More on the ‘New Zealand solution’:
Treaty of Waitangi: 1840
New Zealand Land Wars begin: 1845
New Zealand land confiscations: 1860s
When in human history should reasonable people find a "cut-off" of the right of title by conquering?
OK then pray tell, lay it out for me.
If Israel were under a complete embargo, can it supply 100% of its oil, coal, food, iron ore, concrete and bauxite needs?
Is that seriously your contention? Really truthfully and honestly?
I don’t care if the other person in a debate is the Queen of England. I agree that New Zealand race relations are good now, but I disagree on how they got there, and the facts (as cited - admittedly in Wiki form, but they hardly invented a whole series of wars) support my position.
If you find me ‘nasty’ and ‘perverse’ for pointing out the facts, please feel free to pit me for it. Slinging insults won’t change the facts, which do not support your stated position, and if that’s too upsetting, too bad.
What part of “you may be correct” did you fail to understand?
What I am claiming, is that in the founding of New Zealand, real and genuine attempts were made to reach understanding and consensus.
The founding of the country was very far from being won at the point of a gun or via gunboat diplomacy. Sure there were problems.
Think for a moment, even with a starting point of genuinely wanting to get along, look what happened. What more chance do you have of ever reaching a solution if you don’t want to get along?
As to the idea that Israel could survive without military support - that would depend upon how you define it.
But straight up. If the US cut of aid today. Totally. What difference do you think that would make to day to day life in Israel?
The Treaty of Waitangi is analogous to the Balfour Declaration - also a sincere attempt to balance the two sides. Sure, there have been subsequent problems. :smack:
If the US cut off aid to the ME altogether, Israel would survive just as it did before the US gave it aid.
So from what I’ve heard so far, you think the solution is for Israel to totally subjugate, cut off and destroy and then the others will be ready to come around and accept the new nation?
Would that be correct?
You do of course realise that even during the wars, one opposing party never had the power to in any way blockade the other right? That the crux of the land wars was individual vs collective ownership of land? That even during the wars Maori were given every opportunity to make a living and support their families?
Does any of this sound just a little bit different to what Israel is doing?
You do also realise that the land wars were 140 years ago, when the social norms and expectations were quite a bit different to what they are today, that by (European) standards of the time the Maori were being treated well. Is Israel treating the Palestinians well by the standards of today?
…nope. I never said that the Treaty of Waitangi ended the conflict. Never claimed that at all.
The Treaty was only the beginning.
It was the opening dialog. It was the first stanza. It was round one.
It was the start of discussion on how to bring the nation together as one.
Racism still exists in New Zealand. My parents experienced it. I have lived through it: I have sat in living rooms while white people have called Jonah Lomu a black nigger. I have had Samoan people come up to me and say that I am acting too white.
There is a huge divergence in Maori health care statistics and incarceration rate than with the Pakeha population.
Land claims are still being settled and there are still major disputes. The foreshores and fisheries act of a few years ago still has many Maori angry all over the country.
New Zealand is not perfect. We are not a utopia.
But right now in parliament is the Maori Party, democratically elected into seats that have been set aside for Tāngata whenua. And under the current national government they have made substantial gains and some major losses.
Maori culture is integrated into our society. You may have seen our national sports team, the All Blacks, preform the Haka before every game. Most secondary schools have their own Haka. There is nothing that makes me more proud as a Kiwi to watch a school full of children: European, Maori, Pacific Islander, Chinese and Indian preforming the Haka in all its glory. Our national anthem is sung in both Maori and English.
And while I have experienced racism it is by no means prevalent. I don’t worry when I go to job interviews that I’m going to loose out due to my colour. I normally loose out because my zip has broken and my fly is down. 
(You do not want to hear that story)
This is the country that I want to live in. And I say that as one of the, how you would say, “conquered”. But to call me conquered would be to insult the memories of my ancestors and also to the Europeans that strived to make this nation whole.
You maybe able to gain a cursory understanding of the Treaty by looking up the wiki page, but that would be like me gaining cursory knowledge of the US Constitution by reading a few paragraphs. The Treaty is our Constitution. It is our founding document. We learn about it when we are little kids. We learn about it as we grow older. We debate it on talk shows and argue it on message boards. We study it in University and we have cocktail parties in its shadows. http://www.tepapa.govt.nz/WhatsOn/exhibitions/Pages/SignsofaNation.aspx
Please do not pretend that by reading a few words on some wiki pages that you understand what those words mean. And I had a good giggle when you cited that the land wars happened after the Treaty was signed: as if I didn’t know that. 
But thanks for the history lesson though.
The Treaty was the beginning. And it was through blood, sweat and tears that we ended up where we are today. And that has taken over 150 years.
So you ask: is that the solution I want for the Palestinians?
Well, I would like to think that the world has grown up a bit since then, don’t you? I highly doubt that if a treaty were drawn up today that there would be a problem with two different versions saying two different things. We have international commissions and all sorts of things that: if two groups put there minds to it, can help keep things enforced. The world is a different place now, don’t you agree?
Peace is something that needs to be fought for. It will come when both sides decide that it is time for peace. New Zealand gained that by both sides giving up a little, and at times a lot in order to gain that peace. And that process started many years ago, when Hobson sat down with the representative Maori Chiefs and put pen to paper. There has been many false starts in the Israeli/Palestinian peace process: isn’t it time to give it a proper go? And if its done right, don’t you think it would take less than 150 years?
(Nearly five in the morning here! Off to bed now…)
No, that would be utterly and totally wrong. Whatever made you think that this was what I think the best solution would be? :dubious:
My preferred solution would be a viable Palestinian state, or states, existing alongside Israel.
