It’s possible that more than one of you misunderstood, certainly.
Thanks, Captain Amazing.
Being accused of deliberate obstufication is grating somewhat on my patience.
No I’m not. I was merely pointing out the flaw in Finn’s logic. Finn seemed to be arguing that ownership of land is the sine qua non of the right to any claim of nationhood. What about the people who live on the land? Don’t they have any place in the discussion? Finn doesn’t seem to think so.
I was just pointing out that by that logic, Ireland ceased to be “Ireland” once English landlords gained control of land title.
(The Irish analogy does also work, if imperfectly, for the situation in the West Bank.)
No, I am not arguing against the existence of Israel. I am arguing against what seems to me an attempt to convert the Palestinian tenants into unpersons.
Does someone who is a mere tenant in the US have no stake in being an American? That seems to be where Finn’s logic leads.
No, his logic extends to “If you’re a mere tenant in the US, and somebody else buys the house/apartment/whatever you’re renting and wants to evict you, you don’t have the right to stay.”
This isn’t whether the Palestinians are nation, it’s about whether or not they have a right to the land they fled.
This is my understanding as well; hence, the significance of the question as to whether the laws under which they bought the land (originally, Turkish laws) are legitimate or not.
No it goes beyond merely evicting them.
By this logic, the English could have evicted the Irish from Ireland, and declared the place to be “England, Jr.”
Fine, one loses track in these things. Given all the bad blood engendered by the subject of the pitting it’s hardly surprising everyone’s nerves are on end.
Uh, no. I thought the argument was around how this flowed / fed into modern West Bank. I don’t see the contradiction.
Yeah. And?
I understand that in the context of pushing back on exploiting historical facts to justify expropriation in the West Bank and disputed Jerusalem neighbourhoods.
Not a 1948 argument. Maybe I am wrong, this thread is bloody long and venomous enough.
Well, there is confusion, I grant that, and at least if we acknowledge that differences are not all bad faith… well that makes a conversation easier. I apologise on my part.
I certainly did not read that in that fashion.
Maybe he did mean that, but it certainly is not the obvious reading to me. The clearer and to me obvious meaning is that he is pushing back on the general concept of denying Palestinian rights due to historical issues.
At least I can assert that is and was my good faith reading.
Maybe, but then to see you write this, doesn’t make me think so:
I won’t comment on your characterisations of the others comments, although I find many not in accord with how I understood them but maybe I am reading things incorrectly. I can comment on my own comments as an illustration of a rather nasty tendency for you all to place the critics in strawmen arguments with vile implications. Maybe this is all a lot of talking past each other and much heat over minor differences, but it certainly is not helpful.
What I actually wrote was - in a passing critical reference to a cite - that I found the bald assertion (by omission if nothing else) that the Mandate was primarily about setting up a Jewish Homeland is biased. I noted that the Mandate was ambiguous with multiple goals. And no it was not aiming as such to set up an Israeli state, no mention of state is found there, and the language is ambiguous. It is clearly an Empire document, not an Israeli national document.
Of course this is mere historical detail, it says nothing (in my eyes) relative to ‘legitimacy’ - either critical or non-critical as Israel arose out of the facts of 1948, not from some British Mandate. It only illustrates that Whitehall was quite capable of speaking out of both sides of its mouth when Empire interests seem to make that useful.
You all seem to want to torture such a statement into denying legitimacy with all kinds of dark implications about my intent, which is totally out of context of my comments in general.
No, indeed in this very thread I have made clear statements to the contrary, and I find it fucking offensive that any kind of criticism (or even sidewise critique of an exploitation of a document for a nationalist narrative) is denying Israel’s right to exist etc.
Well, welcome to the club.
Well, that rather evades the entire issue of conquest, actually.
From which they were expelled (mostly). Let’s not whitewash.
Obviously from a practical point of view, ‘right of return’ will never work for the refugees of 1948.
Do they have some theoretical right to the land, certainly by moral standards. But there is no way to undo that omelette without undoing Israel. One can acknowledge a theoretical by law and by moral standard, and also acknowledge there is no way to unwind that. Anymore than one can unwind say the dispossession of American Indians, even if one must recognise it for what it was.
Ahhh yes, with such a pleasant OP, and with your first post starting with “The fine “anyone who disagrees with me is an ignorant lair, so let me proceed to willfully distort their posts” does not charm?” obviously you are an innocent, friendly kind of person.
And then when you claimed that the reason the OP could not point out any of my alleged factual errors and yet said I was laying about things was 'What would be the point? In your nasty little fantasy world your mistakes don’t exist, and you simply ignore them when called on them. Or pretend that refutations were not in fact posted (never mind going off on tangents to construct strawmen that are easier to tear down). It is all in the service of the Chosen Cause, and thus must be right and good."
