With terrorist actions against the Brits and UN personnel?
Where will they be without constant US aid?
What gave the Brits the rights to partition a protectorate?
But why not remove the Israelis instead? It among to the same thing, and there are fewer of them too.
The terrorism accusation is absurd. Israel, like any nation, the US as a fine example, has made mistakes, but it has not engaged in a policy of terrorism, and it has made efforts to establish peace.
To point two, hard to tell where they would be, but if the disapearance of aid were simultaneous with a drying up of oil money for terrorists, Israel just might survive okay, since they have built an infrastructure and a society. More importantly it’s not relevant. The fact that they recieve aid doesn’t make them more or less deserving of anything.
The original creation of Israel is a) irrelevant, since Israel does indeed exist, and b) irrelevant since the current crop of Pals aren’t folks who were denied land they owned because of the creation of Israel.
And to deal with a comment made by another poster, who said that Israel is at least partly to blame for the terrorist acts. You are simply wrong. Americans were not to blame for 9/11, because that was the act of cowards, and Israel is not to blame for the acts of suicide bombings, because again, targeting the civillian population is an act of cowardice. Were the Pals who engage in terrorist activities solely focused on military personel, you would have something. This is not to say Israel hasn’t killed civillians. But when they have, it has been collateral damage, which occurs in any war. It is not because they decided to wipe out civillians.
Because the Israelis started out in Israel, and many of the Pals started out in the neighboring nations and ended up there after failing to destroy Israel. Additionally because the idea of relocating Jews from Israel into neighboring countries isn’t analgous, because it isn’t friendly territory.
However, at this point, I do happen to agree with you that relocation isn’t an answer.
Cite?
Rhythmdvl
Yes, I think it is a bit of a hijack. Having said that, I’ve thought for some time that the people in charge of Palestinian strategy are fools. Miltarily, the Palestinians have no chance at all. Their two most formidable weapons are Israeli public opinion and world public opinion. The suicide bombings do make Israeli public opinion unhappy with the status quo. However, it gets the Palestinians no sympathy and, what’s worse, “soft” Israeli public opinion is more likely to turn hard than “hard” opinion is to soften.
If the Palestinians were at all clever, they’d re-brand themselves as dashing – yet ethical – freedom fighters. They’d forswear attacking civilians in Israel proper and limit themselves strictly to military and economic targets there. Blow up a few high tech Israeli factories (which were, of course, manufacturing material for the Israeli Defense Force!) and shoot down a couple of helicopters and I think public opinion in Israel would throw in the towel. Attacks like these would do far more damage to Israel both economically and diplomatically, especially if Israel attempted to retaliate.
My peace proposal (if the Saudis can do it, so can I!)
http://www.boston.quik.com/mduncan/032002spec.shtml
Mike Duncan
http://www.weeklylowdown.com/
A cursory look at history should suffice as a citation.
The people in “Palestine”, which was not at the time the cut of land we are talking about now, was controlled by the Turks, who lost it when they and Germany were defeated. The Jews who were proposing a homeland were alone with that proposal. There were no “Palestinians” counter proposing a homeland.
However, due to a redivision later, Pals did get a homeland, comprised of land originally earmarked for Jewish settlement.
They would likely have lived their peacefully if not for vicious attacks, notably Hebron slaughters of 1929
Throughout much of May 1967, the Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian armies mobilized along Israel’s narrow and seemingly indefensible borders in preparation for a massive invasion to eliminate Israel.
After ONLY six days of air, sea and hand-to-hand ground warfare, Israel defeated all three Arab armies along three separate fronts, taking control of the entire Sinai Desert from Egypt, the Golan Heights from Syria and the West Bank (including East Jerusalem and its Old City) from Jordan.
the same Jerusalem from which all Jews had been denied access for the 19 years following Jordan’s seizure and control over it following the first Arab-Israeli War of 1948-9.
Thus the “refugees” were made by Arabs. They lost a battle they started. When the Jews lost, it was to bad, to sad Jews, you’re out. When the Arabs lost, they somehow become oppressed folks of these illegal occupyers. And the fact of the matter is in the time since said battle, Arabs have regained some of the land it lost in war, despite the absurd notion that the attackers who lost should be given even an inch, but no matter what concession Israel offers it is met with violence because ultimately the core concession is one they can’t make, which is ceasing to exist.
Historical revisionists refer to Palestinian history but don’t quantify what land they are talking about. They talk about the conditions of refugess but don’t take note of how these refugees came to be in this position in the first place.
