Closed Thread
Alrighty. Sorry for my absence (if anyone's still interested in all this); a new car and new apartment have distracted me heavily for the last couple months, but things are a bit calmer now. Dunno if anyone else is still interested in this discussion, but if they are, well, here goes:
First off, thanks to Equilibrium for posting those translations. I do have quite a few questions, though. Namely, why are there so many contradictory copies of the Quran floating around? Which am I to believe, and why? Which do you have, and why is it more reliable than what the University of Michigan (which, as far as I can see, has no apparent bias here) has posted online? I'm not asking rhetorically, I'd genuinely like to know how one determines this.
Also, I see this debate as two seperate questions, which are often confused with one another: first, who has a right to the land, and second, what kind of transgressions have the two sides of this conflict committed against one another?
The first, at the risk of sounding arrogant, seems inarguable to me. The Palestinians never had legal claim to the land; they were merely tenants, first under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, and then Britain. It was Britain's land when they gave it to the Israelis, and thus the Israelis own it. Personally, I can see no argument that can circumvent this fact.
Now, that still leaves two other sub-questions (one technical, the second ethical): first, just how (and how many) were the Palestinians removed, and second, is that method (and/or number) morally wrong? From what I understand, the former question is in dispute. I'm quite certain that anecdotal evidence of Palestinians being forced to leave exists, but I haven't seen anything yet (which doesn't mean it doesn't exist, of course) that would allow critics of Israeli to extrapolate that to the entire population.
The second question is trickier, I think. Even if we assume that the Israelis have legal right to the land (indisputable, in my mind at my current level of understanding), and even if we assume that they did forcibly remove a significant number of Palestinians (possibly arguable...?), that still leaves us with the question of whether or not they were unreasonable to do so.
On one hand, it seems rather heartless. These people may not have had a genuine legal claim to the land, but they did live there. On the other hand, the Jewish people had been through incomparable hardships, and can hardly be faulted for being wary of not only founding a new country amidst people who would likely despise them for inheriting it, but even allow some such people to live amongst them.
I think, to achieve any sort of clarity in this debate, the areas of disagreement must be pinpointed. Where does the disagreement lie, in each instance: is it with the issue of legal claim? With the ethics (or lack thereof) in supplanting a settled culture? Or is it simply with Israel's conduct throughout the conflict, regardless of who was right to begin with? And which is more important, anyway? Who was correct then, or who's behaving correctly now (neither, I think we can all agree)?
I think answering these questions is key to establishing any sort of understanding. Otherwise people are content to weigh-in by posting casualty numbers and horrific anecdotes, rather than anything which advances the discussion.
First off, thanks to Equilibrium for posting those translations. I do have quite a few questions, though. Namely, why are there so many contradictory copies of the Quran floating around? Which am I to believe, and why? Which do you have, and why is it more reliable than what the University of Michigan (which, as far as I can see, has no apparent bias here) has posted online? I'm not asking rhetorically, I'd genuinely like to know how one determines this.
Also, I see this debate as two seperate questions, which are often confused with one another: first, who has a right to the land, and second, what kind of transgressions have the two sides of this conflict committed against one another?
The first, at the risk of sounding arrogant, seems inarguable to me. The Palestinians never had legal claim to the land; they were merely tenants, first under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, and then Britain. It was Britain's land when they gave it to the Israelis, and thus the Israelis own it. Personally, I can see no argument that can circumvent this fact.
Now, that still leaves two other sub-questions (one technical, the second ethical): first, just how (and how many) were the Palestinians removed, and second, is that method (and/or number) morally wrong? From what I understand, the former question is in dispute. I'm quite certain that anecdotal evidence of Palestinians being forced to leave exists, but I haven't seen anything yet (which doesn't mean it doesn't exist, of course) that would allow critics of Israeli to extrapolate that to the entire population.
The second question is trickier, I think. Even if we assume that the Israelis have legal right to the land (indisputable, in my mind at my current level of understanding), and even if we assume that they did forcibly remove a significant number of Palestinians (possibly arguable...?), that still leaves us with the question of whether or not they were unreasonable to do so.
On one hand, it seems rather heartless. These people may not have had a genuine legal claim to the land, but they did live there. On the other hand, the Jewish people had been through incomparable hardships, and can hardly be faulted for being wary of not only founding a new country amidst people who would likely despise them for inheriting it, but even allow some such people to live amongst them.
I think, to achieve any sort of clarity in this debate, the areas of disagreement must be pinpointed. Where does the disagreement lie, in each instance: is it with the issue of legal claim? With the ethics (or lack thereof) in supplanting a settled culture? Or is it simply with Israel's conduct throughout the conflict, regardless of who was right to begin with? And which is more important, anyway? Who was correct then, or who's behaving correctly now (neither, I think we can all agree)?
I think answering these questions is key to establishing any sort of understanding. Otherwise people are content to weigh-in by posting casualty numbers and horrific anecdotes, rather than anything which advances the discussion.
)
