ISRAEL: Most Hated Country in the World?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
It should have been done after the 48 war IMO. Irgun and Lehi should have been put on trial for their war crimes at the earliest opportunity either by Israel or any other interested party. I don't care so much now since all the people who would have been involved in the acts seem to have died.

How do you put an entire organization on trial? Arent war crimes trials generally directed at invididuals?

I detect an attempt to elide the fact that Menachem Begin wasnt present at Deir Yassin, among other things.

I also detect an attempt to blur the distinctions between guerilla attacks on the British (for which no Israeli was interested in trying anyone in 1950) and the Deir Yassin situation.

As for truth, as far as I know Ben Gurion maintained that Deir Yassin was a massacre. However to arrest invididuals and try them would likely have led to civil war.

I wonder if you think that the members of the Jordan legion who masacred the inhabitants of Kfar Etzion should have been tried? Or if the arabs who commited the Hebron pogrom should have been tried? The fact is there were lots of incidents. Your concern however, seems to be selective.

[padillah]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Er, it depends on context.

Im not sure what youre referring to specifically here. If Im discussing Jews in general, or Jews in Russia, of course its proper to use "Jews" (once upon a time some folks prefered euphemisms like Hebrews, but thats long past) If im referring to Israelis, I say Israelis, or when more speficity is required, Israel Jews.

Sorry, I meant as opposed to "Jewish people".

I was taught to say "the Jewish people" never "the Jews". Or, in the case of your example "Jewish Russains".

Tom P.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by padillah


Sorry, I meant as opposed to "Jewish people".

I was taught to say "the Jewish people" never "the Jews". Or, in the case of your example "Jewish Russains".

Tom P.

Well Jewish people sounds more polite. Like saying the Black community, instead of Blacks. Id say thats a general rule, not limited to usage.

Is the less polite usage demeaning? I dont know, depends on context I guess.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I detect an attempt to elide the fact that Menachem Begin wasnt present at Deir Yassin, among other things.

Neither was bin Laden. What difference does his presence or lack of make?

I also detect an attempt to blur the distinctions between guerilla attacks on the British (for which no Israeli was interested in trying anyone in 1950) and the Deir Yassin situation.

I'm curious how the assassination of Count Folke Bernadotte falls within the rubric of insurgent attacks against British soldiers. Perhaps you can explain it to me.

As for truth, as far as I know Ben Gurion maintained that Deir Yassin was a massacre

Link? I'd be genuinely interested in reading more about that.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

The inhabitants of Palestine had no political or historical cohesion, much less an organized leadership back in 1919.

The political structure was almost non existant, based on non organized people and primitive clan-like strucutre. It was more developed in the city where there were older respected clans with political authority. That however did not, to my knowledge spread beyond local influence - and there was only basic understanding among said clans of the national political idea. Much less any kind of popular support of cohesion to give it foundation.

As such - the palestinian inhabitants had very little to say about their own fate mostly because they had no organized structure to do so, nor did most of them see anything else than a continuation of their either nomadic or feudal like structure.

None of which has anything to do with giving them the ability to form such structyures by recognizing their right of self-determination. A right is not contingent on the ability of someone to excercise it.

The brits ruled the area out of international authority by the league of nation. You can call it wrong in retrospect - but it was perfectly justified then. Most of the political ideas that drive you to criticise it now, simply did not exist in 1919.

Actually, the right of self-determination was certainly around in 1919. It was part of Wilson's 14 points. That Europeans decided that Arabs were not to get the same rights they would give Europeans is simply racism.

Which rights did they lose exactly?

The right to return home after fighting was over. And for most Palestinians today, the basic civic rights that are confered by citizenship.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

There was no campaign of ethnic cleansing. The documented expulsions are of Arabs living in places like Lod, on the road to beseiged Jerusalem, who were removed to maintain security on that road. Rabin, whose memoirs have been used to confirm the expulsion, in those very same memoirs expresses the reluctance he and his troops felt in executing the removal. In at least one other instance, IIUC, arabs were removed from one area under Israeli control, to another area under Israeli control, hardly a smart move for a govt seeking to expell arabs from territories under its control.

As I believe even post-Zionist historian Benny Morris has stated, the mass of the movement was due to the conditions of war, and was inevitable whether the Zionists encouraged it or not.

The cause for people fleeing fighting is irrelevant. That fact that they were not allowed to return to their villages after the fighting ended it the crime in question.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



And as everyone knew, the jewish state with its slim Jewish majority, the day it was declared, would receive masses of immigrants, not only people living the DP camps in Europe, but Jews held in British detention camps in Cyprus. Had the Brits provided emergency asylum in Palestine during the war to refugees, the numbers would have looked much different. Had they simply not "walled off" Palestine with their "apartheid barrier" of immigration patrols, and simply used more moderate means to control immigration, the numbers would have looked different. The actual numbers as of 1947 were themselves morally suspect, and the states that voted for partition knew that.

