Middle East Conflict

[domalino]

Faced with an intractable situation, the British shrugged their shoulders and handed the mandate to the UN to resolve, who then voted for partition, which the USA was in favour of. So that's one thing you've been dishonest about.

The US withdrew their support for partition when the civil war of 1947 made it clear that the solution being presented wasn't going to work.

Trumann ended up voting for the partition he didn't support (and he told the lobbiest he didn't support it at all) because, in his own words -

The facts were that not only were there pressure movements around the United Nations unlike anything that had been seen there before, but that the White House, too, was subjected to a constant barrage. I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leaders—actuated by political motives and engaging in political threats—disturbed and annoyed me."​

 

[kaz7]

Fuck me the Israeli guy at the UN has just shown live the beheading of someone!

Once seen you will never forget it

 

[Ducado]

Fundamentally the facts on the ground say Israel as a country exists and has a right to exist, the majority of people who live in the pre 67 borders were born there, they know nothing else, I remember debating with some on here I think, that all Northern Irish loyalists should be shipped back to Scotland wence they came, despite the fact they have lived there for 100s of years, they are there a fact on the ground

The Palestinians are there a fact on the ground if Israel is not going to offer them citizenship and equally they need their own state, a state that can function not a series of enclaves, if we can all agree on that how is that going to be brought about? Through peaceful means? What if peaceful means have not worked? What then stand by and watch part of your new state being taken by right wing zealots?

The pro might is right people don’t seem to offer an alternative apart from just stay oppressed, it’s bad but your not the only ones, how would you react? Would hopelessness drive you into the arms of extremeists ?

 

[metalblue]

Well that's very decent of you. At least we're getting somewhere.


I'm not sure I'm the one being dishonest here.

US involvement was mainly via the Anglo American Commission, which recommended a jointly-administered state and allowing 100,000 displaced Jews into Palestine immediately. But both sides disagreed on the recommendations and they weren't implemented. One further attempt was made, involving Peter Mandelson's grandfather, Herbert Morrison, which proposed something similar but which was rejected by both the Jews and the Arabs. Faced with an intractable situation, the British shrugged their shoulders and handed the mandate to the UN to resolve, who then voted for partition, which the USA was in favour of. So that's one thing you've been dishonest about.

And it wasn't the British therefore who created the problem, but the UN. So that's another.

And the violence that led to the current state of affairs started in May 1948, when Israel declared statehood. We can go back to the Arab riots of 1920 or the Arab revolt of 1936, or any Jewish actions but there's absolutely no deniable doubt that a number of Arab regular armies attacked the new state in order to wipe it out. Any other view is totally dishonest.

To emphasise the above point, let's hypothesise that both sides accepted the partition, shook hands and any Arabs in the Israeli side became Israeli citizens and any Jews on the Palestinian side became Palestinian citizens. The two states lived happily, side-by-side with no internecine violence. Ask yourself why that didn't happen.

The violence started in the civil war of 1947/8 prior to the 1948 Israel Arab war.

It’s possible it could have fizzled out in the civil war and there were plenty of moderates on both sides. It’s correct to say that Israel was attacked by hostile Arab states under the banner of the Arab league and initially Israel suffered a few defeats before they could arm themselves effectively. The irony is I don’t think Palestine Arabs had much of a dog in this fight as they didn’t have any regular units.

 

[grunge]

Annexation is pretty much a meaningless word until the 1920's because before then borders were constantly moving one war or another. The world is always at war, territory is constantly changing hands.

It's after WW1 people decided this was ridiculous warmongery and the worlds borders pretty much got set in stone.

In the way we view it today, annexation only really exists in the last century. Which is why I suggested Goa, as it happened in the 1960's, it's a proper annexation via military force, and it's successful because pretty much everyone who lived there considered themselves Indian and democratically voted to stay in India shortly after.

Turkey invading Cyrpus and it geting split in 2 is the only modern one I can think of. there are probably others but as you say, in modern times its rarer

 

[inbetween]

No, yet again your reading comprehension lets you down.

I didn't imply Israel shouldn't exist, I acknowledged that its creation was an act of violence against the people who lived in the land when it was created, even though the cause it was done for was noble.

And by the way, the right to self-determination has never been the right to decide which land is yours. The idea that a group of people can say they have the right to land X is entirely unique to Zionism (and I'm using that word to mean the literal 19th & 20th century movement) among all other 20th century claims to self-determination that came up after WW1 and WW2.

Now I would argue that Jewish people are unique in the respect that they were 100% a diaspora with no homeland thanks to centuries of persecution, and that a land had to be created, but again I can believe that while understanding that unilaterally deciding to take a huge swathe of land away from someone else to make it is a very hostile thing to do that was always going to result in permanent conflict.


Just to add another post-script, IMO one of the tragedies of this whole situation is that at the time the state of Israel was being drawn up, land purchases were rampant. Literally every few years countries were buying land of each other either for financial reasons or because the people in those territories wanted to be part of the country buying them.

If it were not for the overwhelming racism towards Arab people by the British and Americans of the time (Churchill literally called them a lower race) and the way that was reflected in their treatment and dealings with the people native to the land then it is genuinely not impossible that Israel could have been created consensually and there would have been no century of violence.

