The Palestinian Question

Having watched the video on Crash Course concerning this topic, and having myself very strong feelings about this topic, I decided to come here and look for discussion. I also attempted to phrase the topic as unambiguously as possible. Let's attempt to keep calm, even though I admit I shall probably be the first to get worked up ^^.

My view: all of the Holy Land, including what the Jews claim as a state, is occupied and must be vacated immediately.
My motivation: Eastern and Central European Jews had no right to migrate en masse into Palestine, let alone claim the land there. Being in need of a country doesn't authorise you to steal it from another people.

Shoot!

Comments

  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,905 ✭✭✭
    Before I disagree with you:

    If a country takes territory as the result of war, do they own it?
    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • OsmanPashaOsmanPasha Posts: 13
    It seems to me that that would depend on your view of geopolitics. If you believe, like the Athenian soldier in Milos, that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must, then the country that conquers does indeed own, but then it has no moral basis for its ownership. It owns it only as long as it can fend off enemies who which to take it back. If you believe, however, that owning the land and having settled and inhabited it for a long while gives you right to it, as the Western nations say they do, then conquest is obviously wrong. You can only take one of the two positions: either the conquest of Palestine of the Jews is the strong overcoming the weak, in which case Russia has the right to retake Ukraine, China Taiwan, etc. or Palestine belongs to the natives and all others must return to their own countries.
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,905 ✭✭✭
    edited January 17
    Let's explore both of those:

    If conquest is valid, then the land of Palestine is rightly owned by the British. If true, do the British have the right to dispose of it as they see fit?

    If conquest is not valid, then the land should be rightly returned to the Canaanite people. In which case, all of the Holy Land, is occupied and must be vacated immediately by everyone. Unless you can find some Canaanites.
    by Rollo
    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • OsmanPashaOsmanPasha Posts: 13
    You are right that if conquest is valid, the British owned the land, and gave it to the Jews, so they own it. However, then the Western nations should stop claiming that it has a divine right to exist, and the efforts of the muslims to reconquer the land are justified. As are all conquest and reconquests which the West condemns (Russia and Ukraine, China and Taiwan, Indonesia and Timor Leste, etc.).

    Also - although I will not pursue this line of argumentation - you could argue that the Canaanites, after they were half expelled from their lands, blended in with the Arabs, which gives gravitas to the Palestinian claim.
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,905 ✭✭✭

    You are right that if conquest is valid, the British owned the land, and gave it to the Jews, so they own it. However, then the Western nations should stop claiming that it has a divine right to exist

    I think that only the "evangelical" right in the United States claims that the modern state of Israel has a "divine" right to exist.
    Quite clearly, the reason that it currently does exist, was because of political efforts and the most visible of these was the Balfour Declaration of 1917.

    You stated:

    My motivation: Eastern and Central European Jews had no right to migrate en masse into Palestine, let alone claim the land there. Being in need of a country doesn't authorise you to steal it from another people.

    I'm curious as to why you chose the word "steal" in the light that Jewish people didn't unanimously do this.

    Also, I'm wondering to what extent you would hold current people living in the land of Canaan responsible for actions taken as much as 100 years ago. If people have been born in a place, should they be deported to somewhere that they did not come from; because of something their great-grandparents did?
    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • OsmanPashaOsmanPasha Posts: 13
    I noticed you didn't follow through with my reasoning ^^ Could it be that you didn't like the conclusion?

    No, let's be serious. Divine was ironic, I just meant right to exist. The phrase is thrown around a lot, and, as I think I have demonstrated, that doesn't hold any water. Also, 'political efforts' is a rather clean word for conquest.

    I never claimed the Jewish people unanimously stole the land, but a noticeable majority did, by choosing to go there while knowing it was occupied territory. Also, they started driving Palestinians off their land, organising into aggressive militias and buying land from absentee landlords.

    Lastly, I don't hold the people responsible, however, they are, by virtue of their ancestry occupiers. If Germany had done this to Belgium (where I come from), or Canada to the US, I would like the descendants to return to where their ancestors came from, for the sake of justice. Especially after committing the atrocities they do.

    Finally, could you please complete the reasoning we started earlier? I'd like to see how you would do that.
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,905 ✭✭✭
    What is your reset point for all of this. At what point in history do you feel that the world went wrong?
    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • OsmanPashaOsmanPasha Posts: 13
    My personal view? I think it went wrong when the West decided that, after more than a century of occupation and exploitation, now all of the sudden war was immoral, the victims could not take revenge. I think the West should be honest that the Jews only stay in the Holy Land by force, and not by virtue of a right to exist. And thus to stop demonising efforts to retake the Holy Land. I have nothing against conquest, just hypocrisy.
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,905 ✭✭✭

    I think the West should be honest that the Jews only stay in the Holy Land by force, and not by virtue of a right to exist.

    If we assume that the modern state of Israel has no right to exist (which I disagree with you about), then who should it be handed back to? The entity which held the land before the British showed up was the Ottoman Empire and they imploded; so that's not viable.

    You can't morally hand the land over to what is the modern state of Israel because the same process which created Israel, also created the modern state of Palestine.

