Please Debate The Merits Of This Article on Israel/Gaza

Great Debates
81

I missed this one the first time around. The original UN partition of Palestine lacked a fundamental fairness. It was specifically designed to (using UN numbers) take a region (Palestine) that had a 33% Jewish minority, and create a state with a 55% Jewish Majority. The other region would be a 99% Arab state. There’s no other way to describe this as gerrymandering in order to reduce the power of the Arab population and deny them self determination. Let’s say that the native Arab population decided to ignore this obvious inequity and go along with the division as is.

What do you think the political landscape of this newly formed Israel would be? Obviously this is all speculation and we will never know for sure, but lets play along anyways. The state would be 55% Jewish and 45% Arab. What do you think the probability that an Arab would be the first prime minister of this newly formed Israel? In my humble opinion, that probability is essentially zero. Jews would be in the majority, and I don’t think the leaders at that time were very much about sharing power with the Arabs.

The parliament would break down into a Jewish block and an Arab block. The Jewish block would have more votes, and essentially be able to control policy of the new state. They would have control of all the cabinet positions, and could control the military, police, and courts. They would hold the important mayorships and governorships. They would be able to set immigration policy, and that policy would likely favor Jewish immigration. Overtime, that would increase the Jewish majority, and reduce Arab power further.

That is what I mean by marginalization. The Arab minority would not wield any real power in Israel. They would not have access to the highest offices in the government, and would not be able to set policy. In essence, they would be second class citizens.

Maybe the above scenario wouldn’t have taken place, and the Jews would have shared power. The scenario above is what would be going through my mind, and that’s what I would act on. The only way for Israel as created in '47 to function would be with a negotiated power sharing agreement, and neither side was willing to negotiate. That’s why the '47 plan was DOA, and why armed conflict was inevitable.

Put yourself in the shoes of an Arab. You and your family had lived there for a couple of generations as a overwhelming majority. Jewish immigrants illegally immigrate over the course of a few decades into your country. The UN comes along and tells you that you are now going to be a minority in the new state of Israel. Is there any chance you would say “okey dokey”? I know I wouldn’t.

82

This is really hilariously strange. Your initial claim is that there would be a Jewish minority and an Arab minority, and that would mean that there would be ‘necessary’ ‘marginalization’.
Then, without skipping a beat, you now state that there would be an Arab minority and a Jewish majority, and that too would mean that there would be ‘necessary’ ‘marginalization’.

Funny how that works out. No matter what the facts are, even if they’re the exact opposite of the ones you were using for your claim, you’re able to rationalize your way to the same conclusion.

Of course, because setting up an Arab state is the surest way to deny Arabs self determination. Just like Indians were denied self determination by the creation of India and Muslims were denied self determination by the creation of Pakistan.

What a nugget of ignorance. Do you even know how Israel’s political system works? It’s a coalition government. The ultra-orthodox make up a tiny fraction of Israeli society but because they swing their votes in a block, they have tremendous influence. That a group with 45% of the votes wouldn’t have a major voice in government is absurd, especially if they voted as a group (as you seem to posit). You’re spinning fiction.
Even then, there is a vast difference in political ideology between Jews in Israel. That they’d all vote alike an oppose Arab politicians/policies is… weird. Evidently you conceive of all the Jews voting alike.

You’ve also got a neat setup of double standards there. It’s okay for the Arabs to rule over non-Arabs, but Jews ruling over non-Jews? Hold on there, that’s horrible!

And you’re still thinking in terms of races, a “Jewish block” and an “Arab block”. Where, of course, if the Arabs hadn’t allied with the Nazis and two peaceful states had been created side by side, there’s no reason not to say that there would have simply been Israeli political parties. You have any evidence, at all, that Jews wouldn’t have voted for Arab politicians if they felt they were more qualified? Or is the argument that Jews are too clannish and insular to have voted for non-Jews for important positions?

