Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Israel/Palestine
In reply to the discussion: Surplus Jews [View all]kayecy
(1,417 posts)149. Could I ask you again to continue your ‘collaboration" analogy?.....
Last edited Fri Jun 15, 2012, 10:14 AM - Edit history (3)
That was quite an jeremiad!...Let me try and summarize it....In essence you made a complaint and five counter- arguments:
Your Complaint:
you have still not answered the two key questions that are integral to your argument's success. Namely: a) Why exactly was the Jews' immigration to Palestine unethical? So far all you have offered is the argument that the Arab's did not want them there...... b) What right did the Arabs have to restrict who moved on to land that they did not own
Your question is in fact two sides of the same question....ie if it was ethical for the Zionists to decide to create a homeland in Palestine, it must have been unethical for the Palestinians to reject them and vice-versa...I thought I had answered this question when I concluded that:
C. If, however, you believe that Israel does have a moral right to prevent Palestinian refugees returning to their villages then the 1900s Palestinians had at least the same moral right to attempt to prevent alien Zionist immigration into Palestine.
I also said there was no point in pursuing this if you did not accept the relevance of the UDHR principles to this ethical argument, so I presume that that is what you are attempting to prove with your counter-arguments.
Your Counter-arguments were:
Firstly you claimed that the Zionist and Palestinian actions had to be judged by the ethical standards of the time.
I reject that argument... Was it ethical for Congress to pass the 1924 immigration act virtually stopping Jewish immigration to the US? ....Was it ethical for the US Government to refuse to allow the St Louis passengers to land in 1939?....After all, at the 1938 Evian conference, no state was prepared to accept Jewish refugees so you could say that the right to reject Jews was the ethical standard of the time!
In any case, we are not discussing moral standards but the comparative morals of two peoples....Your argument would imply that we cannot evaluate whether the Armenians or the Turks were ethically wrong in the post WW1 genocide.
......................
Secondly, you argued that I was demanding accountability to the exact legal reading of the UDHR....This is not true... I made it clear that legalities are irrelevant, but most people and states accept that the UDHR is the pre-eminent document on human-rights and believe that all states and people SHOULD live up to its principles......That many states fail to do so does not detract from its value in deciding which of two states or people in a conflict have the more moral right.
............................
Thirdly, you argued that the principles (or standards as you call them) are literally impossible for anyone to abide by....Can you give me an example?.....As I said, Europeans can, and do, take their governments to court for infringement of the UDHR principles.
...............................
Fourthly, you argue that Israel should not be held to ethical principles because it would be impossible without violating some of the basic laws of physics.
I am afraid you have lost me on this one..... However, to make it absolutely clear, I do not hold Israel or anyone one else to a standard.....I am merely comparing the morality of one set of people's actions with another set people's actions.
...............................
In Your Shaktimaan Post No 2 you added a fifth argument, namely that The Zionist enterprise was approved by both Britain and the LoN.
I am quite prepare to discuss the ethics of Balfour with you but the Zionist decision to make their homeland in Palestine was taken at the 1st to 8th Zionist congresses, all of which took place before WW1........I agree that Zionism was no worse than what the Great Powers were doing at the time, but they are not the subject of this discussion....We are comparing the actions of the early Zionists in forcing the Palestinians to accept immigration, with the actions of the Palestinians in rejecting that immigration.
Thank you for giving me a potted history of Zionism post-Balfour, but I have read a little on the subject, and it would save time if you confined yourself to those facts directly relevant to an ethical comparison of the early 1900s Zionist and Palestinian actions.
...................................
Now, can you get round to answering my question?.....With reference to your collaboration' invasion of the Bronx analogy, would you think the existing residents had no right to reject the incomers if, like the Zionists, the incomers were an alien ethnic group & culture and their leaders stated they intended to continue moving into the Bronx until they were in the majority, declare independence for the Bronx and rule over the existing residents as a sovereign power?.........Would you accept it?......Had Zionists not intended to do just that, there would probably have been no conflict.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
207 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I don't think I've ever seen anyone on this board arguing against Israel's "right to exist".
