Your lack of self-awareness really is so terribly profound.
Yes, precisely, and the data presented are all demographics, with a passing and
No, it does not. It includes the economic comment I quoted, with all the issues I already noted.
When you decide to discuss proper economic history from non-partisan sources, an actual discussion may be had, but as you’re not so capable…
The areas receiving immigration are of course the most economically productive areas. Logical fallacy there, your stretching of fact.
It’s an attempt, it also contains such gems as asserting bald face that the Mandate was created to establish a Jewish homeland (whereas the facts are rather more ambiguous).
Again your lack of self awareness is most impressive, rare to find such an example of continuous unbridled bile and irrational hatred.
I do like how any disagreement with the Chosen Story is lying.
And any criticism is lying.
No real point in anything resembling rational discussion with someone as profoundly disfunctional as you.
Repetitive to note perhaps but difference of analysis is not deception of course.
As before the war the cycle of tit-for-tat violence was already on-going, I rather regard this as mere fantasy.
Of course in the FinnAgain and general Apologist world, there is only the Arab Devils to blame.
You do seem to be rather impaired in the area of rational discussion and reading skills.
My observation, (not your distortion) was comparative and relative to the necessity of settlers. Now leaving aside your assertion of the as yet questionable data with respect to living standards (and my noting already the fallacioius assertion of mono-causal difference), the purpose of my note relative to global technological improvements was and is really very simple, to highlight your fallacious argument relative to living standards and tying this to Jewish immigration.
Amusing you accusing others of roid rage… really amusing.
The current Israeli government? Probably not. Bibi would have problems with his cabinet, and I don’t think he’s really in love with the idea of a Palestinian state. But even he hasn’t explicitly ruled it out, and has, in fact, publicly endorsed the idea of a Palestinian state. But, no, I don’t think as long as he’s PM, you’re going to see much progress on peace negotiations.
As to the question of the people that elected it willing to let that happen, remember that the 2009 elections were really close, and Kadima actually won more seats than Likud.
Part of the reason for Likud’s win, though, was because of Olmert’s corruption scandals and the effect it had on public opinion of Kadima. I think there was the idea that Livni just wasn’t experienced enough to be PM.
But I think another thing had to do with Israeli frustration over the results of the Gaza withdrawal. The withdrawal from Gaza was supposed to contribute to peace, but as soon as the withdrawal happened, Hamas started shooting rockets into Israel, and Israel invaded to stop it. So, I think there was the attitude at that time, “Hey, we tried for peace and look at what the Palestinians did to us.” So, I think there was Israeli frustration with the peace process, and in 2009, they weren’t all that interested in a Palestinian state because, hey, what’s to say the same thing wouldn’t happen in the West Bank as Gaza. But that mood can change, and I think it will over time, as long as Israelis feel secure and don’t feel that a Palestinian state will threaten them or shoot rockets at Israeli cities and towns.
But “fuck 'em, they lost” doesn’t necessarily apply to the Palestinians, does it? I mean, if we’re judging based on the 1967 war and all, Israel was the defender not the aggressor, and there were other established nations involved in inciting that conflict.
I think the fact that other neighboring Arab nations that either outwardly or inwardly desire the destruction of Israel, and simultaneously trumpet the Palestinian cause while doing bollocks about it except when its politically convenient are missing the point, which is that their hypocrisy is exposed.
Nobody wants the Palestinians, it seems, even though they are Arab “brothers” to them. Its convenient to mention that brotherhood when it serves their purposes, other times, not.
In any event, I don’t see any groundswell of neighboring Arab nations looking to take in a few hundred thousand Palestinian refugees. Why is that? How can these countries be so beholden to the plight of the Palestinians yet do nothing about it other than plot wars against Israel?
I’d like to find a better animal, as cats are pretty regal, poised and clean, all things considered. But yeah, most have shown their true colors. It’s kinda disturbing that there are people like that, but I guess some people are just very, very sick.
However, I will point out another lie at the moment. Facts shouldn’t be so abused and I’d hate for anything reading along to be tricked into error.