And what does any of that have to do with the denial of the right of self-determination for the Palestinians?

Again, what right did the British have to place Jewish refugess in Palestine against the wishes of the majority of the population? Heck, Cyprus was also part of the British Empire, so from a British perspective, what difference did it make? Refugees don't get a choice of where their host places them. If the British restricted Jewish immgration to Palestine during the 30's and 40's, it is because they recognized that the majority of the population in no way agreed with that immigration policy.

Your statement that the numbers in 1947 were "morally suspect" is intellectually suspect. Those Jewish refugees would have been just as safe (no, safer) being sent to say Kent, or Long Island. Why did they have to be sent to Palestine? To become fatcs on the ground for Zionist leaders? And why is British immigration policy that kept Jews out of Palestine during the war an "apartheid wall", but Israeli policy that keeps Palestinians from going to their ancestral villages valid sovereign control over immigration, given that you acccept the validity of British sovereignty over Palestine at that time?

[Straybow]

Originally posted by GePap
The cause for people fleeing fighting is irrelevant. That fact that they were not allowed to return to their villages after the fighting ended it the crime in question.

In case you hadn't noticed, the Palestinians never stopped fighting.

[Perfection]

[hasn't read thread]

NORTH KOREA IS MORER

[Sirotnikov]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap
None of which has anything to do with giving them the ability to form such structyures by recognizing their right of self-determination. A right is not contingent on the ability of someone to excercise it.
[quote]
As I quoted later - they were indeed given the ability to form such a structure and failed miserably.

That is because the right for "self determination" first requires a basis of a unique national ethos - which simply didn't exist in 1919 arab inhabitants of 'palestine'.

A bunch of unrelated people do not have a right for self determination - they aren't a nation - just a bunch of people!

Their whole ethos is based, somewhat artificially on the Naqba and the Israeli occupation post 1967.

That doesn't mean, like you might claim, that I deny that their ethos is real, and deserves self determination in 2007. They do. I'm simply claiming that this wasn't the case in 1919-1949. Which is the relevant period when you make moral allegations against the Jewish settlement and Britain.

Actually, the right of self-determination was certainly around in 1919. It was part of Wilson's 14 points. That Europeans decided that Arabs were not to get the same rights they would give Europeans is simply racism.

This is revisionist history.

You're welcome to cite examples or manifestations of a unique palestinian national ethos prior to the riots of 1936.

Unless you can bring evidence, I hold your claim, that Europeans in 1919 denied this right of an arab palestinian people, void.

The right to return home after fighting was over. And for most Palestinians today, the basic civic rights that are confered by citizenship.

The right to return home after fighting was over is most certainly the least occuring thing in history.
It also takes for granted the cessation of hostility (as demanded in decision 192) which has not been fulfilled yet.

The basic civic rights confered by citizenship is a moot point, as the said palestinian refugees had no citizenship before, - iirc they were merely inhabitants of lands under mandate jurisdiction. Citizenship would require an organized state, which wasn't there...

Nor did the previous "state" (the turks) give them the citizenship rights you now demand they have.

Citizenship rights are not 'natural' - they are a part of a contract between a state and a group of its inhabitants. No contract - no citizenship rights.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Actually, the right of self-determination was certainly around in 1919. It was part of Wilson's 14 points. That Europeans decided that Arabs were not to get the same rights they would give Europeans is simply racism.

This is revisionist history.

You're welcome to cite examples or manifestations of a unique palestinian national ethos prior to the riots of 1936.

Unless you can bring evidence, I hold your claim, that Europeans in 1919 denied this right of an arab palestinian people, void.

AFAICS, there was no Palestinian identity in 1919, as there was no history of a state or nation of that name prior to that time. There were Arabs, and there was a geographical region called Palestine, but I'm not aware of a coherent Palestinian nationality existing.

It seems to me that the concept of a Palestinian nation is something that arose in response to Israel, rather than something existing independently of it.

What I find interesting is that AIUI the original (pre 67) PLO charter made no claim to the lands now known as the West Bank and Gaza. They only claimed them once they were controlled by Israel. As long as they were part of Jordan and Egypt there was no Palestinian claim on them.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
As I quoted later - they were indeed given the ability to form such a structure and failed miserably.

That is because the right for "self determination" first requires a basis of a unique national ethos - which simply didn't exist in 1919 arab inhabitants of 'palestine'.

A bunch of unrelated people do not have a right for self determination - they aren't a nation - just a bunch of people!

