I’m happy to let people reading this make their own decision which of us is correct. It’s clear you can’t face answering the question.
Twice today I said ‘no more personal comments.’ This is a formal warning to stop.
You still have outstanding factual errors on the table.
I’ll list two of several you’ve made, and you can address either one you want, but I’d prefer if you gave proof or retracted both of them.
-Oslo did not, in fact, call for a settlement freeze. It did, in fact, say that settlements, borders and refugees would be Final Status issues. You claimed that it called for a settlement freeze.
If you want people to believe you are right, it should be trivially easy to quote the passage that says it. I already even provided the links to the Declaration of Principles and the Interim Agreement, so you wouldn’t have to hunt them down. It should be trivially, absurdly easy. You should be able to go to those documents and pick out the line that clearly says what you’ve claimed.
*The fact, however, is that you do not provide such a quote because no such quote exists and you are wrong. *
-Sharon’s government did not, in actuality, demand a cease to any and all violence but asked that the PNA fulfill its obligations under Oslo, Camp David, etc… and cease allowing and/or inciting and/or engaging in violence. This is proven by the fact that, whatever English phrases were used to talk about the ways that the PNA had to deal with violence, Israel actually already agreed to the Tenet Proposal which was another step in the negotiations designed to move back onto Final Status talks and which, very clearly, only demanded that the PNA move towards cracking down on violence and not that they had to totally eliminate it.
If you want people to believe you are right, it would be trivially easy to show that the Israeli government did not actually agree to the Tenet Plan, that the TP did not actually call for the PNA to make an attempt to thwart violence instead of totally eliminating it, and that it was a step to get negotiations back onto the Final Status track. *
The fact, however, is that you do not provide such evidence because no such evidence exists, and you are wrong. *
Now, you’ve made claims otherwise and are sticking to your guns, and you want people to believe you’re right. Except, I’ve provided actual quotes and actual cites showing you’re wrong and you’ve so far you have not even addressed them. You are maintaining that you are right, but you have neither supported your position nor rebutted the actual facts that I have cited and quoted. You can either retract your mistakes or try to defend them somehow, but claiming that people will just make up their minds is not a continuation of your claims, it is an abdication of them, especially when faced with direct factual rebuttals replete with citations. Give proof or retract.
I haven’t made any mistakes or factual errors. Answer my original question and I’ll give you chapter and verse.
Funny, then, that you can’t debunk my claims which, complete with cites and quotes, show you’re wrong. You just quoted it, but I’ll quote it again so you can identify your mistakes this time rather than just repeating that you’re right in the fact of cites and fact that show you are not. I’ll underline this time, so you can see what your mistakes are and how easy it would be to prove me wrong. Ya know, if I was wrong.
You still have outstanding factual errors on the table.
I’ll list two of several you’ve made, and you can address either one you want, but I’d prefer if you gave proof or retracted both of them.
-Oslo did not, in fact, call for a settlement freeze. It did, in fact, say that settlements, borders and refugees would be Final Status issues. You claimed that it called for a settlement freeze.
If you want people to believe you are right, it should be trivially easy to quote the passage that says it. I already even provided the links to the Declaration of Principles and the Interim Agreement, so you wouldn’t have to hunt them down. It should be trivially, absurdly easy. You should be able to go to those documents and pick out the line that clearly says what you’ve claimed.
The fact, however, is that you do not provide such a quote because no such quote exists and you are wrong.
-Sharon’s government did not, in actuality, demand a cease to any and all violence but asked that the PNA fulfill its obligations under Oslo, Camp David, etc… and cease allowing and/or inciting and/or engaging in violence. This is proven by the fact that, whatever English phrases were used to talk about the ways that the PNA had to deal with violence, Israel actually already agreed to the Tenet Proposal which was another step in the negotiations designed to move back onto Final Status talks and which, very clearly, only demanded that the PNA move towards cracking down on violence and not that they had to totally eliminate it.
If you want people to believe you are right, it would be trivially easy to show that the Israeli government did not actually agree to the Tenet Plan, that the TP did not actually call for the PNA to make an attempt to thwart violence instead of totally eliminating it, and that it was a step to get negotiations back onto the Final Status track.
The fact, however, is that you do not provide such evidence because no such evidence exists, and you are wrong.
As for your question, the one I’ve pointed out is based on factually-incorrect claims, double-standards, fallacies comparisons and is nonsensical? The question that I took apart piece by piece, showed you why you were wrong at each junction and demonstrated why your question was nonsensical? The one that you keep repeating, despite the fact that I’ve taken it to pieces again and again? The one that you keep using without modification or change when it’s shown that it’s as nonsensical as saying “Should the Martians who destroyed the Egytian tanks with their Deatyrays be charged with warcrimes?!?!?”.
