posted
I'd say both Nazi Germany and Poland had a right to exist, but as Poland had no guarantee to exist, it was up to their own actions to determine whether or not they would exist. Since no one stopped Germany, they ceased to exist. Had they been able to stop Germany, they would have kept on existing. In the same way, Hamas and Hezbollah have the right to exist as the head of national governments.
And when they attack the civilians of a foreign nation, they still don't surrender their right to exist, they just make it much, much harder for them to guarantee their own existance in the face of enemy reprisal.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: How about all nations have the right to self-determination...? Can we agree to that?
N.B. talking about nationalities, not governments.
Well, it's plainly not an unlimited right. There's no right to decide to wipe out another nationality. Deciding that only your own nationality can live in a given area is kind of iffy too.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:St. Yogi: The Israeli war on terrorism does nothing more than ensure Palestinian support for terrorism, while at the same time making the lives of the Palestinians worse.
quote:StarLisa: And jails are the cause of crime. You live in a topsy-turvey world.
Here, he's actually broaching on a point. The world is, after all, topsy-turvy. The response by Israel, despite being provoked by attacks on civilians, is indeed working against them, because it ends up killing the civilians and destroying the infrastructure around where hez chooses to nest. And this makes everyone incredibly angry, because there are pictures of dead Lebanese babies being broadcast realtime to the world.
Israel can protest all day long. "But they hide in civilian populations! And fire rockets at our cities! What are we supposed to do?"
Fall into a region-based catch-22, apparently. Especially if they sneak in a little communal punishment or gratuitous ordinance use from time to time.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: The fundamental problem is that Israel conceives itself as a Jewish state, yet rules over lands filled with many non-Jewish people. If the government of Israel cannot represent the non-Jewish population, then it really doesn't have a right to exist in its current form, even if some segment of the population in that region wants it to. This is one big problem with all religious states - from Israel to Iran.
No. The fundamental problem is that Arabs in the middle east - outside of Israel - don't want a Jewish state to exist. Israel occupied some territory outside of its 1967 borders solely to protect itself from invading armies seeking to drive Israel into the sea. At Camp David, Israel offered to return nearly all of that territory back in exchange for peace - but that offer was rejected without even so much as a counter-proposal.
Also, the Arabls and other non-Jews living within Israel enjoy more political, economic and religious freedom than most, if not all, others in the Middle East. In fact, except for the fact that Arabs in Israel are within the minority, they have exactly the same political, economic and religious rights as everyon else.
The problem, therefore, is not that Israel governs non-Jews. The problem is that Israel exists, and for many within the region, that simply is so intolerable that murder becomes justified in their minds.
I think Israel could withdraw completely from the occupied territories, and agree to some shared control over Jerusalem, and that still wouldn't end the problem. There would still be terrorism and attacks on Israel, forcing Israel to reoccupy territory for its own defense, forcing Israel to fight back against terrorists hiding among civilians, and forcing Israel, in its own defense, to endanger the lives of civilians.
It's a vicious cycle that will never end until one of two things happens: Israel is destroyed (or gives up), or the Arabs in the Middle East decide to leave in peace along side Israel, and choose to acknowledge Israel's right to exist.
Israel will never let the former happen. And unfortunately, there are too many forces arrayed against Israel to allow the latter to happen - including but not limited to Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.
[ August 01, 2006, 07:23 AM: Message edited by: David G ]
Posts: 195 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well - at some point, even the most intractable religious conflicts do end, because one side accepts defeat. Consider the Thirty Years' War, every bit as nasty as the current conflict - and it might be better named the Eighty Years' War, at that, because the break in the fighting around 1600-1620 was just that - an armed truce. It did eventually end, with the Catholics, essentially, giving up and agreeing to let people be heretics if they really wanted to, and the Protestants, conversely, accepting a splintered church. Granted, Germany's population dropped by 33% in the process, but the thing is, the fighting did come to an end without either side wiping out the other.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Well, it's plainly not an unlimited right. There's no right to decide to wipe out another nationality. Deciding that only your own nationality can live in a given area is kind of iffy too."
I'm sorry, KoM, I wasn't talking about other-determination. I explicitly said "self-determination."
