A fun game in alternative history: If Arabs won in 1948...

[Lemon law]

The Samur Achzar assumption that
" Lemon Law,

1. No Arab country, let alone Arab population, was ever in an existential danger because of Israel. Ever." Has to be the biggest crock of shit I ever heard.

Long before the State of Israel formed in 1948, Jewish Terrorists were a threat to the English army and the indigenous Palestinian people.

And now that Israel is a full fledged country, they are a threat to every single one of their Arab neighbors.

And because Israel has opted to EARN universal hatred from its neighbors, they have to spend 50% of their GOP and incredible national energies, just to keep the terrorism contained.

In short, its not good for Israel and its not good for their neighbors either. And lets vote Israel most likely to use nuclear weapons in the future, as they have no restraint in using conventional weapons either.

And I will turn the question around Sammy, can you name any neighboring Arab country that would shed a single tear if Israel were destroyed. Just one will do. That Sammy is a measure of friendship and love.

I certainly do not advocate that Israeli destruction, but the point being, after being in the neighborhood for 61 years, that is what Israel has built.

Now on the other hand, if Israel had not opted to brutalize the Palestinian people from the start, they could have built solid friendships in the region.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Lemon law you are very nieve....
Now on the other hand, if Israel had not opted to brutalize the Palestinian people from the start, they could have built solid friendships in the region. -- that is a 100% total falsehood!!

 

[Wheezer]

fuck the whole area...let them completely destroy each other...we have our own problems.

 

[werepossum]

Lemon law you are very nieve....
Now on the other hand, if Israel had not opted to brutalize the Palestinian people from the start, they could have built solid friendships in the region. -- that is a 100% total falsehood!!

Perhaps a better question would be "Can you name one single Arab nation that would shed a single tear if ANY non-Muslim nation were destroyed?" The exceptions might be Jordan, whose independence is at least partially guaranteed by Israel and the USA, and Bangladesh, which seems to have some level of appreciation for the USA's past generosity (they sent us a million dollars after Katrina, which to Bangladesh is a huge amount of money.)

To the OP's question, I would imagine the Palestinians would have behaved much like other Arab regimes toward the Jews; they are tolerated as long as there aren't many of them, and persecuted when the leaders need a scapegoat and a distraction. (Kind of like Europe before Hitler, now that I think about it.)

 

[SamurAchzar]

The Samur Achzar assumption that
" Lemon Law,

1. No Arab country, let alone Arab population, was ever in an existential danger because of Israel. Ever." Has to be the biggest crock of shit I ever heard.

Long before the State of Israel formed in 1948, Jewish Terrorists were a threat to the English army and the indigenous Palestinian people.

Palestinians massacred Jews back then. Nothing new.

And now that Israel is a full fledged country, they are a threat to every single one of their Arab neighbors.

How is that? The only threat for Arab countries is the invasion of a foreign culture - progressive, democratic and western - into their space. You don't want to confuse the subordinates, you know.

And because Israel has opted to EARN universal hatred from its neighbors, they have to spend 50% of their GOP and incredible national energies, just to keep the terrorism contained.

I think that's more like 25%. Still high. And 90% of it goes for maintaining conventional warfare army, much less is needed to fight terrorism. Israel is apparently very good at that, at this point - going to show you CAN beat terrorism militarily.

In short, its not good for Israel and its not good for their neighbors either. And lets vote Israel most likely to use nuclear weapons in the future, as they have no restraint in using conventional weapons either.

You're very quick with your misguided assumptions. Israel never declared it has nukes, let alone directly threatened anyone (other than hinting at retaliation), despite being severly attacked in 1973. Israel is the last nation I can see who's the first to use nuclear weapons.
This is backed by the Israeli military doctrine, which makes no reference to the possession of nuclear weapons at all, unlike any other country which has them. Why else didn't Israel cut back on its army?

And I will turn the question around Sammy, can you name any neighboring Arab country that would shed a single tear if Israel were destroyed. Just one will do. That Sammy is a measure of friendship and love.

Like wisely stated by werepossum, Arab countries won't shed a tear if any western country is gone tomorrow. Not the people, at least. Remember the cheers when 9/11 happened? These are your friends, buddy.

I certainly do not advocate that Israeli destruction, but the point being, after being in the neighborhood for 61 years, that is what Israel has built.

That is what Israel was forced to deal with, and has done so commendably. Israel never had the option of peace until years after the wars of 1967 and 1973, which made the Arabs realized they would never win. Would there be an Israeli peace with Egypt if not for the annexation of the Sinai peninsula in 1967, and the huge defeat in 1973?

