Poll: Do you like Israel?

[TheIronRuler]

-snip-

So, Arabs left the land because they were being shot at and they're not being allowed back in because they wouldn't vote to keep Jewish politicians in power... yeah, I can't comprehend how you think this is somehow supposed to make Israel look better to me...

Damn it.
No. The Arabs claimed so. There was no evidence of such actions in the 1948 war of Israeli Independence.
About going back in - They have their own brothers and sisters. Why won't they help them?
Yes, this is a sensitive subject because NOBODY wants these refugees.
But why lay all of the blame of Israel? What about all of the neighboring Muslim countries that can assist them, or the leaders that promised them they will return there after the Jews have been defeated?

-snip-
That *is* racism, though. Defining a race as a nation and vice versa is racist. American as a Nationality is not the same as American as an ethnic group, nor is it for French nor British. But, as you just said, to be Jewish is to be a member of a nation defined by that ethnicity. That is no less racist than Nazis defining Germany by one's racial characteristics and it galls me to think that you believe it is somehow less so here.

Are you bloody stupid?
Are you so thick that you don't understand what a nationality is?]
Here it is, courtesy of Oxford.
Nationality :
1 [mass noun] the status of belonging to a particular nation
2 an ethnic group forming a part of one or more political nations.
What is an ethnic group?
Ethnicity:
[mass noun]
the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition:
the interrelationship between gender, ethnicity, and class
[count noun] :
the diverse experience of women of different ethnicities.
Which means that a Nationality is an ethnic group (ethnic group which has a common history, language, land, religion, customs, etc.) that has political ambitions and want to create a nation.
Jews have a shared religion, history, language and customs. They are an ethnic group.
The Zionist movement wanted to turn that ethnic group into a nationalist group by adding the desire to create a country for said ethnic group.
...
I just educated you.

-snip-

A racial minority within the nation that has a separate government?

What the hell are you talking about?
It doesn't have a separate government, it is INTEGRATED into society and not SEGREGATED as some people, including you, think.

What of the land the settlers take away?

Yes, about that...
There is no country of Palestian. Only the autonomy.
Now, we can't evict them because it would cost too much for the country.
Israel had proposed to let them stay in that territory and make it Israeli territory and in exchange they will swap other lands that don't have houses in them.

What of the bombings in the Gaza Strip or Lebenon? What of the blockade meant to starve the people in Gaza because your government is unhappy with the way they voted?

Hey! This is WAR.
WAR. Do you understand that word? WAR.
We were at WAR with Lebanon.
We were at war with Hezbollah, and now that it had gained power in Gaza and is now the leader of it, we are at war with Gaza. Therefore we are conducting a LEGAL blockade of our enemy.
We can't attack it and try to root Hezbollah, at least no again. You saw the catastrophe that was operation cast lead.
What of the occupation which prevents another sovereign nation from having its own armed forces to defend itself and instead must submit to Israeli checkpoints just to move around their own country? Or do you define these places as Israel, too?

The reason there is never a peace settlement is not because of the Palestinians, but because of Israel. Why should Israel ever agree to anything? Israel already has the best conceivable position, slowly taking more land away from people who can't stop them, controlling their every movement, holding them hostage economically, and all while not allowing them a vote in the Israeli government which controls them. If there were a settlement, justice would dictate that Israel would have to give up far more than it would gain, so why should they ever not walk out of a negotiation that they were only attending in the first place to keep their biggest foreign aid partner, the United States, happy?

Most f the first lines are bullshit.
About the negotiations - It all comes down to the refugees, and nobody wants to f*cking touch that issue.
Everything else is settled - dividing Jerusalem, Water, economics, land swaps - except for the refugees.
The negotiations fall down whenever they reach that bit.
I have no answer for you, but this isn't the fault of Israel and if you try to look at it objectively you will see that letting them return will undermine the democracy of Israel as a democracy and as a national home for the Jews.

If there were any actual hope of Palestinians regaining the land they had even in 1967 through peaceful means, I would not hesitate to condemn them for their acts of violence, but as long as Israel has no reason to actually negotiate, I have no more problem with Palestinian violence today than I have with Irish violence against the British in the 1920s.

