The UN voted to partition Palestine in 1947. The British relinquished their mandate after this, allowing the sorry collection of terrorists, ethnic cleaners and mass murderers who became Israel’s leaders to take over control, handing them victory in their long terrorist campaign to attain their own state. So my question is if it was OK for the Israelis to use terrorism and ongoing killing as part of theirattempts to gain their own state, if the international community dealt with them and recognised them despite the ongoing terrorism, why isn’t it OK for them to do the same thing now with the Palestinians?
Even if true, so what? They made a choice, and they can make other choices if the situation changes.
Yet they have government support, even encouragement, anyway, including the latest “authorizations”. How does that work?
The evidence is that Begin was, too. But he was able to make peace anyway.
Finn, are you content to let your failure to reply to Dick just speak for itself? It already has, you know.
There simply isn’t enough contempt in the world for this level of spin…especially since I know you SHOULD know better than this, seeing as how you participate in these types of threads all the time. Some ignorance simply can’t be fought, but this borders on something nastier than simple ignorance.
-XT
See what I mean about the need for constant fact-checking?
Of course, the vast majority of actions taken by the Haganah were not terrorist actions and Irgun was disolved (and in fact, their most famous “terrorist” action, the bombing of the King David Hotel, was not terrorism at all as it targeted a valid military target). In point of fact, Irgun and the Haganah were formed to defend Jews from the Arab attacks that had begun in the 20’s, and later on as the Palestinian leadership was coopted via murder and intimidation by the Grand Mufti, an ally of the Nazis and a partial architect of the Final Solution. It was also during this time that the Haganah and Irgun were instrumental in protecting Jewish civilians who the British was busily disarming. Irgun in particular became an offensive rather than defensive organization due to Arab attacks upon Jewish civilian population centers.
But of course, Dick would prefer to paint this as a long terrorist plan to overthrow the British.
Nor did the British hand the proto-Israelis victory, in point of fact they waited until the last minute to clear out, all the while allowing the Arabs to arm and preventing the nascent Israeli state from defending themselves. And then British officers helped lead the attempt to commit genocide upon the nascent Israeli state. Earlier, Arab terrorism starting as early as the 20’s also was rewarded by the British as they instituted the racist White Paper which prevented Jewish immigration while allowing Arab immigration.
Dick’s ahistorical claims aside, the question then becomes why do people expect the Palestinians to negotiate for an agreement rather than targeting civilians and murdering them. The answer is fairly simple. Then again, some people when faced with the fact that Hezbollah or Hamas are racist and genocidal, still support them, so nothing much can be assumed in these sorts of things.
Oh and, Elvis? Stop playing games please. I responded to Dick’s silly question when Lucy asked it and then later on when I elaborated when talking to Captain Amazing. I’m sure that I am undone that I won’t answer the same question a third time. Yeeps.
You just crow about how much of a victory it is and stop mentioning it, eh?
Why should he? How many times does he have to track over this same tired bullshit? How many times does he have to attempt to show the real, historical record, only to have the same stupid, tired crap thrown back up again as if it’s fresh and new?
Frankly, were I he, I’d say fuck it…you guys can remain ignorant. As I said, some ignorance simply can’t be fought, and after a while it’s not worth continuing to repeat facts in the face of this level of militant ignorance.
-XT
What’s incorrect about it?
There was an ongoing terrorist campaign by various Jewish terrorist groups from the 1930s onwards, including an attempt by one Jewish terrorist group to make an alliance with the Nazis, although Adolf told them to fuck off. So in light of the Jewish terrorism that was ongoing during the UN negotiations over partition, should the UN have declared that there could be no negotiations with terrorists or surrender to terrorism?
The malicious spin, perhaps? The disregard for the context and history?
-XT
N+1 evidently 
I can admit that I wasn’t 100% clear when I first posted. Then Lucy tried to jump on what he saw as a glaring omission, and I clarified, at length, that I was using the word “ongoing” to describe violence that was not sporadic or circumstantial but would continue.
I elaborated on this even more when I posted to Captain Amazing:
Of course. I spend some time correcting certain factual errors, but, meh. Certain arguments are constructed the way they are because they reinforce a pre-determined position, not because they shine light on facts.
Better you than me, 'mano. I know for a fact that you’ve explained (with cites) all this stuff to these exact same people in multiple threads…and yet, they bring up the same tired crap over and over again.
I mean, just quickly parsing this. He glosses over the reasons for the partition, the historical context that said partition took place in, the reasons the Brits were glad to wash their hands of the place (and how the got it initially), the fact that while Israel agreed to the partition terms the Palestinian’s did not, the terrorism, pogroms and violence of both sides historically, but especially of the Arab’s (and everyone else) AGAINST the Jews during much of the early 20th century (and before), and the REASONS why the Jews eventually began to reply in kind and resort to terrorism themselves, etc etc, blah blah blah…and all this ignorance and spin is in one freaking paragraph. Unreal.
-XT
Fact checking is never done.
As already pointed out, you are distorting the actual historical record and, unsurprisingly, portraying Jewish responses to Palestinian terrorism and later Nazi-aligned Palestinian terrorism as a terrorist campaign to claim a state.
Of course, this is a repeated mistake of yours. I guess you forgot the last time I set you straight.
[
](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11798507&highlight=alliance#post11798507)
Even your mistake has, nestled within is gooey core, yet another factual error. The Transfer Agreement was, in fact, a real agreement and not one that the Nazis brushed off. It saved the lives of roughly 60,000 Jews as well as significant Jewish assets from the Nazis. Nor, of course, was it “terrorists” who made the agreement on the proto-Isrealis’ side, but I’m sure that most folks already realized that.
