ISRAEL: Most Hated Country in the World?

[Sava]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Personally I blame the UK and its stupid Balfour Declaration made in haste during WWI to destabilise the Ottomans almost as much as the opportunism of the Zionists...

I blame Europe in general.

Europe

That's why everyone hates Israel now. They all realize their collective guilt with regards to the history of colonialism. But instead of taking responsibility for the state of the world, they want to point the finger at everyone else. American administrations are trying to handle things as best they can, but it's hard to lead all by oneself. Bush is far from a perfect leader. But even taking Bush into account, European countries are acting like spoiled children ("screw you, I'm going home!") and whining about the situation instead of trying to work with the stubborn American leadership.

It's so much easier to blame America for the world's problems. Meanwhile, each country ignores serious issues and looks after their own interests. The Bush administration may be screwing things up with their policies, but nobody else is trying to work with them. Sometimes it takes a better person to just bite the bullet and work with a stubborn, arrogant administration for the sake of the greater good.

If the state of the world is going to rest on the shoulders of how competent the American president is... well... the world is ****ed. Europe has to step up and lead (even if that means dealing with a terrible US president), not sit around with their thumbs up their asses crying like a bunch of babies.

[Sava]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


You keep referring to Zionist ethnic cleansing without providing a date for it. Without that, its not possible to tell what you are referring to, and how that relates to any alleged hypocrisy.

1947-1949... specifically May 1948 - January 1949

Of 850,000 indigenous Palestinians (within the territory that would become the state of Israel) pre-1947, only 160,000 remained after 1949. Over 750,000 Palestinians (throughout the entire region) became refugees.

64 of 370 villages were wiped out.

"Plan D"

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
I believe this tells us more about perceptions and propaganda than anything else.

I'm not sure at all.

If you look at the figures for the Germans, you can be sure as hell it's not the propaganda. Or the propaganda has a dramatically counterproductive effect.

The German establishment simply cannot allow itself to look even remotely anti-Israeli. The German Jewish associations have conviced the establishment that a hint of anti-Israelism is already antisemitism, and this kind of argument obviously goes far in Germany.

As a result, the German establishment can hardly criticize Israel. And we see the backlash in the population


Edit: the figures for France and the UK are also nearly identical. However, I've yet to see your country being lambasted for its rampant anti-zionism and even antisemitism (something I've heard countless times about France, in the mouth of Yanks and Israelis)

[Sava]

LOTM: I'm not laying down a moral judgment on Israel. But if there is an accepted definition for "ethnic cleansing" that the international community is going to abide by, then it needs to be applied fairly to all countries. That's my point.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Spiffor
As a result, the German establishment can hardly criticize Israel. And we see the backlash in the population

While it's true that you see hardly open criticism towards Israel from the political establishment here, I'd say that for a long time much of the media coverage of the ME conflict was rather imbalanced (criticism towards Israel, but wrong doings of the other side often played no big role). It has changed in recent yrs IMO.

[Cort Haus]

In fact, in general, Arabs have cohabited extremely peacefully with Jews (as opposed to how Christians treated them) pretty much up until Zionism reared its ugly head during the early 20th century. As far as I can tell, pretty much all the hatred of the Jews by the Arabs stems entirely from an artificially created nation displacing people who had lived there for well over a thousand years!

I'm not so sure. Conditions for non-muslims across the whole of the Ottoman empire were not good. The system of dhimmitude permitted Jews and Christians to keep their religion (rather than be subject to the usual convert-or-die option) but only as second-class citizens, which basically meant no rights at all. There was certainly massive contempt shown towards Jews under this system.

Nitpicking. (but I'm glad you acknowledge my other points regarding Israel's unprovoked attacks of its neighbours by failing to address them. )

While Israeli actions last year may have been in many respects unwise and problematic, they were not exactly unprovoked. Hezbollah like to flaunt their hero-worship of the Nazis, and are sponsored by a country that (a) denies the holocaust and (b) seems to want another one.

I'm not in the business of defending every action and policy of the Israeli state, but I do oppose the notion that it bears the sole blame for the problems of the region.

The business of sovereignty is not just nitpicking. It is a fair response to the words used in the denounciation of the creation of Israel above. There had never been in prior existance, a Palestinian state, whatever the case for one today.

As a backwater province of a far-flung empire I am sure they enjoyed considerable autonomy. Certainly the empire also followed the same religious beliefs as its subjects' instead of having the views of a foreign religion imposed upon them.

For the native Jews forced into servitude under Islamic domination of the region, I expect they felt that the views of a hostile religion were being imposed upon them.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Personally I blame the UK and its stupid Balfour Declaration made in haste during WWI to destabilise the Ottomans almost as much as the opportunism of the Zionists...

Very few people realise that the UK covertly supported the Arab League attacks on Israel in 1948, according to research done at the time by The Nation magazine.

[Barnabas]

The hebrews conquered that place if we accept the bible as true, archeologists have found no evidence of a mass migration out of egypt (which means it most likely did not happen, even migrations of much smaller groups leave evidences)

Most likely hebrews were indigenous, the language of the phoenicians, of the hebrews, and of moabites, ammonites, amalekites etc, could be considered as different dialects of the same language.

