View Single Post
Old 05-18-2019, 04:09 PM
clairobscur is offline
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,920
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Nobody has disputed this. It started well before WWII and it increased dramatically post WWII.
You were the one bringing up the UN.

Israel is the most recent such example, but hardly unique in history.
Sure, but as I wrote above, what is unique is the refusal to acknowledge it. If I had been posting about the USA, or Rhodesia, or whatever, would it have occurred to you to argue about every detail in favor of the immigrants? And it's not like you're the only one. Israel is pretty much the only country for which you'll face such a denial.

It's fair to criticize Israel on multiple fronts. It not fair to perpetuate a one sided view of that history.
Precisely, I agree. But I disagree abut the direction of this one sided view. At least on this board.

Without a doubt, Palestinians got the short end of the stick in a deal which was imposed on them by their colonial rulers. I suppose that grievance must extend back to their Ottoman rulers as well as forward to their Israeli rulers. They are justified in their grievances.
Fine, then we're in agreement.

So what are we talking about if we want to address those grievances? Dismantling of the state of Israel? Reparations? I know! How about a two state solution?
Acknowledging it would be a good first step. And reparations would be a good idea too. Especially since some of the people who were wronged (in particular who lost property in 1948) are still around.

Two states doesn't address grievances for the past. It just tries to address the situation in the present. But anyway, can you come up with a two states (or one, or three) "solution" that it going to receive the support of the majority of both the Palestinians and Israelis? There are many issues, but to take the first one : what status for Jerusalem will receive the support of both side?

It makes it human. No different than any other migratory event in history. No more, no less.
I wrote that it was human. And indeed it's not different from a number of other migratory events. Except, once again, for the fact that there is a large number of people who say that it is, in fact, totally different, since in this case, the migrants were entirely justified, and the natives had absolutely no valid grievances.

Wrong analogy. Your colonialist landlord is the one forcing you to share your home with a new family.
Quite similar in spirit. And if we go into the details, your analogy is equally wrong.

Zionism predates WWII. Early immigrants, prior to the formal formation of the state of Israel, moved there in part for religious reasons and in part because of the persistent anti-semitic European history. Zionism, seems to me, was largely based on a premise that if Jews had their own homeland, they would at least be safe there. Also, generational religious teachings and texts lead them to believe Israel (Palestine) was their god granted homeland. Many, not just Jews, believe it to this day. History does not dispute this.
That Judaism was born in what is now Palestine is pretty much undisputed, indeed. But the idea that you have the right to get back what belonged to your ancestors 2500 years ago is pretty dubious. Talk about rewinding history. Anyway, Zionism wasn't a very religious movement, to say the least.

The part about being safe was certainly important, but I think that nationalism, which was in full steam at the time in Europe, played a big part. Especially since at the time when Zionism was born, a lot of European Jews were quite optimistic wrt the possibility to integrate in western societies that were becoming more and more liberal and more and more tolerant. Not even them envisioned that such a thing as Nazism could happen in western Europe.

It's not as simple as Jews capriciously deciding one day that moving to some dusty rocks in the Middle East might be a nice place to settle down. The fact that there was already an indigenous population living there (some of whom were Jews as well) is not in dispute. The fact that colonialism and tragic circumstances of that time combined and resulted in the migration of Jews and the formation of the State of Israel is also not in dispute.
I didn't exactly say that they threw a dart at the map and it randomly landed in Palestine. Nor that they didn't have any good reason to want to move somewhere, and there in particular. But regardless of their reasons, the result for the locals was the same and they were equally wronged. If instead of Jews wanting to settle in the promised land, it had been Scotsmen who thought that the climate was perfect to raise sheep, the effect would have been the same for the Palestinians.

Jean Valjean needing bread for his children doesn't make taking it not a theft. And especially not if the bread is taken from someone who also has hungry children.

I've not seem much disagreement from anyone on the above. What I find disingenuous in these discussions, which happen frequently enough, is the criticism and accusatory finger pointing without perspective and the vitriolic accusations of "AIPAC rubber stampers", "Zionists", and "Holocaust shaming/guilting". Hard to view that as anything other than anti-semitic stereotyping, whether it's intentional or not.
You realize that on the other hand accusations of antisemitism *are* used to stamp out criticism of Israel, do you?
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.

Last edited by clairobscur; 05-18-2019 at 04:09 PM.