The only process towards peace is the kind of war one side can't commit, and the other side won't.
Christopher Rake: The usual knee-jerk, Israel-can-do-no-wrong nonsense that justifies . . . what? Continued occupation of the West Bank because it won't make any difference to the Palestinians in the end whether the West Bank is occupied or not? Well, hell, then why not just invade all of Greater Israel all the way to Damascus, demanding U.S. taxpayer and military support for the venture to boot? Makes perfect sense!
Mark: Would you not agree that the picture to which you linked resonates with considerably more Arabs than Israelis? "Desperation" doesn't explain it. (Hence, my remark about misplaced moral equivalence.)
"Another fact is, the Israelis won't (but could) do it to the Palestinians."
Short of completely wiping out all the Arab world, I can't see the Israelis "able to do it". Could they quickly overtake and occupy? Sure, just as we could quickly overtake and occupy Iraq. Not an issue. Can they, over the long haul, convince their neighbors to live in relative peace (particularly after just having invaded them)? I seriouisly doubt it. The terror attacks would continue, and most likely intensify, and would be continuously fed by other mid-east sources. No, Israel does not attack because it is restraining itself purely out of moral considerations; it does not attack because the more sober heads realize it would be a lose-lose proposition.
Mark:
"Israel is capable of sin against Palestianians in theory, but never in practice..."
That is in a certain sense true. Or rather, the best way to put IMHO the same thought is that Israel's sins are venial sins of the flesh, but the Palestinians mortal ones of the spirit. And in any given political situation, the former will always be preferable to the latter. It's very easy, and popular in a culture that can feign neutrality between Christ and the devil, to say "a pox on both your houses," "both are equally bad," or "I take no side on the merits, but fighting solves nothing."
And those of us who are pro-Israel don't believe or have to show that "all Palestinians are Muslim fanatics." Not all Saudis are either. Nor were all Germans Nazis. It suffices to show that those who are drive the political culture, define the social mainstream, or intimidate those who are not. That can be quite easily demonstrated and "my Palestinian friend" anecdotes are mere "besid
... continued ...
"My Palestinian friend" anecdotes are mere "beside the point" quibbles and academic in all the worst senses.
Why do Americans have such a hostile attitude toward the Palestinians while giving deference to the Israelis? Some a few ideas in no particular order:
1. The strong influence that Christian Zionism has in our society. This cannot be underestimated, even among Catholics.
2. Americans tend to accept what the media tells them without question. That is certainly what I did until I lived in Israel and saw the reality on the ground. (No, I do not
believe there is a conspiracy, just ignorance.)
3. The existence of revisionist history which has managed to twist the occupier into the victim.
4. People are afraid to challenge how Israel spends U.S. tax dollars because they fear being labeled anti-Semitic.
5. People hear reference to “Israel” and consciously or subconsciously conjure up ideas of Old Testament “Israel”, not realizing that 20th century Israel is a secular state, not a religious one.
6. Regardless of the country, Americans relate to Western type culture more readily
(continued) than Eastern cultures. Israel, with so many American/Israeli citizens is more Western than the Palestinian culture.
7. Most Americans haven’t had the opportunity to experience the lovely Palestinian culture and hospitality. When most Americans go to the Holy Land, they do so with tour groups who have a relationship with the Israeli government. The guides are licensed by Israel. The guides give the Israeli line and keep their group from meeting Palestinians. Many American Christians come home from a “Christian pilgrimage” not even aware that there are Christian Palestinians living and suffering in the Land of Jesus. I wish I had a dollar for every American pastor who has gotten an Israeli
subsidized trip to Israel!
8. Sadly, the Palestinians, for what ever reason, do not have articulate spokesmen.
It is very nice that there's a lovely Palestinian culture, but unfortunately there are quite a few lovely Palestinians who want to kill all Jews between the West Bank and the Mediterranean.
This might have a teensy eensy bit to do with why many Americans support Israel. I'm just sayin'...
