The Jerusalem Syndrome

[Figleaf]

I'm puzzled why Israel's apologists have begun to take this particular line in recent months. What value is really gained in a public relations strategy based on "Yeah, but not as bad as Them."?

Anyway, there are a number of explanations for the greater attention paid to the middle east conflict in 'Western' discourse than to conflicts in Africa, for example. In particular:

-Israel to some extent a creature of the modern international order and so has a legacy of intense attention from the wider UN community.

-Along the same lines, the conflict in that area is a legacy of the failure of the modern international order in an institutional sense, and so receives greater institutional attention still, compared to non-institutionalized conflicts that crop up, like Darfur.

-Israel and its Arab neighbors have more connections to the lives of people in 'the west' than other parts of the world, both in terms of family and social connections between people, and in light of the Biblical cultural legacy of Judeo-Christianity (not to mention the strategic importance of the larger region).

Because it is self-defeating, indeed suicidal, for Israel (and indeed the US) to be held to impossibly high standards. Both have serious enemies, and the issue should not be whether Israel/US fights with one hand tied behind their back, or both hands, while their enemy fights with missilized civilian aircraft, exploding 17 year olds, etc.

In the other regional conflicts, i.e. Dharfur, all parties fight with gloves off. Israel is asking to be compared against a standard where others are far more villainous than Israel.

It strikes me as an easier matter to defend against 17year olds with bombs strapped on than against cruise missiles travelling at hundreds of miles per hour fired from hundreds of miles away.

The problem with your stance, jbg, is that when analyzing the right or wrong of a conflict, the choice of weaponry is only an ancillary issue to the rightness of the participants' respective causes.

[jbg]

The problem with your stance, jbg, is that when analyzing the right or wrong of a conflict, the choice of weaponry is only an ancillary issue to the rightness of the participants' respective causes.

Round and 'round and 'round we go. For you, the obvious civility and civilization of Israel does not trump the fierce, sadistic violence of the Arab world. Your morality, and lack of support of Western freedoms, is downright pathetic.

[moderateamericain]

The reason i hold Israel to a higher standard is because in my mind they are a fully functional state, do i fault them for not appeasing the Arab world, not a damn bit. I expect less out of Syria or Lebanon then I do out of Israel. The Arabs, in my opinion, have brought a lot of there anguish involving the Jews onto themselves. Therefore my sympathy is limited. But you are right in pointing out that media coverage is skewed toward whatever the news media wants to express.

[Figleaf]

The problem with your stance, jbg, is that when analyzing the right or wrong of a conflict, the choice of weaponry is only an ancillary issue to the rightness of the participants' respective causes.

Round and 'round and 'round we go. For you, the obvious civility and civilization of Israel does not trump the fierce, sadistic violence of the Arab world.

Indeed, even if your characterization were fair, there is no such 'trump'. International law, the Declaration of Human rights, the facts of history, and basic justice require that the Palestinian people be allowed their state, yet successive governments of Israel have speciously contrived to deny it.

Your morality, and lack of support of Western freedoms, is downright pathetic.

Your need to speak falsely of me is pathetic.

[jbg]

Indeed, even if your characterization were fair, there is no such 'trump'. International law, the Declaration of Human rights, the facts of history, and basic justice require that the Palestinian people be allowed their state, yet successive governments of Israel have speciously contrived to deny it.

Very simple. Where would you then put Israel?

Your morality, and lack of support of Western freedoms, is downright pathetic.

Your need to speak falsely of me is pathetic.

See the portion of the post of yours I quoted above, for starters. Given the Jews' trajectory in pre-WW II Europe, and the lack of a welcome elsewhere in the world, being anti-Israel is being anti-Jewish. No escaping that.

[Figleaf]

Indeed, even if your characterization were fair, there is no such 'trump'. International law, the Declaration of Human rights, the facts of history, and basic justice require that the Palestinian people be allowed their state, yet successive governments of Israel have speciously contrived to deny it.

Very simple. Where would you then put Israel?

I'm not sure I totally grasp your question, but I think we've discussed some of this before.