No, he’s making a fair point. When the Palestinians fled Israel to neighboring countries, those countries (Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, etc), those countries really didn’t do anything for them. They could have said to them, “We’ll give you citizenship if you want it. We’ll help you find jobs and assimilate into society.”
Instead, they kept them at gun point in refugee camps, and forced them to live in squalor, encouraging a kind of simmering rage against Israel, for the purpose of using them as puppets against the Israelis. There’s an old joke that Israel’s neighbors would fight Israel to the last Palestinian, and there’s a lot of truth to that.
Contrasting that, a lot of Jewish refugees fled their homes in Arab countries. Countries like the North African countries, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and so on, had large Jewish populations that fled those countries in and around 1949 and came to Israel. Israel could have done what its neighbors did. It could have put them in refugee camps, and encouraged them to be violent against their home countries. They didn’t do that, though. The Arab Jews got assimilated into Israeli society, and today, they and their descendants make up about half the population of Israel.
The West Bank and Gaza aren’t in any country. They’re stateless territory occupied by Israel that were formerly in Jordan and Egypt, respectively. Prior to that, they were in the British mandate of Palestine, and prior to that in the Ottoman villayet* of Beirut and the Special District of Jerusalem. Before that, they were part of the Sultanate of Egypt. Before that, they were part of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, and before that the various Islamic caliphates. Before that, they were part of the Byzantine Empire, and before that, the Eastern half of the Roman Empire. Before that, they were ruled by Herod the Great, and before him, the Hasmonean dynasty. Before that, they were ruled by the various successor states of Alexandria, the Seleucids and Ptolemies. Before that, of course, they were ruled by Alexander, and before that, the Persian empire. Before that they were ruled by the neo-Babylonian empire. Before that, most of it was ruled by Assyria, and before that, most of the West Bank was ruled by the northern kingdom of Israel (the Samarian kingdom), and before that, if you believe the bible, the unified kingdom of David. Before that, it was ruled by various Israelite tribes, and before that by a bunch of Canaanite kingdoms. The area that would become the Gaza Strip was a confederation of Philistine city states. I think there was some more Egyptian control over the region before that, but I’m not entirely sure when it comes to the West Bank. Gaza was ruled by the Egyptians before the Philistines invaded, though.
There was a British mandate of Palestine, and before that, a Roman province of Palestine, but never an independent state of Palestine.
As for Palestinian nationalism, that’s a complicated question. If the question is “why should Palestinians abandon their Homeland?”, I’d say they shouldn’t. But the fact is, that some of them in what’s now Israel proper did, and the ones that did aren’t going to be able to come back. The ones in Israel proper that didn’t are Israeli citizens now. Most of the Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza still live in the West Bank and Gaza, and most of the Palestinians in refugee camps are from Israel proper.
For that matter, the Iraqi Jews shouldn’t have had to abandon their homeland, either (there was a Jewish population in Iraq since ancient times), but they did because the choice was flight or death, and they’re not going to get the chance to go back either.
What would have happened, if it were not the British? What if it had been a more ruthless country/government? In some countries, people have “vanished” for much less.
Why not? It’s acceptable to invite jews back to their homeland from all over the world - ie. where they fled to after previous “defences” of the place they so love went a bit flat - so why aren’t the conquered Palestinians being encouraged back?
ps. And I thought jews more than anyone would be aware that home is wherever you lay your kippah. Do they really need to own the physical property of their history to feel a part of it? I know I don’t know what it feels like to define my identity by the past so completely, but tbh, I can’t say I really want to, if Finn is the end product.
The Raj existed for so long it’s hard to disentangle it from purely domestic history.
I could imagine, though in an alternative history, a trajectory like China, probably warring states importing arms from Europe and by the late 19th century being in a sad way like the Middle Kingdom. Then maybe imported ideology like Communism being the basis for a series of anti-feudal revolutions, and then maybe something like China today.
Ah wait, I see your question, sorry, if British rule had resembled say Portuguese or Belgian (or French) colonial rule?
Doubtless Gandi would have been vanished (or exiled in French style to some god-forsaken island). And that would have kicked Indian independence down the road 10-20 years, but in a process looking rather more like Algeria or say the Portuguese African colonies. And that would have been a nasty disaster making the Partition look like a walk in the bloody park.
