Religion Of Peace At It Again

[MachineGhost]

However, the Palestinians (unlike the rest of the Israelis) have continued to be hemmed into what are effectively concentration camps, with people cut off from water supplies, arable land, jobs, health care etc.  The living conditions in Gaza are reason enough to expect that the desperate actions will continue.

Don't they feel like the Palestinians have brought those conditions upon themselves by refusing to co-operate with the Isrealis, who is clearly the superior power in the equation?  I don't know how you can possibly negotiate with ideological extremists, though.  They're just not willing to give an inch.

Also, I'm curious if the Palestinians ever target Israeli Arabs?  Are they indiscriminate or are they selective?

[WiseOne]

Well, the concentration camps happened first, which would reasonably cause the Palestinians not to "cooperate".  Not sure what that word means in this context exactly.  If they stopped all anti-Israel aggression I doubt anything would change.  I do think the Palestinians could learn a lot from Gandhi's approach, though.

Quick correction of the usual revisionist history.  In 1948, Palestinians living in Israel were forced out of their homes en masse, and had the choice of packing into camps or fleeing the country.  Some villages were flat out destroyed.  Other homes were simply taken over by arriving Jews who still live in them today and consider themselves as the owners.  For example, my mother's uncle chose to flee to Guatemala.  He & family (wife & 3 children) lost nearly everything they owned including their bank savings (which were also claimed by the Israeli state).  His home in Jerusalem was claimed by Jewish settlers and is still there.

Fast forward 60+ years.  The camps are still there.  I'd say the violence is not hard to understand.  Doesn't make it right - just understandable.

[clacy]

I hope Putin is as savvy as he sounds otherwise we're looking at World War III.  I think the USA should have a neutral position and stop backing Sunnis or Shiites of any stripe.  Maybe OBAMA! will do that since he has no balls for anything.

I totally agree.  Right now, it's impossible to tell friend from foe.  Obama has no clue what he wants his strategy to be.  He is a loud talker, who won't back up his mouth, so it's better if he just stays out of it.

And there's just as much blame to be placed at Bush's feet.  Frankly, if we could hit the reset button and put Sadam, Mubarak, Asad and Gaddafi back in place, that would be the most optimal outcome but their fates were sealed when Bush created a giant power vacuum in the ME. 

I'm ashamed to admit that I was in favor of invading Iraq.  What a debacle this has become. 

[dualstow]

But WiseOne, isn't that just part of the story? For the past month or so, I've read virtually nothing but the opposition (which in my case, means the Palestinian side, Gideon Levy, and likeminded Jews).

But along side the narrative of seized land (which I don't doubt), there is also what I have read for 25+ years: that many Palestinians sold the Jews worthless wasteland at exorbitant prices, all the while planning to return after Israel's neighboring countries made good on their promise to wipe out Jews in the area once in for all. Only it didn't work out.  Or do you not accept that? I believe in both the land sales and the seized land.

Also, British mandate hasn't been mentioned. It may be like PS expressed it (if I remember correctly), that the British gave the Jews land & access where they didn't really have to right to give anything. But that fact that this British Mandate existed means, that the Jews who were fleeing Europe (and earlier, expelled from Iran + Arab nations) did have permission for their influx, whether or not we see it in 2015 as a legitimate grant. And of course, it's been colored in our modern eyes by a lot of illegitimate settling.

I don't have my old books, but there's this. See, for example, the Third Aliyah: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... .80.931929

[dualstow]

Speaking about the most current events, since it's a bit late to move Israel to, say, a small part of Germany, I think that we will not see a solution in our lifetimes. Not even in Ryan Melvey's-- I'm picking the youngest member I know.

The Israelis could stop the settlements and cede land annexed in the 60s back to the Palestinians, and it would just provide more places from which to launch rockets and build tunnels, low-tech and seemingly harmless weapons that in reality make ordinary life a living nightmare. No peace dividend.

On the other side, if the Palestianians stopped their attacks, I can still see them being harrassed and delayed at checkpoints, and I would not see it translated into less aggressive settlements by Jewish extremists. Perhaps if one side was nice to the other for over 100 years, something would change. What is the likelihood of that occurring?

[Pointedstick]

Quick correction of the usual revisionist history.  In 1948, Palestinians living in Israel were forced out of their homes en masse, and had the choice of packing into camps or fleeing the country.  Some villages were flat out destroyed.  Other homes were simply taken over by arriving Jews who still live in them today and consider themselves as the owners.  For example, my mother's uncle chose to flee to Guatemala.  He & family (wife & 3 children) lost nearly everything they owned including their bank savings (which were also claimed by the Israeli state).  His home in Jerusalem was claimed by Jewish settlers and is still there.

Fast forward 60+ years.  The camps are still there.  I'd say the violence is not hard to understand.  Doesn't make it right - just understandable.

