Palestine

[Coyote]

Really?


And let's not forget all the talk of the "demographic bomb" from a few years ago - the Israeli power base is terrified of the idea of the Palestinians all phasing into Israel and then overtaking the present Jewish majority. The demographic bomb has since been proven untrue, but had things turned out differently, how do you suppose the Israeli government would have reacted?

In fact, were you a Jewish Israeli citizen and you were confronted with the idea of Arabs overtaking Jews in Israel's demographics, how would you respond? Simply sit back and allow democracy to run its course?

Which is why the "right of return" really isn't realistic. But a Palestinian state is.

 

[Coyote]

We started this discussion actually in another thread - darn, it would be good to move those posts here! It's interesting

 

[9sublime]

It occurred to me earlier that I have never, in all the time I've actively discussed politics, heard even one good reason why the Palestinians should be given a state. Some people simply talk about it as if it's assumed that it must be done at some point; they never actually say why.

So, why give them a state? I'll bow to the person who can tell me.

You are joking right?

Well, its pretty clear your not, so here goes:

The Jews requested israel because of the hardship they had been through in WWII.

I can accept that they want something for what they suffered, but why should the Palestinians be the ones who suffer??

What hand did they have in the nazi holocaust?

The Jewish claim for Israel is based on religious beliefs of it being the holy land, and the fact that they lived there thousands of years ago.

The Palestinians are not Jewish, why should they have to give up something due to a belief they do not follow?

Why should what happened over 2,000 years ago affect the people of the area today?

Israel being made is like granting the five southern states back to Mexico. Americans would be outraged, despite the fact that the claim is fundamentally the same. The five southern states used to belong to Mexico, they were stolen from them, just like the Jews being evicted from Israel thousands of years ago.

Israel has no right to exist in todays world, you cant make Muslims give up their land for a religious claim, or a 2,000 year old stake on the land.

its like the descendents of a family who were unjustly evicted from a property asking for it back, or to at least share it, 500 years after it happened, ten owners down the line. Its ridiculous and only going to cause friction.

 

[palerider]

Really?

The Interim Report on the Administration of Palestine, done by the League of Nations in 1920, stated that there were 700 thousand people living in Palestine, four fifths of whom were Muslims. The report also mentions that of the total population 235 thousand live in the cities and 465 thousand in smaller villages and towns. There is no mention of nomadic behavior.

Yes, really. First, there never has been a nation called palestine. Refer to the map I provided above. That land mass called the palestinian mandate is what is being referred to. The populations that you refer to lived throughout that entire area. What is israel now was mostly uninhabited swamps occasionally passed through by bedoin.

According to Sergio Della Pergola, there were over a million people living in the British Mandate of Palestine in 1931, 760 thousand of whom were Muslims.

Yes. Again, refer to the above map of the british mandate of palestine. The homeland of the "palestinians" is jordan but they are unwelcome. If you believe that someone should give up land to them, then perhaps you should speak to king hussein of jordan as he is presently ruling over their land.

Internally-displaced Palestinians don't have a choice.

Since most of israel was uninhabited swamps, those displaced were in all likelyhood displaced by jordan.

 

[palerider]

Demographic records of "Palestine" 1920-1945 don't agree with you.

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the geography of the land prior to israel being established. The british mandate of palestine was the name given by the brits. There never has been a nation called palestine and the populations were scattered across the whole of the mandate. The area that came to be known as israel was for the most part, uninhabited swamps.

 

[9sublime]

The land was not inhabited. It was passed through by nomads until Israel drained the swamps and made the area habitable. Then, and only then did "the inhabitants" decide that it was their homeland. You obviously aren't familiar with either the geography, the native inhabitants, or the relatively recent (100 years) history of the area and instead have based your position squarely in your own anti semitism.

I find it offensive that you call me anti-semitist when I am not at all, and it just shows that your argument lacks strength, so you pull out a prejudice and racism card.

