Israel: The only thing that's ever stumped me.

I'm a very opinionated person (you may have noticed that), but I'm stumped. For the first time in my life, I have no idea what to think. Israel... is perplexing. Let me tell you why.

When I was young, I was taught that killing was unquestionably wrong. But odd things began to creep in, and I started to wonder at the violence seemingly inherent in my religion. A good example is the story told during the holiday of Purim. Part of the story involves a man who wants to kill the Jews- Haman. When his plot is uncovered, the king makes the day planned for the Jews' demise into the day of their revenge. The Jews go around and slaughter Haman, his family, and his followers. Then... we celebrate. The holiday is a merry one, disturbingly enough, where people revel in the story of the turned around persecution.

And why not? In every generation the Jewish people have been hated. It seems only natural that we would be happy about a story where we kill our oppressors. But the problem with the story of Purim is that they are not actively oppressing the Jews. The Jews, in fact, aren't downtrodden in the story at all, aside from Haman's evil plan. They are equals killing equals, when nonviolent means could've been used.

And today? Today we are not equals killing equals. Israel- the supposedly secular state that it is- is waging a war fueled by the idea of revenge that the Jews have entertained from the beginning of time. We say, "the Nazis did the most horrid of things to us in the Holocaust, so we created a Jewish homeland..." As though past prosecutions will allow us to atone for our modern sins. The genocidal war against the Palestinians- wronged so long ago, and now the violence in Lebanon.

This is wrong- and so, I would think that I would say that enough is enough- that Israel should cease all fighting along it's borders.

But it isn't that simple- because every coin has two sides. And you have to wonder...

Groups like Hamas and Hezbollah only want the destruction of Israel- and they want it because of what Israel represents. It represents Judaism. Religious intolerance at it's most basic level. Iran and Syria, too- they hate the Jewish people and the Jewish state. They will not rest until, as Iran's president puts it, Israel is "wiped off the map."

Doesn't the state of Israel have a right to defend itself from those who would destroy it? Were we not doing just that when we invaded Afghanistan? (though not Iraq)

Neither side is clear. That is why this is a divisive issue. And I can't decide which side you'll support- and I don't know which side I support. But please, don't confuse the actions of the state of Israel with the mentality of the Jewish people. I have always thought that our religion is one of peace- so many stories are told that make it seem so. And don't confuse the actions of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran or Syria with the mentality of the Muslim people. Theirs is also a religion of peace. But when religious fundamentalism gets out of hand, this is what happens. Is support for Israel anti-semitism toward Muslims? It shouldn't be. Is wanting peace anti-semitism toward Jews? No, it usually isn't.

When debating the Middle East, it is important not to jump to the "anti-semitism" label. I'm certainly not an Anti-Semite... I myself am a 'semite'. Consider both sides of every story. And don't confuse religion with extremism.

-Fawkes

Israel is the most modern and Western nation in the Middle East. People enjoy freedoms there not dreamed of in countries like Iran and Syria. In the truest sense of the word, Israel is the most liberal country in the region. Those are the values I can identify with and support.

I am sure the palestinians living under illegal military occupation have a different story to tell. I know, to many of you, they aren't worth thinking much about.

And I doubt Israel is without its share of discrimination.....

Yes, I would say there is a fair amount of racism in Israel. Sure, there is also a ton of racism in Palestine but it isn't the Palestinians who are persecuting a minority in their lands.

But it is often thrown out as fact, when it is not at all true. As for Palestine, it doesn't exist yet. The Occupied Territories do see a fair share of racism, but do not think it is limited to Israelis.

What is the real story then?

Palestine doesn't exist because it is a colony right now.

Sure, racism is not in short supply in the OT. Then again, the Palestinians don't pretend to be progressive democrats to curry favor in the US. That is why Israel's record on such things is scrutnized more.

There is land that is purchased by the State. Anyone can buy that land if they are an Israeli citizen.

Palestine is not a colony, it is occupied land.

