Thread: Balfour Declaration Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020340
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
The 2nd November, a week away now, marks the centenary of the Balfour Declaration, a letter from Arthur Balfour (UK Foreign Secretary) to Lord Walter Rothschild, which read
quote:
His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
The immediate context of the declaration being an attempt to solicit support for the Allies from Zionists (in particular in the US) for the war - which had reached a stalemate on the western front, and the US still hadn't committed large numbers of troops to break that deadlock. In the Middle East there was hope for progress against the Ottoman forces, with what was to become Palestine (and later Israel) still under Ottoman control.
Of course, the later consequences of the declaration were that it laid the foundations for the establishment of the state of Israel, the displacement of millions of Palestinian Arabs from their homes, and one of the most intractable conflicts in the world.
I know that the Iona Community is organising a citizens apology in Edinburgh on the 2nd November, I don't know what other events have been organised to mark this event.
With thoughts of a citizens apology, the obvious question is the extent to which an apology is an appropriate response to the effects of the Declaration. And, whether the problems in Palestine are actually rooted in the Declaration (which, it is noted, stated that the rights of the non-Jewish citizens of Palestine would not be prejudiced - though, of course, history has shown that that ideal was not met).
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
If a Brit travels to the occupied Palestinian Territories, you're often asked about (and expected to apologise for) Balfour.
But, to be honest, it all seems a bit late for that.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
If I ever go, I'll do that first in every interaction.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
The Balfour Declaration was in part a (much belated) response on the part of the UK to the continuing pogroms in Eastern Europe and Russia, and were an attempt to provide a solution for populations of Jews in places like the Pale who faced continuous repression (at best) and murderous attacks.
The creation of the State of Israel is an entirely separate issue and was something vigorously opposed by the then UK government, both before and during the votes at the fledgling UN and on the ground through UK military units and UK leadership of supposedly independent Arab military, such as the Arab Legion, and in its later lobbying for the Mufti of Jerisalem not to be indicted as a war criminal, despite copious, well-documented evidence that he not only knew about the Final Solution but agreed entirely with its aims, writing in 1943 quote:
It is the duty of Muhammadans in general and Arabs in particular to … drive all Jews from Arab and Muhammadan countries….Germany is also struggling against the common foe who oppressed Arabs and Muhammadans in their different countries. It has very clearly recognized the Jews for what they are and resolved to find a definitive solution [endgültige Lösung] for the Jewish danger that will eliminate the scourge that Jews represent in the world.
It is entirely wrong to blame the ideal behind the Balfour Declaration for the post 1948 situation vis-a-vis Palestinian arab refugees.
[ 25. October 2017, 09:30: Message edited by: L'organist ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The creation of the State of Israel is an entirely separate issue and was something vigorously opposed by the then UK government, both before and during the votes at the fledgling UN and on the ground through UK military units and UK leadership of supposedly independent Arab military, such as the Arab Legion, and in its later lobbying for the Mufti of Jerisalem not to be indicted as a war criminal, despite copious, well-documented evidence that he not only knew about the Final Solution but agreed entirely with its aims, writing in 1943
Sigh. No, it wasn't entirely separate. Yes we all know about the moronic views of the Mufti of Jerusalem. Yes we know that Arab countries attacked Israel in the 7-day war.
Yeah, yes, uh-huh, whatever.
The fact remains that a consequence of 80 odd years of this situation has resulted in a highly developed Western-style society living alongside (and preventing the development of) a largely undeveloped population. And the former, largely because they have all the power, is preventing the development and growth of the latter.
There is no way out of this mess unless Israel is undone (which isn't going to happen and would be highly undesirable for obvious reasons) or all of the Palestinians relocate (which is also not very likely).
There is therefore no possible solution other than that Israel becomes increasingly militarised (which is quite hard to imagine - it is a highly militarised society already) and the Palestinians become increasingly bedraggled (ditto).
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
Would an apology for the Declaration be seen as necessarily indicating an apology the creation of the state of Israel in the form it has been and is in now? I shudder at the implications that may have.
I despair of any solution to the dire straits Palestinians find themselves in in Israel. Israel clearly has a right to exist and be safe. Beyond that I'm not too impressed.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
I heard last week that agreement has been reached between Fatah and Hamas to form a united front of some sort. I haven't looked at the detail. I'm hoping that this could prompt a change in the overall climate of the region, so that steps towards a negotiated outcome could be taken away from the glare of publicity. I'm even hopeful that this might herald a move towards the centre in Israel, and the removal of settler influence from the Government. Obviously, this requires the fall of Netanyahu.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I heard last week that agreement has been reached between Fatah and Hamas to form a united front of some sort. I haven't looked at the detail. I'm hoping that this could prompt a change in the overall climate of the region, so that steps towards a negotiated outcome could be taken away from the glare of publicity. I'm even hopeful that this might herald a move towards the centre in Israel, and the removal of settler influence from the Government. Obviously, this requires the fall of Netanyahu.
Highly unlikely it will make any difference. The Palestinian Authority had very little ability/power to do anything very much and it is increasingly obvious that the extremists in power in Israel think that it's only function is as an extension of the Israeli security forces (and/or to keep the Palestinians sufficiently annoyed that they don't bother attacking Israeli settlers).
The PA can do nothing about travel blockages, the large percentage of the population that lives on food hand-outs, the massive open-air prison that is Gaza etc and so on.
Israel has completely given up even the charade of telling the international community that the two-state future is the one that they want and instead has reverted to increasing pressure on the Palestinians in the West Bank (via land-grabs) and completely shuttering off Gaza.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Not a chance. And Israel had no right to exist in the first place, but it's there now and that sore will run for decades, centuries.
Unless Jesus returns in some way of course ...
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Israel clearly has a right to exist and be safe.
I think this a convenient gloss and glaringly inaccurate.
The Jewish people have a right to exist. Israel, as a stolen land, does not. It does, however, now exist and getting rid of it isn’t a practical alternative. Fixing it is theoretically simple, but practically fraught.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I will not be apologising for the Balfour Declaration or having anything to do with those that advocate this. For all the problems since, it's something in my country's history that I'm proud of - and there's not much to be proud of here at the moment.
Israel is not a perfect state. Not everything they do is right and good. But that is true of every other state. As I've said before on these boards, though, virtually all the advocacy in the west of the Palestinian cause is strongly motivated by the opportunity it gives for people to be anti-semitic without admitting it to others, or frequently, themselves.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I will not be apologising for the Balfour Declaration or having anything to do with those that advocate this. For all the problems since, it's something in my country's history that I'm proud of - and there's not much to be proud of here at the moment.
Israel is not a perfect state. Not everything they do is right and good. But that is true of every other state. As I've said before on these boards, though, virtually all the advocacy in the west of the Palestinian cause is strongly motivated by the opportunity it gives for people to be anti-semitic without admitting it to others, or frequently, themselves.
'Virtually all' is a big claim. I wonder how you might substantiate it?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Stop taking sides like this. It is absolutely ridiculous to do so. You cannot simplify. All of the countries in the area must solve things. It isn't the just UK's fault, it isn't just Israel which must answer for the Palestinians.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I will not be apologising for the Balfour Declaration or having anything to do with those that advocate this. For all the problems since, it's something in my country's history that I'm proud of - and there's not much to be proud of here at the moment.
Israel is not a perfect state. Not everything they do is right and good. But that is true of every other state. As I've said before on these boards, though, virtually all the advocacy in the west of the Palestinian cause is strongly motivated by the opportunity it gives for people to be anti-semitic without admitting it to others, or frequently, themselves.
What about the opportunity to be imperialistic, Islamophobic? Balfour, of course, was an anti-Semitic Anglo-Israelite.
[ 25. October 2017, 13:30: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The Jewish people have a right to exist. Israel, as a stolen land, does not. It does, however, now exist and getting rid of it isn’t a practical alternative. Fixing it is theoretically simple, but practically fraught.
Are there any other countries in the world that you think are 'stolen' and shouldn't exist, were it not impractical to abolish them, or is Israel a special case?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Stop taking sides like this. It is absolutely ridiculous to do so. You cannot simplify. All of the countries in the area must solve things. It isn't the just UK's fault, it isn't just Israel which must answer for the Palestinians.
No, it's the US, France and all of Europe N & W of Germany INCLUDING the UK for Balfour alone, the white Commonwealth, Russia and its major client states.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Israel is not a perfect state. Not everything they do is right and good. But that is true of every other state. As I've said before on these boards, though, virtually all the advocacy in the west of the Palestinian cause is strongly motivated by the opportunity it gives for people to be anti-semitic without admitting it to others, or frequently, themselves.
