# Israel and Civilian Kills **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 9, 2010, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-and-civilian-kills/538840 "2010-05-09T22:10:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-and-civilian-kills/538840/241 "2010-05-17T17:34:39Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Of the two the Balfour declaration is far the more significant. The UN partition plan was an attempt to direct events already underway. It failed. > > Had the UN not tried, it would have made little difference. It sounds like youa re saying that the aprtition plan was more damage control than the manifestation of global (non-arab) concensus) > [@](#): > > Abuse of Jews carried with it no such consequence - until now. I can appreciate how dire the need for a jewish state may have seemed in the late 1940’s but I wonder how important it is in today’s modern world. It seems like a lot of the problems in the Middle East derive from the desire to maintain a Jewish majority in Israel combined with the fear that a muslim majority would impose sharia law in israel as soon as they achieved the majority. > [@](#): > > The problem here is not that Israelis can’t put it back in their pants - it is that Arab sensibilities are offended, making peace difficult. 60 years is a lot of death and suffering to endure for offended sensibilities. It seems unreasonable. If there was ever any shame in “losing” to Jews, it certainly doesn’t exist anymore so why is it still an issue? > [@](#): > > The Palestinians were treated no better by any of Israel’s neighbours. In fact, they were treated worse. See “Black September”. I can’t defend how the other arab states have treated Palestinians. While it doesn’t excuse Israel’s role in Palestinian suffering, it seems to me that a lot of that suffering could have been avoided at very little cost or trouble to the arab states but wasn’t because of political reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-and-civilian-kills/538840/242 "2010-05-17T18:23:39Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > -You claimed that the Arab peace initiative was something that we might look back on and regret Israel not accepting. Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. > [@](#): > > -I pointed out that it had no provisions for actual security and was unilateral and would simply allow Hamas to attack Israel freely. > -You responded by asking if there was any plan that would prevent that. > -I stated “one that had phased withdrawal and was contingent on security and stability being maintained?” > -you then changed the subject from a phased withdrawal contingent on peace and security to “[a] plan [that] took place over a couple of years” Oh, I see what you are saying. OK so the arab peace plan would be OK with you if the withdrawal was done more incrementally to ensure that giving up an acre of land didn’t mean another acre from which terrorists could shoot rockets but a set time table would not be acceptable? How would you determine if standards had been met? Would Israel trust a third party to make that determiniation or would that be the subjective decision of Israel? How would you treat terrorism? If you give up some land and terrorist start getting nervous about reconciliation and start bombing cafe’s. If the Palestinian Authority condemns those bombings, what then? Would you hold the Palestinian population hostage to the actions of desperate terrorists who were intent on derailing the peace process? Would it be enought aht the Palestinian Authority was respecting the demilitarized zone or would you demand that the Palestinian authority enforce peace in the demilitarized zone without weapons? > [@](#): > > It wasn’t “much less” than anything, it was exactly what’s talked about when people talk about the “right” of return. And of course Israel’s response has been much like mine: a “peace” deal that results in Hamas renewing its war against Israel, this time in a sovereign state, merely leads back to war and is a “peace” deal in name only. Although casualties would be a hell of a lot higher. That is not the way the peace plan is worded. “Attain a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees to be agreed upon in accordance with the UN General Assembly Resolution No 194.” > **[United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_194#Article_11_-_Refugees)** > > The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 is a resolution adopted near the end of the 1947–1949 Palestine war. The Resolution defines principles for reaching a final settlement and returning Palestine refugees to their homes. Article 11 of the resolution resolves that .mw-parser-output .templatequote{overflow:hidden;margin:1em 0;padding:0 32px}.mw-parser-output .templatequotecite{line-height:1.5em;text-align:left;margin-top:0}@media(min-width:500px){.mw-parser-output .templatequotecite... This seems to leave quite a bit of room for negotiating how you determine that a refugee wishes to live at peace with its neighbors and when the earliest practicable date for that return would be. Do you think this is what Hamas and Lebanon think of as the right of return? > [@](#): > > Again, your