10 Reasons why the Palestinians are the modern version of the Old Native Americans

ckristo2

1. Both had their land taken away from them..

2. ..By settlers from abroad..

3. Whose justification was often religious: (Manifest Destiny/God gave us
this Land)...

4...And their superior attitude to the natives: (Those Indians/Arabs are
lazy.
While we drained swamps, cultivated deserts, they just sat around)

5.Both have been defeated militarily and been driven into reservations or
land.
reserved for Arabs.

6. Both have been subjected to "engineered hunger" as the settlers who took
their land then control the supply of food causing malnutrition and starvation.

7. There was little support or sympathy from the outside world for the
plight of the Native Americans. There is little support for the plight
of the Palestinians today.


8. The oppression against them is cast as a security response by the
settlers: (The U.S. Army drove the Native Americans from their land in
response to Indian uprisings. The Israeli Army demolish Palestinian
homes in response to terror attacks.

9. There was severe segregation of Native Americans in the U.S. There is
a practical Apartheid between Arabs and Jews in Israel.

10. There was no unity between the Native American tribes there are
serious divisions between the political factions of the Palestinians.

TedB

Huge difference my friend. For a start, there never was a uniform 'native American'. They were always notoriously diverse. (How one can even compare a Great Plains native American with an Atlantic coast one is beyond me)

The Palestinians are Arabs, part of the Arab nation but the nation 'Palestine' simply didn't exist. There was no coherent idea of a Palestinian people - they are Arab people. The very concept of a 'Palestinian Arab' is a very recent development.

Therefore, the creation of the Israeli state doesn't compare with the evolution of the United States of America. In any way really. Yes, both groups were incredibly 'hard done by', but this certainly isn't a comparable theme.

brianthebard

Ok I'm locking this until I get some feedback from the other mods on what to do with it. The last time you started a thread with a contemporary comparison in it OP the thread went way off topic. If you want to talk about history that's great, but don't make unnecessary modern day comparisons and then complain when people focus on the comparison instead of the historical issue.

brianthebard

This comparative analysis is probably more suited to humanities. Moved.

Zombrex

I agree with the OP, we should give the Palestinians casinos

tbaymusicman

Does that mean eventually there will Palestinian Casino's??:D:D

Zombrex

I can see where this thread is going .. :P

Shouldn't this be in Politics? Seriously...

At least it could torn to shreds properly there.

Joey the lips

Wicknight wrote: »

I can see where this thread is going .. :P

Taking a left at the first corner, up the street and will end somewhere around the IRA or sinn fein or something like that,

Yes the Palestinians are the tormented... We know but I dont think they care....Sorry!

Affable

Joey the lips wrote: »

Yes the Palestinians are the tormented...

Yes, they have been, but it's another issue where the balance of power is such that Israel has got away with all kinds. America is too big to challenge, on economics, business, Israel, and on all the rest of it, and you are not going to get any politicians with the backbone, or indeed, foolhardiness (depending on how you view it) to go against them.

ckristo2

I think you can guess from my hyperbolic title that I am trying to provoke a discussion on the Palestinians.
Of course the modern Palestinians are not the modern equivalent of the old Native Americans though as my opening posting shows there are many striking similarities.
The main one being that the early American settlers and the modern Israelis were/are facing with the same embarrassing problem namely what do you do with the people living on the land you want for yourself.
History has shown us how the United States dealt with this problem
Now we see Israel doing the same thing.

ckristo2

ckristo2 wrote: »

I think you can guess from my hyperbolic title that I am trying to provoke a discussion on the Palestinians.
Of course the modern Palestinians are not the modern equivalent of the old Native Americans though as my opening posting shows there are many striking similarities.
The main one being that the early American settlers and the modern Israelis were/are facing with the same embarrassing problem namely what do you do with the people living on the land you want for yourself.
History has shown us how the United States dealt with this problem
Now we see Israel doing the same thing.

There are a few similarities not many. Your comparison is useless because you seek to ignore the difference in the time-periods, and also wish to ignore the actual history of the territories. This is exactly the reason i said that it should be in the Politics form, because any realistic response will turn it into a political/propaganda thread. Out of curiosity, why didn't you place it in the Politics forum originally?

ckristo2

I totally agree this thread should be on either the History forum where i originally opened it or on the Political forum.
The main point I'd like to make is that when the Native Americans were suffering at the hands of European settlers there was little coverage of it in the press of the day and it all happened a long time ago in a far less enlightened age.
Many Americans today (perhaps most?) Would regard what their ancestors did to the Native Americans as an appalling injustice.
However much the same treatment is being meeted out to the Palestinians by the Israeli state in the full view of the world and few people seem interested.
A serious moral question?

ckristo2

ckristo2 wrote: »

I totally agree this thread should be on either the History forum where i originally opened it or on the Political forum.

There are a few subjects which frankly can't be discussed without getting bogged down in crap. The Palestinian conflict is one of those subjects. It always degenerates into throwing mud against whichever viewpoint is held.

The main point I'd like to make is that when the Native Americans were suffering at the hands of European settlers there was little coverage of it in the press of the day and it all happened a long time ago in a far less enlightened age.

Which is why the similarity doesn't hold any water. The introduction of mas media, the Internet, and formalised countries (as opposed to colonial powers) reduces any comparisons to a shadow.

Many Americans today (perhaps most?) Would regard what their ancestors did to the Native Americans as an appalling injustice.
However much the same treatment is being meeted out to the Palestinians by the Israeli state in the full view of the world and few people seem interested.

Americans talk about a lot of things. Freedom, morality, equality etc. Maybe talk is the wrong word. Preach is better. But the simple fact is that their preaching doesn't hold up to the actions of their nation over the last 100 years. When push comes to shove they always do whats in the interests of their administration. Iraq, Vietnam, Bay of pigs, Black rights, education, Guantanamo bay, torture, etc. The list goes on and on.

I have no wish to get into a mud slinging match with you. You obviously hold a pro-Palestinian stance. And this is the problem, since you're unable to see the Palestinian and Arab responsibility for helping to create the situation in the M.East. It will always be the Israeli fault regardless of external factors.

A serious moral question?

A moral question requires that you examine your own moral stance first. Are you really willing to do that?

brianthebard

ckristo2 wrote: »

I totally agree this thread should be on either the History forum where i originally opened it

No, no it shouldn't.

The End Of Days

Land was invaded and they lost ownership.

Been that way since the world began.

Some times people invaded and didn't get the land.

ckristo2

Deleted User wrote: »

There are a few subjects which frankly can't be discussed without getting bogged down in crap. The Palestinian conflict is one of those subjects. It always degenerates into throwing mud against whichever viewpoint is held.

I don't see why any discussion has to result in throwing mud at anyone.
You make your point and read the other person's. Where's the mud?



Which is why the similarity doesn't hold any water. The introduction of mas media, the Internet, and formalised countries (as opposed to colonial powers) reduces any comparisons to a shadow.



Americans talk about a lot of things. Freedom, morality, equality etc. Maybe talk is the wrong word. Preach is better. But the simple fact is that their preaching doesn't hold up to the actions of their nation over the last 100 years. When push comes to shove they always do whats in the interests of their administration. Iraq, Vietnam, Bay of pigs, Black rights, education, Guantanamo bay, torture, etc. The list goes on and on.

I have no wish to get into a mud slinging match with you. You obviously hold a pro-Palestinian stance. And this is the problem, since you're unable to see the Palestinian and Arab responsibility for helping to create the situation in the M.East. It will always be the Israeli fault regardless of external factors. [/quote]




I do indeed hold a pro-Palestinian point of view and I have explained why I hold these views in my opening post.
If you read the memoirs of old American Explores/Indian Fighters/Scouts/Soldiers from the 19th Century you'll read the exact same rational for their treatment of the Native Americans.
"They are backward, they hate us, they like war. they are the authors of their own misfortune. If only they learned to live peaceably along side the White man and accept his ways.." etc.
Many of the decisions of the Arab countries and the Palestinian leadership should in hindsight not have been made but at the end of the day the situation remains. Israel controls 84% of the land the Palestinians used to live on and the Palestinians are starving and their children suffer from malnutrition. Read the U.N Office for The Coordination of Humanitarian affairs report on Gaza.



A moral question requires that you examine your own moral stance first. Are you really willing to do that?[/quote]

I genuinely don't understand this point.

ckristo2

ckristo2 wrote: »

You make your point and read the other person's. Where's the mud?

The majority of threads about Palestine are created and followed in the Politics forum. Why didn't you create this thread there? I assumed because you were away of the mudslinging and wanted to avoid some of it.

I do indeed hold a pro-Palestinian point of view and I have explained why I hold these views in my opening post.

nope. You threw out reasons for similarities with the native Americans. If you had said these were your reasons for being pro-Palestinian then this would be a completely different thread.. Which it should be.

