The Day After September

[farmboy]

The British have a lot to answer for. The creation of all the phoney arab kingdoms just to keep the sheiks' ego inflated and the oil prices controlled. Pallestine had nothing of value so the Brits basically abandoned it, but not after a few spiteful paybacks.

[Aliyah1995]

Reffo-

The only reason why I mentioned above that there never was a sovereign Palestine, is to remind Jorge that there never was a recognised law known as Palestinian law other than the law of the British Mandate which in turn permitted Jews to live in Judea and Samaria.

Another reason is to rebut the claim that the Zionists "raped 'Palestine' " or "stole the land from the 'Palestinians' " or any other such bogus claims.

Yet another reason is the often repeated claim, not just by Israel's detractors, but by those who think they are being objective, but are ignorant of history: "The 'West Bank' is 'Palestinian' land".

In 1948 it (i.e. Judea and Samarira) was captured by Jordan in an OFFENSIVE war against the newborn Jewish state and made Judenrein. Before that, the British controlled it and, before that, the Ottoman Turks.

I would also like to repeat what I mentioned in another thread I started on this topic before. The Arabs in Mandatory Palestine ONLY owned the land their villages sat on, not the barren land that went on and on for endless miles between villages, whether we are talking about land in Judea and Samaria, land in the Negev, or land anywhere else in present day Israel.

[Mediocrates]

This is a justification for NON nationalization not nationalization. If anyone can slap dash together their own concocted definition of what a nation is then we don't need them at all. We can safely revert to tribalism.

[Reffo]

Another reason is to rebut the claim that the Zionists "raped 'Palestine' " or "stole the land from the 'Palestinians' " or any other such bogus claims.

Yet another reason is the often repeated claim, not just by Israel's detractors, but by those who think they are being objective, but are ignorant of history: "The 'West Bank' is 'Palestinian' land".

In 1948 it (i.e. Judea and Samarira) was captured by Jordan in an OFFENSIVE war against the newborn Jewish state and made Judenrein. Before that, the British controlled it and, before that, the Ottoman Turks.

I would also like to repeat what I mentioned in another thread I started on this topic before. The Arabs in Mandatory Palestine ONLY owned the land their villages sat on, not the barren land that went on and on for endless miles between villages, whether we are talking about land in Judea and Samaria, land in the Negev, or land anywhere else in present day Israel.

Absolutely right. All your additional points hit the nail right on the head.

[NewsGuy]

Facts are hard decisions are going to need to be made by Netanyahu when our greatest fears come true and that a UN voted Palestinian state has been imposed upon us. We cannot deny these facts out of existance and the reprocussions will start to develop.

There was a report in the Israeli press today that some senior Israeli military commanders have been quoted saying that if there are mass protests by several thousands of Muslims in the West Bank area, the IDF will not be able to stop them.

Basically, the Muslims will be able to reach Jewish settlements, government centers and maybe even army bases.

The IDF is now training to deal with a post-September "tsunami," which is the word used in the article.

However... The only way to respond to a potential mass march of the Muslims is to organize a mass counter-march by Jews who will defend their homes from an Arab invasion. I hope that the citizens of Israel, as well as the IDF, will be well organized ahead of time.

[bararallu]

BS. We have napalm. And we should use it.

[SpaceCowboy]

I would think that some well placed Claymore mines would do the trick.

[bararallu]

Napalm is cheaper. Actually... something better... build high electrified fences; open sliver of the border to Jordan, and cut off the water and electricity= No more razia against the Jews on their own land.

[farmboy]

Back to topic, The day after September will just be another day like the day before September.
Here is another FAIL with a capital F.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Ne...sh.aspx/213950

Fatah and Hamas have agreed to delay the formation of a unity government until after the PA’s statehood bid in the UN General Assembly in September, the PA-based Ma’an news agency reported on Wednesday.

According to the report, the delay is due to an impasse in talks over the position of prime minister.

So here we have a group wishing to start an independent country with no united leadership, a past and ongoing history of internal conflict. It has no viable economy and its only common mandate which is still unable to unify all of it's parties, is the destruction of Israel.
FAIL FAIL FAIL

[Mediocrates]

Mass protests can't sustain themselves past a missing meal or two.

[USA]

they will have their protests and their marches and a dozen of them will probably die for attacking the idf or police officers. Then they will go back to their homes and plan whatever their next worthless protest is about. I mean seriously they have no economy because they spend all their time protesting and marching like a bunch of crazy children.

you don't see this in civilized nations because the people are working and making money to contribute to society rather than to become a leach off of another society. GET A JOB YOU BUMS.

[NewsGuy]

they will have their protests and their marches and a dozen of them will probably die for attacking the idf or police officers. Then they will go back to their homes and plan whatever their next worthless protest is about. I mean seriously they have no economy because they spend all their time protesting and marching like a bunch of crazy children.

you don't see this in civilized nations because the people are working and making money to contribute to society rather than to become a leach off of another society. GET A JOB YOU BUMS.

Well said, USA. Welcome to the forum.

[Jorge]

Quotes from Reffo's #73

I must say, I am busting to see where Jorge is heading with this.

To be honest, I'm not quite sure where I am heading to. For the moment I'm trying to see how far one can push statements describing the issues around 'The Day after September" without falling into controversial ones; by non-controversial I mean statements or propositions that could be accepted by an audience composed by people situated on both sides of the controversial ones. So, when Reffo says:

I guess, for the sake of discussion, I for one could live with that at least for a while. Not for good, because eventually historical context cannot be avoided.

he's quite right in his "at least for a while" . We are not dealing here with the pros and cons of the Italian Renaissance but with the pros and cons of the Palestinian initiative concerning recognition of statehood, an issue within the larger context of the IP conflict, a conflict with which the members of the audience referred above are 'emotionally' involved.