If I had been in charge of the matter at the end of WWII, I would have tried to either (a} find a territory for a Jewish state somewhere where the neighbors would better appreciate the value of having it there (frankly not a hard sell -- under less conflicted circumstances most developing states would be happy to have a neighbor like Israel), or (b} to make a stronger pitch/a better deal for the affected Palestinian population.

And if I had been the postwar western powers, I wouldn't have let it decend into a free for all in 1948. The abdication of responsibility with the job half done was a grave error.

If you mean today, where would I put Israel, I know we've discussed this. It is not in my or anyone's power to 'put' Israel anywhere. Israel is a sovereign state with a population entitled to self-determination. There is no way to remove or eradicate Israel now that would not involve crimes in international law. I believe what must happen now is that Israel should withdraw to it's border at the Green Line, the Palestinian state should come into existence in their assigned territory (with no pretentious and humiliating supervision clauses), substantial reparations should be paid to the Palestinians (from the Western powers for the defaults of 1947-49), Israel should buy out the rights of return on an individual basis, and Jerusalem should be made an international city under UN heritage protection and assigned to Israel as trustee for the forseeable future. At first, probably there should be a robust, impartial international buffer force deployed to prevent disruptions of the peace.

Your morality, and lack of support of Western freedoms, is downright pathetic.

Your need to speak falsely of me is pathetic.

See the portion of the post of yours I quoted above, for starters. Given the Jews' trajectory in pre-WW II Europe, and the lack of a welcome elsewhere in the world, being anti-Israel is being anti-Jewish. No escaping that.

I utterly reject the whole of that comment. Nothing I have said can sensibly be construed to oppose western freedoms. It's simply an absurd suggestion -- the flailings of a sputtering lunatic.

An it is also totally wrong to suggest that opinion about the rights or wrongs of the conduct of Israel equates with any sort of opinion at all about Jewish people.

And further, FYI, I am not 'anti-Israel'. I wish Israel well, actually, and I think it's policies for many years have been counter-productive to that feeling.

[DogOnPorch]

I guess the whole trouble I have with this 'pull back to the green line' stuff is that I doubt it works both ways. Had Nasser's plans worked out in 'Pan-Arab' favor back in 1967, there would be no Israel today. I also doubt there'd be any talk in the Arab/Muslim world about bringing Israel back from destruction out of some sense of 'fair-play'.

The way I see it, the Israelis won a military victory (The 6 Day War) against a much larger enemy that was poised to strike a death blow. I'm not sure I'd be giving back any of the ground capturned without some sort of really sweet deal involving peace and understanding. That the Israelis even budge on some issues is really commendable on their part. Remember too, the Arabs/Muslims tried to take the area back by force in 1973 (Yom Kippur War) and failed again. So I'd be even more hesitant about striking a deal for this 'occupied land' without some real positive (for my side in particular) results on the "peace table" from all parties involved. You can term this attitude as 'terrorism' or 'prudent thinking'...depends on one's politics, obviously.

What we have in the Middle-East even to this day are some of the last glowing embers of the Second World War. Too much bad blood still exists between the Jewish and Muslim people in the area because of it. Afterall...al-Husayni went unpunished for his evil deeds during WW2 and was behind a good deal of the initial troubles in the Levant...including kicking off the 1948 war for the Muslim side.

This is not to say the conflict in the Middle-East is a war against facism as per WW2...as it now has its own horrible nature. But I do feel much of the current animosity indeed has it's roots in the 1930s when anti-Semitism was driving the Jews from Europe towards perceived havens such as British Palestine, The USA (visa quotas), Cuba (wait for your visa)...etc.

Turned out few nations wanted them...

And if I had been the postwar western powers, I wouldn't have let it decend into a free for all in 1948. The abdication of responsibility with the job half done was a grave error.

Perhaps in hindsight. Fact is to most of the world during and after the Second World War, the whole Middle-East was a backwater of a backwater. Few nations (except Russia) kept their armies at the massive sizes they were during war time. So there were very few troops to man any posts anywhere. Also, I believe as far as the British went, they were aware of the 'troubles'...keenly aware even (the old White Paper)...except they never figured it would ever amount to anything more than yet another 'bush war' in one of the many colonies as per the "old days". Their interests in the Middle-East lay mainly in keeping the Suez Canal open more than anything else (aside from the oil moving through said canal)...not pandering to Jewish and Arab national aspirations which I'm sure they found most tiresome over in Bevingrad.

