Apartheid Israel's Inhuman Ghetto: Gaza

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Just as an aside. Though I don't always agree with EAGLE1 when we debate on these issues, he has, clearly, come out in opposition to the ridiculous apartheid position that Jenin has made, certainly showing integrity. He has stated that apartheid in Israel is inaccurate, several times.

Ya instead he says that it's worse than Apartheid, hardly a sign of integrity.

 

[Billo_Really]

As I said, your people have had terrible things happen to them, most of which were not their fault. Doesn't give them the right to act like total jerks.

And your comment, "Know one thing... we will never, ever, ever, let you get away with the theft of our nation. Olmert will have to kill every single palestinian in order to have his nation recognized as legitimate" shows your true agenda. You had no nation. You had a land in a region. You don't care about peace. You care about winning. This is why your people are still countryless and living in camps. You want what you want with no compromise. Stay in the camps or go for peace. Your choice.

This post is such a come down...

When I first read it, I thought is was Gunny.

And I thought, bravo, the man is becoming more diplomatic!

Then I realized it was you and that took the wind out of my pre-mature praise.

God-dammit, CC...

 

[MSgt]

You had a land in a region. You don't care about peace. You care about winning. This is why your people are still countryless and living in camps.

And this is exactly the problem.....

- Aziz Shehadeh was a prominant Palestinian lawyer and was the first to accept Israel's existence and advance a solution based on two states. Arafat's men threatened him with death and called him a traitor. He was disbarred for his goals and later murdered. Raja Shehadeh, a Palestinian writer, lawyer, and founder of Al-Haq, is his son.

- A former minister in Arafat's cabinet, Nabil Amr, wrote an appeal for introspection in one of the Palestinian Authority's official newspaper. He remarked on how Palestinians take comfort in desiging excuses. He accused Arafat of squandering the world's aid and goodwill, as well as a legitimate offer for coexistence with Israel. He also stated that they had committed serious mistakes against their people, their Authority, and their dream of statehood. He has dodged many assination attempts.

These kind of men are the thinkers that Arabs will not allow. The destruction of Israel trumps the welfare of any Palestinian. Arabs initiated the conflict that would see the victor gain land (not once, but twice...thanks Allah). Khaled al-Azm, the prime minister of Syria later wrote that Arab governments told the inhabitants of Palestine to evacuate and to leave, expecting Palestinians to be able to come right back after the war. Since 1948, those same Arab countries have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But Israel is completely on the hook for the Palesitnian refugee crisis? I find it ridiculous how people can place all blame on Israel alone and exonerate their own people's decisions.

Muslims refuse to face the truth of their culture because they wish to keep surfing on sympathy and subsisting on victimhood. The only Palestinians who ever acknowledge that even while under Arabic rule Palestinians have never been given the chance they got in 1947, are declared "heretics" and traitors. And people in the "educated" West choose to applaud the accusers who wish to remain refugees forever.

They have to curb their tendency to persue victory where there is none, and instead embark on a mission of co-existence. As long as they continue to be enslaved to the Arab mind set and raise their children to hate and blame, they will continue to lose. I might add that as long as people in the West keep dropping reactionary charges of racism against those whistleblowers of Islam who merely agree with the "heretics," Palestinians will continue to thrive on expired sympathy.

 

[Billo_Really]

Arabs initiated the conflict that would see the victor gain land (not once, but twice...thanks Allah).

However, it is against International Law to gain land in a military conflict.

The United States is a nation based on the "rule of law".

How can we possibly ask others to follow if we don't walk our talk?

 

[akyron]

However, it is against International Law to gain land in a military conflict.

The United States is a nation based on the "rule of law".

How can we possibly ask others to follow if we don't walk our talk?

Horse Crap.

New Mexico, California, and a chunk of arizona need to go back to Mexico then.

Mexifornia anyone?

 

[Billo_Really]

Horse Crap.

New Mexico, California, and a chunk of arizona need to go back to Mexico then.

Mexifornia anyone?

Do you know how stupid your comment is?

Do your homework on International Law in regards to land siezed in a war, then get back to me.

 

[akyron]

Do you know how stupid your comment is?

Do your homework on International Law in regards to land siezed in a war, then get back to me.

We need to give our taxes to Britain as well.


Them or every casino owned by native americans.

 

[akyron]

Do you know how stupid your comment is?
.

