I think we can assume that a fair number of Palestinian leaders have fantasies about wiping Israel off the map.
Fact is, I’d be surprised if they didn’t. Longstanding ethno-nationalist quarrels have that effect. There are also some on the Israeli side who feel the same way.
So no, I don’t think this is a factor in the issue - it’s simply part of the background conditions: that here we have a nacient nationalist movement whose members tend to have a serious grudge against their near neighbour. How to deal with that? Will creating a formal state make it more, or less, likely that those with a grudge will carry out attacks?
One argument for “less” is that it gives them more to lose.
I really would like an answer as it would help me to understand your position.
It sounds like you are saying that even if the Palestinian Arab leaders explicitly, credibly, unequivocally, and unanimously announce that they want a Palestinian State solely for purposes of assisting them in their goal of destroying Israel, you would consider it irrelevant to the question of whether a Palestinian state is a good idea.
Do I understand you correctly? A simple yes or no will do.
Apparently so. Are there any specific facts on which you base your optimism?
Okay then, yes. I thought that was explicit in my last answer.
Though how much longer I’ll bother to answer if this thread is conducted like a cross-examination in a law school moot, I dunno.
Lots of 'em.
In 1967, the entire Arab World positvely rejected the very notion of recognition of or negotiation with Israel - the famous “three Nos”.
Since that time, the pivotal characters on the Arab side have either (a) violated each one of the “three Nos” - like Egypt and the PA, or (b) been marginalized by subsequent events - like the Syrian dictatorship; or (c) are isolated and relatively powerless - like Hamas.
Instead of an Arab world united in unwavering hatred, Israel faces a very different political landscape today. This makes peace with the PA at least much more possible than in the past.
The fact that the process has been intensely frustrating doesn’t mean that peace is impossible. No-one would ever have thought peace with Egypt was possible. Of the two (Egyptians and Palestinians), the Egyptians were by far the more formidable enemy for Israel. Today, there is no enemy the ME that is really capable of an existential threat - bar the Iranians, and they don’t share a border.
I have no idea how you got that from what I said, but then again I have no idea how you can possibly hold some of the beliefs you express here.
No, I’m not claiming that the civilized world is “being persecuted”. Please.
Yes, you do have to notice the countless times, including in this thread, that any criticism of Israel’s actions is dismissed by the likes of brazil84 and, well, yourself as antisemitism. That’s a very easy, even attractively self-righteous view, but it is ultimately self-defeating.
Yes, you do have to wonder where that attitude comes from. If it isn’t a widespread attitude of narcissism among the rationalizers, justifiers, exceptionalizers, “Israel, fuck yeah!” yahoos, some of whom actually live there, then there isn’t an alternative explanation at hand.
No tightrope there. It’s calling it like virtually the entire rest of the world sees it. Maybe it’s time to give it a thought yourself, hmm?
I’m trying to figure out exactly where we disagree.
Let me ask you this: If the Arabs get a Palestinian State, and then they use that state primarily to attack Israel diplomatically and militarily, can we agree that in hindsight, it was a bad idea to give them a Palestinian State?
Ok, so your reasoning is that (1) peace is possible; therefore (2) it’s possible that giving the Arabs a Palestinian State will make peace more likely?
So, what did the acronym IOKIAJ mean and why did you write it?
Also, while I don’t agree with Finn on Israel, I don’t see where in this thread he dismissed all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism. Could you show me where he did?
Then let me rephrase for the hypersensitive and suggestible types:
Do not underestimate the propensity for a people inculacted in hard line superstition to partake in terrorist-like activites to achieve their goals. After all, Israel was acquired by its current occupants through terrorism - The King David Hotel
A balanced discussion means acknowledging both sides of the story.
Which pretty much means that we can ignore your comments, as you have provided only one (seriously skewed) personal interpretation of events and applied them to an entire people.
Claiming that your rephrasing of insults is only in deference to “the hypersensitive and suggestible types” is also a good way to lead the staff to believe that you are only here to troll hatred.
If you have nothing to offer but nasty comments, take them elsewhere.
You’re entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts.
The Irgun was a terrorist group but was supported by a minority of the Palestinian Jews and rather than “acquire” Israel, they dramatically hindered the creation of a Jewish state. Moreover, most of the fighting during Israel’s war for independence was done by the Hagannah not by either the Irgun or Lehi.
I’d recommend reading up on the situation if you’re so upset by it and wish to show people how much you hate Jews.
Next time, however I would choose a far more appropriate atrocity.
Try the Deir Yassin massacre next time. It was vastly worse, had a higher body count, and unlike the King David Hotel all the victims were innocent Arab civilians. Also, unlike the King David Hotel bombing, it actually took place during the Israeli War for Independence.
Moreover, most Palestinians care vastly more about it than they do about the King David Hotel bombing(which was directed at the British not them).
If you wish to portray yourself as someone who really cares about the Palestinians and their cause and has more than a superficial understanding and knowledge of the region and is just looking to show off how much you hate Jews it’s a much better example.
That being said, perhaps you could help us out and explain why you despise all Jews, think they can’t be trusted and have a propensity for murder based on one single event which members of just about all nationalities have committed.
It makes no sense since the Irgun terrorists who carried out the massacre where secular Jews who didn’t practice Judaism in any meaningful way and many of them didn’t even believe in God.
Making judgements about Judaism or even connecting Judaism to that bombing would be as stupid as suggesting that radical Islam, or even orthodox Islam, could be connected to the Munich massacre or that Christianity could be connected to the various hijacking of airliners in the 70s by Palestinian guerillas.
