Begging the question. A fallacy, don’tcha know.
You might try actually reading posts before mischaracterizing them. You’d be in for a lot less embarrassment that way.
Where the holy fuck do you see that? 
Or that?
Every “factual particular” that you imagined me saying, that is. Funny, that. And not in a good way.
Egyptians are not Palestinians, Egypt is not Palestine, the circumstances surrounding them and Israel are vastly different is begging the question?
I suggest you google “logical fallacy” followed by “begging the question” followed by “fungible, definition.”
And no, I read your post and quoted it. You may not want to own up to it, but you’re now at the level of one of our other posters on this topic who, when caught with his own words, also likes to declare that others are to be “embarrassed” by daring to call him out. Now, you may not want to admit it, but any weaseling you could attempt would still fail, as Israel has neither expelled the Palestinians from the territories, nor exterminated them, nor placed them in any “permanent” position. So you’re simply wrong and, as I predicted, you’ve moved on to the phase where, when you’re caught out on your errors you’re going to change the subject. On this dodge, it’s how I quoted your exact words but somehow didn’t “read” them and should be “embarrassed” for reading what you wrote and noting that it’s bullshit.
And sorry, if you are being serious and you really are totally clueless as to why referring to the Palestinians as the population of any nation that Israel had beaten in combat would mean you were referring to them as Jordanian or Egyptian, then either you lack the absurdly basic level of understanding required to participate in a discussion of the issues or…
Assuming that you’re so clueless that you really don’t know that a nation of Palestine never existed, that it was never beaten in a war by Israel, that the people we now know as Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza were Jordanians and Egyptians respectively? Well, I’d suggest google.
Google is your friend.
Then when you know what you’re talking about you might understand why someone would respond to your claims as if they were talking about the actual history and current events of the region.
Ya know, just for consistency’s sake.
Of course, I’d also point out that you’re continuing to ignore all the factual errors I pointed way back in my first post addressing your numerous mistakes. Of course ,rather than address them, (since I’ve mentioned them once and referred to them a second time to bring your attention to them), you’ve attempted to change the subject.
If only I could have noted something about how you might be making numerous factual errors and changing the subject to avoid dealing with them.
If only.
Ah well. I’ll take pity on you and save you some google time. After you learn what the basic situation is, you can google more efficiently anyways. I’ll go slow.
The war XT was referring to is known as the 1967 war. If you decide to google it, you should probably take the clue that this war occurred in, yep, 1967.
The West Bank and Gaza were seized from Jordan and Egypt, respectively. This is the territory that XT was referring to. Knowing what happened in '67, who was involved and what territory was exhanged would be a good thing for you to learn.
You stated that relations normally normalize unless the victor “expel[s], exterminate[s] or permanently subjugate[s] the loser’s population.” As the losers who lost the territory under the discussion were Egypt and Jordan, you were claiming that their (the losers’) populace were Egyptians and Jordanians.
You clearly stated that the two options were that the nations involved would “make some sort of accommodation as neighbor to neighbor” or your “exterminate blah blah” jazz. Then you clearly claimed that Israel chose the last course of action. Even if you were to weasel and state that you only meant “permanent subjugation”, even the most cursory knowledge of history would put paid to that fiction, as well. Along with “1967 war” and “fungible, definition”, you might want to google, say, “Clinton Bridging Proposal.”
The population under occupation, who had previously lived under Egyptian and Jordanian rule, are who we now know as Palestinians. You alleged that they were, in fact, " the loser’s population". That means you alleged that they are, in fact, displaced Egyptians and Jordanians.
Additionally, by referring to them as “the losers’ population”, you were endorsing the view that when Egypt and Jordan conquered the Mandate territory and blocked the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state, that they gained legal control over the territory/population to the point where the people there became Jordanians and Egyptians.
I hope this has helped you learn the very basics of an issue which, for some reason, you decided to debate from a position of ignorance. If you need suggestions of any other keywords for a google search, don’t be shy to ask.
Ignorance is only a problem as long as it is deliberately condoned by those who hold it.
A most interesting post, FinnAgain. Now, if only it had anything to do with anything anybody else has said here, or for that matter the subject matter of the thread … if only…
Yeah, you really and truly do not understand why quoting your own words, in the exact context in which they were made and with the exact comment which they were a response to, has anything to do with your own words, their context, or what they were responding to.
And, I suppose, I should add that you’re truly totally unable to comprehend why the topic that you were discussing is a topic of discussion in this thread. Why, you just can’t understand it, really and truly. You’re not game playing, nopers. Now that the topic you’re discussing, and your string of mistakes is at issue, now you just don’t understand what your own words have to do with your own words, or the tangent your raised has to do with a tangent in this thread that was being discussed.
You’re baffled, really.
Ayup.
Does any nation ever do anything for just one reason?
Some of them were. Others were created as a negotiating ploy - as a way to force the other side to come to the negotiating table during the decades the Arabs refused to even discuss peace. Others were started for other reasons entirely. It’s all moot now - by this point, the whole thing has taken a life of its own.
