Good points AA. The trick when arguing is to let them talk for a long time, seeming to buy into the argument. THEN you put it all together and smack them down with their own inconsistencies.
For the One State Solutionists, get them going on Iraq; you will likely hear about Sunni and Shia etc. Later you ask how they can be sure that the Jews will survive as a minority given their own admission of Arab sectarian instability.
My favourite is the "Israel ignores UN resolutions" whinge. After the usual interpretation and bias issues, you simply point to Resolution 181 calling for a Jewish and an Arab state. There was flat rejection and that was when the U.N. was young and lovely. That rejection is at the root of today's problem & certain key groups (Hamas and arguably even Fatah) still reject it. I won't go into UNSCR 1701 or it's predecessor as I might have a conniption and froth.
Oh, 181 is great for the "Israel is racist because it's for Jews" crowd who also toss out UN resolution taunts. The U.N. said it was ok, so there.
I do a similar thing with Iraq...letting the person bleat on about it before I say: so what you say to all those Kurds slaughtered by Saddam? Would you have left him in place?
Another question about Pakistan would be why the millions of Hindus who moved to India are not now considered refugees.
Per your request you were reviewed at Ask and Ye Shall Receive
I'd like to say I absolutely agree with everything you've said, being a Sabre myself. It's funny how two faced the world can be, and how glaringly blind to truth it can be as well.
greenmamba - your points offer much food for thought. Thanks.
Good'n'Very'Plenty - fvcking thank you.
Argumentative contrarian that I am, I have to question some of the points here.
On point (1), the creation of modern Israel vs. the creation of Pakistan, the two aren't very comparable because there's no equivalent of the Balfour declaration for Pakistan. Muslims from all over the world didn't emigrate to what became Pakistan with hopes of establishing an Islamic state. If I understand the demographics correctly, then without immigration Jews wouldn't have been formed a majority anywhere in the Palestinian Mandate except maybe Jersualem.
So Pakistan came out of something like a native-born secessionist movement, whereas Israel came mostly from an immigration movement. The closest contemporary analogue to the founding of Israel is the founding of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, where Turkey boosted the demographic justification for the TRNC by sponsoring massive immigration from mainland Turkey... and no government in the world (except Turkey) recognizes the TRNC.
(Not that it should matter now. Nearly 60 years after its creation, modern Israel is clearly grandfathered in.)
On point (2), the issue isn't just Israel's supposedly unnecessarily brutal treatment of the Palestinians, but that of occupation and settlement. The Kashmiris are treated as Indians under law, at least on paper. But as far as I know the West Bank is unique in that the Israelis treat it as if were annexed (through their settlement policy) but will not actually annex it (which would would give full citizenship rights to the Palestinians, and treat them just like Israeli Arabs).
Point (3) is the strongest point. Muslims are quick to condemn violence committed against Muslims while looking the other way when Muslims perpetrate violence. Hardcore Muslims argue that Islam is the one true religion so it gets a special dispensation. But I think that more moderate Muslim opinion towards Kashmir derives from ignorance and wishful thinking. Most of the world's Muslims probably assume that the Muslims of Indian Kashmir want to join Pakistan. Most would be surprised to learn that, as far as anyone can tell, Muslim Kashmiris would prefer to be independent of both India and Pakistan.
Lefty: The Israeli situation is unique and Pakistan is not an exact parallel as you say. However there were population exchanges between Greece and Turkey and last century there were many other populations forced to move and we never hear about them. People just got on with it.
I don't like to argue too much history because it's hard to actually prove anything due to the revisionism that has occurred. Nonetheless, there never was a specific Palestinian collective group. After WW1 Arab countries were established willy nilly with little fuss except for the “travesty” of a JEWISH state. The key slam point is the absence of a call for a Palestinian state when Jordan/Egypt controlled WB/G. I.e. the Palestinians have no real reason not to be amenable to being accommodated in the general area. Egypt and Jordan should be part of solving this problem and if the UN were not in the thrall of the Arab League, they would be.
Commenting by HaloScan