To the Jews in Palestine post-WW2, the British attempts at keeping down Jewish immigration and not going after al-Husayni for war crimes (not that they could, realistically), must have looked quite like betrayal rather than 'problem solving'. Many young Jewish males of the area had fought in their own volunteer unit (attached to the British in Italy) while Arab males either ignored the war or joined up with al-Husayni's personal crack SS Panzer Division, the 13th SS "Handschar" and associated units operating in Yugoslavia. Already plenty of historical ying and yang...if you follow.

As for Jerusalem: It's special, of course, for its multiple religious ties. However, Muslim ties to Jerusalem were nothing at first...then for various opportune reasons, they grew. Early on in Muslim history, a major revolt in Iraq prevented Muslims in the Levant from reaching Mecca during Hajj. Caliph al-Malik of Damascus then made Jerusalem the new centre of pilgrimage in the area...already a well travelled pilgrim destination for other groups.

But it was mainly Omar ibn al-Khattab that decided that he had found the very rock that Mohammed was said to have accended to heaven from (after his night journey via winged beast). "David's Mosque" he termed it, apparently. This all after Omar's 'victory' at the Siege of Jerusalem in 637 AD. But there are some accounts that say the city surrendered in fear well ahead of the arrival of Omar + army in 636 AD. Either way, The Dome (1st) and Al-Aqsa (2nd) went up on this rock by 715 AD or so, the former site of the Jewish Second Temple torched by the Romans...a trash dump by Omar's account...which he is said to have started cleaning (the rock) with his own robes. His officers followed Omar's que, cleaning the place up w/ robes and then having the first prayers there.

Now it is thought of part and parcel with the Koran's words:

Glory be to Him Who made His servant to go on a night from the Sacred Mosque to the furthest mosque of which We have blessed the precincts, so that We may show to him some of Our signs; surely He is the Hearing, the Seeing.

Please feel free to add or correct...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you treat people right they will treat you right...ninety percent of the time.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

[Figleaf]

I guess the whole trouble I have with this 'pull back to the green line' stuff is that I doubt it works both ways. Had Nasser's plans worked out in 'Pan-Arab' favor back in 1967, there would be no Israel today. I also doubt there'd be any talk in the Arab/Muslim world about bringing Israel back from destruction out of some sense of 'fair-play'.

I'm not sure what relevance you are suggesting that has to the issue. Speculations on what various Arab states might or night not have done has no logical connection to the rights of the Palestinians.

The way I see it, the Israelis won a military victory (The 6 Day War) against a much larger enemy that was poised to strike a death blow.

The Arab states were not poised to effect anything much. Israeli military authorities are on record acknowledging that Arab sabre rattling in 1967 was basically empty.

I'm not sure I'd be giving back any of the ground capturned without some sort of really sweet deal involving peace and understanding.

As a practical matter, it's hard to find love from someone whose foot you're standing on.

Remember too, the Arabs/Muslims tried to take the area back by force in 1973 (Yom Kippur War) and failed again. So I'd be even more hesitant about striking a deal for this 'occupied land'...

Again, the actions of Arab states cannot justly be used to deny the inherent human rights of the Palestinian people.

You can term this attitude as 'terrorism' or 'prudent thinking'...depends on one's politics, obviously.

What benefits would you be looking for at the peace table?

And if I had been the postwar western powers, I wouldn't have let it decend into a free for all in 1948. The abdication of responsibility with the job half done was a grave error.

Perhaps in hindsight. Fact is to most of the world during and after the Second World War, the whole Middle-East was a backwater of a backwater. Few nations (except Russia) kept their armies at the massive sizes they were during war time. So there were very few troops to man any posts anywhere. Also, I believe as far as the British went, they were aware of the 'troubles'...keenly aware even (the old White Paper)...except they never figured it would ever amount to anything more than yet another 'bush war' in one of the many colonies as per the "old days". Their interests in the Middle-East lay mainly in keeping the Suez Canal open more than anything else (aside from the oil moving through said canal)...not pandering to Jewish and Arab national aspirations which I'm sure they found most tiresome over in Bevingrad.

