I don't see how this is a particularly strange reading of history. There was a plan in place to establish 2 separate states. It fell apart due to the resistance of Palestinians and the Arab League. Jewish leaders accepted the plan (even though they got fairly shitty land, mostly desert).
Violence ensued and the Jews won a few victories (lifting the blockade of Jerusalem, etc.). Israel declared independence and Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria invaded the next day, with armies already mobilized at the borders and marching. I do not see how this is a myth; Israel, its opening days, fought a war against superior forces and won, cementing its independence.
As for the whitewashing, sure, they whitewash. So do we. So does everyone. If you ask an Israeli and Palestinian about the last 60 years, they'll both offer skewed accounts. It happens and I hardly swallow it all wholesale. I simply disagree with your notion that Israel is the source of all that is wrong in the region and that if Israel stopped certain policies, then everything would magically be ok. It's fairly obvious, at to me, that the peace process is going to require substantial sacrifices and compromises by all parties involved or else it's not going to happen.
Okay, don't even try to claim that Jewish leaders were somehow given the short end of the stick in the U.N. Plan.
The UN partition plan was completely unfair. This is a fact, giving 50% of the Land to 33% of the population is not right in any definition of the world. Especially when the concerns of the majority of the population living in the area and every single country bordering said area were ignored.
Frankly, they were right to resist a shitty decision like that. Even with guns. It's no better then the shit done during colonialism.
The first (and major step) would be to facilitate the creation of a Palestinian state. I would assume most Palestinians would choose to live there.
Again, without some major land or even bigger money concessions from Israel, OR the right of return the numbers game makes it impossible for the creation of a Palestinian state to be stable in any meaning of the word. Too many people. Too little land.
Their population (Gaza, West Bank) at the moment is 3,834,080. Roughly equal to Bosnia and Herzegovina. 10 times the population of Brunei.
There are what, 7 million Palestinians lacking a country in the world? If they move in the state is going to have eleven million people.
So we would have...
- A geographically divided country of which the bigger part is completely landlocked and smaller part has little control over the sea it borders,
- which has the population of Cuba but with nineteen times less territory,
- said population would consist 63% refugees who have been living decades at the different parts of the world and obviously would eventually clash together because of some reason,
- would be bordered by distrustful Israel who would throw a shitfit over any sort of attempt to create an actual Army, Navy and Air Force to protect the country or quell the troubles brewing inside it,
- they would be dirt poor, ravaged by years of war and have no fundamental economy or infrastructure to speak of,
- wouldn't be incredibly well educated due to, you know, shitty conditions and war,
- and they would be tremendously pissed off at Israel because of this,
- Also by the way in a decade they would probably have twice the population of Israel and people would start to think over why Israel has three times the land.
Again, the only options are for Israel to give Palestinians parts of their lands back, give them billions upon billions of dollars, or do the right thing and allow Palestinians who were driven from their homes to return to Israel.
It's one of those three options. Palestinian state can't succeed otherwise.
I don't see how this is a particularly strange reading of history. There was a plan in place to establish 2 separate states. It fell apart due to the resistance of Palestinians and the Arab League. Jewish leaders accepted the plan (even though they got fairly shitty land, mostly desert).
Violence ensued and the Jews won a few victories (lifting the blockade of Jerusalem, etc.). Israel declared independence and Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria invaded the next day, with armies already mobilized at the borders and marching. I do not see how this is a myth; Israel, its opening days, fought a war against superior forces and won, cementing its independence.
As for the whitewashing, sure, they whitewash. So do we. So does everyone. If you ask an Israeli and Palestinian about the last 60 years, they'll both offer skewed accounts. It happens and I hardly swallow it all wholesale. I simply disagree with your notion that Israel is the source of all that is wrong in the region and that if Israel stopped certain policies, then everything would magically be ok. It's fairly obvious, at to me, that the peace process is going to require substantial sacrifices and compromises by all parties involved or else it's not going to happen.
Okay, don't even try to claim that Jewish leaders were somehow given the short end of the stick in the U.N. Plan.
The UN partition plan was completely unfair. This is a fact, giving 50% of the Land to 33% of the population is not right in any definition of the world. Especially when the concerns of the majority of the population living in the area and every single country bordering said area were ignored.
Frankly, they were right to resist a shitty decision like that. Even with guns. It's no better then the shit done during colonialism.
Not to mention that it actually violated the UN's rules. It wasn't "like" colonialism - it was the last great act of Western colonialism, done in order to assuage Western guilt.
On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, in favour of the Partition Plan, while making some adjustments to the boundaries between the two states proposed by it. Three countries — Haiti, Liberia, the Philippines — were pressured by the United States if they would consider changing their votes, in order to provide the two-thirds majority required for the plan to pass, and subsequently switched them between November 25 to November 29.
All the red countries are against. Notice a pattern?
This is why a majority vote doesn't work in this sort of decision. I'm fairly sure that goddamn Australia is not affected by what happens in the Middle East, or fucking Honduras or something.
And there you go with the whitewash again. The Zionists didn't "win a few victories" - they executed Plan Dalet. Now, ostensibly, the goal of Plan Dalet was just to secure the Jewish Mandate borders. But looking at both the results and the structure of Plan Dalet, it's not hard to argue that it was an inherently offensive structure. It's also important to note that at this point, Zionist elements such as the Irgun and Lehi (Stern Gang) had begun openly engaging in ethnic cleansing. So no, the Zionists weren't nearly as innocent as they've tried to portray themselves.
And the reason that the Zionist whitewashing of their actions is so important is because of the stance they've tried to take, portraying themselves as the beleaguered victims in a hostile region. This has been key in their ability to generate goodwill abroad. It is no coincidence that the shift in view towards Israel has occured in conjunction with the rise of the "New Historian" school. Furthermore, forcing Israel to confront the truth of their history will have the effect of destroying the myths that help support the actions that they take that perpetuate the strife, helping bring matters to an end.
