Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   The Unmaking of Israel (Robert Wright & Gershom Gorenberg) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=7158)

Sulla the Dictator 11-08-2011 04:14 PM

Re: Zionism...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 230725)
.
The "Apartheid" wall is a perfect symbol of what needs to come tumbling down.

This "Apartheid" business in wrong in any number of ways, and I strongly object to it. However, if you actually take that seriously rather than just using it as some sort of rhetorical bludgeon, then how is the outcome of ending "Apartheid" in any Israeli Jew's interest? Rhodesia remade into modern Zimbabwe is exactly what the worst case in Israeli would be. South Africa would be the best case scenario. Both are terrible.

Sulla the Dictator 11-08-2011 04:16 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by apple (Post 230696)
Fine, then Arabs don't get anything. Perhaps paying the Arabs to leave for Jordan would be the best solution.

This would be the correct Israeli attitude. Of course, 40 years of American aid has left the Israelis depressingly susceptable to the whimpering and flailing wrists of the Foggy Bottom clique.

stephanie 11-08-2011 04:43 PM

Re: The Unmaking of Israel (Robert Wright & Gershom Gorenberg)
 
As an aside, in this diavlog, Bob says that he's depressed about what's going on politically in the US. I wish he'd be more explicit what he means in perhaps another diavlog (this is one of the reasons I miss his diavlogs with Mickey). Now, maybe what he means is just the US's political response to Israel or other foreign affairs matters such as those Bob has had a number of diavlogs about. But if it is domestic politics at all, however -- as it is for me -- it's in his power to try and do something about it much more than for most people, in the same way that he does with the foreign affairs issues. For example, if he thinks the political dialogue is shallow or fails to represent various view points or should be more high-minded or so on, he can put together diavlogs to further his goals. He need not be so reactive to the silly debates that actually attract the most media attention, the typical horserace style coverage.

bkjazfan 11-08-2011 04:45 PM

Re: Zionism...
 
I haven't listened to this diavlog yet but will since I find Gershom to be quite intelligent and likeable but have heard many others dealing with the subject of Israel. I would like to hear about American foreign policy as it relates to it's partners in NAFTA, Canada and Mexico. Perhaps, I am missing something but there appears to be scant attention at BHTV focused on our northern and southern neighbors.

miceelf 11-08-2011 04:48 PM

Re: The Unmaking of Israel (Robert Wright & Gershom Gorenberg)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 230739)
For example, if he thinks the political dialogue is shallow or fails to represent various view points or should be more high-minded or so on, he can put together diavlogs to further his goals. He need not be so reactive to the silly debates that actually attract the most media attention, the typical horserace style coverage.

Maybe he's depressed because he thinks the domestic policy diavloggers he has available are more representative of the views of Americans than they actually are. I would be.

Certainly, the 2010 elections wasn't a great cause for hope for Bob. But it's hard to get a good sense of what's going on currently. Given media coverage and treatment (even supposedly liberal MSNBC), it would be hard to believe that OWS is actually a relatively popular movement. And yet, it is.

Ray in Seattle 11-08-2011 05:03 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Then there was that part that I found beyond absurd. It was disorienting just to watch it - when Bob said he understood the Palestinians' refusal to accept past offers to settle the conflict because, "statehood normally includes control of airspace". I had one of those, "Did he really say that, moments".

Maybe this time the UN will double pinkie-finger swear that they won't let the new sovereign state of Palestine arm itself with thousands of missiles, long range artillery and mortars that could rain down on Tel Aviv and the rest of the coastal strip from less than ten miles away - unlike what happened in Lebanon and Gaza. Right.

And there should be no worry that Hamas would continue to attack Israel - nor that they would start a civil war and become the government of the new Palestine state before the first year of Palestine statehood has passed. Right. What could possibly go wrong?

And to pull back for the wide shot - which I always try to do - something should be said occasionally about the monumental failure of the UN to honor its founding principles, and instead, become an international forum for enabling the destruction of the state that was created as a result of its first significant resolution.

A cop gone bad is morally a far greater criminal and a far greater danger to the people he has sworn to protect than the criminals who simply rob banks for a living. The UN's failure is one huge part of the problem that exists today. IMHO

Parallax 11-08-2011 05:13 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by apple (Post 230696)
Fine, then Arabs don't get anything. Perhaps paying the Arabs to leave for Jordan would be the best solution.

