Did someone say anywhere that Ehtiopian Jews were not treated poorly? Posters spoke to a specific incident and corrected this misinformation about that incident.
I don't know if you lack comprehension skills but NOT ONE PERSON has said that Israel isn't treating its minority populations poorly. Israel has some seriously fucked up, racist attitudes. So does the U.S. Racism is a huge issues among ourselves as Jews. But this doesn't change the discussion. So put your straw man away.
It's been the specific acts to reduce births of this population that qualifies as genocide. I thought overall attitude was relevant towards intent; which is also required.
I think the history and meaning of the word apartheid and all the reasons it doesn't apply to this conflict were well laid out in the other thread. And your point here is a very clear reason why it's really important to be precise in our language - that these words and concepts in particular have massive consequences. I absolutely get that.
But I actually haven't seen any explanation of why the facets of Article 7 OTHER than apartheid don't apply to the oppression of the Palestinians. Talking about the section I quoted on the first page to ask for sources. We jumped straight into why false claims are particularly hurtful, but I haven't seen anything explaining in what way they're false. The UN is biased. Is amnesty also biased? (actual question, not rhetorical) And if they are...So these things aren't happening? The Palestinians aren't being moved off their land? They aren't being detained in large numbers/having their movements restricted? I thought we were all in agreement that this shit is happening and it's awful. So is it just not widespread enough to qualify for that definition? I am TOTALLY open to the answer being that it's not widespread enough or the fact that there's an active conflict happening changes things or whatever the hell the answer might be. I'm not accusing Israel of anything, but Bucky McNewKid here is and I'd like to understand the full defense.
So who decides these things? I mean...I sure as shit don't since I have no idea 1. what constitutes widespread or what other legal definitions are at play and 2. to what extent this shit is in fact happening. That's what I was trying to ask in my earlier post and would still like to understand - what's the ICC/UN equivalent of a grand jury? Who decides if something is close enough that it should be "charged?" Have they looked at this and decided no? Is there nobody who CAN look at it since they aren't signatories? Or is a mushier issue than that? I'm trying to google and understand, but I have yet to run across a clear answer.
There's a lot here to respond to, most of which I'm not really qualified to weigh in on, but I do want to respond to the bolded because I have two responses to that.
First, I have heard from people that work in this field that Amnesty International's reputation has declined somewhat in the last decade or two. (@mx might be able to back me up on this) From what I understand, while they still do some very good work, they have moved in a more radical direction. For example, I'm pretty sure it was their statement which seemed to be pro-legalization of sex work that resulted in the epic thread here involving arborgold leaving. Other groups, like Human Rights Watch, are better respected. I was not familiar with HRW's work on Israel and Palestine, a look at their website just now suggests it's more balanced.
Second, the white liberal left is pretty anti-Semitic. And that's who is staffing many of the human and civil rights organizations. So I'd read their publications with a critical eye.
thanks for that.
this isn't really a response to you -just word vomit. I feel very conflicted about this whole thing the more I learn about it. like I've always known it's a clusterfuck with no easy answers - I remember ages ago when I learned the basic history of it (which I remember boilign down to "the British did it") and feeling so at a loss for what the answer would be from there. So then you have this mess of a situation with no easy answers and no single clear cut bad guy - and it's just hard. I can't imagine how much harder this is for people who have personal ties to the region. On both sides. it's like when a parent does terrible things - but you still love them. How you reconcile that love with knowing what they've done? It's some shit. I mean...I guess it's how I feel about my own country and the shit we/they pull - but with the added history of the oppression of the jewish people and a much messier situation...I mean at least we all know who's at fault here in the US (i.e. not black and brown people). So yeah. that's a big ass topic with a lot of wrinkles.
The Forward is a Jewish newspaper, so take that for what it is. And Peter Beinart is widely reviled in the right wing pro-Israel groups, so the fact that he wrote the first article may color the response to the second.
