Why I Rarely Argue About Israel and the Palestinians Anymore

 

Debating controversial issues is fun for some people; they like the fight and drama. Sometimes they actually have a dog in the fight. But frankly, I’m not a person who likes a fight, and I never have. I’m not afraid of controversy; in fact, sometimes I enjoy discussing controversial subjects when the dynamics are supportive.

But when it comes to the Israelis and the Palestinians, I have pretty much bowed out of those discussions, even though they are with people whom I consider to be my friends. I used to be willing to take on all challenges. It just doesn’t seem worth it anymore. Why, you may ask.

For me to enter a conflict-ridden discussion, I have to feel passionate about it. That certainly applies to Israel. I want to talk with people who I think are reasonable and count on reliable sources of information; this is where the subject gets dicey. There are hundreds if not thousands of sources that are on either side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I obviously believe in the veracity of the publications I read; people who disagree with me trust a whole other set of media. Positions are so polarized that even if there were room for learning, or possibly changing minds, no one is truly interested in that effort. We are simply too far apart.

The same criteria apply to almost any controversial topic: anything on the extreme political Left is most likely to differ drastically with the political Right: Wokeism, government spending, overreach by all branches of government, and the administrative state are just a few examples. The main problem, I believe, is not only are positions polarized, but we don’t believe we can learn anything meaningful from the other side. On the Right, we also question the Left’s motives, their commitment to truth, their understanding of the implications of their beliefs, and their willingness to generate practical compromises.

They only care about winning.

Which brings me back to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. We can argue about the history of the situation, the agendas of all sides, the potential for peace. But I just can’t get past one simple fact:

The Arabs/Palestinians want to drive the Israelis into the sea.

No matter whether a one or two-state solution is negotiated, they are angry, feel abused and injured. And those in charge are committed to destroying Israel and the Jews.

That’s a subject I refuse to contemplate.

[photo courtesy of unsplash.com]

Published in Foreign Policy
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 108 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Susan Quinn: The Arabs/Palestinians want to drive the Israelis into the sea.

    Yes. This. 

    There is no way to settle anything when one side is calling for the destruction of the other. 

    • #1
  2. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Yesterday was D-Day.  Did you support the Free French, British, and Americans wanting to drive the Germans over the Rhine?

    I’m not claiming that this answers the question.  It does seem, to me, that repelling an invader is a legitimate reason for war, which doesn’t necessarily change over time.

    The British held Ireland — and India — for  along time, and were then driven out.

     

    • #2
  3. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Yesterday was D-Day. Did you support the Free French, British, and Americans wanting to drive the Germans over the Rhine?

    I’m not claiming that this answers the question. It does seem, to me, that repelling an invader is a legitimate reason for war, which doesn’t necessarily change over time.

    The British held Ireland — and India — for along time, and were then driven out.

     

    Like Israel is the same as Nazi Germany. Stay classy Jerry. 

    • #3
  4. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Yesterday was D-Day. Did you support the Free French, British, and Americans wanting to drive the Germans over the Rhine?

    I’m not claiming that this answers the question. It does seem, to me, that repelling an invader is a legitimate reason for war, which doesn’t necessarily change over time.

    The British held Ireland — and India — for along time, and were then driven out.

    The history is complex, but the bottom line is that the United States and the United Nations reviewed that history and concluded that Israel has a right to exist as a sovereign nation. That is how the rule of law works.

    • #4
  5. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    I wonder if Israel is experiencing something like we are going through here in America. That would be where we have large elements of our population that have no allegiance to the America of our founding. 

     

    • #5
  6. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    I wonder if Israel is experiencing something like we are going through here in America. That would be where we have large elements of our population that have no allegiance to the America of our founding.

     

    That’s a great question. Actually there is a serious battle between the Left and the Right in Israel; right now it’s over the question of whether their judiciary’s power should be more limited. But I understand that the commitment to the state of Israel, nationalism, remains strong on both sides. I find that fascinating.

    • #6
  7. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    I wonder if Israel is experiencing something like we are going through here in America. That would be where we have large elements of our population that have no allegiance to the America of our founding.

     

    That’s a great question. Actually there is a serious battle between the Left and the Right in Israel; right now it’s over the question of whether their judiciary’s power should be more limited. But I understand that the commitment to the state of Israel, nationalism, remains strong on both sides. I find that fascinating.

    I think the Left is very expert at manufacturing fake information. We are seeing that in America. 

    A charge that came as a surprise to me in the last few years was that there had been a marked increase in Anti-Semitism. Then I saw it being attributed to avowed conservative Americans, most of whom vote Republican. Their criticism of George Soros funding DA’s who don’t enforce the law was high on the list of specifics. Sources that use this kind of information just don’t convince me but it looks as if the public schools and higher academics work diligently to sell conservatives as extremists composed primarily of white male supremacists. 

