Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 12-12-2012, 10:22 AM
Malthus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 18,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
No, they don't, because not everyone agrees with that description; others see Israel as the aggressor.

"It's kind of hard to say that the guys launching periodic military strikes on your territory, that kill dozens or hundreds of civilians, thus provoking the only retaliation the Palestinians have available to them, lobbing rockets over (which kill tiny numbers by comparison), has such a moral position".

Just so we're clear BTW, I take no side in this conflict. I'm just aware that both sides claim the other is the aggressor. And really, I don't care who is correct on that point. Conflicts like this end when both sides don't care any more who started it, they just want it to be over.



Morals are the reason you don't just seize land because you can.

And before you start the record "But the arabs...", you can't justify an immoral action in that way.
If you don't know or don't care about the historical context, you cannot comment sensibly about the morality or otherwise of current actions.
  #102  
Old 12-12-2012, 10:26 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,026
The point is this; if you're a young Israeli you are going to see the devastation of the rocket attacks, hear the propaganda and believe that the Palestinians are the bad guys. If you're on the other side of the wall, you will see the checkpoints, the devastation of the military strikes, hear the propaganda and be sure the Israelis are the bad guys.

And to that extent, it doesn't matter who started it just as it doesn't matter who started the conflict in Northern Ireland. In the present day, all those involved in the conflict believe they are getting even.

Last edited by Mijin; 12-12-2012 at 10:31 AM.
  #103  
Old 12-12-2012, 10:36 AM
Malthus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 18,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
That isn't what I said
What you said, in paraphrase, is that all you were aware of was that both sides claimed the other was the aggressor, and you neither knew nor cared who was right.

Is that a fair paraphrase?

My point is that little details like this matter, in terms of evaluating the morality of the current situation.
  #104  
Old 12-12-2012, 10:42 AM
Malthus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 18,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
The point is this; if you're a young Israeli you are going to see the devastation of the rocket attacks, hear the propaganda and believe that the Palestinians are the bad guys. If you're on the other side of the wall, you will see the checkpoints, the devastation of the military strikes, hear the propaganda and be sure the Israelis are the bad guys.

And to that extent, it doesn't matter who started it just as it doesn't matter who started the conflict in Northern Ireland. In the present day, all those involved in the conflict believe they are getting even.
Ah, but this is a totally different point.

Again, to paraphrase, what you seem to be saying here is that in order to solve the conflict all sides have to give up whatever resentments the conflict may have engendered, regardless of why the conflict started.

If that's what you are saying, I'd tend to agree.
  #105  
Old 12-12-2012, 10:45 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malthus View Post
The Israeli temptation, however, is to slice off bits of land above and beyond what is needed for these purposes - and the longer the peace deal seemed elusive, the greater the temptation. This is directly against Israeli self-interest because it makes the primary goal - a comprehensive peace - more difficult for them to achieve.
Sure, and that's why they held back on full settlement (officially sanctioned settlement I suppose) for so long...the settlements in the West bank didn't really start to get rolling until the mid to late 80's, and didn't take off large until the mid-90's. They TRIED to keep this as a bargaining chip for years...decades. But it wasn't buying them anything.

I think it was the final realization that there will never BE a comprehensive peace that pushed them into where they are today. Gaza just reinforces that concept, and possibly the Sinai (if Egypt becomes hostile again) will as well. Why give territory, especially strategic territory to a potential (or full out in the case of the Palestinians) enemy? The international community can howl about illegal settlements, but legality at the international level is a murky thing.


Quote:
The land was siezed it is true, but from Jordan - which has since disclaimed any responsibility for it. The issue then becomes the rights of self-determination of the people who are presently living on that land.
Well, two quick things here. First off, Jordan had annexed that territory itself first, and that annexation was never recognized by the 'international community' prior to the Six Days War...so, it's sort of a gray area. The 'international community' has said that the territory was occupied by Israel from Jordan, but it's not cut and dried. The second thing is that Jordan has washed it's hands of the whole thing...they make no claims to the territory.

So, we are back to the Oslo Accords....and the continued friction between Israel and the PA (not even counting Hamas in Gaza). Like I said, I think that Israel, or at least the Israeli leadership has come to the realization that there just won't ever be a permanent, lasting peace...which is why they are allowing (some of the) settlements to expand (afaik, they aren't allowing for new large scale settlements officially, though they might be expanding some of their outpost settlements...haven't kept up lately on current events wrt Israeli settlement).

Quote:
The Israeli position all along has always been that it would, in effect, recognize those rights as part of a comprehensive peace process - subject to Jerusalem being the Israeli capital and certain territorial adjustments to make Israel more strategically safe. Israel did not want a repeat of the pre-1967 situation in which Jerusalem was divided by what amounted to a militarized frontier - nor would a return to that make sense.
That's true enough, but consider the amount of time that's elapsed here...and the amount of real, substantial progress towards peace that HASN'T been made in that time.
  #106  
Old 12-12-2012, 10:56 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
The point is this; if you're a young Israeli you are going to see the devastation of the rocket attacks, hear the propaganda and believe that the Palestinians are the bad guys. If you're on the other side of the wall, you will see the checkpoints, the devastation of the military strikes, hear the propaganda and be sure the Israelis are the bad guys.

