FAQ Memberlist Usergroups Register Log in
Profile Log in to check your private messages Search

Israeli-Palestine Conflict - Opinions? (Keep it civil!)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> General Discussion
Author Message
Nem



Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 2141
Location: England

PostPosted: Sun Jan 18, 2009 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tamir wrote:
So, surprisingly, the history of the state of Israel is not the history of the destruction of what was before it. Before the state of Israel was created, the land was kind of barren. Sure, there were people living there, but the land was very undeveloped, mostly desert. Meanwhile, the Jews were being prosecuted everywhere, and slowly started trickling back to the land they missed.
Many of the Jews who made their way to Israel were quite wealthy, and bought land from Arabs living there for more than it was worth. The Arabs were happy for the money, the Jews were happy to be in their holy land. However, as the number of Jews in Israel increased, the local Arabs (under Ottoman rule) started to be unhappy about it. Jews and Muslims never got along particularly well. So there was some anger there, but nothing too serious.
Towards the end of the 19th century, the Jews started emigrating to Israel in large groups. That was the point where the violence really started. The Arabs did not appreciate this influx of strangers, and they let that be known. But the Jews kept pouring in.... the two world wars were unkind to the Jews (particularly the second), and they sought refuge. No country was willing to take them in, so they defaulted to their holy land. The British were given mandate over the country, and they had a problem to deal with - massive amounts of Jews were making a home for themselves and the local Arabs were being violent about it. They weren't being driven away so much as they didn't want to share. (There also wasn't exactly a space issue, since the population in Israel was very small.)
The British tried stopping Jews from emigrating, but that didn't work out.... they just kept coming. The British proposed a plan to separate the country into two states, one for the Jews and the other for the Arabs. The Jews accepted, but the Arabs responded with violence. The Jews fought back, eventually expelling hundreds of thousands of Arabs from the country. The British decided to give the country to the Jews, and the day the state of Israel declared independence, all of its neighboring Arab countries attacked it. Israel survived, but since that day there have been many more attacks. The only time Israel acted on the offensive (i.e. not responding to an attack or terror) was as a preemptive strike when a few Arab countries gathered their forces at the borders to attack.
In order to wrap up what I started - Israel didn't destroy what came before it. We took a barren land and made it thrive. The only price was the residents who couldn't handle having Jewish neighbors, who were willing to kill those neighbors, who got expelled.


You say all this as if nothing existed before you got there but what existed before you were there was the governmental and cultural systems inhabiting that area. You took the land and those things and made them into something other than that which they were, destroyed that which went before. What the indigenous population did or did not choose to do with their beliefs and their land is irrespective of that. Who is to say it is better to keep a section of the land as desert or to make it bloom; who is to say cities are better than tundra; or that it is better to have an industrialised society than a hunter gatherer society? All these things are value judgements. That you make them one way and they make them another doesn’t change the underlying truth of what is done with the supplanting of one way of life by another.

The unspoken assumption behind the idea that before those things there was nothing, rather than that before those things there was something different, is that a certain way of life is better than another and from being better descends a right to be created there in preference to what was before. But what is better or worse is an opinion that anyone can exact for an equal measure of justification, by which mechanism the two opposed ideas cancel each other and exact no value. Furthermore no act of creation can be done without an equal or greater measure of destruction. I change a building into a pile of rubble or a pile of rubble into a building but in both cases what was there before is not and what is there now was not before – you can’t create something without destroying the form of the thing you’re making it out of.

There was a nation there with a certain population density, certain borders, certain environments, certain governmental systems, and a different way of life. Now there isn’t and it’s because Israel is there now and destroyed it in the process of its birth. While largely irrelevant to my point I’d also note it’s hardly as if you were just going to be neighbours either, if they had remained it would have been as subjects of the new Israeli state or baring the creation of Israel as subjects of what would eventually have become a majority Jewish state – you were to become their rulers not their friends.

Tamir wrote:
It boils down to this. The Jews have been universally persecuted, because they choose to be different. As a nation, they needed a country in order to live normal lives. That country was chosen to be Israel. Now tell me honestly, do you begrudge them that?


