Nope, you’re not lost, I was making no insinuation about any specific position on Israel’s part. I was just making a general point that being indifferent to public opinion is fine, as long as you don’t object to other people being indifferent to it too.
But if the Palestinian’s would just stop sacrificing Jewish and Christian children, drinking their blood and torturing their dogs, then they might be easier to get along with…
See? I can make up a ridiculous strawman too! It’s actually quite easy, and it tells a rather compelling story as to why the Palestinian’s are so bad. Of course, it’s about as divorced from reality as your own silly analogy…but, at least mine is more colorful.
-XT
Depends. seems to me this is a sort of feeling akin to patriotism, as in “Canada is my home and native land”. That feeling can be inclusive or exclusive.
One imagines that the early Zionists understood that notion to be inclusive. There was, at that time, no concept yet of Jews as exclusive owners of what was to become Israel. Rather, the notion was that Jews has some sort of ancestral, mythic kinship with this land, and the hope, as per the Balfour Declaration, was to establish a homeland therein - among the others who already lived there. The concept of an exclusive right was the preserve of a tiny minority of extremists and for good reason - the land in question was controlled by other, major powers (first the Turkish Empire and later the British) that were beyond the abilities of the early Zionists to imagine displacing.
Palestinian patriotism, it strikes me, has a different flavour to it. The notion is not so much “this is my home and native land” alone, as “this is my home and native land, and you happen to be in it. Please leave”.
What part of world public opinion is favorable to them, or ever has been?
I think you’re jumping to conclusions again. I don’t claim or imply that either the early Zionists or modern Israelis “illegally invaded” anybody. I think there’s a reasonable argument to be made that the current Israeli occupation of the West Bank is illegal, but I also recognize that there’s a case to be made for the Israeli side too.
What I meant to imply was exactly what I said: namely, that if Palestinians illegally invaded and occupied territories where they don’t currently live, without any official sanction for their action, they would be expressing a sense of entitlement that was very different from that of the early Zionists.
And may I just point out that I think a lot of the more ardent Israel supporters in this thread are being WAY too touchy, and consequently misinterpreting many quite innocuous statements? The hostility, suspicion, and sheer well-poisoning antagonism coming from, for instance, you and FinnAgain is making it really difficult to disagree with or critique any of your opinions, even mildly, without having you immediately explode in shrill outraged overreaction.
I’m curious why you would include it in your statement if you weren’t, at least by inference, making that claim.
I’ve previously asked for cites demonstrating how Israel’s occupation is illegal, but thus far all I’ve seen is the claim. As far as I know, the occupation itself is perfectly legal…though, I think that most other nations would have felt more at ease had Israel simply annexed the territory directly, instead of sort of backing into settlement of the region. While I’ve seen some (debatable) assertions that the Israeli settlements in the region are less than, um, kosher, I’ve never seen anything from a reasonably credible cite showing that the occupation is illegal. So…fight my ignorance, if this is the case.
I guess I’m not seeing the point of your statement then. What if the Palestinian’s were actually space aliens bent on using internet porn to turn their human prey’s minds to mush so they could suck it out using a straw? That would make them different than the early Zionists as well, yes? To me, by trying to make this analogy you are (perhaps unconsciously) attempting to draw a (false) parallel between the actions of these theoretical Palestinian’s and those earlier Zionists. That’s how I read it anyway.
Well, for my part, when these discussions crop up periodically on this (and other) boards, that the same people bring up the same misinformation over and over again. I’ve tried being reasonable in the past, but then there will be yet another of these discussions, and yet again the same bullshit crops up. It’s rather like the periodic 9/11 threads (like the one recently)…no matter how many times things are shot down, eventually there will be some kind of mystic reset and they will all just be brought up again, as if they are fresh and new.
It’s a bit frustrating sometimes. For my part I KNOW that not everything Israel does is goodness and light. That there IS another side of all of this. That the Palestinian’s HAVE been screwed over in the past, and are the big losers in this little drama. And that a reasonable debate on this subject is possible…but, as long as people keep spouting the same old tired propaganda, there won’t be a reasoned or reasonable debate. All the time will be spent in the futile effort of knocking down the bullshit with the same cites that have been shown in the last 1000 threads on this subject.
-XT
Largely because the Arab states voted against it. 
