Why is the argument that there were no Palestinians raised?

[Flankerl]

If a group has to leave, it is the european jews. Palestinians lived in that place for centuries.

Ah yes only the evil "European Jews" are the problem. I love how Muslims conveniently always forget how Mizrahim and Sephardim didn't leave their homes in Algeria, Morocco, Libya, Tunesia, Egypt... because they thought that it might be cool idea.


btw when are Muslims leaving Europe? Just out of curiosity...

 

[Shad]

You don't occupy your own home.

Useless comment

 

[metis]

Yes of course they were, what was your point?

The "point" (actually "points" in this case) is that all countries take actions to defend themselves and that war is not nice. For one to blame Israel for that which every other country does is hypocrisy. If one takes a position that no country should use arms to defend themselves, that's a different story because at least such a person is being consistent.

But even with this latter scenario, why is it that it's almost always Israel's actions that get condemned with hardly anything said about the actions of many countries that are in conflicts? As I mentioned to LD, we see thread after thread with many here condemning Israel, and yet so little about what other countries and groups have been or are doing. Why? It's not that this is the only conflict in the world that's going on.

So, let me ask you, Bunyip, why is there this constant mantra against what Israel does by quite a few people here and yet so little about anyone else? Why is it that Israel's even existence is questioned but no one questions the existence of other countries? Why is it that Israel"s boundaries are always being questioned but not the boundaries of other countries?

 

[Shad]

The two states, Egypt and Transjordan (till 46, the just Jordan) were not states in the area mandated to be Israel so when Jordan occupied land after May of 1948, it was an occupying power (assuming that the declarations of statehood of Jordan and Israel are equally valid). Israel's taking East Jerusalem/W-B back would therefore not be an occupation as Jordan's claim was invalid initially. A similar point could be made about Gaza -- it was part of the Mandate for a Jewish homeland. Egypt then occupied it after taking it from the soveeign nation (Israel).

But, while the various governmental agencies use the word "Palestine" in their names, such as the "All Palestine Government" these were not declarations of a Palestinian nation or people. Simply a reference to the mandatory geographical label.

Egypt and Jordan do not need to be in the mandate to have an effect on the area. Both were legal states without any major issues which Israeli and Palestine had in 48 with recongization. My point is people are playing word games when it comes to what a state is or is not. Neither Israeli nor Palestine were recognized states prior to the war, just declared states by the belligerents during a time of war. The Mandate for a Jewish homeland is moot since it was never ratified before the war. It becomes merely a useless document that failed to be passed or do what it was intended to do. The UK refused to implement both the League of Nations and UN partition plans as the "Arab" refused it. Also the UN partition was the primary solution which voided previous mandates and partitions. Gaza at this point was "Arab" thus Israeli had no right to the land unless you ignore decades of policies going back even before the Balfour declaration. As this declaration had parameters in which the local population could not have a state forced on to them, it was the choice of the locals.

If Jordan illegally occupied land which had no nation-state Israeli's occupation is also illegal as there is no nation-state formed prior to occupation. A large percentage of the WB was never part of the partition plan so Israeli has no claims to the lands. Also Gaza post-war was conceded to Egypt by the post-war Israeli nation. Also large parts of the interior which is now part of Israeli were not part of the partition plan. If you are going to claim Israeli has a right to territory according to different policies then you must also concede that Israeli is illegally occupying land with is part of the Arab partition.

I love the amount of double standard people invoke in order to justify occupation while omitting the same source material granting rights and land to Palestine.

 

[LuisDantas]

The "point" (actually "points" in this case) is that all countries take actions to defend themselves and that war is not nice. For one to blame Israel for that which every other country does is hypocrisy.

It would be if Israel were not such a deliberate construct. Most people inherited their nationalities without having a vote. The 1948 Israelis chose to be Israelis, and were obviously ready and willing to go to war to support that choice.

That does make their responsibility for that war considerable. To a greatly lessened extent, that is still somewhat true of their grandsons and their own offspring, the current Israelis.

Also, I don't think war to defend countries is legitimate in the first place, even in the abstract.

If one takes a position that no country should use arms to defend themselves, that's a different story because at least such a person is being consistent.

But even with this latter scenario, why is it that it's almost always Israel's actions that get condemned with hardly anything said about the actions of many countries that are in conflicts? As I mentioned to LD, we see thread after thread with many here condemning Israel, and yet so little about what other countries and groups have been or are doing. Why? It's not that this is the only conflict in the world that's going on.