[Barnabas]

I agree that the creation of the state of Israel has no justification, but there is nothing that can be done about it which doesnt involve something terrible, so the state of Israel has to be accepted.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Sava


Nice justification for ethnic cleansing.

Meanwhile the Serbs get bombed by NATO for doing 1/100th what Israel did. And the Serbs were fighting a war within their own borders.

And let me make this perfectly clear again so the mouth breathers don't misinterpret my statements. My problem is with the hypocrisy within the international system. I show no support for either Israel, Serbia, or anyone else. I'm merely bashing the hypocrisy.

One can't call what one country does "ethnic cleansing" and then call the same thing "fighting terrorism" when another country does it. Sorry... but that's bull****.

Not to say the Palestinians haven't perpetrated their own acts of violence, but Israel's atrocities in the last 60 years go far beyond what the Serbs are responsible for.

That's all.

Let the bull**** continue.

Well, I defend both Serbia and Israel against the respective charges made against them - that they are the root cause and chief culprit of all the problems in their regions. I opposed the NATO attacks on Serbia in 1999 as well as the bullying of FYROM by the US/EU in 2001. In both cases I felt that the West was unwisely supporting terrorism.

I believe that both Serbia and Israel have been on the wrong end of propaganda wars which crudely over-simplify extremely complex historical problems. I'm not saying either country has been 100% angelic, but I do believe the point-of-view of both countries has been understated, if properly stated at all in some quarters.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sava


1947-1949... specifically May 1948 - January 1949

Of 850,000 indigenous Palestinians (within the territory that would become the state of Israel) pre-1947, only 160,000 remained after 1949. Over 750,000 Palestinians (throughout the entire region) became refugees.

64 of 370 villages were wiped out.

"Plan D"

The upper class fled, to avoid the fighting and intended to return. Some poorer ones fled in immitation of the upper class, and also expected to return. Some feared massacres, which, with one disputed exception, did not happen (in stark contrast to certain other cases of alleged ethnic cleansing) Some, it turns out were expelled from their homes by the Haganah. Notably the Arab community of Lod. However the very evidence that shows that the Haganah expelled them, shows that they did so to protect a supply line to Jerusalem from guerilla attack, not with an intention of changing the demographics of the eventual Jewish state. In at least some cases, Arabs expelled from their homes by the Hagana were sent to other places under the control of the Hagana. Even Benny Morris, the "post Zionist" historian who documented that Hagana expulsions did take place, does not think that the Palestinian flight was driven by a concerted plan for ethnic cleansing, but was the result of the conflict itself.


Now, you may well assert that the same is true of Kosovo. To determine if that is the case, wed have to look in detail at the acts of the Yugoslav Army, including the revelations of mass graves. But lets not confuse the history of Israel-Palestine.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



What historical evidence do you have that the Hebrews took the land by conquest?

Let's make the assumption they did. Who didn't?
Name me a country that exists, has always existed, and will contiue to exist, and done so without conflict.

Right after my disgust at people belly-aching about the USA, is people whining about Israel.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I'm not sure at all.

If you look at the figures for the Germans, you can be sure as hell it's not the propaganda. Or the propaganda has a dramatically counterproductive effect.

The German establishment simply cannot allow itself to look even remotely anti-Israeli. The German Jewish associations have conviced the establishment that a hint of anti-Israelism is already antisemitism, and this kind of argument obviously goes far in Germany.

As a result, the German establishment can hardly criticize Israel. And we see the backlash in the population


Edit: the figures for France and the UK are also nearly identical. However, I've yet to see your country being lambasted for its rampant anti-zionism and even antisemitism (something I've heard countless times about France, in the mouth of Yanks and Israelis)

You havent been listening closely enough. There have been many whove pointed out widespread antizionism in Britain and some who have pointed out the antisemitism which, while not the same thing, often accompanies it.

If theres been less concern about antisemitism in Britain, that may have to do with a much lower level of violent incidents against Jews in the UK.

German numbers, I would not, include the population of former East Germany, who were certainly exposed to anti-Israel propaganda.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by BeBro


While it's true that you see hardly open criticism towards Israel from the political establishment here, I'd say that for a long time much of the media coverage of the ME conflict was rather imbalanced (criticism towards Israel, but wrong doings of the other side often played no big role). It has changed in recent yrs IMO.

Thank you for the info, BeBro, that was my impression but i wasnt sure.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
The hebrews conquered that place if we accept the bible as true, archeologists have found no evidence of a mass migration out of egypt (which means it most likely did not happen, even migrations of much smaller groups leave evidences)

Most likely hebrews were indigenous, the language of the phoenicians, of the hebrews, and of moabites, ammonites, amalekites etc, could be considered as different dialects of the same language.

Not only the language, but all the material culture is continous with "canaanite" culture.

IIUC the fairly strong scientific consensus is that Hebrews WERE Canaanites (or at least most were) who, living in the highlands, had a somewhat different economic organization, and gradually developed a different religion.