Of course not. But your statement “the Palestinians could have had that state over a half century ago, merely by avoiding a doomed attempt at exterminating the Israelis” placed blame for that “attempt” only on the Palestinians, which is completely misleading given the active involvement of other Arab states.
Yes, and I wish you every success in learning some.
And what was the situation a year or two before that? Or a generation or two?
WTF?
That would have meant some level of de facto acceptance of the situation by those governments, suggesting that there was no Palestinian state or right for one to exist, wouldn’t it?
Isreal did not take over any land prior to the wars, and all of the wars were of agression against Isreal… when Isreal was being set up, they tried VERY had to be inclusive… as you might recall they just saw what being exclusive looked like…
The countries in the Middle East are the result of ‘nation building’ by many of the great powers of Europe… around the time of the collapse of the ottoman empire… there is NO coheisive meaning for the nations… and there are as many animosities between different tribes of Arabs and Sects of Islam WITHIN the countries… as there is toward Isreal… they just all happen to hate that a group other than themselves have control over one of their most sacred sites (as the Jews were upset before them… and as are some Christians now)
Nope… no more than the current Kurdish issue now… they live in Turkey, Iran, AND Iraq… none of those countries much like that fact… and none believe they should get their own state…
Well, it would have said that there was a right for Israel to exist, and that there was no Palestinian state within the territory of Israel, at least. If Jordan had wanted, they could have given the Palestinians the West Bank.
That’s not what I meant. No, I don’t think the Palestinians should have to move. I think they should have accepted the original partition plan. I think they should have negotiated a deal with Israel rather than starting an intifada.
The point I was making was that the Palestinian situation is unique because they were goaded into refusing statehood by surrounding Arab nations, while at the same time those nations refused to accept Palestinian refugees. That created a displaced population on Israel’s border, which keeps the debate over Israel’s right to exist alive and puts Israel on the constant defensive, which is exactly what those Arab nations wanted. The Palestinians were pawns of the Arab-Israeli conflict, cynically used by nations throughout the middle east to this day to cast Israel in a bad light and to whip up anti-semitic rage in order to scapegoat Jews and deflect criticism away from their own despotic rule.
The point remains that similar situations have arisen around the world repeatedly, but they do not become multi-generational festering sores because either the countries of the region assimilate the displaced populations or wipe them out. In the case of the Palestinians, the Jews can’t assimilate them without destroying themselves, and they are too moral to simply wipe them out. And the other Arab nations will not accept refugees or work out any other sort of compromise, nor will the Palestinians. So we have a stalemate which happens to be very convenient for a lot of dictators in the region.
To refresh your memory, let’s look at what I said just before that:
Clearly I am not solely blaming the Palestinians for attacking Israel at the time of its founding. Just as clearly you continue to ignore the Palestinian role in starting the war, instead of seeking peaceful coexistence in separate nations as set up by the UN resolution.
As to learning/acknowledging history: instead of “nyah nyah so are you”-style rejoinders, it would be nice if you acknowledged that Israel’s success has resulted from far more than U.S. support, and that Arab nations in the region have benefited handsomely from foreign assistance (including Egypt’s relationship with the Soviet Union) - and, I might add, turning over only a minute fraction of the millions in aid they pledged to the Palestinians.
As to foreign aid, it’s interesting to note that U.S. aid to predominantly Muslim nations far surpasses that given to Israel. For instance, aid to Egypt and Jordan alone in FY 2004 totalled 2.43 billion (official U.S. government figures), while Israel received 2.62 billion.
Of course it has. My point was simply that despite all Israel’s own efforts, it wouldn’t have survived without U.S. support.
And as for snarky rejoinders, you shouldn’t dish 'em out if you can’t take 'em. I’m happy to address any of your substantive comments in a thoughtful and respectful way, but I see no need to treat sneers as serious debate.
Israel still gets by far the most US foreign aid of any individual country, though (excluding our war-reconstruction spending in occupied Iraq, and even exceeding our war-reconstruction spending in occupied Afghanistan), and the most US foreign aid per capita:
That’s about $417 per capita for the Israelis as compared to about $24 per capita for the Egyptians and $97 for the Jordanians. Of the remaining “predominantly Muslim” countries in the top 16, Pakistanis get about $3 in per capita aid, Turks about $2, Sudanese about $4, and Indonesians less than $1. So I don’t think Israel is getting at all shortchanged compared to Muslim nations when it comes to US foreign aid.
Actually, something like that has already happened. The 1973 war was hardly a decisive Israeli victory. In fact, Israel got its ass handed to it in several battles and came very close to losing the war. The final result was basically a draw.
But the long term result may have been that Egypt finally felt that it could negotiate a peace treaty with Israel without looking like it was surrendering. And direct relations between Israel and Syria have also achieved a de facto state of calmness.
Actually, that’s not what you said. A reminder:
I interpret that as saying that Uncle Sam basically gets the credit for Israel’s military victories over the Arabs. And I responded that Israel’s successes were due to more than U.S. support (good of you to belatedly agree), noting that substantial foreign aid went to Israel’s enemies (and, it should be noted, Israel has benefited from arms purchases elsewhere - notably France).
If you want to discuss Israel’s chances of survival without U.S. aid, that’s another debate. And one in which you’ll likely get plenty of argument from the board’s resident Israelis.
I’ll trade snarks with you whenever you like. However, behind the snarkiness should be a respect for historical background and a willingness to respond to significant points as they are presented, something I haven’t seen much of from you here.
An arguable point, but one that doesn’t change the fact that U.S. financial support for Israel isn’t all that much greater than the amount going to just one Arab nation (Egypt), and that predominantly Muslim nations get considerably more U.S. aid than does Israel. These are facts frequently (and conveniently) overlooked in the debate over how much foreign aid should go from America to Israel.
