So aside from:
-the fact that the legitimate governing body and its official forces didn’t engage in terrorism and actually worked with the British to stop the Irgun at one point
-the goal of their ‘insurgency’ wasn’t to gain a state but to allow Jews to immigrate despite British restrictions
-the partition wasn’t based on or in reward for the fact that both sides used terrorism to some degree (and oddly enough the question only asks if Israel should have been created despite terrorism but not if the Palestinians should have been given a state despite terrorism) but that both deserved self-determination
-the partition plan itself had no teeth at all and nobody set anything up, and in point of fact the British simply pulled out, arming and/or leading the Arabs and keeping the Jews as disarmed and under reins as possible until the last possible moment
-as such the partition did nothing and accomplished nothing and it was the war that set the boundaries, established the state of Israel and destroyed the potential state of Palestine (via action from Jordan and Egypt)
So despite the fact that the question is based on factual error, non-history and non sequitor, yeah, it’s a great question. But have you stopped beating your wife?
So despite the truth of the matter, that the facts show you are clearly wrong and that Israel did indeed negotiate when there was continued and even dramatically increasing terrorism, you’re claiming that it isn’t the case. Anybody, at all, can google things like Wye River, Camp David, Taba, etc… to see that I’m right, and you are simply wrong.
If you really want to try to defend your factual error, finally, provide the quotes, in context, and show that they actually stopped negotiations due to terrorism. You know, the negotiations that were initiated and continued even during dramatically increasing periods of terrorism.
You’re seriously claiming that Israel didn’t have a policy of no negotiations before the terror stops during Sharon’s rule, Netanyahu’s, and further back? You’re kidding, right?
There’s no point in me posting a bunch of links yet because you’ll pick one arcane point from one of them and then go off on yet another tangent to avoid answering the question you’ve been dodging for days now. You can answer it any time now.
Dick: I’ve explained several times to you now why your question is based on factual errors, non-historical claims, etc… If the international community didn’t create the state of Israel, and the official forces/government of the proto-state of Israel weren’t engaged in terrorism, and the partition wasn’t aimed at creating the state of Israel but something like a federated and economically linked union of two ethnic groups along ethnic majority lines (but which was never implemented anyways)… well, then obviously your question makes no sense. I pointed this out to you, in detail, and you just quoted my rather long and detailed attempt to explain your numerous mistakes.
It’s hard to answer a question that’s based on a series of nested errors that render it meaningless.
Would it help if I point out your factual errors in brackets or something? Here, I’ll use blue text too
"the UN partition decision in 1947, which most people would say allowed the creation of Israel [they’d be wrong, it didn’t. It wasn’t implemented, only one side agreed to it, the resulting borders were drawn from a defensive war not the partition, and the partition was not enforced by anybody in the first place. You cannot claim that a Partition that was never enforced, observed or even existed… formed the basis for anything], shouldn’t have happened due to ongoing Jewish terrorism [you are conflating the PNA’s terrorist acts and incitement to terrorism with the official Jewish leadership and defense organizations which denounced and did not use terrorism]. Should the UN have said that there can be no concessions to terrorism [again, even the terrorism that was going on wasn’t aimed at the creation of a Jewish state as Irgun had no possible or conceivable capability to create such a state and the official governing body of the Jews which did have such a capability was not engaged in terrorism. Which doesn’t even get to the much larger factual error you are committing, namely that Britain declared, before UNR 181, that they were going to end their sovereign control over the Mandate and that once that happened with no agreement in place to create Israel or Palestine, it was the war of '48 that actually created Israel, not UNR 181. Nobody “created” Israel. The sovereign power left, there was a war of annihilation, and out of the dust there emerged one nation and Egypt and Jordan destroyed the potential for a Palestinian nation.] and demanded a complete cessation of Jewish violence before making any decision [and this is a strawman as, for instance, Israel didn’t demand a complete cessation of any Palestinian chucking a stone but an end to the PNA condoning and/or engaging in violence, and its demands were based on already negotiated agreements between the two parties]?
