The Israeli Palestinian conflict

[TaiDaishar]

There's a nice article over at frontpage megazine discussing the Israel Palestine conflict, while not entirely objective (although have yet to read half truthe in the entire article) and a little off on some things ("The Jews got a sliver of land without oil, and created abundant wealth and life in all its rich and diverse forms." - Not entirely true but compared to neighbouring states it is true).

Even if you refuse to accept any portion of what the author said in the above article, there's a few points that can't be ignored:

1) Despite Ehud Barak's proposal of enormous amount of territories (and the Galil among them, one of the biggest water sources to a country in a greatening water shortage).

2) Har HaBait, the place Sharon visited and was the OFFICIAL reason for the start of the Jihad, was and still is the holiest place for the jewish religion and ironically, Jews are not allowed in there.

3) Another incredibly ironic thing, most of the Arabs in Israel have an Israeli citizenship while other Arabs in the rest of the Middle East have yet to even recieve any sort of aid from the neighbouring arab countries.

I know that me being an Israeli could effect my opinion toward Israel, and to an extent it's true, but do not diss me BECAUSE I'm an Israeli speaking in favor of Israel.

[WarBlade]

I know that me being an Israeli could effect my opinion toward Israel, and to an extent it's true, but do not diss me BECAUSE I'm an Israeli speaking in favor of Israel.

Um . . . you're not actually speaking in favour of Israel. You are linking an article and calling it "nice".

I've read part of the article and it looks like a presumptuous opinion piece (I'm still reading).

Do you actually have a point or is this just a link? :huh:

[TaiDaishar]

Do you actually have a point or is this just a link? :huh:

Just a link I guess, although I am hoping it'll catch on fire (aka discussion, not flame war).

[Nystul]

Here's the thing: Let's stipulate that Israel is completely in the right and all of the surrounding Arab nations are agressors. What solution for a lasting peace would come from that? Should we give all of the Middle East to Israel and send the Arabs to Antarctica? Short of that, our stipulation does not lead to any workable solution to the problem. You will not be able to convince the Palestinians, for example, that they are agressors and that moving a few miles further away is the morally right thing to do.

Of course, whether there is any truth to our assumption or not, this may very well be a problem without a solution. But if there is any solution (which doesn't involve eliminating one side or the other), it probably does not involve trying to establish one side or the other as being "right".

[TaiDaishar]

Here's the thing:  Let's stipulate that Israel is completely in the right and all of the surrounding Arab nations are agressors.  What solution for a lasting peace would come from that?  Should we give all of the Middle East to Israel and send the Arabs to Antarctica?  Short of that, our stipulation does not lead to any workable solution to the problem.  You will not be able to convince the Palestinians, for example, that they are agressors and that moving a few miles further away is the morally right thing to do.

Of course, whether there is any truth to our assumption or not, this may very well be a problem without a solution.  But if there is any solution (which doesn't involve eliminating one side or the other), it probably does not involve trying to establish one side or the other as being "right".

In order to make a house, you first must remove the stones and build the foundations, you can't build peace with terrorist leaders.

I'm not saying Israel is right, I do not even blame the Palestinians for the hatred for me and my people just because we're jews/Israelis, I DO blame however those who teach them at school to hate jews or those who broadcast on TV anti-semetic programs almost 24/7.

In order to have peace, Arafat must die and let Abu Mazen take over (for now Abu Mazen is just another doll in Arafat's theatre)

What I'm trying to get here is not the acceptence of the Palestinians that they are the agressors or anything, what I am furious about is the legitimacy other countries are giving to Arabs in general and Palestinians in person (mostly europe) in their immoral struggle against Israel.

[Jester]

"What I'm trying to get here is not the acceptence of the Palestinians that they are the agressors or anything, what I am furious about is the legitimacy other countries are giving to Arabs in general and Palestinians in person (mostly europe) in their immoral struggle against Israel."

Erm... lemme get this straight.

