Sorry, buddy, gonna have to cherry pick today, got finals to do this week.
The poor behavior is assassinating a terrorist on foreign soil using forged passport documents from Britain without their permission. The fact that Israel would become indignant that Britain would expel Israel’s ambassadors in response amounts to hubris.
I think it’s a standard Western norm that if you assassinate a terrorist, you don’t Youtube it. Up till this past war, the only people who use the Internet to spread terror by broadcasting executions (e.g. Daniel Pearl) were ** terrorists**.
I dispute how you’re couching it. “Appeasing the Aggressors” is too ambiguous and doesn’t say anything substantive about what you disagree with. Without much-needed qualifiers, this mantra assumes that aggressor is coming from a position of strength; when, in fact, what is referred to as the "aggressor"comes from a position of weakness and the Gazan live in squalor that’s not unlike some parts of Somalia. I would encourage you to look at the course of history and tell me when refusing to appease the aggressor has produced a favorable outcome.
RedFury (and FinnAgain), the whole “hasbara” bullshit has had its last post in this or any other thread in Great Debates. Red, you should have gotten it out of your system in The BBQ Pit two years ago.
Why? It’s beside the point. Let’s stipulate for the sake of (this part of the) discussion that Israel has been totally unreasonable. “Peaceful” on the part of the Arabs would still have included accepting one of the offers – 1937; 1947; 2000; or 2008. Which are all far better than your strawman proposal.
I didn’t say that “appeasement doesn’t work,” I said it’s bad policy. Besides which, intent matters. If Stalin’s aim was to conquer all of Europe; and the US let him have part of Europe in hopes that it would satisfy him, that would have been appeasement and it would have been a bad decision. If Stalin’s aim was different; or if the US was simply ceding part of Europe so as to be in a better position to defend the rest, it would not have been appeasement.
You assert that ceding part of Europe to Stalin was “appeasement,” but you have not offered any evidence about Stalin’s aims or goals.
Not necessarily, I am trying to understand your analogies. If England was an “aggressor” in India, does that mean England was trying to take over all of India? Did somebody try to appease England? Who? Is your contention that because they’ve been aggressive in the past, the Palestinians can never have a state, or that borders should always be dictated by Israel?
Not at all, I’ve made it clear from the very beginning that intent matters. You are trying to redefine “appeasement.”
So you are disputing that Israel has recently made an offer to negotiate without preconditions and the Arabs have rejected that offer?
Please show me proof of this extraordinary claim. Also, note that when I said “Sure, the Arabs want the peace of the grave for Jewish Israel,” I meant (among other things) that they really would put an end to Jewish Israel if they had the power to do so.
Sorry, but I am not your research assistant. It’s not my responsibility to go looking for evidence to back up your claims.
Please give me 3 specific examples. Please provide specific facts, not conclusions. Stating that “Israel killed indiscriminantly” is a conclusion, not a specific fact.
I am not interested in engaging with someone who won’t answer reasonable questions so I can understand their position. You throw around the word “Palestine” but you refuse to explain what you mean by it. Please give me your definition of the word “Palestine”
Please give me specific examples, not conclusions.
Also, please answer my question:
Is it your position that those countries were less hostile to Israel before it engaged in those activities?
It’s a simple yes or no question.
Ummm, does that mean yes or no?
It’s a simple enough question:
Do you or do you not concede that one can often make pretty good guesses about peoples motives and intentions based on their words and actions?
So you dispute that the Arabs have a dream of putting an end to Jewish Israel?
Lol, so if Israel had used forged passport documents from Britain to engage in surveillance, it would have been okay behavior? If they had used forged passport documents from Australia, it would have been okay?
So your source is nothing besides your own amateur opinion about Western norms then?
Well let’s make it more specific then: I will define “appeasing the aggressors” as follows: If a person or entity “X” has a goal of taking all of Y against the will of someone in possession or control of Y, “appeasing the aggressors” means making some concession or supporting some concession toward X which furthers him towards his goal, if done with the intent or hope that he will be satisfied with that concession and abandon his goal.
Clear enough?
Also, when you get done with your exams, please answer my questions from before:
First, please show me proof that (1) Israel used Cluster Bombs and then denied having done so; (2) Israel used White Phosphorus and then denied having done so; (3) and blamed the Arabs for having done so.
Second, with respect to the Turkey boat incident, please explain what exactly did Israel deny having done? And what exactly were Israel’s actions which it denied any responsibility for?
Please give me specific facts, not conclusions.
Third with respect to the “failed peace process,” what exactly did Israel deny? And exactly what actions did Israel refuse to accept responsibility for? Please give me specifics, not more conclusions.
It matters because my sense is that sometimes people demand cites and sources for points they don’t seriously dispute as a way of scoring rhetorical points.
So I have my own rule that I will not look for a cite for a point unless the person who asks represents that they are seriously skeptical.
I take it you are not seriously skeptical that the quote is legitimate?
** YogSosoth**, mind if I joined parts of the debate?
I stated above, and will restate it again:
I dare guess that most Israelis would strongly object to a militarized Palestine in the WB.
Especially after seeing the situation in Gaza. Short-range rockets from the WB could easily cover most of Israel’s major cities.
I don’t think there would be any issues with a police force, even a super-strong one for internal affairs. But nothing heavier than that.
From Israel’s POV, it’s an area, previously held by an enemy who initiated aggression against Israel, and then lost the area in war that cost the lives of many Israeli. Said area is now in the possession of Israel, who has the power to continue holding it.
