Debating against BDS - and winning

[shira]

...Mr. Tatchell’s main argument was that BDS was a nonviolent form of protest against Israel’s occupation and settlement policies that mirrored the boycott movement against apartheid South Africa, and followed the principles of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King. He was articulate in arguing that boycott tactics generally were a nonviolent alternative to war and terrorism.

The force of his argument was somewhat weakened by the recent spate of terrorist knife attacks by Palestinians against Israelis, which leaders of the BDS movement such as Barghouti have justified as resistance to the “decades-old regime of occupation.”

I argued that BDS was not an alternative to war but rather an alternative to peaceful negotiations by the Palestinian leadership. This is because the BDS movement is firmly opposed to the two state solution. Barghouti confirmed as much when he said “definitely, most definitely, we oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine.” Thus, the BDS movement makes it more difficult for the Palestinian leadership to accept the kind of painful compromises that both sides must agree to if there is to be a negotiated resolution.

Together with other efforts to delegitimize and isolate Israel, BDS also sends a false message to the Palestinian street: namely, that international economic and political pressure can force Israel to capitulate to all Palestinian demands, without any compromise on territorial issues. In turn, this disincentivizes the Palestinian leadership from accepting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s offer to begin immediate negotiations with no preconditions.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Debating-against-BDS-and-winning-431921

[shira]

1. More from OP...

BDS opposes any effort at negotiation that isn’t premised on the recognition that Israel is an apartheid state.

Indeed, many of its leaders refuse to recognize the right of Israel to exist as a nation-state for the Jewish people. In so doing, they are empowering radicals on both sides of the issue who have no desire to see a peaceful resolution to the conflict....

They seem to believe that a movement advocating nonviolent tactics is necessarily the best way to achieve a lasting peace. But BDS is radically opposed to any negotiated settlement, and has increasingly begun to regroup bigots of all stripes who feel comfortable with the language used by its leaders, such Mr. Barghouti.

Mr. Tatchell and many pro-BDS academics also feel that Israel has committed human rights violations both in the occupation of the West Bank, and in its prosecution of the armed conflicts in Gaza. During the course of the debate I issued the following challenge to the audience and to my opponent: name a single country in the history of the world, faced with threats comparable to those faced by Israel, that has a better record of human rights, compliance with the rule of law and seeking to minimize civilian casualties.

I invited audience members to shout out the name of a country. Complete silence. Finally someone shouted “Iceland,” and everyone laughed.[font color = "red"] When the best is treated as the worst, in the way the BDS movement singles out Israel for accusation, the finger of blame must be pointed at the accusers rather than the accused. In the end, the case against BDS won not because of the comparative skill of the debaters but because I was able to expose the moral weakness of the BDS movement itself. [/font]

[DetlefK]

2. The article has several flaws in its reasoning. And hides them behind great oratory.

The force of his argument was somewhat weakened by the recent spate of terrorist knife attacks by Palestinians against Israelis, which leaders of the BDS movement such as Barghouti have justified as resistance to the “decades-old regime of occupation.”

1. BDS is not responsible for the palestinian knife-attacks.

2. It is a mistake to conflate a method and the moral standing of the group who employs the method. They must be judged separately. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty. ("Oh, you like garlic? Guess, who else liked garlic? Mao!" - "Obama is a charismatic orator? Guess, who else is a charismatic orator? The Anti-Christ!&quot




BDS opposes any effort at negotiation that isn’t premised on the recognition that Israel is an apartheid state.

3. So, if the peace-deal between the south-african government and the ANC had included a paragraph that said that South-Africa wasn't an Apartheid-state at all through all those years, would that retroactively mean that South-Africa never was an Apartheid-state to begin with?




In turn, this disincentivizes the Palestinian leadership from accepting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s offer to begin immediate negotiations with no preconditions.

4. The land stolen by jewish settlers in the Westbank already IS a precondition. Israel will sell to the Palestinians for political coin that which the settlers have stolen from the Palestinians.




Mr. Tatchell and many pro-BDS academics also feel that Israel has committed human rights violations both in the occupation of the West Bank, and in its prosecution of the armed conflicts in Gaza.

5. Last thing I remember was that Israel denounced a war-crimes investigation of the latest Gaza-war and the US killed the investigation.
If the speaker insists on making a legal point about human rights violations, then we should first make legal investigations into the alleged incidents.
If the speaker insists on making a moral point about human rights violations, then the verb "feel" is inadequate and serves to belittle and denigrate the accuser, as moral choices are in the eye of the beholder and therefore neutral.




During the course of the debate I issued the following challenge to the audience and to my opponent: name a single country in the history of the world, faced with threats comparable to those faced by Israel, that has a better record of human rights, compliance with the rule of law and seeking to minimize civilian casualties.

6. That is a loaded question:
On the one hand, Israel is depicted as a victim of circumstances (such as arabic Anti-Semitism and hostile neighbouring countries).
On the other hand, the palestinian aggression towards Israel is depicted as a matter of choice. Circumstances that might or might not correlate to palestinian aggression go undiscussed. The question gives by omission the impression that the palestinian hostility came to be in a vacuum and is unrelated to Israel.

I have to admire the oratory skill though: A loaded question on a complex issue presented as a simple black&white choice.

One might just as easily ask another loaded question:
Name a country where criminals steal land from neighbours and the military aids the criminals.
(See? I just implied by omission that this is the only explanation why the IDF might be in the Westbank.)