This is true, but leaves out a couple of key facts, like the one where the Palestinian political leadership rejected the UN partition plan and called on surrounding Arab nations to invade and kick out the Jews to prevent the establishment of any type of Jewish-controlled state in the area. The Arab nations answered the call and began a war to determine the owner of the disputed territory militarily. And for a variety of unexpected reasons, the Jews won, and founded a new country. I'll also note that those same Arab nations have consistently denied the fleeing Palestinian refugees citizenship, full participation in their societies, etc. It's quite a dick move: heed their call by trying for a land grab, then when it fails, piss all over the refugees your war created. Jordan, the one country that actually succeeded at gaining territory in that war, took the West Bank for itself instead of handing it over the the Palestinians. Later they handed it over to the Israelis instead of, again, giving it to the Palestinians.

Obviously this is all quite unfair for the Palestinian civilians who had no input into the political process and maybe accepted the partition plan, but this is just the kind of sucky thing that happens to people living in disputed territory in violent parts of the world, sadly. Had the Arab nations won, it could be Jews living in ghettoes around the state of Palestine.

[MachineGhost]

It sounds like the Palistinians have become the neo-Jews.  Why don't we just relocate them somewhere else as we did the Jews?  It doesn't sound like they have much to lose.

[dualstow]

It sounds like the Palistinians have become the neo-Jews.  Why don't we just relocate them somewhere else as we did the Jews?  It doesn't sound like they have much to lose.

Too strong ties to the land. It's where they're from. (Not that Jews are from Miami or anything). Even the ones born in Switzerland feel strongly about it.
(I don't. I just feel strongly about the people there. Would love to move every Israeli Jew to Alaska, like in that novel, or someplace. Not gonna happen).

That's another great post, PointedStick. Unfortunately, 10,000 people could write something similar on a daily basis and the majority is still going to believe and repeat something similar to what Ad O wrote: "They stole their land." No offense, but it's just an ignorant statement when written in isolation.

[Pointedstick]

That's another great post, PointedStick. Unfortunately, 10,000 people could write something similar on a daily basis and the majority is still going to believe and repeat something similar to what Ad O wrote: "They stole their land." No offense, but it's just an ignorant statement when written in isolation.

There is some truth to it, though. The inhabitants of the region were predominately Arabs and had been for thousands of years. There were some Jews living there, yes, but most of the Jews to arrive in the area came there after England promised to give them enough land in Palestine to build a homeland for themselves if they fought on the Allied side in WWI. And while this was a totally legit thing for the British to promise since if they won they would legally control that territory, morally it's somewhat questionable since giving Jews a homeland in Palestine would by necessity entail carving it out of the land currently inhabited by people who were not Jews and might not like Jews.

Now, it's true that this land was hardly a Palestinian homeland since it had been controlled by non-Arab Ottoman Turks for 400 years, but after the Turks were defeated in World War I and their territory transferred over to European powers, it was the British who let in all the Jews. Without that, there might be a state of Palestine with a substantial Jewish minority--or maybe that territory would be controlled by another Arab nation and have a loud and unruly Palestinian minority (highly likely). But it probably would not have been a Jewish country there if not the the British promising the Jews that they could live there.

[MachineGhost]

That's another great post, PointedStick. Unfortunately, 10,000 people could write something similar on a daily basis and the majority is still going to believe and repeat something similar to what Ad O wrote: "They stole their land." No offense, but it's just an ignorant statement when written in isolation.

Since we're ultimately talking about property rights here, was all steps of legal due process really followed in how the land was taken from the Paleistinians?

But one thing that struck me is Israel WON THE WAR. (!!!)  Where else do we have a similar situation where the vanquished don't accept their defeat?

[Pointedstick]

That's another great post, PointedStick. Unfortunately, 10,000 people could write something similar on a daily basis and the majority is still going to believe and repeat something similar to what Ad O wrote: "They stole their land." No offense, but it's just an ignorant statement when written in isolation.

Since we're ultimately talking about property rights here, was all steps of legal due process really followed in how the land was taken from the Paleistinians?

But one thing that struck me is Israel WON THE WAR. (!!!)  Where else do we have a similar situation where the vanquished don't accept their defeat?

The Palestinians had not owned the land in hundreds of years. It was controlled by foreign invaders (the Ottoman Turks) and transferred to the people who beat them (The British). When you're talking about wars and territorial annexation, I'm not really sure property rights and due process apply. It's "might makes right" all the way.

[dualstow]

The Palestinians had not owned the land in hundreds of years. It was controlled by foreign invaders (the Ottoman Turks) and transferred to the people who beat them (The British). When you're talking about wars and territorial annexation, I'm not really sure property rights and due process apply. It's "might makes right" all the way.