Given that a high proportion of advocacy for the Palestinian cause is conducted by Jews, this isn't just nonsense, it is totally wrong-headed nonsense.
There are elements of anti-Semitism within the Palestinin solidarity groups, but it is totally utterly wrong to describe it as virtually all.
You couldn't be more wrong if you renamed yourself Mr Wrong and moved to live in Wrongville.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The Jewish people have a right to exist. Israel, as a stolen land, does not. It does, however, now exist and getting rid of it isn’t a practical alternative. Fixing it is theoretically simple, but practically fraught.
Are there any other countries in the world that you think are 'stolen' and shouldn't exist, were it not impractical to abolish them, or is Israel a special case?
Let me see:
United States of America, Australia, Canada, New Zealand (possibly to a lesser extent) and many other parts of the world that were colonised to the detriment of the native people.
Nowadays we hear the Celts going on about the Anglo-Saxons, forgetting that they displaced the Beaker People themselves.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
As long as we dwell on the decisions and actions of generations long past, we will never find a way forward. It is time to stop blaming and apologizing for history, and start working together to resolve current differences.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
As long as we dwell on the decisions and actions of generations long past, we will never find a way forward. It is time to stop blaming and apologizing for history, and start working together to resolve current differences.
That's easy to say but hard to do in a place where at least two distinct religions (and arguably 3, 4 or more others) have specific and detailed historical and religious ties to the land.
You might like to go over there with a loudhailer and try saying "Hey you lot, this whole country is just a pile of old rocks! All your holy books and your Theology of the Land is a load of old hooey!
Stop worrying about it and be groovy to each other"
But to be absolutely honest with you, I don't think it is going to work.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The Jewish people have a right to exist. Israel, as a stolen land, does not. It does, however, now exist and getting rid of it isn’t a practical alternative. Fixing it is theoretically simple, but practically fraught.
Are there any other countries in the world that you think are 'stolen' and shouldn't exist, were it not impractical to abolish them, or is Israel a special case?
Let me see:
United States of America, Australia, Canada, New Zealand (possibly to a lesser extent) and many other parts of the world that were colonised to the detriment of the native people.
I knew some bullshit would arise and this is part the list which I was thinking of in reply.
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
As long as we dwell on the decisions and actions of generations long past, we will never find a way forward. It is time to stop blaming and apologizing for history, and start working together to resolve current differences.
You cannot work together to resolve differences the parties do not agree exist.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You cannot work together to resolve differences the parties do not agree exist.
There are two populations living in the land with diametrically opposed understandings of history and religion.
There is no way to compromise or resolve those differences. You can't both have Temple Mount as the site of a new Jewish temple and the site of the third holiest place in Islam. Not possible.
One can make compromises with people who are not wedded to a historical-religious perspective which by necessity negates another alternative position. But you simply cannot when there are two equal (and essentially opposite) historical-religious positions, unless the toys are simply taken away and neither of them have access to it.
That's not really going to work either.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You cannot work together to resolve differences the parties do not agree exist.
And nothing anyone else says or does will resolve the issue, so we are wasting our breath.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Correct. Apart from apologizing for Balfour in Palestine.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I will not be apologising for the Balfour Declaration or having anything to do with those that advocate this. For all the problems since, it's something in my country's history that I'm proud of - and there's not much to be proud of here at the moment.
Israel is not a perfect state. Not everything they do is right and good. But that is true of every other state. As I've said before on these boards, though, virtually all the advocacy in the west of the Palestinian cause is strongly motivated by the opportunity it gives for people to be anti-semitic without admitting it to others, or frequently, themselves.
'Virtually all' is a big claim. I wonder how you might substantiate it?
He can't. It's bullshit, and disgustingly scurrilous bullshit at that, and everyone knows it. Doesn't stop people using it to shut open debate.
[ 25. October 2017, 18:14: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on
:
The modern state of Israel is no more an example of colonialism that most of the states we occupy.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There are two populations living in the land with diametrically opposed understandings of history and religion.
There is no way to compromise or resolve those differences. You can't both have Temple Mount as the site of a new Jewish temple and the site of the third holiest place in Islam. Not possible.
One can make compromises with people who are not wedded to a historical-religious perspective which by necessity negates another alternative position. But you simply cannot when there are two equal (and essentially opposite) historical-religious positions, unless the toys are simply taken away and neither of them have access to it.
That's not really going to work either.
Let's back it up to - all countries have to agree that Israel has a right to exist, and all countries must agree that a Palestinian state has a right to exist. Then and only then is there a basis for anything. Blaming one country or another does no good at all. It prolongs it all.
There are some obvious things as you note, but these mustn't be the starting point. Obviously the facts as exist must be taken as existing: Israel exists, the temple mount structures exist, control of lands exists etc. I think probably we would have to see some contribution of lands for Palestine from more than just one country.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Let's back it up to - all countries have to agree that Israel has a right to exist, and all countries must agree that a Palestinian state has a right to exist. Then and only then is there a basis for anything. Blaming one country or another does no good at all. It prolongs it all.
Palestinians believe that Jerusalem is and should be the capital of their state. Israelis believe that the one-indivisible city is their capital. It can't be both.
We're not even into the whole business of who is to blame for this situation, the reality is that there are now two populations who both have a stake and a claim to the same bit of land. Even without the other intractable non-negotiables (and that's actually non-negotiable by both sides), the status of Jerusalem is impossible to resolve. It cannot be all things to all people. Impossible.
quote:
There are some obvious things as you note, but these mustn't be the starting point. Obviously the facts as exist must be taken as existing: Israel exists, the temple mount structures exist, control of lands exists etc. I think probably we would have to see some contribution of lands for Palestine from more than just one country.
I'm not entirely sure why that should be a starting point. After 1948 there was a UN partition plan which was never implemented whereby the new state of Israel got about half the land and the Palestinians got half the land. Why not start at that point?
Answer: because shedloads of Israelis live inside the 1967 green line, never mind the 1948 partition line.
And because both sides want Jerusalem.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Mr Cheesy:
quote:
We're not even into the whole business of who is to blame for this situation, the reality is that there are now two populations who both have a stake and a claim to the same bit of land. Even without the other intractable non-negotiables (and that's actually non-negotiable by both sides), the status of Jerusalem is impossible to resolve. It cannot be all things to all people. Impossible.
The Norn Irish peace process was similarly intractable until both sides realised that the other lot weren't going to go away and that the IRA couldn't beat the British Army and that the British Army couldn't put the IRA out of commission. At which point the unthinkable became thinkable.
The difference between NII. and Palestine and Israel is that by the 1990s every stakeholder who wasn't a Unionist or Republican was very emphatically on the side of peace. This isn't the case with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But there is no reason why it couldn't be.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Sioni Said:
quote:
United States of America, Australia, Canada, New Zealand (possibly to a lesser extent) and many other parts of the world that were colonised to the detriment of the native people.
It's not just colonisation. It's also about population transfers. Very few of these were ethically justifiable but they happened and we have learned to live with them. We don't insist that, say, Sudeten Germans ought to be allowed to return to the Czech Republic. People do insist that Palestinians ought to be allowed to return to the state of Israel but not, interestingly, that Jews displaced by the Arab states in 1948 ought to be allowed to return to their places of origin. There is no path to peace which does not involve acknowledging that the State of Israel is here to stay. I don't think that supporters of Palestinian statehood do their friends any favours when they give the impression this might not be the case. Just as I don't think that Gentile supporters of Israeli nationalism are doing Israel any favours, in the long run.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
As I've said before on these boards, though, virtually all the advocacy in the west of the Palestinian cause is strongly motivated by the opportunity it gives for people to be anti-semitic without admitting it to others, or frequently, themselves.
'Virtually all' is a big claim. I wonder how you might substantiate it?
He can't. It's bullshit, and disgustingly scurrilous bullshit at that, and everyone knows it. Doesn't stop people using it to shut open debate.
It's a claim that only makes sense if one interprets any criticism of the Israeli state as anti-semitism. Which is still bullshit, much akin to claims that criticism of Trump is anti-American or criticism of the implementation of Brexit treason against the Crown.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Jordan is a very interesting country. It isn't what it once was.
Saudi needs to embrace Israel.
Not sure what else.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
When negotiating a deal, it is good practice at the beginning to emphasise things the parties have in common and goals that both parties want to achieve. There is an impetus to negotiations that can build and sometimes previously insurmountable obstacles can suddenly seem capable of solution.
Political negotiations like these are always fraught. There is always a danger of those who are negotiating losing their support base because they are perceived to be too moderate, or giving too much away. The tragic collapse of the Oslo peace process, which set up the Palestinian Authority and started a process of Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories shows that what is agreed around a negotiating table can be effectively undermined by those who are not ready for peace.