[shira]

4. Rubbish...

1. BDS is not responsible for the palestinian knife-attacks.

But all BDS leaders either endorse or justify this "resistance". And that's evil because this incitement leads to more attacks. That makes BDS partly responsible. Imagine what the BDS movement could do by universally condemning the stabbings and demanding Hamas and the PA do everything they can to stop it all? Now that would save lives. BDS wants no part of that.

2. It is a mistake to conflate a method and the moral standing of the group who employs the method. They must be judged separately. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty. ("Oh, you like garlic? Guess, who else liked garlic? Mao!" - "Obama is a charismatic orator? Guess, who else is a charismatic orator? The Anti-Christ!&quot

How is it possible to show any kind of solidarity with Hamas style attacks on random children and the elderly?

BDS opposes any effort at negotiation that isn’t premised on the recognition that Israel is an apartheid state.

3. So, if the peace-deal between the south-african government and the ANC had included a paragraph that said that South-Africa wasn't an Apartheid-state at all through all those years, would that retroactively mean that South-Africa never was an Apartheid-state to begin with?

No western leaders believe Israel is Apartheid. Only fascist governments and racists who are sympathetic to Hamas and their genocidal goals shriek of Apartheid. Not even NGO's like HRW and Amnesty say Israel is apartheid, and they're far from being pro-Israel. It's not Apartheid, therefore no peace deal can be struck with the assumption that it is. Think about it: Why should there be a peace deal in which the outcome is a Palestinian state next to an Apartheid state? This "peace" deal based on Israel being Apartheid can only lead to Israel's imminent destruction.

In turn, this disincentivizes the Palestinian leadership from accepting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s offer to begin immediate negotiations with no preconditions.

4. The land stolen by jewish settlers in the Westbank already IS a precondition. Israel will sell to the Palestinians for political coin that which the settlers have stolen from the Palestinians.

This assumes all the land is/was always exclusively Palestinian & therefore in no way Jewish (including the Western Wall, Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, Hebron, etc.). To deny any indigenous Jewish claims to that land is racist and therefore a non-starter. Negotiations are necessary because the land is obviously disputed.

Mr. Tatchell and many pro-BDS academics also feel that Israel has committed human rights violations both in the occupation of the West Bank, and in its prosecution of the armed conflicts in Gaza.

5. Last thing I remember was that Israel denounced a war-crimes investigation of the latest Gaza-war and the US killed the investigation.
If the speaker insists on making a legal point about human rights violations, then we should first make legal investigations into the alleged incidents.
If the speaker insists on making a moral point about human rights violations, then the verb "feel" is inadequate and serves to belittle and denigrate the accuser, as moral choices are in the eye of the beholder and therefore neutral.

That war crimes investigation gave Hamas a complete 100% free pass. That's your idea of a valid investigation? Not to clear-minded people it isn't & US Democrats panned it for the farce that it was.

During the course of the debate I issued the following challenge to the audience and to my opponent: name a single country in the history of the world, faced with threats comparable to those faced by Israel, that has a better record of human rights, compliance with the rule of law and seeking to minimize civilian casualties.

6. That is a loaded question:
On the one hand, Israel is depicted as a victim of circumstances (such as arabic Anti-Semitism and hostile neighbouring countries).
On the other hand, the palestinian aggression towards Israel is depicted as a matter of choice. Circumstances that might or might not correlate to palestinian aggression go undiscussed. The question gives by omission the impression that the palestinian hostility came to be in a vacuum and is unrelated to Israel.

I have to admire the oratory skill though: A loaded question on a complex issue presented as a simple black&white choice.

This hostility Israel has been facing since even before 1948 (let alone 1967) is not related to the occupation or settlements. What else besides Jew hatred explains all the attacks on the Jewish state pre-1967? The answer is that all the attacks are committed by organizations committed to Israel's destruction - not an end to occupation, oppression, etc. That's all smoke- and- mirrors, and it's why BDS cannot win a debate.

Now compare Israel's response to terror vs. America's response post- 911. You can argue Americans had it coming, but Israel has a better record than any other country including America given the threats it has faced. So why single out Israel pretending it's the worst offender when it's w/o question the best given the circumstances?

One might just as easily ask another loaded question:
Name a country where criminals steal land from neighbours and the military aids the criminals.
(See? I just implied by omission that this is the only explanation why the IDF might be in the Westbank.)

But your implication by omission is the clear verbatim position of BDS, showing how dishonest the movement is & why its supporters cannot justify anything BDS advocates for. The reason why no Western leaders or nations, or major NGO's buy into the bullshit.

[DetlefK]

10. Sigh.

1. The Palestinians don't need foreign incitement. They have their very own domestic reasons and triggers. Do you really believe they care about what some intellectuals of a foreign NGO say about Israel?

2. I am not showing solidarity with anything. Let me give you a counter-example:
Where is your unconditional outrage about the fact that 2000 civilians were killed in the latest Gaza-bombing?
Oh, you are saying that the situation is more complicated than that?
You are saying that bombing civilians is bad but that the IDF had little choice in that?
What a coincidence!
Exactly my point: The method and the person who employs the method should be judged separately.
Thank you for making my case.

3. Is there racial segregation within the political area of influence of the government of Israel? Yes or No?

4. I never disputed any jewish claims to anything.
My grievance is very simple: The government of Israel allows settlers to steal palestinian land. The settlers give this land to Israel. Israel gives the land to the Palestinians in exchange for concessions from the Palestinians.

Let me offer you a deal: I will give you your wallet back if you agree to buy my car.

5. So, if there is no legal investigation that Israel recognized, then the speaker is refering to the moral side of human rights violations, not the legal side. And this means he has no case to condemn morals because there are no universal morals. All morals are man-made.