Now on the other hand, if Israel had not opted to brutalize the Palestinian people from the start, they could have built solid friendships in the region.

While Palestinian sporadically murdered Jews in the 1920 and later, it was the declaration of Israel that sent the Arab world berserk. Until then they sat in relative quiet. It has nothing to do with the Palestinians - they just didn't like the idea of a non Arab entity sprouting in their backyard.

 

[Genx87]

It would be just like before, #1.

I realize that seems ghastly to you. Sorry.

Jews represented a very small minority under British rule?

 

[Lemon law]

Maybe the implicit assumption that underlies the entire Israeli Arab conflict over the State of Israel might be liked to saying they get along like cats and dogs, and thus living together is mutually exclusive.

Yet in the real world nothing can be further from the truth. I have two dogs and two cats who all get along quite well, and in fact the best friendship is between our largest 75 Lb. dog and our smallest cat that is about 10 pounds.

And maybe if we want to separate our friends from our fair weather friends in the mid-east, we need not look back any further than 911. Most Arab nations had their citizens dancing in the streets that a blow had been struck against Western domination of the mid-east, Israelis were also dancing because they felt they could now better manipulate the USA to do their bidding, and only Iran held pro US rallies
because they clearly showed they were in solidarity with the USA and against terrorism.

Likewise, in most of the mid-east, the net of effect of the 1948 formation of the State of Israel has been to increase net segregation, as Israel expelled it Palestinians and many of its Arabs the formerly lived together under the former British mandate, most surrounding Arab Nations expelled their Jews. Again the net exception was largely Iran, and even today, many Iranian Jews who did decide to immigrate to Israel often choose to return to Iran, if nothing else, because they do not like the ugly politics in Israel and prefer the broader tolerance in Iran.

Even Ossama Bin Laden respect the people of the book, which includes Muslims, Christians, and Jews. And Ossama would see more to eye to eye with someone like Pat Robertson than a liberal atheist because both the former prefer a society with laws dominated by religious principles. And even odder still, Al-Quida is now more closely allied with Fatah and Israel than it is with Hamas.

And perhaps the worst offender is Israel itself, where Jews are educated only with Jews from birth, in a complete apartheid society based on separate and unequal
treatment. And then we wonder why the whole damn region just fails to get along when the same thing occurs in Arab dominated regions.

And we can also look at mid-evil European behavior, where countries that had thriving Jewish minorities tended to prosper, but as soon as Christian intolerance of Jews created a climate that expelled Jews, the net effect always tended to see the country expelling Jews subsequently falling on economic hard times while the lucky tolerant countries that took in the expelled Jews then did much better economically.

The same thing could be said of Spain, that at the time of Columbus had finally expelled the last of their Muslims. And Spain swiftly went from an almost complete European dominant position to the minor European power position it swiftly became.

Net lesson in my mind, countries that are religiously tolerant prosper and continue to do so, countries that are religiously intolerant do not prosper long term.

 

[Lemon law]

Sorry double pst

 

[K1052]

The same thing could be said of Spain, that at the time of Columbus had finally expelled the last of their Muslims. And Spain swiftly went from an almost complete European dominant position to the minor European power position it swiftly became.

Spain didn't become a second rate power because it expelled the Muslims, it became one because of hundreds of years worth of ruinously expensive wars it fought in Europe and their failure(s) to check the rise of England.

 

[shira]

Now on the other hand, if Israel had not opted to brutalize the Palestinian people from the start, they could have built solid friendships in the region.

This is a claim not supported by ANY evidence. The fact that Israel was attacked in 1948 indicates what the Arab mindset was and is concerning the existence of Israel, even in its original borders:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_arab_israeli_war

After the Arab rejection of the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (UN General Assembly Resolution 181) that would have created an Arab state and a Jewish state side by side, five Arab states invaded the territory of the former British Mandate of Palestine.

Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria attacked the state of Israel, leading to fighting mostly on the former territory of the British Mandate and for a short time also on the Sinai Peninsula and southern Lebanon. The war concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, but it did not mark the end of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

What was Israel's response supposed to be when they were attacked? Not fight back?

The Arabs could have had a two-state solution right from the start. They didn't want it.

