Debates We'd Like To See

[elSicomoro]

El sicómoro and Dave are actually friends...this back-and-forth is a regular feature on the Cellar.

Like I said Dave, there could be some things out there that he has read and/or seen that could put things in a different light...things no one has seen or mentioned before. And that can apply to a lot of the events that have occurred over the course of history.

(Though judging by the way this has started, it's not looking good for newbie.)

[hot_pastrami]

Originally posted by FileNotFound
Israel was created from land that belonged to Palestine and Israel has been taking more and more of Palestine land.

No Palestine isn't being very reasonable, but why should they be? They're watching their land get taken away, barriers being set up on THEIR LAND, being harrased on their way to work etc.

By that logic, all us North Americans ought to get our asses out and give the land back to the Natives. I'm not arguing that it's wrong, just citing a parallel which may help see the other side of the equation.

Which comes first.. respecting property ownership, or survival?

[FileNotFound]

Originally posted by hot_pastrami

By that logic, all us North Americans ought to get our asses out and give the land back to the Natives. I'm not arguing that it's wrong, just citing a parallel which may help see the other side of the equation.

Which comes first.. respecting property ownership, or survival?

Well you see the difference here is that the Americans did something very Machiavellian. They killed off all the indians - at least all the indians that could mount some sort of resistance.

There are still plenty of Palestinians alive and the land was split about 56.47% to the Jewish state and 43.53% to the Arab state. Of course that was the orignial state, I'm not sure what it's like now, but probably more along the lines of 60/40 due to Israel constantly grabing more and more land.

You're welcome. (It was indeed intended as a compliment.)

"Palestine" was not a country, and still isn't. So no land belonged to it.

Israel fought and won a defensive war in 1967 in which the bulk of the land was acquired. Most of it was given back per the terms of UN Resolution 242. What has not been given back (the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights) has not been returned because the entities looking to get that land back have not yet made peace with Israel. (Egypt did, and got the Sinai back.)

Regardless of whether or not peace has been made, it has never been custom to return land gained in a defensive war. Doing so only invites future attacks, a la "Go ahead and attack us. You'll suffer no negative repercussions." If I hit you with a baseball bat, but you clocked me on the head and took my bat, would you give it back to me? It just doesn't make sense.

Barriers are being set up because Palestinian militant groups, namely Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, are attacking and killing Israeli civilians. The terrorist groups thrive on the violence because it is in their best interest - if there is peace, then these groups have no power. So they work to destroy peace. Hamas does not want peace; they want the total destruction of Israel. Islamic Jihad does not want peace. They want the total destruction of Israel. Don't let yourself be lied to such that you believe they have noble intentions; they don't. If they cared about the Palestinian population, they would resist peacefully. The Palestinians would have had a state 30 years ago if they practiced the way of Gandhi. Israel simply cannot justify what they do unless they are getting attacked.

They are being "harrased" on their way to work because Israel needs to protect its citizens. A suicide bomber has no qualms with dressing up as an Israeli Arab and sneaking into a restaurant to blow himself up. Unfortunately, the Palestinian public, driven by the shame culture witnessed in many Islamic countries, will not take responsibility for shutting down the militant groups. Not only that, but some 80% of polled Palestinians support the extremist groups. This being the case, Israel has every reason to fear for its existance. It must take the necessary steps - checkpoints, detentions of suspected militants, etc - to ensure the safety of its population.

Again, if someone told you "I am going to kill you and everyone you care about, and I am going to do it right now" - do you sit around and wait for them to do it, or are you proactive in your defense? I think, for most people, there isn't even a question about it. You don't wait for the man to shoot when he's pointing a gun at your head. You do what you must do to survive. This is essentially what Israel is doing.

[hot_pastrami]

Originally posted by FileNotFound
Well you see the difference here is that the Americans did something very Machiavellian. They killed off all the indians - at least all the indians that could mount some sort of resistance.