You don't want Palestinians to accept they're the aggressors (and, thus, immoral). You just want the rest of the world to accept how immoral they are?

Or am I reading that paragraph wrong?

Jester

[Jester]

... I go to the site, and the first thing I see is some idiotic piece of babble discussing the Fifth Collumn activities of the peace movement.

Way to pick a neutral source. This, I'm sure, will stimulate all sorts of discussion that goes nowhere and degenerates into a flame war.

Jester

[Medicine Man]

The rest of the world *should* give the Palestinians (and Arabs) some credit, for there are ultimately two sides to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. In North America we don't often hear anything positive about the Palestinian side of the conflict, but they do have legitimate greviances. I only know a little bit about the conflict, but I'll try to present both sides as I see them.

The Israelis have two major concerns: the future of their people and the security of their state. These are not simple matters. Even if the Jewish settlement was halted right now, the nation of Israel would be very vulnerable. Jordan in the north, Syria/Palestine in the east and Egypt to the south; all occupying the high ground around a narrow strip of Jewish land on the coast. All it would take is one insane, quasi-religious asshole in a seat of governmental power to pit the Arab nations against Israel again. As any American or Israelite can tell you, these people are out there -- they are everywhere in fact and they can get quite a bit of latitude in the Middle East. The only sure road to national security for Israel is to build a geographically, socially and politically strong nation. Sucks if you happen to be a Palestinian, but it is simple logic if you are an Israeli. It is because of the military strength of Israel (and her allies) that the Arabs gave up trying to throw them back into the sea.

That's security -- insuring the future of the Jewish people in the West Bank is an entirely different dilemma. When the nation state of Israel was created, the majority of people in the West Bank were still Arabs. Given the considerable fecundity of the Arabs (similar to traditional catholic families) the future of Israel as a Jewish nation was in doubt. The Israeli solution to this was to displace the Arab population and reduce them to second class citizens -- a move that resulted in a Hebrew majority in Isreal. There is no question in my mind that the actions of the Israelis against the Palestinians were (are) both cruel and ammoral but I cannot predict what the future would have held in store for the Jews if they had not taken such steps. There has been ethnic cleansing against minority groups in other parts of the world -- and it has happened to the Jews once before. Who knows what the future could hold for them? In light of the several wars they have had against the Arab nations and the waves of asymetric warfare against civilians (terrorism), the decisions of the Israelis seem justified after the fact. Whether the policies of the Israelis created these problems or if it was all inevitable anyhow is an unanswerable riddle.

The short summation: The Israelis are fighting for their survival.

The Palestinians have two clear issues: The loss of their homeland and the oppression they suffer at the hands of the Israelis. I won't go on at great length about the Palestinian policy of return and the concerns it naturally raises in the Israelis. The Palestinians got jobbed of their land and they want it back. The Israelis cannot and will not give it back. For their own reasons, the Israelis don't even want the Arabs living in Israel. This is pretty much the root of the conflict.

The conditions the Palestinians live in and the nature of their resistance is a far more interesting topic. There are many Palestinian organizations devoted to ending the occupation. Only a small number of these organizations are "terrorist" groups. Many of these groups, such as the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) and Arafat's Fateh movement do not endorse violence; which is to say that they are mostly peaceful. Other groups, such as Hamas, are very violent. Hamas' express intent is to lift the occupation, destroy the Jews and then impose fundamental Islamic views on the region -- all in spite of the fact that the region has never been an Islamic Republic. Some of the peaceful Palestinian organizations support the peace process, such as the PLO, and others do not, such as Fateh.

One thing you may have noted is how I am speaking almost entirely generalizations. "Some" groups. "Many" people. "Mostly" peaceful. I'm not sure if hard data on how upstanding and righteous the Palestinians may- or may not- be exists. I am sure that the job of protecting Israelis would be easier if there were some way of telling the terrorists apart from the citizens. The fact that there is no way to tell and that every Arab is suspect in the minds of the Israelis could easily be an entire topic of its own. I don't want to get into a bed-wetting, liberal, crying jag so I will only touch briefly on what the Palestinians are enduring.