argument doesn’t exactly come across as objective if you privileged Palestinian demands as “rights”. So the fact that I think that there is a right fo return makes me unobjective while your rejection of this right makes you objective? PUHLEEZE! If you are going to say that I lack objectivity merely because I disagree with you I am going to question your objectivity. Like I have said in the past, I have no personal connection to this issue. Do you? > [@](#): > > And yes, assuming security was actually maintained and it wasn’t simply a unilateral decision that couldn’t be modified if violence broke out again, and the boundaries of the states in question would be negotiated rather than the indefensible '67 boundaries, then sure, it’s a reasonable plan. Would it take more than the desperate act of terrorists intent on derailing the peace process to break security? Do you mean '67 borders are indefensible in a military sense or indefensible in a moral sense? Because the demilitarization zone would probably let you create borders for military purposes almost anywhere you want (within reason). Would it matter to you that in exchange for abandoning the right of return, Israel would have to agree to give up land beyond the 1967 borders? > [@](#): > > Rather obviously not, as you’re still stating that the British, who actively tried to frustrate the creation of the state of Israel and the UN, which did nothing at all except put words on a piece of paper, both created Israel. And you’ve stated that you’ve done so pretty much so that you can argue that Palestinians’ demands, including those who didn’t own land (and their great-grandchildren) can have a “right” to gain Israeli citizenship. So the Balfour declaration was nothing? Or are we just ignoring that for now? The right of return is not contingent on land ownership. Poor Palestinians have the same right of return as the rich ones. The right of return has NOTHING to do with land ownership as far as i can tell. > [@](#): > > You’re welcome to show any nation other than Czechoslovakia that actually _did_ anything circa '48 Why is the time period surrounding the war of 1948 the only relevant period for determining the history of the creation of Israel? > [@](#): > > I’ve pointed out to you, several times, that the British reneged on their promises and actually worked against Israeli independence in quite a few ways. You’ve ignored that. Balfour declaration. The UN’s actions might have been damage control but it gave israel’s actions legitimacy that it would not have had without the UN resolution. > [@](#): > > To say nothing of your disingenuous claim that I’ve ever even implied that Jews just “coincidentally” moved to the region when I’ve specifically said that they moved there because of the historical connection with the land and also pointed out that they moved there _in spite of the British trying to keep them out._. But you still credit the British for creating the state of Israel. It wasn’t just the “historical” connection with the land was it? Balfour declaration was an attempt to keep out Jews? > [@](#): > > More disingenuous nonsense. There are no “versions” of reality, but it is clear that you’re’ arguing for a counter-factual narrative because you believe it lets you argue for a “right” of return. Of course, UN General Assembly resolutions _aren’t binding._ So they don’t create “rights”. You have your version of reality and the rest of the world has another. The UN resolution reiterated a right of return that had been part of the dialogue since the late 1800’s. > [@](#): > > Bull. Rights to live on land come from having legal title to that land or the legal ability to use it. That’s what “right” means when you’re talking about the ability to live somewhere, the fact that you’re using “right” to mean “Palestinian demand” shows just objective your argument is. So you can’t live on land you don’t own? Are the Bedouins trespassers? Are all the residents of an apartment building trespassing? What the heck are you talking about? If they used to live in Israel then they and all their kids have a right of return regardless of whether they owned rented or squatted on the land they were living. Not that this has anything to do with the right of return but I’ve also noted before that it appears taht there was more arab ownership of land in israel than Jewish ownership of land in Israel. > [@](#): > > Cut the disingenuous arguments, seriously. Nowhere can you find me saying “because Europe expelled jews, Jews get to expel Palestinians.” You invented it, just like Paul’s claim about nerve gas. > > It is disingenuous to pretend that a correct statement, that those who do not have a legal title to land have no claim that they (or their great-grandchildren) must be guaranteed the right to live on it, with the statement that Jews get to expel people because bad things happened to them in Europe. Calling me disingenuous might be the strongest argument you have but you can only use it so many times before you sound ridiculous. If you think I am misreading what you are saying then say so but you seem to assume that anyone that disagrees with you is being “disingenuous” that there is no way someone could