Israeli-Arab Crisis Approaching

[Nagishkaw 510]

Actually, it IS during AC's rule--as Asians (where the 20 crore strong army of "horesemen" originates) rebel against AC and take war to his doorstep.

(Revelation) 9 comes before (Revelation) 13.

[scandal 951]

Good piece of analysis. Thanks, LI.

Whatever the Palestinians once were, they are clearly a nation in the simplest and most important sense — namely, they think of themselves as a nation. Nations are created by historical circumstances, and those circumstances have given rise to a Palestinian nation. Under the principle of the United Nations and the theory of the right to national self-determination, which is the moral foundation of the modern theory of nationalism, a nation has a right to a state, and that state has a place in the family of nations.

I agree. Entirely. Palestinians should be accorded status as a nation, and I support their efforts to a nation-state of their own. I equally support Israelis legitimate right to self-declare themselves a nation and to claim their nation-state on land historically the homeland of the Jewish people. As they did 63 years ago. And yet which they (and supporters such as I) find ourselves needing to rehash and revisit and defend. Do Italians need to justify the nation-state of Italy? Do Americans need to justify the USA? (And keep in mind the historical claim of Americans to this land is far weaker than Israelis' to Israel). Israelis are entitled to Israel. Palestinians to Palestine. Both ought to be pluralistic societies that accept minorities in their midst and guarantee and protect the basic rights of minorities to worship, educate, assemble, speak, travel, freely. The borders between the two should be determined by negotiations. Not settlement policies, not walls and fences, and also not by unrelenting rocket attacks and assaults on civilians and kidnapping of soldiers.

The Pan-Arab rising is moribund. Where it once threatened the existence of Muslim states, like the Arab monarchies, it is now itself threatened. Mubarak, Syrian President Bashar al Assad and Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi all represented the old Pan-Arab vision. A much better way to understand the “Arab Spring” is that it represented the decay of such regimes that were vibrant when they came to power in the late 1960s and early 1970s but have fallen into ideological meaninglessness. Fatah is part of this grouping, and while it still speaks for Palestinian nationalism as a secular movement, beyond that it is isolated from broader trends in the region. It is both at odds with rising religiosity and simultaneously mistrusted by the monarchies it tried to overthrow.

That's very well put. Arafat came of age in the generation of Gamel Abdul Nasser and Haffez Assad and Gadhafi. Fatah is still ideologically the movement of that era.

Hamas, on the other hand, is very much representative of current trends in the Islamic world

That may be true. It remains to be seen. Hamas is a movement of the 80s. A generation removed from the secular pan-Arabists of the 60s, but not clearly the vanguard of today's Arab Spring.

All nations have ideological divisions, but the Palestinians are divided over the fundamental question of the Palestinian nation’s identity. Fatah sees itself as part of a secular Arab world that is on the defensive. Hamas envisions the Palestinian nation as an Islamic state forming in the context of a region-wide Islamist rising.

Yup.

Fatah has accepted, in practice, the idea of Israel’s permanence as a state and the need of the Palestinians to accommodate themselves to the reality. Hamas has rejected it.

Double yup.

The U.N. decision raises the stakes in this debate within the Palestinian nation that could lead to intense conflict.

I'm not so sure about that. I know Israel is bracing for this coming event, but I really see it as a non-event. It's effectively the case now. I rather wish the UN GA would just make Palestine a member, and get it over with. Then we'll all see it's really not a big deal. Why shouldn't they have a seat in the GA? What harm does it cause anyone, least of all Israel if they do? And I say this as a supporter and lover of Israel.

As vicious as the battle between Hamas and Fatah has been, an uneasy truce has existed over recent years. Now, there could emerge an internationally legitimized state,

It's legitimate and effectively internationally recognized already. We conceded this point right up at the top.

and control of that state will matter more than ever before. Whoever controls the state defines what the Palestinians are, and it becomes increasingly difficult to suspend the argument for a temporary truce. Rather than settling anything, or putting Israel on the defensive, the vote will compel a Palestinian crisis.

I don't see why. Hamas/Fatah crisis has been going on for 4 years. I fail to see the UN voting on statehood in NY making either side push harder than they already are, or give in more readily than they're already willing to do.

I had thoughts on the rest of the article as well, particularly the regional considerations of Iran and Syria and Hezbollah, but I'll limit myself here to this Hamas/Fatah analysis and the upcoming UN vote.

