"Brittish" Death Squads to Infiltrate Israel

[Cort Haus]

Can anyone point to Palestinian national consciousness under the Ottoman Empire? While National Liberation movements were developing in 19th century Europe under Turkish rule, what was the Palestinian equivalent during that period?

[GhengisFarb™]

Heck, I be willing to give them Montana now.

They can take out their aggression on Canada.

[Arrian]

**** Montana. too cold, mother****ers.

Whiner.

-Arrian

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian


No, it shouldn't. Even though I agree with that basic fact (that nobody asked the Palestinians). If I were a Palestinian in 1946, I'd have been pissed too.

The problem, you see, is that it's been done now and there is no going back. Sixty years have passed. All sorts of **** has happened since then, and neither side has a very good claim to the moral high ground. The Israelis you think "deserve it" are descendants of the first Israelis, or immigrants.

So some sort of solution has to be found, and given what's happened since the 1940s, it's not going to look fair to either side. Polls show that the Israeli population is consistantly in favor of a negotiated solution that includes a Palestinian state. You want to argue that Israel simply shouldn't exist? Go invent a time machine, go back in time, and convince the UNSC to give, say, Montana to the Jews for a haven. Unless you can do that, harking back to what happened in 1946 is ****ing pointless.

-Arrian

Really?

That's like saying that Korea should have remained Japanese, because the Japanese had been effectively running it for 50 or so years, and then had annexed it for 35.

The Israelis have no credibility. They could easily have given up the West Bank and Gaza, and this would have placated most of the Palestinians as well as world opinion. If the Israeli population is in favour of a Palestinian state, then why haven't they voted in a government that would create one, because no Israeli government has had as it's policy the creation of a viable Palestinian state.

Israelis are as repugnant as white South Africans were in the 80s. Their country is built and enforced on a deeply racist fantasy. We tend to overlook this, since our media is biased in favour of Israel. The deaths of Israelis are reported with horror, but the Palestinian casualties are rarely reported at all.

If the Israelis wanted to do something other than create a Palestinian state, they could simply give the Palestinians the vote. But then, the Arabs would shortly be in the minority and that would ruin the Israeli fantasy of a racially pure state (a state run by Jews, because no-one else is worthy). It seems they did learn something from the German experience, except it was the wrong lesson.

But it doesn't matter. We can talk about morality all you like, and the facts will remain. Israel had a chance to make peace with the Arabs, and botched it. There is no reason to think that the Arabs will always be the weaker side in the region, and every reason due to sheer numbers to believe that they may well be the stronger side in 50 years time. When they are, Israel is toast.

And a good thing too. The country is a mistake. It causes trouble and can't get on with its neighbours. If it wasn't there, the world would be much closer to peace.

[Arrian]

That's like saying that Korea should have remained Japanese, because the Japanese had been effectively running it for 50 or so years, and then had annexed it for 35.

No, it's really not. Because in order to have Korean independence all that was required is the Japanese went back to Japan. If you want to un-make Israel, the Israelis go... where?

If the Israelis wanted to do something other than create a Palestinian state, they could simply give the Palestinians the vote. But then, the Arabs would shortly be in the minority and that would ruin the Israeli fantasy of a racially pure state (a state run by Jews, because no-one else is worthy).

Not a state run by Jews b/c no one else is worthy, but rather because no one else is really trusted not to turn on the Jews. It's not about racial purity. It's about survival. Even if you think that the Jews are just being paranoid (which I don't, given their history), it's STILL not about racial purity. That's where the South African and Nazi analogies break down. There are/have been some repugnant Israeli policies and attitudes, though, sure.

Israel had a chance to make peace with the Arabs, and botched it.

When?

There is no reason to think that the Arabs will always be the weaker side in the region, and every reason due to sheer numbers to believe that they may well be the stronger side in 50 years time. When they are, Israel is toast.

And a good thing too. The country is a mistake. It causes trouble and can't get on with its neighbours. If it wasn't there, the world would be much closer to peace.

Eh, what's a few million dead Jews between friends, right? It'll make the Arabs feel better, and that's what's important.

-Arrian

[C0ckney]

arrian, you are making the schoolboy error of trying to to talk sense to agathon

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian

No, it's really not. Because in order to have Korean independence all that was required is the Japanese went back to Japan. If you want to un-make Israel, the Israelis go... where?

Back to Europe and Russia, where most of them came from. But I'm not claiming that Israel should be unmade, but that it will be if things continue in the present vein. They will likely be victims of their own stupidity unless they do something soon, and it is almost too late.

Not a state run by Jews b/c no one else is worthy, but rather because no one else is really trusted not to turn on the Jews. It's not about racial purity. It's about survival.

And this is the paranoiac fantasy on which the country was founded. Are you claiming that European and North American countries, as they are now, are likely to turn on the Jews? If you believe so, I have a bridge to sell...

World War II was terrible, but the lesson of WWII was that this is extremely unlikely to happen again. The founding of Israel was a mistake, since the conditions that allowed the holocaust to happen were largely eliminated by the outcome of the war. The best outcome would have been for the Jews to be accepted into the United States, Canada, Britain, Australia and New Zealand. But the powers that be were content in their colonial arrogance to dump the Jews on some other people's land.

Even if you think that the Jews are just being paranoid (which I don't, given their history), it's STILL not about racial purity. That's where the South African and Nazi analogies break down. There are/have been some repugnant Israeli policies and attitudes, though, sure.