With respect to the price taggers: hang whoever is involved in criminal activity related to price tagging, because it's terrorism. In the short term, it might increase retaliation against the Arabs, eventually, they'll get the message. I can't get worked up over the torching of a mosque, since it's a useless building to begin with, but some of the price taggers are actually targeting the means by which Arabs make a living, which is unacceptable. Hang them and compensate the Arabs.

How much for each person? $1,000, $10,000 or $100,000? Note that there are 2.5 million Arabs in the west bank. Jordan's population is about 6 million, 2 million newcomers would be very destabilizing so why should Jordan agree to this? I am guessing that you need pay the Jordanians some money as well. Finally who pays for this? US or Israel?

opposable_crumbs 11-08-2011 05:24 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle (Post 230733)
Yes, I guess firing thousands of rockets and mortars into a neighboring state, promising to kidnap (more of) its citizens and hold them for ransom and planting explosives on the Israeli side of the border is just a "situation" that needs to be "negotiated".



Have you noticed that the "discussions" have been going on for decades. And during that time,

1) The Palestinians have never accepted or even seriously counter-offered any of several Israeli offers to settle even when those included a Palestinian state.

2) The Palestinians only engage in negotiations when enormous international pressure from several major nations allow no way out.

3) The Palestinians have never approached Israel on their own in any attempt to settle the conflict peacefully - nor have they ever said they wished to do that.

4) The Palestinians have consistently used the failure of the offers (by their rejection of them )to start new phases of heightened armed conflict against Israel.

5) They are further from a "settlement" than at most times up till now.

The reality is stark and obvious. How anyone can see the "discussions" as more than political theater is beyond me. The West just refuses to believe it's on Candid Camera.

If I was you, I wouldn't get too comfortable just yet, you will have to switch seats soon enough. The second act is starting and the narrative is changing.

Florian 11-08-2011 05:35 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle (Post 230743)
And to pull back for the wide shot - which I always try to do - something should be said occasionally about the monumental failure of the UN to honor its founding principles, and instead, become an international forum for enabling the destruction of the state that was created as a result of its first significant resolution.

Ludicrous. It would be more accurate to say that Israel, with the help of the US, has prevented the UN from carrying out its original mandate and honoring its founding principles: the creation of two states in Palestine.

I once quoted to you the thoughts of two prominent Israelis, former Foreign Minister Abba Eban (1905-2002) and the writer Amos Oz. I have no reason to believe that they will make any more impression on you this time than the last time I quoted them, but others may be interested in them:


Eban: "The Palestinian Arabs, were it not for the Balfour Declaration and the League of Nations Mandate, could have counted on eventual independence either as a separate state or in an Arab context acceptable to them....It was impossible for us to avoid struggling for Jewish statehood and equally impossible for them to grant us what we asked. If they had submitted to Zionism with docility, they would have been the first people in history to have voluntarily renounced their majority status."

Oz: "Zionism is a movement of national liberation, which has no need of any 'consent' or 'agreement' from the Arabs. But it must recognize that the conflict between us and the Palestinians is not a cheap Western in which 'goodies' are fighting against 'baddies'. It is more like a Greek tragedy. It represents two conflicting rights. The Palestinian Arabs have a strong and legitimate claim, and the Israelis must recognize this, without this recognition leading us into self-denial or feelings of guilt. We are bound to accept painful compromise, and admit that the land of Israel is the homeland of two nations, and we must accept its partition in one form or another."

opposable_crumbs 11-08-2011 05:44 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle (Post 230743)
And to pull back for the wide shot - which I always try to do - something should be said occasionally about the monumental failure of the UN to honor its founding principles, and instead, become an international forum for enabling the destruction of the state that was created as a result of its first significant resolution.

A cop gone bad is morally a far greater criminal and a far greater danger to the people he has sworn to protect than the criminals who simply rob banks for a living. The UN's failure is one huge part of the problem that exists today. IMHO

Actually the UN failed with it's first significant resolution, two states for two people - we only have one. Quite how you can say the UN is going to be responsible for undoing Israel is beyond me, unless you are referring to the right of refugees to return, which just brings us back to that to the failures of 48, and the 60 odd years in which Israel failed to live up to it's obligations.