 

[shadow9d9]

Lemon Law,

This simple assumption on "what if" goes, in my eyes, to clarify several points:

1. No Arab country, let alone Arab population, was ever in an existential danger because of Israel. Ever. If Israel wasn't attacked in 1948, I'm pretty certain it would not go to war over anything. The population was non-aggressive - many well educated European Jews who ran away from the issues in Europe. I can't see them initiating a war to expand their territory, although no one can know for sure;

2. For the Arabs, it was always a matter of respect more than anything else. They feel - justly - robbed and invaded. But this is weighed against the very existence of the Jewish people. One side feels injustice, while the other fears for its collective lives;

3. All considered, Israel showed more restraint and civility in its conflicts than any other country around. Israel name is many times brought up with allegations of ethnic cleansing; this is of course bullshit. So far, the only country to attempt ethnic cleansing of Palestinians was Jordan (Black September);

4. However good intentioned you are, you still have to operate in a certain environment. That of the middle east can not be compared to Quebec. Your adversaries have certain moral and ways of operation, you have to adjust. If they fight from populated area, you WILL be forced to shoot into population, can't escape it. You can only try to minimize your losses;

5. The most amazing thing is - can you point at another country which is hanging on the brink of extinction like Israel? Which ONE country in the world got attacked over and over again by a multitude of countries and organizations, many times its size? It has no example anywhere.
Arabs have lost many wars and some territories but they are all still standing. An Israeli defeat would surely be a 2nd holocaust.

This is why, in my eyes, Israel is perhaps the only country in the world that can morally possess nuclear weapons. While other countries do it for influence and balance, in the case of Israel, it's a matter of life and death.
If you gave Israel the choice of WMDs or complete normalization and eternal peace, I don't think it would take more than one minute for the Israelis to decide.

This is not, and it has never been, a balanced conflict. This is not between two countries fighting for territory. This is much more profound.

The Jews chose a highly contested area home to the religious holy land of the world's 3 major religions... it is their fault...

My entire family is Jewish.

 

[shadow9d9]

This is a claim not supported by ANY evidence. The fact that Israel was attacked in 1948 indicates what the Arab mindset was and is concerning the existence of Israel, even in its original borders:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_arab_israeli_war

What was Israel's response supposed to be when they were attacked? Not fight back?

The Arabs could have had a two-state solution right from the start. They didn't want it.

2 state solution? It was their entire state! Why should they have to give up anything!?

 

[QuantumPion]

2 state solution? It was their entire state! Why should they have to give up anything!?

What are you talking about? Maybe you should review your history...

 

[QuantumPion]

The Jews chose a highly contested area home to the religious holy land of the world's 3 major religions... it is their fault...

My entire family is Jewish.

It's the Jew's fault for making Muslims conquer the holy land of the other two major religions, plop down a temple on top of theirs, claim it as their own holy land even though there was little previous connection, and cause violence and strife there ever since? If you say so, but personally I find your logic quite strained.

 

[SamurAchzar]

The Jews chose a highly contested area home to the religious holy land of the world's 3 major religions... it is their fault...

My entire family is Jewish.

I agree that in retrospect, it was a pretty lousy decision. The thing I don't like is how many discussions degenerate to the very right of existence of Israel. It's about time, 60 years and many wars later, that it's accepted as a done deal.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I agree that in retrospect, it was a pretty lousy decision. The thing I don't like is how many discussions degenerate to the very right of existence of Israel. It's about time, 60 years and many wars later, that it's accepted as a done deal.

This issue is as divisive as the abortion issue; it's not going to go away. On the one side you have people who want to defend reason and Western Civilization which is what Israel and the high-IQ Jews represent. On the other side are people who want to defend primitive religious mysticism, barbarism, irrationality, and the subjugation and oppression of women which the Palestinians, the Muslims, and the Arabs represent.

 

[Lemon law]

Spain didn't become a second rate power because it expelled the Muslims, it became one because of hundreds of years worth of ruinously expensive wars it fought in Europe and their failure(s) to check the rise of England.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words, K1052 does say Spain did not go down because it expelled Muslims, and instead went down because it engaged in too many other wars of religious intolerance?

Is there a dimes worth of difference in either, in the grand scheme of things? Does it matter if Muslims came first or Jews second, and protestants came third, all made fine fodder for the Spanish Inquisition, its mere mention is still bound to invoke passions even today as a forerunner to Hitler.

And then the other flaw in the K1052 reasoning lies in the fact that that rascal Martin Luther did not come along before Columbus sailed, but Spain was already going down the tubes before the time of Luther. Poison pill taken, Spain did not die in a day.

