It is fallacious to say something doesn’t exist because it doesn’t have a name you find neatly-specified.
You are the one who used a name -- not me. But more importantly, if one takes the relaxed standard you used for Palestinian Arabs -- having ancestry in the area -- and applies it to other groups, e.g. the Jews, it follows that Israel is -- by your reasoning -- Jewish land.
So again my question: What should be done about the attempts of Palestinian Arabs to steal what is -- by your own principles -- Jewish land?
You asked me to specify something, which naturally entails introducing new elements;
Not necessarily. You could have laid out your principles from the very beginning of this exchange when I asked you to explain how "Palestinian Land" got to be "Palestinian Land." But you didn't do that. Rather, you kept adding epicycles as the exchange continued, in effect shifting the goalposts.
What do you want me to say, “it’s turtles all the way down”
I want you to either specify the principles behind your argument or admit that there are no principles. I want the goalposts to be firmly in place.
Yes, the civilized world was in agreement on this prior to the Nakba, according to experts of international law.
I am extremely skeptical of this claim. I would ask for cites, but the post I am responding to is the last post of yours that I will ever read or respond to in this week's thread and probably forever, so I am not going to ask.
This is not an honest way to engage in discourse. You asked me to legislate on a list of areas, and I did you the honor of going through academic resources to find details of the first event you listed, which included finding the second volume of an expansive history of Palestine in French.
You could easily have said something this:
The eastern area of Jerusalem might very well be Jewish Land under my reasoning. If what you are saying is true -- that there were Jewish people there who were ethnically cleansed -- then yes, it would be Jewish Land. But I don't know enough history to say one way or another.
But anyway, I know perfectly well what you mean when you claim you did not want to devote the time to extensive research. What you meant was that you didn't want to go searching for some rationalization for why your own rules don't apply in that situation. That's what you did for Hebron. The Jews were undeniably ethnically cleansed but you went searching and found some allegations of bad conduct against some Jews which could then be used to argue that Jewish interest in Hebron was forever waived.
In any event, since you didn't answer my questions, I will answer them for you:
If Group X is ethnically cleansed from Land Y in response to bad conduct by a few members of Group X, then Land Y no longer belongs to Group X. Is that your position?
Answer: This is your position, but only if it's bad conduct by a few people who are Jews. The innumerable incidents of bad conduct on the part of Palestinian Arabs in no way undermine or waive their rights to "Palestinian Land."
Are you conceding that Gaza City and the eastern part of Jerusalem are [according to your principles] "Jewish Land" (at least the pre-ethnic cleansing Jewish neighborhoods?) Or do you maintain that your exception for justifiable retaliation applies to those places as well?
Answer: You are not so conceding, because we are talking about Jewish Land and not Palestinian Land, and therefore there is either (1) some alleged bad behavior by some Jew somewhere which can be used to invoke the "justifiable retaliation rule,"; or (2) some other rule can be invented.
Are you saying that modern Israel is "Christian Palestinian Land" but not "Palestinian Land"? Or do Palestinian Arabs as a group get credit for the genetic continuity of the Christians?
Answer: You are saying that modern Israel is "Palestinian Land." With Palestinian Arabs, the entire group gets credit for the genetic ancestry of any subset. But with Jews, it's only the specific subset of Jews who gets the credit. Moreover, with Jews, there is no partial credit available. If a group of Jews has partially European ancestry, that invalidates any connection. With Palestinian Arabs, it's the opposite.
It sounds like you are saying that if a group of people has "genetic continuity" with some land, then it belongs to that group, but there is an exception if the group voluntarily leaves. Does that sum up your position?
Answer: Again, it depends on whether we are dealing with Jews or Arabs. If there is any historical evidence that any subgroup of Jews voluntarily left an area (or was kicked out but there are allegations of bad behavior against at least a few Jews) then that invalidates the entire claim of all Jews.
It looks to me like you didn't answer my questions because it kinda gives the game away to admit you have double standards. That it's a who/whom kind of situation.
Anyway, as I alluded to earlier, I do not engage with people who hide their positions behind a cloak of ambiguity. I asked you a number of simple, reasonable questions and you evaded, dodged, and deflected.
Feel free to have the last word. From my perspective, this exchange is over and I will not be reading your posts or responding to you any further.
omw_68
3d ago
The USA, with the Nicaraguan Contras as a group analogous to Hezbollah
Ok, and which country is analogous to Israel, i.e. which country did the US use the Contras to attack?
omw_68
3d ago
If we have to kick out all the Jews who can't prove they've continuously occupied Israel since the Bronze Age, shouldn't we also have to kick out all the Arabs who can't prove they've continuously occupied Israel since the Bronze Age? Such as, for example, all of them?
