Into the Mainstream
The President of Iran mainstreamed his argument against Israel today. Now, instead of wiping it off the map he just wants to move it to Europe.
The President of Iran mainstreamed his argument against Israel today. Now, instead of wiping it off the map he just wants to move it to Europe.
My Uncle Bill was full blood German who claimed that the Holocost was propoganda also. He said that Auschwitz was a fabrication. He did not feel that Israel should be given European soil. He wanted them all to “go back to Israel where they came from.” Two sick people, two different “solutions”. Why can’t we all be friends?
ma ma j
8 Dec 05 at 9:46 pm
While I wouldn’t defend his position at all (especially the holocaust thing), since he’s a psycho, he does pose an interesting question / point: it seems that it’s very easy for the west to support Israel in their claims on land that was taken from the people who occupied it before them, because they aren’t giving up anything of their own. I think what he’s trying to say is why don’t these other countries that support Israel give them some of their own land instead of backing them in taking it from others.
JaredB
8 Dec 05 at 10:27 pm
Note: I was referring to the Iranian president as a psycho, not uncle Bill; although I’m not vouching for him either.
JaredB
8 Dec 05 at 10:33 pm
Uncle Bill was a pretty cool guy except for one big thing. He hated Jews. That just about ruined his credibility in my eyes, although I did sell out every year when he and Aunt Margaret offered to take me to Disney Land.
ma ma j
8 Dec 05 at 10:39 pm
But there has always been a Jewish population in Israel, even while the Roman, Crusader, and Islamic imperialists were slaughtering and expelling them a small contingent persisted, and in the late 19th century when they once again began migrating back to their ancient homeland in large numbers the area was largely a lightly populated, undeveloped wasteland. Also, as far as I know, only a few of the pre-1948 inhabitants of the area were ever forced to leave. Hardly taking if you ask me.
Nate
8 Dec 05 at 11:13 pm
But “their own land” is pretty hard to pinpoint. There have been “Israeli’s” on the earth for a really long time. How far back would we have to go to get Israel back to their “own land” that they didn’t take from someone else? Adam and Eve? Because I hardly think it would fly to give them back that piece of property. Egypt? Canaan? These lands all “belong” to others. However they were inhabited by Hebrews at one time. So which land would be considered “theirs.” And I do belileve that they aren’t really interested in having land given to them by Americans or Europeans, I think there is a plot of land that they feel was God given. So sending them away probably wouldn’t work.
I think what the President of Iran is saying is the same thing my uncle said. ” I don’t like them and I don’t want them around me.”
ma ma j
10 Dec 05 at 12:44 pm
I think the president may be specifically referring to the Palestinian situation, in which Israel is occupying their territory and frequently doing pretty bad things to them; bulldozing populated houses and firing machine guns into crowds for example. I think he’s saying (yes, sarcastically) that instead of America and other countries supporting them in this type of action, they should give them some of their own land. It’s kind of a joke in a way, just not a very funny one.
PS - PLEASE don’t take the above as a one-sided criticism of the Israeli government. I realize that the Palestinians have done very bad things too. Israel has killed many more Palestinians than vice-versa, but both sides are certainly deserving of criticism.
JaredB
16 Dec 05 at 4:12 pm
I don’t think so, I think he ’s talking about any Israeli presence in the Middle East. Many countries, including the U.S. regularly criticize –unfairly in my opinion–the Israeli government for its heavy handed responses to terrorism. Many European countries, it could be argued, have been more supporters of the Palestinian Authority than of Israel in recent years. I think it’s pretty clear Ahmadinejad wants Israel completely wiped off the Middle East map. Or he at least likes to talk crazy like that in order to drum up support from his country’s radicals or to ruin negotiations with the E.U. or for whatever reason the experts says he’s making these statements. He shouldn’t be surprised though when Israel decides unilaterally to blow up his countries nuclear reactors.
I’ll leave the whole debate about Israel’s supposed human rights violations for another day, but before we criticize Israel I think it’s important to put into prospective the security issues it faces. Like having to work with an organization that openly pays people to commit suicide bombings:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=94583
Nate
16 Dec 05 at 8:58 pm
That’s why I said that BOTH sides deserve criticism. I understand that everything that Israel does they claim is a necessary response to terrorist attacks, because there’s “nothing else they can do”. The Palestinians on the other hand claim that the terrorist attacks are a necessary response to the oppression and killing of their people by the Israeli government, because there’s “nothing else they can do”. There is probably truth in both arguments, but it doesn’t justify either of them.
JaredB
17 Dec 05 at 12:37 pm
PS - I don’t think there’s much to debate on whether Israel has done bad things / killed people or not, the numbers clearly show it and their governement does not deny it; they just believe that they’re justified in doing it. Whether they are or not is the only thing to debate.
JaredB
17 Dec 05 at 12:40 pm
I agree to some extent but I think your oversimplifying a lot.
