[quote=“FinnAgain, post:174, topic:538840”]
I know, what’re the odds?
[quote]
Without teh groundwork laid by the Uk and the UN? Never happen.
How is claiming that Israel isn’t doing enough the same as making a claim about teh civilian/combatant casualty ratio?
You mean, one that had phased withdrawal and was contingent on security and stability being maintained? Nah, there’s no difference between that an an immediate, unilateral withdrawal.
It’s almost like you ignored what I was actually saying and responded to a strawman.
It’s almost like you’re claiming that there are UN resolutions about Israel that are supportive. Cite a dozen please.
Yet again, you’re claiming that something that did nothing and something that was actually reneged on formed the foundation of something.
Really? National identity is contingent on approval by the British or the UN?
Of course, you’ve argued in the past that the partition wasn’t drawn along ethnic majority lines. Glad that you now agree it was. I’ll just ignore your strawman about “bad stuff” as it bears not even a passing resemblance to anything I’ve said anywhere.
I don’t think events would have played out teh same way without teh UN resolution. You and Finn think differently.
Well, perhaps you didn’t way what I thought you said. My point is that things don’t paly out the way they did without the UK support through the early 1900s and the UN resolution.
I think it is obvious taht the UN focuses on the middle east (Israel/Peslestine specifically) quite a bit. I think there are a lot of rational reasons for this that don’t amount to anti-semitism.
Yet again, groundwork that Britain reneged on and a piece of paper that was never implemented, accepted, defended or informed anything.
The UN resolution did nothing and you can’t show otherwise. And you wouldn’t say that God created Israel if they chose that as their justification.
Your argument is a rationalization, but since I keep asking you for something that the UN resolution actually did and you can’t point to anything, I think we’re pretty much done on that tangent.
Obviously, if you’re claiming that Israel isn’t doing enough you have to be able to show how it’s possible to do more. Based on the fact that you can’t provide any such example, I take it that you can not do that.
I agree taht UN approval is not necessary for a country to exist. Maybe UN resolution and stuff like the Balfour declaration were ultimately small peices of the puzzle because Israel had to immediately defend itself and would not have . My point is that they are necessary pieces of the puzzle that they were the reasons why there was a war in the first place.
So the situation is hopeless? Why do we bother. Why not shove it into the same drawer we put Myanmar and Sudan?
OK so yo would be OK with the plan if it took place over a couple of years? Can we bring in UN peacekeepers to enforce the plan?
I’d have to go back to the 1940’s and 1950’s (starting with the resolution that created the state of Israel) but that still doesn’t mean that resolutions taht mention palestine are against israel.
I don’t remember arguing that the partition wasn’t drawn along ethnic lines (if anything I would have argued that lines should never have been drawn). You ignore the fact that you seem to be saying that because Europe expelled jews (bad stuff) taht Jews get to expel Palestinians (bad stuff)?
Yeah and I keep saying that the UN resolution created the staet of israel. I don’t thinki we are ever going to agree on this point mainly because that would require you to recognize taht all the formative documents of israel contemplate the right of return.
I thought the arab peace plan was one example of how israel could do more. ursue peace isntaed of war, stuff like that.
Yup. I think the matter was decided by force of arms.
Oh, I don’t think it all boils down to anti-semitism, either. No doubt that plays a role, but it isn’t why the subject of Israel gets “special attention”.
There are rather a bunch of reasons.
Israel has few friends internationally. One major reason is that friendship with Israel carries a high price - emnity from the Islamic world, and particularly from the Arab subset.
The emnity of Arabs for Israel has lots of sources, of which anti-Semitism is one, but more significantly the repeated military victories of Israel over massed Arab armies, combined with Israel’s success in creating a “first world” level of science, technology and culture, are seen as deeply humiliating. Particualrly as Jews in Muslim nations were seen as “second class” citizens, or “dhimmis”, and not at all as militant or war-like. In contrast, many sections of Arab society view themselves as “war-like”. To pride oneself on warrior virtues, and to be repeatedly beaten, is humiliating.
This humiliation is seen as part and parcel of the humiliation that the Islamic world suffers generally at the hands of the West. Israel is seen, quite incorrectly, as a cat’s paw for Western interests - they are often (hopefully) compared to the crusader states (hopeful, in that these proved temporary).
In the West, in contrast, the comparison is always to either colonialism or to South Africa. In short, Israel is seen as an exemplar of all of the mistakes and excesses of Western colonialism and of the relationship between Europeans and the third world generally.
The land is itself very important to all of the major monothiestic religions. This is still a very important factor.
This importance is seen in the insistance that the Jews, being a “biblical people”, ought to behave with greater morality than any other nation; behaving merely the same as comparable first-world nations (let alone their Arab neighbours) is seen as a disgrace. Note even some Jews believe this. The end result is a double ethical standard; it allows many to sincerely hold Israelis to a standard higher than any they expect from their own governments.
