Fun with Flotillas Pt II

[GostHacked]

You're deflecting. I asked you and GostHacked a straightforward question - please explain what differentiates the Palestinian people culturally lends credence to their claim of constituting a distinct nation, separate from the neighbouring Arab countries.

The onus is on you to explain why they are not different. It's your claim, you back it up.

[DogOnPorch]

You suppose? Ahh so it was a guess. I'll make note of that for future reference.

Do you deny the Palestinian Cause's Nazi connection?

[DogOnPorch]

Also by pretending that Hamas represents some "minority" of Palestinians. By extension, I think GostHacked was trying to imply that anti-Semitism/anti-Zionism isn't the norm among Arab sentiment.

He had better hurry if he wants to be with the new flotilla to save Hamas.

[Bob]

The onus is on you to explain why they are not different. It's your claim, you back it up.

In other words, you can't explain how they're different. Don't worry, I knew you wouldn't answer the question.

[Remiel]

You're deflecting. I asked you and GostHacked a straightforward question - please explain what differentiates the Palestinian people culturally lends credence to their claim of constituting a distinct nation, separate from the neighbouring Arab countries. I didn't expect you to seriously address the question, as it was relatively rhetorical. The Palestinians are Arabs, like most others, and we already have more than enough land and states for this nation (or group of nations, if you prefer). The concept of a distinct "Palestinian" nation is a political tool (and artificial construct) manufactured to create an illusion of a distinct nation being denied independence and self-determination.

It was not deflecting your argument, it was taking the ground out from beneath it.

Answer me this one: where exactly do you think you are going to get arguing for ethnic nationalism as the sole basis for statehood on the messageboard of a country that lives and breathes civic nationalism?

[Bob]

It was not deflecting your argument, it was taking the ground out from beneath it.

Answer me this one: where exactly do you think you are going to get arguing for ethnic nationalism as the sole basis for statehood on the messageboard of a country that lives and breathes civic nationalism?

Well, the Jewish people are very multiethnic. And although uncommon, a person of any ethnicity can be a Jewish person. Why don't you just come out and say that you oppose Zionism? It seems that this is the direction you are moving towards. Why not just come out with it? Lastly, many Canadians support Israel's Jewish character and the recognize the need for a Jewish homeland.

Regardless, you're trying to deflect again and run off towards another tangent. Just concede that the Palestinian people don't constitute a distinct nation separate from any of the other superficial Arab nationalism we see in the twenty-two other Arabs states. I will not pretend to be surprised that neither you or GostHacked can support the position that the "Palestinians" constitute a distinct nation entitled to national rights. Of course the entire concept of the "Palestinian people" is hollow and meaningless, a political tool manufactured to create an illusion - an illusion you've bought into yet cannot explain.

[dre]

In other words, you can't explain how they're different. Don't worry, I knew you wouldn't answer the question.

It makes no diference. There is no cultural or ethnic litmus test to becoming a nationstate. The question is a red herring.

[bud]

The proper location of rights is in people. Nations may said to have rights only insofar as they operate legitimately as the collective will of their constituent people. Add to that the premise that it seems we can all agree on, that the other Arab countries have treated the Palestinians like crap, and it follows that they cannot be said to legitimately represent the Palestinians, and that the people who make up the Palestinians are obviously justified in operating as their own discrete unit.

The same principles apply to Israel. Israel has rights only because the Jews who live there want to have a country called Israel to express their collective will. Since we can all agree that the people in the Palestinian territories are not being welcomed to become part of the Israeli collective, then it cannot be the case that the rights of Israel extend to those Palestinians territories.

The logical conclusion of all this being, of course, a Palestinian state.

well said.

[Guest American Woman]

The logical conclusion of all this being, of course, a Palestinian state.

But it isn't simply a "Palestinian state" that's desired, is it? The Palestinians want Palestine to include the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. And therein lies a big part of the problem.

[Bob]

It makes no diference. There is no cultural or ethnic litmus test to becoming a nationstate. The question is a red herring.

