I have tried to avoid the senseless conversations on facebook and have aimed my energy at dialogue with those that want to listen. I have learned a lot from having these conversations, and I hope to continue to have them. I tend to ignore ridiculous statements made on both sides, but today, I couldn't help but comment. I came across someone's blog and their entry was titled, "Don't Give Up the Golan!"; they claimed that Israel shouldn't give up the Golan Heights because it is "integral to the security of the State of Israel." That was the sum of the argument. I was pissed for a couple reasons: 1) I completely disagree with the logic and as you will see below, have my own opinions about this and other Israeli occupied territories, and 2) I believe that the writer of the blog spent 2 paragraphs making an argument that he thought would go uncontested. I think that a lot of people who blindly support the state of Israel don't realize that there is a valid and considerable alternative way of seeing things. I am not sure they have heard it articulated, and I don't think they are used to people saying, "No. I think you are wrong. I see things this way..."
It is for this reason that I sometimes do voice my opinion. I do not think that I will convince the people who already have their minds made up. I do think, however, that I may show them that another valid argument exists. In the United States, the Palestinian or Arab side is often censored and more often than not, dehumanized and villainized. To many people, I am a human and far from a villain. Maybe my opinion will have someone think twice about an issue that seems very black and white. Maybe not. What do I have to lose? (Now that I think about it, maybe a lot, but eh. My last name sealed it for me. My political career was over before it started.) Anyway, I commented on this individual's blog. I encourage you to read it, and let me know if you want to discuss it some more. This is it:
I know I haven't convinced most people of anything, but at least they know that their arguments can and will be contested.
Also, I know that somehow I pissed off members from both communities with this post. Never fails. What else is new?
I am not sure I understand your logic. Because it is in Israel's best interest to occupy the Golan Heights, then it has a right to do so? Clearly, you realize how destructive this ideology is if every state adopted it, don't you?
I don't think it would make much sense for me to sit here and discuss the legality of the occupation. I would rather defer to UN Security Council Resolution 497 (December 17, 1981), which condemned Israel’s decision to “impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights” as “null and void and without international legal effect.” The acquisition of territory by force goes against the very principles of the UN Charter and international law. But hey, it's just the UN, right? It's interesting how pro-Israelis site the UN as one of their reasons to exist, but disregard this resolution as well as 237, 252, 446, 1559, and the other SIXTY-odd ones they are in violation of.
Recently, Defense Minister Amir Peretz has suggested that Israel begin negotiations with Syria. On May 7, National Security Council Chairmen Ilan Mizrahi said that “Syria’s call for dialogue with Israel is authentic.” This statement was met with some reluctance from the Israeli government.
Well, look at the International Crisis Group’s April 10, 2007 report, particularly the sentence that relates directly to lingering security concerns you have with Syria: “Officials in Damascus provided their clearest indication to date both that they would resume negotiations without any precondition and that the country’s regional posture and relationship with Hamas, Hizbullah and Iran inevitably would change following a peace deal."
Hm, I wonder what Iraq, Lebanon, and Gaza and the West Bank would look like had they taken them up on their offer. This leads to the obvious question, if Israel wants peace for itself then why not promote the peace of the territories surrounding it and give up land that they are unjustly occupying?
Let the comments and replies roll in. I can't see myself replying because I know what this is going to be become: "Ya, but Oslo...", "Don't forget that in '67...", "But during the Ottoman Empire they.." And so on and so forth...My entry was trying to shed light on the alternative side. I am not interested in debating the Arab-Israeli conflict here.