First: if you are a Palestinian living in the Levant, you are living in one of the world's most squalid hellholes. Many of these Palestinian communities have just about the highest population density per square kilometer in the world because of forced relocation to camps. The worst parts of Palestine are nearly devoid of proper utilities and medical treatment. I'm sure there are worse places in the world to live, but I'd bet that Palestinians are living in the bottom 5% of the world's lucky urban dwellers.

Second: Arrest, Interrogation, and Imprisionment. Palestinians have very few rights under the watchful eyes of the Israeli judicial system. They can be arrested and interrogated without the burden of proof. They can be imprisioned with only a confession as justification. It is quite legal for the Shin Bet to coerce such a confession by using 'moderate force'. There has been documented instances of Palestinians dying in custody.

To lend my post some credibility, I should fish up some figures on how many Palestinians are currently imprisioned and how many have perished in custody. I'm sure the numbers are out there. I know that records of the human rights violations in the West Bank are noted by the UN and other international groups. I should fish up those numbers... but I just want to get this post over with.

The only way I could accept the treatment of the Palestinians would be if I could somehow convince myself that they are all terrorists who are merely getting what they deserve...

The short summation: The Palestinians are resisting their tormentors by means both fair and foul.

So who is right? Anybody who is thinking can tell you that the situation in the West Bank has gone beyond simple 'white hat, black hat' labels. Morally, there is little to chose between them -- they have both done terrible things. Certainly, those Palestinians who have chosen to be terrorists and attack the civilian population are villians. However, the IDF has inflicted quite a bit of collateral damage in their counter attacks. At times, the only distinction between them and their enemies is that they are targeting people who have chosen to make themselves combatants. It is a significant difference, but also a cold comfort if you consider only the end results of the violence. I can speculate, but I cannot judge -- I don't know what I'd be doing were I a Palestinian or an Israeli.

Considering the whole situation, I'd say that my sympathies lay mostly with those Palestinians who are not bombing, shooting or killing Jews -- and I'm sure the majority are not terrorists. With only a bit of study, it becomes clear pretty quickly which people in general are the victims of the occupation. Specifically, the people who have died or been maimed, on both sides, are the real victims of the intifada.

Despite my sympathies, I think I trust the Israelis more. Yes. I know. That's #$%&ed up. Despite some of the terrible things they have done and are still doing, it is still obvious (to me) that we share more in common with them than we do any Arab ethnicity. I suppose I would feel safer with the Israelis on top rather than any of their neighbors.

So that's my best shot, for what its worth. I don't know the whole story behind the intifada and the occupation, but I do suggest that anyone buying the simple "Israel good, Arabs bad" story needs to do some more reading, at least.

[TaiDaishar]

Your post was of high quality Medicine_Man, and as such I'll do my best to equal it with my reply.

The Israeli solution to this was to displace the Arab population and reduce them to second class citizens

This is one of the legends that appear to stick, even within my own country some people think Israel did throw the Arabs out, why the Arabs fled Israel are because of other reasons.

For starters, there was war, right when Israel declared it's independence the Arab League simutanouasly(sp?) attacked the Jews in Israel, granted that war creates refugees who're wishing to stay out of harm's way, although, another thing that drove the arabs out of Israel was the constant preachings of the Arab leaders telling them to run away before the Israelis will come and rape their wives and take their homes and they will return when the Arab League shall come out victorious, as we all know, this did not happen, and the refugees had to resettle in refugee camps due to the unwillingness of any country (except Jordan) to accept them into their territories although most of the countries could easily accept them.

Maybe Israel DID evacuate Palestinians but it was a small minority, a very small one and guess what more, the Israeli arabs who did stay (now why didn't Israel throw them out as well...?) are full Israeli citizens (even those who were found guilty in terrorist attempts) and as an Israeli have full rights while I didn't hear any other Arab refugee getting any sort of rights from their country.

