@Mr Silly, I apologize for taking two weeks to reply to your post. I was very bored with the repetitive nature of our discussion. Please keep it short and refrain from paraphrasing the same questions and asking them again.
No problem. I think the basis of our disagreement is a difference in values rather than opinion. My reason to repetition through paraphrasing is an attempt to induce you to reconsider the values that underpin your stance. I do admit however that our opinions differ only very marginaly.
So what was the purpose of creating the Jewish homeland post-Holocaust if not for security?
Urm, security was an issue. The US did not offer to accept all the European Jews so I can see why the world thought that establishing a Jewish state was necessary.
Could have stayed in Europe protected by secular constitutions of post war European nations. This is obviously easy for me to say from a non-Jewish point of view 60 years on.
But from the point of view of a Jew in the immediate aftermath of the war, security would have been a Jewish majority/Jewish state. That state could only have been formed against the will of the inhabitants of the territory on offer and with a fair amount of ethnic cleansing (theft wasn;t essential, but theft becomes an easy option if you're already forcing people out of there territory).
And by ethnic cleansing I never implied the aim was an exclusively Jewish state. Minorities are perfectly acceptable, so long as the balance of power (as maintained by demographics) is exclucively Jewish. But for that balance of power to be achieved ethnic cleansing of the Arab population to acceptable levels was essential.
Agreed but I never said a "Jewish State" was the best option.
The differences of a Jewish State, and a Jewish majority state are rather unimportant in terms of the nessesary ethnic cleansing of the territory to achieve the demographic security needed by Jews to realise their security.
Sorry if you feel it is boring. Let me explain why I continue to feel the need to bang on about it, and it is probably best explained through summarising our discussion (correct any errors I make when I portrey your opinions).
You believe that the establishment of a Jewish state post Holocaust was essential1. The rational for the state is for the sake of security of the Jewish population. You disregard other alternatives as unfeasible. You state the way Israel was established was unjust (ethnic cleansing), and should have been a binational state2. This is in spite of the fact that the establishment of a binational state was totally unfeasible.
By your logic, based on the essential need to establish a Jewish state, you therfore accept the need to ethnically cleanse Arabs from the territory.3
I continue to probe this issue, because you seem to be very deferent to historical events that have happened, and equate what happened to feasibility. I think you too easily discount alternatives4. Using the "feasibility" argument to justify an opinion is very easy, but it is not convincing, hence my repeated probing5. I am not intending to be a bore (clearly though you have a lot more tolerance of me than Kenan).
1-No. I said that establishing a state or an autonomous region where Jews are not prosecuted was essential. I never said it needed to be majority-Jewish and I never said that it had to be in Palestine.
The lack of demographic security lost if the state was not Jewish majority would have made the secular purpose of its' creation pointless.
This security could have been provided by UK or America. Oops, no that wasn't possible (feasibility), because the Brits and Yanks didn't want them and had the power to refuse so. So lets pick on a relatively powerless colonial territory that lacks the means to refuse and just force on them what we didn't want (possibly why Uganda was first offered as the Jewish homeland). Great logic. That's why I dislike your deference to feasiblity (especially when done in retrospect because it is so easy to say that what happened, happened because it was feasible)
2-Yes other options were unfeasible because of the Zionist ideology and the (justified) Arab opposition to Jewish mass immigration.
There was always the option to do nothingm but that is another debate.
There wasn't a nessesity to pander to Zionist extremism (unless you're a devout pragmatist and make decisions based on feasibility rather than morality)
3-No. When I say a binational state was unfeasible, I am not implying that the establishment of Israel was justified. I'm just stating how I think it happened and why. You can attack my historical understanding of the subject but you cannot accuse me of equating feasibility with moral justification.
So Israel, or a Jewish majority state, wasn;t possible without ethnic cleansing. As long as we accept that, then that's fine. I deduce from this that therefore establishing a Jewish majority state was therefore wrong. But I have a suspision you are going to hang on to your "I don't support
the way Israel was established". This may be where our eternal difference lies.
You can postulate a state (not nessesarily Jewish majority) that would be created where Jews would be safe and protected, but this defeats the purpose of the state'ss creation, because a reason Jews felt vulnerable, and a reason they felt they suffered the Holocaust was precisly because they were a minority in the states they resided in.
Am not quite sure of the feasibility (there;s that word again) of this Jewish minority state that you're hypothesising, since there is a natural xenophobia and suspision amoungst human beings, and why the host population (wherever they might be) would just accept an indefinate influx of immigrants (oooh) that they had no control over is quite doubtful. Such a state would have to be created within a state already socialised in the ideas of liberalism, democracy and the rule of law. Oh, what a pity that such ideal places post WW2 were the ones that rejected the idea of Jews coming to live there to be safe. I think your argument defeats itself.
