Philosophy Discussion Forums

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑November 9th, 2023, 6:18 am If Israel would just give a little, offer the Palestinians something, at least a hope of establishing an independent Palestinian state, then I could see a way for this to be resolved. Otherwise this horror will continue.

What Israel will never offer is its own annihilation, which is what most Palestinians want.

"In 2014, 60% of Palestinians said the final goal of their national movement should be "to work toward reclaiming all of historic Palestine from the river to the sea". A poll published in 2021 by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research revealed that 39% of Palestinians support "the two-state solution" and 59% are opposed;…"

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution

The Palestinians would have had a state of their own for many decades if the Arabs hadn't rejected the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine.

"The Arab get-togethers from Bludan onward had been marked by disunity, mutual suspicion, and cross-purposes. The antagonisms and suspicions undermined any hope of firm, realistic decision-making in the League councils. At the same time, in order not to appear weak-kneed and hesitant, moderate rulers—such as 'Abdullah—allowed themselves to be pressed into extremist policies (or at least utterances), lest they be seen as insufficiently zealous. All paid lip service to Arab unity and the Palestine Arab cause, and all opposed partition. But all were at a loss about how to prevent it. Most, though they could not admit it to the others (or, perhaps, to themselves), knew that their armies were weak. Egypt and Jordan’s military commanders estimated that the Haganah would prove formidable; other Arabs may have been more optimistic. One thing was clear, however: there could be no intervention so long as the British were in Palestine. None wished to fight the British, with whom most were aligned and who all understood were too powerful to challenge.

Still, having committed themselves to oppose partition, the Arab leaders felt they had to do something. The public bluster, the fear of their own populations whom they had helped whip up with militant rhetoric into a frenzy, and the pressure of fellow Arab politicians and leaders all combined to egg them on. The Arab states had embarked on a course leading to war. What remained to be seen was who exactly would take part and how it would all end."

(Morris, Benny. 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. p. 73)

"The immediate trigger of the 1948 War was the November 1947 UN partition resolution. The Zionist movement, except for its fringes, accepted the proposal. Most lamented the imperative of giving up the historic heartland of Judaism, Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), with East Jerusalem’s Old City and Temple Mount at its core; and many were troubled by the inclusion in the prospective Jewish state of a large Arab minority. But the movement, with Ben-Gurion and Weizmann at the helm, said “yes.”

The Palestinian Arabs, along with the rest of the Arab world, said a flat “no”—as they had in 1937, when the Peel Commission had earlier proposed a two-state solution. The Arabs refused to accept the establishment of a Jewish state in any part of Palestine. And, consistently with that “no,” the Palestinian Arabs, in November–December 1947, and the Arab states in May 1948, launched hostilities to scupper the resolution’s implementation. Many Palestinians may have been unenthusiastic about going to war—but to war they went. They may have been badly led and poorly organized; the war may have been haphazardly unleashed; and many able-bodied males may have avoided service. But Palestinian Arab society went to war, and no Palestinian leader publicly raised his voice in protest or dissent.

The Arab war aim, in both stages of the hostilities, was, at a minimum, to abort the emergence of a Jewish state or to destroy it at inception. The Arab states hoped to accomplish this by conquering all or large parts of the territory allotted to the Jews by the United Nations. And some Arab leaders spoke of driving the Jews into the sea and ridding Palestine “of the Zionist plague.” The struggle, as the Arabs saw it, was about the fate of Palestine/the Land of Israel, all of it, not over this or that part of the country. But, in public, official Arab spokesmen often said that the aim of the May 1948 invasion was to “save” Palestine or “save the Palestinians,” definitions more agreeable to Western ears."

(Morris, Benny. 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. p. 396)

"Such sentiments translated into action in 1948. During the “civil war,” when the opportunity arose, Palestinian militiamen who fought alongside the Arab Legion consistently expelled Jewish inhabitants and razed conquered sites, as happened in the 'Etzion Bloc and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City. Subsequently, the Arab armies behaved in similar fashion. All the Jewish settlements conquered by the invading Jordanian, Syrian, and Egyptian armies—about a dozen in all, including Beit Ha'arava, Neve Ya'akov, and 'Atarot in the Jordanian sector; Masada and Sha'ar Hagolan in the Syrian sector; and Yad Mordechai, Nitzanim, and Kfar Darom in the Egyptian sector—were razed after their inhabitants had fled or been incarcerated or expelled.