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right. And right now, I'm going to self-determine where my fist goes, so you'd better get your nose out of the way.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM - From Israel's perspective, the fighting can come to an end without either side wiping out the other. All Israel requires is for Arabs and all others in the region to decide to co-exist with Israel in peace - without terrorizing Israel and without supporting those who do.
The committment to one side wiping out the other is a committment embraced by Israel's enemies.
[ August 01, 2006, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: David G ]
Posts: 195 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is a stab at answering TrapperKeeper's original question.
Many good, peace loving people have a hard time believing that there is an exceedingly large population of Arabs and others in the Middle East that cannot tolerate the existence of Israel. Many good, peace loving people have a hard time understanding how a large number of people can be so ruthless, or are willing to support those who commit atrocities just because they cannot tolerate Israel's existence.
Because the foregoing is so difficult to believe, a natural response may be to assume that the real cause for the problem is that a weaker people are resorting to desperate means to fight for their own rights. Such a belief may be easier for many to believe than the truth - that a large group of people embrace a truly evil and dysfunctional attitude toward other humans and the dignity of human life.
Of course, if the world does not correctly understand the problem, the problem will be impossible to solve.
Posts: 195 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No. The fundamental problem is that Arabs in the middle east - outside of Israel - don't want a Jewish state to exist.
I suspect Arabic states would have no problem if Israel took land in Antarctica for a state, or land that is not occupied by people already. I think that for most Middle Eastern peoples, the reason they don't want a Jewish state to exist there is because of the particular territory that Israel chose to put their state upon, and because there are Arabic people living on that land. It is concern for those people, and a desire to prevent them from being forced to live under Jewish rule, that I suspect is at the heart of the controversy.
I am aware that there are groups that would prefer to see radical Muslim states across the whole region. However, I don't think these represent the majority view of those countries any more than radical neoconservatives represent the majority view of Americans. I think it is a radical minority viewpoint that has been given support because they can attach their cause to the more legitimate concerns of the region. Without the Palestinian cause and other more legitimate quarrells with Israel, I suspect support for those radical viewpoints would largely collapse.
quote:Because the foregoing is so difficult to believe, a natural response may be to assume that the real cause for the problem is that a weaker people are resorting to desperate means to fight for their own rights.
When Israel gives that weaker people their rights, and if the fighting still continues after that, then I will believe you. But until then, I don't think it makes sense to assign radical, irrational motives to the Arabic peoples when there are far more rational motives that would explain the same behavior. It's like saying "Peace activists don't care about peace. They just hate Bush!"
It should be noted that making this mistake in assigning motives is having serious consequences for both Israel and America. If you fail to recognize that the enemy only has support because of the harm you are doing to their people, then you also fail to recognize that starting wars that harm their people even more will only increase the support for your enemy. Israel seems to be experiencing this mistake as we speak.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I suspect Arabic states would have no problem if Israel took land in Antarctica for a state, or land that is not occupied by people already. I think that for most Middle Eastern peoples, the reason they don't want a Jewish state to exist there is because of the particular territory that Israel chose to put their state upon, and because there are Arabic people living on that land.
Do you contend that Jews forced Arabs from their land? If so, what is the support or evidence for your position?
Were not Arabs assigned their own land at the time Israel was formed?
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: When Israel gives that weaker people their rights, and if the fighting still continues after that, then I will believe you.
How exactly has Israel taken away anybody’s rights?
Israel only occupied what is called “Palestinian Territory” after winning a war in which Israel’s enemies sought to destroy Israel – Israel occupied that territory for self-defense – it needed (and probably still needs) to occupy much of that territory to adequately defend itself against further attacks. But most of that territory has been governed by the Palestinian Authority, not Israel.
At Camp David, Israel offered to withdraw from nearly all of occupied territory, but that was not good enough.
Israel already withdrew from Gaza, but Gaza has been used as a launch pad for firing missiles at Israeli towns.
In other words, to end this conflict, what must Israel give this “weaker” people that it hasn’t already given them, or offered to give them?
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: But until then, I don't think it makes sense to assign radical, irrational motives to the Arabic peoples when there are far more rational motives that would explain the same behavior.