The Palestinians have two clear issues: The loss of their homeland and the oppression they suffer at the hands of the Israelis.

Techincally speaking, the Palestinians never had a homeland, Israel never belonged to the Palestinians and the Palestinians never wanted it to belong to them (until recently) practically though, the areas which Israel originally recieved were almost entirely voided of any Arab settlments or arab settlers, in the wars to come, Israel captured a lot of territories and has increased it's territories greatly, by right, the land Israel captured IS Israel's territory now and the Palestinians' demands they will return their land back is empty since they are no longer the Palestinians' areas (and never were by the way, it was all captured from the countries of the Arab League).

Now I'm going to remind you of some recent history, the time in which Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians 95% of the territories the Palestinians demanded as well as a portion of Jerusalam to be handed to Palestinian authorities, the offer was rejected and to add to the irony and the insult, they opened a Jihad against us using women, men and children as ticking bombs who are told will go to heaven if they kill jews in their suicide (remember they are highly religious than any europian country and heaven means a lot to them), call me crazy but I don't see how these acts relate to the Palestinians' wish to get their homeland...

Now I move to the oppression, one thing that clearly slipped a lot of memories is that before the intifada the "oppression" was hardly existant if it existed at all, the Palestinians started the intifada when Arial Sharon entered Har HaBait in order to visit the holiest jewish site, when Israeli forces entered the cities which by the way happened a long time AFTER the start of the intifada, the Palestinians now say they're fighting against the Israeli oppression which started only because of the need of the Israelis to be able to enter a bus without it exploding because of some fanatical idiot.

There is a magical circle involving this oppression, the Palestinians fight because of the "oppression" and the oppression exist because the Palestinians fight, there is a few problems to this magical circle, once and time again Israel tried to remove one of the components to this circle (the "oppression") and removed their forces from the majority of places yet (and this is the real magic about this circle) the Palestinians attacked with a suicide bomber or a terrorist attack against nearby Jewish settlments almost immediately after the IDF removed their forces from the areas.

You also must remember that the stories in the media about soldier X doing a Y bad thing to Z Palestinian are a very very very very small minority in Israel they are also judged and feel the full power of the law of Israel like they were judged of hurting another Israeli.

I'm not gonna even mention the half truth told in some of those stories, a good example for a half truth in the media was the story about an Israeli soldier forcing a Palestinian to drink sulfur acid, the true story was that the Israeli soldier forced the palestinian to drink only because she said it was water and it was standart procedure to make them drink a thing they say is good for drinking.

Only a small number of these organizations are "terrorist"

Maybe small in numbers but the Hamas, Fetah and all the rest of these terrorist organizations are the most popular organizations in through the Palestinians, as for the PLO, last time I checked it was a terrorist organization in the lead of Arafat (GASP, Arafat is a terrorist?) that simply disappeared slowly and for other organizations, why me, you or anyone else have yet to hear about an organization rallying for peace? I remember there was a very small group like that once (3-12 months ago) but after the 2 days they disappeared as if the earth opened it's mouth and swallowed them whole (Or more likely, Arafat's mouth opened).

that every Arab is suspect in the minds of the Israelis

And sadly, every Israeli is guilty in the minds of the Arabs.

To lend my post some credibility, I should fish up some figures on how many Palestinians are currently imprisioned and how many have perished in custody

But you didn't give any figures and you didn't give anything so it's not a matter to discuss, I would also like to mention that those who were taken prisoners in a gun fight etc' and died during their hospital treatment are also considered prisoners who died in custody.

First: if you are a Palestinian living in the Levant, you are living in one of the world's most squalid hellholes. Many of these Palestinian communities have just about the highest population density per square kilometer in the world because of forced relocation to camps. The worst parts of Palestine are nearly devoid of proper utilities and medical treatment. I'm sure there are worse places in the world to live, but I'd bet that Palestinians are living in the bottom 5% of the world's lucky urban dwellers.

