« on: April 24, 2006, 07:20:35 AM »
Faster, the weather in Hong Kong is too humid. Can't wait til I get back to LA.
i don't think i have any accent.
This is quite the LSAT logic fallacy- you're taking the group and saying that this will be the result with this specific outlier. That's like arguing that the very places you were discussing earlier- Singapore, Malaysia- as well as the rest of Asia can't be democratic because China is Communist and because most of the other democracies that may exist in the area are corrupt, inefficient or really run by military juntas. That's not proof- that's implying that a certain type of people are incapable of democratic government. The Palestinians have already held fair and free elections, and they voted Hamas in specifically because they viewed Arafat's Fatah as corrupt and inefficient. If that's not democracy in action, I don't know what it is- lord knows it's a hell of a lot better than what we Americans are doing about our own bull politicians. Furthermore, the ability for people living under military occupation to have a really great and perfectly functioning government is incredibly difficult to do.
Actually it is that simple, as Jordan and the rest of the Arab world have already agreed at numerous summits that this land is the land of the Palestinians. They have already given up their claims to it. Furthermore, "legal" definitions are incredibly difficult to pin down here- every single settlement is "illegal" and yet Israel does nothing to follow those laws. Suddenly int'l law means something to them? Palestinians claim a right of self-determination as the indigionous people of that land, something that no int'l body would throw out on the grounds that the land techincally was "owned" by a colonial power. I highly doubt Britain would take it back. The Turks aren't stupid enough to try and dominate these people given all their problems with Kurds, let alone their own inner issues. Believe me, none of these other entities are at issue. This is a specific problem between Israelis and Palestinains.
Yes, they have these differences- but you make it seem as if there are absolutely no similarities between these two people at all. This is also false.
But it didn't- a people presupposed to form one type of government instead formed another- how come it's possible with the Jews but not with the Palestinians?
Furthermore, you indirectly support a very contentious issue in Israel: the question of forced majority. By arguing that Palestinians truly do outnumber Jews in Israel and the OT, it supports an argument which is often made by those who do not support Israel- namely, that Israel is a forced majority, one that utilizes the capabilities of the state to maintain a forced Jewish majority. This is antithetical to the concepts of democracy itself.
On top of all of this, it still doesn't address population demographics- if Palestinians in Israel continue to grow at this rate, they WILL outnumber the Jewish population. What happens then? Do you kick them out? When they vote to change policies, to you stop the democratic process?
I am not arguing that this will all be sunshine and happiness- far from it. But two states will only foster the hatred and indifference both sides have for one another. And the Palestinians will NEVER forget 1948. They won't, whether they have their excuse for a nation-state or not. 2 states won't end terrorism in Israel or Israeli control of the lives of all Palestinians. It won't.
The Peace Accords, and ESPECIALLY Camp David, are crucial here- they set the tone for what the parameters for peace have been. As I have already argued, it established a weak shadow of a nation-state for the PAlestinians. These accords stand as the basic definitions of what a 2-state solution would look like. So no, I am not "guessing" that 2-states will fail: I am looking at the past 15 years of history to very publicly state that the track records goes AGAINST 2 states working.
History is just as much against you as it is me- and your hopes and conjectures are just as strong or weak as mine. What I have argued is for the future long term stability of the region, for this area to not decay into depravation, there must be equal concessions, equal bargaining and equal stakes placed in the process. I do not believe two states will solve this, because ISrael iwll not forsake its control of the area for "national security" purposes and Palestinians won't, for the most part, accept the injustice of loosing their homeland. IT's just pushing the current conflict into the future rather than forcing both sides to end it now.
1 state, i believe, solves the above problems better than does 2 states. Here's your historical argument, HK:
During the times when Jews were settling in Palestine, there were relatively no conflicts between the two peoples. Jewish "new historians" track much of this time as one of relative peace- yes, there were disputes about land ownership and Palestinian resentment at the money and education Jewish settlers brought with them, but nothin at all violent, controversial or dangerous. Conflict started to escalate in 1917 with the Balfour Declaration, and even then, most of the anger of "the people" was directed at the British, not at one another. It wasn't until it became obvious that Jewish settlers intended to set up a sovereign state, and that Palestinian Arabs would be forced to loose what had historically been their land, that problems mounted.
In other words: BEFORE the dichotomy of Jewish Israel/Arab Palestine was established, both peoples lived in relative harmony- to the point that letters found during this time reveal that both peoples addressed one another as "cousins" more often than not. Furthermore, even today, cities like Haifa and Tel Aviv are examples of the peace that can exist between both peoples. Having both live as one doesn't seem to be a problem so long as the commitment to peaceful integration and not seperation remains the top priority.
The reality is that 2-state solutions are suggested because we can't break our own reliance on nation-state paradigms- we seem to think that all anybody wants is "their state"- but as both Jews and Palestinians have proven, where that place is is important. This particular place is important to both- dividing it divides both peoples' aspirations and increases the tensions between the two. Historically, they did in fact live together in peace- that isn't impossible today. It only needs leadership with the imagination and courage to stand up and realize that both peoples will never win everything they want, and could potentially loose everything if they continue down the path of seperation and exile.