Israel does…and it’s always the most evil reason one can imagine.
(ok, I’m kidding…but it seems that this is the standard interpretation of any action Israel takes. FWIW the US’s actions are usually looked at in an equally one dimensional fashion. The difference is that we really ARE evil…MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!)
-XT
If you had been doing that, you might have had a point there.:rolleyes: If you had any interest in discussing the thread topic or anything related to it, you no doubt would be doing that.
If you can come up with anything to actually *add *here, please do so. If not, don’t waste your time, okay?
I realize you’re joking, but simplistic demonization of that sort is common in any conflict, including this one. And is it really different in character from observing that “the Arabs just want to destroy Israel” and “Every time Israel makes peace overtures, ‘the Arabs’ (who by implication are monolithic, with a hive mind, and not even entirely human) just attack in return” and so forth? Is it really?
There can’t be peace unless that sort of nonsense is discarded or discredited, at least by the leaders. Nor can the blame for its lack be placed on only one side, even predominantly.
And I’d still like to see why you think Sinai is obviously and utterly inapplicable in any way as a model or even an inspiration for a West Bank agreement.
The most basic reason is because the Sinai Peninsula was captured by the Israeli’s during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. It was EGYPTIAN territory that was lost during that war. That of course is the key aspect. The 1979 (IIRC) peace treaty allowed for the complete withdraw of Israeli occupation forces (ETA: by sometime in the early 80’s, removing Israeli settlements that were there) from the entire peninsula (after there had been no real hostilities between Israel and Egypt during that period…also, even before that and shortly after the fighting, again IIRC, Israel had already agreed not to occupy the canal zone, so there was already a basis or foundatation for a peaceful resolution).
Those are the key differences. The West Bank was never Palestinian territory, since there was never a Palestine. It would be Jordan who Israel would be negotiating with over the disposition of the West Bank (if we were looking for anything even remotely parallel), since that was THEIR territory. Only they have already waved away their claim to it. Additionally, there has been no similar peaceful period between the Israeli’s and the Palestinian’s, nor anything what-so-ever for Israel to base any level of trust on. The situation is almost categorically different and is definitely not a good ‘inspiration’ to base any kind of future agreement or resolution on, since they have no real bearing on each other.
-XT
Um, maybe we need to discuss the question a little more.
That was made possible only by Egypt’s agreeing to demilitarization of it, preserving Israel’s defensive buffer. Both nations understood and respected each other’s interests, and by and only by, so doing were able to create peace. That is the analogy whose applicability I had thought was more obvious than it apparently is.
And that’s the issue that keeps blocking peace, isn’t it? . There certainly seemed to be one when it was under British administration. There certainly seemed to be an equal commitment under the same UN resolution that created the state of Israel to the creation of the state of Palestine. It certainly is necessary to the creation of a permanent peace to help bring that about. And, of course, the territory that has to become the state of Palestine has to be respected as such if it is to happen. But an abrupt dismissal, like yours, of any concept that there is a Palestinian land that should be respected can bring only one kind of response.
Jordan relinquished claims to it as part of supporting the creation of the independent nation of Palestine, as did Egypt with Gaza. It isn’t those nations’ problem anymore except as neighbors. Yes, that was the history, but it just doesn’t matter to the present or future.
Or vice versa, don’t you think? There’s the rub. There has never been any hiatus in Israel’s occupation of Palestine, nor does it matter to the cause of peace that it is not yet established. I don’t see any argument from anyone that peace is possible without a “two-state solution”, do you?
There certainly are a lot of things that have to happen to create a peace, yes, but Israel recognizing Palestine’s right to exist is certainly one of them. Without that, they can’t complain about not getting recognition of their own right to exist. They’re getting reciprocity all right, they’re getting it in volume.
Mmm hmmm. You really are confused as to whether that was your quote, whether it was in context, and whether I responded to it. Yep. Sure. And, of course, you honestly believe that my direct responses to your posts are somehow not in keeping with the thread, which from an honest poster would be an admission that they had, deliberately attempted to divert a thread and any responses to their own posts would thus be the furtherance of a deliberate hijack.
Whatever. As I predicted, you’ve gone past the making shit up phase to trying to change the subject when caught. This silly little “nyah nyah nyah I can’t hear you that isn’t my post that you’re responding to I really don’t comprehend basic English!” bullshit is in keeping with the general worth of your argument. Speaking of which, you keep up your bullshit, I’ll keep pointing out your flights of fantasy and fiction. Speaking of which:
Utter and complete fiction, and yet another bit of fantasy that just so happens to support the distorted narrative you’re trying to sell. At no point during the British, Ottoman, or any other administration was there any nation of Palestine, nor did there “seem to be” one. All of the British inquiries into the matter, in point of fact (not that you care) found virtually no cohesive political body amongst the Arab peoples who were in the region and who would later become what we now know as the Palestinian people.
It helps your argument look less fictional if you don’t contradict yourself one sentence to the other. If there was a Palestine during the British administration, then there could be no commitment to create such an entity. Nor did UNGAR 181 create anything. It, specifically was never implemented.