We have now come full circle since 48 and if and when a resolution calls for a new partition, it will probably be the Israelis who reject it amid accusations of a corrupt UN. All this despite the UN being more representative (and being made up far more democracies) than ever.

Ray in Seattle 11-08-2011 05:50 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 230748)
Ludicrous. It would be more accurate to say that Israel, with the help of the US, has prevented the UN from carrying out its original mandate and honoring its founding principles: the creation of two states in Palestine.

I have a hard time understanding that as anything other than a statement that turns reality completely on its head. Perhaps you could flesh that out and explain how it makes logical sense.

BTW - The creation of two states in Palestine was not part of the founding principles of the UN. If it was it would be mentioned in the Charter don't you think? As I understand it, consideration of the establishment of the Jewish Homeland in Palestine was taken up after the Charter was in place - as was required under previous League of Nations resolutions.

And no, I don't find that quote-mining two out-of-context statements from the millions that have been made in the last 63 years by thousands of Israeli diplomats and officials makes a compelling case for anything. But if you'd like to square that circle, be my guest.

opposable_crumbs 11-08-2011 05:52 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Anymore liberal and he would obviously be self hating. See the 'liberal' Judge Richard Goldstone to learn what that feels like.

Florian 11-08-2011 06:02 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle (Post 230750)
I have a hard time understanding that as anything other than a statement that turns reality completely on its head. Perhaps you could flesh that out and explain how it makes logical sense.

BTW - The creation of two states in Palestine was not part of the founding principles of the UN. If it was it would be mentioned in the Charter don't you think? As I understand it, consideration of the establishment of the Jewish Homeland in Palestine was taken up after the Charter was in place - as was required under previous League of Nations resolutions.

And no, I don't find that quote-mining two out-of-context statements from the millions that have been made in the last 63 years by thousands of Israeli diplomats and officials makes a compelling case for anything. But if you'd like to square that circle, be my guest.

I am not very impressed by your logic or your knowledge of history, and so have no interest in carrying on a discussion with you.

Sulla the Dictator 11-08-2011 06:05 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 230748)
Ludicrous. It would be more accurate to say that Israel, with the help of the US, has prevented the UN from carrying out its original mandate and honoring its founding principles: the creation of two states in Palestine.

The Arab League is the one who rejected this outcome; and for the first 30 years of Israeli existence, the United States has little to do with the matter. France is more involved in "preventing the UN from carrying out its original mandate" than we are, if you look at who is stepping on the scales back when there is a relative parity of power.

The "Palestinian state" makes as much sense as a "German Kingdom of Alsace".

Ray in Seattle 11-08-2011 06:09 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 230749)
Actually the UN failed with it's first significant resolution, two states for two people - we only have one.

I didn't say it failed with it's first significant resolution. I said it failed its founding principles. Also, it's first significant resolution did not fail to uphold those principles.

Quote:

Quite how you can say the UN is going to be responsible for undoing Israel is beyond me, unless you are referring to the right of refugees to return, which just brings us back to that to the failures of 48, and the 60 odd years in which Israel failed to live up to it's obligations.
The UN will fail because it no longer upholds those principles. It failed the first time when it stood aside while five Arab states who were UN members attacked the new state of Israel in 1948. To everyone's surprise Israel won.

Quote:

We have now come full circle since 48 and if and when a resolution calls for a new partition, it will probably be the Israelis who reject it amid accusations of a corrupt UN. All this despite the UN being more representative (and being made up far more democracies) than ever.
As I understand it, and I could be wrong - there will be no resolution that Israel would need to reject - and so there will be no resolution calling for a Palestinian state. That's because previous resolutions (R242) explicitly state that Palestinian statehood must be negotiated between the two parties as part of a peace treaty with Israel. The UN could only make such a resolution by violating its Charter. That's why any resolution that gets that far will be vetoed by the US and/or others. If they impose Palestinian statehood on Israel somehow - without Israel signing a negotiated peace treaty first - then there will be no reason for anyone to honor any UN resolution in the future because they will obviously be worth less than the paper they are written on.