And to that extent, it doesn't matter who started it just as it doesn't matter who started the conflict in Northern Ireland. In the present day, all those involved in the conflict believe they are getting even.
True enough, but it's not going to help unfortunately. The situation has evolved into the clusterfuck that it is today, and there really isn't any path out of it that either side would be willing to take at this point. That's why you need to understand the context, not simply say 'well, both sides are bad, but they need to just let all of that go and resolve their issues'. It's not going to happen, even in the unlikely event that both sides could just forget about past wrongs.

The reason is that the Rubicon has been crossed wrt having two viable states in anything like the original configuration proposed back in '48. No way would (or even could...remember, Israel is a democracy) Israel make the concessions necessary to grant the territory a viable Palestine would need and would find acceptable...especially since many Palestinians, especially Hamas over in Gaza want the whole burrito, and don't want to settle for even the half loaf they would have had if they had gone along with the original UN proposal. It's just not going to happen.

Last edited by XT; 12-12-2012 at 10:57 AM.
  #107  
Old 12-12-2012, 10:59 AM
Malthus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 18,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Sure, and that's why they held back on full settlement (officially sanctioned settlement I suppose) for so long...the settlements in the West bank didn't really start to get rolling until the mid to late 80's, and didn't take off large until the mid-90's. They TRIED to keep this as a bargaining chip for years...decades. But it wasn't buying them anything.

I think it was the final realization that there will never BE a comprehensive peace that pushed them into where they are today. Gaza just reinforces that concept, and possibly the Sinai (if Egypt becomes hostile again) will as well. Why give territory, especially strategic territory to a potential (or full out in the case of the Palestinians) enemy? The international community can howl about illegal settlements, but legality at the international level is a murky thing.




Well, two quick things here. First off, Jordan had annexed that territory itself first, and that annexation was never recognized by the 'international community' prior to the Six Days War...so, it's sort of a gray area. The 'international community' has said that the territory was occupied by Israel from Jordan, but it's not cut and dried. The second thing is that Jordan has washed it's hands of the whole thing...they make no claims to the territory.

So, we are back to the Oslo Accords....and the continued friction between Israel and the PA (not even counting Hamas in Gaza). Like I said, I think that Israel, or at least the Israeli leadership has come to the realization that there just won't ever be a permanent, lasting peace...which is why they are allowing (some of the) settlements to expand (afaik, they aren't allowing for new large scale settlements officially, though they might be expanding some of their outpost settlements...haven't kept up lately on current events wrt Israeli settlement).



That's true enough, but consider the amount of time that's elapsed here...and the amount of real, substantial progress towards peace that HASN'T been made in that time.
Actually, I think much progress has in fact been made. The ME has come a long way from the "three Nos". The PA's position has softened considerably. True it has taken decades, but consider this: Israel doesn't realistically face an existential threat from its neighbours in the foreseeable future.

That noted, there is no doubt that recent events have hardened Israeli positions - particularly the situation with Gaza.

Taking the long view, though, I am not as pessimistic. I think a deal can in theory be reached - but it will take a change of government in Israel to do it. I am not optomistic that Bibi is capable of making the concessions that would be required.

The real wild card is whether the PA can survive long enough to outlast Bibi and make a deal with whoever comes after. The PA's status and popularity has been bolstered temporarily by the statehood bid stunt, which is IMO the only value of that particular deal, but again IMO it will quickly dawn on Palestinians that statehood recognition at the UN effectively changes nothing - it is a PR stunt and nothing more - at which point, local issues (namely, PA ineffectiveness, inability to make progress with Israel, and above all, local corruption) may ignite their anger.

Whoever replaces the PA is likely going to be less amenable to reason than the PA, which is a problem.

Naturally, making a deal is in itself no magic answer to the region's problems. What it may do, though, is redirect energies into more productive modes. Once a deal is in place, there is more for all parties to lose by behaving unreasonably.
  #108  
Old 12-12-2012, 11:02 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malthus View Post
Actually, I think much progress has in fact been made. The ME has come a long way from the "three Nos". The PA's position has softened considerably. True it has taken decades, but consider this: Israel doesn't realistically face an existential threat from its neighbours in the foreseeable future.

That noted, there is no doubt that recent events have hardened Israeli positions - particularly the situation with Gaza.

Taking the long view, though, I am not as pessimistic. I think a deal can in theory be reached - but it will take a change of government in Israel to do it. I am not optomistic that Bibi is capable of making the concessions that would be required.

The real wild card is whether the PA can survive long enough to outlast Bibi and make a deal with whoever comes after. The PA's status and popularity has been bolstered temporarily by the statehood bid stunt, which is IMO the only value of that particular deal, but again IMO it will quickly dawn on Palestinians that statehood recognition at the UN effectively changes nothing - it is a PR stunt and nothing more - at which point, local issues (namely, PA ineffectiveness, inability to make progress with Israel, and above all, local corruption) may ignite their anger.

Whoever replaces the PA is likely going to be less amenable to reason than the PA, which is a problem.

