Subject:
|
Re: More on Palestine
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 9 Oct 2001 14:19:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
360 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Low writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> >
> > snippo
> > "Of course, "the right of Israel to exist" has never been accepted by its
> > enemies, especially Yasser Arafat. "
> >
> > (I note you haven't answered whether you think it has a right to exist
> > either... I'm starting to assume "no", and that you repudiate the UN
> > resolution but I haven't been able to elucidate an answer yet)
>
> Larry, I might have missed it but given that Israel has a right to exist,
> what boundaries do you think it should have?
You didn't miss it, I don't think this particular question has ever arisen
here. I freely admit I don't know the answer.
> The original partition
> boundaries, the current boundaries, the current boundaries with some
> concession to Palestinian territory... ?
Some military theorists say the originial partition boundaries were
indefensible and therefore unworkable. Israel's version of history is that
this was borne out because they immediately were attacked on all sides, and
that the boundaries changed as a result of the initial war, changed by
conquest, that is. I'm not sure I agree or not that this version of history
is correct.
This is an example of the larger question about conquered territories...
when is it acceptable for a country to take over territory of another? I
tend to say "never" as a reflex... but then get tripped up by situations
where it's not the aggressor country that does the conquering, or where in
addition the territory conquered contains people who end up much more free
in the new country than the old (not saying either of these apply in this
situation, not saying they don't... trying to stay general)
But more specifically to this case, I think some boundary that all parties
(with standing... I'm not particularly interested in Ecuador's views in the
matter for example) agree to would be best.
> Personally I think a federation of
> Israel and Palestine would be the ideal solution,
Indeed. Ideal, but perhaps not practical.
> that never really had a
> chance in the circumstances of the late forties.
Indeed it did not. Dan IS right when he says that the formation of Israel
was done too hastily.
> > Or perhaps this is hogwash?
> >
> > "In 1986, when Ronald Reagan ordered U.S. bombers in Britain to attack
> > Libya, three of our allies — France, Germany, and Italy — refused to
> > cooperate in the strike, thereby endangering the mission and American crews.
> > The bombers were forced to fly for a longer period of time and to refuel
> > several times in the air. Yet, no lectures from Shields on how the people of
> > these countries owe their liberty to America."
>
> Well it's factually accurate, but as far as I know the Marshall Plan
> finished in 1951 while US aid for Israel continues today. So I would see it
> as comparing apples and oranges.
Not really, no... It is a *very* fair comparision. The Marshall Plan was not
the only source of support to our allies. It is only in very recent years
that they have stepped up to pay their fair share of direct NATO costs even,
much less the bill for 50 years of MAD, which arguably kept Soviet
expansionism in check. That's a HUGE bill, were we to present it. (but we
did it for our own selfish reasons nonetheless)
> > But I agree with the *conclusion* drawn in that one... the PA and Arafat are
> > part of the problem, not the solution. The Palestinians will never be free
> > under the brutal yoke of the PA.
>
> AFAIK most of the Palestinians straining under that "yoke" make Arafat look
> like a dove.
Seriously? Most Palestinians are *more* violent?
From the outside my view has always been that it was extremists that we hear
about, that most Palestinians just want to live and work and play in peace,
on land that they can personally own if they wish to, and in ways of their
own choosing. If MOST Palestinians are violent extremists who wish western
civilisation to fall, that changes things a lot.
> I suspect that the portrayal of the PA as a monolithic
> semi-dictatorship is a deliberate distortion. What solution is there without
> some self-government for the Palestinians,
None. Although Maine has "some self government" and yet is still part of a
larger whole, as you alluded to above a federation would have been nice, so
the form of it is open to discussion.
> and what evidence is there that
> any other organisation would be preferable to the current PA?
Lots. "any" is rather broad so we can easily construct a hypothetical
organization far superior to the PA that would be preferrable. As a mental
exercise, that is. Just change all the attributes we both agree are bad and
there you are, a preferrable one.
++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: More on Palestine
|
| (...) Larry, I might have missed it but given that Israel has a right to exist, what boundaries do you think it should have? The original partition boundaries, the current boundaries, the current boundaries with some concession to Palestinian (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
117 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