Yes and no. The West Bank was captured by Jordan, as I pointed out. Jordan (nee Transjordan) then specifically acted to deny self determination to the residents of said packet of land.
Barring other factors and assuming that the citizens of that conquered territory have no government or sovereign of their own and desire self determination then yes, that’s a bad thing.
No. It conquered the West Bank in a defensive war and negotiated with Jordan as if Jordan was the legitimate sovereign of the area since Jordan had been in charge of its administration for roughly two decades. Nor do the settlements themselves prevent Palestinian self determination. It’s actually a nifty dodge (and the fallacy of begging the question) when people claim that settlements are an, the primary, or even worse the only “obstacle to peace”.
There are some things that are actual obstacles to peace, such as, ya know, violence. By definition while rockets are being launched two groups cannot be said to be at peace. But ownership of land is a barrier to some groups desired negotiated settlement, not an actual barrier to peace. Likewise, as most of the land in the West Bank was never privately owned in the first place, privileging Palestine claims to 100% of it, sans negotiation, is not a reasonable position.
Actually, the events immediately preceeding and immediately following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire are essential to understanding much of the current situation, but the BD, in a vacuum, isn’t of prime importance, no.
Yes, and no. Part of territory that were over the Green Line include Jerusalem and Jewish villages/enclaves which were ethnically cleansed circa 1948. While it may be fair to negotiate a position that calls for 100% of Israelis to either abandon their citizenship or land east of the Green Line, it’s a hard sell in the Knesset’s style of coalition politics. Likewise, after how Jerusalem was administrated under the Jordanians, it ever being given up, especially when folks like Hamas would be in control, is a practical impossibility. Remember what happened to the synagogues which were left behind in Gaza?
Now, will the Palestinians ultimately need to be given a large percentage of the West Bank, possibility some of Israel proper and ideally (but a snowball’s chance in hell) some of the original Mandate/water rights that Jordan seized for itself? Sure. An economically robust Palestinian state will require quite a bit. Clinton’s Bridging Proposal is a very good basis for that, with Final Status negotiations to hammer out issues like compensation for refugees (and/or their grandchildren or what have you).
However, the idea that Israel could just pull out and have a sovereign Palestine in the West Bank (and Gaza) the next day is, right now, a pipe dream. All it would accomplish is a hostile foe with the ability to import as many Iranian arms as they could afford/transport, and be within range of every single Israeli city. There would be war and we’d end up right back where we’ve started, since as I mentioned above, rockets being fired are an actual obstacle to peace.
Problem is they already have forces that are capable of (and indeed, have very recently) attacked Israel. Interdicting such capabilities in the future would require even tighter border controls, curfews, policing, etc…
Which is why Israel will require a credible partner for peace within the Palestinian state itself (which Abbas may or may not be, time will tell).
They don’t, and I’ve advocated a settlement freeze on these boards. But that doesn’t mean that the waters should be muddied or the nature of the Israeli coalition system should be glossed over. Absent a credible peace plan, having the political clout to totally halt, let alone remove most of the West Bank settlements is a difficult thing to obtain.
Good point, but ISTM that this is largely attributable to the difference in historical circumstances. The early Zionists wanted to establish themselves somewhere in historical Israel but had no particular individual or family attachment to specific villages or homesteads, because it had been so long since their people had lived there.
Modern Palestinians, though, associate “patriotism” with specific places where their families used to live within fairly recent memory and where other people live now. Naturally, when they think of those places as “home”, they think of themselves in those places instead of those other people.
Well, I think it’s fair to say there was a lot of sympathy for the Jews in general at the end of WWII, and support for the establishment of Israel.
I spoke of a hypothetical “illegal invasion and occupation” on the part of Palestinians to point out such an action would be different from what the early Zionists did.
And you infer from that that I must have secretly (perhaps even “unconsciously”) meant to imply that it was the same as what they did? :rolleyes: Jeez Louise, this is exactly what I mean by hypervigilant suspiciousness and offensensitivity poisoning the well of debate. It’s impossible to discuss things with you if you assume that what I mean must be the opposite of what I say.
You must have missed my reply to you in post #39 of this very thread:
I understand that that’s frustrating, and I sympathize. However, taking out your frustration on other people who are only trying to have a reasoned and non-malicious discussion is counterproductive.