Yeah, you certainly did your best to elevate the tone, and I for one am so sorry to have misread you.
Hop up on the cross now. That’s a good victim.
Actually, the problem is your dishonesty. You call it a strawman, and yet you made claims about the Mandate without ever having read it, and even when it was pointed out that it sets out the goal of creating a Jewish homeland in the preamble and repeats it something like a half dozen times explciitly describing how it is to be brought about by the Mandate, you still maintain that it is a ‘tortured’ or ‘biased’ reading.
This is your MO in a nutshell. You made a claim, were caught in a mistake, and rather than admitting it and modifying your position, respond with maximum snark and accuse others of dishonesty. While quoting your own words. :rolleyes:
Oh, and:
Also bullshit. They mostly fled the war raging around them. Some left in advance of the Arab armies, some left because they were expelled, but the claim that most were expelled is deceptive bullshit.
And more dishonesty. You try to equate land title with a ‘moral claim’ (tenuous as such an argument is in the best of cases) and then slip in “theoretical by law”, hoping nobody will catch it.
Bingo.
Likewise, the same issue carries over to Elvis (repeated) factual error where those who didn’t own property in the West Bank can claim that 100% of it is “Palestinian land” in legal fact rather than a future negotiated compromise. I already posted the UN cite that the settlements started on land that wasn’t privately owned, and even B’tselem has certified that the clear majority of land that the settlements are on was never privately owned by Palestinians. As is the claim that Israel had no right to anything but 10% of the land in the area pre '48, because it was all “Palestinian Land”.
My point, as supported quite well by those arguing the counter position, is that those who make sweeping claims about “Palestinian land” often deliberately ignore actual ownership and pretend that land which was not owned by any Palestinian, ever, is Palestinian property by rhetorical ju-jitsu.
That’s part of why referring to all of it as “Palestinian land” is obfuscatory. It’s fine to argue that Israel should pull back entirely to the Green Line (I don’t agree and neither did those who drafted UNSC 242), but it’s at least an honest position to take. The claim, however, that even allowing Jews to return to areas in the West Bank that they were ethnically cleansed from around '48 is “stealing Palestinian land”, or that Jews living on the West Bank in areas that were State Lands and never privately owned is deceptive and has no place in an honest discussion. Argue that they shouldn’t in a moral, or a pragmatic or whatever sense, but argue that they can’t because it’s legally someone else’s land, and you’re twisting facts to suit a narrative.
Simply for the record as well, WM’s talk about “mandate and post mandate” period is dishonest or ignorant, I’m not sure which. The British and Jordanians kept the Ottoman land codes. An objection to the Ottoman laws and a statement that those who didn’t own land under them really did is the same claim made under the Mandate, and Jordanian rule, and the current situation. It’s a complex situation which is not served by dishonest rhetoric that seeks to smooth over complexity with rhetoric. And we wouldn’t tolerate such nonsense in many other debates; if 50 Hmong families were renting in an apartment complex that was sold to a development company and was going to be turned into a strip mall, we’d laugh at someone who claimed that was theft because it was “Hmong Land”. But suddenly when Israel is at issue, it’s perfectly fine to make the same sort of claims.
And it should be pointed out that equating Turkish changes in how they administrated the land (or how the British and Jordanians continued those laws) as analogous to the conquering of Ireland by a foreign power for the purpose of the domination of its its citizens is nonsense. The Ottomans had been the sovereign power in the region for roughly three centuries before they changed the land codes, mostly for the purposes of taxation and determining military service.
It’s the same deceptive analogy that spoke is still using to compare groups achieving self-determination on land that they own when the regional sovereign fell with England invading a foreign country and declaring it 'England Junior". Or with saying that someone who has no title to a parcel of land is an “unperson” if it’s pointed out that they simply don’t own specific land. I’m not an “unperson” because I’m renting a house rather than owning it currently.
It’s simply dishonesty used to support partisan politics.
This is the same problem that all these damn debates have. While it’d be nice to talk about Where We Go From Here, some people are determined to argue deceptively and dishonestly.
Yeah, that’s about the size of it. Israel needs to be more forthright about legitimate Palestinian grievances, and the Palestinians need to be more realistic in their expectations.
Close, but not quite, a quibble. “Fuck you!” is about as forthright as one is likely to get.
Lucy: same old same old from you, eh? You diehard Friend of Israel you. Evidently agreeing to Partition in '37, and again in '48, and agreeing to give back all the land for peace in '67, and agreeing to set up a sovereign Palestinian state with 97% of its territorial demands in 2000-2001 is “fuck you”.