It could also be argued that the absolute sense of certainty much like you exhibit could be interpreted as stupidity at its height.

Describing the territories in question as "occupied" rather than "disputed" prejudges all future negotiations despite UNR 242, denies basic rights if Israel, and can be used as a weapon to justify present and future local and global terrorism campaigns.

"Israel's legal claims to a united capital city are also grounded in its being the victor in a war of self-defense against its Jordanian neighbor who, according to the United Nations, violated international law in 1967 by launching a war of "aggression" against the Jewish state, including the bombardment of Jerusalem. Major international legal experts such as former U.S. State Department Legal Advisor Steven Schwebel, who also headed the International Court of Justice at The Hague, further support Israel's position. In 1970, three years after the UN passed Security Council Resolution 242, Schwebel argued that "Israel has better title in the territory that was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem (emphasis mine - D.D.), than Jordan and Egypt." --Steven Schwebel

Check out the six day war sometime. Its really an incredible story of how a few stood up against many and triumphed.

 

[MSgt]

However, it is against International Law to gain land in a military conflict.

The United States is a nation based on the "rule of law".

Look more into the territory situation, Mr. UN ambassador.

I guess it depends on what laws appeasers seek to make important at any given time. Any rule of law that suggests that brutes and thugs have the same "soveriegn" as a free nation is a corrupt law.

How can we possibly ask others to follow if we don't walk our talk?

You mean like "supporting" the dictators and thugs around the third world for "stability" as we Americans call it "peace?" You mean like turning away as Rwandans and Sudanese are exterminated as we Americans pretended "peace?" Or do you mean how we took out an oppressive government in Afghanistan and a brutal tyrant in Iraq and are chastized for it as we Americans wandered clueless between Europe's sentiments and our own on a moral compass? Yeah....we've given a grand example on how to act honorable. You might want to look into how your morals fit more into what we used to do. Americans don't don't know how to walk the walk. But, they sure know how to talk it up as if they do.

 

[Vader]

Do you know how stupid your comment is?

Do your homework on International Law in regards to land siezed in a war, then get back to me.

He has a point, Billo. By your logic he is correct.

Also --- the Palescumians absolutely refuse to control the terrorists within their borders. As one palascumian jackoff put it "We cannot do this because the oppressed do not provide security for their oppressor". Therefore, the palescuminas are NOT interested in peace --- THE LIKE COMMITTING TERRORISTS ATTACKS AND HAVE NO PLANS TO STOP.

This statement thoroughly debunks your (borrowed from palestinian morons) aparthied theory.

:mrgreen:

 

[Chris]

To 1069, give yourself some credit. Your thought of having a Jewish state in a more favorable location is an excellent idea that is deserving of consideration.

In fact to me it seems like one of the more viable and reasonable solutions to be thrown out there. If Jewish people want their own nation state I'd be willing to support them in that endeavor to the extent that it did not seriously undermine the well being of other people, something that the existence of Israel clearly does. I see no compelling reason why a Jewish state absolutely must exist in its current location when it could just as easily be created in a multitude of far more reasonable alternative locations. The United States alone has a near limitless supply of virtually uninhabited territory where a Jewish state could very easily be constructed while displacing few if any pre-existing populations.

What I'd suggest is creating a second alternative Jewish state in a better location for Jews desiring their own country and converting Israel into a multi-ethnic state encompassing all of its core territory and the Palestinian territories. I'd then grant equal citizenship rights to all inhabitants regardless of their ethnicity or religion and give some kind of joint power sharing to mutually significant holy sites such as Jerusalem. Perfect? No, but food for thought at least.

 

[Volker]

Israel already is the second country they have, the first one is Birobidzhan.

 

[donsutherland1]

If Jewish people want their own nation state I'd be willing to support them in that endeavor to the extent that it did not seriously undermine the well being of other people, something that the existence of Israel clearly does.

By itself, Israel's existence poses no threat to any country or wellbeing of its people. The logic that a country's existence poses a threat to the wellbeing of other people's is quite dangerous. A nation's policies, not its existence, can only pose such a threat.

With respect to policies, Israel has been the target of aggression since its re-establishment in 1948. Every country, Israel included, has a basic right of self-defense. If Israel's neighbors who have yet to reach peace agreements are willing to be sufficiently flexible to make the compromises necessary for peace, they will find Israel a willing partner for peace.

