If you don’t know or don’t care about the historical context, you cannot comment sensibly about the morality or otherwise of current actions.
The point is this; if you’re a young Israeli you are going to see the devastation of the rocket attacks, hear the propaganda and believe that the Palestinians are the bad guys. If you’re on the other side of the wall, you will see the checkpoints, the devastation of the military strikes, hear the propaganda and be sure the Israelis are the bad guys.
And to that extent, it doesn’t matter who started it just as it doesn’t matter who started the conflict in Northern Ireland. In the present day, all those involved in the conflict believe they are getting even.
What you said, in paraphrase, is that all you were aware of was that both sides claimed the other was the aggressor, and you neither knew nor cared who was right.
Is that a fair paraphrase?
My point is that little details like this matter, in terms of evaluating the morality of the current situation.
Ah, but this is a totally different point.
Again, to paraphrase, what you seem to be saying here is that in order to solve the conflict all sides have to give up whatever resentments the conflict may have engendered, regardless of why the conflict started.
If that’s what you are saying, I’d tend to agree.
Sure, and that’s why they held back on full settlement (officially sanctioned settlement I suppose) for so long…the settlements in the West bank didn’t really start to get rolling until the mid to late 80’s, and didn’t take off large until the mid-90’s. They TRIED to keep this as a bargaining chip for years…decades. But it wasn’t buying them anything.
I think it was the final realization that there will never BE a comprehensive peace that pushed them into where they are today. Gaza just reinforces that concept, and possibly the Sinai (if Egypt becomes hostile again) will as well. Why give territory, especially strategic territory to a potential (or full out in the case of the Palestinians) enemy? The international community can howl about illegal settlements, but legality at the international level is a murky thing.
Well, two quick things here. First off, Jordan had annexed that territory itself first, and that annexation was never recognized by the ‘international community’ prior to the Six Days War…so, it’s sort of a gray area. The ‘international community’ has said that the territory was occupied by Israel from Jordan, but it’s not cut and dried. The second thing is that Jordan has washed it’s hands of the whole thing…they make no claims to the territory.
So, we are back to the Oslo Accords…and the continued friction between Israel and the PA (not even counting Hamas in Gaza). Like I said, I think that Israel, or at least the Israeli leadership has come to the realization that there just won’t ever be a permanent, lasting peace…which is why they are allowing (some of the) settlements to expand (afaik, they aren’t allowing for new large scale settlements officially, though they might be expanding some of their outpost settlements…haven’t kept up lately on current events wrt Israeli settlement).
That’s true enough, but consider the amount of time that’s elapsed here…and the amount of real, substantial progress towards peace that HASN’T been made in that time.
True enough, but it’s not going to help unfortunately. The situation has evolved into the clusterfuck that it is today, and there really isn’t any path out of it that either side would be willing to take at this point. That’s why you need to understand the context, not simply say ‘well, both sides are bad, but they need to just let all of that go and resolve their issues’. It’s not going to happen, even in the unlikely event that both sides could just forget about past wrongs.
The reason is that the Rubicon has been crossed wrt having two viable states in anything like the original configuration proposed back in '48. No way would (or even could…remember, Israel is a democracy) Israel make the concessions necessary to grant the territory a viable Palestine would need and would find acceptable…especially since many Palestinians, especially Hamas over in Gaza want the whole burrito, and don’t want to settle for even the half loaf they would have had if they had gone along with the original UN proposal. It’s just not going to happen.
Actually, I think much progress has in fact been made. The ME has come a long way from the “three Nos”. The PA’s position has softened considerably. True it has taken decades, but consider this: Israel doesn’t realistically face an existential threat from its neighbours in the foreseeable future.
That noted, there is no doubt that recent events have hardened Israeli positions - particularly the situation with Gaza.
Taking the long view, though, I am not as pessimistic. I think a deal can in theory be reached - but it will take a change of government in Israel to do it. I am not optomistic that Bibi is capable of making the concessions that would be required.
The real wild card is whether the PA can survive long enough to outlast Bibi and make a deal with whoever comes after. The PA’s status and popularity has been bolstered temporarily by the statehood bid stunt, which is IMO the only value of that particular deal, but again IMO it will quickly dawn on Palestinians that statehood recognition at the UN effectively changes nothing - it is a PR stunt and nothing more - at which point, local issues (namely, PA ineffectiveness, inability to make progress with Israel, and above all, local corruption) may ignite their anger.
Whoever replaces the PA is likely going to be less amenable to reason than the PA, which is a problem.
Naturally, making a deal is in itself no magic answer to the region’s problems. What it may do, though, is redirect energies into more productive modes. Once a deal is in place, there is more for all parties to lose by behaving unreasonably.
I hope you are right. I used to be more optimistic, but I just don’t see a clear path to anything like a compromise that would be remotely acceptable to both sides (well, all 3 sides if we count Hamas) in this seemingly endless conflict. I think the Palestinians as a whole missed to boat for a real compromise that that would be viable several decades ago, and gradually their position has eroded to the point where it’s nearly untenable.