Well, may I just point out that if some “anti-Israel” folks didn’t make a habit of raping babies and putting kittens in blenders, then they would be significantly different than the PA. Not that I mean anything by such an analogy, of course. Its parallels are accidental. Really, I’m clueless as to their implication. Just learned English last Thursday, dontcha know?
By the way, here’s a cite that I won’t defend or support but I’m going to present it as a refutation of your cite and try to get you to shadowbox with it for as many posts as possible, all while getting upset if you try to ask me to support its claims. I’m just going to post it to show that there are other opinions on the subject and make you spend time debunking its assertions while claiming that your fact-based certainty is offensive since people argue other positions shoddily and without cogent reasoning. Don’t ask me what it means that I posted something apparently as a refutation to your claims, I just do that sorta stuff. Cites are like analogies.
That’s a simile though, so I understand it.
Sorry Kim, just like Glutton, I’m used to your arguments in these threads, too. I’m used to their substance, their substantiation and how you use them. And, of course, in the same breath as you’re asking for some kind of rapprochement, you allege that reasoned refutations are, what was that charming term you used? Oh yeah, exploding in shrill outraged overreaction.
I can see how serious you are about avoiding that whole well poisoning thang.
For instance, I could point out how it’s very, very odd that you’re now claiming that the early Zionists had no personal connection since “their people” hadn’t lived in Israel for a long time when there were several Jewish communities in Israel which were centuries old. Jerusalem, itself, almost definitely had a substantial and perhaps even a majority presence for some time. I could point out that arguing from a position of ignorance in order to craft an analogy is hardly better than deliberate attempts to obfuscate, but I should be careful of tender sensibilities, I suppose.
This has reached the point of mere hysteria. It appears that I can’t so much as mention the phrase “illegally invade and occupy”, even for the purpose of explicitly emphasizing the fact that that was NOT what the early Zionists did, without your inferring from it that what I must really mean is that it WAS what the early Zionists did.
There is no arguing with that kind of paranoia.
All I can extract from this is that you don’t like it when people post cites that challenge or contradict your own assertions. Sorry, pal, but “spending time debunking” cites that you disagree with is part of the job in Great Debates.
:rolleyes: Note that what I said was that the early Zionists—that is, the Jews living outside Israel who formed a global movement for Jewish settlement in Israel—had no particular or family attachments to specific villages or homesteads in Palestine. I didn’t claim that there were no Jews at all living in Palestine at that time. The issue of whether or when Jerusalem had a Jewish majority prior to the establishment of Israel (MidEastWeb says that the city proper had a Jewish majority probably since about 1896, but not before) is an interesting question in historical demographics, but also not really relevant to my statement.
I’m sorry, through all my “hyesteria” and “paranoia” I missed your honest distaste for poisoning of wells. Might you please talk about that some more, preferably with more ad hominem invective? Oh oh oh, and then act indignant when your pure as the driven snow debating style is criticized?
Thanks.
Now, I understand you’d like me to believe that you were really totally unaware that using the phrase “illegally invade and occupy” in a debate like this might just have certain implications. I’d like people to believe that giving free money to me will result in karmic rewards down the road. I guess we’ll both destined for disappointment.
Of course, I could also mention that various Palestinian/Arab factions are indeed trying to win land that they claim an ancestral connection to and or that they are entitled to it since it’s a Waqf, and they’re illegally using force to do that. But as you don’t the significant of flinging about comparisons involving “illegal invasion and occupation” (“Oh, but not of the Zionists from that time period”), especially since there are numerous and glaring differences between the Palestinians post 1967 and the Zionists pre 1948 that could have been used to make an analogy without bringing up “illegal invasion and occupation”… well, meh.
I’m sure. When I object to you posting cites that, in your own words, you refuse to support, do not agree with and are only posting to make someone argue against? Why, I must mean that I don’t like people providing reasoned cites to argue factual questions that they’re prepared to actually defend rather than toss out as some sort of internet equivalent of ECM chaff.
You really are confused on that point, too.
Nope, what you said was that “their people” hadn’t been living in that land. Of course, you’re wrong on that factual count, too, even if you wriggle your comments into something about only the early waves of Aliyah. The second wave of Aliyah, in particular, had significant familial/social/cultural/personal connections as many Russian Jews fled the pogroms and settled in similar areas.
Quite a few of them found their way to a small town and helped it grow rapidly. Perhaps you head of it. The first part of its name comes from an old convention of nomenclature used to refer to hills, and the second part refers to Spring.