 I think the history and meaning of the word apartheid and all the reasons it doesn't apply to this conflict were well laid out in the other thread. And your point here is a very clear reason why it's really important to be precise in our language - that these words and concepts in particular have massive consequences. I absolutely get that.Â
But I actually haven't seen any explanation of why the facets of Article 7 OTHER than apartheid don't apply to the oppression of the Palestinians. Talking about the section I quoted on the first page to ask for sources. We jumped straight into why false claims are particularly hurtful, but I haven't seen anything explaining in what way they're false. The UN is biased. Is amnesty also biased?  (actual question, not rhetorical) And if they are...So these things aren't happening? The Palestinians aren't being moved off their land? They aren't being detained in large numbers/having their movements restricted? I thought we were all in agreement that this shit is happening and it's awful. So is it just not widespread enough to qualify for that definition? I am TOTALLY open to the answer being that it's not widespread enough or the fact that there's an active conflict happening changes things or whatever the hell the answer might be. I'm not accusing Israel of anything, but Bucky McNewKid here is and I'd like to understand the full defense.
So who decides these things? I mean...I sure as shit don't since I have no idea 1. what constitutes widespread or what other legal definitions are at play and 2. to what extent this shit is in fact happening. That's what I was trying to ask in my earlier post and would still like to understand - what's the ICC/UN equivalent of a grand jury? Who decides if something is close enough that it should be "charged?" Have they looked at this and decided no? Is there nobody who CAN look at it since they aren't signatories?  Or is a mushier issue than that? I'm trying to google and understand, but I have yet to run across a clear answer.Â
Basically, (and I mean basically) if Israel is found guilty of those terms than the international community has the right to destroy the country. Â The major countries in the UN don't think what is happening has met those definitions, so right now, if Iran bombed Israel to get rid of the "apartheid regime", the US, Canada, Britain, etc would go to war with Iran on Israel's behalf. Â
There are different levels of how awful a country can be within international law. Â Some things are A.) never acceptable, B.) some things are only acceptable while the country is at war, and C.) somethings are even up for debate on whether or not the international community has the right to have an opinion on what is happening. Â Non-Israel related examples would be A.) using WMD B.) killing citizens of other countries (aka enemy combatants) C.) discriminating against women or LGBTQ people.
If a country does too many shitty things, the UN can basically give the world permission to take that country out. Â Practicing apartheid is on the same level as ethnic cleansing, which is basically a indefensible action. Â If a country is found to do such a thing, they deserve to be destroyed per international law.
Basically, (and I mean basically) if Israel is found guilty of those terms than the international community has the right to destroy the country. The major countries in the UN don't think what is happening has met those definitions, so right now, if Iran bombed Israel to get rid of the "apartheid regime", the US, Canada, Britain, etc would go to war with Iran on Israel's behalf.
There are different levels of how awful a country can be within international law. Some things are A.) never acceptable, B.) some things are only acceptable while the country is at war, and C.) somethings are even up for debate on whether or not the international community has the right to have an opinion on what is happening. Non-Israel related examples would be A.) using WMD B.) killing citizens of other countries (aka enemy combatants) C.) discriminating against women or LGBTQ people.
If a country does too many shitty things, the UN can basically give the world permission to take that country out. Practicing apartheid is on the same level as ethnic cleansing, which is basically a indefensible action. If a country is found to do such a thing, they deserve to be destroyed per international law.
Basically, (and I mean basically) if Israel is found guilty of those terms than the international community has the right to destroy the country. The major countries in the UN don't think what is happening has met those definitions, so right now, if Iran bombed Israel to get rid of the "apartheid regime", the US, Canada, Britain, etc would go to war with Iran on Israel's behalf.
There are different levels of how awful a country can be within international law. Some things are A.) never acceptable, B.) some things are only acceptable while the country is at war, and C.) somethings are even up for debate on whether or not the international community has the right to have an opinion on what is happening. Non-Israel related examples would be A.) using WMD B.) killing citizens of other countries (aka enemy combatants) C.) discriminating against women or LGBTQ people.
If a country does too many shitty things, the UN can basically give the world permission to take that country out. Practicing apartheid is on the same level as ethnic cleansing, which is basically a indefensible action. If a country is found to do such a thing, they deserve to be destroyed per international law.
Back to Israel/Palestine. Some of the accusations go as far back as 1948. When the countries were formed, people were kicked out on both sides. Israel let all the Jews become Israeli citizens, and allowed some (but very few) Arabs to stay. In some areas, Arabs were forcibly removed, their property was stolen or destroyed, and many were even killed. This also happened to many Jews who tried to stay in the surrounding Arab countries. (None of that makes it ok.)
