The Middle-East and Arab-Israeli debate

[Ferinex]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_day_war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War

The terrible historical and varying fates of the Jewish nation in the diaspora was settled in blood in 1948, when Israel first bravely fought for its independence. I firmly stand by her side.

You also support the genocide and displacement of the Arab people who were living there when the Jews/Zionists arrived after WWII?

Feel free to make another thread about it.

[jorb]

Zionism as an ideology is essentially justified by the historical situation of the Jews in the diaspora, that is their perceived exile from their ancient ancestral homeland. The view that the jewish state is not necessary to the survival of the jewish people is false, under this viewpoint, See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Herzl and his shifting attitudes concerning jewish assimilation during the late 19th century, especially as affected by the events of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair , a convincing proof that European antisemitism was an ideology endemic to western civilization, which could not be eradicated. The same French republic that had granted jewish citizens their nationality a mere liftetime earlier had now turned around and stabbed european jewry in the back. That history was already all too familiar from jewish history in eastern and central Europe, where german and polish princely states would welcome the jews one day, only to burn them alive the next. The same situation is then repeated in Germany after the first world war, and later even in Bolskehvik Russia, to which many intellectuals within the Jewish socialist tradition had otherwise set their hopes.

To understand the first thing about the Israeli mentality, we must first understand these things. These are fundamental parts of the Israeli worldview. To the Israelis, the conflict in the Middle-East is ultimately about the survival of the jewish people. Denying that this is a legitimate perspective is, simply, nonsensical given actual history.

Survival is a sub-moral motive. You cannot judge what is necessary.

The collapse of the Ottoman empire after the first world war left behind it a power vacuum in the middle east which british colonial will, though try it may, was no longer powerful enough to fill. The strains of empire growing, the area that is now referred to as the broader middle east was in a state of political flux. The last legitimate borders that can be established in the area are, in my opinion, the Ottoman borders. Under this perspective it becomes evident that any claim made in this area after WWI is the product of ethnic or cultural nationalism, arab or jewish, rather than justified historical claims. When faced with two nationalisms, our tertium non datur becomes: Do we recognize ethnic nationalism as a justified ideology, or do we not? The only two alternatives then become to view them as either both false, or both legitimate. Either way, there is no meaningful way to make moral distinctions between the overlapping claims: To the victor go the spoils. Israel won. I admire her courage.

Please note that I do not deny that there is an arab tragedy, because I do not. Descriptions of arab or jewish suffering are not interesting to put forth as evidence, because it is not under dispute. I will not play the game of trading sobstories. I.e. I only talk Realpolitik.

[Ferinex]

The idea that the suffering and victimization of a people in the past should be used as justification for the displacement of another race is absurd. Israel and the Zionists/Jews are forcing individuals from their homes, using their own rape as moralization. If a people or idea is incapable of surviving and coexisting with the other ideologies of the world, then that is merely a form of social evolution. That is not to say that the Jewish religion and people are incapable of existing peacefully in this world--they most definitely are. Many Western countries have freedoms that guarantee the Semites (and all others) the right to live and worship. Just as there should not be a pure German nation, there should be no pure Jewish nation. A people does not 'earn' the right to take others' land by being beaten up throughout history--you can not hold any man responsible for the sins of his father.
Now, let me clarify: I am not saying the Jews should 'gtfo' of Israel. I am saying that if they wish to live there, they need to coexist with the Arab population. Just as the Turks living in Germany should not expect to claim Germany as 'New Turkey', the Zionists in Palestine should not be claiming Palestine as their own.

[jorb]

If I understand you correctly, you seem to believe that there is no such thing as the justified expansion of a state by force of arms. You believe that this principle, if upheld in international affairs, would lead, on the whole, to more peaceful human relations. I do not agree with this. I believe that there are many historical cases where we, in hindsight, have very little alternative to recognizing the spoils of a conquest by force, as legitimized retrospectively, simply because it is the de facto status.