     

    • #7
  8. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Yesterday was D-Day. Did you support the Free French, British, and Americans wanting to drive the Germans over the Rhine?

    I’m not claiming that this answers the question. It does seem, to me, that repelling an invader is a legitimate reason for war, which doesn’t necessarily change over time.

    The British held Ireland — and India — for along time, and were then driven out.

     

    Like Israel is the same as Nazi Germany. Stay classy Jerry.

    Typical nonsense, Henry, and your cheap line got a bunch of likes.  You folks really can’t break out of your ideological blinders, can you?

    Susan stated a simplistic and unsophisticated reason to support Israel.  I pointed out that the same reason would have supported the Germans staying in control of France.  Susan’s stated reason doesn’t hold up, precisely because it would have prevented the ejection of the Germans from France.

    The situation in Israel/Palestine is complicated, as the OP acknowledges, I think.  But then Susan justifies her sympathy for the Israeli side with a simplistic formulation that she obviously does not apply to other circumstances.  The rational thing to do would be to abandon the single-minded support of the Israeli side. 

    I did this myself, within the past 5 years or so, as I learned more about the situation.  I used to be overwhelmingly sympathetic to the Israelis and dismissive of the Palestinians, and as a result, I ignored the historical facts and wouldn’t listen to the grievances of the Palestinians.  It was easier, and more emotionally satisfying, to simply vilify them as murderous terrorists.

    “When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.”  1 Corinthians 13:11.

    • #8
  9. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    MarciN (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Yesterday was D-Day. Did you support the Free French, British, and Americans wanting to drive the Germans over the Rhine?

    I’m not claiming that this answers the question. It does seem, to me, that repelling an invader is a legitimate reason for war, which doesn’t necessarily change over time.

    The British held Ireland — and India — for along time, and were then driven out.

    This history is complex here. But the bottom line is that the United States and the United Nations reviewed that history and concluded that Israel has a right to exist. That is how the rule of law works.

    There is no rule of law in international relations.  That is a fantasy.  It is generally used to justify our involving ourselves on one side of a conflict that has little to do with us.

    • #9
  10. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Yesterday was D-Day. Did you support the Free French, British, and Americans wanting to drive the Germans over the Rhine?

    I’m not claiming that this answers the question. It does seem, to me, that repelling an invader is a legitimate reason for war, which doesn’t necessarily change over time.

    The British held Ireland — and India — for along time, and were then driven out.

    This history is complex here. But the bottom line is that the United States and the United Nations reviewed that history and concluded that Israel has a right to exist. That is how the rule of law works.

    There is no rule of law in international relations. That is a fantasy. It is generally used to justify our involving ourselves on one side of a conflict that has little to do with us.

    Another thought on this.   If you’re really going to rely on the UN and “international law,” then you need to acknowledge all of the UN condemnations of Israeli actions.

    Palestine is a nation recognized by the UN, and by about 140 of the 190-odd member states of the UN.  Israel, the US, and some others — generally America’s vassal states — intransigently refuse to recognize Palestine.  The reason for this is quite obvious, as the Israelis forcibly conquered Palestinian territory, continue to hold territory that they don’t even claim, and yet build Israeli settlements in that area.

    Complicated.

    I’m neither anti-Israeli nor anti-Palestinian.  I’d like to see the Palestinian state recognized.

    The Israeli objection to this is quite ludicrous, in my view.  They pretend to be afraid of the Palestinians.  Israel is probably a military match for 20-30 Palestines.  It’s like the US being afraid of Cuba.

    • #10
  11. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):
    A charge that came as a surprise to me in the last few years was that there had been a marked increase in Anti-Semitism. Then I saw it being attributed to avowed conservative Americans, most of whom vote Republican. Their criticism of George Soros funding DA’s who don’t enforce the law was high on the list of specifics. Sources that use this kind of information just don’t convince me but it looks as if the public schools and higher academics work diligently to sell conservatives as extremists composed primarily of white male supremacists. 

    Attacks on Soros are seen as anti-Semitic, although he’s only Jewish by birth. I saw an article that I haven’t been able to read yet on this very topic (conservatives who are anti-Semitic), so if I can find time to read it, I may report back. There are people on this site who say that anti-Semitic acts are not increasing, but I’ve chosen not to engage them.

    • #11
  12. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    But then Susan justifies her sympathy for the Israeli side with a simplistic formulation that she obviously does not apply to other circumstances. 

    Actually, a matter of life or death seems pretty important to me. And if my writing is so simplistic and sophisticated, I can’t imagine why you bother with my posts.

    • #12
  13. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    Attacks on Soros are seen as anti-Semitic

    But attacks on Soros, especially by American conservatives, have nothing to do with his Jewish heritage.