The image of 1949-1967 is supposed to be the future palestine and how it would look like geographically. The newest map is bullshit.
If you look at the Oslo treaties and the security arrangements you'll see that the West bank autonomy is divided into three different parts - A, B, C.
Area A is in full palestinian control. Area B has the presence of Israeli military police.
Area C is under dispute at the moment, which means there aren't any there or there are just villages that nobody cares about.

 

[Dr. Dice Lord]

Yes, as a US citizen I support our middle-eastern allies and I always will. Not just Israel, I hope against hope that Iraq will turn into a better place someday soon as well. The Gaza strip bombings were a little overdone, but when can you say the United Stated military, or any other for that matter, is irreproachable? As a nation that was founded in war, in one of the most religiously tumultuous places in the world, I think Israel has done quite well. Military conflict is always going to be ugly, and people should be glad we've moved away from mass carpet bombing of cities, or the rapes and pillages of more ancient times.

Indeed, they have problems and aggression to work though, but what country doesn't these days? The world is a dangerous place.

 

[Harbinger_]

Not a clue what I think because I have no idea whats going on.

 

[Therumancer]

[
The reason there is never a peace settlement is not because of the Palestinians, but because of Israel. Why should Israel ever agree to anything? Israel already has the best conceivable position, slowly taking more land away from people who can't stop them, controlling their every movement, holding them hostage economically, and all while not allowing them a vote in the Israeli government which controls them. If there were a settlement, justice would dictate that Israel would have to give up far more than it would gain, so why should they ever not walk out of a negotiation that they were only attending in the first place to keep their biggest foreign aid partner, the United States, happy?

If there were any actual hope of Palestinians regaining the land they had even in 1967 through peaceful means, I would not hesitate to condemn them for their acts of violence, but as long as Israel has no reason to actually negotiate, I have no more problem with Palestinian violence today than I have with Irish violence against the British in the 1920s.

My basic attitude on the whole thing is that the Palestinians are a conquered people, and understandably don't like that. The situation largely continues due to outside influances keeping it alive since the muslim world doesn't like the Jewish people and that includes most of the oil producing nations. By siding with the Muslims here it helps earn brownie points for those who want to trade for oil. This leads to the tons of pressure being put on both Isreal and the US.

Now, what I'm saying here does not make me a very nice guy, and there is no reason to even point that out to me. In general I have no real problem with making everywhere on that map of yours Isreal, and for the Palestinians to either get used to being an ethnic minority in Isreal like many other conquered peoples before them, or relocating to other more culturally similar Muslim governed nations in the region.

Right now I think this whole thing is dragged on artificually and becomes increasingly ridiculous. Whether we (the US) should have given the Jews back their traditional homeland given that it was already occupied, and the whole morality of the resulting conquest is an enduring question, but the bottom line is it happened. I simplify things as Isreal being a US ally, Palestine is not, and I don't think we can consider the Muslim world our friends in the best of times, so I tend to pretty much support Isreal beyond anyone else in the region.

Now granted, despite being an evil bastard by most standards, had I been looking to create a nation for the Jews after World War II, I would have personally considered setting it up on any one of a number of fine island chains that the US has under control as it's territory. We have all kinds of naval bases all over the ocean, and all these islands that have been sold to cruise lines and such and turned into resorts. Many of those islands/chains can be fairly self sufficient, and truthfully strike me as being a nicer place to live than Isreal which is a desert where they are surrounded by people who hate them. It would have probably worked out better in the long term, but that didn't happen, and we are where we are.

I know you and others will doubtlessly disagree with me, but that's my opinion.

 

[Whispering Cynic]

There was a time I would say I was indifferent to the issue and that I was willing to hear all sides of the argument to make an informed decision. Today the answer is a definite NO. I'm sick of hearing about Israel, or anything Israel-related. Either you solve your problems WITHOUT dragging the rest of the world into it, or be ready for the rest of the world to solve them for you. With nukes.

I like the idea that involves obliterating the entire area with nukes and paving over it. Elegant.

 

[Nuclear Pancake]

No, i find the country to be rather shallow and padantic.

 

[Omnific One]

I have problems with them, but for the most part I support them, just because they are one of the few US-affiliated nations with a willingness to take action.