I do not hold anything against the people of Israel, or any Jews all over the world, I have many Jewish friends. I just do not agree with Israel being there.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

I took the initiative to move all of the posts concerning Israel/Palestine from the "Core Beliefs" thread to the "Palestine" thread created by SW85 but when I moved the posts, it arranged them into chronological order. As such, SW85 opening post was pushed down some, as was 9sublime's response but all of the posts should still be here. I apologize for any confusion and 9sub -- if you can fix it, please do so.

My reason for doing this was that I would like to discuss the broader core philosophies of conservatives and liberals, and not just get hung up on this one issue.

 

[Coyote]

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the geography of the land prior to israel being established. The british mandate of palestine was the name given by the brits. There never has been a nation called palestine and the populations were scattered across the whole of the mandate. The area that came to be known as israel was for the most part, uninhabited swamps.

The area was comprised of regions that at different times were referred to as Palestine, The Levant, Canaan, Israel.

Under Roman rule the area was known as Palestine.

Under Byzantine rule - approximately 390 CE - Palestine was called Palaestina.


Whether it was ever a nation is irrelevant. Whether it was proclaimed to be a nation only in modern times is irrelevant. The reason it is irrelevant is the artificial re-creation of Modern Israel (a country that hasn't existed for 3000 years) which shows up the hypocritical double standard of those who claim that there is no Palestine and no right of a state of Palestine.

 

[Coyote]

I took the initiative to move all of the posts concerning Israel/Palestine from the "Core Beliefs" thread to the "Palestine" thread created by SW85 but when I moved the posts, it arranged them into chronological order. As such, SW85 opening post was pushed down some, as was 9sublime's response but all of the posts should still be here. I apologize for any confusion and 9sub -- if you can fix it, please do so.

My reason for doing this was that I would like to discuss the broader core philosophies of conservatives and liberals, and not just get hung up on this one issue.

Good move!

 

[Coyote]

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the geography of the land prior to israel being established. The british mandate of palestine was the name given by the brits. There never has been a nation called palestine and the populations were scattered across the whole of the mandate. The area that came to be known as israel was for the most part, uninhabited swamps.

According to:http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story559.html#Table 1

Of the 1,358,000 Palestinian Arab Citizens of Palestine in 1948, approximately 873;600 resided within what would become the Israeli borders, 485,000 without.

That's a substantial number of people.

 

[Coyote]

I find it offensive that you call me anti-semitist when I am not at all, and it just shows that your argument lacks strength, so you pull out a prejudice and racism card.

I do not hold anything against the people of Israel, or any Jews all over the world, I have many Jewish friends. I just do not agree with Israel being there.

It is so typical. If you dare to critisize Israel - the political entity - the nation - of Israel (not Judaism, not Jews but Israel's policies) - you are called anti-semitic.

This is what makes it so difficult to have a reasonable and rational discussion about Israel's policies.

 

[SW85]

The Jews requested israel because of the hardship they had been through in WWII.

I can accept that they want something for what they suffered, but why should the Palestinians be the ones who suffer??

Because, as Ottomans (i.e., the descendents of ethnic Turks -- invading conquerors no more native to the region than the Israelis or the British who put them there), the Palestinians backed the wrong horse in WW1 and lost their claim to the land.

In other words, they lost it years ago, fair and square. It became British land thereafter.

What hand did they have in the nazi holocaust?

Well, IIRC, much of the Middle East backed Hitler during WW2, too, but I don't see how that's relevant.

You speak as if Israel has been inflicted on them as some sort of punishment. It wasn't. The Palestinians factored not at all into the equation, because they had no say in it, because it was no longer their land. QED.

The Jewish claim for Israel is based on religious beliefs of it being the holy land, and the fact that they lived there thousands of years ago.

No, the Jewish claim to the land is based on force of arms. Whatever their platitudes about religion, it is military might that keeps them there and in power.

The Israelis have such might. The Palestinians do not. QED.