First, you gloss over the fact that the original two-state solution, with much better terms than pretty much anything offered since, was accepted by the Jews (with reluctance) and rejected by the Palestinians. Also, both sides engaged in violence in the early stages of the war. While both Palestinian and Jewish leaders initially tried to contain the violence, it expanded beyond their control rapidly. As Benny Morris put it, "The Zionist leaders deeply, genuinely, feared a Middle Eastern reenactment of the Holocaust, which had just ended; the Arabs' public rhetoric reinforced these fears". The original intent of Jewish military actions were to secure the partition borders. As the war progressed, these intentions changed.
What Irgun and Lehi did was abominable and I do not defend it. I have been criticized by Israelis for doing exactly what you've said: arguing that Israel needs to publicly apologize for its treatment of the Palestinians post-WWII. In fact, I believe such gestures should included as part of the negotiating process since, with any luck, it will serve as a testament to Israel's willingness to negotiate in good faith.
As a side note, I was not referring to Plan Dalet previously. I was referring to the breaking of the blockade of Jerusalem and various battles against the Arab Liberation Army.
Okay, don't even try to claim that Jewish leaders were somehow given the short end of the stick in the U.N. Plan. .
It wasn't a great plan, but it hardly screwed the Palestinians more than the Jews. From Wiki:
The land allocated to the Arab state (about 43% of Mandatory Palestine[68]) consisted of all of the highlands, except for Jerusalem, plus one third of the coastline. The highlands contain the major aquifers of Palestine, which supplied water to the coastal cities of central Palestine, including Tel Aviv. The Jewish state was to receive 56% of Mandatory Palestine, a slightly larger area to accommodate the increasing numbers of Jews who would immigrate there.[68] The state included three fertile lowland plains — the Sharon on the coast, the Jezreel Valley and the upper Jordan Valley.
The bulk of the proposed Jewish State's territory, however, consisted of the Negev Desert. The desert was not suitable for agriculture, nor for urban development at that time. The Jewish state was also given sole access to the Red Sea.
Jerusalem and Bethlehem would be UN territories. It certainly had its flaws and both sides certainly would have complained about it (the Palestinians because they would not have access to the Red Sea and have slightly less overall territory, while the Jews would complain because they had a lot of useless desert). But I wouldn't call it exceedingly unfair to the Palestinians, all things considered.
Again, the only options are for Israel to give Palestinians parts of their lands back, give them billions upon billions of dollars, or do the right thing and allow Palestinians who were driven from their homes to return to Israel.
It's one of those three options. Palestinian state can't succeed otherwise.
I would support the first two, actually. And it wouldn't be just Israel giving them money and support, it should be everyone who was in the UN at the time and voted for it. They screwed up big time and they need to be part of the solution.
This is what's weird to me: It seems like we agree on the solution (Israel giving up substantial, contiguous territories for a Palestinian state, significant aid to the Palestinians to build their country, removal of all checkpoints and settlements, and a public apology for previous actions in exchange for a recognition of Israel's right to exist and no attacks being launched against Israel from the Palestinian state). Yet somehow, I feel like you guys aren't satisfied with that. You want more.
Desert isn't useless, it's just hard to develop on. Sole access to the Red fucking Sea more than makes up for it.
It was very difficult to develop in 1947. It's quite easier now. Again, it wasn't a perfect or even good plan. But it's better than what happened after (imho).
Desert isn't useless, it's just hard to develop on. Sole access to the Red fucking Sea more than makes up for it.
It was very difficult to develop in 1947. It's quite easier now. Again, it wasn't a perfect or even good plan. But it's better than what happened after (imho).
They had concrete and steel in 1947. Really not that fucking hard.
Desert isn't useless, it's just hard to develop on. Sole access to the Red fucking Sea more than makes up for it.
It was very difficult to develop in 1947. It's quite easier now. Again, it wasn't a perfect or even good plan. But it's better than what happened after (imho).
They had concrete and steel in 1947. Really not that fucking hard.
Whatever, it doesn't matter. To get back to the real point:
Again, the only options are for Israel to give Palestinians parts of their lands back, give them billions upon billions of dollars, or do the right thing and allow Palestinians who were driven from their homes to return to Israel.
It's one of those three options. Palestinian state can't succeed otherwise.
I would support the first two, actually. And it wouldn't be just Israel giving them money and support, it should be everyone who was in the UN at the time and voted for it. They screwed up big time and they need to be part of the solution.
This is what's weird to me: It seems like we agree on the solution (Israel giving up substantial, contiguous territories for a Palestinian state, significant aid to the Palestinians to build their country, removal of all checkpoints and settlements, and a public apology for previous actions in exchange for a recognition of Israel's right to exist and no attacks being launched against Israel from the Palestinian state). Yet somehow, I feel like you guys aren't satisfied with that. You want more.
First, you gloss over the fact that the original two-state solution, with much better terms than pretty much anything offered since, was accepted by the Jews (with reluctance) and rejected by the Palestinians.
Fuck. Did you just ignore the previous posts? The Zionists (and please stop equating them with Jews as a whole, that's the bullshit we were talking about earlier in the thread) accepted the plan, because they knew that the plan was the only way they would have any semblance of legitimacy. The Palestinians rejected the plan because it was a complete fucking screwjob.
Also, both sides engaged in violence in the early stages of the war. While both Palestinian and Jewish leaders initially tried to contain the violence, it expanded beyond their control rapidly. As Benny Morris put it, "The Zionist leaders deeply, genuinely, feared a Middle Eastern reenactment of the Holocaust, which had just ended; the Arabs' public rhetoric reinforced these fears". The original intent of Jewish military actions were to secure the partition borders. As the war progressed, these intentions changed.