reasonably take a position contrary to yours. That is a hard way to debate. I had been reading your rejection of the right of return based on the forced population transfer of Jews. Are you asking why Palestinian refugees have the right of return but the people subject to population transfers in the USSR under Stalin do not have such a right? Is that your analogy or do you mean something else? BTW, didn’t the Nuremburg trials make forced population transfers war crimes (not really been enforced i guess but I think they made forced population transfers war crimes). ---
**Author:** ![Marmite\_Lover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Marmite\_Lover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marmite_Lover)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-and-civilian-kills/538840/243 "2010-05-17T18:29:15Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Please tell us more about the rampant sexism you believe possesses men from the Middle East **Don’t change the subject. I was highlighting your ignorance of Middle eastern culture.** > [@](#): > > and elaborate on how Israel controls the US and which wars, exactly, it’s made us fight. \*\* are you serious?\*\* ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-and-civilian-kills/538840/244 "2010-05-17T18:31:51Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Because Hezbollah and Hamas hate Israel and want to see it destroyed and they’re considered terrorist groups by the US. All this was perfectly clear before the elections. So when Hamas got elected, how did you expect Israel and the US to act? It was a surprise that they did what they did? The US might consider hamas a terrorist group but I wonder if the Palestinians who voted consider thema terrorist group? If not then why not? They certainly engage in terrorist activity. What would make the Palestinian majority think that Hamas deserved their vote (and noone seems to think the vote was rigged)? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-and-civilian-kills/538840/245 "2010-05-17T18:33:59Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Peace isn’t possible with Hamas. It’s not a matter of Israel wanting peace or not wanting peace. Peace isn’t possible with Hamas because Hamas doesn’t want peace. Then don’t make peace with haams, make peace with the ones that want peace or is it not worth the effort of making peace with teh peaceful? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-and-civilian-kills/538840/246 "2010-05-17T18:36:50Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > I’m still amused when Hamas (or was Hezbellah?) was elected, Israel decided to shut down the power Did anything else happen between the election and Israel shutting down power? Or was the election itself the trigger for the blackout? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-and-civilian-kills/538840/247 "2010-05-17T18:42:25Z")
> [@Marmite\_Lover](#): > > **Don’t change the subject. > I was highlighting your ignorance of Middle eastern culture.** > > \*\* > are you serious?\*\* **Marmite Lover** , please don’t change the text inside quote tags. If you’re responding to multiple quotes from the same post, use extra [noparse] > [@](#): > > and [/noparse] tags. I edited your post to make it clearer which parts were yours and which were **FinnAgain** ’s, although bolding your own text helped. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Marmite\_Lover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Marmite\_Lover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marmite_Lover)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-and-civilian-kills/538840/248 "2010-05-17T18:43:55Z")
I will try. I am still trying to navigate my way around answering quotes. ---
**Author:** ![Marmite\_Lover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Marmite\_Lover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marmite_Lover)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-and-civilian-kills/538840/249 "2010-05-17T18:53:41Z")
Were the French resistance fighters terrorists? ---
**Author:** ![Marmite\_Lover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Marmite\_Lover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marmite_Lover)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-and-civilian-kills/538840/250 "2010-05-17T19:02:12Z")
Was Martin Mc Guinness a terrorist? Was Nelson Mandela a terrorist? These two guys don’t seem to me to be terrorists. Just men who were fighting against injustice. Sometimes you need to step back and look from another angle. Khaled Meshaal might just become another Mandela. 😃 But to be honest I doubt it. The way things are going Israel is not going to survive anyway. They clearly do not want peace on a fair and just basis. They want all of Palestine and that is not going to happen. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-and-civilian-kills/538840/251 "2010-05-17T19:42:16Z")