As can be seen, actual Jew hatred is only one factor among many that leads to an excessive, indeed obsessive, focus of Israeli faults.
I think the situation is bad right now, but not hopeless. For one, Israel is not a collapsed state like Sudan or a totalitarian military dictatorship like Myanmar.
What is needed I think is to build the PA up into a creditable organization, if possible. That, above all, must be the first step.
You’re changing the subject again. It was not if it was a good negotiating position, but whether it was a viable peace plan. As it is, it’s a bad negotiating position and judging from the UN’s history in Lebanon, UN peacekeepers aren’t exactly a silver bullet.
So you’d have to go back to the UN resolution calling for Partition to find one that wasn’t crticial (which again dodges the point that you claimed that it was uncertain if all those resolutions about Israel were negative or not) and you’re still claiming that a resolution that was never observed, let alone implemented, did something. This is the correct forum for Witnessing, so I’ll stop trying to challenge your belief.
[quote=“Damuri_Ajashi, post:188, topic:538840”]
I don’t thinki we are ever going to agree on this point mainly because that would require you to recognize taht all the formative documents of israel contemplate the right of return.
Oh, I see. Your inability to show how the UN resolution did anything or was observed, at all, by anybody… and your continued mistakes about the British who broke their promises and hampered the creation of the state of Israel are really there because otherwise we’d have to accept that there is a “right” of return. Again, if your argument is that even Palestinians who didn’t own property in Israel (and their children, and their grandchildren, and their great grandchildren, and…) deserve to be granted land there to live on and that it’s a "right, it’s obvious that your argument isn’t objective but supports one side’s claims.
No, I don’t ignore the fact that you are strawmanning my argument. I’ve asked you to stop several times.
If the subject matter wasn’t so serious, this would be nearly as funny as watching blind people playing cricket.
Not true factually. Most Arabs are Egyptians, the Egyptians have recognized Israel for a couple of decades now. The rest of the Arabs (in the Arab League) accepted Israel in 2002. (Arab Peace Initiative - Wikipedia)
Perhaps you do not get the newspapers where you are.
TE=FinnAgain;12449830]If those “killers and bandits” wont’ make peace then rather obviously they’re not partners for peace. And your claims are simply false, they are not “the same” as are always involved in peace negotiations recently. Groups like Hamas are genocidal and rejectionist, there is no ‘mid ground’ point for negotiation.
[/QUOTE]
No basis for negotiation? So all the Israeli and Arab governments for the past ten years have been wrong?
Well, if you take you bizarre contention that peace is not possible, the only real solution is nerve gas shot into Arab areas with a goal of killing every last man, woman and child. After all, you can’t make peace with them.
Knock yourself out.
It’s rather strange that you deny my statement is factual… and then admit it is factual.
It’s also somewhat strange for you to claim “the Arabs” did something when it was only Egypt (and, ya know, Jordan) who did. What kind of nonsense is this that you’re engaging in when “Egypt, only Egypt” stands in for “the Arabs?” To say nothing of your absurd claim that “Most Arabs are Egyptians.” That’s simply fictional. Egypt is the largest Arab nation, but not only do they not constitute a majority, by population they’re only a bit more than twice the size of any of the next several Arab nations. You’ve just used rhetorical sleight of hand that renders your argument hollow.
And even ignoring the absurdity about being able to say “The Arabs” did something because Egypt did, you have to claim that the rest of the Arab nations accepted Israel in 2002 when you have to distort what actually happened then. It was a unilateral plan based on zero negotiation at all and which called for an immediate withdrawal of Israeli troops from all territories, a pull back to '67 boundaries, the ability for Hamas to move freely and import whatever weaponry it wished across the border, and the “right of return”. Syria indicated that it would still support Hezbollah and Hamas responded by massacring Jews observing Passover.
It was a statement that if all their demands were met, then they’d normalize relations with Israel. Hamas specifically stated that they would not accept it as an obligation to reach peace, which rather obviously precludes honest negotiation. It’s an ultimatum. You are blowing smoke. If you claim you’re not, please show me the Saudi/Israeli ambassadorial exchange that happened in 2002.
And even then, ignoring the fact that you’re distorting what happened in 2002, 2002 was not “decades” ago.
So now you’ve sidestepped the facts about Hamas, how they continually state that they won’t accept peace, are not interested in peace, and have rejected all previous peace agreements… and you’d rather talk about “all the Israeli and Arab governments for the past ten years”.
Yes, the “bizarre” fact that Hamas has explicitly said it will never agree to peace. That you skipped over. And instead would rather talk about an amorphous “The Arabs” who are, of course, only Egypt.