Florian 11-08-2011 06:18 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 230755)
The Arab League is the one who rejected this outcome; and for the first 30 years of Israeli existence, the United States has little to do with the matter. France is more involved in "preventing the UN from carrying out its original mandate" than we are, if you look at who is stepping on the scales back when there is a relative parity of power.

The "Palestinian state" makes as much sense as a "German Kingdom of Alsace".

True, for the first 20 years of Israel's existence. But for the past 30 years the US, not France, has been more involved in preventing the UN from carrying out its mandate,

The Alsacians never wanted to be Germans, but at least they were never stateless.

stephanie 11-08-2011 06:33 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle (Post 230743)
And to pull back for the wide shot - which I always try to do - something should be said occasionally about the monumental failure of the UN to honor its founding principles, and instead, become an international forum for enabling the destruction of the state that was created as a result of its first significant resolution.

Rather than me guessing at what you mean here, why not be specific.

Setting aside the UN bit, you seem to be suggesting that a Palestinian state of any kind (or even the discussion thereof or steps in that direction) would "enable the destruction of Israel." I don't think that's realistic. I also think the occupation is bad for Israel, both because it continues an unstable situation and because it forces Israel (or leads Israel) into policies that are not in its best interest overall or consistent with its own principles, as Gershom was arguing (I acknowledge that to a certain extent that's not so much my business, as I'm not Israeli).

That's why I said that despite the apparent preferences of some on both sides to argue the moralities of what happened in the past, it's a pragmatic question. The fact that a country was an aggressor does not justify unending occupation (and the Palestinians haven't had a country, despite the planned partition, and despite other countries attacking Israel with them as one excuse). I agree that there have been substantial barriers to a peace agreement and the establishment of a state that would allow the end to the occupation that are not within Israel's control, but this idea that Israel shouldn't be bothered by the current situation, that it's not a problem going forward such that only those who want the destruction of Israel would want some kind of 2 state solution or be bothered by settlements that make it more difficult is wrong.

I might be overly optimistic, but it seems to me the existence of a state for the Palestinians makes the situation less unstable in some ways, ends a certain amount of the discontent automatically and allows for a different kind of focus. Sure, some (even many) remain dedicated to the idea that Israel must be defeated, but Israel is so much stronger that seems a poor reason to claim that there can't be any state. I'm also certainly willing to take into account safety concerns in a settlement and am not convinced that Israel wanting a settlement means that we get one, as we've seen that agreement is hard to achieve here. But the idea that any discussion of the question is merely "political theater" -- that anything other than the status quo is somehow harmful to Israel, that even the discussion of it is, seems a really bizarre idea.

Again, I haven't noticed you responding to many of the specifics in the diavlog, but merely suggesting that the whole discussion is bad for some reason.

bjk 11-08-2011 06:48 PM

Re: The Unmaking of Israel (Robert Wright & Gershom Gorenberg)
 
Thankfully, I don't know the first thing about Israel or Palestine, except that Abu Mazen would be a cool name for a band.

Listening to this bh.tv, tho, I get the sense that GG is the voice of sweet reason and reconciliation while, in the background, the hardliners get everything they want, and GG isn't too shaken up about that.

Ray in Seattle 11-08-2011 07:17 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
There's a lot here but I'll try to respond.
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 230758)
Rather than me guessing at what you mean here, why not be specific.

The founding principles I meant were,

1) Every member state agrees to settle disputes with other member states by negotiation and not by aggression or military attack,

2) that all member states are absolutely entitled to self-defense against military aggression without waiting for UN approval and

3) the principle that all members could and should come to the aid of any member state that is attacked militarily, including military assistance.

Quote:

Setting aside the UN bit, you seem to be suggesting that a Palestinian state of any kind would "enable the destruction of Israel." I don't think that's realistic.
Agreed. But a Palestinian state that's not willing to negotiate with Israel to somehow guarantee Israel's security and guarantee that the conflict is over and not just paused until the next war - would enable the destruction of Israel.