Edit:
Quite the contrary, it’s to be expected. Context, facts, causality and a logical analysis of certain facts are anathema to a narrative that cannot stand on its own. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and some narratives flourish in dark places.
There is no argument less convincing that the declaration that one’s own are freedom fighters, and the other guys are terrorists. Just as vengeance is the least acceptable motive. Our enemies have no respect for human life, our enemies never do.
Its possible, I suppose, that one side of this argument is wholly factual, and the other nothing but malicious lies, but experience suggests it just ain’t so. And time spent arguing how this horror began takes attention from how to stop it. I humbly submit that that is the only question worth our attention. Well, OK, not “humbly”. Close enough.
Well, there are always individual differences in effects and circumstances of attacks, and I think it can be argued that some guerrilla campaigns count as “more terrorist” or “less terrorist” than others. But I don’t see how the Jewish independence struggle in Palestine can fully escape the label of “terrorism” if their leaders themselves used that term to describe a certain branch of their activities (and this is Wiki, so I’m not vouching for its total accuracy, but it looks fairly factual AFAICT:
Because the issue isn’t whether or not some factions undertook terrorist actions, but the claim that the entire campaign was one of terrorism to earn a Jewish state. It wasn’t. You neglected to quote, in fact, how the Haganah worked with the British in order to neutralize Irgun at one point.
The (uncited) wiki claim is also wrong that the three groups organized to drive the British out of the territory. It wasn’t.
Begin, who the quote is from, did not set policy outside his faction. Nor would he ascend to a major electoral victory until nearly three decades after '48. In further point of fact, it was the Jewish Agency which was the official governing body and which founded the Haganah (not Irgun) and it did not seek to overthrow the British at all, but wanted British cooperation after the war.
[
After ‘45 the Haganah (remember, the official creation of the Jews’ official governing body) did not attempt to drive the British out, but did attempt to get Jewish refugees in. The opponents of the Haganah attempted to drive the British out.
Further, despite Dick’s ahistorical errors, the British did not then ‘reward’ anybody. They declared the area ungovernable (after preventing Jewish immigration and keeping Jewish refugees from the Nazis in detention camps rather than letting them immigrate, all at the Arabs’ urging) and handed the matter over to the UN. It was the UN, then, that drew up the partition plan along ethnic majority lines.
You’re missing my point. The opinion of the settlers is different than the opinion of the standard Israeli.
Israel is a parliamentary democracy that elects its Knesset (its Parliament) by a party list with proportional representation. If a party gets 10% of the vote, it gets 10% of the seats in the Knesset.
Now, there are traditionally two, but now three, main political parties in Israel; Likud, which is a center-right party, that favors less government control over the economy, Kadima, a center party that primarily split off from Likud over the issue of the pull out from Gaza…Kadima supported it and Likud opposed it, and Labour, a center-left party that’s suffered some major political reverses recently.
Because of the proportional representation, none of the major governing powers can generally get a majority in the Knesset, which means, in order to govern, they need to enter into coalitions, and the parties that the major parties enter into coalitions with tend to be Religious Zionist parties that support further settlement, because they’re “easy” coalition partners; the major parties just have to promise to continue authorizing settlements and promise not to cut welfare for religious students, and the coalition members fall in line. So, expanding settlements, which only a minority of Israelis strongly support, often becomes government policy because of structural things in the Israeli government.
That’s not a good comparison. Begin abandoned terrorism in 1948. He was then pretty much in the political wilderness, with his political party a joke, until he managed to get a minister seat in 1967, So, he was damaged goods for 19 years after he abandoned terrorism, largely because of his actions during the War for Independence. Mapai was able to successfully portray him as an extremist demagogue. Ben Gurion made the famous quote that he would enter into coalition with any other party, but that any government that he was in would be “without Herut (Begin’s party) or Maki (the Communists)”. His own party even tried to overthrow him.
The people who were successful in Israeli politics in the early years were those who stayed away from terrorism and extremism…men like Ben Gurion.
It wasn’t the same with Arafat…he supported terrorism and was in charge of the Palestinians until his death.
Is it especially commendable to give up a terrorist/freedom fighter campaign when you win? I always thought that was pretty much expected.
Has any such insurrectionist leader like Arafat, or Patrick Henry, said “OK, we’re gonna give this one real good try, and if we don’t make it, we quit.”?
The Palestinians just want to destroy the freedom of Israeli’s, they hate freedom you see, they just want to oppress and deny Israel peace. From their 4th generation, stateless hovels.
As before, nothing matters to Israel other than the security of the State, and then the security of the individual - a Palestinian State would impinge on both and must forever be denied.
That is never, ever going to change.
These people we are talking about like to fight. They fight like terrorists. I think it would be impossible for them not to fight as it seems to be something they do culturally. It may seem strange to an American that arguing all the time rather then finding a peaceful middle ground is their norm. Can you ever peacefully negotiate with a terrorist? NO. Still we feel we must try and it is a big waste of time and energy.
If they enjoy it and they have been doing it for centuries who are we to tell them to play nice? If blowing themselves up is something they enjoy doing do we really think we are going to get them to change? I say let them fight each other and stay out of it.
Are we bringing their wrath upon ourselves on purpose as an excuse to get what we really want?
US envoy cancels Mideast trip, Israel feud deepens
This is win win.
Israel doesn’t have to talk to any Palestinians, and American taxpayers save the cost of Mitchell’s flight.
We should look for more such mutually agreeable cost cutting measures.
Well sure. Until the Israelis manage to get involved in another war and ask us to bail them out. Again.