|
The ultimate Israel - Palestine Thread (it's all here) (pg. 124)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| TheNobleEu |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Another reason to attack America was for the benefits al-Qaida would recieve for the predictable American reaction. America would attack Muslim countries which is the perfect publicity stunt to show that al-Qaida is right, |
You're waffling. Maybe you should rank from first to last in point form, your opinion on the motive of the attacks?
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
I dont think it neccessarily had too much of an effect on al-Qaida's decision to attack America but it certainly generates support for their 'cause'. Palestine is a rallying factor for everything Arab and Islamic. |
Those two sentences are incompatable.
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Oppressive Middle Eastern regimes deflect criticism of themselves by using Israel as the 'real enemy' and as I just said, Islamists use it to generate support against the West and Western ideals. |
True.
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
So resolution of the Palestinian conflict by America (the only actor who really has the power to resolve the Peace Process) |
Really? Not even the Palestinians and Israelis themselves? :)
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
...is vital for the war on terror as it will show that maybe America isn't an enemy of Islam and can actually help Arabs (who are in need of it) |
I know this is a political forum, but at least avoid using the party lines. There is no such thing as a *War on Terror* (too bad I cannot put that in flashing, glittering text!)
How do you wage war on an abstract concept? The term is idiotic, but its total success as a propaganda tool will keep sociologists and anthropologists busy for decades.
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Whether America will put any effort into resolving the Palestinian problem is another question! And then you can look to the domestic situation in America for reasons why this might not happen (but currently domestic support for Israel is not just confined to Jews but also to the far larger Christian Right and the Evangelicals) |
Surprise!
Never underestimate the fanaticism of the American religious right.
Cheers,
-Noble |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by TheNobleEu
You're waffling. Maybe you should rank from first to last in point form, your opinion on the motive of the attacks? |
Well if you read what I wrote you would see I stated the main reason was because of Saudi Arabia. Then I would say generating support (by showing America as an enemy of Islam)
| quote: | | Those two sentences are incompatable. |
No. Bin Laden did not sit in his cave and think "I want to attack America because they support Israel" Israel IMO would not have had much of an effect on why al-Qaida attacked America. However, I do believe that a reason some of the people who support al-Qaida concerns the Middle East Peace Process. But that does not mean America was attacked because of that.
| quote: | | Really? Not even the Palestinians and Israelis themselves? :) |
History tells us not!!
| quote: | I know this is a political forum, but at least avoid using the party lines. There is no such thing as a *War on Terror* (too bad I cannot put that in flashing, glittering text!)
How do you wage war on an abstract concept? The term is idiotic, but its total success as a propaganda tool will keep sociologists and anthropologists busy for decades. |
Yes it is idiotic and the reason I use the term is BECAUSE it is the party line! ie. The war on terror (or if you like, "the war on terror") is what American post-9/11 policy is called. So if you want to criticise or support that policy then what you are refering to is what is known as "the war on terror" and that was merely what I was doing. |
|
|
| TheNobleEu |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
The events I was refering to were the clashes that broke out in the 1920s. These clashes between the Jewish inhabitants and Arab inhabitants were over land that each side considered desirable for a future state. |
Said clashes didn't get large scale until after WWII, when the British established a quota for Jewish immigration to Palestine. That's what largely caused the clashes. You're retrojecting.
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
This was due to (in part) both side's interpretation of the Balfour Declaration that seemed to promise both sides a state. |
You mean the McMahon-Hussein correspondence.
And Balfour's statements were issued to Rothschild directly (Rothschild was a Jew, a member of the English House of Lords, and paramount in establishing pro-Jewish sympathy in the British government), and it said nothing about establishing a Palestinian state.
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
So you can say Israel came about due to these events and had the Holocaust not happened we most likely would still have seen an Israel created... |
Very unlikely, in fact. Again, the Balfour correspondence to Rothschild was in 1917. The British did nothing substantial in Palestine (save, IMHO, to lie to the Arabs that they would establish an Arab state of autonomous Palestine in 1915-16), and moreover did nothing to establish a Jewish state until 1945-46.
So no, you're in the minority there.
The Jewish lobby itself, particularly in the US and UK, put forward the argument that the Holocaust occurred because the Jews had no homeland. It logically followed, said the Jews, that if the Allies were serious about "never again," they would see to it that it couldn't happen -- through giving them their own state.
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
...as that had been an aim of the Zionists for more than half a century before WW2 occured and they had began fighting for that aim for a quarter of a century before WW2 occured. |
...But not the aim of the British government.
