|
Post by aquacultured on Aug 30, 2018 0:21:46 GMT 1
Interesting thread, and I hope the usual ad hominems etc don't enter into it. I've no great problem with MR's exposition; and the problems I've got with it mean I'll go away and research it some more before I come back.
In the meantime, fascinating's posts have given us this nub: I want an agreed settlement instead of a war which has been going on for over half a century and no end in sight. I must admit I do too. So, ever more refined ideological positioning isn't what we need.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Aug 30, 2018 7:41:10 GMT 1
I do NOT compare the first or second world wars with the conflicts/wars in Israel both before and after independence in 1948.
I compare merely the ATTITUDE of and towards displaced persons in Europe and in the Middle East in the same time period.
The attitudes of the European Left in particular towards the Palestinian DPs as compared to the European DPs (who have been long forgotten) is down mainly to antisemitism, particularly the antisemitism of the neighbouring Arab nations and Palestinian political parties keeping alive the matter of the Palestinians in DP camps.
I have made no remarks about the ongoing rights and wrongs of the Arab-Istaeli conflict. That is for the participants to sort out. I merely comment on the truly extraordinary longevity of this particular dispute over the displacement of an arab population from a small area of land that happened 70 years ago. My opinion is that it is the fact that the "perpetrators" were Jews that accounts for the continuing venom that attaches to this "cause". This displacement of population (like others before it) would have been long forgotten had it not been for the persistence of mainly antisemites in keeping it alive.
I have sympathy for all peoples who lose their homelands but none for those who generation after generation persist in the demand for restitution of what was lost. It is futile. Bad things happen in wars. What happened in Palestine is minor in comparison with other displacements (as even fascinating acknowledges). Those who keep alive the dispute are culpable. It should be confined to a footnote of history like that of the European DPs who moved on and became an ornament to their new homelands.
A few billion pounds of seed money to encourage remaining individual Palestinian families to move on would help. I'm a great believer in such benign bribery. The majority of the original Palestinian refugees have indeed ALREADY moved on leaving behind only the dregs most susceptible to political ideology and rabble rousing as a permanent thorn in the side of the enemy, Israel. Shame on those who encourage them permanently to hold out for a "settlement" other than the obvious solution of "moving on".
Another fact of which fascinating may be ignorant is that Gaza has the highest birthrate in the world. That is deliberate not accidental.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Aug 30, 2018 8:28:03 GMT 1
The attitude of the world to the displaced Jews was to allow them to have their homeland, their own state, which they have had for over 70 years. The displaced Palestinians don't have their own state. It is that, and the seemingly endless killing (which I believe contributes to general instability in the ME), which are the reasons for genuine concern about the situation there. It's a bit like the conflict that dragged on in Northern Ireland. The killings and imprisonment without trial did attract international interest, and nobody said that criticism of Britain was out of order.
I don't believe that the increased birth rate in Gaza is "deliberate" - but even if it has, why does this concern you?
This discussion about whether Corbyn and the Labour Party's alleged anti-semitism. He is only refusing to accept the examples given in the human rights document. The party has put forward 2 additions to the document 1 "It is not antisemetic to criticise the Government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest antisemetic intent" 2 "It is not antisemetic to hold the Israeli government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli governments policies and actions, without additional evidence to suggest antisemetic intent"
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Aug 30, 2018 8:51:57 GMT 1
Why does the Gaza birthrate bother me?
Because it is a successful attempt to increase the number of (now 6th generation) Palestinian refugees camping out on the borders of Israel. It is a "population bomb" threat to its neighbour. But apart from that do you think Gaza can in any way provide jobs for this rapidly burgeoning population? The birthrate of all the Arab lands is exponential and even more so in Gaza. This, and not Israel is the root cause of Middle Eastern "instability". Palestinians and Arabs in general need gainful employment, not the "concern" of the likes of you about Israel, fascinating.