Self-determination is just that, the ability of individuals for themselves to chose their own political future. You are totally wrong to state that there is any need of any "national" anything in order to grant people the right to chose their own leaders. Simply the fact they were human beings living in that land gave them the right to decide for themselves how they would govern themselves. Had they chosen to be part of some greater, or smaller, political unit is irrelevant. The ability to self govern is something that is a right of people, NOT national groups.

This is revisionist history.

You're welcome to cite examples or manifestations of a unique palestinian national ethos prior to the riots of 1936.

Unless you can bring evidence, I hold your claim, that Europeans in 1919 denied this right of an arab palestinian people, void.

It dosn;t matter if in 1919 the Arabs in Palestine did not see themselves as unique from the Arabs in Syria. All Arabs should have been granted the right of self-determination, something the Europeans denied them for racist reasons. Had the Arabs in Palestine chosen to be part of a single Arabs state covering the whole levant, or some greater Syria, or whatever, that should have been their choice, not one made in European Capitols.

The right to return home after fighting was over is most certainly the least occuring thing in history.
It also takes for granted the cessation of hostility (as demanded in decision 192) which has not been fulfilled yet.

So what? The right still exists.

The basic civic rights confered by citizenship is a moot point, as the said palestinian refugees had no citizenship before, - iirc they were merely inhabitants of lands under mandate jurisdiction. Citizenship would require an organized state, which wasn't there...

Nor did the previous "state" (the turks) give them the citizenship rights you now demand they have.

Citizenship rights are not 'natural' - they are a part of a contract between a state and a group of its inhabitants. No contract - no citizenship rights.

Civic rights are guaranteed under the Universal declaration of Human Rights. Israel signed that agreement. Your government agreed to abide by those ideals. Here they are:

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

[padillah]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
As I quoted later - they were indeed given the ability to form such a structure and failed miserably.

That is because the right for "self determination" first requires a basis of a unique national ethos - which simply didn't exist in 1919 arab inhabitants of 'palestine'.

A bunch of unrelated people do not have a right for self determination - they aren't a nation - just a bunch of people!

Sorry, but this seems a little circular to me. They can't determine if they want to be a "nation" until they are a nation?

There was little holding the U.S. together other than we didn't want to be part of England anymore. No one was over here for any particular reason or other: no racial identity, no "ethos", nothing you wouldn't find in any other English colony. We simply decided we didn't want to be treated that way.

Isn't the establishing of a national ethos what you guys are talking about? Of course there was no Palestine before 1919 nobody cared if there was one. But whether or not they formed "in response to Israel" is irrelevant - they have the right to form.

One of the questions I asked that spurred this debate was "Why do Jewish people think they deserve a country?" A desicion that was defended with verve. What makes that argument any less valid when applied to the Palestinians?

Tom P.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by padillah

Isn't the establishing of a national ethos what you guys are talking about? Of course there was no Palestine before 1919 nobody cared if there was one. But whether or not they formed "in response to Israel" is irrelevant - they have the right to form.

One of the questions I asked that spurred this debate was "Why do Jewish people think they deserve a country?" A desicion that was defended with verve. What makes that argument any less valid when applied to the Palestinians?

Tom P.

The roots of Palestinian Nationalism essentially go back to the Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin el-Husseini - the mentor of Yasser Arafat. Amin el-Husseini was a close ally of Hitler who helped to import Nazi-style anti-semitism into the Middle East, and was possibly destined to carry out the Final Solution in the region.

Matthias Kuentzel has written extensively on the subject of the relation between the 3rd Reich and the birth of Palestinian nationalism.

http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/kategorie/english/

It seems to me that the difference betwen the two ideologies is that one aims at the survival of the Jewish nation, while the other aims at its destruction.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by padillah
Sorry, but this seems a little circular to me. They can't determine if they want to be a "nation" until they are a nation?

Backwards. They aren't a nation until they determine they want to be a nation. That is the necessary (though not sufficient) condition for nationhood.

There was little holding the U.S. together other than we didn't want to be part of England anymore. No one was over here for any particular reason or other: no racial identity, no "ethos", nothing you wouldn't find in any other English colony. We simply decided we didn't want to be treated that way.

But, over the course of a few years these several colonies created a Congress and worked to hammer out the issues that defined nationhood here in the United States of America. Did Palestinians do that? Not until fairly recently.

Isn't the establishing of a national ethos what you guys are talking about? Of course there was no Palestine before 1919 nobody cared if there was one. But whether or not they formed "in response to Israel" is irrelevant - they have the right to form.

It is relevant to all those people who keep trying to "debunk" the "land without a people" aspect of Palestine under Turks and Brits.

One of the questions I asked that spurred this debate was "Why do Jewish people think they deserve a country?" A desicion that was defended with verve. What makes that argument any less valid when applied to the Palestinians?

Again: the condition that determines nationhood has been a part of the Jewish culture for 2500+ years. It has been a part of Palestinian culture for a little over one one-hundredth of that.