83

And simply to point out some facts (which you really should have before you formulate an opinion):

Pages 113-130. The fact of the matter is that we have a perfect test case, in Haifa during the 1940’s. And the Jewish mayor of the town ruled it in such a way as to show no favoritism to either ethnic group while he worked for the improvement of the town as a whole.

No, we’ll never know what the situation today would be like, exactly, if the Arab leadership hadn’t allied with Adolph Hitler and the Nazis and planned on bringing the Final Solution to the region. But with your characteristically strange argument, you actually use the Arab rejectionism to justify the racist ban on Jewish immigration and instead of blaming the rejectionists for their unwillingness to live in peace with Jews, blame the Jews for wanting self determination where they lived.

And to fight yet more of your ignorance, the Zionists of the time period did in fact have an interest in compromise and negotiation.

From Yehoshua Hankin, the man responsible for most of the major land purchases on behalf of the Jews. He told the Simpson report: “Had we desired to disregard the interests of such workers of the land as are dependent, directly or indirectly, upon lands of the landlords, we could have acquired large and unlimited areas, but in the course of our conversation I have pointed out to you that this has not been our policy and that, when acquiring lands, it is our ardent wish not to prejudice or do harm to the interests of anybody.”

Of the Sursock lands’ purchase, Sir John Hope Simpson found in 1930 that:
“Government responsibility towards Arab cultivators.—The Jewish authorities have nothing with which to reproach themselves in the matter of the Sursock lands. They paid high prices for the land, and in addition they paid to certain of the occupants of those lands a considerable amount of money which they were not legally bound to pay. It was not their business, but the business of the Government to see to it that the position of the Arabs was not adversely affected by the transaction. In Article 6 of the Mandate it is the duty of the Administration of Palestine to ensure that the rights and position of the Arabs are not prejudiced by Jewish immigration. It is doubtful whether, in the matter of the Sursock lands, this Article of the Mandate received sufficient consideration.”

The Zionists of the time period, in fact, were quite willing to compromise even when it was dramatically unfavorable to them.

84

This seems kind of disingenuous. The fact that Israel since its founding has accepted a non-Jewish minority in its population doesn’t in any way disprove the assertion that the founders of Israel, and the state of Israel as currently constituted, would not and will not tolerate a non-Jewish majority.

I don’t even understand what that means. How can something achieved by agreement be compulsory? If you’re favoring “compulsory” action of any kind, doesn’t that mean that you’re advocating “compelling” someone to do it, whether or not they agree to it?

:confused: Your basis for calling this claim a “silly little fiction” seems somewhat weak. It’s certainly open to question, but I don’t see how it can be discounted as outright “fictional” or false. You yourself originally responded to it as follows:

“In several areas” Jews “would possibly” have been the majority? What is there in those vague statements to contradict, falsify, or render “fictional” the claim that non-Jews were the majority in the area as a whole?
I agree that there’s a lot of gratuitous rancor towards some of the early Zionists in much political discourse on the Middle East. However, I think some modern Zionists are desperately trying to deny the existence of the elephant in the room: namely, the fact that the early Zionists achieved a Jewish state partly by politically and militarily pushing out many non-Jews from land that they regarded as their own, and that they still regard as their own.

That’s certainly far from being the only problem in the Israel-Palestine situation, and it’s certainly not an easy one to address. Nor does it necessarily constitute a politically legitimate claim to sovereignty. But let’s not pretend it doesn’t exist, or is meaningless or trivial.

Many Palestinians sincerely feel that Israel is illegitimately occupying land that by rights belongs to them. When I see some defenders of Israel attempting to handwave that fact away, I feel somewhat doubtful about the accuracy or sincerity of their arguments in general.

85

It’s disingenuous to point out that when someone claims that it was not “possible” for Israel to be founded without displacing the native population… that the fact that the native populace who chose to stay were in fact not displaced?

It’s the difference between the Israelis unilaterally transferring Palestinians out, and coming to an agreement with the Palestinian leadership that they would relocate their own population based on a negotiated agreement.
To use a rough analogy, it’s the difference between Walmart burning people out of their homes so they can open a new Super Center, and coming to a negotiated compromise with the city which could, in turn, exercise its legal authority to enact Eminent Domain and then compensate anybody who had to be moved.