Except that it is. The reason that the Israelis want partition is that they know that demographics aren't in their favour (even with the recent influx of Russian Jews. It won't be that long until Arabs outnumber Jews in Israel/Palestine. Current Israeli policy is a land grab and partition to try to preserve the Jewish majority in Israel (several Israelis have admitted this to me). Everyone who bothers to look knows that Arabs within Israel are second class citizens, and the Palestinians are treated far worse.

When?

In the 90s. The US media tends to blame Arafat, but he has been proven right by recent events. The current Israeli land grab is almost exactly what he claimed the Israelis wanted out of the peace process and were trying to force on him.

But of course the US media, and to a lesser extent the European media tended to interpret these events in a self serving fashion.

Eh, what's a few million dead Jews between friends, right? It'll make the Arabs feel better, and that's what's important.

I'd take the end of Israel over World War III any day. Any rational person would.

The problem with everything you say is that the Arabs are in the right. They weren't the ones responsible for killing six million Jews, yet they pay the price by having other people set up a Jewsh homeland smack dab in the middle of them. Imagine if the Europeans decided to set up a Kurdish homeland in the middle of Texas. I can only imagine the response of Sloww et al. For God's sake, some people wanted to give the Jews Uganda as a homeland. If that had happened we no doubt would be seeing the Ugandans pilloried in the press as they tried to take their country back.

[Agathon]

Oh... and the Israelis are blatantly in violation of International Law as well. It really is a repugnant country.

[Arrian]

World War II was terrible, but the lesson of WWII was that this is extremely unlikely to happen again.

Really. Perhaps you're better off sticking to philosophy, and leave the analysis of History to others.

I'd take the end of Israel over World War III any day. Any rational person would.

Wow, so the destruction of Israel will save us from WWIII, eh? Oy vey.

-Arrian

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Seeing as the guy in question used to be a supporter of the Pals, he is hardly biased.

Come on. Converts are often the most biased of all.

It is the Palestinian leadership who spread the ideas whose ideological heritage is being called into question.

Let's remove the Palestinian leadership from history. Do you think that the Palestinians would be any better disposed towards Israel?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


Not a state run by Jews b/c no one else is worthy, but rather because no one else is really trusted not to turn on the Jews. It's not about racial purity. It's about survival.
-Arrian

You are right. In fact id narrow it down further. Historically no one is trusted to let Jews in when they need a place to go, not even the people one couldnt imagine killing Jews. The great shift in Jewish opinion toward political Zionism took place in the 1920s and 30s when western polities shut down immigration, just as the Jews most needed a place to go. And what confirmed the Jewish immigrant community in Palestine for full statehood, rather than autonomy or a binational state, was the arab hostility to Jewish immigration.

And of course no one is interested in a "pure" state. Israel is by no means "pure". All they want is a state with a Jewish majority, where the state makes the interests of the Jewish people one of its key concerns.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman


No. Don't be silly. Some sort of control over water, boundaries, airspace, that sort of thing.

Water is going to be negotiated. Its a complex issue, and there are serious claims going both ways. I doubt in any final settlement that Israel would get complete control over the water.

The other two are security related. A glance at a map tells you that its very hard to fit two states with absolute soveriegnty into such a small space. Which is why many in the Israeli peace camp for so long advocated turning the West Bank over to Jordan. But thats out, so we have to do our best. The best alternative is a Pal state with SOME limitations on soveriegnty. I believe that can be done, while achieving the all the practical needs of the Pal people. To charecterize any limits on Pal soveriegnty as making a Pal state a "bantustan" is to sabotage the whole process.

Its also fundamentally ahistorical. The South African bantustans were NOT the full area that nonwhites claimed, but with limits on air control, etc. They were areas designed to take the populations who werent actually living in the Bantustans, but in the South African cities, and to pretend they were citizens of the bantustans, and so deny them the vote. And of course the ANC didnt look to a two state solution, but to a single South Africa under majority rule. Which made sense, as the white South Africans had, since 1910 or so, supported a united South Africa as well (albeit with minority rule) and only began to talk about partition much later, and not seriously at that.

The Zionists accepted partition from 1937, and had been pursuing a logic toward partition since 1905 or so IE they had an ideology of Jewish labor, in contrast to South African reliance on black labor. Under Likud rule there was a creep toward apartheid, but that was always oppossed by Labour Zionism, who remained steadfast in favour of some form of partition.


Now you could come up with some Alt History I suppose, in which the Revisionist Zionists dominated the Labour Zionists, and in which the Z's rejected partition, but thats not what happened historically.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian

Really. Perhaps you're better off sticking to philosophy, and leave the analysis of History to others.

Certainly not you. You'll have to do better than that if you want me to agree with you. Or will you just run away like a scalded cat again?

Wow, so the destruction of Israel will save us from WWIII, eh? Oy vey.

It will certainly bring peace to the region since Israel is the chief cause of unrest and resentment in the Middle East, or do you wish to deny that obvious fact?

[Agathon]

How LOTM manages to convince himself that he isn't a racist is a miracle.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Sandman
Come on. Converts are often the most biased of all.

We're not talking about religious 'conversion', we are talking about an academic who has been swayed by his analysis of history, and is therefore familiar with both sides of the argument.

It's far better to actually analyse arguments than sling mud, or sand in this case. Go ahead and deal with Gil-White's arguments if you want, but don't expect a debate if you're not prepared to rationally construct or deconstruct a position.

Let's remove the Palestinian leadership from history. Do you think that the Palestinians would be any better disposed towards Israel?

How are you going to 'remove the Palestinian leadership from history'?

{edit : tweaked for politeness}