Not only that this is mostly speculative and pretty much false the Israelis can easily make their "most squalid hellholes" into a place worse than hell by simply refusing to give them electricity and/or water services (yep, those services are granted to the Palestinians by the Israelis), of course, Israel won't do it because it's immoral and simply not right.

Considering the whole situation, I'd say that my sympathies lay mostly with those Palestinians who are not bombing, shooting or killing Jews -- and I'm sure the majority are not terrorists.

They have my sympathy as well, if you could find a Palestinian who truly do not support terrorism, he has my sympathy (I'm not saying they're non existant, simply that if they exist, Arafat is keeping them on a short leash).

You don't want Palestinians to accept they're the aggressors (and, thus, immoral). You just want the rest of the world to accept how immoral they are?

I have given up all hope of the Palestinians stopping their ways, I do have (little) hope in that the world's nations could put enough pressure on the Palestinians to stop.

[Occhidiangela]

I have been doing a little reading on that part of the Israel/Palestine evolution, and I noted that the British tried, for about twenty years after the Balfour declarations, to get an agreed "here is how we will all get along together" accord worked out. THe Arabs were just as hard headed as the Israeli's, the Hebrews, in being hard to reach compromise, and the immigration from Europe put many of the newly arrived Jews in the condition of "boat people" the world over. The arguments against the validity of the Zionist movement that spurred some of the immigration are, at this point in history, water under the bridge. However, like the anitpathy toward anything Muslim or Turk in much of the Balkans, it forms an underlying context of "they don't belong here in the first place" in the eyes of many Arabs.

If folks want to look at the failures of contemporary politiciand and statesmen (they are not the same thing, far fewer statesmen around these days) to make any headway, they need to appreciate, IMO, the complete unwillingness of the Arabs to make any sort of accomodation of immigrants to their sparsely populated land, and the parallel arrogance of the European based Jewry who emigrated there for a variety of reasons, be it fleeing the pogroms and ghettos of Europe or following the dream of Zion.

The ghosts of the past are still deeply embedded in the present, and form a vital component of the point of view of folks on both sides. That emotional investment in the past, like a similar cultural emotion in the Former Yugoslavia, will not be easily suppressed.

[Occhidiangela]

Hardly an objective piece, when the title and opening salvo is so blatant in its position.

This bit strikes me as a bit of a shot at all of Europe and its complicity in "the problem":

The "Jewish problem" is just another name for the fact that Jews are the most universally hated and persecuted ethnic group in history. The Zionist founders believed that hatred of Jews was a direct consequence of their stateless condition. As long as Jews were aliens in every society they found themselves in, they would always be seen as interlopers, their loyalties would be suspect and persecution would follow. This was what happened to Captain Alfred Dreyfus, whom French anti-Semites falsely accused of spying and who was put on trial for treason by the French government in the 19th Century. Theodore Herzl was an assimilated, westernized Jew, who witnessed the Dreyfus frame- up in Paris and went on to lead the Zionist movement.

Herzl and other Zionist founders believed that if Jews had a nation of their own, the very fact would "normalize" their condition in the community of nations. Jews had been without a state since the beginning of the diaspora, when the Romans expelled them from Judea on the west bank of the Jordan River, some 2,000 years before. Once the Jews obtained a homeland – Judea itself seemed a logical site -- and were again like other peoples, the Zionists believed anti-Semitism would wither on its poisonous vine and the Jewish problem would disappear.

I highlighted the word belief for a reason: the indigenous Arabs in the area called Palestine, who were under Turkish rule, did not share a belief that the world's history clock needed to be turned back to about 70 AD. :P

[Guest]

I didnt read the particular peice you linked to. Im really responding to am attitude in many of the responses.


The roots of the current situation are a tangeled mess. Not just in Isreal/Palistine, but in the whole middle east. Britain is rightly bashed for its ill concieved national boundries and poorly chosen leaders(thanks Lawrence). The truth is the Middle east was a mess before the 20th century, but less people cared because it was a poor mess rather than an oil rich mess.

We need to look at what we have now.