Do you understand now why a question that is based on nothing but factual and logical errors, especially errors that are so entrenched in misunderstanding or non-fact that untangling them takes quite a bit of elaboration, cannot be answered with anything other than “your question sucks?”
And heck, I’ll be generous and provide the facts on Sharon and debunk your claims without you needing to cite anything. I’ll just save us all some time.
In 2001, Sharon demanded that Arafat fulfill their commitments under Camp David in order to continue negotiations. Quite apart from a demand that all violence be stopped, the demand was that the PNA adhere to the already negotiated framework be in order to enter Final Status talks.
So assuming that you were planning on using Sharon, far from saying that any terrorism would stop negotiations, Sharon called on Arafat to fulfill the PNA’s obligations under Camp David and “to create an environment for negotiations free from pressure, intimidation and threats of violence.” in order to progress to Final Status talks.
In point of fact, while Sharon was demanding that Arafat fulfill the PNA’s obligations under Camp David, Israel agreed to the Tenet Proposal which would form the basis of future Final Status negotiations and which stated, not that to all violence had to cease, that the PNA had to simply actually make the attempt to stop what it could rather than actively supporting or engaging in violence:
[
Yet again, nuance, context and facts are important. There was no actual demand for the PNA to wave a magic wand and prevent any crazed nut from throwing a rock, but for the PNA to actually fulfill its promises under Camp David and stop incitement while moving to crack down on terrorism in order for negotiations to continue as agreed upon at Camp David.
So, you want to try something else to back up your claim?
I can certainly understand this position - and I agree that Obama really should be doing so much more. (Frankly, I think he’s got the wrong Clinton working with Israel.) However, I also think there is/was a general sentiment that Bush fucked things up so badly with our position in the world, esp in the Muslim world, that Obama has had to bend over backwards to try to restore things. Has he neglected the “special relationship”? Probably. But we really did need to work on all our other relationships, and I think he assumed the one with Israel would stand up. I think it will, but I hope he reaches out - and soon. Hilary can only do so much - I think he personally needs to get involved. (Of course, his plate is a little full. Get the damn HC passed and then maybe he can focus on other things.)
I can understand this too. Especially when the criticism comes from a position of ignorance.
So one more question - how do you think this will ultimately play out and what will be the ramifications for Netanyahu?
Look. Let’s all agree that pretty much every problem coming out of the Middle East in the last half-century generally stems from how the British partitioned the tribes and have done with it, okay? From the Kurds to the weird Shia-Sunni balance in Iran and Iraq to the Trans-Jordan and Israel issues, it’s all because the Brits did a horrible job setting everything up.
I’m staying out of this now. I don’t agree at all with my warning but if I contest it I’ll only get into more trouble. I also know that as I got a warning for such a minor thing as I did, continuing in this thread would certainly result in another warning.
Come now, mate, the French had their hand in the pot as well, and the Ottomans’ degenerate rule at the end of the 19th century didn’t exactly create great foundations in the Middle East.
Can’t see how the Shia - Sunni divide in Iraq is the fault of the Empire, since if you had attached the Arab Shia to the Persia Shia, then all the second guessers would be blaming the UK for having put the bloody bastards (Persians, Arabs) together as a lot.
What we can step up to is the idiocy of the Balfour declaration. Right stupid that was. Trying to play a bit of divide and conquer and it got out and ahead of the interests of empire.
Otherwise, the last 50 years the two core current parties to the conflict have made a right mess as much on their own as from the bollixed up history and mutually so. I don’t see any local (to old TransJordan) historical reason, other than atavistic victim-hood, for Israeli intransigence and dishonesty relative to negotiations. (Of course the Palestinians bollixing up is as big a factor, but that’s what usually gets comment)
Original sin was not leaving the rotted lot of them under Ottoman rule. 19th century Romantic “blood and land” nationalism was one of the biggest mistakes Europe ever foisted on the world.
But the point is, can we drop the argument about what was and say 'fine, okay, look, let’s stop bitching about everything before the six-days-war." and use that as a marker, instead? That’s what more or less settled the land-as-it-is, and things have proceeded from that point.
Let’s blame Arafat for a while, okay? He needs some of that, because if it wasn’t for him, there could be a Palestine now.