In 1967, Israel won the 6 day was and conquered territory from Egypt (the Sinai peninsula and the Gaza strip), Syria (the Golan Heights), and Jordan (the West Bank). The Old City of Jerusalem was also conquered and is now under Israeli control. Israel gave back the Sinai, annexed the Golan and Jerusalem permanently, and has occupied Gaza and the West Bank since 1967.
Since then, Israel has had different levels of occupation. Gaza and the West Bank have different levels of occupation, and seem to have different governments (Gaza is run by Hamas and the West Bank by Abbas' government). Different countries recognize those governments differently.
Each of these accusations should be viewed separately and as a greater whole. If you are going to aggregate everything, than it has to be compared to what other countries are doing in terms of the punishments associated with the crimes. These accusations and actions taken by Israel also must be viewed through the lense of the entire reality of the situation, which includes the behavior of Israel's neighbors (including the Palestinians) and the behavior of everyone involved during the peace process.
I can't bold on my phone but I completely understand why you are fiercely protective of the terms used given your first paragraph. I don't want you or anyone else to think I have missed the importance of what you are saying.
I'm sure the above has been posted a million times but that feels like the most clear cut post I've read. Thank you for typing that out.
I agree. And it is definitely not something that is taught in detail in my experience.
This is not a defense of anyone's feelings, but for my life, hell even most of my parents life, Israel has been in the position of power. And while that power is tenuous and hasn't been that long, I think for many Americans they cannot look beyond what has happened during their lifetime. And the US has always been a defender of Israel (or seen that way). Many younger Americans, especially those who see themselves as activists, question America and its allies, so I think it makes them skeptical of Israel as well. And then they look at how America has treated minorities and they can see some parallels, rightly or wrongly. So Israel looks like the agressor over a weaker, brown minority. If we had a better teaching of history, it would allow for Americans in general to have a better understanding of why Israelis have felt they need to defend themselves and how they haven't always been the ones on top. I mean I was a very good student and went to what was considered a good school and I was not taught this history (at least not in a way that was memorable). Again this is not a defense of anything, but I can see how people taught in this education system could have a one-sided view of the conflict.
The Forward is a Jewish newspaper, so take that for what it is. And Peter Beinart is widely reviled in the right wing pro-Israel groups, so the fact that he wrote the first article may color the response to the second.
Want to quote this so I can find it in case this thread explodes before I can come back.
I can't bold on my phone but I completely understand why you are fiercely protective of the terms used given your first paragraph. I don't want you or anyone else to think I have missed the importance of what you are saying.
I'm sure the above has been posted a million times but that feels like the most clear cut post I've read. Thank you for typing that out.
I agree. And it is definitely not something that is taught in detail in my experience.
This is not a defense of anyone's feelings, but for my life, hell even most of my parents life, Israel has been in the position of power. And while that power is tenuous and hasn't been that long, I think for many Americans they cannot look beyond what has happened during their lifetime. And the US has always been a defender of Israel (or seen that way). Many younger Americans, especially those who see themselves as activists, question America and its allies, so I think it makes them skeptical of Israel as well. And then they look at how America has treated minorities and they can see some parallels, rightly or wrongly. So Israel looks like the agressor over a weaker, brown minority. If we had a better teaching of history, it would allow for Americans in general to have a better understanding of why Israelis have felt they need to defend themselves and how they haven't always been the ones on top. I mean I was a very good student and went to what was considered a good school and I was not taught this history (at least not in a way that was memorable). Again this is not a defense of anything, but I can see how people taught in this education system could have a one-sided view of the conflict.Â
This is one of the most eye opening things to come out of all of this for me. You aren't the first person here to say they weren't taught this. I think someone else mentioned they didn't realize before what Israel meant to Jews in light of how many people died during the Holocaust because they had nowhere to go. As a Jew, I grew up immersed in this history and didn't realize that many people might be coming to this topic without that knowledge basis.
I agree. And it is definitely not something that is taught in detail in my experience.