    • #13
  14. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    If anyone wants to take on Jerry with facts, feel free. I can’t be bothered. I’ve had to do it too many times.

    • #14
  15. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    Attacks on Soros are seen as anti-Semitic

    But attacks on Soros, especially by American conservatives, have nothing to do with his Jewish heritage.

    But the Left will insist that it does.

    • #15
  16. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    There is no rule of law in international relations.  That is a fantasy.  It is generally used to justify our involving ourselves on one side of a conflict that has little to do with us.

    If sovereignty does not exist as an international standard, sovereignty as recognized by the International Court of Justice and the United Nations, are you saying there is no such thing as a sovereign country? There is no international law that supports sovereignty, in your opinion?

    Fascinating.

    • #16
  17. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    There are people on this site who say that anti-Semitic acts are not increasing, but I’ve chosen not to engage them.

    I don’t know if anti-Semitic acts are increasing but,  if they are, it may be reflected by the fact that money is the driver for the power plays that are working to destroy Western Civilization and there is the mere fact that the Jews are prominent players in the moneyed class. I don’t think there causation there but the Left doesn’t need that to make a case. The attacks on Soros are directed at the political use of his money, they have little or nothing to do with him beyond his disdain for individual liberty.

    • #17
  18. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Yesterday was D-Day. Did you support the Free French, British, and Americans wanting to drive the Germans over the Rhine?

    I’m not claiming that this answers the question. It does seem, to me, that repelling an invader is a legitimate reason for war, which doesn’t necessarily change over time.

    The British held Ireland — and India — for along time, and were then driven out.

    This history is complex here. But the bottom line is that the United States and the United Nations reviewed that history and concluded that Israel has a right to exist. That is how the rule of law works.

    There is no rule of law in international relations. That is a fantasy. It is generally used to justify our involving ourselves on one side of a conflict that has little to do with us.

    Jerry, how do you define a “country” or “nation”? 

    • #18
  19. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    Susan stated a simplistic and unsophisticated reason to support Israel.  I pointed out that the same reason would have supported the Germans staying in control of France.  Susan’s stated reason doesn’t hold up, precisely because it would have prevented the ejection of the Germans from France.

    Jerry, are you really that ignorant of history, or do you simply like to exercise your habitual contrariness?

    • #19
  20. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Jim McConnell (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    Susan stated a simplistic and unsophisticated reason to support Israel. I pointed out that the same reason would have supported the Germans staying in control of France. Susan’s stated reason doesn’t hold up, precisely because it would have prevented the ejection of the Germans from France.

    Jerry, are you really that ignorant of history, or do you simply like to exercise your habitual contrariness?

    How about both?

    • #20
  21. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    MarciN (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Yesterday was D-Day. Did you support the Free French, British, and Americans wanting to drive the Germans over the Rhine?

    I’m not claiming that this answers the question. It does seem, to me, that repelling an invader is a legitimate reason for war, which doesn’t necessarily change over time.

    The British held Ireland — and India — for along time, and were then driven out.

    This history is complex here. But the bottom line is that the United States and the United Nations reviewed that history and concluded that Israel has a right to exist. That is how the rule of law works.

    There is no rule of law in international relations. That is a fantasy. It is generally used to justify our involving ourselves on one side of a conflict that has little to do with us.

    Jerry, how do you define a “country” or “nation”?

    I see a “country” or a “nation” as a sovereign entity. At one time, such entities composed a population of people speaking the same language or dialects. When the North and South American continents were conquered by European people, this changed. The US is one example, Canada is another, and the Latin American nations are a third. Sovereign nations began to have a different basis. There was then the period of the British Empire followed by the American Empire- a colonial period followed by a decolonial period- that spread the English language around much of the world. Language became a less important part of the concept of sovereignty, but it still exist.

    • #21
  22. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Yesterday was D-Day. Did you support the Free French, British, and Americans wanting to drive the Germans over the Rhine?

    I’m not claiming that this answers the question. It does seem, to me, that repelling an invader is a legitimate reason for war, which doesn’t necessarily change over time.

    The British held Ireland — and India — for along time, and were then driven out.

    This history is complex here. But the bottom line is that the United States and the United Nations reviewed that history and concluded that Israel has a right to exist. That is how the rule of law works.

    There is no rule of law in international relations. That is a fantasy. It is generally used to justify our involving ourselves on one side of a conflict that has little to do with us.

    Jerry, how do you define a “country” or “nation”?

    I see a “country” or a “nation” as a sovereign entity. At one time, such entities composed a population of people speaking the same language or dialects. When the North and South American continents were conquered by European people, this changed. The US is one example, Canada is another, and the Latin American nations are a third. Sovereign nations began to have a different basis. There was then the period of the British Empire followed by the American Empire- a colonial period followed by a decolonial period- that spread the English language around much of the world. Language became a less important part of the concept of sovereignty, but it still exist.

