Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Israel/Palestine
In reply to the discussion: Israel Hate is Anti-Semitism [View all]Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)296. My ethical argument...
mostly focuses on the importance of establishing a Jewish state, not that it must happen in Palestine. The main reason I never rejected he legitimacy of Palestine being the site chosen for this endeavor hinges on there not being any argument against choosing it that outweighed those in favor. After all, it IS the site of the Jews' historical homeland and their religion did focus on their eventual return as a pre-ordained goal. And there was already a sizable Jewish population there... around one sixth or one seventh of the whole. So we know why they wanted it. Barring a solidly more compelling reason to reject it, why would anyone want to deny the Zionists their first choice?
Even Article 22 LoN stated: Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized........ Britain and France chose to ignore this of course.
Ignore it regarding Palestine and Syria, sure. Why, do you really think that Palestine had "reached a stage of development where its existence as independent nation could be provisionally recognized" in a similar respect as states like Turkey, (whose population had just effectively ruled over Palestine and Syria's for 400 years?)
How can you possibly claim that the concept of modern nations did not exist for Palestinians? Quite clearly, by the early 1920s, the concept of the modern nation was a major debating point for the Palestinians.
It was by 1920, sure. As a less-desirable option in the event their pan-Arab merge with Syria failed. But Article 22 required that it be more than just an often-disagreed upon talking point before agreeing to recognize their state as an independent nation.
I agree with you.........Whether they were afraid of being disenfranchised as Arabs or as Palestinians is immaterial.......What is the point you are trying to make?
The Palestinian Arabs were not fighting for the independence of the same Palestine that you describe here when you insist that Palestine's population have the right to self-determination over the entirety of Palestine. They were fighting for the right of self-determination over the whole of Palestine, true... but saw it as an exclusively Arab state, existing ONLY for the Arab members of Palestine. Those members being that same population you earlier waxed on idealistically about when describing the poetically integrated ideal state they would doubtlessly have created, had the Zionists not ensured it would be stillborn.
In reality, the Palestinian Arab Congress sought self-determination for themselves only, opposing any policies or actions that would benefit the Jews or their nationalist designs on the state the congress considered to be exclusively Arab in its entirety.
Do you disagree with the principle of self-determination for ex-colonial peoples after WW1 or is it just that you think the indigenous people living in the area covered by the Palestine Mandate were somehow different from all the other peoples and did not deserve self-determination?
I do not think that all ex-colonial people deserve equal consideration for self-determination, if that's what you mean. For instance, I don't judge the right of Palestinian Arabs to SD as being equal to the Jewish claim to it. Why would the rights of a JUST formed, small sub-sect of the Arab people be equivalent to the rights of the whole of the Jewish people, regardless of race, geography, etc.? And I certainly do not think that anyone has the RIGHT to express self-determination over the entirety of a shared region to the exclusion of all other national groups living there. Self determination may be a right. But it does not come with a guarantee of a specific amount of land to then rule over.
Wait a minute, what are you referring to?.......When did Arab arrivals in Morocco take over control from the indigenous Berbers.......My history books say about the 1600s......Your example of ethics as applied to indigenous peoples is rather far back in time isnt it?
My point is that any system that ended up guaranteeing the rights of the Arab people two dozen times over and the rights of any of the non-Arab minority groups ZERO times could probably use some tinkering. Especially if you desire an outcome rooted in ethical ideals.
Now, can you explain again why ethically speaking, the US was right to promote Palestine as a homeland for the Jews as against Nevada?
I was not aware that the US ever did promote Palestine as the homeland for the Jews at all, let alone instead of Nevada. I would say that ethically speaking, the US should have no say in determining where the Jewish people decide for their homeland.
So the fact that Zionists were pushing Britain to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine whilst Palestinians themselves hadnt got it together is ethically relevant to Britains decision?
You don't see any logical problem to demanding that Britain throw its support behind a movement at a time that was many years prior to the creation of said movement? I'd also like to point out that no one ever denied the Palestinian Arabs the right to self-determination in Palestine. Just to the exclusive right to self-determination over ALL of it.
Does that answer your above question?