This is not a defense of anyone's feelings, but for my life, hell even most of my parents life, Israel has been in the position of power. And while that power is tenuous and hasn't been that long, I think for many Americans they cannot look beyond what has happened during their lifetime. And the US has always been a defender of Israel (or seen that way). Many younger Americans, especially those who see themselves as activists, question America and its allies, so I think it makes them skeptical of Israel as well. And then they look at how America has treated minorities and they can see some parallels, rightly or wrongly. So Israel looks like the agressor over a weaker, brown minority. If we had a better teaching of history, it would allow for Americans in general to have a better understanding of why Israelis have felt they need to defend themselves and how they haven't always been the ones on top. I mean I was a very good student and went to what was considered a good school and I was not taught this history (at least not in a way that was memorable). Again this is not a defense of anything, but I can see how people taught in this education system could have a one-sided view of the conflict.Â
This is one of the most eye opening things to come out of all of this for me. You aren't the first person here to say they weren't taught this. I think someone else mentioned they didn't realize before what Israel meant to Jews in light of how many people died during the Holocaust because they had nowhere to go. As a Jew, I grew up immersed in this history and didn't realize that many people might be coming to this topic without that knowledge basis.
I admit I only know because my History of the Holocaust class in College covered Jewish history as an introduction and that included the expulsions and so on and then covered up to the creation of Israel as the end point of the class. I had read a good bit about the Holocaust (Jane Yolen books were a gateway for me) and a little about the Pogroms/Russian Jewish experience but hadn't gotten any real info on the broader history beyond that.
This is one of the most eye opening things to come out of all of this for me. You aren't the first person here to say they weren't taught this. I think someone else mentioned they didn't realize before what Israel meant to Jews in light of how many people died during the Holocaust because they had nowhere to go. As a Jew, I grew up immersed in this history and didn't realize that many people might be coming to this topic without that knowledge basis.
I admit I only know because my History of the Holocaust class in College covered Jewish history as an introduction and that included the expulsions and so on and then covered up to the creation of Israel as the end point of the class. I had read a good bit about the Holocaust (Jane Yolen books were a gateway for me) and a little about the Pogroms/Russian Jewish experience but hadn't gotten any real info on the broader history beyond that.
So, I need someone to validate the source, but this corresponds with 1) what I know about the forced relocation of Jews from Arab countries after the formation of Israel, and 2) why the UN is seen to be one sided in regards to Israel.
This is part of why there are no good/bad guys in this scenario, and why the "sticking up for the underdog" rings false. *EVERYONE* in this situation is an underdog.
I can't bold on my phone but I completely understand why you are fiercely protective of the terms used given your first paragraph. I don't want you or anyone else to think I have missed the importance of what you are saying.
I'm sure the above has been posted a million times but that feels like the most clear cut post I've read. Thank you for typing that out.
I agree. And it is definitely not something that is taught in detail in my experience.
This is not a defense of anyone's feelings, but for my life, hell even most of my parents life, Israel has been in the position of power. And while that power is tenuous and hasn't been that long, I think for many Americans they cannot look beyond what has happened during their lifetime. And the US has always been a defender of Israel (or seen that way). Many younger Americans, especially those who see themselves as activists, question America and its allies, so I think it makes them skeptical of Israel as well. And then they look at how America has treated minorities and they can see some parallels, rightly or wrongly. So Israel looks like the agressor over a weaker, brown minority. If we had a better teaching of history, it would allow for Americans in general to have a better understanding of why Israelis have felt they need to defend themselves and how they haven't always been the ones on top. I mean I was a very good student and went to what was considered a good school and I was not taught this history (at least not in a way that was memorable). Again this is not a defense of anything, but I can see how people taught in this education system could have a one-sided view of the conflict.Â
This is because our schools teach European history and US history, at least mine did. I also didn't realize that many people don't know the history re Israel, but it makes sense why people feel confused in regard to the conflict in the region.
I can't bold on my phone but I completely understand why you are fiercely protective of the terms used given your first paragraph. I don't want you or anyone else to think I have missed the importance of what you are saying.
I'm sure the above has been posted a million times but that feels like the most clear cut post I've read. Thank you for typing that out.
I agree. And it is definitely not something that is taught in detail in my experience.