Gee, when people get fucked over, they react negatively. Who would have thought?
I don't doubt that the Zionist leaders believed that. What is missing is their inability to acknowledge how their conduct and the conduct of the West was fueling that rhetoric. Again, the '47 partition plan was a colonial screwjob, done in order to assuage Western guilt. Furthermore, the shift of Plan Dalet from a defensive measure to an offensive one is unjustifiable by any means.
What Irgun and Lehi did was abominable and I do not defend it. I have been criticized by Israelis for doing exactly what you've said: arguing that Israel needs to publicly apologize for its treatment of the Palestinians post-WWII. In fact, I believe such gestures should included as part of the negotiating process since, with any luck, it will serve as a testament to Israel's willingness to negotiate in good faith.
I would think that the criticism you received would have been a wakeup call. Guess not. Furthermore, the reluctance to admit these things comes from the fact that if Israel admits that it committed crimes against humanity to acquire these lands, then it no longer has a legitimate claim to those lands, and must return them to their rightful owners. You can guess how well THAT would go over.
As a side note, I was not referring to Plan Dalet previously. I was referring to the breaking of the blockade of Jerusalem and various battles against the Arab Liberation Army.
Okay, don't even try to claim that Jewish leaders were somehow given the short end of the stick in the U.N. Plan. .
It wasn't a great plan, but it hardly screwed the Palestinians more than the Jews. From Wiki:
The land allocated to the Arab state (about 43% of Mandatory Palestine[68]) consisted of all of the highlands, except for Jerusalem, plus one third of the coastline. The highlands contain the major aquifers of Palestine, which supplied water to the coastal cities of central Palestine, including Tel Aviv. The Jewish state was to receive 56% of Mandatory Palestine, a slightly larger area to accommodate the increasing numbers of Jews who would immigrate there.[68] The state included three fertile lowland plains — the Sharon on the coast, the Jezreel Valley and the upper Jordan Valley.
The bulk of the proposed Jewish State's territory, however, consisted of the Negev Desert. The desert was not suitable for agriculture, nor for urban development at that time. The Jewish state was also given sole access to the Red Sea.
Jerusalem and Bethlehem would be UN territories. It certainly had its flaws and both sides certainly would have complained about it (the Palestinians because they would not have access to the Red Sea and have slightly less overall territory, while the Jews would complain because they had a lot of useless desert). But I wouldn't call it exceedingly unfair to the Palestinians, all things considered.
Jewish ownership of the territories was under 7%. They were given 56%. Only two of the districts was Jewish majority population, yet they got around nine. No matter which way you looked at it, a HUGE number of Palestinians were going to get driven off their homes, while the Jewish number would be far, far less. That useless desert was still someone's home, and they certainly didn't consider it useless.
That is exceedingly unfair.
Again, the only options are for Israel to give Palestinians parts of their lands back, give them billions upon billions of dollars, or do the right thing and allow Palestinians who were driven from their homes to return to Israel.
It's one of those three options. Palestinian state can't succeed otherwise.
I would support the first two, actually. And it wouldn't be just Israel giving them money and support, it should be everyone who was in the UN at the time and voted for it. They screwed up big time and they need to be part of the solution.
This is what's weird to me: It seems like we agree on the solution (Israel giving up substantial, contiguous territories for a Palestinian state, significant aid to the Palestinians to build their country, removal of all checkpoints and settlements, and a public apology for previous actions in exchange for a recognition of Israel's right to exist and no attacks being launched against Israel from the Palestinian state). Yet somehow, I feel like you guys aren't satisfied with that. You want more.
What exactly is it that you want?
I want that. So how much territory should Israel give? Considering that Palestinian population exceeds Israel's by more then a half, it should be a lot in order to make a stable country.
I would think that the criticism you received would have been a wakeup call. Guess not. Furthermore, the reluctance to admit these things comes from the fact that if Israel admits that it committed crimes against humanity to acquire these lands, then it no longer has a legitimate claim to those lands, and must return them to their rightful owners. You can guess how well THAT would go over.
See, this is where I think your argument falls apart. You could easily level the same exact charge against the United States. We basically gained our territory by committing genocide against the Native Americans. Do you feel that the US should give up its claims to its lands and return them to their rightful owners?
I want that. So how much territory should Israel give? Considering that Palestinian population exceeds Israel's by more then a half, it should be a lot in order to make a stable country.
I have no idea. It's hard to tell which territories the Palestinians want the most, other than the obvious spots (Jerusalem, Bethlehem, etc.). I'd start with territories splitting access to the Red and Mediterranean Sea (could be done with an agreement allowing Israel to use the Red Sea), with access to sufficient aquifers and arable land to be self-sustaining. Jerusalem and other holy cities should be joint-rule. It's tough to pin down more than that without recommendations by either side.
I don't think you and I, Dark, are that far apart. We come from different angles and readings of history but reach the same conclusion. My problem is with Angel, really. I believe he wants Israel to disappear. I cannot agree to that.
See, this is where I think your argument falls apart. You could easily level the same exact charge against the United States. We basically gained our territory by committing genocide against the Native Americans. Do you feel that the US should give up its claims to its lands and return them to their rightful owners?
There aren't too many Native Americans left. We could probably do that in part.
lol, I think we can both drink to that. I am DREADING taking Zionism courses during my program in Israel. They are going to be ugly, considering that I reject the Biblical/Theography argument due to my atheism and generally disagree that Jews cannot be safe in the US. But I digress.
Edit: I'm also not on speaking terms with the Consul to the American Midwest after I told her that her apocalyptic rhetoric toward Iran was delusional and ridiculous. But again, I digress.