> [@Marmite\_Lover](#): > > are you serious? Rather obviously it’s not changing the subject to ask you to substantiate your Conspiracy Theory, nor is it changing the subject go get you to provide a citation for your claim that most if not all Arab men are sexist pigs. None of the Arab men I know are chauvinist pigs, so put your cite up. > [@Marmite\_Lover](#): > > They want all of Palestine and that is not going to happen. Along with your Conspiracy Theory about Israel making the United States go to war, this too shows that your argument simply is not factual. If Israel wanted all of the West Bank and Gaza, it would have had it in '67. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > How would you determine if standards had been met? Would Israel trust a third party to make that determiniation or would that be the subjective decision of Israel? It would be subject to agreed upon metrics, just like it was during the peace process before it collapsed. It would be proven by the PA not using genocidal incitement, not engaging in terrorism, and cracking down on terrorists rather than letting them go free. Rather obviously a sovereign government has to do more than “condemn” military attacks being launched from their territory. A PA that cannot deliver on peace is not a partner for peace, it’s only able to offer lip service. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > That is not the way the peace plan is worded. Yes, it is. The demand that all “refugees” (actual refugees, children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc…) can move back to the land even if they didn’t own it is the “right” of return. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > . Do you think this is what Hamas and Lebanon think of as the right of return? Lebanon doesn’t have one unified ideology, and Hamas/Hezbollah don’t support any right of return, they support the destruction of Israel by military force. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So the fact that I think that there is a right fo return makes me unobjective while your rejection of this right makes you objective? Yep, since there is no such “right” and you are privileging Palestinian demands as an objective fact. Rather obviously, it’s not because you “disagree with me” but because you have certified that a “right” exists even though it does not, and you have certified that such a “right” exists because one side demands it and you credit their demands as having the force of gospel truth (objectively, of course). People who didn’t own land don’t have the right to live on it just because they demand it, not even if you really, really want them to. There’s a difference between saying “people who didn’t own land, and their children, and their grandchildren, and their great grandchildren, and so on in perpetuity, want the ability to move to land that they never had ownership rights for. I support that.” is quite different from “they have a Right of Return.” And I suspect that suddenly it wouldn’t be a question of “you’re just saying that because you disagree with me!” if someone told you that Israel has the Right of Unlimited Annexation. You’d ask what binding document or valid legal principle granted them such a right. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Do you mean '67 borders are indefensible in a military sense or indefensible in a moral sense? The '67 borders are militarily indefensible, which is why UNSC 242 called for a negotiated compromise for some but not all of the captured territories rather than a unilateral withdrawal. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So the Balfour declaration was nothing? Or are we just ignoring that for now? I’ve already pointed out, to you, many times, that the British reneged on the Balfour Declaration, it was never implemented, the British actually acted to keep Jews out of the region, and it was completely abandoned once it was expedient for the British. For some reason you refuse to address the facts about the BD. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The right of return has NOTHING to do with land ownership as far as i can tell. People who had no legal right to live on a plot of land, in your reasoning, have a “right” to live on it… because it’s a demand that they make, or because non-binding UN resolutions said so, or what have you. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Why is the time period surrounding the war of 1948 the only relevant period for determining the history of the creation of Israel? It’s been pointed out to you, several times now, that the UK actively frustrated the creation of the state of Israel, reneged on their promises in Balfour and that the time period around 1948 is at issue because that’s when Israel was created and the manner it was created in was exclusively through armed conflict, despite your claims that words on a piece of paper that nobody observed had some sort of effect. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Balfour declaration. Yes… we’ve been over this and you have yet to address the facts. The British quickly violated their promises in the Balfour Declaration and acted, at the request of the Arab powers, to prevent the formation of a Jewish national home on all of the Mandate territory. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The UN’s actions might have been damage control but it gave israel’s actions legitimacy that it would not have had without the UN resolution. There is no evidence that the nations that accepted Israel’s existence would not have done so if other nations didn’t as well at the same time. In fact, many of their acceptances of the state of Israel were not based on the UN resolution, their acceptance of the UN resolution was based on Israel’s ability to defend itself through force of arms without their aid. If the Israelis claimed that their justification for self determination was God-given, I seriously doubt you’d be arguing that God created Israel. And when asked to show anything, at all, that the UN resolution _did_, you are _still unable to._ > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > It wasn’t just the “historical” connection with the land was it? Yes, it was. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Balfour declaration was an attempt to keep out Jews? Malthus and I have both pointed out how the British reneged on Balfour and tried to keep Jews out, up to the point of imprisoning them without charges. This is why I have pointed out that your argument is disingenuous. After the facts have been cleared up for you again and again and again, you are still claiming that an agreement that the British quickly violated formed the basis of something and glibly asking if the agreement that they violated by trying to keep Jews out was, itself, an attempt to keep Jews out. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The UN resolution reiterated a right of return that had been part of the dialogue since the late 1800’s. Please quote where in [181 any “right of return” was created.](http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm) (And then please explain how a non-binding UNGAR that wasn’t accepted by both of the parties involved has the force of an agreed and ratified treaty). Your other claim is simply false, there was no “right of return” in the late 1880’s because there was no displaced population that wanted to return anywhere. There was no plan for returning anybody who was displaced in the late 1880’s because it wasn’t until the mid to late 1930’s that the first partition plan was floated. There was no demand for the return of refugees because the proto-Israelis repeatedly agreed to live the partitions and the creation of two states, side by side, without the need for population transfers let alone a war of extermination. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So you can’t live on land you don’t own? :rolleyes: You _can_ live on land you don’t own, if you secure the right to live on it. And of course you don’t secure that right by demanding it and calling your demands “rights”, but by actually securing the rights from its owners. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-and-civilian-kills/538840/252 "2010-05-17T19:48:24Z")
> [@Dick\_Dastardly](#): > > Hamas have already said that if good faith negotiations ever look likely from Israel that they’ll declare a 100 year truce cite please. > [@](#): > > But Israel will continue to insist that there’s no partner for peace and continue to provoke the situation at crucial moments to make sure that there never is any opportunity for peace. And like some people in the thread say and various Israeli politicians admit, that means Israel will eventually destroy itself. There are plenty of folks in israel that would love peace if it can be reqasonably achieved, heck, a lot seem to be willing to achieve peace at very high cost. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-and-civilian-kills/538840/253 "2010-05-17T20:02:36Z")
> [@Marmite\_Lover](#): > > If you understood Arab culture and Middle Eastern Culture at all you would realise that threats rarely work. That is why they defy you. This is true of most cultures, I don’t understand why everyone thinks that it will work on the other guy when it would never work on themself. > [@](#): > > Iran has every right to nuclear technology. There is no proof of the accusations. Somehow Ahmedenijad has been put in the same basket as Kim Jong Il. It doesn’t help when he starts off by denying the holocaust. It is clear that he is looking for a new world order because he doesn’t like Irans place in the current world order. It would be one thing to claim that the collective western guilt over the holocaust has led the west to impose Israel on the arabs, it is an entirely different thing to claim it is a myth. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-and-civilian-kills/538840/254 "2010-05-17T20:10:16Z")
> [@Marmite\_Lover](#): > > There is another element to this you simply don’t get. > > Men from the Middle East do not take kindly to butch American women like Clinton threatening them or telling them what to do. That alone would get up any Arabs nose so not a wise choice by Obama in selecting a woman to represent you in Middle eastern affairs. > > or was that intentional 😉 > > It’s different here. You need to do your homework. There are some elements of culture that we need to respect and honor, there are others we don’t need to respect and honor. If Colin Powell or Conoleeza Rice was our secretary of state during apartheid, I don’t think that we should have sent this highest ranking white diplomat to apartheid South Africa to accomodate their cultural preferences. On the other hand if there is a cultural prohibition against eating beef, I don’t think you order the ribeye for lunch no matter how much you like steak. On the one hand I think Israel is handling things terribly but on the other hand, if Arab egos are what is keeping us from peace in the middle east then I don’t know how you justify all that suffering based on egos. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-and-civilian-kills/538840/255 "2010-05-17T20:19:28Z")
