|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Israel's troubles
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The journos are saying that the Israeli right (or some of them) basically want a total purge of Gaza, and a takeover of the West Bank. I think at the moment this is unlikely, as the reaction from other states, e.g. Iran, is unpredictable. Also, in some ways, Israel can use Hamas to its own advantage, although living there (Israel) must be horrible right now.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
[...] Which ethnic groups deserve their own nation-state and which don't? [...]
Problem with this is that, prior to Israel, there was no identifiable ethnic group called Palestinians. There were many ethnicities (Christian Arabs, Old Yishuv, European immigrants, Muslim Arabs, Druze) who lived in the Levant. Arabs also immigrated to the area in the early 20th century.
A Palestinian identity really got going after the Six-Day War. It's open to question how politically motivated its origins are. Zuheir Mohsen, leader of the PLO's Syrian faction, claimed in a 1977 interview that, "Just for political reasons we carefully underwrite our Palestinian identity. Because it is of national interest for the Arabs to advocate the existence of Palestinians to balance Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons. The establishment of a Palestinian state is a new tool to continue the fight against Israel and for Arab unity."
Many Palestinians wouldn't agree with him, and he was speaking over thirty years ago. Even if it's recent, a Palestinian identity undoubtedly exists now, and they have every right to a state. The realpolitik is that it won't come until groups like Hamas are marginalized.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Penny S.
The tunnels are a casus belli, and the Israelis have a list of them as long as your arm, and they pick one out every now and again, and sort of recycle them. The deeper reasons for the attacks will begin to appear in a few months, as leaks start to happen, or maybe sooner.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
The real cause of the attacks could be to do with the change of power in Egypt. The current Egyptian Government is not going to back Hamas and in fact are upping the blockade from the Egyptian side, which leaves Hamas unsupported in any peace talks. Israel could overrun Gaza and leave Hamas with no gains and no way out of this until Israel has succeeded in whatever it is trying to do now and then unilaterally enforces peace.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
[...] Both sides have blood all over their hands. Sure, Israel has a right to defend itself but it is by no means a liberal, cuddly state. It supported Apartheid in South Africa, it stood by while the warring factions massacred one another in Lebanon - in fact it actually engineered some of those massacres. [...]
Any nation besides Alpine microstates has blood on its hands.
Israel didn't support South African apartheid, it had an alliance of convenience with SA, which is what nations do. Britain and America, unenthusiastic about sanctions, were little better.
It's also run a biased court system in the occupied territories, destroyed Palestinian livelihoods without reasonable cause, and killed Palestinians without justification. The British were no better when they ran Mandatory Palestine. Occupation by a foreign power is inherently brutal.
What's striking is the disproportionate amount of criticism that gets hurled Israel's way, which downplays the threat it faces. You've highlighted just how bad Hamas are; far too many turn a blind eye.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The real cause of the attacks could be to do with the change of power in Egypt. The current Egyptian Government is not going to back Hamas and in fact are upping the blockade from the Egyptian side, which leaves Hamas unsupported in any peace talks. Israel could overrun Gaza and leave Hamas with no gains and no way out of this until Israel has succeeded in whatever it is trying to do now and then unilaterally enforces peace.
Also the Fatah/Hamas coalition seriously pissed off Israel, as they want Fatah as a kind of willing partner, seen by some Palestinians as uncle toms.
Collective punishment therefore? We will find out later this year maybe, as leaks start to occur.
Curiously though, it may have strengthened Hamas, as Fatah sit in the West Bank, allowing it to be riddled like Swiss cheese with settlements. Who would you want next to you in a war?
Of course, many Palestinians do not want a war at all, but maybe some are so much without hope, that they see it as unavoidable. But of course, they have no guns, well, not serious guns.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Also, we probably underestimate the fear caused by the way in which the post-colonial settlements are collapsing. The Treaty of Westphalia is unraveling!
Well, that's a bit extreme, but it's all pretty disorienting. Israel needs a new deal with Egypt, now that the Islamists have been ousted; then, crack down on Hamas; make Fatah crawl a bit; get some new shiny guns from the US and elsewhere. Result!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
[...] Which ethnic groups deserve their own nation-state and which don't? [...]