Why would we agree to jeopardize our security by allowing a potentially hostile army to be built on our borders?
While I tend to agree it’s a silly demand to make, you should note that Israel is not just “a state”, but rather was declared and is “a Jewish state”. I think the Palestinians would have relatively little trouble accepting Israel as a state. Then, they will continue to demand unlimited “right of return” to anyone who ever lived there, who pretends to have lived there, to their extended families and so forth. And thus, to achieve a majority of non-Jewish citizens, who can then democratically elect an extreme-Islamic regime, who would abolish democracy and look the other way when Jews are mistreated or worse.
Now, you probably find me a bit paranoid, don’t you? But two points to remember:
I have a good reason for it.
Many (if not the majority) of Jew Israelis share this feeling (or worse). And if you want to reach an agreement in a democratic regime, you must take your citizens’ feelings in account.
They should, and very probably would, get a state, whose borders would preferably be determined in a negotiation. Which goes two ways – you can’t expect Israel to except any claim the Palestinians make to a piece of land.
With the exception that you object to the former claim and agree with the latter, how are they different. Both (the recognition of Israel for what it is, and the future borders of Palestine) are disputed topics, and are open to be discussed. Why is preconditioning the one OK, but not the other?
For the record – my personal view is that both are wrong, even if I disagree with the government’s policy toward the settlements.
And another point – at various stages during the ever-so-long negotiations and re-negotiations, it were the Palestinians who demanded many pre-conditions. Many times, these involved a starting point of “anything you conceded to before is already mine to begin with; anything I may have conceded is forgotten. Now, let us begin”.
We managed to beat back every attack since our creation – but not without price. Why would we endanger our lives and our children’s lives? It’s very easy for you to agree to a militarized Palestine from the comfort of your home. It is us who would have to fight them.
And one more thing. The argument of “give them a state, and then if they attack you have the right to declare war with the support of world” has been made before. Our experience with Gaza doesn’t support is argument.
They were offered this, and much better. They refused.
Yes, I agree it’s completely reasonable for Israel to insist that a hypothetical Palestinian State be demilitarized. But even if it were unreasonable, it doesn’t change my basic point, which is that if the Palestinian Arabs really wanted a state, they would jump at the chance to have a demilitarized state.
I agree. The fact is that the world has been pretty much uniformly hostile to Israel regardless of what Israel does or doesn’t do. This idea that Israel need only do X and then the world will love Israel is pure fantasy. Unless of course X means ceasing to exist as a Jewish state.
It’s also worth noting that between 1948 and 1967, the West Bank and Gaza were occupied by Jordan and Egypt. Did the world whine endlessly about this “occupation”? Did the world demand that Jordan and Egypt create a Palestinian State? Of course not. It’s always been about the Jews.
I, for one, would not. A one-state would be an Arab state, which would likely not be very hospitable to Jews.
It is no coincidence that support for the idea comes mainly from the Palestinian side.
As is stated in the wiki article to which to linked:
A single-state would likely break up into civil war. Why try to force oil and water to mix, when they obviously don’t want to.
Otherwise, what possible security guarantees could you provide for minority groups to maintain their own rights? Once you have different minority groups defending themselves by forming militias, rather than trusting a federal military, you essentially have “two states” de facto.
I also forgot to ask, wasnt the “one-state solution” what Yasser Arafat was arguing for back when he was blowing up Jewish school children and having Olympic athletes kidnapped and murdered.
Please explain why you think the Israelis would support Arafat’s proposal?
Unfortunately, I have to agree with you.
As a support for the claim, I provide a recent (2011) poll by Stanley Greenberg and the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion and sponsored by the Israel Project (a left wing organization trying to reach out to the Arab world to promote “people-to-people peace.”).
From Jerusalem Post:
[QUOTE=brazil84]
It’s also worth noting that between 1948 and 1967, the West Bank and Gaza were occupied by Jordan and Egypt. Did the world whine endlessly about this “occupation”? Did the world demand that Jordan and Egypt create a Palestinian State? Of course not. It’s always been about the Jews.
[/QUOTE]
Here, I have reservations. While I’m sure that for some people, criticizing Israel is just a means to vent out their antisemitism, I don’t think it’s the only reason.
Another reason might be racism against the Arabs - not really differentiating, nor caring to, between Egyptian Arabs, Jordanian various Arabs, and the Palestinians. If you don’t care about the differences, you might as well “let them Arabs work it out among themselves”.
You should also remember that most of the time between 1948 and 1967 there was no national movement among the Palestinians. And by 1967, PLO was a young organization (formed, as you know, in 1964). It could have taken it a while to gain influence.
And finally, it’s much easier to make demands of a democratic state (and an internationally weak one, at that) than from a dictatorship. Both since one expects higher standards from a democracy, and since international pressure can affect public pressure, which is effective much more in a democracy.
Agreed. Any “solution” has to take into account the practical reality that (1) the Arabs are quite hostile towards the Jews; (2) the rest of the world is quite hostile towards the Jews; and (3) “stop being Jewish at me!” is not a practical solution either.
What I favor doing is waiting until the West Bank is majority Jewish and then annexing it. Based on the fertility rates of the settlers, this is very likely to happen in the next 50 to 100 years.
It would follow the Israel model – the Palestinians are now voting citizens, that’s all. Any changes to the Israeli state would be for the new Knesset (still Jewish-majority) to discuss.
In being the only solution that requires nobody to move.