Well the first part of this is to recognize that this is sort of a self-made problem. ANY culture that grows in any region is going to have to ask that question. Just because Palestinians are Arabs doesn't mean that "well we can move to an Arab state" is a reasonable alternative. When millions of people have nothing, other cultures who don't have much can't reasonably take them all in... nor should that be where the argument goes... just because Texans could move to Oklahoma & other southern states doesn't mean clearing out the Texan population from their land or depriving them of resources is morally justifiable.Libertarian666 wrote:There's another issue that I haven't seen discussed in any detail here, not that the current discussion is too simple.Pointedstick wrote: The thing is, Moda, I really do have sympathy for the Palestinians as a people. I have moderated my stance a lot too, and my current position is that ignoring religion, the Jews basically arrived as at the very least unwanted and at times illegal immigrants. Their written declaration from the British Empire that the land would be theirs after the Ottoman Empire fell was issued years after a similar one went to the Palestinians (those British jerks). So, the fact that the area was predominately peopled by Palestinian Arabs, coupled with the fact that they had a prior promise from the new post-Ottoman owner, means that probably the Palestinians have the greatest right to the land.
But, as all we Americans know, a right to land doesn't mean diddly squad without the power to back up those claims. The history of our own nation proves that! This is a country that today is owned and operated by European-derived peoples, descendants of their African slaves, and more recent Asian immigrants. The people who lived here before we arrived and who really have the greatest right to the land itself are today a small, weak, broken, marginalized people, blighted by poverty, poor nutrition, and disempowerment. "Right" means precisely jack shit when you're not strong and you don't have any benefactors who are. If only it were not so… but it is. That's the world we live in. If you want to be able to assert your rights, you need power. That's what the Palestinians are trying to do today, I think, by attacking Israel. But it's futile. That ship has sailed; at this point, they're never going to have the military power necessary to impact Israel's policy. They didn't even have it in 1948 and they certainly aren't any stronger today. The Palestinians need to acquire power in other ways, and Israel's barbarities provide them ample fodder, if only they would fully take advantage of it! But they are arabs, and as such are a proud people, more inclined to passion and action than the kind of calm non-violence that's needed today. Morality and rights are irrelevant when the chips are down, and they very much are down for the Palestinians. They need a jolt of realism if they want to survive. Time will tell if they're capable of it.
IMHO.
Namely, where are the Jews supposed to go? Arabs are hardly a tiny minority in the Middle East, and lots of predominantly Arab countries could take in the Palestinians, if they wanted to. They don't want to, for reasons that are possibly outside the scope of this discussion.
But the Jews don't have any other reasonable options than Israel. Should they all move to the US? If they do, what happens if a future US becomes anti-Semitic?
Similarly, moving into a land largely populated by foreign cultures, and dominating members of that culture in your land the way some Israeli influences have, is naturally going to put you in a position of wondering "but where do we move to?" when you're called out for your transgressions in getting there.
Obviously, you can't separate this issue from the holocaust and similar racist acts against Jews... and that adds another element to it... but I find that to be a pretty weak argument to take over land the way they have. It was simply a convenient way for the western powers to offload a dilemma in their region. Jews took advantage of it at the expense of Palestinians, and new it while they did it.
So in the midst of all this "Arabs are proud, unyielding people and it is hurting both them and their enemies." Well yeah... if people are manipulated and have nothing to lose, they'll quite often be unyielding... because yielding to ruin and starvation isn't really a fun option. And sure they might be proud, but what do we call, then, Jews who point to a book as justification for Zionism? That seems like pretty proud behavior to me.
I think you're dealing with TWO proud, unyielding cultures, here. One has just successfully supplanted the other, and you're seeing the natural result... with the unfortunate caveat that "cultures" don't have moral status.... but individuals do... and individuals in the right wing of both culture's power structures will seek to divide those who seek peace, and will kill a lot of non-violent individuals, including children, to do so.
I guess he was lying to me or something, right? Or I'm grossly misremembering out of some kind of self-hating anti-semitism? Please enlighten me.
