Geo-Politics

[SeventhSon]

As for the “traitors” (I'll stick with that term as it is accurate), Israel as a sovereign nation has every right to refuse entry to anyone they damn well please, most especially those who emigrated in favor of hostile enemies rather than staying to defend the nation to which they now wish to lay claim.

So jews who fled their homes in WW2 should be considered traitors for not staying to fight the germans?

[YetAnotherOne]

So jews who fled their homes in WW2 should be considered traitors for not staying to fight the germans?

Of course not, the Germans had their asses handed to them and were in no position to object to the introduction of anyone the conquering powers chose to settle on their (former) territory.

As for the earlier reply the apology was wholly unnecessary, I don't take these sorts of discussions personally no matter how heated they might get (and this one hasn't even warmed up to date), I just shoot back. And what you call spin I call perspective, it's only natural that we'll all have differing views on these topics.

Suppose the 100,000 number of Muslim refugees who should be allowed to return is legitimate and accurate. There were several times that many who sought refuge with Israel's Muslim neighbors in the belief that they would quickly crush the Jews and allow them to return triumphant. For those I have no sympathy at all. Further, of those 100,000 some, perhaps many, will have arrived in modern Israel after the original LON mandate for a Jewish state on that particular land. I have relatively less sympathy for that group than for those (likely very few) who had come earlier.

With respect to the subset of the 100,000 for whom I have some sympathy it's also important to examine the history of Gaza and the West Bank. Recall that Arab Muslims were given 80% of the lands of the original League of Nations mandate. Gaza was Israeli territory lost to Egypt during the Arab's 1948 invasion. The West Bank was lost to Jordanian occupation in 1950. I challenge you to find a single reference to the establishment of a Palestinian state on either of those lands before Israel evicted the Arab occupiers in the late 1960s. Simply put: no one, Arab, "Palestinian" or otherwise, was interested in the creation of a Palestinian state until Israel retook her territory. The Arabs then decided to attempt to secure by whining what they could not secure militarily, a reduction in the size of the Jewish state.

Israel's proclamation of independence calls on their Arab citizens to stay and participate in the new state, "In the midst of wanton aggression, we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its bodies and institutions.... We extend our hand in peace and neighborliness to all the neighboring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all." How did Israel's Arab citizens respond? One account by an Palestinian nationalist that appeared in the Middle East Journal states that, "The Arabs of Palestine left their homes, were scattered, and lost everything. But there remained one solid hope: The Arab armies were on the eve of their entry into Palestine to save the country and return things to their normal course, punish the aggressor, and throw oppressive Zionism with its dreams and dangers into the sea. On May 14, 1948, crowds of Arabs stood by the roads leading to the frontiers of Palestine, enthusiastically welcoming the advancing armies. Days and weeks passed, sufficient to accomplish the sacred mission, but the Arab armies did not save the country. They did nothing but let slip from their hands Acre, Sarafand, Lydda, Ramleh, Nazareth, most of the south and the rest of the north. Then hope fled." Former Syrian prime minister Haled al Azm pins the blame squarely on the proper target, "Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return." Al Hoda (a NY based Lebanese paper) noted in the early 1950s, "The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade. He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean....Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down."

Fled? Yes. Sided with the enemy? Yes. Wished for the death and/or defeat of their countrymen? Yes. Hoped for the dissolution of the Jewish state? Yes. Traitors? If they weren't then the word has no meaning. Sorry but my sympathy meter is still down near zero.

As for the relative value of a given culture, the fact that you can't name a contribution to the modern world made by Arab culture is absolutely central to the debate as to the relative worth of the culture itself. On what front do you wish to judge the worth of a culture? Peacefulness? Tolerance of other religions? Tolerance of other cultures? Individual liberty? Average standard of living? Industrialization? Modernity? Progress in science? Engineering? Architecture? The arts? I could go on but I'm sure you get the picture. And yes those are necessarily subjective measures but there are folks who've spent years quantifying this sort of thing based on objective measures as well. You won't like the author and if you're a firm believer in the multicultural myth that all cultures are inherently of equal value then the book Human Accomplishment will probably make your head explode but it is an objective analysis of the relative worth of cultures.

