Israel and the US

< nuclear bombs to use to wipe Israel off the map >

Not again! Iran has never made any such threat. Ahmadinejad may be an unpleasant anti Semite but he is not stupid.

The threat to any future stability in the region does not come from Iran but from Israel. How many countries has Iran attacked since 1948? Zero! How many has Israel attacked? Almost too many to count.

The best thing that could happen is for Iran to develop nuclear weapons and for Israel to back off. Then it would be a good idea for Israel to enter meaningful negotiations with Hamas and Fatah and to stop all building on occupied land. Until the continued theft of land stops, this conflict will never end and Israel will have only itself to blame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greyman

< nuclear bombs to use to wipe Israel off the map >

Not again! Iran has never made any such threat. Ahmadinejad may be an unpleasant anti Semite but he is not stupid.

The threat to any future stability in the region does not come from Iran but from Israel. How many countries has Iran attacked since 1948? Zero! How many has Israel attacked? Almost too many to count.

The best thing that could happen is for Iran to develop nuclear weapons and for Israel to back off. Then it would be a good idea for Israel to enter meaningful negotiations with Hamas and Fatah and to stop all building on occupied land. Until the continued theft of land stops, this conflict will never end and Israel will have only itself to blame.

---

On the other hand, Iran has intervened in the Lebanon, in Syria, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in Saudi Arabia, none of it peacebuilding, most of it buying up support and providing weapons and training and insurgent violence. For all the hysteria surrounding the country, which I recognise as often being merely that, Iran is hardly an innocent in a volatile region.

As for the proliferation of nuclear energy which always bears with it the 'threat'-'fear'-'expectation'-'option' of military use, Iran is following Israel having first sought US help for a nuclear programme in the 1970s; Turkey, Saudi Arabia and before its present crisis, Syria were all on the road to nuclearisation. The genie is out of the bottle and has been for some time. The real question is whether or not there can be a regional agreement for countries which have water defiicits and whose long-term energy sources are uncertain (as in 50-100 years from now).

A little more sober thinking would be a welcome change from the hysteria.

The number of deceptive statements by Greyman on this thread is almost as noticeable as the absence of his comments on relevant, interesting threads about other political issues. I find it quite amazing that on the two occasions he was found to say things that were untrue or unproven, he did not respond but rather continued to make assertions. So I'll go back to my major objection that I've held back.

Use of Hearsay While Impliedly Condemning It
Greyman has used numerous statements by Israeli leaders, generals, and other less important figures for pure hearsay uses. A hearsay use is a statement used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. For instance when Muh Muh quoted Begin as saying Palestinians are beasts this was NOT a hearsay use because it was offered to prove Begin was a bigot and not that Palestinians are beasts. When I quoted Barak the purpose of the quotation was to demonstrate where Barak stood at a particular moment in time on the prospect of deferring peace and continuing the occupation.

But when Greyman quotes an Israeli General to establish that Israel has a dual legal system where the apparent jurisdictional predicate for their military tribunals is non-Jewishness, this is indeed a hearsay use. Not only is it a poor substitute for other information corroborating this man's opinion but it is also a bit strange that someone condemning military commissions would use hearsay to prove they operate in a discriminatory fashion and are unjust in their methods. The most controversial aspect of military commissions? You guessed it. The use of hearsay evidence without other indicia of reliability. Apparently Greyman holds himself to a lower standard than an Israeli military judge. Yes, this is not a courtroom but if you have to establish a fact based on one person's conclusions you are hanging your argument on a thin reed.

Evidence Did Not Establish How Israeli Military Tribunals Work
Not only was this his only evidence of a legal system designed to provide different procedures for non-Jews and Jews, but he did not respond to my follow-up. I myself do not know how Israeli Military Tribunals work, but I do know how American Commissions work and I found myself doubting that race and not citizenship is the jurisdictional predicate. If you would like to substantiate your claim and prove there is a de jure policy of targetting non-Jews by these commissions you might want to answer the following questions. What is the subject matter jurisdiction of such commissions? Are they only for law of war crimes? What is the personal jurisdiction of such tribunals? Are they only for non-citizens who have committed law of war crimes. If they are, then you can demonstrate a de facto racist policy by pointing out those situations that the Israeli military commissions have failed to prosecute Jewish non-citizens who have committed law of war crimes. Do Israel's civilian statutes provide for extra-territorial jurisdiction? Is there overlap between the jurisdiction of the military tribunals and civilian courts providing an option as to where to try such individuals. Now, I am not saying you are wrong but you did not establish any of these things, nor did you try. And you made quite a bold claim. Perhaps I missed it and in personam jurisdiction can only be established by an Israeli Military Tribunal by demonstrating the accused is non-Jewish? This would be a smoking gun if you provided it.

