Much of what Terr posted was out of date. Yes, Palestinian national consciousness wasn’t terribly widespread in the 1930s, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t now.
Just a few decades prior to Terr’s quotes most “Arabs” certainly didn’t consider themselves Arabs.
However the most recent poll shows very little support amongst the Palestinians for a two state solution and that a solid majority think the only acceptable solution would be for the complete liberation of Palestine “from the river to the sea”(meaning the elimination of Israel).
A poll barely a month ago from the Washington Institute of Near Eastern Policy found that 60% of the Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip reject the idea of two state solution and support working towards having a completely independent Palestinian state “from the River to the Sea” while less than 30% support a two state solution.
Before tries anything stupid like arguing that they mean “a secular binational Palestine where Jews and Palestinians are treated equally” the poll also found that :
To anyone paying attention this isn’t shocking.
Even Palestinians as moderate as the late Edward Said of Columbia University and Hany Abu Assad have said they’d only support a two state solution if it would clearly be a temporary step towards a completely free independent Palestine.
My opinion is that they would accept it joyously, and even abide by it for a period of time. But…little by little, the pressure would mount, and demands would increase. They would always be looking for a reason to protest. As time went by the protests would be more vigorous.
The Right of Return wouldn’t be enough; they would start to demand restoration of property.
Shared control of Jerusalem wouldn’t be enough; they’d start to demand sole control.
etc.
But who the hell can possibly know? It’s a hypothetical that is so far beyond reality, you might as well ask what would happen if an earthquake separated Gaza from Israel by a new arm of the Mediterranean. Would it mean peace…or would Hamas just got rockets with longer range? Impossible even to address meaningfully.
I remember reading a long article on the internet years ago, I wish I could find it now. To paraphrase it said something like the soul and psyche of the Jewish people (Israeli nation really) had been severely damaged by their history, especially the holocaust, and and they were in an endless psychologically damaging cycle of taking it out on the Palestinian people.
Remember that (let’s go back to the early 40s) the basic reason for the invention of the gas chambers was that the SS men on the eastern front (even them) were suffering psychological damage, a form of PTSD, from having folks line up in front of large pits and shooting them in the head and dumping them in the mass graves. This shit takes its toll.
We can easily add the Palestinian people to this equation as equally damaged and caught in this dynamic.
This is very sad as both sides will only listen to their own “reason” and dehumanize the other side. Only tragedy awaits them both.
Hamas’ belief is that Israel’s greatest sin is that it exists. That’s what they want Israel to stop doing.
As Trinopus mentions, it would be nice if you could actually debate instead of spouting angry bullshit whenever you encountered a point you can’t refute.
There are a couple of problems with this scenario though. Most fundamentally, the problem is that the PA as an organization remains thoroughly corrupt and incompetent. This is the primary reason for Hamas’ initial popularity in Gaza - unlike the PA, Hamas appears to be capable of organizing stuff, including social welfare. Too bad that they are a bunch of fanatics who believe in perpetual war.
For whatever reason, institutionally the nascent Israeli government was simply better at organizing stuff.
The second problem is that, while Irgun was a pack of terrorist fanatics, even when the proto-Israelis were busy hunting them down on behalf of the British they never fully turned their fury on them. Contrast this with Hamas, who is perfectly willing to murder PA opponents when they feel like it.
The real problem, without a solution as far as I can see, is this: how to make the PA a credible, non-corrupt proto-government? Outsiders simply cannot do it. Throwing more money at the PA just makes the basic problem worse.
This is simply not the case. The Israelis are not “taking it out” on the Palestinians - what you have here is a genuine ethnic and territorial conflict.
Simplistic ‘answers’ along the lines of ‘they are all assholes’ or ‘they are psychologically damaged’ may be satisfying to armchair critics far from the situation, but they lack any air of reality.
No doubt the position apparently taken by Johnny Cashless - that one side are the villains, and that is that - is equally satisfying: no need to know any history or think deeply about the issues. However, it also lacks an air of reality.