My basic POV on Israel is that it's there, it's not going anywhere, so we have to find the best possible solution that has a realistic chance of working. We can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
This is what's weird to me: It seems like we agree on the solution (Israel giving up substantial, contiguous territories for a Palestinian state, significant aid to the Palestinians to build their country, removal of all checkpoints and settlements, and a public apology for previous actions in exchange for a recognition of Israel's right to exist and no attacks being launched against Israel from the Palestinian state). Yet somehow, I feel like you guys aren't satisfied with that. You want more.
What exactly is it that you want?
Personally, I think that all this is the bare minimum for what should happen, and I don't think it'll be much of a permanent solution.
The fact of the matter is that this scenario leaves us with not one, but two countries built exclusively around religious national groups, each with a sizable radical faction that openly desires ownership of the other's land. There are all sorts of inherent problems with a two-state solution (water rights, borders, militaries, etc), but the biggest one is pretty simple: each state would be founded upon a national identity that claims ownership of the same land. Conflict between the two states would, I think, be almost an inevitability, and we all know who would win in such a conflict. The two-state solution also does precious little to address Israel's colonial legacy, something that is very important for many people in the region.
Over the years I've begun to think that the only lasting solution possible would involve one-state, or psuedo-one-state (i.e., bi-national state, where each national group is allowed to govern a state-within-a-state and both share the army and economy and whatever). Anything less will probably leave us with Serbia II: Electric Boogaloo.
I think a two-state solution will move things in the rights direction, but it won't do much to address Zionism and Radical Islam, which would both continue to poison political discourse and lead to ethnic cleansing and discrimination and perhaps even wars of aggression.
See, this is where I think your argument falls apart. You could easily level the same exact charge against the United States. We basically gained our territory by committing genocide against the Native Americans. Do you feel that the US should give up its claims to its lands and return them to their rightful owners?
There aren't too many Native Americans left. We could probably do that in part.
Yeah, not to defend the U.S.'s sordid history with the Native Americans, but at least we give them citizenship and full political/economic rights within the United States. Granted, Native Americans deserve more than what they've been given and they aren't an existential threat like the Israelis perceive the Palestinians, but they've definitely got more than the Palestinians could ever hope to get from Israel.
This is what's weird to me: It seems like we agree on the solution (Israel giving up substantial, contiguous territories for a Palestinian state, significant aid to the Palestinians to build their country, removal of all checkpoints and settlements, and a public apology for previous actions in exchange for a recognition of Israel's right to exist and no attacks being launched against Israel from the Palestinian state). Yet somehow, I feel like you guys aren't satisfied with that. You want more.
What exactly is it that you want?
Personally, I think that all this is the bare minimum for what should happen, and I don't think it'll be much of a permanent solution.
The fact of the matter is that this scenario leaves us with not one, but two countries built exclusively around religious national groups, each with a sizable radical faction that openly desires ownership of the other's land. There are all sorts of inherent problems with a two-state solution (water rights, borders, militaries, etc), but the biggest one is pretty simple: each state would be founded upon a national identity that claims ownership of the same land. Conflict between the two states would, I think, be almost an inevitability, and we all know who would win in such a conflict. The two-state solution also does precious little to address Israel's colonial legacy, something that is very important for many people in the region.
Over the years I've begun to think that the only lasting solution possible would involve one-state, or psuedo-one-state (i.e., bi-national state, where each national group is allowed to govern a state-within-a-state and both share the army and economy and whatever). Anything less will probably leave us with Serbia II: Electric Boogaloo.
I think a two-state solution will move things in the rights direction, but it won't do much to address Zionism and Radical Islam, which would both continue to poison political discourse and lead to ethnic cleansing and discrimination and perhaps even wars of aggression.
You are right, there are a lot of issues there. But I don't think it's radically different than what we already face there. Israel and its neighbors are constantly jockeying with each other for water rights, natural resource rights, etc. But I think overall, Palestinians desire peace and their state more than retribution. If they were given sufficient aid and decent land, they'd be more focused on building than anything else.
As for the pseudo-one state solution, it's a possibility. I haven't thought about it much, to be honest.
Radical Zionism and Radical Islam would hopefully be taken care of by the moderate forces in the countries. I continue to hold out hope that Israeli politicians will tell the settlers and ultra-Orthodox to STFU and sit down. There would be even more reason to do so if some peace ever managed to emerge.
See, this is where I think your argument falls apart. You could easily level the same exact charge against the United States. We basically gained our territory by committing genocide against the Native Americans. Do you feel that the US should give up its claims to its lands and return them to their rightful owners?
There aren't too many Native Americans left. We could probably do that in part.
Yeah, not to defend the U.S.'s sordid history with the Native Americans, but at least we give them citizenship and full political/economic rights within the United States. Granted, Native Americans deserve more than what they've been given and they aren't an existential threat like the Israelis perceive the Palestinians, but they've definitely got more than the Palestinians could ever hope to get from Israel.
You may want to revisit Native American history, because what you are describing there is a very, very recent interpretation of those "rights" you think they've been granted.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Seriously, whats with the people sucking the Zionist Kool-Aid? The partition was a setup from day one. Israelies had weapons and training, the Palestinians had none. The Israeli army had no plan to "just defend whats ours", they where an army on the offensive.
And lest we forget in the entirety of its existense Hamas has never been as successful a terrorist as the Stern gang. Blowing up the Jerusalem Hilton anyone?
What gets me the worst about all of this is when one palestinian(or palestinian organisation) comit a questionable act, Zionist suporters go: See, see, all palestinians are bad and we got to keep them down for our own safety! Stomp. Stomp. Stomp.
But when we point out the attrocites of the Jewish side; many of wich where carried out with the aid and knowledge of the main resistance. They are all like; Well, cant judge an entire people by just a few extremists.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
You may want to revisit Native American history, because what you are describing there is a very, very recent interpretation of those "rights" you think they've been granted.