I do not think the “one state solution” is viable, because such a solution would in effect require one group to subjugate the other (and in spite of the heart-warming present-day understanding between Maoiris and White New Zealanders, yes that is what happened in the 19th century).
Since I do not regard such “sujugation” as desireable in any way, I reject the “one state solution”.
In short, I am suiting my theory to the facts, and not my facts to the theory.
What “standards”? Who sets them - by theory, or by practice? The 20th century was a catelogue of horrors unimaginable to the 19th century. Israel was set up in the same decade as witnessed the expulsion of the Germans from Eastern Europe and the mutual expulsion of Muslims from India and Hindus from Pakistan - both of which with much greater violence and indeed atrocity. By the standards of the time, the Palestinians were treated well (indeed with kid gloves).
What I’m saying is that throughly “subjugating” the Palestinians and demographically dominating them, as was done in New Zealand, is not a practical (or for that matter, desireable) solution to the problem.
You might have noted it in your initial post, then, since it pretty well makes nonsense of your position.
See, we disagree here. You think that you could get from “there” (a New Zealand inhabited entirely by Maoiris) to “here” (a New Zealand with a majority non-Maoiri population, albeit with reasonably good race realtions with Maoris) without a couple of hundred years of conflict, merely with the application of a little good-will.
That may be true in some circumstances, but I doubt very much it is was true in New Zealand, and even more so that it would be true in the Middle East.
Obviously, one must take history as it is dealt, and the lession from New Zealand is not (sadly) that one can settle one’s differences without conflict, since in fact it is a history containing much conflict.
Except that you are wrong, the Maori never were thoroughly subjugated in New Zealand. It simply didn’t happen. The entire country was (supposed to be) under joint governance. Now there were very different versions and ideas as to exactly what the meant, which lead to serious problems. Though one thing to note, even through all the wars, one group was never disenfranchised.
Because you are starting from a wrong perspective, you are drawing wrong conclusions, and making assertions that are frankly bordering on insulting.
You are also still adhering to this notion that Israel somehow gets a pass, that Israel gets to set what is right and appropriate treatment and that what Israel sees as fair is right and just.
Forget that people like Red Cross say that what is happening is screwed up. Forget that virtually all of the developed world is calling on Israel to lift the restrictions, forget the Israel is being called upon to stop expansion, even by its closest ally, what you are doing is still not subjugation right?
And you are trying to justify it and rationalise it by saying that what happened in New Zealand 150 years ago was the total decimation, subjugation and destruction of a Maori. Some thing that Banquet, who quite obviously has more than a passing familiarity with the subject didn’t happen as you are claiming it did.
:dubious:
You appear to be arguing with someone else, yet you are quoting my posts. Where do I say any of this:
?
This seems as odd as you claiming I want to see Palestinians destroyed:
Perhaps you would have a better time and feel less “insulted” if you take the time to read what I actually post, and not respond to what you think I am advocating.
See this is the problem, take New Zealand as an object lesson, in a country where there was more than just a little good will and genuine attempts to reach a consensus solution, there were still substanial amounts of bloodshed.
Are race relations in New Zealand good today? Yes they are, not perfect by a long shot, but one hell of a lot better than the vast majority of the rest of colonised nations.
Even with goodwill and honest attempts on both sides, there was still bloodshed. Understand this.
When there is no evidence of goodwill and honest attempts what chance do you think there is for any sort of solution with Israel? Whether it be one state or 15?
And NO I don’t think continuing to expand settlements and banning coriander constitute any sort of honest attempt at anything other than subjugation and decimation in the hope that they will just give up and leave so that Israel can expand further.
Mind you, neither do I think suicide bombs and mortar attacks are honest attempts either. However I don’t see anyone in this thread trying to claim they are in anyway justified.
What I do see is a people trying to justify that a blockade is a great way to peace, (its a great way to win a war, but not a very good way to peace) and that the current good relations in New Zealand are only because the weaker party was subjugated.
I am not an idiot, I am able to draw a line from “the Maori were subjugated and now New Zealand has peace” to “If we can subjugate the Palestinians, Israel will have peace”. Except you won’t - all you will have achieved is ethnic cleansing.
These aren’t your words?
“I do not think the “one state solution” is viable, because such a solution would in effect require one group to subjugate the other (and in spite of the heart-warming present-day understanding between Maoiris and White New Zealanders, yes that is what happened in the 19th century).”
Looks pretty much like a claim of subjugation to me…unless I am not reading english?
The fact that economically the United States is as big as all of Europe put together, Russia is (potentially) as big as all of Europe put together, Japan just by itself is almost as big as all of Europe put together and a rapidly modernizing China in addition to the rest of the Pacific Rim could be bigger than all of Europe put together. So the threat is economic competition and the response is a limited unity based on economic interests, and even that limited unity is shaky and uncertain.
The day that everyone simply agreed to abide by a single world government would almost be the same day that everyone’s interests were so peaceful and compatable that you’d hardly need a world government at all.
So these are not your words either?
“What “standards”? Who sets them - by theory, or by practice?”
This looks pretty much like a rejection of the “right”* of the rest of the world to set standards of behaviour to me? Except that you don’t want to come right out and say it, you want to imply and insinuate so that you can claim innocence when called on it.
- yeah, it’s not the correct word, but it’ll do for now
I agree that at this point you can’t undo Israel but the stance that the status quo should be the starting point for moving forward without considering the past seems very convenient for the victors. I guess that you point might be that the victors have that privelege, its kind of the point of winning.
Well Palestine has never been an autonomous state but it has been called a non-independent state.
Most of those borders were not set as recently as 1967.
What are you trying to say kemosabe?
As would most of Africa. relative to Africa, the middle east is a success story.
So, even when I say the exact opposite, you simply refuse to believe me?
Then we’re done.