Reply #123: "Rights" are an inherently subjective concept. [View All]

They differ according to where one stands, what group one identifies with and, most noticeably, as time passes. When we analyze these events from 60 years ago it is important that we refrain from judging either side's actions using standards that didn't exist until several decades later. Can we agree to try and maintain a sense of historical context?

That said there's something I'd like to get off my chest right away. I find these kinds of discussions inherently unfair on a certain level. The creation of most states are stained with a certain amount of blood and injustice, yet no matter what current policies of theirs that we may criticize it is only ever Israel whose legitimacy as a state is routinely challenged. It goes without saying that had Zionism never existed then the conflict would never have occurred. But I fully reject the idea that this somehow intimates that the bulk of responsibility for the conflict's never-ending continuation rests with Israel. Looking at Israel's creation in comparison to other states in the region (Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon) and other states born during the same time period and via similar means (India, Pakistan, East Pakistan ie: Bangladesh), I see only one obvious difference. In the case of Israel, most of the people responsible for building and founding the state were immigrants from an entirely different region of the world. But I wholly reject the argument that just because Palestine had a majority Arab population they somehow have the rights to xenophobically challenge the immigration of all non-Arabs everywhere. You are conferring upon a mob the rights usually reserved for the leaders of a state. All of Palestine did not belong exclusively to the Arabs. It is the historical and cultural home to many different nations and ethnicities. Do not mistake their rights to avoid oppression and exercise their right to self-determination with sovereignty over all of Palestine.

Then it tossed over 700,000 people from 1947-49 and another 350,000 after the '67 War. It's pretty hard to dispute that.

I can dispute that. Firstly, we are both aware of the events surrounding the first Nakba. Israel "tossed out" a very small percentage of the people who fled. What it did do was prevent their return. The difference is not merely semantics; its practical implication was that the 160–200,000 Arabs who did not flee, who remained in Israel, were allowed to become equal citizens of the new state.

At the time, population transfers of this sort to prevent civil war were not considered war crimes or even particularly unethical. It was not prohibited by international law, even without the consent of the population in question, until 1949. Don't forget that Israel also absorbed around 1 million Jewish refygees from Arab states.

After the '67 war, Israel didn't toss anyone. The few hundred thousand that fled the West Bank to avoid the fighting did so themselves. Since they were Jordanian citiznes who remained in Jordan they would not be considered refugees. Moreover, after the war was over Israel decided to allow anyone who fled from the west bank to the east the right to return to their homes. This was discouraged by Jordan, not Israel, thus only 60–80,000 people returned.

Now, the original point you were making concerned how Israel got its land in the first place. You said it did so by a systematic and racist policy of ethnic cleansing, depriving well over a million Palestinians of their land and freedom. So none of these people who fled from the OPT in '67-'68 apply. Israel never expelled them to begin with. They were all allowed to return and tens of thousands of them did just that. And none of this land is considered part of Israel anyway, even by Israelis. (Except for East Jerusalem perhaps).

Incidentally, following this war it was Israel that tried to alleviate the Palestinian's wretched living situation by building solid homes for them instead of the squalid tent camps. This move was opposed by the PLO and several people who relocated to the houses were subsequently murdered.

So it is far less than a million. Almost none were "tossed out." Nor was there a systematic policy of racist ethnic cleansing. So, I consider that point pretty well disputed.

Before its existence and continuing to this day, Israel has lusted for more land. That's a key reason the major Israeli parties have permitted settlements. They have always believed that the land is theirs - all of it.

I reject this argument as the facts don't support it. To begin with, the political situation behind the Knesset allowing settlements has never been a cut and dry issue. That both parties ended up backing the policy has far more to do with the mechanics of Isrel's parlimentary system that gives some small groups an enormous amount of power via the need to secure a certain number of seats to govern (and thus the need to placate the hard right religious Zionists.) Israel has always shown itself to be more than willing to trade land for peace. At this point Israel has returned around 94% of the Arab land occupied during the '67 war. This is hardly the actions of a state that will do anything for more land and believe that all of it is theirs by right of birth. Even the settlements only comprise a few percent of the West Bank... around 3 or 4%.

There was no "Palestinian ethnic cleansing" 60 years ago of which I am aware.

Hebron was a bit more than 60 years ago. Are you not counting it for this reason? Beyond that, have you never wondered why East Jerusalem was devoid of Jews until after 1967? I mean, the Jewish Quarter is there... wouldn't you expect to also find Jews?

In large part, Palestinians have no state because Israel exists on part of its land.

Well, that's a pretty severe extrapolation. The Palestinians don't have a state for a myriad of reasons to numerous to list. But I think this reason is minor to non-existent. To start with the obvious, Arabs controlled this land for 20 years and no one made any indication whatsoever that the Palestinians would be allowed to have their own state their. Quite the opposite in fact.

Secondly, and I'll be brutally honest here, while you accuse Israel of existing on part of Palestine's land, it is important to understand that Palestine does not (nor did it ever), have any land. What it means when people say that Palestine never existed is that all of this occupied land, the whole OPT and everything else not explicitly covered by treaties, (including both east AND west Jerusalem), is technically disputed territory. It arguably does not belong to any state from a legal standpoint. (Which is why no foreign nations will have their embassies in Jerusalem even though it is Israel's capital. It is not truly, officially Israel.)

Beyond this I think it is important to step back and consider what is really two competing demands for self-determination. The I/P conflict is a zero sum game. Land won by one of them is lost by the other. Neither side can have all their desires, demands or "rights" attended to without the other losing theirs. Now within this framework, their competing claims are considered equal in legitimacy. And while it is not a popular opinion, I disagree with this assumption. Were it to come down to accomodating either the Palestinian or the Jewish right to realize self-determination I believe the Jews have a stronger claim.

My reasons are as valid as they are obvious. And while I will no doubt be accused of harboring racist beliefs as my motive, I feel my POV is justifiable on a number of valid levels. Firstly we have to consider the current existence of 20+ Arab states. Now I am not suggesting that All Arabs are the same. Far from it. However different the various facets of Arab cultures and nationalities are, the exact same thing could be said of the Jewish people. Yet despite this scope of variation, the Jewish people all share a single country. As a nationality, Palestine's uniqueness surely qualifies it as deserving of their own country. But not at the expense of the ENTIRE spectrum of Jewish culture (were it necessary to choose between them.) Secondly is the issue of basic human rights. Only when Israel gained authority over East Jerusalem were the myriad of religious sites there accessible to all three religions. Under Arab rule synagogues were destroyed, cemetary headstones used as building material, etc. Only Israel has ensured the rights of all three religions and acknowledged their historical ties to their respective sites. Third is the issue of anti-semitism, the reason for Israel's creation in the first places. Put simply, Jews face a level of persecution that makes their self-determination and ability to defend themselves a necessity that is virtually unmatched. Dismantling the state would undoubtedly result in the oppression, victimization and death of many Jews the world over.

People often approach the discussion about this conflict with the assumption that both Jews and Palestinians have equally legitimate claims to the land needed to self-govern. Many assume that the Palestinians have a greater immediate claim, as they are for the most part, actually from Palestine. But this accident of birth did not entitle them to the rights of denying others the ability to move there. Particularly if the alternative facing them was death or a gulag.

it is easy to cheer the powerful

Is it? My inclination has always been to identify wih the underdog, the oppressed. (Please spare me the dime store psychology insinuating that this is why people feel the need to falsely portray the Israelis as being victimized by the Palestinians. My motivations are somewhat more self-aware than that. Not much,,, but somewhat.)