Bush/Cheney 2.0 now with more zionism

[Charla]

It's more accurately called non-interventionism. Isolationism hints at being completely separate from the rest of the world, which I doubt many people would support in this day and age.

And if Israel did that without our support, they would have every Muslim nation in the world raining down nuclear weapons on their faces.

Yup, all one of them. Perhaps you're counting Iran too, but Iran's fissile material is currently scattered around the country, and would require about a month to be purified enough for one warhead.

Elvis: if this is about land and self-determination, then it's about Israel's land and self-determination as well. Israel fought nations several decades ago, and if the rest of the world had accepted the result of that conflict, maybe we could agree to put down the militias now. But instead, we have various nations trying by numerous means to overturn Israel's victory by other means.

My extension of Churchill's scenario is intended partly to illustrate this kind of thing. I don't think the international community would accept the result of a traditional war fought between nations with a decisive conclusion, largely because the nature of the political world has changed over the last hundred years, and we implicitely no longer see military force as a valid means of obtaining either land or self-determination. That fact itself would be an attack against Israel, because the nation itself was created through (relatively recent) military conflict.

Now then Pohibaba, what happens after the nukes "rain down"? Is Israel then allowed to use its own nukes? Or would that be a war crime? Are they allowed to use as many as they want, or just one or two? Are they then allowed to occupy the resulting desert of glass? And 40 years later, will they be told to get off that desert of glass because it belongs to someone else?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I've always wondered why Israel had to be where it was. It was the West that wanted to create it right? (aside from the Jews) Why didn't we just use our own damn land to create a country?

[Meat]

I've always wondered why Israel had to be where it was. It was the West that wanted to create it right? (aside from the Jews) Why didn't we just use our own damn land to create a country?

That's exactly what the brits did

[Elvis]

Elvis: if this is about land and self-determination, then it's about Israel's land and self-determination as well. Israel fought nations several decades ago, and if the rest of the world had accepted the result of that conflict, maybe we could agree to put down the militias now. But instead, we have various nations trying by numerous means to overturn Israel's victory by other means.

I know, but it's not that simple. The Zionist movement took a paper victory (Balfour Declaration/Partition Plan) and ran with it. They had support via the movement. The Arabs simply couldn't compete. I'll give credit where credit is due, the Zionist movement was very impressive.

Now, that doesn't mean Israel had a right to carve a state for themselves when they were the minority population/minority land and property owners/etc.

That to me is a moral judgment. I'm sure someone can say that any 'group' has the right to self-determination. I'd agree, but only in theory. We need to look at the question of 'right' to exist in the context of the historical reality.

I don't think ANYONE would have accepted the Partition Plan or the Zionist movement if they were the Palestinians. That's not about being a Jew or Muslim or Christian. It's about, what I said, land ownership. The Arabs haven't warred with Israel all these years because they hate their Jewishness. They have been fighting for their right to self-determination.

Quite frankly, they have a much better argument. It was the Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed in 48'. Their folly is that they lost the war, not that they refused the partition plan. Israel most likely wanted the war and expected it to happen.

Plenty of early Zionists like Ze'ev Jabotinsky anticipated using force to curb Arab nationalism (Ha'aretz Daily, 1923):

".... Settlement can thus develop under the protection of a force that is not dependent on the local population, behind an IRON WALL which they will be powerless to break down. ....a voluntary agreement is just not possible. As long as the Arabs preserve a gleam of hope that they will succeed in getting rid of us, nothing in the world can cause them to relinquish this hope, precisely because they are not a rubble but a living people. And a living people will be ready to yield on such fateful issues only when they give up all hope of getting rid of the Alien Settlers. Only then will extremist groups with their slogan 'No, never' lose their influence, and only then their influence be transferred to more moderate groups. And only then will the moderates offer suggestions for compromise. Then only will they begin bargaining with us on practical matters, such as guarantees against PUSHING THEM OUT, and equality of civil, and national rights."