Barton and Rhythmdvl you have presented and interesting insight. When I thought that Israel would be best served in this confrontation through nonviolence, it didn’t occurred to me that Palestinian supporters would feel the very same way about their cause. For the first time I’m realizing that I don’t know where the Palestinian’s and their supporters stand. I became an athiest 3 years ago, but I was raised a Jew, bar mitzvah’d in Israel, and grew up hearing stories about the Arab threat and brave little Israel fighting back against incredible odds. Oddly enough, my father’s side of the family are Sephardic Jews of Syrian descent, so I’m part Arab as well, but other than curses and cuisine I know almost nothing about that part of my heritage. So, in the spirit of straight dope straightforwardness might I ask any or all of the Palestinian supporters to explain their position to me? All I’m looking for is your sincere opinion as to why this particular group is worthy of defense. I never presume my opinions are right, I’ve been wrong too often…maybe I’ll hear something that will change my mind.
p.s. I know I’ve gotten personal in GD, but in a topic like this our personal biases have an avoidable influence on the debate.
for the record my stance falls along the lines of jimmycrackcorn’s last post.
** Not really. It tells us what you think, not why we should believe it to be true.
** What of it? The people who lived in what became British Palestine didn’t need a “homeland” since they already lived there.
**
Cite? Perhaps you are referring to the Balfour declaration. In any event, there were no lands “earmarked” for Jewish settlement, especially not by European Jews. The Zionist movement wanted to create a Jewish homeland somewhere (I believe Argentina was also discussed) However, the idea of a Jewish homeland did not meet with universal aclaim. Once again, you seem to forget that these lands you claim were “earmarked” for Jewish settlement were already occupied.
** You’re skipping a bit here. The 1948 war which resulted in the founding of Israel caused the first wave of Palestinian Arab refugees who left what was to become Israel. Contrary to what seems to be the popular Israeli spin, these refugees were not primarily people who went off to join the Arab armies. A few did. Some were intentionally chaised off by certain soon-to-be Israeli factions. Some fled because of Arab propoganda. The majority of those who became refugees in 1948 were simple folk trying to protect their families and get out of the way of a war.
** Yes, indeed they did. The population of these areas was composed of a) local people who lived there, b) people who had fled the war in 1948 and were not allowed by the Israelis to return to their homes in what was now Israel proper.
**
Here’s a key point I have made before. You see “Arabs,” I see “people.” The attitude you suggest is outright racism. “Some Arabs made bad decisions so its OK to punish all Arabs.”
It’s also based on a false premise. As I pointed out above. Most of the refugees were just ordinary people. Some Israeli factions actively sought to frighten the local Arab population into running off. After the war ended. The new state of Israel refused to allow these refugees to return to their homes. There’s plenty of blame to go around for the plight of the refugees.
Most outrageously, the Palestinains in the West Bank and Gaza were captured by the Israelis. Now you suggest that these people ought to be run off yet again.
None of this by the way, does anything whatsoever to back up your claim that “the Israelis started out in Israel, and many of the Pals started out in the neighboring nations and ended up there after failing to destroy Israel.” This statement is, in fact, false. Most Jewish Israelis came from Europe. The Palestinians were already in place and, in fact, many started out in “Israel.” They did not “come from neighboring nations.” If anyone is an intruder in the middle east, it is European Jews who illegally immigrated into British Palestine after WWII. 
Remember the epsidoe of the Simpsons were Homer becomes a boxer? He depended on his opponents to tire themselves punching him in the head where he was nigh invulnerable. At the end of the episode he fought world champ Dredric Tatum. Except that Tatum was a professional boxer and he would never tire himself out by hitting Homer.
Israel is not Homer Simpson. They can’t afford to sit there and take shots to the head.
Marc
No, it does indeed support my claim, since the portion of my post you ignored dealt with the revisionism that talks about “Palestine” but ignores the fact that what constitutes Palestine has changed. And since, again, it was the Turks who were in charge and lost, and there weren’t Arabs in the area, their claim to the land is not there. Therefore, the Israel people have the most claim to the land if we are judging by who has been there the longest. None of the current “refugees” are from there. Clearly we can’t be talking about who was there first, since that would be an argument with an absurd amount of going back and giving it to I suppose the first pre-human primate.
And as far as fallacies go, calling “Arabs” Arabs isn’t racist, anymore then calling Jews “Jews” is. That’s a strawman. This isn’t about punishing “all” Arabs since all Arabs don’t live in the area. It’s about starting a war with the intention of destroying Israel, losing, and then demanding Israel extend a courtesy denied Israel when they lost a battle, namely, sorry you were attacked and slaughtered, but could you please let folks who tried to kill you resettle on your border? Great thanks. So yes, these “Arabs” are the ones who suffer.
And yes, of course there are innocent Pals who have suffered. they continue to pay the price for their leadership and that sucks. But unfortunatly the mistakes of their leadership are always put at the foot of the Jew. Even in the last few days we see it. Israel pulls back to show good faith. Suicide bombing. Israel targets militants. Suicide bombers target civillians. And yes, of course, Pals who aren’t militants die to, and it sucks, but they aren’t targeted.