Also, a better poll would have been nice.

 

[Jumplion]

Ugh, I'm going to hate myself for responding to this, buuuuuuuuuuuuut......

So the solution to this problem, of which you describe people alive today remembering the time they lived on their own land, is to evict more people out of the land (7+ million)? I really find this "solution" detrimental to everyone involved because it will only make the situation cyclical. It only ignores the bigger, core issue of relieving tension and just trying to get everyone to play nice.

And trying to compare terrorist organizations who not only want to destroy Israel completely, but bring down western civilization and whatnot, to organizations during WWII, one of the largest conflicts in history with shit going down yo, is kind of weird to say the least.

Bleh, me and my big fat mouth and itchy fingers. I've started something, didn't I?

I already replied to The Iron Ruler and there would be too much overlap if I replied to you entirely, but the clarification I can make to you is this: I believe Israel should back out to the 1967 territorial lines and recognize Palestine as a fully sovereign nation, allowed to collect its own taxes, govern its own people, and have its own standing police and armed forces. Israel also needs to reform with a written constitution that does not call for a racist definition of the nation. If Israel did all of these things, I would be satisfied with Israel. There is no need for the destruction of Israel, but the Israeli government needs to learn to let go.

And that probably would have happened if they had agreed to the UN's two-state plan, which I still think would have not been ideal. Your plan would still involve evicting thousands more people out of their homes, and I really don't see how retroactively going back to the arbitrary borders of yester-year would do anything to help the situation. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Israel would agree to this, yet the others would demand more land from them, thus repeating history. Cyclical.

In a way, it's kind of like how Europe arbitrarily formed African boundaries. Can't really do anything about them now as it would just clusterfuck the situation even more. So what do we do? Fuck if I know, but I don't think that rearranging boundaries will help in any way. History is moving forward, Israel is here whether anyone likes it or not. We can't move to the past to solve the future. Learn from it, sure, but not as a template of what to do next.

 

[DarkRyter]

I feel no positive feelings towards the supposed state of Israel.

 

[TheIronRuler]

I feel no positive feelings towards the supposed state of Israel.

I don't like your choice of words.

 

[DarkRyter]

I feel no positive feelings towards the supposed state of Israel.

I don't like the way you phrased the sentence

The supposed state of Israel, I hold no positive feelings towards.

Now with smooth jazz.

 

[Alon Shechter]

Well, I happen to be an Israeli, and not just any Israeli.
Everyone knows Israelis are badass.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BadassIsraeli
Proof that Israelis are badass no matter what where or when.
You hear, that Iron Ruler?
WE'RE BADASS AND PROUD!

[small]I'm joking.[/small]

[small]But seriously, we're badass.[/small]

 

[Comrade_Beric]

Ugh, I'm going to hate myself for responding to this, buuuuuuuuuuuuut......

So the solution to this problem, of which you describe people alive today remembering the time they lived on their own land, is to evict more people out of the land (7+ million)? I really find this "solution" detrimental to everyone involved because it will only make the situation cyclical. It only ignores the bigger, core issue of relieving tension and just trying to get everyone to play nice.

And trying to compare terrorist organizations who not only want to destroy Israel completely, but bring down western civilization and whatnot, to organizations during WWII, one of the largest conflicts in history with shit going down yo, is kind of weird to say the least.

Bleh, me and my big fat mouth and itchy fingers. I've started something, didn't I?

I already replied to The Iron Ruler and there would be too much overlap if I replied to you entirely, but the clarification I can make to you is this: I believe Israel should back out to the 1967 territorial lines and recognize Palestine as a fully sovereign nation, allowed to collect its own taxes, govern its own people, and have its own standing police and armed forces. Israel also needs to reform with a written constitution that does not call for a racist definition of the nation. If Israel did all of these things, I would be satisfied with Israel. There is no need for the destruction of Israel, but the Israeli government needs to learn to let go.

And that probably would have happened if they had agreed to the UN's two-state plan, which I still think would have not been ideal. Your plan would still involve evicting thousands more people out of their homes, and I really don't see how retroactively going back to the arbitrary borders of yester-year would do anything to help the situation. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Israel would agree to this, yet the others would demand more land from them, thus repeating history. Cyclical.

