Beleg Cúthalion on 21/11/2012 at 21:53
The Palestinians proved to be very political over the past decades, experimenting with Socialism and other promised-land concepts, dealing extensively with their failure (also in Lebanon after the Civil War) etc.. This is not a "land" full of knee-jerk-reacting peasants. The problem is that almost no non-violent way ever worked for them with Israel being built up as a modern industrial state which gets Western support since the discourse established as reality is that it is indisputably rightly there. As soon as the Palestinians stop shooting rockets, the barrier remains, the discrimination remains (fishermen not being able to go to sea, farmers shot at when coming to close to the border etc.) and no one knows about it because hardly anyone outside Palestine reads their news agency reports.
froghawk on 21/11/2012 at 22:42
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
That's so inaccurate it doesn't deserve any more of a response. I suggest you go and look at some history.
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_a_Jewish_state)
Yes, wikipedia is a bad source, blah blah blah, but I learned about this in school, so unless my teachers were lying to me, I have no idea what you're talking about.
Beleg is correct.
Thirith on 22/11/2012 at 06:53
Here's an infographic that I'd consider relevant and that is based on what looks like reliable data:
Inline Image:
http://i.imgur.com/qRqEw.jpgdemagogue on 22/11/2012 at 09:46
When I studied abroad in Israel, I took a course on Israeli history, and one of our classes was essentially recreating the debate on the British East Africa (Uganda) proposal. One of the punchlines was no other proposal really had a realistic chance than the Palestine mandate given the politics, but it wasn't inevitable had things worked out differently, and it was a serious debate that split the community... History is always more complex & messed up than people expect. (Later incidentally I applied to work with a Palestinian group on Palestinian rights and they liked everything about my background except that I had studied in Israel. I guess they're congenitally suspicious that people could do that and still be balanced on the issue, which in fairness is probably right for most cases.)
Speaking of messy history, in response to another post in this thread (the idea that Palestinians had someplace else to go; other countries--Jordan, Lebanon--have had as much a problem with them too), I was reading up about the really messy history of Palestinians in Jordan, Jordan's role in this, and the events leading up to & following Black September. At one point Jordan was ready to call for Israeli assistance, and they did call for US & UK support, to deal with the PLO's claim over Jordan, especially when Syria came down with tanks on the PLO's side & a full invasion & massacre seemed imminent, but then it flipped into a massacre of Palestinians. And Jordan had its own claim over the West Bank (which it lost by bumbling the whole incident).
In retrospect, things might have gotten normalized easier of Jordan took W. Bank, Egypt took Gaza, & Syria took the Golan... By the 1980s there were already understandings between Israel and Egypt & Jordan (and Golan is still a Syria claim, not Pal), and you already have an existing apparatus to deal with security. But by the 1960s, the PLO had such a PR coup on the international front that that was never going to happen. It's actually pretty amazing what the PLO & Fatah was able to accomplish (although they were sadly tied to things like Munich), but after all that they still couldn't deliver a state for their people in the end.
@Thirth, that graph slides over a few things, but perspective is always important to remember. The Syria civil war is the biggest thing happening in the Middle East right now that nobody's talking about and should be.
------------------------------------
Edit: Egypt brokered Ceasefire. Let's see how long this lasts: (
www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-conflict.html)
But it at least shows the new Egypt is the new sharif in town.
Thirith on 22/11/2012 at 10:28
Quote Posted by demagogue
@Thirth, that graph slides over a few things, but perspective is always important to remember.
Perspective, proportionality, and a willingness to acknowledge that things aren't black and white. Personally, I am in favour of Israel defending itself, but I also think that their reaction is disproportional. Similarly, I understand the Palestinians' frustration at their treatment and even their hate, but bombings and rocket attacks are at the very least massively stupid if the intention is actually improving the situation of Palestinians. All too often people seem to think there's an imperative to choose sides, and then the ones whose side you're on are justified in everything and those on the other side are justified in nothing - which is not the kind of perspective that helps anyone IMO.
Edit: Just to clarify: I very much agree with your posts here, so this is not a "yeah, but" so much as a "yeah, and".
Jason Moyer on 22/11/2012 at 12:56
All that the "how many isralies/how many palestinians were killed" stats show is that Israel is vastly superior in terms of military strength, and could wipe Gaza off the map if they so choose. What those stats don't include, sadly, is how many civilians have died because Hamas uses civilian buildings to launch military operations from.