It would indeed be wonderful, as yet others advocate, if Israelis and Palestinians alike could simply forget their ethnic, cultural and territorial differences and join in a single democratic state - presumably, singing ‘Kumbaya’ in a mixture of Hebrew and Arabic. It would also be very unlikely.
If were were discussing 99% of the world’s problems, I would be in agreement with you.
I am by no means an expert, but I do consider myself pretty well informed. The Israelis appear to me to act in their own self interest and in their own defense without any regard for the other people there. There is typically a reasonable basis for their actions, but they seem willing to go to any extreme in satisfying their needs, whether for security or space.
A large portion of the Palestinians seem concerned only with destroying the Israelis. And they don’t support leadership which actually wants a viable solution, so will engage in terrorism.
Haven’t you ever known a selfish asshole? Was there some deep reason why he was an asshole? Did you think “Gee, if only I could get to the bottom of his assholery, I bet he’d make a fine neighbor?”
Count me in the camp that’s finding it harder to care if they (both) want to continue their miserable trajectory. Like I said upthread, its looking like the only options they will agree to is perpetual conflict or genocide. Hey- maybe there is something they can agree on.
And anyone who knows me would understand that for me to take the “wash my hands of the mess” approach is very uncharacteristic. But they have to want a real resolution.
Good news, folks - the conflict will be ending soon.
I have been so assured by the organizers of a gastrointestinal pathology conference scheduled for Jerusalem at the end of October. The e-mail announcement contains the following advisory:
"Current Situation in Israel
“The course administration is monitoring the situation closely, and we are confident that the GI Pathology course will take place as scheduled in
Jerusalem, October 28th, 2014. The previous conflicts between Israel and Gaza in 2008 and 2012 were short lasting between 8 and 21 days.
We believe that an anticipated ground incursion would be short-lived and we look forward to calm being restored fairly shortly.”
So, nothing to worry about. I’m already making plans to attend (I hear cheap rooms are available at the Gaza Comfort Inn). :dubious:
Implying that “not guilty” is a possible result of a fair trial for Hamas’ leaders.
I would note meanwhile that overnight, Israel and Hamas agreed to a five-hour cease-fire so that medical supplies could be brought to injured civilians in Gaza.
You’ll recall what I was responding to was a memory of something he read on the internet a long time ago and which he thought to paraphrase for us - there’s a lot of that kind of thing in the ‘Great Debates’ area.
Where does “angry” come from? Are you really so bankrupt of ideas you want to try and personalise this exchange?
The point in question was when did the united States of American become the United States of America.
According to the 1776 Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress identified the thirteen colonies as being nited in their intentions but not united as a single nation, yet.
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America… (note the lack of capitalization of the word “united”.)
…We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do..
It’s notable that the Representatives refer to the “good People of these Colonies”, “these United Colonies”, and as “Free and Independent States” (note the plural of “State”) instead of to the citizens of the not yet created United States of America.
The 1976 bicentennial of the declaration of the thirteen colonies/States was just what it says it was - a celebration of the declaration of independence from England. Not the creation of a new nation.
This simply is not true, in the current conflict under discussion. In days of war, Israel has only killed less than 200 people. If Israel acted, as you claim, as if they were “…willing to go to any extreme in satisfying their needs … for security”, they would use WW2-type tactics on Gaza, which would result in tens of thousands - maybe hundreds of thousands - of deaths.
See, the problem here is hyperbole. Counter-battery fire against someone shooting at you may be right or it may be wrong, but it isn’t a “selfish asshole” act.
I mentioned this up thread but if you want a real example of “any extreme in satisfying their needs …for security” then look at Hama.
In 1982 the Syrian government moved to break the Muslim Brotherhood. They surrounded Hama for 27 days and killed between 10,000 to 40,000 people most of which were civilians. The insurgency broke, the Muslim Brotherhood fractured and became a spent power in Syria.
That’s going to an extreme - 200 dead in retaliatory strikes is not.
The United States was created in 1776. This isn’t really a debate point, you’re confusing a country’s constitution with the country itself. I guess France has only existed since the current Fifth Republic then?