You don't let your citizens build towns in an occupied land. You do let them build towns in a colony.

The fact is most land in Israel is owned by the state. No-one can purchase the land. It's a lease system, though most people (I live in a part of the world where there's also a 99 year leasehold system) will say they *own* the land where in reality what they've done is purchased a lease and the land is still owned by the govt....

The state of Israel owns about 75% of the land. The Jewish National Fund (which was set up with the purpose of purchasing land from Arabs and selling or leasing it to Jews) owns another approximately 13%. The rest is administered by the Development Authority and consists of property taken from Palestinians who fled or were expelled during the war of 1948. Of course there is discimination against Israeli-Arabs when it comes to land ownership. From an International Crisis Group report on Israeli-Arabs:

"For Palestinian citizens of Israel, the discriminatory aspects of land policy, and in particular land confiscation and disparity in the allocation of state lands, are the most serious material concern and most frequent source of friction with the state. Roughly 93 per cent of land is state owned, its use and development administered by the statutory Israel Lands Administration (ILA). The majority of this land has been expropriated from Arabs. As a result, Arabs, roughly 20 per cent of the population, own approximately 3.5 per cent of land in Israel; while their numbers have increased six-fold since 1948, land under their control has diminished, and they are barred from purchasing or leasing land in roughly 80 per cent of the country.

The prevalence of discriminatory policies and decision-making structures was recognized in a landmark Supreme Court ruling. In 1995, Kaadan, an Arab family, tried to purchase a plot in the moshav (cooperative settlement) of Katzir, which had been newly built by the Jewish National Fund (JNF) on state land. The Katzir Cooperative Association refused the sale because the family was not Jewish. The Kaadan family petitioned the Supreme Court, arguing that this was discriminatory, especially since the settlement had been established on land allocated to the JNF by the ILA, a state body mandated by law to treat all citizens equally. In March 2000, the Court ruled in favour of the family. To date, however, the Katzir Cooperative Association has refused to implement the decision.

In July 2002, the cabinet supported a bill by Knesset member Haim Druckman, a leader of the rightist National Religious Party, to circumvent the ruling by restricting access to state lands to Jews.

This case and its aftermath provide telling testimony to the reality not only that Palestinian citizens of Israel are unable to purchase land within Jewish areas but that no administrative body is charged with developing Arab towns and villages. The policy and decision making body of the ILA, known as its Council, consists of eighteen persons, half appointed by the JNF, an organ of the World Zionist Organisation/Jewish Agency for Israel. The agency's charter defines one of its goals as "to purchase and develop land as a national resource of the Jewish people, by the Jewish people and for the Jewish people". Overall plans for land use and development broadly follow the recommendations and goals set by National Project Outlines (TAMA in Hebrew), which are periodically revised; more detailed planning and zoning arrangements are defined in Regional and Local Project Outlines (TAMAM). These include guidelines for infrastructure projects and residential, industrial and commercial land use. The Ministry of the Interior defines the jurisdiction of regional and local authorities, town municipalities and other rural communities such as moshavim, kibbutzim, mitzpim (smaller sized settlements), and yishuvim bodedim (single family unit agricultural settlements). Several additional statutory bodies play roles in planning and zoning decisions, including the Development Authorities for the Negev and Galilee and the Nature and Parks Authority. Palestinian citizens are either unrepresented or under-represented in each. According to Suhad Bishara of the Adalah Centre, "out of eleven members of the Planning Board for the Governmental Plan for the Northern District (TAMAM 2), there was not a single Arab, although over half the region's population is Arab".

http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/middle_east___north_africa/arab_israeli_conflict/25_identity_crisis_israel_arab_citz.pdf

When it comes to the West Bank, Israel's actions there are very similar to the colonisation that many European countries did around the globe in the 18th and 19th centuries. I live in what was a former British colony, and as with most colonial ventures, the land and resources were desired by the coloniser, but the existing inhabitants weren't wanted. Which usually meant that settlers from the colonising country were shipped in and the existing inhabitants were either exploited (as in the case of the British in India), mistreated or expelled (Germany's treatment of the Herero in what is now Namibia), or killed in large numbers (the US treatment of native Americans and Australia's treatment of Aboriginals)....