Israel - a relatively progresive democracy, hated by it neighbors for relegious reasons. It feels insecure because of this and keeps an hand of opression on the Palastinians because where they live serves as a spacial buffer to agression..

Most Middle East counties - Despotic regimes where the leaders live well and the people(often the "people" are not even called citizens) are poor. Leaders use religion and ethnic hatred as a tool to help control unhappy subjects.

Palastinians - The most screwed over of all. Poor and trapped in the middle. Other Arab nations refuse to legitimize any of thier leaders who potentially could build a peaceful society.

[Jonathon Spectre]

Imagine for a moment the situation in the Middle East reversed. A small island of Arabs in the midst of a sea of Jews. Does anyone seriously think that the Middle East would still be such a stinking, twelfth-century cesspit? Does anyone believe Jews would have launched multiple wars of aggression to totally destroy the tiny Arab presence in their midst? Can anyone see Jews teaching "Death to Arabs!" in their f**king schools, wealthy Jews worldwide setting up "foundations" to pay the families of terrorists who carry out attacks against Arabs, Jewish governments refusing to even recognize the existence of their neighbor?

If you can't imagine this, why not? What is different about these two cultures? Hmmm... I can think of a few. Can you?

Just a thought exercise. But an interesting one.

JS

[Bun-Bun]

Does anyone seriously think that the Middle East would still be such a stinking, twelfth-century cesspit? Does anyone believe Jews would have launched multiple wars of aggression to totally destroy the tiny Arab presence in their midst?

Sure, if the Arabs controlled Jerusalem.

Can anyone see Jews teaching "Death to Arabs!" in their f**king schools

Sure, there's a lot of religious zealotry in Israel. It doesn't take a huge leap of faith to allow the possibility of a demagogic annihilistic movement taking hold.

wealthy Jews worldwide setting up "foundations" to pay the families of terrorists who carry out attacks against Arabs

Hmmm, wasn't there a fair amount of terrorism involved in the Zionist movement, pre-modern-Israel?

Jewish governments refusing to even recognize the existence of their neighbor?

Like Palestine?

What is different about these two cultures?

Quite a lot, but there's enough similarity to make simplistic role-reversals fairly meaningless.

[Guest]

Thats where the modern hatred comes from. If their extremist brand of Islahm hadnt run over the middle east the situation would not be the mess we have today.

The middle east has been a long cycle for 2000 years.

Fundamentalist overthrough decadent selfish rulers. The fundementalists become decadent selfish rulers. And on and on.

Sometimes the fundamentalists are reasonable - this time they were no good hateful jerks. Unfortunetly these no good hateful jerks stuck oil.

[Jester]

... is the switchover.

Do you mean to suggest that this happen instantly, as of this moment? Of course things would be different. But it would be rather bizarre to see a religion that is scarcely 0.25% of the world's population, to suddenly occupy the space of nearly a quarter of the world's people? To envision historical events like the colonization of the middle east, or the holocaust, and then to have them suddenly switch sides?

On the other hand, what if Judaism had switched with Islam way back at the beginning, and the one had taken over the other, rather than the inverse? I think things would look fairly similar to how they do today. They aren't dissimilar religions, and I don't think the change of race would make a difference (Jew to Arab), me not being a racist. Similar situations, similar results, I figure.

So, really, the experiment is useless, as far as I can see. It would be like switching Australia and Mexico, or the USA and the Congo. The histories are so radically different there's no comparison.

If you wanted to stipulate a change point, then maybe it might be worth thinking about. Otherwise... the conclusion you want us to reach is built in to the question, which isn't an interesting thought experiment at all.

Jester

[TaiDaishar]

Sure, if the Arabs controlled Jerusalem.