    Those are basically chaotic migration patterns. By what right do nations exist? If migration is the only determinant, then is it a question only of who has the stronger military? Perhaps squatters’ rights?

    • #22
  23. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    MarciN (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Yesterday was D-Day. Did you support the Free French, British, and Americans wanting to drive the Germans over the Rhine?

    I’m not claiming that this answers the question. It does seem, to me, that repelling an invader is a legitimate reason for war, which doesn’t necessarily change over time.

    The British held Ireland — and India — for along time, and were then driven out.

    This history is complex here. But the bottom line is that the United States and the United Nations reviewed that history and concluded that Israel has a right to exist. That is how the rule of law works.

    There is no rule of law in international relations. That is a fantasy. It is generally used to justify our involving ourselves on one side of a conflict that has little to do with us.

    Jerry, how do you define a “country” or “nation”?

    I see a “country” or a “nation” as a sovereign entity. At one time, such entities composed a population of people speaking the same language or dialects. When the North and South American continents were conquered by European people, this changed. The US is one example, Canada is another, and the Latin American nations are a third. Sovereign nations began to have a different basis. There was then the period of the British Empire followed by the American Empire- a colonial period followed by a decolonial period- that spread the English language around much of the world. Language became a less important part of the concept of sovereignty, but it still exist.

    Those are basically migration patterns. By what right do nations exist? If migration is the only determinant, then is it a question only of who has the stronger military?

    Absent political thought yielding other results through reason and agreement, I think the military capability is the determinant.

    • #23
  24. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    I apologize for not saying this earlier, but I said the same issues with Israel/Palestine show up with other conflicts that we dislike pursuing in our lives. So if you have one that pretty much meets the criteria I mentioned for impossible discussion topics, especially irks you or you feel strongly about, feel free to vent here!

    • #24
  25. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Jim McConnell (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    Susan stated a simplistic and unsophisticated reason to support Israel. I pointed out that the same reason would have supported the Germans staying in control of France. Susan’s stated reason doesn’t hold up, precisely because it would have prevented the ejection of the Germans from France.

    Jerry, are you really that ignorant of history, or do you simply like to exercise your habitual contrariness?

    How about both?

    Frankly, it is not about his contrariness, it is about his secular Gnosticism.

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    You folks really can’t break out of your ideological blinders, can you?

    This sums up everything you need to know about his arguments. He has it all figure out, and if you can’t see it, you are the blind one. 

    The funny thing is, comparisons of Israel and Nazi Germany is a classic tactic used by antiemetic groups against Israel. It breaks down when you consider the genocide of the Germans and the non-genocide of the people of Israel. Nazi Germany would have had no multi-generational refugees because they would have murdered them all. 

    When someone adopts the arguments of antiemetic groups, one has to wonder about that someone. 
     

    • #25
  26. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    If anyone wants to take on Jerry with facts, feel free. I can’t be bothered. I’ve had to do it too many times.

    I did not want to say anything before, but with permission. 

    ;)

    • #26
  27. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    The question I’m interested in is why the left is committed to the destruction of Israel. What is the affinity between Islam(ism?) and the left?

    • #27
  28. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Nazi Germany would have had no multi-generational refugees because they would have murdered them all. 

    But that’s simplistic Bryan :)

     

    • #28
  29. Pagodan Member
    Pagodan
    @MatthewBaylot

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Jim McConnell (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    Susan stated a simplistic and unsophisticated reason to support Israel. I pointed out that the same reason would have supported the Germans staying in control of France. Susan’s stated reason doesn’t hold up, precisely because it would have prevented the ejection of the Germans from France.

    Jerry, are you really that ignorant of history, or do you simply like to exercise your habitual contrariness?

    How about both?

    Frankly, it is not about his contrariness, it is about his secular Gnosticism.

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    You folks really can’t break out of your ideological blinders, can you?

    This sums up everything you need to know about his arguments. He has it all figure out, and if you can’t see it, you are the blind one.

    The funny thing is, comparisons of Israel and Nazi Germany is a classic tactic used by antiemetic groups against Israel. It breaks down when you consider the genocide of the Germans and the non-genocide of the people of Israel. Nazi Germany would have had no multi-generational refugees because they would have murdered them all.

    When someone adopts the arguments of antiemetic groups, one has to wonder about that someone.

    Wasn’t it Jerry who “broke out” of his prior ideological blinders a few weeks ago when he discovered that slavery was a moral good, and Christians should be for it? 

    • #29
  30. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Barfly (View Comment):

    The question I’m interested in is why the left is committed to the destruction of Israel. What is the affinity between Islam(ism?) and the left?

    When Israel was weak, it was the underdog. When they became powerful, they became oppressors. Also, the secular belief of the Left can’t tolerate them.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.