> [@Marmite\_Lover](#): > > Were the French resistance fighters terrorists? The Germans probably thought so. > [@](#): > > Was Martin Mc Guinness a terrorist? > Was Nelson Mandela a terrorist? Someone probably thought so. > [@](#): > > The way things are going Israel is not going to survive anyway. In what sense? I think Israel as a nation will always exist, Israel as a Zionist nation may not but that is likely to be the result of internal demographic shift more than violence or war. > [@](#): > > They clearly do not want peace on a fair and just basis. They want all of Palestine and that is not going to happen. I think you are overgeneralizing. Netenyahu is not Israel, Likud is not Israel, they are just a voice of Israel. There are other more reasonable voices in Israel but they get drowned out every time a Palestinian bomb kills a baby. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-and-civilian-kills/538840/256 "2010-05-17T20:35:28Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > It sounds like youa re saying that the aprtition plan was more damage control than the manifestation of global (non-arab) concensus) That’s about right. The notion was that the Brits were leaving - they no longer needed the aggrivation and, after WW2, they were broke - and the UN had nothing to replace them. They badly needed a plan to which the foliks on the ground could agree. The Partition Plan was their best shot. > [@](#): > > I can appreciate how dire the need for a jewish state may have seemed in the late 1940’s but I wonder how important it is in today’s modern world. It seems like a lot of the problems in the Middle East derive from the desire to maintain a Jewish majority in Israel combined with the fear that a muslim majority would impose sharia law in israel as soon as they achieved the majority. Way I’d put it is that Israel came into being as a result of dire need. Once in existance, it doesn’t need a “reason” to exist, any more than France does. The problems arise from the fact that, until reasonably recently, and even to an extent today, there is no serious desire in the Arab world to allow them to continue to exist - and yet, no power to make them not exist. > [@](#): > > 60 years is a lot of death and suffering to endure for offended sensibilities. It seems unreasonable. If there was ever any shame in “losing” to Jews, it certainly doesn’t exist anymore so why is it still an issue? The shame still exists, indeed moreso: the gap between Israeli accomplishments and Arab accomplishments is widening, not narrowing. The more Israel “succeeds” in terms of culture and science and the like, the more it appears part of the cultural hegemony of the West. Hence, one source of resentment (being bested militarily) shades into another (overall resentment of being overshadowed by ‘the West’). > [@](#): > > defend how the other arab states have treated Palestinians. While it doesn’t excuse Israel’s role in Palestinian suffering, it seems to me that a lot of that suffering could have been avoided at very little cost or trouble to the arab states but wasn’t because of political reasons. Agreed. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-and-civilian-kills/538840/257 "2010-05-17T21:19:03Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Rather obviously a sovereign government has to do more than “condemn” military attacks being launched from their territory. What if those attacks are launched from the contemplated demilitarized zone within Palestine? What do you suggest the Palestinians do? Are you suggestign taht Palestinians can roll tanks down the street a few hudnred yards from teh border with israel to enforce peace? > [@](#): > > A PA that cannot deliver on peace is not a partner for peace, it’s only able to offer lip service. Does peace include eliminating terrorism because I gotta tell you, there was a time when Israel was militarily occupying Gaza and the West nak and terrorism still existed. What kind of peace do you think a peace partner has to deliver because it seems like youa re asking the palestinians to dleiver more peace without guns and tanks than you were able to secure with guns and tanks. Why can’t you give peace a chance? is tehre any doubt that you can roll your tanks back into palestine and reoccupy it if you wanted to? > [@](#): > > Yes, it is. The demand that all “refugees” (actual refugees, children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc…) can move back to the land even if they didn’t own it is the “right” of return. That is not how the peace plan is worded. Of course it applies to all palestinian refugees (you can’t honestly believe that the peace plan was only going to deal with the