Recalling the Habermas quote of an earlier Post: "people argue rationally only when they seek consensus" one of its problems is: how can people argue rationally when they are emotionally involved? After all, rational and emotional attitudes are dialectically opposed. Moreover, if one could argue rationally only those issues with which one is not deeply concerned, why do we need argumentation theories for?

A possible way out of this problem, suggested I think by H. Putnam, is to accept that, even in issues with a high emotional tension, there are certain aspects for which the empirical evidence is so clear and definite that it is difficult to refute them without transgressing common sense.

For instance, that Israel is surrounded by Arab countries is one of those aspects, that the population of those countries is largely hostile to Israel is another; trying to refute the latter by arguing that most Arabs feel for us nothing but friendly affection goes against a solid mass of empirical evidence. When Aliyah recalls that in 1967 and before the Arabs wanted to push us into the sea, to call that statement false, amounts to ignore the documentary evidence of speeches by Arab leaders of that time and the refutation transgresses common sense.

Now, I agree with Reffo in that discussing any issue of the IP conflict "historical context cannot be avoided", but I'd venture to say that within any historical context there are a number of aspects which are controversial and others which are not. But of this more in the following Post.

[Reffo]

Recalling the Habermas quote of an earlier Post: "people argue rationally only when they seek consensus" one of its problems is: how can people argue rationally when they are emotionally involved? After all, rational and emotional attitudes are dialectically opposed. Moreover, if one could argue rationally only those issues with which one is not deeply concerned, why do we need argumentation theories for?

This leads in very neatly to what I was busting (pardon the repetition) to say...

There are two ways to resolve a war/conflict between two peoples:

1. Adopting a pragmatic attitude and finding a compromise solution that is acceptable to both parties.
2. By waging total relentless war, using all means till one side is totally vanquished and would never again be able to wage war against the other party.

As Jorge says (I think he said it, I hope he won't accuse me of putting words in his mouth), if both parties adopt attitude 1, there is a chance that the conflict would eventually be resolved.

The next possibility is if one side adopts postion 1, while the other party adopts position 2. That's the situation that we are facing in the Israeli/Palestinian Arab conflict. And therefore need to discuss in greater detail.

The third possibility is that neither side wants to resolve the conflict and that both sides are playing a zero sum game in which they want the other side to be totally vanquished. IMHO opinion, this possibility is not the case in the Israeli/Palestinian Arab conflict simply because history shows (for those who care to look at it objectively) that one side, Israel, has shown, very clearly, a number of times in the past (in 1947, 2000/2001 and 2008) as well as in between, that it is willing to accept compromise (even painful) solutions for the sake of peace.

Anyway, I will leave it here. Let's say what Jorge has to say. I will await his response patiently.

[Jorge]

Continued from my last Post: regarding the question of whether the 'historical context' of the conflict cannot be avoided while seeking consensus.

The question is linked to the the so-called 'historical facts' . One may have to distinguish between the historical facts themselves (for which we have empirical evidence) and the selection and interpretation of those facts. As E.H. Carr notes in "What is History? , within the context of a given historical event there is a multitude of 'historical facts', from this, the historian selects a few which he considers relevant and ignores others that he considers irrelevant, he then proceeds to interpret those facts in a manner that suits his worldview.

A case in point from Curlyg's #74 and Reffo's #75: I take it that both of them agree in that the people leaving here started to think themselves as Palestinians only a few decades ago. I'd say they agree because there is scanty documentary evidence that they saw themselves as Palestinians prior to, say, 50 years ago.

But the historical fact can be used to argue that their claim to statehood, to be presented in September to the UN, is not valid or, as Curlyg does, to argue that in no way that invalidates their claim (because of the principle of universality he introduces).

I say this is a case in point because it illustrates that we don't have to ignore historical facts while seeking consensus as long as we are aware that the selection and interpretation of those facts is a consequence of our beliefs and opinions.

However, in the present case, I'd say that the analogical argumentation used by Curlyg, is more likely to be accepted by dispassionate observers than that of those that argue that the Palestinian case should be considered as an exception to the usual procedure of the UN in recognizing States.

Reffo will probably note that in connection with the said Palestinian initiative I am using 'valid claim' and not 'valid right', an objection of his on which I haven't commented so far. It is up to the UN to accept or not the Palestinian 'claim'. Till then, their Declaration of Independence notwithstanding, their establishing an State of their own is just a 'claim'.

Whereas 'rights' are backed by empirical evidence, 'claims' can be largely subjective. I understand that my by bike is rightfully mine because I have documentary evidence that it is mine; if someone else claims it is his he'll have to prove it in a Court of Law which will decide which claim is the valid one.

And from bikes to States: Aliyah in his #77 writes

The Arabs in Mandatory Palestine ONLY owned the land their villages sat on, not the barren land that went on and on for endless miles between villages, whether we are talking about land in Judea and Samaria, land in the Negev, or land anywhere else in present day Israel.

and again I find I can agree with him word for word. Since they didn't own the land between the villages or towns they had no 'rights' over it at the times of the Mandate nor in the present times; they have only 'claims' over the Land.

However, we should not ignore another historical fact: the Jews in Mandatory Palestine didn't own the barren land between their towns and kibbutzim; at the times of the Mandate they had only 'a claim' over that barren land. The difference between them and us was that the UN's Partition resolution and its subsequent recognition of the State of Israel, transformed the 'claim' into a 'right' over the Land.

For bikes we consensually agree that a Court of Law can decide over validity of claims, for Lands, States consensually agree on the authority of the UN to do so.