Arguably, they had been fighting to take over this land since the time of the Book of Judges. ;) Wanting it for eons does not make a thing come into existence without external approval and support.
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
I had but had to delete it all! My essay was only 6,000 words long
|
You're extremely brave. You presume to "give an overview" of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 6,000 words? I hope you instructor was kind to you.
Out of curiousity, why did you delete one of the most important parts from your essay?
Cheers,
-Noble |
|
|
| TheNobleEu |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Well if you read what I wrote you would see I stated the main reason was because of Saudi Arabia. Then I would say generating support (by showing America as an enemy of Islam) |
I read what you wrote -- it was waffling and trying to generate reasons "it wasn't Palestine" when your own text admitted in the next sentence it was. ;)
No matter. But I'd still like to see your ranked "top ten" of what the motivations actually were.
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
No. Bin Laden did not sit in his cave and think "I want to attack America because they support Israel" Israel IMO would not have had much of an effect on why al-Qaida attacked America. However, I do believe that a reason some of the people who support al-Qaida concerns the Middle East Peace Process. But that does not mean America was attacked because of that. |
Hmm. Well, bin Laden himself, on his recorded video tapes, stated long ago this was a reason. Thinking this is not a factor is a little naive, IMHO.
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
History tells us not!! |
I'm afraid not -- see above, this situation is a little more complicated than your 6,000 words (unfortunately).
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Yes it is idiotic and the reason I use the term is BECAUSE it is the party line! ie. The war on terror (or if you like, "the war on terror") is what American post-9/11 policy is called. So if you want to criticise or support that policy then what you are refering to is what is known as "the war on terror" and that was merely what I was doing. |
No problem! But if the above is the case, don't fall into the trap of justifying it by using their terminology.
Cheers,
-Noble |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by TheNobleEu
Said clashes didn't get large scale until after WWII, when the British established a quota for Jewish immigration to Palestine. That's what largely caused the clashes. You're retrojecting. |
Well yes and no! Altho clashes got worse as the war started, the fact that serious clashes occured from the 1920s suggests that with or without the war (and Holocaust) Jewish and Arab nationalists would sooner or later begin jockeying for control over land they each wanted for their states.
| quote: | | You mean the McMahon-Hussein correspondence. |
No the Balfour declaration was interpreted by the Jews as giving them support for their state, and the section that said "nothing shall be done to prejudice the inhabitants of Palestine" was interpreted by the Arabs that there would be no exclusively Jewish state (and therefore Palestine would be included in the wider Arab state promised by MacMahon)
| quote: | | And Balfour's statements were issued to Rothschild directly (Rothschild was a Jew, a member of the English House of Lords, and paramount in establishing pro-Jewish sympathy in the British government), and it said nothing about establishing a Palestinian state. |
At the time there was no concept of a 'Palestinian state'. The British did maintain that the Balfour declaration was not intended to establish a Jewish state but that is just what they said and whether they meant it is debatable. If they did mean there would be a Jewish state then the Arab sections of Palestine would join with the Arab state promised by MacMahon (and subsequently betrayed by Sykes-Picot)
| quote: | Very unlikely, in fact. Again, the Balfour correspondence to Rothschild was in 1917. The British did nothing substantial in Palestine (save, IMHO, to lie to the Arabs that they would establish an Arab state of autonomous Palestine in 1915-16), and moreover did nothing to establish a Jewish state until 1945-46.
So no, you're in the minority there.
The Jewish lobby itself, particularly in the US and UK, put forward the argument that the Holocaust occurred because the Jews had no homeland. It logically followed, said the Jews, that if the Allies were serious about "never again," they would see to it that it couldn't happen -- through giving them their own state. |
Well I have already said that the Holocaust generated support for the establishment of Israel, but my whole point is that before the Holocaust even took place, events had put in motion the creation of a Jewish homeland and therefore, it is more than likely that the outcome would have been the same (Britain would have left Palestine as it left all its former colonies and that would have left the Arabs and Jews still fighting for separate land as the Jews had no desire to belong to the wider Arab state)
| quote: | ...But not the aim of the British government.
Arguably, they had been fighting to take over this land since the time of the Book of Judges. ;) Wanting it for eons does not make a thing come into existence without external approval and support. |
Think I may have covered that above
| quote: | You're extremely brave. You presume to "give an overview" of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 6,000 words? I hope you instructor was kind to you.