And spoke no, that’s not the size of it. The region in question had a modern, established, legal sovereign *for more than 400 years. * Equating that with the Native Americans is bullshit designed to deceive.
Trying to equate 400+ years of codified, legal precedent with the Native Americans’ defeat by military invaders is nonsense. Which is why I asked you the original question that you have yet to answer.
Do you object to people’s rights to own property in general?
Do you object to state property ownership?
Do you object to Palestinians who owned land under the Ottoman laws, and if so, to the Palestinians who rented that land to other Palestinians?
If you do not object to the Palestinians’ ability to buy and own land under the Ottomans, why then do you object to the Jews’ same ability?
And yet again, you are free to choose any period in the last 1000 years, at all, and identify which group you claim had a legitimate claim to which land. You can even ignore the laws of the period. Claiming that you cannot even back up your own point because you’d (gasp!) have to explain yourself and justify your position with facts is weaksauce.
I’m very happy you continuously demonstrate that our opinion of you is spot on, and you in fact have no redeeming social skills at all.
It’s amusing and charming that you complain about it being pointed out that you treat any disagreement with a frothing fury of attacks on the posters’ character, full of claims of lying, nasty insinuations of racism, etc. and then proceed to … prove the point.
So far there is not one person who has disagreed with you here that you have not managed to call a racist, anti-semite, liar, etc etc. etc. Even Luci… extraordinary.
You’re right wm, what was I thinking? Obviously when your first post in the thread lied about me and insulted me, it was totally my fault for responding to you in a hostile tone.
And please, stop lying. I disagree with honest people quite civilly (Captain Amazing and I disagreed on the nature and most likely course for a future Palestinian state wrt East Jerusalem in thread that spawned this, for example.) What you really mean is that I happen to point out dishonesty and deception in those those are dishonest, and then you lie and claim that I do it with everybody.
It’s an old trick, you base your claim on a lie and then hop upon the cross and claim “see, he’s going to say I’m lying!!!” Because obviously WM, since you’ve gone on record on the board as stating that you enjoy torturing cats to death, you’ll probably be a real asshole and try to claim that I’m not telling the truth. So predictable!
And, likewise, I’ve accused the racists of racism. I’ll note that you’re just a dishonest angry-idiot and I’ve only pointed that fact out, not accused you of racism. But it’s telling that you can’t bring yourself to condemn spoke’s racism, or Lucy’s racism, or Red’s rather blatant “Let me name anybody whose name sounds Jewish and accuse them of Jewish Treachery” brand of racism. Yours is just the standard brand of dishonesty in your coterie. Rather than looking at whether or not my claims are accurate, you point to the simple fact that I’m making them as some sort of indictment. “ZOMG! Someone said that you can’t trust Jews and have to keep an eye on them, at least when they have the audacity to not share your politics, because of their treacherous loyalty to a foreign power might cause them to betray their own home, and Finn called them a racist! What nerve (on Finn’s part!)” Just your standard evasion. When debating with a pack of people who happen to be relentlessly dishonest, you get upsest that I point that out (called Elvis out yet on his lie about Jews trying to break into Bergen Belsen? No? Tried to allege that it’s wrong of me to point out that Elvis was lying? Yes?) Gee… who’d a thunk it.
Apology accepted.
There can be no legitimate “general concept of denying Palestinian rights”. The issue is always in the details - what rights are being asserted, denied by whom, for what reason?
For example, the Palestinian “right” to deny Jewish immigration, or rather to insist that others deny it on their behalf, at various periods - pre-Mandate and post-Mandate - could well be debated; as could the Palestinian "right’ to insist that those immigrants, having arrived, not be sold land - and later, not be allowed (or be prevented by force) to form a local self-government movement.
Then there is the right not to be dispossessed in the subsequent war establishing the nation of Israel, and the right to be compensated for losses of land and property during the same.
Then there is the “right of return” - that is, the right to spurn compensation as inadequate, to be allowed citizenship, and (in the most extreme form) to have exactly what they were dispossesed of, back again.
This is quite distinct from the much later issue of whether the Palestinians have a right to not be dispossessed, by military force or under administrative orders slanted against them, of their property on the WB in order to establish settlements in recent years; again, specifics matter - were Palistinains actually dispossessed? Or is this an example, like some of the cases in Jerusalem, where no-one was dispossessed but where the land is claimed as part of a possible future peace deal?