Are you totally ignorant of what is happening in this region about which you express such concern? Better by far to concentrate your "concern" on the the misgovernment of the Arab lands than Israel's purported misdeeds.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Aug 30, 2018 9:18:28 GMT 1
Since 1960, practically all births in the civilised world are deliberate. The question is why would anyone choose to bear children with no hope of giving them (or yourself) a decent life? Having eliminated pleasure and economics, the only remaining motivations are religion and politics, neither of which in my mind is a legitimate reason for doing anything. 1948 is history. Nobody lives in the past and no sane person wants to. We live in the future. The success of Israel is based on the philosophy of starting from where you are, not where you would like to have been a thousand years ago (Spain under the Inquisition? I doubt it) or even yesterday (Berlin without the Nazis - yes, please!). Postwar Europe, even amid the devastation, was a lot easier to fix than an arid desert with no technical infrastructure, but the immigrants (as all genuine immigrants do) looked to the future and got on with it whilst their neighbours complained and did nothing to help their nomadic brethren. The best place to begin any journey is from where you are, not from where you imagine you should be. Time the citizens of Gaza realised their government is not on their side, and started fixing things and dealing with their successful democratic neighbours instead of complaining about them - after all, not even their Egyptian brothers are listening: Today's Daily Mail is interesting in that respect. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3445671/Emotional-scenes-Egypt-opens-border-Gaza-Strip-time-year-allowing-Palestinian-families-cross-two-days-families.htmlThe news is about a temporary opening of the impenetrable Egypt-Gaza border. The story mentions Israel on every other line, although there is no actual news about that border at all. Why?
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Aug 30, 2018 9:37:59 GMT 1
Hi Marchesa, lovely to see you back with your eloquent advocacy of a cause you sincerely believe in
However.... I think that your argument is flawed in that it concentrates solely on just one aspect of the Israel/Palestine problem – the problem of the right of return to their homelands of the Palestinian diaspora, many of them in refugee camps dotted around the Levant
Most people (including a minority, perhaps, of Palestinians) do now accept that the right of return cannot happen as it would threaten the existence of Israel as a largely Jewish democracy.
So that argument is becoming more irrelevant as the years pass
But the problems are far greater than the right of return
In Israel proper, there is a large minority of Israeli Arabs. These Arabs are probably better off and have more freedoms than the surrounding Arab countries. But they are treated differently from Israeli Jews – they do not have quite the same rights as their Jewish neighbours. Can you imagine the uproar if Germany treated its minority Turks unequally with its indigenous German population? Can we not speak of that without being anti-Semitic?
Israel has occupied the West Bank for 50 years now. Although the population there is largely self-governing, it is subject to Military law Can we not speak of that without being anti-Semitic?
The West Bank Arabs homes are commonly bulldozed, their ancient olive orchards uprooted for 'security' reasons Can we not speak of that without being anti-Semitic?
The lands of the Arabs in the West Bank are commonly sequestered, again, normally for 'security' reasons, only for the hapless Arabs to watch as illegal settlements are placed on their land. There are now some 300,000 Israelis living illegally in the occupied territories. Can we not speak of that without being anti-Semitic?
It is commonplace for the Israeli Army to use excessive force to quieten the excesses of their colonials (just as we did with ours). It is COMMONPLACE for them to shoot and kill children Can we not speak of that without being anti-Semitic?
It WAS commonplace for Israeli soldiers to use excessive brutality when controlling the Arabs, even to the extent of killing those that they arrested That was greatly reduced due to the actions of that lovely Israeli organisation B'Tselem that gave video cameras to all the west bank villages and towns to record what was happening Can we not speak of that without being anti-Semitic?
Israeli settlers in the occupied territories commonly abuse and attack their Arab neighbours Can we not speak of that without being anti-Semitic?
The Gaza strip is a curse upon the world and on Israel in particular. Is there no way of dealing with that land other than treating it as a vast prison ? It is a disgrace. The trouble with being a colonial power, as Britain experienced, is that if the natives get uppity, then there is little option but to use force to suppress them. That is what Israel is now experiencing
Can we not speak of that without being anti-Semitic?
The very CONCEPT of being unable to criticise the State of Israel without being called anti-Semitic is appalling an anathema, a curse upon one of the West's most treasured values. The sheer malignity of the concept, as Fascinating has suggested lies in its logical extension – are criticisms of the State of Saudi Arabia to be banned as anti-Moslem, the UK as anti-English, China as Chinese racism …...
I am all for condemning anti-Semitism, but Jewish organisations are not above criticism and it is must not be primarily considered that any criticism is anti-Semitic, albeit that some of it undoubtedly is
The treatment of Mr Corbyn is a big mistake, whosoever is co-ordinating it. I have no time for Mr Corbyn, but I do not believe that he is in any way anti-Semitic. If the Jewish population of Britain really did face an 'existential threat' (how absurd is that notion), then I really believe that Mr Corbyn would be at the forefront in protecting them; I believe that had Mr Corbyn lived in Nazi Germany, he would have been one of those that took and sheltered Jewish people. He is an idealist, a fool and idealist, but I believe he has no hatred other than, possibly, class hatred
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Aug 30, 2018 9:46:18 GMT 1
Marchesa, I am surprised that you should fall for this solecism. ALL natural growth is exponential. The exponential growth may be occasionally halted or disrupted, but it is nevertheless, natural or exponential. Consider your phras e 'even more so'!