Quote:

I also think the occupation is bad for Israel, both because it continues an unstable situation and because it forces Israel (or leads Israel) into policies that are not in its best interest overall or consistent with its own principles, as Gershom was arguing (I acknowledge that to a certain extent that's not so much my business, as I'm not Israeli).
I agree that the occupation is bad for Israel. The question for Israel is if it's worse than no occupation. Unfortunately, history shows that it is not. And there is no reason for Israel to believe that history will not repeat - not one bit of evidence in favor of that view and tons of evidence it will repeat itself.

Quote:

That's why I said that despite the apparent preferences of some on both sides to argue the moralities of what happened in the past, it's a pragmatic question. The fact that a country was an aggressor does not justify unending occupation (and the Palestinians haven't had a country, despite the planned partition, and despite their support against Israel of other countries). I agree that there have been substantial barriers to a peace agreement and the establishment of a state that would allow the end to the occupation that are not within Israel's control, but this idea that Israel shouldn't be bothered by the current situation, that it's not a problem going forward such that only those who want the destruction of Israel would want some kind of 2 state solution or be bothered by settlements that make it more difficult is wrong.
That's kind of confusing. Here's what jumped out:

Quote:

The fact that a country was an aggressor does not justify unending occupation
I partially agree. I think it depends on whether they appear to have given up plans for future aggression and if they accept that they were morally wrong in the first place. And also the amount of damage and unhappiness they caused and with how much enthusiasm they caused it and if it was racially motivated and for how long it persisted - things like that. The Palestinians look pretty bad on all those counts and still claim in their national charter that the destruction of Israel is their primary reason for existence.

The fact that a party to past conflict is still an aggressor does justify occupation - it more than justifies it. I hope you don't ask me to go down the laundry list of what the Palestinians have been doing to prove that they have not lost their aggressive intentions. Having a Charter that calls for the destruction of Israel is more than enough IMO - but there's plenty more. Every rocket fired from Gaza into Israel is an act of aggression, by international law an act of war. The last one or two were yesterday I think or maybe the day before.

Quote:

I might be overly optimistic, but it seems to me the existence of a state for the Palestinians makes the situation less unstable in some ways, ends a certain amount of the discontent automatically and allows for a different kind of focus. Sure, some (even many) remain dedicated to the idea that Israel must be defeated, but Israel is so much stronger that seems a poor reason to claim that there can't be any state. I'm also certainly willing to take into account safety concerns in a settlement and am not convinced that Israel wanting a settlement means that we get one, as we've seen that agreement is hard to achieve here. But the idea that any discussion of the question is merely "political theater" -- that anything other than the status quo is somehow harmful to Israel, that even the discussion of it is, seems a really bizarre idea.
How about expecting the Palestinians to come forward on their own and say that they realize now that they have been wrong to want to destroy Israel and have been wrong in relentlessly launching attacks against Israeli civilians for 63 years. And they have been wrong to demonize Jews and to teach their kids that Jews are subhuman and should be killed. They could come forward and say that they would really like to work out a mutually acceptable agreement so both sides could live in peace and dignity - and so let's sit down and really try to put something together. Wouldn't something like that be the first step? Do you think it's likely? Why not?

Quote:

Again, I haven't noticed you responding to many of the specifics in the diavlog, but merely suggesting that the whole discussion is bad for some reason.
Specifics that are several times removed from the overarching cultural causes of the war are just ways to confront people publicly who disagree with one's ideological views. I'm more interested in the actual causes of the conflict that might lead to a better understanding of how to end it and they are usually at a higher level than those "specifics".

thouartgob 11-08-2011 08:03 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Parallax (Post 230746)
How much for each person? $1,000, $10,000 or $100,000? Note that there are 2.5 million Arabs in the west bank. Jordan's population is about 6 million, 2 million newcomers would be very destabilizing so why should Jordan agree to this? I am guessing that you need pay the Jordanians some money as well. Finally who pays for this? US or Israel?

To paraphrase Apple's own words "the Sandy Asses" will pay. In other words Aye-Rabs.

Wonderment 11-08-2011 09:06 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

I think you know well why Gershom would be considered on the liberal side, but are trying to frame the issue so that supporting solutions other than your current preferred one are all not liberal.
He's a liberal, except insofar as he is a Zionist. Zionism is incompatible with modern liberal thought, in my opinion. I am prepared to explain why, but I think you know well why.