It is however one of the most avoidable and most recurrent. Also one of the most plagued by difficult ideologies on both sides. Between the Israeli nationalism and the Arab ethnic, tribal thinking we all end up suffering for no good reason.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The "point" (actually "points" in this case) is that all countries take actions to defend themselves and that war is not nice. For one to blame Israel for that which every other country does is hypocrisy. If one takes a position that no country should use arms to defend themselves, that's a different story because at least such a person is being consistent.

But even with this latter scenario, why is it that it's almost always Israel's actions that get condemned with hardly anything said about the actions of many countries that are in conflicts? As I mentioned to LD, we see thread after thread with many here condemning Israel, and yet so little about what other countries and groups have been or are doing. Why? It's not that this is the only conflict in the world that's going on.

So, let me ask you, Bunyip, why is there this constant mantra against what Israel does by quite a few people here and yet so little about anyone else? Why is it that Israel's even existence is questioned but no one questions the existence of other countries? Why is it that Israel"s boundaries are always being questioned but not the boundaries of other countries?

It is very important to expose the persistent bias of these agenda-driven Israel critics.
It is also important to evaluate each criticism regardless of the possible agenda driving it.

 

[Flankerl]

It would be if Israel were not such a deliberate construct. Most people inherited their nationalities without having a vote. The 1948 Israelis chose to be Israelis, and were obviously ready and willing to go to war to support that choice.

That does make their responsibility for that war considerable. To a greatly lessened extent, that is still somewhat true of their grandsons and their own offspring, the current Israelis.

Yeah defending yourself is obviously bad. We get it.

In case you forgot it, Israel was attacked by every neighbour it had. It did not declare this war, its neighbours did.
I'll enjoy reading your back paddling

Also, I don't think war to defend countries is legitimate in the first place, even in the abstract.

Yeah we get it you don't like Nationalism. Now grow up.

It is however one of the most avoidable and most recurrent. Also one of the most plagued by difficult ideologies on both sides. Between the Israeli nationalism and the Arab ethnic, tribal thinking we all end up suffering for no good reason.

You are suffering because of the Israeli-Arab conflict?

Please share your immense suffering with us.

 

[metis]

It would be if Israel were not such a deliberate construct. Most people inherited their nationalities without having a vote. The 1948 Israelis chose to be Israelis, and were obviously ready and willing to go to war to support that choice.

All countries are pretty much "deliberate constructs". Brazil is a "deliberate construct", as is the U.S., Syria, etc.

There always was a presence of Jews in eretz Israel, and many other Jews migrated into the region to escape persecution from various elements. The history of probably most countries involved peoples in movements from one place to anther, such as with Brazil, and yet I see no one saying that Brazil should be either dismantled or it's boundaries moved. So why Israel?

That does make their responsibility for that war considerable. To a greatly lessened extent, that is still somewhat true of their grandsons and their own offspring, the current Israelis.

All countries should be responsible for war, and Israel should be no exception.

It is however one of the most avoidable and most recurrent. Also one of the most plagued by difficult ideologies on both sides. Between the Israeli nationalism and the Arab ethnic, tribal thinking we all end up suffering for no good reason.

It is not avoidable if a country is attacked with its civilians being the main targets.

War is terrible and leaders should make attempts to try and prevent it, but as we're very clearly seeing in the Middle East with groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Islamic Brotherhood, ISIS, ISIL, etc., some simply are not willing to compromise but are are bent on the destruction of others.

If Brazil was attacked by such groups, and you well knew that maybe millions of Brazilian civilians were going to get massacred, what would you suggest the Brazilian government do, LD?

 

[Lyndon]

I for one have spent a lot more time criticizing American and other Western military activities, and Yes I think Israel overreacts in retaliation far out ceding what is necessary with regards the Palestinians. The way Israel's neighbors view it as a country is heavily based on how Israel has reacted violently in conflicts, not exactly trying hard to get along in the Neighborhood. Mr Netanyahu's neighborhood is not a happy place, but it doesn't have to be that way.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Ah yes only the evil "European Jews" are the problem. I love how Muslims conveniently always forget how Mizrahim and Sephardim didn't leave their homes in Algeria, Morocco, Libya, Tunesia, Egypt... because they thought that it might be cool idea.


btw when are Muslims leaving Europe? Just out of curiosity...

When zionists leave Palestine

 

[metis]

When zionists leave Palestine

Which is about the same time hell freezes over.

 

[Kirran]

Again, I don't think it matters one bit whether or not a Palestinian state has ever existed, or whether Palestinians as a people dropped out of the sky yesterday. They're still undergoing massive suffering at the hands of the Israeli nationalist government, and have their human rights massively eroded.

 

[Flankerl]

When zionists leave Palestine

So the Arabs can be on their merry way to murder the non-zionist Jews again?
Hebron and Safed all over again.