Again, Jabotinsky applies a very rational (relatively-speaking) analysis of Arab antagonism to Zionism:

"The Arabs loved their country as much as the Jews did. Instinctively, they understood Zionist aspirations very well, and their decision to resist them was only natural ..... There was no misunderstanding between Jew and Arab, but a natural conflict. .... No Agreement was possible with the Palestinian Arab; they would accept Zionism only when they found themselves up against an 'iron wall,' when they realize they had no alternative but to accept Jewish settlement."

Source: America And The Founding Of Israel, p. 90

This gets back to my belief that Zionism is inherently racist. It required expulsion of the indigenous population to succeed and even to this day, the Israelis will not tolerate a one-state solution because they want to keep a Jewish majority (hence, Jewish State, i.e. the whole point of Zionism).

@Bold text:

I've definitely taken a stance on this conflict but that statement is far more biased than anything I've ever said. The Palestinians and whoever supports them will not surrender and they shouldn't. They don't have legal grounds to take back the whole of Palestine (Israel proper included) but they certainly, without a shadow of a doubt, have the right to fight every last Israeli in the Occupied Territories.

[Meat]

The Arabs haven't warred with Israel all these years because they hate their Jewishness. They have been fighting for their right to self-determination.

That's bullshit, if every Jew in Israel converted to Muslim the fighting would stop. Israel would then be the same as every other middle eastern country with one group of Muslims relegating another to a life of shit

[Kuya]

That's exactly what the brits did

Hmmmmmmmm, colonization. The gift that keeps on giving.

[Elvis]

That's bullshit, if every Jew in Israel converted to Muslim the fighting would stop. Israel would then be the same as every other middle eastern country with one group of Muslims relegating another to a life of shit

It's like saying the Native Americans resisted Euro-American encroachment due to Anti-Europeanism or Anti-Christianism or Anti-Whiteism. We called them savages too. Olde terrorists. Scalping, etc. Surely, the horror is undeniable but once again, we don't need to mystify the conflict with comic book animosity. Sorry.

This is the same propaganda people say about Iraq and every other Arab country. That it's people WANT to live in a theocracy or dictatorship. That they LIKE honor killings/etc. Afghanistan, for example, has been worn-torn for decades. In recent memory, we have the Soviets then the Taliban and now the US.

Look at the Arab world and who runs it. Saudi Arabia is run by a family dictatorship that we keep in power. I doubt the citizens LIKE the fact that corporal punishment is still in practice. Look at Afghanistan and Taliban rule. I doubt that the women there LIKE the fact that they are treated like garbage.

You can buy into these exotic notions of a clash of civilizations and ancient enmities but it just so happens that the simple explanation (fear of territorial displacement, as stated by preeminent Israeli historians like Benny Morris) is also the sufficient explanation.

[test123]

Lets look at history, maybe we can trace where everything began.

Before WWI Americas population was about 60% of German decent. Even at the beginning, settlers asked themselves if English or German would be the offical language in the US.

Before WWI the US media was "pro-german".

in 1916 WWI was at a standoff

On 10 September Hindenburg urged peace moves to Emperor Charles of Austria and Germany appealed to Holland for mediation. On the 14th Austria sent a note to all belligerents and neutrals suggesting a meeting for peace talks on neutral soil and on 15 September Germany made a peace offer to Belgium. Both peace offers were rejected and on 24 September OHL informed the leaders in Berlin that armistice talks were inevitable.

WWI was about to end, not one forgein soldier had set foot in Germany.

But then...

Christopher Jones writes:

John Eipper wrote on December 15: I have never read in any scholarly
study of WWI that it was the influence of Zionists in Britain that
prevented the acceptance of a ’status quo ante bellum’ peace in 1916 or
‘17. Christopher Jones: There is ample evidence that Zionists had become the
key players in British foreign policy by 1916, and that they justified
prolonging the war by promising to use their influence among American Jews
to get the US into the conflict. This of course leans that Zionism is
guilty of a terrible crime against humanity–the prolongation of a bloody,
senseless war. I submit the following: Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty’s
Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist
aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

“His Majesty’s Government views with favour the establishment in Palestine
of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best
endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly
understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and
religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the
rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge
of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour

The US media is suddently against Germany, the US is dragged into the war.

