A lot of Americans hear about harsh Israeli measures inside the occupied territories, and assume that the Israelis are just defending themselves against terrorist organizations. (Assuming they hear anything at all about it, that is.) But Muslims aren’t the only non-Jews who are being subjected to oppressive travel restrictions, economic sanctions, and the illegal destruction and seizure of private property. Palestinian Christians are also being driven out.
The way Amal sees it, the Israeli military and the settlers, having failed to evict the family by legal means, are now trying to force them out. She remembers the settlers who uprooted 250 young olive trees in 2002, and who permanently closed the road to the farm with rubble. The demolition orders posted on the gate, threatening to destroy the Nassars’ home and water wells. The soldiers who, in 2009, forced her 72-year-old mother out of bed at gunpoint in the middle of the night and made her wait in the cold while they searched the farm.
Don’t forget the cordon of water wells around Gaza, purely to ruin the only water table Gazans have access to!
Oh, but when it happens loudly enough, the government will condemn the firebombing of churches and stuff. Or wedding parties celebrating the death of Palestinian babies. Kind of like how conservatives get upset with Trump for being way, way too obvious.
There are two groups of people I don’t understand:
1. Atheists who are pro-Israel.
2. People who were raised as Jews, but now identify as atheist, yet still refer to themselves as Jewish (I know that many people consider “Jewish” to be an ethnicity, but for most of history it has been seen as a religious identity).
Why either of these groups want to be lumbered with the baggage of history (for no reason whatsoever) is a complete mystery to me.
Hi PolishSalami,
Many atheists are pro-Israel or at least less anti-Likud than anti-Hamas because there are substantial differences between the methodologies of Likud compared to Hamas, and the fact that within the borders of Israel there is a largely secular pluralistic western society, which is not the case with the neighbors of Israel.
In short, Likud is sworn to steal all the land between the sea and the Jordan, as is Hamas, so their territorial goals are the same.
But, Likud seeks to kill the minimum number of people necessary to accomplish this theft, whereas Hamas seeks to exterminate the Jewish population in the process of the same theft.
Most reasonable people think there should be a 2 state solution, or a 1 state solution. The 2 states would be Israel and Palestine living in peace and recognition of each other with separate governments. The 1 state solution would be a single democratic and pluralistic state combining Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank.
Both sides are presently sworn to reject both solutions. Thus, the sad truth is that there is no peaceful solution, given the mindsets of Hamas and Likud (not that they are the only parties to the conflict, but they are in power and emblematic of 2 diametrically opposed camps).
This conflict will almost certainly be settled, if it is ever settled, by force of arms. The stronger side will win, and Israel is orders of magnitude stronger than the combined forces of Gaza and the West Bank.
The “solution” will be what Israel is already doing, gradual theft by encroachment using an apartheid expansion model, punctuated from time to time by “mowing the grass”. Eventually the inhabitants of Palestine will be squeezed out through continual intimidation and violent displacements by Israel.
Why support in any way such a gruesome and unjust process? In the real world the alternative is even worse. If Hamas were to gain the power their written goal is to take over all the land that is presently Israel and exterminate all the Jews in the process in order to create an Islamic theocracy ruled under Sharia. As unjust as Israel is the specter of Hamas wiping out the Jews to establish another Islamic theocracy is far worse.
How about sanctions and withholding support until Israel withdraws and a peaceful 2 state solution is implemented? If I thought that would actually work I would be in favor of it. Very large numbers of Christians and Jews have a deep personal connection with Israel through their religion, so I doubt very much an effective set of pressures could be brought to bear.
Israel is a nuclear power, a Spartan state, “never again” is their motto and their battle cry. They have something called the Samson Option, or Operation Samson. It consists of air independent propulsion submarines loaded with nuclear weapons to be fired upon an overrun Israel, if it comes to that, al la Samson bringing the roof down. That is the Israeli mindset, determination to the bitter end. Sanctions will not stop them.
Nor will a Palestinian state stop Hamas. They are sworn to wiping out the Jews and taking all the land. All a state will do for Hamas is to give them more capability to achieve that goal.
If I could wave my magic wand I would turn the lot into atheists who base their morality on the golden rule and we would then arrive at peace, but my magic wand is in the shop for repairs, parts are very scarce, so I don’t expect to have use of it any time soon.
