ME
1. Israeli Independence. Israel is one of America's greatest and most important allies. Not only is it the only democratic nation in the middle east, but because Israel is in a state of perpetual war with its surrounding Arab nation enemies, Israel is always pursuing ground intelligence within those countries and getting information. As allies and a fellow democratic nation with aligned interests, Israel shares much of that intelligence with the United States. That information may be critical to America's ongoing "war" on terror. Support for Israel does not mean supporting peace or Israeli subservience to American authority, it means supporting Israeli independence. Pro-Israel certainly does not mean pushing one of our greatest allies to accept a deal with an adversary unwilling to negotiate in good faith and/or unable to maintain the conditions necessary to foster a peace. Palestinian leadership still repeatedly calls for the destruction of Israel and for the deaths of Israeli civilians (including children). And for the forked tongued promise of peace, the Palestinian leadership demands land, which would endanger the security of Israel, especially if Jerusalem (or East Jerusalem), which Israel generally considers as its capital (and indispensable for its morale), is forced into the negotiations. Israel is physically not large enough to transfer land without affecting every aspect of Israeli life. So, demanding Israeli acquiescence and appeasement is not a pro-Israel stance. Further, Israel has actually sat at the negotiating table with Arafat until the talks made progress and he left the negotiating table. The Palestinian authorities never removed from their platform the goal of the destruction of Israel. So, between Abbas who does not have the power to enforce a peace and Hamas who does not have the desire for peace, with whom should Israel be forced to negotiate?
2. History and Legality. Israel is the Jewish homeland, from the days of the Bible- over 2,000 years ago. Jews have maintained a presence in the Jewish homeland throughout the years, as they have been forced out, evicted, deported (among other tragedies) from one country to the next in the diaspora (e.g.s, the Spanish Inquisition, the pogroms, and the Holocaust). In the early 1900's, England legally controlled the area that is now Israel and its surrounding areas. By virtue of the Balfour Declaration, the Jews were promised to legally receive title to the land of Israel, which was an even larger plot of land than current Israel. After the Holocaust, which killed approximately 6,000,000 Jews, almost half of the Jewish population on Earth, the call to deliver on the Declaration was heightened; and as England de-colonized its empire, they ceded Israel. In 1948, the United Nations recognized Israel as a state, and immediately thereafter, Israel was attacked by a number of their neighbors. Israel won that war and a series of other wars instigated by its neighbors (or with preemptively striking neighbors prior to imminent attacks). Israel obtained that land as fairly as any nation has obtained land. Many Arabs fled and abandoned their rights and claims to their land and property rather than be subject to Israeli rule of law, while others were permitted to remain as part of a growing diverse nation of Israel that includes Muslims, Christians, and Arabs as citizens and serving in the military and the government. During those necessary wars, Israel conquered greater land mass than is currently maintained by the State of Israel. Israel returned some land in the immediate aftermath of a war or battle. Other land, including the Sinai Peninsula, was given to neighboring nations (like Egypt) to forge a cold peace between Israel and its neighbor. Israel added tremendous value to much of the land it maintained including the Sinai Peninsula. "Palestine", on the other hand, is an artificial construct and is not a unique group of people by any genuine historical or legal measure. To the extent that there was a location Palestine or group labeled Palestinians, they are not in any way distinct from Jordanians, who occupy the bulk of Palestine as it was constituted under British rule. The Jordanians are the same people, ethnically and historically as the Palestinians; the creation of a separate name for Jordan is just an irrelevant distinction of what should be called Palestine. Thus, Israel is historically and legally entitled to the land it controls. Consequently, Israel should be permitted to settle all of its land, police that land, or transfer that land as it sees fit based upon its economic and security needs. And from a general legal perspective, if a nation is about to attack them, they can strike them. If a nation attacks, they can strike back. If people within the occupied territories take criminal actions against Israelis, it is the responsibility of the Israeli government to prevent further such attacks and/or to seek justice therein. And Israel should not be pressured to cede those lands based upon the interests of nations in the middle east, Europe, or the United States.