Problem with this is that, prior to Israel, there was no identifiable ethnic group called Palestinians. There were many ethnicities (Christian Arabs, Old Yishuv, European immigrants, Muslim Arabs, Druze) who lived in the Levant.
One could make the same argument with Israelis. There isn't a single ethnicity there either. There are Ashkenazim from central and Eastern Europe, Sephardim from Iberia, Temanim from Yemen, Karaim from Turkey and Falashim and Abayudaya Jews from Ethiopia and Uganda respectively. None of them had an Israeli identity until 1948.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
[...] Which ethnic groups deserve their own nation-state and which don't? [...]
Problem with this is that, prior to Israel, there was no identifiable ethnic group called Palestinians. There were many ethnicities (Christian Arabs, Old Yishuv, European immigrants, Muslim Arabs, Druze) who lived in the Levant.
One could make the same argument with Israelis. There isn't a single ethnicity there either. There are Ashkenazim from central and Eastern Europe, Sephardim from Iberia, Temanim from Yemen, Karaim from Turkey and Falashim and Abayudaya Jews from Ethiopia and Uganda respectively. None of them had an Israeli identity until 1948.
So why not do for Palestine what pro-Palestinians are constantly advocating for Israel; create a new country called Palestine in say Canada, or the US southwestern desert region? What is advocated for the Israeli's as fair and just must be equally fair and just for the Palestinians, surely?
Or is it only Israel that needs to be relocated to another part of the globe?
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
I think most pro-Palestian people recognize that the State of Israel is a fait accompli and are trying to negotiate a two state solution. There's no reason to mass-deport any group of people. There are plenty of reasons to remove the settlements, end the embargo, end the occupation and allow Palestine to develop as a sovereign state.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
So why not do for Palestine what pro-Palestinians are constantly advocating for Israel; create a new country called Palestine in say Canada, or the US southwestern desert region? What is advocated for the Israeli's as fair and just must be equally fair and just for the Palestinians, surely?
Or is it only Israel that needs to be relocated to another part of the globe?
Who is advocating that? All that is being suggested, at most, is that Palestinians be allowed to go and live as full citizens with equal rights in what is now Israel (i.e. the right of return). Nobody I know is suggesting deporting the Israeli population. Israel should never have been imposed on the Palestinians in 1948 but that's 66 years ago and trying to totally reverse that injustice would just create a new one.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
So why not do for Palestine what pro-Palestinians are constantly advocating for Israel; create a new country called Palestine in say Canada, or the US southwestern desert region? What is advocated for the Israeli's as fair and just must be equally fair and just for the Palestinians, surely?
No one is seriously suggesting that now. Though the rhetoric comes up because most Israelis came from somewhere else in recent history. In many ways the issues Israel faces comes from the fact that it's a colonial state stuck in a time warp.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
So why not do for Palestine what pro-Palestinians are constantly advocating for Israel; create a new country called Palestine in say Canada, or the US southwestern desert region? What is advocated for the Israeli's as fair and just must be equally fair and just for the Palestinians, surely?
Or is it only Israel that needs to be relocated to another part of the globe?
Who is advocating that? All that is being suggested, at most, is that Palestinians be allowed to go and live as full citizens with equal rights in what is now Israel (i.e. the right of return). Nobody I know is suggesting deporting the Israeli population. Israel should never have been imposed on the Palestinians in 1948 but that's 66 years ago and trying to totally reverse that injustice would just create a new one.
If by "right of return" you're referring to the surviving 1948 refugees, that might be possible.
By contrast, a Palestinian right of return that includes all their descendants (some five million) is a non-starter. Israel's population's around eight million. If it granted citizenship to five million Palestinian Arabs, so say nothing of the economic and demographic chaos, it would cease to be a Jewish state overnight.
No other nation is expected to naturalize the descendants of refugees. The real scandal is that the surrounding states in which they're born haven't granted them citizenship.
