Moral Equivalency and Israel/Palestine

Originally posted by scherzo
I recommend Simha Flapan's book "The Birth of Israel."

Looking around on the internet I am finding that your version of events is not the usual version. Most sources have the Jews as accepting partition and the Arabs refusing it.

Originally posted by scherzo
I recommend Simha Flapan's book "The Birth of Israel."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Historians#Criticism

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Looking around on the internet I am finding that your version of events is not the usual version. Most sources have the Jews as accepting partition and the Arabs refusing it.

Indeed. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, the US made it popular to believe that Iraq did in fact have WMD's and was intending to use them.

Just because something is a majority-held opinion does not make it correct, yes?

Originally posted by scherzo
Israel rejected the 1947 partition initially. However, in early 1948, Israel reached an agreement with Jordan wherein Jordan would take the partitioned West Bank. When Israel was declared, Jordan moved in to take the spoils, but they were driven back when the Zionists decided to go beyond the partition borders. Syria acted to support Jordan, as it was under ...[text shortened]... trying to take Gaza, but they were involved in fighting for similar reasons. Anything I missed?

This is a complete fairy tale.

Originally posted by scherzo
Indeed. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, the US made it popular to believe that Iraq did in fact have WMD's and was intending to use them.

Just because something is a majority-held opinion does not make it correct, yes?

So when you asked me what the context was you didn't expect me to actually know what you're talking about right? If I'd been a normal informed person I wouldn't have thought that was what you meant. You shouldn't advance minority opinions as fact or assume everyone will see things your way. It's not the typical belief because people won't see it your way.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Looking around on the internet I am finding that your version of events is not the usual version. Most sources have the Jews as accepting partition and the Arabs refusing it.

There is a lot of information on the subject posted on the internet. A lot of the information cannot be trusted. I would recommend reading a few scholarly books on the matter first. Myself, after I grew immensely frustrated with the treatment from persons coming from both sides of the debate and decided to read more about it. I read books from both sides... meaning there are varied interpretations of history and each side decides to write there own. Then I simply took my understand from the amount of history I have read (which is a lot) and tried to determine the most likely set of events in certain cases.

I think the brief history mentioned by schrzo is generally correct, but an interpretation can be of it can go either way.

If you want to read some books on the matter, I suggest A Case for Israel by Alan Deschovitz(pro-israel) and HOw Israel was Won by Baylis Thomas (seems a neutral history) and anything by Norman Finkleston (an American Jew who is a harsh critic of Israel)

Originally posted by FMF
What I think is that to start a thread by indicating that you can't decide something, to declare yourself to be "on the side of moral equivalency", and that you are bamboozled by contrary "grains of truth" is very underwhelming - especially when you are apparently new to the issue.

Why not exhibit some "moral" fibre yourself, nail your underpants to the past ...[text shortened]... - in order to debate the way out of the impasse. Why don't you do the same?

You clearly answered his question 'what do you think?'

Can't moral fibre be that he identifies the moral equivalency whereas people supporting either side moan on and on about how they are morally superior and the other is not. I find that argument boring and dull and full of holes and hypocricy. Lets call a spade a spade, both sides are hypocrites. Both sides are so far up their own moral bum they can't see how foolish and wrong they are.

Having said that, I do think you and would see eye to eye on this. I am simply saying sometimes taking sides may not solve a thing... treating both equally may and that could be an outcome of defining it as moral equivalency. Just a though.

Originally posted by minutiae70
Both sides are so far up their own moral bum they can't see how foolish and wrong they are.

I think most 'friends of a solution' would agree, whoever they are and whatever that may one day be. ATY is only irksome in as much as he appears to be about three or four weeks into his personal project to gin up on this issue and yet he has the brass balls to lecture and harangue people who have been on top of its intricacies for two or three decades. His altruism is to be applauded, but his puffy nothingness when it comes to declaring his 'dislike' for both sides and utter silence when it comes to suggesting solutions or ways forward makes only for yet another wishy washy Israel-Palestine thread.

Originally posted by FMF
I think most 'friends of a solution' would agree, whoever they are and whatever that may one day be. ATY is only irksome in as much as he appears to be about three or four weeks into his personal project to gin up on this issue and yet he has the brass balls to lecture and harangue people who have been on top of its intricacies for two or three decades. His altr ...[text shortened]... ng solutions or ways forward makes only for yet another wishy washy Israel-Palestine thread.

It's easy to suggest plans to solve chronic world problems. The difficulty is in getting other people to follow your plan.

Originally posted by minutiae70
Lets call a spade a spade, both sides are hypocrites. Both sides are so far up their own moral bum they can't see how foolish and wrong they are.

That's not calling a spade a spade. That's sanctimonious meaningless nonsense. Reminds me of the ditz in my law school class who, when the Israeli-Palestinian issue came up, said "They're all such a bunch of children who can't learn to play nicely together." If all you have to say about some dispute is that both sides are wrong and you have no specifics, suggestions or anything else that could possibly be constructive, you're better off just not saying anything.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
It's easy to suggest plans to solve chronic world problems. The difficulty is in getting other people to follow your plan.

Why don't you just keep saying stuff like "This is why, despite my dislike of Israel's ethnically and religiously discriminatory government, I don't have much respect for the Palestinians either. At least the Zionists respect my country...more than the Palestinians anyway" - a.k.a. intellectual problem solving shock and awe - that ought to do the trick.

Originally posted by sh76
That's not calling a spade a spade. That's sanctimonious meaningless nonsense. Reminds me of the ditz in my law school class who, when the Israeli-Palestinian issue came up, said "They're all such a bunch of children who can't learn to play nicely together." If all you have to say about some dispute is that both sides are wrong and you have no specifics, sugges ...[text shortened]... ing else that could possibly be constructive, you're better off just not saying anything.

what did the professor say?

Originally posted by no1marauder
This is a complete fairy tale.

Very strong argument there. I may have to cave in.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
So when you asked me what the context was you didn't expect me to actually know what you're talking about right? If I'd been a normal informed person I wouldn't have thought that was what you meant. You shouldn't advance minority opinions as fact or assume everyone will see things your way. It's not the typical belief because people won't see it your way.

Of course not. But just because something is the majority opinion doesn't make it right. Racism was a majority opinion in the US until fairly recently. Does that make it right? Now, I'm not taking the Ibsen line and saying that the majority is always wrong. Far from it. But don't accept something as true solely because most people believe it.

Originally posted by minutiae70
There is a lot of information on the subject posted on the internet. A lot of the information cannot be trusted. I would recommend reading a few scholarly books on the matter first. Myself, after I grew immensely frustrated with the treatment from persons coming from both sides of the debate and decided to read more about it. I read books from both sid ...[text shortened]... ral history) and anything by Norman Finkleston (an American Jew who is a harsh critic of Israel)

If you've actually read Finkelstein, you'd know that the Case for Israel is partly plagarized and completely wrong.