Naturally, making a deal is in itself no magic answer to the region's problems. What it may do, though, is redirect energies into more productive modes. Once a deal is in place, there is more for all parties to lose by behaving unreasonably.
I hope you are right. I used to be more optimistic, but I just don't see a clear path to anything like a compromise that would be remotely acceptable to both sides (well, all 3 sides if we count Hamas) in this seemingly endless conflict. I think the Palestinians as a whole missed to boat for a real compromise that that would be viable several decades ago, and gradually their position has eroded to the point where it's nearly untenable.
  #109  
Old 12-12-2012, 11:02 AM
brazil84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malthus View Post
What you said, in paraphrase, is that all you were aware of was that both sides claimed the other was the aggressor, and you neither knew nor cared who was right.

Is that a fair paraphrase?

My point is that little details like this matter, in terms of evaluating the morality of the current situation.
Well also it matters in answering the question posed in the original post. There has been a suggestion made that the Arabs are poor as a result of Jewish aggression. However, if the Arabs provoked that aggression through their own misconduct; and if the Jewish response was reasonable and could have been reasonably anticipated, then it's misleading and silly to claim that the Arabs are poor as a result of Jewish harassment and attacks.

It's like claiming that Bernie Madoff is poor because the government seized all of his assets and threw him in jail.
  #110  
Old 12-12-2012, 05:55 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,516
The Palestinians don't want a country per se, and they don't want peace. They want to prove how big their dicks are. It's partially an arab cultural thing and partially an Islam thing as I posted upthread.
  #111  
Old 12-12-2012, 06:28 PM
Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
The Palestinians don't want a country per se, and they don't want peace. They want to prove how big their dicks are. It's partially an arab cultural thing and partially an Islam thing as I posted upthread.

True. Same with blacks who wanted an end to Apartheid.
  #112  
Old 12-12-2012, 07:06 PM
brazil84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
The Palestinians don't want a country per se, and they don't want peace.
Agreed. Unless of course it's the peace of the grave for Israel. I guess that makes us both "mind readers."
  #113  
Old 12-12-2012, 07:07 PM
Inbred Mm domesticus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizzwire View Post
For the third time, my point was that even when no longer occupied, the attacks continued. I raised this to counter the argument that the Palestinians were justified in these attacks because they were being occupied. Those are really the only timepoints that matter. Your comment that "you can see almost no relationship between rocket fire and political variables" bolsters my point.
The original post I responded to indicated that the rocket attacks followed the Hamas victory in the elections. It read to me that the Israeli people, in exchange for lifting one aspect of the occupation, were rewarded with Hamas in governance and rocket attacks. It may not be your intention but it certainly was the effect.

Judging from the timeline of rocket attacks and the withdrawal from Gaza, I see no relationship and you have now agreed to that. I'm glad we were able to reach the same conclusion about our understanding of the events. There's no point in continuing to argue their interpretation because that's a complete waste of time.
  #114  
Old 12-12-2012, 07:09 PM
Inbred Mm domesticus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by brazil84 View Post
Agreed. Unless of course it's the peace of the grave for Israel. I guess that makes us both "mind readers."
Don't forget that they are also Israeli killing automatons created by a secret cadre of refugee Nazi scientists! I don't know why people keep forgetting that.
  #115  
Old 12-12-2012, 08:20 PM
Trinopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malthus View Post
. . . in order to solve the conflict all sides have to give up whatever resentments the conflict may have engendered, regardless of why the conflict started.

If that's what you are saying, I'd tend to agree.
I would say that a good "Truth and Reconciliation" process might be formed, where each side gets to hold on to their resentments under the "truth" phase -- no one would ask them to deny the wrongs had ever happened, and full documentation would be made public -- but that, then, under the "reconciliation" phase, both sides have to add, "But that was in the past, and we're moving beyond it now."

A clear, conscious memory of the wrongs of the past is a necessary ingredient in the "Never Again" invocation of human progress. But perpetuating and acting on old grudges can, in some circumstances, only serve to punish the innocent. No one should ever forget the Holocaust...but punishing modern Germany for it would not be particularly wise.
  #116  
Old 12-12-2012, 09:02 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,516
The schools that Palestinian children attend have maps with the entirety of Israel labeled "Palestine". 'Nuff said.
  #117  
Old 12-12-2012, 09:28 PM
Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
The schools that Palestinian children attend have maps with the entirety of Israel labeled "Palestine". 'Nuff said.
True, whereas maps in Israeli schools always showed the green line, Arab language newspapers in Israel weren't banned from showing the green line, maps in Israeli schools always labeled the West Bank "the West Bank" never "Judea and Samaria".

Also, Israeli tourism board has never gotten in trouble with western governments for distributing maps which didn't feature the Green line, and labeled the West Bank "Judea and Samaria".

And, of course, if one goes to the book Israel: A Place Among the Nations, one won't find the West Bank repeatedly labeled "Judea and Samaria", insistence that Israel is not occupying the West Bank but that Judea and Samaria are part of Israel. Nor, will you find claims in the book that there already is a Palestinian State known as Jordan and that those advocating a two-state solution are arguing for a second Palestinian state. And, it would be outrageous to suggest that there repeated comparisons between calling for Israel to withdraw from the West Bank to demands that Czechoslovakia withdraw from the Sudatenland.

The book for those who don't know was written by Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's current Prime Minister.