Frankly, I have no sympathy for the palestinians. They've rejected every chance they've been given to have an independent state, the roots of the entire palestinian liberation movement are linked heavily to the Nazis (particularly the organizations they've democratically chosen to represent their cause), and they've shown no desire whatsoever to peacefully co-exist with Israel. The people of Gaza democratically elect blatantly anti-semitic groups whose goals are the annihilation of the state of Israel and the complete expulsion of the Jewish race (or at least they did before Hamas stopped allowing them to hold elections), and we're supposed to sympathize when Israel periodically has to remind them that they have bigger guns than they do?
Something I've always wondered is how the Arab majority in northern Israel (outside of the Golan Heights) manages to live peacefully in a Jewish state.
Thirith on 22/11/2012 at 12:59
The Palestinians don't have a country. That's part of the premise, it's part of the problem.
I don't think many people here are saying that the Israeli have no right to defend themselves or even to retaliate to some extent - but this cycle of retaliation doesn't seem to be helping either side all that much.
Jason Moyer on 22/11/2012 at 13:12
But they've had the opportunity to have a country. Initially they didn't take it because OMG WE WANT THE WHOLE THING and later because OMG WE CAN'T GOVERN OURSELVES. Which was the problem Arabs pretty much always had in Palestine. Going back to what I mentioned about how there are Arab-majority areas in Israel, and how those populations were happily assimilated into the state, I've always suspected that there were many native Palestinians (natives, as opposed to the Egyptians and Jordanians causing most of the problems there in the 20th century) who recognized that the Zionists brought huge advances in infrastructure and technology, greatly increasing the standard of living in the area. They spent centuries being crapped on by their own people, and suddenly the Jews return and freely share things like irrigation with them.
demagogue on 22/11/2012 at 13:23
Actually we can be very precise about it.
Every country and recognized non-state peoples (including the Palestinians) have acceded or accepted the UN Charter, so already consented to bind themselves to it. And it is very clear about armed conflict. There are only two clearly defined cases you can have legitimate armed conflict under the Charter.
(1) Article 51. In self-defense "if an armed attack occurs." Not *may* occur in the future, but present-simple tense. It's already under way, tanks or rockets are presently crossing the border. Bush I claimed drugs coming into the US was a direct attack because it killed Americans, justifying a full invasion of Panama to take out Noreaga under Art. 51 lol.
(2) Article 42, a Security Council vote for any necessary measures to restore international peace. That's it, either tanks are crossing the border & it's self-defense, or you have a Security Council vote.
All other use of force is illegal. But disproportional use of even authorized force can be illegitimate if protections aren't taken to prevent it. It's the difference between just war (are you just using force at all) and just strategy (are you just in how you use the force). They're two separate questions you ask independently. Hamas is clearly violating the first with its force. Whether Israel was violating the second with its use of force, we'd have to have some investigation and look at the facts to decide.
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
Something I've always wondered is how the Arab majority in northern Israel (outside of the Golan Heights) manages to live peacefully in a Jewish state.
I think you're presuming too much. There are social factors that have pretty predictable results throughout societies. When you have high unemployment & poverty, little government, little education, and a very young demographic, you're setting up a latent level of political instability. When you temper that situation with employment, disposable wealth, government, education, and age... then the social situation moderates accordingly. Culture and ideology play a big role of course, but you might be surprised how much social-economic factors are really doing the heavy lifting explaining why societies work like they do. People will go to astounding lengths to preserve a stable domestic life. It's when you get them young & on the streets without work & frustrated that you start heating up the pressure cooker. That's not to say it's an easy thing to just "fix", and it definitely isn't letting people off the hook for violence or being irresponsible. But it's not throwing up its hands and being fatalistic either.
SubJeff on 22/11/2012 at 16:09
Sometimes I couldn't care less about what is "legal".
Under those articles it would be illegal to bomb a site you know is getting ready to launch a nuke, that the opposition has said has a nuke and says it will launch soon. So if the Security Council says "nah, they're bluffing" you are supposed to sit their happily and wait and see if your face gets melted off because the attack hasn't started?
What utter, utter buuuuuuuullshit.
This reminds me of the total nonsense we've had with house intruders in the UK and not being able to really take pre-emptive violent action against them. Yes, it's changed now (thank God) but in the past if 3 guys broke in and you went hell for leather on them in a surprise attack and messed them all up you'd be the one in trouble, even though it's pretty obvious that 3 guys breaking in aren't there to deliver candy.