Let us assume for a moment that I were to agree with you. The events leading up to the Palestinian exodus puts the Israeli state at fault for the expulsion of some parts of the Arab population, then what does the conclusion become? That the state of Israel should now, 60 years later, be dismantled, along with every city ever built on land formerly claimed by Arabs? Should the United States then perhaps also be dismantled, and her cities returned to the primitive wilderness that existed before the arrival of the white man to the New World? Why would we stop there? Why shouldn't the Roman Empire be resurrected? Or even the first Jewish Kingdom?

Perhaps you will now say: I do not want that, all I want is the right of return. But the return to what? The Arab houses and villages do not exist anymore. Should the Arabs, quite simply, be given the land, along with all the houses -- the Skyscrapers in Haifa -- that have been built upon it since? Do you not see how this would be an equally great injustice? To deny the work and labor of two generations, largely unconnected with the events of -48, who have lived in these areas since?

We must recognize that the right of return is equal to the destruction of the state of Israel, and the end of an open and proud Jewish presence in the Levant. Fluffy multiculturalisms aside, we must recgonize that the militant and determining forces on the Arab side of the conflict are hell bent on a second holocaust of the Jewish people -- Hamas, al Fatah, etc.. If the 'right of return' were to be enforced, Israel would die a demographic death (though I suspect it would be bloodier than that expression quite conveys). You can not uphold the idea of the right to return under the false banner of neutrality and non-recognition of the conflict's ethnic dimension, simply because that denies one of the major externalities of any enforcement of that 'right'. The reason I talk about the origins of Zionism is not necessarily because I believe that Zionism is a justified ideology. I do not feel the need to have an opinion about that, and whatever my conclusion would be, it would be just that: An opinion. The reason I talk about it is so as to make it abundantly clear what the perspective of the Jewish nation is. Regardless of whether it is true or not: Israel perceives herself as fighting for the survival not just of the nation, but of the Jewish people.

I sympathize with Israel largely on account of her qualities. The nation and state of Israel is a (relatively) secular, democratic and tolerant society that allows for the freedom of worship, freedom of speech and, for lack of better word, the pursuit of happiness. There is not under the sun one Arab state that shares those qualities, and I strongly doubt that wheel-chair Saruman and his ilk would be the guys to bring that about. Do the motive ideologies of the Arabs not disturb you in the slightest? Do you deny, for example, that Hamas is a fascist organization? My opinion is that Israel has proven her right to exist by fighting for, and winning it. Undoing that would be an act of aggression. I would have a great deal more sympathy for the Arab cause, were it not represented by people who believe that the use of force is the only way to settle a conflict, because I emphatically disagree with that proposition.

But I do recognize that that it is one way of doing it.

[jorb]

Also, let us not try to fool ourselves into thinking that there is some sort of "perfect" or "ideal" solution to this conflict. It is a fucking mess. The historical records for the events of -48 are in many instances poor, with the witness reports being largely partisan. If we look at some of the records:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ma ... _Palestine

We can observe what is best described as a brutal civil war in a previously unified country now lacking a central law upholding authority. Before the British, the Ottomans. Please do note, however, that I use the word war here, as opposed to a one sided oppression of one by the other. I am not claiming that Lehi and Irgun were the nicest lads on the block, because, clearly, they were not, but you know what, welcome to the jungle. Shit happens. If I were born as an Arab boy in the 1920s, of course I would go kill Jews. If I were born to a family of Jewish immigrants, of course I feel that I have a right to exist and live in that country. Is this really something to be judged morally? Do both sides not, have their points to make?

And does it not then become only a question of who is the better fighter? In a battle where the stakes are the fundamentals existence of either side, are we not, naturally, more beasts than men? Should we not be?

Because I know that, for me at least, If I am fighting for my life, or believe myself to be. All bets are off.

[Elirian]

Victory is not justification. The logical conclusion of your argument is that annihilation of any who oppose you is ipso facto just.