This is not a defense of anyone's feelings, but for my life, hell even most of my parents life, Israel has been in the position of power. And while that power is tenuous and hasn't been that long, I think for many Americans they cannot look beyond what has happened during their lifetime. And the US has always been a defender of Israel (or seen that way). Many younger Americans, especially those who see themselves as activists, question America and its allies, so I think it makes them skeptical of Israel as well. And then they look at how America has treated minorities and they can see some parallels, rightly or wrongly. So Israel looks like the agressor over a weaker, brown minority. If we had a better teaching of history, it would allow for Americans in general to have a better understanding of why Israelis have felt they need to defend themselves and how they haven't always been the ones on top. I mean I was a very good student and went to what was considered a good school and I was not taught this history (at least not in a way that was memorable). Again this is not a defense of anything, but I can see how people taught in this education system could have a one-sided view of the conflict.
If you have a big pile of time and are interested, Simon Schama's History of the Jews is PHENOMENAL (and if anyone doesnt have PBS Passport then either 1. donate to PBS and get it, it's public television! or 2. if that's not your cause, that's cool, I'm happy to share my login for anyone who is interested in this)
I admit I only know because my History of the Holocaust class in College covered Jewish history as an introduction and that included the expulsions and so on and then covered up to the creation of Israel as the end point of the class. I had read a good bit about the Holocaust (Jane Yolen books were a gateway for me) and a little about the Pogroms/Russian Jewish experience but hadn't gotten any real info on the broader history beyond that.
The Devil's Arithmetic? Nightmares.
Yes among others. did you ever watch the movie with Kirsten Dunst? It was very well done and disturbing because they stuck to the book which yes will give you nightmares.
Post by awkwardpenguin on Jun 27, 2017 19:00:57 GMT -5
I think it is worth looking at the Anti-defamation league's statement on this issue. They are an organization devoted to fighting anti-Semitism, but their position is substantially more nuanced than the arguments that have been advanced here that using the term apartheid automatically equals calling for the destruction of Israel. Instead they argue that the term is inaccurate and calls for divestment and boycott that unfairly singles out Israel.
So, I need someone to validate the source, but this corresponds with 1) what I know about the forced relocation of Jews from Arab countries after the formation of Israel, and 2) why the UN is seen to be one sided in regards to Israel.
This is part of why there are no good/bad guys in this scenario, and why the "sticking up for the underdog" rings false. *EVERYONE* in this situation is an underdog.
So I dont know much about the Jewish Virtual Library, I think their facts are correct. I will say that their book (some clicking around showed me they were the publishers) "Myths and Facts" is...pretty slanted towards Israel and against Palestine. We were given it when we graduated high school "to combat anti-Israel sentiment on campus." Mine was promptly thrown in the trash as it was around that time that I was starting to realize there was something very biased about the things I had been taught and that Israel is not always in the right and that the negative things said about Israel are not always lies.
That said, Jews were expelled from Arab countries en masse after the formation of the State of Israel. That's a fact. And their property was seized and they were absolutely persecuted. I know many people personally who were kicked out of Iraq and Syria. It looks like the facts about the Jews being kicked out and how they were treated in that article were true. I side eye their need to constantly compare it to the number of Palestinian refugees or whether the UN has ever addressed it.
So, I need someone to validate the source, but this corresponds with 1) what I know about the forced relocation of Jews from Arab countries after the formation of Israel, and 2) why the UN is seen to be one sided in regards to Israel.
This is part of why there are no good/bad guys in this scenario, and why the "sticking up for the underdog" rings false. *EVERYONE* in this situation is an underdog.
Yup.
I think one of the big problems is that the creation of Israel in 1948 has really been romanticized by non-Jewish Americans and Western Europeans. Like, "oh look how nice we were, we created a nice safe space for these people." The reality though is that WWII had bankrupted the British Empire, so it wasn't like some act of generosity. France too became broke, and couldn't maintain its colonies in the surrounding region, which only sped up the destabilization of the area. Throw in all the post-WWII migration (voluntary and forced) among the Jews, and you've got a disaster waiting to happen.
The bad guys, if we are looking for them, are really the former Allied powers who lit this match.
