WMN: t3_26uqns_t1_chutmsz

[TITLE]

CMV: I believe that Israel are the definitive 'good guys' in the Middle East.

[morvis343]

This has everything to do with how I've been raised. My whole life, many people I know have told me how Israel has been besieged by unfriendly neighbours on all sides since the time it became an independent nation. And even though I can find things online to support that or the opposite view, none of it has changed my view since anything could be propaganda. But all I have known is that Israel has never been the cause of conflict, and it is only through their skill, ingenuity, and destiny as God's people that they have been able to withstand being annihilated. I understand this sounds dramatic, but that's how its been related to me, by people I trust, no less. I want this view changed because I objectively know that there is very rarely a good side and an evil side. I want to know both sides of the story. And I want it to stick in my heart, as opposed to just being something else I hear that 'must be anti-Jew propaganda.' I don't necessarily want to see Israel as the bad guys, but I do want to see their conflicts objectively. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

[cfuse]

[STA-CITE]> destiny as God's people [END-CITE]If it is destiny, then they can be as vile and violent as they like, can't they?

[elgringoconpuravida]

I don't feel like doing the work in terms of sourcing.. but OP if you take say Perle's post and look at what he mentions as part of a structural, intentional plan, and allow the facts to point objectively to a particular desired outcome for the actor- you will likely see that Israel has been (for around a half-century, if not more) and is implementing a broad strategy to fully annex (a nice word for 'steal from current owner/occupant) the most valuable parts of their region. To give them at least some justification for the brutal treatment of the peoples they're annexing that land from, they need a constant state of *non-peace.* This non-peace compels the majority of their actions, and its those same people who bear the cost of these actions, in terms of blood.

[Andecy]

There is no bad or good guys in middle east conflicts.. only the ones you support and the ones you see as enemy. A country and people will burn the world to defend its existence. If you see democracy and liberty as good then you are on israels side, if you see islam and pan-arab national aspirations as good you are on palestinian side.

[avefelina]

Here's the thing: I agree that we should support Israel. But I disagree that there is a "good" and "bad" distinction between countries. It's all subjective, and the only thing that matters is who supports us (Israel does, Egypt did until Obama fucked it up, Iraq and Afghanistan sort of do)

[uncannylizard]

Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Kuwait, UAE, Tunisia, Yemen and more all support the USA. The only countries in the region who aren't our friends are Iran, Syria, parts of Lebanon controlled by Hezbollah, and Gaza. Also Obama did not fuck up Egypt. I have no idea where you got that theory from. Obama 'called for Mubarak to step down' after the whole of Cairo was in a state of unrest and the military and police were refusing to act against the protesters. Obama waited until the last possible moment and then when Mubarak had no hope of staying in power Obama then abandoned ship and tried to get in the good graces of the next government. Obama had no effect on what happened in Egypt.

[avefelina]

[STA-CITE]> Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Kuwait, UAE, Tunisia, Yemen and more all support the USA [END-CITE]Good point. "Friends" is a strong word though. And yeah, he did. We should've supported Mubarak to the end. Now both the Brotherhood and the generals hate us

[uncannylizard]

I don't think that there was any way that the US could have predicted with any sort of certainty that the military was going to stage a coup against the muslim brotherhood.

[avefelina]

Well, we *should* have supported it. Instead, we just condemned it, andnow everyone hates us

[uncannylizard]

We were already giving Mubarak billions in military aid every year. Sometimes governments fall and its out of our control. You are having this erroneous idea that America can somehow micromanage events everywhere in the world. Its not true. Sometimes countries have democratic revolts and theres nothing more we can do to try to stop it unless we send in our army like we did in Vietnam.

[avefelina]

We could have supported the military against the MB

[uncannylizard]

We essentially did. We were supplying aid to the military the whole time. Now that the MB is gone the US is calling for the military to reinstate democracy. We aren't taking a stand against the military. We are just calling for them to return to democracy soon, as they themselves say they want to do eventually.

[avefelina]

It's better to stay with a military dictatorship. More stable

[uncannylizard]

Dictatorships are not stable, as we've seen in countless examples across the world. Egypt, Syria, Libya, are all good examples of this. They are anything but stable.

[ThePantsParty]

And by "skill, ingenuity, and destiny", I assume you mean, "the U.S. babysitting them because they wouldn't exist without it". Israel is certainly the aggressor against the Palestinians, and they have been consistently uprooting them and stealing their homes for years now. That doesn't really sound like the act of a good guy to me.

[Hq3473]

I think a lot of people will try to convince you that Israel is the bad guy here. I will take a slightly more subtle approach: Israel is not 'an evil apartheid regime" but it is also not a "good guy." It just "is." Israel is just like any one of many similar nations - they have craved out a piece of land in a hostile land with pre-existing population. This was done by hundreds of groups before. USA, Australia are obvious example. But so is Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain So is Bantu expansion in Africa. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantu_expansion etc. etc. etc. Some groups succeed in their attempts. Some failed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland#Norse_failure Clearly such colonization attempts may generate conflict with local population. None of this makes these colonizers necessarily evil, nor does that make good. Israel is just another country trying to survive. Some things it will do are good, some bad. None of them are different from what many, many countries have done before.