If you read the memoirs of old American Explores/Indian Fighters/Scouts/Soldiers from the 19th Century you'll read the exact same rational for their treatment of the Native Americans.

"They are backward, they hate us, they like war. they are the authors of their own misfortune. If only they learned to live peaceably along side the White man and accept his ways.." etc.

No need. Its perfectly clear in thousands of books written about the history of the period. And as I have said its just more propaganda thrown around to alter the perception of people towards their enemy. Here it is the Indians. Other cases, have been directed towards the Irish, the British, the French etc.

Many of the decisions of the Arab countries and the Palestinian leadership should in hindsight not have been made but at the end of the day the situation remains. Israel controls 84% of the land the Palestinians used to live on and the Palestinians are starving and their children suffer from malnutrition. Read the U.N Office for The Coordination of Humanitarian affairs report on Gaza.

So you say that the Palestinians and the Arab countries shouldn't have made many of the decisions, but instead focus on the end situation, bypassing their responsibility for bringing the current situation into being. Israel is also responsible for the situation. As are the US, and most western countries.

I genuinely don't understand this point.

I'm questioning your neutrality... Look. If you want a thread bashing Israel for its actions, without taking into account Palestinian/Arab responsibility, then I'm right to question your motives.. IKf you're capable of being evenhanded, then I have no issue.

Although I seriously believe that this thread should be on the Politics forum. It doesn't have any place in this forum, unless we're talking about more than the war, and the politics involved.

ckristo2

Where did you get the idea that I'm neutral on this issue?
Acccording to the U.N. and many more reputable bodies what is happening in Gaza and to a slightly lesser extent in the West Bank is a humanitarian crisis caused by Israel halting food and medical supplies to people who desperately need them.
Just as the U.S. army in the 19th century set about starving and killing the Native Americans when they would not leave their land or tried to defend it the state of Israel is now doing the same to the Palestinians.
If you defend this behaviour by Israel then you must defend the behaviour by the whites toward the Native Americans.
It's as simple as that.
Destroy a people weaker than you who cannot defend themselves and take their property.
I can't think of a more clear cut moral issue for our time.

ckristo2

Use "[ quote] [/quote]" to segment the responses.. Makes it easier.

ckristo2 wrote: »

Where did you get the idea that I'm neutral on this issue?

Never mind. You're missing my point completely.

Acccording to the U.N. and many more reputable bodies what is happening in Gaza and to a slightly lesser extent in the West Bank is a humanitarian crisis caused by Israel halting food and medical supplies to people who desperately need them.

True. But again, why not post this to the Politics forum where people live, breathe, and dream about this conflict? Oh, yes, perhaps because this kind of topic has been talked to death already. Seriously, I would love to know why you didn't post this to the politics forum.... ? I have asked you twice now, and no response.

Just as the U.S. army in the 19th century set about starving and killing the Native Americans when they would not leave their land or tried to defend it the state of Israel is now doing the same to the Palestinians.

Quite a few differences.. I actually had them listed as a reply, and then realised that I'll be going around in circles within 2-3 posts..

If you defend this behaviour by Israel then you must defend the behaviour by the whites toward the Native Americans.
It's as simple as that.

Well, no its not as simple as that. You're looking for a black or white argument. Either you support Palestine or you support Israel. Can't I consider both sides to be made up of complete idiots, and equally at blame for the situation? Unfortunately, Pro-whatever-faction people support can't allow any grey area's into their thinking, otherwise they might realise the cause they support isn't so clear-cut and righteous.

Destroy a people weaker than you who cannot defend themselves and take their property.

Hmm.. I would agree with you if I hadn't studied the history of that region for over twenty years.. I don't approve of the Israeli actions. But I'm not so blind as to condemn them out of hand. Unless, someone could erase everything I have learned about Palestinian/Arab actions in that region since the start of the 1900's.

I can't think of a more clear cut moral issue for our time.

Hmm.. well, if you are already convinced of the moral issue, there's no real point talking about it. :rolleyes:

ckristo2

Now here's the kind of rational employed by the Israelis which sadly goes pretty much uncontested by the media (and lots of other people as well)
The Palestinians are terrorists or they give support or shelter to terrorists. We really don't want to do this but we have no choice. We have to treat them with violence.
Here is how is works in simple logic: You put an innocent man in a cage and torment him. Pretty soon he will start to shout and demand to be freed and then he might scream and behave in a violent manner. "Look!" you say "This is clearly a madman, What choice do I have but to keep him in the cage?"
Thus the injustice you have committed has become the punishment on someone else for a crime that you have committed in the first place.
You take away people's land and they just might not like it so they behave in a violent manner and ... you can see where I'm going with this.
When the Zionist movement started to establish a Jewish homeland in what is now Israel at the end of the 19th Century they didn't ask the local Arab population whether they liked the idea or not (they didn't even ask the Jewish people already living there either) They started to slowly take land exclusively for Jews bit by bit by fair means and sadly by foul means in more recent times.
The White settlers to the Americas (both of them) did exactly the same thing but over a much longer period of time and with a much larger piece of land.
But the result is the same.

ckristo2

ckristo2 wrote: »

Now here's the kind of rational employed by the Israelis which sadly goes pretty much uncontested by the media (and lots of other people as well)

Very little of what the Israeli's say goes uncontested. There is a difference between believing what Israel says and stepping up to interfere. Just as there is a difference between condemning Palestinian attacks, and sending in troops to stop the fighting.

The Palestinians are terrorists or they give support or shelter to terrorists. We really don't want to do this but we have no choice. We have to treat them with violence.

One mans freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. But the problem with all "freedom groups" is that at some stage in their development, they go corrupt. Bombing/assassinations for profit, power plays, protection rackets against their own people, kidnapping their own teenagers for training, indoctrination, civil war, etc.

The Palestinian factions are considered such because of their actions over the last 60+ years. If this was about freedom, or the establishment of a viable Palestinian state, they would have turned to other methods than violence by now. The form of resistance that they have chosen and continued hasn't been successful... and the manner of their resistance molds them into an image hard to shake off.

here's a question for you (although I doubt you'll bother answering it).... How many Freedom fighter groups have succeeded in gaining independence/freedom with favorable terms in the last 60 years? Now, how many of those successful groups achieved their success after 10 years of fighting had passed?

Here is how is works in simple logic: You put an innocent man in a cage and torment him. Pretty soon he will start to shout and demand to be freed and then he might scream and behave in a violent manner. "Look!" you say "This is clearly a madman, What choice do I have but to keep him in the cage?"Thus the injustice you have committed has become the punishment on someone else for a crime that you have committed in the first place.

I love these analogies. Completely useless. Why not deal with the facts instead?

You take away people's land and they just might not like it so they behave in a violent manner and ... you can see where I'm going with this.

Yup. I do. Which is why I'm :rolleyes:

When the Zionist movement started to establish a Jewish homeland in what is now Israel at the end of the 19th Century they didn't ask the local Arab population whether they liked the idea or not (they didn't even ask the Jewish people already living there either) They started to slowly take land exclusively for Jews bit by bit by fair means and sadly by foul means in more recent times.

And the Arabs did similar (both fair and foul) against non-Muslims in that region going back to the time of Mohammad, regardless of how long that they had lived in the region. Hell, the Arabs ancestors took the land from someone else, and so on.

The White settlers to the Americas (both of them) did exactly the same thing but over a much longer period of time and with a much larger piece of land. But the result is the same.

Yes, and there is possibly one similarity I can agree with, and yet the circumstances are different since before the Native Americans in those regions, there were... who? The M.East has been a cradle of civilisations going back thousands of years. Rise and fall of huge & small empires, city states, and confederations. What you term Arab or Palestinian consists of people that have intermingled from hundreds of different backgrounds/cultures, often with extremely violent histories.

I notice that once more you avoid my query as to why you didn't post this in Politics... :rolleyes:

ckristo2

Deleted User wrote: »

Very little of what the Israeli's say goes uncontested. There is a difference between believing what Israel says and stepping up to interfere. Just as there is a difference between condemning Palestinian attacks, and sending in troops to stop the fighting.



One mans freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. But the problem with all "freedom groups" is that at some stage in their development, they go corrupt. Bombing/assassinations for profit, power plays, protection rackets against their own people, kidnapping their own teenagers for training, indoctrination, civil war, etc.

The Palestinian factions are considered such because of their actions over the last 60+ years. If this was about freedom, or the establishment of a viable Palestinian state, they would have turned to other methods than violence by now. The form of resistance that they have chosen and continued hasn't been successful... and the manner of their resistance molds them into an image hard to shake off.

here's a question for you (although I doubt you'll bother answering it).... How many Freedom fighter groups have succeeded in gaining independence/freedom with favorable terms in the last 60 years? Now, how many of those successful groups achieved their success after 10 years of fighting had passed?

