Well, they have had something else in common over the last century or so.
Do we really have to go back into the history of the conflict to once again explain what led to the eventual refugee issue? If care for human rights is behind the support the Palestinians get here you would expect 900,000 Jewsih refugees to get the same level of empathy.
Thanks very much for that. I bet this has at least something to do with the fact that people don't have that fatigue when it comes to the Israeli-Arab conflict.
Is it not? As for the most moral army thing, I don't buy that but do you? If not, is that a good enough reason for singling Israel out for special treatment? I believe our soldiers are no better or worse than those of other Western countries in this respect, and the way we're treated smacks of double standards.
I am biased, plain and simple. Never tried to argue otherwise. Would you agree that those who deny Israel's right to exist are biased too?
Despite my bias I try to stick to historical facts. The Arabs were allocated the vast majority of the territory of Palestine, which didn't "belong" to any Arab before. How is that taking away land from one population and give it to another?
My point was that you cannot try to deny ethnic cleansing in one sentence....and the in the very next sentence accept there was ethnic cleansing. It is at least good that you acknowledge it occurred though, I've met more than a few Israelis who still believe the mass expulsions of the Palestinians was an Arab tactic.
And I can't speak for others but I've always said the way the Jews in Arab countries were treated post formation of Israel was absolutely despicable. Adequately punish those who conspire against your country (Lavon affair), leave the rest alone, regardless of political ideology. Appalling.
Indeed. I've always criticised Arabs especially who pipe up every couple of years when this flares up again and rarely say too much about the despots ruling their own countries. Still, I suppose it is very easy to simply dismiss criticism as anti-semitic, makes it completely unnecessary to reflect. I've already outlined some of the reasons this conflict gets more airtime than others (which I personally think is wrong). On top of that is the West's role in the setting up of the state (indeed, the whole of the current Middle Eastern order), their complicity in what is going on and their interference in other countries in the region to ensure their interests remain safe (one of which is Israel). This has ranged from simply sponsoring coups to actively invading countries. This, coupled with the support Israel gets from Western governments, ignites the passion of some.
I believe it is more of a democracy than other countries in the region. I believe it is a better place to live than most of the countries in the region. I don't think you fulfill the criteria of a democracy in the way that we in the West see it and my own personal opinion (I could and perhaps am very wrong of course) is that it is not moving in the right direction either. I don't believe a country can occupy another people for over 40 years and be considered a fully fledged democracy. Or have politicians coming out with some of the comments that they have been recently (and not just fringe lunatics either). Of course I don't believe the IDF is the most moral army. Considering that is part of hasbara for Western audiences though, you can again imagine why people may get slightly upset at Israeli ambassadors saying the IDF deserves the nobel peace prize for its restraint.
Of course. Most people in any discussion are biased, that goes beyond saying surely? Especially in one as charged as this particular conflict.
And that is such a silly argument and one of the few that has ever annoyed me. Most of the countries in the region (and indeed the world) had not controlled their land for a long time (if ever at all) because of colonialism. Not just European but colonialism of every kind, from all groups. Most of the countries on the map today are an artificial creation, considering that throughout history borders have been fluid and based on the fall, rise and whims of great empires. In that sense, the Arabs were in no way unique when in the early 1900s, they found themselves shafted by the British over and over again. As is to be expected, they're acting as an outside colonial power, not their best friend.
You genuinely can't see why the Arabs and Palestinians were upset about white Europeans carving up the land they at the time lived on as the clear majority between them and a population that (initially) was fleeing from Europe? You can't see how they might have considered this yet another colonial experience for them?
How do you think the Jews would have reacted if the tables had been turned? They had been living there for hundreds of years. The Arab diaspora had just undergone a horrific tragedy in Europe to cap all of the other tragedies the Europeans had wrought on them for centuries and were looking to return to their historical homeland, a homeland that the Jews now made the clear majority and which they had been promised by the British. You think they'd have been happy to see mass immigration and the cutting of the land they were living in by a white European power?
And if we're being completely truthful, of course the Arabs at some point controlled that land.It was just eventually taken over by the Turks and then British.
. Hilarious. He does have a record of doing this, especially with his favourite of the 'leader of the Palestinians in Jordan', a man neither I nor anyone else I know has ever heard of. Excellent leader.