Not just in hindsight. In negligence.

As for Jerusalem: It's special, of course, for its multiple religious ties. However, Muslim ties to Jerusalem were nothing at first...

Which matters not a whit.

[jbg]

Please feel free to add or correct...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you treat people right they will treat you right...ninety percent of the time.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Your post is educational and hard to add to. I'd delete references to FDR, who has, as you point out indirectly, much Jewish blood on his hands.

[Black Dog]

If you mean today, where would I put Israel, I know we've discussed this. It is not in my or anyone's power to 'put' Israel anywhere. Israel is a sovereign state with a population entitled to self-determination. There is no way to remove or eradicate Israel now that would not involve crimes in international law. I believe what must happen now is that Israel should withdraw to it's border at the Green Line, the Palestinian state should come into existence in their assigned territory (with no pretentious and humiliating supervision clauses), substantial reparations should be paid to the Palestinians (from the Western powers for the defaults of 1947-49), Israel should buy out the rights of return on an individual basis, and Jerusalem should be made an international city under UN heritage protection and assigned to Israel as trustee for the forseeable future. At first, probably there should be a robust, impartial international buffer force deployed to prevent disruptions of the peace.

Well done.

[DogOnPorch]

Your post is educational and hard to add to. I'd delete references to FDR, who has, as you point out indirectly, much Jewish blood on his hands.

I find your posts most informative as well. I feel we share many opinions. I'm still an FDR fan for what he did do as opposed to what he didn't...but the whole US immigration quota was a most regretable affair. The Great Depression and a certain hint of xenophobia in the air prevented many from entering the US at this time. The voyage of the St Louis being a prime example.

The Arab states were not poised to effect anything much. Israeli military authorities are on record acknowledging that Arab sabre rattling in 1967 was basically empty.

The Arabs/Muslims had their armies already in the field fully mobilized. Like 1948, they came from across the Middle-East/North Africa for the imagined party to follow.

"Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."

---Nasser, May 1967

"The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel ... to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not of more declarations."

---Nasser, June 1967.

I think I'd be loading my shotgun at this point if my neighbor was saying such things...that you wouldn't is your choice at your peril. If my family and home was threatened in such a way, it'd be foolish of me to wait for the enemy to act first. Only King Hussein seemed to think it was all a rather bad idea. Moscow egged on the lot in typical Cold War proxy fashion.

Again, the actions of Arab states cannot justly be used to deny the inherent human rights of the Palestinian people.

The same Palestinian people who listened to former SS General/Jew Baiter Mohammad Amin al-Husayni and formed Mufti militia units in order to drive the Jews into the sea? Palestinians are not merely bystanders. They are just another defacto Arab army. What were Arafat's words again? Let me refresh...

Interviewer: I have heard voices from within the Palestinian Authority in the past few weeks, saying that the reforms are coordinated according to American whims...

Arafat: We are not Afghanistan. We are the mighty people. Were they able to replace our hero Hajj Amin al-Husayni?... There were a number of attempts to get rid of Hajj Amin, whom they considered an ally of the Nazis. But even so, he lived in Cairo, and participated in the 1948 war, and I was one of his troops."

From: Al Sharq al Awsat Newspaper, London. Reprinted across the Arab world...August 2002.

...and Arafat a blood-relative, apparently. One of Husayni's many nephews. Arafat's real name being: Abd-al-Ra'uf al-Qidwa al-Husayni.

Which matters not a whit. (re: Jerusalem's Muslim origins)

Sure it does. When you get right down to it, they built their temples ontop of a rival's 700 year old temple ruins then made the story fit reality by saying they had found a religious icon from the Koran, the 'Furthest Mosque'. Unless you do believe in 'winged beasts', this is simply not possible...Mohammed having never left Arabia in his lifetime...apparently. Islam reached Jerusalem with the arrival of Omar in 636AD or 637AD depending on which version of the siege you judge more plausible.