Out of curiousity, why did you delete one of the most important parts from your essay? |
I was 2% off getting a distinction (the top grade) so thankyou for your concern but it was obviously pretty good!!! :D ;)
But you got the wrong question! The essay was not on the Palestinan conflict but specifically on the history of Palestinian terrorism as a means of promoting the rights of Palestinians (and their ambition for a state) So it was deleted as I could only write breifly about the origins of the conflcit as an introductory section. The actual question related to how the Palestinians had used terrorism and what they got out of it. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by TheNobleEu
I read what you wrote -- it was waffling and trying to generate reasons "it wasn't Palestine" when your own text admitted in the next sentence it was. ;)
No matter. But I'd still like to see your ranked "top ten" of what the motivations actually were. |
Now I'm curious, are you arguing that Palestine WAS the main reason 9/11 happened?
| quote: | | Hmm. Well, bin Laden himself, on his recorded video tapes, stated long ago this was a reason. Thinking this is not a factor is a little naive, IMHO. |
You can find a lot of bull from what bin Laden says in his speeches to justify all kinds of views! From his speeches we are told he wants to destroy America which, to me, is a load of crap! I think he uses Israel to get people on his side because he knows that Israel is a rallying call. I'm not saying Israel was not a factor in their decision to attack America, I just dont think it was that much of an important factor. I do not believe bin Laden attacked America for the Palestinian people basically.
| quote: | | I'm afraid not -- see above, this situation is a little more complicated than your 6,000 words (unfortunately). |
Dont follow you |
|
|
| TheNobleEu |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Well yes and no! Altho clashes got worse as the war started, the fact that serious clashes occured from the 1920s suggests that with or without the war (and Holocaust) Jewish and Arab nationalists would sooner or later begin jockeying for control over land they each wanted for their states. |
You're still missing the point.
I can lobby for an autonomous state of "Noble" if I so choose. Problem is, no one is going to recognize my little fief, and the UN isn't going to ratify my existence (as no one did with the Jews before 1945, even though chin music was paid starting in 1915. You're still having difficulty differentiating theory and practice, cause and effect).
The fact that nothing happened 1915-45 demonstrates an autonomous state of Israel was no one's priority (save the Zionist lobby's, which was in no position to act alone -- this is the point).
The primary political support was collected as a direct result of the Holocaust, an argument justifying the state of Israel put forward by the Jews themselves.
Let's move on:
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
No the Balfour declaration was interpreted by the Jews as giving them support for their state, and the section that said "nothing shall be done to prejudice the inhabitants of Palestine" was interpreted by the Arabs that there would be no exclusively Jewish state (and therefore Palestine would be included in the wider Arab state promised by MacMahon) |
Which it did, although it made *no* comment on an autonomous Arab state at all (as you seemed to be saying), notwithstanding the fact that such a state had already been promised to the Arabs before there was any talk between Brit and Jew about a Jewish state in Palestine.
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
At the time there was no concept of a 'Palestinian state'. |
On the contrary, discussing the establishment of 'a Palestinian state' was the primary subtance of the McMahon-Hussein correspondence (didn't make the 6,000 word cut, fair enough).
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Well I have already said that the Holocaust generated support for the establishment of Israel, but my whole point is that before the Holocaust even took place, events had put in motion the creation of a Jewish homeland and therefore... |
You're contradicting yourself again:
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
The British did maintain that the Balfour declaration was not intended to establish a Jewish state but that is just what they said and whether they meant it is debatable. |
That's the crux here, and what needs be memorized re: your assertion that an Israel would have come into existence without a Holocaust. Possibly, even probably, but not nearly as quickly, with no where near the political and economic support Israel enjoyed, and even then for completely different reasons (since the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would therefore not have unfolded in the way it did).
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
I was 2% off getting a distinction (the top grade) so thankyou for your concern but it was obviously pretty good!!! :D ;) |
Glad you did. But:
| quote: | I said:
I'm afraid not -- see above, this situation is a little more complicated than your 6,000 words (unfortunately).
You replied:
Dont follow you |
Indeed.
Don't take this personally, but... might have been good for a junior high school paper, perhaps. I won't assume you actually think you have a good handle on the subject (see above and below).
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
The actual question related to how the Palestinians had used terrorism and what they got out of it. |
What do you think they get out of it?
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Now I'm curious, are you arguing that Palestine WAS the main reason 9/11 happened? |
I argued nothing at all. I pointed out you were waffling trying to detract from Palestine as a motivation.
Still waiting on your top ten list. ;)
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
You can find a lot of bull from what bin Laden says in his speeches to justify all kinds of views! From his speeches we are told he wants to destroy America which, to me, is a load of crap! |
Then I question your basic understanding of the issue, the Middle East, and Islamic thought and historical experience in general.
