[QUOTE=DSeid]
Finn, well we’ll need to disagree here. My take (and this is a hijack of sorts, so apologies) is that too many of these threads involving ME issues devolve into unfocussed morasses. “Israel is an abomination” “Palestinians/Arab groups are intent on genocide” “Has the memory of the summer of 2006 faded so completely already?? Holy shit.” “They did this first” “But they did that first” “Yeah but before that …” “Israel is ethnic cleansing” and on and on. The same old crap.
[/quote]
Yeah… but some of those are garbage, like the ethnic cleaning claim. And some really do get at the meat of a discussion, but people want to scuttle it. Talking about the OT’s for example, it’s essential to define why they are the way they are. Simply talking about Israeli settlements without mentioning the influx of weapons or the factions in Palestinian society which have opposed peace and/or moving out of the refugee camps.
Likewise, the fact that Israel has been trying to give back the OT’s for about 30 years now goes to the question of whether or not they’re trying to set up “SA style” whatever.
[QUOTE=DSeid]
Sure once a month or so we can have the tutorial of historical background from the perspective of each side … debunk each side’s personal mythologies. I can review the three noes, and go back so far as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and beyond. I can again review the data that shows that Jewish immigration into Palestine was met with Arab immigration into the very same areas and an increase in the standard of living for those Arabs and that it wasn’t until particular Arab leaders decided to demonize the Jews and organize riots against these “others” (for particular political ends) that problems began … and I can review the role that Zionist terrorist groups played in the early days as well … heck I can take it back even farther than that …
[/quote]
And I wish we had people in a debate who knew all that stuff before debating. But as that doesn’t happen, sometimes you do need to go back to stuff like that. How many debates have you seen, for instance, where someone brings up the old cannard “The Jews from Europe just came in 1948 and took almost all of the land that the Palestinians owned?”
I agree, it’d be great if we had that historical accuracy, but often we don’t. And while bringing up the founding of Israel isn’t always germane to a topic, often other historical bits are. For instance, here, it’s a bit hard to talk about the OT’s without talking about why they’re under a system of military rule.
[QUOTE=DSeid]
but those who are honestly intellectually curious have had ample opportunity to learn all this, and those who are not will keep their fingers in their ears. They will read and respond to whatever strawman argument they want to hear, no matter has actually been said.
[/quote]
Yes, that’s a large problem and I have no idea how to deal with it. Even in this thread it’s proven impossible to get folks to simply state that the military occupation is based on national, not racial, ethnic, or cultural identity.
[QUOTE=DSeid]
Yes, it is important to challenge the lies when they are stated as facts. But I’d rather try to keep things focused some when possible.
[/quote]
I agree. The problem is that the lies and distortions often fly fast and heavy. And sometimes the counters are supremely relevant. For instance, that Israel tried to return the OT’s but was rebuffed by The Three Noes is important. Especially since the populace was hostile and would not have wanted to be Israelis. Especially since many factions are committed to genocide, acting on that commitment, and are are armed and financed by various hostile powers.
Without looking at why Israel has the OT’s in the first place, why they cannot annex them, and why simply disengaging doesn’t mean that they won’t have to go right back in, ala Gaza or Lebanon… well, we only get a slanted and partisan view of the situation.
[QUOTE=DSeid]
And I’d rather participate in threads that are constructive. I do not understand the drive so many have to entrench themselves ever deeper into perceptions of past wrongs rather than on practical visions of best possible futures.
[/quote]
I agree, but often the context is vitally important.
For instance, without talking about Hamas, their ideology, methods, and sources of funding, we got Pollyanna claims like the occupation will stop its current methods of checkpoints and restricting travel if only the settlements were gone.
I’m all for a two state solution with peace, security, and viable economic and agricultural rights for everybody involved. But deliberately ignoring context and simply resorting to silly demonizations about “apartheid” doesn’t get us any closer to a solution.
If Israel totally pulled out tomorrow, how long would it take Hamas to start launching rockets out of the West Bank? Ignoring, as many have done, that Israel has legitimate security concerns, serves no purpose other than to scuttle honest debate.
And while I wish it wasn’t necessary to point out that some of Israel’s enemies are bent on genocide, and are not interested in anything less than the total annihilation of the state… obviously sometimes it is. Sure, people who are actually interested in an honest debate will take these factors into consideration. As I say above, I’m not really sure how to deal with those who aren’t interested… but pointing out that their claims lack all context or knowledge about the current players in the situation is a good start.