I'M NOT SURE HOW TO CORRECTLY REPLY TO A QUOTE. BUT THIS IS MY ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION ABOVE:
1. Viet Mihn Indo-China War against the French lasted from 1946-1954.
At the war's end the French left.
2. Cuban revolution (not really a nationalistic war but Castro was trying to
free Cuba from being a virtual U.S. protectorate.) War lasted from
1956-1959.
3. E.O.K.A. drove the British from Cyprus. War lasted from 1955 to 1959.
4. F.L.N. drove French from Algeria. War lasted from 1954-1962.
5. Mujahadeen fighters in Afghanistan drove Soviet Army from their
Country. War lasted from 1979-1988.

NOT ALL OF THE ABOVE WERE COMPLETE VICTORIES BUT THE GUERRILLA ARMIES PRETTY MUCH ACHIEVED WHAT THEY WANTED SOMETIMES WITH SOMETIMES WITHOUT FOREIGN SUPPORT.
WHILE THIS IS NOT REALLY RELEVANT TO THE THREAD IT MIGHT BE OF SOME USE TO YOU.




I love these analogies. Completely useless. Why not deal with the facts instead?



Yup. I do. Which is why I'm :rolleyes:



And the Arabs did similar (both fair and foul) against non-Muslims in that region going back to the time of Mohammad, regardless of how long that they had lived in the region. Hell, the Arabs ancestors took the land from someone else, and so on.



Yes, and there is possibly one similarity I can agree with, and yet the circumstances are different since before the Native Americans in those regions, there were... who? The M.East has been a cradle of civilisations going back thousands of years. Rise and fall of huge & small empires, city states, and confederations. What you term Arab or Palestinian consists of people that have intermingled from hundreds of different backgrounds/cultures, often with extremely violent histories.

I notice that once more you avoid my query as to why you didn't post this in Politics... :rolleyes:

To answer your last question first the moderators moved this thread against my wishes from the history section. It is about history although it is relevant to modern politics as well. I hope that answers your question.

There are no Good Guys or Bad Guys in reality but there are injustices and what happened to the Native Americans was definitely an injustice and what is happening to the Palestinians today is an injustice and should be challenged and fought.
They are not my cup of tea but they were the democratic choice of the Palestinian electorate of Gaza. But Israel will not talk to Hamas and does it's best to kill it's members and their families.
When the Palestinians try to "do" democracy their choice is thrown back in their faces. It is difficult for them to see any alternative to violence.
I wish this were not the case and I genuinely hope there can be an alternative to blood' shed but it is important to remember that a terrible injustice lies at the heart of this conflict.

ckristo2

ckristo2 wrote: »

I'M NOT SURE HOW TO CORRECTLY REPLY TO A QUOTE. BUT THIS IS MY ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION ABOVE:

I gave you the quote formula. Its not hard.

1. Viet Mihn Indo-China War against the French lasted from 1946-1954. At the war's end the French left.
2. Cuban revolution (not really a nationalistic war but Castro was trying to free Cuba from being a virtual U.S. protectorate.) War lasted from
1956-1959.
3. E.O.K.A. drove the British from Cyprus. War lasted from 1955 to 1959.
4. F.L.N. drove French from Algeria. War lasted from 1954-1962
5. Mujahadeen fighters in Afghanistan drove Soviet Army from their
Country. War lasted from 1979-1988.

I could argue the success of a couple of the rebellions/insurrections above, but thats not the point.

Now The reason i asked for the insurrections that succeeded within ten years, was to highlight the manner of the fights they engaged in. The Palestinians have been fighting a guerrilla war for almost 6 decades. Surely, you can see from your researching the above, that no other country has been achieved through those means after such a protracted period of time. Unless they have put down the gun, and embraced diplomacy.

Palestinians have passed the threshold whereby Guerrilla style warfare can achieve any real success (beyond killing lots of people)

To answer your last question first the moderators moved this thread against my wishes from the history section. It is about history although it is relevant to modern politics as well. I hope that answers your question.

Not really. You're not discussing history. You're seeking to promote Palestinian "innocence" and the grave injustices that were done to them.

There are no Good Guys or Bad Guys in reality but there are injustices and what happened to the Native Americans was definitely an injustice and what is happening to the Palestinians today is an injustice and should be challenged and fought.

Fought how? Seriously. Do you approve of the manner that they chose to fight? That worked so well for the Native Americans... Just as its working so well for the Palestinians. :rolleyes:

They are not my cup of tea but they were the democratic choice of the Palestinian electorate of Gaza. But Israel will not talk to Hamas and does it's best to kill it's members and their families.

Of course, since Hamas does the same to Israel. Hamas doesn't seek to present itself as a governing body capable of dealing with diplomacy. Hamas styles itself as "Freedom Fighters" and is unwilling to step away from that "image". At least, the PLO sought some manner of diplomatic exchanges, but Hamas is more concerned about itself, than actually dealing with the problems at hand. Israel sees no reason to deal with Hamas because Hamas is unwilling to sacrifice any of their historic demands.

I'm not saying that Israel is innocent by any means. They've consistently broken cease-fires, broken other agreements, and generally sought to continue the conflict by any means possible. But this hasn't happened in a vacuum. The lack of strong leadership with the support of the Palestinian people has provided Israel with the perfect excuse not to deal with Hamas or the other factions.

When the Palestinians try to "do" democracy their choice is thrown back in their faces. It is difficult for them to see any alternative to violence.

Be Realistic. Armed conflict will not bring them any closer to peace. They have neither the manpower, nor the economic resources capable to complete a serious military strike against Israel. Palestinians are incapable of taking and holding territory. So, the military option is pretty much off the table. So whats left? Modern Guerrilla style violence generally only works against invading forces, that have a place to go back to. Where will Israeli's go? Which is why this form of tactics won't work, beyond killing lots of people on both sides, and providing Israel with continued justification to protect itself.

Their only realistic option is the peaceful way. Israel will lose support from its allies once war is stopped. Once their people are no longer threatened, they lose all justification for taking land, and their supporters in their allied countries will no longer be able to garner as much support. Given time, much of the land that was forcibly taken could be recovered through negotiation.

But as long as Palestinians force the issue, and demand all the lands back immediately (immediately being up to 5 years from now), there will be no headway gained. To gain dedicated support from the major nations (including the US & Russia) Palestinians would need to make a serious movement towards peaceful negotiations, and that would likely include a major destruction of weapons. Not going to happen without it. Look to the North & the IRA for similarities in how the peace was achieved.

I wish this were not the case and I genuinely hope there can be an alternative to blood' shed but it is important to remember that a terrible injustice lies at the heart of this conflict.

Get over it. It is done with. The main problem with this conflict is that people both in the M.East and abroad can't just move on with things. Constantly rehashing every slight, and every attack ensures that the region will never have peace.

Are you more concerned with the Palestinians being "right" and being "victims" than them being safe, peaceful, and successful? Rather than seeking to justify their fighting/violence, why not turn to supporting an end to violence by both sides?

ckristo2

Merciful God that was some reply.
Anyway in my list of guerrila wars that succeeded I should have included the Hizbollah war against Israeli occupation of South Lebanon (1982-2000) It took more than 10 years but it worked completely. the Israeli army were driven out of Lebanon and will never again be able to occupy that country.
The situation with the Palestininas is completely different. As you say they neither have the resources nor the weapons to defeat Israel. The best they can do is create what in diplomatic parlance is knows as a "Security Situation" (keep the violence going) in order to get some kind of negotiated settlement as the I.R.A. and Sinn Fein did in Northern Ireland.
It is not correct to say that Hamas see themselves only as Freedom Fighters.
They are a political party and they have made several proposals to negotiate with Israel but the latter dismissed these out of hand. Where do you go there?
I am not concerned with Palestinian innocence. I am more concerned with an injustice and since we're on the Humanitarian forum that would seem as good a place as any to discuss morality.
As for fighting Israel I would suggest boycotting all Israeli goods. When this was tried in the 1980's it forced the White settlers in South Africa to negotiate with the native population who knows it might force the Israeli settlers to do the same.
All the best.

ckristo2

ckristo2 wrote: »

Merciful God that was some reply.
Anyway in my list of guerrila wars that succeeded I should have included the Hezbollah war against Israeli occupation of South Lebanon (1982-2000) It took more than 10 years but it worked completely. the Israeli army were driven out of Lebanon and will never again be able to occupy that country.

