Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Richnorth who wrote (197)	9/7/2006 10:25:38 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10087

Israel probably did get more widespread international support before 1967 but it was hardly universal. Israel had more than its share of criticism and negative world opinion even then. And of course they faced a strong continual enmity from the Arab countries, strong enough to be a threat to Israel's existence. Israel kept winning wars, but it really only had to lose in a major way once. Since 1967 Israel has at times deserved criticism for its actions in the occupied territories, but that criticism is harsher and more wide spread than most countries would face from any similar action. Israel gets "Zionism is racism" in the UN, and condemnations from countries with far worse human rights records. While the Arabs get next to no notice for leveling Hama or other cases of mass slaughter of opponents of the regime. That Israel can now stand in comparison with the Spain of General Franco in the eyes of young Americans ought to come as a shock and an eleventh-hour wake-up call to Israelis. I don't think it does broadly stand in comparison with Franco's regime in the eyes of Americans, young or otherwise. Among Europeans maybe, even though such a comparison is quite illegitimate in a number of ways. To the extent that Israel is viewed that way it re-enforces the argument that Israel isn't treated fairly or reasonably in world opinion.

To: Richnorth who wrote (197)	9/7/2006 3:09:45 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10087

The French Algerian parallel is something I never thought of. 1967 was a catastrophe for Pals for a variety of reasons least of which was israeli intentions back then. Settlements came about to prod arabs to the table to negotiate a grand rapprochement. That failed to work and settlements became something darker with the great help of arab reactionary regimes, racists and terrorists. I dont know if its so much growing up as finding a new approach. Sharon tried withdrawl and fences for peace and that hasnt worked. Anyway we can argue fault forever. What Judt says in conclusion, I agree with. If this lebanon war serves no other positive purpose, it forces both sides to think about the future as something new and distinct and not same old, same old as in fthe past 60 years. "Precisely because the country is an object of such universal mistrust and resentment - because people expect so little from Israel today - a truly statesmanlike shift in its policies (dismantling of major settlements, opening unconditional negotiations with Palestinians, calling Hamas' bluff by offering the movement's leaders something serious in return for recognition of Israel and a cease-fire) could have disproportionately beneficial effects. But such a radical realignment of Israeli strategy would entail a difficult reappraisal of every cliche and illusion under which the country and its political elite have nestled for most of their life. It would entail acknowledging that Israel no longer has any special claim upon international sympathy or indulgence; that the United States won't always be there; that weapons and walls can no more preserve Israel forever than they preserved the German Democratic Republic or white South Africa; that colonies are always doomed unless you are willing to expel or exterminate the indigenous population. Other countries and their leaders have understood this and managed comparable realignments: Charles De Gaulle realized that France's settlement in Algeria, which was far older and better established than Israel's West Bank colonies, was a military and moral disaster for his country. In an exercise of outstanding political courage, he acted upon that insight and withdrew. "