I was not very interested in Northern Ireland in the 1990's. I followed what was going on because I was interested in public affairs, but not to any great detail. I wonder if any of our UK shipmates can tell us whether there was a time when peace in Northern Ireland seemed like an impossibility? It seemed to me like the peace process started to achieve extraordinary results out of the blue. Are there lessons to be learned for Israel/Palestine?
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
I feel the need to say that I am a long-time supporter of Israel and the Jewish people. I went to Israel in or about 2006 on one of those study tours paid for by the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council.
I am partisan on this issue in that I want Israel to continue to exist and be a haven for Jews, and I want peace. I reckon many Israelis want peace too, but some don't. Bibi, I don't think he does.
I hate being in a bloody honesty phase. I much prefer to fight.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
I was ardently pro-Israel until I visited in 1996, just prior to the first Palestinian elections. It was going through all the checkpoints that flipped my views. Every time we'd enter an Arab neighborhood, I'd look around at the markedly worse conditions and think, We have this at home, just without the checkpoints. It's called the ghetto.
quote:
... it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine ...
This is of course partly just ignorance on my part, but not entirely -- I really do wonder how on earth he could have thought this would actually happen.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
flipped from what to what? i.e. are you able to be more specific about what you supported prior to your visit and what you support now. I'm sure you know that there are a raft of difficult issues involved unless you choose the "throw them back into the sea" or the "Israel is our land given us by God and we will drive the Palestinian thieves out of the whole of our country" options.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The Jewish people have a right to exist. Israel, as a stolen land, does not. It does, however, now exist and getting rid of it isn’t a practical alternative. Fixing it is theoretically simple, but practically fraught.
Are there any other countries in the world that you think are 'stolen' and shouldn't exist, were it not impractical to abolish them, or is Israel a special case?
Germany, of course, with its occupation of the Sorbs and Wends, France with land taken from the Bretons, and with England effectively occuping Wales, Cornwall, Scotland and northern Ireland...
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
... I wonder if any of our UK shipmates can tell us whether there was a time when peace in Northern Ireland seemed like an impossibility?
Yes. Once violence had broken out again in the late 1960s, there was no time at which peace ever felt possible. It still seems very fragile, and is threatened by those of my fellow English voters who voted moron in the referendum. quote:
It seemed to me like the peace process started to achieve extraordinary results out of the blue. Are there lessons to be learned for Israel/Palestine?
Probably not - except perhaps that idealism is a thoroughly bad thing, and especially when enlisted in 'our cause'.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
... I wonder if any of our UK shipmates can tell us whether there was a time when peace in Northern Ireland seemed like an impossibility?
Enoch is right, there was indeed.
One side of my family is from NI and every Christmas various relatives would sit down after lunch and discuss "the Irish question". I gained the firm impression as a child that peace was indeed impossible. The fact that it suddenly happened gives me hope for other seemingly deadlocked situations.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
The Norn Irish peace process was similarly intractable until both sides realised that the other lot weren't going to go away and that the IRA couldn't beat the British Army and that the British Army couldn't put the IRA out of commission. At which point the unthinkable became thinkable.
The difference between NII. and Palestine and Israel is that by the 1990s every stakeholder who wasn't a Unionist or Republican was very emphatically on the side of peace. This isn't the case with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But there is no reason why it couldn't be.
This is utter shite as anyone who has been there in the last 20 years could tell you in a microsecond.
Tony Blair set up an office in a hotel in Jerusalem trying to spin this line of "oh you know we did this thing in NI which nobody thought was possible, there is no reason why we can't do it here *shiny grin*" and left after I-forget-how-long when it turned out to be utter bollocks.
The occupied Palestinian Territories are not Northern Ireland. For one "minor" but important difference: nobody in Northern Ireland has a religious tie to the land in the way that Jews have a tie to Jerusalem and Muslims have a tie to Al Quds.
Because the various forms of Christianity that exist in Western Europe are not Theologies of the Land* and therefore it is possible to discuss power sharing and political compromise.
You simply cannot do that when you have one set of people who believe "this is our land, it always has been because the deity gave it to us" and another set who believe "this is our land, it has been for thousands of years and is the site of one of the most holy parts of our religion". Fortunately in the main Christians don't stick their oar in these days and say "oh well, this is the site of the crucifixion, therefore it is ours so you can all just piss off".
Of course another difference with Northern Ireland is that whilst there was a power inbalance, it was nothing like the one in Israel/Palestine. Nothing like it.
If anything, this current situation is geographically more like South Africa. But again, the religio-political aspects of Jerusalem means that a resolution as per South Africa are increasingly unlikely. It would take a monumental effort by Israel - including compromising on land, on the wealth inbalance, compromising on their access to Holy sites, compromising on the status of Jerusalem, compromising on the Palestinian refugees and so on. That's just not going to happen.
It's all very well saying that the Palestinians should compromise, but they've already been forced to compromise at the end of a gun and they've got nothing else to offer. It's like having a community where a few people have been able to build a gated community on the majority of the land and everyone else has to live under canvass, and then the gated residents saying that - of course - everyone here has got to compromise to resolve the situation. No. Ridiculous.
*or at least are not Theologies of the Land of the land that they're actually living or want to live in. Having a Theology of the Land of a quasi-mythical place somewhere else is a novel idea, and of course also has implications for Jerusalem
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Perfect. Unfortunately. The closest analogy was South Africa, but this is orders of magnitude worse. It will be resolved by nuclear war or a literal Parousia, never by Israel doing what no other nation ever would.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Perfect. Unfortunately. The closest analogy was South Africa, but this is orders of magnitude worse. It will be resolved by nuclear war or a literal Parousia, never by Israel doing what no other nation ever would.
I think most Palestinians are fairly sanguine about the way it is going; namely that eventually they're going to be removed altogether from the land.
And in that sense the Israeli militarisation has worked. I don't think it is now a stretch to think that the Israeli government could do things that were previously unthinkable - such as unilaterally closing the whole of the Temple Mount and bringing it under full Israeli government control - and that Arab states wouldn't follow with a response.
Because none of them have the stomach for a fight, because they've got other things to worry about and because Israel has nukes.
I don't see that there is any way to stop the inevitable direction of history. Thousands of Palestinians have given up and have left the area. I'd bet that a large proportion of the residents of Gaza would leave if they were offered lives of freedom somewhere else. Israeli Arabs are increasingly given the choice of either getting fully on-board with Israel or finding life incredibly uncomfortable.
Israel will increase the pressure by increasing the building of settlements, by further restricting movement, by further restricting the Palestinian economy, by every other little action which makes a Palestinian's life unliveable. Eventually everyone will give up trying to resist the overwhelming force - that's what the Israelis believe that they're doing and I think they're basically right in that.
It's a pretty stupid way to get what they want, but they've apparently given in to the extreme politics which now refuses to even consider compromise and instead believes that they can simply wait to win the war of attrition.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Some time in the centuries, decades ahead somebody is going to drive a nuclear truck bomb up to the border. Or sail a boat bomb. When the wind is right and ill.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Mr Cheesy:
quote:
This is utter shite as anyone who has been there in the last 20 years could tell you in a microsecond.
Tony Blair set up an office in a hotel in Jerusalem trying to spin this line of "oh you know we did this thing in NI which nobody thought was possible, there is no reason why we can't do it here *shiny grin*" and left after I-forget-how-long when it turned out to be utter bollocks.
The occupied Palestinian Territories are not Northern Ireland. For one "minor" but important difference: nobody in Northern Ireland has a religious tie to the land in the way that Jews have a tie to Jerusalem and Muslims have a tie to Al Quds.
Because the various forms of Christianity that exist in Western Europe are not Theologies of the Land* and therefore it is possible to discuss power sharing and political compromise.
Anyone who has the faintest grasp of Christian history should be aware that power sharing and political compromise are not universal characteristics of Christian political praxis, to put it politely. In the 1980s Dr Paisley was ejected from the European Parliament for heckling the Pope as the anti-Christ. If you had told me that a couple of decades later he and Mr Martin McGuiness would be known as 'The Chuckle Brothers' my immediate response would have been along the lines of 'Take me to your dealer'. Yet, Lo and Behold, it came to pass. Neither side got exactly what they wanted but intractable problems became tractable, immutable and eternal theologies evolved, the unchangeable, changed. This isn't because inside Dr Paisley was an Isaiah Berlin trying to get out, or because Christianity is a uniquely tolerant monotheism it is because both sides realised that the absolute victory they sought over the other would elude them and the killing would just continue, pointlessly, whilst it did and that some sort of compromise which gave them part but not all of what they wanted could be on the table.
