ot. Palestinian Israeli conflict.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=all]
This reminds me of a pre-WWI article about separatist movements in Austro-Hungarian territories as 19th century anachronism. The same argument is used whenever a group of people favors the current circumstances. Fourth century Romans argued the same.
[/quote]

I don’t quite get this. Everybody knew that the Autro-Hungarian empire was made up of many nationalities and that the empire itself was anachronistic. That’s why it fell apart.

[UCGal]

[quote=scaredyclassic]What about the anti-semantics?[/quote]
LOL.

[scaredyclassic]

Real intellectuals are anti-semiotics.

[barnaby33]

Arraya, I don’t think it (any other conflict) justifies and I don’t think Israel is ethnic cleansing. I wanted to call attention to something I see as salient, the fact that this one conflict draws so much more attention than others, conflicts much bloodier. I wasn’t excusing the violence, but I was contextualizing it.

I have a good friend, she too thinks that Israel is conducting genocide. I don’t agree with her, not even close. Problem is I do think the Israelis have ignored their problem, in much the way you say the strong ignoring the weak.

The fact that you talk about the existence of Israel as an anachronism, that we rock, they suck. I like it, it’s simple, it’s got a certain Fox news truthiness to it. Ultimately it ignores why Israel came into existence in the first place. The cold hard fact that the Arabs didn’t want the Jews there. The fact that Jews never felt accepted in Europe. Those facts plus American and European money to back it.

You can dislike those reasons, I won’t disagree. The world has only pretended to move on. However those other ethnic conflicts you dismiss so out of hand give clear indications that the world hasn’t moved on. People still kill each other for being the wrong skin color or tribe. The Arabs have never given any indication that Jews would be safe, so the ugly cycle continues and ugly it is.

How about we all talk about putting massive foreign policy pressure on the Israel to integrate the Palestinians at the same time we put the exact same pressure on the Saudi’s, Syrians, Jordanians and Lebanese to make real peace with Israel? You can defang the Violence of the Israeli’s faster by guaranteeing their safety than by condemning them. That would however take real work. The Arab world is large and it’s grievance about Israel’s existence seems intractable.
Josh

[all]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=all]
This reminds me of a pre-WWI article about separatist movements in Austro-Hungarian territories as 19th century anachronism. The same argument is used whenever a group of people favors the current circumstances. Fourth century Romans argued the same.
[/quote]

I don’t quite get this. Everybody knew that the Autro-Hungarian empire was made up of many nationalities and that the empire itself was anachronistic. That’s why it fell apart.[/quote]

It might be self-evident today, but it was not particularly popular position in Vienna 100 years ago. The Empire was industrialized, expanding, adopting and elevating the subjects’ standard. The infrastructure put in place during that time is still in use. Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the throne, was working on federalization of the country. It would make as much sense for UK or US to disintegrate today. After all, a hundred years later the splintered territories are jumping through the hoops to get back where they were pre-WWI.

So a century ago the irredentism was seen as 19th century anachronism and the quoted article dismisses it as 20th century phenomenon. It will be described as a relic of 21st century 100 years from now.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=all]
It might be self-evident today, but it was not particularly popular position in Vienna 100 years ago. The Empire was industrialized, expanding, adopting and elevating the subjects’ standard. The infrastructure put in place during that time is still in use. Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the throne, was working on federalization of the country. It would make as much sense for UK or US to disintegrate today. After all, a hundred years later the splintered territories are jumping through the hoops to get back where they were pre-WWI.

So a century ago the irredentism was seen as 19th century anachronism and the quoted article dismisses it as 20th century phenomenon. It will be described as a relic of 21st century 100 years from now.[/quote]

It’s true that the industrial revolution saw many technological and administrative innovations that improved the lives of people in the Empire. But better living condition also created middle-class yearnings of freedom.

My read of history is a little different. I don’t disagree with your other points, but the real issue here is anachronism — Empire was 19th century whereas nation-states were 20th century.

Franz Ferdinand sought to decentralize power and preserve the empire exactly because the Empire of many nationalities was anachronistic. He wanted something to inherit. But, really, the beginning of the fall of the Austrian Empire was in 1867 when it was remade Austria-Hungary. The prosperity of the industrial revolution just masked a lot of discontent for about 50 years.

On Israel, today we live in a globalized world of open borders, free movement, freedom of religion. For Israel to hang on to the “Jewish State” is anachronistic. A whole governing structure based on the Jewish religion is anachronistic and against principles of human rights, plain and simple.

[all]

[quote=FlyerInHi]
My read of history is a little different. I don’t disagree with your other points, but the real issue here is anachronism — Empire was 19th century whereas nation-states were 20th century.[/quote]

Plenty of multi-national countries are surviving – the United Kingdom, the US, China, Iran, Nigeria…

[quote=FlyerInHi]On Israel, today we live in a globalized world of open borders, free movement, freedom of religion. For Israel to hang on to the “Jewish State” is anachronistic. A whole governing structure based on the Jewish religion is anachronistic and against principles of human rights, plain and simple.[/quote]

The borders are open if you have the money and that is nothing new. If you are a Syrian refugee trying to reach Germany you will be beaten up when you enter Bulgaria.

I agree with you that some or most Palestinians are not being treated fairly. I just don’t find arguments of something being anachronistic relevant.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=all] I just don’t find arguments of something being anachronistic relevant.[/quote]

Yes, not relevant for what you want to do when you have to power to do it. And Israel is able to do what it wants because we, America, support them.

But long term, anachronistic positions become untenable. World opinion is pretty much against Israel. But, of course, America’s opinion still carries much more weight.

[Arraya]

The Tribunal further stated: ‘It is recognised that in a situation where patterns of crimes against humanity are perpetrated with impunity, and where direct and public incitement to genocide is manifest throughout society, it is very conceivable that individuals or the state may choose to exploit the conditions in order to perpetrate the crime of genocide.
It further noted: ‘We have have a genuine fear that in an environment of impunity and an absence of sanction for serious and repeated criminality, the lessons from Rwanda and other mass atrocities may once again go unheeded’.
– See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/09/incitement-genocide-humanity#sthash.UyRByOjz.dpu

[Author]

Posts