I do enjoy these discussions with you,
@Norwegian , as you are a reasonable fellow, and even when we disagree, I still learn a bit about a new perspective. I won't go through a thorough line-by-line rebuttal, since I already said I am an unenthusiastic participant in these discussions, but I just wanted to clarify a few misunderstandings.
I am a Muslim Zionist and I have openly declared my support for Israel in many of my posts here on PDF. For many "believers" it would come as shock, but truth remains that Muslim Zionists do exist and they are MANY even if they are not very vocal in fear of banishment from their traditional communities:
Muslim supporters of Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You and the handful of other Muslims who support Zionism (and even those who take a neutral stance) have my sincere admiration. It takes genuine courage for you to take that stance, given the pressures and/or threats you face, and I recognize and appreciate that.
Then I expect you should also stand up against barbarism committed by IDF soldiers in the West Bank. There is tons of material available on the subject both from biased and unbiased sources. For starters, try this organisation made up of ex-IDF soldiers who openly share their criticism of Israeli policies against Palestinians:
Breaking the Silence › Israeli soldiers talk about the occupied territories
Breaking the Silence (non-governmental organization) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To make sure there is no misunderstanding here, I absolutely condemn any Israeli atrocities committed against innocent individuals, especially when it serves no discernible security purpose. We can argue about collateral damage in war, or whether certain security procedures are truly necessary, but roughing up civilians just to send a message is an abomination. Sadly, I doubt this will change as long as Israel has a draft army, with these low-morale soldiers who take out their frustrations on the Palestinians they govern.
I know many Americans are too sentimental about 9/11 and to this day they think it was Islamic radicalism that hit them on that horrific day of 2001. Yet facts remain, sentiments aside, it was US herself that actively funded, supported and fueled these Islamic radicals against Soviet Union in the first place:
View attachment 152016
When Americans tasted their own medicine which their former leaders helped to create against archenemy Soviets, they started whining like Israelis, blaming Islam. Excuse me? What happened to the good old 'taking responsibility of your past mistakes' part?
Genesis Of Islamic Radicalism: The US Textbook Project That Taught Afghan Children Terror - NewsRescue.com |
NewsRescue.com
American efforts in Afghanistan were to free Afghan land from non-Afghan invaders. It was never the intent to have the Afghans then expand their campaign into the USSR proper, and certainly not to indoctrinate them with an anti-West hatred. I have no idea how you made the jump from "free Afghanistan from the evil invader" to "attack civilians in the US for some amorphic and yet absolutist cause that can only be resolved through the total annihilation of one side or another."
I am not that kind of person who believes in a black & white version of ideologies such as communism is all bad and capitalism is only good. If capitalism was only good, America wouldn't have worst income and wealth inequality among developed nations. Also if Communism was only bad, Chinese socialist-communist government wouldn't have succeeded in eroding poverty on such a large scale in only few decades!
I also don't believe this is a simple matter. The question of whether income and wealth inequality is bad is still being studied, and the controversy over Piketty's work is a good indication that by no means has the question been settled. I do know that capitalism promotes a set of values (consumer choice, freedom of investment, reward of risk, etc.) that I broadly agree with. And I know that Communism generally opposes these principles, which makes it a hostile ideology.
As far as China, I would assert that China's "socialist-communist government" is actually largely capitalist, but has retained the Communist label for propaganda purposes. On the spectrum of pure capitalism to pure communism, China's behavior over the last 30 years has definitely fallen on the capitalism side, even if it's conducted through state-owned enterprises (which have a long tradition in capitalism, believe it or not). But I am sorry for introducing this topic, since it's tangential.
Coming back to your wild accusations of barbarism, Scandinavian countries are among the most peaceful in the world. I have no idea where you are getting your facts from? We do not have such a thing as violent crime in our streets and our police is not even armed unless they are on a special mission. If you wanna see real barbarism, check out American police brutality against innocents, where they would gladly pull the trigger before they even ask if you are guilty and compare them with IDF brutality in the West Bank against Palestinian civilians. If Scandinavian countries' police was behaving like this on regular bases, it wouldn't have taken long before every citizen was forced to take up arms against such brutalities by the state.
I wasn't referring to domestic society. I have no interest in reforming the way Norwegians or even Pakistanis live their lives in their own countries. I am talking about the export of an absolutist and supremacist ideology that doesn't allow for compromise. There can be no compromise with Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Shabab, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc., because it would destroy the basis of their ideology, which is the absolute rule of Sharia, as interpreted by their self-appointed elites.