Never again? Israel was fragmented from the inside without clear command nor a dedicated resolution to fight such a war. The main issue with such Israeli actions is that they know they can't hold the territory indefinitely. So there will always be the awareness that defeat is around the corner, since their resources are finite. They don't have the population to hold more lands than they currently have, and yet they're committed to the concept of using foreign lands to buffer against attacks against their domestic areas.

The situation with the Palestininas is completely different.

Yes and no. The continued occupation of territories from the last twenty years falls in with the buffer zone concept, and they're not going to release those lands without definite assurance that they don't need them. Better to fight on other peoples lands than in your own. But Palestine is more difficult because they're so close to Israel's domestic lands.

As you say they neither have the resources nor the weapons to defeat Israel. The best they can do is create what in diplomatic parlance is knows as a "Security Situation" (keep the violence going) in order to get some kind of negotiated settlement as the I.R.A. and Sinn Fein did in Northern Ireland.

keeping the violence going serves no purpose now. In Northern Ireland the manner of the actual conflict was limited to certain areas, and the levels of responses by both sides were muted. In Palestine it is a war. Use of military strikes, and open attacks on each other.

The only realistic way to get a negotiated settlement is to remove the Israeli justification for continued occupation, which means removing the violence from the territory.

It is not correct to say that Hamas see themselves only as Freedom Fighters. They are a political party and they have made several proposals to negotiate with Israel but the latter dismissed these out of hand. Where do you go there?

Hamas are a militant group intent on keeping power within their grasp by any means possible. They have no interest in peace, because that would cause them to lose the power/control they have achieved. Just as Hezbollah resisted to disband and become citizens, so too will Hamas. Remember what I said above regarding corruption? Hamas is already there, and their reputation is tarnished with those actions.

I am not concerned with Palestinian innocence. I am more concerned with an injustice and since we're on the Humanitarian forum that would seem as good a place as any to discuss morality.

not with innocence but with injustice? Explain to me in detail the difference.

As for fighting Israel I would suggest boycotting all Israeli goods. When this was tried in the 1980's it forced the White settlers in South Africa to negotiate with the native population who knows it might force the Israeli settlers to do the same.
All the best.

Again, more of the same. Focus on Israel without showing similar regard towards Palestine. What would boycotting Israel achieve? Nothing, except for them to acknowledge once again their lack of support abroad, and they would continue as before. Except they would be even more unwilling to deal with foreign influences.

However... if you were to demand an equal opposition to the actions of both Israel and Palestine, then Israel wouldn't be forced to lose "face", and might be brought into line. As I have said the conflict is not just about Israel. Palestinians & other Arabs continue the conflict themselves, and open ( & realistic) opposition to the support of those paramilitary attacks would go a long way to encourage the factions within the Israeli government that do want peace.

The problem I find with these calls for boycotting Israel or foreign intervention is that they're always being targeted at Israel. There is no balance. Which is what this region needs. Alienating either side just deepens divisions, and forces them to continue their tried & trusted means of conflict.

ckristo2

Well now...
I'll have a look at your closing points first and then work backwards as it were.
Israel is a very powerful country. It enjoys a position of privilege especially in the western world. It's citizens enjoy some of the highest living standards (often at the expense of poorly paid Palestinian labour) in the world.
It enjoys the unconditional support of the U.S. It receives huge financial and military support from that country. I think it has the 4th or 5th largest army in the world with (most experts agree) at least 300 nuclear warheads.
It enjoys a favoured place as a trade partner with the E.U. and with many other countries and it has the ability to regurlarly attack it's neighbours using the most up to date weaponary and suffer no retaliation whatsoever not even a U.N. resolution.
The Palestinians on the other hand suffer starvation, humiliation violence and in the territories in which they live (surrounded by the Israeli military) they watch their children suffer from malnutrition and what little land they still hold onto shrink daily as Israeli settlers encroach upon them.
Clearly we are not here dealing with equals. The security of Israel must be assured and all Israeli citizens everywhere should be allowed to live without fear of violence and this can happen if Israel adopts U.N. resolution 242. Simple as that.
Even Hamas said it will go along with this as long as Israel does.
I believe boycotting does work. Look at the example of Aparthied South Africa. 1970-1988.
In the interests of an "Equal Approach" It would however be impossibe to boycott Palestinian goods simply because they don't have any.

ckristo2

ckristo2 wrote: »

Well now...
I'll have a look at your closing points first and then work backwards as it were.

Okies

Israel is a very powerful country. It enjoys a position of privilege especially in the western world. It's citizens enjoy some of the highest living standards (often at the expense of poorly paid Palestinian labour) in the world.

It enjoys a high standard of living because of the close ties that the Jewish community maintains around the world, and because Israel as a nation have developed and sold many new technologies which the rest of the world are happy to purchase. Throw in the economic support from the US and most countries would do well.

enjoys the unconditional support of the U.S. It receives huge financial and military support from that country. I think it has the 4th or 5th largest army in the world with (most experts agree) at least 300 nuclear warheads.

Unconditional support? hardly, since the grants that the US supplies to Israel still have to be approved by the relevant bodies within the US government. The moment that Israel stops being a tool for the US, the money will dry up. The US administrations of the past have shown that they're capable of pulling funding should they decide their interests no longer rest with an "ally".

As for having such an army, they're a country under the constant condition of war. The reason they are considered to have such high numbers in their army is due to the %'s of their population capable of being called up to fight. Other countries can have less of their population trained for war, because the threat isn't there. However, history has shown the need for Israel to have as many trained personnel as possible.

Lastly, nukes are a political tool only. They can't use them as a military weapon, since it would completely isolate them from world support, and they would placed severely under international control. It would be suicide to use them, except as a last resort, and even then....

It enjoys a favoured place as a trade partner with the E.U. and with many other countries and it has the ability to regurlarly attack it's neighbours using the most up to date weaponary and suffer no retaliation whatsoever not even a U.N. resolution.

Firstly the trade aspect has been built up through generations of goodwill, and serious hard work. Can't see why thats much of problem.

As for attacking their neighbours, you're showing an amazing ability to ignore who their neighbours are, what their neighbours have said, the support their neighbours supply Palestinian forces, and their own attacks on Israeli forces.

and lastly, there have been plenty of resolutions laid against Israel. In fact, there have been plenty of resolutions laid against other countries also. Its just that it seems fairly easy to ignore the resolutions.

The Palestinians on the other hand suffer starvation, humiliation violence and in the territories in which they live (surrounded by the Israeli military) they watch their children suffer from malnutrition and what little land they still hold onto shrink daily as Israeli settlers encroach upon them.

ahh, so this is about keeping score. Can't really argue with the situation of the Palestinian people. I can argue though at laying it completely at the feet of the Israeli's since it is the continued power plays, and resistance of the Palestinian forces which guarantees that Israel won't back down and open the economic borders. But I'm sure you don't want to acknowledge that. Lets see what you would like to hear... Yes, Israel is fully responsible for all of the above. Just not alone in that responsibility.

Clearly we are not here dealing with equals.

Never said they were equals. I said they needed to be dealt with equally. There is a difference.

This is not about a comparison of power. This is about how to deal with them in order to encourage peace. A balance needs to be struck, since every attempt at focusing on Israel has led to isolation.

The security of Israel must be assured and all Israeli citizens everywhere should be allowed to live without fear of violence and this can happen if Israel adopts U.N. resolution 242. Simple as that.

Simple? Only if we lived in a perfect world, where hate did not exist. There needs to be more than just 242. There needs to be a commitment by both sides to maintain the peace, and to deal harshly with anyone that breaks the peace regardless of their reasons.

But TBH I do support resolution 242.

Even Hamas said it will go along with this as long as Israel does.

Both sides say a lot of things. All the time. And TBH I believe either as far as I can throw them. Their word needs to be backed up with International support in the form of a UN task force with clear & realistic fire orders, properly supplied with the resources they need. I would also say that the UN force would need to have detachments of both Palestinian & Israeli forces to use as they will.

I believe boycotting does work. Look at the example of Aparthied South Africa. 1970-1988.

Different circumstances. With a far different history. Never mind that Israeli & Palestinians bear no resemblance in culture or demeanour to those of S.Africa.

In the interests of an "Equal Approach" It would however be impossibe to boycott Palestinian goods simply because they don't have any.