Result is 50 million dead in WWI, and another 50 million dead in WWII. WWII would not have happend if WWI ended in better terms for Germany.

What if the WWI ended in 1916, what a happy place the world would have been.

[Charla]

It was the Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed in 48'. Their folly is that they lost the war.
---
We need to look at the question of 'right' to exist in the context of the historical reality.

But that's an arbitrary judgement. Why should military victory count for nothing? Why should historical reality be given dominance over present reality? Why should the civilization that was sitting on a patch of desert when conquest went out of style be forever entitled to that patch of desert? A desert gets conquered and reconquered and liberated repeatedly for a thousand years, but now that modern weapons are involved it doesn't count? Placing a claim based on history above one based on military power might sound better, but it does seem a little bit arbitrary to hand the prize to the guys who won the wars 200, 500 and 1800 years ago instead of the guys who won the other wars 40, 900 and 2200 years ago (please note that all numbers are based solely on my own memory and are probably incomplete and/or innacurate). And if you tried to avoid rewarding warfare altogether, you could probably go all the way back to the Babylonians, and you still couldn't be sure they didn't kick someone else out that we never heard of because they hadn't developed writing yet.

Now, there are other options that avoid either military or arbitrary historical criteria for rightful ownership, but in terms of realistic politics, the most important consideration appears to be stability and relative peace in the medium-to-long term.

[test123]

it's like your dad giving you a spoon and your brother a gun. Then let you fight over a toy.

[Elvis]

Going to answer each point as I read it, sorry. I can't think of a way to respond to you in one impression.

But that's an arbitrary judgement.

What's arbitrary? The Palestinians were ethnically cleansed in 48'. Whether or not one agrees to this is a matter of ones politics or morals. It can be complex. For example, we can argue that the ethnic cleansing/atrocities committed against the Native Americans was a 'good' thing because it paved a way to the American Empire. Plenty of good things occurred due to the formation of the US. That's another argument entirely though (whether it's good or bad, for now, I'm saying it was good).

Overall, in that example, I'm conflicted between my basic moral judgment and the political and historical reality of the formation of the American Empire.

That is by no means arbitrary. (unless you were talking about something else entirely, in which case, sorry)

Why should military victory count for nothing? Why should historical reality be given dominance over present reality?

I never degraded Israel's military victory. The context you're imposing on that question though seems misleading. Are you talking about the victory, purely as a military feat or a political feat? The former is unquestionable. It was impressive. The latter is a matter of opinion, which again calls into question one's morals and political judgments (realist or idealist or etc.).

My personal opinion is that the war was a great victory for Israel. I believe they anticipated the war and wanted the war. The moral judgment is that Israel did not have the legal or moral right to carve a state over the indigenous population. I do not believe Israel has had an impact comparable to the US so I have no issue with denouncing them.

Now, in theory, I believe Israel has a right to exist. I believe all groups should have the right to self-determination.

However, not at the expense of another group, especially if that group constitutes the majority of the population/etc. in the land in question. Now, that to me, once again, is a moral judgment.

As to historical reality versus present reality. I do not understand you here. If you said that in reference to my drawing parallels to other conflicts that I believe to bare similarities then ok, fair enough. However, I believe the retrospection we go through over something like, for example, the build-up to the Iraq War in comparison to the build-up to a possible war with Iran is valuable. Now those two instances are far more related, obviously, but I would argue that a comparison of apartheid in South Africa to apartheid in the Occupied Territories is more meaningful. That's another argument though.

Why should the civilization that was sitting on a patch of desert when conquest went out of style be forever entitled to that patch of desert? A desert gets conquered and reconquered and liberated repeatedly for a thousand years, but now that modern weapons are involved it doesn't count?