I see no compelling reason why a Jewish state absolutely must exist in its current location when it could just as easily be created in a multitude of far more reasonable alternative locations.

Archaeological artifacts, historical records, and DNA evidence all confirm that the Jewish people have historical legitimacy in the region. To argue that a people who shares historical legitimacy in the region should be stripped of that reality is both unfair and unrealistic. Israel was re-established in the region in which it had previously existed. The partition plan that accommodated the core needs of both the Arabs and Jews offered the best possible compromise given that both peoples shared historic legitimacy, both had an equal claim to self-determination, but both also had irreconcilable differences.

The United States alone has a near limitless supply of virtually uninhabited territory where a Jewish state could very easily be constructed while displacing few if any pre-existing populations.

That argument is not relevant to the historic Middle East dispute. Jewish people can and do live as full citizens within the U.S. They have contributed greatly to the nation's progress and enriched its overall cultural fabric and they continue to do so. The Jewish people are not clamoring to carve out an independent state from within the U.S. boundaries or an autonomous state-within-a-state in the U.S.

What I'd suggest is creating a second alternative Jewish state in a better location for Jews desiring their own country and converting Israel into a multi-ethnic state encompassing all of its core territory and the Palestinian territories.

I would strongly suggest continuing to support Israel's right to exist and encouraging Israel's neighbors to offer the flexibility necessary to reach a peace agreement so that all sides can co-exist. The idea that peace can be achieved only with the destruction of another sovereign state is a non-starter. And, if the UN Charter has any meaning, conditioning peace on the dismantling of a sovereign state should remain off limits. Moreover, a precedent of dismantling a sovereign state would be highly dangerous. Then, one could not reasonably argue against dismantling other countries as a solution for accommodating demands of varied groups. That would make for a very unstable and dangerous world.​

 

[donsutherland1]

Israel poses a thread to a country and wellbeing of its people by design as long as its basic laws are the way they are.

To what country does Israel pose a threat by virtue of its laws. Jordan has reached peace with Israel. Its leaders do not consider Israel a threat. Egypt has reached peace with Israel. Egypt does not consider Israel a threat.

They do so in Palestine and not in the US, even though there are more people living in a square mile there. This is why it would be less problematic to do so in the US than in Palestine.

Different countries have different population densities. Population density has no bearing on the legitimacy of a country.

Israel is an artificial product of the UN, it is not a good example now and it would be no example at all, if this failed experiment came to an end. The UN still can learn something out of it. Don't create artifical countries.

Imagine if one argued that Germany was an "artificial product" of the Congress of Vienna and, after World Wars I and II, the victors decreed that the "failed experiment" had to be terminated. Or how about most of the sovereign African states that emerged after colonialism? Where would one stop?

The fact is, such arguments are as irrelevant as they would be absurd. History has seen the rise and fall of states under a wide variety of circumstances. I don't believe it is helpful to try to base policies on subjectivity as to whether a given state is less legitimate than another. To do so, would be to undermine the UN Charter's expression of the principle of "sovereign equality."

In any case, had the UN created a sole Arab state in the region, it would have been as "artificial" as you claim Israel is. The bottom line is that the UN was confronted with how to bring an end to the British Mandate (not a sovereign state) in a fashion that accommodated the core needs (not maximum demands) of two peoples who shared historical legitimacy in the region and an equal claim to self-determination. There was no perfect solution that could bridge the irreconcilable differences and aspirations of these two peoples. The partition plan was the best approach possible, as it allowed each people a sovereign state, which was consistent with their shared legitimacy and equal claim to self-determination.​

 

[donsutherland1]

I just noticed that the post to which I responded in Message #289 in this thread was deleted. However, as I believe the arguments to which I responded often arise and, therefore, deserve to be rebutted, I will let my reply stand.

 

[Chris]

By itself, Israel's existence poses no threat to any country or wellbeing of its people. The logic that a country's existence poses a threat to the wellbeing of other people's is quite dangerous. A nation's policies, not its existence, can only pose such a threat.​

Israel's existence has undermined the well being of the region's Palestinian Arabs by displacing them and denying their right to return to their homes in order to maintain a predominantly Jewish population within the region.