Crunchy Frog
Feb 2012
#2
Also plastic buckets and batteries for your flashlights, those are very important
shaayecanaan
Jun 2012
#20
You think a principal belief of judaism is a joke?........Sick I call it......n/t
kayecy
Jun 2012
#32
As much right as any other ethnic group living in an area, territory or region......
kayecy
Jun 2012
#42
Were Palestinian rights to self-determination less than other peoples?..................
kayecy
Jun 2012
#53
Kayecy, the Jews/Zionists conducted their negotiations and diplomacy w/ both the Turks and Brits...
shira
Jun 2012
#61
Shira...Please leave Bradlad and Holdencaufield to answer for themselves on this thread........n/t
kayecy
Jun 2012
#64
Israel did recognize and accept the citizenship and equal rights of their Arab population in 1948.
Fozzledick
Jun 2012
#25
so all countries discriminate against minorities so that makes it ok for Israel too? got it
azurnoir
Jun 2012
#29
So Kayecy, you believe where there's discrimination there are no equal rights? Does that apply...
shira
Jun 2012
#60
How can you possibly claim that it was a moral way to establish a new nation?....
kayecy
Jun 2012
#63
On the contrary, Zionists most certainly do, and you have just proved my point............
kayecy
Jun 2012
#71
Kayecy, you're trying to excuse Palestinians for the same evil that the rest of the world...
shira
Jun 2012
#76
OMG. Are you seriously saying Palestinians could have just up and moved somewhere else??
Violet_Crumble
Jun 2012
#80
And because of that it shouldn't be suggested for it to be done to any other people...
Violet_Crumble
Jun 2012
#101
It's pretty pointless trying to deny what you said. It's right there in yr post...
Violet_Crumble
Jun 2012
#100
I always find these multilayer attacks on posters usually ProPalestinian interesting
azurnoir
Jun 2012
#126
Your “collaboration” do not intend to declare UDI, or seize sovereign control of Fort Green.....
kayecy
Jun 2012
#138
How could Palestinians have a right to reject immigration < 1948 when the Brits...
shira
Jun 2012
#151
Kayecy, you're still blaming the Jews for negotiating with the only established powers of that time
shira
Jun 2012
#177
Got it thank you...I wonder which figure is correct...Approx 2,000 or 1,303....n/t
kayecy
Jun 2012
#131
What language did the "indigenous" Palestinmian Jews speak in normal everyday conversation
azurnoir
Jun 2012
#89
neither Meir or Ben-Gurion were born in Ottoman Palestine it was Russia and Poland
azurnoir
Jun 2012
#93
Wrong. UNRWA doesn't define who's a Palestinian. It defines who's a refugee...
Violet_Crumble
Jun 2012
#102
"...they must have been using a common language whatever their ancestery..."
holdencaufield
Jun 2012
#144
so what you are asking us to believe here is that Jews in Palestine prior to the 3rd aliyah
azurnoir
Jun 2012
#153
As an American I hardly find people speaking multiple languages "fantastical' or mythical
azurnoir
Jun 2012
#156
so I take it you can not really refute this can you oh you can go on and on about
azurnoir
Jun 2012
#158
wrong about what that the Jews of Palestine prior to the very late 19th century were ethnically Arab
azurnoir
Jun 2012
#162
And no one should end up at the mercy of a world where no one wants them, agreed.
Ken Burch
Jun 2012
#82
Israel was achieved without oppressing other people. Their enemies shouldn't have...
shira
Jun 2012
#91
Yeah, an end to occupation is an end to occupation. Negotiate further for more, stop stalling...
shira
Jun 2012
#111
Stalling nope however a viable Palestinian state is the desired end to the occupation
azurnoir
Jun 2012
#121
Team Palestine, especially here @ DU, has constantly called for Israel to end the occupation...
shira
Jun 2012
#122
Not for or against an opinion could only be given after what Israel is offering is seen
azurnoir
Jun 2012
#123
What's being offered? A unilateral withdrawal. There are no demands of the Palestinians. n/t
shira
Jun 2012
#127