In a way, it's kind of like how Europe arbitrarily formed African boundaries. Can't really do anything about them now as it would just clusterfuck the situation even more. So what do we do? Fuck if I know, but I don't think that rearranging boundaries will help in any way. History is moving forward, Israel is here whether anyone likes it or not. We can't move to the past to solve the future. Learn from it, sure, but not as a template of what to do next.

The border isn't arbitrary, it's historical. If the UN sat down and drew a new line, that would be arbitrary. Neither side would be happy with the '67 lines? Good. That's how you know it's fair. And saying "we can't move to the past to solve the future" is like saying in 1920 that everyone needs to just accept that Ireland is gone and that the British are there to stay. "No point looking back, let's just go forward."

Things have been pretty rocky in Ireland in the last 100 years too, but they fought (some might say through terrorist means) and regained most of their land, but not all of it, and now today Ireland is one of the most peaceful nations on the planet. Israel has the same power over Palestine now that the British had over Ireland then, and Israel has just as much motivation to let go, which is to say almost none. I honestly believe, though, that if Israel let go, while there would still be violence from both sides for years to come, in 100 years the region will be as civil as Ireland is today. If they don't let go and they don't exterminate the Palestinians entirely, then the fighting will never end.

 

[Strophios]

Damn it.
No. The Arabs claimed so. There was no evidence of such actions in the 1948 war of Israeli Independence.
About going back in - They have their own brothers and sisters. Why won't they help them?
Yes, this is a sensitive subject because NOBODY wants these refugees.
But why lay all of the blame of Israel? What about all of the neighboring Muslim countries that can assist them, or the leaders that promised them they will return there after the Jews have been defeated?

That's not true. There is in fact abundant evidence. The Palestinian refugees fled due Israeli military attacks, the threat of attacks, and expulsions. There may or may not have been an active policy of expulsions by the Israelis, but expulsions were ordered by the Israeli high command. Also, there is of course a whole documented variety of Israeli atrocities including massacres, rape, and torture. Naturally the Arabs are not guiltless either; there were instances of Palestinian leaders ordering/convincing villagers to leave and neither are they guiltless when it comes to civilian deaths; however, to claim that the primary responsibility for the refugee problem does not rest on Israel is unsupportable and untrue.

If you'd like further reading on this topic, I'd recommend Benny Morris' "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited" (2004). This is some excellent scholarship and was groundbreaking work when the first version was released in 1988. Furthermore, it's worth noting that Benny Morris is an Israeli historian, a self-proclaimed Zionist, served as a paratrooper in the 1967 war and was injured (and thus discharged from the army) during the War of Attrition. Just in case it might have thought I was trying to point you to a biased source.

On the subject of the 1948 war though, I'm curious: what sort of narrative do you have in your head? Is it the classic Israeli David vs. the Arab Goliath? I don't want to presume, but if it is, and since you seem to put such stock in educating people, I thought I do you the service of explaining how that view is incorrect. Simply, historically, factually incorrect.

The image of 1949-1967 is supposed to be the future palestine and how it would look like geographically. The newest map is bullshit.
If you look at the Oslo treaties and the security arrangements you'll see that the West bank autonomy is divided into three different parts - A, B, C.

That newest map is far closer to the present truth than the 1967 also provided. In fact, it probably comes pretty close to demonstrating the restrictions on movement etc. which the Palestinians face within their own homeland.

Oh, also, on that note: Settlements!*

*Explanatory Post Script: Your few words on settlements thus far have been woefully inadequate. The settlements are immoral, illegal, and (to the best of my knowledge) ongoing. Also, government supported. Oh, and underhanded attempts to sidestep negotiations by altering "facts on the ground" (the most blatant example of this being Jerusalem).

Edit: Also, obligatory: "Hi all, first post." In retrospect, I probably could have picked a friendlier thread for that.

 

[ultimateownage]

All I could think of when I read this was The Lonely Island.
'Damn Israel, always stirring up shit!'

 

[DazBurger]

Have nothing against Jews, I hate Judaism as much as I hate any other religion, but I dislike Israel and the israelittes.

