Arabs in the Israeli Army - Page 2




 
--
 
November 3rd, 2011  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42RM
Should those born decades or even a half century later still be made to feel the burden of guilt? I think not.
Of course not, those who made the decisions were only a very small part of the population and I would guess that none of them are alive now. In fact there would be very few people alive now who were even of voting age at that time.

Never the less the guilt trip goes on.
November 4th, 2011  
grey shadow
 
Most of the Arab IDF enlistees, even if they are volunteering out of ideological reasons wouldn’t expose themselves to public recognition. They would keep it a secret.

As for guilt. For me it’s not about guilt. When looking at Germans, I have never felt a sense that they are guilty. I have encountered anti-Semitism in the United States as well. Clearly the anti-Semitism in Germany in the 1930s went overboard and it was clearly a terrible moment in history. But how long does one feel guilty? Can we get over that?

I always thought that the monument in Berlin was about trying to get over this question of guilt. Whenever I come there, I arrive feeling like an Israeli. But by the time I leave, I feel like a Jew. And why is that? Because Germans go out of their way -- because I am a Jew -- to make me feel good. And that makes me feel worse. I can't deal with it. Stop making me feel good. If you are anti-Semitic, fine. If you don't like me personally, fine. But deal with me as an individual, not as a Jew. I would hope that this memorial, in its absence of guilt-making, is part of the process of getting over that guilt. You cannot live with guilt. If Germany did, then the whole country would have to go to an analyst. I don't know how else to say it.
November 4th, 2011  
RayManKiller3
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
That's not unusual although it is despicable, there are turncoats and traitors in every society. People who will gladly sacrifice their morals for the promise of favourable treatment.

I find this statement to be quite silly and ignorant. Others in this thread already states why this is not the best of statements. We get your anti-Israel, but to this extent as to make this thread a debate is quite over-the-top, no?

You do realize you are talking about many other Veterans at the same time.

Germans who fought Germany, Japanese-Americans who fought against Japan, and Vietnamese who fought against vietnamese. There are always sympathizers on all sides (as I have said in another thread to you). To call these Arabs who joined the Israeli army, despicable, is to call all the up above people despicable despite their cause for doing it.

I would rather fight my own people who I know would not make life better than fight against a foriegner who I know will make things better. This is not a selfish outlook, except if it was bribery or blackmail that caused the decision.
--
November 4th, 2011  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
Regardless of any arrangements the Brits had made with the Jews back in England, they actually had no legal or moral right to allow Jews into Palestine as it was not their country to give away, they had already recognised the Palestinians as the legitimate owners and agreed that it was to become their homeland in 1915.
Yes they did. The British Mandate for Palestine was a legal commission for the administration of Palestine. They ruled it. They had the right to allow Jews in Palestine, just as they allowed Arabs into Palestine who came there to work on the newly cultivated land by the Jews.
The British DID NOT recognise the Palestinians as the legitimate owners. The Arab interpretation of the agreement formed the basis of Arab claims to Palestine.

Quote:
In view of the fact that Jewish terrorism was already a huge problem within Palestine it can be strongly argued that the Brits did actually have an obligation to prevent further trouble by preventing illegal immigration to Palestine.
Terrorism started in Palestine with the Palestine riots in 1920, the Hebron and Safed massacre in 1929 against the jews and in late 1937 the Palestinians began to attack the British forces.
November 4th, 2011  
Dave Miller
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muscogeemike
Mr. Miller originally merely made the point that “Arabs” serve in the IDF. The discussion has gone on to one of moral’s, ethics, and loyalties.

I think we need a more clear definition of what is an “Arab”. At times I have heard all N. Africans and Middle easterners referred to as Arabs. Historically this has not been the case. N. Africans and Egyptians are not of the Arabian peninsula.
The peoples of the Arabian peninsula are Semitic, Jews are Semitic. Are not Jews then Arab?

As has been pointed out Jews served Hitler and Germans served against Hitler; in fact there were Americans in the SS. At least 1/3 of the people in what would become the U.S. remained loyal to the King during the Revolutionary War.

People with conflicted loyalties are present in all wars and conflicts through out history.

About 20% of Israel’s population are non-Jews; Arabs in Israel have equal voteing rights, and hold seats in the Knesset and high Gov positions. The same is not true in any Arab nation.

I believe the Jews have gone to some lengths to include the Palestinians who remained in Israel and when the state of Israel was established I don’t believe any non-Jews were forced out. The “Palestinians” that left did so of their own accord (probably believing that they would be treated as they would have treated the Jews if they had won), and it is worth noting that none of the Arab Nations would take many of them in.