But it would be possible to place true restrictions on the types of funds being sent to Palestine for support other than Humanitarian needs. At least, that would be something that Israel would value as being an effort on the part of the International community.

ckristo2

There's such a million points here I'll try to deal with the salient ones:

Only once in the past 20 years did the United States even threaten to withdraw it's military and financial funding to Israel and that was at the start of the first Gulf War in 1991 because Israel wanted to join the coalition which would have caused a rupture with the other Arab allies.
Congress in the U.S. is hugely pro Israeli. Every American president in recent times has had to pledge support for Israel. The media in the United States is pro Israeli and of course there are many well funded bodies in the U.S. (and Washington in particular) who's sole purpose is to lobby on behalf of Israel.
Take a look at U.S. foreign policy with regard to the Middle East and Israel's foreign policy. If you can give three main differences between the two countries you'll be doing well. (I'm not talking about the settlements which Israel would regard as an internal matter)
Anyhoo...
I don't believe it is possible to deal with the humanitarian crisis that Israel has created in Gaza equally. First of all the starving people must be fed and the people who caused their hunger must be condemned there is no ambiguity on this matter.
Imagine if somehow the Palestinians had caused the population of Tel Aviv to starve what would the reaction of the world be?
Plane loads of food aid. International pledges, military intervention to save the starving millions.
But when the Palestinians in Gaza are starving? You'd have to search the back pages of most newspapers to find anything (and mostly there isn't anything)
To get back to the main point of this Thread.
Most if not all Americans today would hang their heads in shame at the treatment meted out to the Native Americans. I believe that much the same thing is being done to the Palestinians today. Will the descendants of todays Israeli citizens hang their heads in shame in a hundred years time when it is too late to do anything about it?

ckristo2

ckristo2 wrote: »

Only once in the past 20 years did the United States even threaten to withdraw it's military and financial funding to Israel and that was at the start of the first Gulf War in 1991 because Israel wanted to join the coalition which would have caused a rupture with the other Arab allies.

Which doesn't change the fact that American funding to Israel has to be approved by each new administration, and that funding has to be justified as warranted. The US has traditionally viewed Israel as being an important security concern for them in the M.East, but that could change at any stage, especially considering the state of the US economy, and the trend to seek a relaxation of hostility with M.Eastern nations.

Congress in the U.S. is hugely pro Israeli. Every American president in recent times has had to pledge support for Israel. The media in the United States is pro Israeli and of course there are many well funded bodies in the U.S. (and Washington in particular) who's sole purpose is to lobby on behalf of Israel.

The US Congress is made up of factions of which the Jewish faction is one of the most powerful, since they have so many ties to the economic success of the US. But there are other factions, and the powerplay that goes on changes minute by minute. Most of the Congress believes the need for the US to have an ally in the form of Israel, since many of the other Arab nations have shown a determination to oppose US influence. Israel is a tool for the US to continue their own desire to spread their influence, and Israel can do their dirty work, with the US remaining untarnished.

The media is pro-US-Allies... Its not necessarily pro Israeli. The moment that Israel becomes a less important ally to the US, they'll be torn to shreds by the media. Just as the other longstanding US allies are given favorable reports by US media.

Take a look at U.S. foreign policy with regard to the Middle East and Israel's foreign policy. If you can give three main differences between the two countries you'll be doing well. (I'm not talking about the settlements which Israel would regard as an internal matter)

US foreign policy has been to dabble in M.eastern politics since prior to WW2. Israel is in the best position for the US to have a permanent base of operations, and a measure of influence in the region. The M.Eastern countries are the hot-bed for fundamentalist groups, and most extremist factions political or spiritual have come from that region. Which are naturally opposed to US influence.

I don't believe it is possible to deal with the humanitarian crisis that Israel has created in Gaza equally. First of all the starving people must be fed and the people who caused their hunger must be condemned there is no ambiguity on this matter.

Rubbish. Be realistic. The humanitarian issues will not be resolved until the fighting is stopped. That has been attempted in the past, and has failed each and every time. You're continuing to ignore what has been attempted in the past, and rehashing the same possible resolutions. Its not going to happen. Oh, there might be some relief, but a few months later the same thing will happen again.

Imagine if somehow the Palestinians had caused the population of Tel Aviv to starve what would the reaction of the world be? Plane loads of food aid. International pledges, military intervention to save the starving millions.

There are two major differences... Israel controls the borders which would allow more supplies to reach the needed areas, and secondly, Israel has a centralized government, and the food supplies would not be seized by militants.

There have been movements and pledges made to help the Palestinians. Many countries have donated surplus food, and medicine to help the problems in the past. The problem is that firstly Israel regulates what can be sent through, secondly, the inefficiency of the aid groups in Palestine, and lastly the different militant groups within Palestine which steal or distribute the supplies where they see fit, as opposed to what is needed.

But when the Palestinians in Gaza are starving? You'd have to search the back pages of most newspapers to find anything (and mostly there isn't anything)

Sure, because western attention spans are rather short, and we've been hearing about Palestinian problems for all of our lives. Just as we don't bat an eyelid when we hear of rocket attacks on Israel, or airstrikes on palestinian towns. Oh, people will bemoan the horror of it all, but it touches very few people to actually do anything about it.

Most if not all Americans today would hang their heads in shame at the treatment meted out to the Native Americans.

I think you're being terribly naive. I doubt most Americans would care as long as it doesn't impact on their lives. They'd be more concerned with tax increases needed to pay for any campaign than what the campaign actually was designed to do. Oh, there might be loads of talking about it, but I doubt there would be much actual actions done, beyond a few activists. Look at Guantanamo Bay... Well known facility, going against everything that American supposedly stood for, and while Americans talked about it, nothing was actually done about it.

I believe that much the same thing is being done to the Palestinians today.

I know you do. I happen to disagree with you. Entirely different circumstances.

Will the descendants of todays Israeli citizens hang their heads in shame in a hundred years time when it is too late to do anything about it?

Nope. I rather think not. They haven't hung their heads in shame at what David Ben-Gurion did with Arab cities, so I doubt they'll care one way or another. But then I rather doubt the Palestinians or other Arabs would have cared if they had succeeded in their previous military invasions/attacks on Israel itself.

ckristo2

It is clear that Israel enjoys a position of considerable privilege in the western world particularly the United States.
These countries tolerate behaviour from Israel that they would not tolerate from other countries (Serbia in the 90's, Russia last year in Georgia, Sudan in Darfur.).
Israel knows this and continues to abuse it's special status (Illegal land grabs from the Palestinians, the Gaza massacre earlier this year, Assault on Lebanon 2006 etc.)
If Israel did not enjoy this influence and protection it is unlikely it would behave this way.
In the late 1980's South Africa had not a friend in the world.
It was enduring an economic (and more importantly) a cultural boycott and finally had enough.
It released Nelson Mandela and began negotiations with the Black majority.
If Israel lost the protection and favoured trade status of the West and particularly America it is likely it would continue in the same way for a number of years as it does now.
However eventually like South Africa during the Apartheid regime it would begin to buckle and finally have to sit down with the people it had oppressed and enter proper negotiations.
I state again Israel is not the "Bad Guy" nor the Palestinians the "Good Guys" but the argument that is often put with regard the Palestinians:"If only they stopped the violence and put their own house in order then Israel would be only too happy to stop oppressing them." This argument can be reversed and put in a slightly different way back at Israel: "If only they recognise they stole Palestinian land during the Naqba and continue to steal it with settlements today. If they stop this and make restitution then maybe the violence against them will stop also."

ckristo2

Having met an Israeli friend recently I'd like to appraisise the comparisons in my thread with a few rather depressing contrasts:
1. The white settlers to the Americas generally did not hate the Native Americans. They tended to regard them as a kind of nuisance. They could be dealt with by trickery if need be but if that failed then violence would be generously applied.
Native Americans by contrast were somewhat awed by white culture and technology and many wanted to learn from the white man.
2. Many (but thankfully not all) Israelis hate the Palestinians and tend to deny them individuality and lump them together with their neighbours as simply all Arabs! there is a deep and very disturbing racism in the attitude of many Israelis toward the Palestinians as somewhat unsophistocated at best and even sub-human at worst.
Depressingly on the receiving end of this for the last 40 years many Palestinians have now started to hate the Israelis and all Jews in the same way.
Many Israelis are afraid or embarressed to declare their nationality when holidaying abroad, whereas the older ones would remember they would be delighted to do this with pride 40 or 50 years ago.
Many feel modern Israel is unrecognisable as the state many of them gave their lives to found.
This is in marked contrast to The United States where the consciences of the founding fathers were untroubled by their treatment of that country's first peoples.
These are important differences but in my view rather depressing ones.

ckristo2

ckristo2 wrote: »

Having met an Israeli friend recently I'd like to appraisise the comparisons in my thread with a few rather depressing contrasts:

I seriously have to wonder if the following did come from an Israeli friend, or rather you're just continuing to promote your views.

1. The white settlers to the Americas generally did not hate the Native Americans. They tended to regard them as a kind of nuisance. They could be dealt with by trickery if need be but if that failed then violence would be generously applied.
Native Americans by contrast were somewhat awed by white culture and technology and many wanted to learn from the white man.

