Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob
Dude, people were there already. Sorry, but if they don't like you, or don't like a lot of you showing up and trying to start a country, tough shit. You can fight the ensuing war, but that's not a legitimate reason for us to help you. (Oh, and also, no, people didn't and don't want Jews to move to the middle east. That's what happens when people are living somewhere. That was a stupid question.)
Why would it not succeed elsewhere? It can hardly be argued other candidates would be more inhospitable. Would it not work because the Zionists would not possibly settle for anything less than a restoration of Israel? Then while I can understand that, I cannot support that. That is unreasonable, and extremity of demands leads to inevitable hostility.
This is not a case of persecution within a country, or any sort of mistreatment of a people residing alongside the offending faction. This is an outside party placing themselves in the middle of an existing situation. Since you say the degree of harm in a situation should determine how much attention we give it, surely you can agree that there are far more causes worth supporting than this. Perhaps a situation where a people already lived in an area, and are being persecuted for just living there, rather than moving there.
Is it? Was there not a conscious decision to move a mass of people onto pre-owned land based on the promises of a religious text?
If you're going to cite the decisions of Britain as proof of who is right, then you will recognize that the British imposed increasingly strict immigration policies into Palestine, and Zionists moved into the area anyway. Zionists committed acts of violence against the British in retaliation to the immigration laws. In fact, the British refused the UN demands of unrestricted Jewish immigration into Israel. The owners of the land AND the residents of the land were against the immigration. If you say an imperialist power allowing immigration is a justification of support, how is the defiance of an imperialist power's immigration laws not a condemnation of that cause? If you do not agree that is a condemnation, then you have put forth that the Zionists had the right to move into the area, regardless of the will of the residents or owners. Why? And would you support that same justification if it were applied to the US's immigration laws?
A partition plan was decided on by the UN. It was a plan created by people not on the land, without regard for the people on the land, and was then expected to be accepted by the people on the land. It is misrepresentative to say a refusal of such a plan is unreasonable.
Wait, are you arguing what is right, or what is profitable?
And yes, forcing the survival of unpopular ideologies in a region hostile to our philosophies is a hallmark of our foreign policy. Kind of funny how alot of complaining goes on about our foreign policy, especially about the period of time wherein we did this backing.
What's more, supporting one side is assenting to harm being done to the other. If you support Israel based on its system of government, you are deciding human life is devalued when it disagrees with you. I cannot see how that is superior to the Arab way.
Oh, now something isn't bad unless there isn't something worse? I guess I'll go shoplift, and when the government tries to take action against me I'll yell about how there's more important things going on somewhere else. Or at least I would, if that argument didn't sound stupid in every single situation it could possibly be applied to.
There was a long history of anti-Zionist sentiment before the establishment of the state of Israel. The reaction of the Arabs to its formation was not surprising, especially given the violence leading up to it. There has to be a greater reason for provoking such violence than a book promised so.
|