I think it is worth looking at the Anti-defamation league's statement on this issue. They are an organization devoted to fighting anti-Semitism, but their position is substantially more nuanced than the arguments that have been advanced here that using the term apartheid automatically equals calling for the destruction of Israel. Instead they argue that the term is inaccurate and calls for divestment and boycott that unfairly singles out Israel.
Considering that this conversation has been going on for months and that exact link has already been posted by Jewish posters, I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. That is an argument for why Israel isn't an apartheid state, not why it matters that Israel shouldn't be called one or what the ramifications are. It is an educational tool for supporters of Israel and for supporters of world Jewry.
I have not seen this link posted - I searched with both google and the site search tool before I posted.
I don't agree that the article does not address the ramifications of calling Israel an apartheid state. It specifically says that it using that terminology does not advance a two state solution and does not help to further the cause of Palestinian rights. I think it is both possible to think apartheid is not an appropriate way to describe Israel and also not believe that using the term apartheid is automatically calling for the destruction of Israel, which is presented as fact here.
Also, Israeli citizens differ on many things and they have as much control over their government as we do. Do I want the orange monster who is in the White House? No! But there he is.
So so much this.
This is what I don't get with those who condemn a people because of the actions of its government. In no way shape or form anything Cheetos does represents my beliefs. How hard is it to see that the actions of Israel do not necessarily represent the viewpionts of Israelis, let alone Jews who don't even live in Israel?
I agree. And it is definitely not something that is taught in detail in my experience.
This is not a defense of anyone's feelings, but for my life, hell even most of my parents life, Israel has been in the position of power. And while that power is tenuous and hasn't been that long, I think for many Americans they cannot look beyond what has happened during their lifetime. And the US has always been a defender of Israel (or seen that way). Many younger Americans, especially those who see themselves as activists, question America and its allies, so I think it makes them skeptical of Israel as well. And then they look at how America has treated minorities and they can see some parallels, rightly or wrongly. So Israel looks like the agressor over a weaker, brown minority. If we had a better teaching of history, it would allow for Americans in general to have a better understanding of why Israelis have felt they need to defend themselves and how they haven't always been the ones on top. I mean I was a very good student and went to what was considered a good school and I was not taught this history (at least not in a way that was memorable). Again this is not a defense of anything, but I can see how people taught in this education system could have a one-sided view of the conflict.
This is one of the most eye opening things to come out of all of this for me. You aren't the first person here to say they weren't taught this. I think someone else mentioned they didn't realize before what Israel meant to Jews in light of how many people died during the Holocaust because they had nowhere to go. As a Jew, I grew up immersed in this history and didn't realize that many people might be coming to this topic without that knowledge basis.
Agreed. Holocaust survivors are our grandparents; we've heard their stories firsthand and have seen the psychological trauma that affects them every.single.day. That level of trauma affects the next generation, and even the next after that. It's still very fresh to Jews, particularly in light of our very long history and the fact that some of our grandparents are still alive.
Did someone say anywhere that Ehtiopian Jews were not treated poorly? Posters spoke to a specific incident and corrected this misinformation about that incident.
I don't know if you lack comprehension skills but NOT ONE PERSON has said that Israel isn't treating its minority populations poorly. Israel has some seriously fucked up, racist attitudes. So does the U.S. Racism is a huge issues among ourselves as Jews. But this doesn't change the discussion. So put your straw man away.
It's been the specific acts to reduce births of this population that qualifies as genocide. I thought overall attitude was relevant towards intent; which is also required.
Other than a small scale program that administered Depo Provera injections without consent, how else has the Israel attempted to mitigate birth rates among Ethiopian Jews?
I will say though, about the plight of Jewish refugees of the Arab world, that while it was horrific for the people who experienced it, I don't think it is fair to compare it to the plight of the Palestinians. Those Jewish refugees became citizens of the countries they fled too. That did not happen for a significant portion of Palestinian refugees. Between 1948 and 1967 there was no Palestine at all, just Jordan and Israel. I am not familiar with the cultural/ethnic differences between the Jordanians and the Palestinians, but I understand they are two different peoples. So Palestinians in Jordan were not matriculated into Jordanian citizenship, and were true refugees with no place to go and no where to go back to.