[uncannylizard]

If you look throughout history there were plenty of horrendous events that are rarely paralleled by anything today. Think of the Mongol Conquests or slavery. However, in this modern era we generally think that we have a slightly more evolved consciousness and moral sense. The colonisations and conquests of the past would not be tolerated like they were in the past. When Saddam tried to conquer Kuwait he was pushed out. When North Korea tried to conquer South Korea they were pushed back. When Israel, Britain, and France tried to occupy and control Egypt they were forced out by the USA and the USSR. When the muslims were being exterminated in Yugoslavia there was a concerted effort to push them out. These are all actions against the colonial mindset and this is the world that Israel now lives in. The same actions which were amoral in the past and immoral today. Thats why Israel's actions today should not be compared to the various events in the past. Israel is held to a higher standard, one which we would hold liberal democracies like Germany, Canada, or the USA to.

[Hq3473]

The "indignation" or "moral outrage" are only used when it fits the agenda of the world powers. In general the examples you have shown tend to be exceptions rather than the rule. Kuwait was all about oil. Intervention in Korea and Egypt was just a struggle between Western and Communist Countries. No one really cared about the "rights" of Koreans or Egyptians. Consider: On the other hand: Putin takes over Crimea - no one cares. Second Congo war occurs (5,400,000 causalities!) - no one cares. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War etc, etc etc. In the end, there is no moral criteria in how countries behave in relation to each other. Most (if not all) currently existing countries were established through violence - it is silly to claim that nation building though violence is ''not be tolerated." If Israel were to cease using violence - it would cease existing. Thus Israel is not behaving in an "evil" or a "good" way. It exist in only way possible.

[uncannylizard]

[STA-CITE]> Kuwait was all about oil. [END-CITE]It wasn't. Saddam wasn't refusing to sell oil. There was no danger of oil not being produced. If Saddam had taken Kuwait he still would not have owned enough of the world's oil to determine the price of oil. There was no way in which this war was for oil. The entire UN agreed that the annexation should be reversed because it was a bad precedent and violated international law in the most extreme way. Another sovereign UN member state was annexed. Thats like the most basic UNSC duty to prevent. [STA-CITE]> Intervention in Korea and Egypt was just a struggle between Western and Communist Countries. [END-CITE]Korea was a mix of stopping aggression (the UN agreed) and of stopping communism. Egypt was a case of Israel, France, and Britain practicing traditional imperialism and the US standing for international law and liberal ideals. [STA-CITE]> Putin takes over Crimea - no one cares. [END-CITE] whole lot of people care. Its been the focus of international affairs since the crisis began and Russia has been met with nearly universal condemnation and with sanctions. Yes, there isn't a war against Russia, but thats obviously because Russia is one of the most powerful countries on the planet and is capable of effectively resisting international military action. Iraq was not capable of resisting military action because of its smaller size and relative poorness. [STA-CITE]> Second Congo war occurs (5,400,000 causalities!) - no one cares. [END-CITE]The second Congo war was like the thirty years war in Europe where it was not only a massive civil war, but virtually all the countries in the region were aiding different groups. It was a big mess with no clear party causing the problems. If there was a clear dictator like Idi Amin or Qaddafi who was causing the problems then perhaps action might have been contemplated, but in the Second Congo War there were no antagonists whose removal would solve the situation. Rwanda is a much better example of the international community failing to act, and its true that they did fail to act. However, its not forgotten. After the crime, Clinton went on TV and solemnly explained the extreme moral failing of his administration and cites it as his biggest regret. His administration then was proactive in Yugoslavia when similar slaughters and persecutions were occurring. [STA-CITE]> Most (if not all) currently existing countries were established through violence - it is silly to claim that nation building though violence is ''not be tolerated." [END-CITE]It isn't tolerated. If Spain tries to colonise Namibia today it will not be tolerated. Yes, countries were built through violence, but that doesn't happen today. We now have international law and international norms. The previous world of common genocides and imperial expansion and settlement is over. [STA-CITE]> If Israel were to cease using violence - it would cease existing. Thus Israel is not behaving in an "evil" or a "good" way. It exist in only way possible. [END-CITE]Nobody says that Israel should cease using violence. Of course every nation has the right to defend itself. China has the right to defend itself from terrorist attacks in Xinjiang and Tibet too. England had a right to defend itself from the Irish too. However, these countries also have an obligation to not use violence to subjugate or exploit other groups in illegal ways. They aren't allowed to displace certain ethnic groups or deprive certain groups of rights. Israel is clearly going way beyond defending itself and is using violence to promote its interests at the expense of the rights and welfare of another nation.