 

[Tom]

Israel and Judaism, existing as a political force, is perceived to be a threat to the existance of Islam. I think I remember reading that Mohamed said as much about the Jews.

If you are unable to seperate the religion from the state or a population group, then the definition of an "existential danger" to the Arabs would have a different meaning than it would to you.

As the crusades showed, he was right. But the reverse is also true, if Islamic people let people kill us in their name, we aren't going to like it.

 

[OFFascist]

Jews would be kicked out or persecuted.
Palestine would be like Egypt.
Less terrorism against the US.
More Jews in US.

That sounds about right, but with a bit more death and killing first. Probably not a full fledged genocide though.

 

[kylebisme]

The Palestinians would still be unable to support their current population due to lack of agriculture.

As I noted last time you made such a claim:

Rather, under the British Mandate Palestinians had a rich agricultural industry....

Any chance you could bring yourself to come to terms with this fact?

They would be living still in villages with no sense of a common government.

Sure, like if the US was dissolved and South Western Colorado was divided from it and put under foreign occupation while some ethnic group attempted for form their own national homeland in it, Either that ethnic group would make their state or South Western Coloradans perpetually living in towns with no sense of a common government? Or, it is because Palestinians are Arabs that you think it is different for them, eh?

Bigots and morons, the whole lot of you Zionist goons.

 

[shadow9d9]

I agree that in retrospect, it was a pretty lousy decision. The thing I don't like is how many discussions degenerate to the very right of existence of Israel. It's about time, 60 years and many wars later, that it's accepted as a done deal.

The only way for there ever to be peace there and here is for the jews to move out and admit they were wrong.

 

[shadow9d9]

This issue is as divisive as the abortion issue; it's not going to go away. On the one side you have people who want to defend reason and Western Civilization which is what Israel and the high-IQ Jews represent. On the other side are people who want to defend primitive religious mysticism, barbarism, irrationality, and the subjugation and oppression of women which the Palestinians, the Muslims, and the Arabs represent.

It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the jews manipulating britain/US to conquer land with the holocaust as their political bargaining chip... and now the western world continues to suffer for it.

The US HAS defended all that you don't like about the ME by propping up dictators that oppress their people and keep on oil instead of heavily investing in alternates decades ago.

 

[Lemon law]

The only way for there ever to be peace there and here is for the jews to move out and admit they were wrong.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No NO and NO in my personal opinion.

Even though a case can be made that Europeans dumped their post Hiltler Jewish refugee problems onto the mid-east, we still cannot deny that the Jewish people have
SOME historical claim to the land Of Israel.

A good part of the whole mistake is assuming SOME CLAIM equals a total claim.

As an American, I was raised to believe that freedom of religion and separation of Church and State is the right choice. And as I watch the whole mid-east conflict, it serves as living proof that those two American values are correct.

Back in 1948, the Israeli government had that fork in the road choice, to be a government promoting equal rights for its indigenous Jews, Palestinians, and Arab population, sadly it favored only Jews, and until Israel reverses that course, Israel will never know any peace.

Even though I want to support Israel's right to exist, I refuse to surrender my American
values by supporting the Apartheid State Israel has become. And as Israel keeps settling on disputed land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, I now have to regard Israel as an enemy of American Values.

 

[shadow9d9]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No NO and NO in my personal opinion.

Even though a case can be made that Europeans dumped their post Hiltler Jewish refugee problems onto the mid-east, we still cannot deny that the Jewish people have
SOME historical claim to the land Of Israel.

A good part of the whole mistake is assuming SOME CLAIM equals a total claim.

As an American, I was raised to believe that freedom of religion and separation of Church and State is the right choice. And as I watch the whole mid-east conflict, it serves as living proof that those two American values are correct.

Back in 1948, the Israeli government had that fork in the road choice, to be a government promoting equal rights for its indigenous Jews, Palestinians, and Arab population, sadly it favored only Jews, and until Israel reverses that course, Israel will never know any peace.

Even though I want to support Israel's right to exist, I refuse to surrender my American
values by supporting the Apartheid State Israel has become. And as Israel keeps settling on disputed land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, I now have to regard Israel as an enemy of American Values.

By using that criteria, every country heavily controlled by one of the 2 major religions also had claim. It is just an excuse.

 

[SamurAchzar]

The only way for there ever to be peace there and here is for the jews to move out and admit they were wrong.

Very good you brought that up - It goes to show why there can never be true peace in the near future, and why Israel is justified in its fierce retaliation against attacks.