Israel was no more "imposed" on Arabs living in Palestine than the proposed Arab state was "imposed" on Jewish settlers. Zionists had been immigrating to Israel since the late 19th century. They bought land, just as the Arabs who moved there in the early 20th century bought land. Dividing Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, divided along existing patterns of settlement, was a fair compromise.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
So why not do for Palestine what pro-Palestinians are constantly advocating for Israel; create a new country called Palestine in say Canada, or the US southwestern desert region? What is advocated for the Israeli's as fair and just must be equally fair and just for the Palestinians, surely?
Or is it only Israel that needs to be relocated to another part of the globe?
Who is advocating that? All that is being suggested, at most, is that Palestinians be allowed to go and live as full citizens with equal rights in what is now Israel (i.e. the right of return). Nobody I know is suggesting deporting the Israeli population. Israel should never have been imposed on the Palestinians in 1948 but that's 66 years ago and trying to totally reverse that injustice would just create a new one.
If by "right of return" you're referring to the surviving 1948 refugees, that might be possible.
By contrast, a Palestinian right of return that includes all their descendants (some five million) is a non-starter. Israel's population's around eight million. If it granted citizenship to five million Palestinian Arabs, so say nothing of the economic and demographic chaos, it would cease to be a Jewish state overnight.
No other nation is expected to naturalize the descendants of refugees. The real scandal is that the surrounding states in which they're born haven't granted them citizenship.
Israel was no more "imposed" on Arabs living in Palestine than the proposed Arab state was "imposed" on Jewish settlers. Zionists had been immigrating to Israel since the late 19th century. They bought land, just as the Arabs who moved there in the early 20th century bought land. Dividing Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, divided along existing patterns of settlement, was a fair compromise.
If it were divided along lines of existing settlement then the Zionist terrorist groups wouldn't have spent considerable time and effort expelling Palestinians from their homes at the point of a gun to get their "Jewish state". No ethnic group has the right to ethnically cleanse an area of its population to establish an ethnically pure state. Israel shouldn't be a specifically Jewish state, it should be a plural state where Jews and Palestinians can live side by side.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Yeah deano, whack as that is, I s'pose it's more likely than Israel actually doing the truly civilization transcending thing to these barbarians. It's not their fault. They have no example in the Christendom that created this hell. Civilization is predicated on the myth of redemptive violence after all. Ayn Rand would be proud of them.
Ever read A Canticle for Liebowitz?
In evolutionary terms we need another 10,000 years for all this meaningless crap to disappear.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
If it were divided along lines of existing settlement then the Zionist terrorist groups wouldn't have spent considerable time and effort expelling Palestinians from their homes at the point of a gun to get their "Jewish state".
If you're expecting me to defend the Stern Gang, you'll be waiting a long time. Civil wars are invariably a nasty business. The cycle of reprisals did neither side any credit.
If the surrounding Arab states had recognized Israel and supported partition from the off, the situation could've been contained.
quote:
No ethnic group has the right to ethnically cleanse an area of its population to establish an ethnically pure state. Israel shouldn't be a specifically Jewish state, it should be a plural state where Jews and Palestinians can live side by side.
Israel isn't an "ethnically pure state." It has substantial Arab and Druze minorities, and has offered Israeli citizenship to every Druze in the Golan Heights. It is, unapologetically, a Jewish state, just as several European nations (Norway, Denmark, England) have Christian state churches.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Israel isn't an "ethnically pure state." It has substantial Arab and Druze minorities, and has offered Israeli citizenship to every Druze in the Golan Heights. It is, unapologetically, a Jewish state, just as several European nations (Norway, Denmark, England) have Christian state churches.
There's a mile of difference between a state religion and a state ethnicity, and it's Jewish ethnicity that's at issue here. The Israeli state doesn't much care if you're an atheist, so long as you're a Jewish atheist. The presence of a minority that Zionist terrorists didn't manage to exclude in 1948 does mean they weren't trying to create an ethnically pure state. Apartheid South Africa didn't quite manage to make all black and coloured South Africans citizens of the Bantustans but they had a damn good go at it.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
There's a mile of difference between a state religion and a state ethnicity, and it's Jewish ethnicity that's at issue here. The Israeli state doesn't much care if you're an atheist, so long as you're a Jewish atheist.