6. See? Omission. You left out post-1967.
It is my opinion that the conflicts from the founding-stage of Israel are just a fig-leaf to give the Anti-Israel/Anti-Semitic sentiment a veneer of historical/political gravitas.
It is my opinion, that the conflict in Israel is already beyond the point of "Why do we fight?"
Oh, the Hamas bombs a village. Oh, the IDF harasses Palestinians at a check-point. Oh, someone stabbed a Jew. Oh, a palestinian families' home was destroyed. Oh, Palestinians have kidnapped a Jew. And on and on and on and on.
Nobody cares about the past.
Hate is personal.
They don't hate the Jews: The hate the image of the Jews that propaganda has given. An ordinary Arab has no incentive to hate Jews because he doesn't know Jews. But propaganda creates a personal connection from him to some imaginary hate-deserving Jew.
It's the "outrage-of-the-day" that keeps people going.
Nobody cares how this started and who started it and who did what.
The hate is here, the hate is now.
That's all they need.

Example: The yugoslavian civil-war started because the Croats felt threatened by the Serbs gaining more political power in Yugoslavia. The Croats formed self-defence militias. The Serbs remembered how the Croats allied with the Nazis in WWII to fight the Serbs and became afraid of the Croats. The Serbs used their government-connections to open war on the Croats. But once the fighting was on, nobody cared anymore about the Nazis.

Example: The ukrainian civil-war started because the pro-russian people of Eastern Ukraine saw the pro-russian leader of Ukraine toppled by a pro-western revolution. Ukraine is historically split into a western half that prefers western culture and an eastern half who prefers russian culture. (Courtesy of Hitler and Stalin.) The people of Eastern Ukraine saw their country taking a direction they didn't like. So rather than giving up their connection to Russia, they fought for independence from the new Ukraine. Likewise the new Ukraine sees them as breakaway traitors. But nowadays, nobody fighting in Ukraine cares about the West or Russia anymore.
They care about the death and destruction they have witnessed and for which they blame the other side.
Each side is fighting as hard as it can to win this war as fast and with as little losses as possible.
They don't fight for political reasons. They fight for what is now.





They aren't joining BDS for two simple reasons:
- They want Israel as a military ally.
- They know that being critical of Israel leads to accusations of Anti-Semitism.

[shira]

12. Just the 1st two items for now. Your thinking is difficult to follow....

1. The Palestinians don't need foreign incitement. They have their very own domestic reasons and triggers. Do you really believe they care about what some intellectuals of a foreign NGO say about Israel?

The Palestinians would stop and be shamed if the BDS movement, media, NGO's, and UN strongly condemned what they are doing to civilians. As it is, they have every reason to believe their terror attacks are being justified and supported.

2. I am not showing solidarity with anything. Let me give you a counter-example:
Where is your unconditional outrage about the fact that 2000 civilians were killed in the latest Gaza-bombing?
Oh, you are saying that the situation is more complicated than that?
You are saying that bombing civilians is bad but that the IDF had little choice in that?
What a coincidence!
Exactly my point: The method and the person who employs the method should be judged separately.
Thank you for making my case.

Huh? No clue what you're trying to argue here.

Are you equating the stabbing attacks with 2000 dead in Gaza last year?

[DetlefK]

14. You think the Palestinians can be shamed in stopping???

1. You refuse to ponder the possibility that there might be 2 reasons why the Palestinians do what they do:
- They hate the Jews because of inherited Anti-Semitism.
- They hate the state of Israel because of what the state of Israel has done to them.

Given enough time and cultural manipulation, IMO it would be entirely possible to get rid of palestinian Anti-Semitism.
However I see no way how the Palestinians could possibly be shamed into accepting the military occupation and the double-standard.



2. No... I'm not equating events...
I was trying to make a point how the method and the person employing the method should not be mixed, but judged separately.
I could list a litany of examples why this approach is illogical and impractical.
You are claiming that the method of boycotting Israel is automatically bad, because some people who demand the boycott are Anti-Semites.
However there are also Non-Anti-Semites who support a boycott of Israel. Therefore it makes no sense to treat both as one and the same.

[shira]

23. Yes, definitely. Shamed into stopping the senseless attacks.

Even Hamas.

The leaders have no desire or motivation to stop the incitement to terror, or to stop praising or rewarding terror. Thus, it will continue. Hamas can be shamed into toning down the incitement, controlling their extremists, etc..

- They hate the state of Israel because of what the state of Israel has done to them.

Jews had every right to hate the state of Germany 70 years ago, but they didn't call for the slaughter of every German man, woman, and child - nor did they act upon such a heinous impulse.

You are claiming that the method of boycotting Israel is automatically bad, because some people who demand the boycott are Anti-Semites.

The BDS movement's leaders are all antisemites. Full Stop.

The BDS plan to destroy Israel is inherently antisemitic. I agree there are folks who don't know better who support BDS & they aren't antisemites....at least not until they figure out what the hell BDS is all about. Once they know it's a racist hate movement and continue supporting it, they become antisemites too. Like supporting the KKK, it's possible not to be a racist bigot but support it. Once somebody figures out what the KKK is all about but continues supporting it, they become racist bigots themselves.

[geek tragedy]

3. Israel has money and exportable technology, the Palestinians don't.

There, BDS debate settled.

Heaven forbid the apartheid get inconvenienced.

[shira]

5. The Palestinians have been offered their own state many times over the past 70 years....

They've rejected each offer.