I'll admit that I have a pretty shallow understanding of Native American history (and also that this is veering off-topic), but to my knowledge they were all given full U.S. citizenship in the 1920s (and states were forced to recognize their voting rights in the 1950s), allowing them the same general rights within the United States as any U.S. citizen.
Now their "rights" as sovereign entities independent from the U.S. government is a whole 'nother ball game, and there they are pretty consistently given the shaft.
My only point is that at least Native Americans aren't stateless and are allowed political rights as U.S. citizens, which is more than most Palestinian refugees can claim with regard to the Israeli occupation.
See, this is where I think your argument falls apart. You could easily level the same exact charge against the United States. We basically gained our territory by committing genocide against the Native Americans. Do you feel that the US should give up its claims to its lands and return them to their rightful owners?
There aren't too many Native Americans left. We could probably do that in part.
Yeah, not to defend the U.S.'s sordid history with the Native Americans, but at least we give them citizenship and full political/economic rights within the United States. Granted, Native Americans deserve more than what they've been given and they aren't an existential threat like the Israelis perceive the Palestinians, but they've definitely got more than the Palestinians could ever hope to get from Israel.
Shore is a good thing we gave the tiny portion that were left "full rights and equality" after we were done raping their wives and committing genocide on their families!
That's a pretty rosy outlook on the history of the USA with regards to Native Americans, and the situation Native Americans are in right now.
The reason no one gives a shit is because A) It's been more than a hundred years, and We succeeded in killing them all off and/or driving them away, so there's no one left to complain.
Im' a Cuban exile and my home country is a totalitarian state that I can never return to on pain of execution, what am I entitled to?
I'm a Taiwanese national, and my homeland was occupied by an incompetent fascist, and contrary to western beliefs, foreign government for decades, that only recently declared an end to martial law, and still drafts my countrymen to serve unwillingly in the military, what am I entitled to?
Answer: Nothing. Which is why I went home, served my time, and left. And I only came back because I planned to finish college.
The Jewish experience can't be extended everywhere, for what I hope are obvious reasons. But, as previously stated, we've come to a contradiction: a religiously and, ultimately, ethnically homogeneous state, as Israeli was originally conceived by many as, is difficult enough without it being established as a promised democracy. Hell, countries like Japan or Korea don't even build a national identity around a religion.
Then again, the 1.4 milllion Japanese in Brazil and 2.3 million Koreans in China (more than their minorities in the US, in any case) haven't faced the same circumstances. The international community which promised a safe homeland and, not necessarily through fault of the Jewish people themselves, dug everyone into a hole from which I don't know if there's an escape. The only solution I can think of is the Israeli version of Josip Bronz Tito, either an Israeli Arab or a Palestinian Jew, manages to become supreme commander of everything, and basically uses boots and old tanks to force everyone to pretend to get along, Yugoslavia style (though I'm guessing it's going to be way bloodier).
Also, there are, for practically purposes, virtually no more Amerinidians. There are six million survivors, compared to a population of multiple millions literally centuries ago. If the current immigrant-American population reflected that sort of 'growth' from, say, 1790 (the first US census), there would be about ten million Americans descended from immigrants by the most optimistic forecasts, not three-hundred million. Even the extermination of north-Asian Russians by European Russia is dwarfed by that. But in complete fairness, the European powers, including Spain, are as responsible for this current outcome. As Mike already pointed out, the reason no one gives a shit is because the sheer length of time and that the voices left are barely audible. I know two people myself who are pissed about this issue--the problem is, it's two out of hundreds of people I've met since I've come to the US.
The reason no one gives a shit is because A) It's been more than a hundred years, and We succeeded in killing them all off and/or driving them away, so there's no one left to complain.
Also because the Casino crap makes people think that we're all okay now.
I honestly don't see a solution to the problem. There has been so much blood shed already, and inequalities are increasing rather than decreasing with time. I don't think there will be a big change until there is another major war with the region, or the US dramatically reduces its support for Israel.
I honestly don't see a solution to the problem. There has been so much blood shed already, and inequalities are increasing rather than decreasing with time. I don't think there will be a big change until there is another major war with the region, or the US dramatically reduces its support for Israel.
Look for the latter to come in the next few decades. IIRC support for Israel is dropping in America. Dropping big. And the younger people get, the less Israel rates on the "give a fuck" card.
By the time the 20 year olds are 50 year olds, support for Israel should be a dead duck.
I honestly don't see a solution to the problem. There has been so much blood shed already, and inequalities are increasing rather than decreasing with time. I don't think there will be a big change until there is another major war with the region, or the US dramatically reduces its support for Israel.
Regardless of whether america supports israel or not, they are a force to be reckoned with militarily.
They do have a good military. But there are... doubts as to whether they could sustain settlement growth without us. Or without us arming them.
Or without the United States blocking about 30 billion security council resolutions.
Israel will probably still have a good military when we no longer care. But expect the pressure on Israel to get a lot more serious when the United States stops playing defense for Israel.
See, this is where I think your argument falls apart. You could easily level the same exact charge against the United States. We basically gained our territory by committing genocide against the Native Americans. Do you feel that the US should give up its claims to its lands and return them to their rightful owners?
There aren't too many Native Americans left. We could probably do that in part.
Yeah, not to defend the U.S.'s sordid history with the Native Americans, but at least we give them citizenship and full political/economic rights within the United States. Granted, Native Americans deserve more than what they've been given and they aren't an existential threat like the Israelis perceive the Palestinians, but they've definitely got more than the Palestinians could ever hope to get from Israel.
I just want to throw out this terrible factoid: South Africa's apartheid was based primarily on Canada's Indian Act.
See, this is where I think your argument falls apart. You could easily level the same exact charge against the United States. We basically gained our territory by committing genocide against the Native Americans. Do you feel that the US should give up its claims to its lands and return them to their rightful owners?
There aren't too many Native Americans left. We could probably do that in part.
Yeah, not to defend the U.S.'s sordid history with the Native Americans, but at least we give them citizenship and full political/economic rights within the United States. Granted, Native Americans deserve more than what they've been given and they aren't an existential threat like the Israelis perceive the Palestinians, but they've definitely got more than the Palestinians could ever hope to get from Israel.
I just want to throw out this terrible factoid: South Africa's apartheid was based primarily on Canada's Indian Act.
How's that for national shame.
Really? You mean they had similar sorts of laws or what?
See, this is where I think your argument falls apart. You could easily level the same exact charge against the United States. We basically gained our territory by committing genocide against the Native Americans. Do you feel that the US should give up its claims to its lands and return them to their rightful owners?
There aren't too many Native Americans left. We could probably do that in part.
Yeah, not to defend the U.S.'s sordid history with the Native Americans, but at least we give them citizenship and full political/economic rights within the United States. Granted, Native Americans deserve more than what they've been given and they aren't an existential threat like the Israelis perceive the Palestinians, but they've definitely got more than the Palestinians could ever hope to get from Israel.
I just want to throw out this terrible factoid: South Africa's apartheid was based primarily on Canada's Indian Act.
How's that for national shame.
Really? You mean they had similar sorts of laws or what?
Basically. The Indian Act in the 1940s and 1950s was fucking deplorable. It's still pretty bad, but it's only currently in force because treaty negotiations haven't been concluded for all nations yet, although in places like B.C., they are progressing along quite well (comparatively speaking).
Indians, the technical term in used in the Act (basically, First Nations, but not Metis or Inuit) were wards of the state, couldn't vote, lacked property rights, and had to send their children to residential schools, where there was widespread sexual abuse and a dedicate programme of assimilation by way of cultural genocide. The last residential schools only closed down in the late 70's/early 80's, and it was only in the 1960s that Indians got the vote. About forty years after women got the vote - but before that, if a native wanted the vote, he could give it up, but also would have to give up his "status" - basically, his standing as an aboriginal under the law. So we now have two classes of First Nations in Canada, status and non-status, which further complicates things, such as property rights, inheritance, etc.
All of the provisions that were progressively applied in South Africa from the 1950s on were taken basically wholesale from the shit that was in place in Canada for decades, since at least the 1890s.
See, this is where I think your argument falls apart. You could easily level the same exact charge against the United States. We basically gained our territory by committing genocide against the Native Americans. Do you feel that the US should give up its claims to its lands and return them to their rightful owners?
There aren't too many Native Americans left. We could probably do that in part.
Yeah, not to defend the U.S.'s sordid history with the Native Americans, but at least we give them citizenship and full political/economic rights within the United States. Granted, Native Americans deserve more than what they've been given and they aren't an existential threat like the Israelis perceive the Palestinians, but they've definitely got more than the Palestinians could ever hope to get from Israel.
I just want to throw out this terrible factoid: South Africa's apartheid was based primarily on Canada's Indian Act.
How's that for national shame.
A fair amount of Zionist thought directly references Western treatment of indigenous peoples as justification of their treatment of Palestinians. Read The Iron Wall sometime, and be horrified.
The death to Israel rhetoric they are always dealing with is bound to generate hatred for the Arab community. The Palestinians have also proven rather "difficult" to negotiate with, and what they do get from Israel often just produces ridiculous demands and the same amount of aggression as before.
KingLampshade on
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."
British publisher and writer Ernest Benn [1875-1954]
The death to Israel rhetoric they are always dealing with is bound to generate hatred for the Arab community. The Palestinians have also proven rather "difficult" to negotiate with, and what they do get from Israel often just produces ridiculous demands and the same amount of aggression as before.
Please, do everyone a favor and either read the thread or GTFO.
Yes, what Israel is doing is horrible. Not unheard of by any means, but horrible. What the U.S. is doing to help support what Israel is doing is a fucking tragedy.
And, do to on-going sacrifice of doing what's right for political expediency, I don't think this will ever change. See, you don't just have to wait for the boomers to die off... the fate of Israel has somehow been tied directly into the fate of Christianity by the fundamentalists... and those fuckers just won't die...
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Posts
Okay, don't even try to claim that Jewish leaders were somehow given the short end of the stick in the U.N. Plan.
The UN partition plan was completely unfair. This is a fact, giving 50% of the Land to 33% of the population is not right in any definition of the world. Especially when the concerns of the majority of the population living in the area and every single country bordering said area were ignored.
Frankly, they were right to resist a shitty decision like that. Even with guns. It's no better then the shit done during colonialism.
Again, without some major land or even bigger money concessions from Israel, OR the right of return the numbers game makes it impossible for the creation of a Palestinian state to be stable in any meaning of the word. Too many people. Too little land.
Again, the only options are for Israel to give Palestinians parts of their lands back, give them billions upon billions of dollars, or do the right thing and allow Palestinians who were driven from their homes to return to Israel.
It's one of those three options. Palestinian state can't succeed otherwise.
Not to mention that it actually violated the UN's rules. It wasn't "like" colonialism - it was the last great act of Western colonialism, done in order to assuage Western guilt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine
All the red countries are against. Notice a pattern?
This is why a majority vote doesn't work in this sort of decision. I'm fairly sure that goddamn Australia is not affected by what happens in the Middle East, or fucking Honduras or something.
First, you gloss over the fact that the original two-state solution, with much better terms than pretty much anything offered since, was accepted by the Jews (with reluctance) and rejected by the Palestinians. Also, both sides engaged in violence in the early stages of the war. While both Palestinian and Jewish leaders initially tried to contain the violence, it expanded beyond their control rapidly. As Benny Morris put it, "The Zionist leaders deeply, genuinely, feared a Middle Eastern reenactment of the Holocaust, which had just ended; the Arabs' public rhetoric reinforced these fears". The original intent of Jewish military actions were to secure the partition borders. As the war progressed, these intentions changed.
What Irgun and Lehi did was abominable and I do not defend it. I have been criticized by Israelis for doing exactly what you've said: arguing that Israel needs to publicly apologize for its treatment of the Palestinians post-WWII. In fact, I believe such gestures should included as part of the negotiating process since, with any luck, it will serve as a testament to Israel's willingness to negotiate in good faith.
As a side note, I was not referring to Plan Dalet previously. I was referring to the breaking of the blockade of Jerusalem and various battles against the Arab Liberation Army.
It wasn't a great plan, but it hardly screwed the Palestinians more than the Jews. From Wiki:
Jerusalem and Bethlehem would be UN territories. It certainly had its flaws and both sides certainly would have complained about it (the Palestinians because they would not have access to the Red Sea and have slightly less overall territory, while the Jews would complain because they had a lot of useless desert). But I wouldn't call it exceedingly unfair to the Palestinians, all things considered.
I would support the first two, actually. And it wouldn't be just Israel giving them money and support, it should be everyone who was in the UN at the time and voted for it. They screwed up big time and they need to be part of the solution.
This is what's weird to me: It seems like we agree on the solution (Israel giving up substantial, contiguous territories for a Palestinian state, significant aid to the Palestinians to build their country, removal of all checkpoints and settlements, and a public apology for previous actions in exchange for a recognition of Israel's right to exist and no attacks being launched against Israel from the Palestinian state). Yet somehow, I feel like you guys aren't satisfied with that. You want more.
What exactly is it that you want?
It was very difficult to develop in 1947. It's quite easier now. Again, it wasn't a perfect or even good plan. But it's better than what happened after (imho).
They had concrete and steel in 1947. Really not that fucking hard.
Whatever, it doesn't matter. To get back to the real point:
Fuck. Did you just ignore the previous posts? The Zionists (and please stop equating them with Jews as a whole, that's the bullshit we were talking about earlier in the thread) accepted the plan, because they knew that the plan was the only way they would have any semblance of legitimacy. The Palestinians rejected the plan because it was a complete fucking screwjob.
Gee, when people get fucked over, they react negatively. Who would have thought?
I don't doubt that the Zionist leaders believed that. What is missing is their inability to acknowledge how their conduct and the conduct of the West was fueling that rhetoric. Again, the '47 partition plan was a colonial screwjob, done in order to assuage Western guilt. Furthermore, the shift of Plan Dalet from a defensive measure to an offensive one is unjustifiable by any means.
I would think that the criticism you received would have been a wakeup call. Guess not. Furthermore, the reluctance to admit these things comes from the fact that if Israel admits that it committed crimes against humanity to acquire these lands, then it no longer has a legitimate claim to those lands, and must return them to their rightful owners. You can guess how well THAT would go over.
Which were part of Plan Dalet.
Jewish ownership of the territories was under 7%. They were given 56%. Only two of the districts was Jewish majority population, yet they got around nine. No matter which way you looked at it, a HUGE number of Palestinians were going to get driven off their homes, while the Jewish number would be far, far less. That useless desert was still someone's home, and they certainly didn't consider it useless.
That is exceedingly unfair.
I want that. So how much territory should Israel give? Considering that Palestinian population exceeds Israel's by more then a half, it should be a lot in order to make a stable country.
See, this is where I think your argument falls apart. You could easily level the same exact charge against the United States. We basically gained our territory by committing genocide against the Native Americans. Do you feel that the US should give up its claims to its lands and return them to their rightful owners?
For some reason, I think I know the answer.
I have no idea. It's hard to tell which territories the Palestinians want the most, other than the obvious spots (Jerusalem, Bethlehem, etc.). I'd start with territories splitting access to the Red and Mediterranean Sea (could be done with an agreement allowing Israel to use the Red Sea), with access to sufficient aquifers and arable land to be self-sustaining. Jerusalem and other holy cities should be joint-rule. It's tough to pin down more than that without recommendations by either side.
I don't think you and I, Dark, are that far apart. We come from different angles and readings of history but reach the same conclusion. My problem is with Angel, really. I believe he wants Israel to disappear. I cannot agree to that.
There aren't too many Native Americans left. We could probably do that in part.
lol, I think we can both drink to that. I am DREADING taking Zionism courses during my program in Israel. They are going to be ugly, considering that I reject the Biblical/Theography argument due to my atheism and generally disagree that Jews cannot be safe in the US. But I digress.
Edit: I'm also not on speaking terms with the Consul to the American Midwest after I told her that her apocalyptic rhetoric toward Iran was delusional and ridiculous. But again, I digress.
My basic POV on Israel is that it's there, it's not going anywhere, so we have to find the best possible solution that has a realistic chance of working. We can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Yeah, not to defend the U.S.'s sordid history with the Native Americans, but at least we give them citizenship and full political/economic rights within the United States. Granted, Native Americans deserve more than what they've been given and they aren't an existential threat like the Israelis perceive the Palestinians, but they've definitely got more than the Palestinians could ever hope to get from Israel.
You are right, there are a lot of issues there. But I don't think it's radically different than what we already face there. Israel and its neighbors are constantly jockeying with each other for water rights, natural resource rights, etc. But I think overall, Palestinians desire peace and their state more than retribution. If they were given sufficient aid and decent land, they'd be more focused on building than anything else.
As for the pseudo-one state solution, it's a possibility. I haven't thought about it much, to be honest.
Radical Zionism and Radical Islam would hopefully be taken care of by the moderate forces in the countries. I continue to hold out hope that Israeli politicians will tell the settlers and ultra-Orthodox to STFU and sit down. There would be even more reason to do so if some peace ever managed to emerge.
You may want to revisit Native American history, because what you are describing there is a very, very recent interpretation of those "rights" you think they've been granted.