Jews are hardly alone in having a history of persecution yet there are thousands of religious people in the world, including Jews living in countries other than Israel, that manage to get along and live normal lives without their own states. I don’t begrudge them current possession of Israel but it doesn’t make sense for the creation of Israel to leverage against the idea that Jews need Israel to live normally when so many of them live normally beyond Israel.

Tamir wrote:
Well, I'm not here to argue morals with you, but if you grant humans the right to exist and live the way they like, then the Jews needed something, because they were being killed and mistreated everywhere. A country seems like the only answer.


The right to live as you want is contradictory – say you have two people marooned on an island who can only survive by eating the other, which one has the right to life? Or if you take the life of another and are imprisoned for it where does your right to live as you want, in a state of freedom, then descend from? It’s worth mentioning that even if you could find such a right from your existence the people who want to live as they wished, without you around them would also have that right.

Rights are, properly expressed, nothing more than privileges contingent on social power relationships. The minute those power relationships are violated the right is revealed for being nothing of the sort.

In any case Jews weren’t being killed and mistreated everywhere, at least no more than anyone else, at the time of the creation of Israel relatively few countries were actively anti-Jew. There are and were many Jewish communities within the world where Jews aren’t mistreated, at least no more than anyone else. The need for a country to live normally is a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

Tamir wrote:
Another "what's in it for me?" point, but to be fair, Israel is the most technologically advanced and militarily powerful country in the Middle East and will help the US if asked. We are, in a messed up way, currently serving as America's arm in the Middle East. That's worth more than you think.


America’s not doing anything important in the Middle East and what few military interests it has there could be supported at far lower cost.

Tamir wrote:
Y'know, I wouldn't be so quick to say that it increased world suffering. Many Jews can now lead normal, happy lives where before they could not.


Many Jews can now lead normal happy lives in countries other than Israel too.

Tamir wrote:
Many Palestinians and Israelis now suffer, too, but in the long run, we can hope that this constant conflict will end. The only thing perpetuating it now (and ever, really) is baseless hatred.


Well I wouldn’t exactly call it baseless, you can’t expect people to be best pleased when their neighbours get blown whether they’re Israeli or Palestinian.
_________________
Never forget,
We stroll along the roof of hell
Gazing at flowers.
- Issa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Tinu.



Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Posts: 3690
Location: The land of dreams

PostPosted: Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You know, most people displace another culture when they move somewhere - most countries have done it. The US did the same thing with the native Americans - I think they still hate it.
I don't mean to offend, and maybe I just misread it, but it just seems to me that by accusing Israel of displacing a people, you are condemning something that your own people have done. I know it's a horrible thing, but it has happened often; history repeats itself. I'm accusing people of supporting displacement, but to me it seems like a "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" thing when you're declaring a country's right to exist.

Well, feel free to correct me or elaborate on your opinion - I really think I might have misunderstood some things.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tamir



Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 1629
Location: Israel

PostPosted: Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay. Nem, as for those first three paragraphs, I was indeed making assumptions. However, I do believe they are fair assumptions. You have a tendency to get philosophical, but I think most people would agree that building cities and growing crops in a land that was previously desert isn't hurting anyone.
I'll grant you that any change can be defined as destruction of one thing and creation of another, but is that really relevant? Do you wish to say that what got "destroyed" by the creation of Israel caused the violence we see today? Because that just isn't right. The Arabs in Israel behaved no differently than the Arabs in other places in the world when it came to their attitude toward Jews.

Nem wrote:
There was a nation there with a certain population density, certain borders, certain environments, certain governmental systems, and a different way of life. Now there isn’t and it’s because Israel is there now and destroyed it in the process of its birth.

They did this, not us. We did not come to Israel with the intention of changing anyone's way of life, we came looking for a home for ourselves. We made our own separate settlements or bought land from the Arabs. The reason everything changed the way it did is because they were violent. If they didn't have anything against Jews, then it would hardly have affected them. We would have built cities around them, and they could have gone on living the way they were. But they fought incessantly, and that led to the creation of the state of Israel.