There, BDS debate settled. It's obvious the Palestinian leadership doesn't want its own state free of any perceived oppression. What they want is Israel's destruction.

BDS doesn't and cannot answer why the Palestinians rejected the 1947 partition, before any oppression, occupation, settlements or bullshit claims of Apartheid. They can't and won't answer why there were 3 No's at Khartoum shortly after the 1967 war. And why? Because they know damned well why and it couldn't be more fucking obvious. That's why BDS loses and will keep losing. It will only gain steam among haters, and that is the hope of the BDS leadership - hoping they can turn the world against Jews like Europe and the world did some 75 years ago.

[geek tragedy]

6. You know, you can just post "Nothing Is Israel's Fault" and just spare us

the false talking points.

You could even just use an acronym--NIIF.

[shira]

7. Where was the apartheid, occupation, and settlements prior to 1967?

Why wasn't there a Palestinian state back in 1947, according to BDS? Or in 1937 (Peel plan)?

We all know damned well the answer to that one:

Opposition to the Jewish state's very existence. Same story then as now. End of discussion. BDS loses.

How do we know this?

Well, because that's what the Palestinian leadership says all the fucking time, in Arabic... All you need to do is listen and take them at their word.

[geek tragedy]

8. NIIF. nt

[shira]

9. Point proven. You've got nothing. Ergo, BDS loses its debates.

That's why its leaders won't debate anyone like Dershowitz - knowing they'd be torn to shreds - and that their movement would be exposed for the fraud that it is.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

11. Well, you tole him.

[shira]

13. BDS has no answers, no justification for its views.

You, for example, keep proving that every time you punt when asked the simplest of questions.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

32. Well, you tole me...

[azurnoir]

44. Here are the goals of BDS from their website

The campaign for boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) is shaped by a rights-based approach and highlights the three broad sections of the Palestinian people: the refugees, those under military occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and Palestinians in Israel. The call urges various forms of boycott against Israel until it meets its obligations under international law by:

Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall;

Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.

The BDS call was endorsed by over 170 Palestinian political parties, organizations, trade unions and movements. The signatories represent the refugees, Palestinians in the OPT, and Palestinian citizens of Israel.

- See more at: http://www.bdsmovement.net/bdsintro#sthash.Ly9ah6ab.hhaefRvp.dpuf

[Scootaloo]

78. I've told you why there wasn't a Palestinian state several times.

Are you forgetful, or do you just choose to ignore?

[Little Tich]

15. The partition was rejected because it was an insane proposition.

Almost 50% of the population in the "Jewish" state would have been Arabs. I doubt they saw any advantage in separating themselves from the rest of Palestine.

[shira]

17. Sure, every proposition was insane - correct? What would be fair?

If the Palestinians had accepted the 1947 Partition Plan, the Palestinians would have had > 80% of the original Palestine Mandate (including Jordan) whereas the Jewish State would have comprised maybe 15% of that area.

Of course that's not fair enough, right?

[Little Tich]

19. Jordan?

What's Jordan got to do with Palestine? Please read up on your history of the area...

[shira]

20. Check out the original Palestine Mandate - Jordan was part of Palestine.

This is basic 101 History.

British Mandate...

[azurnoir]

21. your map is straight out of Jabotinsky's essay the Iron Wall

pure revisionist Zionism - thanks

[shira]

22. The British Mandate for Palestine Map is the same no matter the source. n/t

[azurnoir]

25. The Emirate of TransJordan was created in 1921 your map is dated 1920

Last edited Fri Nov 6, 2015, 10:31 PM - Edit history (1)

making pure revisionist Zionism and no different than maps that show today's Israel as Palestine

[shira]

26. Are you saying that 1920 map of British Mandate Palestine is wrong?

Are you really going there?

[azurnoir]

28. No I'm saying it changed 1 year later when TransJordan was created

which was a year prior to Balfour

[shira]

33. Balfour was 1917. The map above, showing 1920, is accurate.

What are you trying to prove?

[azurnoir]

35. and in 1915 the British promised the same land to the Arabs

in exchange for a revolt against the Ottomans wwhich was promptly and successfully initiated on June 5 1915
making Balfour a divide and conquer move

[shira]

37. Point is, had the Palestinians accepted 1947 Partition, they'd end up....

....with more than 80% of British Mandate Palestine while the Jews would've had slightly over 15%.

Unfair, right?

[azurnoir]

38. movin' those goal posts are ya?

[shira]

40. If you were following along, that's been my argument the whole time. n/t

[azurnoir]

42. oh okay but your point seemed to lump Jordanians and Palestinians together as 1 group

the old Jordan is Palestine gosh where oh where have I heard that before

[Little Tich]

30. Your revisionist map is a very poor choice.

Here's a better (as in correct) one:

Mandatory Palestine
Source: Wikipedia

Mandatory Palestine (Arabic: فلسطين? Filasṭīn; Hebrew: פָּלֶשְׂתִּינָה (א"י 0 Pālēśtīnā (EY), where "EY" indicates "Eretz Yisrael" (Land of Israel)) was a geopolitical entity under British administration, carved out of Ottoman Southern Syria after World War I. British civil administration in Palestine operated from 1920 until 1948. During its existence it was known simply as Palestine, but, in retrospect, as distinguishers, a variety of other names and descriptors including Mandatory or Mandate Palestine, also British Palestine and the British Mandate of Palestine, have been used to refer to it.

(snip)

The civil Mandate administration was formalized with the League of Nations' consent in 1923 under the British Mandate for Palestine, which covered two administrative areas. The land west of the Jordan River, known as Palestine, was under direct British administration until 1948, while the land east of the Jordan was a semi-autonomous region known as Transjordan, under the rule of the Hashemite family from the Hijaz, and gained independence in 1946.

Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Mandatory_Palestine_in_1946_with_major_cities_(in_English).svg

As you can clearly see, the correct map of the Palestine Mandate doesn't include Transjordan nor the Golan heights. Please don't use that map again.

[shira]

34. That map is accurate, as is this one from the BBC. I'm sure they'd be amused....

....by your accusations of revisionism:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/html/british_control.stm

[Little Tich]

47. Transjordan was never part of any partition plan,

simply because it was never really under British administration - it was independently administered by the Emir, and was a part of the Mandate in name only. And then there was this little matter of the Trans-Jordan memorandum, but I suppose you think it never happened. The idea that Transjordan was somehow involved in the Partition Plan is something that Israeli racists use to promote the idea that "Jordan is Palestine" as a way to justify the Nakba and the future transfer of Palestinians to their new homes east of the River.

You are trying to promote a revisionist narrative by using maps that are less clear than those that are historically accurate, but even those maps clearly have the name "Transjordan" on them.

In a way, what you're trying to do is no better than Holocaust revisionism.

Anyway, here's what Wikipedia has to say on the subject:

Emirate of Transjordan
Source: Wikipedia

The Emirate of Transjordan (Arabic: إمارة شرق الأردن? Imārat Sharq al-Urdun), also hyphenated as Trans-Jordan and previously known as Transjordania or Trans-Jordania, was a British protectorate established in April 1921. There were many urban settlements beyond the Jordan River, one in Al-Salt city and at that time the largest urban settlement east of the Jordan River. There was also a small Circassian community in Amman.

Transjordan had been a no man's land following the July 1920 Battle of Maysalun, and the British in neighbouring Mandatory Palestine chose to avoid "any definite connection between it and Palestine" until a March 1921 conference at which it was agreed that Abdullah bin Hussein would administer the territory under the auspices of the British Mandate for Palestine with a fully autonomous governing system.

The Hashemite dynasty ruled the protectorate, as well as the neighbouring Mandatory Iraq. On 25 May 1946, the Emirate became the "Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan", achieving full independence on 17 June 1946 when the in accordance with the Treaty of London ratifications were exchanged in Amman. In 1949 the country's official name was changed to the "Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan".

Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirate_of_Transjordan

[shira]

51. I think you're misunderstanding what I'm arguing...

In 1920, if I asked you to get a map and point to Palestine - or explain to me the British Mandate for Palestine - there would have been no Jordan or Trans-Jordan.

The BBC map including all that area was Palestine - and it was all designated as the Jewish Homeland.

By 1947, if the Palestinians had agreed to Partition - the Jews would have ended up with maybe 15% of all that.

Understand now?

[Little Tich]

55. That would of course mean that Jews never were meant to be anything but a small minority

in their own homeland.

Apart from lumping together two areas that were in effect two different countries, it doesn't make sense. Being a 10% minority in a country would mean that only limited autonomy would be possible.

And then we have the small matter of the Trans-Jordan memorandum:

Trans-Jordan memorandum
Source: Wikipedia

The Transjordan memorandum was a British memorandum passed by the Council of the League of Nations on 16 September 1922. The memorandum described how the British government planned to implement the article of the Mandate for Palestine which allowed exclusion of Transjordan from the provisions regarding Jewish settlement.

Background
(snip)

The British Mandate administration in Jerusalem only ever covered the area west of the Jordan, while the area east of the Jordan was administered by the British representative in Ma'an, Captain Alex Kirkbride until the arrival in November 1920 of Abdullah bin al-Hussein, the future Emir. Following the expulsion of Faisal bin Hussein from Syria by the French in July 1920, and the subsequent Cairo Conference, March 1921 they appointed Hussein Emir of Transjordan, while assuring that no Jews would be allowed to settle in Transjordan.

Description
(snip)

From that point onwards, Britain administered the part west of the Jordan as Palestine, and the part east of the Jordan as Transjordan. Technically they remained one mandate, but most official documents referred to them as if they were two separate mandates. In May 1923 Transjordan was granted internal self-government with Abdullah as ruler and Harry St. John Philby as chief representative.

Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Jordan_memorandum

[shira]

57. My point still stands - that by 1947 Jews would have had maybe 15% of what....

...what considered Palestine in 1920, whereas Palestinians would have close to 85% of that land.

Jewish homeland doesn't mean Jewish state. All that could have been the Jewish homeland without the Jews ever having their own state.

[shira]

36. Tich, since you like Wikipedia for maps - try this one on for size

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BritishMandatePalestine1920.svg

[oberliner]

24. The Palestinian Arabs previously were living in an Ottoman state and a British protectorate.

The Partition Plan would have resulted in a completely autonomous independent state of Palestine as had never existed in history previously.

We'd be celebrating the 70th anniversary of that state soon had the plan been accepted.

[Little Tich]

31. I'm actually unable to follow your reasoning...

Wouldn't an unpartitioned state of Palestine been as much an independent state as a partitioned state of Palestine?

[shira]

39. Problem is you don't believe Jews have a right to self-determination...

...in their own sovereign state, on any sized piece of land there.

[Little Tich]

48. My opinions on the I/P issue are based on using general principles

that I would apply to other issues as well.

The Jewish state as defined by the partition plan would have had only a very slight majority of Jews, the rest would be Arabs. I know of no other place in the world where a slight majority gives the right to self-determination over the rest. As the Jewish state is the only place where this principle is valid, and completely invalid everywhere else in the world, I must call BS on the whole idea.