Quote:

I also reject the idea that him immigrating to Israel or serving in the army is evidence against him being a liberal.
It is not as though he were emigrating to Norway or Argentina. Jewish immigration to Israel means the granting of immediate privileges of citizenship, including access to national health care, free education and the right to live on stolen and/or disputed land.

Many Jews (myself included) have declined or renounced these privileges on the grounds that they are not consistent with a liberal understanding of human rights.

There was a good case to be made for Jewish immigration to Israel from countries where Jews were persecuted, including the Soviet Union and some parts of the Arab world. No one has been persecuted in the USA, however, for being Jewish.

Having said that, I don't think it's a terrible crime for American Jews to go live in Israel. They just ought to be aware of the implications. I would urge them to consider refusing to serve in the IDF and not to join the criminal enterprise of Settlement life.

Bear in mind that part of the Zionist state's explicit intent regarding Jewish immigration is to ensure that Jews outnumber Arabs. This was especially evident with the "ingathering" of 1,000,000 Soviet "Jews" (at least 1/3 of whom were not Jews.) American Jews, for their part, are disproportionately represented among Settlers.

Wonderment 11-08-2011 09:26 PM

Re: The Unmaking of Israel (Robert Wright & Gershom Gorenberg)
 
Quote:

The secular Israeli politician Tommy Lapid once ranted that as a Hebrew speaker who lived in the Land of Israel, he was the most Jewish Jew who had lived in the last two thousand years, certainly more Jewish than a Yiddish-speaking Satmar Jew who lived in Brooklyn.
Authentic Jewish culture and religion were Diaspora experiences for millennia and had absolutely nothing to do with Israel (except as a "fantasy land") or the modern Hebrew language (which had zero native speakers until the dawn of the 20th century).

The Zionist state, and particularly Lapid's generation of Zionists, did everything in their power to dissolve and ridicule Diaspora (authentic) Judaism with a Hebrew-only policy, a denigration of life in Jewish Europe, North Africa and the Middle East, and a Zionist-Sabra ideal of self-reliance and militarism.

Sulla the Dictator 11-08-2011 09:44 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 230757)
True, for the first 20 years of Israel's existence. But for the past 30 years the US, not France, has been more involved in preventing the UN from carrying out its mandate,

The UN cannot carry out any mandate. The partition arrangement was rejected by the Arab League, with the Palestinians voting with their feet. Palestine is to Israel what the Bosnian Serb Republic was to Bosnia.

Quote:

The Alsacians never wanted to be Germans, but at least they were never stateless.
Well the Palestinians do not want to be Jordanians and Egyptians anymore. If they were returned to their status in 1966, they wouldn't be "stateless" either, but they wouldn't be Palestinians. They are as real a national identity as Alsatians, or "Sudetenlanders" or Volga Germans.

Don Zeko 11-08-2011 10:40 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 230773)
The UN cannot carry out any mandate. The partition arrangement was rejected by the Arab League, with the Palestinians voting with their feet. Palestine is to Israel what the Bosnian Serb Republic was to Bosnia.

Seriously? So now refugees fleeing a war zone (which is an incredibly charitable account of the causes of Palestinian population shifts during the 1948 war), are "voting with their feet" against ever wanting to return to their homes?

apple 11-08-2011 10:42 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Parallax (Post 230746)
How much for each person? $1,000, $10,000 or $100,000?

An amount to be determined later, although $10,000 sounds good to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parallax (Post 230746)
Note that there are 2.5 million Arabs in the west bank. Jordan's population is about 6 million, 2 million newcomers would be very destabilizing so why should Jordan agree to this? I am guessing that you need pay the Jordanians some money as well.

I don't know, why did Jordan agree to take in the Arabs from Gaza, the West Bank and Israel-proper who now make up more than half of its population in the first place? Also, if there is such a thing as a Palestinian national identity, Jordan was part of the British mandate of Palestine, so Jordan is Palestine, too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parallax (Post 230746)
Finally who pays for this? US or Israel?