If you need me to go over any points that you’re not clear on please ask. If you dispute any of my claims, please challenge them. So far you have ignored all of them but one, and then you employed double standards to quote the MFA and an Israeli ambassador when, otherwise you haven’t take them as Gospel Truth, and only used them as such because their quotes reinforced your narrative. When I pointed out why exactly you were wrong on that point and challenged you to show what 181 actually did or which nations wouldn’t have recognized Israel if 181 hadn’t happened, or what have you, you did not answer.
If you are unclear on my refutation of your claim, please ask. If you wish to defend that claim further, please do.
Otherwise we are left with a nonsensical, a-factual, fallacious question based around a gotchaya! that I’ve already specifically dealt with, as well as your factual errors that I’ve elaborated on, again, right above. Give proof or retract and if you want a question answered, make sure that it is at least a rough analog to reality.
Funny…this seems similar to your debating style against Sam Stone in 80’s economy thread. How’s the tactic working out for you so far? I have to admit, it doesn’t SEEM to be very effective…
-XT
This thread makes my brain tired, and this is actually an issue I’m quite interested in and in some respects, sympathetic to. I also personally believe that for reasons good or ill that the ME policy WRT Israel defines the region.
Maybe I’m not forming the right questions.
I think you’re missing a point here, though. Sure, diplomatic language doesn’t change the historical reality of what happened in any specific historical circumstances.
But diplomatic language indicates reality in another sense: namely, the reality of the attitudes and rationales projected by the government that the diplomat represents. We can be pretty sure that an Israeli ambassador writing an official letter on behalf of his country to the UN isn’t just saying any old thing that comes into his head to pay a pretty compliment to his hosts. Rather, he’s expressing the ideas and sentiments that his government officially supports.
So although it’s perfectly true that the UN resolution in question didn’t turn out to be the historical mechanism that actually effected the establishment of the state of Israel, it’s equally true that Israel has deliberately chosen to claim that UN decree as fundamental to its creation as a state.
In those words, Israel as a national entity is explicitly rejecting the idea that “war and conquest” is the source of its legitimacy as a state, and claiming instead that its legitimacy is founded on its recognition by “the nations of the world”. As a summary of the actual chronological events of 1947/48, such a statement may not be very accurate, but it’s evidently an important part of what Israel itself wants to present as its foundation narrative.
If you consistently ignore that fact in favor of stressing only the immediate practical contributions of Resolution 181 (of which, as you note, there weren’t that many) in establishing a de facto Israeli state, I think you may be kind of missing the forest for the trees.
You also give the impression that you’re shying away from the issue of whether Israel’s legitimacy as a state is somehow dependent on international recognition, because if it were, then that would call into question Israel’s right to do various things that the international community doesn’t recognize as legitimate. Now of course, you’re entirely entitled, in your own opinion, to reject any such dependence on what the UN thinks about Israel’s legitimacy. But I think it’s fair for Dick to point out that the Israeli government itself, at least in theory, doesn’t agree with you.
Perhaps you should address the source of the problem. Perish the thought I suppose.
Christ, could people stop with the “quoting a whole fucking long post just to give a one-liner” thing? I’m trying to follow along here.
Can we agree then that the UN gave legitimacy to the act of Israel’s foundation, but its legitimacy is not fundamental to its continued existance? Once a country exists, it exists, and is equal to any other country.
In all of the world, no other state’s legitimacy is contingent on its actions. China, for instance, acted far worse toward the Tibetans than Israel did toward the Palestinians, but no-one ever said that China has no right to exist as a nation. Even after WW2, no-one ever declared that the Germans aren’t entitled to a country. Why should Israel be different?
That’s not a particularly flattering line of analysis.
Of course,
(1) the legitimacy of China’s *control *of that particular territory is indeed put into question by its actions in Tibet,
(2) Israel is perhaps unique in the sense of being a modern settlement / colony that substantially displaced indigenous inhabitants, which adds complexity to its position
It is not, thus that the existence of the nation is per se put into question, but its legitimate right to control certain territory, and that is perfectly in keeping with the Chinese example, also being most unflattering a standard to live down to.
And relative to the Germans, the illegitimacy of their actions in territories they occupied - and settled, often around cores of long-standing settlements (volksdeutsche) did see them lose control of swaths of traditionally ‘German’ lands.
So by your own examples, it is not in any way unusual to tie actions, legitimacy and control of territory (or legitimacy of control of territory in the view of the international community), or for that matter Kimstu’s less stark formulation. Israelis keep angling for a special pass, in fact.