[Hq3473]

[STA-CITE]>The second Congo war was like the thirty years war in Europe where it was not only a massive civil war, but virtually all the countries in the region were aiding different groups. It was a big mess with no clear party causing the problems. If there was a clear dictator like Idi Amin or Qaddafi who was causing the problems then perhaps action might have been contemplated, but in the Second Congo War there were no antagonists whose removal would solve the situation. [END-CITE]Similarly in Israel-Arab conflict you have a multi-decade multi-party struggle that involves basically all the countries/groups in a region. In addition to obvious-multi group wars like 6-day war and yom kipur-war, you have things like the black September Jordan-Palestinian violence, Lebanese Civil War, hezbollah-palestinian violence, and even hamas-fatah violence with Israel being involved in these perpetual conflicts in some capacity. It is very naive to say that Israel is the only problem here, or that it is behaving somehow worse than other actors in the region. Rather you have multiple parties using whatever means they can in order gain control of the same region. So the situation, in your words, is "a big mess with no clear party causing the problems." Much like in the Second Congo war. So if you refuse to name villains and heroes in that conflict (despite multiple parties clearly "using violence to subjugate or exploit other groups in illegal ways") how are you so sure who the villains/heroes are in Arab-Israeli conflict?

[uncannylizard]

Well I don't know how much we are really disagreeing here. I would certainly never ever say that these various arab countries/groups are heroes. Many of them are villains of the most heinous type. Israel does a lot of clearly bad things, however, independently of the Arab regimes near it. Thats all I am saying. Israel does clearly immoral things to its victims. Things that would never ever be morally permissible by the standard of liberal democracies in many other places in the world.

[Hq3473]

[STA-CITE]>Israel does clearly immoral things to its victims. [END-CITE]True [STA-CITE]>Things that would never ever be morally permissible by the standard of liberal democracies in many other places in the world. [END-CITE]False. So called "liberal democracies" routinely engage in actions that would make Israel look like an angel. The only thing I am saying is that while Israel may engage in some actions that are immoral, it does not do that at a rate that is higher than it's immediate neighbors or other "liberal democracies." Thus, Israel is not a "good guy" but neither is it a "villain."

[uncannylizard]

[STA-CITE]> False. So called "liberal democracies" routinely engage in actions that would make Israel look like an angel. [END-CITE]Like what.

[Hq3473]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Nicaragua http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse etc. etc. etc... are you serious here?

[barakplasma]

[STA-CITE]>But all I have known is that Israel has never been the cause of conflict [END-CITE]Israel has started conflicts, in part simply by Jews emigrating there and wanting to live their lives, and it is naive to think otherwise, *however* it is important to consider the morality of their emigration and the resultant conflict. I think that the Jewish people has a moral right to live in the land of Israel. Certainly the founding Jewish refugees have a right to live there. But the previous residents were pressured not to let them in for political and societal reasons, and so starts the conflict. When two groups of people want to live in the same area, but not together, there will be conflict. So I ask you this: is there such a thing as a moral conflict? I think that there is. The means of accomplishing the settlement of Israel may seem harsh but at the benefit of less bloodshed despite conflicting interests, I think it's just.

[super_pinguino]

I don't see how Jewish people have any more of a right to live in Israel than the Palestinians that they forcibly relocated. Even today, Israel's treatment of Palestinians within their borders is kind of shitty. It also takes a really hard line on a lot of regional political issues, which creates tension between it and its neighboring countries. I don't see how the creation of a Jewish state and the resultant displacement of those people that used to live there was moral or necessary. Could you please explain what you mean by moral right?

[Bigpoppa18]

Thousands of Jews lived in Israel since the original Jewish nation was sent into the diaspora of 70 AD. The creation of the state in 1948 was not the start of the Jewish nation, but the return of the Jewish nation to their land. In that time, no other country has ever laid claim to it in a nationalist sense. It's only once the Jewish nation returned home that suddenly there is interest in it. There's been an unbroken Jewish presence in that land for 3000 years. Thats a significant moral right, if you ask me.

[barakplasma]

This isn't my favorite example, but WWII illustrates why the nation of Israel and the Jewish people needs its own land. The historical home of the Jewish people (the Kingdom of Judea and Israel) is in Jerusalem, Safed, Hebron, Beersheva and the surrounding area. Many of the Palestians have Jewish roots 1000's of years in the past ( http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-23 ). There is strong archeological evidence for the continued inhabitance of the land by Jews and the continued desire to return after the exile. It is their home by birthright as much as the Palestinians some of whom were jews before conversion.

[super_pinguino]

I don't feel that you can say that it is as much their home by birthright (because they have historical ties to it 1000 years in the past) as it is the Palestinians who were born there, whose ancestors were born there for the last several hundred years. Furthermore, how does that justify the displacement and essential internment of the native inhabitants of that land? Literally, the nation of Israel was founded, kicking a whole bunch of Palestinians to the curb (people with as much of a birthright to that land as Jews according to you). Then when they complained about having to become refugees, Israel put them in the West Bank and walled them in and won't let them leave. That seems like what the good guys would do to everyday citizens. Israel has so many enemies around it because it has antagonized all of its neighbors with terrible internal and external diplomacy. I don't really have a strong stance on whether Israel should or shouldn't exist. I do think that they aren't going about existing in the best way for either them or the Middle East.

[Eloquai]

[STA-CITE]> it is only through their skill, ingenuity, and destiny as God's people that they have been able to withstand being annihilated. [END-CITE]On this specific point, how exactly would you demonstrate that the Israelis are being protected by God and not through their own actions, their own military power or the actions and support of their allies (most notably, the USA)? At a more basic and general level though, I think you've already answered your own question: there aren't always objectively obvious 'good' or 'bad' guys in international conflicts and disputes. To therefore try and treat one or more countries in the Middle East as inherently good or evil will automatically obscure the facts and the nuances of the conflict. My advice would therefore be to listen to both sides of the story and to the accounts presented from both Israel and Palestine, mindful that neither side necessarily has to be 'good' but also mindful of the biases that the media and each state may carry with them.