The only thing William says that has any validity is #6, and that is as good a reason as any to favor one side in a conflict. What the Israelis having a Western culture means is that among other things, they don't massacre civilians en masse as Arabs do.
#8 is as wrong as can be. The Palestinians have plenty of "articulate" spokesmen. It's just that what they say is evil. #3 is bosh historically and dubious morally. "Victim" and "oppressor" have no moral content (least of all in the Arabs' honor-based culture). Their use is just capture-the-flag rhetoric for sentimental Westerners
I don't trust anyone who congratulates himself, as in #2, for not being those taken in my media lies, not realizing that people can be lied to through any number of means, including face-to-face testimony.
Nor do I trust someone who thinks he's among the few, the proud who "saw the reality on the ground," but then slags others for also going there, because they had guides who didn't wea
... concluded
Nor do I trust someone who thinks he's among the few, the proud who "saw the reality on the ground," but then slags others for also going there, because they had guides who didn't wear the right headwear (#7). Also, might there be a reason the Israelis discourage Westerners from going to the West Bank? Hint: if you remember the answer to the question "why was Oliver North selling arms to Iran?" you know.
I stand by all 8 points. I only wish I had the funds to take Victor into 2 or 3 of my Palestinian Christian friends' homes, just to let him hear from them and to see what it's been like to live under the humiliation of Israeli occupation. How would Victor respond to having to see the marks on the back of his teenage son from Israeli beatings? How would he like to get up every morning to see an Israeli settlement (filled with Americans) sitting where generations of generations of his ancestors had nurtured the trees until the Israelis came before dawn one day to claim the land and bulldoze the trees? What’s it like for a Catholic to be prevented by the Israeli authorities from attending the Easter vigil Mass?
Those who apologize for Arabs on this blog and elsewhere inevitably argue from anecdotes. That alone speaks volumes about the cause they're defending. I've lost track of the number of times I've heard someone make a plea for their "Arab friends" as William does above.
That tactic may help personalize the parties to the conflict, but remember that anecdotes run both ways. I'm sure the family members of hundreds of murdered Israeli children have stories to tell.
What on earth is wrong with anecdotes? Why is it bad to put a human face on Palestinian Christians? I don't get it.
Heaven forbid that American Christians learn about the plight of their brothers and sister in Christ living out their faith in the Holy Land!
Rich, are you implying that there have not been hundreds murdered Palestinian children as well? I don’t see the “numbers game” as going anywhere, but I’ll be glad to go head to head on that one if you so choose.
Anecdotes are wrong because they are inevitably selective and deliberately selected to emphasize one fact as though it occurred in a vacuum (witness the non-media-reliant William's bawling about "humiliation" as though Israel woke up one morning and decided to set up check points and border security merely for the hell of shrinking his friends' balls).
Putting a human face on "Palestinian Christians" (or any other particular group) is bad because collective political justice is not about who one knows.
Further, the "human face"/my friends approach bars critical assessments of people's claims. For example, if a non-Judenrein West Bank is so intolerable to William's "Palestinian Christian friends" (Oh, the humiliation ... Jews living among us), I would love to hear from them why the Palestinian Arabs made continuous war on Israel for 20 years before there were any Jew settlements and Jordan held the West Bank.
And if there were a Palestinian state, I would also love
For the record, since September 29, 2000, through October 11, 2003, 476 Palestinian and 106 Israeli youth under the age of 18 have become victims of the violence in Israel and the occupied territories.
Victor, I am so glad to hear you say, that, "if there were a Palestinian state, I would also love" 
... finishing ...
And if there were a Palestinian state, I would also love to hear from William's "Palestinian Christian friends" 10 years after it was set up, knowing how Christians are treated in every existing Arab polity. Assuming they'd still be alive and in it.
And no, William, there are not "hundreds of Palestinian children murdered" by the Israelis. It's not a question of numbers but of the term "murdered," which means something quite different from "dead."