Yes, that their movement drew a lot of its ideology from xenophobic and racist platitudes. ie: "These foreigners coming here might grow politically strong enough to challenge our right to unilateral Arab rule. We should kill them and all of the indigenous people from their group before the possibility of that scenario becomes remotely possible."
An argument this may have been......A strong ethical argument it most certainly was not.
Oh, I disagree. Why is the right to rule over ALL of Palestine, granted to the 700,000 Arabs who lived there MORE ethical than for those people to rule over just SOME of that land in order to ensure that safe, self-determination be granted to an existing group that's currently stateless... one of history's most persecuted people, in their original homeland, no less. How is any system that ensures one group gets EVERYTHING, while all other groups get NOTHING in any way an ethical system?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
298 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Israel's gov't is just our badly behaved punk cousin who has to be bailed out again. To point that
leveymg
Nov 2012
#227
When you look at US history did you ever sop to ask where the Colonials
R. Daneel Olivaw
Nov 2012
#160
When the colonies during the American Revolution were fighting for their
R. Daneel Olivaw
Nov 2012
#213
Still, the past restrictions Egypt put in place on Gazans leaving and entering Gaza
Ken Burch
Nov 2012
#219
And I call Bullshit! Now tell me about the West Bank and what is going on there with
teddy51
Nov 2012
#36
You people are great at rerouting the subject! I asked about the West Bank, not Gaza. You fuckers
teddy51
Nov 2012
#47
No, the discussion is not about Gaza the discussion is about Palestine vs Israel and what land
teddy51
Nov 2012
#70
You're assuming Hamas can be mollified by negotiations. They're perfectly clear....
shira
Nov 2012
#125
Yes, i'm sure that the giant graphic was just too painful to see and it took forever to load.
R. Daneel Olivaw
Nov 2012
#198
There's no room. It's about the size of DC, and has damn near twice as many people
leveymg
Nov 2012
#55
My larger point is valid. I said it's an overcrowded walled refugee camp that's not worth
leveymg
Nov 2012
#64
You can argue those points with the authors of this report: 2/3 of Gaza are refugees
leveymg
Nov 2012
#131
What is the difference between a city with 2/3 refugees and a refugee camp? What is the difference
leveymg
Nov 2012
#139
I believe it was Dov Weisglass who infamously called the "disengagement" plan ...
Fantastic Anarchist
Nov 2012
#165
Sorry, but I see some of you as "Poor me, please feel sorry for me) and forget what we do in
teddy51
Nov 2012
#9
Opposing the Gaza withdrawal, which you're doing due to Israel's "evil" intent.....
shira
Nov 2012
#171
Who cares what he said? Nobody that is apparently falling all over themselves
R. Daneel Olivaw
Nov 2012
#218
"What does an oppressed, imprisoned people (Hamas) do to get the rest of the world's attention"
shira
Nov 2012
#40
A question for you: What did those Turkish people onboard that boat do to warrant there deaths?
teddy51
Nov 2012
#42
And have you listened to Turkey's PM about this event? No, I doubt you have cause everything is
teddy51
Nov 2012
#52
"What did those Turkish people onboard that boat do to warrant there deaths?"
holdencaufield
Nov 2012
#122
Not my call, that belongs to the Israeli people. How about a leader that truly wants to make
teddy51
Nov 2012
#49
Like I said, I'm not an Israeli citizen and don't get to vote there or make that call.
teddy51
Nov 2012
#66
I would like to see the Labor party guy(sorry can't remember his name) Get back in power.
hrmjustin
Nov 2012
#50
Really Barak is Israel's current Minister of Defense and the one in charge of this show
azurnoir
Nov 2012
#96
The sad truth is this when it comes to Palestinians there is little light between
azurnoir
Nov 2012
#106
know what I luv weasel words and oh the British mandate ended over 65 years ago
azurnoir
Nov 2012
#282
No, I don't think the Israeli people do, but there leaders certainly have no problem with
teddy51
Nov 2012
#54
So tell me about the boat that you guys boarded and killed innocent people on then! Your not
teddy51
Nov 2012
#87
I was here, observing some propaganda troll bot endlessly recite stale talking points
Alamuti Lotus
Nov 2012
#19
You would not be correct in assuming anything; you're just not good at it.. *nt
Alamuti Lotus
Nov 2012
#27
That charge is pretty funny considering your mission here seems to be to demonize
shira
Nov 2012
#126
Hamas' sworn intent to kill the Jews is irrelevant to the "human rights community"
shira
Nov 2012
#166
I would very much like to hear your “strong ethical argument” favouring Palestine over the US......