The Elders of Zion.

apple 11-08-2011 10:44 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 230781)
Seriously? So now refugees fleeing a war zone (which is an incredibly charitable account of the causes of Palestinian population shifts during the 1948 war), are "voting with their feet" against ever wanting to return to their homes?

Who started the war? Their fellow Arabs did. I'm sorry, but war has consequences. When no one sheds any tears for the Sudeten-Germans who were expelled from Czechoslovakia, why should I shed tears for people who are at a far lower level of civilization, culture and morality?

miceelf 11-08-2011 10:46 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 230770)
No one has been persecuted in the USA, however, for being Jewish.

Really? I am assuming you mean recently, but even with that, I don't think that's true.

thouartgob 11-08-2011 10:48 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 230773)
Palestine is to Israel what the Bosnian Serb Republic was to Bosnia.

That reminds me of something that was said years ago during the Kosavo conflict when a guest on the NPR program "The Connection" with Christopher Lydon said that Serbian newscasts played during the run up to the attack featured incidents portrayed as contemporary events but that in fact happened decades ago. By annihilating time between past Bosnian transgressions and current events the Serbs looked to stoke the anachronistic passions for their own gain.

Gershom observation started my thinking on the subject of how time can seem to disappear when dealing with current participants of very old conflicts.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/397...7:09&out=57:39

Ray in Seattle 11-08-2011 11:34 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by thouartgob (Post 230787)
Gershom observation started my thinking on the subject of how time can seem to disappear when dealing with current participants of very old conflicts.

What the Serbs were doing was propaganda if it was as you described.

Emotions are what make memories stick. Very strong emotions can make a memory - or a belief that was solidified because of a highly emotional event - stick for a lifetime. One of the most emotional things a person can experience is losing a loved one or a close friend to a hateful or even a careless act of violence. They never forget and it will keep appearing in their mind periodically for as long as they live. Each time it comes back they re-experience the old emotions and the sense of loss and each time it takes their breath away.

My Dad carried those kinds of memories from WWII with him until he passed. There was the loss of friends but also he was deeply saddened by his necessary participation in the killing of others. I'd say generally that people who experience those kinds of losses take them to their grave.

Fortunately, most of us will never have to deal with that kind of loss in our lifetime although there are parts of the world where no-one can escape it. That is what lies behind my lack of patience with those who revel in the use violence to get what they want. And for my great sympathy for those who must defend themselves against it.

Wonderment 11-09-2011 01:19 AM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Really? I am assuming you mean recently, but even with that, I don't think that's true.
I mean to the extent that you would qualify as a refugee in another country.

basman 11-09-2011 01:29 AM

Re: Earth Calling Onederment
 
.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 230688)
... The next generation of Israeli and Palestinians will create a nonviolent secular post-Zionist state of all its citizens from the Jordan to the Mediterranean.

Onederment.

Earth calling Onederment.

Yours is piety masked as certainty. Of course you don't know what the next generation of anyone will be doing, let alone Palestinians and Israelis. That you won't distinguish between hope, which is fine, and the delusion that you have some handle on the future marks both your smugness and your idiocy, each the measure of the other.

Itzik Basman

basman 11-09-2011 01:36 AM

Re: The Unmaking of Israel (Robert Wright & Gershom Gorenberg)
 
....miceelf wrote on 11/08/2011 at 11:57 AM
Re: inconsistency?

Quoting stephanie: On what is this based? Simply faith that in the future no one will care about nationalist concerns and (a different issue) that secularism will win out?

Because human beings will always choose the most humane and rational approach, particularly in dealing with other groups where there is a long-standing history of mutual grievances and violence...

Somehow the internet transmitted your irony and tongue-in-cheekedness to me.

Itzik Basman

Parallax 11-09-2011 01:37 AM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by thouartgob (Post 230769)
To paraphrase Apple's own words "the Sandy Asses" will pay. In other words Aye-Rabs.

I don't think "Sandy Asses" means what apple thinks it means ... but that aside why should Arab governments pay for it? The continuation of the conflict is excellent for domestic political rhetoric.

Sulla the Dictator 11-09-2011 01:44 AM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by apple (Post 230785)
Who started the war? Their fellow Arabs did. I'm sorry, but war has consequences. When no one sheds any tears for the Sudeten-Germans who were expelled from Czechoslovakia, why should I shed tears for people who are at a far lower level of civilization, culture and morality?