These expulsions by the Arab regular armies stemmed quite naturally from the expulsionist mindset prevailing in the Arab states. The mindset characterized both the public and the ruling elites. All vilified the Yishuv and opposed the existence of a Jewish state on “their” (sacred Islamic) soil, and all sought its extirpation, albeit with varying degrees of bloody-mindedness. Shouts of “Idbah al Yahud” (slaughter the Jews) characterized equally street demonstrations in Jaffa, Cairo, Damascus, and Baghdad both before and[410] during the war and were, in essence, echoed, usually in tamer language, by most Arab leaders. We do not have verbatim minutes of what these leaders said in closed inter-Arab gatherings. But their statements to Western diplomats, where caution was usually required, were candid enough. “It was possible that in the first phases of the Jewish-Arab conflict the Arabs might meet with initial reverses,” King Farouk told the American ambassador to Egypt, S. Pinckney Tuck, just after the passage of the UN General Assembly partition resolution. “[But] in the long run the Arabs would soundly defeat the Jews and drive them out of Palestine.” A few weeks earlier, that other potentate, King Ibn Sa'ud of Saudi Arabia, had written to President Truman: “The Arabs have definitely decided to oppose [the] establishment of a Jewish state in any part of the Arab world. The dispute between the Arab and Jew will be violent and long-lasting. . . . Even if it is supposed that the Jews will succeed in gaining support for the establishment of a small state by their oppressive and tyrannous means and their money, such a state must perish in a short time. The Arab will isolate such a state from the world and will lay siege to it until it dies by famine. . . . Its end will be the same as that of [the] Crusader states.” The establishment of Israel, and the international endorsement that it enjoyed, enraged the Arab world; destruction and expulsion were to be its lot. Without doubt, Arab expulsionism fueled Zionist expulsionist thinking during the 1930s and 1940s."

(Morris, Benny. 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. pp. 409-10)

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑November 5th, 2023, 8:17 am The Palestinian people have been trying for three generations () to rid their country of a brutal, USA-sponsored/nurtured/financed, military occupation.

Good_Egg wrote: ↑November 9th, 2023, 5:00 am The view you're putting forward here is that the situation is one of military occupation. And that this justifies terrorism (the deliberate killing of civilians on "the other side").

I wouldn't go so far as to say that occupation "justifies terrorism", but I would say that it nudges us toward judging the action of resistance-fighters — freedom-fighters? — in a more tolerant and understanding light. Let's ask ourselves the questions a jury should ask of themselves. Are these the actions of decent and reasonable people? Might I (we?) do the same in their situation/circumstances?

Good_Egg wrote: ↑November 9th, 2023, 5:00 am How many other places in the world does this apply to ?

Wherever the same (or very similar) circumstances prevail?

Good_Egg wrote: ↑November 9th, 2023, 5:00 am This isn't "whataboutery". It's a challenge to you to expand your sympathy for the Palestinians into a philosophy of international governance that the "community of nations" can apply universally.

Because there is no moral right that is not universal.

Well said. I believe my sentiments apply to all who find themselves in similar circumstances to those of the Palestinians. My personal guidelines in such matters are fairness and justice for all. By the latter, I mean that an ideal settlement of any such problem is fair and just (in this example) to Palestinians, Israelis, Lebanese, Iranians, Americans... In short, to all humanity. And this would lead us directly to the conclusion that the only significant difference between the Ukraine and Palestine is the length of time the occupation has continued. And so forth.

Yes, Consul, more about the past. But don't you see, the past isn't the point. It's abut now.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑November 9th, 2023, 11:08 am Yes, Consul, more about the past. But don't you see, the past isn't the point. It's abut now.

The present isn't disconnected from the past, and for an assessment of the current situation the historical development must be taken into consideration.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑November 9th, 2023, 11:07 amI wouldn't go so far as to say that occupation "justifies terrorism", but I would say that it nudges us toward judging the action of resistance-fighters — freedom-fighters? — in a more tolerant and understanding light. Let's ask ourselves the questions a jury should ask of themselves. Are these the actions of decent and reasonable people? Might I (we?) do the same in their situation/circumstances?

Calling Islamists like the Hamas guys "freedom-fighters" is a bad joke, because the only freedom they're fighting for is the freedom to eradicate liberal democracies and to establish Islamic theocracies worldwide.

Expecting reasonable behavior from those in long-term unreasonable situations is disingenuous.