The “Arabs” who serve in the IDF are not traitors nor are they despicable. They made a choice to defend their homes. Also they may, perhaps, see their standard of living in Israel is far better than those in Gaza - under the Palestinians.

BTW - I'm not Jewish, I am a native American. I have as much reason as the Palestinians to be bitter, the fact is I much prefer food I get from the Super Market over dog meat.
You make several good points! The fact is that Arab Israelis have a higher standard of living than any of their bretheren in the Arab countries. 1.2 million Arabs are free citizens in Israel. How many Jews can say the same of Arab countries?
November 4th, 2011  
Dave Miller
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
Regardless of any arrangements the Brits had made with the Jews back in England, they actually had no legal or moral right to allow Jews into Palestine as it was not their country to give away, they had already recognised the Palestinians as the legitimate owners and agreed that it was to become their homeland in 1915.

Yes,... the Brits could have legally allowed the European Jews into their own country, as could many other countries which did not. So, as far as the "guilt trip" is concerned they were no better or worse than any other country that turned back the Jews.

In view of the fact that Jewish terrorism was already a huge problem within Palestine it can be strongly argued that the Brits did actually have an obligation to prevent further trouble by preventing illegal immigration to Palestine.
The British never made any agreement with the Palestinians that they would get a country. The only agreement Britain had with Arabs was that they would support Arab independance if the Arabs sided with the allies during WW1. This is why Palestine was severed in 1921 and Transjordan was created. Palestine is never mentioned in the agreement with the Arabs.

The only agreement that mentions Palestine is the Balfour declaration promising Jews a homeland here. The Balfour Declaration became binding international law when the League of Nations adopted it as part of their mandate in Palestine.

While it is correct that the country did not belong to Britain, it didn't exactly belong to anyone else either. Britain inherited it from the Ottomon Empire, which became defunct after the first world war. The only independant political entity to exist in Palestine were the ancient Jewish kingdoms. There has been a continued and unending Jewish presence in this land for more than 3,000 years and we never renounced our claims to a country here. The only reason Israel is 63 years old and not 3,000+ years old is that we were conquered several times. Even when we did not have independance here, the country was ruled by foreign empires that never eatablished another nation here.

The fact is that the British had the most ability to do something to help the Jews and didn't as a matter of policy makes them worse than countries who were not in a position to do as much. Some, like Denmark and Bulgaria, did way more to help the Jews than the British Empire.

"In view of the fact that Jewish terrorism was already a huge problem within Palestine it can be strongly argued that the Brits did actually have an obligation to prevent further trouble by preventing illegal immigration to Palestine."

The Jewish underground groups made retalitory attacks on Arab militants after being attacked themselves and were formed as a response to Arab massacres against Jews in the 1920s and 1930s. It was during these massacres that the British refused to defend Jews or allow the Jews to defend themselves. It was a result of Arab uprisings that the British issued their "white papers" and limited Jewish immigration.

It wasn't until they backtracked on their commitment to a Jewish state in order to appease the Arab mobs that fringe Jewish groups began targeting British military outposts in order to get them to leave.

The pre-state Jewish underground didn't use attacks on civilians as a matter of policy. They targeted Arab militants and British soldiers. The few cases in which civilians were the result of an organization called LEHI. Most of these casses involved assassinations of British officials and were widely condemned by the majority of the Jewish community.

They are not to be compared with Hamas, which targets only civilians and are supported by most Palestinians.

Also, the British created the Jewish "terrorist" problem when they backtracked on previous agreements and then refused to defend us from Arab attacks while simultaneously allowing the Arabs to arm themselves.
November 4th, 2011  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Miller
The British never made any agreement with the Palestinians that they would get a country. The only agreement Britain had with Arabs was that they would support Arab independance if the Arabs sided with the allies during WW1. This is why Palestine was severed in 1921 and Transjordan was created. Palestine is never mentioned in the agreement with the Arabs.
The McMahon-Hussein Agreement of October 1915 was accepted by Palestinians as a promise by the British that after World War One, land previously held by the Turks would be returned to the Arab nationals who lived in that land.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Miller
The only agreement that mentions Palestine is the Balfour declaration promising Jews a homeland here. The Balfour Declaration became binding international law when the League of Nations adopted it as part of their mandate in Palestine.
Wrong see above: Anyway, the Brits as administrators of Palestine, had no legal right to enter into any agreements regarding the ownership of that land with persons other than with the native population

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Miller
While it is correct that the country did not belong to Britain, it didn't exactly belong to anyone else either.
It is recognised under Terra Nullius, that the occupiers of that land,... were the Palestinian people, they therefore they owned the land and were the only people with any legitimate right to it