3. Risks of Negotiations. Land for peace is not a fair trade (peace for peace is a fair trade).... particularly if there is no likelihood of peace. Giving up land does not guarantee security. The elimination of Israel is the stated goal of Hamas and other prominent Palestinian leadership groups. In fact, appeasing terrorists threatens security, because it demonstrates the success of vile tactics of intentionally killing children, targeting civilian populations, and acting in heinous frightening manners (stabbings, bombings, shootings in populated areas to try to instill fear), and encourages others to follow suit. Further, it is dangerous to cede territory, which includes tactically critical locations such as higher ground, water sources and access, and closer proximity to important hubs (like major cities and military outposts). It also permits the enemy to amass and organize and allows shipments of people and supplies by air (when they build an airport) and/or by water or unsupervised land routes. And Israel is insufficiently large (to begin with), to cede land without creating additional risks (not to mention the economic, agricultural, energy possibilities of the land). Beyond the security risks, when rockets are launched from these Palestinian territories, Israel will have no choice but to once again invade these territories and dismantle the threats, leaving Israel and the Palestinians in the same position, except that Israeli invasion will have less legal authority. Finally, Israel places immense value on Jerusalem, as do the Palestinians, which makes negotiations unlikely to succeed, despite the myriad of unrealistic solutions like splitting Jerusalem or making it an international city.
4. Progressive Israel. Israel is the only nation in the middle east with any semblance of civil rights, and ceding authority to the Palestinians will only hasten government restrictions, limitations, and enforcement of anti-women, anti-gay, anti-Jewish, anti-Christian, anti-atheist, anti-agnostic rules and laws. Israel allows all of these individuals to serve in the military, to serve in the government, and to maintain equal rights. Israel also has enforced laws, equity and fairness within the court system, and it punishes even its soldiers intentional violations of human rights and wrongful deaths against Palestinians. The only limitations Israel places on Palestinians involves restrictions on weapons or items that can be used to endanger Israelis; most recently, concrete was used to build tunnels to enter Israel illegally and attack Israel. Israel does its utmost, as much as any other nation in the world, to limit civilian casualties during its policing and war actions and missions, and any errors it makes are exacerbated by the fact that Israel's terrorist enemies hide themselves and their weapons caches among civilians, children, schools, hospitals, (flotillas,) and even Red Cross missions. And the Palestinian authority as well as neighboring nations provide money to the families of suicide bombers that are designed to kill civilians and instill fear. Regardless, Israel continues to do its best to avoid hitting such civilian-populated targets. The large number of civilian Palestinian deaths are the tragic norms of war, the Palestinians creating an atmosphere of war, and the Palestinians hiding within sacred or populated areas to discourage Israeli reprisal and maximize damage for purposes of public relations victories. And the terrorists want and intend on killing far more Israelis, and the only reason they have been limited in killing is because of the vigilance and effectiveness of the IDF and the Mossad.