Israel isn't Ireland but if you get the protagonists to that point then peace could become achievable. The final status of whose God is boss could be deferred indefinitely, or theologies of the Land could evolve to accommodate Abraham's other children. Intolerance is very often a characteristic of monotheism. But then, so is a desire for peace.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Anyone who has the faintest grasp of Christian history should be aware that power sharing and political compromise are not universal characteristics of Christian political praxis, to put it politely. In the 1980s Dr Paisley was ejected from the European Parliament for heckling the Pope as the anti-Christ. If you had told me that a couple of decades later he and Mr Martin McGuiness would be known as 'The Chuckle Brothers' my immediate response would have been along the lines of 'Take me to your dealer'. Yet, Lo and Behold, it came to pass. Neither side got exactly what they wanted but intractable problems became tractable, immutable and eternal theologies evolved, the unchangeable, changed. This isn't because inside Dr Paisley was an Isaiah Berlin trying to get out, or because Christianity is a uniquely tolerant monotheism it is because both sides realised that the absolute victory they sought over the other would elude them and the killing would just continue, pointlessly, whilst it did and that some sort of compromise which gave them part but not all of what they wanted could be on the table.
These continued comparisons with Northern Ireland are misplaced. Israel/Palestine is nothing like Northern Ireland.
quote:
Israel isn't Ireland but if you get the protagonists to that point then peace could become achievable. The final status of whose God is boss could be deferred indefinitely, or theologies of the Land could evolve to accommodate Abraham's other children. Intolerance is very often a characteristic of monotheism. But then, so is a desire for peace.
Bullshit. This is just drivel.
[ 26. October 2017, 10:59: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I'm not sure why Israel would want 'peace', since basically they have won. I mean, they have ethnically cleansed Palestine, and destroyed it; well, 'destroy' is a misnomer since it never existed and will not exist now.
This has happened before in human history, and life goes on.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
As always, Mr Cheesy, I am bowled over by your eloquence and willingness to engage.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
As always, Mr Cheesy, I am bowled over by your eloquence and willingness to engage.
You haven't presented an argument other than a very superficial "oh well look at Northern Ireland".
OK let's look at NI. The Belfast agreement ensured various things, including that people in NI could choose to get British and/or Irish passports. The fact that both the British and Irish states were in the EU meant that trade was entirely unimpeded. That farmers on either side of the border could share marketing. That trains would run without border checks.
That anyone could live anywhere on the island of Ireland.
None of this is relevant to Israel/Palestine - where one population is a first-world European community seeking to control life of another underprivileged population. There is no sense that anyone wants an outcome that looks like Northern Ireland - not least the Israeli government which would have most to lose.
Continually bringing this up isn't helping one iota.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I think one flaw in the analogy with Ireland, is that it may be true that in Ireland, both sides realized that they could not win, but in the Middle East, Israel has won, and knows it has won. It has its boot on the Palestinian throat, and it ain't lifting it.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You cannot work together to resolve differences the parties do not agree exist.
There are two populations living in the land with diametrically opposed understandings of history and religion.
There is no way to compromise or resolve those differences. You can't both have Temple Mount as the site of a new Jewish temple and the site of the third holiest place in Islam. Not possible.
*snip*
Actually, it is possible. And our friends the Ottomans showed how it is to be done. As an excellent example, one has the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, where Abdulmecid I in 1853 assigned and confirmed different bits of the shrine to different churches and religious orders. As it is, there are delineations of the Dome of the Rock and the Wall. All that has to be done is for the differing parties to maintain that distinction. Easier said than done, but it is theoretically possible, and an example exists.
And if there are two states, one city (Jerusalem) could be an agreed capital for both of them, either through division of the city, or an overlay of jurisdiction. Both of these could easily be part of a settlement if the parties choose.
I'm not sure if apologizing for the Balfour declaration is more than a shibboleth. Were I Palestinian, I would be keener on seeing a desire on seeking justice and fairness for all residents on the part of my interlocutor.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
When Israel gets nuked I'm sure Turkey, as the regional superpower for the next thousand years and ten, will pick up the pieces.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
The position that Israel is on stolen land, regardless of support via history and conflict isn't one that leads anywhere. Israel exists, it controls some substantial additional lands and will continue to do so and will continue to exist. If and when a Palestinian state is created, terror organizations may not govern it or have governance roles (eg Hamas, Hezbollah), it must be an Israeli ally, and will probably also require land from Jordan and Syria, and clear recognition from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Libya etc. Jordan is more or less a Palestinian state already. Right of return is probably going to be sorely limited. Perhaps some compensation at most.
The cynical me thinks that not having peace is in the interests of America, Europe, Saudi, others because then resources in the area might be exported via rules versus conquest, corrupt profiteering and corporate-military control. And the standards of living and education might rise, severely impacting on western hegemony. Chaos and deaths serving economies in the West which without would be permanently recessionary. Which is foundational to social levelling or revolution if economic fairness doesn't occur.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Actually, it is possible. And our friends the Ottomans showed how it is to be done. As an excellent example, one has the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, where Abdulmecid I in 1853 assigned and confirmed different bits of the shrine to different churches and religious orders. As it is, there are delineations of the Dome of the Rock and the Wall. All that has to be done is for the differing parties to maintain that distinction. Easier said than done, but it is theoretically possible, and an example exists.
No. We don't live in the 19 century. The aspirations for Jews in Israel to have a rebuilt temple on the site of the Al Aqsa compound are much more heightened than they were in Ottoman times.
This is quite a ridiculous point to make.
quote:
And if there are two states, one city (Jerusalem) could be an agreed capital for both of them, either through division of the city, or an overlay of jurisdiction. Both of these could easily be part of a settlement if the parties choose.
You are arguing both with the basics of Israeli law and repeatedly expressed Palestinian policy.
If it was as simple as just getting everyone to sit around hold hands and sing Kumbaya, maybe just maybe all those people who have tried to find a middle ground might have been able to find a middle ground.
They can't because there is no middle ground. Israel controls Jersualem, it is never ever ever going to give it up. It says so in the most basic of their laws.
quote:
I'm not sure if apologizing for the Balfour declaration is more than a shibboleth. Were I Palestinian, I would be keener on seeing a desire on seeking justice and fairness for all residents on the part of my interlocutor.
Any notion of justice requires Israel as the more powerful power in the region giving stuff up. And it isn't happening.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Aye, when the US, Russia, China, Turkey, Burma, Spain, England do, Israel can follow.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The position that Israel is on stolen land, regardless of support via history and conflict isn't one that leads anywhere. Israel exists, it controls some substantial additional lands and will continue to do so and will continue to exist.
I think you'll find that a majority of Palestinians actually agree that lands lost from pre-1948 Palestine are indeed lost.
But as I said earlier, there is a whole lot of other uncertainty about the lands taken post-1948, those taken in 1967 and those taken since - particularly given the UN partition plan (which, by allocating nearly 50% of the land to Palestinians was undoubtedly far fairer than any suggestion since or the current situation on the ground).
What is fairness when one party lives in luxury when another cannot even visit relatives in a neighbouring village? Where one has access to the world and the other doesn't even have access to reliable sanitation?
quote:
If and when a Palestinian state is created, terror organizations may not govern it or have governance roles (eg Hamas, Hezbollah), it must be an Israeli ally, and will probably also require land from Jordan and Syria, and clear recognition from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Libya etc. Jordan is more or less a Palestinian state already. Right of return is probably going to be sorely limited. Perhaps some compensation at most.
Riiight. Explain to me why all these other places need to give land. Jordan is on the other side of the river from the West Bank, Syria is miles away from the West Bank and unconnected to Gaza.
quote:
The cynical me thinks that not having peace is in the interests of America, Europe, Saudi, others because then resources in the area might be exported via rules versus conquest, corrupt profiteering and corporate-military control. And the standards of living and education might rise, severely impacting on western hegemony. Chaos and deaths serving economies in the West which without would be permanently recessionary. Which is foundational to social levelling or revolution if economic fairness doesn't occur.
I don't think so. The reason it is not tractable is because it is an intractable problem. There is no way out of this mess because the passions - particularly religious passions - are so strong in equal and opposite directions.
The USA arguably makes the problem worse with giving money and military assistance to Israel, but I think there is an argument which has traction that if they hadn't the Jews would have been massacred years ago.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Actually, it is possible. And our friends the Ottomans showed how it is to be done. As an excellent example, one has the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, where Abdulmecid I in 1853 assigned and confirmed different bits of the shrine to different churches and religious orders. As it is, there are delineations of the Dome of the Rock and the Wall. All that has to be done is for the differing parties to maintain that distinction. Easier said than done, but it is theoretically possible, and an example exists.