No analogy is exact. Judaism's long been recognized as an ethnicity as well as a religion. Given that the persecutors of the Jewish people didn't make any distinction, I see no reason to, either.
quote:
The presence of a minority that Zionist terrorists didn't manage to exclude in 1948 does mean they weren't trying to create an ethnically pure state. Apartheid South Africa didn't quite manage to make all black and coloured South Africans citizens of the Bantustans but they had a damn good go at it.
If Israel wanted to be an "ethnically pure state," it would make conversion to Judaism a prerequisite to naturalization, and denaturalize and expel all non-Jewish citizens; not grant them equality under the law, and offer citizenship to every Druze in the Golan Heights.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
If Israel wanted to be an "ethnically pure state," it would make conversion to Judaism a prerequisite to naturalization, and denaturalize and expel all non-Jewish citizens; not grant them equality under the law, and offer citizenship to every Druze in the Golan Heights.
As noted in many links on this thread, very high government officials are advocating just that.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
As noted in many links on this thread, very high government officials are advocating just that.
Which officials, and what specific policies? How much support do they have? Are any laws likely to pass the Knesset and survive a challenge in the Supreme Court?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
When the idea of a new Israel was first floated by Zionists they had consider Argentina but it was rejected because there was no historical connection with South America--and it turned out Argentina was sympathetic to the Nazis.
There had always been Jewish settlements in Palestine and there were no problems between them an their Muslim and Christian neighbors.
However, in the mid to late 40's when there was a mass immigration of Jews many of the Arab and Christian communities suddenly found themselves disenfranchised from their land.
If you looked at how that immigration happened the areas that were the more productive were seized first and gradually more marginal land was also taken. The Muslim and Christian owners in most cases were not compensated for the loss of their land. After the war 1948 these lands were considered abandoned and the owners did not even have a right to claim compensation.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
As noted in many links on this thread, very high government officials are advocating just that.
Which officials, and what specific policies? How much support do they have? Are any laws likely to pass the Knesset and survive a challenge in the Supreme Court?
Again, these have been posted by several on this thread. I'm not going to do your work for you.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
The Muslim and Christian owners in most cases were not compensated for the loss of their land. After the war 1948 these lands were considered abandoned and the owners did not even have a right to claim compensation.
The way I heard it, the Christian and Muslim land owners fled the shooting - wouldn't you? - and the new arrivals declared the land and houses abandoned.
I have a friend who lived in Beirut, when the shooting started she grabbed the kids and a couple suitcases and went to Cyprus for a couple weeks as a precaution, fully expecting to be back home soon.
But it didn't blow over, a couple weeks grew, a year later she moved to USA. If she had known she would never go back, she would have taken a lot more stuff, like the baby pictures and her jewelry instead of just a couple weeks of clothes.
She knows her stuff including her home is surely long gone, taken by others who saw it as abandoned. At what point have you abandoned instead of left temporarily? I guess the one with the most (physical or legal) force decides?
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Arthosemyfeet posts: quote:
Israel shouldn't be a specifically Jewish state, it should be a plural state where Jews and Palestinians can live side by side.
I couldn't agree more, and it really would have been helpful if this had been accepted by both sides in the 1940s, but while many Israelis were open(ish) for this, the Palestinian leadership was not.
Raja Shehadeh has some extraordinary stories of trying to establish Palestinian claims to property before Israeli courts (in his excellent book, Palestinian Walks). It is a great read, short of rhetoric and long on vision.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
No doubt that the Israelis were more open to it than the Palestinians. It's important to remember that prior to the 20th Century, there were less than 20,000 Jews in Trans-Jordan. However by the the 1940s, that number had increased more than tenfold. There were several Palestinian riots in the 1920s and 1930s in reaction to the high degree of European Jewish immigration, which was encouraged by the British.
What I don't understand is why the Israelis, who abandoned Trans-Jordan for many centuries deserve the land in Trans-Jordan, but the Palestinians, who abandoned their home as refugees during the 1948 war and tried to return home within decades have forfeited their right to their own property.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Not to mention that we can't ignore the fact that many of today's Jews might not be direct ethnic descendants of the ancient Israelites. Shlomo Sand in his book "The Invention of the Jewish people" argues that contrary to the popular understanding of Judaism not being a missionary religion, there is evidence of people converting to Judaism.