You forget, Israels reality is much different from our own "Starbucks" tainted.."peechy keen" "safe from the rest of the world" reality!

They are surrounded by (arab) enemies that want to eliminate them as a state. If they allowed just anyone to own land, (especially arabs) then you can bet in short order, rich arabs (surely financed by a state such as Syria or Iran) would simply buy as much land as they could, and change the domographic of the country.

So, sorry to quash the 'racist' conclusion many here have come to, but for the Israeli's its a practical matter of survival.

Disgusting. There are no justifications for racism and the argument you have just put forward is that it's totally acceptable to discriminate against Israelis if they're Arabs...

Discrimination is discrimination. It really doesn't matter what the reasons are.

Say it ain't so. :(

I had no idea this was the case in Israel.

It's ironic that Israel is considered the most progressive country in the Middle East, mainly because of their democracy. But at the same time, they participate in what would be called racist in most other real democracies.

There was a Sufi shaykh in Palestine who invited the Jews in the settlement nearby to come to his house, eat with him, do zkr. The PLO stopped him.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It sickens me to see the way Israel treats Palestenians by destroying water supplies, power plants, etc......

But beyond that, religion sickens me. More people have been killed in the name of god than every other reason imaginable. Like Jesse Ventura once said, "Religion is tool to control the weak minded masses"

Perhaps you would like to see a return to liberal British freedom in Ireland. ;)

Which ones?

It also controls part of Syria.

The colonies in Palestine account for a minority of the population in those areas but Israel takes the vast majority of the water in the colonized territories for itself. Very progressive, let the Palestinians drink, um, air?

...those are occupied territories. There is a difference.

Israel is building numerous settlements in the OT and has over 400,000 colonists/settlers living there. They are also taking the resources of the area and subjugating the Palestinians in the OT. How does what Israel is doing in the OT differ from colonialism in any meaningful way?

The "colony" of Gaza is not such now. once negotiations begin, I doubt that many of the settlements will be in Palestine. Colonialism also suggests they are trying to incorporate the territories into Israel proper. That is not the entire story.

There is no reason to assume the next four decades will be any different than the previous four for the Palestinians.

Gaza's borders are still controlled by Israel. Gaza is not free.

The Likud and Likud-lite want to incorporate large settlement blocs into Israel. The more large settlement blocs there are, the easier it is to say "demographic realities" require those settlements remain. As we speak, the settlements continue to expand on land we are told Israel has no desire for.

Why is Israel building illegal settlements if it has absolutely no designs on that land?

co·lo·ni·al·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-ln--lzm)
n.
A policy by which a nation maintains or extends its control over foreign dependencies.

;)

The land was captured in war. It was occupied. There was supposed to be "land for peace," but that wasn't good enough for the Palestinian powers at the time. The land was taken from Egypt and Jordan. Once those peace treaties were made Israel should have turned them over to those countries...the only problem is they didn't want them.

Gaza has a border with Egypt, not under control by Israel.

As for the settlements, that is part of the negotiation part. Seems so many here despise when Israel acts without negotiations, but then bitch when the situation doesn't change! Many of the settlements are about to be dismantled. The ones that stay, may either end up in Israel or in Palestine.

If Israel does not covet the land why has it been expanding its outposts in Palestine for four decades? If they had no designs at all on that land, they would withdraw from the 22% of "historical Palestine" the Palestinians seek, with the exception of Jerusalem, and would actually have world opinion on their side in a context in which they are completely innocent yet being attacked. Of course, there is always the not-so-unlikely scenario that an end to the occupation would change Palestinian politics in a way to allow the PA to have the ability to disarm Hamas and co., or at least dissuade them from engaging in a terrorist war with Israel...but, hey, the land is cheap for fundamentalist settlers and Likud and co. believe "god" (to be fair, "god" is equally troublesome on the Palestinian side!) gave them the land so why should they leave?