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Aug 30, 2018 12:58:18 GMT 1
Of course you can speak of the problematic nature of Israel's policies just as those of any other nation, nay. But we all know Israel's resident Arabs foreshadow a long term demographic and political threat to the Jewish state. To expect Israel to treat this "fifth column" as friendly is pie in the sky.
These problems and inequalities arise from being under duress from the descendants of hostile Palestinian DPs still being financed to squat in Gaza by the UN, Arab states and other muslim states. The concern of some in the West as well as elsewhere is out of all proportion to the purported problem and perfectly grotesque in historical terms. Where are the Armenians deported from Turkey today? Israel was created as a safe homeland for Jews NOT a place to share with self proclaimed enemies. Israel is not an academic experiment in inter-faith or inter-racial democracy!
All population growth rates are not "natural" (what do you mean by that?) or "exponential". There is a linear growth rate which means a similar numerical addition of people per annum. Exponential growth means an ever increasing rate of increase. It's the difference between absolute numbers and relative rates.
Average family size of 12 offspring in Gaza is not "natural". It is a policy. As well as being a gross imposition upon the health of Palestinian women this massive family size means the vast majority of the population is in poverty, unemployed and under 25 years old. In such a circumstance there can be no such thing as political or social stability especially when control is by invidious leaders whose stated policy is an end to the state of Israel and who are being subsidised to pursue this objective.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Aug 30, 2018 16:45:29 GMT 1
Of course you can speak of the problematic nature of Israel's policies just as those of any other nation, nay. If that is correct then there is no problem. BUT the Labour Party is attempting to add caveats to the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism that would unambiguously allow such criticism and is meeting with some hostility But we all know Israel's resident Arabs foreshadow a long term demographic and political threat to the Jewish state. Indeed it is estimated thagt in 150 years time if current birth rates continue unchanged then Jews will form an Israeli minority To expect Israel to treat this "fifth column" as friendly is pie in the sky. But what on earth can they do about it - mass deportations - we have a similar problem of course? All population growth rates are not "natural" (what do you mean by that?) or "exponential". I think our divergence here is semantic. Exponential growth rates generally are mapped by the equation y(t)= Ke^xt Where y is the outcome (as a function of time), K is a constant (the start value of the population) e the natural number 2.7128, which is raised to the exponent xt, where x is the growth rate, t is the time over which it is measured If the exponent value is 0 (birth rater = death rate)then the outcome Y has the same value as K - there is zero growth. If the exponent is <1 (death rate exceeds birth rate)the population decays and all but disappears If the exponent value is >1 (Birth rate exceeds death rate)there is population expansion over time If the exponent value is very small it resembles a straight line growth for a long period. I have looked up exponential population growth and it seems your version is the accepted version, where the population increases very rapidly I was being pedantic in that all growth is exponential, and dependent upon the value of the exponent
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Aug 30, 2018 23:53:32 GMT 1
We've had perfectly clear and forceful expositions on both sides of the argument: MR/mrsonde; and fascinating/Nay (which was worth seeing).
Given the stakes, for the whole of the Middle East, and of the world, there have got to be some points of compromise that can be negotiated, and then some more ...
... Despite Trump's malign influence on the idea of compromise and cooperation, and on the whole world.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Aug 31, 2018 0:17:42 GMT 1
The "stakes for the whole Middle East" are negligible. Either Hamas & co win, a tiny state is eliminated, and 400,000,000 people continue to live under repressive theocracies, or they lose, Israel survives, and 400,000,000 people continue to live under repressive theocracies. The 9,000,000 Israelis have no oil and occupy a minute sliver of land that can revert to desert in a couple of years. Israel is of no consequence to anyone except its inhabitants, but for one reason and one reason only, it dominates the headlines day after day.
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Aug 31, 2018 0:27:56 GMT 1
Please tell me the reason as you see it.