But only because they are brought up with the vision that everybody hates them, and then act accordingly.

 

[Boba Frag]

Wow, you think this may be controversial?

From the first- let me be abundantly clear: I think that killing innocent people is wrong, it doesn't matter who they are. I think that as regards the bitter turmoil and tension that exists between the State of Israel and its predominantly Arab neighbours, that there are victims on both sides of that broad, complicated and sometimes shifting fence.

I've only met a very small number of Israelis and had absolutely no problem with them. I have yet to meet anyone from the Palestinian side of the conflict, but I'd be glad to.

I've never visited Israel or the Levant in general so I cannot give any opinion as to the climate or landscape but I've heard it's beautiful.

I have absolutely no interest in preaching from on high about the evils of one side or another, yet the fact remains that the state of Israel is highly militarised and occupies territory that the international community believes it should vacate.

I'm Irish and I'm doing a Masters in International Relations so I do have something of an idea of what I'm talking about before I get anyone leaping at me.
My research focuses on the UNIFIL mission on the border between Lebanon and Israel.

Israel is quite correct in defending itself from attack, but I have to say that it could probably profit from trusting the UN mandated force more.
I have many problems and criticisms to level at the Israeli defence policies, but I would like to stress that I don't see Israel as a bad guy so much as a nation caught in an extremely difficult set of complex realities.
Violence on either side simply begets more violence. The inability of either side to compromise as regards new settlements, the fledgling Palestinian Authority, pervasive and historically entrenched distrust and grievances are all problems that take a very long time to tackle and resolve, if, indeed, they can be resolved.

To re-iterate: knee jerk military responses don't exactly give Israel a good image, but like any people in the world, I'd have to experience them first hand a bit closer.
The Israeli citizens I've met seemed very nice.
Someday I hope to visit the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem so at the same time I'm rather glad that the city is well policed with a robust security presence.

On the other hand, I'd like the Israeli government to cease faking Irish passports when it feels the need to do some wetwork in other countries.

 

[TheIronRuler]

-snip-
Oh, also, on that note: Settlements!*

*Explanatory Post Script: Your few words on settlements thus far have been woefully inadequate. The settlements are immoral, illegal, and (to the best of my knowledge) ongoing. Also, government supported. Oh, and underhanded attempts to sidestep negotiations by altering "facts on the ground" (the most blatant example of this being Jerusalem).

Edit: Also, obligatory: "Hi all, first post." In retrospect, I probably could have picked a friendlier thread for that.

Yes, settlements.
The reason why I didn't discuss it and talk about the solution to the problem (which is swapping territory) and not the problem is because I'm against it.
I can't defend it and I'm ashamed of the actions taken by my government.
On a side note, this is a fairly known strategy. Here it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_and_stockade
Nice reading material.

 

[tipp6353]

No.

I've read too many newspapers and watched too many news broadcasts to ever view Israel with anything other than cold contempt.

The nicest thing I can say is that I respect them for having the strength to establish themselves and hold on like they have.

Thats why I don't believe almost anything media outlets tell me...

 

[funguy2121]

Poll is two-dimensional and broken (no offense). I'll try to answer it the way it was phrased, however.

Do I like Israel?

I rather like a lot of Jews. Einstein, Woody Allen, Spielberg, Joel Silver, Sarah Silverman, Natalie Portman.

I'm impressed by a lot of what Israelis have done to protect themselves. Golda Meyer was a badass. When people assert that perhaps a woman couldn't be president, I don't mention Margaret Thatcher or Hillary Clinton - I talk about Golda fuckin' Meyer. Israel's survived some pretty damned stacked odds in some of their wars (albeit with US support). And every citizen, of both genders, has to serve in the military. Pretty impressive.

I am not impressed with the treatment of some of their enemies. Not that I'm a huge fan of the PLO or Hamas, but every news report of a skirmish between Israeli police/military and Palestinians ends in "7 Israeli dead, twelve wounded...23 Palestinians dead, 40 wounded."

So if OP is asking if I'd pick a side in the aforementioned conflict, then no. But if OP is asking if I think they are a truly remarkable race whose numbers have done astounding things that forever changed humanity for the better, then yes.

Also: I'm Natalie Portman's baby daddy.