Correction, you are correct on Gaza. Still, Gaza is part of Palestine. If Syria were occupying the vast majority of Israel but left the Negev area alone, would the Israelis in the Negev area be unconcerned with the rest of Israel being occupied? Sure, hatred and fanaticism play a big role in this but the elephant in the room is occupation. Foreign occupations are always resisted during the modern era (i.e. since the 40's and 50's). The good old days of colonialism with a submissive colonized population are over. That is why most countries got out of the conventional colonialism business.

What do you think Israel would do if it were occupied by a foreign power? Bomb basic infrastructure, a hotel, assassinate leaders of the occupying power and the UN, etc... ?

What negotiations? There have been no negotiations since the progressives in Likud and Likud-lite took over in 2001.

I prefer negotiation and only through negotiations can there be a lasting peace accepted by both sides. Still, I supported the Gaza withdrawal, it was certainly a positive step. Having said that, I didn't buy the Israeli myth that is being pushed in the US on the noble intentions of the withdrawal. Sharon and co. domestically sold the plan as a way to strengthen Israel's grip on the West Bank, where Israel has over 400,000 settlers while it had only 7,500 in Gaza. Why would Israel want to strengthen its grip on land we are told that Israel has absolutely no designs on?

The major settlement blocs will remain, and I believe that is what should happen. Israel is expanding the settlements, as it has for decades, because it will be easier to keep more of the West Bank when it can cite "facts on the ground" that require that major Israeli population centers in the WB remain with Israel.

As a progressive, do you support settlement building? If so, should the US build settlements in Iraq? ;)

Most of Africa was once under colonial administration. Those former colonies are all independent now. India and many of the east asian nations, now independent. Most of the central and south american nations, likewise now independent.

Nonetheless, I'd agree with you that colonialism is not a good model for comparing the occupied territories to, although I think you're splitting hairs a bit too finely distinguishing between garrison occupation and colonialism, since the latter almost always incorporates the former, at least to some degree and often to the extent necessary to subjegate the occupied population, as Israel has attempted to do in the occupied territories.

Rather, I think the homelands system that was a hallmark of apartheid in South Africa is a better model for comparison.

And Israel walked away from Gaza and Bethlehem among other places, giving full control to the Palestinians. That doesn't sound like much of a colony to me.

I asked that question of an Israeli on a radio program once, and he hemmed and hawwed, danced around the question, and ultimately simply refused to answer because he knew that only a fool would accept what Israel has "offered" the Palestinians. Furthermore, Israel is under a U.N. mandate to implement Res. 242 which makes such offers more-or-less unnecessary, but Isreal refuses to abide by Res. 242 and has been in non-compliance for decades. One might argue that rather than making insulting offers that no sane person would accept, Israel simply implement 242 and be well on the way toward a just and more-or-less equitable peace.

And then I'd have been killed by the fundamentalist lunatics in my organization, who will settle for nothing less than the destruction of Israel.

...colonizing your country at will with "settlements" whose foreign citizens are not subject to our laws or under the jurisdiction of our courts, seizing border regions, towns, and etc (as the apartheid wall has done), maintaining a private network of roads that only their citizens could travel upon, and on which our citizens could be shot on sight, controlling access to water, controlling border access to trade and transport of goods, refusing to allow refugees to either return to their homes or be compensated fairly for the loss of their lands, and so on? You would accept those conditions and the others that would have been locked in by the offers Israel has made? You would give your country away as cheaply as that?

...I'd say you're projecting a bit. Michael Collins, anyone?

UN resolution 242 is a two way street. it calls for a cease to all hostilities (are constant rocket attacks and suicide bombings a cease). it also calls for israel to have safe and defensible borders.

why hasnt the other side implimented resolution 242?

The PA can't disarm Hamas and co. under foreign occupation. When have conquered peoples in modern times given up their arms while under foreign occupation? We know Israelis didn't with respect to the British...