With respect to policies, Israel has been the target of aggression since its re-establishment in 1948. Every country, Israel included, has a basic right of self-defense. If Israel's neighbors who have yet to reach peace agreements are willing to be sufficiently flexible to make the compromises necessary for peace, they will find Israel a willing partner for peace.​

I see this as a catch 22. Yes Israel's existence is at constant risk from the neighboring countries but this only reinforces my point that this was a bad location to create Israel in the first place. Why do the Arabs seek to destroy Israel? Perhaps because they feel that its location is fundamentally unreasonable as the dignity and prosperity of their fellow Palestinian Arabs have been trampled on as a result.

Archaeological artifacts, historical records, and DNA evidence all confirm that the Jewish people have historical legitimacy in the region. To argue that a people who shares historical legitimacy in the region should be stripped of that reality is both unfair and unrealistic. Israel was re-established in the region in which it had previously existed. The partition plan that accommodated the core needs of both the Arabs and Jews offered the best possible compromise given that both peoples shared historic legitimacy, both had an equal claim to self-determination, but both also had irreconcilable differences.​

I'm not denying the important historical links that this region has to Judaism, what I disagree with is the assertion that Jews are somehow more worthy or deserving in their claims to this land than other groups of people. When you say "To argue that a people who shares historical legitimacy in the region should be stripped of that reality is both unfair and unrealistic" that could just as easily be said of the Palestinian Arabs. The region has had an Arab presence for at least 1400 years. Is it reasonable to just cast these people aside like garbage after all this time simply because another group of people wants the land and doesn’t want to share it? I'm not denying Jews the right to live there should they desire to, I simply disagree that their interest in having a Jewish nation state should nullify the interests of the Arabs and other non-Jewish people of the region.

That argument is not relevant to the historic Middle East dispute. Jewish people can and do live as full citizens within the U.S. They have contributed greatly to the nation's progress and enriched its overall cultural fabric and they continue to do so. The Jewish people are not clamoring to carve out an independent state from within the U.S. boundaries or an autonomous state-within-a-state in the U.S.​

I merely used the US as an example of one possible location where another state could be created. There are numerous possible locations throughout the world. I understand that most Jews would prefer to have their state where it is, but my primary concern is in finding a solution that will allow for peace. Appeasing Jewish religious or historical interests comes second. I believe that a Jewish state in an alternative location with assured safety and hurting no other people is a lot more desirable than one that is under constant threat of destruction, is the target of hatred and despise by most of the Islamic world, and is in a state of constant civil war with the people it displaced.

I would strongly suggest continuing to support Israel's right to exist and encouraging Israel's neighbors to offer the flexibility necessary to reach a peace agreement so that all sides can co-exist. The idea that peace can be achieved only with the destruction of another sovereign state is a non-starter. And, if the UN Charter has any meaning, conditioning peace on the dismantling of a sovereign state should remain off limits. Moreover, a precedent of dismantling a sovereign state would be highly dangerous. Then, one could not reasonably argue against dismantling other countries as a solution for accommodating demands of varied groups. That would make for a very unstable and dangerous world.​

Political borders are not set in stone and if redrawing them would provide better living conditions for the people I don’t see why we should completely rule out this possibility. Most of the world’s countries were arbitrarily created by the spoils of war or colonialism with little or no regard to the interests of the actual people on the ground. Many African countries would benefit greatly from having their haphazard colonial borders redrawn to actually reflect and benefit the true ethnic, linguistic, and historical divisions of their people. I’m not suggesting a free far all where any group can declare their own separate state at the faintest whim, only that the possibility should not be thrown out in the face of territorial integrity if it might offer some resolution. Keep as many options on the table as possible.

 

[Tashah]

Israel's existence has undermined the well being of the region's Palestinian Arabs by displacing them and denying their right to return to their homes in order to maintain a predominantly Jewish population within the region.

Israel was intended by the United Nations to be a Jewish state. Rather than Israel, it has been the historical intransigence and unbridled corruption of successive Palestinian regimes that has undermined the well being of the Palestinian people.

I see this as a catch 22. Yes Israel's existence is at constant risk from the neighboring countries but this only reinforces my point that this was a bad location to create Israel in the first place. Why do the Arabs seek to destroy Israel? Perhaps because they feel that its location is fundamentally unreasonable as the dignity and prosperity of their fellow Palestinian Arabs have been trampled on as a result.

Israel's location is perfect. Arabs think a lot of things are unreasonable such as gender equality and cartoons. Too bad.

I'm not denying the important historical links that this region has to Judaism, what I disagree with is the assertion that Jews are somehow more worthy or deserving in their claims to this land than other groups of people.

