Israel

[Gustaf]

Xahar, I don't see what your principle is exactly. You don't think countries that attack other countries have themselves to blame if they lose territory in the process? And you think terrorism is justified? You should work a little at dropping your prejudices and think about whether there are any fundamental sound principles actually compatible with your views.

[Gustaf]

Xahar, I don't see what your principle is exactly. You don't think countries that attack other countries have themselves to blame if they lose territory in the process? And you think terrorism is justified? You should work a little at dropping your prejudices and think about whether there are any fundamental sound principles actually compatible with your views.

1. I'm talking about settlers beyond the Green Line.
2. Justified, to some extent.

THen it would be justified for Israel to exterminate the Arab population on Israeli territory, I suppose? At least to some extent?

[Gustaf]

Xahar, I don't see what your principle is exactly. You don't think countries that attack other countries have themselves to blame if they lose territory in the process? And you think terrorism is justified? You should work a little at dropping your prejudices and think about whether there are any fundamental sound principles actually compatible with your views.

1. I'm talking about settlers beyond the Green Line.
2. Justified, to some extent.

THen it would be justified for Israel to exterminate the Arab population on Israeli territory, I suppose? At least to some extent?

Xahar, I don't see what your principle is exactly. You don't think countries that attack other countries have themselves to blame if they lose territory in the process? And you think terrorism is justified? You should work a little at dropping your prejudices and think about whether there are any fundamental sound principles actually compatible with your views.

1. I'm talking about settlers beyond the Green Line.
2. Justified, to some extent.

THen it would be justified for Israel to exterminate the Arab population on Israeli territory, I suppose? At least to some extent?

The ones that have moved there since 1947, yes, to some extent.

And the Hispanics in the US as well? And I've noted there is a big Korean family on the first floor of my apartement building. They seem to have come here since 1947. Can I kill them or do you think I should get the police to do it?

[Gustaf]

I'm not going to support terrorism like Xahar, but there is a difference between those cases. The korean family bought that apartment, while the Israeli settlers just invaded and infringed on the arabs' property rights. I'd think two libertarians/classical liberals would be able to see the difference...

I see your point, but I think the premises that would need to be true for it to work just aren't there. If there shouldn't be any koreans in Sweden they don't have a right to buy apartements either. From the Jewish perspective the Arabs did not have a right to the land because they usurped it to begin with. I can't say I'm all that familiar with the workings of the settlements but do they actually evict Arabs? Because I didn't think that they did.

[Gustaf]

I'm not going to support terrorism like Xahar, but there is a difference between those cases. The korean family bought that apartment, while the Israeli settlers just invaded and infringed on the arabs' property rights. I'd think two libertarians/classical liberals would be able to see the difference...

I see your point, but I think the premises that would need to be true for it to work just aren't there. If there shouldn't be any koreans in Sweden they don't have a right to buy apartements either. From the Jewish perspective the Arabs did not have a right to the land because they usurped it to begin with. I can't say I'm all that familiar with the workings of the settlements but do they actually evict Arabs? Because I didn't think that they did.

From the Native American perspective, the Americans don't have a right to their land because they usurped it to begin with You can't really go back further than a few generations in these matters, or else you're going to be juggling all sorts of force. as for not evicting Arabs, are you kidding? Where do you think the refugees in the neighboring countries came from?
I never claimed there shouldn't be any Jews in Israel, just they should not have used force in returning as if they already owned the place.

Are we talking about Israel with 1967 borders now or something else? Because the refugees came into existence after the 1948 war when Israel was created. Most of them originated out of the Israel that was created then.

But my point was really that the Israelis moved in with the permission of the rulers of the land at the time. I don't think the vast majority of Jewish inhabitants in Israel got their land by stealing it. They moved there, a conflict arose. Once the Arabs refused to negotiate, refused to divy it up and took to arms I can't say it is as emotionally appealing to hear complaints about losing property. They tried to get it al for themselves and it didn't work. The fundamental point is that they don't want Jews. Whether the Jewish settlers on the West Bank took private property would make no difference to the level of violence. The idea that one can kill members of an enemy population simply for living in your country is the underlying principle of Xahar's reasoning (and would definitely apply to Arabs in Israel) and I find it to be...strange and a little disturbing.

[Gustaf]

Yeah, you may know it's dishonest propaganda, but the general idea of the propaganda is what you were after here.

A minor disagreement I may have with the description of one of the four maps is hardly enough for me to warrant it as "dishonest propaganda" and waste my time trying to find or create a similar series of maps without the minor problem to please a bunch of know-it-all, self-righteous douchebags on the internet.

Minor disagreement? The Jews made up about a 3rd of the population before the creation of the Israel state, so the first map suggesting they were 5% of the population is not "minor." I'd say it is basically a complete lie. Then, the Palestinians were the ones who rejected the UN proposal and opted for war, attacking the newly-founded Israel state. THey lost the war and thus some of the land. Then they tried to destroy Israel again in 1967 but lost again and lost more land.

So it is misleading in the sense that it suggests that Israel expanded into these territories when it was rather failed expansion attempts from the Arab side.

Israel has actually ceded land peacefully, and enormous chunks at that  (Sinai, Gaza and parts of the West Bank) something which the Palestinians have never done.

[Gustaf]

Minor disagreement? The Jews made up about a 3rd of the population before the creation of the Israel state, so the first map suggesting they were 5% of the population is not "minor." I'd say it is basically a complete lie. Then, the Palestinians were the ones who rejected the UN proposal and opted for war, attacking the newly-founded Israel state. THey lost the war and thus some of the land. Then they tried to destroy Israel again in 1967 but lost again and lost more land.