Naw. First off, take Jaffa, all the evidence points to a rather clear Jewish majority. In others, say, Haifa, the situation is that there was a probable Jewish majority.

Besides, Treis has now claimed both that it was a majority Arab populace with a minority Jewish populace, and a minority Jewish populace with a minority Arab populace. As should be obvious, one is a fiction, and is silly especially given their juxtaposition.

Also, as the partition was drawn along what was the best-guess for ethnic majority lines and previous surveys tend to confirm some rough demographic realities, it’s not really such a weak position.

Besides, one way or the other, you have to admit that of the two mutually exclusive positions which were advanced, one is a fiction. Note, he advanced both as being true and accurate with no explicit retraction to be found.

Well, as a simple fact… because we know that Jews were in fact and beyond a doubt in the majority in some areas (Jaffa and Jerusalem City, for example). In others it’s less clear.

Note, as well, that the original claim wasn’t that Arabs made up the majority population of the area as a whole, but in the area that would be partitioned to Israel.

Naw, that’s not really accurate. The number who were pushed out by (direct, I assume?) military force is a rather small percentage. And the political agreement would have seen the Arabs become full Israeli citizens and keep their property. But yes, of course it’s a problem. And many of us who’ve argued for a peaceful two state solution have pointed out that there should be compensation for anybody who no longer can live on their property. Of course… it’d also be nice to see a similar movement to compensate the roughly equal number of Jewish refugees who were expelled from Arab nations in 1948, but most of us recognize that judging by how hard it is to even get them mentioned in the ‘narratives’, that it’s probably a lost cause.

On the other hand, I’d argue that the real elephant in the room is that if the Arab leadership didn’t ally with the Nazis and try to institute the Final Solution in the Levant, there would probably be two states existing to this day. If they didn’t initiate the '67 war, the West Bank and Jerusalem would still be Jordanian, Gaza and the Sinai still Egyptian, and the Golan still Syrian.

Why shouldn’t we ‘handwave’ away beliefs? Beliefs don’t count for anything, facts do. And the fact is that the great majority of land that’s claimed was in fact Miri or waste land, and not Mulk. As such individuals couldn’t have possibly owned it, and there was no sovereign Palestinian government. In fact, the Palestinians leaders rejected every offer that would have granted them one alongside Israel.

Now, of course I believe that the settlements should be immediately frozen and that their transfer should be up for negotiation in Final Status talks. But pragmatism shouldn’t be confused with property rights. And we are doing a disservice to accurate discussion if we repeat claims that it was all the “Palestinians’ land” when in fact a relatively small percentage was, and the rest was the regional sovereign’s land.

86

Yes, because some of the native population (that is, the non-Jewish part of it; there were also by that time a number of Jews who had been born in the region to earlier Jewish settlers, who I think could also be fairly be described as “native population”) were displaced, even though they would have preferred to stay.

The undeniable (and, AFAICT, undenied) fact that the founders of Israel didn’t displace all of the non-Jews in that territory doesn’t contradict in any way the claim that they did displace some of them.

What? I’m sorry, but I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. Did you mistakenly write “minority” for “majority” somewhere?

Sorry, but this still isn’t a logical argument. Even if Jews were a majority in some parts of the region (and while I don’t disbelieve you on that, I’d like to see a cite for the claim that this is known “beyond a doubt”; as you pointed out earlier, demographic information from this particular historical context is notoriously uncertain), that does not in any way disprove the claim that Jews were a minority in the region as a whole.

Of course, the lack of proof that Jews were an overall majority doesn’t in any way prove that Jews were an overall minority. But it makes it inaccurate to dismiss the latter claim (i.e., the claim that Jews were an overall minority) as outright “fictional”. “Plausible but unproven” seems to be the most we can definitively conclude about it based on the evidence actually provided so far in this thread.