5. Israeli- Haters. Anti-Semitism (anti-Jewish sentiment to be more precise and less confusing) is rampant. This specific hatred is a historical certainty that is thousands of years old, recently unleashed in the Holocaust, but also seen in American organizations like the KKK and the BDS movement, which is popular on college campuses (silencing pro-Israel sentiments and propagating the Palestinian agenda in lieu of open discussion). This hatred is rampant in the Palestinian territories, in the middle east, in Europe, in Africa, in the far right (who support Nazi-type agendas) and in the far left (who hate organized religion or hate Israeli's military superiority in the middle east and "suppression" of Palestinian "rights"). This is reflected in the media's bias: which frequently includes terrorist bombers as Palestinian victims, or declines writing a story about Palestinian or Hezbollah missiles flying into Israel (or terrorist attacks within Israel), and then merely reports the retaliation or Israel's attempts to stop the missiles or seize the masterminds as acts of Israeli aggression, rather than self-preservation. The media reports the tragedies that occur when Israel unintentionally harms Palestinian civilians and children, intentionally placed in harm's way by Palestinians, and then neglects to report the Israeli civilians and children intentionally murdered by the Palestinians. Surely, there is a distinction between people who intentionally murder civilians and people who are desperately trying to protect themselves and still doing their utmost to avoid killing civilians, even if more civilians die as a result. Bernie Sanders was even using false information about the number of Palestinian deaths to get support for their cause. Academia also frequently supports the underdogs (the disenfranchised) in such conflicts, to allow people to have a voice, but they underestimate the superior numbers of the surrounding Arab nations who could propel Palestinians to entirely stifle the Israeli voices with one major defeat. Similarly, the United Nations, which has many Islamic nation members in powerful positions, and OPEC to influence the global economy, and many nations (particularly in Europe and the middle east) with Arab refugee issues (and who seek their approval for votes, for appeasement to avoid terrorism, or for cooperation to hurry the transition and return of the refugees), are frequently against Israel, attempting to sanction and de-legitimize Israel for building housing (a settlement), but then ignores the neighboring countries that do not allow Jewish (or Christian) citizenship, that silence political and religious opposition, that persecute women and homosexuals, etc. And this is to put aside that the housing is not state sanctioned housing, but rather individuals, who against the will (and sometimes against the force of the government) build settlements for new communities within Israeli territory. If you don't want to call it anti-Semitism either for the misnomer or for over-extension of the concept or over-use of the term, you can at least acknowledge the unfair (inequitable, unjust, and unequal) nature of Israel's treatment.
Ellis
1. Palestinian Independence. Palestine will have a nation. It's only a matter of time. America's support of Palestine may hurry the process and create good will among the nations in the middle east, which perceive America as Israel's big brother (or far worse). Supporting Palestinians is not only the moral thing to do, as a group that has been down-trodden, but it is also a practical thing to do, as it can ingratiate itself with the middle eastern countries and people, as many European nations are attempting.
2. History and Legality. Arab Muslims have steadily occupied the land that is now referred to as Israel for thousands of years. Much of the current Jewish population in Israel is based upon relatively recent immigration. Palestine was also promised the same land the Jews were promised and part of that land was delivered to the Jews in 1948. After losing that war, many of the native Arab people left their homes for fear of reprisal and many have become refugees ever since (in refugee camps in countries like Jordan). Currently, many Arabs live like refugees in their own lands ("the occupied territories") as there are heavy restrictions placed by Israelis on the types of goods that can be imported, severely restricting the economy and self-determination of the Palestinian territories. When Israel won those wars in 1948, 1967, et al., Israel should not have been permitted to maintain control of those occupied territories and become imperialist conquerors. It should have been forced to return the lands immediately and not control the land for decades of transition. Additionally, the settlements built by Israel are not only aggressive actions by Israeli civilians, hardly discouraged by the Israeli government, to indicate Israel's intention to permanently settle those disputed lands and remove them from negotiations, those settlements violate existing agreements made by Israelis (which has led to many U.N. resolutions for sanctions). The Arab nation of Palestine was promised and was never delivered. Instead, there is a chaotic state of apartheid.
3. Mischaracterization of War. Some of the anti-Israel language in official Palestinian documents and in the rhetoric has been curbed or limited. And if Israel makes further concessions, so too will the Palestinians. More importantly, terrorism is just a loaded term for freedom fighters. It's the product of an ongoing guerrilla war between the Palestinians and their occupiers who have wrongly taken control of their land, and seized their rights, and access to government and economic prosperity. Innocent people are dying at the hands of Israelis. Homes and businesses are being destroyed. Families and values are being corrupted. Israel should give up its control of Palestine- the territories up to the 1967 borders- and release its stranglehold on the people. Until they do, why should the Israelis not feel the same fear felt by the Palestinians? And in Israel, there is a draft, so no one is a civilian, and no one is innocent. Also notably, Israel, under the leadership of Menachem Begin, used similar tactics against the British to hasten their decision to leave.