I think we're seeing that now as China's military might surpasses that of Japan. It will ultimately matter more than who received what island after World War II.
--

That's another great post, PointedStick. Unfortunately, 10,000 people could write something similar on a daily basis and the majority is still going to believe and repeat something similar to what Ad O wrote: "They stole their land." No offense, but it's just an ignorant statement when written in isolation.

There is some truth to it, though. The inhabitants of the region were predominately Arabs and had been for thousands of years.

Yes. Like I said earlier, I believe in both the land sales and the land seizures. I just don't think the statement adds up to much in isolation.

it was the British who let in all the Jews.
...
it probably would not have been a Jewish country there if not the the British promising the Jews that they could live there.

But that's what I wrote earlier. And, I also said that I can understand why that doesn't mean much to the Palestinians. But it does contribute to making the simple statement that the Jews stole Palestine far from true.

[dualstow]

... (earlier question answered by PS)
But one thing that struck me is Israel WON THE WAR. (!!!)  Where else do we have a similar situation where the vanquished don't accept their defeat?

Hey, I'm still waiting for Roger Waters to wage his BDS war on Japan until the Ainu are back in full control.

[Libertarian666]

Quick correction of the usual revisionist history.  In 1948, Palestinians living in Israel were forced out of their homes en masse, and had the choice of packing into camps or fleeing the country.  Some villages were flat out destroyed.  Other homes were simply taken over by arriving Jews who still live in them today and consider themselves as the owners.  For example, my mother's uncle chose to flee to Guatemala.  He & family (wife & 3 children) lost nearly everything they owned including their bank savings (which were also claimed by the Israeli state).  His home in Jerusalem was claimed by Jewish settlers and is still there.

Fast forward 60+ years.  The camps are still there.  I'd say the violence is not hard to understand.  Doesn't make it right - just understandable.

This is true, but leaves out a couple of key facts, like the one where the Palestinian political leadership rejected the UN partition plan and called on surrounding Arab nations to invade and kick out the Jews to prevent the establishment of any type of Jewish-controlled state in the area. The Arab nations answered the call and began a war to determine the owner of the disputed territory militarily. And for a variety of unexpected reasons, the Jews won, and founded a new country. I'll also note that those same Arab nations have consistently denied the fleeing Palestinian refugees citizenship, full participation in their societies, etc. It's quite a dick move: heed their call by trying for a land grab, then when it fails, piss all over the refugees your war created. Jordan, the one country that actually succeeded at gaining territory in that war, took the West Bank for itself instead of handing it over the the Palestinians. Later they handed it over to the Israelis instead of, again, giving it to the Palestinians.

Obviously this is all quite unfair for the Palestinian civilians who had no input into the political process and maybe accepted the partition plan, but this is just the kind of sucky thing that happens to people living in disputed territory in violent parts of the world, sadly. Had the Arab nations won, it could be Jews living in ghettoes around the state of Palestine.

The "National Museum of American Jewish History" in Philadelphia has a lot of very interesting information about the establishment of Israel, including the tidbit that the day the modern state of Israel was established, it was attacked by apparently overwhelming force from 7 Arab countries. The rest is history:

[MachineGhost]

But that's what I wrote earlier. And, I also said that I can understand why that doesn't mean much to the Palestinians. But it does contribute to making the simple statement that the Jews stole Palestine far from true.

I'm a little worried there's a double standard here.  It's pretty much the common law that finder's keepers when it comes to land use and ownership, especially in absence of legal infrastructure.  So don't Palestinians have a vested interest that the U.N. and Israeli's stole from them without just compensation?

[dualstow]

The "National Museum of American Jewish History" in Philadelphia has a lot of very interesting information about the establishment of Israel, including the tidbit that the day the modern state of Israel was established, it was attacked by apparently overwhelming force from 7 Arab countries. The rest is history:

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Not+so ... 244647.jpg

That museum isn't as popular as it could be - too much reading.  I'm only half kidding. I wish they'd made it more interactive, like the brilliant Constitution Center.

---
Well, I've been reading about the Palestinian who dressed as a journalist, complete with PRESS t-shirt, and stabbed an Israeli soldier. I'm sure the Foreign Press Agency is grateful for that. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 27,00.html

This, plus using ambulances to convey terrorists freedom fighters looks clever in the short run. Not so much in the long run, like when ambulances have to get through checkpoints.

MG: I don't even know how to untangle that question.

[MachineGhost]

Hey, I'm still waiting for Roger Waters to wage his BDS war on Japan until the Ainu are back in full control.

I have no idea what you're talking about.  Link?

[dualstow]

Hey, I'm still waiting for Roger Waters to wage his BDS war on Japan until the Ainu are back in full control.

I have no idea what you're talking about.  Link?