You might want to find a better line of argument.
  #118  
Old 12-13-2012, 02:48 AM
brazil84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
I would say that a good "Truth and Reconciliation" process might be formed, where each side gets to hold on to their resentments under the "truth" phase -- no one would ask them to deny the wrongs had ever happened, and full documentation would be made public -- but that, then, under the "reconciliation" phase, both sides have to add, "But that was in the past, and we're moving beyond it now.".
It's a mistake to frame this as a dispute where two people are having trouble getting along due to perceived past wrongs. The situation is not symmetrical, which is why one side is wealthy and the other side is poor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy
The schools that Palestinian children attend have maps with the entirety of Israel labeled "Palestine". 'Nuff said.
Yes, it's fascinating how people blind themselves to the overwhelming evidence of the Arabs' fundamental attitude problem. And decide that it's "mind reading" to draw reasonable conclusions about the Arab mentality based on this evidence.
  #119  
Old 12-13-2012, 04:00 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by brazil84 View Post
Yes, it's fascinating how people blind themselves to the overwhelming evidence of the Arabs' fundamental attitude problem. And decide that it's "mind reading" to draw reasonable conclusions about the Arab mentality based on this evidence.
Yes so many people, so many nations around the world blind themselves to the fact that this is completely about arab aggression: that when Israel kills, it's retaliation and that when Hamas kills, it's provocation.
They also focus on things like Israeli settlement building; they just don't understand that the argument "because we can" completely makes this justified.

Finally they lack your ability to always know what Palestinians' true motives are.
  #120  
Old 12-13-2012, 05:03 AM
brazil84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
Yes so many people, so many nations around the world blind themselves to the fact that this is completely about arab aggression: that when Israel kills, it's retaliation and that when Hamas kills, it's provocation.
Close, but not exactly. When Israel kills, it's generally self-defense. When Hamas kills, it's generally provocation as well as simple terrorism.

Quote:
They also focus on things like Israeli settlement building; they just don't understand that the argument "because we can" completely makes this justified.
I disagree -- what they miss is that the settlements are an excuse for Arab misconduct -- not a reason. In terms of the "because we can" argument, more facts are necessary to justify it.

Quote:
Finally they lack your ability to always know what Palestinians' true motives are.
Pretty much yes. See, my trick to "mind reading" is paying attention to what people do and say.

For example, last year a senior Fatah official said the following:

Quote:
The agreement is based on the borders of June 4. While the agreement is on the borders of June 4, the President [Mahmoud Abbas] understands, we understand, and everyone knows that it is impossible to realize the inspiring idea, or the great goal in one stroke. If Israel withdraws from Jerusalem, if Israel uproots the settlements, 650,000 settlers, if Israel removes the (security) fence - what will be with Israel? Israel will come to an end. If I say that I want to remove it from existence, this will be great, great, [but] it is hard. This is not a [stated] policy. You can't say it to the world. You can say it to yourself."
Using my advanced mind reading techniques, I inferred (based on this as well as other statements and actions) that this man has the goal of putting an end to Jewish Israel and that his position is the consensus position among the Arabs.

By the way, you never answer my questions from before:

1. Can you give me an example of an international agreement the Palestinian Arabs are unable to make which is a bar to them prospering?

2. What exactly do you mean by mind reading? If I look at a person's words and actions and come to a reasonable conclusion about his intent, does that count as mind reading?

3. Are you denying that it's possible to come to reasonable conclusions about peoples' intentions by looking at their words and actions?

4. Are you are retracting this argument?

Quote:
I think certain "trappings of statehood" are a prerequisite to prosperity. Failed states don't become economic powerhouses.

Last edited by brazil84; 12-13-2012 at 05:03 AM.
  #121  
Old 12-13-2012, 05:30 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by brazil84 View Post
Pretty much yes. See, my trick to "mind reading" is paying attention to what people do and say.

For example, last year a senior Fatah official said the following:
One unnamed guy's views doesn't tell you that the reason for the Palestinian observer state bid is to "insult Israel". That's the mind-reading I'm accusing you and others in this thread of doing.

Quote:
1. Can you give me an example of an international agreement the Palestinian Arabs are unable to make which is a bar to them prospering?
Note that not being able to form international agreements was just one of a list of reasons I gave for why not being a country is not conducive to prosperity. Indeed, it was the last thing on the list.

But sure, off the top of my head they can't join GAFTA.

Quote:
2. What exactly do you mean by mind reading? If I look at a person's words and actions and come to a reasonable conclusion about his intent, does that count as mind reading?
*That* isn't mind-reading, but that's not what you're doing here. You find the most anti-zion quote you can, then apply it to all or most Palestinians.

Furthermore, even if all Palestinians wanted Israel off the map, that still wouldn't tell us what their intent is behind every action, such as the UN status upgrade. But you claim to be able to know such things.

Quote:
3. Are you denying that it's possible to come to reasonable conclusions about peoples' intentions by looking at their words and actions?
Answered above.

Quote:
4. Are you are retracting this argument?
No; of course it is a severe handicap to economic growth for a region to not be a country for all the reasons I gave and you've chosen to ignore.
Also you simply bit the bullet and claimed that hours of checkpoint delays in transporting anything around the country would "not really" affect business. I think anyone trying to look at this subject objectively would come to a different conclusion.

Last edited by Mijin; 12-13-2012 at 05:32 AM.
  #122  
Old 12-13-2012, 06:55 AM
brazil84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
One unnamed guy's views
I'm happy to give you the guy's name if you like.