I’m sure that you’d find that more than a few of the early Zionists had rather strong connections to that particular geographic location.
Evidently.
No, I certainly wasn’t unaware that such a phrase is sensitive in the context of an Israel thread. However, I admit that I didn’t expect that the kneejerk reactions triggered by that phrase would actually override people’s ability to read and comprehend what I explicitly said.
Yes, they are. I trust that we’re both agreed that such actions are different from what the early Zionists did.
Sigh. Let’s look at what I actually said:
Certainly there were some Zionists, especially in post-1900 immigrations, who had family members already living in Israel. But are you really disagreeing with my (IMHO quite uncontroversial) statement that early Zionists in general, although they wanted to settle in Palestine as the historical “Eretz Israel” and the Jewish homeland, did not have any particular individual or family ties to specific villages or homesteads there? Do you really deny that they were different in that regard from the generality of modern Palestinians, who do have individual and family ties to specific villages or homesteads in the former Palestine?
Sure, if you nitpick my statements obsessively enough, you can always find a way to interpret some part of them as erroneous or false. But are you really disagreeing with the basic point that I was making there?
And aside from that factual error of yours, it should be pointed out that your original error was, in context, the differences in how patriotism has been expressed by the Zionist movement and, say, those who support Undivided Palestine being a Waqf or areas inside the Green Line being “liberated” was only different due to “historical circumstances”. Not, as would be accurate, that theocratic views like Hamas’ on the indivisibility of a Waqf and its proper administration or the idea that land which was never owned by one’s ancestors, at any point, is one’s by right and those who deny that right should be murdered… were and are totally different from all but the farthest out ideas on the lunatic fringe of Zionism/Israeli politics.
Ya know, that the sense of entitlement is different in context, execution, ideology and consequences between Zionist plans to buy land and establish a community within the Ottoman Empire / British mandate / achieve self determination along side an Arab state and a group that says:
"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Muslim generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Muslim generations till Judgement Day?
This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Muslims have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Muslims consecrated these lands to Muslim generations till the Day of Judgement."
No question. But I wasn’t talking about the Islamic Resistance Movement; you’re the one who brought up all that. What I said (following BrainGlutton) boils down to this:
A bunch of Palestinian kids think of their parents’ former village as their rightful “home” even though they don’t live there. Many early Zionists thought of Palestine as their rightful “home” even though they didn’t live there (which is ultimately why Israel was founded in Palestine). Same idea.
That really seems to me like a very ordinary and unexceptionable remark, so why is it bothering you so much? You seem to be reading all kinds of things into it that I didn’t actually say.
You mean, like how I’m ‘reading in’ that a large portion of those Palestinians support violence within the Green Line, consider all of Israel to be on a Waqf, believe that the territories should be cleared of Israelis via violence, and so on?
Like I said, I’m objecting to the fallacious analogy because it ignores context, specifics, ideology, actions, etc, etc, etc.
Are you honestly having trouble understanding that?
You get all that from a few Palestinian kids calling their parents’ former village “home”? Yes, that would definitely be “reading in”. I recognize that the things you’re saying there are true in themselves, but they are not what I was talking about.
But the comparison I made isn’t about context, specifics, ideology, actions, etc. It’s just about an essential equivalence in a very basic sense of identification with a distant “home”.
Nowhere have I tried to claim that the details of Palestinian nationalist ideology, actions, context, etc., are the same as or even comparable to those of early Zionist nationalism. I’m just stressing the identity of the underlying concept of identifying with a “home”.
Now, I can certainly understand that you might want to point out that such a kindergarteny basic comparison doesn’t take into account important related issues, such as ideology, context, specifics, and so forth. But if that’s all you’re driving at, why not point that out in a non-hostile way? Why not just say something like “However, it’s important to recognize that modern Palestinian nationalism is very different in many respects from the Jewish nationalism of the early Zionists” and so on and so forth?
Why immediately rear up with knives flashing and poison fangs bared to hurl accusations and snide insinuations about insincerity, ignorance and malice on the part of people you’re debating with? Do you have any idea how nasty you come across?
And so on and so on and so on, and those are just a few of the remarks you made just to me and BrainGlutton. If you really want an honest and rational debate, why constantly make people angry by refusing to believe that they’re trying to be honest and rational? Why not just disagree or refute in a more neutral emotional tone and avoid deflecting the debate into a SnideSnark contest?