This leads me to post #9. Americans see loss of life for Israelis as “murder”, Palestinians are seen as just “dead”. A life is a life, whether it is a Palestinian murdering an Israeli or an Israeli murdering a Palestinian!
Victor, I see on your webpage that you tout yourself as a conservative. I would suggest that you expose yourself to the writings of conservatives Robert Novak (Jewish convert to Catholicism), Joseph Sobran (convert to Catholicism) and Patrick Buchanan as they concern the Middle East. These guys are very balanced on the subject. You may also want to read up on Vatican statements as they pertain to the Palestinians as well. John Paul the Great is certainly aware of their suffering.
William,
How many of the underage Palestinian dead were:
suicide bombers themselves
shot while attacking Israeli troops
killed by Palestinian bombs
lynched by Palestinian militias for collaboration with Israel
How many of the underage Israeli dead were:
suicide bombers
shot while attacking Palestinian security forces
killed by Israeli bombs
lynched by Israeli security forces for collaboration with the PA
The fact that the first four categories are non-zero and the last four categories are zero suggests something to me.
There is a Palestinian state. It's called the Kingdom of Jordan.
To answer your question Ed, the following numbers come from Israeli source, "Haaretz" and only go from 9/2000-3/2003. "JERUSALEM, March 13 mars (AFP) - Of the 1,945 Palestinians killed by the Israeli army in the 29-month uprising against Israeli occupation, 365 were innocent civilians, including 130 under the age of 16, according to an official Israeli report released Thursday by the daily Haaretz.
The statistics, compiled by the ministry of defence, showed that among the 235 adults killed who had no link to "terrorist activities," there were numerous women and elderly people.
According to a tally by AFP, 3,075 people have been killed as a direct result of the violence, including 2,300 Palestinians and 717 Israelis."
Robin, your statement is a great example of right wingers in Israel feeding a lie (with a smile on their faces) to the American press and low and behold, it’s actually believed and seen as viable here in the US! That’s like telling me on the East Coast that I should be willing to move to the West Coast, because there’s already an American state there! It would be laughable if people didn’t actually take this seriously. Americans have no idea what it’s like to face forced relocation. Just seriously try to consider what it would be like to be forced out of your homeland. I've only lived on the property I'm on for most of my life. What about those Palestinians who've owned land for centuries and were then forced out or killed off. (i.e. the village of Deir Yassin.)
I'm sorry, William, but your partisanship makes you a bit incoherent -- Are you in fact *denying* that the vast majority of persons living in the Kingdom of Jordan (a huge part of what used to be known simply as "Trans-Jordan")are ethnic Palestinians?
That is, after all, precisely and *only* what I pointed out (in response to an earlier post containing the hypothetical "IF there were a Palestinian state . . .").
You seem to have chosen to read vastly much more into it.
Perhaps you need to spend a little more time looking at old maps and history books, and less time reading
PLO "catechetics."
BTW, next time you're in the PA, please remember me in your prayers at Mass at the chapel of the Ascension. Oh wait, that's right -- Mass at that holy shrine is strictly *forbidden* by the wonderful freedom-loving PA, except for one solitary day a year (the Feast of the Ascension). Of course, we dhimmies must be grateful for whatever scraps are thrown from the table at us
William:
"Americans see loss of life for Israelis as 'murder,' Palestinians are seen as just 'dead.' A life is a life, whether it is a Palestinian murdering an Israeli or an Israeli murdering a Palestinian!"
Um ... no, no, no, no and 1,000 times no. If you can't see the difference between "death" and "murder," which is entirely one of circumstance and intent not identity, then I can't help you. I said NOTHING that implied what you attribute to me. Even a dog knows the difference between when you fall over him and when you kick him.
Everyone dies. The only injustice in death is the circumstance, and yes, the Palestinians glorify the deliberate murderers of innocents; the Israelis make mistakes fighting an enemy sworn to their destruction but who will not engage them in a manner that makes fighting by the Marquis of Queensberry rules a possibility.