Well also it matters in answering the question posed in the original post. There has been a suggestion made that the Arabs are poor as a result of Jewish aggression. However, if the Arabs provoked that aggression through their own misconduct; and if the Jewish response was reasonable and could have been reasonably anticipated, then it’s misleading and silly to claim that the Arabs are poor as a result of Jewish harassment and attacks.
It’s like claiming that Bernie Madoff is poor because the government seized all of his assets and threw him in jail.
The Palestinians don’t want a country per se, and they don’t want peace. They want to prove how big their dicks are. It’s partially an arab cultural thing and partially an Islam thing as I posted upthread.
True. Same with blacks who wanted an end to Apartheid. :rolleyes:
Agreed. Unless of course it’s the peace of the grave for Israel. I guess that makes us both “mind readers.”
The original post I responded to indicated that the rocket attacks followed the Hamas victory in the elections. It read to me that the Israeli people, in exchange for lifting one aspect of the occupation, were rewarded with Hamas in governance and rocket attacks. It may not be your intention but it certainly was the effect.
Judging from the timeline of rocket attacks and the withdrawal from Gaza, I see no relationship and you have now agreed to that. I’m glad we were able to reach the same conclusion about our understanding of the events. There’s no point in continuing to argue their interpretation because that’s a complete waste of time.
Don’t forget that they are also Israeli killing automatons created by a secret cadre of refugee Nazi scientists! I don’t know why people keep forgetting that.
I would say that a good “Truth and Reconciliation” process might be formed, where each side gets to hold on to their resentments under the “truth” phase – no one would ask them to deny the wrongs had ever happened, and full documentation would be made public – but that, then, under the “reconciliation” phase, both sides have to add, “But that was in the past, and we’re moving beyond it now.”
A clear, conscious memory of the wrongs of the past is a necessary ingredient in the “Never Again” invocation of human progress. But perpetuating and acting on old grudges can, in some circumstances, only serve to punish the innocent. No one should ever forget the Holocaust…but punishing modern Germany for it would not be particularly wise.
The schools that Palestinian children attend have maps with the entirety of Israel labeled “Palestine”. 'Nuff said.
True, whereas maps in Israeli schools always showed the green line, Arab language newspapers in Israel weren’t banned from showing the green line, maps in Israeli schools always labeled the West Bank “the West Bank” never “Judea and Samaria”.
Also, Israeli tourism board has never gotten in trouble with western governments for distributing maps which didn’t feature the Green line, and labeled the West Bank “Judea and Samaria”.
And, of course, if one goes to the book Israel: A Place Among the Nations, one won’t find the West Bank repeatedly labeled “Judea and Samaria”, insistence that Israel is not occupying the West Bank but that Judea and Samaria are part of Israel. Nor, will you find claims in the book that there already is a Palestinian State known as Jordan and that those advocating a two-state solution are arguing for a second Palestinian state. And, it would be outrageous to suggest that there repeated comparisons between calling for Israel to withdraw from the West Bank to demands that Czechoslovakia withdraw from the Sudatenland.
The book for those who don’t know was written by Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s current Prime Minister.
You might want to find a better line of argument.
It’s a mistake to frame this as a dispute where two people are having trouble getting along due to perceived past wrongs. The situation is not symmetrical, which is why one side is wealthy and the other side is poor.
Yes, it’s fascinating how people blind themselves to the overwhelming evidence of the Arabs’ fundamental attitude problem. And decide that it’s “mind reading” to draw reasonable conclusions about the Arab mentality based on this evidence.
Yes so many people, so many nations around the world blind themselves to the fact that this is completely about arab aggression: that when Israel kills, it’s retaliation and that when Hamas kills, it’s provocation.
They also focus on things like Israeli settlement building; they just don’t understand that the argument “because we can” completely makes this justified.
Finally they lack your ability to always know what Palestinians’ true motives are.
Close, but not exactly. When Israel kills, it’s generally self-defense. When Hamas kills, it’s generally provocation as well as simple terrorism.
I disagree – what they miss is that the settlements are an excuse for Arab misconduct – not a reason. In terms of the “because we can” argument, more facts are necessary to justify it.
Pretty much yes. See, my trick to “mind reading” is paying attention to what people do and say.
For example, last year a senior Fatah official said the following:
Using my advanced mind reading techniques, I inferred (based on this as well as other statements and actions) that this man has the goal of putting an end to Jewish Israel and that his position is the consensus position among the Arabs.
By the way, you never answer my questions from before:
-
Can you give me an example of an international agreement the Palestinian Arabs are unable to make which is a bar to them prospering?
-
What exactly do you mean by mind reading? If I look at a person’s words and actions and come to a reasonable conclusion about his intent, does that count as mind reading?
-
Are you denying that it’s possible to come to reasonable conclusions about peoples’ intentions by looking at their words and actions?
-
Are you are retracting this argument?