[shira]

53. You don't believe Jews merit self-determination in their indigenous homeland...

(1) Name another indigenous people on the planet who - in your opinion - don't merit self-determination in their historic & cultural homeland.

Besides the Jews.

And then (2) tell me what you think would happen to the 6 million Jews of Israel once they become the minority with Hamas possibly running the show.

[oberliner]

43. The options were accept the Partition Plan or go to war

It seems like the former option would have been a better choice than the latter one.

[Little Tich]

45. Why would the Jews of Palestine go to war if the Arabs of Palestine didn't accept the partition?

Did they actually threaten to do that?

I still have problems following your reasoning...

[oberliner]

49. The Jews of Palestine would not have gone to war - the Arabs of Palestine would have (and did)

The Jews of Palestine would have declared an independent Jewish state (as they did) and the neighboring Arab states would have invaded that newly declared state (which they did).

The options were to accept the newly declared Jewish state (i.e. accept the Partition) or not.

My suggestion is that the former option would have been better for all concerned than what actually ended up happening (i.e. rejection of the plan and invasion of the Jewish state).

[Little Tich]

52. Huh?

I don't remember an Arab invasion of the areas allotted to the Jewish state, but I distinctly remember a Jewish / Israeli invasion of areas allotted to the Arab state or designed to be a corpus separatum.

Please enlighten me, because those who are pro-Israel often talk about an Arab invasion, but become distinctly edgy and evasive when pressed for proof...

[shira]

54. It's revisionism to deny the Arab invasion of 1948....

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths3/MF1948.html

MYTH
“The Jews started the first war with the Arabs.”

FACT
The Arabs made clear they would go to war to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state. The chairman of the Arab Higher Committee said the Arabs would “fight for every inch of their country.”1 Two days later, the holy men of Al-Azhar University in Cairo called on the Muslim world to proclaim a jihad (holy war) against the Jews. 2 Jamal Husseini, the Arab Higher Committee’s spokesman, had told the UN prior to the partition vote the Arabs would drench “the soil of our beloved country with the last drop of our blood. . . .”3

Map of Arab Invasion, 1948

Husseini’s prediction began to come true almost immediately after the UN adopted the partition resolution on November 29, 1947. The Arabs declared a protest strike and instigated riots that claimed the lives of 62 Jews and 32 Arabs. Violence continued to escalate through the end of the year.4

The first large-scale assaults began on January 9, 1948, when approximately 1,000 Arabs attacked Jewish communities in northern Palestine. By February, the British said so many Arabs had infiltrated they lacked the forces to run them back. 5

In the first phase of the war, lasting from November 29, 1947, until April 1, 1948, the Palestinian Arabs took the offensive, with help from volunteers from neighboring countries. The Jews suffered severe casualties and passage along most of their major roadways was disrupted.

On April 26, 1948, Transjordan’s King Abdullah said:

All our efforts to find a peaceful solution to the Palestine problem have failed. The only way left for us is war. I will have the pleasure and honor to save Palestine. 6

On May 4, 1948, the Arab Legion attacked Kfar Etzion. The defenders drove them back, but the Legion returned a week later. After two days, the ill-equipped and outnumbered settlers were overwhelmed. Many defenders were massacred after they had surrendered. 7 This was prior to the invasion by the regular Arab armies that followed Israel’s declaration of independence.

[font color = "red"]The UN blamed the Arabs for the violence. The UN Palestine Commission, which was never permitted by the Arabs or British to go to Palestine to implement the resolution, reported to the Security Council on February 16, 1948, that “powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.” 8

The Arabs were blunt in taking responsibility for the war. Jamal Husseini told the Security Council on April 16, 1948:

The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight. 9
[/font]
The British commander of Jordan’s Arab Legion, John Bagot Glubb admitted:

Early in January, the first detachments of the Arab Liberation Army began to infiltrate into Palestine from Syria. Some came through Jordan and even through Amman . . . ​They were in reality to strike the first blow in the ruin of the Arabs of Palestine. 10

Despite the disadvantages in numbers, organization and weapons, the Jews began to take the initiative in the weeks from April 1 until the declaration of independence on May 14. The Haganah captured several major towns including Tiberias and Haifa, and temporarily opened the road to Jerusalem.

The partition resolution was never suspended or rescinded. [font color = "red"]Thus, Israel, the Jewish State in Palestine, was born on May 14, as the British finally left the country. Five Arab armies (Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq) immediately invaded Israel. Their intentions were declared by Abd Al-Rahman Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League: “It will be a war of annihilation. It will be a momentous massacre in history that will be talked about like the massacres of the Mongols or the Crusades.” 11[/font]

Military Situation at Cease Fire (June 11, 1948)

Sources:
1 New York Times, (December 1, 1947).
2 Facts on File Yearbook, (NY: Facts on File, Inc., 1948), p. 48.
3 J.C. Hurewitz, The Struggle For Palestine, (NY: Shocken Books, 1976), p. 308.
4 Palestine Post, (January 2, 7, 27; April 1; May 1, 1948).
5 Facts on File 1947, p. 231.
6 Howard Sachar, A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time, (NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979), p. 322.
7 Netanel Lorch, One Long War, (Jerusalem: Keter Books, 1976), p. 47; Ralph Patai, ed., Encyclopedia of Zionism and Israel, (NY: McGraw Hill, 1971), pp. 307--308.
8 Security Council Official Records, Special Supplement, (1948), p. 20.
9 Security Council Official Records, S/Agenda/58, (April 16, 1948), p. 19.
10 John Bagot Glubb, A Soldier with the Arabs, (London: Staughton and Hodder, 1957), p. 79.
11 “Interview with Abd al-Rahman Azzam Pasha,” Akhbar al-Yom (Egypt), (October 11, 1947); translated by R. Green.