I'm trying to understand this issue now, having avoided doing so for most of my life.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Aug 31, 2018 7:31:17 GMT 1
Since 1960, practically all births in the civilised world are deliberate. The question is why would anyone choose to bear children with no hope of giving them (or yourself) a decent life? Having eliminated pleasure and economics, the only remaining motivations are religion and politics, neither of which in my mind is a legitimate reason for doing anything. 1948 is history. Nobody lives in the past and no sane person wants to. We live in the future. The success of Israel is based on the philosophy of starting from where you are, not where you would like to have been a thousand years ago (Spain under the Inquisition? I doubt it) or even yesterday (Berlin without the Nazis - yes, please!). Postwar Europe, even amid the devastation, was a lot easier to fix than an arid desert with no technical infrastructure, but the immigrants (as all genuine immigrants do) looked to the future and got on with it whilst their neighbours complained and did nothing to help their nomadic brethren. The best place to begin any journey is from where you are, not from where you imagine you should be. Time the citizens of Gaza realised their government is not on their side, and started fixing things and dealing with their successful democratic neighbours instead of complaining about them - after all, not even their Egyptian brothers are listening: Today's Daily Mail is interesting in that respect. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3445671/Emotional-scenes-Egypt-opens-border-Gaza-Strip-time-year-allowing-Palestinian-families-cross-two-days-families.htmlThe news is about a temporary opening of the impenetrable Egypt-Gaza border. The story mentions Israel on every other line, although there is no actual news about that border at all. Why? You want to ban articles mentioning the Israeli/Egyptian blockade? I expect you don't but I ask because it is being seriously mooted that Israel should not be criticised (or else the critic be in danger of being prosecuted for anti-semitism). I saw 2 references to Israel in the text of the article, which contained mostly pictures of people getting to meet each other. Here is another article in the same vein www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6081979/North-South-Korean-families-reunited-time-nearly-70-years-family-photos.html It's just the kind of thing that newspapers like to report on, human beings being released. You suggest the citizens of Gaza remove Hamas and deal with Israel. Suppose they get rid of Hamas, now what kind of "deal" do you suggest they make with Israel?
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Aug 31, 2018 7:44:31 GMT 1
Why does the Gaza birthrate bother me? Because it is a successful attempt to increase the number of (now 6th generation) Palestinian refugees camping out on the borders of Israel. It is a "population bomb" threat to its neighbour. But apart from that do you think Gaza can in any way provide jobs for this rapidly burgeoning population? The birthrate of all the Arab lands is exponential and even more so in Gaza. This, and not Israel is the root cause of Middle Eastern "instability". Palestinians and Arabs in general need gainful employment, not the "concern" of the likes of you about Israel, fascinating. Are you totally ignorant of what is happening in this region about which you express such concern? Better by far to concentrate your "concern" on the the misgovernment of the Arab lands than Israel's purported misdeeds. That really is nonesense and just another excuse to blame the Gazans for their plight. How would they do any harm to Israel, or gain any advantage, if their population is entirely encased by the Israeli/Egyptian blockade? " There is generally an inverse correlation between income and fertility within and between nations. The higher the degree of education and GDP per capita of a human population, subpopulation or social stratum, the fewer children are born in any industrialized country.[3] In a 1974 UN population conference in Bucharest, Karan Singh, a former minister of population in India, illustrated this trend by stating "Development is the best contraceptive."[4] " en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility The article shows that the countries with the highest fertility rates are the poorest. It has long been said - by those in fortunate circumstances - "Why do the poor have so many babies?". I think that there is a biological reason: if you starve a garden plant, it usually produces more flowers, possibly in a strategy to give its offspring a better life than it has (of course there is no intention, it is just that those organsims that produced the most offspring have been able to survive). With humans in grinding poverty, there is a subconscious urge to have as many children as possible.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Aug 31, 2018 7:54:30 GMT 1
The "stakes for the whole Middle East" are negligible. Either Hamas & co win, a tiny state is eliminated, and 400,000,000 people continue to live under repressive theocracies, or they lose, Israel survives, and 400,000,000 people continue to live under repressive theocracies. The 9,000,000 Israelis have no oil and occupy a minute sliver of land that can revert to desert in a couple of years. Israel is of no consequence to anyone except its inhabitants, but for one reason and one reason only, it dominates the headlines day after day. You are not an inhabitant of Israel, but I think I am right in saying that its survival is of concern to you. Then there are the 4 million Jews in USA who are collectively push Israel's case. Then there is the whole of the USA which gives $3.1 billion a year to Israel in military aid and about $8 billion in loan guarantees. What does it mean for Hamas to lose; I assume it means that they fail to destroy Israel? That sounds like a good outcome, and is the current situation actually, so can the killing stop now? And can Israel stop destroying Palestine?
|
|