No. We don't live in the 19 century. The aspirations for Jews in Israel to have a rebuilt temple on the site of the Al Aqsa compound are much more heightened than they were in Ottoman times.
This is quite a ridiculous point to make.
quote:
And if there are two states, one city (Jerusalem) could be an agreed capital for both of them, either through division of the city, or an overlay of jurisdiction. Both of these could easily be part of a settlement if the parties choose.
You are arguing both with the basics of Israeli law and repeatedly expressed Palestinian policy.
If it was as simple as just getting everyone to sit around hold hands and sing Kumbaya, maybe just maybe all those people who have tried to find a middle ground might have been able to find a middle ground.
They can't because there is no middle ground. Israel controls Jersualem, it is never ever ever going to give it up. It says so in the most basic of their laws.
quote:
I'm not sure if apologizing for the Balfour declaration is more than a shibboleth. Were I Palestinian, I would be keener on seeing a desire on seeking justice and fairness for all residents on the part of my interlocutor.
Any notion of justice requires Israel as the more powerful power in the region giving stuff up. And it isn't happening.
First, there's a sizeable population of secular or moderate Jews who are not fixated on a new temple.
Second, I know what the current positions are. I also lived in Ireland during the Troubles and saw the firmness (mild word) with which irreducible and unalterable positions were held. I also saw what I never thought possible, that these positions were a lot more flexible than thought. If, in the Dublin of 1975, one had projected a vision of the future where Martin McGuinness would be shaking hands with the Queen, one would have been dismissed as a ridiculous fool.
What is required is the political will to make these decisions. It's clear that it is lacking on the part of the two parties and, at the moment, equally clear that the "great powers" are not really focussed on pushing the parties to it. The barriers to peace and a modus vivendi are incredibly great- but we have seen that it is possible to transcend inevitability.
I merely pointed out the possibility. I don't think that this is a ridiculous point, but clearly we differ.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
There is no possibility. None. Absolutely none.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
First, there's a sizeable population of secular or moderate Jews who are not fixated on a new temple.
Doesn't matter. The hardliners are in government. Netanjahu recently: "“We will never return to that situation” of the city divided, he pledged. “The Temple Mount and the Western Wall will forever remain under Israeli sovereignty"
quote:
Second, I know what the current positions are. I also lived in Ireland during the Troubles and saw the firmness (mild word) with which irreducible and unalterable positions were held. I also saw what I never thought possible, that these positions were a lot more flexible than thought. If, in the Dublin of 1975, one had projected a vision of the future where Martin McGuinness would be shaking hands with the Queen, one would have been dismissed as a ridiculous fool.
With respect, miracles happened in NI. But it is going to require a lot more than that in Israel/Palestine. The scale and size of the problem is completely different.
quote:
What is required is the political will to make these decisions. It's clear that it is lacking on the part of the two parties and, at the moment, equally clear that the "great powers" are not really focussed on pushing the parties to it. The barriers to peace and a modus vivendi are incredibly great- but we have seen that it is possible to transcend inevitability.
Nope, this is not a political problem. That's the mistake that is being made over and over again. It is a religious problem. And one that cannot ever be resolved.
quote:
I merely pointed out the possibility. I don't think that this is a ridiculous point, but clearly we differ.
There is no possibility. Not happening.
On a small local and individual level Palestinians and Israelis have been able to make some headway, but that is never going to get far when one side is protecting their privilege with overwhelming military force.
[ 26. October 2017, 14:13: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Alas Mr Cheesy you and I will differ on two essential perspectives.
First, a political position (you quote that dreadful Netanyahu man) is never immutable. He may change his mind. He may be defeated or replaced, and the next PM may have a different position. Netanyahu may wish that his words were as the laws of the Medes, but they're not.
The Israeli constitution's documents (the various Basic Laws) are amendable. I've checked. The Jerusalem Law has been amended already. It can be again.
Second, religious positions are political. This one is a very good example. In my own lifetime I have seen the eternal word of the prophet Joseph Smith overturned by a vote of the Council of the Presidency to avoid a series of political and programme problems for Mormonism.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Alas Mr Cheesy you and I will differ on two essential perspectives.
First, a political position (you quote that dreadful Netanyahu man) is never immutable. He may change his mind. He may be defeated or replaced, and the next PM may have a different position. Netanyahu may wish that his words were as the laws of the Medes, but they're not.
Yeah. It is easy to say this from a distance. Try going there and see how far your words get you. I did - and I can tell you it wasn't far.
quote:
The Israeli constitution's documents (the various Basic Laws) are amendable. I've checked. The Jerusalem Law has been amended already. It can be again.
They're the basic aspirations and understanding of what it means to be the state of Israel. The status of Jerusalem as capital is there on the first page.
Giving up Jerusalem, even to the extent of giving up part of it so that can be a Palestinian capital (which, incidentally isn't going to happen because the bit that Palestinians want is the Old City) means giving up what it means to be Israeli. Simple as that.
quote:
Second, religious positions are political. This one is a very good example. In my own lifetime I have seen the eternal word of the prophet Joseph Smith overturned by a vote of the Council of the Presidency to avoid a series of political and programme problems for Mormonism.
Sigh. Many have gone to Israel/Palestine thinking that they know this and that they uniquely have a solution which everyone just needs to accept. They've all failed.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I keep thinking about the comparison with Ireland, which has some negative points of interest. For example, in the Troubles, the loyalists are UK patriots (on steroids), and the nationalists and Republicans looked partly to the Republic, and the latter to some kind of idealized Republic (hope I'm not offending anyone).
So both sides come out of a kind of historical root, and this gives them a kind of solidity. Hence, I would say, they can't be defeated.
OK, you could say that the Palestinians get sustenance from Arab nationalism, and some militant groups, but it has become very thin fare indeed. They are basically on their own, while Israel is helped by the US. Who would you pick as a winner? Hence, the slow motion ethnic cleansing and land grab.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Nope, this is not a political problem. That's the mistake that is being made over and over again. It is a religious problem. And one that cannot ever be resolved.
Al the intractable bastards in this are religious?
It is a political problem.
It is a social problem.
Religious problem? Without the first two factors, this one wouldn't have the traction.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The USA arguably makes the problem worse with giving money and military assistance to Israel, but I think there is an argument which has traction that if they hadn't the Jews would have been massacred years ago.
You might enjoy Michael Chabon's "Yiddish Policemen's Union". The Jews were defeated in 1948, relocated to Alaska.
Isn't the USA funding to Israel while also funding surrounding countries the classic divide and conquer so you can economically exploit?
Is Jordan part of Palestine? historically?
Could Golan and some parts of Syria also ever be part of an Israeli-allied Palestine in addition to some pieces of Jordan? Maybe also some pieces of Lebanon and Egypt? Why or why not?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Al the intractable bastards in this are religious?
It is a political problem.
It is a social problem.
Religious problem? Without the first two factors, this one wouldn't have the traction.
No, that's true. In the past when Jews had no political power and when there wasn't a resurgence of the socio-religious understanding amongst many Jews - then there weren't many who believed that the direction of their lives led them to want to build on temple mount and live in Samaria.
But in the current situation where there is the political support for the idea and there is the social support for settlers who think it is part of their identity as Jews to live in the land, then the conflict becomes primarily a religious one.
If those political and social conditions were not present, I doubt that those who wanted to continue with the aspirations for a Temple on Temple Mount and to populate Samaria would have a lot of sway. Even within Israel.
But in the current era it is unthinkable to imagine an Israel where those things are not an aspiration for a powerful sector of the society and it is essentially impossible to now row back from that position.
In terms of the Palestinians - and other Arabs in the region - I highly suspect that Jersualem wouldn't be a major issue if the Jews didn't want it. There is a level of intransigence and religious one-up-manship. But then that's kind-of understandable given that Islam has that element within it (ie it is believed that Islam is superior to all the religious ideas that went before etc).
But given where we are today, and given the strong positions that both Palestinian and Islamic leaders have made with regard to Al Asqa - and Jerusalem - it is now impossible to imagine them throwing up their hands and saying "pah, doesn't really matter, we have other holy sites after all".
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
You might enjoy Michael Chabon's "Yiddish Policemen's Union". The Jews were defeated in 1948, relocated to Alaska.
Of course, it has been said that Israel was nearly created in South America or Africa and elsewhere. In the end the attraction of creating a Jewish homeland surrounding Jerusalem was too great, despite the obstacles.
quote:
Isn't the USA funding to Israel while also funding surrounding countries the classic divide and conquer so you can economically exploit?