[Little Tich]

56. How did the Arab armies invade without crossing the border? n/t

[shira]

59. Your revisionist sources should explain how the Arab armies....

....of Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq somehow found themselves fighting in that area, only to later sign onto an armistice agreement with Israel in 1949.

Did they teleport there?

The Arab countries signed armistice agreements with Israel in 1949, starting with Egypt (Feb. 24), followed by Lebanon (March 23), Jordan (April 3) and Syria (July 20). Iraq was the only country that did not sign an agreement with Israel, choosing instead to withdraw its troops and hand over its sector to Jordan’s Arab Legion. None of the Arab states would negotiate a peace agreement.

How do you think Egypt ended up with Gaza - and Jordan with the W.Bank for 19 years - without ever committing any troops there?

[Little Tich]

62. I'm talking about the borders of the Jewish state, not the borders of the defunct Palestine Mandate.

It's pretty strange that all the defensive fighting of the Jewish / Israeli militias was going on outside of the borders of the Jewish State. If there are Arab troops in the areas allotted to the Arab state, there can't well be an Arab invasion of the Jewish state, can there? An invasion of the Jewish state would normally imply that enemy troops entered the Jewish state.

I'm obviously missing something, and I feel a bit stupid, but nevertheless it seems like I'm right about this...

[shira]

66. Why were there Arab armies from Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan there?

What were they doing there, and why did they later sign an armistice agreement with Israel if there was no invasion?

Were they just there to hang out? Maybe go bowling, play some poker games, and watch football with their buddies?

[oberliner]

61. Tel Aviv was bombed by Egypt on May 15 1948

On the day that the Jewish state was proclaimed.



Weird that you don't remember this as we had this same conversation just a few months ago on here.

[Little Tich]

63. Aha. The invasion of the Arab armies consisted of bombing Tel Aviv.

Just like last time, that's not really much of an invasion...

[shira]

67. More on the invasion from Wikipedia...

On 15 May 1948 the ongoing civil war transformed into an inter-state conflict between Israel and the Arab states, following the Israeli Declaration of Independence the previous day. A combined invasion by Egypt, Jordan and Syria, together with expeditionary forces from Iraq, entered Palestine - Jordan having declared privately to Yishuv emissaries on 2 May it would abide by a decision not to attack the Jewish state.[11] The invading forces took control of the Arab areas and immediately attacked Israeli forces and several Jewish settlements.[12][13][14] The 10 months of fighting, interrupted by several truce periods, took place mostly on the former territory of the British Mandate and for a short time also in the Sinai Peninsula and southern Lebanon.[15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War

[Little Tich]

68. My point is that the Jewish state was never invaded.

The invasion was started by the Jewish militias when they crossed the border into areas that were supposed to be part of the Arab state. In fact, I wouldn't really call what the Arab armies did an invasion, as their presence was was needed to stop the Jewish militias from committing more ethnic cleansing. Remember that the Nakba started in Jewish areas well before the partition plan, and Arabs were removed from their homes at gunpoint wherever the Jewish militias were present.

While it's not possible to fault the Jewish militias for starting the civil war in 1947, they were definitely the ones that started the Israeli War of Independence in 1948. The idea that Israel was defending itself is a myth - Israel was the aggressor in 1948. All the fighting took place outside Israel.

[shira]

69. Yes, its was. Here's Benny Morris on the Arab invasion...

The Zionist leadership was keenly aware of the impending British departure, scheduled for May 15, and the pan-Arab invasion that was to follow, as announced almost daily by the Arab leaders and media. The main Jewish areas, the roads between them, and the border areas of the emergent Jewish state all had to be secured before the Arab armies invaded—which meant that the Palestinian Arab militias had to be crushed first if there was to be any hope of beating the invaders....

...The defeat of the Palestinian Arabs, without doubt, forced the Arab states’ hand and pushed their leaders into fulfilling their promises to invade Palestine—and attack Israel—on May 15. The most moderate of the Arab leaders, King Abdullah of Jordan (who in 1947 had secretly agreed with the Jewish Agency to share Palestine between them) on May 10—the eve of the invasion—explained to Golda Myerson (Meir), the Jewish Agency representative, that he was now one of a five-member coalition and could not act independently. “After Deir Yassin, Tiberias and Haifa,” much to his reluctance, he would have to participate in the invasion and the war. And so he did.

http://www.historynet.com/lashing-back-israel-1947-1948-civil-war.htm

[Little Tich]

71. Please point out where the Jewish state was invaded...

The problem is the this invasion is always mentioned, but I just don't get it: Where was that invasion? It seems as if the Jewish forces retreated in a forward direction very successfully and just happened to end up in the areas allotted to the Arab state.


Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine

[shira]

72. You want me to say Palestine was invaded by 5 Arab armies in 1948?

Why were they there?

Why the need for an armistice in 1949 & armistice lines between Israel and Jordan? In fact, what the hell was Jordan doing there taking half of Jerusalem & Gush Etzion?

[Little Tich]

73. I think you should acknowledge that Israel did most of the invading.

I can't see how Israel accepted the partition plan for Palestine, when it crossed the agreed upon borders with armed forces with the intent of occupying and empty areas allotted to the Arab state. I think a correct description of that would be an invasion, don't you?

Please read what you have posted from Avi Shlaim and Benny Morris - they can set you right...