Quote:
doesn't tell you that the reason for the Palestinian observer state bid is to "insult Israel".
1. Please show me where I claimed that there is such a motivation, i.e. to "insult Israel."

2. Looking at all of the Arabs' statements and actions in context, it's pretty easy to determine their motivations. Note that Abbas stated the following in writing:

Quote:
Palestine’s admission to the United Nations would pave the way for the internationalization of the conflict as a legal matter, not only a political one. It would also pave the way for us to pursue claims against Israel at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies and the International Court of Justice.
_____________

Quote:
That's the mind-reading I'm accusing you and others in this thread of doing.
So your mind-reading accusation is that I am basing my opinion about the Arab mentality solely on the words of one senior Fatah official?

Quote:
Note that not being able to form international agreements was just one of a list of reasons I gave for why not being a country is not conducive to prosperity.
And note that the other reasons do not fall under the "trappings of statehood."

Quote:
But sure, off the top of my head they can't join GAFTA.
Why not? All of the members of GAFTA recognize "Palestine" as a state, or am I mistaken? What's to stop them from letting "Palestine" join? I am extremely skeptical of your claim. Please show me proof.

Quote:
*That* isn't mind-reading, but that's not what you're doing here. You find the most anti-zion quote you can, then apply it to all or most Palestinians.
Not at all, I have looked at many different words and actions of the Palestinian Arabs over the years and come to reasonable conclusions about their consensus views.

If you think I am somehow cherry-picking evidence, then feel free to come up with your own evidence which contradicts what I have shown. I suspect the best you can find is a few self-serving quotes from Arab leaders, in English, for gullible Western audiences. And not backed up by any consistent actions.

Quote:
No;
Then please explain what you mean by the phrase "failed state," tell me whether the "Palestine" which has been referred to is a "failed state," and if so, roughly when did it become a "failed state" and why.
  #123  
Old 12-13-2012, 03:53 PM
Trinopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by brazil84 View Post
It's a mistake to frame this as a dispute where two people are having trouble getting along due to perceived past wrongs. The situation is not symmetrical, which is why one side is wealthy and the other side is poor. . . .
I'm unclear on what you mean here. I agree that "perceived past wrongs" are not the only problem. But they are behind the problem(s). They exist as sources of friction, as bases of grievance. They are prominent in everyone's conscience, and they are very often recited in discussions of the issue.

I want what you have, and you want what I have -- and that's tough enough to negotiate around -- but, hey, you killed my grandfather! (And I killed yours, etc.) That makes it much tougher for us to work our way to an agreement.

This is why I recommended the "truth" phase of a "truth and reconciliation" process.
  #124  
Old 12-13-2012, 05:45 PM
brazil84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
I'm unclear on what you mean here. I agree that "perceived past wrongs" are not the only problem. But they are behind the problem(s). They exist as sources of friction, as bases of grievance. They are prominent in everyone's conscience, and they are very often recited in discussions of the issue.
Well can you give me a few specific examples on both sides to illustrate your point?

Quote:
I want what you have, and you want what I have -- and that's tough enough to negotiate around -- but, hey, you killed my grandfather! (And I killed yours, etc.) That makes it much tougher for us to work our way to an agreement.
Again, can you give me a few specific examples of this on both sides?
  #125  
Old 12-13-2012, 07:36 PM
bizzwire is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: right behind....YOUR EAR!
Posts: 1,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inbred Mm domesticus View Post
The original post I responded to indicated that the rocket attacks followed the Hamas victory in the elections. It read to me that the Israeli people, in exchange for lifting one aspect of the occupation, were rewarded with Hamas in governance and rocket attacks. It may not be your intention but it certainly was the effect.

Judging from the timeline of rocket attacks and the withdrawal from Gaza, I see no relationship and you have now agreed to that. I'm glad we were able to reach the same conclusion about our understanding of the events. There's no point in continuing to argue their interpretation because that's a complete waste of time.
Yeah, the election of Hamas was really tangential to my argument, but you seem to have seized on it as the linchpin. Glad we cleared that up.
  #126  
Old 12-13-2012, 11:17 PM
Trinopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by brazil84 View Post
Well can you give me a few specific examples on both sides to illustrate your point? . . .
The first war, and the loss of Palestinian land; the intervening decades of terrorist attacks.

Pretty obvious, really. Those are "events in the past" that shouldn't be forgotten, but which have to be gotten past if there is to be peace. South Africa and Ireland helped point the way.
  #127  
Old 12-14-2012, 12:34 AM
RedFury is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hell's Den
Posts: 7,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
And that's the key right there. Unless the contention is that Israel stole ALL the best land in the region and has kept all the other countries around it down. I'd say that the primary reason that Israel is relatively rich and the rest of the region is relatively poor is that Israel has a democratic government, has rule of law and is business friendly and has cultivated extensive business and trade relationships outside of their country.

Foreign American aid per capita. Give it some thought. Further what Egypt gets has little to do with what Israel does.
  #128  
Old 12-14-2012, 12:47 AM
Der Trihs's Avatar
Der Trihs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
The schools that Palestinian children attend have maps with the entirety of Israel labeled "Palestine". 'Nuff said.
And the Israelis have demonstrated a complete willingness to shove Palestinians off their land and take it for their own. Neither side has any concern whatsoever for the land or property of the other. The Israelis are just better armed and somewhat more sophisticated in their propaganda on the matter.