Of course you are. That’s what it means when you claim that the persecution fantasy you have invented, that of a slander campaign against anybody who criticizes Israel, actually exists. Glad I could clear that up for you.
I don’t read Brazil’s posts, but the fact that you imagined accusations of anti-semitism coming from me does not inspire confidence in your argument’s ability to rationally analyze let alone integrate new data without sifting it through a persecution fantasy first.
Of course, I didn’t think you’d grok the tightrope, but then again, that post wasn’t for your benefit.
You are changing the scenario. Your first question dealt with what the leadership says is is going to do.
My point in response was that no matter what the leadership says, the facts on the ground have their own momentum. The leadership of Egypt at one point said that even talking to Israel was impossible …
Now, you are saying that if the Palestinian state is in fact simply used as an offensive weapon … but that scenario presupposes the very thing that is in dispute.
Yes of course – I’m trying to figure out exactly where we disagree by presenting you with a different scenario.
No, what’s in dispute is whether the intentions of Palestinian Arab leadership are relevant to whether a Palestinian state is a good idea or not.
It sounds like you are saying that
(1) Yes, if the Palestinian Arab leadership uses a Palestinian state primarily to attack Israel, then in hindsight it was a bad idea to give them a state; and
(2) The current intentions of the Palestinian Arab leadership are completely irrelevant to prediction of their future actions.
Do I understand you correctly?
Well you have presented no evidence at all to get from (1) to (2). One could just as easily say that dropping a nuclear bomb on Ramallah is likely to engender peace. After all, we know that peace is possible. Therefore it is possible that nuking Ramallah will lead to peace.
Incorrect. The actual intentions of the Arab leadership are unknowable. What is in dispute is whether their stated intentions should be a factor in determining whether their state is a good idea or not.
“Stated” intentions.
Surely you yourself must believe some version of (2), as the current leadership of the PA does not in fact say that they will use Palestine as a weapon, yet if I understand you correctly you think that they will nonetheless.
In short, you do not believe that their actions can be predicted from their words.
Nor do I. The difference is that you appear to only not believe it when they claim that they have only good intentions. I do not believe anything they say, good or bad, will actually accurately predict what actually happens, because I remember that past Arab leaders said “fire and brimstone”, but did not actually deliver “fire and brimstone”.
I have presented lots of evidence - you may not believe it is determinative (I’m on the fence myself), but that is not the same as there not being any. Remember the three points “pro” I made above?
Of course by “evidence” I mean stuff like arguing from history and logic. You can’t really have hard “evidence” about future predictions.
Don’t weasel. You already agreed that if the Arab leadership CREDIBLY stated that its intentions with a Palestinian State was to destroy Israel, it would be irrelevant to whether a Palestinian State is a good idea.
Also, are you claiming that you can never come to a reasonable conclusion about anyone’s intentions based on their words and actions?
Are you abandoning your earlier position?
Lol, try actually looking at the facts. Abbas came right out and said in a New York Times editorial that a Palestinian State would be used for lawfare against Israel:
And a senior Fatah leader said the following last year:
What do you think he meant by the “great goal”?
And do you seriously believe that his intentions are unknowable? Seriously?
Of course I do. When you look at all their words and actions in context, it’s very easy to predict what they will do.
If I actually saw such a claim, I would of course be skeptical. After all, admissions carry a lot more weight than self-serving statements. But let’s do this: Give me a quote from a senior Palestinian Arab leader demonstrating their good intentions and then we can discuss how credible it is.
You presented evidence for a compound hypothesis; that’s a fallacy.
Well you could cite actual facts supporting portion of your claim which is in dispute. Which you have failed to do.
Huh? My position all along has been totally consistent. This isn’t going to impress me, or indeed anyone.
I’m saying that stated intentions often do not match future actions, particularly in this conflict. So “quote mining” to gather evidence of irredemable hostility is an ultimately futile activity.
No doubt many if not most Palestinians would prefer Israel to disappear in a puff of (no doubt bad-smelling) smoke. No doubt may Israelis feel the same about Palestinians - though probably less so than the Palestinains, as the Israelis happen to be doing rather better out of the status quo. Those facts (together with whatever quotes one could find from one side or the other) do not and should not affect what steps ought to be taken to ultimately lessen that hostility in the future and bring the sides into some sort of reasonable agreement.
Huh again?
That isn’t a reasonable interpretation of what Abbas said. He’s not claiming to use the international court to destroy Israel, but to pursue “claims” - a reasonable interpretation being, as a way of increasing his bargaining position.
Not that I approve of that tactic, but it is a far cry from what you are claiming.
This is closer to what you want, but seriously - it is no secret, as I said above, that many Palestinains wish Israel would disappear. Some “senior Fatah leader” saying as much means exactly nothing.
You aren’t scoring very well so far, given that you are interpreting Abbas’ statement as a declaration of unwavering hostility.
This isn’t a court of law. As for “admissions” why do you not consider the “three Nos” as “admissions”?
No idea what, other than hand-waving away the evidence you do not like, you are claiming here.
How about this: it is an actual fact that following the 1967 War, Arab leaders met and issued a joint statement in which they claimed that there would be no negotiations and no peace with Israel. Do you agree?
It is also an actual fact that, despite this statement, the primary Arab enemy of Israel - Egypt - did in fact make peace. Still agreeing?
Therefore, it is reasonable to hold the position that statemernts of eternal and unwavering emnity made by Arab leaders in this conflict cannot be taken at face value in this conflict, based on historical precedent. Is that not a position based on “actual facts”?
Mind you, if you go back to my original post I was of the opinion that there were legitimate aruments both for and against statehood. I myself am undecided on this point. It is only your insistance that there are no legitimate arguments which is requiring me to argue the “pro” position.