 

[Kirran]

Worth saying that yes, once Israel had been created, a spasm of anti-Semitism across the Arab world did kick all the Mizrahi Jews out, making them go there. But I don't blame Palestinians being persecuted by the Israeli government for this.

 

[Flankerl]

or whether Palestinians as a people dropped out of the sky yesterday.

Why are people being so stupid about this?

Palestinian Nationalism didn't exist prior to the defeat of the Arab nations in the Six Day War.

That is it. No one claims the Arabs who call themselves Palestinian dropped out of the sky. Though quite a lot of them are themselves immigrants. Read up on the migrations of the 19th century of that area.

 

[Kirran]

Why are people being so stupid about this?

Palestinian Nationalism didn't exist prior to the defeat of the Arab nations in the Six Day War.

That is it. No one claims the Arabs who call themselves Palestinian dropped out of the sky. Though quite a lot of them are themselves immigrants. Read up on the migrations of the 19th century of that area.

OK, Palestinian Nationalism didn't exist prior to the Six Day War. I don't know if that's true, but I have no reason to doubt it, so fine.

Why does that matter?

 

[gsa]

Who in the hell cares that Palestinian nationalism is a political invention? The same is true of Zionism. Whatever sense that the Jews had of themselves as a people, it was not a nationalist construct before the birth of the Zionist movement, alongside other nationalist movements, and it was not a majority opinion until the Holocaust.

The entire debate is wrong headed. Every form of ethnic nationalism is, to me, wrong headed. I do not believe in the existence of organic, corporate ethnic bodies that have claims to land, and I sure as hell don’t respect religious claims to land. Jewish nationalism, to the extent it is tolerated, is tolerated pragmatically for the same reasons that Palestinian nationalism is tolerated. It is far from ideal and no one should feel bad for not being an enthusiastic supporter.

The problem is that this debate doesn’t take place in a vacuum. There are millions of Israelis living next to millions of Palestinians in a region that contains many more millions of Arabs, a region that can reasonably be described as one of the most dysfunctional, hostile and dangerous on the planet.

Unfortunately, people tend to wear their partisan blinders when discussing this topic. But who would actually be comfortable sharing a state with people who elect genocidal religious fundamentalists that promise to kill Jews at the earliest opportunity? Who in their right mind wants to live with people who openly call for the settlement and theft of your paltry, limited resources?

Arab anti-Semitism and Jewish anti-Arab racism are very real problems that create substantial barriers to peaceful coexistence.

Do I think Israel is singled out unfairly? Sometimes. There are various reasons for that, not all of which are related to anti-Semitism. But do I recognize Israel as the equivalent of a Western state that respects the rule of law and human rights? Is Israel the moral equivalent of, say, the Netherlands? No. Israel is closer to the West than, say, Saudi Arabia, but it is much too close in character to its neighbors to be part of that political community.

 

[Kirran]

Do I think Israel is singled out unfairly? Sometimes. There are various reasons for that, not all of which are related to anti-Semitism. But do I recognize Israel as the equivalent of a Western state that respects the rule of law and human rights? Is Israel the moral equivalent of, say, the Netherlands? No. Israel is closer to the West than, say, Saudi Arabia, but it is much too close in character to its neighbors to be part of that political community.

Hell, it's officially designated as a state for a particular religious group. If that's not unfair and discriminatory against minorities...

 

[gsa]

Hell, it's officially designated as a state for a particular religious group. If that's not unfair and discriminatory against minorities...

That would be tolerable in the way that, say, nominally Christian or Islamic states are tolerable, if the rights of religious minorities (or in this case, ethnoreligious minorities) were actually respected and if the government wasn’t fixated on maintaining a Jewish demographic majority and appropriating natural resources for that purpose.

The settlement project and the emergence of an Israeli political consensus on demographic policy makes the argument much harder to swallow.

That said, I do think that it is reasonable to demand a Jewish homeland, as a refuge, for the same reason that it is reasonable to demand a Kurdish homeland as a refuge for the Kurdish people. Ideally, it wouldn’t be necessary, but we are a ways off from ideal.

 

[Kirran]

That said, I do think that it is reasonable to demand a Jewish homeland, as a refuge, for the same reason that it is reasonable to demand a Kurdish homeland as a refuge for the Kurdish people. Ideally, it wouldn’t be necessary, but we are a ways off from ideal.

It's one way I feel two ways on. On the one hand, there have been times when Jews needed to go somewhere to be safe.

On the other, it's restricting immigration to members of a certain religious group.

How would it go down if all immigrants to the USA had to convert to Christianity first?