Is there even a single person in the whole world who can actually prove the whereabouts of their family going all the way back to 2,000 BC? This whole thing seems like a selective demand that Jews specifically - and only Jews - must do something impossible or else be kicked out. It's like the Grandfather Clause, an impossible test applied to one ethnic group but not the other to create an excuse for oppression.
I basically agree, /u/coffee_enjoyer is trying to get around this problem by setting up epicycles. There is a special rule if a group is ethnically cleansed as a result of retaliation for acts by members of that group; there is a special rule if a group voluntarily leaves an area; the rules apply differently depending on whether conduct took place before or after 1945; etc.
But at the end of the day, it seems to boil down to who/whom.
omw_68
3d ago
It seems like you are approaching the situation from the perspective of an individual man who wants to improve his love life. Which is fine, but I'm more interested in solutions for society as a whole. There are a lot of issues involved, but I think that ultimately man is a tournament species. So in the absence of laws, traditions, social norms, and so on, there are inevitably large numbers of males of the species who do not get the opportunity to have a female mate.
omw_68
3d ago
Unfortunately, this view is not in line with genetics and archaeology which show the continuation of Palestinians from the earliest records.
I disagree. There wasn't even a group of Arabs called "Palestinians" until very recently, historically speaking.
This is insufficiently specific for me to understand what you mean
I'm simply applying YOUR principles as you've expressed them. Unfortunately, your principles seem to keep changing. You have introduced what could be called a "reasonable retaliation exception" And what could be called a "voluntary abandonment rule."
And now this:
except within a prevailing social climate of everyone taking things by terror and theft, in which case it is usual and merely playing by the rules. People much smarter than myself have expressed these universal moral rules through the bodies of international law. By the end of 1945, the civilized world was firmly against acquisition through terror and theft, and according to experts, the formulations of the 1907 Hague Conventions had become customary international law bound to all states by the 1930s.
So you've introduced a new rule where the consequences of conduct depend on the year the conduct took place. Apparently in the 1920s, it was "anything goes." But apparently the magic year is 1945.
But it's hard to say -- I am pretty sure that if I ask you to define this new goalpost, you will dodge and weave.
I think I’ve answered ~10 of your questions by now
You've dodged and weaved. For example, I've asked you a few times now if Gaza City has any "Jewish Land" in it and you've simply ignored the question.
And to me, the reason for your evasion is pretty obvious. The only real principle behind the concept of "Palestinian Land" is "what's favorable for the group I prefer and unfavorable for the group I am against"
I realize that from a rhetorical standpoint, you have no choice but to hide your position behind a cloak of strategic ambiguity, however I am not interested in those games. I will repeat my previous questions though, and if you ignore, evade, dodge, weave, or deflect, then I will answer them for you and (from my perspective) our exchange will be concluded.
-
If Group X is ethnically cleansed from Land Y in response to bad conduct by a few members of Group X, then Land Y no longer belongs to Group X. Is that your position?
-
Are you conceding that Gaza City and the eastern part of Jerusalem are [according to your principles] "Jewish Land" (at least the pre-ethnic cleansing Jewish neighborhoods?) Or do you maintain that your exception for justifiable retaliation applies to those places as well?
-
Are you saying that modern Israel is "Christian Palestinian Land" but not "Palestinian Land"? Or do Palestinian Arabs as a group get credit for the genetic continuity of the Christians?
-
It sounds like you are saying that if a group of people has "genetic continuity" with some land, then it belongs to that group, but there is an exception if the group voluntarily leaves. Does that sum up your position?
Let’s see if I can use a comparison that you will appreciate. Imagine Israel continues to exist in 6000AD. Now imagine that some Iranians buy some homes, legally, from some of the Jews in the most Jewish part of Israel. They keep to themselves, don’t speak your language, wave their own flag, but you pay no heed. Now imagine one day they do what is written in the OP, and cause the Jews to flee out into the Sinai or something. In how many years does the land of Israel belong exclusively to the Iranians, and the Jews can no longer complain whatsoever, or ever return? 30 years? 50? 100? And why?
My answer to that question is very simple: I don't know. Perhaps I should clarify something. Earlier, I asked you this question:
What should Israel do about attempts of the Palestinian Arabs to steal Jewish Land?