Here he is harassing my avatar - http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/02/22/al ... rael-riff/#
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_ ... _Sanctions

[Pointedstick]

I'm a little worried there's a double standard here.  It's pretty much the common law that finder's keepers when it comes to land use and ownership, especially in absence of legal infrastructure.  So don't Palestinians have a vested interest that the U.N. and Israeli's stole from them without just compensation?

There was legal infrastructure: At the time the U.N. got involved, the land was owned by the British (feverishly trying to hand the matter off to the nascent international authorities), having taken it over from the Ottoman Empire.

The Palestinian argument against the U.N. Partition plan was that there shouldn't have been any Jews there in the first place, so a plan that gave them any land at all was essentially legitimizing land-theft-via-immigration. And there's truth to this. However, this was weighted against the fact that there were a bunch of Jews in the region who had been promised land by its lawful state owner. Perhaps morally they should not have been there, but lawfully Great Britain had every right to allow them to enter and settle. I suspect sympathy for the Jews in the wake of the Holocaust played a role as well. Why not just give these guys a tiny bit of land?

Thus, a compromise was forged. Nobody liked the compromise, but the Jewish political leaders accepted it and the Palestinian political leaders didn't, instead inciting violence and inviting the militaries of established powers. In so doing, they agreed to roll the geopolitical dice. If you start a war to try to get more than you could from diplomacy, you have to live with the result if you get off worse than if you'd accepted the deal you didn't like.

But really, if there's a single simple statement that hopefully all sides can agree to, it isn't, "Jews stole their land," It's "The British cocked everything up big time."

[dualstow]

I know this is an awfully tough question, PS, but how would you resolve this whole situation? Let's say you're the PM of Israel. What, if any, sweeping changes would you make? One specific question: that unpopular wall that seems to have done its job relegating bomb attacks to mere knife attacks - keep it or scrap it?

[Pointedstick]

I know this is an awfully tough question, PS, but how would you resolve this whole situation? Let's say you're the PM of Israel. What, if any, sweeping changes would you make? One specific question: that unpopular wall that seems to have done its job relegating bomb attacks to mere knife attacks - keep it or scrap it?

Really tough question. What I would do is put the ball in the Palestinians' court by immediately ending the embargo and announcing full support for statehood for both territories. I would push for two different countries--Gaza and West Bank (or whatever they wanted to call them) based on the current de facto borders of the wall. With their own countries, Palestinians would no longer look like underdogs fighting against a big meanie. They would be fully in control of their destinies. It would also put the Palestinians in the awkward position of arguing against statehood if they didn't like the terms of the deal (e.g. that settlements had eroded the borders of the West Bank in the past). Since the entire rest of the world supports statehood, it would be awfully weird if the only ones who didn't want it were the Palestinians themselves. I suspect they would cave and accept the deal.

Once they had their own states, I would fully normalize relations, diplomatic status, and economic ties. Treat them like any other country. If state-supported Palestinian terrorists kill Israelis, that's an act of war and can be treated as such on the world stage, including getting U.N. approval for retaliation. If non-state-supported Palestinian terrorists kill Israelis, that's a diplomatic incident for the relevant Palestinian government to resolve or else they get some of their economic privileges taken away.

Once things calm down and life in the Palestinian states becomes peaceful and normal, the wall can come down.

[MachineGhost]

Once things calm down and life in the Palestinian states becomes peaceful and normal, the wall can come down.

PS for Prime Minister!

[Pointedstick]

Whew.  I do like your proposed solutions, PS.  But I don't think the Palestinians really want that sort of solution.  They really want dead Israelis, the more the better.

Well my plan would be a great way to find out, no? And if we discover that you're right, they'll have a heck of a lot less legitimacy and garner less international sympathy as domestic terrorist groups operating in an independent nation state that they can leave at any time then they currently do wearing the mantle of oppressed freedom fighters penned in by a hostile occupier.

[Pointedstick]

I'm also not sure what to think of WiseOne's use of the term "concentration camps."  Perhaps I'm just uneducated, but that doesn't sound accurate.

The hyperbolic term that I can accept most is "open-air prison."

[WiseOne]

Definitely the British deserve a lot of the blame.

One thing everyone forgets is that the UN's land division proposal put most of the water sources on the Jewish side.  The Palestinians couldn't possibly have accepted that situation.

As far as the "concentration camp" term, I think that describes Gaza very well.  "Internment camp" will do in a pinch.  If you get a chance to go there and see for yourself, do so.  My sister managed to do that by finding a Palestinian taxi driver in Jerusalem who was willing take her through the checkpoints.  That was quite a while ago though, not sure it would work now.

Also - I wasn't trying to describe the entire political landscape, just the untold story of how events unfolded from the point of view of the people who were displaced.  There will never be any shortage of arguments defending Israel's actions as history always favors the victors, but until the true events are acknowledged I don't see that anything is going to get solved.