Nem wrote:
While largely irrelevant to my point I’d also note it’s hardly as if you were just going to be neighbours either, if they had remained it would have been as subjects of the new Israeli state or baring the creation of Israel as subjects of what would eventually have become a majority Jewish state – you were to become their rulers not their friends.

Arabs in Israel have more rights than Arabs in any Arab country in the world. They are citizens as any other, with the right to vote among all other rights. We are not their rulers, we are their equals. We live in a democratic state.

Nem wrote:
Jews are hardly alone in having a history of persecution yet there are thousands of religious people in the world, including Jews living in countries other than Israel, that manage to get along and live normal lives without their own states. I don’t begrudge them current possession of Israel but it doesn’t make sense for the creation of Israel to leverage against the idea that Jews need Israel to live normally when so many of them live normally beyond Israel.

They do now. But Israel wasn't created now. It was created in the wake of the Holocaust, where in over a dozen countries more than 50% of the Jewish population was murdered. It was created in a time where antisemitism was at one of its peaks, and the few countries which gave Jews equal rights did not allow immigration.
And even today, there's plenty of antisemitism everywhere. Living alone is the most logical solution for the Jews.

Nem wrote:
The right to live as you want is contradictory – say you have two people marooned on an island who can only survive by eating the other, which one has the right to life?

Come on, Nem, you know what I mean. When I say "the right to live as they want" with respect to Jews, I mean live according to their customs, which (take it from me) don't involve troubling anyone else. I think people should be allowed to do as they wish so long as they don't bother anyone else by it, don't you?

Nem wrote:
In any case Jews weren’t being killed and mistreated everywhere, at least no more than anyone else, at the time of the creation of Israel relatively few countries were actively anti-Jew.

I'm calling you on that one. Can you back that up?

Nem wrote:
There are and were many Jewish communities within the world where Jews aren’t mistreated, at least no more than anyone else. The need for a country to live normally is a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

I'm sorry, but no. Just because there are places where Jews live happily, doesn't mean we can ignore all the places where they don't. Especially if the happy places have their gates closed.

Nem wrote:
America’s not doing anything important in the Middle East and what few military interests it has there could be supported at far lower cost.

Nothing important in the Middle East, eh? That's a matter of opinion, seeing as they're doing a lot of stuff there. If you don't see it as important, that's your own business, I spose. And while I won't counter the second point, think of it as an investment.

Nem wrote:
Well I wouldn’t exactly call it baseless, you can’t expect people to be best pleased when their neighbours get blown whether they’re Israeli or Palestinian.

I mean baseless in the sense that the hatred isn't really based on one issue or another, it's just self-perpetuating hatred. I hate you, you hate me, I hit you, you hate me more, you hit me, I hate you more, etc. The only real base to the hatred is religion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rolaoi



Joined: 14 May 2008
Posts: 247
Location: The Empire in the South

PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Most would agree, Tamir, but the problem is how that comes about. I'm sure the people of Palestine would like to live in a properous country, but if the prosperity comes at the price of feeling invaded then they might reject it.


Tamir wrote:
I actually forgot for a minute that Nem was British, but England and the US are allied anyway, so it works. ^^;;

Tenshi wrote:
Religion, and only religion, has been one of the most dominant forces in bringing out the absolute worst in people who are already not quite right in the head. It even leads perfectly rational, intelligent, reasonable people to the point where they refuse to see any of those things.

I really wish I could argue with this. Sad


No. People mess up religions. I have studied Islam and Muhammed. It was his vision that Jews, Christians, and Muslims were of the same family. Muslim Spain is probably one of the best examples of leaders(at least comparitively) following Islam. The problems arise when people abuse religion for their own goals.
_________________
Talked to a man who caught the
raninbow's end he found
That the pot of gold resided within
Fame~Citzen Cope

Nom d'amour~ Rolex
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nem



Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 2141
Location: England

PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tinu. wrote:
You know, most people displace another culture when they move somewhere - most countries have done it. The US did the same thing with the native Americans - I think they still hate it.
I don't mean to offend, and maybe I just misread it, but it just seems to me that by accusing Israel of displacing a people, you are condemning something that your own people have done. I know it's a horrible thing, but it has happened often; history repeats itself. I'm accusing people of supporting displacement, but to me it seems like a "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" thing when you're declaring a country's right to exist.