4-I was under the impression that we were discussing the historicity of the issue not from a moral perspective.
I wasn't under this impression. Given I have attacked you feasibility stance on several occasions, I am clearly approaching this from a moral perspective of "Should Israel/Jewish-State/Jewish-majority-State have been established?", not "How was Israel established?". Obviously historicity is important as part of the debate but it isn't the essence of the debate (at least not from my perspective)
5-Again, I never said feasibility meant justification. If I was an Arab leader at the time, I wouldn't have accepted the establishment of Israel regardless of whether this the only feasible was to grant Jews a safe haven in the Middle East.
So it shouldn't have been established.
Here is a summary of what I think. Zionism is a religious-nationalist racist ideology that used the anti-Semitism in Europe to advance its goals.
I agree.
I think the Palestinians and Arabs were justified in rejecting the establishment of Israel.
And the world/UN was therefore wrong in establishing it.
But looking at it now realistically, I think the Palestinians should make concessions and accept 67 borders.
Why shoukd Israel accept that?
This doesn't mean they should retroactively accept the way Israel was established. It just means taking the only feasible option which the at the moment is the two state solution.
And this is where we differ and looks like we are going to continue to differ. Its like the Swiss banks giving back 50% of pre-Holocaust Jewish deposits and saying they are going to keep the rest.
Then assuming you think that establishing a Jewish state was essential (and right), and discount all other alternatives, then logically, the ethnic cleasning was right in achieving this aim.
A state or autonomous region where the Jews were safe, not necessarily a "Jewish state" and not necessarily in Palestine
Already explained the problems with this earlier in the post.
Where are you proposing other thn Palestine?
Even if a Jewish state was essential (which I don't think it was), it certainly was not right
So we're agreed on that, though I fear you statement that a Jewish state was not essential may be misleading, since you seem to believe in the need of a Jewish-orientated state (at least a state orientated towards protecting Jews), even though this is a rather impractical and unacceptable hypothesis.
So you do acknowledge that a bi-national was not feasible. And you therefore believe the establishment of Israel was wrong. So you agree with me?
Yes. I don;t however agree with you regarding establishing a Jewish minority state that would protect Jews because it defeats the purpose of its creation and there doesn't appear to be anywhere where it could have been established and maintained.
Why not a secular constitution in European countries garuaneeting the rights of all citizens there? That would negate the need for a secure homeland for Jewish to emigrate to and be safe.
Yeah why not? that would've been much better. So why did it not happen? Do you believe that the Zionist movement could've convinced European governments to protect the European Jewry and their rights if it put its weight behind it?
Well they have done since for the last 60 years.
And who gives a stuff what the Zionist movement want.
Because you imply a want to fit with their plans when you reference feasibility so much in your arguements.
Zionists were the ones pushing for the establishment of the state of Israel. I don't see how (or why) you think it would have been feasible to establish Israel without Zionists
I didn't imply that. Feasibility does not equal moral justification. If I was a Palestinian at the time, I would have fought them. So my question is, who are you disagreeing with?
I am disagreeing with your deference to feasibility (and especially when doing so retrospectively).
If you are going to say that establishing a state for Jews was the only feasible way of protecting Jews, then you can't then propose all sorts of totally unfeasible hypotheses on how and where it should have been.
This is getting ridiculously repetitive. I don't like it when you put words into my mouth. Saying it was the only feasible option doesn't mean I accept it !
Its only by putting words in your mouth that you have become more clear in your stance.
I am aware. Northern Ireland is historically a part of Ireland until the immigration of Protestants from Britain. But right now there is a slight majority favoring unionism. Therefore, I think N. Ireland at the moment should stay a part of the UK as long as this majority is maintained. And like I said, I think the residents should be entitled to the citizenship of both countries. Thankfully this is already the case.
I honestly don't know enough about Irish history (like most mainland UK people) to comment.
Same as above. Kirkuk was historically a Kurdish majority city until the Turkmen immigration in the 15th/16th century when the Seljuks ruled the region. Ever since, it has been a Turkmen-majority city until a decade ago when the Kurds started to redraw borders and facilitate the mass immigration of Kurds in order to alter the demographics of the city to Kurdish-majority.
Personally I see no reason why we should decide the status of Kirkuk according to 16th century demographics and I think what the government of Kurdistan is doing is totally unacceptable. Now if there are Kurds who can prove they were displaced from Kirkuk they can present the evidence and if their claims are found to be true, they should be given their properties back or financial compensation. What I will not accept is incorporating Kirkuk to Kurdistan (where the only official language is Kurdish) at the detriment of its Arab and Turkmen population.