Curious Statement That He is Heartened By Polite Discourse
The discourse has not always been particularly polite but the few comments that were unsavory would have been unlikely to effect you. But I don't see how you have engaged in discourse. When challenged on a particular issue such as the uniqueness of Israeli's undelimited boundaries you do not retract or modify your statements. I thought the purpose of discourse was to share ideas and make concessions from time to time. Which leads me to my next point.

You Concede Nothing and You Assert Much Without Support
You can barely bring yourself to say that Ahmadinejad is anti-semitic. You make such statements as "for all his faults" (holding a Holocaust denial conference is more than a fault) or "he may be anti-semitic". If he is not anti-semitic then it would be tough to establish anyone is. You excoriate Israel for racism while saying nothing about Hamas, the numerous statements of its leaders including incitement to murder on the sole basis of ethnicity, and lack of recognition of Israel. You say the conflict is purely about land and deny that there is an aggravating factor of Muslim anti-semitism which has manifested itself in the statements of many Arab and Persian leaders as well as in hate crimes committed against Jews globally. You might be halfway to discourse if you admitted that these too are impediments to peace.

Meanwhile, I have stated that the occupation is wrong, that Netanyahu does not want peace, that Israeli leaders have made numerous racist statements. I would like more evidence on the military tribunal issue but who wouldn't.

As far as I can tell your arguments rest on inculpatory statements by Israeli individuals. You use such statements to establish Israeli negotiating tactics, not at any given point in time but throughout their history. You use hearsay to establish complicated issues that can be independently corroborated. You may say you like polite discourse but it seems to me you like expressing your views unchallenged and hearing a chorus of support. No thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greyman

T
And Israel is ruled by extreme Jews who regard Gentiles as being less than human. Anyway, it's not a religious war but a dispute over land.

---

This is quite the statement. It is one thing to say extremist Muslims have said things that are anti-semitic or extremist Jews have said things that are Islamophobic. However, notice how you have now said that the Jews who run Israel consider all gentiles to be sub-human. You are accusing them of racism against the entire rest of mankind.

Just because you have said something that has echoed through the last several centuries as a dangerous libel against Jews does not mean you had malicious intent. But if someone in my presence said that Muslims regard all "infidels" as sub-human or that particular Muslims did and then did not provide support I would consider it bad form. You are essentially accusing Israeli Jews of racism against all of humanity. Do you not think that is a bit reckless?

You also say that it is not a religious war but a dispute over land, but that is because you choose to frame it that way. For many Muslims across the Middle East having a Jewish state in the holy land is an affront and the aversion to Israel has taken on an explicitly religious overtone. Has not Hamas used religious rhetoric to threaten murder of Jews in many statements? Have not many Muslims in western countries committed hate crimes against Jewish individuals based on their view of Israel's wrongs? I'm not saying there have been no instances of Jews reciprocating but I can assure you there is a great imbalance. Either way, pretending that the conflict does not have a religious dimension or that none of the antipathy towards Israel is based on its Jewishness is blind. If I were so inclined, I would provide quotations from Middle Eastern leaders.

Two powerfully argued posts, Broncofan. Sadly there are many -probably too many- political figures across the Middle East whose various public statements are a gift to their enemies; yet both Israel and the Arab states offer complex challenges to anyone interested in politics and religion; not sure how many people are up to the challlenge, as it is also easy to get carried away by 'the moment', when a long view is probably required.

At one time in Northern Ireland, the Rev Ian Paisley didn't just campaign against Irish Republicans, he made a point of linking them to Roman Catholicism as a superstitious creed suggesting Catholics had been brainwashed from birth and so on. They used to carry placards saying 'No Popery' and so on. He may be retired and at death's door, but even this warrior of words has co-operated with those very same acolytes of the Pope...including the leadership of the Provisional IRA/Sinn Fein. You have to wonder how deep some of this rhetoric goes over time, even if it is also easy to despair over the future of Israel's relations with the Arabs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

A little more sober thinking would be a welcome change from the hysteria.

---

I agree on that .

just a reminder: Israel was founded after WW2: the German nazis and their slogan: "Death to jews" , which caused the killings of 6 million jews.
many Israelis are still living this trauma to these days.

with Iran and Hamas slogans "Death to Israel" , Israel wil do anything to prevent it from happening again.

can you blame them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yosi

I agree on that .

just a reminder: Israel was founded after WW2: the German nazis and their slogan: "Death to jews" , which caused the killings of 6 million jews.
many Israelis are still living this trauma to these days.

with Iran and Hamas slogans "Death to Israel" , Israel wil do anything to prevent it from happening again.

can you blame them?

---

You may or may not be aware that the Holocaust is a controversial issue in Israel and has been since the 1940s. As an example, the obituary of Yehuda Elkana that appeared a few days ago may interest you (the link follows the obit):

Professor Yehuda Elkana

Professor Yehuda Elkana, who has died aged 78, was a historian and philosopher of science and a controversial critic of the “Holocaust industry” and Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories.

