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.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Official Cyrus vs. MMMMMM Israel/Arabs Thread

[/ QUOTE ] Actually, it is not. MMMMMM claimed that Islam is inherently closer to the intolerant philosophies that plagued Western Europe than Judaism. I am still waiting form MMMMMM to bring that nonsense up in a new thread.

[ QUOTE ]
Cyrus has stated that Israel has nothing to fear [in military terms] from its neighbours as it is militarily stronger.

[/ QUOTE ]Yes. Is this even debatable ?

[ QUOTE ]
But how much risk of a certain level of harm or even total destruction not from the sum of its neighbours, 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?

[/ QUOTE ]I have no hard and fast answer (or a "figure") for you. Pre-emptive, defensive, military action is something quite legitimate.

But, if you are referring to the Six Day War, well, since the numerous and serious revelations of the research undertaken by modern revisionist historians * (including a significant number of honest, honourable Israelis or simply Jewish), Israel had much, much less to fear at the time than it claimed. But the Six Day War is worthy of an entire, its own thread !

[ QUOTE ]
A related question is does any Arab state need nuclear weapons?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, there is not, absolutely not. Not any longer. . The reason Arab states sought nuclear weapons in the past was NOT to face off or threaten America. They were not that stupid!

The reason they wanted nukes was to get on a somewhat closer pedestal to nuclear-armed Israel -- which still is the only country in the region, let's not forget, which possesses Weapons of Mass Destruction, i.e. nukes. (And this is not even debatable.)

[ QUOTE ]
To what area of land is Israel entitled as a state?

[/ QUOTE ]Funny you should ask !

I am not aware of Israel declaring finally and resolutely that XYZ should be its rightful frontiers and nothing more. Israel, if you were to look up any maps of the region, keeps expanding its territory. some of the acquired territory is kept for good, some of it has an unknown future, while some of it is used for bargains. In any case, Israel has no official frontiers declared!

[ QUOTE ]
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)?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, Israel should be allowed to keep more than the 1948 boundaries. The Arabs, no matter what the cause or the villain(s) in this movie, lost four or five wars. This should count for something. The Arabs and especially the Palestinians, must seek accommodation with Israel, co-existence with an independent Palestinian state, or --better yet-- live inside one, democratic state which is ruled western-style, a s a republic, and with its security guaranteed by both the UN and America.

...Hey, guess what? The Palestinian leadership has gone the extra mile for all the declarations and denouncements and agreements that were required by Israel. But, guess what, Israel claims it's all hypocritical! I have no idea what can be realistically expected in such a situation.

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ] The degree of American assistance to Israel should be tied to the effort Israel shows towards a just and peaceful solution to the conflict. Let's go for the Bush Roadmap! I'd be all for it, personally.

However, Israel shows no signs of moving towards genuine peace. The leadership obviously reserves a future of pure second-class citizenry for the Palestinians, keep 'em as modern helots. The Palestinians see the writing in the wall. And start blowing themselves up. Desperation has set in, deeply and obviously.

[ QUOTE ]
Should the degree of democracy/totalitarianism of Arab governments also factor in this?

[/ QUOTE ]All attempts towards democratisation of the Arab regimes were drowned repeatedly in blood by the local "anti-communist, nationalist, religious" leaderships, with the enthusiastic support of the United States.

The United States should not be acting like an agent of justice in punishing the totalitarian Arab regimes, but rather like someone who needs atonement. The blood of the hundreds of thousands of those pro-democracy agitators of the 50s, 60s and 70s is, at least partly, on Washington, too.



--Cyrus

* The term “revisionist historians” does not imply the ignoble bunch of Holocaust deniers.

[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.

[Jdanz]

i disagree that israel isn't making any strides for peace, Sharon leaving Likud is a big step. I think there is a great deal of inierta and entrenched power struggles, but i legitimately believe that Sharon is willing to work for peace.

This is certainly not a blanket endorsement of isreali pliticians only an acknowledgement that there are people on both sides struggling for a true peace (who know what the end result might be?)

[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.

[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.

[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?