LuckyR wrote: ↑November 9th, 2023, 3:09 pm Expecting reasonable behavior from those in long-term unreasonable situations is disingenuous.

Exactly. It's like expecting two people having a fist fight to stop immediately because someone said, "Stop! This is wrong!'.

----

Lagaya, I find it odd that you criticise Israel for not employing a two-state solution but, when Consul points out how Palestine has previously rejected that, you tell him not to focus on the past. That's not being super objective, or even reasonable.

I spent my life as a "good lefty" supporting the underdog. It's only more recently that I've realised just how many underdogs are in that situation through their own actions.

If Palestine had compromised, they could have theoretically spent decades working towards the prosperity of their people. Regular Palestinian people are now either scattered and homeless, or acting as expendable human shields for Hamas fighters. The people suffer due to the Palestinian leadership's inability to compromise, to accept second best. The leadership essentially insists that all Palestinians fight to the death, even though most would prefer a life of work, family and hobbies.

THE BRICS FOREVER!

It's amusing when people support politics like a sporting team. Also dangerous.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 9th, 2023, 4:14 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑November 9th, 2023, 3:09 pm Expecting reasonable behavior from those in long-term unreasonable situations is disingenuous.

Exactly. It's like expecting two people having a fist fight to stop immediately because someone said, "Stop! This is wrong!'.

----

Lagaya, I find it odd that you criticise Israel for not employing a two-state solution but, when Consul points out how Palestine has previously rejected that, you tell him not to focus on the past. That's not being super objective, or even reasonable.

Yes, I agree that the Palestinians, under very bad leadership, have made mistakes in the past re an agreement. There are wrongs on both sides. But surely, what matters now is to get the hostages freed, stop the violence and work towards a lasting solution. At some point the wreckage of the past has to be swept away in order to build something better.

Who’s land is it anyway? Surely israel belongs to the israelis and not the palestinians. They can’t help it if the romans spread the jews to the wind, and just because the palestinians then gained the lands at some point, it was still stolen and they are in receipt of stolen property.

Imagine if it were britain or america, and someone kicked us of our land, we would want it back right! ..and irrespective of how much time had elapsed.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑November 9th, 2023, 11:24 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 9th, 2023, 4:14 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑November 9th, 2023, 3:09 pm Expecting reasonable behavior from those in long-term unreasonable situations is disingenuous.

Exactly. It's like expecting two people having a fist fight to stop immediately because someone said, "Stop! This is wrong!'.

----

Lagaya, I find it odd that you criticise Israel for not employing a two-state solution but, when Consul points out how Palestine has previously rejected that, you tell him not to focus on the past. That's not being super objective, or even reasonable.

Yes, I agree that the Palestinians, under very bad leadership, have made mistakes in the past re an agreement. There are wrongs on both sides. But surely, what matters now is to get the hostages freed, stop the violence and work towards a lasting solution. At some point the wreckage of the past has to be swept away in order to build something better.

What I see is Hamas and the IDF achieving military objectives, each of which means the displacement and death of regular Palestinians on the Strip.

The aims you speak of are fine but, once war starts, the realities of war will play out in their own way due to strategic issues around timing. War, like disease, tends to take on a life of its own, which is why it's so important to avoid opening Pandora's Box. Not sure why Hamas thought provoking a conflict that would be a disaster for their people would be a good idea. According to polls, Hamas's popularity has been waning for some time, falling behind that of Fatah. There's nothing Fatah can do once Palestine is at war.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 9th, 2023, 8:46 pm It's amusing when people support politics like a sporting team. Also dangerous.

Hardly supporting a political movement like a sporting team, the global power structure is shifting away from an oppressive unipolar colonial artifact to a multipolar world. The West as the historic colonizer, has carried on the tradition to the present day, and does not like losing its slave states or former colonies. Israeli made a mistake in depending on the United States for its unjust existence, for the American Empire is in decline. Its struggles against the rest of the world is irrational and just may be the demise of us all, but as a lone superpower it is finished. We have never known a world where some powerful technological and militarily advanced nation wasn't trying to enslave the world. A new day has dawned, the formally oppressed are knocking at the door, and if necessary, will kick it down to restore an even playing field for all nations. America has been a brutal master and is projecting that savagery upon the world of it former victims. The statement, " THE BRICS FOREVER," IS ONE THAT CUTS THROUGH THE ********. The obvious is at hand. Free Palestine!!

You have proved my point.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 10th, 2023, 5:39 am You have proved my point.

Very convincing--- lol!!