4. Regressive Israel. Israel violates the human rights of the Palestinians by restricting access to Israel and foreign countries, by limiting access to economic trade through blockades, etc. Israel's actions, particularly its military campaigns, lead to the inevitable deaths of innocent Palestinian civilians. Israel regularly hits children with its attacks and intentionally levels buildings requiring communities to rebuild amid rubble and ashes. (And then for security reasons, restricts the importation of concrete necessary for rebuilding the housing.) More importantly, Israel takes the lives of far more Palestinians, Palestinian civilians, and children, than Palestine does of Israelis. Even if Israelis claim they do not intend to kill civilians, how different are their actions, if they know they are going to kill civilians. And at some point, isn't there equal or greater culpability and blameworthiness for someone who knows they will kill a large amount of people without malice versus someone who kills a small number of people with malice? And when Israelis try to blame Palestinians for hiding among civilians, the world knows that this is a standard tactic in guerrilla war.
5. Islamophobia. There is tremendous anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States, Israel, Europe, and throughout the world. People fear Arabs, Muslims, and Islamic culture. The U.S. Republican presidential candidate has claimed that the United States is at war with Islam, and he wants to ban Muslims, register them, lock them up, torture them, and kill innocent members of their families. This is after years of the American government propping up unpopular wealthy regimes who are American-cooperative tyrants, who suppressed their own angry people in poverty who, in turn, were compelled to turn to the angriest sectors, clerics, and tenets of their religion to give them some power against the foreigners like the Americans (and in a different way, the Israelis) who maintained actual control over their national monarchies. Most Arabs and Muslims don't support Al Qaeda or ISIS, but they understand the sentiment of seizing control over their lives from outside influences, who hate and seek to transform people like the Palestinians. And before saying there is media bias against Zionists, it is noteworthy that Jews have disproportionate representation in the American media, entertainment, and politics. Attention and decent treatment of the Palestinian plight is a recent trend because of efforts like BDS. And it's also notable that the reason many on the Christian right support a Jewish state of Israel is because they think it's a pre-condition of the arrival of the Messiah, so let's not allow that to be a basis for decision-making or a support for Zionism.
Mark
1. Two States. Ultimately, peace is the only way Israel will survive. It cannot maintain a perpetual state of war and constant state of readiness. It is exhausting, expensive, and history is not on the side of those in perpetual conflicts. Beyond that, with nuclear proliferation and continued hate, the possibility of Israeli destruction becomes more dire and ever more likely. Ingratiating themselves with Palestinians has not worked as a tactic for Europeans who have loudly advocated pro-Palestinian positions, as they still have been repeatedly targeted by Islamist nations and movements, as much, if not more than Americans. The pro-Peace stance is best because actual peace (or at least steady movement toward peace) would quiet down a hostile situation, rather than riling it up by publicly supporting one side or the other. Acting as a neutral (or semi-neutral) arbiter is the one chance America has at making a difference. This has long been the Democrats' stance, including the stance of the Clinton family (who has recently become moderately more Pro-Israel), but has recently been co-opted by Donald Trump, who also threw Jerusalem into the negotiating pot.
2. History and Legality. England messed up. It promised the same chunk of land to two different peoples. But, we're here now and it's time to be practical. Israel has control of some lands that are overwhelmingly populated by Muslim Arabs who are hostile to Israeli control, so Israel policing those territories is undesirable and untenable. The answer is the proper negotiations of a border between two nations that can appropriately secure their borders and permit economic prosperity to end some of the motivation for war, replacing terrorism and the cycle of violence. If we can establish some type of longer term peace, not only may prosperity grow, but so could a middle-class, non-hostile group of moderate Palestinians who may grow into a symbiosis with Israel (if not a forgiveness).