The Palestinians are not Jewish, why should they have to give up something due to a belief they do not follow?

Again, force of arms. You're British, you're a beneficiary of this, too; don't pretend otherwise. If you object to right of conquest, get your conquering Norman ass back to France and give your land back to the Saxons.

Israel being made is like granting the five southern states back to Mexico.

No, it's rather the opposite. We conquered those states, just as Israel conquered Palestine. (Well, it's not technically true that Israel conquered them, but it's close enough for our purposes). Ceding Israel back to the Palestinians would be like ceding the border states back to Mexico -- which, at any rate, the US' immigration policy is eventually going to do.

There is simply no place in the world for revanchism.

Israel has no right to exist in todays world, you cant make Muslims give up their land for a religious claim, or a 2,000 year old stake on the land.

You have the most warped view of the arrangement of world power I've ever heard.

"Who was there first" is simply irrelevant. It does not matter one bit. (If it did, the Palestinian claim to the land would be no better). The borders of every country in the world have been fixed, to some extent, by conquest.

Israel can't make Muslims give up their land? Well, I gather you don't know history (they gave up the land themselves in the Six Days War), but at any rate, yes, they can -- by force of arms, which they have in spades but bafflingly refuse to exercise to any permanent degree.

Numbers of people are even less relevant. The fact that the Palestinians enjoy demographic dominance but still cannot even maintain order in the tiny sliver of land they possess is just more proof that they shouldn't be given a state.

And Coyote and sublime, don't whine impetuously about other people playing the race card; you both know full well your own side busts it out on every available occasion -- i.e., Israel as apartheid.

 

[Coyote]

Mind showing me this "evidence"?

I think some questions need to be asked . The official version accepted by much of the West and Israel itself is that Israel was provoked and was acting only in self defense. The official version makes great effort to portray little David Israel vs. big Goliath Arabs. To challenge this is to lay one open to charges of anti-semitism.

Was Israel itself in any sort of threat? Why don't you listen to Israeli officials themselves at the time?

First Question– How did Israel justify its attack?

Israeli UN envoy Abba Eban initially claimed to the United Nations Security Council that Egyptian troops had attacked first and that Israel's air strikes were retaliatory. Less than one month later, however, Israel admitted that it had launched the first strike. It asserted that it had faced an impending attack by Egypt, evidenced by Egypt's bellicose rhetoric, removal of UN peacekeeping troops from the Sinai Peninsula, closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, and concentration of troops along Israel's borders The Soviet Union then introduced a resolution to the UN Security Council naming Israel the aggressor in the war. This resolution was blocked by the US and Great Britain. Thereafter, the UN failed to rule definitively on the legality of Israel's actions, although it called for Israel's withdrawal from territories it seized.

Second Question: Is Israel's version of the facts universally accepted, even among Israeli’s?

Israel's claim of an impending Egyptian attack has been widely accepted in the West (note – no one is willing to go against it for fear of political fallout). The Israeli public had also been led to believe that it faced a threat of imminent attack, and perhaps even annihilation . (déjà vous – shades of Iraq here?)
However, the veracity of Israel's claim is increasingly questioned. A number of senior Israeli military and political figures have subsequently admitted that Israel was not faced with a genuine threat of attack, and instead, deliberately chose war.

Yitzhak Rabin (the Israeli army chief of staff during the war), later stated "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it."

Menachem Begin: In the New York Times, August 21st, 1982, he stated "In June l967, we had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

General Yeshayahu Gavish: "The concept that out-teched Egypt would attack Israel's over 230,000 troops with a pathetic 80,000 is nonsense. Egypt was a nation with over 110 million people, and they only had 80,000 on the border. One would have to be rather silly to think that this was all they could muster”

Gen. Matityahu Peled (a reserve general in the 1967 war, who achieved major military success) was so frustrated with Israel's rush to war that he ended up as an activist for peace. In an interview with Haaretz on March 19th, 1972, he stated "The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war" and "To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to the Zahal." In addition, a June 1972 article in Le Monde that cites Peled says "All those stories about the huge danger we were facing because of our small territorial size, an argument expounded once the war was over, had never been considered our calculations prior to the unleashing of hostilities. While we proceeded towards the full mobilization of our forces, no person in his right mind could believe that all this force was necessary to our defence against the Egyptian threat. To pretend that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel's existence does not only insult the intelligence of any person capable of analyzing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Israeli army."

