The Legitimacy of Israel [Copperknickers vs. Goodguy1066] Commentary Thread

[Ältester der Motten]

you are an anti-semite.

No, just a xenophobe not able to cope with people from a different culture.

[♔Goodguy1066♔]

I don't think so. The British guarantee to Poland was on March 31st 1939, while Polish-British common defense pact was on the 25th of August, and just two days after the Nazi-Soviet pact.

Although you could argue that we didn't defend Poland on a moral basis, but more on a self-interested one, Britain have a trend of trying to stop one nation becoming too strong in europe.

But hey, it sounds much better if we say we did it on a moral basis.

But this isn't really comparable to the conflict in the Middle-East, is it? If we decided to invade Iran "on a moral basis" or to try and stop it from becoming too strong in the reigon, no-one would buy it. This isn't 1939, Iran is not Nazi Germany and Bibi's no Winston Churchill.

[Dolgorukiy]

British actually, and we DID declare war on Germany first. Course, it still took a while to penetrate our heads over the correct course of action. But we got there in the end.

I'll write up a reply, when I have time to think one through properly, doing exams right now. So don't think I'm just ignoring you.

But hey, it sounds much better if we say we did it on a moral basis.

I think you got the Idea right.

[Sir Pignans]

But this isn't really comparable to the conflict in the Middle-East, is it? If we decided to invade Iran "on a moral basis" or to try and stop it from becoming too strong in the reigon, no-one would buy it. This isn't 1939, Iran is not Nazi Germany and Bibi's no Winston Churchill.

God no, of course it's not comparable to the middle east.

The thing is, it would not be moral to invade Iran and too stop it from becoming too strong in thr reason, it would be the opposite of moral, suppressive even, considering that an argument could be made for Israel being the strongest state in the region.

But, then you could argue, say, when they obtained nukes, it would be a moral act to invade Iran, depending on who actually does it, if America invaded (Which is most likely) then it would be moral, but if Israel attacked, I would say it was a preemptive strike.

In this day and age, wars without a moral cause are frowned upon by the international community.

No matter what some people say, morals do matter. I mean, would the Iraq war have happened if it was not considered by the public to be moral? Or would the invasion of Afghanistan?

I think you got the Idea right.

What was my idea? I still consider are intervention to be a moral one, but I'm not ignorant enough to assume that it was for pure reasons we intervened.

[Sir Pignans]

If arab nations ganged up on Israel then there isnt a damn thing i could do about it, maybe the US would enter and defend Israel (ergo bye bye arab nations), but beyond that what? if they were to be successful (they wouldnt) then what? morally correct or not unless any other nation is willing to intervine, Israel is a gonner and eventually, it will only be remembered as a tragedy, there will be angry people, but what remains will be legitimate, untill of course some one else is ready to proclame yet another israel state.
Think Yugoslavia, the UN intervined sure, but who did the most fighting? whats left now? is serbia illegitimate? How about Croacia? how about kosovo?
Because you see, who decides what is legitimate or not is the people involved in the conflict, not you or me, if you intervine for one side the other will call it illegitimate, are they wrong? anything can be illegitimate from another point of view but who decides?

In the case of Israel's destruction, if a Palestine emerged from that, it would be a legitimate state, but if one of the other Arab countries invaded and destroyed Israel, and the Palestinians were still unhappy, it would be unmoral, and illegitimate. In my view, once a state has been created, it has a right to exist, it's a basic right, people have the right to self determination.

But, saying that, the extension of ones borders, against the will of your neighbors is most definitely illegitimate, for example, England was a legitimate country but during numerous wars we conquered large swathes of France, does the legitimacy of England automatically extend to those areas? Of course not, and thats why it was perfectly understandable when France conquered them back.

To apply it to this case, people often say, oh, but the UN recognized Israel when it was first created, true, but in 1967, Israel took more land, and the question is, for me at least, does the legitmacy of a country extend to the legitimacy of it's territories? In my opinion it does not, look at the Falkland Islands, you could argue that morally, we should give them back to Argentina, but we don't, and while I as a patriotic person agree with that, I can see the problems with it, and it gives me a sense of unease about the conflict.

You say morality holds importance in todays world and your right, what you dont see though is that there are different views and shades of morality, all from different perspectives and unless your a major player in the conflict yours doesnt matter, its a sad fact of the world that we either learn to live with or try to take part of.

Of course, of course, but it's the role of the major players to help things along, for example, America, arguably it is a fairly major player in the world, and therefore, should it want to be, it can become a major player in the world. Of course, morals come in lots of different forms, and morality is very difficult to define, but in the end, most countries can justify it's actions on what it believes is a moral basis.

We may disagree, but that's it, morality is morality. If somebody cannot judge themselves to be acting on a moral basis, then there is something seriously wrong with that individual.

Another thing, Nobody went to war with germany over morality, at least it wasnt one of the major factors, if that were true then where were the allies during the invasion of checoslovaquia (excuse the spelling mistakes), how about norway and holand? poland and a number of other eastern european states? let alone china and the pacific islands, the concentration camps were not made until 1944 (or 43, dont remember) and were found in 45, when the war was ending.

I disagree, one of the contributing factors of the war, was the invasion of Poland, a fact for which we went to war for, surely, this is one of the most moral acts? Going to war because another's sovereignty has been threatened? Indeed, it could be argued that allowing Germany to do all those things before in appeasement was a warped form of morality, people felt guilt about Versailles and therefore, there was not as much outrage as there should have been.