[morvis343]

My objective brain doesn't believe that 'God has been by their side.' I used those words as that is what has been ingrained in me since childhood. And how could a people supposedly chosen by God ever be the bad guys?

[blackflag415]

Jews earn gods wrath many times in the bible. For example the 40 years in the desert, or the golden cafe incident.

[RichardPerle]

First of all, the creation of Israel in the early 20th century was the original spark of conflict. The British brutally conquered the native inhabitants in the [first](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_Gaza) and [second](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Gaza) Battles of Gaza. The land was then simply handed over to the Rothschilds with the [Balfour Declaration](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration), which many strongly suspect was in exchange for bringing the U.S. into The Great War. After winning the Six Day War, Israel has occupied the [Golan Heights](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_Heights) and has established 41 Israeli civilian settlements. As for Palestine, Israel has occupied it, planted many civilian settlements, [established checkpoints](http://imgur.com/eliPyNH) and travel restrictions for the [native population](http://imgur.com/lHd1ZKF), abused control of the [water supplies](http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.574554), attempted to [starve](http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/17/us-palestinians-israel-gaza-idUSBRE89G0NM20121017) them, and essentially [turned their country into a prison](http://imgur.com/FvIchIY). Oh, and sometimes Israel will use [white phosphorus](http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46061000/jpg/_46061574_007651442-1.jpg) on civilians when they get tired of just randomly shooting them.

[Bigpoppa18]

There were many violent clashes before the state of israel like [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre), [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Nebi_Musa_riots),[and this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1834_Safed_pogrom). Also, bear in mind that no land was "handed" to the Jews. The newly formed Jewish state (in 1948) lost a full 10% of its citizens lives in the independence war, without support from any other country, the USA included.

[elgringoconpuravida]

Excellent comprehensive post Perle.

[cfuse]

Nothing says *moral high ground* quite like raining white phosphorus on people.

[BrellK]

Yea. We don't need to pretend the Palestinians in occupation are innocent, but as a people they have definitely been treated in a shitty manner by the occupational forces.

[morvis343]

∆ Thanks. You know, it feels good to be a little bit angry at Israel after being angry at the Palestinians my whole life.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/RichardPerle. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/RichardPerle)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[karelos]

the map of the palestinians lost of land is a lie : for the first panel, white sections are indeed the land that was privately owned by Jews, the land in green was not privately owned by Arabs. The second panel : While this is a somewhat accurate representation of the partition plan (with the notable exception of Jerusalem, which was meant to be an international city,), it has nothing to do with land ownership. The entire purpose of this map is to make it appear that Israel has been grabbing Arab land consistently, to serve as a bridge between maps 1 and 3. What is not said, of course, is that Israel accepted the partition and the Arabs did not, so as a result Israel in 1949 looked like it does in map 3. Map 3 is still a lie, however, because in no way was the green land "Palestinian" at that time. Gaza was administered by Egypt and the West Bank annexed by Jordan. No one at the time spoke about a Palestinian Arab state on the areas controlled by Arab states - only in Israel. In other words, this progression of maps is a series of lies meant to push a bigger lie, and it is tragic that a lot of people believe them to be the truth. [picture of Israel's giving land it controlled up for peace since 1967](https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-mPOHVS4Frjw/TXev_pw0pBI/AAAAAAAAD4I/T2nWfRAv2dA/s1600/Israeli+land+concessions.jpg) Israel has instituted checkpoints for one reason—to prevent Palestinian terrorists from infiltrating Israel. [The barrier is for protection : According to statistics published by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Israel Security Agency, from the beginning of the Second Intifada until the construction of the "first continuous segment" of the barrier in July 2003, 73 Palestinian suicide bombings were carried out from the West Bank, killing 293 Israelis and injuring over 1,900. However, between August 2003 and the end of 2006, only 12 attacks were carried out based in the West Bank, killing 64 Israelis and wounding 445. The trend continued into 2007, and 2008 as well.The number of fatalities due to terror attacks have continued to exhibit a steady decline since 2002, from 452 in 2002 to 9 in 2010.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_West_Bank_barrier#Effects_on_Israeli_security) [Oh and White Phosphorus,may be legal even in populated areas. The Israeli government released a report in July 2009 that confirmed that the IDF used white phosphorus in both exploding munitions and smoke projectiles. The report acknowledged the use of exploding munitions by Israeli ground and naval forces. The report argues that the use of these munitions was limited to unpopulated areas for marking and signaling and not as an anti-personnel weapon.The Israeli government report further stated that smoke screening projectiles were the majority of the munitions containing white phosphorus employed by the IDF and that these were very effective in that role. The report states that at no time did IDF forces have the objective of inflicting any harm on the civilian population.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus#Israeli-Palestinian_conflict_.282009.E2.80.932012.29)

[RichardPerle]

[STA-CITE]> Map 3 is still a lie, however, because in no way was the green land "Palestinian" at that time. Gaza was administered by Egypt and the West Bank annexed by Jordan. [END-CITE]Oh, so Israel isn't the oppressor because other Arabs were oppressing too? [STA-CITE]> Israel has instituted checkpoints for one reason—to prevent Palestinian terrorists from infiltrating Israel. [END-CITE]How about you look at the death tolls? Israel is the one doing the killing. The statistics speak for themselves. http://i.imgur.com/uSE05.png [STA-CITE]> Oh and White Phosphorus,may be legal even in populated areas. [END-CITE]There are thing that can be legal and evil at the same time. Justifying WP because it is legal under *Israeli* law is a joke at best.