Elkana was a survivor of Auschwitz, so when, in 1988, he published an article in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz on “The Need to Forget”, few could question his credentials.

He recalled that he had been transported to Auschwitz as a boy of 10 and, after the camp was liberated, spent some time in a Russian “liberation camp”, where he encountered Germans, Austrians, Croats, Ukrainians, Hungarians and Russians, as well as fellow Jews. Later he concluded that “there was not much difference in the conduct of many of the people I encountered ... It was clear to me that what happened in Germany could happen anywhere and to any people.”

Moving to Israel after the war, Elkana experienced profound unease with the way in which the Holocaust was being manipulated by governments of Right and Left to craft an atavistic Jewish national identity. He became convinced that the motives behind Israel’s uncompromising approach to the Palestinians was “a profound existential 'angst’ fed by a particular interpretation of the lessons of the Holocaust and the readiness to believe that the whole world is against us, and that we are the eternal victim”.

In a later interview he observed that parties on the Right of Israeli politics had used trips to Auschwitz to impart the lesson to young people that “this is what happens when Jews are not strong”, thereby justifying a repressive approach to the Palestinians. In this belief he saw the “paradoxical victory of Hitler”, whose appeal to the German people had also been based on the central idea of victimhood.

Two Jewish nations had emerged from Auschwitz, he observed: “a minority who assert: 'this must never happen again’; and a frightened majority who assert, 'this must never happen to us again.’” While all societies needed a collective mythology (and Elkana was critical of those in Germany who want to “close the chapter” of the Holocaust), “any philosophy of life nurtured solely or mostly by the Holocaust leads to disastrous consequences”.

In a later interview Elkana spelt out his fears for where this philosophy was leading Israel: “We are heading toward turning 100 million Arabs into a terrorist army against us: the whole Arab world! The United States wants to support rational, moderate Arabs. And rational, moderate Arabs will tolerate Israel’s occupation of Arab land less and less. So what is there to look forward to if we go on this way?’’
Yehuda Elkana was born to Hungarian-Jewish parents at Subotica, in what was then Yugoslavia, on June 16 1934. His father, an engineer, was a Zionist who travelled to Palestine in that year as a fencer and head of the Yugoslav delegation to the Maccabiah Games (an international Jewish athletic event held in defiance of the British Mandate authorities). “He wanted to remain in Palestine,” Elkana recalled. “Mother refused and the fool listened.”
In 1944 the family moved to Szeged in Hungary where, later that year, they were rounded up and transported to Auschwitz. They survived by sheer accident. As they were being lined up for the gas chambers, SS guards pulled them out of the line and sent them in a train with other Jews to clean up Allied bomb damage in Austrian cities. They made it to Israel in 1948.
The 14-year-old Yehuda joined a kibbutz and won a scholarship to the Herzliya High School in Tel Aviv, where he developed an interest in the philosophy and history of science. After studying Mathematics and Physics at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, he took a PhD in the Philosophy of Science at Brandeis University in the United States and taught at Harvard for a year. His doctoral dissertation would form the basis for a book, The Discovery of the Conservation of Energy (1974).
He returned to Israel as chairman of the department of the history and philosophy of science at the Hebrew University.
From 1969 to 1993 Elkana was founder-director of the Van Leer Institute in Jerusalem, which works to reduce tensions among the different groups in Israeli society and challenge taboos. He was proud of the fact that the Institute was a place where people could come and listen to Wagner and Strauss. At the same time he also ran, at Tel Aviv University, the Cohn Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Ideas, which he co-founded in 1983. From 1995 he was Professor of Theory of Science at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zürich.
In 1999 Elkana was appointed president and rector of the Central European University in Budapest, which had been founded by the international financier George Soros in 1991 with the aim of educating a new cadre of regional leaders to help usher in democratic transitions across the old Soviet bloc. Under Elkana’s leadership the university was transformed from a regional experiment in post-communist education into a major graduate institution of the social sciences and humanities.
The author of many books, including Essays on the Cognitive and Political Organisation of Science (1994), Elkana was also a permanent fellow of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Berlin and co-founder and editor of the journal Science in Context. He spent a year as fellow at the Centre for Advanced Study in the Behavioural Sciences at Stanford University and was a visiting fellow at All Souls, Oxford, in 1977-78.
After retiring in 2009 he went on to oversee an international programme aimed at reforming undergraduate curricula. He was the co-author, with Hannes Klopper, of The University in the 21st Century: Teaching at the Dawn of the Digital Age (2011).
In 1960 he married Yehudit Keren, who became a prominent Israeli peace campaigner. She survives him with their two daughters and two sons.
Professor Yehuda Elkana, born June 16 1934, died September 21 2012
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obit...da-Elkana.html