If that is the case, why was Israel’s offer at Camp David rejected? If they wanted a Palestinian State and for Israel to withdraw back to its 1967 borders, then shouldn’t Israel’s offer have ended the conflict?
Try a thought experiment: Israel returns entirely to the 1967 borders, and consents to the establishment of a Palestinian state. Would peace then ensue?
Answer: I think, no. If you disagree, then why was the offer made at Camp David rejected? Why after Israel was formed, did all of the Arabic nations surrounding Israel attack and try to drive Israel into the sea? What has changed since then that makes you believe that a majority of Arabic people capable of controlling the zealots in their midst wish now to recognize Israel’s existence?
Under my hypothetical, Hezbollah and Hamas would not be satisfied. Islamic Jihad would not be satisfied. Al Qaeda would not be satisfied. Syria and Iran would not be satisfied. The Islamic/Arabic “moderates” would not speak out against the foregoing for fear of being murdered or accused of supporting Jews and the United States. The terror would continue. And Israel would be forced, in self-defense, to re-occupy and to attack terrorist positions entrenched within civilian populations – and Israel again would have to endanger the lives of civilians. This would, of course, lead to war all over again.
I know you disagree with that – for the very reason I suspect. It is difficult for you to assign an irrational motive to a large group of people. But I think if you study the applicable history and what is actually happening, you will find that one side is, in fact, irrational and/or evil – or at least completely dysfunctional.
Maybe there is a sizeable portion of the Arabic population that is moderate and would consent to peaceful co-existence with Israel. But that group, to the extent it exists in any meaningful numbers, is indeed weak. It is completely overwhelmed by the extremists who effectively govern. The situation on the Arabic side is very dysfunctional.
Posts: 195 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In other words, to end this conflict, what must Israel give this “weaker” people that it hasn’t already given them, or offered to give them?
The right to a government that represents them, without forcing them to move.
quote:If that is the case, why was Israel’s offer at Camp David rejected?
I can't say for sure, but I suspect it was because the above criteria was not fulfilled to the degree the Paletinians thought necessary. Withdrawing to old borders does not necessarily bring about fair treatment of the Palestinians.
quote:Under my hypothetical, Hezbollah and Hamas would not be satisfied. Islamic Jihad would not be satisfied. Al Qaeda would not be satisfied. Syria and Iran would not be satisfied. The Islamic/Arabic “moderates” would not speak out against the foregoing for fear of being murdered or accused of supporting Jews and the United States. The terror would continue. And Israel would be forced, in self-defense, to re-occupy and to attack terrorist positions entrenched within civilian populations – and Israel again would have to endanger the lives of civilians.
It is the last two lines where I think you are mistaken. Israel is not "forced" to do anything - it is not forced to hold foreign territories and/or curtail the rights of Palestinian and other peoples for long periods of time.
And while Islamic/Arabic moderates may not speak out against terrorist groups so much, I suspect that with a solution to the Palestinian dilemma, moderate support for terrorism would collapse. And without that support, terrorist groups will be able to achieve little.
Terrorism itself, included Hamas, will not go away no matter what anyone does for the time being. Israel can capture all the buffer territories it wants, but they will still be just as much in danger as the U.S. or any other country is. It is only a matter of time before terrorists can get biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. It is probably also only a matter of time before they can get rockets that fire from far enough away that buffer territories won't matter. But on the other hand, without the support of large populations or other nations, these terrorists are no true threat to the existence of Israel any more than they are to the existence of the U.S.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
I read the information you cited and found nothing indicating that Jews forced Arabs from their land.
The information you cited, however, did state that Arabs voluntarily fled Israel and that Jews were forced out of Arab lands.
quote: Large numbers of the Arab population fled the newly-created Jewish State during the Palestinian exodus. Many historians suggest that the Palestinians fled due to orders from Arab generals. Many Palestinians left under the belief that the Arab armies would prevail and they would return.[8] Moreover, Israel offered many of the Palestinians an opportunity to live and take citizenship in Israel, but many refused.
quote: Immigration of Holocaust survivors and Jewish refugees from Arab lands doubled Israel's population within a year of independence. Over the following years approximately 850,000 Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews fled or were expelled from surrounding Arab countries and Iran. Of these, about 600,000 settled in Israel; the remainder went to Europe and the Americas
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:In other words, to end this conflict, what must Israel give this “weaker” people that it hasn’t already given them, or offered to give them?