[karelos]

[STA-CITE]> Map 3 is still a lie, however, because in no way was the green land "Palestinian" at that time. Gaza was administered by Egypt and the West Bank annexed by Jordan. > Oh, so Israel isn't the oppressor because other Arabs were oppressing too? [END-CITE] you forgot the rest of my phrase : **No one at the time spoke about a Palestinian Arab state on the areas controlled by Arab states - only in Israel.** *So, it wasn't oppression.* Israel killed more but not willingly. [it is important to understand Hamas's tactic and how the international community and the media are encouraging it. Hamas's tactic is as simple as it is criminal and brutal. Its leaders know that by repeatedly firing rockets at Israeli civilian areas, they will give Israel no choice but to respond. Israel's response will target the rockets and those sending them. In order to maximize their own civilian casualties, and thereby earn the sympathy of the international community and media, Hamas leaders deliberately fire their rockets from densely populated civilian areas. The Hamas fighters hide in underground bunkers but Hamas refuses to provide any shelter for its own civilians, whom they use as "human shields." This unlawful tactic puts Israel to a tragic choice: simply allow Hamas rockets to continue to target Israeli cities and towns; or respond to the rockets, with inevitable civilian casualties among the Palestinian "human shields." Every democracy would choose the latter option if presented with a similar choice. Although Israel goes to great efforts to reduce civilian casualties, the Hamas tactic is designed to maximize them. The international community and the media must understand this and begin to blame Hamas, rather than Israel, for the Palestinian civilians who are killed by Israeli rockets but whose deaths are clearly part of the Hamas tactic. Every reasonable commentator has agreed with President Obama that Hamas started this battle by firing thousands of rockets at Israeli civilians. Every reasonable commentator also agrees with President Obama that Israel has the right to defend its citizens. But many commentators fault Israel for causing Palestinian civilian casualties. But what is Israel's option, other than to simply allow rockets to be aimed at its own women and children. As President Obama observed when he went to Sderot as a candidate: The first job of any nation state is to protect its citizens. And so I can assure you that if…somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing. Israel should continue to make every effort to reduce civilian casualties, both because that is the humane thing to do and because it serves their interests. But so long as Hamas continues to fire rockets from densely populated civilian areas, rather than from the many open areas outside of Gaza City, this cynical tactic—which constitutes a double war crime—will guarantee that some Palestinian women and children will be killed. And the Hamas leadership prepares for this gruesome certainty by arranging for the dead babies to be paraded in front of the international media. In one such case, the Palestinian radicals posted a video of a dead baby who turned out to have been killed in Syria by the Assad government, and in another case, they displayed the body of a baby who had been killed by a Hamas rocket that misfired, falsely claiming that it had been the victim of an Israeli rocket. As Richard Kemp, the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan has said, the Israeli Army does "more to safeguard civilians than any Army in the history of warfare." This includes dropping leaflets, making phone calls and providing other warnings to civilian residents of Gaza City. But Hamas refuses to provide shelter for its civilians, deliberately exposing them to the risks associated with warfare, while it shelters its own fighters in underground bunkers.](http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3462/hamas-israel-civilian-casualties) There are thing that can be legal and evil at the same time. Justifying WP because it is legal under Israeli law is a joke at best. =[STA-CITE]> [Since Protocol III, of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons regulates Incendiary Weapons, and shells containing White Phosphorus,may be legal even in populated areas, more information is required to determine the legality of any shell landing in populated areas.**So, it's under international law.**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus#Gaza_War_.282008.E2.80.932009.29) [END-CITE] [link from the source of wiki](http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/int/convention_conventional-wpns_prot-iii.htm) And WAR is ugly but is a necessary mean.

[Casbah-]

[STA-CITE]> Israel killed more but not willingly. [END-CITE]I also rob people, but not willingly, I just need to feed myself ...and I really want a new iPad. [STA-CITE]> The Hamas fighters hide in underground bunkers but Hamas refuses to provide any shelter for its own civilians, whom they use as "human shields." This unlawful tactic puts Israel to a tragic choice: simply allow Hamas rockets to continue to target Israeli cities and towns; or respond to the rockets, with inevitable civilian casualties among the Palestinian "human shields." IF YOU KNOW THEY ARE HIDING IN BUNKERS IN POPULATED AREAS WHY THE FUCK WOUD YOU STILL BOMB THEM? So you can maybe kill 1-2 while leveling an entire bloc? Holy shit man, you're so disgustingly full of it. [END-CITE][STA-CITE]> This unlawful tactic puts Israel to a tragic choice: simply allow Hamas rockets to continue to target Israeli cities and towns; or respond to the rockets, with inevitable civilian casualties among the Palestinian "human shields." [END-CITE]So how many Palestinian lives is an Israeli worth? 20? 30? 50? [STA-CITE]> Every democracy would choose the latter option if presented with a similar choice. [END-CITE]Yup, that totally makes it right. Drone strikes for everyone! Also it's ok to murder hostages. [STA-CITE]> And so I can assure you that if…somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing. [END-CITE]So murdering innocents is ok. [STA-CITE]> And WAR is ugly but is a necessary mean. [END-CITE]...I guess, as long it isn't you who does the fighting and your family the one to getting killed by bombs or forced to live in a refugee camp. [STA-CITE]> So, it's under international law. [END-CITE]You know what is clearly illegal though? [Israeli established settlements in occupied land](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements). So let's do a summary of your points: Murdering innocents is justified by the fact that I am morally obligated to defend myself at any cost possible. This is made easier by the fact that I can arbitrarily define the worth of a person's life. Also war is necessary. Yeah, you seem like a totally sane person...

[karelos]

[STA-CITE]> IF YOU KNOW THEY ARE HIDING IN BUNKERS IN POPULATED AREAS WHY THE FUCK WOUD YOU STILL BOMB THEM? So you can maybe kill 1-2 while leveling an entire bloc? Holy shit man, you're so disgustingly full of it. [END-CITE] **So someone try to kill your family but hide behind his innocent family. If you protect your family to the cost of his family, you're the monster, seriously ?** to protect *his* family, you gonna sacrifice yours ? [Never heard of the Levy Report for the legality of the settlements ?] (http://elderofziyon.blogspot.fr/2012/07/english-translation-of-legal-arguments.html)

[blackflag415]

I'm Jewish, and I was taught the poor victim Israel side of the story growing up. The same one you illustrate in your op. The story is much more complicated than any simple black and white picture of course. Nothin in reality is as simple as good guys and bad guys. Others will post facts, figures and history so I'll post a little anecdote. When I was in Israel I visited the holocaust museum. There is a concrete wall in it meant to mimic the wall of the Warsaw ghetto. Later in the day, I drove past the wall around the West Bank. The resemblance was striking. Of course there is a difference in degree of oppression, but not of type I think. Millions of innocent people that have nothing to do with the PLO or terrorism are walled into an area and not allowed to leave. I asked an Israeli soldier what he thought about it. "They're terrorists," was the substance of his answer. They said the same thing about Jews, and every other oppressed group since the beginning of time. If you walk the streets of Jerusalem and see people who live 5 feet away from each other who hate each others guts, and bullet holes in beautiful thousand year old buildings you'll know nothing is as simple as good and bad.

[NikolaiVonToffel]

[STA-CITE]> Of course there is a difference in degree of oppression, but not of type I think. [END-CITE]Tell me, what was the purpose of the Warsaw Ghetto? Was it to stop violent terrorist attacks from the Jewish population in Poland, or was it to systematically kill all of Warsaw's Jews? Go learn a little bit about the Holocaust. [This Wiki page](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto) should be a good place to start. Note the comparisons to the [Gaza strip](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip). The most striking is that the population in Gaza is rising rapidly, whereas 3/4 of all the Jews in the Ghetto died; that clearly shows a qualitative difference in the type of violence being done. One is genocide. The other is military occupation and blockade.

[NichtLebenZeitToeten]

Check your indignation, I don't think he's trying to draw a moral equivalence so much that he's trying to point out that the methodology is similar, and that no matter the justification, anytime you ghetto-ize people it's a bad thing.

[blackflag415]

Thanks for backing me up. Also, every oppressive power in history (including the nazis) said their actions were just to defend themselves or for security. In fact many of the justifications we see offered in this thread are the same ones offered by the Romans when they destroyed the temple and nation of Judaea in the first place. For them, Jews were violent terrorists.

[Bigpoppa18]

The Jews in prewar Germany were just trying to be the best Germans they could be. They fought with the Germans in WWI, won war medals, and generally speaking loved everything about Germany. Hitler pulled the same old antisemitic rhetoric that echoed again and again in Jewish history (and continues to be echoed today in Arab and Islamic countries), and blamed all the financial and social problems on the Jews. This lead to the wholesale slaughter of most of the world's Jewish population. Haj Amin al-Husseini, who was the grand mufti of Jerusalem during WW2 time was an open supporter of Hitler. Gaza's elected leaders today call to "finish the job that Hitler started". This rhetoric is repeated over and over again on Arab television. They use the same Protocols of the Elders of Zion bullshit to feed the fire of hatred in the region. Blaming occupation or the separation wall for the lack of peace in that region is ignoring a century of history.

[Atimo3]

Do you realize what kind of rhetoric are you using here? “It’s not the same because Jews in Warsaw were good and Arabs today are bad. Jews are a good nation; those other are an evil nation. Therefore a violation of human rights is ok” You are trying to rationalize a thing that cannot be described as anything but racism and xenophobia.

