Official Cyrus vs. MMMMMM Israel/Arabs Thread

[BluffTHIS!]

Since the subject of this thread is off topic to another one where it is getting a lot of play, I thought the topic deserved its own thread. Although of course history is the background of the mid-east situation, nonetheless, the reality of the political situation today is what is important.

I would like to propose the following questions to be debated by the 2 parties:

1) Cyrus has stated that Israel has nothing to fear from its neighbors as it is militarily stronger. But how much risk of a certain level of harm or even total destruction not from the sum of its neighbors, but from its most militarily capable and hostile foe, should Israel have to endure before it is justified in launching a pre-emptive strike to reduce that threat? A related question is does any Arab state need nuclear weapons?

2) To what area of land is Israel entitled as a state? Some of the West Bank and the Golan, or none of it? Should Israel be entitled to keep more than the original boundaries of 1948 simply because they have been attacked in the past (the spoils of war)?

3) Should Israel be given more aid and support by the US according to the level of Islamic extremist violence against not just Israel but also throughout the entire world? And should the degree of democracy/totalitarianism of Arab governments also factor in this?

If Cyrus & MMMMMM would like to debate these questions, then they should of course feel entitled to add more points of discussion.

[nicky g]

I'll give my opinion on number 2:

"2) To what area of land is Israel entitled as a state? "

It is entitled to its internationally recognised boundaries and any territory it acquires under mutually satisfactory negotiations with otehr parties. This equates more or less, with potential slight revisions, to its pre-1967 boundaries.

"Some of the West Bank and the Golan, or none of it? Should Israel be entitled to keep more than the original boundaries of 1948 simply because they have been attacked in the past (the spoils of war)?"

If the Palestinians or the Syrians are willing to cede it some in negotiation, which in the case of the Palestinians would be the likely outcome of any final status talks (in return for land elsewhere), it would be entitled to those. It is not entitled to any land on the basis that it was attacked or as the spoils of war. International law condemns the acquisition of land through war of any kind, and Israel is no more entitled to it than Egypt would have been entitled to chunks of Israel if it had have managed to take some following the Suez invasion. Even if there were some law (which there isn't) saying countries were allowed to hold on to territory gained after having been attacked, Israel would not be entitled to any of the West Bank or Golan Heights, given that in the war in which it seized them, it attacked first, and in the case of the Golan seized the territory after its rightful owner (Syria, which never attempted to launch an invasion of Isreal during the way) had agreed to a ceasefire.

[Jdanz]

i think this begs the questions of how all states arise, and what exactly the international community is.

Who is a state? what "right" does a state have to land?

(I honestly don't know, other then i think the most important unit of analysis is the individual rather then the state)

[nicky g]

Good points, my argument only makes sense in a state-centred approach. I agree the individual is more important, and would be quite happy with a solution that gives all individuals equal rights in a one state solution for instance. However I think while states exist and claim rights over territory, there are still going to be arguments about bits of territory (eg Golan) that don't much relate to individuals but still need resolving somehow.

[Jdanz]

completely agreed, but i don't think we can resolve these arguements by going back in history and saying well, state A used to have this so they should have it now. Otherwise American's should be giving back their land to the few native americans left.

I'm not saying Israel deserves the land it has (it, not being a person, certainly doesn't), but the solution should stem from what would make the people on the ground most happy, as opposed to what may or may not have been in the past.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
completely agreed, but i don't think we can resolve these arguements by going back in history and saying well, state A used to have this so they should have it now. Otherwise American's should be giving back their land to the few native americans left.

I'm not saying Israel deserves the land it has (it, not being a person, certainly doesn't), but the solution should stem from what would make the people on the ground most happy, as opposed to what may or may not have been in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

I largely agree but there are still problems. What about for example a sparsely populated area that is of significant strategic importance, such as the Golan? What also about deliberately changing the facts on the ground; once this has been accomplished, should everything be forgotten about? Such a situation would basically encourage and legitimise ethnic cleansing, settlement etc. And while simply going back to the past is impossible as you can never reach a point where you should stop, many of these things have happened within the current international legal framework, which should be the basis for their resolution. You can't just go back but I think you also can't/shouldn't implement a might is right policy regarding territorial concerns.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this begs the questions of how all states arise, and what exactly the international community is.
Who is a state? what "right" does a state have to land?


[/ QUOTE ]

Nation-states have mostly been created through the most extreme violence and bloodshed, and under ideologies of exclusion, intolerance and irredentism. This much is true.

But we (are supposed to) have moved on!

This is no longer the 19th century, nor the worst part of the 20th century. It is true that there are no "rules" as to the "creation of new states". There are general rules however, now, which lead to more respect of minorities' rights (incl. language, religion, etc), the effective weakening of the significance of borders, the retreat of the supremacist ideologies (after WWII the notion of supreme races or nations went bankrupt), etc etc.

Which is why I claim (and the pro-Zionists get all upset) that Israel remains an anachronism.

[Jdanz]

i kind of agree.

Isreal however is not really much different then most states NOW. Regardless of how a state is founded we today deal with....today. I personally don't think we're past violence. I think it's something to strive for, but i also think it's naive to ignore that we're not there yet.

Given that:

What do you mean by this

[ QUOTE ]
Which is why I claim (and the pro-Zionists get all upset) that Israel remains an anachronism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know whether to agree or not, what are the pracical applications of this statement?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Israel remains an anachronism.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't know whether to agree or not. What are the pracical applications of this statement ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not implying, of course, that Israel should cease to exist!

Bu the tenets underlying the very creation of the state of Israel, which also determine Israel's policies ever since its creation, have become absurdly anachronistic!

Israel was created as a state by Jews for the Jews, with exclusivity all over it. (Herzl's principles were "improved" by the Reformed Zionists of Zabotinsky.) This seemed absolutely legitimate, if not vital, in the 19th century. It was the era of nationalism. It was also the time when anti-semitism reared its ugly head quite forcibly on the world stage, once again, as witnessed, among other events, by the Czarist pogroms in Russia and the Dreyfuss affair in France.

But not anymore! Creating and running a state now by the Ruritanians for Ruritanians under stricty Ruritanian customs and laws is silly, if not criminal! (Which is why, incidentally, the Balkans remain, too, an anachronism. Witness the Kosovo mess.) The modern model for nation-states should be the United States of America, which is our most advanced model -- end of story!

This is why I'm saying that the solution to the problem (although it is quite a romantic one, by now) is the one-state solution. A country that encompasses ALL the disputed land, perhaps even including the damn Golan heights, from Gaza to the Jordan river. With the same rules, laws and regulations that apply in every western democracy, explicitly forbidding one nation or religion runnign roughshod over another. With its external security firmly guaranteed by UN and America.

Now THAT would propel the whole of the Middle East towards modernisation, democratization and secularization, you betcha!...

[Gamblor]

Which is why I claim (and the pro-Zionists get all upset) that Israel remains an anachronism.

Israel is only an anachronism to the united states in which all forms of group identity are lost.

Yet, even in that united states, the statutory holidays are christian holidays and observant jews are still required to miss work on saturdays and holidays, costing millions in lost business.

In Israel, jewish holidays are statutory holidays and jews don't miss work for religious observances.

this is the most clear cut example.