The third party I am referring to here is Israel. The problem that currently exists is the overlapping ownership of everything resource related in the WB and Gaza Strip. I..... it would end up never being part of any final status talks.
This is what I mean when I say that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the Palestinians to ever negotiate on equal terms- they are NOT equal, and Israel continues to press from its own position of power a stance that would leave them in control of a very weak Palestinian state.
Thus, even when the Palestinians have turned to DIPLOMACY AND NOT VIOLENCE, it has not been on equal playing fields.
I cannot agree with you more that both parties are guilty of screwing up what little progress has been made. I would caution, however, against what would happen should Hamas recognize Israel- Arafat recognized Israel, and he was rewarded with being sidelined and living in a bombed out sh*t complex for 2 years, all the while being asked to somehow control his people and terrorist groups that despise him more than Israel because they see him as a sell-out. That certainly doesn't give Hamas incentive to recognize Israel.
What the int'l community should be doing is taking this chance to lean on this new government to establish strong practices within the territories first, for it is the deprevation and rampant poverty that continues to crush the Palestinians in all respects.
And I was never under the impression that sharon and Abbas did not talk- I said that there was little communication between the two. The communication was never much to begin with anyway, for it was all null and void once Bush agreed that "facts on the ground" had changed enough in Israel's favor regarding settlements (which is rpecisely why settlements are illegal under the 1949 Geneva Conventions), and that whatever unilateral decisions Israel made could be made without negotiations. If you have that kind of green light, what's there for Abbas to talk to Sharon about? The Israelis are already doing whatever they want regardless of Abbas.
But don't Israelis argue that Israel is theirs by Biblical birthright? Isn't that how, when debates open up regarding "who's land is it?" Jews argue that it is in fact theirs? Because without this sort of argument, it makes their creation of Israel even more of an egregious war of hostility than it already was. That's what's so funny- you claim that Palestinians are crazy to say they want their homeland back when this is a fundamental precept of Israel itself.
Furthermore, how is this impractical? The Palestinians were booted out of their land and now they want it back. The land was taken through war. Now they too are using war as a means of regaining the land. This isn't rocket science- we don't fault the American Indian for attacking colonists, why are we doing this with Palestinians? If you say "well, Palestinians attack civilians," I need only turn to the daily images of Israeli tanks and soliders killing, maiming and bulldozing the homes of innocent civilians as well. When a Palestinian suicide bomber kills civilians, Israel responds in kind- by bulldozing the homes of his family, friends and neighbors, people who had nothing to do with the attack to begin with.
By the way, if Israel can't defeat Hamas, Hezboulah, or any other militant organization, what makes anybody think that the PA, which isn't allowed to fully arm because Israel won't allow it to, would be able to disarm these groups? You defeat them by destroying their ideological/social bases- in other words, you supplant the social roles these groups fill (healthcare, schools, civic societies, etc) and eliminate the roots of their ideology- which, in Hamas' case, is a nationalistic one- the Islamic state part is secondary to that
there isn't a third party dictating and controlling the economic success/failure for these states.
Currently, Israel won't talk to Hamas- they won't even allow parliament members to travel from Gaza to the West Bank for meetings. The government is paralyzed, and it was already ostricized under Arafat/Abbas anyway. I continue to point out that it has not been negotiations that have made the Isaelis move- it's been violence, both with the Palestinians and with the other Arab states. You mention that it's impossible for Israel to talk to a government committed to its destruction- but what was the excuse with Arafat? With Abbas?
Regarding your question about Jews who were evicted from their own homes after Israel was established: yes, I do believe they deserve compensation for their evictions, be it monetarily or through land reclamation. If it was illegal and perpetuated in violence, I have no reason to say they don't deserve this. The idea of a refugee is one who has been evicted from their place of living. How they live after the evicition is up in the air- yes, you can try and live normally.
We have to focus this conversation on these two people, because they are the two currently embroiled in the conflict.
Regarding 22 arab nations and what principles guide them: who cares? What does that matter? What's relevant about that with regards to a unfified ISrael/Palestine? Why did you even mention them with regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Regarding violence and oppression in 1-state- yes, under the rule of law in a unified country, it is easier to break cycles of violence than it is to settle issues between two states through war. We have conflicts in the US all the time, but we don't break out into ethnic/racial violence everyday- that's because we have laws, and laws safeguard the public, and if everyone is part of that public, they have an incentive to follow it. Iraqis were thrown into a nation called Iraq despite intense ethnic/religious/cultural differences,
And I still never received an answer to my other post: I argued that we are already seeing what a 2-state solution would look like, and it blows. Here is what I asked from before:
_____________________________ _____________________________ ____________________
I want an argument- an argument that takes political, economic, security, religious, everything that encompasses a peaceful solution- that argues that 2 states will work and why it is the best and only way for peace to work, and a reason other than "they hate each other" for why 1-state would fail. Because let's face it- they will hate each other still in 2-states: what will stop them from going to war then?
_____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________