Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Values Added: The Vision Thing (Michael B. Dougherty & Daniel Strauss) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=7226)

Sulla the Dictator 12-14-2011 08:07 PM

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 234679)
Yes, sure. An earlier invention. Just like England was a very early invention, and was created if you go back far enough.

England isn't an "invention", it is an evolution.

Quote:

Um, no. Latin America isn't a country. Ask a Guatemalan trying to sneak into Mexico about the unitary identity of Latin America.
I was saying "Latin America" for the sake of brevity, not in error. I'm not prepared to list Spanish colonies when the consequence of juntas after the fall of Charles IV was universal.

stephanie 12-15-2011 12:35 AM

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 234660)
You want to argue with that? Ok. I disagree with your argument, but that is different than suggesting Gingrich is not factually correct.

He's not factually correct in important ways, specifically in the idea that the Palestinians being "an invented people" makes them fundamentally different than peoples we recognize as peoples (like Canadians, for example) and in the idea that the date upon which Palestinian nationalism can be found to have first existed is relevant to their rights vis a vis Israel. Even if the Palestinians did not perceive themselves as a people now (when they clearly do), but simply as "Arabs," it's the fact they perceive themselves as a group separate from the Israelis that is the problem, and this is a perception with which the majority population of Israel agrees. (I imagine Wonderment would say that this is wrong, peoples should be based on location and not ethnicity, and thus that we ought to just include the Palestinians in as part of the Israeli people.)

Wonderment 12-15-2011 01:26 AM

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 
Quote:

(I imagine Wonderment would say that this is wrong, peoples should be based on location and not ethnicity, and thus that we ought to just include the Palestinians in as part of the Israeli people.)
The alternative is to permanently kick Palestinians out of Palestine, at best buying them off with a "permanent" agreement to accept a shitty little Indian Reservation called WestBankastan.

But a one-state solution, i.e., a scenario under which Palestinians can actually live in peace and freedom in their homeland, is not such a radical idea. On the contrary, it's a modern idea consistent with emerging global standards of human rights.

One-state has been declared radical by the West in pursuit of the "invented" two-state solution.

Two-state is popular by default because everyone (except Sulla and the Settlers) has come to understand that the current Apartheid-esque situation is unsustainable, and because everyone assumes the Jewish Israelis would never accept an outcome under which inalienable Palestinian rights are honored. That can change. The "battle" now is for the hearts and minds of the Israeli people. Zionism can deflate and collapse like Soviet Communism did.

Sulla the Dictator 12-15-2011 03:14 AM

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 234674)
Christians or Muslim, Arabs or Druze, are all non-Jewish Communities of Palestine, as described in the Balfour Deceleration and therefore represent a political reality that the British explicitly mention.

That is precisely false. None of those groups are "described" in the Balfour Declaration. If they were, you would paste it.

Quote:

You could say that the British invented the Palestinians in 1917 with that memo.
As soon as you post the word "Palestinian" from Balfour, I can say that.

Sulla the Dictator 12-15-2011 03:25 AM

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 234696)
He's not factually correct in important ways, specifically in the idea that the Palestinians being "an invented people" makes them fundamentally different than peoples we recognize as peoples (like Canadians, for example) and in the idea that the date upon which Palestinian nationalism can be found to have first existed is relevant to their rights vis a vis Israel.

Reason is what distinguishes Palestinians from Canadians. Canadians are not an identity created to achieve political goals, such as land at America's expense. Canadians are a colonial remnant of Britain, and their newness as a distinct people is due to that relationship. Not due to being pieces in a political game.

Meanwhile, the Palestinian identity was forged as a direct result of politics. This is undeniable. It is directly linked to the inability of the Arab League to achieve the same results through military action, which is why as late as 1970, the objective of the Palestinian militants is to restore themselves to an existing Arab polity rather than create their own.

Maybe that's fine with you, maybe it isn't. But it is rather unique. If you want to find a comparison with the Palestinians, don't look to Canada. Look instead to the Bosnian Serbs. Do you believe Serbian Bosnia in miniature was a place for a real, distinct identity? Or was it rather an invention in service to political goals of people who considered themselves Serbian, and acted in accordance with that identity?

Quote:

Even if the Palestinians did not perceive themselves as a people now (when they clearly do), but simply as "Arabs," it's the fact they perceive themselves as a group separate from the Israelis that is the problem, and this is a perception with which the majority population of Israel agrees.
That is the de facto reality. And that is a matter to be debated. But what is not to be done is to indulge the Palestinians and treat them like children. They're adults, and we're not going to engage in their myths.