All of these raise questions that could be debated, as could the factual assumptions and even the ways the issues are framed; no doubt there are many more. My own position varies depending on the issue, and time period, under review. General statements like “the general concept of denying Palestinian rights due to historical issues” are not helpful, because it assumes that such rights have a unity that I deny exists. To my mind, some “rights” were either non-existant in the first place or have been overtaken by subsequent events; others have a tangible reality.
For example - civilians dispossessed by war, such as the war in 1948, have a right to compensation whether they “fled” or were “forcibly expelled”. The problem in this case is that such a “right” obviously does not extend infinitely into the future - or I could ask the Americans for chunks of Boston back (some of my own ancestors were United Empire Loyalists, lost everything to the damned Yank rebels in the service of the Crown!). Now, the '48 war was not so long ago as all that - there are still folks alive who were personally dispossessed; but clearly, it is getting there. Some comprehensive settlement should be made to actual survivors, in return for a comprehensive peace.
The reason none was made immediately after the war isn’t hard to seek: pan-Arabism, the “Three No’s”, etc. Basically, there was no impetus to offer money to folks whose offical organizations did not recognize your very “right” to exist. Plus, Israel was inundated with refugees of its own - safardim/mizarhim (that is, Jews of ME heritage) diplaced by force from other ME countries. They form aprox. half of the Israeli population, and as far as I know there has been zero interest in compensating them. They are, in effect, being asked to help pay compensation in a case where they will never see any of their own.
To my mind, it would be worth it, but the issue is not totally straightforward. Historical precedent is against it. In most cases of dispossession due to ethnic conflict that happened at exactly the same time, such as the dispossession of the eastern Germans in WW2, and the dispossession of the Hindus and Muslims in partition of India, as far as I know no compensation was offered.
And illustrative of why in addition to gratitious autist nastiness, I have a problem with his ‘facts’:
The typical maneuver, exageration of the argument he doesn’t care for and claims of lying.
I would merely point to:
Taking simply the Israeli New Historians narrative (never mind allowing for even more critical reads), a significant percentage of refugees were in fact subject to expulsion. Half by their read. Others claim more.
To blandly say “fled” when, by the admirably critical Israeli professional historians half at least were actively expelled by the Israeli army, well that seems to me rather biased not a particularly honest presentation.
I can of course understand a reaction. Well, if by Frothy’s standards my noting this is “deceptive…” I guess I am* ‘deceptive.’* For Frothy Values of Deceptive.
Anyway, argument with Frothy is fairly pointless.
SEE, THIS HERE IS THE PROBLEM.
You can’t go dropping bombs every time someone is being “hostile” to you - btw, my idea of hostility doesn’t include being sat before a pc screen - sometimes, you have to show a bit of restraint.
Okay, I get it; the nazis gassed your granny, and you are still a bit sensitive, but some people are trying to give you positive criticism, for your own good. Seriously.
I’m not saying I’m one of them, but the point still stands.
Good, I don’t prefer to have back and forth nastiness, and well accept there are other reads. At some point it gets beyond legit (Ivan is an example).
That doesn’t mean every disagreement is Ivan.
Well, if we’re looking at that period, it’s all… history. I can well see why the Palestinians would oppose, given the number of logical consequences (and where ever has mass immigration been greatly welcomed, even in the States you had the Nativist reaction, without the frontier one imagines it would have been worse), but I don’t see this as really relevant either way to the modern problems.
True enough, however the compensation issue (and the competing claims of rights etc) is really about an active and ongoing dispute and trying to “do a deal” - I tend to view the whole thing as negotiating posturing. If Right to Return is a negotiating position (versus irrational belief that you can actually effect it) it makes sense as such. It’s a lever.
And re the historical development you cite, I don’t in any way blame or reproach Israel for not offering compensation out of the good of is heart or to do a deal in the 1948-199x period.
Well, I think in the former there are some special facts there - including the nasty bit of Nazi collaboration on the part of the Volksdeutsch and subsequently the Cold War. I bet, however, that in an alt universe without a Communist-West Cold War in the 1950s that some kind of compensation deal would have been negotiated.
The India-Pak issue is two way, God knows how one could or would untangle, but there at least you had two clear national parties, which changes things.
Let’s do a little test to see if you’ve got it:-
Me - “I think those Palestinians are getting a real raw deal over in Israel.”
Now, which of the following responses might prove most productive?
a “Ah yes, but what you need to consider is blah, blah, blah, etc”
b “You fucking lying anti-semite. Why do you hate us Jews?”
or c < a barely penetrable forest of text extolling the virtues of every jew who ever served the Israeli govt. >
This may have gotten glossed over in all the fury, but does anyone know the answer to this?