I note that the Portuguese with hardly any resources (as compared to either France or UK), out of sheer nastiness, kept their colonies until 1975. European decolonisation of the 1950s through 1960s, in particular the British approach was something of a combination of moral awakening that it was plain wrong, that the justifications were just plain wrong, and self-interest as far-sightedness said that while then one could hold on, the day was coming and it if not done now, it would come with communist revolutions and the like.
It’s fine, but when it comes down to it, such histories tell us pretty much fuck all about modern nationalism. There was never a nation of Slovakia before the modern one, but few people amuse themselves by questioning Slovak identity. Or Slovene.
I know you were just responding to the form of the question, but I rather think this sort of “unto the Middle Ages” reasoning for modern political polities is nothing but 19th century romantic claptrap.
Yes, that is true.
However, I rather think this is trotted out - in comparison with the Israeli welcoming of Arab Jews - as a comparison that at its fundament is not entirely honest.
Insofar as the Arab position was that the refugees should be entitled to reclaim their lost homes, lands, go home - and in fact that seems to be their (the refugees and their descendants) primary desire, rather than moving out, it would be playing into Israel’s hands to do so.
Or in another way, from the perspective of 1948 or 1967 (versus today) and as a refugee, undermining your “right to return” is not a welcome and helpful act. You can easily believe that this will write into stone the loss of your house, your land, your rights as you see them.
All quite well and good for Israelis, from the perspective of the refugee not well and good.
I rather think that pretending this perspective is not on its face logical and from the point of view of the other side, valid and consistent with both national and populist aims, puts a spin on the facts.
Of course, it’s an utterly failed approach, and was never going to succeed, but I hardly see it is a fully valid criticism.
Yes, very valid joke, at the same time strikes me that your presentation of the camps is partial and partisan. It seems pretty clear that a very good portion of the refugees were (are) not mere puppets of the invidious Arab neighbours, but had and have their own generated rage about losing their lands. A bit precious to put this entirely on the neighbours (without denying that in addition to Palestinian groups own desire not to knuckle under, Jordan and Lebanon did their level best by force, suasion and crook to keep the Palestinians not integrated).
Pushing the whole deal off on the neighbours is not a balanced picture.
Come on, it was in Israel’s national interest to bring in as many of those refugees as possible and integrate them in as well as possible Rather different interest, either from the Palestinian refugee (who again in 48 and 67 could very rationally see “integrating” into Jordan or Lebanon as giving up his rights in the land he felt wrongly expelled from) or the neighbouring Arab state.
The contrast is rather disingenuous, since Israel’s interest was NOT a return of refugees (and the economic immigrants it also encouraged from the French colonies). Apples and Oranges.
Of course Israel did (and this is entirely rational, so I am not presenting this as a critique) encourage a mythology of “empty lands” and certainly has never neglected promoting harbouring a grudge (an entirely reasonable grudge mind you) against the Arabs who expelled the Arab Jews. Serves national interest.
I stress again, I don’t see Israel’s actions (inside the 1967 borders, post 48 expulsions) as being anything but rational and natural.
What pray tell would Jordan be doing beyond what it did?
From their point of view, reconquering the territory was supporting the Palestinian cause. Given their resources, what would they or Lebanon do differently to support the cause (the cause as it is seen from the Palestinian point of view)?
Eh? They did take in Palestinian refugees. hundreds of thousands.
In any case, it’s been 30+ years since the last war, so the plotting thing doesn’t make much sense as a current criticism.
Occurs to me that this needs clarification. I meant above that the alignment of national interests in the case of the two refugee flows were inverted.
Since it was in Israeli interest to integrate as fundamentlly as possible its incoming Jewish refugees from Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, etc, to solidify its claim and control to territory, and populate the territory with own citizens (and discourage anyone from considering a return if it were possible), one would expect on a rational policy basis different actions than the Arab states. Indeed looking at their interests from the perspective of the facts of the time, both sides policies make perfect sense. They were not working towards the same goals, so making the comparison is illogical, comparing apples to oranges.
