I See Why You Feel That Way --- But It Doesn't Matter

even when they are created to provide excuses. Motives do matter because it can help us in our response to abuse and violence. Martin Luther King certainly understood this because it helped shaped his responses to racism in a way that stopped the cycles and chains of abuse and violence. The same can be said of Gandhi.

But let's apply your Poland analogy to another invasion: the Occupied Territories. Certainly all violent attempts to keep Israel from stealing more land have been counterproductive in the end. Having correct motives stir peaceful reactions. Peaceful resctions could reverse the current invasion of the Occupied Territories.

You hit on one of my favorite pet peeves. Did you call the Gaza Strip or West Bank "occupied territories" between 1948 and 1967 when Egypt and Jordan were occupying them? Most did not. So why are they "occupied" by Israel, but were just part of Egypt and Jordan?

Well, that is not relevant, just something that annoys me to no end. No one calls Texas "occupied" or Alsace. When any other nation wins a war, the conquests become part of them. Israel, on the other hand, can never legitimately annex land, but is always "occupying".

Ok, now I will really get back on topic.

I am sorry, but once you have acted, motive DOES cease to matter. Once there is an action, the response is tot he act, not the motive. Motives become irrelevant.

And, to counter all your happy rhetoric, Chamberlain tried the same thing, so did King Louis IX with the Abbasid caliph, both with much less stirring results.

For that matter, neither King nor Ghandi really acted on the motives of their opposition. King turned his opposition's rhetorical commitment to certain ideals against them, which was a great PR coup, but hardly use of their motivations.

Ghandi, on the other hand, basically created an Indian version of the general strike. (I have never quite understood the reason people consider Ghandi so innovative. Better PR than Sam Gompers, I suppose. Or was it the clothes?)

In neither case did an accurate understanding of their opponents' motives figure into it.

Nor did Oslo rely in any way on understanding motives. For that matter, it hasn't worked either, but even if it had, motives don't have a part in it.

The WB was not part of Jordan nor the Gaza Strip a part of Egypt according to the UN mandate. That the Egyptians and Jordanians did not own the land, it was reserved for the Palestinians. But what was odd about the partition is that Israel, having the minority in population, got the majority of the land.

And international law does strongly disagree with the winners keepers losers weepers ethic that you seem to support. Israel has, since '67, been seen as occupying the land because the land was partitioned for the Palestinians. One cannot legally undo that partitioning simply by military conquest.

Furthermore, I find those who support that mentality also support the inequity that that mentality practices. At this point, we are no longer talking about boundary disputes and such, we are talking about harsh and brutal oppression based on ethnicity. I hope you understand the seriousness of the issue. We are talking about ethnic cleansing that is supported by our tax dollars. Of course here, Israel and the US unfortunately share a historical practice. Much of what we have today is because we practiced ethnic cleaning against the American Indians. We did that using deceit and brutal violence. Because of the population differences, the same is happening today in the Occupied Territories.

As for the motives, there are those on both sides who want conquest. The difference is that those who want conquest on the Israeli side are funded by our gov't and have most of the military toys. The general population from both sides want peace. But for as long as one side keeps putting a legal facade on the theft of land and brutal treatment of an indigenous people, there is no realistic way of having peace. Israel has put itself in the position of choosing between moral suicide and military defeat.

Finally, it has been Israel that has been sabotaging most attempts at peace including the only time when a substantial agreement could have been made, at Talba.

Actually, the Israelis did not get the majority of Transjordan. 4/5 became the Kingdom of Jordan, of the remaining 20%, half was Arab Palestine, half Israel. So they got 10% of British Transjordan, how does that work out to a majority of the land?


It is late and I just wrote several responses, so I will get back to the rest.

the majority of the land that was split between them and the Palestinians despite the fact that there were more Palestinians. But now you seem to be mixing apples and oranges because we are talking about how the British, in their infinite arrogance, divided the land vs how the the UN and the international community divided the land.

I don't see how it is irrelevant that 90% or so of British Transjordan ended up Palestinian. Your distinction between the British and the UN is a bit disingenuous as well, as the UN division largely followed the Balfour Declaration. So to distinguish between British and UN is to make a meaningless distinction.

Again, if you look at the land that divided up as Palestinian and Israeli, and compare the two populations, you will find of the majority of the land that designated as Israel as being more of the land between the two with less of the people.

Not being disingenuous, the land designated for Palestine by the UN was first significantly reduced in 1947-48 by Israel itself and then its remaining part cut in half by Israeli occupation and settlement based on ethnicity.

If you wanna' get to know caday5 and where he is coming from, go read his July 4th message to our troops.

He advises them to form a union so they wouldn't have to follow all orders blindly and end up like Iranians.

What a puke this guy is.

Glenn

The division was hardly as one-sided as you suggest, and by ignoring Jordan you ARE being disingenuous. The fact remains, almost 90% of British Transjordan was set aside for Palestinians, which is greater than their percentage of the population. By concentrating on the 20% that was Palestine, you can make it look "unfrair", maybe, but even then it was close enough to 50-50 to be fair, but when Jordan is included, it is clear there was no injustice.

Second, you are very wrong when you write "and settlement based on ethnicity". Settlement was based on ISRAELI CITIZENSHIP. Granted, all Jews have the right of return, but there are many non-Jewish citizens, including Palestinians who did no side with the Arab League. So some settlers were the very Palestinians you claim Israel is killing off.

Thus, there was not "ethnic" basis for settlement, but a citizenship basis. The same basis as, say, settling in the "occupied territory: of Texas requiring US citizenship.

I haven't read Caday5's post, so I can't comment.

I know it is often futile to argue such points. The debate on Israel here and on http://townhall.com/youropinion/comments.aspx?g=2ab32153-1 b20-4e7a-802a-5ce461c030cd about the free market have both been pretty fruitless. Still I stand by my promise to debate anyone who argues sincerely and avoids the nastier type of ad hominem attacks. (And, yes, I used it right, unlike most posters... See http://andrews.blogtownhall.com/2008/04/16/ad_hominem.thtm l )

I know some people think it pointless to argue with those who disagree, or with whom you so completely disagree, but I don't. There is always the chance you will persuade someone of even a tiny truth, or perhaps find something in your own theories that is not quite right.

If nothing else,t he debate has inspired a half dozen topics I wouldn't have thought of otherwise.

Actually what you will see that demographics show that the settlements are Jewish only. And many of the settlers themselves threaten physical violence against all others. That is even the personal testimony of a born again Christian Palestinian who told me personally. This person looked of European rather than Arab descent. Some of these settlers have attacked Palestinians on the Palestinians' own land because these attackers claim that the Bible says the land is theirs. This stems from a certain form of Zionism that use to be called Revisionism.

I follow this from a Christian perspective. An excellent and different article regarding this perspective can be found at

http://www.ifamericansonlyknew.com/cur_sit/wdoor.html

BTW, my comments regarding the division of the land are accurate. And what we are really discussing is land that has been inhabited by non-Jews that is being confiscated and given to Israeli Jews. Not all Israeli Jews agree with this practice and even protest what the settlers are doing.