17 Jun 09
Originally posted by scherzoSuppose we waved a magic wand and presto! - you could send all the Israelis somewhere else, and you could get all of your land back.
I believe the phrase for what you're doing is "beating the bush" or "beating around the bush" or something. We had our land taken from us by the Israelis, who are continuing to occupy our land and oppress our people, and we want the land back. No need to get into arguments about who had it when. We had it when the Zionists took it.
Surely those Israelis would all be saying
"We had our land taken from us by the Palestinians, who are continuing to occupy our land and oppress our people, and we want the land back. No need to get into arguments about who had it when. We had it when the Palestinians took it."
17 Jun 09
2 edits
I do wonder - what if Israel didn't currently exist, and the Jewish people today decided they wanted to create a Jewish state on the land of Biblical Israel?
What would be the ethical way to do it? In recent decades, we have come to regard the idea of invading someone else's country and removing/subjugating its people as being an atrocity. We abhor the whole "ethnic cleansing" routine.
The people who were displaced by the creation of modern Israel have legitimate grievances. I can imagine how I'd feel if some ethnic group decided to take over the northeast US to be their homeland.
But more than 60 yrs have passed - and many (most?) in Israel have lived there all their life. If the Palestinians were to take back all of the land, it would be causing the same injustices. It's too late to undo what's been done.
17 Jun 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesThen they'd not only be lying, they'd be completely ridiculous. Us oppress them??
Suppose we waved a magic wand and presto! - you could send all the Israelis somewhere else, and you could get all of your land back.
Surely those Israelis would all be saying
"We had our land taken from us by the Palestinians, who are continuing to occupy our land and oppress our people, and we want the land back. No need to get into arguments about who had it when. We had it when the Palestinians took it."
18 Jun 09
Originally posted by scherzoSo suppose you had the land, and they were shooting rockets, sending in suicide bombers, and demanding that you give back the land?
Then they'd not only be lying, they'd be completely ridiculous. Us oppress them??
Why wouldn't you oppress them? -- Why would that be ridiculous? -- What would YOU do instead?
Would you just step aside and let them have the land?
Would you choose a non-violent approach like Martin Luther King?
Would you make reaching a peace agreement your top priority?
18 Jun 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesTypical rot.
So suppose you had the land, and they were shooting rockets, sending in suicide bombers, and demanding that you give back the land?
Why wouldn't you oppress them? -- Why would that be ridiculous? -- What would YOU do instead?
Would you just step aside and let them have the land?
Would you choose a non-violent approach like Martin Luther King?
Would you make reaching a peace agreement your top priority?
Pretty much the first law the State of Israel passed was the confiscation of land, homes, factories, farms, etc. etc. etc. from Palestinians who had fled the 1948 War and the violence that led up to it. Israel made clear that they would not be allowed to go back to their homes thus creating the refugee problem in the first place. Perhaps the Palestinians should have just shrugged their shoulders and moved on, right?
Israel's been in illegal occupation of the West Bank for over 40 years. Yet according to you, all the fault lies on the Palestinian side.
You have been well brainwashed.
18 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI was asking Scherzo what he would do if he was in Israel's position and faced what Israel currently faces.
Typical rot.
Pretty much the first law the State of Israel passed was the confiscation of land, homes, factories, farms, etc. etc. etc. from Palestinians who had fled the 1948 War and the violence that led up to it. Israel made clear that they would not be allowed to go back to their homes thus creating the refugee problem in the first pl you, all the fault lies on the Palestinian side.
You have been well brainwashed.
I agree that the original creation of Israel involved the sort of thing that would today be considered ethnic cleansing. I've posed the question of how Israel could have been created in a more ethical way.
But now that 60 yrs have gone by, you can't just reverse things without the same sort of displacement that occurred when Israel originally moved in. Both sides can make a good case, in a perfectly fair universe, for why the land should belong to them.
It's sort of like Fiddler on the Roof -- "He's right and he's right" -- "They can't both be right" -- "He's also right"
18 Jun 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesWhy was Israel's creation sooooooooooooo essential? Why should we pick our brains to figure out how a minority could "ethically" create a state based on disregarding the will of the majority?
I was asking Scherzo what he would do if he was in Israel's position and faced what Israel currently faces.
I agree that the original creation of Israel involved the sort of thing that would today be considered ethnic cleansing. I've posed the question of how Israel could have been created in a more ethical way.
But now that 60 yrs have gone by, you ...[text shortened]... -- "He's right and he's right" -- "They can't both be right" -- "He's also right"
It's certainly true that Israel's here to stay. But the reality that its creation was unjust to the people of Palestine must be understood or the present conflict makes little sense. A wrong was done and a fair remedy must be provided.
18 Jun 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesIf they had it first, I would give it back to them.
So suppose you had the land, and they were shooting rockets, sending in suicide bombers, and demanding that you give back the land?
Why wouldn't you oppress them? -- Why would that be ridiculous? -- What would YOU do instead?
Would you just step aside and let them have the land?
Would you choose a non-violent approach like Martin Luther King?
Would you make reaching a peace agreement your top priority?
18 Jun 09
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat do you suggest that this "fair remedy" entails?
Why was Israel's creation sooooooooooooo essential? Why should we pick our brains to figure out how a minority could "ethically" create a state based on disregarding the will of the majority?
It's certainly true that Israel's here to stay. But the reality that its creation was unjust to the people of Palestine must be understood or the present conflict makes little sense. A wrong was done and a fair remedy must be provided.
18 Jun 09
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat's wrong, per se, with the creation of the state of Israel? Jews have been living in that area forever, even if there was an additional influx from Europe after the war. What's wrong with giving them some self-autonomy? As the borders were drawn of Israel initially, they WERE the majority. I don't understand what you mean by disregarding the will of the majority. The majority of what?
Why was Israel's creation sooooooooooooo essential? Why should we pick our brains to figure out how a minority could "ethically" create a state based on disregarding the will of the majority?
It's certainly true that Israel's here to stay. But the reality that its creation was unjust to the people of Palestine must be understood or the present conflict makes little sense. A wrong was done and a fair remedy must be provided.
18 Jun 09
Originally posted by no1marauderI pose this question mainly to Zionists and their supporters. If Israel's creation was "essential", what would have been the ethical way to do it?
Why was Israel's creation sooooooooooooo essential? Why should we pick our brains to figure out how a minority could "ethically" create a state based on disregarding the will of the majority?
I guess a similar question could be posed to Americans like myself -- what would have been the ethical way to deal with the natives that were displaced? Surely not the approach that was taken.
18 Jun 09
Originally posted by no1marauderI agree with that, in principle. Obviously some details have to be worked out, You can't evacuate 100% of the WB, including densely populated Jerusalem suburbs; and some security measures have to be worked out. Things like passages between the WB and Gaza and divying up the right to Jordan River water have to be worked out as well.
Their own independent state in the Occupied Territories and monetary compensation for the refugees and/or their descendants of the 1948 creation of Israel.
It's a long negotiation process; but I think the 2 basic points you call for are things most Israelis can live with.