He said, She said.
The following was an exchange of comments following part 3 of my case for Israel's right-to-exist.---
YS said...
In closing: do you truly believe that if Israel would return to the pre-'67 lines, none of it's neighboring countries would attack anymore? I ask this with zero sarcasm or malice - do you really think that such a retreat would bring peace and harmony to our region?
Elizabeth said...
Yes, I do. Because it would be enforced by the United Nations. No one could really object to it because the Palestinians have already said they would agree to it.
Of course, the borders issue does not resolve the refugee issue. That would also have to be resolved.
You have the classic paranoid, "they're all out to destroy us" view that so many Jews have. It's sad. It leads to a belief that there's nothing to do but try to kill the Arabs or beat them into submission, which of course is impossible and absurd.
----
Elizabeth,
If I understand your comment correctly, we could retreat to 1967 borders for two reasons:
1)The UN would enforce it.
2)Palestinians would not object as they have already said they would agree to it.
I feel that a few points have been born out by the past 50 years of history:
1)The UN and other foreign powers have proven themselves unreliable in protecting Israel. Case(s) in point: UNIFIL, who's officers claimed "We never saw any Hezbollah."1 and when asked what UNIFIL would do if they saw Hezballah fighters attacking Israel the response was "We would not stop them. We would notify the Lebanese army and they could act as they see proper."2. Nasser sending the UN home before closing the Suez Canal in '67. General lack of UN support for Israeli defensive measures this summer and specifically the statements of Kofi Anan during this summer's conflict in the north. Lack of protest to Aminjahad's speech in the UN Gen. Assem. in which he openly spoke of destroying another UN member state.
2)The Arab nations in the middle east ARE looking to get rid of the Jews in the region. Case(s) in point: Arab League and PLO documents have never, despite assurances to the contrary, been changed and the goal of destroying Israel is still touted. Our Iranian neighbors who pay for our Lebanese neighbors to bring rockets from Syria to kill Israeli civilians! While these are not Palestinian Arab per say, the overall pan-Arabian sentiment seems to be in line with an Israeli-free Middle East.
I feel that for us to retreat to the Israeli borders pre-67 would be one of three things:
Either, sticking our heads in the sand and believing that: One, The Arab world will keep it's unwritten (and often unspoken or contradicted) promise. And two, should they not, the UN and other world powers will step in and help us.
Alternately, you may feel that Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state in the Middle East regardless of it's borders. Hence we should all leave or submit to being dhimmi in a Muslim state. Assuming we're not all killed.
Lastly, you may be one who intellectually understands the above mentioned facts but do not want to believe them because they run contrary to the fantasy "New Middle East" we all (myself included) would like to believe in.
Thoughts? Oooh, this should be fun!
1. Heard on a radio interview with the commander of a UNIFIL base near the Lebanese-Israeli border. He said they had only a handful of staff and their actions in the region consisted of a patrol route every few days.
2. Paraphrased from a J-Post interview published Fri, Sept. 22.
posted by YS @ 10:30 AM
A blog is a writer clearing junk out of his head by bouncing around the room of chipmunks that we call society.
9 Comments:
Just found on This is Babylon: Hamas talks about a 2 state solution.
Fun!
I don't know what other people expect- that Hamas is suddenly going to change their credo because they get what they want?!
I sometimes just don't understand how people can think such things and not think of themselves as totally naive or blind...
And I suppose the way they'd think of me is as someone who is stubbornly stuck in a pre-disposed opinion... but I'm not...
"Case(s) in point: UNIFIL, who's officers claimed "We never saw any Hezbollah."1 and when asked what UNIFIL would do if they saw Hezballah fighters attacking Israel the response was "We would not stop them. We would notify the Lebanese army and they could act as they see proper.""
I believe they were referring to Hezbollah fighters attacking the Israelis who are still occupying Lebanese land.
I believe people need to do what's right. For you to say, "well, even if we do what's right, they'll still hate us" how is that an excuse for doing what's wrong?
An ethnic state is a 19th century idea that became unworkable in the 20th century. It's now the 21st century. Time to get with the program.
"I believe they were referring to Hezbollah fighters attacking the Israelis who are still occupying Lebanese land."
I wish that were the case. The issue was if Hezbollah attacks Israel proper.
Also...
""well, even if we do what's right, they'll still hate us" how is that an excuse for doing what's wrong?"
That's not the issue. The problem is that they say they will still try to kill us!
I think you misunderstand the role of UN peacekeepers. Their role is to report violations of the peace, not to intervene militarily.
When exactly did Hezbollah say that no matter what concessions Israel gives, they would still kill Israelis?
"An ethnic state is a 19th century idea that became unworkable in the 20th century. It's now the 21st century. Time to get with the program."
Germany has blood laws allowing ethnic Germans who've lived elsewhere for generations to claim citizenship.
There are millions of Koreans who've lived in Japan for generations, never granted citizenship due to their ethnicity.
90% of the population of the United Arab Emirates are foreignors, and will remain so, because to apply for UAE citizenship you have to be
(1) Muslim
(2) Arab
(3) From a select few Arab states near the UAE.
India gives near citizenship to all 'Persons of Indian Origin', which definition specifically excludes anyone who's lived in Pakistan, such as the Muslims ethnically cleansed out of India during the partition.
The ethnic state may be idealogically undesirable, but hardly 'unworkable', unless you think Germany, Japan, the UAE and India are 'unworkable' states.
Analyist,
Thank you for the comment. I didn't know any of that.
I guess that Elizabeth's comment of it being unworkable could be better said as "idealogically undesirable" and as such her protest might be that we (the Jewish nation) claim to strive towards a better, more ethical society.
הוסף רשומת תגובה
<< Home