palestinians that were around in 1948 and leave everyone under the age of 62 in limbo). Once again, the right of return has nothing to do with land ownership. there is a Jewish right of return and there is no land ownership requirement there. The palestinian right of return doesn’t even contemplate palestinians who had emigrated prior to 1948 being able to return to the area, only those who were displaced by the war of 1948 and after. > [@](#): > > Lebanon doesn’t have one unified ideology, and Hamas/Hezbollah don’t support any right of return, they support the destruction of Israel by military force. Fine whatever, but do you think that what is being proposed by the arab peace plan is what is commoonly thought of as the right of return? Aside from the fact that the arab peace plan addresses all Palestinian refugees, how is this exactly the same as the right of return we ahd beent alking about because the right of return I had been talking about was not nearly as conditional as the one proposed in teh arab peace plan. > [@](#): > > There’s a difference between saying “people who didn’t own land, and their children, and their grandchildren, and their great grandchildren, and so on in perpetuity, want the ability to move to land that they never had ownership rights for. I support that.” is quite different from “they have a Right of Return.” What is it with you and land ownership? The right of return is the right of people (and their children) to return to where they were before the war of 1948 displaced them. What is so difficult about that concept. > [@](#): > > The '67 borders are militarily indefensible, which is why UNSC 242 called for a negotiated compromise for some but not all of the captured territories rather than a unilateral withdrawal. Wouldn’t a demilitarized zone solve that? > [@](#): > > And when asked to show anything, at all, that the UN resolution _did_, you are _still unable to._ I understand that UN resolutions mean nothing to you but then I wonder why so much effort was made to secure that resolution, why so much effort was made by the Jewish Agency to haggle over proposed borders? I undersstnad that Israel’s neighbors didn’t respect the borders and that Israel defended itself but you entirely ignore any role the resolution had to play. > [@](#): > > Malthus and I have both pointed out how the British reneged on Balfour and tried to keep Jews out, up to the point of imprisoning them without charges. Oddly enough Malthus seems able to think that the balfour declaration was not as meaningless as you make it out to be. So are you saying that the balfour declaration (the basis of a lot of Jewish immigration to Palestine) was meaningless because the brits didn’t support Israel in 1948? The Balfour declaration was signed in 1917 when are you saying thet Brits violated their promises in the Balfour Declaration (that is you don’t ignore the part that says: “it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”) > [@](#): > > :rolleyes: > You _can_ live on land you don’t own, if you secure the right to live on it. And of course you don’t secure that right by demanding it and calling your demands “rights”, but by actually securing the rights from its owners. :rolleyes: I am only talking about a right of return for people lived in Israel in 1948 and their children. if a Palestinian family that had emigrated from Palestine in 1910 wanted to exercise the right fo return I would say they don’t get it. It is a refugee issue not a nationality issue. Modern day Israel was 67% arab in 1947 (the part of the aprtition that was supposed to become Israel was 45% arab) Once again i don’t know why you focus on land ownership but here is the land ownership in 1943 of what is now Israel: > **[Mandate for Palestine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_(mandate)#Land_ownership)** > > The Mandate for Palestine was a League of Nations mandate for British administration of the territories of Palestine and Transjordan – which had been part of the Ottoman Empire for four centuries – following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I. The mandate was assigned to Britain by the San Remo conference in April 1920, after France's concession in the 1918 Clemenceau–Lloyd George Agreement of the previously agreed "international administration" of Palestine under the Sykes–Pico... It looks like less than 10% of the land was jewish owned. It sounds like the rest was owned mostly by arabs. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-and-civilian-kills/538840/258 "2010-05-17T21:27:05Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > That’s about right. > > The notion was that the Brits were leaving - they no longer needed the aggrivation and, after WW2, they were broke - and the UN had nothing to replace them. They badly needed a plan to which the foliks on the ground could agree. The Partition Plan was their best shot. I have read that the Jewish Agency was actively lobbying for certain elements of the partition plan (the arabs seemed to reject any sort of division outright and didn’t even engage in the process). Why the active involvement if it didn’t mean anything? > [@](#): > > Way I’d put it is that Israel came into being as a result of dire need. Once in existance, it doesn’t need a “reason” to exist, any more than France does. Well, I don’t know how France would react if France was getting overrun by protestants or if France was in danger of becoming majority non-ethnic French but a lot of the problems in the middle east seem to stem from Israel’s desire to remain majority jewish. > [@](#): > > The problems arise from the fact that, until reasonably recently, and even to an extent today, there is no serious desire in the Arab world to allow them to continue to exist - and yet, no power to make them not exist. I would have thought that the arab peace plan representing pretty much everyone in the arab world but hamas and hezbollah indicates a serious desire on the part of the arab world to alloow Israel to continue to exist. > [@](#): > > The shame still exists Once again, not excusing Israel’s role in the suffering but if all this suffering is the result of ego then that is more shameful than losing a war or having a crappy economy IMHO. How do you think the right of return fits into all of this. how legitimate is the claim and how far does it extend? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-and-civilian-kills/538840/259 "2010-05-17T21:40:58Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I have read that the Jewish Agency was actively lobbying for certain elements of the partition plan (the arabs seemed to reject any sort of division outright and didn’t even engage in the process). Why the active involvement if it didn’t mean anything? Woah wait - I’m not saying that the Plan was meaningless. Certainly, had it been accepted by the parties concerned, it would have been meaningful. The folks living in the area could not have known, in advance, that Israel’s neighbours would all reject it (thus rendering it meaningless). > [@](#): > > Well, I don’t know how France would react if France was getting overrun by protestants or if France was in danger of becoming majority non-ethnic French but a lot of the problems in the middle east seem to stem from Israel’s desire to remain majority jewish. No, that isn’t quite the way I’d put it; rather, Israel is involved in an ethnic conflict with a certain group, and does not wish to be overwhelmed by _that particular group_. If Indians or Philipinos were flooding into Israel, it would not be seen as big a deal. As for France, it has its own problems: it recently passed legislation banning wearing of the hijab. > [@](#): > > I would have thought that the arab peace plan representing pretty much everyone in the arab world but hamas and hezbollah indicates a serious desire on the part of the arab world to alloow Israel to continue to exist. Arab peace plans have been proceeding peacemeal. The first was with Egypt, and it still arouses considerable controversy in the Arab world. > [@](#): > > Once again, not excusing Israel’s role in the suffering but if all this suffering is the result of ego then that is more shameful than losing a war or having a crappy economy IMHO. > > How do you think the right of return fits into all of this. how legitimate is the claim and how far does it extend? In the ideal world, all refugees who are able to demonstrate that they personally have been displaced ought to be compensated with money damages - Jewish or Arab. In neither case should any refugee have a “right” to physically return to where they came from; after more than sixty years in some cases, that boat has sailed. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-and-civilian-kills/538840/260 "2010-05-17T22:12:26Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The US might consider hamas a terrorist group but I wonder if the Palestinians who voted consider thema terrorist group? If not then why not? They certainly engage in terrorist activity. What would make the Palestinian majority think that Hamas deserved their vote (and noone seems to think the vote was rigged)? There were a few reasons that Hamas won the 2006 election. One was that the anti-Hamas groups were divided. The other was that Fatah, the big other force in Palestinian politics, the backbone of the PLO, was, and largely still is, extremely corrupt. Fatah leaders were taking development aid that was supposed to benefit the Palestinian people and embezzling it, going to the bank accounts of Fatah leaders. Yassir Arafat, for instance, died a very rich man. Hamas, on the other had, had the reputation of being incorruptible, and was building and running schools, hospitals, recreational facilities, and other things that were materially benefiting the Palestinian people. > [@](#): > > Then don’t make peace with haams, make peace with the ones that want peace or is it not worth the effort of making peace with teh peaceful? That’s what Israel’s been trying to do. But that’s a little bit like suggesting that Saddam Hussein could have avoided the 2003 Iraq War by making a deal with the Democrats. Hamas controls Gaza and Hamas are the people engaging in most of the terrorism right now. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-and-civilian-kills/538840.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-and-civilian-kills/538840.md?page=14)