The bottom line on the current conflict is that it won't end until Syria and Iran are shown, forcefully that they will not be allowed to continue their proxy wars. When the cost of maintaining a proxy war becomes too high for Syria and Iran to bear the region will experience a temporary peace. Of course the Sunni Arabs of the gulf will immediately pick up the slack and have their proxies resume attacking Israel. Nothing changes until the cultures of the Persian Gulf and south central Asia change. Won't happen in any of our lifetimes.

[RacerX]

When's your book coming out, YAO?

[YetAnotherOne]

I've already released it here Ron.

[eddie_van_earache]

simple we are in the third world war already. It really is a global conflict. The attention sits with the mid east but there are significant battles being fought across the globe - make no mistake.

FYI its more than an Arab thing there are Persians, pashtu's, javanese, philipino whatever. the list goes on... But for the most part they are indeed radical muslims. The isreali-hezzbo/hamas issue is a small battle field in the aready larger full scale war.

[lerxstcat]

Great post YAO, but I do have to point out that the Arab culture gave us zero in mathematics, as well as algebra. They haven't done much lately, but they gave us much scientific advancement in the Middle Ages which helped our culture leapfrog ahead of theirs. They were actually more advanced back then, which is why the Muslim powers extinguished the Byzantine Empire and held the Iberian Peninsula for 800 years. Sadly, ethy have a muddied account of history, which is why they don't realize that we came into conflict with them through self-defense. They picked the fight, and had the upper hand for centuries. Sucks to be on the bottom, especially if you aren't even having sex! or, voluntary sex, that is!

[charvelguy]

not to mention coffee & chess gained in popluarity via Arab trading during the spread of Islam thru conquest.

[jjw]

also have to say stone throwing too!we cant miss that that off the list

[Tashtego]

Arab Moslems didn't invent algebra. These were ideas developed by people in the area of India. Chess also came from the Indian subcontinent.

[charvelguy]

I didn't say they invented chess tho..
7th century Islam was very powerful..seems as tho they want that kind of influence again.

[SeventhSon]

Suppose the 100,000 number of Muslim refugees who should be allowed to return is legitimate and accurate. There were several times that many who sought refuge with Israel's Muslim neighbors in the belief that they would quickly crush the Jews and allow them to return triumphant. For those I have no sympathy at all. Further, of those 100,000 some, perhaps many, will have arrived in modern Israel after the original LON mandate for a Jewish state on that particular land. I have relatively less sympathy for that group than for those (likely very few) who had come earlier.

With respect to the subset of the 100,000 for whom I have some sympathy it's also important to examine the history of Gaza and the West Bank. Recall that Arab Muslims were given 80% of the lands of the original League of Nations mandate.

Gaza was Israeli territory lost to Egypt during the Arab's 1948 invasion. The West Bank was lost to Jordanian occupation in 1950. I challenge you to find a single reference to the establishment of a Palestinian state on either of those lands before Israel evicted the Arab occupiers in the late 1960s. Simply put: no one, Arab, "Palestinian" or otherwise, was interested in the creation of a Palestinian state until Israel retook her territory. The Arabs then decided to attempt to secure by whining what they could not secure militarily, a reduction in the size of the Jewish state.

the problem with your argument is that you apply traditional labels to a situation where such labels are not adequate to accurately describe the participants. what does it mean to be a traitor to a country that was declared only one day earlier by the UN (an organization whose decisions you have questioned the legitimacy of in many threads here. an organization that today argues for the repatriation of the arab refugees). a one day old country that you have never sworn allegiance to or ever sought citizenship for? a one day old country whose non-secular government have been traditional enemies of your religion for countless milennia?

i think it's naive to think that arabs opposed to the one-day old jewish state is somehow the same as born/raised american citizens committing treason against the united states. but if it helps you legitimize the displaced arabs, by all means, whatever gets you through the night.