Now, if Kirkuk does become part of Kurdistan, I suggest they follow N. Ireland's lead and allow the residents to chose which state they want to be citizens of (Iraq or Kurdistan). I also think Arabic should be made a secondary official language in Kurdistan.
How many Kirkuk resident actually define themselves as and speak Turkmen?
Maybe I have a biased viewpoint on this, but my opinion on this was that Saddam expelled hundreds of thousands of Kurds from Kirkuk and in general instituted a policy of Arabisation of the oil-producing parts of the region, in part for the the reason of demographic legitimacy. My understanding was the Kirkuk was Kurdish majority for much of the 20th century. This appears very much at odds of your opinion.
My question to you is, if you think Kirkuk should be part of Kurdistan on the basis of the pre-16th century demographics, how is that different from making Palestine a Jewish state on the basis of the pre-6th century demographics?
I am not saying it should. I brought up the example to illustrate the problems with using absolute majorities in mixed demographic areas to justify carving up territories. It ignores issues of soverignty.
A free internationally-monitored referendum should be held and the it s outcome should determine the fate of these regions.
If the majority of the population want to secede, independence should be granted as long as the rights of Chinese, non-Sahrawi Morroccans, and Indonesians are protected.
The majority won't vote to separate, because these governments have instituted policies of ethnic dilution through state sponsers transmigration. Is that fair?
If they vote to remain part of these countries, some form of autonomy should be given and the languages of the indigenous population should be made official.
One of the reasons the indiginous people want independenace is because the occupying nation did not respect the indiginous peope's culture (language, religion, etc etc). So they aren;t going to get it after a 'no' vote of independence. It seems you arehappy for an occupying nation to keep territory it steals through occuption simply if they flood the territory with the dominant ethnic group of the occupier.
Okay, you're an intelligent man, and I don't want to belittle you, but those 2 sentances completely contradict eachother. Your aim is to decrease the suffering. You believe taking a pramatice approach of letting Israel keep a lot of stolen land and not letting Arab refugees back will acheive this aim. You have therefore adopted pragmatism over the rule of law.
LOL. I already have admitted that. You're not breaking any news.
You do so in a very opaque fashion. Often you make one statement that imples agreement, but follow it with a completely contradictory statement, as was the case here.
So you end up being able to negotiate nothing for the Palestinians. Israel remains unaccountable for its past action, and so it can remain unaccountable for its future actions. By departing from the rule of law, you basically let Israel get away with its past, and provide no incentive for it to behave itself in the future
Not really. This is the official stance of the PLO. They state they still think that the establishment of Israel was wrong while at the same recognizing its right to exist by accepting the two state solution.
Abbas would be an international pariah if he said he wants the dissolution of Israel and the establishment of a bi-national state.
Yes, and its why the PLO have as of late negotiated nothing for the Palestinians. It is also why it is largely discredited in the eyes of many Palestinians, who just end up voting for religious extremists.
That is exactly why using the prgamatic moral framework or might is right, you loose any negotiating abilities to achieve anything tangible for the Palestinians. Israel knows that when it negotiates with pragmatists.
Like I said, the PLO should (and does) maintain its position that they don't accept the establishment of Israel. They should use it as an ambit claim to bargain so that their acceptance of the two-state solution itself is regarded as a concession.
Saying that something was wrong does not provide a bargaining chip. It only become a bargaining chip if retribution stems from the wrong act.
The Israelis are not stupid either. They know once the rule of law is departed from in the course of the negotiations, then they don;t need to concede anything, because there is no justification for the need to concede.
I'm not saying Israel should be above the law.
You are. They should be absolved of the the law in terms of retribution for their acts from 1948 until 1967 according to you.
I'm saying that it's counterproductive for the PLO to maintain the same mission statement from 67.
The mission statement in 1967 was right. Israel has stalled and stalled, and over time, according to you, this adds in Israel's favour. This is hardly an incentive to compromise, because Israel have got away with everything until now without compromise. So why start compromising?
So are you saying that if the PLO adopted Hamas' position and said that they don't recognize Israel's right to exist, they would have more legitimacy in the eyes of the international community?
You have a point, but one of the reasons that the "international community" views Hamas' line on Israel so negatively is because the international community seems to turn a blind eye to the rule of law when it comes to Israel. Why should Palestinians have to compromise because of the international community's hypocrisy?
How does my stance incentivise Israel to behave badly?
Because it proves to Israel that it is above the law, and if it continues to stall and take more, then it gives them a stronger bargaining chip; 'there needs to be a solution, or we'll steal more' (even though Israel is always the ones who stall solutions as of late)
The whole international community is opposed to it. There is increasing pressure on Israel to stop all further settlement activities.
Yes it continues, even when Hilary Clinton expresses her displeaure.
Topic: Isrealis attack Aid Convoy ships