As to the outcome, there isn't much to be done. There can be no autonomy without responsibility. And the Palestinians do not seem to be capable of enforcing any discipline within their zones of influence. It seems to me that the best outcome would be to restore the West Bank to Jordan, and grant the Arab League authority over Gaza.

Sulla the Dictator 12-15-2011 03:29 AM

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 234699)
The alternative is to permanently kick Palestinians out of Palestine, at best buying them off with a "permanent" agreement to accept a shitty little Indian Reservation called WestBankastan.

The best solution is actually for the International Community to bribe Jordan to take over management of the West Bank, and shame the Arab League into running Gaza.

Quote:

But a one-state solution, i.e., a scenario under which Palestinians can actually live in peace and freedom in their homeland, is not such a radical idea. On the contrary, it's a modern idea consistent with emerging global standards of human rights.
That kind of attitude smacks of decay. The land is a settled matter. The nature of the people is a settled matter. Reopening the case is a mark of weakness, and weakness isn't tolerated regionally.

If the Israelis seek to become a refugee people, then the best way to do it is "the one state solution".

Quote:

Two-state is popular by default because everyone (except Sulla and the Settlers) has come to understand that the current Apartheid-esque situation is unsustainable,
Sulla and the Settlers? You're the one basically calling for Judea and Samara here, just with some sort of "Hands across Israel" fantasy involved.

I am simply a realist.

Wonderment 12-15-2011 03:32 AM

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 
Quote:

That is the de facto reality. And that is a matter to be debated. But what is not to be done is to indulge the Palestinians and treat them like children. They're adults, and we're not going to engage in their myths.

As to the outcome, there isn't much to be done. There can be no autonomy without responsibility. And the Palestinians do not seem to be capable of enforcing any discipline within their zones of influence. It seems to me that the best outcome would be to restore the West Bank to Jordan, and grant the Arab League authority over Gaza.
That idea epitomizes treating them like children. Except, you're not their daddy.

Sulla the Dictator 12-15-2011 03:34 AM

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 234704)
That idea epitomizes treating them like children. Except, you're not their daddy.

No, I am saying they are wrong. I am respecting them as men and saying, "Don't waste our time with myths."

It is patronizing to say, "Consider their feelings, indulge their little myths." That is what we do when we pretend there is a historical Palestinian identity. It is new. Maybe you approve of the goals it seeks to achieve, but respect them enough to correct them.

stephanie 12-15-2011 11:56 AM

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 234699)
Two-state is popular by default because everyone (except Sulla and the Settlers) has come to understand that the current Apartheid-esque situation is unsustainable, and because everyone assumes the Jewish Israelis would never accept an outcome under which inalienable Palestinian rights are honored. That can change. The "battle" now is for the hearts and minds of the Israeli people. Zionism can deflate and collapse like Soviet Communism did.

Two state is popular, because the populations perceiving themselves as different "peoples" is a fact, and it's harder to create a single country under those circumstances and certainly not something that people with an existing country are likely to accept. Your insistence that this isn't a problem just seems to me to put idealism above what is actually possible.

stephanie 12-15-2011 12:08 PM

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 234702)
Reason is what distinguishes Palestinians from Canadians.

You are overstating the difference. More significantly, as I noted before, it makes no difference whether they think of themselves as "Arabs" or as "Palestinians" in terms of their rights. The issue is that neither they nor the majority Israeli population think of themselves as one people, and they have competing land claims (or somewhat competing, because obviously Israel is not interested in actually incorporating all of the land with its current population). That they think of themselves as "Palestinians" is not because they chose to pretend to do so for some alleged political advance, as you would have it, but because circumstances -- relatively recent circumstances -- led to that development, as with numerous other historical cases.

Here's Walter Russell Mead on it, with a somewhat more sympathetic take toward Newt, but still pointing out the folly of this argument:

Quote:

On the question of the Palestinians, Gingrich is only half right — and it isn’t the big half. Yes, there was a time in the not too distant past when the forbears of many of the people who think of themselves as Palestinian did not think of themselves in that way, but so what? Nationalism in its modern form is itself a relatively young phenomenon, and the creation of newly conscious nationalities and identities is one of the most common developments in modern world history.

Until relatively recently the idea that people who speak a common language should have a common political destiny expressed in a common state made no sense in much of the world. It still doesn’t in India, for example, where the nation is a mix of many different ethnic, linguistic and religious groups — some of them larger than many independent ethnic nation states in many parts of the world.

Some “nations” are newer than others, and many national identities are still hotly debated. Indians weren’t nationalists in 1880 by and large, but by 1947, they were. French Canadians still argue among themselves about who, exactly, they are. Countries like Indonesia and Nigeria have “artificial” identities; those nations were constructed rather than growing out of the immemorial past. The Palestinian case is not really different from these....

