|
why is any discussion on israel always assumed to be so black and white?
if israel was a racist, apartheid state then the 18% of its population who are arab would not choose to live there.
if israel was really committing such atrocious war crimes as it's accused of then why no convictions to date? either there's a giant anti-arab conspiracy, or they're operating within the bounds of international law.
and why does no-one remember that israeli history goes back past 1948?
the palestinians are not really such an abused, disenfranchised people as you'd think from what they say.
after israel's sovereign land was invaded by rome and its population forcibly ejected, the palestinians annexed the land. after almost two millennia of failing to build it into a functioning state, they began to sell it back to jewish settlers.
the international community made the decision to grant the territory back to the nation that had owned it previously, in response to the continued threats posed to their existence throughout the diaspora.
since then, despite frequent aggression from its neighbours israel has managed to build itself into a functioning democratic state with a potentially self-sufficient economy, fairly liberal environment, relative safety for much of its population, and one of the world's most potent armies.
meanwhile palestine's leaders neglect the welfare of their own people, enriching themselves through corruption and spending the remainder of their spare time whining about israel.
don't think for a minute that palestinian terrorism stems from oppression. it comes from the rabid arab nationalistim of its leaders and authority figures. the palestinian way is to utilize the weak and defenceless as pawns, in the same way hezbollah did.
hyperbole? not likely. read through the manifestos of hamas, islamic jihad, hezbollah or any other so-called "resistance organization."
israel reacts to aggression in a decisive way. it often over-reacts - maybe that's to be expected from a small nation surrounded by hostiles and a few scant decades from ethnic cleansing. maybe it's unjustifiable, more likely it's in some grey area between the two.
what is certain is that israel's leaders prioritize prosperity and welfare above violence. the two are not always inseparable, in fact the latter is sometimes the only way to achieve the former.
if there were no militants firing qassams into sderot, no suicide bombers infiltrating the west bank, and israel was allowed to get on with its statehood unmolested, it would do so.
but since palestine and lebanon don't seem to be capable of stopping the militants peacefully - or particularly interested in trying to do so - they can expect that a well-armed sovereign nation will defend itself by attempting to remove the militants for them if those militants persist in attacking it.
why are the gaza and west bank withdrawals conveniently swept under the carpet in a discussion on "illegal expansion" ?
anti-israeli militant activity was not affected by the withdrawals - does that indicate that palestine sincerely wants peaceful co-existence, and an end to the violence?
or is it maybe just possible that palestine, the nation that eleceted a party whose charter contains a clause clearly delineating its founding principle as the destruction of israel, just hates its neighbour, and that as long as that hate is there, and is expressed through militant action, its people may continue to suffer, so maybe the prerogative is with palestine, not israel?
|
Thanks.
. Israel is a state created illegitamtely just like the US and Australia, by killing off and displacing the native population and settling non-indigenous people there.