Mmm. Well if memory serves, a lot of USA military financial support goes to Egypt. Which has had an uncomfortable relationship with Israel but is currently on relatively good terms. I'm not sure how much goes into Jordan, but I suspect much less than to Israel or Egypt. Otherwise the next nearest are Lebanon and Syria. I don't think either receive direct military payments in the way that Israel and Egypt do.
So no, not really. I don't think this is divide and conquer. Or at least not in terms of military aid anyway.
quote:
Is Jordan part of Palestine? historically?
It depends what you mean and how far you go back. But from 1920s to 1940s Jordan was the Emirate of Transjordan. Which was separate from British mandate Palestine.
But then Jordanian forces annexed the West Bank between 1948 and 1967 when the Israeli military forced them out.
There are a lot of Palestinians in Jordan, but I think it is a stretch to claim that Jordan=Palestine.
quote:
Could Golan and some parts of Syria also ever be part of an Israeli-allied Palestine in addition to some pieces of Jordan? Maybe also some pieces of Lebanon and Egypt? Why or why not?
Geographically that would be difficult, because they're not in the same place. I'm not clear why you think that the Golan is relevant. Similarly with Lebanon and Egypt: neither are really nearby, although Egypt borders with Gaza.
But even if there was some way to do this, it would be a pretty shitty thing to do. The part of Egypt bordering Gaza and Israel is mostly desert. The Golan Heights aren't really that good land.
It'd be like taking someone's relatively good land and in exchange giving them something far away that was shit.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
mr cheesy quote:
Nope, this is not a political problem. That's the mistake that is being made over and over again. It is a religious problem. And one that cannot ever be resolved.
Nope.
Zionism is secular rather than religious in origin. Indeed, for non-religious Jews it has become a political substitute for belief.
Palestinian Nationalism was an expression of Arab Nationalism, which was secular and included Christians along with other ethnic minorities amongst its leadership.
Islam was used by the enemies of Arab (and Iranian) Nationalism: Israel, the Western Powers, and traditional Arab rulers in the Gulf, to divide the popular base of Arab Nationalism. This attempt was largely successful, though it led to the rise of the Ayatollahs in Iran, and has assisted the destabilisation of the Middle East generally. The debilitation of Arab Nationalism has severely undermined the religiously pluralistic inheritance of the Ottoman Empire. Religion was not the cause of the conflicts but has been mobilised by various interested parties with devastating consequences. Western interests must bear a large share of the blame for the emergence of militant Islam. (Similar tactics were used by the West in response to the Soviet innovations of Afghanistan).
Israel has clearly benefitted from such developments. On the other hand, the level of political instability in the region which has helped it thus far might not prove so advantageous in the future. Mind you, it may not help the Palestinians either.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
mr cheesy quote:
Nope, this is not a political problem. That's the mistake that is being made over and over again. It is a religious problem. And one that cannot ever be resolved.
Nope.
Zionism is secular rather than religious in origin. Indeed, for non-religious Jews it has become a political substitute for belief.
Palestinian Nationalism was an expression of Arab Nationalism, which was secular and included Christians along with other ethnic minorities amongst its leadership.
Not so sure about Zionism but that is so for Arab Nationalism, which certainly encompasses Arab Christians (I have family connections out there). Many founders of The Arab League were Christians but they have either left or thrown in their lot with Islam, feeling that Christianity has deserted them.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Zionism is secular rather than religious in origin. Indeed, for non-religious Jews it has become a political substitute for belief.
Palestinian Nationalism was an expression of Arab Nationalism, which was secular and included Christians along with other ethnic minorities amongst its leadership.
The key concept is "in origin". Whatever Zionism and Palestinian Nationalism were originally, they've now coalesced around a religious identity.
Largely because the majority of Palestinian Christians have left and the secular Jewish Israelis have been silenced.
There are various other groups, of course, but the unresolvable Jerusalem power struggle is between Jews and Muslims.
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on
:
5000 women from both Israel and Palestine met in the desert near Jericho earlier this month. The Peace Camp of Hagar and Sarah we called it. Meeting the "sheep of the other flocks"; dancing, singing, praying (yep, a multi-faith prayer with everyone holding hands) ... women waging peace
That evening 30000 women marched and sang through the City of Jerusalem
Didn't hear the Balfour Declaration mentioned even once.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
5000 men will never do that.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
5000 men can't be trusted to remember to pack lunch.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
LOL!
I'll see your self deprecating sexism and raise it.
Ten, a hundred times that number of women wouldn't make any difference.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Galilit--
Way cool! Girl power! May there be all sorts of wonderful ripple effects, large and small.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Martin--
There's more than one way to make a difference, and more than one kind of difference to be made.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
Funny how we rarely hear about the positive stuff.
Do they call you Cheesy Stormcrow down the pub Mr. C?
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Ten, a hundred times that number of women wouldn't make any difference.
It made a difference to THIS woman...and every other woman there.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Well said Galilit. That was my unspoken come back as I wrote my monochrome response.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
5000 men can't be trusted to remember to pack lunch.
...that might explain a whole lot about history...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Zionism is secular rather than religious in origin. Indeed, for non-religious Jews it has become a political substitute for belief.
It is secular in origin, and perhaps it's incorrect to attribute to it the 'Theology of the Land' that has purchase among the most religious. However, things have certainly moved on since the day when the most religious saw the state of Israel as a largely secular entity.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Zionism is secular rather than religious in origin. Indeed, for non-religious Jews it has become a political substitute for belief.
It is secular in origin, and perhaps it's incorrect to attribute to it the 'Theology of the Land' that has purchase among the most religious. However, things have certainly moved on since the day when the most religious saw the state of Israel as a largely secular entity.
And the support for it from some segments of evangelicalism is absolutely and completely religious in origin. I've had people on my Bookface who tell me anyone who doesn't "support Israel" is going to get it hot in the afterlife.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I've had people on my Bookface who tell me anyone who doesn't "support Israel" is going to get it hot in the afterlife.
Now I need to know what a "Bookface" is. Just a reordering of the words in facebook or something else?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Just me failing to be cute, yeah, FB
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
I like the IT Crowd's Face Friends
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
It would seem that contributors to this post agree with me that though Zionism might have been secular in origin it is less so now that it was. I do, however, wish to contend that any increase or decrease of religious zeal in Israel explains little about Israeli policy since the creation of the state by secular Jews:
In my view the course of Israel’s history was set by its foundation as an independent state supported by the United States at the expense of dispossessed Palestinians. Its strategic vulnerability to Arab hostility made it necessary for the new state to improve its military capacity to defend itself against hostile neighbours, to expand its borders, and increase its population by attracting ethnically Jewish immigrants, thereby necessitating further expansion into the West Bank. Unwilling to permit the creation of a Palestinian state or to grant citizenship rights to the Palestinians, both of which threatened to undermine Jewish dominance, the Israelis created Palestinian Bantustans in the West Bank and Gaza. These developments, rhetoric apart, have been characteristics of both left and right governments in Israel because they have been dictated by the imperatives of national survival. None of this has had anything to do with religion, because even if all the Israeli Jews were atheists the political parameters dictating policy would not have been different. If religion is a dimension then it relates to the capacity of the Israelis to mobilise support in the USA Bible Belt to underpin congressional support.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
These developments, rhetoric apart, have been characteristics of both left and right governments in Israel because they have been dictated by the imperatives of national survival. None of this has had anything to do with religion, because even if all the Israeli Jews were atheists the political parameters dictating policy would not have been different.
I think that what some are arguing in this thread is that at this moment in time even if national survival was no longer an issue - the politics are unlikely to change because they are *now* driven by religious reasoning.
So the question is not so much whether Israel might have ended up in the same geopolitical situation via other means, as much as whether the current religious motivations of parts of its population makes it less likely that a political settlement could be achieved.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
/tangent
The Jewish National Homeland really should have been established in upstate New York (ie, the Catskills).
tangent/
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
I think there's a novel that has it in Alaska.
Catskills might work, though. All the Borscht Belt resorts and their comedy shows! (Primarily for Jewish folks, with Jewish comedians.)
On "Big Bang Theory", Sheldon wanted to put it somewhere in the American Southwest. New Mexico, maybe?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I think there's a novel that has it in Alaska.
How about have a read just up a bit? Michael Chabon "Yiddish Policeman's Union".
Jewish Autonomous Oblast in the far east of Russia, which isn't a fantasy, it actually exists.
But couldn't we move the Palestinians instead. Perhaps evacuate everyone to Jordan? Or maybe they could move to the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, renamed Palestinian Autonomous Oblast. Or maybe rich Saudi Arabia, or dispersed among the Persian Gulf states.
Doesn't it make better sense to move them than the Israelis just now?
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
np--
Sorry, I missed that first reference. Thanks for the second link.