Well, feel free to correct me or elaborate on your opinion - I really think I might have misunderstood some things.


You think my people aren't worthy of condemnation? I mean it's not really my thing - I'm just denying the existence of a right here not necessarily assigning an alternate morality in its place - but if you believe in the idea we're probably more worthy of condemnation than most.

I mean we used to be really really nasty. The sort of thing you tell your children about to give them nightmares. After World War 2 we became soft, all of us, back then the only thing that really differentiated those who've come to be seen as the really evil men of the 20th century from the rest of us was that most of them weren't very good at it - seriously we were talking about gassing the uncivilised tribes and so on. Now? Well few would dream of being that cold blooded.

Back in the early 1900s we still went around invading areas just so our army would have something to do, we slaughtered the Tibetan forces, (there's something people screaming to free Tibet probably didn't know,) without even a need; that is once we'd got them to disarm their antiquated guns and essentially line up for the firing squad. When the Chinese took over they were gentle by comparison, and still are compared to the regimes the Western powers put in place in the past. If you want concentration camps look at the Boer Wars, or take this quote from Kitchener,

"[we shall] sweep the country bare of everything that could give sustenance to the guerrillas, including women and children...."

It’s amazing how the image of the English or European gentleman has come about as something civilised where he sits at a table and sips tea. Maybe if the camera panned down under the table you could see the blood sloshing around his ankles. How quickly people forget the crimes of history.

Best PR stunt ever. ^_^;

The evils held up to you today mostly just weren’t very good at their jobs. During the crusades we went around slaughtering thousands in the biggest cities we'd ever seen. I mean seriously, we went into the crusades and we'd never seen cities that big before, and we slaughtered them nigh on to a man. That was just a style of warfare new to that part of the world - that bloodthirstiness. Did you know in some parts of the world they even used to sit down, play a game among leaders, and then the losers submitted to the rule of the victor without any bloodshed?

For the last thousand odd years at least the Western powers have been composed of some of the most ice cold killers on the face of the earth. We were the best warriors; we ruled the world, not because we were nice people but because we were better at killing people. Even now we hide behind pretty words like 'respect' while we let thousands die and sip on our fine wines and teas behind walls guarded by armed men with the steady hands to do the work most of us now turn our noses up at and politely ignore.

I do not come from a nice people; we were the bad guys. It's alright to say we shouldn’t throw stones if we have a stake, but I don’t have a stake in this; I accept that my people have done things that you can’t justify. I don’t feel any sort of need to do so.

And not that I believe in sin but how could any sinner reach heaven if they wouldn’t recognise sin? We can’t become better than how we are right now if we pretend that things are other than how they are, whether that applies to ourselves or to others.

Tamir wrote:
Okay. Nem, as for those first three paragraphs, I was indeed making assumptions. However, I do believe they are fair assumptions. You have a tendency to get philosophical, but I think most people would agree that building cities and growing crops in a land that was previously desert isn't hurting anyone.


If Russia said it was going to build a town in the American Mid-west I daresay they’d revise their opinions pretty quickly. Most people also think that warfare is about the hardware you have and soldiering consists solely of how well you can shoot. A single person has the potential to be pretty smart when you get them into a decent conversation, but taken collectively most people are knee jerking idiots running on instinct.

Tamir wrote:
I'll grant you that any change can be defined as destruction of one thing and creation of another, but is that really relevant? Do you wish to say that what got "destroyed" by the creation of Israel caused the violence we see today? Because that just isn't right. The Arabs in Israel behaved no differently than the Arabs in other places in the world when it came to their attitude toward Jews.


Do you really entertain the idea that if the nation had continued as it was before the Jews arrived in numbers things would be the same as they are today? Arabs did not all react the same to a Jewish presence; you said it yourself – when the number of Jews was relatively few there wasn’t a problem. It was only when you increased the number and started to supplant the old order of things that serious problems started. Maybe the underlying attitude of Arabs towards Jews was the same but the fact is the violence itself was not a constant.