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Miller
The fact is that the British had the most ability to do something to help the Jews and didn't as a matter of policy makes them worse than countries who were not in a position to do as much. Some, like Denmark and Bulgaria, did way more to help the Jews than the British Empire.
The Brits had absolutely no obligation whatsoever to help the Jews, or anyone else other than the people they ruled or otherwise administered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Miller
The Jewish underground groups made retalitory attacks on Arab militants after being attacked themselves and were formed as a response to Arab massacres against Jews in the 1920s and 1930s. It was during these massacres that the British refused to defend Jews or allow the Jews to defend themselves. It was a result of Arab uprisings that the British issued their "white papers" and limited Jewish immigration.
Try making a "retaliatory attack" on some person or group that you have an issue with, and you will immediately see the stupidity of your answer. Whether the attacks were retaliatory or not does not alter the fact that the Brits had an obligation under both local and International law to try and stop the escalation by refusing the entry Jews into the country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Miller
It wasn't until they backtracked on their commitment to a Jewish state in order to appease the Arab mobs that fringe Jewish groups began targeting British military outposts in order to get them to leave.
Firstly it has been shown that this "agreement" was never legally binding. And even if it were true it gives the Zionists no right to attack the mandated administration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Miller
The pre-state Jewish underground didn't use attacks on civilians as a matter of policy.
Bullsh!t, The Irgun set about a terror campaign against unarmed and unsuspecting civilians deliberately bombing marketplaces etc. This policy was later endorsed and encouraged by such people as David Ben Gurion. “We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks

The admission that the Zionists executed a planned campaign of terror, is both well documented, and admitted by them in statements such as that of DBG above.
November 5th, 2011  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayManKiller3
I find this statement to be quite silly and ignorant. Others in this thread already states why this is not the best of statements. We get your anti-Israel, but to this extent as to make this thread a debate is quite over-the-top, no?
In case you never realised, debate is the whole purpose of the thread otherwise we would just have people like yourself posting stupid Zionist propaganda. No,... it's no more than an attempt to see the wrong doers punished

Quote:
Originally Posted by RayManKiller3
You do realize you are talking about many other Veterans at the same time.
Being a "veteran" is no excuse for supporting a rogue State in their oppression of an innocent people who are doing no more than resisting the theft of their land. These so called "veterans" are no better than those of, say,... Robert Mugabe who feel that their status as veterans should excuse them of all need to obey international law and responsibility to their fellow man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RayManKiller3
Germans who fought Germany, Japanese-Americans who fought against Japan, and Vietnamese who fought against vietnamese. There are always sympathizers on all sides (as I have said in another thread to you). To call these Arabs who joined the Israeli army, despicable, is to call all the up above people despicable despite their cause for doing it.
You just don't get it do you, the point is not that they are fighting against their own kind it is that in this case they are supporting a murderous rogue state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RayManKiller3
I would rather fight my own people who I know would not make life better than fight against a foriegner who I know will make things better. This is not a selfish outlook, except if it was bribery or blackmail that caused the decision.
There's no way that Israel will ever improve the lives of the Palestinian people. No more than the Nazis improved the lives of European Jews. I'm pretty sure that theft, hunger, beatings, gratuitous violence, disenfranchisement, second class citizenship and murder are NOT things that the Palestinians either need nor want.

Obviously you neither have any understanding of the problem, nor of basic human morality.
November 5th, 2011  
muscogeemike
 
Whether it’s religion, politics or most anything else - people will believe what they want to believe. No amount of facts will alter there prejudice.

Debating them is like the old saying “… never wrestle with pigs - the pigs love it and you just get dirty.”

“There are two things that are infinite, the universe and the stupidity of mankind.“Albert Einstein (A Jew)

“Before one embarks on a journey of revenge, he should dig two graves.” Confucius (Chinese)

“National hatred is something peculiar. You will always find it strongest and most violent where there is the lowest degree of culture.” Goethe (German)
November 5th, 2011  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muscogeemike
Whether it’s religion, politics or most anything else - people will believe what they want to believe. No amount of facts will alter there prejudice.

Debating them is like the old saying “… never wrestle with pigs - the pigs love it and you just get dirty.”

“There are two things that are infinite, the universe and the stupidity of mankind.“Albert Einstein (A Jew)

“Before one embarks on a journey of revenge, he should dig two graves.” Confucius (Chinese)

“National hatred is something peculiar. You will always find it strongest and most violent where there is the lowest degree of culture.” Goethe (German)
"Politics and religion have one thing in common, they would both fail miserably without man's inherent inability to resist self interest and greed". Spike Jones (1947- )
 


Similar Topics
How Would You Solve the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict?
Tom Gross on the forgotten Rachels
US Army bans use of privately bought armor
The First Ethnic Chief Of The Indian Army
US Army recruited an autistic teenager as Cav Scout