Comments on: Getting some perspective on the War in Gaza

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 00:05:12 +0000

[...] [...]

By: Shay

Shay — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 22:54:15 +0000

Thanks =]

By: Omtza

Omtza — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:46:51 +0000

Great post.

By: Shay

Shay — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:47:19 +0000

Hey, thanks, I didn’t write it, I only translated it.
There’s a certain fetishism about the Israeli-Arab conflict which no single explanation I’ve heard ever fully satisfied me.
You’re right about one thing though, it sure ain’t 1947. With today’s pomo sensibilities, no way would the UN approve the establishment of Israel. The very idea of the nation state isn’t considered politically correct these days, even though most states in the world are in fact nation states, and have ethnocentric citizenship laws.
The notion of ownership of land is something that has somewhat changed since the days Israel was established. Generally speaking, throughout history most borders of most states were determined through either impassable natural boundaries or war. This is undisputed. Only in very recent history has the notion that indigenous people have rights over land beyond war has become acceptable. Moreover, the notion that land cannot be gained through warfare is also now unacceptable. But these ideas have become popular only in very recent history, and even then, have been excused for some parties while not for others.
Furthermore, the accepted notion in 1947, or at least in 1917 when Balfour made his famous declaration, was that the Jews had anyway the most right to claim being aboriginal to the land they called Palestine. And besides, it is British land, legally acquired by war, and they can do with it as they please.
I think Balfour’s remark form 1920 is very telling of the prevalent attitude:

“So far as the Arabs are concerned –I hope they will remember that it is we who have established an independent Arab sovereignty of the Hedjaz. I hope they will remember it is we who desire in Mesopotamia to prepare the way for the future of a self-governing, autonomous Arab State, and I hope that, remembering all that, they will not grudge that small notch — for it is no more than that geographically, whatever it may be historically — that small notch in what are now Arab territories being given to the people who for all these hundreds of years have been separated from it.”

Basically, the British and the League of Nations are “kind” enough to allow Arabs self rule – a first in many hundreds of years – and that all they ask in return is that they accept a solution to the Jewish problem in their land – which Jews have been trying to reach for millennia, but only since emancipation could they seriously consider achieving.

By: T-sis

T-sis — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:51:49 +0000

It is very well written.
Unfortunately it is not that Israel is doing anything worse than other countries, but rather that other countries have not yet fully comprehended that this is not 1947 and in fact, we don’t need their permission. The hypocritical attitude toward Israel’s policy which is by far more humane and caring than any other country that finds itself in war situation makes me as always sick.
I offer another option to the “spectator sport” theory, people watch our little region so they wont have to deal with the horrific awful awful goings on in Africa, ironically brought about by our greatest criticizers.

By: israeli: a major victory

israeli: a major victory — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:17:41 +0000

[...] (Reply to this) telecart 2009-01-17 03:35 pm UTC (link) You appear to be hopelessly naive. Few people here take pleasure in innocent Gazans dying. It’s heartbreaking. But it’s an unfortunate outcome of Gaza being ruled by a fanatic Jihadist organization that refused to extend the ceasefire. We really tried our best to avoid this conflict, but we have no illusions of our place in the region.I suggest to get a greater perspective on the complexity of urban warfare. [...]