All those pesky words I wrote which you avoided are important. I’m not “reading in” anything when I point out the facts that you’re talking about a populace while ignoring the massive percentage who supported violence, the concept of a Waqf, etc…
It’s like saying that the Mongols’ concept of “areas where we can live” was just the same as a newlywed couple’s discussions on “areas where we can live”.
A comparison that ignores context, specifics, ideology, actions, etc… is not a comparison, its a deception. A comparison, ya know, has to compare stuff.
Equally obvious, you cannot claim an “equivalence” if you’ve admitted you don’t even bother with an honest comparison. Things that can’t even be compared rather obviously can’t be equivalent.
Never mind. Something tells me that as much as I try to explain that you shouldn’t engage in such behavior, you’ll ask that I go out of my way to politely point out that, gee, you’re using some really shitty debating tactics to distort the issues and would you kindly not?
Except that I wasn’t: I was talking about a particular sentiment expressed by a group of kids.
I did compare “Palestinian nationalism” to “Zionist nationalism” more generally in one post when discussing with Malthus the specific point of “exclusivist” versus “inclusivist” feelings of entitlement to a homeland, but that was not the context in which I was arguing for the feelings being “exactly the same”.
Not necessarily, and I certainly wasn’t trying to be deceptive. It seems that you’ve just made up your mind that any argument that focuses on a point you don’t consider important, and ignores a point that you do consider important, is automatically dishonest or deceptive, rather than just a different perspective.
What I ask, although I don’t imagine you’ll have the courtesy to respect it, is that you not reflexively accuse anyone who makes an argument that you happen to think is flawed or incomplete of using “shitty debating tactics to distort the issues” and engaging in dishonest behavior.
In all honesty, I really am at a loss as to how somebody is supposed to seriously disagree with or challenge your views on Israel in any way without immediately and continually getting jumped on with sarcastic put-downs, insinuations about dishonesty and stupidity, and angry dismissals. (Oh, and sometimes derogatory abbreviations of usernames.) I have tried, and I’ll keep trying, but it really seems that you’re much more invested in throwing around insults than in making convincing arguments. In other types of GD threads where you post this issue doesn’t seem to come up, but on the topic of Israel it seems to be full-on maul mode for posters who don’t accept everything you say.
Well, I would agree: the difference is based on differences in history.
The point however is that it is different, and that particular difference is sadly quite relevant to understanding the situation in that part of the world.
A patriotism of an inclusive variety is a lot easier to accomodate and satisfy. If people around the world wish to become Canadians and hold that Canada is their home and native land, and feel a connection to Canada - why, the only question is whether there are jobs and land enough for them here; it is easy to integrate them (my own city of Toronto is filled with such immigrants). It does not dilute my own connection to this land that they feel the same connection.
On the other hand … if their connection to the land is exclusive and they see people not like them as interlopers and tresspassers, I’d have serious second thoughts about the desireability of allowing them in.
That is I believe the difference in the forms of “entitlement” under discussion.
The historical tragedy if you like is that by and large the early Zionists felt the first form of entitlement; the Arabs, by and large, have always felt the second; and increasingly, it became a self-fulfilling prophesy, with the continual attempt (and failure) to eject the Jews resulting in displacement for the Palistinians instead.
The problem is this: as long as this exclusive attachment exists, there can never really be peace, as the Israelis are no longer “foreigners” who can simply be sent home; they have now lived there in most cases for three generations, and there is no “home” to go to, even if they wanted to.
Israelis cannot help but notice that world sympathy, brief and fleeting though it proved, was only aroused by an almost successful attempt to exterminate them (and even then, many cheered rather than mourned).
Given the choice - alive and no world sympathy, or dead with expressions of world sympathy - Israelis by and large prefer the former.
This above all is the harsh lesson taught by the 20th century, and subsequent events in other countries have only re-enforced their validity: in general we have all the sympathy in the world for people such as the Tibetans and the Christians of Sudan, which does them - no good at all. Maybe they get a rock concert in their benefit. I doubt many of the villagers of Darfur, as they flee from the Janjaweed raiders who are gang raping and murdering them, are much comforted by earnest expressions of support in UN officialese or the like.
World sympathy plays a very poor second fiddle to self-defence.