I invite you to do a thought experiment where, to the objection of the US, the UN declares Hawaii a new international state whose leaders are the Japanese landowners who own the majority of the land through legal purchases. What would you call the native Hawaiians who fled the island in anticipation of a successful campaign by the US to retake the islands from this new state? In your world view, if the japanese prevailed, the hawaiians would be considered traitors and should not be allowed to return. This is absolutely true. the victors can do whatever the fuck that they want. But the question is whether it would be *reasonable* for hawaiians to fight with the new japanese state against the us defenders. i submit that it is not. so while israel has the right to harbor anger and refuse repatriation for these displaced arabs, calling them traitors is a quite a stretch for that word.

yes, maybe the majority of the refugees are traitor in the strictest sense of the word. the question is whether you feel it's reasonable for arabs in the area to have a de-facto loyalty to a one-day old country in the same way one expects a born/bred american to have a de-facto loyalty to the u.s.

to address your other point, while arabs as a whole might have gotten 80% of the LON mandate, the arabs who were displaced lost 100% of their land, no? not the first time this has happened, but i don't think the statistics (or use thereof) accurately reflects the reality of the situation.

As for the relative value of a given culture, the fact that you can't name a contribution to the modern world made by Arab culture is absolutely central to the debate as to the relative worth of the culture itself.

that you require me to name such a contribution just makes it more obvious that you need to employ subjective criteria to somehow justify the event. you don't need to convince me that the state of israel needs to be officially recognized. i buy that. i just don't agree that the un decision was somehow made "more justified" by this subjective criteria.

but if this is what is required to deal with the "guilt" issue that's your decision. i think the obsession with this point weakens your arguments not strengthen it because it is clearly a red herring issue.

On what front do you wish to judge the worth of a culture? Peacefulness? Tolerance of other religions? Tolerance of other cultures? Individual liberty? Average standard of living? Industrialization? Modernity? Progress in science? Engineering? Architecture? The arts? I could go on but I'm sure you get the picture. And yes those are necessarily subjective measures but there are folks who've spent years quantifying this sort of thing based on objective measures as well. You won't like the author and if you're a firm believer in the multicultural myth that all cultures are inherently of equal value then the book Human Accomplishment will probably make your head explode but it is an objective analysis of the relative worth of cultures.

Hahaha! I can name a dozen other criteria:
1. culture is worth more as its ability to destroy all life on earth with nuclear weopans is small
2. culture is worth more as its ability to destroy life with a biological weapon is small
3. culture is worth more if its way of life depletes the non-renewable natural resources of the planet less than other cultures
4. culture is worth more if it takes care of its elders
5. culture's worth is in indirect proportion to its homicide rate
etc.

I'm sure I can find some hippie PhDs who could argue that the native american way of life or the inuit way of life is something all cultures should aspire to.

And it might make your head explode, but read the Tao of Pooh or The Art of Happiness by the Dalai Lama for what gives a culture true worth.

All of the above is tongue in cheek so please don't make me defend the actual details of the counterarguments. The gist of my point is how easy it is to take your subjective opinions and simply use different opinions to forumalate and argument that supports a completely different conclusion.

[jjw]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5169448.stm

these are happy buggersshame we spend our fucking lifes being taxed and making the rich richer!we realy are prisoners and money are our ball and chains

[SeventhSon]

yea, i forgot about that important but hard to define metric: cultural worth is in direct proportion to the happiness of its people.

i definitely relate to what that article is saying, but good luck getting a bunch of extreme right/left wingers to agree on how to objectively measure happiness!

"no, i submit that you ARE happy because..."

[lerxstcat]

If traitor's not the right word for the Arabs who fled expecting Israel's imminent destruction way back in 1948, then enemy is certainly the right word. They left, depriving the new state of their support, and hoping they'd go back soon over the bodies of dead Jews to claim the lands of the dead as well as their own.

It's legitimate to make war on your enemy, whether your country is one day or 5,000 years old, especially if he started, participated in, or supports war against your nation. International law even recognizes the right of conquest - or did until recent years. Who knows what the UN has decreed in its recent money-making schemes?

[lerxstcat]

Arab Moslems didn't invent algebra. These were ideas developed by people in the area of India. Chess also came from the Indian subcontinent.

You're right; I read a book on Indian history and that's true. I still believe, though, that EUROPE learned of algebra from the Arabs and not India directly.