I'd like to discuss mainly the relationship between international perceptiona and policy. I'm not all that interested in another discussion on whether Israel should build settlements on the West Bank or not, although I'm happy to include it in our discussion.
Germany recently abstained from a vote about Israel for the first time in the country's history, where it consistently voted with Israel on these topics. It was pretty shocking news in Europe. And I think support for the Israelis is deteriorating generally.

"I mean, these actions are largely perceived as immoral and illegal, shouldn't that be enough, for a nation with its only real allies at a large distance, to question the wisdom of such actions?"

You might ask why the US (Israel's only major ally) supports Israel.

"I am very much in favor of the "idea" of Israel; the jewish people has historically suffered and been quite small, so they deserve their own state"

I might make the same claim for Palestine - they deserve their own state. And Israeli actions have shown that they are not interested in such...

But then Israel exists not because you or I think it deserves to exist, it exists because Israelis fought for their own existence. After years of experience fighting in the Polish, and Russian armies, and support from the US in the form of military aid. The Israelis defeated many enemies who attacked.

If that is the basis for their state then they have set an excellent precedent for the Palestinians. Who will continue to fight for their homeland, no matter how many Israelis they must kill. Equally right, equally wrong.

The US is not Israel's only major ally. It has allies in Europe as well, except I believe the ties are weakening.

The Palestinians, in terms of self-destructiveness of their politics, are much further downhill than the Israelis are. Their politics are suicidal. The absence of a birth control policy in the Gaza strip and massive international aid means the population of this area exploded, without the means to provide for itself, leaving a generation of frustrated teens throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers.

But Israel used to be (if I'm not mistaken) much more sensitive to its somewhat more skeptical allies in Europe. It now seems to have decided that the US opinion is all that matters and I'm not sure if it's so safe they put all their eggs in one basket..

From what I understand, the settlements are largely driven by civilian vigilante's. The Israeli government has made efforts to stop it in the past with minimal success. I'm not sure what the current situation is but I have the impression that the government doesn't see stopping the settlements as (a) feasible, or (b) politically viable.

You could also consider that the strong will always oppress the weak. Whatever bias you have towards a particular political state that has remained a constant fact throughout history. The stronger, more technically advanced political states/culture nearly always replaces those with less technology. Israel has advanced technology with which it has, and will continue to oppress others. Look at large political states today like the United States, and China. They aren't the most friendly guys out there.

There's also the victim's destiny here where Nazi's oppressed the Jews, now Israel is oppressing others. In the end, right and wrong don't matter. It's what is.

Basically this when all is said and done.

"But then Israel exists not because you or I think it deserves to exist, it exists because Israelis fought for their own existence. After years of experience fighting in the Polish, and Russian armies, and support from the US in the form of military aid. The Israelis defeated many enemies who attacked.

If that is the basis for their state then they have set an excellent precedent for the Palestinians. Who will continue to fight for their homeland, no matter how many Israelis they must kill. Equally right, equally wrong."

I see that comparison very often, that what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians is comparable to what Hitler did to the Jews. Frankly, I don't buy it.

I think that the consideration b) that you mention could be a short-sighted one. It neglects the political viability in a more international context and it also neglects what seems to me the more obvious long-term development; a secularization of the western world (to which Israel belongs in a sense) may diminish the enthusiasm with which Israelis treat their more orthodox countrymen. (Possibly though, they are the ones that reproduce faster, I wonder how these dynamics play out.)

Please don't do history a disservice by comparing the Jews to Nazis. They are nothing at all like them. The closest thing I would think of is the apartheid South African government, and even that may be taking it a bit far.

I, personally, am of the opinion that Israel could have kept Sinai if they had wanted to, and have the right to keep the Golan Heights. Its no different than what Russia has done with Georgia. Palestine, that's another issue.