The Palestinians, however much they argue about the meaning of ‘Palestinianness’ among themselves, and however unsuccessful they have been in establishing stable political entities through which to express their national identity, were bonded by their searing experiences of defeat and exile into a strongly self-conscious national society in the last century, and that identity remains strong today. To question the authenticity of that identity is as pointless as it is provocative; the statement indicates a shallow view of modern history as well as a failure to grasp the nature of the conflict.

Gingrich’s error isn’t to say that Palestinian identity is to some degree invented; his error is to use that fact to undercut the reality and legitimacy of the Palestinian national movement. God did not create the human race into separate nationalities at the beginning of time; national identities develop in a historical process and some developed at an earlier date than others. Ironically, many Arabs who want to deny Israelis the right of self determination make exactly the same argument about Zionism....

badhatharry 12-15-2011 12:53 PM

Re: Values Added: The Vision Thing (Michael B. Dougherty & Daniel Strauss)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bkjazfan (Post 234515)
Michael's vision of middle class made up of government employees may be the direction we are headed in - albeit not a good one but probably the best both political parties have to offer, especially the democrats. The republican trickle down theory of "helping lift all boats" is a joke.

Thomas Sowell wrote about the innaccuracy of the term "trickle down".

Quote:

Those who imagine that profits first benefit business owners -- and that benefits only belatedly trickle down to workers -- have the sequence completely backward. When an investment is made, whether to build a railroad or to open a new restaurant, the first money is spent hiring people to do the work. Without that, nothing happens.

Money goes out first to pay expenses first and then comes back as profits later -- if at all. The high rate of failure of new businesses makes painfully clear that there is nothing inevitable about the money coming back.

miceelf 12-15-2011 01:00 PM

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 234712)
Two state is popular, because the populations perceiving themselves as different "peoples" is a fact, and it's harder to create a single country under those circumstances and certainly not something that people with an existing country are likely to accept. Your insistence that this isn't a problem just seems to me to put idealism above what is actually possible.

Not only are they different peoples, but different peoples with long lists of historical and recent grievances with each other.

Florian 12-15-2011 01:41 PM

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 234635)
Of course there is. The lesson of history is that Europeans could not be trusted not to abuse their Jews, after pogrom, Inquisition, and Holocaust.

The historical record underlined the moral imperative.

The borders, however, are clearly drawn along a concept of "biblical" Israel. But that underlines my point. There were no "Palestinians" because there was no natural "Palestine". It is a floating concept only made solid by the British mandate. It is properly a part of Syria or Jordan. Why would there be a division of the Jordan river, for instance? Rivers are not borders in the Middle East the way they are in Europe. They are prized resources.

Yes. In defeating the Central Powers, the Peace Conference had the right to settle the disposition of their former subjects. They did their best in erring towards autonomy. That the Palestinians received little consideration was mostly due to:

1. The fact they desired none; they wanted to be subjects of the Hashemite King Faisal I in Syria.

2. The fact that Palestine was very sparsely populated. Probably the least populated out of any of the former Ottoman lands to become Mandates outside of the Hijaz.

There was no such moral "lesson" of history in 1918. The Holocaust had not occurred. Besides, Jews had all the rights of citizenship in Britain, France and Germany and in every other European country---as far as I know. Christian anti-semitism, which no doubt existed (just as it existed in the United States), did not confer on European Jews the right to a "homeland" of their own. Nor did the Biblical borders of the ancient state of Israel confer such a right---as if a book written more than two thousand years ago had any relevance in the year 1918.

All you are saying is that the Europeans, in this case Britain and France, had the right to dispose of their mandates as they saw fit.

Wonderment 12-15-2011 03:15 PM

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 
Quote:

Two state is popular, because the populations perceiving themselves as different "peoples" is a fact, and it's harder to create a single country under those circumstances and certainly not something that people with an existing country are likely to accept. Your insistence that this isn't a problem just seems to me to put idealism above what is actually possible.
I used to believe that. Would your position change if you became convinced, as I have, that two-state can never happen? Hypothetically, where would you go from two-state, if everyone agreed it was impossible to implement?

Sulla the Dictator 12-15-2011 05:36 PM

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 234725)
There was no such moral "lesson" of history in 1918. The Holocaust had not occurred.

I misunderstood you to be speaking about the borders defining Israel, period.

Quote:

Besides, Jews had all the rights of citizenship in Britain, France and Germany and in every other European country---as far as I know. Christian anti-semitism, which no doubt existed (just as it existed in the United States), did not confer on European Jews the right to a "homeland" of their own. Nor did the Biblical borders of the ancient state of Israel confer such a right---as if a book written more than two thousand years ago had any relevance in the year 1918.
Well the book "written two thousand years ago" had a great deal of relevance because people of 1918 took it very seriously, in the first place. Secondly, Continental European concepts of "rights" were very flexible until after WWII. They seemed revokable every other decade.