I'm fine with the vote. I hope Palestinians get a state recognized by the UN. I hope in doing so perhaps they'll see the justice for their neighbors in Israel to have just that same right. I hope so, but I'm not overly optimistic.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I agree. Entirely. Palestinians should be accorded status as a nation, and I support their efforts to a nation-state of their own. I equally support Israelis legitimate right to self-declare themselves a nation and to claim their nation-state on land historically the homeland of the Jewish people. As they did 63 years ago. And yet which they (and supporters such as I) find ourselves needing to rehash and revisit and defend. Do Italians need to justify the nation-state of Italy? Do Americans need to justify the USA? (And keep in mind the historical claim of Americans to this land is far weaker than Israelis' to Israel). Israelis are entitled to Israel. Palestinians to Palestine. Both ought to be pluralistic societies that accept minorities in their midst and guarantee and protect the basic rights of minorities to worship, educate, assemble, speak, travel, freely. The borders between the two should be determined by negotiations. Not settlement policies, not walls and fences, and also not by unrelenting rocket attacks and assaults on civilians and kidnapping of soldiers.

Israel is in Palestine. To claim that "Hey, we once had a nation here centuries ago, so, that makes it ours now when we show up to claim it" is ridiculous. Israelis are not more entitled to the land than the people who actually lived there before a bunch of Europeans came and devised a scam to take it from them.

One would have to be able to justify Mexico getting Texas, Colorado, California, New Mexico back for that to make sense. Their occupation as a nation was more recent and doesn't depend on a religious claim, which not everyone supports.

Settlement policies are inescapable as part of what has gone wrong with the Zionist sense of entitlement that you beg us to accept. Greed and arrogance has moved your philosophy far away from anything God would approve of. If you hadn't been so greedy and arrogant, you might have done better than to set a thin veneer of honor before us that is fading away.

Israel is a terrorist nation and its chickens will continue to come home to roost until it is able to give up its myth-making for reality.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Sofiyya

[웃 910]

Israel is in Palestine. To claim that "Hey, we once had a nation here centuries ago, so, that makes it ours now when we show up to claim it" is ridiculous.

In another 100 years that will be precisely what Palestine will be doing

[Sofiyya 1,687]

In another 100 years that will be precisely what Palestine will be doing

Wrong. We've been doing it since before 1948.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Wrong. We've been doing it since before 1948.

What period of time can you point to where 'Palestinians' ruled themselves in 'Palestine?'

[Sofiyya 1,687]

What period of time can you point to where 'Palestinians' ruled themselves in 'Palestine?'

Between 70 AD and 1948, there was no Israel, but there was a Palestine. There is no legitimacy to the claim that Jews are entitled to a nation in Palestine. The people who were there when the land was stolen from them are the legitimate landholders.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

BTW, should I assume that by asking that question, you are not aware of the long timeline of Muslim control in Palestine and Jerusalem, as well as 200 years of Muslim-Christian wrestling over the area during the Crusades?

[mawilson 2,133]

Between 70 AD and 1948, there was no Israel, but there was a Palestine.

There was no "Palestinian nation" or state and the people who lived there did not identify themselves as a "Palestinian people".

But nice try at rewriting history.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Sof you do indeed gloss over hundreds of years of Roman rule, as well as Ottoman to name but two. I think you inadvertently pointed out the real reason 'Palestinians' are so unable to come to terms with Israelis, but it has nothing to do with the loss of 1800 + years of 'Palestinian' self rule which of course never occurred.

[Dan and Judy 614]

Historically speaking, whoever gots it, gots it

[Sofiyya 1,687]

There was no "Palestinian nation" or state and the people who lived there did not identify themselves as a "Palestinian people".

But nice try at rewriting history.

There was no Israel nor a Jewish entitlement. The claim rests on trying to create a history that doesnt exist, Your position reveals your hypocrisy in that the "mandate" you support exists only in a book you mock on a regular basis and a religion you personally reject.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Sof you do indeed gloss over hundreds of years of Roman rule, as well as Ottoman to name but two. I think you inadvertently pointed out the real reason 'Palestinians' are so unable to come to terms with Israelis, but it has nothing to do with the loss of 1800 + years of 'Palestinian' self rule which of course never occurred.

I didn't gloss over anything, but I did ask a question that remains unanswered. Do you care to comment on scandal's assertion that the Jews are entitled to a Jewish state in Palestine and on what basis? That is the position that is historically difficult to justify,

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Please remember that Visa Journey is a multi-cultural/multi-national community including Israeli citizens as members. It is no more acceptable to make blanket statements that imply all Israelis are terrorists than it is to make blanket statements that imply all members of Islam are terrorists.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Kathryn41

[Sofiyya 1,687]

BTW, a basic reason why an Israeli-Arab crisis exists is because of Zionist mythology.