At this point, I don't think moving either group would work. For various reasons, they're all deeply attached to that land.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
np--
Sorry, I missed that first reference. Thanks for the second link.
At this point, I don't think moving either group would work. For various reasons, they're all deeply attached to that land.
Re Jordan:
There are many Palestinians already there. Even the wife of the current king is Palestinian. But I think I heard that the situation of having the Palestinians there isn't always happy.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
How about have a read just up a bit? Michael Chabon "Yiddish Policeman's Union".
Jewish Autonomous Oblast in the far east of Russia, which isn't a fantasy, it actually exists.
But couldn't we move the Palestinians instead. Perhaps evacuate everyone to Jordan? Or maybe they could move to the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, renamed Palestinian Autonomous Oblast. Or maybe rich Saudi Arabia, or dispersed among the Persian Gulf states.
Doesn't it make better sense to move them than the Israelis just now?
Yebbut, that's the point. Theory doesn't cap identity. Neither Alaska nor an obscure bit of eastern Siberia was ever going to do. Having returned to the Promised Land twice, and kept the memory alive of the place the Romans evicted them from for all these centuries, it has to be the same place they hungered to return to for the third, and they hope, final time. Only that bit of land would do. Even without the traumas of Jewish history and persecution, anywhere else would still just be a bed for the night.
Palestinian identity is actually fairly new, created by current tensions. Before 1918, the people who lived there were just subjects of the Turkish sultan who happened to live on or inland from part of the eastern seaboard of the Mediterranean. As an identity, it was only created by their finding themselves in the bit that didn't become any of the other bits. But the people themselves, are the same people as were subjects of the Turks before. Why should they go and live in a cold, dismal and unproductive part of the Russian Far East, or Alaska for that matter (also cold, dismal and unproductive, though probably more scenic)?
If somebody told you it would be more convenient for everybody of you upped sticks, quit Canada and go to either the Russian Far East or Alaska - or for that matter Uganda or Paraguay which I think were also suggested as possible homelands at various times - how would you feel about it?
That's why the problem is intractable. Both sides are right, but neither of them is going about pursuing their cause in ways that wins friends and influences people, yet alone that anyone else can unequivocally support.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Spot on Kwesi. And nobody is going anywhere, apart from powerful Jews on to powerless Arabs' land.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
With the current racist news from Poland, some interesting details impactful on this were reported. Poland expelled 20,000 Jews in 1968. In 1948 the surrounding countries (Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Morocco, Syria, Yemen, Saudi) expelled at least one million Jews from places where they'd lived for at least as long as Palestinians in Israel. Number probably higher.
The eliminationist wars of 1948, 1967, 1973. The Palestinian negotiation of a settlement in 2000-2001 to create an independent Palestinian state, then walking away from it. It included shared control of Jerusalem, land swaps, and what was thought to be everything a final settlement should contain. Instead the Second Intifada was unleashed. It's as if the very idea of accommodation to Israel was the problem. Perhaps Palestinians Do not want peace? Or perhaps surrounding countries are concerned about democracy spreading to their dictatorships?
[ 13. November 2017, 16:14: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
no..., those were all inevitable effects of the cause of the UN mandated Jewish state forced upon Arab lands. The effects don't justify the cause.
[ 13. November 2017, 22:45: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
no..., those were all inevitable effects of the cause of the UN mandated Jewish state forced upon Arab lands. The effects don't justify the cause.
What Arab lands? The Mandate indicated shared lands. The UN. One group gets this, the other gets that. But no-one wants to share with Jews. And worries that Israel violates human rights, holding Israelis to a standard of behaviour different than their neighbours. Very odd. Query anti-Semitic.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I beg your pardon?
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on
:
The UN recommendation was partition. There is a book on Canada's involvement at the UN debate by David Bercuson called Canada and the Birth of Israel.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Partition isn't the same as sharing. It's giving one bit of land to one group and another bit of land to another. Sharing would be both groups having equal rights within the same bit of land.
But, partition or shared, I'm not seeing how the actions of other states in expelling Jews from their territory could be justified by the existence of the state of Israel.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Neither do I. But it was absolutely inevitable and fully calculated.
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on
:
The question of a federal state was discussed by UNSCOP and only supported by a minority of states.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Is it not so that partition needed to occur because otherwise the Jews were at risk from majoritarian Arab - Muslim populations?
Exchange of populations. Some people have to leave one area and live in another, and then deal with it. This appears reasonably common. What's so special about this situation?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
What - other than that the partition plan was never enacted?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Is it not so that partition needed to occur because otherwise the Jews were at risk from majoritarian Arab - Muslim populations?
Exchange of populations. Some people have to leave one area and live in another, and then deal with it. This appears reasonably common. What's so special about this situation?
It was increasingly forced on the Arabs, against their will, by Turkey from 1882, Britain from 1917, the UN in 1948 and the state of Israel thereafter. Where've you been?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
We're back to the partition as approved, finally, by the nations of the world. And we have to consider where the Jews should go if not to Israel. Because the surrounding countries attacked immediately, Israel determined to hang on to additional territories, as did surrounding countries. When there was no acceptance of Israel's right to exist, we end up with strategic moves to retain the territory, even in the situation of land for peace, as noted previously in 2000-2001.
I have seen the Hamas Charter, which shows its goals as eliminationist (it and Fatah are the PLO, not clear on the state of their conflict with each other and which is more outrageous), and the leader of the Palestinian government, Mahmoud Abbas, (doesn't control Gaza) appears clearly anti-Jewish.
How can such people be taken seriously about Palestinian-Israeli peace? Would they, as their comments, documents etc indicate, exterminate the Jews if they ran the government which controlled all of the territory? Or force them all out? I cannot see how the Palestinian cause can be taken seriously if this is their leadership.
[ 14. November 2017, 22:18: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
It's their land.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
I was born and live on indigenous land.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Me too. As my sig says.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
The vast majority of people were born and live on indigenous land, since the amount of land that had no indigenous population before the arrival of settlers in recent times is very small.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
We're back to the partition as approved, finally, by the nations of the world. And we have to consider where the Jews should go if not to Israel. Because the surrounding countries attacked immediately, Israel determined to hang on to additional territories, as did surrounding countries. When there was no acceptance of Israel's right to exist, we end up with strategic moves to retain the territory, even in the situation of land for peace, as noted previously in 2000-2001.
OK. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but Israel has ignored the Partition plan and has built large cities in the portion that was not allocated to them. In addition it annexed the West Bank and continued to build settlements in occupied land.
So if you are going back to partition, you are also talking about reducing the size of the nation of Israel, withdrawing from the occupied territories and releasing military control of the Palestinian population.
Maybe you know this, but it isn't clear from what you've written.
On the other point, there is a lot of empty space in Israel. If they really wanted extra urban areas they could easily build more towns in 1948 Israel without the need for settlements in the occupied territories. But it has never been about that.
quote:
I have seen the Hamas Charter, which shows its goals as eliminationist (it and Fatah are the PLO, not clear on the state of their conflict with each other and which is more outrageous), and the leader of the Palestinian government, Mahmoud Abbas, (doesn't control Gaza) appears clearly anti-Jewish.
This is so old -
Hamas has said it will accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders (which is far less equitable than the 1948 partition borders) because the previous position is untenable. And that just shows how ridiculous this whole thing has become - even the most ardent Palestinians now accept that regaining the whole of the land isn't happening and that Israel isn't going away. And they've rowed back significantly on what they're prepared to accept.
But Israel is not interested in that discussion, because obviously they'd lose an awful lot by accepting an agreement based on 1967 borders, not least the claim to, and control of, the West Bank.
quote:
How can such people be taken seriously about Palestinian-Israeli peace? Would they, as their comments, documents etc indicate, exterminate the Jews if they ran the government which controlled all of the territory? Or force them all out? I cannot see how the Palestinian cause can be taken seriously if this is their leadership.
It's very simple when you realise that the official policy of the Israeli government is to make life so uncomfortable for Palestinans (particularly in Gaza) that they'll give up their demands, accept the breadcrumbs of a bandustan that they are offers - and preferably leave altogether.
Hamas are arses, but it is the Israeli government policies which created them.
[ 15. November 2017, 07:29: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
I believe it is the Palestinians who ignored the partition plan. Dialogue about it on the other side - Israel - isn't at all pristine, expectable to have free debate in a democracy, but the proposal to trade land for peace has been put forward a series of times. The more remote history is of wars against Israel to eliminate it. The more recent is brokered 'land for peace' which the Palestinian representatives continually reject. The most important recent one seems to be 2000-2001 which the Palestinians walked away from in favour of renewed violence. It doesn't look like they're serious about this sort of peace settlement.