And lest we forget in the entirety of its existense Hamas has never been as successful a terrorist as the Stern gang. Blowing up the Jerusalem Hilton anyone?
What gets me the worst about all of this is when one palestinian(or palestinian organisation) comit a questionable act, Zionist suporters go: See, see, all palestinians are bad and we got to keep them down for our own safety! Stomp. Stomp. Stomp.
But when we point out the attrocites of the Jewish side; many of wich where carried out with the aid and knowledge of the main resistance. They are all like; Well, cant judge an entire people by just a few extremists.
I'll admit that I have a pretty shallow understanding of Native American history (and also that this is veering off-topic), but to my knowledge they were all given full U.S. citizenship in the 1920s (and states were forced to recognize their voting rights in the 1950s), allowing them the same general rights within the United States as any U.S. citizen.
Now their "rights" as sovereign entities independent from the U.S. government is a whole 'nother ball game, and there they are pretty consistently given the shaft.
My only point is that at least Native Americans aren't stateless and are allowed political rights as U.S. citizens, which is more than most Palestinian refugees can claim with regard to the Israeli occupation.
Shore is a good thing we gave the tiny portion that were left "full rights and equality" after we were done raping their wives and committing genocide on their families!
That's a pretty rosy outlook on the history of the USA with regards to Native Americans, and the situation Native Americans are in right now.
The reason no one gives a shit is because A) It's been more than a hundred years, and
I'm a Taiwanese national, and my homeland was occupied by an incompetent fascist, and contrary to western beliefs, foreign government for decades, that only recently declared an end to martial law, and still drafts my countrymen to serve unwillingly in the military, what am I entitled to?
Answer: Nothing. Which is why I went home, served my time, and left. And I only came back because I planned to finish college.
The Jewish experience can't be extended everywhere, for what I hope are obvious reasons. But, as previously stated, we've come to a contradiction: a religiously and, ultimately, ethnically homogeneous state, as Israeli was originally conceived by many as, is difficult enough without it being established as a promised democracy. Hell, countries like Japan or Korea don't even build a national identity around a religion.
Then again, the 1.4 milllion Japanese in Brazil and 2.3 million Koreans in China (more than their minorities in the US, in any case) haven't faced the same circumstances. The international community which promised a safe homeland and, not necessarily through fault of the Jewish people themselves, dug everyone into a hole from which I don't know if there's an escape. The only solution I can think of is the Israeli version of Josip Bronz Tito, either an Israeli Arab or a Palestinian Jew, manages to become supreme commander of everything, and basically uses boots and old tanks to force everyone to pretend to get along, Yugoslavia style (though I'm guessing it's going to be way bloodier).
Also, there are, for practically purposes, virtually no more Amerinidians. There are six million survivors, compared to a population of multiple millions literally centuries ago. If the current immigrant-American population reflected that sort of 'growth' from, say, 1790 (the first US census), there would be about ten million Americans descended from immigrants by the most optimistic forecasts, not three-hundred million. Even the extermination of north-Asian Russians by European Russia is dwarfed by that. But in complete fairness, the European powers, including Spain, are as responsible for this current outcome. As Mike already pointed out, the reason no one gives a shit is because the sheer length of time and that the voices left are barely audible. I know two people myself who are pissed about this issue--the problem is, it's two out of hundreds of people I've met since I've come to the US.
Also because the Casino crap makes people think that we're all okay now.
Look for the latter to come in the next few decades. IIRC support for Israel is dropping in America. Dropping big. And the younger people get, the less Israel rates on the "give a fuck" card.
By the time the 20 year olds are 50 year olds, support for Israel should be a dead duck.
Mostly because we're the ones selling them their weapons.
There will be war, lots of it, most likely.
It's going to be a rather unpleasant thing.
They do have a good military. But there are... doubts as to whether they could sustain settlement growth without us. Or without us arming them.
Or without the United States blocking about 30 billion security council resolutions.
Israel will probably still have a good military when we no longer care. But expect the pressure on Israel to get a lot more serious when the United States stops playing defense for Israel.
I just want to throw out this terrible factoid: South Africa's apartheid was based primarily on Canada's Indian Act.
How's that for national shame.
Really? You mean they had similar sorts of laws or what?
Basically. The Indian Act in the 1940s and 1950s was fucking deplorable. It's still pretty bad, but it's only currently in force because treaty negotiations haven't been concluded for all nations yet, although in places like B.C., they are progressing along quite well (comparatively speaking).
Indians, the technical term in used in the Act (basically, First Nations, but not Metis or Inuit) were wards of the state, couldn't vote, lacked property rights, and had to send their children to residential schools, where there was widespread sexual abuse and a dedicate programme of assimilation by way of cultural genocide. The last residential schools only closed down in the late 70's/early 80's, and it was only in the 1960s that Indians got the vote. About forty years after women got the vote - but before that, if a native wanted the vote, he could give it up, but also would have to give up his "status" - basically, his standing as an aboriginal under the law. So we now have two classes of First Nations in Canada, status and non-status, which further complicates things, such as property rights, inheritance, etc.
All of the provisions that were progressively applied in South Africa from the 1950s on were taken basically wholesale from the shit that was in place in Canada for decades, since at least the 1890s.
A fair amount of Zionist thought directly references Western treatment of indigenous peoples as justification of their treatment of Palestinians. Read The Iron Wall sometime, and be horrified.
We as a civilization are going to learn from these terrible acts? Right? And now we know how to avoid them?
Right?
British publisher and writer Ernest Benn [1875-1954]
Please, do everyone a favor and either read the thread or GTFO.
And, do to on-going sacrifice of doing what's right for political expediency, I don't think this will ever change. See, you don't just have to wait for the boomers to die off... the fate of Israel has somehow been tied directly into the fate of Christianity by the fundamentalists... and those fuckers just won't die...