Scandinavia was always soft on the PLO, looking past the atrocities it committed, excusing such actions with claims of yearning for independence. Even now, when there is no unified government, Scandinavia continues to push for an insane time-constrained peace agreement, when it's clear the Palestinians would never be able to deliver, even if they had the will (which they don't). Hamas isn't even in complete control of Gaza! What are the Scandinavians thinking? Certainly they aren't thinking rationally, pragmatically, or realistically. As you helpfully pointed out, not all of the world looks like Scandinavia, with its low crime and well-mannered people, so Scandinavian solutions will fail outside of Scandinavia. A negotiated solution along the lines called for by Scandinavia has failed, and will continue to fail ad infinitum, because the parties are not Scandinavian and don't follow Scandinavian rules. But only Europe seems to consistently fail to recognize this.
As I said, I don't want to go down the list of all of the countries at fault, here, but there is a certain hysteria among these countries to solve the Palestinian issue, quickly, no matter the cost in lives, because it will make them feel better. Watch them line up to vote for recognition of Palestine, which will only make the conflict more intractable (Palestinians: why compromise, if we just wait, we will get everything we want. Israelis: Why compromise, no matter what we concede, it's never enough, and they'll be against us anyway). Scandinavians are not stupid, which is why one can only call such proposals insane.
That's what majority of pro-Israelis believe that if the world does not support their cause, they must be supporting Hamas. Again it comes from their black-white view of this world. Majority of Norwegians DO NOT support Hamas, but they support Palestinian right of self-determination and peaceful withdrawal of IDF and settlers from disputed territories. Its questionable why Israel-Palestine still draw that much media attention and criticism since its the oldest lasting conflict that involves higher interests of world powers such as US, Russia, UK and the Arab-Muslim bloc.
The right to self-determination in the abstract is great, but in practice, there must be a Palestinian government to implement it. Right now, there is no unified government, but if there were, it would be dominated by Hamas. Why do you think elections haven't been called for years? Hamas would win. The Norwegians are not stupid, and know this. And yet they continue to push this deal, which will inevitably lead to a Hamas-ruled Palestine. One wonders why Norway (and the rest) are pushing this if they don't support Hamas. It's certainly not helping the Palestinian man on the street.
Regarding world attention, it often seems to me that uniquely in the world, the Palestinians are the only people not allowed by the international community to bear the consequences of defeat. They have initiated hostilities many times (1948, two intifadas, Lebanon, etc.) and lost each time, but almost never have to pay a price for those losses. With no price to pay, it's no wonder why Palestinians keep resorting to violence to get their way, and no wonder why peace hasn't been achieved. If the world would just turn away from the conflict and allow it to play out, a settlement will be reached. It may not be favorable to the Palestinians, but it will likely result in the end of the conflict. (And before anyone says anything, no, I am not calling for genocide).
Ceylal has a big thread on PDF concerning the long-time occupation of the Western Sahara by Morocco. Strange that the world doesn't give a damn about that. You will find nearly no coverage in the West about the failed state of Somalia. Strange that the world doesn't give a damn about that. Again, I can gratuitously go on and on, but you see where I am going with this.
The "international community" has imposed an artificial and anti-historical rule that with a few exceptions, borders cannot change through war. This is not sustainable, as we have seen in Crimea and the tensions in the South China Sea. There is no reason why Israel of all places should be the one place where this rule is enforced.
Jordan is not Palestine! I have read many pro-Israel commentators taking up this mantra against the Palestinian cause. If Israel really saw this disputed territory as integral part of Eretz Israel, what's taking them decades to annex this region into Israel proper? I have asked many Israelis from the right and left, yet none of them have answered this basic question. You can either annex it all, give citizenship to all Palestinians like Israeli Arabs have and end this conflict of disputed territory once and for all! Or you can let Palestinians exercise their right of self-determination and let them have their independent state West of Jordan river. You cannot have BOTH! If Israeli government wishes to live in current state of status quo, then nothing in the world can help them for the next hundred years to bring real peace in the region. Israeli refusal to cede territory for an independent Palestinian Arab state or annex it all and make Palestinians its legal citizens is the core reason why this conflict is still unresolved since Israeli takeover in 1967! They annexed Golan and East Jerusalem and made its residents citizens of Israel. They could have done the same in rest of West Bank and Gaza, and now its too late to do anything but to live in a state of limbo with no prospect of peace in sight.