1) end terror bombing
2) full recogniztion of israel right to exist (which syria, hamas, hizbollah dont)

as for when have conquered people given up their arms, check out india (peaceful non cooperation under gandhi).

The Palestinians hardly have full control over Gaza. Gaza's lone airport was destroyed by Israel in 2001 and that further increases Gaza's isolation.

...against Israel. That's what the Israelis won for their moderation.

...before making any more patently absurd statements.

And you call enclosing a population within an open-air prison (with all entrances and exits controlled by the IDF) "moderation?" What is Gitmo, a "Caribbean resort?"

israel did not control the egypt gaza border. it only controlled the borders between gaza and israel. which is israel's right as a sovereign nation. (to be able to control its own borders)

people forget that gaza borders egypt too.

it has been 5 years since the airport was damaged. why wasnt it rebuilt?

It isn't worth it, considering the likelihood Israel would destroy it again.

Until 2000, Israel wouldn't even speak of accepting a Palestinian state, but instead spoke of "autonomy," which meant that the Palestinians would be allowed to have their own civil administration -- but the territories would remain under Israeli occupation.

The so-called "generous offer" of Camp David was, in fact, anything but. While grudgingly allowing an "independent Palestine," the actual proposal would annex large "settlement blocs" of the West Bank (including the best land and aquifers), dividing the West Bank into at least three noncontiguous areas. Israel, further, insisted on a "security zone" in the Jordan River valley, meaning that not only would the parts of "Palestine" be cut off from each other, Israel would control all their borders, including the one with Jordan. (Sort of like the current situation with Gaza -- with Israel controlling its borders, it is merely reduced to the status of a large open-air prison.) Furthermore, even within the areas designated as a "Palestinian state," Israel would keep all its scattered settlements, and the IDF would maintain the network of "Israeli-only" roads between the settlements (further cutting the "Palestinian state" into tiny unconnected blocs only reachable by passing through IDF checkpoints).

In short, the "independent Palestine" offered by Barak at Camp David was little more than a set of unworkable bantustans or reservations. I wouldn't have accepted such a proposal.

(In fairness, I would note that a far better potential agreement than Camp David was reached at Taba at the end of 2000, but it was a case of too little, too late -- with the Clinton administration about to be replaced by the Bushes, and with Barak trailing Sharon badly in elections to be held within the month, it was obvious the settlement was D.O.A. and would have been repudiated by the incoming governments even before the first steps could have been taken.)

...in his state. Somehow I doubt his sincerity. And his credibility.

A chance for a real country. A seat at the UN. The opportunity to build a civil society. Yes, there were serious problems with the offer but so what? Investment from the US and Europe would pour in bringing economic development and humanitarian investment. Yeah the Israelis would be there restricting our moves, but again so what? A generation from now Palestine could have been free, independent and prosperous.

The alternative was war. And that's what happened.

We are told Israel has no desire to conquer any part of the West Bank. Isn't there a word for taking other people's land and key resources?

Why do Israelis and their supporters always want to portray arabs as implacable jew-haters. Some undoubtedly are, but the roots of the ME conflict have much more to do with unjustly disproportionate land appropriation by zionists after a protracted terror campaign in the Palestine Mandate and their treatment of the displaced Palestinian arabs since then. It has at least as much to do with the injustices of an apartheid state as with religion.

Reducing it to religion makes it all so simplistic, but it's a false simplicity, and it cuts both ways-- or do you suggest that all muslims simply hate all jews reflexively, but that jewish israelis fight their islamic neigbors only for secular reasons?

I'm sorry if it meant that to you. There are a lot if things at work here- but I do believe that Religion has a huge part in it. I doubt this would be happening if it was Christians and Jews or Jews and... Scientologists or something.

Jews have no role in this; only the Muslims do?

Religion is a key part of this--both Islam and Judaism hinder peace.

I think that the animosity specific to the Jews and the Muslims in the region is a major source of the problem.