Last edited by Der Trihs; 12-14-2012 at 12:48 AM.
  #129  
Old 12-14-2012, 12:56 AM
foolsguinea is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,820
1) Israeli got all the good land in 1948.
- No, they got the desert. They've been trying to kipe the good land since.

2) Rich Jews send a lot of money to Israeli. Why rich Arabs do not send money to Palestine is a mystery.
- Not a mystery. Palestine was a poor backwater before, Palestinians are nothing special to Arabs now. Israel is the focus of Jewish hopes and dreams.

3) The US supports Israel with huge amount of cash (loans?) because the US has a strategic interest in the area.
- Eh. Maybe. Or a romantic affinity for the idea of Zion.

4) Israelis are industrious and Arabs are lazy. (I somehow doubt this one)
- Sounds like twaddle to me.

Last edited by foolsguinea; 12-14-2012 at 12:56 AM.
  #130  
Old 12-14-2012, 03:38 AM
brazil84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
The first war, and the loss of Palestinian land; the intervening decades of terrorist attacks.
Those are not specific examples. Please give me specifics of things the Arabs have done and specific things the Israelis are doing years later which you see as revenge in response. Also vice versa.

Quote:
Pretty obvious, really.
It's not obvious to me. It looks to me like Israeli policy is primarily motivated by self-defense not revenge. For example, Israel is not regularly bombing Syria despite all the Syrian attacks which took place in the 50s and 60s. Israel did apparently bomb a Syrian nuclear project. That seems to me more out of concern for the future than anger over the past.
  #131  
Old 12-14-2012, 03:40 AM
brazil84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
And the Israelis have demonstrated a complete willingness to shove Palestinians off their land and take it for their own.
I guess that's why Arabs never win in Israeli courts when they have land disputes with Jews, right?

It also explains why there are hundreds of thousands of Arabs living in Israel who could be easily chased out, just like the Arabs chased Jews out of Gaza, Baghdad, and Hebron.

  #132  
Old 12-14-2012, 03:58 AM
brazil84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,046
By the way, I would ask that people explain what they mean by "Palestinian Land."

Do uncultivated parts of the former Ottoman empire count as "Palestinian land"? If non-Arabs immigrated to the area in or around what is now Israel, and started using uncultivated land, have they just misappropriated "Palestinian land"?

After the Arabs chased all the Jews out of Gaza City, Eastern Jerusalem, and Hebron, did those areas become "Palestinian land"? And are they "Palestinian Land" forever?

Are there any places in or around Israel which are NOT "Palestinian land"? If so, what? And how did they become so?

I really would like a clear definition of "Palestinian land."
  #133  
Old 12-14-2012, 04:08 AM
brazil84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,046
I would also like to know if there is such thing as "Jewish land."

For example, the Jewish National Fund owns many acres of land deep inside Syria. Does that count as "Jewish land"? Is it a problem that Syria is occupying Jewish land?

For centuries there was a Jewish neighborhood in Hebron until the Arabs chased out the Jews in the 1930s. Is that neighborhood "Jewish land"? Is it still Jewish land today?

Similarly, there were Jews living in Gaza City until they were chased out in the late 1940s. Does that mean that Gaza City contains Jewish land?
  #134  
Old 12-14-2012, 08:35 AM
Malthus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 18,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedFury View Post
Foreign American aid per capita. Give it some thought. Further what Egypt gets has little to do with what Israel does.
The theory that it is foreign american aid which differentiates Israel from the rest of the region in terms of wealth is difficult to square with the fact that Israel received little to none prior to 1973 - yet the difference in wealth between Israel and the surrounding nations was already very pronounced.

As for per-capita aid, Palestine itself (that is, the PA - or West Bank) receives significant amounts.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...AUl2ErUl0UfIuQ

The real reason is the same as the reasons why first-world nations are generally better off than third-world nations: they have cultural, social and political systems that are conducive to generating wealth. The amount of aid received is practically irrelevant to this - cut Israel off from military subsidies, it would not change the nature of Israeli society - increase aid to the Egyptians and you will not change them, either.
  #135  
Old 12-14-2012, 09:29 AM
Noone Special is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 5,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedFury View Post
Foreign American aid per capita. Give it some thought. Further what Egypt gets has little to do with what Israel does.
American aid to Israel is, on average, slightly less than $3 billion p/annum.
Israel's GDP in 2011 was $211 Billion p/annum. Once you take into account that about half of the aid is really just a slightly convoluted method used by the US government to subsidize its Arms Industry (it must be spent buying from US companies,) we're talking roughly 1% of the GDP. Do you really think that is the deciding factor...?
  #136  
Old 12-14-2012, 10:12 AM
FinnAgain is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Howth Castle & Environs
Posts: 16,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noone Special View Post
Do you really think that is the deciding factor...?
It's thinking that's characteristic of a certain type of argument that can only see American foreign politics as an outgrowth of Jewish/Zionist influence/power/control, that only sees Israel's continued successes as a result of the Zionist Friendlypied Government in America that they see as doing everything that the Israeli right tells them to do, and that sees Dual Loyalty and Media Distortion as the most likely reasons for why Americans don't agree with anti-Israel positions en masse.