No one asserted total Jewish domination. What was asserted by the UN is that both peoples have legitimate historical territorial claims. Ergo, the British Mandate of Palestine was partitioned so both peoples could enjoy a sovereign state.

When you say "To argue that a people who shares historical legitimacy in the region should be stripped of that reality is both unfair and unrealistic" that could just as easily be said of the Palestinian Arabs. The region has had an Arab presence for at least 1400 years.

Jews have had a presence since 1000 BCE. Your point is?

Is it reasonable to just cast these people aside like garbage after all this time simply because another group of people wants the land and doesn’t want to share it?

Israel didn't cast them aside. Arab designs to eliminate Israel by aggressive warfare didn't quite turn out as hoped. They gambled... they lost.

I'm not denying Jews the right to live there should they desire to, I simply disagree that their interest in having a Jewish nation state should nullify the interests of the Arabs and other non-Jewish people of the region.

Nothing is nullified. Palestine exists. Check a map.

I merely used the US as an example of one possible location where another state could be created. There are numerous possible locations throughout the world. I understand that most Jews would prefer to have their state where it is, but my primary concern is in finding a solution that will allow for peace. Appeasing Jewish religious or historical interests comes second.

To an Israeli, your primary concerns have no resonance whatsoever.

I believe that a Jewish state in an alternative location with assured safety and hurting no other people is a lot more desirable than one that is under constant threat of destruction, is the target of hatred and despise by most of the Islamic world, and is in a state of constant civil war with the people it displaced.

Israel has been sovereign for over sixty years. It's not going anywhere. Hopefully, the Annapolis negotiations will resolve all issues peacefully.

Political borders are not set in stone and if redrawing them would provide better living conditions for the people I don’t see why we should completely rule out this possibility. Most of the world’s countries were arbitrarily created by the spoils of war or colonialism with little or no regard to the interests of the actual people on the ground. Many African countries would benefit greatly from having their haphazard colonial borders redrawn to actually reflect and benefit the true ethnic, linguistic, and historical divisions of their people. I’m not suggesting a free far all where any group can declare their own separate state at the faintest whim, only that the possibility should not be thrown out in the face of territorial integrity if it might offer some resolution. Keep as many options on the table as possible.

Redraw your borders and then maybe we'll talk.

 

[EAGLE1]

Israel was intended by the United Nations to be a Jewish state. Rather than Israel, it has been the historical intransigence and unbridled corruption of successive Palestinian regimes that has undermined the well being of the Palestinian people.

Hey guys. Hope you're all well.

The arabs were handed an unfair settlement that gave land in size all out of proportion to the Jewish state. They had very good reasons for rejecting this and I cant think of anyone across the world that would have accepted such a deal.

Israel's location is perfect. Arabs think a lot of things are unreasonable such as gender equality and cartoons. Too bad.

Lets not go doing the usual arabs = bad, Jews = good thing. Arabs are just as reasonable as anyone else and have shown repeated desire for peace.

No one asserted total Jewish domination. What was asserted by the UN is that both peoples have legitimate historical territorial claims. Ergo, the British Mandate of Palestine was partitioned so both peoples could enjoy a sovereign state.

Indeed. The Jewish state was given with a sliver majority of Jewish, meaning hundreds of thousands of arabs put under the new state.

Jews have had a presence since 1000 BCE. Your point is?

And a tiny presence for the centuries before Theodore Hertzl.

Israel didn't cast them aside. Arab designs to eliminate Israel by aggressive warfare didn't quite turn out as hoped. They gambled... they lost.

Both sides have shown agression, and the arabs of palestine werent designing to immigrate in large numbers to create their own state. They were right where theyd always been.

Nothing is nullified. Palestine exists. Check a map.

Indeed. In fact it could be argued that the slow squeezing of the Palestinians that has went on was only stopped by the agitations of said people.

To an Israeli, your primary concerns have no resonance whatsoever.

Israel has been sovereign for over sixty years. It's not going anywhere. Hopefully, the Annapolis negotiations will resolve all issues peacefully.

True enough. Whats done is done. Though the point made by chris was obviously hypothetical.

Redraw your borders and then maybe we'll talk.