Gen Haim Bar-Lev (another famous general of the 6 day war and previous wars, Deputy Chief of Staff in 1967 and Chief of Staff from 1968 to 1972 and a Knesset member) stated in April 1972 that "We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the Six Day War and we had never thought of such a possibility."

Gen. Ezer Weizman (an air force general during the Six Day War, Chief of Operations of the General Staff, and later Deputy Chief of Staff) was a major proponent of the attack, yet in his book he writes that he told the prime minister, "If you give the order [to launch an attack], Jewish history will mark you as a great leader. If you don't, it will never forgive you."). He is well known for his quote that "There never was danger of extermination. The Jews of the Diaspora would like, for reasons of their own, to see us as heroes, our backs to the wall."​

Third Question: What were Israel’s true objectives?

One objective may have been territorial expansion. Some Israeli politicians and military leaders, such as former Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and Minister of Defence Moshe Dayan lamented the failure to seize East Jerusalem and the West Bank in the 1948 war. Before the war, Jordan's King Hussain told the American ambassador: "They want the West Bank. They've been waiting for a chance to get it, and they're going to take advantage of us and they're going to attack." More statements from prominent Israeli figures confirm this policy of pre-emptive annexation through self-defense.

Mordechai Bentov (member of multiple Knessets and author of "The Bi-National Solution for the Land of Israel") voted against the attack. On April 14, 1971, he stated "The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail, and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory." – my goodness - Israel *did* claim new territory, and then promptly began settling it.

Gen. Matityahu Peled: According to Peled, more than half of the Golan Heights clashes were "a result of our security policy of maximum settlement in the demilitarized area.".

Another possibility might have been that Israeli politicians were genuinely fearful of Jamal Abdul Nasser, the charismatic leader of Arab nationalism. They may have seen the war as an opportunity to embarrass him and destroy the movement he embodied.

Israeli leaders may also have seen military confrontation with the Arab states as inevitable, and chose to engage in battle at a time and under terms of their choosing. Menachem Begin, for example, characterised Israel's war aim as to "take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation."

What ever the reasons it is not as clear or simple or innocent as has been popularly portrayed and the tale of a "poor, little, threatened Israel" is a myth.

 

[Coyote]

And Coyote and sublime, don't whine impetuously about other people playing the race card; you both know full well your own side busts it out on every available occasion -- i.e., Israel as apartheid.

I don't give a damn what "my side" does. I don't use the race card and I defy you to show me an example.

Israel is practicing a de-facto apartheid even it it isn't an openly stated policy. Look at what is happening in practice to the Palestinians in occupied territories and in within Israel (like Jeruselum).

 

[Coyote]

Numbers of people are even less relevant. The fact that the Palestinians enjoy demographic dominance but still cannot even maintain order in the tiny sliver of land they possess is just more proof that they shouldn't be given a state.

Actually that sounds pretty ignorant. Ironically - that is very similar to the arguments given by opponents to abolition. Equally ironic - I have now given you the "race card"

They are "given" territory with so many strings attached it's pathetic and amazing that they can retain any semblence of life. Trade and economy are impossible. They are entirely dependent on Israel for energy and water either of which can be cut off at any time for any reason. They must be processed through multiple checkpoints anytime they travel. Their territory resembles swiss cheese making even access to portions of one man's farm tedius, lengthy and all but impossible. Their homes can be razed at any time with no warning.

And yet - somehow, despite this they are somehow expected to cobble together a "normal" country?