I think we can both ignore your obvious strawman that if Hamas can’t be negotiated with, the only option is genocide, eh? I do like your rhetoric though. “If you are aware of what Hamas itself has said about its own attitudes to the peace process, then you must support genocide!”
So you don’t think that the concentration of Jewish population in Palestine was facilitated by the brits?
By the time of the War of Independance (and for about a decade before), the Brits were actively discouraging Jewish immigration to Palestine - even in face of the German persecution, and in face of the survivors attempting to flee Europe after the war.
Like I said, we will never agree. I don’t think Israel organically occurred with a baptism by fire in 1948. I think there were several midwives along the way and was delivered by the UN before its baptism by fire.
I think very little of it is anti-semitism and a lot of it is anti-zionism.
Do you think we would see this sort of anti-semitism (which certainly exists these day) existed before Israel? Before the Aliyahs?
Isn’t the entire non-mislim world “dhimmi” (I know that Christians are). Are they as humiliated by the economic scientific success of Europe and teh US?
The only Arabs I have ever met are Lebanese in college but they never seemed to be any more chest thumping than the average American. They certainly seemed to have an aversion to backing down.
Does this go all the way back to the patrtition of the Ottoman Empire?
Western interests or American interests because I think they would be interested to know that there is a much longer and much more severe history of actual anti-semitism in Europe than there ever was in the Middle East?
That’s probably where some of my issues with Israel come from.
I’m telling you, we should give it to the Buddhists.
Just speaking for myself, I have heard the “But Israel is so much better than Hamas or Hezbollah, we are the most democratic egalitarian state in the region” used to excuses any conduct that falls short of what hamas and hezbollah do.
I grew up in the states and until fairly recently I had a fairly Israel centric view of the middle east, it is only recently that I have heard a lot of criticism of israel in the USA.
(In reply to FInnAgain)
OK, so you are sure peace is not possible. You’re proposing the nerve gas option?
There was nothing organic or inevitable about the creation of Israel. Had they lost the war, there would be no Israel. Had they won the war, but not been recognized by the UN, there would be an Israel.
The issue is why there is an “Anti-Zionism” but not (so much) an “Anti-Frenchism” or “Anti-Germanism”. That is, why the very existence of ethno-nationalism of this particular nation is so resented as to have its own terminology.
I agree that out and out hatred of Jews is not the whole story, as I’ve said. I do not think that hatred of Jews, an ingrained part of particularly European history, plays “little” role. It would be extraordinary, given the history, if it didn’t play a role.
Surely it is too much to ask of history to claim that, up until WW2, Europeans were so obsessed with Jew Hatred that, under German occupation, they set out to gleefully exterminate their entire Jewish population - then, following 1945, they saw the error of their ways, completely abandoned Jew hatred, and by a remarkable co-incidence, many in the population of these same nations entirely by chance and without any reference to their history just happened to happily embrace hatred of Jewish ethno-nationalism instead.
As I’ve said, traditional Muslim society had fewer problems with Jews when they were a minority of second-class citizens. That did not mean that pogroms and the like were unknown.
No, read the article you cite. The term “Dhimmi” means a second-class sort of citizenship offered to people of the book, like Jews and Christians. And yes, certainly the Islamic world resents the success of the “Chistian” West. But even more humiliating is the success of the Jews.
Throughout history, the Islamic world has fought on more or less equal terms with “Christiandom” - sometimes winning, sometimes losing. This is not true of their realions with the Jews, who were a dispised minority in “Christendom” and the dar-al-Islam alike.
If you are a boxer and get beaten by another boxer, it’s bad but understandable. If you are a boxer and get beaten by a 98 pound weakling, who used to be the recipient of pity and who is famous in popular stereotype for cowardice and weakness, it’s humiliating.
This is why, for example, Egypt was (uniquely) able to make peace with Israel after 1973. The Egyptians had been thoroughly humilated in 1948, 1956 and especially in 1967 - when their entire army was sent packing, famously, in less than a week. In 1973, the Egyptians were able to surprise and deeply shock the Israeli army, which had grown complascent and sure of its superiority (in 1967, the Israelis had been concerned they would be wiped out). Israel still won the war, but it was a tough fight. Egyptian honour restored, peace became a possibility.
It’s a staple of the left-wing political critique of Israel. The main reason it’s a non-starter is that Israelis are not exemplars of anyone’s “colonialism”. They are not a colony, they have no relationship with a metropolitan entity.
So, you’re not going to respond to any of the facts about Hamas and why they mean that the Arab Peace Initiative would not lead to peace, but war.
Okay.
I see how you can get confused. But, actually you are the one who is proposing the ‘nerve gas’ option. I’d have thought it was pretty easy to keep straight which of us actually said something and which of us was strawmanning with a “nerve gas” absurdity.