Nate
17 Dec 05 at 2:08 pm
I’m certainly not going into the level of detail and complexity that is present in the situation, because that would take a long time.
In a way, that’s kind of another point to be made: saying that the actions that Israel takes against the Palestinians are simply a response to the acts of terrorism against them is an extremely common oversimplification that we hear a lot of.
I didn’t mean to suggest that the issue is simple at all, rather that there is no simple “right” and “wrong” sides to this conflict, is spite of the fact that it seems to be human nature to try and frame issues in that way.
JaredB
17 Dec 05 at 3:23 pm
I would debate more but since we don’t have any concrete examples other than what I have linked to I’ll wait ’till something interesting happens in the news and debate specifics then and I’m sure you will do the same. Otherwise, we’ll both feel like we’re talking to a brick wall.
Nate
18 Dec 05 at 9:12 am
What’s to debate? Unless you’re saying that this IS a black and white issue, with one side being right and one side being wrong. Or maybe you’re debating whether the oversimplification of saying that “the Palestinians commit terrorism and Israel simply responds to stop them” is commonly propagated or not, which I guess depends on what people and or media you listen / talk to; I know I hear it a lot.
JaredB
18 Dec 05 at 9:11 pm
Yes, I would debate that “saying that the actions that Israel takes against the Palestinians are simply a response to the acts of terrorism against them is an extremely common oversimplification.” I guess in many specific cases I also think there is a clear right and wrong, so I could debate that as well, but I’d prefer to keep the conversation focused so they don’t become a waste of time so until then …
Nate
18 Dec 05 at 10:07 pm
OK, but are you disagreeing that it’s common, or that it’s an oversimplification? You don’t have to answer if you don’t want to, but part of the point is that you can’t only discuss it in the context of one particular incident, because it is too complicated for that. Every killing (by either side) is justified in their minds because of a long chain of events that occurred before it.
JaredB
19 Dec 05 at 7:12 pm
Probably both. To convince me of that I just need more details. I feel that regardless of the complexity you can’t ignore the details. The devil’s in the details. It makes it hard for those of us with limited time who want to understand what’s going on but I guess that’s life.
Nate
19 Dec 05 at 7:51 pm
Here’s a start and here and here for much more; without going into too much lengthy history; just some raw data about what both sides have done. I would say from the media coverage that I’ve seen in our country, you hear a lot about what the Palestinian terrorists do, but not too much negative about what the Israeli government does, even though they have taken more lives (again, not saying that either side is good, just that they are both bad).
As for not having the time to check into the complicated history of the matter (which is certainly full of “details”), I can understand that because there is so much out there and so little time to sort through it. But I definitely don’t think the appropriate response is to just choose to believe one side anyway. IMHO, the more appropriate response would be to reserve judgment until you have seen more evidence. I do agree that there are such things as “clear right and wrong”, I just believe that in this case, both sides are clearly in the wrong.
JaredB
21 Dec 05 at 1:15 am
Too many links in that last one - it got moderated.
JaredB
21 Dec 05 at 1:15 am
I dont’ know what those links are supposed to tell me, “raw data” is exactly the type of information that can easily be taken out of context. You need a lot more details to put the unfortunate incidents in their proper context. I looked over the the first link closely and researched a few of the tragedies that are briefly pointed out and I didn’t see anything that would indicate that Israel has done is anything other than trying to protect it’s citizens from terrorist attacks. I also remember many of the incidents being reported in the media and I truly don’t remember a pro-Israeli slant. I don’t know how your able to come to the conclusion that everyone is “bad” based on this information, although bad and wrong things happen for sure.
About my time comment the only point I was making about having limited time was to point out the regardless of our lack of time or expertise if we want to have a informed opinion and make convincing arguments for the ideas we hold it takes a lot of time and effort. Naive arguments shot from the hip are a worthless waste of time, as are arguments based on issues we don’t have a full understanding of. Now, like I said earlier, I don’t have the time or energy to debate with you about this anymore because I don’t feel it is a worthwhile conversation so can we please just move on.
Nate
21 Dec 05 at 10:32 pm
That first page had a huge amount of contextual detail, so I don’t know what’s missing.
It’s fine if you don’t want to discuss it anymore; I won’t comment anymore on this one if that is the case.
JaredB
21 Dec 05 at 11:32 pm
One paragraph isn’t enough context to make a claim of sinister motives. Thanks for moving on.
Nate
21 Dec 05 at 11:39 pm
I thought you didn’t want to talk about it anymore?
JaredB
22 Dec 05 at 12:40 pm
Motives
This came up in a conversation on Nate’s blog, but since he doesn’t want to discuss it anymore there, I’ll branch off and discuss it here.
It’s my opinion that the actions of a person (or group of people, or government, etc.) …
FreePress Blog
22 Dec 05 at 12:54 pm
I don’t.
Nate
22 Dec 05 at 3:36 pm