It's not a red herring, at all. Just because there are elements of subjectivity to a question doesn't disqualify it. Many things in life that are real and meaningful can't be precisely quantified. I am not surprised that you are joining the team to work to deflect from this most basic question about legitimacy of nationalistic claims to independence and self-determination. The fact that the "Palestinian" people is a meaningless rhetorical weapon that was conceived in the aftermath of the Six-Day War is inconvenient to your political agenda and narrative. They're Arabs, like all the others. They have more than enough land and states, as it is. The world doesn't need another. Your statement boils down to this - since any possible answer to my question will necessarily contain within it elements of subjectivity, it is irrelevant. That's quite a stupid position.

The question of what distinguishes the Jewish people, on the other hand, is not a difficult question to answer.

[Bob]

But it isn't simply a "Palestinian state" that's desired, is it? The Palestinians want Palestine to include the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. And therein lies a big part of the problem.

There's also the problem of their track record and ongoing rhetoric. They have been a part of every war waged against Israel, and have the blood of thousands of Israeli victims of terrorism on their hands. We have thousands of reasons not to trust them with increased autonomy over land on our doorstep, and those thousands of reasons are in the cemeteries across the land of Israel. As far as I'm concerned, they have no right to independence when their entire existence has been dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Why should we improve their abilities to wage hostilities against us?

They want independence? Fine. Let them build their "Palestine" in Jordan. Not here.

[dre]

But it isn't simply a "Palestinian state" that's desired, is it? The Palestinians want Palestine to include the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. And therein lies a big part of the problem.

Why is that a problem? Its their land... they live there.

[Bob]

Why is that a problem? Its their land... they live there.

It's our land, and they live here.

[Guest American Woman]

Why is that a problem? Its their land... they live there.

I don't think you need me to tell you that that's their viewpoint and Israel has another.

[bud]

It's not a red herring, at all. Just because there are elements of subjectivity to a question doesn't disqualify it. Many things in life that are real and meaningful can't be precisely quantified. I am not surprised that you are joining the team to work to deflect from this most basic question about legitimacy of nationalistic claims to independence and self-determination. The fact that the "Palestinian" people is a meaningless rhetorical weapon that was conceived in the aftermath of the Six-Day War is inconvenient to your political agenda and narrative. They're Arabs, like all the others. They have more than enough land and states, as it is. The world doesn't need another. Your statement boils down to this - since any possible answer to my question will necessarily contain within it elements of subjectivity, it is irrelevant. That's quite a stupid position.

The question of what distinguishes the Jewish people, on the other hand, is not a difficult question to answer.

the palestinian arabs have lived in the region for centuries, so they have more of a claim to that land than most jews whose only connection is what is written in the old testament which was compiled in the 5th century BC.

you have a lot of nerve claiming that these people have no right or less right to the land than the jews who started immigrating to the region 100 years ago.

[Remiel]

Regardless, you're trying to deflect again and run off towards another tangent. Just concede that the Palestinian people don't constitute a distinct nation separate from any of the other superficial Arab nationalism we see in the twenty-two other Arabs states.

Why would anyone " concede " a contradiction in terms? By definition if something is superficially the same it must be distinctively different.

[Remiel]

But it isn't simply a "Palestinian state" that's desired, is it? The Palestinians want Palestine to include the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. And therein lies a big part of the problem.

Why should it not though? Are Palestinians not the majority in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem?

[bud]

It's our land, and they live here.

logic, reality and international law doesn't give a shit about what the bible says.

it's time that people like you are marginalized and to move towards a real and just palestinian state without your consideration. because when you say, "it's our land and they live here", then you deem yourself useless.

[Bob]

I don't think you need me to tell you that that's their viewpoint and Israel has another.