Ahem, may I remind you that Jerusalem was ruled by others until the british left Israel? May I remind you that even though Israel controls jerusalem it's just on paper, there are 3 districts in Jerusalem, the Jewish district along with the ruins of a wall from Bait Hamikdash the Christian district with the church, forgot what the name is :) and the Muslim district along with Har Ha'Bait and the center stone, the holiest place for the jews (the place where Avraham almost sacrficed his son), now Jews and christians can go to each of their districts with no problem, problem is with the Muslim district where Jews cannot enter, for a city controlled by jews that can't even see the holiest place for the jewish religioun I don't think this control of Jerusalem is much.

Sure, there's a lot of religious zealotry in Israel. It doesn't take a huge leap of faith to allow the possibility of a demagogic annihilistic movement taking hold.

Even though there's religious zealotry in Israel (Hasids), they're a minority as small as the amount of Kurds in Israel (which is very small), they're not very liked among other jews as well

Hmmm, wasn't there a fair amount of terrorism involved in the Zionist movement, pre-modern-Israel?

Yep, it was a despised group by all the jews, nonetheless they never hurt civilians intentionally (always warned a good amount of time before exploding a civilian building, some times the british simply didn't listen) but don't get me wrong, I think that group made a bad name for all the jews (and a lot simply ignore/don't know it was a very small and very hated group...).

Like Palestine?

So the fact that Palestine never existed and havn't been officially created is nothing to justify that Israel does not recognize Palestine (Israel do recognize Palestinians though and may I remind that Palestine and a lot of other neighbouring countries do not recognize Israel) not to mention Israel agrees to let the Palestinians declare their independence.

What is different about these two cultures?

Way too much to list, like comparing Native africans to France (not meant to offend or imply anything) but I do believe that the entire thing of reversing the roles is pointless, you don't know what will happen if it was the opposite.

Can anyone see Jews teaching "Death to Arabs!" in their f**king schools

I'm sad to admit that there are racists in Israel that DO say Death to Arabs (and even has the IQ to buy a color spray and right it on walls...) but they are usually very young (1x-2x), not very popular (among everyone who can think which is a feature known to be not one of the best qualities of teenagers...) and they did not learn this from school, they learnt it from the TV where they spent a big portion of their life listening to the media reporting yet ANOTHER terrorist attack on civilians and some lack the understanding to see why people that dare break into civilians' houses and butcher babies, kids, women and men as if they were all a nasty cockroach running around your legs.

[Bun-Bun]

Ahem, may I remind you that Jerusalem was ruled by others until the british left Israel? May I remind you that even though Israel controls jerusalem it's just on paper, there are 3 districts in Jerusalem, the Jewish district along with the ruins of a wall from Bait Hamikdash the Christian district with the church, forgot what the name is smile.gif  and the Muslim district along with Har Ha'Bait and the center stone, the holiest place for the jews (the place where Avraham almost sacrficed his son), now Jews and christians can go to each of their districts with no problem, problem is with the Muslim district where Jews cannot enter, for a city controlled by jews that can't even see the holiest place for the jewish religioun I don't think this control of Jerusalem is much.

First, I think you may have missed the point, which I no doubt was unclear on. In the specified role-reversal situation, my point was that a surrounding Jewish populace would have an equivalent motivation for aggression as the surrounding Arab populace as exists today. I'm not trying to justify any such motivation, merely pointing out its presence.

Secondly, I think you underestimate the psychological and physical significance of control of access to a city, even if one does not have soldiers on every street corner. Do you really think that the Israeli army could be prevented from going into the Muslim section of Jerusalem, despite the repercussions? I don't think so, and that's certainly an element in the mental equation.

Even though there's religious zealotry in Israel (Hasids), they're a minority as small as the amount of Kurds in Israel (which is very small), they're not very liked among other jews as well

We may be talking apples and oranges, Zealots and zealots. My point was meant to address Mr. Spectre's unstated but obvious contention that in the role-reversed scenario, the surrounding Jewish states launching of a war of aggression would be unthinkable. I counter by proposing a chain of events leading to a radical minority gaining the leadership in such states. Religious zealotry provides an obvious path for such events, but historical parallels also exist for nationalistic or ideological movements taking hold and leading nations along aggressive courses. I see nothing in the Jewish culture (if one can even oversimplify such a thing in such a nebulous thought-experiment) that would prevent such an eventuality, therefore my statement.