In fact, I'm not affirmatively claiming that there is any such thing as "Jewish Land." The reason I used that phrase was to hoist you by your own petard. Because it appears that according to YOUR principles about what constitutes "Palestinian Land" there is also such a thing as Jewish Land and Palestinian Arabs have tried to steal it.
In my view, the entire area has been invaded, occupied, and controlled by so many different groups over the years, there's no way to say one group has, in some abstract moral sense, exclusive ownership.
Anyway, in my previous post I asked a few questions and I would appreciate answers:
-
If Group X is ethnically cleansed from Land Y in response to bad conduct by a few members of Group X, then Land Y no longer belongs to Group X. Is that your position?
-
Are you conceding that Gaza City and the eastern part of Jerusalem are [according to your principles] "Jewish Land" (at least the pre-ethnic cleansing Jewish neighborhoods?) Or do you maintain that your exception for justifiable retaliation applies to those places as well?
-
Are you saying that modern Israel is "Christian Palestinian Land" but not "Palestinian Land"? Or do Palestinian Arabs as a group get credit for the genetic continuity of the Christians?
-
It sounds like you are saying that if a group of people has "genetic continuity" with some land, then it belongs to that group, but there is an exception if the group voluntarily leaves. Does that sum up your position?
The reason I am asking these questions is that I would like to understand the basic principles behind your claim that some area is "Palestinian Land." (Assuming that there are any principles at all.) Once the goalposts are firmly in place, then we can look at your underlying factual claims.
omw_68
3d ago
The problem is that it is hard to know if a deescalation would be reciprocated.
In this case, it's not that hard to know. Israel clearly has the power to roll in and crush Jordan; same thing with Egypt; same thing with Gaza; and same thing with Area A. But as the saying goes, one of these things is not like the others.
This is not literally true. If Iran takes over the whole ME, that will not cause a single American to starve.
If food is the only consideration, then sure. But at the moment oil is also a vital resource. And I'm sure you are aware that a major fraction of the world's oil comes from the Persian Gulf region.
omw_68
4d ago
No, I'm observing that many governments think that the US acted in bad faith with previous inspections. This naturally results in these governments being skeptical of granting the US "anywhere/anytime" inspections even if they would be otherwise warranted.
Based on your logic, those governments should be skeptical of ANY inspections regardless of whether those inspections are "anytime/anywhere." Agreed?
And at least three Israeli historians assert that the riot began when three Arabs were killed. This makes the historiography fuzzy: obviously, if you move in from Poland and New York and declare with a flag that someone else’s land belongs to you, and then you kill three Arabs, a violent retaliation for that can’t really be considered “terrorism”,
Let's see if I understand: If Group X is ethnically cleansed from Land Y in response to bad conduct by a few members of Group X, then Land Y no longer belongs to Group X. Is that your position?
Is this what you mean? Do you just want to discuss Hebron in depth?
Not just Hebron. Jews were also ethnically cleansed from Gaza City and the eastern part of Jerusalem. Are you conceding that these areas are "Jewish Land"? Or do you maintain that your exception for justifiable retaliation applies to those places as well?
Because all Palestinians have more genetic continuity than Ashkenazi, but especially the Christian Palestinians.
I don't understand this at all. Are you saying that modern Israel is "Christian Palestinian Land" but not "Palestinian Land"? Or do Palestinian Arabs as a group get credit for the genetic continuity of the Christians?
Well, no. When you sell property, the property no longer belongs to you. Similarly, if you vacate property, it no longer belongs to you. I think the confusion here is that you believe that Jews were displaced from Israel
Not necessarily, I'm just trying to understand the principles behind your argument. It sounds like you are saying that if a group of people has "genetic continuity" with some land, then it belongs to that group, but there is an exception if the group voluntarily leaves. Does that sum up your position?
omw_68
4d ago
Iran's behavior was pretty typical foreign policy.
To help illustrate your point, would you mind identifying two countries whose behavior is analogous to that of Iran, including the groups which are analogous to Hezbollah?
I've never seen any good evidence for the theory that if Iran's religious government got nukes, they would use them offensively.
Well do you agree that (1) Iran substantially controls Hezbollah; (2) Hezbollah has repeatedly launched attacks directed at Israel in general; and (3) Iran's leadership has, in substance, called for Israel to be wiped off the map?
omw_68
4d ago
Yes, the 'actually Iranian rockets blew up their own school' storyline has been debunked.
I'm very skeptical that any member of the general public could already know -- with confidence -- who was behind this situation. I'm also suspicious of your use of the passive voice. Can you please link to a source? TIA.