Okay, but that’s your interpretation. What I was trying to say is that Israel wouldn’t have survived without US support. Sorry if I wasn’t clear.
Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by “considerably” and “not all that much”. As I said, leaving out the megabucks for war-reconstruction in occupied Iraq and Afghanistan, Egypt + Jordan + Pakistan + Turkey + Sudan + Indonesia, which are the “predominantly Muslim” nations among the top 16 recipients, got $3.24 billion all told in 2004.
That’s $0.62 billion more than Israel got, a difference which it seems reasonable to call “considerably more”.
However, Israel got $0.75 billion more than Egypt got, a difference which you’re describing as “not all that much greater”.
Was there lots more US foreign aid going to other predominantly Muslim countries in 2004? Which ones? I couldn’t find a breakdown of US foreign aid recipients beyond the “top 16” list.
There’s probably an important point buried somewhere in that post. I suppose.
More importantly, why am I seeing Google ads for both Ohio Termite Control and a free trip to Israel?
Possibly has some connection to ARAB Pest Control.
Well, it was more of a question, really: namely, how much US foreign aid in 2004 went to “predominantly Muslim” countries other than the ones I listed?
Because just from the data posted here, it seems like you’re calling a difference of $0.75 billion “not all that much” and simultaneously calling a difference of $0.62 billion “considerable”.
And that doesn’t make sense to me, so I figure you must have information about the rest of the US 2004 foreign aid recipients that I don’t have. So, cite please?
It’s not very complicated. For one thing am not (as you are) disregarding aid to Iraq and Afghanistan, nor am I parsing statements for dear life to try and recover lost ground.
Predominantly Muslim nations receive a great deal more foreign aid from the U.S. than does Israel.
An interesting take on history. The attack on Israel by Palestinians and their allies in '47-48 aimed at appropriating Israel’s land was actually a defense of Palestinian homes from seizure! Truly a remarkable crystal ball in operation there.
EXACTLY, when a new country comes into existence that existence is almost always contested by someone else who lost out on the deal or simply ‘hates’ the recipient. America wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for the successes in the Barbary Wars and the War of 1812. The whole thing, in pragmatic terms, comes down to the ability of the ‘newbie’ to kill enough of the attackers to maintain its lebensraum. Pure and simple.
It isn’t nice, it isn’t PC, but its reality. The Kurds would have an excellent case for a country if they could kick everyone else’s teeth in and stand there ‘Ok, Turks, bring it on we got it, now we dare you to come and try and take it.’ I know a couple Turks (army types) one of whom spent some time fighting the Kurds in N. Iraq, they don’t like each other, but it all comes down to who can kill whom better along the road to reaching the Grand Strategic goal of getting the other guy to cry uncle.
EXACTLY, when a new country comes into existence that existence is almost always contested by someone else who lost out on the deal or simply ‘hates’ the recipient. America wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for the successes in the Barbary Wars and the War of 1812. The whole thing, in pragmatic terms, comes down to the ability of the ‘newbie’ to kill enough of the attackers to maintain its lebensraum. Pure and simple.
It isn’t nice, it isn’t PC, but its reality. The Kurds would have an excellent case for a country if they could kick everyone else’s teeth in and stand there ‘Ok, Turks, bring it on we got it, now we dare you to come and try and take it.’ I know a couple Turks (army types) one of whom spent some time fighting the Kurds in N. Iraq, they don’t like each other, but it all comes down to who can kill whom better along the road to reaching the Grand Strategic goal of getting the other guy to cry uncle.
What, do you think *nobody * lived there before the Jewish immigration from Europe between the world wars? That the Palestinians just suddenly appeared out of nowhere, an evil avenging force determined to destroy Israel? Now *there * is an interesting take on history. Wow.
And a very short memory on your part. Here’s what you said:
Perhaps you can provide evidence that the partition plan involved “expulsion” of the Palestinians, or documentation that the Israelis expelled Palestinians before they were attacked. And while you’re at it, show us evidence that Jews suddenly appeared out of nowhere in the area between WWI and WWII.
Og Almighty. That from somebody who thinks Turks are Arabs, and who yammers about “the lessons of history.”
Quick reference for you. The area was occupied by Arabs whose family had been there for hundreds and even thousands of years. The Balfour Declaration, issued by the British who took over colonial authority from the Ottomans, began a process of emigration by Jews, mainly from Europe, into the area, in which yes, there was also some number of Jews as well, whose families also had been there for hundreds or thousands of years. The process involved a fair amount of purchase of Arab-owned land from willing sellers, and an increasing percentage of Jewish population, naturally increasing ethnic tensions especially among the Arabs who saw themselves becoming a beset minority.
That became official in 1947 with the UK-US-sponsored partition of Palestine (which to you is the formation out of nothing of Israel), in which the Arab population was not consulted and upon which appropriation of their property was no longer voluntary or necessarily even compensated, and exile or herding into refugee camps was forced upon many of them.
At least Sam thinks they should have just quietly accepted that. You have yet to acknowledge that they even existed. :rolleyes:
I’ve rarely seen such a collection of false premises and strawmen.
To cite just one:
Where did you get the idea I think the partition plan did not create two nations?
Again, where in the partition plan do you see that Arabs were to have their properties appropriated and to be “herded into refugee camps”, and what is your basis for claiming that such events prompted aggression against Israel in '47-48?
Where do you get this stuff? This goes beyond pulling things out of one’s ass - in your case, I think you must have somehow reached all the way up to your cecum. :rolleyes:
*Elvis has apparently never heard of the multi-nation UN vote on this matter.