:lol:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Political borders are not set in stone and if redrawing them would provide better living conditions for the people I don’t see why we should completely rule out this possibility. Most of the world’s countries were arbitrarily created by the spoils of war or colonialism with little or no regard to the interests of the actual people on the ground. Many African countries would benefit greatly from having their haphazard colonial borders redrawn to actually reflect and benefit the true ethnic, linguistic, and historical divisions of their people. I’m not suggesting a free far all where any group can declare their own separate state at the faintest whim, only that the possibility should not be thrown out in the face of territorial integrity if it might offer some resolution. Keep as many options on the table as possible.

The african point is excellent, its the fundamental reason for their problems. A continent of over 500 tribes made into one of some 30 odd countries, ridiculous, but in the end it was just easier that way for the colonials.

Borders are maliable, and its of course the power of violence that makes it so. This is why Isreal/ palestine has been in conflict for so long. Like two guys fighting in the street, the fight is not over til one is dead/ maimed or agreement is made.

 

[Tashah]

Hey guys. Hope you're all well.

Wow. That was a short deployment. What happened?

The arabs were handed an unfair settlement that gave land in size all out of proportion to the Jewish state. They had very good reasons for rejecting this and I cant think of anyone across the world that would have accepted such a deal.

The Arabs have the entire ME and NA for cripes sake lol.

Lets not go doing the usual arabs = bad, Jews = good thing. Arabs are just as reasonable as anyone else and have shown repeated desire for peace.

Lol. Hamas desires peace?

Indeed. The Jewish state was given with a sliver majority of Jewish, meaning hundreds of thousands of arabs put under the new state.

Don't like it... leave :mrgreen:

And a tiny presence for the centuries before Theodore Hertzl.

The Romans engineered that act.

Both sides have shown agression, and the arabs of palestine werent designing to immigrate in large numbers to create their own state. They were right where theyd always been.

Both sides wanted an end to the Mandate violence. The UN came up with the only fair and sensical solution.

Indeed. In fact it could be argued that the slow squeezing of the Palestinians that has went on was only stopped by the agitations of said people.

Time warp yourself back to 1947. They gambled and lost.

True enough. Whats done is done. Though the point made by chris was obviously hypothetical.

No lol, he's serious. He wants to plop Israel down anywhere except where it is.

The african point is excellent, its the fundamental reason for their problems. A continent of over 500 tribes made into one of some 30 odd countries, ridiculous, but in the end it was just easier that way for the colonials.

Lessons learned.

Borders are maliable, and its of course the power of violence that makes it so. This is why Isreal/ palestine has been in conflict for so long. Like two guys fighting in the street, the fight is not over til one is dead/ maimed or agreement is made.

Been there done that. Let's hope an agreement is reached.

 

[EAGLE1]

Wow. That was a short deployment. What happened?

Only just finished training, bah. Alot of pointless lectures (Im a medic but have to sit through numerous first aid aide memoire classes!? Go figure) and endless kit issuiing, form filling, fitness tests and medicals lately so glad to get a few days leave. Back to business on Monday.

The Arabs have the entire ME and NA for cripes sake lol.

Indeed, though we're referring to the Palestinian arabs arent we? They dont have all of this.

Lol. Hamas desires peace?

Hamas are a relatively late entry into Pal politics.

Don't like it... leave :mrgreen:

:lol: Or be removed.

The Romans engineered that act.

Long long ago.

Both sides wanted an end to the Mandate violence. The UN came up with the only fair and sensical solution.

The UN came up short.

Time warp yourself back to 1947. They gambled and lost.

Trying to right a wrong isnt gambling.

No lol, he's serious. He wants to plop Israel down anywhere except where it is.

He's saying if it were possible itd be a good thing. Its not, but the point is valid enough.

Been there done that. Let's hope an agreement is reached.

Done what? But yes of course.

 

[donsutherland1]

Israel's existence has undermined the well being of the region's Palestinian Arabs by displacing them and denying their right to return to their homes in order to maintain a predominantly Jewish population within the region.

Arab intransigence and horrendous decisionmaking undermined the wellbeing of the region's Arabs, not Israel. The Arab leadership at the time sacrificed the wellbeing of the region's Arabs by refusing compromise and then attempting to extinguish Israel through military action.

The following passage from Abba Eban's memoirs captures the kind of enormously bad judgment that hurt Arabs:

At the end of the 1947 Assembly, there was a procedural debate which seemed marginal at the time but whose significance was to grow more evident in later months. Both the Jewish Agency and the Palestine Arab Higher Committee were invited to attach "liaison officers" to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestin (UNSCOP). The Zionist leadership selected David Horowitz and myself for this task...