[briskt]

This anecdote is supposed to play on emotions instead of facts. The goal of the Palestinians is statehood, and therefore, there should be no problem with the West Bank and Israel being physically separated entities. This is the same as any other international border such as US/Mexico. Does the US ghettoize Mexico because they've erected a barrier between the two lands? No, they are simply securing their land. The West Bank has a border with Jordan, so Palestinians can leave their country just like Americans can leave theirs. That is, if another country grants them entry, they can travel.

[blackflag415]

Edit: double post

[blackflag415]

Then why does Israel keep Building settlements, road blocks, and otherwise taking land on the other side of the wall? As per your example of the US and Mexico, the West Bank is sovereign territory of a foreign country - If the US started building settlements in Mexico, defended by American troops the world would rightly view it as illegitimate as it does Israel's settlements inside Palistine. Either way your point only proved that Israel was the same as other countries, not that they are good guys as per op's point. Being a good guy, or "light unto the nations" as it says in the Torah has a higher standards than "well those other countries did it too..."

[Bigpoppa18]

The west bank is not sovereign territory of any country. Thats the issue here. Israel captured that land from the Jordanians, and I have not read about them laying claim to it. The Sinai came from Egypt, the Golan from Syria. The Palestinians never had control of the land, and as such it was never sovereign. And if you really want to get into the Torah passages, there's a whole bunch of those dealing with the land of Israel and it's importance to the Jewish people. The "light unto the nations" line is a reference to the light of the Menorah in the Temple, which was on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

[blackflag415]

I know the West Bank isn't sovereign. That's my point. That's why the comparison with the us and Mexico. Don't want to get in the Torah, just saying if we want Israel to be the "good guy" we must hold her to a higher standard. The whole thing is Ironic because Israel was founded by "terrorism." From a British perspective, Ben-Gurion was a terrorist.

[briskt]

I certainly don't completely agree with the settlements. When original settlements were built, the West Bank was enemy territory conquered in a war started by enemies, and Israel wanted to secure itself by keeping the land as a buffer from it's enemies (Jordan, and the Palestinians). Eventually, there were peace accords, and the premise was land for peace. So the commitment is to give the Palestinians back their land. Until there were peace agreements, Israel felt under no obligation to give back land, as they were in a state of war. After the peace agreements, more and more of the control of the territory has been seceded to the Palestinian Authority, which controls most affairs of the West Bank. However, the settlements remain, and are likely to remain as long as a final peace deal is not hammered out. Why should Israel bear all the burden of peace? In Gaza, they withdrew all Jewish settlements and handed over the territory to the Palestinians, and what they got was rockets being shot into the heart of their cities. Maybe they learned their lesson about unilaterally withdrawing without a sound security arrangement or comprehensive peace deal. I also don't believe Israel is better than any country for religious reasons. I just think a country's first priority has to be to protect it's own citizens. Sometimes people use the proportion of casualties on the side of the Palestinians to make it seem as if Israel doesn't have any reason to be concerned for it's security (during Cast Lead over 1000 Palestinians died vs. 13 Israelis, so people think that therefore the Palestinians are right and Israel is wrong). Israel has learned from the past, and will try to build peace with the Palestinians while never compromising itself to the point where it could be destroyed.

[uncannylizard]

There are several factors here. A) Many Palestinians believe in a one state solution, meaning that they think that Jews and Palestinians should live wherever they want in both territories. 700,000 Palestinians were unjustly displaced from their properties and homes in 1948. They want Palestinians to be able to move to Israel and legally buy land wherever they want. This would also allow settlers to peacefully and legally buy land in Judea and Samaria or in Gaza if they wish. B) Many Palestinians want at least some portion of the millions of refugees to be able to return to Israel, or at least to be compensated in some negotiated fashion. This is the "right of return". The wall basically represents Israel's complete disregard of the Palestinian's right of return. You can read Finkelstein's take on this, where he lays out in a very convincing argument that Israel must recognise the right of return, and when it does, then it can offer the Palestinians some compensation to basically buy the right of return off them if they are so concerned with maintaining Jewish domination over Israel. C) For those Palestinians who support a two state solution, the separation wall is basically a way for Israel to shield itself from the consequences of its actions in Palestine. It can continue to expand settlements, keep its vast network of checkpoints across the West Bank, and continue to detain Palestinians indefinitely without trial and it will never suffer anything because the USA protects it from international retaliation and the wall of separation protects it from Palestinian revolt. The Palestinian's last piece of leverage is being able to provide security for Israel if a deal is reached. If Israel can secure itself without reaching a deal then they have absolutely no incentive to ever allow the Palestinian status to improve and generations more Palestinians will be condemned to suffer from injustices.