But you're right that due to the way in which Israel has responded to international criticism, there is an increasingly negative perception of them. However, this is a politics issue, not a policy one. Israel is becoming increasingly radicalized, with Orthodox populations growing at a much, much faster rate than others. This means Orthodox views must be given more weight, and woe be to any politician that pisses them off. Personally, they can go rot in hell for their views, but Israeli politicians have to cater to them the same way they cater to the radical right in the USA. Its just these people are in support of settlements and such, so politically it will cost Netanyahu a lot to try and crack down on settlement building.

Well it' is different in the sense that Israel is not mass murdering Palestinian's comparable to what the Nazi's did, but it is still oppression. I suspect in reality it just goes back to my assertion that those in power, with better technology oppress others.

I agree that such political viable decision is a short sighted goal. The best choice might not be what will get politicians elected, though maybe not. Who knows. I think that Israeli citizens and politicians basically want to "win" rather than compromise.

The west is secularizing and that probably is reducing Israeli's popularity. Also the fall of the soviet union and communism eliminates the original purpose of the American-Israeli alliance.

"The European Union has been criticized for funding Israeli-based political NGOs that attempt to undermine Israeli policies and preach "division and confrontation".[8] NGO Monitor claims they have identified over 48 million dollars that have been allocated to Israeli and Palestinian NGOs by the European Commission.[9] As a response, the Israeli Knesset attempted to pass two bills that would limit the amount that a foreign government or organization could gift. However, these two bills were never passed into law."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93European_Union_relations

Basically, the EU does not give Israel weapons.

The US does provide direct military aid. Frankly, there is a difference between supporting and trading.

European nations are friendly with Israel, but do threaten to boycott trade on occasion.

"Well it' is different in the sense that Israel is not mass murdering Palestinian's comparable to what the Nazi's did, but it is still oppression."
-which makes the Nazi comparison completely unwarranted, as they are primarily known for and associated to mass murder of a group of people. A better comparison would be virtually any other nation being cruel to its neighbors, such as Russia to Georgia as goldfinger mentioned. Let's keep it clean.

"However, this is a politics issue, not a policy one. Israel is becoming increasingly radicalized, with Orthodox populations growing at a much, much faster rate than others. This means Orthodox views must be given more weight, and woe be to any politician that pisses them off."

+1... finally someone gets the problem with Israel without being stupidly critical of Israel.

"However, this is a politics issue, not a policy one. Israel is becoming increasingly radicalized, with Orthodox populations growing at a much, much faster rate than others. This means Orthodox views must be given more weight, and woe be to any politician that pisses them off."

I suppose you didn't pay any attention to the Israeli election last month. Likud and the rightwing parties got spanked, while the centrists rallied. If Netanyahu hadn't brilliantly merged his party with Lieberman's then Yair Lapid would have the largest party and possibly be Prime Minister.


"I, personally, am of the opinion that Israel could have kept Sinai if they had wanted to, and have the right to keep the Golan Heights. Its no different than what Russia has done with Georgia. Palestine, that's another issue."

It is a violation of international law for states to gain territory through warfare. That means that Israel couldn't have kept the Sinai and can't keep the Golan Heights unless there is a treaty which transfers the territory. The same also applies to East Jerusalem and the settlements which crisscross the West Bank. Now, illegal doesn't necessarily mean bad. Israel would be a fool to give Syria the Golan back until the two countries were really at peace, and a unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank would proably go just about as well as the ones from South Lebanon and the Gaza Strip did. But military and strategic necessity does not legitimacy make.

I support Israel getting East Jerusalem and accept that the populous settlement blocs will have to become an official part of Israel, but this can ONLY happen as a result of a final peace agreement between a Palestinian state and Israel. We can't expect the Palestinians to make a deal when we ask them to accept the loss of their capital and wide swaths of their land as settled issues before negotiations even begin. And the Israel-Palestine conflict needs a deal badly. Things can't go on the way they are.

Thanks, Invictus. I found that very interesting.

@Invictus, Russia has setup an independent state in georgia, which depends on russia for only a few things, like international security...