How's that working out for Israel right now?
Very well. Israel has peace treaties with many of its former enemies despite those societies being rife with anti-Semitism. Hezbollah hasn't launched a ground invasion, nor has the Palestinian Authority. That's not because they love Israel or Jews. And it's not because they are peaceful people who only want peace.
The notion that Iran's desire for nuclear weapons was maximal is bizarre. If they wanted nuclear weapons, they would simply acquire them like North Korea did.
Exactly what steps would be required to "simply acquire" nuclear weapons?
omw_68
4d ago
Thank you for the reference! I concede that there were people who said that the JCPOA "front loaded" the benefits. I do think, however, that it is disingenuous of this group (and you) to call lifting sanctions a "front loaded" benefit.
-
The paper I linked to seems to claim that the lifting of sanctions allows Iran to withdraw monies which would otherwise have been frozen indefinitely.
-
I remember at the time, critics referred to this as a "signing bonus."
-
An alternative approach would have been to keep these monies frozen for the entire 15 years and agree to release them only if, at the end of the 15 years, Iran was in full compliance and had abandoned any efforts to obtain nuclear weapons.
Do you dispute any of this?
omw_68
4d ago
Me: Well do you agree with the criticism that the JCPOA contained a sunset clause, i.e. the restrictions on Iran ended after 10-15 years?
You: Is this an actual criticism that anyone levied?
Me: Absolutely. The concern was that Iran was getting a lot of significant concessions up front and in return was agreeing to limitations which were only temporary.
You: I don't think this is true. (But would very much appreciate a correction if I am wrong.) I recall following these negotiations closely when they were occurring and don't remember anyone citing upfront concessions as a reason not to do JCPOA.
According to "United Against Nuclear Iran":
The deal provides Iran a clear pathway to nuclear weapons as restrictions on its uranium- enrichment and plutonium-processing capacities lift and the deal “sunsets” over the next 10 to 15 years.
In exchange for temporary restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program, Iran is receiving permanent benefits up-front.
Link: https://www.unitedagainstnucleariran.com/sites/default/files/jcpoa-fact-sheet-pdf-052019.pdf
omw_68
4d ago
Can we send other ethnic minorities back where they came from as well?
Maybe all the blacks who can prove that they have continuously occupied America since 1776 can stay, but the new ones have to go back to Africa? The whites can all stay, though, no need to expel people who are part of the same ethnic group as the one that is 'supposed' to be there. As long as they're the same color as the people I like it doesn't matter what continent they were born on. The only people who have to prove that they're 'supposed' to be there are the ones from the ethnic group that I, personally, want to kick out of the country for unrelated political reasons.
I know you are sort of parodying here, but I think it's worth mentioning that in the early days of modern Zionism -- during the Ottoman days -- lots of Arabs moved to Palestine from what are now Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, etc. They did this in large part because of the enhanced economic activity which had resulted from Jewish immigration.
That's why, for example, "Masri" is a very common name among Palestinian Arabs. It means Egypt.
Logically, if Eastern European Jews who came into the area between 1890 and 1947 need to be kicked out along with their descendants, the same thing should happen to Arabs whose families came from Egypt, Syria, Trans-Jordan, and Lebanon.
omw_68
4d ago
The JCPOA was negotiated after the US invaded Iraq due to patently false claims of WMD. It is widely understood that the WMD inspections led by the US/IAEA helped the US invasion in identifying/destroying military targets.
Therefore given the US's actual behavior, this restriction did (and still does) seem pretty reasonable to a majority of the outside world.
Are you saying that WMD inspections in Iraq were of the "anytime anywhere" variety?
omw_68
4d ago
I am pretty sure that Iran and Israel have been going at that for decades, so at this point the question of who escalated at which points is moot.
That may very well be so, but the question I was addressing is what Iran can do -- as a practical matter -- to stop being attacked by Israel and/or the United States. One possibility would be to acquire nuclear weapons and/or otherwise get so strong that (perhaps) nobody would dare attack them. A second possibility would be for Iran to (1) stop supporting Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and any other similar proxy organizations which is uses to engage in terrorist campaigns against Israel; and (2) stop calling for Israel to be wiped off the map, etc.
"But that's not fair! Israel is the aggressor!" I can hear people saying. I disagree, but even if that were true, Iran could still take the second option.
But at this point, it feels to me that this is a conflict without good guys, and the rest of the world should simply stay out of it.