It would be interesting to see Arab leadership openly state that waging war against Israel in May of 1948 was a mistake. They made a decision to destroy the nascent state of Israel, and rejected the 1947 Partition Plan. Immediately after the war's conclusion, Israel's territory has already expanded by about 30%. The boundaries then expanded again in the aftermath of the Six-Day War in June of 1967. Now, the Arabs are saying they want negotiations for final-status agreements to be based on the 1949 Armistice Lines (referred to as the 1967 lines). If the really meant it, then they'd openly concede in retrospect, that they should have accepted that 194 Partition Plan, which would've given them even more territory than what they say they want today. They'll never make this admission, however, and neither will their supporters. You know why? Because they're opposed to Israel as a Jewish state within ANY BORDERS on this land. Their wars waged to destroy weren't mistakes, they were failures. In other words, the objectives were justified, but there were failures in the execution of their plans.

You know, war isn't mini-put-put-golf. You don't get to call a mulligan and get a do-over because you don't like the outcome of the war. This is particularly true when you initiated the wars of aggression. This is what the Arabs are trying to do. They've repeatedly tried to destroy us, they lost territory as a result (we needed to capture it for defensive purposes), and now they want to hit the reset button and start all over again. What makes anyone think we trust these Arabs to not do again what they've never ceased trying to do - destroy us by any means necessary? If they really wanted independence and self-determination (the "Palestinians"), and has reasonable requests, then it'd be no problem. Of course that isn't the case. The make undeliverable demands regarding "settlements", continue to engage in terrorism and coordinate with their terrorist allies, and wage political warfare against us everywhere they ca: the UN, the media, abusing Israel's legal system, all while receiving more aid per capita than any other group of people in the world.

[Bob]

Why would anyone " concede " a contradiction in terms? By definition if something is superficially the same it must be distinctively different.

Aside from this sentence between a non-sequitor, are you ever going to explain how the "Palestinian" people constitute a distinct nation entitled to self-determination and independence? Or should I just give up and start ignoring your endless deflections?

[Bob]

logic, reality and international law doesn't give a shit about what the bible says.

it's time that people like you are marginalized and to move towards a real and just palestinian state without your consideration. because when you say, "it's our land and they live here", then you deem yourself useless.

Yes, of course, the "international law" written by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (55 Muslim-majority states that reflexively oppose Israel on all issues) along with their largely allies "non-aligned movement" (another 100-ish states). Of course the Jewish people, who compose a hundredth of a percent of the global population, have a quiet voice in the "international community".

"Logic and reality" is just ironic rhetoric from someone like yourself.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Bob

[Bob]

Why should it not though? Are Palestinians not the majority in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem?

Not that these demographics matter, but they can be changed.

[bud]

Yes, of course, the "international law" written by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (55 Muslim-majority states that reflexively oppose Israel on all issues) along with their largely allies "non-aligned movement" (another 100-ish states). Of course the Jewish people, who compose a hundredth of a percent of the global population, have a quiet voice in the "international community".

"Logic and reality" is just ironic rhetoric from someone like yourself.

what are you babbling about? international law created israel.

[bud]

Not that these demographics matter, but they can be changed.

ethnic cleansing anyone?

[dre]

It's not a red herring, at all. Just because there are elements of subjectivity to a question doesn't disqualify it. Many things in life that are real and meaningful can't be precisely quantified. I am not surprised that you are joining the team to work to deflect from this most basic question about legitimacy of nationalistic claims to independence and self-determination. The fact that the "Palestinian" people is a meaningless rhetorical weapon that was conceived in the aftermath of the Six-Day War is inconvenient to your political agenda and narrative. They're Arabs, like all the others. They have more than enough land and states, as it is. The world doesn't need another. Your statement boils down to this - since any possible answer to my question will necessarily contain within it elements of subjectivity, it is irrelevant. That's quite a stupid position.

The question of what distinguishes the Jewish people, on the other hand, is not a difficult question to answer.

this most basic question about legitimacy of nationalistic claims to independence and self-determination.

Thats quite simply NOT a basic or important question. And the suggestion that palestinians dont qualify for statehood because we are already over some kinda Arab state "quota" is nothing but pure racism.

Their race/culture are besides the point. The case for statehood is that theres millions of stateless people living in a large piece of land that doesnt belong to any state. Really nothing more is required than that.