As I said before, it was not just because of Morality, but it was a contributing factor.

How about Saudi Arabia? Iraq under saddam? whats stopped them from being what they are? Either its own people or any country thats willing to intervine, but once it happens the job is done, unless you want another Irak war? because that went well.

Not all countries are equal, not all countries are moral, that fact that they are immoral, means little to most people, and that in itself is a terrible thing, but consolation for that can be gained in that there not expansive, and where they are, circumstances often lead to them being destroyed, due to there acts of immorality and, surely it could be argued, if you are destroyed by your own acts of immorality (As was Iraq), surely, a claim can be made for the destructors acting on a partly, if not completely moral basis?

Lastly, i know my views are not nice, they arent meant to be, they are facts; ambition over morality, horrible war over humiliating peace, its sad i know, but it is what it is, Israel has been formed, recognized, has its place in the world and therefore is legitimate.

But does legitimacy equal morality? No. But for the record, I believe Israel is legitimate, or well, the pre-1967 borders are but thats a different matter, but that does not make it's creation moral.

[♔Goodguy1066♔]

Now that TWC's back, I'll try finding some time to post my counter-argument.

[Banana Jelly]

Now that TWC's back, I'll try finding some time to post my counter-argument.

Oh wonderful because its been around 3 weeks until he posted an argument.

[garudamon11]

i dont see israel on my geography book , so no its not legitimate

[♔Goodguy1066♔]

i dont see israel on my geography book , so no its not legitimate

Err, where do you live?

[Banana Jelly]

Iran.

[♔Goodguy1066♔]

Iran.

Does he? That makes sense then. If you want to wipe Israel off the map, a good way to do it is to not show it on your maps.

[Treize]

Does he? That makes sense then. If you want to wipe Israel off the map, a good way to do it is to not show it on your maps.

Achmedinejad never said that literally.

[♔Goodguy1066♔]

Achmedinejad never said that literally.

I know, but it's still obvious he does want to...

[Treize]

Not true:

According to Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as:
The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).

The translation presented by IRNA has been challenged by Arash Norouzi, who says the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". In his own words:
So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Persian: "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."
That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "Regime", pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).
So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh", is not contained anywhere in his original Persian quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel"
The full quote translated directly to English: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
Word by word translation: Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from)..

Clarifying comments by Ahmadinejad
President Ahmadinejad has been asked to explain his comments at subsequent press conferences. At a later news conference on January 14, 2006, Ahmadinejad stated his speech had been exaggerated and misinterpreted.[30] "There is no new policy, they created a lot of hue and cry over that. It is clear what we say: Let the Palestinians participate in free elections and they will say what they want."
Speaking at a D-8 summit meeting in July 2008, when asked to comment on whether he has called for the destruction of Israel he denied that his country would ever instigate military action, there being "no need for any measures by the Iranian people". Instead he claimed that "the Zionist regime" in Israel would eventually collapse on its own. "I assure you... there won't be any war in the future," both the BBC and AP quoted him as saying.[31][32]
And asked if he objected to the government of Israel or Jewish people, he said that "creating an objection against the Zionists doesn't mean that there are objections against the Jewish". He added that Jews lived in Iran and were represented in the country's parliament.[31]
In a September 2008 interview with Juan Gonzalez and Amy Goodman on the radio and television program Democracy Now!, Ahmadinejad was asked: "If the Palestinian leaders agree to a two-state solution, could Iran live with an Israeli state?" and replied
If they [the Palestinians] want to keep the Zionists, they can stay ... Whatever the people decide, we will respect it. I mean, it's very much in correspondence with our proposal to allow Palestinian people to decide through free referendums.[33]
Interviewer Juan Gonzalez called the reply "a tiny opening".[33] Another observer however dubbed it an "astonishing" admission "that Iran might agree to the existence of the state of Israel," and a "softening" of Ahmadinejad's "long-standing, point-blank anti-Israeli stance". Australian-born British human rights activist Peter Tatchell also asked whether the statement reflected opportunism on Ahmadinejad's part, or an openness by Iran "to options more moderate than his reported remarks about wiping the Israeli state off the map."[34]

All from the mighty wikipedia.

[♔Goodguy1066♔]

Not true:







All from the mighty wikipedia.

I know he didn't say it. To repeat what I said in the post above yours:

...it's still obvious he does want to [wipe Israel off the map]...

[Treize]

As in destroying 'Jewish governance' of Palastine/Israel, yes.

[Taxandrius]

I know, but it's still obvious he does want to...

There is a difference between assuming things and reality...

[motiv-8]

Just thought I'd mention that Juan Cole himself has documented enough of Ahmadenijad's rantings other about Israel and Jews to make what Goodguy is saying true enough.

In fact I think one of Cole's blog posts is "Ahmadinejad goes into anti-Semitic ravings again" or some such.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Neutral observation: We have a debate with an opening statement by one party vs 7 pages of commentary and over 2,000 views on the topic.
Has anyone thought of perhaps forming a small panel discussion and the topic.

Say maybe 4 x 4, ...

[Antwerpen]

Neutral observation: We have a debate with an opening statement by one party vs 7 pages of commentary and over 2,000 views on the topic.
Has anyone thought of perhaps forming a small panel discussion and the topic.

Say maybe 4 x 4, ...

Seconded, the discussion in the thread has not even started yet, but we have 7 pages of commentaries...

Goodguy, wouldn't it be better if you posted all this stuff in the actual Fight Club thread?