And further William, it is an incontestible historical fact that the notion of four different Arab peoples in the Levant -- the Arabs of Syria, the Arabs of Jordan, the Arabs of Palestine and ther Arabs of Lebanon -- was unheard of prior to 1948. Before that time (and you would know this had you read anything other than Edward Said in your life), "Palestinian" meant a Jew living in that geographic region on the grounds that the European diaspora could not last forever. Or, using current political language, a Zionist.
"the Israelis make 'mistakes' fighting an enemy sworn to their destruction"
See point #2.
William:
Your self-congratulatory Point #2 relates to what I said ... how?
Name me the cases when Israel *deliberately* killed Palestinian *civilians* *without warning* who were not *posing a threat* to its forces *for the sake* of killing civilians. (All five highlighted terms are equally morally relevant.)
Interesting how no one seems to want to discuss what it would be like to be forced from your home, only to see it bulldozed and replaced by a settlement, occupied by Americans.
BTW, I don’t read PLO literature. Don’t know that I ever have. I know what I know from my own firsthand experience over two years in Israel and the West Bank. (I arrived in Israel as a Christian Zionist BTW.) I have a very good friend, a convert who is a priest in a Palestinian parish and I have a very close family member (also a former Christian Zionist) who has lived on the West Bank for some 30 years now. Which of you has even spent a day with local Christians living under Israeli occupation? My primary concern is with the way the Israelis treat Christian Palestinians. Palestinian Christians have played too big a part in my own Christian walk for me to forget them.
So Victor, are you open to considering what true conservatives (not the neo brands) like Sobran, Novak and Buchanan have to say about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict?
You people won't believe this, but I was once as blindly supportive of Israel as you all are. If I can come to see two sides of the story, you can too! There is hope!
William, I don't give a damn what Sobran, Novak, Buchanan or anyone else thinks, except to the extent that what they think is true. Which I don't believe it is in this case. How do you even know whether I've read them or not? I don't care about my intellectual pedigree and neither should you. (Not that it matters, but I once stumped for Pat Buchanan's 1992 campaign while in college and defended him against the anti-Semitism charges of 1991.) But I knew it wouldn't take too much longer for the "neo" card to come out.
Nor do I care (nor should anyone else) how many days you have spent with this or that person. Politics is a collective enterprise, and frankly I find your silence about the fate of Christians under Arab Muslim rule ... interesting.
And William, it is just as interesting that you refuse to acknowledge the *absolute* moral difference between accident, negligence, carelessness (all of which the Israelis can be credibly charged with) and deliberate murder (the Pal
... finishing ...
And William, it is just as interesting that you refuse to acknowledge the *absolute* moral difference between accident, negligence or carelessness (all of which the Israelis can be credibly charged with) and deliberate murder (the approved Palestinian stock in trade). Or between occupation (a dubious word, but let it go for now) and deliberate murder. Spare me the tears about humiliation until Israelis no longer have to discuss, to use your formulation: "What would it be like to get on a bus on an ordinary day and be blown to bits or crippled by an Arab civilian [sic] with a bomb."
And William, it is just as interesting that you refuse to acknowledge the *absolute* moral difference between accident, negligence, carelessness (all of which the Israelis can be credibly charged with) and deliberate murder (the Pal
Oh, but I do acknowledge the difference when in fact actions demonstrate that the difference is there. You are assuming that I am willing to take the leap that somehow whenever there are innocent Palestinian victims, then it was accidental.
Victor, as for my suggestion about Sobran and the likes, you're getting your misinformation from reading and/or listening to something. You are not in a vacuum. It was simply a suggestion that you consider broadening your scope to other sources. That is, if you’re not fearful of doing so.
When and where Christians suffer under Muslim rule I do and have condemned it. Of course I have a vested interest when persecution of Christians takes place at the hands of the Israelis since that is my tax dollars at work. It is a matter of conscience.
