posted
She's perfectly capable of coming up with polite terms, for instance, talking about "non-jewish arab people living in israel" would encompass the situation, pretty much, and should be acceptable to both sides.
Hatrack doesn't allow people to call Mormons (or Jehovah's Witnesses) "so-called Christians" no matter how important it might be to that person's self-story. The right to self-identify is far more important than the right of a person to use a term of denigration, however "arguable" the correctness of a term is.
Furthermore, I think we know that starLisa isn't going to stop thinking what she thinks if she stops using her term, so its hardly giving up her self-story, its ceasing to express her self-story in an offensive manner.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"She's perfectly capable of coming up with polite terms, for instance, talking about "non-jewish arab people living in israel" would encompass the situation, pretty much, and should be acceptable to both sides."
No it wouldn't. Israeli arabs are entirely different then palestinians. Israeli arabs do NOT think of themselves as palestinian (other then perhaps a few).
"Hatrack doesn't allow people to call Mormons (or Jehovah's Witnesses) "so-called Christians" no matter how important it might be to that person's self-story. The right to self-identify is far more important than the right of a person to use a term of denigration, however "arguable" the correctness of a term is."
I guess I should leave again, then. The right to express self-story that is historically accurate far far outweighs the right not to be offended by someone elses self story.
I left before because of odious censorship. I guess that hasn't changed.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm...I think people should all get a grip. It's not odious to ask someone to be polite in their rhetoric. It's just common sense, if someone wants to be considered, they have to be considerate in turn.
In the grand scheme of things, questioning someone's parentage and right to exist is not all that offensive.
Oh wait. Yes it is.
Oops.
Maybe starLisa doesn't think that's what she's doing, but it comes across that way. I think that's what people are trying to tell her.
And, seriously, the arabs who are in that place have been there for generations. They were there before the UN helped the zionists create Israel. They were there back into the days before written history. Just like the jews who trace their ancestry to Abraham. Because they too trace their ancestry to Abraham.
More to the point, no matter what they are called, or call themselves, they are there to stay. It would seem to be a more effective strategy to work from the obvious facts rather than try to support a claim for illegitimacy of their right to name themselves. What's at stake is not a name. What's at stake is that the people were there and are there still.
The politics of the world body would almost demand that they pick a name so that they could be referred to in documents and discussions. What difference does it make what they chose?
Would Israel by any other name be something else?
This argument holds no water and gets everyone worked up over something trivial. The real question is what to do for the arabs who don't want to join Israel so that they no longer want to see it destroyed.
Is there anything?
If their lives were self-directed and comfortable, would that change things?
I submit that there's already a valid test case. The arabs who are legitimate citizens of Israel are "different" you say. How so? They are of exactly the same religious and cultural heritage. They aren't any different from those outside the border in any appreciable physical or historical sense.
They only thing that makes them different is that they, (like the Israeli jews and Israeli Christians and Israeli agnostics and Israeli atheists) have experienced the benefits of the rule of law and a strong centralized democratically elected government.
To deny that Palestinians are capable of also learning such things would be racist, pure and simple. More importantly, it'd be wrong. My prior community is full of Palestinians and they came to America, learned to love the country, and stayed. None of them are terrorists. None of them support Hammas -- at least not in my hearing, but I believe them when they tell me how much they despised Arafat and hate Hammas.
So, the real question in my mind is whether the ONE TACTIC that has not yet been tried would result in an effective end to terrorism. That tactic is to better the lives of the young people and have them experience what their opportunities will be if they have a country run by good leaders and with economic opportunity.
You and starLisa say they don't want it -- had their chance and blew it. I think you might be misapplying the lesson from history. The people who were alive in the 30's and 40's are not alive now. There's a lot of Palestinians who want only to live in peace and have a shot at a normal life for themselves and their children.
To get there, they need more than a state run by the usual suspects. They need massive infusion of capital. They need their schools to stay open. They need better leaders.
In short, they need exactly the kind of help Israel got when it drew on the world's resources to establish itself. It needs people with some attachment to that spot of Earth to come back, successful, to show a better way. And it needs the governments of the world to favor it in trade for a time. Maybe a long time. Just like Israel has earned and enjoyed.
If that happened, I think you'd see a different Palestine (the whole region, not just the arab portion of it).
If Israel was smart, it would be investing in the region too.
But Israel's leaders are almost as bloody-minded and short-sighted as the ones leading the Palestinians.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Palestinian is perfectly historically accurate, even if it has not been used very long -- it has been used over and over and over again in recent history for a certain people who happen to, non-coincidentally, have lived for a long time in a region known as Palestine.
Shall we be allowed to insultingly reject every other name people like to call themselves which rests on shaky historical foundations?
*prepares to cease using the term American*
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
" It's not odious to ask someone to be polite in their rhetoric. It's just common sense, if someone wants to be considered, they have to be considerate in turn."
I agree. But it is odious to enforce politeness, especially if one is not enforcing politeness on both parties. From the perspective of starlisa, the name "palestinian" means "I am attempting to obliterate your people and your right to exist." Lets keep that directly in the forefronts of our minds, shall we?
"And, seriously, the arabs who are in that place have been there for generations."
This simply isn't true for the most part. Most of them moved into what became israeal after the beginning of the zionist movement. Of arabs displaced by the 1948 war, fewer then 50,000 had ancestry in what became israel as a result of that war, that dated back prior to 1850.
"More to the point, no matter what they are called, or call themselves, they are there to stay. It would seem to be a more effective strategy to work from the obvious facts rather than try to support a claim for illegitimacy of their right to name themselves. What's at stake is not a name. What's at stake is that the people were there and are there still."
I agree.
"The politics of the world body would almost demand that they pick a name so that they could be referred to in documents and discussions. What difference does it make what they chose?"
This is why I have no problem with the name palestinian.
"You and starLisa say they don't want it -- had their chance and blew it. I think you might be misapplying the lesson from history. The people who were alive in the 30's and 40's are not alive now. There's a lot of Palestinians who want only to live in peace and have a shot at a normal life for themselves and their children."
No Bob, this is NOT what I say. Its what Star Lisa says. I say they do want it, had a chance, blew it, and have consisntely rejected all reasonably attainable chances that Israel has offered, yet they STILL deserve a chance. They have to recognize, though, that the fault of their predicament is not primarily with israel, but with israel, the united states, britain, jordan, egypt, iraq, lebanon, and other arab nations, and not necessarily in that order.
I haven't made my argument on this thread, Bob. I've defended the right of starlisa to remind people that the choice of the name "palestinian" was at least in part an attempt to obliterate israel.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Shall we be allowed to insultingly reject every other name people like to call themselves which rests on shaky historical foundations?"
No, but we should be allowed to insultingly reject those names which we perceive to be chosen as an attack upon ourselves. To deny that right is simply ludicrous.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you think someone who thought Jehovah's Witnesses being Christians was an affront to their religion (and there are plenty such people) should be able to come to Hatrack and talk about Jevovah's Witnesses as "so-called Christians"?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"So you think someone who thought Jehovah's Witnesses being Christians was an affront to their religion (and there are plenty such people) should be able to come to Hatrack and talk about Jevovah's Witnesses as "so-called Christians"?"
If someone who thought jehovah's witnesses called themselves christians in an attempt to destroy another group, then I'd be ok with them saying "so-called christians."
Lets try a better analogy: Lets say I start calling myself "Fugu should die a painful miserable death" and use that as my screen name. You should certainly have the right to refer to me as "the guy So-called fugu should die a painful miserable death."
Though, really, I'd say you should use HARSHER language.
There are certainly jews who believe this is exactly what the palestinians did when choosing the name "palestinian." In defence to them, might I suggest that we stop using the word "palestinian" on this site? No. That would be ludicrous. But its also ludicrous to suggest that people who legitimately feel that "palestinian" is a word that signifies "Israel has no right to exist and we will kill jews until the goal of removing israel from the face of the map has been accomplished," have no right to strenuously object to the term palestinian, and even denigrate it.
Freedom of speech and politeness is a tough balancing act. In this case, the attempt to balance politeness against freedom of speech removes the power of a person to denigrate something that from a certain perspective MUST be denigrated.
And there is some historical justification for that perspective.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
I have to disagree with your assessment of the historic presence of arabs in that area. It just defies logic, frankly. Some of the people were nomadic, so it is even tough to figure out who was where when.
But the archaeological and scriptural evidence all point to people who are present day Palestinians being in that area for a lot longer than the 1850's. I don't know where you got that, but you state it so authoritatively that I figure you must have some credible source -- one I've never run across.
But, if you could, tell me how that lines up with three different scriptural traditions as well as the archaelogical evidence?
Was there some sort of mass expulsion from somewhere else and these people are relatively new arrivals? I may have missed some history of the region that I would like to know.
Or maybe you could tell me how the study was done and how the conclusions were drawn.
By the way, would it not be fair to say that the vast majority of people living in Israel today had no connection to the physical place since the diaspora? Is there any reason to think that a person inside Israel had relatives there more than 100 years ago?
If you're basing the statement on that, I'll grant that the region had a fairly low population of both arabs and jews in 1850. So, it's unlikely that anyone living there today had direct forebears who were there.
By the way, I don't grant that the average Palestinian wants to see Israel gone. I have met hundreds of Palestinians (there and in the US) and of course we talk about this problem. Not one of them said they wanted jews dead or Israel to be gone. The most violent emotion I saw was a grudging resignation to the fact that Israel was there to stay.
they hated the Israeli military for bulldozing houses and closing checkpoints so that they were starving for business. But they also hated Arafat and Hammas.
And I'm talking every single person I've talked to.
Now, that was years ago. Things may have changed. I don't know what they're feeling like these days.
As for the Jews I met in Israel, for the most part they were the same. Except I met one old lady who just said "the arabs should go away -- they have plenty of countries and we have only this one." I was shocked at the time, but then I realized what she'd lived through and, while I didn't agree with her, I could certainly understand why she felt that way.
I also would hate to live life knowing that the next time I took a bus or went someplace crowded, or sent my kids off to a field trip...death was looming.
It is a horrible way to live.
Sadly, I can understand people thinking that every Palestinian is an enemy. Even if it were true, it wouldn't give people the excuse to spread lies. Since it is not true, the lies just seem worse.
I'm still trying to decide if starLisa is lying. Her statements sure don't line up with the reality of the people I've known personally.
But you and she seem to agree on a history that I've never heard and have not found in the reading I've done on the region. You may have better sources. Or, you may have information that I've simply missed.
In the meantime, I still think if the goal is discussion, there's at least some reason to tone down the rhetoric.
Or, maybe offer some proof of the assertions about Palestinians wanting all jews dead, or that the name "Palestinian" was "chosen" to be deliberately insulting to Israel so we can all judge for ourselves.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not that I'm really planning on getting into this thread, but I was under the impression that the impolite phrase in question was "bloodthirsty sons of camels."
As to the question of the name "palestinian," it seems to me that this is very similar to a situation that comes up with some frequency when we refer to any person. That is, is the person a "person?" Or is the person a "black person," "hispanic person," "white person," or whatever. We tend to refer to people like ourselves as just "people," but we add the specifier when we talk about other groups.
So why should the region of palestine have groups like "palestinian arabs," or "palestinian jews?"
Seems to me that part of the problem is the fact that Israel was created as a homeland specifically for jews. It would have been better to have created an open democracy with no ethnic association, whose purpose is merely to provide a form of government for whoever happens to live there.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I have to disagree with your assessment of the historic presence of arabs in that area. It just defies logic, frankly. Some of the people were nomadic, so it is even tough to figure out who was where when."
I'm not saying there weren't arabs in the area. What I'm saying is that the claim of many palestinians to have been there for generations is a false one. It is true of certain palestinians, but not of most.
Mark Twain wrote in 1867 that the area was basically deserted, with no permanent settlements. Most other accounts of the region from that time period agree with Twain.
According to most estimates, the area that is now israel, west bank, and gaza, had about 1/2 million people circa 1880. I'm not sure what sources you've looked at, so if that number seems off to you, we'll discuss. Likewise, from what I can tell, between 100-150,000 of those people lived in what was partitioned into israel in 1947. Again, we discuss more specifics if you'd like.
The population of Jaffa, as an example of ethnicity, was composed of Turks, ARabs, Greeks, Armenians, and a host of others. James Parkes writes that many of the villages in palestine at the end of the 19th century were populated entirely by people who had recently moved there from other parts of the ottomon empire, some villages of Bosnians, some of Druze, some of Egyptians, some of Circassians.
The 1911 encyclopedia brittanica talks about the massive influx of egytpians into palestine that had been going on for about 50 years.
Arieh Avneri concludes in his 1984 book that "The few arabs who lived in palestine 100 years ago, when jewish settlement began, were a tiny remnant of a volatile population, which had been in constant flux, as a result of unending conflict between tribes and local despots."
In 1857, the British Consul in jerusalem reported that the country is "in considerable degree empty of inhabitants," and that the arab population was leaving and not returning, and this had been an ongoing problem. Four years later, "depopulation is even now advancing" and four years after that "whole villages are disappearing" and "the stationary population extirpated."
We see similar attitudes expressed by Samuel Bartlett, edward wilson, Willaim Allen, Willaim Thomson, and Reverend Samuel Manning.
J.L. Burkhardt reported in the early 1800's that "Few individuals die in the village in which they are born. Families are continuously moving from one place to another"
A lot of arab re-immigration to palestine seems to have occured because of jewish immigration. For example, in 1892, Rishon L'Tzion (a jewish settlement) had 40 jewish families, and because of the newly arrable land, had attracted 400 arab families... mostly egyptian and Bedouin. This was not atypical, apparently.
There simply was not a stable arab population in palestine prior to the jewish migration. Had there been a continuous arab presence? yes. But the number of arabs with deep roots in the area was only a tiny fraction of the 400,000 arabs who were living in the area that is now israel, west bank, and gaza.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"By the way, I don't grant that the average Palestinian wants to see Israel gone. "
I don't either. Not now. In 1967, who knows what hte average palestinian wanted? But its an inescapable conclusion that palestinian and arab leadership, in 1967, wanted israel gone.
"Or, maybe offer some proof of the assertions about Palestinians wanting all jews dead, or that the name "Palestinian" was "chosen" to be deliberately insulting to Israel so we can all judge for ourselves."
See, this is my problem :-/ You're conflating me and lisa and my hypothetical jew who believes the argument I am putting forward.
Is there "proof" that the name was deliberately chosen to be insulting to israel? No. But its undeniable that the palestinians didn't think of themselves that way until well after the establishment of israel. There is simply no reference to a national group "palestinians" until then. And the name palestine originally emerged as an attempt to obliterate the memory of judea and israel, by the roman empire. And the national movement to establish a nation of palestine began in the early 1960s, and didn't gain momentum until after Jordan and Egypt lost the 1967 war.(Prior to that point, the goal was for egypt and jordan to control the territory) And, again, its pretty obvious that in 1967, the goal of arab leadership was the extermination of israel. So the logic of my hypothetical jew should be apparent.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Apparently many of your quotations are those used by Peters and later Dershkowitz.
There appears to be some controversy surrounding both, but the historian doing the questioning (Finkelstein of DePaul University) may be a bit of a crank -- I couldn't find any resolution to his claims that Dershkowitz is a plagiarist or that Peters' book is a fraud. But I did see the same quotations as you used in a variety of places. And no new ones. So, either Peters and Dershkowitz were exceeding thorough (a claim Dershkowitz at least is not making), or...
Everyone is just using Peters' analysis -- perhaps uncritically. Which seems more likely. At least that's what I was able to find at the moment. But there are literally dozens of sources all saying the same things, some questioning it, but most taking it as fact. But all the references appear to be the same excerpts that Peters used, so I assume it's all based on her research, not de novo historical work going back to original sources. Dershkowitz says as much in an article I read.
At any rate, it does seem to me that the area was nearly depopulated at various times in its history, and that Jews and Arabs began repopulating at roughly the same time. Is that correct? It also seems that the Jewish people coming into the area were far more successful at making the place over into arable farmland, which stands to reason given that the main occupation of the Arabs out in the open areas would have been tending flocks.
Of course, prior to that time, there was the construction of the Dome of the Rock in the late 600's. I find it curious that none of the descriptions of Jerusalem cited in the Jewish accounts mention this fabulous building and instead talk about the state of decay of Solomon's temple. Given that the temple has been maintained (apparently from what I could find) pretty much continually throughout the period from the 600's to the present, this would seem to argue for the presence of SOME people who were followers of Mohammed.
Is there some heavy editing going on? I mean, the Dome of the Rock has been there for centuries, right?
These sources also don't make mention of some of the Christian buildings that have been there for hundreds of years and show both signs of decay and repeated maintenance.
I suppose it's possible that EVERYTHING was in a state of decay and depopulated by 1850, but something doesn't pass the laugh test here.
The Dome of the Rock was upgraded with mosaics in the 1500's. And the site has traditionally been part of the hajj for muslim pilgrims -- one of a short list of places to be visted in ones lifetime.
So...that the area was reported as "empty" just sounds odd to me. Who kept that temple going? Did they open it for a week every few years?
More importantly, weren't there still traditions associated with the area among various peoples, Jews and Arabs alike? That surely must be true, right?
And, by the facts presented, wouldn't it also be the case that the vast majority of Jews in the region in 1920's and 30's had no historical personal ties to the area either?
I'm not sure what the real point is about legitimacy of claims if everyone who came there is "new" but everyone of them claims both ancestral and religious ties to the land.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*Shrug* The empty areas aren't Jerusalem. There WERE populated cities. Just vast regions of basically emptiness. (Incidentally, yes, I'm using dershowitz as my main source here, because its what I haev handy, and when I did a thorough fact checking on it a couple years ago for one of my classes, it was pretty good material). The jewish immigration was primarily to what became Israel under the 1947 UN partition plan, which was basically empty aside from a few small cities. (Hebron, for example).
"And, by the facts presented, wouldn't it also be the case that the vast majority of Jews in the region in 1920's and 30's had no historical personal ties to the area either?"
Yup.
"I'm not sure what the real point is about legitimacy of claims if everyone who came there is "new" but everyone of them claims both ancestral and religious ties to the land."
The point, as far as I am concerned, are that a lot of the claims made are simply false. Jews don't pretend that their families were there before 1850, but the palestinian self-story currently claims that there were a half million or more land-workers living in what is now israel, and that their families had been there for a thousand years. Its simply false. Jews who claim the land was completely empty are likewise telling a falsehood. Neither group claiming one of these facts should be believed. There WERE people there. We shouldn't tell lies about them not being there, nor should we tell lies about how long they had been there and what their ties to the land actually was.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There seems to be some problem in terms of the number of people who fled the region, though. I think the UN figure is 711,000 (give or take). Which is, in fact, more than 1/2 million.
I believe that in the early days of Israel, many of the people simply moved into houses that were vacated by people hoping to get out before the fighting started. I'm not 100% certain of the chronology -- this might've been later than '48, but it does seem to be well documented that 700,000+ people left the area.
I'm assuming the majority of those were not Jews, but we are talking more modern times than 1850, of course.
Anyway, thanks for the info. I have no independent way of checking Dershkowitz or Peters. I do have to worry that the quotations I was able to find on pro-Israel websites (and presumably Dershkowitz himself) seem to ignore the population centers (Jaffa was also a going concern at that point, no? At least when I was there, there was an old section of the city that had to have pre-dated 1850. It sure looked older than that, anyway). It had a newspaper in 1911, for example. And that's apparently the earliest printed reference to the arab population as "Palestinians" if I understand the article I read on it.
So, it's not like it all just emerged in the late 40's. But it's also not like it's been the national homeland for hundreds of years either.
There were people of Arabian descent there all along, apparently. And many of them lost everything running away from the fighting. And those people seem to self-identify as Palestinians today.
As far as population centers go, I can sure understand the bulk of the country being empty. It's mostly desert today still. But yeah, I'd be happier if the various sources talked about the mix of people in the various population centers rather than try to paint a picture of vast emptiness. Jerusalem and Jaffa were full of people, for sure. I'm not sure about Bethlehem. There's really not much there even now.
Hebron is a tough one. There were lots of people living there when I visited, but there really didn't seem to be much of an old part of town. Ancient bits (like 2000+ years old) but nothing from 100 or so years ago.
Ah well.
Thanks again for the info.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, about 700,000 people left in 1948. HUGE numbers of people moved in between 1880 and 1946, perhaps quadruping the total population that was there in 1850.
A lot of why you don't hear talk about the population centers is that the primary claim of the palestinians concerning this time period is that jews drove off people living on the land. Jews didn't move into the cities, for the most part, and no one claims that, when they did, they booted people off the land. You do see claims about jews booting local farmers off of the land that jews bought outside the cities. So there's a lot of contention about who was living outside the cities, and not much about who was living inside the cities.
"There were people of Arabian descent there all along, apparently. And many of them lost everything running away from the fighting. And those people seem to self-identify as Palestinians today."
Yes, this is more or less true.
To me, the major disaster of the 1947-1952 period was the simple inability of jordan, egypt, lebanon, syria, and iraq, to take in the arabs fleeing the fighting. This is the only refugee crisis of the last 100 years that hasn't been 90% resolved within 5 years, because in every other case, the nations to which people fled took in the refugees, and allowed them to assimilate. The arab nations around israel didn't do that, and thus we have this ongoing catastrophe. Israel can't take in the population, and now, the palestinians (justifiably, because of the way they were treated at the hands of the arab nations in the first 60 years of this century) don't want to be taken in by jordan and egypt, for the most part. WHich means a state needs to be created out of nothing, and thats one of the hardest things on the planet to do.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
All of those neighboring nations are poor and ill-governed. It seems like a fair description of the entire region, really.
Pretty sad.
When I was in Jordan, I had to give a lift from Petra to the border for one of their policemen. They didn't have police cars. Or personal cars for that matter.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Take another look at the last sentence you wrote there, Lisa
quote:Israel is just the name given to the Jewish Palestinian state.
Palestinian is just the name given (similarly recently) to another body of people in the area.
The name "Palestine" was the name of a region. Not a nationality, and not a culture. There was no distinctive Palestinian Arab culture or nationality that differed from neighboring Arab cultures or nationalities.
The UN offered the Arabs living in 21% of the area that had been called Palestine a state. They turned the offer down. The Jews living in 21% of the area that had been called Palestine were also offered a state, and they accepted it.
Thus Israel came into existence, and whatever the Arabs of that area would have called their state did not. By their own choice.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: starLisa. Did those people live there or not? My impression from the UN documents from the period (which I've linked to before) is that the people of Arabian descent lived on land that is now (or until recently was) part of the territory given to the country established as Israel.
Yes, Bob, that's true. It's also true that Jews lived on land that was part of the territory offered to the Arabs in the UN Partition Plan of 1947.
Had the Partition Plan been carried out as voted on by the UN, there would have been Jews living in both Jewish Palestine and Arab Palestine, and there would have been Arabs living in both Arab Palestine and Jewish Palestine.
The lines had been drawn so that Arab Palestine would be a majority Arab and Jewish Palestine would be a majority Jewish.
What would have happened then? Well, when India was partitioned into a Muslim state and a Hindu/Sikh state in 1947, about 13 million people crossed the borders so that they could be in the country where they were the majority. It was done without pre-planning, and a lot of people died in the process, just because neither India nor Pakistan were prepared for the migrations.
Then there was the partition of Syria into a Muslim state and a Christian state in 1943. To the best of my knowledge, there was no similar population transfer in this case, but as in the case of India and Pakistan, the borders were designed to allow Syria to be a majority Muslim and for Lebanon to be a majority Christian. The Muslims were quite unhappy with this.
Incidentally, is anyone noticing a pattern here? Muslims couldn't get along with the Hindus and Sikhs in India, so the area got partitioned. They couldn't get along with the Christians in Syria, so the area got partitioned. In both cases, the Muslims who remained have done their level best to turn the non-Muslim area into another Muslim one.
And then there's the partition of the 21% of Palestine that the British hadn't already given to the Arabs, into an area that would be a majority Jewish and an area that would be a majority Arab (also a majority Muslim). This time, the Arabs/Muslims didn't even accept the partition, and went to war to try and prevent it. But had they not, do you think that the Arabs/Muslims who remained within the borders of the Jewish state would have behaved any differently than their cousins in Lebanon and India?
Some 600,000 Jews fled from Arab countries when Israel was created, fearing for their lives. Their property and assets were seized by the Arab governments. Do you suppose the Jews of Arab Palestine would have fared differently?
The Arabs living within the borders of Jewish Palestine, however, well, we don't have to hypothesize here. We know what happened to them. They were given Israeli citizenship and all the rights pertaining thereto.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: In addition, Israel took over some neighboring lands and is now in the process of "returning" it to the people who lived there all along.
I'm not sure what you mean by taking over neighboring lands. Here is a map of the Partition Plan authorized by the UN in 1947. The coast was split pretty much evenly, and the land... well, the Jews got the Negev desert, but that's okay. We're good at reclaiming such lands.
After the Arabs tried to wipe Israel out, the final armistice lines no longer left us in three non-contiguous chunks of land. We had something that was a little easier to defend. And we were the ones in need of a defense; not the Arabs.
But the shape of the country was still extremely dangerous to us. The areas called the West Bank, which had been annexed by Jordan, jutted into the center of Israel and provided them with an enormously long border that was used to send mujahhadin (jihadists) across constantly to attack Israel.
When Egypt and Syria and Jordan decided to try again to obliterate Israel in 1967, we did our best to make it so that they wouldn't be able to do it again. We took Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) from Jordan, and we took the Sinai and the Gaza Strip from Egypt. Note that the Arabs had been holding these areas for 18 years without any thought of making a special "Palestinian state". The only discussions of a Palestinian problem were they problem they had with Israel existing on a remnant of the land that had been called Palestine.
In 1964, when the Palestine Liberation Organization was created, its goal was to liberate what they were then calling "Palestine", which was the area within Israel's borders. It did not include the West Bank or Gaza. Note also that it was never the Palestinian Liberation Organization. This was not about "Palestinians". It was about the existence of a Jewish state on land they insisted was called Palestine. Check this article out for more information about what the Arabs were actually saying about Palestine before they realized what a valuable propaganda tool it would be to claim there was a Palestinian nationality.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I don't really understand this obsession. So what if they try to solidify an identity.
The fact is that the idea of Palestinian nationality came about solely as a weapon to be used against Israel. I object to that. I can't understand why you don't.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: It's not like the majority of the Jews now living in Israel were from there either or came from families that lived there in recent historical times.
And yet the fact that Jews were elsewhere was solely due to the fact that non-Jews expelled us. Nor did we ever give up our claims on our land.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I don't really know what your point is. It seems to be that the people of arab descent have less right to the land that they have lived on historically than do the Jewish citizens of Israel. (or maybe you mean all citizens of Israel have a superior claim, but I suspect you would generally exclude Israelis of arab descent -- am I wrong?)
If that is your point, could you explain your reasoning?
I'm saying that they have 22 countries. They've shown an utter inability to play well with others. They've committed atrocity after atrocity in order to achieve the destruction of Israel, and should not be rewarded for that.
There was a time when terrorism shocked people, Bob. And not just the immediate victims. Americans are shocked when America is attacked. Or when England is, maybe. But when Arabs throw a firebomb at a car and burn a mother and her children to death; when Red Crescent ambulances transport a suicide bomber into Israel, claiming that she needs surgery in an Israeli hospital, and she goes and blows up people walking down the street... none of this shocks anymore. You ought to be asking yourself if that's a good thing.
I'm saying that when David Ben Gurion declared the State of Israel in 1948, the state that was being declared had a majority Jewish population. And that every square centimeter of area that's been added on since then has been the direct result of Arab attacks against us and concentrated attempts to wipe us off the map.
I'm saying that if Mexico were to attack the United States and northern Mexico were to be taken by the United States in the process of defending itself, the United States would be well within its rights to keep the area taken.
I'm saying that the areas of Judea and Samaria have only ever had one sovereign nation ruling over them, and that was the Jews. Our entire history is there. Hebron and Bethlehem are far more important to us, historically, than Tel Aviv and Haifa.
My father once told my brother that if there's a kid who is constantly getting into fights with everyone, that it's that kid who is the problem. And I think that India and Lebanon and Israel are classic examples of who the problem really is here.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chungwa: Blayne, the answer really doesn't have to be one or the other. starLisa may believe that it's about doing what it right or doing evil - but that type of thinking will never solve anything.
And this is exactly what I'm talking about. By shutting your eyes to the very possibility that one side is behaving in a manner that can only be called "evil", you're superimposing what you want things to be on what actually is.
Would WWII have gone better had the Allies stopped thinking of the Nazis as evil and decided to let them keep Poland and Austria, so long as they pulled out of France and stopped bombing Britian?
quote:Originally posted by Chungwa: There have been atrocious acts on both sides, just like in any conflict. It is important to recognize them, but dwelling on them will only decrease the chance of a solution.
There have not been atrocious acts on both sides, and the idea that you would even compare the two is beyond belief.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Is it at least worth considering the fact that Israel's tactics have not ended terrorism and the strong-arm approach has helped to fuel the hatred?
I disagree with that estimation, Bob. It isn't Israel's "strong arm approach" that has fueled the hatred. On the contrary; it's Israel's refusal to win that's done that.
quote:From an article by Jonathan Rosenblum:
Salah Tamari, a former Palestinian terrorist, told Israeli journalist Aharon Barnea of the complete transformation he underwent in an Israeli prison. While in prison, he had completely despaired of any hope that the Palestinians would one day realize any of their territorial dreams, and so he was ready to renounce the struggle.
Then, one Passover, he witnessed his Jewish warder eating a pita sandwich.
Tamari was shocked, and asked his jailer how he could so unashamedly eat bread on Passover.
The Jew replied: "I feel no obligation to events that took place over 2,000 years ago. I have no connection to that."
That entire night Tamari could not sleep. He thought to himself: "A nation whose members have no connection to their past, and are capable of so openly transgressing their most important laws --- that nation has cut off all its roots to the Land."
He concluded that the Palestinians could, in fact, achieve all their goals. From that moment, he determined "to fight for everything -- not a percentage, not such crumbs as the Israelis might throw us -- but for everything. Because opposing us is a nation that has no connection to its roots, which are no longer of interest to it."
Tamari goes on to relate how he shared this insight with "tens of thousands of his colleagues, and all were convinced."
See, this is what encourages them. When Israel pulls out of Gaza, they're totally psyched. Because clearly, the violence and terror is working.
Look... it's normal human psychology. If I know that there's a reward a mile away, I may try and get to it. But if I see the same reward one foot out of reach, I'm going to try much harder to get to it. Because it's almost within reach.
One of the biggest lies of all the lies told about the Arabs is that the terrorism is a result of despair and desperation. It isn't. It's a result of hope. It's a result of seeing, with their own eyes, that it works.
Nothing succeeds like success, Bob. And hatred... I'm not even sure that label applies in the way Westerners generally use it. I've met Arabs who are wholehearted supporters of terrorist atrocities, and they are generally some of the nicest and most genteel people you'll ever meet. Honest to God. They don't see the need to seethe with hatred and vituperation, except for the benefit of the media. They just have an agenda. And an implacable will that is fueled by hope and progress.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Wholesale deportation will not work.
Why not?
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Assuming the government would stop short of genocide, I think Israel needs to realize that it will always have a very large population of arabs inside its borders, or right on the edge of them.
Right on the edge, we can deal with. Walking down the middle of a main street in Jerusalem so that they can set off an explosive belt and murder people... not so much.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: That's dishonest. There never was a nation called Palestine. There was an area by that name, and most of it is now Jordan.
Palestine is taken from the name of the Philistines, who owned the area just before the Israelites invaded and carved out their own state. It isn't an arbitrary name, like, oh I don't know, Israel, that was just made up for the heck of it, it has historical precedence, more than Israel has. Israel as a nation didn't even last that long, it was a mere blink of an eye historically.
I'm glad that there are people here who know something about history, particularly biblical history. I imagine they're reading what you just wrote and trying to figure out what it's like on whatever planet you're from.
The Philistines -- who no longer exist, incidentally -- had a handful of cities on the coastal plain. Down around Gaza, actually. There haven't been Philistines for about two thousand years.
Israel, on the other hand, is mentioned in Assyrian inscriptions dating almost a millenium more than that, and the nation calling itself Israel has existed since even before that, continuously, until today.
So... "just made up for the heck of it"? I don't know what you're smoking, Lyrhawn, but I hope you brought enough to share.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Which is why I get so confused
I agree that you're confused. See? We do have things we can agree on.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: when you, and close minded people who share your viewpoint, act like you have some sort of cultural or ancestral right to live there and that the Arabs don't. Do you read history books? Ones that aren't full of propaganda?
Yep. And I'll bet others here do as well.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote: Because God forbid you should be pissed at murderers and terrorists without being equally pissed at their victims.
Shocker, you mistook my point. Yes, I am pissed at the Palestinians for what they did, but I'm just as pissed at the Israelis for almost purposefully goading them into it. When they left they said that the synagouges would be left to Palestine to do with as they pleased, and they hoped they would be protected. That's rich. Protected with what? Palestinian security officers didn't even have weapons to protect themselves during the withdrawel, how are they supposed to protect your synagouges? By buying more weapons on the black market? Wait no, they can't do that without earning your ire as well. Israel could have demolished them personally, making sure it was done properly, instead of leaving it to angry people who they knew were incapable of stopping anyone from harming those buildings. It was a publicity stunt, and propaganda tool. THAT is why I'm equally angry. This one had nothing to do with murderers and killers, and I don't think I'd be that far off in calling SOME (that's right, I can make a distinction) of your people that too.
That's truly sick. When Jordan took Jerusalem from us, they used Jewish tombstones to line latrines. Did they lack the firepower to prevent it? No, it was actually done officially.
A large percentage of the terrorist attacks carried out by the "Palestinians" over the past decade or so have been carried out by uniformed officers of the Palestinian Authority, using guns given to them by Israel.
When we took Jerusalem back from the Arabs, we didn't knock down the Dome of the Rock or the El Aksa Mosque, though we should have, since they were intentionally built on the site of our Holy Temple. We immediately turned around and gave control of our own holiest place to the Muslim Waqf.
Those synagogues should have been left standing. Why should Israel have had to commit the crime of destroying them just to spare the Arabs the media embarrassment when they acted like barbarians?
All they had to do was leave the buildings alone. Any other nation on the face of the planet probably could have handled that minor task.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote: What you're doing is no different than prosecuting a rape victim for scratching her attacker's face.
You're prosecuting the rapist's brother for doing nothing at all! How is that any better?
It's not better or worse. It's a lie. One minute you're claiming that most of the Arabs are just the nicest folks you can find, and want nothing of the incessent terrorism. That it's just the people running things. Then Joe Palestinian goes berserk on international news, torching synagogues, and you do a quick reversal and say that the people in charge were trying to prevent the barbarism, and it was just Joe Palestinian venting.
Which is it, Lyrhawn?
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Hard not to laugh? The moral bankruptcy of someone who could laugh about something like that is beyond belief.
Of all the people in Israel talking about moral bankrupcy, your credibility on that subject has to be near the bottom. I'd drop it if I were you.
You aren't. And I think it's fairly clear who is more credible here.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: On to other things:
quote: Um... let's see. Was there a valid side to Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait?
Well, to be nitpicky, there was a valid side to Saddam invading Kuwait, not that I agree with it in any way, shape or form.
Getting back to that credibility thing...
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote: I never said "all", but I do say that all of them in the Middle East acquiesce to those who carry out the terrorism, and that they treat them as valued members of the community and do nothing to stop them.
Nice rhetoric, but wrong again. One of my brother's room mates in the Marines has family that lives in Palestine, and he told me that his family, one among many others in the area, hated it when suicide bombers struck, because then Israel could close the border and they couldn't get in to work, and then would have no money, and the family would starve. Everyone is not the same, but at this point, I don't expect you to understand that.
Wow. See, most people I know object to mass murder because it's wrong. Not because it makes it harder for them to earn a living.
I hope that people here are reading what Lyrhawn has been writing, and are getting a slightly better idea of the kind of thing Israel is up against.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: And, seriously, the arabs who are in that place have been there for generations. They were there before the UN helped the zionists create Israel.
See my other response to you, Bob. There were Jews there as well before the UN helped the Jews create Israel.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: They were there back into the days before written history. Just like the jews who trace their ancestry to Abraham. Because they too trace their ancestry to Abraham.
Um... no. They lived in Arabia. The Jews lived in Israel. The Arabs came out of Arabia and conquered lands, including ours. They had never lived there prior to the late 7th century CE. The fact that they trace their ancestry to Abraham doesn't mean that they ever lived in that area.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I submit that there's already a valid test case. The arabs who are legitimate citizens of Israel are "different" you say.
Says who? They are treated differently by Israel, in the sense that they are given citizenship and the rights that go with it. But they don't fight in the Israel Army, and there have been many terrorist attacks carried out by Israeli Arabs, and many more Israeli Arab terrorist cells broken up before they had a chance to attack.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: They only thing that makes them different is that they, (like the Israeli jews and Israeli Christians and Israeli agnostics and Israeli atheists) have experienced the benefits of the rule of law and a strong centralized democratically elected government.
To deny that Palestinians are capable of also learning such things would be racist, pure and simple.
You're absolutely right. They are capable of doing so. But they have shown no desire to do so. Do you know how much money has been pumped into the Palestinian Authority since it was first created? The US alone gives them some $80 million each year, plus extra disbursements of $50 million here and there for "disaster relief".
And that's not counting what they get from Europe and from other Arab countries.
How about Israel? Israel has paid millions of dollars into the Palestinian Authority, given them arms "to keep order" (although they strangely keep getting used to kill Jews). Israel agreed to transfer withheld income tax from Palestinian workers in Israel to the Palestinian Authority.
Imagine that. Can you imagine a Mexican or French or Japanese citizen coming to the US, working, getting income tax withheld from their pay, and the US transfering that money to their home governments? Yeah, right.
And what has the Palestinian Authority done with all that money? Well, there was the arms shipment on the Karine A that Israel discovered and prevented. That was a big waste of money. But it was actually one of the only things the "Palestinians" have done with the money they've been given other than embezzling it.
Sure, Bob. Give them heaps of money. I'm all for that, so long as it doesn't come out of my pocket. Good luck keeping track of what they do with it. Sustainable development? Yeah, sure.
Why do some people think that money will fix anything? Why should they stop their violence against Israel when it's working?
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: More importantly, it'd be wrong. My prior community is full of Palestinians and they came to America, learned to love the country, and stayed. None of them are terrorists.
Ken yirbu. May there be many more. I'd love for them to all come to the US and acculturate. I'd friggin' pay to help them do so.
Let's start a fund, hmm? The Hatrack Fund for Ending the Middle East Conflict by Helping Palestinians Move to the United States. HFEMECHPMUS. Not the best acronym in the world, but we can work on it.
I'll prime the pot with $100, if someone wants to set this up, and assuming that it's worked out in any reasonable sort of way.
We can lobby our congress-critters for green cards, and raise money for airfare and relocation costs. Set up an employment service to get them jobs in areas that will earn them a good living. Get them preferred mortgage rates so that they can buy homes and settle in.
Lest you think I'm joking, I am deadly serious. I'll give in blood and sweat and cash to help in such a thing. You think I don't like Arabs, and you're wrong. I don't like what they're trying to do to Israel. There is nothing about being Arab that makes someone violent or a terrorist.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: So, the real question in my mind is whether the ONE TACTIC that has not yet been tried would result in an effective end to terrorism. That tactic is to better the lives of the young people and have them experience what their opportunities will be if they have a country run by good leaders and with economic opportunity.
Well, it's been tried in the Middle East and has failed miserably. But I'm more than happy to use the test case you're talking about (the Arabs in your community) as a model. I think it might actually work.
The question is: Are you willing to try it?
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: You and starLisa say they don't want it -- had their chance and blew it.
Nope. I'm saying that the refusal of the Arabs in the Middle East to accept the existence of Israel has been continuous. And that they not only didn't want it in 1948, but that they also didn't care about it until after 1967. And that they don't honestly care about it even now, except as a tool to use in annihilating Israel.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I think you might be misapplying the lesson from history. The people who were alive in the 30's and 40's are not alive now. There's a lot of Palestinians who want only to live in peace and have a shot at a normal life for themselves and their children.
Sounds cool to me.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: To get there, they need more than a state run by the usual suspects. They need massive infusion of capital. They need their schools to stay open. They need better leaders.
They've been given massive infusions of capital. Their schools still teach vile anti-semitic and anti-Israel lessons. And if you try to give them better leaders, you're just engaging in cultural imperialism. You can't force them to do the right thing in that area.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: In short, they need exactly the kind of help Israel got when it drew on the world's resources to establish itself.
Oh, please. Israel wasn't trying to exterminate anyone. Israel hadn't raised up several generations of people whose only raison d'etre was the obliteration of another people. You can't compare the situations.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: It needs people with some attachment to that spot of Earth to come back, successful, to show a better way.
No. It needs the rest of them to go off and become successful.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: And it needs the governments of the world to favor it in trade for a time. Maybe a long time. Just like Israel has earned and enjoyed.
Excuse me? The Arab Boycott means nothing to you? Moves for divestment mean nothing to you? The fact that Israel is the only nation in the UN that can't sit on the Security Council means nothing to you?
Israel hasn't been favored in trade. That's the most ridiculous of the many ridiculous things you've said.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: If Israel was smart, it would be investing in the region too.
I think that preventing Arabs from killing us has to be a first priority. I'd be awfully pissed if my government were to spend money on building gymnasiums for Arabs while neglecting to prevent Arabs from blowing me up.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: But Israel's leaders are almost as bloody-minded and short-sighted as the ones leading the Palestinians.
Damned short-sighted, indeed. Preventing murders should always come a distant second to helping the murderers.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Seems to me that part of the problem is the fact that Israel was created as a homeland specifically for jews. It would have been better to have created an open democracy with no ethnic association, whose purpose is merely to provide a form of government for whoever happens to live there.
Hmm. I think that if the various nations of the world had spent less time expelling us and murdering us in wholesale lots, that we might have been willing to consider the idea of forgoing a state of our own.
Things had even been moving towards that in the US prior to WWII. General Grant issued an order expelling Jews from Kentucky, Tennessee and Mississippi, which was cancelled by President Lincoln, but not until many of the Jews had already been forced out.
Even as late as the 1940s, many hotels and beaches and other places of business carried signs saying "No Jews or Dogs" (in some areas of southern Florida, these signs could be found on beaches into the 1960s).
There were official quotas on how many Jews could be admitted to universities. I have relatives who changed their names to sound less Jewish so that they could go to medical school.
It was the shock of the death camps in Germany that reversed this trend. That shock won't last.
Israel is the one place on Earth that is ours. The one place that we're not guests.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Philistines -- who no longer exist, incidentally -- had a handful of cities on the coastal plain. Down around Gaza, actually. There haven't been Philistines for about two thousand years.
What's your point? After the first Israel fell, and up until the 20th century, there hadn't been an Israel in something like 2,000 years. What, since Israel conquered them and took their land, and have been there slightly more recently, you have a better claim 2,000 years later? Ironic argument coming from someone who argues that the claim that goes the furthest back is most relevant. Regardless, that area has been ruled by so many different people, both before, and after Israel was there, I find it laughable that you can claim you have more a right to be there than anyone, even if you could directly trace your family lineage back a thousand years, which would be fun to see.
quote: Any other nation on the face of the planet probably could have handled that minor task.
They aren't a nation, and you won't let them have guns. Regardless of the reason, that's still a fact, and you can't ignore that part of the situation. I'm not excusing what they did. It was horrible. Israel told the Palestinians that the synagouges were being left their intact and that they hoped the PA would guard them. They did so knowing full well that the PA didn't have the manpower for that, and seriously, you'd rather have their security forces guarding your abandoned synagouges than out fighting terrorism? Where are your priorities?
quote: One minute you're claiming that most of the Arabs are just the nicest folks you can find, and want nothing of the incessent terrorism.
First of all, your response in no way matches what I said, but I don't suppose incoherency has ever stopped you before. Second, I never made that claim, but you don't have a problem putting words in my mouth, so, continue to do so if it makes you feel better. Third, I don't think there are many people on Hatrack that would disagree with me when I say that there are more Arabs that desire peace over a continued violent conflict.
quote: You aren't. And I think it's fairly clear who is more credible here.
You're the one advocating mass deportations, Arab killing, and a host of other immoral unconscionable things, and you really think that gives you a moral, superior high ground? What sort of fantasy land do you live in where that qualifies as GOOD moral karma?
quote: Getting back to that credibility thing...
Unsurprisingly, everything I said that you left out of the quote box is entirely true. Either you're desperate for something to attack me on, or you really just don't understand history. Or a possible third option that is becoming clearer to me, you do understand history, but like to ignore all the parts that disagree with your philosophy.
quote:Wow. See, most people I know object to mass murder because it's wrong. Not because it makes it harder for them to earn a living.
I hope that people here are reading what Lyrhawn has been writing, and are getting a slightly better idea of the kind of thing Israel is up against
Harder to earn a living? They aren't trying to buy a lexus, they are trying to buy a loaf of bread. Have you ever lived in that kind of poverty? If you have, then shame on your for not having sympathy for those that share that condition. If you haven't then I'm really not surprised by your cold hearted response. You can wax poetic all you want about being moral and just, and even attack the thoughts of a poor Palestinian family trying to survive, but I have a feeling that were you in the same situation, food and shelter would be a lot more important than lofty morals. Also, I highly doubt that many people are even reading this thread any more, as it has descended into point, counterpoint useless arguing, and seems to have little value other than to watch with weird fascination to see what crazy rhetoric will be spawned next.
And what are you talking about "the kind of thing Israel is up against"? I'm not your enemy. Hell, my tax dollars go towards buying you tanks (you're welcome), if that's an enemy to you, you have some skewed ideas on what makes a friend and what doesn't. My disdain and vehemence at the moment have far less to do with Israel than they have to do with you being a close minded racist.
quote: Israel hadn't raised up several generations of people whose only raison d'etre was the obliteration of another people. You can't compare the situations.
That was from your post to Bob. But seriously, have you READ the stuff you've been writing on this thread? And you can still say that honestly?
And stop acting like Jews are the world's only persecuted peoples. Catholics have a laundry list of complaints about how they were and in some places still are treated, and I think Muslims are probably feeling the same way about now.
The Assyrians didn't conquer the first Israel because they were Jewish, they conquered because they wanted land, and the Israelis had it. When the Persians took over, they even helped the Jews rebuild their temples, and let them worship freely. Considering the time period, that's fairly incredible. And you mentioned somewhere that only Israel ever ruled that area as a nation. What is that based on? The Assyrians, Persians, and a dozen others all ruled that area as part of an empire, or kingdom. Such as those Roman folk, who I think, MIGHT have had some territory around there. What definition of ruled are you going by?
One last thing, forgot to mention this before. You claimed somewhere earlier, I don't feel like looking for the quote, so I'll paraphrase, something to the effect of 'things aren't the same, Israel isn't out killing people like Palestinians are' or some such.
Explain to me then why the death rate for the Palestinians is so much higher. And explain why Israel launches missiles into apartment complexes to try and kill a single person, or at cars in heavy traffic to try and kill a single person. Israel doesn't really seem to care much about collateral damage and harming innocents. And if your return argument is either 1. That there are no innocents, or 2. that it's justified because of what they did to you, then I really wish you'd take a closer look at what you're saying, and maybe apply that to a theory on why the cycle of violence will never end.
My personal experience of Palestinians differs widely from yours. I'm not going to try to convice you of a truth you will not see. But I will hope that someday you find some other way to see the world.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Philistines -- who no longer exist, incidentally -- had a handful of cities on the coastal plain. Down around Gaza, actually. There haven't been Philistines for about two thousand years.
What's your point? After the first Israel fell, and up until the 20th century, there hadn't been an Israel in something like 2,000 years.
By that argument, there hasn't been a Palestine either. Ever, actually, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt and date them to 1948. What makes 2,000 years important? In international law, a key parameter is whether the nation which was displaced maintains a continual claim on the land from which it was displaced. This is something that is not the case for any so-called "Palestinian Arabs", but is most certainly the case for the Jews, also called Israel. Our entire culture is steeped in the dream of return to Zion, and has been without interruption.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What, since Israel conquered them and took their land, and have been there slightly more recently, you have a better claim 2,000 years later?
Yep. Because we didn't take their land. The land that had been offered to them was never accepted by them. In terms of contract law, nothing happened. And even if they had accepted it, there is no record anywhere of them maintaining any such claim during the time the West Bank and Gaza were under Arab control.
The Poles had a right to take their country back after the Germans were defeated in WWII. If someone were to get up today and claim to be a descendent of the Gauls conquered by Rome, they'd have no leg to stand on, because they have no continuity of claim.
We do.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Ironic argument coming from someone who argues that the claim that goes the furthest back is most relevant. Regardless, that area has been ruled by so many different people, both before, and after Israel was there, I find it laughable that you can claim you have more a right to be there than anyone, even if you could directly trace your family lineage back a thousand years, which would be fun to see.
I can't, personally. I know Jews who can.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote: Any other nation on the face of the planet probably could have handled that minor task.
They aren't a nation, and you won't let them have guns.
Crap. We gave them guns. It's one of the reasons Binyamin Netanyahu lost the premiership.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Regardless of the reason, that's still a fact, and you can't ignore that part of the situation. I'm not excusing what they did. It was horrible. Israel told the Palestinians that the synagouges were being left their intact and that they hoped the PA would guard them. They did so knowing full well that the PA didn't have the manpower for that, and seriously, you'd rather have their security forces guarding your abandoned synagouges than out fighting terrorism? Where are your priorities?
This editorial says it much better than I could have. It actually deserves a thread of its own, but I'll just link to it here.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote: One minute you're claiming that most of the Arabs are just the nicest folks you can find, and want nothing of the incessent terrorism.
First of all, your response in no way matches what I said, but I don't suppose incoherency has ever stopped you before. Second, I never made that claim, but you don't have a problem putting words in my mouth, so, continue to do so if it makes you feel better. Third, I don't think there are many people on Hatrack that would disagree with me when I say that there are more Arabs that desire peace over a continued violent conflict.
As Anatole France said, "If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it remains a foolish thing."
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote: Getting back to that credibility thing...
Unsurprisingly, everything I said that you left out of the quote box is entirely true.
Oh, of course. That's why you snipped it all and refused to respond to it.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The Assyrians didn't conquer the first Israel because they were Jewish, they conquered because they wanted land, and the Israelis had it. When the Persians took over, they even helped the Jews rebuild their temples, and let them worship freely. Considering the time period, that's fairly incredible. And you mentioned somewhere that only Israel ever ruled that area as a nation. What is that based on? The Assyrians, Persians, and a dozen others all ruled that area as part of an empire, or kingdom. Such as those Roman folk, who I think, MIGHT have had some territory around there. What definition of ruled are you going by?
I'm not talking about the conquered province of some foreign nation. But I suspect that you knew that and are just playing your usual rhetorical games.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: One last thing, forgot to mention this before. You claimed somewhere earlier, I don't feel like looking for the quote, so I'll paraphrase, something to the effect of 'things aren't the same, Israel isn't out killing people like Palestinians are' or some such.
Explain to me then why the death rate for the Palestinians is so much higher.
Because they don't care as much about preserving life. Not theirs and not ours. We don't have a concept such as "suicide bombers". We don't think that it's worth sacrificing our lives in order to kill as many Arabs as possible. On the contrary, we risk Jewish lives in order to avoid civilian casualties on the Arab side.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And explain why Israel launches missiles into apartment complexes to try and kill a single person, or at cars in heavy traffic to try and kill a single person. Israel doesn't really seem to care much about collateral damage and harming innocents. And if your return argument is either 1. That there are no innocents, or 2. that it's justified because of what they did to you, then I really wish you'd take a closer look at what you're saying, and maybe apply that to a theory on why the cycle of violence will never end.
There's a limit to what we're willing to do to spare Arab civilians who don't care that they're being used as human shields for monsters.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Ok Lyrhawn, I think its been discussed MULTIPLE times that Israel cares enough about preventing collateral damage that when they go after terrorist leaders they make sure they don't miss, and that instead of say carpet bombing a region and leave it at that they send in a regiment to go house to house and save lives.
The difference between using a sniper rifle and s hotgun but it has to be done.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Ok, also I don't know enough to argue anything here really, except to say that I have to agree that StarLisa's choice of words in saying "so called palistinian" is correct enough that to deny it would undue her national story (excellent phraseing btw), while we can ask not to call anyone a sons of camels and other such choicy words we can't do thought censorship.
Next, I asked if Terrorism could ever be defeated and listed 2 extremes of how it ended, and mused if it can end any other way and that should've been the focus of the thread not which side has a more valid and better worded arguement.
However the current discussion is entertaining enough that I shall digress, lean back on my easy chair and watch.
IP: Logged |
posted
I'm actually hoping this discussion ends here. While I enjoy discussing the problems in the Middle East as much as the next guy, this thread is too riddled with racist remarks for me to find "entertaining."
In fact, I'm not sure why I keep looking in this thread.
Posts: 367 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
See? It is entertaining because you can't look away.
As for racist remarks, well, aside from lisa's earlier camel bit I don't really think there's was any racism, I think Lisa isn't racist at all, just an average Israeli who is probably correct in fearing for her life on a daily basis. And in actuality if there isn't any change in the future for a warming in relations I doubt that view will change. I'm certain she probly knows at least ONE Palistinian (for lack of a better word) whose not a terrorist and is friends with. But ya, I remember now Palistinians even ones living in Israel do have at the very least a suspiscion of Israeli's (these were children), (this was a documentary by an American Jew) and a bunch of Palistinian kids were brought across a checkpoint to meet a bunch fo Jewish kids and got along.
The point was that the Palistians not distrusted any Israeli but also showed the beginnings of what could begin to become hatred under thr right circumstances until they met some Jewish Israeli's themselves and became friends.
So, I think there should be programs in which Palistinian children should meey Jewish children and in 1 to generations everything will be ok.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
The funny bit was convincing them to meet, the American was sitting on a bed next to the Palistinian kid and trying to get him to agree to meet and the kid goes "but he's a jew", and the American replies "I'm a Jew too you know", the kid replies "but your American Jew, its different"
I found it amusing to say the least, children can be so cute in their misconceptions.
IP: Logged |
quote: As Anatole France said, "If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it remains a foolish thing."
I guess it's impossible to enlighten a closed mind.
quote:Oh, of course. That's why you snipped it all and refused to respond to it.
What are you gibberishing on about there? I posted a pargraph explaining my view, and the history behind it, and you took it out of context and posted the most inflammatory part. You "snipped" away the biggest part, I didn't snip anything away.
quote: On the contrary, we risk Jewish lives in order to avoid civilian casualties on the Arab side.
Hah! Instead of a missile attack from an Apache Longbow, go in with a SWAT team to minimize civilian casualties. You strike from afar with mostly American made weapons. How is that risking your life to avoid Arab casualties?
quote: There's a limit to what we're willing to do to spare Arab civilians who don't care that they're being used as human shields for monsters.
Right, one terrorist holes up in an apartment complex I'm sure he puts a notice on the front door saying "thanks for volunteering to die for me."
Blayne -
quote: Ok Lyrhawn, I think its been discussed MULTIPLE times that Israel cares enough about preventing collateral damage that when they go after terrorist leaders they make sure they don't miss, and that instead of say carpet bombing a region and leave it at that they send in a regiment to go house to house and save lives.
Where on Earth did we establish that? Jonathon Howard even admitted in another thread that there have been missile attacks on apartment complexes. starLisa claims that the rate of Palestinian deaths is so higher because they keep blowing themselves up, which is silly, because if that were the cast, the Israeli casualties would be 20 times higher. The reason is that the IDF killed many of them. I don't know why she is trying to hide it.
As fas as this conflict goes, it will never end without third party interference. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, everyone in Palestine could choose freedom except for 10 people, if those 10 people committed suicide bombings, Israel would retaliate and then 10 more would leave the cause of peace and join up. A third party needs to step in in this area. Massive funding needs to be given to the Palestinians, or used by a third party to help better them. The 80 million dollars a year starLisa mentioned is what some countries spend on stationary, you can't build a nation off that, and the fact that she mentioned it is incredibly weak sounding, coming from a citizen that receives BILLIONS of free money frmo around the world, most notably America, every year.
Palestine more or less needs the kind of guidance that East Timor had before it became a full fledged nation. It needs real status in the UN, not just observer status. It needs help on security matters, economic matters, and every other nation building tool. Give these people something else to live for other than hate. Right now they have little hope of growing old and prospering, but they see a people living miles away in conditions amazingly better than their own.
Give them the tools, guide them to make sure they use them. Give them security, REAL security, not biased Israeli security that is self serving in concept and in practice. Show them another way, and show them that the world is willing to help them achieve it. I think they would go for that.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I'ld like to see that happen, couse' not with the US, they screw up enough in foreign countries as it is, I saw let the Chinese/Russians prop them up they know how to build a nation.
IP: Logged |
quote: I'ld like to see that happen, couse' not with the US, they screw up enough in foreign countries as it is
I wouldn't mind if the US did it. They don't have the credibility they would have had BEFORE the Iraq war. But they have tools and experience, a UN peacekeeping force backed up by an American military could do a world of good. It ties the US strengths and eliminates their weakness, which is ignorance.
The US would never do it without amnesty from World Court prosecution however. So it's a moot point. Personally I think the British owe the most to that little region, and should be the backbone of the force. The French owe some too. But the Swiss would probably be the most trustworthy. Or the Russians.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Now sending the British there i geuss would also be a good idea. And c'mon man, how butch is an army with a wine opener on its knife?
"Some of you have never opened Charlemange under fire"
IP: Logged |
Regardless, the Swiss are highly trained, and make incredibly high quality weapons. They know what they are doing, and would be perfect for such a mission.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
yeah robin williams, I nevertheless have encredible respect for the swiss, they made a mean looking tank, that with the local swiss terran...
It was sloped, it almost looked like a triangle, but at that angle it could deflect anything then.
IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say they were, just that the Palestinians would probably be more likely to trust them than many others.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Hey, they were going good until they decided to open up and become all soft and democratic, bunch of gd damn wussies.
IP: Logged |
quote:We need to convince suicide bombers that their lives are worth living, beyond the vague possibility that their martyrdom will somehow make the lives of those they identify as their own better somewhere up the line.
Or that there is no afterlife and that they've got to make the best with what they've got?
Certainly the idea of an idyllic afterlife as a reward for martyrdom is an ancient and dangerous motivator. Consider the hashishim. But unless we also remove the idea that a suicide bombing is a noble undertaking that has a significant chance to improve the lives of those the bomber leaves behind, removing the notion of an afterlife is not enough.
Incidentally, all:
Merriam-Webster online (www.m-w.com) defines a guerilla as
a person who engages in irregular warfare especially as a member of an independent unit carrying out harassment and sabotage
So while not all guerillas could be considered terrorists, most if not all terrorists could be called guerillas; and no, the descriptor does not ennoble or justify them.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thought that I'd stir the pot with an article that seems to corroborate much of what StarLisa has been saying. (From a slightly more conservative forum )
I don't know why people don't love threads like this; passionate debate, that's what it's all about!
Thread question: Can terrorism ever be defeated?
Short Answer: NO
Implied question: Can we defeat the terrorists of today?
Answer: Most definitely YES and we are doing it.
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