You can feel free to ignore that mistake, too.
Yet again, can’t say too much about you taking the time to learn what you’re talking about. Ya know, just for novelty’s sake.
Jordan and Egypt didn’t “relinquish” jack. Jordan and Egypt invaded and conquered the territory which would have been allocated to any potential Palestinian state and deliberately prevented the formation of any Palestinian state.
It is, further, more deceptive fantasy to claim that the Three Noes were about creating a Palestinian state. An utter, complete, and absurd fabrication. They were about carrying on war with Israel. Yet again, even a basic understanding of history would serve you pretty damn well. The PLO was created before the 1967 war. Had Egypt and Jordan wanted to create a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Jordan, they simply would have given it to the PLO.
Oh the humanity! Oh the moral equivalence!
Oh, wait, you’re fabricating yet again.
And here I, helpfully, already gave you the google search terms which you could use to clear up your ignorance on that topic as well.
Do you really need a list of the negotiated positions in which Israel accepted the existence of a Palestinian state? Do you really require an itimized list of the specifics offers of territory and other sundry considerations that Israel made?
Or, let me guess, you don’t understand what quote of yours I’m responding to, eh?
Or maybe, you’d like to talk about cheese?
Not so long ago people espousing the Palestinian cause were hijacking airliners and machine gunning tourists in check in queues.
Tourists from countries that had absolutley nothing whatsoever to do with the Israel/Palestinian dispute.
The Palestinians have always stated that they want to drive Israel into the sea,doesn’t sound like that there would be many Jews left alive after that.
Israel could have stomped the Palestinians into the ground, but though they have had the opportunity they have declined to do so; whether because of political pressure from the U.S. or just because thay hold Western values who can say?
If the Palestinians had had the same power over the Jews would they have ben as merciful?
What would people prefer,the governments of the sort that the Muslim nations around them have,or the Western style liberal democracy that Israel has?
I’ll just make my declarations,I am not Jewish and as far as I know don’t even actually know any Jews,and apart from that I was picked up and questioned(In a very civilised way) by the Israely authorities before I was expelled from the country.
So technically I don’t have any reason to be pro Israel especially as there is a museum in Tel Aviv portraying Brit troops as heartless Jew haters during the run up to nationhood(Which really pissed me off,like we have no Jewish Brits?I think not).
I can think of worse things then a Jewish ME when compared with what we have now.
Well… the Orthodox influence on Israeli politics is not exactly a Good Thing, either. Personally I’d advise Americans who are interested in safeguarding religious pluralism in Israel to get in touch with ARZA and figure out how they can help. Or, heck, contact IRAC for that matter.
However… there are some valid reasons for looking at British involvement a bit sideways. The British authored the White Paper and Glubb, along with quite a few of his men led Transjordan’s forces in '48. It wasn’t as if the British were neutral in the situation, although they did strive to be… somewhat balanced. Anti-Jewish? No, probably not as any official policy. Anti-Zionist? Probably mildly/tacitly to a great extent.
The thread in 6 hours got too long to read, so if this is duplicative, sorry.
Israel’s borders will be determined by negotiations. The amazing thing is that the basic lines were set in the Clinton negotiations with Ehud Barak and Yassir Arafat. Everyone has known what the outcome would be (with very minor details left out), and one other thing; that since Arafat is gone, Abbas would accept that 2001 deal. But since then no Israeli government was willing to. I acknowledge that things are more difficult with Hamas, but not insurmountably so. We’ve got a dispute that could have been resolved quickly after Arafat’s death, but Israel wouldn’t buy in.
In 2001 the intifada was raging. Abbas only became the Prime Minister in 2003. That in 2003 the so called “roadmap” was launched with notable problems preventing its implementation. Abbas resigned as PM in 2003 due to clashes with Arafat. Abbas didn’t become President of the PA until 2005. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and were met very soon after with rocket fire from Gaza and Hamas made clear that they were not bound by the truce, causing clashes between Hamas and Fatah. In 2006 Hamas won the elections and declared that they would continue their platform of calling for the total destruction of Israel, although they would allow for a truce for several years while they re-armed. Fatah and Hamas continued to clash legislatively and militarily. In 2007 Hamas conducted a military coup and seized control of Gaza. Things haven’t much changed.
That Israel could have just ‘made a deal’ with Abbas in 2005 is a bit silly, to say the least.
A case can be made that a one-state solution is better.
That won’t lead to peace, other than the peace, to crib a cliche, of the grave.
How so? I’m just talking about giving the Palestinians representation in the Knessit. What’s dangerous about that?
A one-state solution is the only conceivable solution that does not require the existing West Bank settlements to be evacuated. And, as I understand it, the prospect of evacuating them is politically all but impossible.
It’ll eventually make us a minority to a majority that hates us and claims that we stole its land. It’ll put Hamas in our cities. There’s no way it won’t end in violence that’ll dwarf Bosnia or Sudan.