Was it hurting anyone? Physically, no; at least not in the short term. But you and I both know that violence is rarely about rational physical gain. You insult someone’s girlfriend at the bar you’re likely to get smacked in the face, you go and chop down someone’s national park you’re not going to be thought of too well. We attach value to things, rarely rationally. In this case they attached value to those things you destroyed. When you want to exist within a culture without causing violence you have to respect that culture, know where the boundaries of your welcome are. When you flood immigrants into a nation, changing its ethnographic makeup, and build cities in the areas they’ve left empty what do you think is going to happen?

If nothing had changed we would not be dealing with the situation we are today.

Regardless my point was that Israel did not have a right to be created, not necessarily that its creation led to bad things.

Tamir wrote:
They did this, not us. We did not come to Israel with the intention of changing anyone's way of life, we came looking for a home for ourselves. We made our own separate settlements or bought land from the Arabs. The reason everything changed the way it did is because they were violent. If they didn't have anything against Jews, then it would hardly have affected them. We would have built cities around them, and they could have gone on living the way they were. But they fought incessantly, and that led to the creation of the state of Israel.


As I think I’ve made the point repeatedly in this thread: responsibility is a shared thing. If they had reacted differently would things be different today? Doubtless. Whether for better or worse I’m not really sure. In all honesty I don’t buy into the idea that you’d just have built cities around them without having a great effect on them. But you don’t get to shirk your share of the responsibility either. If someone comes into my home and tries to kill me and I kill him, it’s not like I’m not responsible for his death – that he is also responsible hardly matters. At the end of the day you made the decision to go there and to do certain things afterwards the consequences of which you are responsible for.

Tamir wrote:
Arabs in Israel have more rights than Arabs in any Arab country in the world. They are citizens as any other, with the right to vote among all other rights. We are not their rulers, we are their equals. We live in a democratic state.


A democratic state is determined in leadership by its largest voting bloc. It doesn’t matter if you live in a democracy if you’re in the minority; democracy represents the choice of the majority of the people, not of the people as a whole. It may well be a benevolent government, although there are significant levels of difference between the social levels of Arabs and Jews, but they are governed.

Tamir wrote:
Come on, Nem, you know what I mean. When I say "the right to live as they want" with respect to Jews, I mean live according to their customs, which (take it from me) don't involve troubling anyone else. I think people should be allowed to do as they wish so long as they don't bother anyone else by it, don't you?


Being free to do as you wish, within obvious environmental constraints, as long as you don’t bother someone is not a right but a natural state. Just the same I fail to see its application here. If someone tries to stop you from doing as you wish then clearly you’ve bothered them in some way. Why should your wishes as to wanting to do something override their wishes for you not to do it?

Edit:

There's a socially negotiated comparison of forces that we come up with to explain why we let people do some things and not others, when they are bothering us. Obviously I'm not suggesting that one person should always be able to gainsay another as a general principle. That's just nuts ^_^

But it's also the problem when you run into an enviroment where wishes contradict if you're going to say that people should be able to do what they want as long as it's not physically hurting people because one group of people want to live in a world where a group aren't in a certain place and one group of people want to live in the world where they are. You can't both live the way you want to.

What happens is something we call respect but is really a more complicated social arrangement of a wider value system and it represents our reluctance to actually enter a physical conflict over things that don't matter to us that much. But it only goes so far. Just as you can't walk down the street swearing at people without getting your head handed to you you can't establish doing as you wish as long as you're not physically hurting people as a principle either. These things aren't rights but something we buy with our potential for violence.

Just as I don't believe you can walk around insulting people freely without consequence I don't believe that as long as you're not physically hurting someone you should be free to do whatever you like without consequence. The world just doesn't work like that, and slightly more importantly to me the world can't work like that since it involves a contradiction between the wishes of the one person to swear and the wishes of the other to go about their business absent of that. Anything that involves a contradiction simply cannot exist. And on a personal level I don't even think such a world would be desirable if it could exist. Not that I can really think what such a world would be like, a world without humans in it probably - or at least a world with severely limited perceptual boundaries.