kayecy
Nov 2012
#289
For the same reason that the US, Argentina or Australia would have rejected it........
kayecy
Nov 2012
#298
no because you've shown nothing but hearsay and opinion I originally asked for evidence charges from
azurnoir
Nov 2012
#143
No you did not quote B'tselem you claimed that and you were busted which is why no link
azurnoir
Nov 2012
#183
I have questioned MEMRI more than once and that very same video within the past 24hrs
azurnoir
Nov 2012
#82
no MEMRI's record of biased translation coupled with Israeles propaganda program to make
azurnoir
Nov 2012
#104
My question has everything to with "The People" versus "their Government" ...
1StrongBlackMan
Nov 2012
#140
After witnessing our invasion and decimation of Iraq, with israeli encouragement, why the hell
Purveyor
Nov 2012
#53
Israel had nothing to do with our invasion of Iraq. There were a lot of countries who supported
still_one
Nov 2012
#110
Israel To U.S. Don't Delay Iraq Attack, Sharon Government Urges Prompt Action Against Saddam - CBS
Purveyor
Nov 2012
#142
My point was the U.S. was doing regardless, and other western countries did the same bullshit. It
still_one
Nov 2012
#144
They did not do it because of their encouragement or any other countries encouragement. They did it
still_one
Nov 2012
#148
Bullshit. The argument might be made that the US did, but not Israel, but while you are at it why
still_one
Nov 2012
#112
Yes, because the mightiest state in the Middle East is a poor victim.
Fantastic Anarchist
Nov 2012
#151
So let's say a chunk of Mexico (or Canada) is given to terrorists who launch rockets to the USA
PuppyBismark
Nov 2012
#155
Not true. I am anti Zionist right wing crazy Israelis, I am not anti Israel or an anti-Semitic.
OregonBlue
Nov 2012
#181
That's right...this so-called "progressive" magazine says that anyone who is Israeli or Jewish
Ken Burch
Nov 2012
#201
If hostility against Jews and Jewish organization is anti-semitic, what do you call Jewish
AnotherMcIntosh
Nov 2012
#209
You do realize not every organization that advocate for Palestinian rights in Palestine..
King_David
Nov 2012
#212
You have it wrong. In contrast to you, I have never claimed that any organization that advocates
AnotherMcIntosh
Nov 2012
#215
It is disingenuous and used to "deflect" from the discrimination against Jews.
Behind the Aegis
Nov 2012
#233
Are you going to argue that anti-Semitism is discrimination against Arabs?
Behind the Aegis
Nov 2012
#241
Language is fluid, and definitions change with time, usage and cultural reference.
R. Daneel Olivaw
Nov 2012
#243
Seemingly you still do. And if you don't want to read it then put me on ignore.
R. Daneel Olivaw
Nov 2012
#249
As I said, you can always put me on ignore and dig your heels in to the end of time.
R. Daneel Olivaw
Nov 2012
#255
And if you want to play word games, you will get called on it again and again.
Behind the Aegis
Nov 2012
#256
"a term coined by antisemites"? Actually, the German-Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider in
AnotherMcIntosh
Nov 2012
#234
True about not all Palestinians being Muslims (and not all Israelis are Jews)..
LeftishBrit
Nov 2012
#236
I have no idea as to whether Marr popularized the term. I know that many now use the term to
AnotherMcIntosh
Nov 2012
#238
spreading that bigotry out among multiple terms that way it's harder to pin down
azurnoir
Nov 2012
#253
Well, you're free to go away then and dig your heels in someplace else.
R. Daneel Olivaw
Nov 2012
#270
Lovely straw man argument... I think the leaders screw up, so I must be a Nazi...
bobclark86
Nov 2012
#295