3. Necessity of Negotiation. Land for peace is the only manageable deal to secure Israel's future. Israel can't realistically hope to police these hostile territories. And if Israel was to deliver on some of its promises (and stop building settlements in disputed territories to rile the situation), then the world at large, including America would likely contribute to protect Israel, whether that means some sort of peace-keeping force and/or some sort of de-militarized buffer zone. And while Israeli security is non-negotiable, the resolutions to issues about how to maintain Israeli security are negotiable. The possibility of ending or minimizing terrorism in Israel and diminishing middle eastern fury and international Islamist terrorism is a worthwhile goal.
4. Our Strongest Imperfect Ally. Israel is a Western democratized nation with technology, some wealth, and some resources, so expectations of Israel are higher than expectations of Palestinians who are struggling with poverty and other limitations of occupation. Israel shares our increased value of life and they should value our abhorrence of violence as well. But Palestinians, who receive substantial sums of American aid (along with Israelis), should also maintain some semblance of human rights. And while Israel errs, we should be wary of over-criticizing Israel because Israel, despite its Western values has few other friends and is surrounded by enemies. Thus, when Israel creates settlements in the occupied territories or disproportionately responds to a perceived threat, we should chastise them, but we should also keep pushing them towards peace, which is the only long term answer. And our American aid packages should buy us some influence, formally or informally.
5. Moral Relativism. With regard to bias and anti-Jewish sentiments and anti-Arab or anti-Muslim sentiments, of course, there are bad apples who hate one or the other. Many of those bad apples want the Jews and Arabs to kill each other. Most other people are just muddling their way through and doing their best. And in the muddle, some find great sympathy with the levels of poverty or sheer volume of death and decay of the Palestinian people, largely aided by the occupation of Israeli territories, while others empathize with Israel (who have Americanized values and living circumstances) living in a constant state of fear. But, there are strong points and weak ones on both sides. Moral relativism is sometimes considered a bad term, but it just means we should respect and have cultural sensitivity towards people with different values.
Mark Ellis
I fall in the Pro-Israel camp. I have historical, spiritual, and familial ties to the country. In its simplest form, I would be perfectly fine with a Palestinian state or states provided Israel would be safe and would remain the Israel that I know. Right now, there aren't parties willing to negotiate, particularly on the Palestinian side wherein Abbas does not have the power to enforce any agreement and Hamas has no inclination to legitimately enter such an agreement. The lack of enforcement capability is especially dire because Israel would be largely depending on Palestinians to police themselves to protect Israel. And the threats would grow if Israel would ease the blockades allowing Palestinians access to more dangerous weapons and to import dangerous people, especially if they build an airport. Thus, while pressing a pro-Peace agenda is an understandable if not admirable stance, it places Israel in legitimate immediate peril for the mere glimmer of hope of something better in the distant future. In Europe, there tend to be strong pro-Palestinian factions and strong pro-Peace factions with not a significant pro-Israel representation.
In the United States, the Republicans have in the last few decades tended to be pro-Israel for a variety of reasons (including sympathy in dealing with terrorism and pro-Western values), while Democrats have tended to be pro-Peace (and occasionally pro-Palestine). I have thus tended to align with Republicans who allow Israel to protect itself and its own borders. Notably, however, Trump espoused neutrality (despite his daughter and grandchildren's Judaism) and has firmly adopted the pro-Peace stance and indicated he wants to negotiate a peace and would pressure Israel to place Jerusalem on the negotiating table (whether that means giving away East Jerusalem to Palestine or making Jerusalem its own nation-state like the Vatican is unclear). Regardless, Israel's survival is important to me and I don't think other countries, including America, are in a position to know precisely what Israel can give away, and thus should not compel Israel to give away the little it has, risking a strong ally, for theoretical or psychological gains.
No comments:
Post a Comment