It was also mentioned earlier in this thread that Jerusalem was the spot where Mohammed accended to heaven with Gabriel...I'm just clarifying the story a bit. If you're a dyed in the wool Muslim...you might infact believe the 'winged beast' part of the story...so anything including the sudden arrival of Mulder and Scully on the scene is possible at that point. But I imagine most modern/westernised Muslims take that line somewhat less than literally. Maybe a Muslim could clairify this for us all...

As an aside, imagine what would happen if the Mormans went into Mecca (by force if needed) saying this is where Joseph Smith heard his message from God, then building a massive Mormon temple ontop of the Masjid al-Haram...me thinks there'd be a wee spot o' troooble with that scenario, too...lol.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, to make it possible.

---Lt.Col. T. E. Lawrence, "The Seven Pillars of Wisdom"

[Figleaf]

If you mean today, where would I put Israel, I know we've discussed this. It is not in my or anyone's power to 'put' Israel anywhere. Israel is a sovereign state with a population entitled to self-determination. There is no way to remove or eradicate Israel now that would not involve crimes in international law. I believe what must happen now is that Israel should withdraw to it's border at the Green Line, the Palestinian state should come into existence in their assigned territory (with no pretentious and humiliating supervision clauses), substantial reparations should be paid to the Palestinians (from the Western powers for the defaults of 1947-49), Israel should buy out the rights of return on an individual basis, and Jerusalem should be made an international city under UN heritage protection and assigned to Israel as trustee for the forseeable future. At first, probably there should be a robust, impartial international buffer force deployed to prevent disruptions of the peace.

Well done.

Thx.

[White Doors]

I think I'd be loading my shotgun at this point if my neighbor was saying such things

hahahaha

well said

[DogOnPorch]

hahahaha

well said

Heh...yeah. It's true though. To everything, turn...turn...turn...

Here's a short

on the Western Wall ramp renovation...good view of how far the digging is away from the mosques...plus the reactions of the citizens.

Some other factors we can think about when looking at the Middle-East:

1) Egypt, Syria and Jordan were all thought of during the Cold War as Warsaw Pact proxy nations. That is...they were on the 'Soviet side' without actually coming out and saying so (not signiture members of the Pact). But as we can see from old and new war photos, these nations have a lot of Soviet/Russian weapons and equipment. Egypt (then, later, others in the area) even received copies of the much feared at the time MiG-25 Foxbat interceptor (1973-ish). Not to mention the best Soviet tanks and APCs of the time (as did Syria). Pretty 'Moscow-friendly', if you follow. So from the get-go, these countries are viewed with somewhat a jaded eye by many in the West...at least those old enough to remember the big Arab-Israeli Wars.

2) Iran and Iraq both were 'on our side' in the past due to Western friendly governments being installed during the Second World War in order to head off the pro-Nazi governments being formed (our old friend al-Husayni again in Iraq's case...and The Shah's father in Iran's case). Both countries became essential parts of the southern lend-lease route to the Soviet Union. Many airports in Iran + a major north-south highway are US built (much like Western Canada).

3) Israel was the ideal "proxy NATO nation" in the area to counter this threat. There has been talk for quite a while of actually making Israel an actual NATO nation. Though we often hear of "Americans equipping the Israeli army", they tend to use a lot of their own machines or remakes of others. The Merkava tank and Kfir jet fighter in particular are Israeli made and designed with the local terrain & elements in mind. During the 50s-70s...much of Israel's military equipment was French or surplus WW2 (the Sherman tank in particular). The IDF also makes extensive use of captured Soviet (Arab) armor which they refit up to their standards then redeploy.

4) Israel has been up to some really questionable activities re: the 'Red' Chinese. Israel, I believe, is the 4th (or so) largest weapons exporter on the planet with Communist China being one of its best customers if I'm not mistaken. The US is constantly trying to get Israel to 'cool its heels' re: selling Communist China sensitive military electronic gear. But they look so friendly after exchanging Mao jackets for business suits...lol. Either way, the US has refused to allow Israel to help develop the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter due its poor track record re: America's no-go lists.

5) Just for a laugh...this is how the entire Middle-East looks when you get down to it:

Peoples Front of Judea

Cheers...

btw: The reference (back a few posts) to Muhammed's accent to heaven in Jerusalem was in another thread I read over the past few days...catching-up.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

If life seems jolly rotten, there's something you've forgotten...