It's monocausal and mypoic.
But the function of certain ideologies is to try to rationalize support for a prejudged conclusion, and not to analyze the facts for their implications.
  #137  
Old 12-14-2012, 10:26 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by brazil84 View Post
I really would like a clear definition of "Palestinian land."
"Land that Palestinians want".

Regards,
Shodan
  #138  
Old 12-14-2012, 11:05 AM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by brazil84 View Post
By the way, I would ask that people explain what they mean by "Palestinian Land."

Do uncultivated parts of the former Ottoman empire count as "Palestinian land"? If non-Arabs immigrated to the area in or around what is now Israel, and started using uncultivated land, have they just misappropriated "Palestinian land"?

After the Arabs chased all the Jews out of Gaza City, Eastern Jerusalem, and Hebron, did those areas become "Palestinian land"? And are they "Palestinian Land" forever?

Are there any places in or around Israel which are NOT "Palestinian land"? If so, what? And how did they become so?

I really would like a clear definition of "Palestinian land."
Quote:
Originally Posted by brazil84 View Post
I would also like to know if there is such thing as "Jewish land."

For example, the Jewish National Fund owns many acres of land deep inside Syria. Does that count as "Jewish land"? Is it a problem that Syria is occupying Jewish land?

For centuries there was a Jewish neighborhood in Hebron until the Arabs chased out the Jews in the 1930s. Is that neighborhood "Jewish land"? Is it still Jewish land today?

Similarly, there were Jews living in Gaza City until they were chased out in the late 1940s. Does that mean that Gaza City contains Jewish land?
The problem is that Jews want Israel to exist and the Palestinians want it not to. It's as simple as that. As far as the Palestinians are concerned there isn't really any "Israel". True, their country, Palestine, has been largely occupied by an invader for 65 years, but that doesn't change anything in their eyes. There can't be a two-state solution because the vast majority of Palestinians don't want the "theft" of their country legitimized. They want it back, if they have to fight forever.
  #139  
Old 12-14-2012, 11:55 AM
Dissonance is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Running Back & Forth
Posts: 3,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedFury View Post
Foreign American aid per capita. Give it some thought. Further what Egypt gets has little to do with what Israel does.
If by 'little to do with' you mean 'is the direct cause of', sure they're totally unrelated. US Foreign Military Aid to Israel is to offset the FMA given to Egypt as part of the Camp David accords.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
The Palestinians don't want a country per se, and they don't want peace. They want to prove how big their dicks are. It's partially an arab cultural thing and partially an Islam thing as I posted upthread.
How progressive and insightful. So you're saying only half the problem is "they're Arabs", the other half is "they're Muslims".
  #140  
Old 12-14-2012, 01:50 PM
Trinopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by brazil84 View Post
Those are not specific examples. Please give me specifics of things the Arabs have done and specific things the Israelis are doing years later which you see as revenge in response. Also vice versa. . . .
Instead, since I've already done this, please tell me what your own viewpoint is, as I don't know what you're trying to convey. Do you believe that history starts "now," and the past is of no consequence in moving forward to a peaceful solution? I do not.

I answered your question; your turn to answer mine.
  #141  
Old 12-14-2012, 01:52 PM
Docta G is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 555
Israel has more lawyers, guns, and money, of course.
  #142  
Old 12-14-2012, 02:22 PM
Algher is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noone Special View Post
American aid to Israel is, on average, slightly less than $3 billion p/annum.
Israel's GDP in 2011 was $211 Billion p/annum. Once you take into account that about half of the aid is really just a slightly convoluted method used by the US government to subsidize its Arms Industry (it must be spent buying from US companies,) we're talking roughly 1% of the GDP. Do you really think that is the deciding factor...?
It would be a better numerical comparison to look at Israel's annual budget of around 100 billion dollars - which only raises the value of US aid to around 3%, but is more telling IMHO.

There is a new documentary on the law in the territories that helps shine some light on the challenges the Palestinians in the West Bank have and had.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...,5532140.story

Quote:
"Law's" narrative begins in 1967, when Israel's victory in the Six-Day War meant that, literally overnight, a million people became subject to Israeli authority. Constructing a legal system that would cover all the contingencies of everyday life was an enormous undertaking.

Why not, the director asks, just place all these people under standard Israeli law? For one thing, as it turns out, that would imply the intention to annex territory and, for another, it would grant them full Israeli citizenship, something the country's hierarchy did not want to do.

So the occupied territories ended up being governed under a system that everyone thought would be temporary but ended up lasting for decades with no end in sight, like a makeshift building facing the stresses of conditions it was never meant to withstand.
  #143  
Old 12-14-2012, 02:34 PM
brazil84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
The problem is that Jews want Israel to exist and the Palestinians want it not to.
I completely agree. It's not a matter of the Jews wanting to avenge or right some past wrong. That's why you don't see Jewish terrorists blowing up buses in Munich or Damascus.

From the Arabs' point of view, the problem is that their is Jewish sovereignty over part of the Middle East, which they see as Arab land forever. That's why the descendants of Arabs who fled Gaza in 1967 are still sitting in "refugee camps" in Jordan rather than returning to Gaza.