The surrounding Arab countries refused to take in the Palestinians; in part because of varying cultural issues, but also so they could be used as a pawn against Israel, which is exactly what happened.
So, I need someone to validate the source, but this corresponds with 1) what I know about the forced relocation of Jews from Arab countries after the formation of Israel, and 2) why the UN is seen to be one sided in regards to Israel.
This is part of why there are no good/bad guys in this scenario, and why the "sticking up for the underdog" rings false. *EVERYONE* in this situation is an underdog.
Yup.
I think one of the big problems is that the creation of Israel in 1948 has really been romanticized by non-Jewish Americans and Western Europeans. Like, "oh look how nice we were, we created a nice safe space for these people." The reality though is that WWII had bankrupted the British Empire, so it wasn't like some act of generosity. France too became broke, and couldn't maintain its colonies in the surrounding region, which only sped up the destabilization of the area. Throw in all the post-WWII migration (voluntary and forced) among the Jews, and you've got a disaster waiting to happen.
The bad guys, if we are looking for them, are really the former Allied powers who lit this match.
Nope. Hitler and the nazis lit that match. I think the creation of Israel was well-intended, just recklessly executed.
I agree. And it is definitely not something that is taught in detail in my experience.
This is not a defense of anyone's feelings, but for my life, hell even most of my parents life, Israel has been in the position of power. And while that power is tenuous and hasn't been that long, I think for many Americans they cannot look beyond what has happened during their lifetime. And the US has always been a defender of Israel (or seen that way). Many younger Americans, especially those who see themselves as activists, question America and its allies, so I think it makes them skeptical of Israel as well. And then they look at how America has treated minorities and they can see some parallels, rightly or wrongly. So Israel looks like the agressor over a weaker, brown minority. If we had a better teaching of history, it would allow for Americans in general to have a better understanding of why Israelis have felt they need to defend themselves and how they haven't always been the ones on top. I mean I was a very good student and went to what was considered a good school and I was not taught this history (at least not in a way that was memorable). Again this is not a defense of anything, but I can see how people taught in this education system could have a one-sided view of the conflict.
If you have a big pile of time and are interested, Simon Schama's History of the Jews is PHENOMENAL (and if anyone doesnt have PBS Passport then either 1. donate to PBS and get it, it's public television! or 2. if that's not your cause, that's cool, I'm happy to share my login for anyone who is interested in this)
Post by goldengirlz on Jun 27, 2017 21:11:05 GMT -5
I needed to step back from these threads today but I've been lurking. I just want to say how much I appreciate the discussion in here. I probably know a lot more than most (both of my grandfathers are Holocaust survivors and I attended yeshiva) but I still learned a lot.
This thread could have gone in a lot of different ways but I want to say thank you both to those who gave their time to weigh in and those who asked insightful questions.
I think one of the big problems is that the creation of Israel in 1948 has really been romanticized by non-Jewish Americans and Western Europeans. Like, "oh look how nice we were, we created a nice safe space for these people." The reality though is that WWII had bankrupted the British Empire, so it wasn't like some act of generosity. France too became broke, and couldn't maintain its colonies in the surrounding region, which only sped up the destabilization of the area. Throw in all the post-WWII migration (voluntary and forced) among the Jews, and you've got a disaster waiting to happen.
The bad guys, if we are looking for them, are really the former Allied powers who lit this match.
Nope. Hitler and the nazis lit that match. I think the creation of Israel was well-intended, just recklessly executed.
Of course. Sorry I didn't mean to gloss over Hitler's role, I was too focused on 1948. With respect to British, etc, I should have said it wasn't entirely a selfless act, instead of suggesting it was not in anyway motivated by good intentions.
But like anything else, good intentions aren't enough. And in this case, the good intentions had the consequence of hurting another group. So the reckless nature in which it was executed both puts some blame on those involved, and calls for a more critical look at the roles of these other counties instead of blaming it all on Israel and Palestine, who in many ways were set up to fail.
If you have a big pile of time and are interested, Simon Schama's History of the Jews is PHENOMENAL (and if anyone doesnt have PBS Passport then either 1. donate to PBS and get it, it's public television! or 2. if that's not your cause, that's cool, I'm happy to share my login for anyone who is interested in this)