By accepting liaison officers from the Jewish Agency, the United Nations was virtually acknowledging the legitimacy of Zionism as a national liberation movement. The Palestine Arabs contemptuously refused to nominate their liaison officers. We benefited greatly from Arab errors in those days. Their doctrine was that the end of the British Mandate could be followed by nothing except the establishment of an Arab Palestine, that the UN had no jurisdiction--there was therefore nothing to talk about and no need for liaison.

Eban also recounted that by December 1947, the Arabs "had cleverly decided to avoid a frontal assault and to fight a war of communications. They would cut Jerusalem off at the Latrun salient. They would interpose themselves between the northern and southern Negev. They would send volunteer armies from Lebanon and Syria into Galilee. The map of the Jewish state would be lacking in any kind of coherence so that a Jewish governmental authority could not establish its writ in any consecutive area." Once Israel had announced its re-establishment, "The Arab governments had resolved to occupy the country, subjugate its Jewish population and stangle Israel's statehood at its birth."

That was continual bad faith on the part of the Arabs. They had no legitimate basis to expect that they alone enjoyed sole right to the region and sole right to self-determination. The Jewish people shared an equal claim to the region and equal right of self-determination. The bad faith and disastrous decisionmaking by the Arab leadership, not Israel's existence, is what hurt Arabs.

I see this as a catch 22. Yes Israel's existence is at constant risk from the neighboring countries but this only reinforces my point that this was a bad location to create Israel in the first place. Why do the Arabs seek to destroy Israel? Perhaps because they feel that its location is fundamentally unreasonable as the dignity and prosperity of their fellow Palestinian Arabs have been trampled on as a result.

Israel was re-established in the ancestral land of the Jewish people. There could be no more appropriate place for its re-establishment. As for Israel's existence, the fault for the threat lies strictly with the would-be aggressors who have designs to eliminate Israel. That naked aggression should be condemned. It is against the norms of international law.

I simply disagree that their interest in having a Jewish nation state should nullify the interests of the Arabs and other non-Jewish people of the region.

The only ones who 'nullified the interests of the Arabs' in the region were the Arab leaders who refused to compromise. The UN's partition plan accommodated the core needs (land for two peoples, self-determination for two peoples) of the two peoples who shared historical legitimacy in the region. The Arab side rejected the compromise. They refused to cooperate at all stages of the process. Later, at the end of the British Mandate, they launched a war to eliminate Israel and lost. There were adverse consequences that flowed to the Arab residents both from the implacability of their leaders and the decision of the Arab states to initiate aggression against Israel.

Political borders are not set in stone and if redrawing them would provide better living conditions for the people I don’t see why we should completely rule out this possibility.

All parties are free to negotiate directly to reach agreement on permanent boundaries. Egypt and Jordan have done so. If the Palestinians and Syrians are willing to enter unconditionally into direct negotiations with the requisite degree of flexibility that is key to reaching agreements, then they, too, can make agreement on boundaries. However, if they seek to impose uncompromising demands on Israel, there will be no agreement. Agreement must meet the core needs of all the parties.

Finally, I also refer you to Tashah's replies. She has covered a great deal of the points you raised and I strongly agree with her responses. Hence, there is little need for me to be redundant in going into great detail on the points she covered.​

 

[partier9]

They both somewhat undermind each other but Israel does it to a much lesser extent than the arabs do. Lets see 1967 they defeat the arabs in 6 days after being attacked, same on Yom Kipper just not after 6 days it took longer. Then what last summer was it when they invaded Lebenon after some soldiers were killed and kidnapped. That really sounds like underminding the arabs.

 

[EAGLE1]

Lets see 1967 they defeat the arabs in 6 days after being attacked

Huh?

Donsutherlands points are mostly balderdash.

The only reason Isreal accepted what it was offered was because it was more than their numbers justified so of course they did. The much more prudent offer of 1937 was rejected by them so lets not go painting this side as the agreeable ones.

 

[Tashah]

Huh?

Donsutherlands points are mostly balderdash.

Your counterpoints are hokum.

 

[Vader]

Your counterpoints are hokum.

Tashah,

Oh great Israeli divia and sage of wisdom, can you please tell what "hokum" is?

Thanks.

:mrgreen: