But, fundamentally it doesn't matter who's right and who's wrong. Hitler was right about the Sudetenland and Danzig being historically German, but it still started WWII. That's why irredentism has been discredited as a ground for war. The solution instead is partition and exchange populations, not fight wars.
This is the only area in the world where diplomats encourage irredentism, which has gotten a bad name everywhere else in the world for starting wars. It's abetted by the UN running those hideous "refugee" camps that add gasoline to the fire. Instead of encouraging Arab irredentism, the world ought to recognize the UN's 1948 decision was the only one that can lead to peace, which means partition into a Jewish and Arab state, which has effectively been done after 50+ years of Israel's existence.
>>It’s a great book, very illuminating.
I think so too.
>>But, fundamentally it doesn’t matter who’s right and who’s wrong.
It always matters who’s right and who’s wrong.
If not, we should quit resisting the Islamofascists, scrap the Constitution, quit voting, revert to the Ottoman system and let a caliph top our judiciary. He would sleep with a woman until she produced a boy. She was then never again allowed sex. When he died, his 5 to 40 sons killed each other until one was left.
And we could work business ownership the way they do in Saudi Arabia. If you build a successful business that a prince wants to take from you, he simply buys you out whether you want to sell or not, for half price.
In other words, we either want brute force to rule, especially when it comes to individual rights and personal propety, or not.
>>Hitler was right about the Sudetenland and Danzig being historically German, but it still started WWII.
Hitler might have been historically right, but I don’t think that anyone would agree that that is why he started WWII. His goal was to dominate the world.
>>That’s why irredentism has been discredited as a ground for war. The solution instead is partition and exchange populations, not fight wars.
Had to look up irredentism: “the recovery of territory culturally or historically related to one’s nation but now subject to a foreign government.” It’s a good word.
But I don’t think the concept can be discredited totally. In specific conflicts, cultural and historical roots will weigh in importance differently from every other. It doesn’t seem possible to say that irredentism is always 100% or 0% a factor.
>>This is the only area in the world where diplomats encourage irredentism, which has gotten a bad name everywhere else in the world for starting wars. It’s abetted by the UN running those hideous “refugee” camps that add gasoline to the fire.
After their first war, just as many Jews were expelled from Arab countries as Arabs tossed out of Israel. Those Jews, though losing everything they owned, didn’t end up in “refugee” camps.
Could it be that the rulers of the Arab countries need an impoverished mob/army to destabilize the region whenever they want the price of oil to go up?
>>Instead of encouraging Arab irredentism, the world ought to recognize the UN’s 1948 decision was the only one that can lead to peace, which means partition into a Jewish and Arab state, which has effectively been done after 50+ years of Israel’s existence.
Arabs encourage irredentism and it’s not going away. They get a lot of support around the world – even here in the USA – by perpetuating their irredentist lies. Why not refute them?