Stardusty Psyche:
I’m an atheist, and I would far rather people adhered to the Silver Rule than to the Golden Rule.
(Better either of those than the Iron Rule, though!)
So, you contend that some reasonable people think that there should not be neither a 1 nor a 2 state solution.
(Very non-committal, you)
Stardusy Psyche @#4:
If I could wave my magic wand I would turn the lot into atheists who base their morality on the golden rule and we would then arrive at peace
Really, that’s what you think? That the problems are just a matter of religion?
There has been a great deal of blood shed, people displaced, violence and oppression, threat, bombing, and counter-bombing. I hate to break it to you but that’s not religion that’s politics. If everyone in the area turned atheist overnight they’ve still got a whole lot to fight about and they’d keep right on fighting.
Religion is, at this point, a way for the parties to contextualize themselves as different from the abstract others that are their enemies. It’s a flavoring agent; it’s not the stew itself. I get tired of the atheists who endlessly sneer at the benighted arabs “who want to kill all the jews”* or the crazy jews who think god gave them title deed to a piece of land** The religious doctrines came after ancient land-grabs. Religion is wrapped around a milennia-old political battle – take away the religion and you still have the political battle.
Religion as a contextual flavoring for deeper political or ethnic strife is nothing new. And it’s certainly not only a jew/arab thing. Genocides, land grabs, and wars are often remembered by the participants as being religiously motivated because it’s a good excuse. It’s much easier to reach back to centuries of strife over land (e.g.: Albania, Bosnia, Rwanda …) and say “we hate them because they are $[whatever]” because otherwise you have to have a conversation about politics and that’s more complicated. Like the whole Palestine/Israel thing – if you reject the idea that god gave a piece of Sumerian/Akkadian sphere to a wandering tribe and they hold the deed forever – then you have to ask “why them?” That piece of land has been conquered and passed around like a football for millenia. And that is the political roots of the problem. Trying to explain why the jews’ claim to the land superceeds the romans’ or the crusaders (they all had it by right of conquest) takes thinky stuff. It’s easy to just hate the other guys over religion because that doesn’t take much thinky stuff. The “let’s avoid thinky stuff and blame it on religion” attitude among many atheists is naive and it attempts to insultingly blow past the very real political issues that underly the conflict.
You want peace? Deal with the underlying political conflict.
(* Why is that? What in islam says “kill all the jews”? Could it be that the “kill all the jews” bit started after the land-grab?)
(** A piece of land which they conquered with god’s help. I.e.: there were other people there already, it was Sumerian territory. Philistia, now known as “Palestine”, formerly occupied by the Philistines. Setting up a history of Samaria/Philisitia/Judea being a conquest target for jewish nationalists that continues to this day.)
@John Morales :
I presume – since you weren’t 100% clear – you mean the Gold, Silver and Iron rules referred tohere (first item on the google search I did although a Christian article? :
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/9-gold-silver-and-iron-three-rules-of-human-conduct
As for neither two nor one state solution, one alternative which i for one prefer would be the 8 state solution plus / minus Egypt resuming control over the Gaza strip.
StevoR:
Yes. It’s one thing to proscribe, another to prescribe.
(Or: Err on the side of caution)
If they were REAL Christians they wouldn’t be living in Israel now, they’d be waiting for Jesus to come back and kill all the Jews first, then they’d move in.
You’d never guess from some Christians that Jesus himself was Jewish as was his family and most of his friends and followers would you?
Hi John,
“So, you contend that some reasonable people think that there should not be neither a 1 nor a 2 state solution.”
A reasonable person might come up with other alternatives.
“(Very non-committal, you)”
I prefer a 2 state solution with both states recognizing each other and living in peace. Given the actual mindsets of the people who live in Israel and Palestine I think that solution has a near zero chance of being implemented, which makes my preference functionally irrelevant.
[I should’ve written ‘either’, not ‘neither’, so thanks for ignoring that solecism.]
Point being, you appealed to what “most” reasonable people think, indicating that there were at least some reasonable people who think otherwise.
Me, I think the salient issue is mentioned in the OP: “the occupied territories”. Causes have effects.