While you can make the case that annihilation can be just, I do not think you can argue that it is just by its very nature. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your statements as a little too all encompassing.

Sorry, for reference, I'm talking about this statement:

Do both sides not, have their points to make?

And does it not then become only a question of who is the better fighter?

If there are points to be made it is a matter of determining which points are more valid and appropriate, or seeking compromise, not pointing guns at each others faces. The law of the jungle belongs in the jungle. Are we men, or beasts? Is life as a beast worth fighting for? If there is duality, is life as a part beast part man worth fighting for? Should we not welcome the chance to move beyond such a state, as we have transcended other laws of nature?

A lot of the fundamentals behind your logic are where I find myself disagreeing. The question is complex enough that the answer 'might makes right, that's reality' leaves me dissatisfied. Changing reality is within our power.

[Granger]

Perhaps you will now say: I do not want that, all I want is the right of return. But the return to what? The Arab houses and villages do not exist anymore. Should the Arabs, quite simply, be given the land, along with all the houses -- the Skyscrapers in Haifa -- that have been built upon it since? Do you not see how this would be an equally great injustice? To deny the work and labor of two generations, largely unconnected with the events of -48, who have lived in these areas since?

vs.

I strongly believe that Germany has unsettled borders in the east, in Königsberg, East Prussia, now Kaliningrad Oblast, Russia. That land was stolen from Germany after the second world war. The murderous evils of Adolf Hitler are not reason enough to unjustly take, subjugate, occupy and ethnically cleanse land that has been legitimately German for centuries. German civilians were forcibly located away from land that had been their Urheimat for centuries, and subjected to horrible fates in soviet death camps. This is a terrible injustice that I think should be rectified by the swift return of East Prussia to Germany, and the barbarous blasphemy that is Kaliningrad, be replaced again by a restored Königsberg.

(from Regarding The Forums: Welcome to H&H)

Unless your point was that germany should swiftly invade: please decide on one strategy to be right.

[jorb]

I judge two different historical situations differently, what is the problem?

[jorb]

If there are points to be made it is a matter of determining which points are more valid and appropriate, or seeking compromise, not pointing guns at each others faces. The law of the jungle belongs in the jungle. Are we men, or beasts? Is life as a beast worth fighting for? If there is duality, is life as a part beast part man worth fighting for? Should we not welcome the chance to move beyond such a state, as we have transcended other laws of nature?

A lot of the fundamentals behind your logic are where I find myself disagreeing. The question is complex enough that the answer 'might makes right, that's reality' leaves me dissatisfied. Changing reality is within our power.

I think this is a type of utopian thinking that is directly dangerous. Human nature is not infinitely elastic. Also, since I am not a Christian, I do not believe that the highest form of transcendence would consist in allowing yourself to be trampled upon.

[Elirian]

If there are points to be made it is a matter of determining which points are more valid and appropriate, or seeking compromise, not pointing guns at each others faces. The law of the jungle belongs in the jungle. Are we men, or beasts? Is life as a beast worth fighting for? If there is duality, is life as a part beast part man worth fighting for? Should we not welcome the chance to move beyond such a state, as we have transcended other laws of nature?

A lot of the fundamentals behind your logic are where I find myself disagreeing. The question is complex enough that the answer 'might makes right, that's reality' leaves me dissatisfied. Changing reality is within our power.

I think this is a type of utopian thinking that is directly dangerous. Human nature is not infinitely elastic. Also, since I am not a Christian, I do not believe that the highest form of transcendence would consist in allowing yourself to be trampled upon.

My point is that trampling is bestial, not that being trampled is noble That there are always alternatives to putting a gun to someones face, it's just a matter of discovering what price you're willing to pay for your humanity, and at what point you revert to the beast. I don't propose turning the gun on yourself as an alternative, although many have throughout history. I simply propose that kill or be killed is a false dichotomy, in this situation and almost all others.

I also think human nature can be infinitely elastic, given time. What use is reason if we cannot define ourselves with it? But that's another debate!