/edit
Phew, edited that edit chunk quite a bit to try and make it more understandable.

Tamir wrote:
They do now. But Israel wasn't created now. It was created in the wake of the Holocaust, where in over a dozen countries more than 50% of the Jewish population was murdered. It was created in a time where antisemitism was at one of its peaks, and the few countries which gave Jews equal rights did not allow immigration.

I’ll snip these two together since they’re kinda related *magic snip*
Tamir wrote:
I'm calling you on that one. Can you back that up?


As I recall the worst of the post war violence in Europe, separate to Russia and the Soviet bloc, which was pretty much a no go area for any sane person anyway, was the Kielce pogrom and the 1968 polish political conflict. As long as you steered clear of Poland, Germany and Russia there wasn’t really much going on in Europe post WW2. America was Jew friendly, Mexico, Canada. Come to think of it other than Israel the top two nations that Jews went to after World War 2 were America and Canada.
Wikilinks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_Jews
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraków_pogrom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kielce_pogrom
I also am lazy

Tamir wrote:
And even today, there's plenty of antisemitism everywhere. Living alone is the most logical solution for the Jews.


It’s the most logical solution for everyone but even today plenty of Jews manage to deal with living with other cultures without being subjected to vast amounts of anti-semitism so I don’t know to what degree you can say it’s everywhere.

Tamir wrote:
I'm sorry, but no. Just because there are places where Jews live happily, doesn't mean we can ignore all the places where they don't. Especially if the happy places have their gates closed.


It doesn’t mean setting up a new country was the right way to go about it either. The far more rational thing would have been to ease immigration restrictions.

Tamir wrote:
Nothing important in the Middle East, eh? That's a matter of opinion, seeing as they're doing a lot of stuff there. If you don't see it as important, that's your own business, I spose. And while I won't counter the second point, think of it as an investment.


They’re sending a lot of money there, Saudi oil’s there. They’re not really doing anything that important militarily though, there’s the policing action in Iraq but that’s about as big as it gets and they look to be pulling out of that soon enough. When the oil finally goes that’s going to be the end of it anyway, not much reason to have an interest in the ME without that.
_________________
Never forget,
We stroll along the roof of hell
Gazing at flowers.
- Issa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Tenshi



Joined: 18 Apr 2008
Posts: 2594
Location: Star Stuff

PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rolaoi wrote:
No. People mess up religions. I have studied Islam and Muhammed. It was his vision that Jews, Christians, and Muslims were of the same family. Muslim Spain is probably one of the best examples of leaders(at least comparitively) following Islam. The problems arise when people abuse religion for their own goals.


That's actually my point. If you read any religious text (with startling few exceptions that I've found), you will find they espouse peace and tranquility. When people follow the religion, they warp this somehow. Radical sections of faith and ways of believing sprout from violent seeds and spread. These spread into vast stretches, like a blight, choking the peace and love from a faith until it warps it into something evil.

Paganism, Judaism, Christiandom (Catholicism included), Islam/Muhammed, Mormon, even Buddhism... all of these religions have at some point spawned violence. Many of them do so on a daily basis currently, out of some twisted message they've derived from the original true message.

Arguing they are not "true believers" is like saying someone is "not really human" when they do something abhorrent or anti-social. Is a murdered less human? No, they are the same matter we are. Well, not the same, but the same type. See what I'm saying?