So it is misleading in the sense that it suggests that Israel expanded into these territories when it was rather failed expansion attempts from the Arab side.

Israel has actually ceded land peacefully, and enormous chunks at that  (Sinai, Gaza and parts of the West Bank) something which the Palestinians have never done.

The map doesn't suggest that, it indicates that they had a high population density and lived in a few concentrated areas. WHich is confirmed by other sources:

The 1947 proposal unfair was blatantly unfair to the Palestinians. In only made sense after the expulsion of most Arabs from the Israeli area and the settlement of immigrant Jews.
In 1967 Israel attacked first, unless your definition of agressor is different than mine.
What area could the Palestinians cede? They have already lost most of the land that once was theirs.

Yeah, Israel made the first official move.

Here is a quote from the Syrian Minister of Defence from May 1967:

"Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian Army, with its finger on the trigger, is united... I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation."

President Nasser of Egypt said: "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."

So it isn't as if it was a random act of agression. The Arab countries said they were going to destroy Israel, expelled UN peacekeepers from Sinai, mobilized their armies and positioned them at the border. Then Israel decided to strike first. I really don't think that makes them the agressor of the war. 

But since the Palestinians started out with a lot more land they have had the opportunity to cede it.

Besides, there were a lot of immigration expected to come to Israel from Jews, meaning that they would need more land than their part of the population indicated at the time. In addition, a large part of the Jewish land was desert land that wasn't of much use to anyone and was sparsely populated.

Anyway, it is amusing how the left, normally so pro-immigration, thinks that it was ok for Palestinians to demand an end to immigration and expulsion of all Jews from their territory. Or that the harassed immigrants should not have had any right to land outside of the ghettos where they had been forced to concentrate by a hostile indegenous population.

Exchange Jews for Mexicans and you have a perfect Minuteman-argument!

Basically, I never understood what the underlying principle of the anti-Israel position is. Emotionally, yeah, I definitely get it. I can feel those kinds of things too at times. But intellectually, I don't get it. The Palestinian or Arab side has almost never been in the right in any given turn in the conflict.

Stark is actually one of the few people whose anti-Israel stand is consistent with his overall views.

[Gustaf]

Yeah, Israel made the first official move.

Here is a quote from the Syrian Minister of Defence from May 1967:

"Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian Army, with its finger on the trigger, is united... I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation."

President Nasser of Egypt said: "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."

So it isn't as if it was a random act of aggression. The Arab countries said they were going to destroy Israel, expelled UN peacekeepers from Sinai, mobilized their armies and positioned them at the border. Then Israel decided to strike first. I really don't think that makes them the agressor of the war. 

That is true to an extent. Then again, Israel wasn't exactly peaceful before the war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_day_war#Background

But since the Palestinians started out with a lot more land they have had the opportunity to cede it.

Why should they cede land?

Besides, there were a lot of immigration expected to come to Israel from Jews, meaning that they would need more land than their part of the population indicated at the time. In addition, a large part of the Jewish land was desert land that wasn't of much use to anyone and was sparsely populated.

Anyway, it is amusing how the left, normally so pro-immigration, thinks that it was ok for Palestinians to demand an end to immigration and expulsion of all Jews from their territory. Or that the harassed immigrants should not have had any right to land outside of the ghettos where they had been forced to concentrate by a hostile indegenous population.

Nice for admitting that the Partition plan was unfair to the Arabs. It was supposed to be a division to accommodate the current population division, not what population there might be in the future. Using the same argument, it could be argued that Israel should cede to the Palestinians not only the whole West Bank, but also parts of Israel to accommodate their much higher birth rates.
As for immigration, you shouldn't generalize. I might have left wing views, but I believe that a country should have the right to determine who has the right to immigrate. Especially if the immigrants plan on taking over the country. Palestine, not being a sovereign country, was not given the opportunity to do this, which is why the Jewish settlement was such a great injustice.
Of course, I'm certain that you have nothing against a Muslim takeover of Sweden by the same method.
Finally, considering that Israel occupies (according to all international organisations) Palestinian territories, I don't think there could be any doubt in the rightfulness of the Palestinian demand for independence.

From what I've read the proposal for division was explicitly designed to accomodate the immigration which was not a question of future years to come but an immediate pressing issue with hundreds of thousands of Jews trying to enter the land. The Jewish population in Palestine was exploding at the time.

Birth rates is a rather different issue...but, basically, having the original 1948 division today would be basically fair, I believe, since the Jewish and Arab population of the area is today roughly equal.

I wasn't talking spefically about you, but rather I was generalizing, wrong as you may think that to be.

You seem to confuse some different aspects here. I agree that a country has the right to determine who gets to migrate to it. England, the legal ruler of Palestine, decided to let the Jews come there. If you argue that England did not have the right to make that decision I'm not sure who did. The local neighbours?

And you are correct that I do not have a problem with Muslim migration to Sweden (something that is not commonly referred to as a "takeover" here, other than by xenophobes and racists. But I realize the political culture and attitude to Muslims is different in Eastern Europe). Ideally, I believe a country should have open borders.

I don't seem how you can argue simultaneously that it was unjust by Israel to get the land alloted to them by the international community and also for it to be by definition just for the Palestinians to get the same. Either the division is justice incarnate or it is not.