And Israel could well have kept the Sinai, but did it want to? was there a reason to annoy Egypt? Was there a bigger cost associated with defending that area?

There are very serious financial implications of peace in the Middle East.
How much money does the US and the UK in particular receive in arms sales to the region, how many jobs would be lost in the US and the UK as a result of peace in the region.
There is a lot of money tied up in a phoney war with the Arabs, nobody gives a damn about the plight of the Palestinians apart from dissident groups like Hezbollah and Al Qaeda.
The Israeli govt listen to the rhetoric coming out of Washington and Brussels and they know it is all bullshit.
The West have made the Israelis the bad guys and the targets.
Maybe one day they will realize this, they are the pawns, the expendables.
How quite are the Saudis, Kuwaitis, et al on the light of their Arab brothers, the silence is deafening.
If they wanted to they could hold the West to ransom by turning off the oil supplies and demanding action be taken by the UN (e.g. they actually enforce all of the resolutions they have passed against the State of Israel).
The truth is they are all playing the game (and getting rich on it) and as long as we call anybody who questions this logic terrorists or the axis of evil then nothing will ever change.
If we ever want to stop international terrorism then we have to at least try to understand what fuels people to join the terrorist cause.
Once we understand what it is maybe we can reduce the terror threat...... but not when our economies are so dependent on the money that the threat generates.
Capitalism is fueled by greed and by war and by consumption, but who wants to give up on Capitalism ..... who is brave enough, no politician I know.
Israel and Palestine is just a side show, a small part of the jigsaw.

quite s/be quiet
light s/be plight

"Russia has setup an independent state in georgia, which depends on russia for only a few things, like international security...

And Israel could well have kept the Sinai, but did it want to? was there a reason to annoy Egypt? Was there a bigger cost associated with defending that area?"


Russia has set up two puppets which rely on Russia for their very existence.


Just because you keep saying Israel could have kept the Sinai doesn't make it so. States cannot acquire territory through warfare. Period. Unless and until Egypt had ceded the land to Israel in a treaty, Israel would have had no legitimate claim to the Sinai.

This is an international norm accepted by literally every country on Earth, and is the reason that even the United States has not recognized Israel's annexations of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. You can't bend a bedrock rule like that just because of sympathy with Israel. In the end, letting Israel annex land it took in war will act as precedent for naked aggression by other states in the future, possibly even against Israel.

But perhaps you just mean Israel could have kept the Sinai in the sense that Egypt couldn't have possibly taken it back in a war. That may be true. Probably not, considering how Egypt had real successes in the Yom Kippur War and its huge population advantage over Israel, but it could be. But then we're really just talking about military and strategic matters, and not about anything like a permanent, stable solution.

"I suppose you didn't pay any attention to the Israeli election last month. Likud and the rightwing parties got spanked, while the centrists rallied."

I don't see the contradiction at all. Netanyahu's party is becoming increasingly radicalized, so he must cater to the radical base. The average party member does like this, so they leave and vote centrist. How is this any different than what's going on in the US Republican Party?

"It is a violation of international law for states to gain territory through warfare."

When Germany gets some of its land back, let me know. Or, for that matter when India gives up some of the territory it has annexed, let me know. Every nation has done so at some point, and some in recent history. Why make Israel the only pariah?

@Ora - "And Israel could well have kept the Sinai, but did it want to?"

No, it didn't want to. I was just saying that it had every right to if it so chose. But they'd have been crazy to keep that place.

"When Germany gets some of its land back, let me know. Or, for that matter when India gives up some of the territory it has annexed, let me know. Every nation has done so at some point, and some in recent history. Why make Israel the only pariah?"

The prohibition of states gaining land through warfare means land can only be transferred through treaty. So Germany, having signed treaties ceding various areas, is a moot example that just shows your ignorance. Germany's taking of land from Poland, for example, was illegal since it was done without a treaty, but Poland's gains in 1918 and 1945 were legal since there was one. Pretty simple, actually. As for India, I assume you're talking about the Portuguese territories it took. It's occupation was illegal and it was called out on it till Portugal gave up its claim after its revolution.