So, do Jews, descended from converts to Judaism, have as much right to the Holy Land as Jews descended from the ancient Israelites? If yes, then anyone who converts to Judaism should receive the same right.
Not to mention there is substantive evidence that many Palestinians themselves are descended from the ancient Israelites who may have converted either to Christianity or Islam. If they are descended from the ancient Israelites, then why do they not have a right to the land?
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Readers of Command papers are aware that these questions are not new and, indeed, were explored (but not answered) when the British were the mandatory manner. Their inability/reluctance to made a final determination was likely one of the reasons why they abandoned the Mandate.
They are no longer relevant questions (e.g., dynastic questions of the House of Nassau about 200 years ago are not really the reason why Luxemburg is independent-- it's now there and, whatever we think about the Salic law, we have to address it). In the same way we can only find a way forward by admitting that: a) Israel is there and is not going away, and b) the Palestinians are there, and they are not going away. As (IIRC) Rabin said a few years before an Israeli extremist killed him, peace is something to be made with enemies, not friends.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynnk
Apprentice
# 16132
|
Posted
From what I understand from Wikipedia and other sources there was no country called Palestine in 1967.So I wonder where the Palestinians came from?
The West Bank was controlled by Jordan who along with three other local country's and nine supporting muslum country's tried again to destroy Israel.Jordan lost control of the West Bank( not Palestine which didn't exist)when they attacked Israel even though they were offered a treaty by Israel.Palestine seems to have been invented by a terrorist group called the PLO and the machinations of the United Nations.
And so I wonder why Israel should give back a piece of land that they captured from an aggressive neighbor who fought with those who would drive the Israelis into the sea.
--------------------
Ok, Who washed the cat?
Posts: 22 | From: Tasmania | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
I think, LynnK, that Jordan assigned its claims over over the West Bank to the PLO. I think this happened in the 1970s/80s (can't remember exactly).
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
There isn't a separate country called Wales at the moment (and arguably never has been). That doesn't mean the Welsh don't exist.
[ 04. August 2014, 08:04: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
There isn't a separate country called Wales at the moment (and arguably never has been). That doesn't mean the Welsh don't exist.
Indeed. If an area of land only counted as a place when it had its own independent borders, then vast tracts of Europe should forever remain part of either the Austro-Hungarian empire or the Ottoman empire. By the logic being used here, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Montnegro and... look, I can't even figure out the Ottoman half of this equation right now... are all just fanciful recent inventions that didn't exist a century ago.
The truth is that the term Palestine dates back to at least the 5th century BC, and is used in the Bible hundreds of times in the form we normally translate as 'Philistia'.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yeah, but come on, 'Palestine' and the 'Palestinians' have been erased at the stroke of a pen. It's magic! Don't forget also the 'machinations of the UN' - I didn't think that people actually used phrases like this.
Literary genocide lives!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
This news story, if accurate, sickens me. The Deputy Speaker in the Knesset is proposing concentration camps for Palestinians.
On the other hand, this amused me - a proposal to relocate Israel in America. (Not sure if that link will work. Apologies if it doesn't.)
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lynnk:
From what I understand from Wikipedia and other sources there was no country called Palestine in 1967.So I wonder where the Palestinians came from?
The West Bank was controlled by Jordan who along with three other local country's and nine supporting muslum country's tried again to destroy Israel.Jordan lost control of the West Bank( not Palestine which didn't exist)when they attacked Israel even though they were offered a treaty by Israel.Palestine seems to have been invented by a terrorist group called the PLO and the machinations of the United Nations.
And so I wonder why Israel should give back a piece of land that they captured from an aggressive neighbor who fought with those who would drive the Israelis into the sea.
British Mandated Palestine existed from 1916 when the Sykes Picot lines were drawn, carving up the Middle East as part of the aftermath of the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Until the 1860s there were no Jewish settlements in Jerusalem - the Ottomans had driven them out in the Middle Ages.
From 1916 Jews started settling in British Mandated Palestine, which caused a lot of rioting by the Arab residents, something like 250,000 Jews settled in the 1920s and 30s. The British put limits on that immigration in 1936 following riots in 1933 and the Great Arab Revolt in 1936-39 (which also challenged British Rule).
British Mandated Palestine was taken over by the UN post-WW2, following the 1947-48 Civil War in Palestine (then a Jewish and Arab state) with over 700 000 Palestinian Arabs expelled or fleeing their homes. The UN founded Israel in 1948 which engendered the reaction of the First Arab-Israeli War in 1948-9 to prevent the UN Partition Plan for Palestine and creation of Israel, resulting in Israel annexing additional lands from Palestine along their joint border. During this period, post Holocaust, Israel was taking Jews from around the world.
Israel then took over Sinai in 1956 and invaded much of the current disputed territory in 1967 during the Six Days War: the Gaza Strip, Sinai (from Egypt), West Bank and Jerusalem (from Jordan) and into the Golan Heights (from Syria). The boundaries recognised by many nations and the UN are those pre-1967, which is one of the ongoing disputes. Some of those lands have since been returned to Jordan, Egypt and Syria, but that's some of the reason that Israel is surrounded by hostile neighbours.
And for those quoting "those who would drive the Israelis into the sea" have you actually looked at a map of Israel and Palestine? Which country is nearest to being driven into the sea?
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
This news story, if accurate, sickens me. The Deputy Speaker in the Knesset is proposing concentration camps for Palestinians.
There are actually 8 deputy speakers in the Knesset, Feiglin is notable because he also speaks for a very organised group of right wing politicians in Likud. He opposes the two state solution, proposes Israel annex most of the occupied territories - so you could argue that what he states above is just a logical extension of that.
[code]
[ 04. August 2014, 09:58: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
This news story, if accurate, sickens me. The Deputy Speaker in the Knesset is proposing concentration camps for Palestinians.
It's not as if Gaza is full of wide open space as it is.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Curiosity Killed
I'm not sure where you get the idea that there were no Jewish settlements within the borders of the British Palestine Mandate area.
First, long before the mandate there were Jews in Palestine because there were Jews who didn't leave. I have Jewish relatives by marriage who've always lived in Palestine - in fact for a few centuries they lived in Gaza before moving to Hebron.
Then there were the Jewish settlements on land bought by Moses Montefiore - the first of those was around 1857 and more were set up.
Then you had land bought by Jews who immigrated during the time of the Ottoman Empire.
The problem with the notion of 'Palestinian land' is that there wasn't much that was owned by the people who worked it. Within the Ottoman Empire there were huge tracts of land owned by absentee landlords; some areas were almost entirely owned by absentee landlords and much of Palestine was in this category. Even after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire much of the land was still owned by people resident in either Turkey or Egypt.
Your rather one-sided and inaccurate potted history of Israel neglects various things - for example the meddling by pro-Arab British officers, especially Glubb Pasha; the activities of the Husseini family, especially the last Mufti of Jerusalem who was an admirer of Adolf Hitler and a guest of Mussolini, Goring and Hitler. In fact, the Husseini family never left the politics of the area - Yasser Arafat was a member of the clan and knew him, growing up as he did in Egypt whence the Mufti removed himself in 1945 following the collapse of the Third Reich (he spent most of the war in Germany).
The British Mandate administration was definitely (and officially) pro-Arab: British army officers were forbidden to marry or have relationships with Jewish women and fraternisation by other ranks was also frowned on.
As for there being thousands of Palestinian refugees post 1948 because they were forced from their homes, this is rubbish: before the State of Israel formally came into being arabs were leaving their homes, as was reported to a UN committee by Jamal Husseini quote:
The Arabs did not want to submit to a truce; they rather preferred to abandon their homes, their belongings and everything they possessed in the world and leave the town. This is in fact what they did.
Yes, the much-publicised reports of radio broadcasts urging arabs to flee are not true. But what did happen is that letters were read out in mosques during Friday prayers from the Grand Mufti, from the council of the Al-Azhar in Cairo, and from senior muslims in Damascus and Baghdad.