The point at which we want to debate anything is up to the people involved. I personally don't believe it's prudent to begin this discussion 1000s of years back. I don't think modern weaponry has anything to do with the moral or political judgments I've made. I am beginning my analysis of this conflict with the Zionist movement in the early 1900s (it had began much earlier I believe).

Placing a claim based on history above one based on military power might sound better, but it does seem a little bit arbitrary to hand the prize to the guys who won the wars 200, 500 and 1800 years ago instead of the guys who won the other wars 40, 900 and 2200 years ago (please note that all numbers are based solely on my own memory and are probably incomplete and/or innacurate).

I could care less about military victories (in this region, directly connected to this conflict) going back that far. I am only concerned with the debate as far back as 1900ish. I think most people begin at this time period as well, although, for example, I've seen plenty of arguments made about the peaceful nature (relatively-speaking) of Arab-Jewish relations prior to this period in that same region.

And if you tried to avoid rewarding warfare altogether, you could probably go all the way back to the Babylonians, and you still couldn't be sure they didn't kick someone else out that we never heard of because they hadn't developed writing yet.

You're right except, once again, it's simply not pragmatic to discuss things in this way. We don't even have to deal with history that far back. We can even talk about the religious aspects of the conflict. This to me is equally as pointless and unhelpful.

On a side note: I am pretty sure we've established in international law, that it is illegal to obtain territory by war. I could be wrong here and I'm sure it's not as simple as I wrote it.

Now, there are other options that avoid either military or arbitrary historical criteria for rightful ownership, but in terms of realistic politics, the most important consideration appears to be stability and relative peace in the medium-to-long term.

Actually, we do have criteria: the UN, the World Court, international law - in general. Like I said before, if you (the general 'you') do not respect international law and believe the jurisdiction and affairs of any given conflict should only concern the parties concerned or maybe just the party you're concerned with, then go for it. That to me is a moral judgment more than a political one.

We have human rights groups monitoring conflicts and giving us reports of the behavior of both groups. We have the history (starting wherever is practical) that we draw from, moral and political judgments which help us develop an opinion in the present.

There are virtues of reciprocity and universal human rights/etc. that should transcend our ideologies. I am not going to say that before the Jews, the Muslims had the Holy Land, so now it's the Jews' turn. No, to me, I will discuss this based on my own moral and political judgments and not on the notion that this is just another phase in history in the exchanging of this land.

I am not saying you're perspective is false though. I just have my own based on A) practicality and B) my own set of morals and what I believe is fair/unfair/right/wrong.

As to peace: I firmly believe Israel does NOT want peace.

I recall Henry Kissenger giving advice to the Israelis in 73', stating that they should enact a policy of 'stalemate'. No peace, because quite frankly they don't have to.

It's as the earlier Zionists said:

".... Settlement can thus develop under the protection of a force that is not dependent on the local population, behind an IRON WALL which they will be powerless to break down. ....a voluntary agreement is just not possible. As long as the Arabs preserve a gleam of hope that they will succeed in getting rid of us, nothing in the world can cause them to relinquish this hope, precisely because they are not a rubble but a living people. And a living people will be ready to yield on such fateful issues only when they give up all hope of getting rid of the Alien Settlers. Only then will extremist groups with their slogan 'No, never' lose their influence, and only then their influence be transferred to more moderate groups. And only then will the moderates offer suggestions for compromise. Then only will they begin bargaining with us on practical matters, such as guarantees against PUSHING THEM OUT, and equality of civil, and national rights."

Now, the Zionist in question here would later on advocate rights for the Arabs in Israel. He was a pragmatist. The Zionist movement can be appreciated for it's diligence and success. I respect that and I can understand this guy's perspective. He didn't hate Arabs, although back then he was viewed as a racist for his 'IRON WALL' speech. I see him as a determined nationalist.

Israel will either pursue the stalemate until all Palestinians are slowly driven out (house demolitions/unbearable living conditions/racist policies/indiscriminate force and casualties of war) or there is another war where they are once again ethnically cleansed.