Again, I think you’re relying on (deliberate?) ambiguity about the percentage of Arabs who would have been allowed to become full Israeli citizens. Are you in fact claiming that the founders of Israel would have been prepared to tolerate a non-Jewish majority population in their state? I.e., are you claiming that Israel was willing to absorb all non-Jewish residents of their territory as full citizens, no matter how many of them there were, whether or not they outnumbered the Jewish citizens? And if so, could I see your cites for that? Could I also see your cites (and specific figures) for your claim that displaced Arabs were “a rather small percentage”?

By that reasoning, there is no reason to give any weight at all to the beliefs of Israeli Jews that they are any more historically or culturally entitled to dwell in the Biblical Holy Land than, say, the Inuit or the Maoris are.

Personally, I think that a population’s beliefs about what they’re entitled to are a significant fact in themselves, and I definitely feel they need to be taken into account when evaluating and negotiating political rights.

87

Except those who stayed (other than a few anomalous cases) were allowed to go on staying. And again, the elephant in the room is that if the Arabs hadn’t allied with the Nazis, there wouldn’t have been a reason for anybody to leave and we’d now all be focused on Kashmir, or something.

But the point is that’s not a necessary consequence of Zionism itself. Indeed, while things were fairly peaceful Zionism not only didn’t displace Arabs, it caused a vast swell of immigration and significantly increased the quality of life of the people in the region.

Sorry, my mistake, a cut and paste error.
Yes, his claims include the claim that there was a Jewish minority and Arab majority in the area that would become Israel, and because of that was a necessity for ‘marginalizing’ the Arabs. He also claimed that there was a Jewish majority and Arab minority in the area that would become Israeland because of that was a necessity for ‘marginalizing’ the Arabs.

My point is just that if, even if the facts are 180 degree different than what you claim, and they still lead to the same conclusion, you need to recognize that you’re rationalizing and not reasoning.

But that was not the argument.
The claim was (originally)

The claim was then changed to the partition plan creating the state of Israel such that it had

So we’re talking about the territory that was allocated for Israel, not the whole thing. Yes, the Arab populace was the majority if the looked at the region as a whole. But that wasn’t the discussion.

The claim that was fictional was a definitive claim that “there was a majority of Palestinians on the land that the Jews wanted to create Israel on.” I wouldn’t have had a problem with “there might have been a majority of Arabs on some of the land that the Jews wanted to create Israel on.” but anything that’s overreaching from that is fictional.

TBH I’m not sure if that was the case, and I’m not claiming it. I’m just saying that the Jewish leadership did, in fact, accept a partition plan that was drawn along rough ethnic majority lines. What I am saying is that the proto-Israeli leadership was prepared to accept a Jewish state with a significant Arab population.

Not displaced but pushed out deliberately (ie. expelled) by military force, was the exact claim I was responding to (Or that I thought I was responding to, at least)

As with pretty much everything having to do with this conflict, the exact numbers themselves are in dispute. Suffice it to say that, yes, the vast majority most likely fled because of actual fighting going on in/around their towns and villages. The number of documented orders for Jewish troops to expel Arab populations is much lower. I’ll try to find you a cite on that…

It also should be added that even the Israeli "New Historians " are known for disagreeing with/sniping at each other. They’re also not strangers to some poor scholarship, like on the part of Morris, Pappe, et al.

I’ll try to track down some more specific cites on populations and expulsion orders, though.

Damn straight. Screw religious and cultural narratives. The claim to ownership of the land properly comes from sales of property and cultivation of Miri land under a local sovereign power once the regional sovereign fell.

Sure. Like I said, they’re important for looking at the pragmatics and negotiating positions a situation affords, but we shouldn’t confuse pragmatic realities with verified facts.

88

Indeed. I saw this animated cartoon and was reminded of the absurdity of the whole Israel-Whatever threads on the SDMB. After awhile, it just becomes a text-written din. I’m taking a break as well.

  • Honesty
89

Heh. Fucking perfect. I wish we could post that video in every Israeli thread that gets hijacked by the “I’m right” - “NO, I’m right” - “NO, I’m right” crowd here.