This point makes a reference to the Native Americans, but no comparison to either the Palestinians or the Israeli's. Perhaps you'd like to draw one?

2. Many (but thankfully not all) Israelis hate the Palestinians and tend to deny them individuality and lump them together with their neighbours as simply all Arabs! there is a deep and very disturbing racism in the attitude of many Israelis toward the Palestinians as somewhat unsophistocated at best and even sub-human at worst.

And it wouldn't be 60 years of warfare that might have turned these Israeli's and Arabs to hate each others race? Stop being so one-sided. This region has been experiencing almost continuous warfare since the 40's. Both Israeli's and Arabs have died, and the families/friends of those who have died have learned to hate the enemy.

And you're blind sighting yourself if you believe Israeli's are the only ones doing this. As I said at the beginning of this thread, the first time you raised this kind of thing, that all peoples tend to demonise their enemies. Dehumanise them because that makes them easier to keep down or kill. Every country, every organisation, every people use propaganda about their enemies.

Depressingly on the receiving end of this for the last 40 years many Palestinians have now started to hate the Israelis and all Jews in the same way.

Ridiculous. So Palestinians never once attacked Israel for any other reason than self-defense? After 60 years, Palestinians are only now starting to hate Jews? Really..... Thats an amazing insight. I guess all those attacks in the past were done in a practical, logical, and unemotional manner.

Many Israelis are afraid or embarressed to declare their nationality when holidaying abroad, whereas the older ones would remember they would be delighted to do this with pride 40 or 50 years ago.

I spent a year living in a Hostel in Brisbane, Australia and met many Israeli's during that time. None of them hid their nationality or were ashamed of their heritage. I still have friends from that period, who had served with the Israeli armed forces, and while they might not approve of their governments actions, they were proud to be Jewish & Israeli. Same with Israeli's I've met in Ireland, France, Germany, China, Russia, etc. :rolleyes:

Many feel modern Israel is unrecognisable as the state many of them gave their lives to found.

Well, of course, since at the founding of their state nobody could have guess that 60 years of warfare both conventional and guerrilla would occur. The last 6 decades have molded a different population. A harder population more used to long-term hardship that they were used to. WW2 lasted roughly 6 years. This conflict has gone on more than 10 times that.

Its worth noting that if they gave their lives to found the nation, then they're not around to be disappointed. Giving their lives, means they're dead. have you been holding seances to find out what the feel? (dunno the spelling... speaking to the dead and all that?)

This is in marked contrast to The United States where the consciences of the founding fathers were untroubled by their treatment of that country's first peoples.

And the US has stood by their founding principles? Again, more rubbish. Discrimination based on colour & sex (and sexual orientation) overthrowing legitimate foreign governments, financial support to Terrorists, torture camps, kidnapping, imprisonment of innocents, scandals which shook their administrations many times, etc. Hell, I wonder how happy the founding fathers would have been with the US supply chemical weapons to Saddam?

You're buying into the propaganda. The fairy tale of a Camelot. It is an image that is projected but the reality is always a far cry from the fantasy.

These are important differences but in my view rather depressing ones.

Important differences? You are joking, right?

ckristo2

ckristo2 wrote:

I state again Israel is not the "Bad Guy" nor the Palestinians the "Good Guys"

Now this is from your post. I'm going to dig a little deeper with you about this. Now re-read your post above, and then my responses, and lastly read the above quote. i.e. "I state again Israel is not the "Bad Guy" nor the Palestinians the "Good Guys""

Now can you honestly tell me that you don't believe that the Israeli's are the Bad Guys and the Palestinians/Arabs to be the "Good Guys".. cause you're so biased you're set to fall out the window.

You might throw out balancers which suggest that some Israeli's are OK, but then you will follow up with a '"but" or "many others" which discounts your previous assertion. So, be honest. You believe that Israel is always going to be in the wrong, and Palestinians/Arabs to be in the right. The circumstances which led to the present situation don't really matter to you. All you can see is the actions of Israel over the last decade, and that's all your mind is willing to acknowledge.

That's fine. I have no real problem with that. I just have a problem with you dressing it up as something else. If you want to promote a Palestinian sympathy thread keep it to the politics forum. If you want an intelligent debate, then post here, but please keep the crap like the above post out... I think that's fair enough, don't you?

ckristo2

Yes the opinions I have given came from an Israeli journalist.
And yes I don't believe that a whole nation can be called Bad Guys (or Good Guys either for that matter )
But nations can from time to time commit injustices or allow them to be committed in their name. I believe the theft of Palestinian land is an injustice pure and simple.
I have no evidence that israel has ever attempted to return any of the territory it took in the Naqba of 1948 nor the land subsequently taken after 1967.
All the agreements signed with the Palestinian authority were loaded in Israel's favour and Israel broke all of them anyway.
No of course every Israeli citizen is not a "Bad Guy." But on the issue of the Palestinians the state of Israel has done a bad thing.

ckristo2

ckristo2 wrote: »

Yes the opinions I have given came from an Israeli journalist.
And yes I don't believe that a whole nation can be called Bad Guys (or Good Guys either for that matter )
But nations can from time to time commit injustices or allow them to be committed in their name. I believe the theft of Palestinian land is an injustice pure and simple.
I have no evidence that israel has ever attempted to return any of the territory it took in the Naqba of 1948 nor the land subsequently taken after 1967.
All the agreements signed with the Palestinian authority were loaded in Israel's favour and Israel broke all of them anyway.
No of course every Israeli citizen is not a "Bad Guy." But on the issue of the Palestinians the state of Israel has done a bad thing.

You haven't even responded to what I posted above. This is the reason I stopped posting to the politics board. This blind devotion to the injustice done to the Palestinians, with no capacity to see anything but Israel as being "bad". And don't try to tell me that you don't feel that way, because both of your last posts show it quite clearly. It would have been nice to get a decent debate going, rather than just another fanatic... :rolleyes:

ckristo2

Only as a last resort do I believe it is necessary to depart from the thread to deliver a personal message.
Too often in my opinion do I see threads on Boards degenerate into personal squabbles where the original point of the argument is lost.
However as you ask me in such a direct way I feel I must respond.
Firstly I genuinely don't understand why you seem angry. I believe it is possible to engage in a debate where one believes in the arguments one makes even with passion without becoming angry.
Secondly I suppose I have as you said "Dressed Up" my arguments about Israel's policy toward the Palestinians with the comparison with the Native Americans but I have returned again and again to the central point that what the state of Israel has done to the Palestinian people is an injustice.
It would be a trite argument to say that the Israelies are always wrong or the Palestinians are always right. I have not attempted to make this argument.
However in the case of a dispossed people who have lost most of their land and live as virtual prisoners in what's left of it on the one hand and the state that took that land and is now living on the best of it and treating the disposssed in an appalling fashion in that case I believe the words right and wrong can be understood to have real meaning and truth.
There are many good things about the Israeli people. There are many good people who are it's citizens and I am fortunate enough to count some of them as my friends.
On the other hand I would not want to live in a society that draws it's laws solely from a strict interpretation of the Quran nor be a woman living under the Hamas regime in Gaza.
So there are both good and bad aspects of both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples and their societies.
However I must still return again and state that what Israel has done (and indeed is doing right now as I write this) in stealing Palestinian land and water and pretty much any resources they want, from the Palestinians is simply wrong.

ckristo2

ckristo2 wrote: »

Only as a last resort do I believe it is necessary to depart from the thread to deliver a personal message.
Too often in my opinion do I see threads on Boards degenerate into personal squabbles where the original point of the argument is lost.However as you ask me in such a direct way I feel I must respond.

You have already moved away from the thread you started to deliver a personal message. You've thrown out plenty of opinions about Israeli's and Palestinians without any comparisons to the Native Americans.

As for me asking in a direct way, I have done so before without much success.

Firstly I genuinely don't understand why you seem angry. I believe it is possible to engage in a debate where one believes in the arguments one makes even with passion without becoming angry.

Angry? Nope. If I was angry I'd have placed a few :mad: in the thread. Annoyed and a little disappointed.. yes. Let me give you an example. You still haven't learned how to use the quote system. Even though I showed you the code, you don't have the interest to put 3 minutes into learning how to use it. Its one of the easiest things when posting to boards, but you can't be bothered to use it.

Secondly I suppose I have as you said "Dressed Up" my arguments about Israel's policy toward the Palestinians with the comparison with the Native Americans but I have returned again and again to the central point that what the state of Israel has done to the Palestinian people is an injustice.

True, you have. You just haven't said anything really beyond that. Palestinians are victims. Pure and simple. Like your post below...

"Depressingly on the receiving end of this for the last 40 years many Palestinians have now started to hate the Israelis and all Jews in the same way."

Can you honestly say "I suppose I am" to dressing things up?