True much nonsense rhetoric is used daily, and there is a foolish culture in the US of demonizing one's enemy in order to speak of "us vs. them", accusing the enemy of being "against freedom," and "hating us because we are a democracy" etc., -- but understand that it is part of Western culture to speak silliness and never mean it (whether Bush actually means what he says could be the subject of thread in itself), while those in the East speak rarely but mean what they say.
This is one of the primary impasses between West and East -- the East believes what Bush says when he addresses the nation and talks about "Crusade" and a "War on Terror" (read by them: "Islam") and therefore act accordingly. The Eastern mind doesn't consider that he doesn't actually mean what he's saying -- a dangeous situation for both parties.
The US simply had no clue what it was getting itself into in the Middle East (it doesn't have the imperialism or military experience of the elder Western powers), and moreover it undertook its "live fire exercise" without a plan to govern or manage in the long term (neither of which is an American strong point, historically speaking). The US thought, foolishly, that all they had to do was show up and the people for some unknown reason would welcome them as liberators and fall into ranks behind them.
Talk about total failure to know and understand your "enemy" (this is the main reason Afghanistan-Iraq are compared to Vietnam BTW, and a case for comparison could add the Pacific Theatre of Operations against the Japanese in WWII and the Korean War as well).
Much nonsense was also spoken in the US media after 9/11. Without detracting from the truly regrettable loss of life (people in the WTC, people on the flights that crashed, the rescue workers, and then the aftermath of the loss of close friends and family members) the assault on the WTC was not about killing Americans. It was about attacking the US infrastructure and economy, and this was a surgical strike that did incalculable damage that will be experienced for decades.
I found and still find it surprising how misunderstood and miscontextualized 9/11 really was/is. Observe the *paranoia* of colour-coded, golden-indigo-chartreuse medium lvl 3-b-mark IV alerts, security and intelligence bills, bureaucratic shuffling and mistrust, congressional inquiries ad infinitum, military training, R&D, development of new security-intelligence strategies and agencies, airline revamping, and the total materiel bills that it cost and will continue to cost as a direct result. We're talking about trillions here.
Within the context of an American, Bin Laden hit where it hurt -- *the wallet.* It wasn't his objective to indiscriminately kill civilians. He wanted to severely damage his American opponent's interests, and where do those lie?
This demonstrates with frightening clarity that he understands his American opponent. Now: do you really think you understand Bin Laden?
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
I think he uses Israel to get people on his side because he knows that Israel is a rallying call. I'm not saying Israel was not a factor in their decision to attack America, I just dont think it was that much of an important factor. I do not believe bin Laden attacked America for the Palestinian people basically. |
I'm still waiting on why then, you think he did (when you won't take his own word on the matter).
Cheers,
-Noble |
|
|
| gmoney |
| Smiley, I hate to break this to you but Noble is handing your ass to you on a plate. (That's an American expression meaning he just chewed you up and spit you out). |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by gmoney
Smiley, I hate to break this to you but Noble is handing your ass to you on a plate. (That's an American expression meaning he just chewed you up and spit you out). |
No what Noble is doing is presenting arguments that complement your preconstructed views on the subject but which you have not been able to say for yourself... |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by TheNobleEu
You're still missing the point.
I can lobby for an autonomous state of "Noble" if I so choose. Problem is, no one is going to recognize my little fief, and the UN isn't going to ratify my existence (as no one did with the Jews before 1945, even though chin music was paid starting in 1915. You're still having difficulty differentiating theory and practice, cause and effect).
The fact that nothing happened 1915-45 demonstrates an autonomous state of Israel was no one's priority (save the Zionist lobby's, which was in no position to act alone -- this is the point).
The primary political support was collected as a direct result of the Holocaust, an argument justifying the state of Israel put forward by the Jews themselves. |
I have said all along that the Holocaust generated support for the establishment of Israel. But the events that kicked off the whole motion of events that led to the establishment of Israel occured completely independent of the Holocaust. You even say it yourself that Israel "Possibly, even probably, but not nearly as quickly" would have been created and that is exactly what I have been saying!! Britain was a power on the decrease since WW1 and would have left it's colonies at some point. When Britain left Palestine (assuming the Holocaust did not happen) what do you think the outcome would have been? Baring in mind the events that had already occured that had nothing to do with the Holocaust...
| quote: | | Which it did, although it made *no* comment on an autonomous Arab state at all (as you seemed to be saying), notwithstanding the fact that such a state had already been promised to the Arabs before there was any talk between Brit and Jew about a Jewish state in Palestine. |
I said "interpreted" as such by the two sides
| quote: | | On the contrary, discussing the establishment of 'a Palestinian state' was the primary subtance of the McMahon-Hussein correspondence (didn't make the 6,000 word cut, fair enough). |
Oh come on you know the McMahon-Hussain correspondance included far far greater amounts of land than Palestine (and what is now Israel was not included in that agreement)
| quote: | That's the crux here, and what needs be memorized re: your assertion that an Israel would have come into existence without a Holocaust.