Israel is not the only country that is the "only pariah" on this issue. Indonesia's claim to have annexed East Timor was never accepted. The Soviet annexation of the Baltic states was never accepted by the West. China just acknowledged Sikkim as a part of India in the last five years or so. The world never acknowledged Iraq's annexation of Kuwait. I agree Israel does get an unfair treatment by the UN and too much scrutiny is paid to this conflict relative to others, but that does not change the fact that no state is permitted under international law to keep territory gained in war without a treaty ceding it remains.


"I was just saying that it had every right to if it so chose."

Just plain wrong.


"Netanyahu's party is becoming increasingly radicalized, so he must cater to the radical base. The average party member does like this, so they leave and vote centrist. How is this any different than what's going on in the US Republican Party?"

The right is weaker in this Knesset than the last, so the claim that Israel is getting so radicalized is a bit silly. I never said Likud couldn't be, but your original point was about Israel as a whole, and the success of the center proves the opposite. And its not like the GOP since there has been no exodus to another party here.

"It is a violation of international law for states to gain territory through warfare."

Hope you aren't of the kind that thinks that Palestine has any business sending rockets into Israel then. They are simply doing that for fun; it has no territorial aspirations behind it. They don't want to become their own country through the decimation of Israel or anything.

I won't be libeled like that. Terrorist attacks on Israel are inexcusable.

And way to ignore the basic premise of my argument, which is just a regurgitation of universally accepted international law. If the United States doesn't recognize Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights it can hardly be a swivel-eyed anti-Israel position.

"The Lord's our shepherd," says the psalm, but just in case, we better keep a military.

That last bit on the parties should say "The average party member *doesn't* like this"

Its a rough comparison, since there is a Parliamentary system in Israel and a two-party system in the US. But I wasn't lying about Israel becoming more radicalized. The difference here is that the Orthodox in Israel don't vote (which, come to think of it puts a slight flaw in my politics argument), but they do have *9* children on average. This article puts it up nicely.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/in-israel-tensions-grow-between-ultra-orthodox-and-less-strict-jews/article7508965/

In regards to the Sinai - I meant if they had wanted to, they could have physically occupied it. Its sparsely populated, and they kicked the almighty hell out of the Egyptian army - which would have been unable to take it back.

I just don't think territorial acquisition should be allowed in treaties signed at gunpoint. Treaties signed at gunpoint in general I disapprove of (by gunpoint, I mean they are in your capital, pointing guns at you). The Treaty of Versailles at WW1 I would call legitimate, as well as the treaty the US signed with Japan at the end of WW2 - Japan just had to give up all conquered territories, I believe.

'No, it didn't want to. I was just saying that it had every right to if it so chose. But they'd have been crazy to keep that place.'

right on what basis? victory in war, so you support the Palestinians who try to kill Israelis, because they have the right to wage war in order to gain the territory that is Israel.

I'm glad to see you've thought about this...

"they kicked the almighty hell out of the Egyptian army - which would have been unable to take it back."

Egypt did take back the Sinai - in 1973. It was only the swift resupply and replacement of lost IDF equipment by the US that allowed Israel to counterattack and drive the Egyptians back to the Canal. It was the shock of the initial defeat of the '73 war that made Israel realize that Egypt was a genuine military threat to Israel in the long run, which eventually resulted in Israel buying peace with Egypt with American foreign aid money.

Merh....I'm underthinking all this and contradicting myself. I didn't know I'd come under such scrutiny.

Initial setbacks notwithstanding, if the Yom Kippur War had lasted another week, the Israeli Army would have occupied Cairo. But I agree that Egypt's early limited success in the war gave Egypt sufficient standing to bargain for peace.

If the Israelis had reached Cairo there wouldn't be a northern hemisphere anymore.