William:
"you're getting your misinformation from reading and/or listening to something. It was simply a suggestion that you consider broadening your scope to other sources. That is, if you’re not fearful of doing so."
Conversation pointless and therefore now over.
#10. There is sometimes a tendency for Americans to bury their heads in the sand. They don’t want their little world of reality shaken up. They don’t want to be confused by the facts.
#11. There is a really unattractive tendency of people to ascribe psychological character flaws to people who disagree with them. And then to repeat it when people make clear their distaste for strangers who like to play analysand or confessor.
William, you don't know diddly-squat about me, my intellectual capacities. Do not imply otherwise. I am serious.
A correction from my last post. I obviously meant "analyst" rather than "analysand."
Victor, I suppose you have misunderstood what I’ve been trying to say. I am sorry you are angry. I certainly never attempted to, “ascribe psychological character flaws” to you. I have simply tried to broaden your perspective a little on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. As long as Americans have this myopic, “Israel right or wrong view”, we can make no contribution to peace in that part of the world nor can we “love our neighbor” which of course includes not only the Israelis, but the Palestinians as well.
Someone who wrote "consider broadening your scope to other sources. That is, if you’re not fearful of doing so" and "there is sometimes a tendency for Americans to bury their heads in the sand," now writes "I certainly never attempted to, 'ascribe psychological character flaws' to you."
Victor, I don’t really see those statements as referring to any sort of “psychological character flaws”. I see this attitude of yours on the issue as something that we all do or have done from time to time. I just know that before I had the experience of actually living in the Middle East, I needed to broaden my scope and become more mindful of other cultures. I do not see that need that I have or that anyone else might have as a “psychological character flaw”. Don’t be so sensitive. Trust me, I was once pretty much where you are on your views of Israel and the Palestinians. That would make it rather difficult for me to fault you as long as you are open to listening occasionally and considering that there might just be two sides to the issue. BTW, I am glad you’re continuing the dialog. Are you a Catholic? (Is that okay to ask?)
William:
If you don't see those two statements as ascriptions of character flaws ("fearful," "bury your head in the sand"), then you and I simply don't live in the same universe.
Victor,
Don’t let your hang up with my wording become an obstacle to you hearing some of what I’m saying about the topic at hand. Trust me, I know, it is easy to throw up a defense mechanism when long held beliefs or perceptions are challenged. Been there, done that!
William,
Your ability to dismiss Victor's pro-Israel stance as a a "defense mechanism" and a consequence of his lack of reading is wonderful to behold.
It reminds me of the arguing tactics promulgated here:
http://www.palestinecampaign.org...ves.asp?
xid=778
I morally object to being accused of character flaws and the object of psychological analysis, and William offers his understanding in the form of saying I'm just engaging in "a defense mechanism."
No further comment possible or needed.
Victor and Rick,
You both are making too much of something we all have and should have (defense mechanisms) There is no accusation in this, nor am I suggesting guilt or psychological disorder! Defense mechanisms are coping mechanisms. It's only when the defense system is not working to any degree, that one gets in trouble. Defense mechanisms help us cope with unpleasant aspects of reality, but over reliance on them can create serious problems. Sometimes we have to, with caution, got beyond them.
Yes, if we utilize them to the extreme they also become unhealthy. I certainly never said you were doing the latter.
When I was first exposed to Catholicism, a defense mechanism kicked in. Was it "wrong or some psychological disorder"? Of course not! It was a healthy caution that prevented me from just believing everything anybody ever said to me about religion. If that hadn't been the case, I suppose I would be vulnerable to joining every religion known to man. As it is, I've hap
(continued)I've happily been a Catholic for 25 years.
Might I suggest we continue discussing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict?
"Might I suggest we continue discussing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict?"
No.
Because you understand my disagreement in psychological terms rather than intellectual ones. I don't believe any serious discussion is possible on those terms, and I am certain that I will not submit to them.
Okay Victor. May God bless you.
5 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