Of course, the British were seeking to create a living arrangement for Zionists in order to raise support for the war effort, the Balfour declaration made no promises for government. So the two issues are being confused a bit here; between the presence of European Jewry at all in Palestine and an actual Zionist state. Any Arab who objects to the Balfour declaration and its immediate consequences is simply an anti-Jewish bigot, as the Zionist settlement effort was pretty small.

Quote:

All you are saying is that the Europeans, in this case Britain and France, had the right to dispose of their mandates as they saw fit.
Absolutely. They won the war. The Triple Entente (With the US replacing Russia) was the only force for global stability. It was the single element standing between civilization and international anarchy. In what possible way DON'T Britain and France have the right to dispose of Ottoman, German, or Austrian landholdings?

Sulla the Dictator 12-15-2011 05:47 PM

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 234713)
You are overstating the difference.

I think not. I think the differences are clear. Canada is a remnant of the Anglosphere. It is a lake left over from a receding ocean. Its identity grew from the gulf that developed with Britain.

Palestine is a hot political topic. Has been, and remains so.

Quote:

More significantly, as I noted before, it makes no difference whether they think of themselves as "Arabs" or as "Palestinians" in terms of their rights.
The difference would be who is responsible for meeting those rights. Or at least, which party has the greatest obligation.

Quote:

The issue is that neither they nor the majority Israeli population think of themselves as one people, and they have competing land claims (or somewhat competing, because obviously Israel is not interested in actually incorporating all of the land with its current population). That they think of themselves as "Palestinians" is not because they chose to pretend to do so for some alleged political advance, as you would have it, but because circumstances -- relatively recent circumstances -- led to that development, as with numerous other historical cases.
Like I said, I do not deny that Palestinians consider themselves to be Palestinians now. As you yourself say, it is a recent phenomenon, but it exists. Mead is correct in saying that recent circumstances have been sufficient to create a nascent Palestinian consciousness.

Florian 12-16-2011 08:52 AM

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 234735)
Well the book "written two thousand years ago" had a great deal of relevance because people of 1918 took it very seriously, in the first place. Secondly, Continental European concepts of "rights" were very flexible until after WWII. They seemed revokable every other decade.

I don't think the Bible had much relevance to the educated ruling classes of Europe at the time, but in any case it had no relevance to the question of a "homeland" for European Jews in Palestine. Besides, the Zionists weren't even religious.

In 1918 French, English and German Jews had all the civil rights of Christians (and atheists). You will have to give me examples of "continental" flexibility before Hitler. Social discrimination is another matter. But, once again, I really don't see how social discrimination against European Jews bears on the Balfour Declaration or the Versailles Peace Conference. As you go on to say:

Quote:

Of course, the British were seeking to create a living arrangement for Zionists in order to raise support for the war effort, the Balfour declaration made no promises for government.
Exactly.

Quote:

So the two issues are being confused a bit here; between the presence of European Jewry at all in Palestine and an actual Zionist state. Any Arab who objects to the Balfour declaration and its immediate consequences is simply an anti-Jewish bigot, as the Zionist settlement effort was pretty small.
In their eyes, the Balfour Declaration was the legal foundation for the eventual creation of a Zionist state, so it is hardly surprising that they revile it and blame European imperialists for imposing it on them.

Quote:

Absolutely. They won the war. The Triple Entente (With the US replacing Russia) was the only force for global stability. It was the single element standing between civilization and international anarchy. In what possible way DON'T Britain and France have the right to dispose of Ottoman, German, or Austrian landholdings?
By international law, they had every right.

stephanie 12-16-2011 01:04 PM

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 234730)
I used to believe that. Would your position change if you became convinced, as I have, that two-state can never happen? Hypothetically, where would you go from two-state, if everyone agreed it was impossible to implement?

Well, the correct answer to a hypothetical question is almost always "it depends" and that's my answer here. Specifically, it depends on the reasons for my being convinced that 2-state can't work and whether I was also convinced that 1-state could.

miceelf 12-16-2011 01:12 PM

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 234801)
Well, the correct answer to a hypothetical question is almost always "it depends" and that's my answer here. Specifically, it depends on the reasons for my being convinced that 2-state can't work and whether I was also convinced that 1-state could.

My take has always been that a viable one-state solution is less possible/plausible than a two-state solution. So, if we are at the place where a two-state solution is impossible, then one would have to look at more, not less, likely options.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:06 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.