And Palestine’s, too, right?
Palestine’s is, given the long list of preconditions that keep being proposed before any serious negotiations can even begin. Not to mention the widespread notion that Israel has a right to the land of Palestine as well, the founding UN resolution notwithstanding, hmm? NB: The discussion here isn’t about Israel’s legitimacy and recognition, but Palestine’s.
Why should Palestine be different?
wmfellows answered the inappropriateness of your China question. China either occupies Tibet or has a “right” to it, depending on who you ask. The Chinese claim to the land of Tibet is at least as strong as Israel’s claim to the land of Palestine, wouldn’t you say?
Israel exists, wmfellows. Deal with it. We’re pulling this conversation out of the 1940s. Let’s focus on the more interesting post-six-day-war period. How did things get to where we are today? C’mon, Elvis, let’s be productive, here. We’ve done the '48 to death, and it changes nothing. Blame it on the Brits, move forwards. The question is, why does it continue, and really, Israel only became an American issue post six-day-war.
Let’s stop bickering about 'oo killed 'oo. This is supposed to be a happy occasion!
I’m very much trying to.
Except that it, and everything since, keeps being brought up as rationalizations for present-day actions. Those rationalizations need to be exposed and discarded first, don’t they?
1967 is almost as far in the past as 1948, and at this point just as relevant.
:smack::smack:
And yet, no-one’s boycotting China for forceably inserting millions of Chinese settlers in Tibet. I’m saying anything about right or wrong, I’m just noting the double standard.
No, because no Palestinian state was ever founded, as most of the Palestinan lands were conquered by Jordan and Egypt. International recognition is important, but first the country has to, you know, be a country.
Israel was founded in 1948, its borders were set by treaty in 1949, and it was accepted into the UN in 1950. None of those things ever occured for a Palestinian state. Maybe it should have been founded; it probably should be founded in the future. But as of now, it doesn’t exist.
I’m not saying that Israel’s borders aren’t disputed - of course they are. Eventually, some compromise will be reached, as is always the case in border disputes.
What I’m noting, instead, is this werid sort of reverse Israeli Exceptionalism I’ve seen from Israel’s opponents. It’s like we’re some sort of special project of the UN, and that we have to follow special rules - that no other country has to follow - in order to be a considered “legitimate” country. It’s not the people who think Israel should redraw its borders that really bother me, it’s those who place Israel’s legitimacy to exist as Jewish state in doubt, as they do with no other nation.
Sure they are. Google it.
It isn’t one, as already explained. You tried to show one, and it’s been exposed as fundamentally false already. Move on.
Hairsplitting. The clear intent of the resolution was to establish both countries. How can any citizen of one of those countries support his government’s refusal to recognize the other?
The continued expansion of squatter colonies, with Israeli government support, in occupied Palestine belies that claim. Is that really so hard to understand?
Who here are you claiming to be an “opponent” of Israel? Does that assessment automatically follow from any criticism if of its government’s policies? Or is it just a convenient way to avoid any such discussion?
Tell us, then, what those “special rules” are. I don’t see any at all, nor have I seen any listed. But it wouldn’t be the point, either - PLEASE recognize that the topic here is NOT Israel’s recognition as a legitimate country, but PALESTINE’s. Can you do that? Can you get on topic?
If there were anyone at all here holding that position, you’d have a useful argument there. But there aren’t any. Okay?
Well, I would not say nobody. There are indeed such boycotts. They’re simply pitifully ineffective. Of course so are most boycotts generally…
I don’t believe there is any double standard really, only that the Palestinian situation gets more media for many reasons, such as the non-trivial proximity to the world’s greatest concentration of petrol fields, and the interest of said controllers of petrol in the situation.
Tibet, well, they’re not graced with petrol.
Right, that was clear enough, what I was trying to get at was the structure of the problem.
I’m not sure that everything you see as reverse exceptionalism really is. (Some certainly, not denying that) Some of what you are seeing is simply “Attention Effect” - that is due to the geography more attention is being paid. Neighbourhood, eh? Some neighbourhood’s ‘crimes’ get on the national news, others don’t - levels of interest differs even if the crimes (or disputes, this is merely an analogy, not an argument to qualifying something as a crime) are of the same magnitude.
I don’t think the “rules” being applied are as special as you perceive it to be.
Mmmm, well see above. I don’t deny some people do, but I think you’re seeing some “exceptionalism” where in fact it is not.
I’m happy to agree to that. Based on that, when the UN were debating passing the partition resolution in 1947should they have said no concessions to terrorism, no partition agreement until an end to Jewish terrorism?