...christian United States instead of the British Palestinian Mandate-- and then seized settlements, dedicated roads and other encroachments in what was left, controlled the aquifers, starved and isolated the people in the rest of the country, etc., that christians wouldn't be fighting them just like muslims in neighboring countries are today?

...I think it would happen if a group of any religion -- and particularly any Western (i.e. with a long term history in Europe or the U.S.) were to be given a meaningful chunk of what Muslims saw as "their" land, especially when the land was "given" by agreement of European powers against the wishes of the residents of that land.

But, then again, I'm not sure if it just applies to Muslims. Imagine, if you will, that a thoroughly-hypothetical global compromise is reached wherein the Palestinians agree to cede the West Bank and Gaza to Israel in exchange for the U.N.-mandated establishment of the nation of "New Palestine" in the lands from Los Angeles to the Mexican border (i.e. Orange County, San Diego, etc.). If you don't think that the current residents of that land would immediately take up arms to try and "drive the occupiers out," I would say you aren't thinking very realistically. It isn't just an abstract Jewish/Muslim animosity that's behind this feud -- it's a land dispute, at the heart of it.

Because that relieves them of the need to try to reach accomodation or peaceful co-existence. If the I/P (and I/S and I/L) crisis is a matter of a territorial dispute where each side may have a legitimate greivance, the sides owe it to the world to attempt to work out the problem in a way that might reach peace through compromise. If, however, one can portray "the enemy" as a group driven by a reflexive hatred, not of what you may have done, but of who you are, then no such compromise is possible, and the only possible approach is a "fight to the death," or at least until the other side "cries 'uncle'." That's a convenient approach, especially when you know that you have far more firepower than the other side does.

But Israel and its supporters are scarcely the only ones who have taken that approach -- remember "they hate us for our freedoms"...? :eyes:

Getting your land stolen, and then being accused of being antisemitic because you don't love the people who did it. Native Americans at least weren't accused of being "anti white."

My hubby is Jewish, my kids are 1/2. There is only one member of the family that supports this atrocity - he's been married 6 times.

Almost every Jew I know is appalled.

AIPAC does not represent American Jews, it represents right-wingers. Too many pro-Palestinian people blame "the Jews" for Israel's actions, ignoring the fact that most Jews in the world are pro-peace.

Hitler was a Corporo-Fascist. Socialists and Communists were his bane.

the catholic church losing some of its influence, let's start the spanish inquisition...
russia floundering under the czar, let's start some pogroms...
germany humiliated at the end of wwi, let's begin a march towards the holocaust...
russia floundering under stalin, let's restart the pogroms...

...isn't the media telling us that all American Jews are united in unquestioning support of this action? :sarcasm:

They are entitled to live freely, independently, and in security. The US, like it did in the 90's, needs to work for peace, not cheerlead one side, especially when doing so hurts our national security interests.

...when you mention Afghanistan. One can argue and argue whether we had the right to invade Afghanistan or not. But the real question every person should ask themselves is What did it achieve?

Did it get rid of bin Laden?

No.

Did it get rid of the Taleban?

No.

Did it bring "peace and democracy" to Afghanistan?

No.

It isn't the desire I have a problem with when it comes to eradicating terrorists, it's the tactics. If the results are as bad as the terrorists themselves, or worse yet helps them, then what exactly is the point? The "good intention"?

This is far deeper than religion. And it won't be until the US and Israel takes an honest look at themselves and correct their misdeeds that we'll put the brakes on terrorism instead of continually fueling it.

Considering the eye-for-an-eye mentality that's rampant these days, I give it nil chance in my lifetime.

"Eye For an Eye" started in the Middle East thousands of years ago. And look what it's done for the region today...

Radical Christians cite the same biblical reference to justify US cruelty towards innocents (and the not yet proven guilty). As if they think the victims will understand this is righteous revenge for 9/11 and let it end there. :eyes:

. . years ago in human evolution. It can even be seen in other apes. The biblical refernce was an intellectual justification for what our natures urge us to do.