So... you think Isreal should kill all of the Palestinians? I guess that would resolve their confilict...

[FileNotFound]

Originally posted by hot_pastrami

So... you think Isreal should kill all of the Palestinians? I guess that would resolve their confilict...

No I said why your logic doesn't apply. I'm saying that would be no conflic had Israel killed all of the Palestines as Americans have killed all the Indians. I'm not saying that it's the right decision.

[hot_pastrami]

Originally posted by FileNotFound
No I said why your logic doesn't apply. I'm saying that would be no conflic had Israel killed all of the Palestines as Americans have killed all the Indians. I'm not saying that it's the right decision.

Well, the logic does apply... your statement that we killed all the Indians is inaccurate. We killed enough of them that they were greatly overpowered (like Palestine seems to be), but many remained. We just whittled away their land and crammed them into crappy reservations.

Ask any full-blooded native american today who deserves America's land, and see how he/she feels about it. They will no doubt say that they should get their land back. Is their argument valid?

By the way, I really am curious about your opinion, it's not a rhetorical question.

[Dagney]

Hey UT, if the masses would be interested in these debates, could a new 'Debate' forum be started?

[Undertoad]

Look! Look at what happened! We said this debate should happen and it just naturally started happening!

They's takin' swipes at each other already and we haven't even set up a proposition or a resolution or nothing!

[FileNotFound]

First of all, the "war" of 1967 lasted only 6 days. Israel managed to double it's land and displace over 500,000 Palestinians, the success was mostly due to "pre-emptive" strikes.

Palestine was a country and was ruled by the British from 1920-1947 when it handed it over to UN along with the responsibility of solving the Arab-Zionist problems that Palestine was experiencing. (It came under British rule after the British helped the Arabs fight off the Ottoman empire)

The Zionist were people who believed that the Jews should have their own state due to the increasing anti semitism in Europe, the whole idea came from Theodor Herzl in 1896 and thanks to years of lobying was pushed into a declaration by Arthur Balfour who stated that Britain will work towards "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people". This happened of course after 1916 when the British Commissioner in Egypt, Sir Henry McMahon, had promised the Arab leadership post-war independence for former Ottoman Arab provinces.

In other words, the Arabs got screwed. They fought off the Ottoman Empire under the impression that they would then gain the land back, all of a sudden they get told that they were fighting to free up land for the Zionists. When Zionists started to immigrate heavily into Palestine the Arabs got a bit pissy. England was unable to keep the whole thing under control and decieded to hand the mess over to UN.

UN Solution? Split the thing in "half" giving 56.47% to the Jews and 43.54% to the Arabs. Fair? Considering that at the time the Jewish immigrants owned only about 6% of the land? I think not.
It should then be no surpise that the Palestines call the day the country got split as "al-Nakba", or the Catastrophe.
Needless to say war broke out immediatly and Israel happily slaughtered Arab inhabitants of villages surrounding Jerusalem.


There are plenty of cases of Israel going out to "eliminate" terrorist and then proceeding to slaugher innocent civilians. The same Ariel Sharon who is in power now resigned earlier(80s I think) due to one of those slaughters, which was described as one of the worst ever in the middle east.

Fact is that all Palestinians want is their land back, the land they fought and died for since the 1920s. The land that the Zionists managed to cheat them out of. The land that got split 56% going to 6%.

[FileNotFound]

Originally posted by hot_pastrami

Well, the logic does apply... your statement that we killed all the Indians is inaccurate. We killed enough of them that they were greatly overpowered (like Palestine seems to be), but many remained. We just whittled away their land and crammed them into crappy reservations.

Ask any full-blooded native american today who deserves America's land, and see how he/she feels about it. They will no doubt say that they should get their land back. Is their argument valid?

By the way, I really am curious about your opinion, it's not a rhetorical question.

In the Indians were offering resistance, if they were fighting, and dying for the cause. Yes I'd say pack your bags.