Possibly, even probably, but not nearly as quickly, with no where near the political and economic support Israel enjoyed, and even then for completely different reasons (since the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would therefore not have unfolded in the way it did). |
Well Britain would certainly have left Palestine as they did with all their other colonies and would have done so after the WW2, so what exactly did you think would happen? Bare in mind the Jews were very strong militarily. Also Israel didn't enjoy half as much support from America as it did after 1967 (and that was because Israel would be a great ally against the USSR, again, nothing to do with the Holocaust)
| quote: | | Don't take this personally, but... might have been good for a junior high school paper, perhaps. I won't assume you actually think you have a good handle on the subject (see above and below). |
Well the essay was awarded a merit at MA level so how you feel you are in a position to make such a comment is beyond me...
| quote: | | What do you think they get out of it? |
I dont think I am able to write a post that is 6,000 words long... |
|
|
| gmoney |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
No what Noble is doing is presenting arguments that complement your preconstructed views on the subject but which you have not been able to say for yourself... |
No, he is not. He is making rational arguments that support the history of what happened while you are stating your opinion then chastizing everyone else when they state their's. And while your studies in Terrorism and Security may certainly help you blow hot air in this forum, I doubt they will be helping you when you get a job at your local Mcdonald's. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
(Separate post for separate subject)
| quote: | I argued nothing at all. I pointed out you were waffling trying to detract from Palestine as a motivation.
Still waiting on your top ten list. ;) |
Well why dont you tell me what you think the motivation was? I can only assume your problem is that you believe Israel to be the greatest factor, as I have stated Israel is a factor. The only thing you can have a problem with is how great a factor Israel is
| quote: | Then I question your basic understanding of the issue, the Middle East, and Islamic thought and historical experience in general.
True much nonsense rhetoric is used daily, and there is a foolish culture in the US of demonizing one's enemy in order to speak of "us vs. them", accusing the enemy of being "against freedom," and "hating us because we are a democracy" etc., -- but understand that it is part of Western culture to speak silliness and never mean it (whether Bush actually means what he says could be the subject of thread in itself), while those in the East speak rarely but mean what they say.
This is one of the primary impasses between West and East -- the East believes what Bush says when he addresses the nation and talks about "Crusade" and a "War on Terror" (read by them: "Islam") and therefore act accordingly. The Eastern mind doesn't consider that he doesn't actually mean what he's saying -- a dangeous situation for both parties.
The US simply had no clue what it was getting itself into in the Middle East (it doesn't have the imperialism or military experience of the elder Western powers). The US thought, foolishly, the people for some unknown reason would welcome them as liberators and fall into ranks behind them.
Talk about total failure to know and understand your enemy (this is the main reason Afghanistan-Iraq are compared to Vietnam BTW).
Much nonsense was also spoken in the US media after 9/11. Without detracting from the truly regrettable loss of life (people in the WTC, people on the flights that crashed, the rescue workers, and then the aftermath of the loss of close friends of family members) the assault on the WTC was not about killing Americans. It was about attacking the US infrastructure and economy, and this was a surgical strike that did incalculable damage that will be experienced for decades. Observe the paranoia, security, and intelligence bills that it cost and will continue to cost asa direct result.
Within the context of an American, Bin Laden hit where it hurt -- *the wallet.* He didn't want to kill civilians. He wanted to severely damage his American opponent's interests.
This demonstrates with frightening clarity that he understands his American opponent. Now: do you really think you understand Bin Laden? |
Not sure how any of the above responds to anything I have said? Indeed one might pass it off as "waffle" ;)
| quote: | | I'm still waiting on why then, you think he did (when you won't take his own word on the matter). |
Ok now your taking the piss!!!
I must have said at least twice now what I believe is the greatest factor! The greatest factor, as far as I'm concerned, is American military bases in Saudi Arabia (a blasphemy as Saudi Arabia contains the holy sites of Islam)
Now, you seem to have been challenging what I consider to be bin Laden's motives and not replacing my views with your own alternatives. So it is now your turn to state your views on bin Laden's motives and then we can continue (maybe gmoney would like to add something constructive to the debate as well?!?!?!) |
|
|
|
|