[Bigpoppa18]

a) The 700,000 Palestinians that were displaced from their land left because of a war that they started and lost. Their own leaders told them to leave because they will drive the Jews into the sea (their words, not mine). Never in history can I recall a situation that the side that "won" a war cedes land to the side that lost, let alone a war started by the losing side. "Many Palestinians" also believe in a one arab state solution, devoid of Jews altogether, as per the [Hamas charter](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant). Hamas, the elected leaders of the Gaza strip, calls for the wholesale slaughter of Jews worldwide, not just those living in Israel. These are not a population that any country would want as neighbors, let alone citizens. B) Perhaps the 700,000 Palestinian refugees who left in 1948 can consider getting compensation for their property if the [800,000-1,000,000 Jewish refugees from arab lands](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries) can claim their compensation at the same time. Or perhaps we can just call it even? C) The separation wall is a way to keep [homicidal suicide terrorist bombers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks) out of civilian areas. It has worked so well that now they [fire rockets over the wall and into Israel](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel). The USA protects Israel for obvious reasons, as the Arab League protects the Palestinian interests. Its politics. If the world really and truly felt bad for the Palestinian cause, perhaps a push for a Palestinian state east of the Jordan river might be an idea? They can join their [3.24 Million Palestinian countrymen](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians_in_Jordan) there.

[Atimo3]

1) The UN forbids the annexation of new territory through military victory. Your argument seems reduced to “they are the bad guys; therefore stealing from them is ok”. 2) Why do the Palestinian have any responsibility in what other Arab nations decide to do? Should… let’s say Guatemala, have to pay reparations to the Indigenous people of Peru for their abuse under Fujimori’s regime only because they are both Latin American? You cannot blame a group of people for what other group of people do only because they speak the same language. 3) And the segregation in the Apartheid era was because the evil terrorist ANC keep putting bombs… That’s the thing with Human Rights and the self determination of the nations; you cannot arbitrarily put exceptions to them just because you feel like you need then, especially if you are using those to put a stop in a kind of violence with its roots in that same violation of Human Rights and Self-determination.

[uncannylizard]

[STA-CITE]> a) The 700,000 Palestinians that were displaced from their land left because of a war that they started and lost. Their own leaders told them to leave because they will drive the Jews into the sea (their words, not mine). Never in history can I recall a situation that the side that "won" a war cedes land to the side that lost, let alone a war started by the losing side. [END-CITE] The Jews and Arabs both told the Palestinians to flee because there was going to be a war. It didn't matter who told them or why. In every significant war hundreds of thousands of people flee. Its a normal thing to happen. What isn't normal is refusing to let people back into their properties. This isn't about ceding territory to Arab countries. This is about letting civilians live in their homes, on their property. You aren't allowed to seize the land and property of 700,000 people because you won a war. [STA-CITE]> "Many Palestinians" also believe in a one arab state solution, devoid of Jews altogether, as per the Hamas charter[1] . Hamas, the elected leaders of the Gaza strip, calls for the wholesale slaughter of Jews worldwide, not just those living in Israel. These are not a population that any country would want as neighbors, let alone citizens. [END-CITE]The Hamas charter, as the leader of Hamas has said, is a document that doesn't reflect the opinions of most Palestinians and isn't even relevant to Hamas's position today, and Hamas isn't the representative of the Palestinian people anyways. They won one election one time because they were the protest vote against Fatah's corruption, but they wouldn't win another election when another election is held according to he analyses that I have read. [STA-CITE]> B) Perhaps the 700,000 Palestinian refugees who left in 1948 can consider getting compensation for their property if the 800,000-1,000,000 Jewish refugees from arab lands[2] can claim their compensation at the same time. Or perhaps we can just call it even? [END-CITE] I would absolutely support that. Jews should have rights in every country and should get compensation for their loss, especially if they aren't allowed to return home. However, the Palestinians are not responsible for the actions of various despotic Arab regimes. They shouldn't suffer because of the actions of the king of Morocco or the king of Saudi Arabia or whoever. Also, just for accuracy, most Jews (not all) left out of fear, not of actual forcible displacement. There obviously were exceptions where significant violence did actually take place in certain countries. [STA-CITE]> C) The separation wall is a way to keep homicidal suicide terrorist bombers[3] out of civilian areas. It has worked so well that now they fire rockets over the wall and into Israel[4] . The USA protects Israel for obvious reasons, as the Arab League protects the Palestinian interests. Its politics. [END-CITE] The problem is not the separation wall. The problem is what the separation wall allows Israel to do. It allows Israel to do whatever it wants to palestine without consequence. It can deny them a state forever, it can allow for indefinite detentions of Palestinians without trial, it can continue to build settlements, etc. It can do all this without any costs. Thats the problem. if it addressed those issues then virtually nobody would care about the separation wall. [STA-CITE]> If the world really and truly felt bad for the Palestinian cause, perhaps a push for a Palestinian state east of the Jordan river might be an idea? They can join their 3.24 Million Palestinian countrymen[5] there. [END-CITE]If the world did that then they would be no better than the radicals who call for the Jews to go back to America or Europe. They can join their [6 million Jewish countrymen](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews) in America or the millions in many other countries in Europe, North America, and South America.

[x757xSnarf]

The Warsaw ghetto was made to keep jews trapped in, the west bank wall is meant to keep Palestinians out, and there is a reliable security issue there. Many of borders have walls. Israel isn't the only one

[blackflag415]

All you proved is that Israel is the same as other countries. Not that they are the good guys. Also if Palestine is a foreign country to build a wall around why do they keep building settlements on the other side? No other country can just start building communities within its neighbor.

[x757xSnarf]

I never said Israel was good, I was just responding to the one particular comment, not the OP