The Palestine Papers

[Beirut]

You have a far greater belief in the efficiency of government then I ever will.

Governments are highly efficient when it counts. They have the guns, the money, the law, the information gathering assets, and retain a monopoly on the use of force. They also have, when required - usually to maintain their own interest - a highly concentrated sense of purpose.

There was no coherent plan behind the formation of Israel, . . .

You think it was done on a whim?

[Hax]

When was the last time Christianity claimed the region for a religious purpose?

South Vietnam, right before the war.

South Korea. Right now.

Sounds like Christianity has something with the south.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Governments are highly efficient when it counts. They have the guns, the money, the law, the information gathering assets, and retain a monopoly on the use of force. They also have, when required - usually to maintain their own interest - a highly concentrated sense of purpose.

Self interest, especially to stay in power, is certainly something that can clarify government. I don't think that appertained, particularly at the outset.

You think it was done on a whim?

A whim, no. Too quickly and influenced by guilt and a sense of high-handedness, yes. The original UN effort sort of pre-supposed that the then-locals would be okay with the idea and/or that their opinion was pretty secondary. It also pre-supposed that, having been granted a homeland, the new Israelis would be perfectly content with what they'd been handed. I'd call that incoherent planning.

Of course, the whole re-drawing of the AH empire at Versailles had a lot of that thinking going on too. Israel's formation was another in a long series of just too-cavalier efforts.

[Beirut]

Self interest, especially to stay in power, is certainly something that can clarify government. I don't think that appertained, particularly at the outset.

I think it was relevant at the outset. The government, say the UK and the US governments for example, obviously saw it as being in their own best interest that Palestine be carved up or else they would not have assisted in it.

A whim, no. Too quickly and influenced by guilt and a sense of high-handedness, yes. The original UN effort sort of pre-supposed that the then-locals would be okay with the idea and/or that their opinion was pretty secondary. It also pre-supposed that, having been granted a homeland, the new Israelis would be perfectly content with what they'd been handed. I'd call that incoherent planning.

I don't think anyone anywhere was under the illusion that you allude to. Recent history in that area made it so clear as to be beyond any shadow of a doubt that there would be armed conflict. George Marshall told Truman that carving up Palestrine to make room for Isreal would ruin the US repuation in that region for generations. He was right.

Of course, the whole re-drawing of the AH empire at Versailles had a lot of that thinking going on too. Israel's formation was another in a long series of just too-cavalier efforts.

Yes, but unlike other "just too cavalier efforts", this one took an extra step into the land of the stupid by not only redrawing borders, but by importing an entire culture and people from another part of the world and plopping it right smack dab in the middle of a place that already had an indigeous population and that 100% guaranteed war would follow. It was not only criminal and stupid, but criminally stupid.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I don't think anyone anywhere was under the illusion that you allude to. Recent history in that area made it so clear as to be beyond any shadow of a doubt that there would be armed conflict. George Marshall told Truman that carving up Palestrine to make room for Isreal would ruin the US repuation in that region for generations. He was right.

Turns out to have been, yes. But then and now, most politicos have a much shorter decision horizon -- long term problems can be dumped on a successor. Please note, that is a comment on what I believe influenced decision-making at the time. Heeding Marshall's advice would have been smarter.

Yes, but unlike other "just too cavalier efforts", this one took an extra step into the land of the stupid by not only redrawing borders, but by importing an entire culture and people from another part of the world and plopping it right smack dab in the middle of a place that already had an indigeous population and that 100% guaranteed war would follow. It was not only criminal and stupid, but criminally stupid.

Turns out to have been a world champion dumb-bunny move, eh? We could parse nuances about criminality and international law, but I will set that aside. The decision at the time was ill-thought, ran counter to the "best route forward" assessments of many of the then-experts available, and was probably made to appease a sense of guilt as much as any rational reaction. Oh, and it basically handed the Zionist terrorists a win for their freedom fighter/terrorist efforts. Stupidity on parade.

[Beirut]

Interesting post.

[Crazed Rabbit]

A question for Beirut:
I recall from previous threads about Israel that you blame the Israelis and their dehumanizing treatment of Palestinians for the Palestinian's terrorism directed at Israel. I recall a different discussion about the Hells Angels in Canada and how you would want very violent things to happen to the Hells Angels as punishment for their crimes.

I asked if you could not see how the Israelis felt the same way about the Palestinians that you do about the Hells Angels.

You replied that you and Canada have never done to the Hells Angels what the Israelis have done to the Palestinians - occupation, war, etc.

That made me think; how would you react if the Native Americans in Canada had responded to their poor treatment in the same way Palestinians had; with terrorism?

If you view Palestinians as justified, then certainly the Indians of North America would be justified in using terrorism against the Canadian (or US for that matter) governments.

CR

[Beirut]

A question for Beirut:
I recall from previous threads about Israel that you blame the Israelis and their dehumanizing treatment of Palestinians for the Palestinian's terrorism directed at Israel. I recall a different discussion about the Hells Angels in Canada and how you would want very violent things to happen to the Hells Angels as punishment for their crimes.

I asked if you could not see how the Israelis felt the same way about the Palestinians that you do about the Hells Angels.

The Hells Angels are a criminal organization. The Palestinians are a people.

You replied that you and Canada have never done to the Hells Angels what the Israelis have done to the Palestinians - occupation, war, etc.

That made me think; how would you react if the Native Americans in Canada had responded to their poor treatment in the same way Palestinians had; with terrorism?

I would support the native people taking any actions required to protect themselves as long as those actions did not involve targeting innocent civilians. And besides, who says the Palestinian response is always terrorism? Sometimes it is, yes. But just as often, and more, and with far worse results, the Israelis indulge in acts of terrorism. Those Israeli acts of terrorism kill far, far more Palestinians than Palestinans terrorist have killed Israelis.

For our part, Canada has been responsible for the brutal and inhuman mistreatement of native peoples, and slowly, too slowly, we are coming to terms with it. Part of that redemption process, if you want to call it that, is that Canada gives jurisdictional rights to its native people that I think few countries in the world do.

If you view Palestinians as justified, then certainly the Indians of North America would be justified in using terrorism against the Canadian (or US for that matter) governments.

You are assuming and implying by the construction of your statement that I support terrorism. I do not. I support the right of the Palestinians to defend themselves. It is not the same thing.