Should Israel build settlements on the disputed territories, demolish homes and conveniently arrange to 'acquire' lands of non-Jewish people? No. But I get where they are coming from. The only time there's any serious offer for something from Palestinians is when they are backed into a corner.
Re Hamas Charter - if this is old history why isn't it repudiated completely? It is still part of their operating documentation. Further a simple internet search will show that the Palestinian leadership Mahmoud Abbas has as recently as this fall advocated violence against Jews and Israel, and also spread the medieval rumour of Jews poisoning water. Not the sort of person who can seriously negotiate anything.
I further understand that the Palestinian government pays matryrs' (terrorists?) families off after they kill themselves, and also those who are in jail for violence. There's something seriously wrong with school textbooks which teach clear anti-Semitism in the Palestinian schools. Ridiculous to suggest this all is seeking peace.
Thus, I'm seeing something anti-Semitic from the Palestinians. Also seeing that some of this is carried forward in some of the internet-available reporting. I get that casting opposition to Israel as anti-Semitic works as a strategy for Israel, a sort of proxying ant-Semitism for Israel, but even if that is true, the Palestinian leadership does appear to be afflicted with anti-Semitism on top of whatever proxying there is. And I don't think the proxying is a very big issue.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The more remote history is of wars against Israel to eliminate it. The more recent is brokered 'land for peace' which the Palestinian representatives continually reject.
There's nothing wrong with rejecting a bad deal. If the Israeli side are not going to put a reasonable offer on the table then any reasonable negotiator is just going to walk away until such a time as they do. And, for the record a reasonable offer would include a sufficient quantity and quality of land - land where people can live and earn an income (ie: fertile farm land), land that is connected as a coherent whole (ie: not bits and pieces all over the place with great tracts of Israeli land in between).
If Hitler had approached Churchill in 1941 and said "let's have peace between our nations, and in return we'll return the far north of Norway and those bits of the North African desert south of the coastal zone" I doubt Churchill would have bothered coming to the negotiating table.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I believe it is the Palestinians who ignored the partition plan. Dialogue about it on the other side - Israel - isn't at all pristine, expectable to have free debate in a democracy, but the proposal to trade land for peace has been put forward a series of times. The more remote history is of wars against Israel to eliminate it. The more recent is brokered 'land for peace' which the Palestinian representatives continually reject. The most important recent one seems to be 2000-2001 which the Palestinians walked away from in favour of renewed violence. It doesn't look like they're serious about this sort of peace settlement.
OK, well then you need to look at the historical maps. They're widely available.
Land-for-peace swaps have never offered a fair and equitable distribution of the land and access to the aquifer. At the present time, the Palestinian "owned" (I'm using inverted commas there because the land is not really owned when the occupying power can unilaterally claim it without any recourse to a higher legal authority) land is not contiguous and is essentially a bandustan. Any swaps of land could only be fair if land was given from Israel to Palestinians - there is nothing which could or should be given in reverse.
quote:
Should Israel build settlements on the disputed territories, demolish homes and conveniently arrange to 'acquire' lands of non-Jewish people? No. But I get where they are coming from. The only time there's any serious offer for something from Palestinians is when they are backed into a corner.
I'd just suggest calmly that you might want to go there and see for yourself what is going on. Israel's security requires millions of people to have their lives controlled by a military that they don't accept.
You might see that as understandable, I regard it as preposterous.
And also a ridiculous comment given that the Palestinians could easily say the same thing in reverse.
quote:
Re Hamas Charter - if this is old history why isn't it repudiated completely? It is still part of their operating documentation. Further a simple internet search will show that the Palestinian leadership Mahmoud Abbas has as recently as this fall advocated violence against Jews and Israel, and also spread the medieval rumour of Jews poisoning water. Not the sort of person who can seriously negotiate anything.
What a load of old cobblers. I don't think you know what you are talking about.
The Palestinian Authority only has the power that the Israeli military allows them. The PA is not a state, it is a caretaker government with very limited power.
quote:
I further understand that the Palestinian government pays matryrs' (terrorists?) families off after they kill themselves, and also those who are in jail for violence. There's something seriously wrong with school textbooks which teach clear anti-Semitism in the Palestinian schools. Ridiculous to suggest this all is seeking peace.
Yabber yabber yabber.
quote:
Thus, I'm seeing something anti-Semitic from the Palestinians. Also seeing that some of this is carried forward in some of the internet-available reporting. I get that casting opposition to Israel as anti-Semitic works as a strategy for Israel, a sort of proxying ant-Semitism for Israel, but even if that is true, the Palestinian leadership does appear to be afflicted with anti-Semitism on top of whatever proxying there is. And I don't think the proxying is a very big issue.
Again, as gently as I can, I want to suggest that you might want to go there, or at least talk to people who have gone there before throwing around accusations of anti-Semitism.
In fact, some of those who are most strongly against Israeli policies, most against the land-grabs and most against military actions are Jewish. A good number are also Israeli.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Was the 2000-2001 land for peace completely unacceptable? Were Palestinians serious about it? Are there any acceptable deals which don't involve the elimination of Israel?
If it is "yabber" about Mahmoud Abbas, I think we're into a situation of "alternative facts". The guy's way far out there.
The Hitler thing = Godwin's Law, and not comparable. Also the Palestinians are not British and Abbas is no Churchill.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Try this video on the history of Palestine/Israel. Or this one from an Israeli peace worker about the difficulties of living with the wall.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The Hitler thing = Godwin's Law, and not comparable.
OK, I took the first other example of a nation seizing territory by military force with the express intention of providing more land for their people to live on. Substitute for another example if you wish.
quote:
Also the Palestinians are not British and Abbas is no Churchill.
Why does it matter what nationality the people concerned are? If it's not right for French, Belgian, Norwegian and Danish people to have their country occupied by a foreign military power then the same applies to the Palestinians. The Palestinians share the same universal rights as the British, or anyone else. They are not worse than the British, nor less deserving of peace and justice.
And, you're right Abbas isn't Churchill. Abbas doesn't have the ability to blanket bomb whole cities and to slaughter thousands of civilians, much less issued orders to do so.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Sigh.
Mahmood Abbas is also known as Abu Mazen and is the chair of the Palestinian Authority. He is from Fatah.
Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister accused him of formenting violence because he (Abu Mazen) called for protests against Israel and said that Palestinian knife attacks were understandable.
Abbas is the leader of a broken administration with almost no power. And has repeatedly stated that violent struggle against Israel is not justified.
Fake news?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
But Israel was created by the UN, not by its use of military force. The military force was used to attempt to eliminate it. Now rocket attacks are used. Only when backed into a corner have Palestinians agreed to anything. I get that the dictatorships surrounding Israel have manipulated the Palestinians to their ends, but I'm seeing Israel as a party to conflict, not to be blamed alone.
Knife attacks are understandable? Since when? Is this okay? It hearkens back to medieval blood libel.
The 2000 Camp David plan is probably all the Palestinians could reasonably aspire to, and less than they currently have. (read through Territory, East Jerusalem, Right of Return.) This is about as good as it will ever get I think for Palestinians.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
But Israel was created by the UN, not by its use of military force.
Did I imagine a six-day war? Are those Israeli conscript troops stationed at check points in the West Bank a figment of my imagination? Are Israeli tanks shelling Gaza a good bit of photo-shopping?
The UN specified a small area as the Israeli state. The current, much larger, area under Israeli control is the result of military conquest.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
indeed, in response to being attacked. Repeatedly by the surrounding countries. Egypt made a peace deal based on, in part, getting land back. All of this forms the basis of Israeli understanding.
Israel's primary concern appears to be security.
There are several things that seem obvious: Israel will not agree to change itself from a Jewish majoritarian country. It will not agree to land exchanges that compromise security and defence. It also argues that the Palestinians are the responsibility of others in addition to itself.
Does Israel have a right to exist as Jewish state? I think so.
Does Palestine have a right to exist as either a Muslim state or a multi-ethic secular state. I think so, but Israel will have priority. Not because of my view, nor because it is or isn't fair, but because it is the only way this is going to play. And no, it isn't fair.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Knife attacks are understandable? Since when? Is this okay? It hearkens back to medieval blood libel.
Abbas has retracted the claim, which apparently originated from a hoax news site. Not the first nor the last leader to have been taken in by a hoax.
But there are reputable sources which speak of water inequalities and how Israeli military cause severe shortages that violate basic human rights.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Retracting use of the water poisoning trope doesn't remove the historical basis of this anti-Semitic claim. And given Abbas' 1982 dissertation The Other Side: The Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism, he is learned enough to know exactly what he was saying when he said it, back track or not.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0