(Which of course would be every Israel thread that lands in GD…:()

90

The attitude in that video is simply an abdication of the responsibility to accurately and thoroughly analyze and judge the merits and nuances of a particular situation.
It’s the attitude that there has to be an absolute moral equivalence. If both sides have fucked up in certain respects, we must conclude that they’ve fucked up equally and symmetrically.

An argument of that sort uses pretense of evenhandedness to justify simply throwing up your hands.
And if that what you want to do, then fine. But refusing to conduct real analysis of the issues is not a debate.

91

Bwaaaaahaaahahahahaaaaahhaaaaaaahaaaahaaa!

Seriously, if you think you are “conducting real analysis of the issues” then you are living in lala land. You (and others) hijack every one of these threads and make damn sure no “real analysis” takes place. Instead it becomes a biased (and often racist) cheerleading for Israeli policy, and nothing more.

Let’s not kid ourselves, kid.

92

Brilliant factual rebuttal.

93

Is that what you think you’re doing around here? Seriously?

Sorry, but it’s clear all you do is continue in every thread (while frothing at the mouth) to push your agenda. If you (and others like you) were to stop posting in threads about Israel the fight against ignorance would take a giant leap forwards.

94

Not to play gotcha, but if you do want to keep debating this subject, then I’m still a-waitin’ on some promised cites:

I do have some further responses and queries on the issue of Palestinian displacement/expulsion, but I wanted to read the evidence you’re arguing from first.

95

Why don’t you share the evidence you’re arguing from, while you’re at it?
I’m curious to see what you are arguing, as so far you’ve mostly challenged what I’ve said rather than advancing anything of your own.

I’d also note that “I’ll try to” is not a promise to deliver. Please don’t mischaracterize what I’ve said.
I said that I would try (because I know how hard it is to find decent information online). When I has access to a major research university, it was still a challenge to track down various books, articles, claims, counter claims, etc… Sorting through garbage on the internet makes it ever harder, and I haven’t found any definitive sources on the 'net which I’d advance with comfort and without caveat.

I’ve read some of Morris’ work in the past, but I’m not particularly happy with it. He’s one of the more credible “New Historians”, as opposed to agenda driven liars like Pappe and Finklestein. He is, however, somewhat accurate and his mistakes at least seem honest rather than the deliberate lies of Pappe and Fink.
I’m still not thrilled with Morris’ work, but if you need a cite right now:

Pages 591-592

Page 598-599;

Note, of course, that Morris explicitly differentiates between attacks and expulsions.
Which is why I asked earlier if you were talking about people being deliberately forced out, or leaving due to violence directed in/at their towns.
I’ve think that I’ve actually asked you that a few times, and I don’t think I’ve gotten a response (not going to comb over the thread, so my apologies if I missed a response to my question somewhere or forgot about it).
If you’d clarify your position perhaps this would feel more like a debate/discussion and less like an inquest/interrogation. :smiley:

96

I’m not sure what you are on about, but I have seen nothing from you that looks like a contribution to the discussion, so making these sorts of personal attacks on another poster seems a bit more than disingenuous. (Your charge of racism is particularly offensive as it is not supported by anything that has gone on in these threads. The closest thing to racist language is generally posted only by a single poster with a serious hatred for Israel.)

If you have testimony or evidence that contradicts FinnAgain’s posts, then post them. If you simply do not like the way he posts, then either sit on your hands or go post in the BBQ Pit.

[ /Moderating ]

97

I think it’s a shame that these sorts of threads always seem to devolve into the same people making the same arguments, blaming (and demonizing) the other side for pretty much everything. But since you don’t appear to care I guess I shouldn’t either.

Carry on.

98

I share your disappointment with the path these threads always seem to follow. The difference is that when I post to one of them, I attempt to contribute something regarding the matter under discussion rather than flaming, (in terms that are very nearly prohibited), the posters on one side of the discussion while ignoring the behaviors of their opponents.
::: shrug :::

99

That’s a fair criticism.

Unfortunately I think the tone of these threads probably drives away a lot of posters who would otherwise contribute.