That is exactly the example I was thinking of. No one cries about the Sudeten Germans, or East Prussians, or the Germans of the Tyrol valley, or Volga Germans. Why? Because Germans, like Serbs, like Islamists and Arab nationalists, used the excuse of the past presence of ethnic brethren as pretext for territorial seizure. Czechs and Italians and Poles and Russians threw these people into Germany without second thought, even though many of them didn't even speak German, or know anyone in the country.

And when has the ACLU, or the leftist establishment in the Academy, ever given five minutes of discussion to it?

Why do the Palestinians have any more claim to Israel than the Algerians to al-Andalus?

Sulla the Dictator 11-09-2011 01:56 AM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 230781)
Seriously? So now refugees fleeing a war zone (which is an incredibly charitable account of the causes of Palestinian population shifts during the 1948 war), are "voting with their feet" against ever wanting to return to their homes?

The Arab Higher Committee called on women and children to leave Palestine so as not to get in the way of the forces of liberation; and after them, the Syrian backed Arab Liberation Army actually forced large swaths of Palestinians to abandon their territory in the wake of Israeli advances.

Don Zeko 11-09-2011 02:01 AM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 230805)
The Arab Higher Committee called on women and children to leave Palestine so as not to get in the way of the forces of liberation; and after them, the Syrian backed Arab Liberation Army actually forced large swaths of Palestinians to abandon their territory in the wake of Israeli advances.

This is both some serious cherry-picking of historical data and an argument against your earlier point that I took exception too. if the Palestinians were forced out at gunpoint by the Syrians, then that hardly suggests that they freely gave up their residence in what would become Israel.

Parallax 11-09-2011 02:03 AM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by apple (Post 230783)
An amount to be determined later, although $10,000 sounds good to me.

That means $25 billion for West Bank alone ...

Quote:

I don't know, why did Jordan agree to take in the Arabs from Gaza, the West Bank and Israel-proper who now make up more than half of its population in the first place? Also, if there is such a thing as a Palestinian national identity, Jordan was part of the British mandate of Palestine, so Jordan is Palestine, too.
Well they were refugees back then. I don't know how that forces Jordan to accept refugees today. Also you seem to ignore the fact that a 50% overnight rise in any country's population will be problematic.

I have no idea why you are talking about Palestinian national identity etc. the problem is simple to state: there are 4 million people who do not have a nation. Most people tolerated this b/c they perceived it as temporary until Palestinians get their own state. With the two state solution gone this won't be tolerated anymore. And I repeat: Jordan or Egypt have no obligation to give Palestinians Jordanian or Egyptian passports. It is Israel's problem not theirs, after all they don't have a military presence in the West Bank or Gaza ...



Quote:

The Elders of Zion.
So you were joking all this time ...

Wonderment 11-09-2011 02:41 AM

Re: Earth Calling Onederment
 
Quote:

Of course you don't know what the next generation of anyone will be doing.
Thank you for pointing that out. Otherwise, everyone would have thought I was a seer.

Wonderment 11-09-2011 02:51 AM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

This is both some serious cherry-picking of historical data and an argument against your earlier point that I took exception too. if the Palestinians were forced out at gunpoint by the Syrians, then that hardly suggests that they freely gave up their residence in what would become Israel.
Let's assume they all left willingly (which, of course, they didn't). How does that make any difference? Did they simply gift their property and the rights of their descendants to the Jews?

No one on the planet, except Zionists, believe that Palestinian rights ceased to exist in 1948. That's why they have refugee status under the UN, and why their status also extends to their descendants, whether they reside in camps or not.

Sulla the Dictator 11-09-2011 04:59 AM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 230806)
This is both some serious cherry-picking of historical data and an argument against your earlier point that I took exception too. if the Palestinians were forced out at gunpoint by the Syrians, then that hardly suggests that they freely gave up their residence in what would become Israel.

Except that there were no Palestinians. These were Arabs living under British rule, being herded by other Arabs. Just like Germans fleeing the Russian advance bringing German civilians along with them, by force if necessary. Doesn't get Prussia back, does it?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:31 AM.

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