That said, I think it's worth nailing down what exactly is meant by the phrase "Palestinian Land." Because the phrase seems to presuppose quite a lot.
  #144  
Old 12-14-2012, 02:41 PM
brazil84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
Instead, since I've already done this,
No you have not. For example, you mentioned the "first war" but you did not say what specifically Israel is doing now which you believe is motivated by a need to avenge wrongs in the "first war." Nor have you specified exactly what the wrongs were.

Quote:
please tell me what your own viewpoint is, as I don't know what you're trying to convey.
As mentioned above the Israelis are primarily motivated by self-defense as a opposed to a desire to avenge or right past wrongs. The Arabs are primarily motivated by a desire that Jewish Israel cease to exist as opposed to a desire to avenge or right past wrongs. Except of course insofar as the existence of Israel is a wrong.

Now please give me the specific examples I am asking for.
  #145  
Old 12-14-2012, 02:48 PM
Docta G is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
The Palestinians don't want a country per se, and they don't want peace. They want to prove how big their dicks are. It's partially an arab cultural thing and partially an Islam thing as I posted upthread.
Well, that settles it. Thanks, Minnesota Man!
  #146  
Old 12-14-2012, 05:25 PM
Trinopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by brazil84 View Post
No you have not. For example, you mentioned the "first war" but you did not say what specifically Israel is doing now which you believe is motivated by a need to avenge wrongs in the "first war." Nor have you specified exactly what the wrongs were.
You improperly distributed a clause. I said that the Palestinians have the perceived past grievance of land lost in the first war, and that Israelis have the perceived past grievance of terrorism.

Quote:
Now please give me the specific examples I am asking for.
Pick any past terrorist attack on Israeli civilians, such as various bus or cafe bombings. Pick any specific Palestinian family claim to lands lost in the first war. (Or, for that matter, lands taken in expansions of West Bank settlements.)

Why should these perceived past grievances not be addressed in any peace settlement? Even if they cannot be redressed to the satisfaction of those who consider themselves aggrieved, how can a peace process go forward that does not entail discussion of them? You seem to be favoring a policy of denying the past, censoring it, refusing even to acknowledge its existence. I hope that I am wrong in perceiving this, but, for someone who demands my exact and detailed specificity, you're sure not making yourself very clear at all.
  #147  
Old 12-14-2012, 06:12 PM
bizzwire is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: right behind....YOUR EAR!
Posts: 1,684
So...to answer the OP, the reason that the Palestinians are poor is because a vibrant, thriving Palestinian state living at peace with Israel is not the goal of the Palestinian Leadership or its Arab brethren and sponsors. Maintaining a low level insurgency and goading the Israelis into acts that can be used to paint them as innocent victims is the order of the day.

The Palestinians/ Arabs do not want peace with Israel. They want a convenient enemy to blame all of their shortcomings and failures on, lest their own populations start asking "why is Israel rich while we are poor?"
  #148  
Old 12-15-2012, 02:59 AM
brazil84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
You improperly distributed a clause. I said that the Palestinians have the perceived past grievance of land lost in the first war, and that Israelis have the perceived past grievance of terrorism.



Pick any past terrorist attack on Israeli civilians, such as various bus or cafe bombings. Pick any specific Palestinian family claim to lands lost in the first war. (Or, for that matter, lands taken in expansions of West Bank settlements.)
Again, you are not giving specific examples of how the Israelis are motivated today by grudges over some terrorist attack back in the 1980s. Israelis have responded to Arab terrorist attacks but their response is primarily motivated by self-defense, i.e. the need to prevent similar attacks in the future.

Quote:
Why should these perceived past grievances not be addressed in any peace settlement?
Because it misses the fundamental problem of the conflict. The problem is NOT that each side keeps trying to get revenge for some perceived past wrong, thus perpetuating a cycle of conflict. The problem is that the Israelis want there to be a Jewish Israel and the Arabs want there NOT to be a Jewish Israel. Any proposed solution which does not focus on this fundamental conflict is a waste of time.

Quote:
You seem to be favoring a policy of denying the past, censoring it, refusing even to acknowledge its existence.
Not at all, I favor a policy of focusing on what the conflict really is about, as opposed to focusing on what people wish or imagine the conflict is about.
  #149  
Old 12-18-2012, 06:35 AM
brazil84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
"Land that Palestinians want".

Regards,
Shodan
After thinking about this for a while, I agree it's pretty close to the real definition.

Another question is what are the moral consequences if a piece of land is "Palestinian Land."

Does it mean that the Palestinian Arabs, as a group, have the moral right to exclude Jewish people who happen to be living there?

Does it mean that anyone who considers himself "Palestinian" has a moral right to live there?

And again, from anyone who happens to believe in the concept of "Palestinian Land," I would like to know if there is such thing as "Jewish Land."

After all, Jews have been living in the Middle East for thousands of years. Surely there must be some "Jewish Land" somewhere in the Middle East. Is there "Jewish Land" anywhere in the world?
  #150  
Old 03-26-2013, 04:59 PM
taxi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1
Biggest issue for success has to do with a modern vs. conservative mindset. Ban women from the workplace, what kind of effect does that have on the economy? One society is a world leader when it comes to techonology, biology, physics, economics, etc.. the other is becoming more fundamentally religious everyday. Women are expected to bear 6+ children and have little or no access to education. Israel has it's own religious fundamentalists, but they, currently anyways, form a much lower percentage of the population.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017