[Bingbong]

So if it's the cleansing of Muslim's in '48 that created Israel, what were the Jews doing there in 1500 BC and more importantly, when the Romans charged in in 300 BC and cleansed everyone then, should you then be mad at the Italians for the whole mess?

That land has been fought over for well over 3 centuries, so laying the blame of war and atrocities at the feet of the people who have held on to it for the last 75 years seems a bit naive.

Elvis, you obviously take an anti-Israeli stance on this but how can you honestly say that because of events in the last 100 years, this is all on Israel?

[Elvis]

So if it's the cleansing of Muslim's in '48 that created Israel, what were the Jews doing there in 1500 BC and more importantly, when the Romans charged in in 300 BC and cleansed everyone then, should you then be mad at the Italians for the whole mess?

That land has been fought over for well over 3 centuries, so laying the blame of war and atrocities at the feet of the people who have held on to it for the last 75 years seems a bit naive.

Elvis, you obviously take an anti-Israeli stance on this but how can you honestly say that because of events in the last 100 years, this is all on Israel?

I'm not. I'm taking into account the Zionist movement - in it's secular/political form - as the starting point for when to begin the discussion.

That is not to say I'm disregarding the history of this land and how often it's exchanged hands.

I'm just being practical. We have rules now. We have international law now. We have much better means of record-keeping now. The Zionist movement and the Arab antagonism to the movement are the key components to the conflict. This is why I focus on 1900-present.

I can't remember why I brought up the 48' war and the formation of the movement but my main argument has to do with the period of the June 1967 war to the present. I choose to rely on this period in any serious discussion because international law and international consensus comes into play enormously. It's the beginning of the Occupation.

If we disregard international law and basic moral judgments (although, mine are different from yours and we're all going to inject our POV here) then this conflict will be endless or until one group kills the other.

As I said, I just don't think it's helpful or prudent to go back 1000s of years. It doesn't mean I don't think that history matters but I just don't think it is helpful in resolving the conflict because it disregards the advances we made in law and human rights/etc.

As to my laying the blame solely on Israel. I don't intend this, but I think in the context of this thread and the subsequent rebuttals/etc. it seems that way.

I've heard arguments and debates against the Palestinians. I recall one between a favorite political scientist of mine and the former Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs, Shlomo Ben-Ami. Ben-Ami is very level-headed and is a historian in addition to being a diplomat and politician.

He went on to say that if HE were the Palestinians, he would not have accepted the two-state solution presented by Israel. That's the former Foreign Affairs Minister of Israel. His argument against Arafat among other things are interesting too. The debate, on a whole though, was more in line with my beliefs.

That's just my POV.

[Charla]

What's arbitrary?

To clarify what I meant, the following statement demonstrates the arbitrary criteria at work: having lost the war doesn't matter. Having a historical right to the land in question does.

Israel won the war in '48. Although I'm not familiar with much of the details of it, I'll take your word for it that the victory was an impressive military feat.

To disregard military victory and instead rely solely on who occupied the area at a specific point in time is therefore arbitrary twice over: disregarding and overturning the results of one military conflict but not the innumerable others throughout history (even recent history) is arbitrary. To award "rightful occupancy" to the occupants at the point in time when "international law" decided that it is no longer legal to obtain territory via war is likewise arbitrary. While I don't doubt that such a tenet is an unspoken result of the current state of international law (and in fact that tenet is more or less what I've been arguing against), if it is actually an explicit rule, then I suspect it raises a number of other problems. There are, for instance, African nations which will never be satisfied with their boarders being locked down with rules created by people on the other side of the world, and simply declaring any African nation that wishes to wage war an outlaw state is, to say the least, unproductive.

While focusing solely on the events since 1900 is not a bad idea in and of itself, I would contend that you could just as easily focus on events since 1950.

As to historical reality versus present reality. I do not understand you here.