In addition, I feel you may understate the degree of radicalism in Israel by hewing to a narrow definition. From what I see, there is a minority in Israel that possesses expansionist sentiments. My evidence for this is the program of settlements on former Jordanian territory in the West Bank, both within Israeli law and outside it. There seems to be considerable support for this sentiment within the Israeli government. My characterization of such efforts would include the label of zealotry - no doubt you would not go so far. Regardless, this expansionist minority has a disproportionate effect on the perception of Israeli territorial ambitions regionally and worldwide.

Yep, it was a despised group by all the jews, nonetheless they never hurt civilians intentionally (always warned a good amount of time before exploding a civilian building, some times the british simply didn't listen) but don't get me wrong, I think that group made a bad name for all the jews (and a lot simply ignore/don't know it was a very small and very hated group...).

And yet it did exist. I contend that its existence is in direct contradiction to Mr. Spectre's thesis, that there would be something inherent in his supposed large Jewish populace that would prevent support of terrorists.

So the fact that Palestine never existed and havn't been officially created is nothing to justify that Israel does not recognize Palestine (Israel do recognize Palestinians though and may I remind that Palestine and a lot of other neighbouring countries do not recognize Israel) not to mention Israel agrees to let the Palestinians declare their independence.

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. My point was to contest Mr. Spectre's contention that his presumed Jewish megastate could not possibly refuse to recognize its neighbors by pointing out that the current Israeli state is rather behind in that regard.

I'm not entirely in agreement with your last statement on Israel agreeing on Palestinian independence. Such agreement seems rather tenuous, depending on so many conditions that a de-facto protectorate seems to be the aim.

I 'd argue your other points in this paragraph, but I just can't make sense of them, and I think I'd be putting words in your mouth to try to discuss them. Perhaps you could explain further?

but I do believe that the entire thing of reversing the roles is pointless, you don't know what will happen if it was the opposite.

On that we are on complete agreement. That was why I replied to Mr. Spectre, to point out underlying inconsistencies in a rather loosely-specified scenario accompanied by some sweeping assertions.

I'm sad to admit that there are racists in Israel that DO say Death to Arabs (and even has the IQ to buy a color spray and right it on walls...) but they are usually very young (1x-2x), not very popular (among everyone who can think which is a feature known to be not one of the best qualities of teenagers...) and they did not learn this from school, they learnt it from the TV where they spent a big portion of their life listening to the media reporting yet ANOTHER terrorist attack on civilians and some lack the understanding to see why people that dare break into civilians' houses and butcher babies, kids, women and men as if they were all a nasty cockroach running around your legs.

I hope you're right, and I hope that racist attitude isn't represented in lesser forms in other segments of the population. I do worry, though. I remember some of the problems bigotry has caused and is causing in the US, and I do worry.

[Occhidiangela]

Is to remember that Judaism got tossed into diaspora by the Roman Empire in 70 AD. Islam did not arrive until the seventh century.

Also of note is the derivative nature of Islam from previous monotheism. But MOST important, are the foundation issued of doctrine.

A question arises: is Judaism the sort of religion that spreads by the sword and the idea?

Islam spread sword in its early stages.
Christianity did after a couple of centuries as an idea that had to stay underground.

Depending on how you read the Old Testament, did Judaism spread by the sword?

Hard to say. I don't know enough about ancient Judaism to make an intelligent assessment.

That issue of what the guiding cultural principles are is what makes Jonathan's thought exercise a bit more interesting than it might appear at first blush.

[Feryar]

I often think of how nice and peaceful it would be in this world if there were no such thing as religions :)

In the Middle East thingy, I don't think there is a "good and evil" or "right and wrong" side in the conflict. They're all wrong and they're all evil. OK that might be pulling it a little too far, but both sides are killing off innocent people, and unless one of them breaks the spiral of violence it will just keep going.