The right to a government that represents them, without forcing them to move.
Specifically, what has Israel done to prevent people from having a government that represents them without forcing them to move?
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:If that is the case, why was Israel’s offer at Camp David rejected?
I can't say for sure, but I suspect it was because the above criteria was not fulfilled to the degree the Paletinians thought necessary. Withdrawing to old borders does not necessarily bring about fair treatment of the Palestinians.
Let’s discuss specifics. Why exactly was the “above criteria not fulfilled to the degree the Palestinians thought necessary”? After setting out the specifics, do you then contend that the Palestinians’ cause is justified, and if so, why? What specifically does Israel have to do to bring about “fair treatment of the Palestinians”?
I know that what was offered at Camp David was not good enough, but I can’t think of any just, good reason why not. I can’t thing of any good reason why a failure to reach such a settlement then triggered the second intifada (which included such atrocities as blowing up teenagers in dance clubs). If you can’t either, then perhaps there was no just reason why the Camp David offer was not good enough.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Under my hypothetical, Hezbollah and Hamas would not be satisfied. Islamic Jihad would not be satisfied. Al Qaeda would not be satisfied. Syria and Iran would not be satisfied. The Islamic/Arabic “moderates” would not speak out against the foregoing for fear of being murdered or accused of supporting Jews and the United States. The terror would continue. And Israel would be forced, in self-defense, to re-occupy and to attack terrorist positions entrenched within civilian populations – and Israel again would have to endanger the lives of civilians.
It is the last two lines where I think you are mistaken. Israel is not "forced" to do anything - it is not forced to hold foreign territories and/or curtail the rights of Palestinian and other peoples for long periods of time.
Israel is “forced,” or rather compelled, to occupy territory as a legitimate and rational means for self-defense. After all, it has been at war and on hostile terms with nearly all of its neighbors since it was formed – neighbors who during several wars tried to destroy Israel. Under those circumstances, does Israel have a right to occupy territory if doing so is reasonably necessary to defend itself? Must it give up that territory without a guarantee of peace from all of its neighbors?
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Terrorism itself, included Hamas, will not go away no matter what anyone does for the time being. Israel can capture all the buffer territories it wants, but they will still be just as much in danger as the U.S. or any other country is. It is only a matter of time before terrorists can get biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. It is probably also only a matter of time before they can get rockets that fire from far enough away that buffer territories won't matter. But on the other hand, without the support of large populations or other nations, these terrorists are no true threat to the existence of Israel any more than they are to the existence of the U.S.
Just so I am clear, does the following correctly state your position? (i) Israel should withdraw unilaterally from all of the disputed territories, even without any guaranty of peace from Hamas or any others of Israel’s enemies; (ii) Israel then should reasonably anticipate that the Arabic populations that support the radicals and terrorists stop doing so; and (iii) without such support, there will no longer be a true threat to the existence of Israel.
Based upon the entire history of the state of Israel since its formation, including recent offers of peace made by Israel at Camp David, do you really believe that the foregoing will solve the problem?
You say it will, I suppose, because you believe that the majority of the Arabic people in and surrounding Israel (a majority sufficient to actually give Israel peace) are good, just people who ultimately are willing to accept Israel provided they can live in peace. Can you show me any instance in recent history that supports this belief? I can show you many instances that refute such a position.
Posts: 195 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by David G: KoM - From Israel's perspective, the fighting can come to an end without either side wiping out the other. All Israel requires is for Arabs and all others in the region to decide to co-exist with Israel in peace - without terrorizing Israel and without supporting those who do.
The committment to one side wiping out the other is a committment embraced by Israel's enemies.
True; my point is, there are examples in history where just such a commitment has been abandoned because of sufficient defeat in the field. Granted, those were not times when every fanatic could cause immense damage because of easy access to explosives and small arms; but still.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