What I mean is the decision to value the fact that Palestinians conquered and occupied a given area at a certain point in the past (a historical reality, in other words) but not to value the fact that Israelis conquered and occupied it more recently (a present and recently-past reality)

I'll let the rest of your arguments stand. I'm not interested in arguing about the nature of the Zionist movement or its effects on the situation, and I'm not interested in arguing about the morality of any justification for or against the existence of Israel. In a way, I'm really more interested in the fact that people are willing to consider (even if it is just on the internet) taking land away from one civilization and giving it to another civilization because of moral ideals. Civilizations are essentially amoral things, for the most part they always have been, and without some kind of paradigm shift (a technological singularity and the ensuing collective consciousness would do nicely) they probably always will be.

edit: lol giant typo

[Churchill]

The reason I just say Israel should be left to its own devices and then leave it at that is because arguing against Israel is pointless. You don't have the money or the firepower.

[Elvis]

To clarify what I meant, the following statement demonstrates the arbitrary criteria at work: having lost the war doesn't matter. Having a historical right to the land in question does.

Not sure what you mean about "historical right." If this is the case, it contradicts your earlier points about the conquering victors. Didn't the Native Americans have the "historical right" to America? Didn't the Aztecs and the Mayans have the "historical right" over the Spanish? Didn't the South Africans have the "historical right" over the Afrikaans?

If you want to define "historical right" by who was there first then go ahead. But placing a date on that "first" is also arbitrary. Arabs were the majority in the region for many generations prior to the Zionist movement. They constituted around 80% (I think) of the population. Most land owned, most property owned, etc.

I'd feel the same sense of injustice if the roles were reversed and the Jews were the majority leading up to a possible conflict in which the minority became the majority land owners.

I keep bringing up the Zionist movement because it's not based on religion, as much as people think. It's a nationalistic ideology with obvious preferential treatment to a Jewish majority (required). This is the heart of the conflict.

We can go on and on about terrorism but I think that's looking at the conflict in a extremely narrow angle. You go to the source. The "chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism was the fear of territorial displacement" (Benny Morris). It was not due to inherent hatred of Jews.

The Palestinians won the war in '48. Although I'm not familiar with much of the details of it, I'll take your word for it that the victory was an impressive military feat.

Israel won in 48'.

The defeat was impressive IMO. They've won every war ever since but from 73' onwards it's become by lesser margins each time. They recently 'lost' to Hezbollah in the 2006 Lebanon War.

To disregard military victory and instead rely solely on who occupied the area at a specific point in time is therefore arbitrary twice over: disregarding and overturning the results of one military conflict but not the innumerable others throughout history (even recent history) is arbitrary.

See this is my point. I chose to start my analysis on the conflict - and like I've stated before, most people do - from the beginning of the Zionist movement as a political phenomenon because as historians have said:

(Dr. Norman Finkelstein quoting New Historian, Benny Morris and Israeli Politician and Orientalist, Yehoshua Porath)

The goal of "disappearing" the indigenous Arab population points to a virtual truism buried beneath a mountain of apologetic Zionist literature: what spurred Palestinians' opposition to Zionism was not anti-Semitism in the sense of an irrational hatred of Jews but rather the prospect - very real - of their expulsion. "The fear of territorial displacement and dispossession," Morris reasonably concludes, "was to be the chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism." Likewise, in his magisterial study of Palestinian nationalism, Yehoshua Porath suggests that the "major factor nourishing" Arab anti-Semitism "was not hatred for the Jews as such but opposition to Jewish settlement in Palestine.

Prior to the Zionist movement, there was relative peace between the two groups. I say this not in reference to 1000 years of past conflict. I mean it in the many generations before and leading up to the formation of the State.

As to your persistence that I'm making an arbitrary point by denouncing the Occupation? I'm just following international law. This is what I've been stressing from a few pages back. If we want to just follow our own rules then let's come out and say we're hypocrites. We only care about something just so long as it's 'politically safe' to discuss and we'll apply our standards to ourselves and friends and show none to our enemies or people we have no interest in.