With respect to most of the conflicts Israel is involved in, I would agree. But with Iran, I am not so sure. My impression is that Iran is fomenting Shiite unrest throughout the Middle East, including in the Persian Gulf. This implicates vital American interests.
omw_68
4d ago
Israel is currently occupying parts of Syria after bombing Syria and backing jihadists for years. They are currently expanding their territory on the west bank. The few thousands of jews who lived there can stay. The Eastern Europeans can go live somewhere else.
To whom does the west bank belong and how did it come to be theirs?
Also, would you agree that Palestinian Arabs who are descendants of those who moved to the area from what is now Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria "can go live somewhere else"?
omw_68
4d ago
Is this an actual criticism that anyone levied?
Absolutely. The concern was that Iran was getting a lot of significant concessions up front and in return was agreeing to limitations which were only temporary.
omw_68
4d ago
What is colloquially called “Palestinian Arab” encompasses the descendants of the House of Israel who stayed in the land and converted to Christianity and later Islam. They have the strongest direct continuity to ancient Israel according to available DNA distance tools. One study in Nature found that Ashkenazim are majority Italian in ancestry, but all available comparisons show that they are further away than the indigenous Palestinians.
I'm not totally sure that I understand your argument.
It seems your position is that any area which was depopulated of Palestinian Arabs due to terror campaigns is "Palestinian Land."
Logically, it follows that any area which was depopulated of Jews due to terror campaigns is "Jewish Land." Presumably, this includes Hebron, the eastern part of Jerusalem, and Gaza City.
Do you agree? Or does your position apply only to Palestinian Arabs?
Additionally, you say that what is now Israel has been "Palestinian Land" because some subset of Palestinian Arabs has can be shown to have genetic continuity with those who were there thousands of years ago. At the same time, you seem to agree that at least some subset of the Jews also has such continuity. Therefore, it follows -- based on YOUR reasoning -- that the whole area is Jewish Land.
If I have misunderstood you in any way please let me know.
Otherwise, I have a question: What should Israel do about attempts of the Palestinian Arabs to steal Jewish Land?
omw_68
4d ago
"Anytime anywhere" inspections is a pretty big ask. I can see why the West would want it, but I can't see any major power agreeing to it.
Given Iran's actual behavior, I don't think it's unreasonable.
omw_68
4d ago
Sure, and that happened with WWII reparations, with Germany paying some high number of billions. What’s wrong with that?
Perhaps nothing, perhaps a lot.
If there is some ancestral quarter for Jews in Baghdad and the government made them flee through terrorism, they should have that back or be offered compensation.
And the same applies to Gaza City, Hebron, and the eastern part of Jerusalem? That's all Jewish Land in your view, or at least the neighborhoods where Jews lived prior to being ethnically cleansed?
I provided some links in this comment. The Palestinians (particularly the Christians) show direct continuity with DNA of Ancient Israel. Samaritans show the closest link of course, which makes sense, and then there’s the Iraqi Jews showing a close link. Ashkenazim are somewhat far away in terms of genetics.
I am a little confused. Are you saying that Palestinian Arabs (and only Palestinian Arabs) have direct continuity with DNA of Ancient Israel?
Iraqi Jews showing a close link.
Okay, so it sounds like by your definition, Israel sits on "Jewish Land." Right?
omw_68
4d ago
An international body of third-party experts should decide what constitutes Palestinian land, based on informed estimates of the areas depopulated due to the terror campaign.
Ok, and I guess you agree that any area depopulated of Jews due to a terror campaign is Jewish land?
At least around the Iron Age, based on DNA.
Just so I understand this, you are claiming that
(1) DNA analysis of Palestinian Arabs connects them to what is now Israel going back thousands of years; and
(2) DNA analysis of other groups, including Jews, does not do so?
omw_68
4d ago
Iran was one of these countries until 2020 or so
Well do you agree with the criticism that the JCPOA contained a sunset clause, i.e. the restrictions on Iran ended after 10-15 years?
Do you agree with the criticism that the JCPOA did not permit so-called "anytime anywhere" inspections but instead gave the Iranians the ability to delay inspections of facilities?
omw_68
4d ago
By the way, what should be done (if anything) for the descendants of Jews who were terrorized and ethnically cleansed in the 1930s and 1940s out of Baghdad, Cairo, Gaza City, Hebron, and so on? Do you agree that this was an injustice? And if so, what -- if anything -- should be done?
I think that societal laws, norms etc. have eroded but are nowhere near the point of having completely broken down.
More options
Context Copy link