As for me, I think there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the issue/debate. Yet sadly neither the pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian side wants to give an inch. That’s evident on this board and in real life.

100

The problem is that I find myself having to debunk counter-factual claims much more often than I do being able to engage in an honest discussion of how we get from where we are to a solution.

Take, for instance, the claim that neither ‘side’ wants to give an inch. That’s a fairly common refrain, expressed (in varying levels of vitriol) as claims that certain posters will take Israel’s side no matter what, that they never find fault in any of Israel’s actions on matter what, that their real loyalty lies with Israel and comes before their feelings for their own home, etc… As rhetoric, it’s quite fiery. The problem is, it’s patently untrue and only serves to disrupt honest debate. If people care about the tone, they shouldn’t post like that.

Recently, for instance, I posted in a thread and pointed out that I believe that US should use its economic leverage to try to force Israel into an immediate cessation of its settlement growth, threatening to cut off the spigot as a ‘stick’. Of course, another poster then quickly led off with a broadside claiming that I always agreed with whatever Israel did. :smack:

I have posted in support of a two state solution with security, open borders, freedom of movement, viable agricultural and water rights, and most importantly peace and prosperity for both states. I have, just within the past 48 hours, posted extensively on how I believe that Israel should do its best to come to a negotiated settlement so as to create a sovereign PA government in the West Bank. I’ve vociferously supported Clinton’s Bridging Proposal as a good basis for a negotiated settlement, an offer that the Saudi ambassador at the time said was so unique that to pass it up would be a crime.

I have, of course, never claimed that all Palestinians are evil. I have pointed out that their leadership in the Mandate period was governed by an ideological Nazi who helped design and implement the Final Solution. That Arafat was one of his students/soldiers, that Hamas is genocidal and explicitly rejects any and all previous negotiations and even the right of Israel to continue existing. I cannot accept that this is “demonization”, as that implies that we should have anything less than a reaction of utter revulsion to genocidal incitement. I have whenever possible pointed out that we’re dealing with percentages and not absolutes. Some but not all Palestinians, for instance, have supported the deliberate targeting and murder of Israeli civilians even within the Green Line. Even in polls taken during periods of relative peace. It isn’t racist to point out the fact that there are serious problems within Palestinian society. To describe that as racist (if that’s what’s being described as racist, I have no idea as nothing specific I’ve ever said was actually quoted) would stand the meaning of racism on its head and make a mockery of the term.

I am not shy of pointing out, and unfortunately generally find myself having to spend an inordinate amount of time debunking, false-to-facts claims. From targeted strikes against valid military targets being “indiscriminate” or “civilian targeted”. To claims that obeying the 4th Geneva Convention is a “war crime”. To claims that non-state actors immigrating into a region of their own free will with the consent of a sovereign which had been in place for roughly four centuries, was “colonialism”. To claims that all land that any Arab lived on from at least 1946 on is “Palestinian land”, ignoring the fact that the vast percent was Miri or waste land, and a much smaller percentage was Mulk. To claiming that calling a government’s act of firing rockets at another state an attack is a “lie”. And so on, and so on, and so on. On those I will not ‘yield ground’ because I will not trade in fiction simply because it would make debates smoother. I have very little patience for arguments that do, or that work backwards from a premise and try to shoehorn facts in. I make no bones about this and offer no apologies.

And as I pointed out in the post that started this false equivalence serves nobody. While faults lay with both a portion of the Israeli and Palestinian people, with both a portion of the Israeli and Palestinian politicians, to throw up our hands and declare that they must be symmetrical is as absurd as to declare that since both the Democratic and Republican parties have their problems, that they’re fungible. There are real and fundamental differences, and ignoring them serves neither accuracy nor the cause of factual debate.

And, I contend that when someone is unwilling or unable to address the factual, logical, and epistemological claims I lay out, and instead is reduced to contending that I am Locutus of Israborg, that they have tacitly conceded that they cannot argue the debate on its merits.
It may not be possible to win a debate on the Dope, but it is possible to lose one.