[shira]

74. I posted Shlaim & Morris because they acknowledge Israel was invaded by 5 armies.....

You haven't answered although I've asked several times now:

Why were those 5 armies there if they didn't invade anything? Why did they sign an armistice agreement if they never invaded anything?

And no - Israel didn't invade anything. Prior to May 15, 1948 when the Arab armies invaded, there was a civil war going on in Palestine between the Jews and Palestinians, a war the Palestinians started. I challenge you to tell me what in particular Israel invaded before the 5 Arab armies rolled in.

Support your argument.

[Little Tich]

75. It seems as if we've gone full circle on this.

I can't see how Israeli / Jewish armed forces crossing the border to occupy and remove the local population can not be called an invasion, while Arab armed forces crossing the border and entering Arab areas with the intent to occupy but not remove the local population is an invasion.

The only good outcome of this, is that I know once again that I'm right. You haven't managed to prove that the Arab armies invaded the Jewish state, nor have you refuted my argument that the Jewish / Israeli armed forces invaded areas allotted to the Arab state.

[shira]

76. Jewish armed forces crossing a border? What border? Occupying a population?

They didn't cross any border into Palestine. They were already there. The 5 Arab armies all crossed a border to get into Palestine.

And yeah, they removed Palestinians they thought were an impediment to winning the war. But that does not constitute an invasion.

You've been denying an Arab invasion by 5 armies for some time now - why not just acknowledge they invaded Palestine to fight the Jews? I thought you were against revisionist claims.

You haven't managed to prove that the Arab armies invaded the Jewish state,

That's ludicrous.

How did 5 Arab armies (from Egypt to Syria, Jordan, Iraq, & Lebanon) find themselves in Palestine if they didn't invade? Did they teleport there? Were they always there since the time of the Canaanites?

Come on, be serious.

[shira]

70. Avi Shlaim on the Arab invasion of 1948...

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/Israel%20and%20the%20Arab%20Coalition%20in%2019481.html

[Little Tich]

16. The argument in the OP is a straw man - of course the author is winning the "argument"... n/t

[shira]

18. You said it yourself - BDS is bullshit - and that's the BDS of Omar Barghouti

Last edited Fri Nov 6, 2015, 01:26 PM - Edit history (1)

He's not just self-appointed. He and his asshole comrades are the BDS movement.

Ask our biggest fan of BDS here at DU.

Without Barghouti, Abunimah, Mondoweiss, etc.. there is no BDS.

Thus, it's easy to beat BDS in any debate.

Note that there are no advocates of BDS capable or willing to justify their views. They dodge the simplest of questions.

[Little Tich]

27. I forgive you for misrepresenting what I posted.

I do think that the BDS movement should be watched, as that's where the "crazy" people will turn up. I believe in the idea that if a group has no other group that's more extreme than they are, that group will be the end of the political spectrum and where eventually all kinds of crazy people will end up.

I'm not at all fond of the BDS movement, because I think they're trying to hijack a serious issue for their own purposes. I support boycotting the settlements because I think they constitute Apartheid, and I consider the boycott to be an appropriate form of protest against Apartheid. I refuse to boycott anything that isn't absolutely proven to be Apartheid, which is why I have no problem buying Israeli products.

The problem is also that those who oppose criticism of the settlements use the fringe elements of BDS to characterize all BDS. I have shown you the EU labelling of settlement goods as an example of BDS. You have provided Omar Barghouti, Ali Abunimah and the self-proclaimed BDS movement as an example of BDS. I can't find a link between your BDS and my BDS, which makes it difficult to for me to accept your argument.

If you could find some link between my idea of BDS and yours, I would be intrigued, and I might even have to reconsider my stance on BDS, as my stance is based on genuine moral concerns, and not the half-baked ideology of the BDS fringe.

[shira]

41. Who are the self-appointed leaders of "good BDS"? Where are these righteous people?

Where can we read of their peaceful goals?

Enlighten me.

[Little Tich]

46. TOI: Israel steps up efforts to persuade EU to drop settlement product labels

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134118151

[shira]

50. So you now believe the EU calls for full right of return of refugees? n/t

[Little Tich]

58. I have no idea what you refer to, but I do think that the EU is BDSing

the settlements because they are illegal.

[shira]

60. BDS calls for full Right of Return. You support this.

Last edited Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:48 AM - Edit history (1)

Show me where the EU is demanding this as part of their boycott.

Otherwise it isn't BDS.

It's just "B".

[Little Tich]

64. BDS is a tool, not an organization.

I'm on board with BDS as long as it's about the settlements only. There's definitely more than just a "B". Countries and companies in the EU are actively divesting from the settlements as well, so there is a "D", and at some point in the future, those who deal with the illegal settlements could be sanctioned as well - there has been talk of sanctioning companies that deal with Israeli banks that have business in the illegal settlements.

So there is a "B" and a "D" and an "S".

In the end, this is the BDS that Israel should worry about, and it will bite.

[shira]

65. I'm still not getting why you see the BDS organization as extreme...

You agree with Omar Barghouti and his gang WRT Apartheid claims - the EU doesn't make such a baseless claim.

You agree with them on the need for full right of return. The EU does not demand any such thing.

Looks like you agree more with them than the EU.

[azurnoir]

29. kick

[Truprogressive85]

77. which one is it?

What I find odd is that I could've sworn by anti BDS crowd, they dismissed the movement as small and had no impact

Yet you have people like HRC reassuring Saban she will make sure BDS dies out

or supposed liberal think tanks censoring writers that criticize Israel