    Also, the two ruling parties of Palestine are deeply problematic.

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp
    Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.
    - Preamble to the Hamas Covenant,

    (Peaceful) initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement... Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands of Islam... There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.
    - Article 13.

    I don't know exactly what the governing charter of Fatah is like but if Hamas is anything to go by, since both were created from the PLO, then that's who you would have in charge of Palestine.
    The reason why I disagree with you, is that assuming you got your wish tomorrow, then many Israelis would flee but the ones that remained, would instantly be subject to the same sort of thing that their grandparents fled Europe from in the first place.
    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • OsmanPashaOsmanPasha Posts: 13
    Where does a right to exist come from? As I think I have shown quite conclusively, such a thing doesn't exist. Either it is by force, or the land belongs to the very original inhabitants. Also, I loved the Ottoman Empire, and I think a form of it should be brought back. By that I mean a Muslim superstate ruling from Algeria to Iraq; that is the state that would rule the Holy Land. The process, as you call it, which created the terrorist and oppressionist 'state' of the Jews was a process of force and theft, and therefore the Palestinians should have the right to take back what they lost. Again, where does a right to exist come from?

    As to your point about the parties, I tend to agree with their points of view. The international treaties do tend to want recognition for the Jewish state, which I don't agree with. Either they will be wiped away from the map, or the Palestinians and the Muslims will. Concerning the status of the Jews, all should go back to where they came from. In Europe they were subjected wrongfully to abuse. After what they did in Palestine, it would be rightful punishment.
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,905 ✭✭✭

    Concerning the status of the Jews, all should go back to where they came from. In Europe they were subjected wrongfully to abuse. After what they did in Palestine, it would be rightful punishment.

    Well there's a thing:

    If Germany had done this to Belgium (where I come from), or Canada to the US, I would like the descendants to return to where their ancestors came from, for the sake of justice.

    L'existence de la Belgique vous ennuie-t-elle?

    In Europe they were subjected wrongfully to abuse. After what they did in Palestine, it would be rightful punishment.

    Unless you are the Mongols... Wow. Just wow. :o
    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • OsmanPashaOsmanPasha Posts: 13
    I'm afraid I didn't understand anything of what you said ^^ And also, vous parlez français? Car moi, je viens de la Flandre, donc ma première langue est le flamand.
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,905 ✭✭✭
    The story is much more complicated than what follows:

    Belgium if you will recall, was literally created out of thin air after a series of wars following the French Revolution, between a France that still wasn't sure what it was and the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Throw Napoleon and the fall of his empire, the reunification of the Low Countries and an independent Belgian revolution and you get the installation of Leopold in 1831.

    Nobody questions Belgium's right to exist, even though it came about through the annexation of part of one country by another and subsequent revolutions which followed.

    I think the West should be honest that the Jews only stay in the Holy Land by force, and not by virtue of a right to exist. And thus to stop demonising efforts to retake the Holy Land. I have nothing against conquest, just hypocrisy.

    This is a problem: "retake the Holy Land"

    Who exactly?

    The Ottoman Empire doesn't exist any more and the only reason that the modern state of Palestine does exist, is exactly the same reason why the modern state of Israel exists.

    Both sides have consistently proven to be vile; yet I wouldn't suggest that either of them doesn't have the right to exist. Ideally, I would like to see a single unified state, which has a complex power sharing arrangement like Northern Ireland or even Belgium does but neither side wants that; so a two state solution is probably what we should have (and at the 1967 borders).


    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • So, full disclosure, I usually avoid this topic like the plague. Contentious and almost always consist of veiled racism. My partner is Jewish, I prefer to avoid it. That said, my two cents: There is no country in the world today that was formed by simple peaceful 'Lets live here.' Conquest and war have always been involved.

    Does this mean Israel is in the right? No. But is it acting in some heretofore-unseenly horrible way? Also no. It's a complex situation made worse by evolving standards of national behaviour that are moving much faster than the conflict.
    United against worldsuck
  • OsmanPashaOsmanPasha Posts: 13
    I will reply to both comments. To begin with: the reason why nobody questions Belgium being there is because it was the people who lived there who seceded, not Frenchmen or Dutch who migrated there en masse and displaced the people. Also, when I speak of retaking, I am talking about the muslim civilisation, which is a transhistorical entity embodied periodically in a few powerful states. The Ottoman Empire was the latest incarnation of that, but it was only an incarnation.

    Also, I agree with the second comment that conquest and war have always been involved, the only thing I am saying is that the muslims should be allowed to conquer back what they lost. If you say the standards have changed, then my reply is: they have been changed by European nations at a point in time particularly beneficial to them ^^ Doesn't sound very fair to me.
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,905 ✭✭✭
    edited January 24
    Presumably you also object to the existence of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq as well?


    Also, I agree with the second comment that conquest and war have always been involved, the only thing I am saying is that the muslims should be allowed to conquer back what they lost.