But they're not. Palestinians are. There is also the matter of time. Palestine began being torn up since the 1920s but really got messed up in 1948 which to many is still "not long ago". You can't say the same about the colonisation of US.

The Indians who are left might dream of getting the land back but they know that the world their great great grandparents knew and lived in is gone and is never comming back.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Undertoad
Look! Look at what happened! We said this debate should happen and it just naturally started happening!

They's takin' swipes at each other already and we haven't even set up a proposition or a resolution or nothing!

Dave's coming out pretty strong so far. He actually broke it down real nice and neat without calling anyone names...I'm impressed.

First of all, the "war" of 1967 lasted only 6 days. Israel managed to double it's land and displace over 500,000 Palestinians, the success was mostly due to "pre-emptive" strikes.

If by "pre-emptive" you mean "After an act of war committed by Egypt against Israel", then yes.

The closing of the Gulf of Aqaba was intended as an act of war, was internationally recognized as an act of war, and was interpreted by Israel as an act of war.

UN Solution? Split the thing in "half" giving 56.47% to the Jews and 43.54% to the Arabs. Fair? Considering that at the time the Jewish immigrants owned only about 6% of the land? I think not.

Considering the massacre of Hebron in 1929, the idea was to keep a large buffer zone between the populations. Jews were a majority in nearly all of land areas that were given to the state of Israel by the split in 1948.

Needless to say war broke out immediatly and Israel happily slaughtered Arab inhabitants of villages surrounding Jerusalem.

I think what you mean to say is "Palestinians immediately attacked Israel. Unfortunately, some Jews attacked and slaughtered some Arab inhabitants of villages surrounding Jerusalem." I think that's what you meant to say because that's a far more accurate portrayal of what happened. Israel cannot be blamed for the actions of a few, just like the Palestinians cannot be blamed for the actions of a few.

There are plenty of cases of Israel going out to "eliminate" terrorist and then proceeding to slaugher innocent civilians.

Then you should have no problem producing plenty of unbiased sources that report on this. Because what I see is Israel exercising great restraint in its attacks on militants because, unfortunately, innocent people almost always get killed in those attacks.

Fact is that all Palestinians want is their land back, the land they fought and died for since the 1920s. The land that the Zionists managed to cheat them out of. The land that got split 56% going to 6%.

Why do you leave out that many Palestinians and Arabs don't just want their land back, but they want to <b>kill all the Jews</b>? I think that's pertinent, because it justifies how vigorously Israel defends itself. This has been discussed in another thread, which you can read here.

You have failed to justify the terrorism perpetrated against Israeli civilians or to explain the unwillingness of the terrorist groups to cease their activities. You have not argued against my statement that Israel could not justify its current actions if the Palestinians did not so violently resist. You have made no attempt to rebut my contention that Palestine would be a state if the Palestinians would non-violently resist.

I pose to you another question: If Palestine was a country, by which other countries was it recognized as such? Where were its embassies set up in the countries with which it had diplomatic relations? (Hint: Palestine never has been a country. It is a word used to describe an area, and that is all it has ever been.)

[hot_pastrami]

Originally posted by FileNotFound
In the Indians were offering resistance, if they were fighting, and dying for the cause. Yes I'd say pack your bags.

So.... if the Native Americans started putting suicide bombers into busy restaurants and public busses (following Palestine's lead on the "offering resistance" thing), then we should relinquish the land?

Originally posted by FileNotFound
There is also the matter of time. Palestine began being torn up since the 1920s but really got messed up in 1948 which to many is still "not long ago". You can't say the same about the colonisation of US.

This is the greatest weakness in the parallel. But using this fact to support your argument indirectly asserts that if the situation is left as is for a sufficient amount of time, the Isrealis should rightfully be granted unconditional victory, irregardless of who is "right" or "wrong.".

Originally posted by hot_pastrami
irregardless

I would just like to point out that this is not a word.