It would be a trite argument to say that the Israelies are always wrong or the Palestinians are always right. I have not attempted to make this argument.

Hmm.... so by only posting about what Palestinians have done right, and only by posting about what Israel has done wrong, you're not...?

Seriously, you haven't really acknowledged any of the points I made about Hamas's Corruption, or the lack of desire to give up their power. Instead the only points to make are ones which center around Israel taking land or the grave injustice done to Palestinians. Hell, even the manner of hatred in the M.East is tuned down so that the Israeli's are racists, and the poor Arabs are only now starting to respond. :rolleyes:

However in the case of a dispossed people who have lost most of their land and live as virtual prisoners in what's left of it on the one hand and the state that took that land and is now living on the best of it and treating the disposssed in an appalling fashion in that case I believe the words right and wrong can be understood to have real meaning and truth.

Sure, if that was the only reason... But in every war there are the conquered and the victors. Territory is taken and held. And if the war is continued in the form of militant/paramilitary resistance then the occupation would continue indefinitely.

I'm not seeking justify the grabbing of land by Israel. Its completely wrong, and shouldn't have occurred. At the same time, I'm not excusing the Palestinian resistance and the Arab attacks which just encouraged the occupation of lands by the Israeli's. In fact, Israel took lands from the other Arab nations which they themselves had taken from Palestine.

If you're interested in real meaning and truth you have to look beyond the obvious injustices, and apply them equally to both Israel & Palestine. Nothing I have seen from your posting even comes close to that though.

There are many good things about the Israeli people. There are many good people who are it's citizens and I am fortunate enough to count some of them as my friends.

Forget about the few or the minority. When you say Palestinian you're talking about most Palestinians. Same with Israeli. Using the whole "many" thing is just a qualification to justify the next sentence.

However I must still return again and state that what Israel has done (and indeed is doing right now as I write this) in stealing Palestinian land and water and pretty much any resources they want, from the Palestinians is simply wrong.

Wrong, but it happens. Palestinians have right from the beginning have set themselves up to be the enemies of Israel. Just as the Israeli's have done the same. The only difference is that the Jews won the major battles. Otherwise the roles would be reversed, and it would be the Jews living in such conditions, or are you really going to tell me that the Arabs would treat them any better? In fact... The only reason that a Palestinian State is possible is because of the existence of Israel. Simply put the other Arab nations were against the creation of Palestine, and would (and did for over 10 years) have swallowed up that territory.

But the problem here is your inability to understand/accept that Palestinians will not regain their land through violence. It is not going to happen. More likely they will continue to lose more lands/resources, and even more importantly people will continue to die.

Its admirable in a way that you concern yourself with the injustice of it all but its not a balanced viewpoint. You're not interested in resolving the injustices to both peoples, but rather focus on a single side. And that's a major issue, because settlement of this region cannot happen as long as people focus on only one aspect. The needs of both nations must be addressed otherwise conflict will continue.

ckristo2

Deleted User wrote: »

You have already moved away from the thread you started to deliver a personal message. You've thrown out plenty of opinions about Israeli's and Palestinians without any comparisons to the Native Americans.

As for me asking in a direct way, I have done so before without much success.



Angry? Nope. If I was angry I'd have placed a few :mad: in the thread. Annoyed and a little disappointed.. yes. Let me give you an example. You still haven't learned how to use the quote system. Even though I showed you the code, you don't have the interest to put 3 minutes into learning how to use it. Its one of the easiest things when posting to boards, but you can't be bothered to use it.

Hope this works...



True, you have. You just haven't said anything really beyond that. Palestinians are victims. Pure and simple. Like your post below...

"Depressingly on the receiving end of this for the last 40 years many Palestinians have now started to hate the Israelis and all Jews in the same way."

Can you honestly say "I suppose I am" to dressing things up?

Read my opening post for the comparisons...I can give some more. The massacres at Wounded Knee in 1890 and Sand Creek in 1864 with Gaza in 2009. Well armed soldiers entered Native America settlements to disarm warriors when the warriors objected the soldiers shot through the women and children in the gun fight. Reports following the massacres spoke of the "Hostile Braves" hiding behind the women and children...shades of "Human Shields" in Gaza?




Hmm.... so by only posting about what Palestinians have done right, and only by posting about what Israel has done wrong, you're not...?



Seriously, you haven't really acknowledged any of the points I made about Hamas's Corruption, or the lack of desire to give up their power. Instead the only points to make are ones which center around Israel taking land or the grave injustice done to Palestinians. Hell, even the manner of hatred in the M.East is tuned down so that the Israeli's are racists, and the poor Arabs are only now starting to respond. :rolleyes:

Yes sadly some Arabs and Muslims also hate the Israelis but if you come to someone's land and take it from them can you be surprised if they hate you for it?



Sure, if that was the only reason... But in every war there are the conquered and the victors. Territory is taken and held. And if the war is continued in the form of militant/paramilitary resistance then the occupation would continue indefinitely.

I'm not sure what this means. I'm arguing from a moral point of view. Israel has and continues to perpetrate an injustice against the Palestinians.

I'm not seeking justify the grabbing of land by Israel. Its completely wrong, and shouldn't have occurred. At the same time, I'm not excusing the Palestinian resistance and the Arab attacks which just encouraged the occupation of lands by the Israeli's. In fact, Israel took lands from the other Arab nations which they themselves had taken from Palestine.

The second greatest obstacle to a just settlement to the Palestinian problem often is the other Arab states themselves.
The Palestinians face the extinction of their nation, I am against violence but I can understand why some of them have chosen to fight. The intellectual arguments of the late Edward Said, campaigns by high profile award winning journalists like John Pilger and Robert Fisk, the winning of a democratic election by Hamas in 2006, all have been ignored by Israel (and sadly by the rest of the world) when you try everything and it is flung back in your face then where do you go?

If you're interested in real meaning and truth you have to look beyond the obvious injustices, and apply them equally to both Israel & Palestine. Nothing I have seen from your posting even comes close to that though.

Surely choosing to "look beyond the obvious injustices" is like "evil can succeed if good people choose to do nothing."
I choose not to look beyond any injustice obvious or otherwise. Will you join me?
This is not a conflict between equals. It is a hugely powerful nation attempting (and sadly succeeding) in destroying a much smaller weaker one. In my books that qualifies as an injustice. Not a war, not a conflict a wrong.



Forget about the few or the minority. When you say Palestinian you're talking about most Palestinians. Same with Israeli. Using the whole "many" thing is just a qualification to justify the next sentence.

Thankfully even in the worst injustice committed by any nation not all of their citizens were complicit.



Wrong, but it happens. Palestinians have right from the beginning have set themselves up to be the enemies of Israel. Just as the Israeli's have done the same. The only difference is that the Jews won the major battles. Otherwise the roles would be reversed, and it would be the Jews living in such conditions, or are you really going to tell me that the Arabs would treat them any better? In fact... The only reason that a Palestinian State is possible is because of the existence of Israel. Simply put the other Arab nations were against the creation of Palestine, and would (and did for over 10 years) have swallowed up that territory.

Yes about 150 years ago it was the Jews who were the underdog in the Turkish province of Palestine . Today they are the top dog but why do they have to treat their neighbours in such an appalling way?

But the problem here is your inability to understand/accept that Palestinians will not regain their land through violence. It is not going to happen. More likely they will continue to lose more lands/resources, and even more importantly people will continue to die.

The Jews established their country and maintain it through violence.

Its admirable in a way that you concern yourself with the injustice of it all but its not a balanced viewpoint. You're not interested in resolving the injustices to both peoples, but rather focus on a single side. And that's a major issue, because settlement of this region cannot happen as long as people focus on only one aspect. The needs of both nations must be addressed otherwise conflict will continue.

The Israeli state is today attempting to extinguish the Palestinian nation.
If it were the other way round I would be pointing out the injustices against the Israeli nation.

Ok here goes i hope this all works out

carlybabe1

ckristo2 wrote: »

1. Both had their land taken away from them..

2. ..By settlers from abroad..

3. Whose justification was often religious: (Manifest Destiny/God gave us
this Land)...

4...And their superior attitude to the natives: (Those Indians/Arabs/irish are
lazy/ drunken louts
While we drained swamps, cultivated deserts,worked them from dawn till dusk cultivating potato crops/ they just sat around)

5.Both have been defeated militarily and been driven into reservations or
land/ drove them to less fertile ground where its much harder to cultivate crops, which in turn left them with no way of paying rent for land which was (lets face it) really their own, while we gave the good land to our own bretheren/
reserved for Arabs.