So it wasn't arbitrary at all. I'll discuss the conflict from June 1967 to the present because that's the beginning of the Occupation and it is illegal to do so. It's like if America OCCUPIED Iraq indefinitely and began colonizing it. What would people say? Even without knowing that it's illegal under international law, most people would denounce it. Why? Because they'd have a sense that it was unfair, regardless of who won the war.

It is also illegal under international law to transfer your population to Occupied land (colonization). Just about *everything* Israel does in the Occupied territories is illegal. This is why they have so many UN resolutions and denouncements by the international community and human rights' groups. It's not "anti-Semitism" or "anti-Israeli" bias. As a matter of fact, countrys like Sudan or Iran or the Congo have more reports compiled detailing their various human rights' violations.

The point is that one country occupying another is illegal and this is compounded by the fact that Israel is colonizing the Occupied Territories while at the same time displacing and fragmenting the Palestinian people. They demolish their homes for no good reason (none, I don't care about these bureaucratic justifications like 'building permits' or for 'security' which really means 'security' for the Settlers).

Now, whether or not you accept international law or the UN consensus or the consensus amongst human rights' groups is up to you.

Again, this is a moral and political judgment. Nothing is arbitrary. Even if all of this were somehow legal, then you could still apply a moral judgment to the conflict. It's asking yourself how you'd react if you were the Palestinians or how you'd react if you were the Israelis. Based on your values you'll go a certain way. Nothing arbitrary about that IMO.

To award "rightful occupancy" to the occupants at the point in time when "international law" decided that it is no longer legal to obtain territory via war is likewise arbitrary. While I don't doubt that such a tenet is an unspoken result of the current state of international law (and in fact that tenet is more or less what I've been arguing against), if it is actually an explicit rule, then I suspect it raises a number of other problems. There are, for instance, African nations which will never be satisfied with their boarders being locked down with rules created by people on the other side of the world, and simply declaring any African nation that wishes to wage war an outlaw state is, to say the least, unproductive.

While focusing solely on the events since 1900 is not a bad idea in and of itself, I would contend that you could just as easily focus on events since 1950.

Remember why I chose the early 1900s as a place to start: the mobilization of the political Zionist movement. This is the catalyst to the conflict in it's present form IMO.

What I mean is the decision to value the fact that Palestinians conquered and occupied a given area at a certain point in the past (a historical reality, in other words) but not to value the fact that Israelis conquered and occupied it more recently (a present and recently-past reality).

If we were discussing wars of the past I'd denounce gaining territory by war and ethnic cleansing and brutal military occupations just as I do now with this current conflict. This is the conflict as it is in OUR lifetime, hence why we talk about Israel-Palestine now as opposed to Whoever-Whoever back then.

[Charla]

Not sure what you mean about "historical right." If this is the case, it contradicts your earlier points about the conquering victors. Didn't the Native Americans have the "historical right" to America? Didn't the Aztecs and the Mayans have the "historical right" over the Spanish? Didn't the South Africans have the "historical right" over the Afrikaans?

If you want to define "historical right" by who was there first then go ahead. But placing a date on that "first" is also arbitrary.

There we go, that's what I've been trying to say for the last two pages.

I'd feel the same sense of injustice if the roles were reversed and the Jews were the majority leading up to a possible conflict in which the minority became the majority land owners.

And here's where we can agree to disagree. I simply don't see military conquest as inherently unjust. That most likely puts me in philosophical disagreement with international law, which I see as a more important issue than Zionism, or even than any single conflict.

[Elvis]

There we go, that's what I've been trying to say for the last two pages.



And here's where we can agree to disagree. I simply don't see military conquest as inherently unjust. That most likely puts me in philosophical disagreement with international law, which I see as a more important issue than Zionism, or even than any single conflict.

Fair enough.^^ As to arbitrariness though - I said the reason I chose the early 1900s was because of the Zionist movement. Without the movement there is no Israel.

You make a valid point by bringing up military conquest/etc. of both the past and present.

As you stated, we differ philosophically on international law. So I'll settle there.