But Israel is a self-determined Jewish homeland because it was created as such. We can argue about whether that was done rightly or wrongly but it does not change the reality. The Palestinian argument is fundamentally to alter reality and have a world where Israel exists elsewhere or it doesn't exist at all. Fundamentally the answer of 'where' Israel exists still goes unanswered. The west made commitments that it cannot and will never support this altered reality.

The creation of Israel may of been a hostile act but you must surely recognise that at this point the argument to not create Israel is also potentially a hostile act. I completely disagree that Israel would come to exist consensually anyway. Why didn't that happen in the other 1,900 years of history prior to Israel or the 400 years of persecution under Ottoman Muslim rule?

You have to ask where can an Israeli state exist consensually? Do you see Saudi Arabia as a secular state? What about Egypt, Jordan, Syria or Iran? These are Muslim states under Muslim law and a Jewish population would not be safe in those countries and that's why many Jewish people either live Israel or the west! Without Israel and without the self-determined location for Israel those Jewish people are somewhat homeless and remain in the same refuged state that they have for hundreds of years.

 

[domalino]

But Israel is a self-determined Jewish homeland because it was created as such. We can argue about whether that was done rightly or wrongly but it does not change the reality. The Palestinian argument is fundamentally to alter reality and have a world where Israel exists elsewhere or it doesn't exist at all. Fundamentally the answer of 'where' Israel exists is unanswered. The west made commitments where it cannot and will never support this.

The creation of Israel may of been a hostile act but you must surely recognise that at this point the argument to not create Israel is also potentially a hostile act. I completely disagree that Israel would come to exist anyway, because why didn't that happen in the other 1,900 years of history prior to Israel or the 400 years of Ottoman Muslim rule?

You have to ask where can an Israeli state exist? Do you see Saudi Arabia as a secular state? What about Egypt, Jordan, Syria or Iran? These are Muslim states under Muslim law and a Jewish population would not be safe in those countries and that's why many Jewish people either live Israel or the west!

Yeah, sure, if you think the way to solving the process is to ignore all of the history and context that lead up to it, then you could think that it's all water under the bridge and meaningless.

I would argue that until people can acknowledge that the confiscating land was a wrong committed against the Palestinian people and that it shouldn't have been done the way it was, there's never going to be any peace.

As I said before, I beleive this is at it's core a land dispute, not a religious one, for the reasons I've said in my previous posts. You can't settle a land dispute until both sides believe there's going to be no more land stolen in the future, and no one is ever going to convince the average Palestinian on the street that their homeland is free and secure while the other side not only continues seizing land, building illegal settlements and evicting the Palestinians, theydon't even acknowledge that land was taken from them in the first place, and that was a catastrophicly bad thing for the people it happened to. How many times have we heard in this thread that Palestine never existed, and Palestinians never existed?

The Palestinian argument is fundamentally to alter reality and have a world where Israel exists elsewhere or it doesn't exist at all.

Presumably you mean Hamas not Palestinian and are simply conflating the murderous terrorist organisation that's been in power undemocratically for 15 years and the people who have no choice but to live under them?

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

As I say, I’m informing myself as I go, so any of those with subjective views on the matter, can point out where I’m going wrong, from either side of the fence.
But I find myself drawn to issues I raised myself, issues I have with so called religious states to start with.

I was raised Catholic but I’m not religious and find the whole idea of state policy and foreign policy being governed by any religious belief as not only worrying but dangerous.

What I am finding that the black and white of opposing views of how the state came about and it’s subsequent history has less to do with Judaism and more to do with Zionism.

There are a lot of Jewish people in the world that do not support Zionism and see what has happened since the foundation of the state and certainly since 1967 as expansionism and this is the elephant in the room when it comes to finding a lasting peace.

Criticising anything to do with Israel is not anti-Semitism. Some of it’s biggest critics are Jews.

Listen to the argument at the end of this.


I think this Rabbi’s argument is that Zionism has bastardised Judaism and true Jewish beliefs.
I’m pretty certain you could make the same argument about Islam and Hamas.
But he addresses the elephant in the room, which I personally feel is intuitive and progressive.

 

[Eds]

 

[inbetween]

Presumably you mean Hamas not Palestinian and are simply conflating the murderous terrorist organisation that's been in power undemocratically for 15 years and the people who have no choice but to live under them?

I'm not so sure because if it was that simple then why isn't there peace already and why has there never been peace for 80 years? This isn't a simple case of there was peace and happiness until Israel took some land and now there's war.

The vast majority of the Muslim world has never recognised Israel in any shape or form, countries like Iran have the literal policy to obliterate Israel. It's laughable to say that a Jewish state would somehow come to exist under the regime of these countries. If it wasn't for western support then Israel would of been destroyed and many Jewish people living there would probably have fled to the west.

A good question is why can't Palestinians absorb into Israel under one state? Many already do and Israel is not a secular state? The answer is obvious but then it's pretty hypocritical to then inflict the same question on Jewish people who would otherwise have to live in an Islamic country.