Even if the Christian bible did not exist - I'm sure there would still be plenty of "Eye for an eye" going on in human affairs.

People keep blaming religiion as the source of human strife and war. Human strife and war is in our nature. Religion is what we create to codify that nature and justify it to ourselves - to reduce whatever guilt we might feel when we practice it.

the USA.The old guys running it all sit in their nice homes while every one else dies or pays for their hunt for glory and power.

From what I understand about radical Islam, their hatred of Israel isn't specifically because it's Jewish (as if they hated Jews most of all), but because it's a non-Islamic state on land they consider to belong to Muslims. I have read some statements to the extent that Israel, in their eyes, is a specific outpost of European "Westernism" (in other words, the Christians sending the Jews to "keep the Muslims down") on land that should be part of a pan-Arabic and pan-Muslim caliphate. I doubt that they would be assuaged if the land currently occupied by Israel was in the hands, instead, of Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Quakers, Unitarians, Scientologists, or practitioners of a Native American religion. In their eyes, that land belongs to Muslims (and specifically the descendants of the Arab Muslims that lived there before 1948) -- anyone else is a trespasser who must be fought.

Not that it matters if a suicide bomber wants to kill you because you're Jewish or just because you're of European ancestry, but you hear a lot of preconceived notions about radical (and, in some people's minds, even not-so-radical) Muslims -- such as "they want to force the U.S. to convert to Islam or be destroyed" or, in this case, "Muslims have always had a special hatred for Judaism" -- which are simply wrong and serve as barriers to the sort of clear understanding necessary to navigate these troubled waters.

why do they set aside a seat in their parliament specifically for a Jewish representative?

actually they have a problem with israelis, the jewish ones (not the muslim or druze israelis)

ever see the "Zahra's Blue Eyes"..an iranian TV show

implemented what you see in this video will continue. It is what you see that fuels resistance.
http://brasscheck.com/videos/middleeast/me1.html

is a two way street. it isnt solely on the israelis. plus it guarantees israel safe and defensible borders.

as pathetic as it sounds...anti semetism exists.....furthermore if you talk to palestenains and others in the middle east you will find they dont differentiate between jews/israelis/zionists-they are the same.

your stuck with an identity that is "cursed and blessed"....furthermore the middle east is not europe/US, theres a different culture there, and its not based on western valus of democracy and civil rights....its more inline with the middle ages...which is why honor killings are acceptable in many middle east countries, cutting off of limbs for punishment, hanging homosexuals, laws that forbid jews from buying land, getting citizenship etc.

Israel is not in N. Europe...its in the middle east....its a tough neighborhood

I remember when the nation of Palestine was on the maps and globes. There was no Israel. Palestine was seized suddenly and violently, and made into Israel a short time ago.

I thought it went from Ottoman province, to British colony, to divided between Israel and Jordan.

there was never an independent country of palestine.

the mandate actually originally included what is now jordan. it was split off to form transjordan.

There is a subtle difference between state and country. Scotland hasn't been an independent state since 1707, but if you went to Glasgow at closing time and said that since Scotland isn't a real country, half the territory would be given over the French Muslims, they'd probably have to run a DNA test to identify your remains.

Maps and mandates come and go, but the people who actually live (or lived) there probably have their own ideas (Which I think in this case have much more local bias - almost a tribal one - but don't quote me on that).

And I'm not taking any sides here, because the whole thing's a pig's ear and I haven't a clue where to start. :)

cause whatever you think you saw on maps and globes didnt exist

The religions of Abraham are to be guideposts to living a good, productive, and peaceful life. There are always elements that use their faith, whatever it is, to justify their own narrow, fearful views. You say that the Jews memorialize their past victories over oppression--which also keeps the concept of Jews as persecuted victims alive. We are seeing the same pattern with the Palestinians, I fear. Dwelling on the unfairness of the past reinforces the seige mentality-us vs them-and doesn't help in the modern situation, I think.