Moral Equivalency and Israel/Palestine

Originally posted by zeeblebot
what did the professor say?

The professor managed to keep from rolling his eyes (you can't insult a student on front of the class) and just nodded (as in "thanks for the opinion"😉 and moved on to the next question. Most of the rest of the class just rolled their eyes. After class, a couple of people were laughing about what a moronic comment that was.

Originally posted by scherzo
Very strong argument there. I may have to cave in.

Surely you know what you posted is nonsense. There was intense fighting between Jordanian forces ("the Arab Legion"😉 and the Israelis in the West Bank which hardly supports the idea that there was some pre-arranged deal that Jordan would be allowed to take this territory. And the fighting was particularly fierce in Jerusalem, where the Arab Legion managed to hold on to the Old City. http://www.jordanembassyus.org/arabLegion.htm

Originally posted by no1marauder
Surely you know what you posted is nonsense. There was intense fighting between Jordanian forces ("the Arab Legion"😉 and the Israelis in the West Bank which hardly supports the idea that there was some pre-arranged deal that Jordan would be allowed to take this territory. And the fighting was particularly fierce in Jerusalem, where the Arab Legion managed to hold on to the Old City. http://www.jordanembassyus.org/arabLegion.htm

From wiki:

"In 1946–1947, Abdullah said that he had no intention to "resist or impede the partition of Palestine and creation of a Jewish state."[49] Abdullah supported the partition, intending that the West Bank area of the British Mandate allocated for Palestine be annexed to Jordan. Abdullah had secret meetings with the Jewish Agency (at which the future Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir was among the delegates) that reached an agreement of Jewish non-interference of Jordanian annexation of the West Bank (although Abdullah failed in his goal of acquiring an outlet to the Mediterranian sea through the Negev desert,) and of Jordanian agreement not to attack the area of the Jewish state contained in the United Nations partition resolution (in which Jerusalem was given neither to the Arab nor the Jewish state, but was to be an internationally administered area.) In one stunning diplomatic achievement, the strongest Arab army agreed not to attack the Jewish state.[50] However, by 1948, the neighbouring Arab states pressured Abdullah into joining them in an "all-Arab military intervention" against the newly created State of Israel, which he used to restore his prestige in the Arab world, which had grown suspicious of his relatively good relationship with Western and Jewish leaders.[49] Abdullah's role in this war became substantial. He saw himself as the "supreme commander of the Arab forces" and "persuaded the Arab League to appoint him" to this position.[51] Through his leadership, the Arabs fought the 1948 war to meet Abdullah's political goals. Abdullah kept his promise not to attack the Jewish state, and the Arab Legion was limited to defending Arab areas of Jerusalem and those parts of the designated Arab state that Jewish forces invaded."

The sources in question are:

^ a b Sela, 2002, 14.
^ Avi Shlaim (1988). The Politics of Partition. Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-07365-8.
^ Tripp, 2001, 137.

The page is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War#King_Abdullah_I_of_Jordan

Originally posted by no1marauder
Surely you know what you posted is nonsense. There was intense fighting between Jordanian forces ("the Arab Legion"😉 and the Israelis in the West Bank which hardly supports the idea that there was some pre-arranged deal that Jordan would be allowed to take this territory. And the fighting was particularly fierce in Jerusalem, where the Arab Legion managed to hold on to the Old City. http://www.jordanembassyus.org/arabLegion.htm

The embassies are the mouths of the government. Read objective sources when you're dealing with this, not governmental propaganda.

Originally posted by scherzo
The embassies are the mouths of the government. Read objective sources when you're dealing with this, not governmental propaganda.

Like wikipedia??? LMAO!

Are you denying there was substantial fighting between the Arab Legion and Israeli forces? This would have been unnecessary if a territorial agreement had already been worked out.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Like wikipedia??? LMAO!

Are you denying there was substantial fighting between the Arab Legion and Israeli forces?

No. I'm denying your version of events on how it happened.

Since you seem to find wikipedia less reliable than the Hashemite websites, then here:

http://www.zionism-israel.com/his/Israel_war_independence_1948_timeline.htm

Top of the timeline. Don't say it's pro-Palestinian propaganda. You know it isn't. In fact, take this one with a grain of salt; it makes the Jordan-Zionist relationship pre-May 1948 more tense than it was.

Originally posted by scherzo
No. I'm denying your version of events on how it happened.

Since you seem to find wikipedia less reliable than the Hashemite websites, then here:

http://www.zionism-israel.com/his/Israel_war_independence_1948_timeline.htm

Top of the timeline. Don't say it's pro-Palestinian propaganda. You know it isn't. In fact, take this one with a grain of salt; it makes the Jordan-Zionist relationship pre-May 1948 more tense than it was.

That Abdullah had discussed an agreement similar to what you are claiming with the Israelis is a fact. But it is not a fact that the intervention of the Arab armies in May 1948 was not meant to end the existence of the Zionist state. If they had been more competent, they may well have accomplished that goal.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That Abdullah had discussed an agreement similar to what you are claiming with the Israelis is a fact. But it is not a fact that the intervention of the Arab armies in May 1948 was not meant to end the existence of the Zionist state. If they had been more competent, they may well have accomplished that goal.

No one had the intention of truly ending the Zionist state for moral purposes.

Originally posted by scherzo
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.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that hinting at the "circumstances" was a very odd thing to do considering when I looked it up I'd come to the conclusion that the circumstances favored Israel.

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.

Suggesting solutions to chronic world problems is easy. The problem is getting people to follow your plan. In any case, this thread is not about solving the Middle East problem, ending violence, etc. A thread on a chess website forum isn't going to accomplish that.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that hinting at the "circumstances" was a very odd thing to do considering when I looked it up I'd come to the conclusion that the circumstances favored Israel.

Then you've been looking in the wrong places. Read Flapan.