I'm assuming that your use of "you" in in the casual sense (i.e. you = "one"), as I have no decision making power in this regard. But here's my perspective, based on my reading over the years. Jordan surrendered any claim to the West Bank in the 1980s, so the prospect of simply handing back the West Bank to Jordan as a way to solve the problem is off the table. Annexing the territory and offering citizenship is not practical, because then Israel would de facto become Palestine. Unilaterally withdrawing from the West Bank will have the same results as the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza: terror and rockets. So that's not a practical approach. Negotiating for a Palestinian state has failed for 20 years, and seems unlikely to succeed in the short term, so that's not practical. So the practical solution is status quo: managing the conflict. It's not ideal, it doesn't satisfy anyone, but it's the default choice, because right now, there is no other choice. As you say, limbo.
Of course, thanks to Europe, it's likely that the Palestinians will unilaterally declare statehood, which will at best be met with indifference by Israel, and at worst will cause Israel to retaliate with its own unilateral moves (e.g. annexation of Area C). Good job, Europe! You just made a long-shot chance at peace permanently impossible!
BS. You could never know Mads Gilbert real intentions behind helping Gazans by commenting that far away in America. As I said I have met Gilbert personally and he is a very sincere person and humanist in values. Why would he spent decades of his life treating patients of war in Gaza? Only to do Israel-bashing? It doesn't make any sense.
I am sure he is sincere, but he's a sincere fabricator of reality. Remember his claim about the Israeli use of DIME weapons, or how about his claim of the Israeli use of nail bombs? His wild imagination results in propaganda that gets people killed.
I don't understand why he has spent so long treating Gazans exclusively, and I don't know why he seems particularly motivated to fabricate war crimes claims against Israel that never happened, but some people are simply demented. We can't know his motivations, we can only analyze his actions. And his actions are not the actions of a humanist. Being a physician doesn't make one a humanist. Ayman al-Zawahiri is a surgeon. Does that make him a humanist?
I admire this man as a humanist, who has saved hundreds if not thousands of lives in Gaza. I cannot hate him just because he remains silent on Hamas war crimes and terrorism against Israelis. As you said, world is a lot more complicated than that and if some person is not criticizing Hamas, doesn't mean he support them. As I recall, it was his passion to treat children of war. He loves children, thats it.
He saved hundreds or thousands of lives? How did he do that, as an anesthesiologist? And no humanist would work with Hamas. Certainly no humanist would work with Hamas conditioned on the spewing of propaganda against Israel. There are other organizations through which he could assist Palestinians, but he specifically chose not to go that route.
The facts don't jibe with your perception of the man. I don't doubt your sincerity in trying to help Palestinians, but your time is wasted on a man like this, whose actions do not align with those who want to help Palestinians (as opposed to the Hamas propaganda machine).
Gilbert spoke against Israeli warfare from Gaza when foreign journalists were not allowed in due to "security reasons" back in 2008-2009 conflict with Hamas. Since Israeli security agencies perceive criticism against their government policies as a "threat", its understandable why they barred him entry after recent escalation with Hamas. They were probably afraid Gilbert would report true horrors of war from Gaza's largest hospital.
Al Jazeera doesn't have a problem ranting day after day about Israeli war crimes, reporting from Gaza. And yet your "humanist" has taken it upon himself to remove himself from the supposedly critical task of providing medical care to instead provide endless interviews to international media outlets decrying Israeli war crimes (which he often fabricates, as with his DIME claim). I don't think Israel fears this man in the slightest, he's just one of many anti-Israel propagandists. Why should they assist him in his task?
Its again ignorance from your part as an Israel-supporter. You believe Gilbert bashes Israel because he supports Hamas, when its entirely not the case. He supports Palestinian civilians right to live in peace. In a war, its not implied that each and every individual is backing Hamas terrorism. When Israel replies with disproportionate force, many innocents are caught in the rubble, often children. Gilbert is against Hamas terrorism and wishes Israel to target these terrorists more precisely without using excessive force, like the one they used during recent conflict with Hamas.
There's talk, and then there's action. He makes a lot of claims, but his work with Hamas belies all of those claims.
I am afraid talk of "disproportionate force" is meaningless to me in the context of a war. I don't understand how one can win a war without the use of disproportionate force. Proportionate force is a recipe for endless war. Innocents die in war, it's not a surgical operation. And Israel's civilian/combatant casualty ratio is by no means disproportionate; in fact, it is widely regarded as better than most conflicts have achieved.
Anyway, I am content to give you the final word, if you care to take it; I think my participation has overstayed its welcome in this thread. As I said, people tend to enter these kinds of discussions having already reached a conclusion, and the rest is sophistry. You're a clever guy, so I have no doubt that we could spend pages upon pages going back and forth, line by line, to score points, but to what end? I respect your opinion and perspective on this issue. I can even say I understand it. However, coming from a different culture with a different value system, I don't think it's possible for me to agree with the core of your argument. I'll have to leave it at that.