Anyhow, I think that maybe this thread is getting a bit heated up. We should all probably take a few breaths to make sure we're not going to let our opinions color our intelligent discussion. Nobody here (I should hope) is attacking Judaism or Islam outright. Nor are they attacking Israel or Palestine. Let's all keep that in mind as we continue, yes?
_________________
. Dubbed "Usagi" by AsA .
Keeper of the Siderean Swords

"If by chance some day you're not feeling well, and you should remember some silly thing I've said or done, and it brings back a smile to your face or a chuckle to your heart, then my purpose as your clown has been fulfilled."
Red Skelton
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Squeeself



Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Posts: 258

PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Squee finds an interesting problem, Nem, where you acknowledge the barbarity of the early 20th century, but are downplaying the antisemitism faced by Jews. If you read up on history, the Holocaust was only the inevitable explosive end to a pot that had long been burning over. In fact, the reason it happened in Germany was merely a result of a powerful state, or it could have happened in any number of places in Europe. It's sickening to read about pre-WW2 Europe's morale state really...The Holocaust simply pushed antisemitism out of favor in polite society...but it's not hard to still find it (albeit usually more mellowed).

It's not hard to see why there was a press to form an Israel state...not only as a reaction to the horrors of the Holocaust, but just as much for people still holding antisemitic views to dump the trouble outside their borders. Even those without an prejudice towards Jews were dealing with Jewish survivors and what to do with them....Why not let them take care of themselves in their own state and then we don't have to be responsible? There were many motives in the British mandate, and not all of them are pleasant.

Interesting parallels can be seen with other population groups throughout history that have been forced out and relocated do to persecutions. On a much smaller scale, the Mormons were driven from the (then) western United States into the wilderness of what was later Utah. The contentions that occurred as Utah population was brought back into the US. Of course, some big differences in that the Mormons always WANTED to be part of the US, but Squee'll stop comparisons as it was just an example of what happens with culture-clashes.

Squee would like to debate your comments on the value-lessness of tundra vs. cities, Nem, but not for this thread...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sunshine



Joined: 05 Sep 2008
Posts: 592
Location: Up in the Clouds

PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

@ Tenshi - Thank you for reminding folks not to let themselves get too heated, I've been gone the last few days and haven't been able to moderate my thread as I ought to.

@ Nem - In regards to our now-defunct debate over motives, I concede the floor to you. Not because I find your arguments more right, mind you, but rather because I haven't the mental energy of late to adequately counter such well-structured points Wink


As for the debate over whether the formation of Israel was a good idea or not... From all I've read and learned about that period of time it was, if not the best answer, then at least the simplest and easiest one for the major world powers to follow through with. Many European nations had the exhausting task of rebuilding themselves, some from scratch, and none of the major powers wanted anything more than to keep to themselves for a while, not have to deal with anyone else's problems.

So many countries that the Jews would have gone to were refusing to take them, leaving thousands of people with absolutely nowhere to go. My grandparents were actually among those; my dad was born in a refugee camp on Cyprus. There are famous stories of people who had it even worse than refugee camps, who were stuck on boats for months because they kept being turned away by various countries who just didn't want to have to deal with their problems, too.

The reasons for Israel's formation were global, and involved far more factors than just the Jews desire for a place of their own and the local Arab tensions over where that place wound up being. I can't imagine that the people trying to form Israel were blind to the consequences of their actions, either. The founders of Israel probably knew full well that what they were doing was pissing off their neighbors, and that by doing so they were inviting a whole heap of trouble upon themselves. And they probably decided that they would rather have to defend a little plot of land to call their own rather than continue to live off the hope of charity they clearly weren't getting from others.

That doesn't make any of what happened, or what is happening now, any more or less right or wrong. I am certain that there were other, potentially better, things that could have been done besides creating a nation in the middle of an area that was unfriendly towards the idea, but it was done, and Israel was created. If it was destroyed tomorrow I suspect that other nations would be much more open to receiving refugees than they were at the end of WWII, but I for one can't fault the Israelis for deciding they rather like their new home, and would prefer to keep it rather than be uprooted yet again. Of course I still disagree completely with the methods they've chosen to use, however that doesn't change my belief that Israel does, at the very least, have the right to defend itself.
_________________
I do commissions!
Interested? Let me know! :D

My deviantART page

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Tinu.



Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Posts: 3690
Location: The land of dreams

PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nem, I was using the US as an example, because it was what immediately came to mind. I'm more than well aware of other people's histories and the crusades. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



Elveron phpBB theme/template by Ulf Frisk and Michael Schaeffer
Copyright © Ulf Frisk, Michael Schaeffer 2004


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group