    Does this also mean that you agree with one of the aims of ISIS, in setting up an Islamic caliphate?
    by Rollo
    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • OsmanPashaOsmanPasha Posts: 13
    Oh God no, he brought up ISIS, now I'm going to have to scramble back, do away with all my sound arguments and grovel in fear or otherwise I'm terrorist.

    My friend, we are sophisticated and grown up men, can we please leave out arguments from political incorrectness? They don't help the discussion and make me rather sad.

    I do indeed object to the existence of the named states, but not for the same reason. They are fake states set up by westerners that hamper the path to a strong muslim state in the Middle-East, able to defend the rights of muslims worldwide. I don't believe all muslims should be united in one state (that would be unmanageable), however, I do believe there must be a strong, centralised muslim state able to stand up for all the others. That is indeed the Caliphate. It had been embodied in various ways throughout history, first that of the Rightly Guided caliphs, then the Umayyads, the Abbasids and finally the Ottomans. I believe such a state is necessary to be able to stand up to a West that loves dominating and exploiting.

    That said, of course I don't condone ISIS' beheadings, mass slaughters, genocide agains the Jazidis, harsh laws against women, rape, murders, etc. They represent in no way the civilised old islam of the Ottomans, the Moroccans, the Moguls and the Persians.

    Now could you please answer the arguments brought forward :)
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,905 ✭✭✭


    Oh God no, he brought up ISIS, now I'm going to have to scramble back, do away with all my sound arguments and grovel in fear or otherwise I'm terrorist.

    My friend, we are sophisticated and grown up men, can we please leave out arguments from political incorrectness? They don't help the discussion and make me rather sad.

    Absolutely. It's just that when you spoke pf punishment earlier, for what might the actions of someone's grandparents, I wasn't exactly sure what I was dealing with.

    The thing is though that history itself is complex. You will remember though that Abdulaziz signed the Darin Pact with Britain in 1915, in which he agreed to enter the war against the Ottomans in exchange for becoming a nation and Saudi Arabia and Jordan in particular aren't really the result of the west's imposition of the concept of the nation state.

    All of those places have complex histories. Syria is the result of several things coalescing but the Lebanon was distinctly different with mostly Maronite peoples, Muslims and Druze living there; with Greek Orthodox people.

    That said, of course I don't condone ISIS' beheadings, mass slaughters, genocide agains the Jazidis, harsh laws against women, rape, murders, etc. They represent in no way the civilised old islam of the Ottomans, the Moroccans, the Moguls and the Persians.

    Let me apologise. That was clumsy. I should have thought.
    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • OsmanPashaOsmanPasha Posts: 13
    Don't worry about it, I get that a lot. I don't think, however, that a supporter of IS would go to the nerdfighteria forums, let alone try to have a discussion. He would probably try to blow you up. Convinced that he is right of course.

    Concerning the punishment, I never said they had to be punished for what their grandparents did, but for the brutality they are currently inflicting, along with their refusal to vacate occupied territory.

    I don't think the British supported Abdulaziz Ibn Saud, they aided the Shareef of Mecca, whose plan was to found a pan-Arab state including the Holy Land. That ideal was inspired by the spread of European nationalism, with rather bad consequences in my opinion, not least of which is Saudi-Arabia itself, which spreads its destructive ideology (using our Western money) across the muslim world. We pay them big time for their oil and complain about terrorists in our backyard. Syria was a purely Franco-British construct, as was Iraq, Lebanon, most of the gulf states, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, etc. All began with the influence of European nationalism, aiming to split the Muslim world. It's as old as Ceasar: divide and conquer.
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,905 ✭✭✭

    along with their refusal to vacate occupied territory.

    About 75% of the Jewish population currently living in Israel was born there. Where would you deport these people to?

    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • OsmanPashaOsmanPasha Posts: 13
    Should practical considerations be allowed to obstruct justice? Because if that is so, then slavery would never have been abolished; the entire economy of whole civilisations used to be built on it.

    Also, I should think they should go back where they came from, namely Eastern Europe. But as long as they vacate the occupied territory, it's none of my business where they want to go.
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,905 ✭✭✭

    Also, I should think they should go back where they came from, namely Eastern Europe.

    The 75% of people who were both there, didn't come from Eastern Europe.
    Also, the countries which their grandparents came from, might not actually exist anymore. Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and the USSR, spring to mind.

    Should practical considerations be allowed to obstruct justice?

    Is it just to deport people to a place where they didn't come from and can't speak the language?



    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • OsmanPashaOsmanPasha Posts: 13
    Their origins lie in Eastern Europe, and, as they were born in occupied territory, that is the only connection they have left to any country and their only chance at being part of a state. The countries you mention were temporary and rather fake; they can just go back to their region of origin, no matter which modern country it's in.

    Wouldn't you have abolished slavery even though it led to nasty consequences, such as the collapse of whole economies and empires? It's the same here;
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,905 ✭✭✭

    they can just go back to their region of origin

    If you are born somewhere, isn't that your "region of origin"?
    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • OsmanPashaOsmanPasha Posts: 13
    Not if that is in occupied territory. I think there are even some UN regulations about that, that's how obvious the principle is.
  • Their origins lie in Israel.
Sign In or Register to comment.