6. Both have been subjected to "engineered hunger" as the settlers who took
their land then control the supply of food causing malnutrition and starvation/ forced them to sell the crops they could manage to grow, else they would be thrown off thier land and left to starve, and while most of them were starving, we shipped the produce abroad with little sympathy for the blighters

7. There was little support or sympathy from the outside world for the
plight of the Native Americans/Irish. There is little support for the plight
of the Palestinians today.


8. The oppression against them is cast as a security response by the
settlers: the British portrayed the Indians/Africans as uncivilised barbarians, (The U.S. Army drove the Native Americans from their land in
response to Indian uprisings. The Israeli Army demolish Palestinian
homes in response to terror attacks.

9. There was severe segregation of Native Americans in the U.S.Irish in Ireland, they were forced to practice thier religious beliefs in hedges around the country. There is
a practical Apartheid between Arabs and Jews in Israel.

10. There was no unity between the Native American tribes there are
serious divisions between the political factions of the Palestinians.

While I agree with your point, I myself am just pointing out that this behaviour seems to follow a general rule of thumb when a nation with a far exceeding sense of entitlement takes over a country they have no right to be in. It happens the world over, and has been happening, its why war was invented

ckristo2

ckristo2 wrote: »

The Israeli state is today attempting to extinguish the Palestinian nation.
If it were the other way round I would be pointing out the injustices against the Israeli nation.

Ok here goes i hope this all works out

I'm done. I can't be bothered when you won't use the quotes properly. Its as easy as pie, and still no dice. Bugger that.

ckristo2

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm done. I can't be bothered when you won't use the quotes properly. Its as easy as pie, and still no dice. Bugger that.

I guess I'm not that good with using the quotation facility on this site. Anything is as easy as pie when you know how to do it.
In any case my case still stands.
When the Native Americans were driven from their land and in some cases wiped out altogether the news media and communication tools we have today were very primitive perhaps human morality was as well.
Nowadays we might pride ourselves on being a bit more sophisticated and a bit more ethical (Though I have my doubts about that at times) -Than our ancestors but with regard to what is happening to the Palestinians we have both the information in the media (Albiet often filtered and biased) and the where withal to do something about it (Boycott and protest) but we seem happy to condemn the Palestinians to the same fate as the Cherokee during the Trail of Tears and the plains Indians during the massacres and wars of the late 19th century.
It is a moral and ethical question and deserving of some thought and reflection.

ckristo2

There is one problem with your comparison between the Irish and the Native Americans.
Today Ireland is an independent country with it's own economy, government, armed forces, seat in the U.N. etc.
Where is the United States of The Native Americans?

ckristo2

ckristo2 wrote: »

There is one problem with your comparison between the Irish and the Native Americans.
Today Ireland is an independent country with it's own economy, government, armed forces, seat in the U.N. etc.
Where is the United States of The Native Americans?

This just shows that you didn't read what I wrote. The only comparison I made with regards to Ireland, was in relation to the peace process and how Palestine will need to follow similar steps.

And the quote system is piss easy. FFS My parents can use it. If you can't be bothered to learn how to use it, (and it only takes two mins of experimentation) then why should I be bothered to answer you?

ckristo2

Deleted User wrote: »

This just shows that you didn't read what I wrote. The only comparison I made with regards to Ireland, was in relation to the peace process and how Palestine will need to follow similar steps.

And the quote system is piss easy. FFS My parents can use it. If you can't be bothered to learn how to use it, (and it only takes two mins of experimentation) then why should I be bothered to answer you?

You seem a little troubled today so I won't detain you long.
I will make three points.

1.With regard to the comparisons with the Irish and the Native Americans I was trying to reply to another contributor called CARLYBABE1.

2.Nobody has shown me how to use the quotation system.
If you sent me instructions I did not receive them.

3.I'm not particularly fond of this method of debate in any case, questioning virtually every sentence of a posting or quibbling with every point tends to confuse rather than clarify. We are not lawyers teasing out a legal document.
To me this is a simple case of right and wrong. You either agree with this or you don't.

carlybabe1

ckristo2 wrote: »

You seem a little troubled today so I won't detain you long.
I will make three points.

1.With regard to the comparisons with the Irish and the Native Americans I was trying to reply to another contributor called CARLYBABE1.

2.Nobody has shown me how to use the quotation system.
If you sent me instructions I did not receive them.

3.I'm not particularly fond of this method of debate in any case, questioning virtually every sentence of a posting or quibbling with every point tends to confuse rather than clarify. We are not lawyers teasing out a legal document.
To me this is a simple case of right and wrong. You either agree with this or you don't.

TBH, I cant see anything wrong with the way you are using your quotes, I've been reading through your posts, and I can decipher your point without hassle. So IMO, if some one is going to throw in the towel because of the way you post, then it sounds like an excuse to me. And I see your point about where the native Americans are today and how they are treated, however, you could say the same about the native Australians. They are treated worse than third class citizens.

carlybabe1

carlybabe1 wrote: »

TBH, I cant see anything wrong with the way you are using your quotes, I've been reading through your posts, and I can decipher your point without hassle. So IMO, if some one is going to throw in the towel because of the way you post, then it sounds like an excuse to me. And I see your point about where the native Americans are today and how they are treated, however, you could say the same about the native Australians. They are treated worse than third class citizens.

At least if he quoted the parts he was replying to, I could better understand his stance, and respond. And honestly, you haven' dealt with many of his responses, so you're opinion is a bit lacking justification. Its frustrating having to pick through his responses when this is such a detailed topic.

ckristo2

ckristo2 wrote: »

1.With regard to the comparisons with the Irish and the Native Americans I was trying to reply to another contributor called CARLYBABE1.

Which is why quotes are such a great idea! Avoid such confusion.

2.Nobody has shown me how to use the quotation system.
If you sent me instructions I did not receive them.

I have posted within this thread. Its hardly difficult, and could have been questioned the first time I asked you.

3.I'm not particularly fond of this method of debate in any case, questioning virtually every sentence of a posting or quibbling with every point tends to confuse rather than clarify. We are not lawyers teasing out a legal document.

If I disagree with someones post, I tend to respond. If you make 10 points in a post, then its worth querying all of them. When possible I've tried to keep your points together, and post one response to all of it. But often its not possible considering the subject matter.

Case in point being this post. Four individual sections worth responding to.

To me this is a simple case of right and wrong. You either agree with this or you don't.

No. Life is not black and white. Which is the reason we're having problems here. You have picked a side. Black. So white must be wrong. But both sides have messed around, and that can't fit into a black & white environment. So its ignored. So either you agree or disagree. There is no middle ground.

ckristo2

Hi This reply is for CARLYBABE 1.
Thanks for the reply. I have to say in all honesty it is refreshing to get a reply to a post I've written that doesn't read like an attack.
I completely agree that the Aboriginal peoples of Australia and to an extent the Maoris of New Zeland and indeed the Native Americans of Canada and Latin America have all suffered in the same way.
However. The point of this thread is that all the above peoples suffered their injustice in the past and to a certain extent the people who perpetrated the injustice have admitted this and apologised and in some cases have made restitution.
The Palestinians are having their land taken from them along with their water, resources and pretty much anything the Israelis can carry off.
This did not happen in the past it is happening as I write.

ckristo2

This reply is for Mi Viejo Amigo Klaz,
I will reply to the last point you have made 'cause that in itself will take up a good sized paragraph.
Yes I believe the injustice I have highlighted: The Israeli theft of Palestinian land is wrong.
I never said that the state of Israel is wrong in everything it does. But it is wrong in this point. (I think it is wrong in a few other points as well but we'll leave this for the moment) There is absolutely no justification for stealing the territory of another nation. (and continuing to steal it)
There is no middle ground in this injustice it's not like the occuption of the Golan Heights or the Sheba Farms.
There is no shortage of justifications when people do things that look a bit dodgy. But as you said in a previous post you are in favour of the U.N. resolution 242.
Which demands that Israel leave the territory it occupied in the 1967 war right now, not next year or in ten years time, right now, without conditions.
The fact that the United States used it's influence to water down this resolution so that it is not binding (The U.N. does not have to enforce it)
And Israel uses it's old tactic of "We're always available to negotiate but there is no one on the other side to talk to" or "We won't talk to terrorists" or "Yes We will talk but we want the U.S. to oversee the talks and they must go on for years and we reserve the right to stop negotiations or tear up any agreement if we want to and the building of settlements will go on during the talks anyway."

I could write a book about the bad decisions made by the Palestinians over the years (In fact I think someone has)
No they are not right in everything they do.
However it is difficult to see what they can do at this stage. they can't give anything in any negoiation because the have virtually nothing left to give that the Israelis can't take (or have taken) from them anyway.
If they renounce violence the settlements will continue to steal their land. If they continue with violence the settlements will continue to steal their land.
It's hard to see what they can do.
I'm afraid no matter how you look at this Israel holds all the cards.