Further, to back up a little, I stated quite clearly in the first post on this line, that I don’t think the Pals should relocate. They don’t in point of fact really have anywhere to go, and if they do, I doubt it’s what they want. My post dealt solely with the absurd notion that the Jews should be removed from Israel. There claim to Israel is not open for debate. It only remains a debate for folks who still retain the agenda of destroying Israel.
To add:
As I mentioned above, Israel has had absolutely no problem making peace with neighbors who have demonstrated a will for peace. Sadat came to Israel for talks with Begin. King Hussein spoke at Rabin’s funeral IIRC. As soon as the Saudi proposal was put on the table, Israel extended invitations for meetings or to send an envoy.
As I see it, there have been no overt gestures towards peace from the Palestinian side since a handshake at Oslo. Let the Palestinian leadership demonstrate some good will towards Israel, let them arrest some militants and outlaw extremist groups, let them demonstrate a willingness to compromise at a negotiation table, and Israel will hand them basically everything they want on a silver platter. Israel has done so in the past and nothing has fundamentally changed.
If the Palestinians had used any other form of uprising besides killing Israeli innocents, this debate would have been over years ago. If they had limited their attacks to military posts, or had tightly controlled peaceful street rallies similar to those in the US civil rights movement, there would be no reason for a hard line government in Israel. There would have been a Palestinian state long ago, probably with shared control over Jerusalem and a compromise on the refugees.
I would join with Israel and declare war on “Palestinians”.
But I’m not.
**
I’m sorry, I haven’t the faintest idea what you are talking about. Are you suggesting that the populaton of British Palestine was made up of Turks before the area fell to the British?
**
Just how long do you claim the majority of Jewish Israelis have lived in what is now Israel?
Let’s come back to the rest of your post after we’ve sorted these two questions.
Edwino, I agree that Arafat probably seriously miscalculated in his negotiations with Barak. I also agree, as I’ve posted in other threads, that the people in charge of current Palestinian tactics are unsophisticated and quite foolish.
I’ve often thought that if the Palestinians could organize a serious non-violent demonstration they could probably get all their demands and more. Imagine a huge group sitting peacefully along the whole length of the Green Line and fasting until Israel gives in. They’d win in three days.
IMHO the problems with this are:
The Palestinians don’t really know what they want.
They have no effective leadership.
They have no infrastructure or local models for self-determination.
Therefore, I think the idea of Israel unilaterally declaring a Palestinian state has merit. As long as Israel (and the rest of the world) can make sure that it doesn’t become a dictatorship. It seems to me that the solution is to declare the state in Gaza (where Israel has no historical or religious claims AFAIK). Help them set up a proper democratic government, banks, post offices, newspapers, small businesses, join the UN, WTO, etc. Help them break the refugee mindset. Then once there are some people with experience of real responsibility, Israel can negotiate over the rest of the deal.
I have to agree with TruthSeeker here. You’re claiming their were few or no Arabs living in region of Palestine/Israel prior to post-WW I? Sorry, but that’s incorrect. The Ottoman Sultanate was turkish-centered, but pan-nationalistic ( one of the reasons they are looked back at with such nostalgia in some quarters of the Middle East ). They almost certainly had more Arab citizens than Turks. There were NO significant populations of Turks south of the Taurus/Anti-Taurus mountain range in eastern Anatolia ( there were some to the east in Azerbaijan, but for the most part that was Persian and later Russian territory ). Syria/Palestine, Iraq, Egypt, North Africa, the Hijaz, were all Arab ( plus other minorities like the Kurds )and Ottoman possesions. The population in what would become Israel was overwhelmingly Arab, though there was a minority of indigenous ( Sephardic ) Jews. The demographics began to shift slowly starting in the late 19th century with Jewish immigration from Europe and accelerated enormously after WW II ( and of course there was the BIG shift of 1948, that has already been discussed ).
Well, I got jumped on by somebody for this on the substitute board, but I’ll reiterate my opinion that this is a piss-poor way to establish ownership and rights. “My ancestors go back 500 years”, “Oh yeah, well my ancestors go back 3,000 years, therefore I have precedence”. Just doesn’t work for me.
As I’ve said this a million times by now, but both sides are there now and that has what has to be dealt with, not historical claims ( which I find have no real practical applicability - they address justfications, not reality as it stands ).
I’m not yet to the point where I think Edwino’s doomsday scenario should be enacted ( I have a strong fear it will fail, not only quite possibly aggravating the festering hatred, but also damaging/destroying the economies of both ), but I understand the impulse towards it. Things look bleak.
- Tamerlane