As for driving Jews into the sea, for many muslims they would prefer something more direct - you see they worry that the Jews might be able to swim.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Had any other state meted out the punishment to a subject group in the manner the Israelis have in Gaza it would have met with immediate condemnation from modern civilised governments. That it has not been so is as outrageous as the act itself. The egregious simulation of Israeli spokesmen seems increasingly aimed at shoring up opinion amongst the Jewish diaspora, having already lost credibility amongst the overwhelming majority of the rest- at least outside the United States. South Africa must thank its lucky stars that the withdrawal of western support for apartheid saved its bantustans from the fate of Gaza, and its white population from not only the moral corruption such relationships engender but also a dangerously threatened future.
It is, however, not difficult to understand the predicament of Israel, established as an expansionist settler state based on ethnic identity and the dispossession of the local inhabitants within a year of Indian independence in an era of general global decolonisation, followed by civil rights movements amongst persecuted domestic minorities, notably in the United States. Israel clearly has been on the wrong side of these developments, which, compounded by the growth of mass politics in an unstable middle east, have posed threats to its raison d’etre. What else can it do but respond with great violence?
The question, of course, is for how long Israel’s present course can be sustained. How long will the USA be willing and able to sustain its support? As every Israeli and her enemies know, she only has to lose once to lose all. In that event we shall be deploring the destruction meeted out to her by those she now oppresses.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I didn't say there were no Jewish settlements in British Mandated Palestine, there were, the settlements mainly started during British Mandated Palestine, from 1916 onwards. What I said was that there was not a Jewish settlement in Jerusalem before 1860 - it took the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire to allow Jews back in.
The Palestinian Refugee problem is written up everywhere as starting in 1948, lots and lots of articles on it, which is where I got that one from.
And my point about driving countries into the sea was that Israel is pretty much doing that to Palestine now. Although the quotation is given as Israel fearing to be driven into the sea.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Why does Israel enjoy such enormous support from the States? (This has been asked before on the Ship, but I'm afraid I've forgotten the answer.) No President of any stripe seems to criticise her publicly. Certainly, if the USA cut its funding I think Israel would be forced into realistic peace talks very quickly.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Why does Israel enjoy such enormous support from the States? (This has been asked before on the Ship, but I'm afraid I've forgotten the answer.) No President of any stripe seems to criticise her publicly. Certainly, if the USA cut its funding I think Israel would be forced into realistic peace talks very quickly.
The pro-Israel lobby in Washington and the evangelicals who believe that Israel needs to rebuild the Temple in order to force Jesus to come back, to get rid of all them evil liberals.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Which officials, and what specific policies? How much support do they have? Are any laws likely to pass the Knesset and survive a challenge in the Supreme Court?
Again, these have been posted by several on this thread. I'm not going to do your work for you.
You got it backwards: it ain't my work, 'cause claimant bears the burden.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The pro-Israel lobby in Washington and the evangelicals who believe that Israel needs to rebuild the Temple in order to force Jesus to come back, to get rid of all them evil liberals.
Then there's the realpolitik behind the rhetoric: Israel's a stable democracy in a strategically vial piece of real estate. Of course Washington backs Israel, just as it backs the far more unlovely House of Saud.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Which officials, and what specific policies? How much support do they have? Are any laws likely to pass the Knesset and survive a challenge in the Supreme Court?
Again, these have been posted by several on this thread. I'm not going to do your work for you.
You got it backwards: it ain't my work, 'cause claimant bears the burden.
The claimants have done the work already.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
The claimants have done the work already.
Fair enough so far as it goes, links have been posted. If they're repeated, with specific claims, onus ain't on me to go a-huntin'. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Anyhow, no big, I'll respond if it shows up, if not, back to the convo.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrWaters
Shipmate
# 18171
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The pro-Israel lobby in Washington and the evangelicals who believe that Israel needs to rebuild the Temple in order to force Jesus to come back, to get rid of all them evil liberals.
A while ago I heard a theory that 95% of Jews live in swing states in the US (I use figure 95% as a symbol, meaning that they are an important. key demographic). Additionally almost everyone in that population votes which makes them extremely influential in the election circle.
Posts: 80 | From: Aberdeen | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The pro-Israel lobby in Washington and the evangelicals who believe that Israel needs to rebuild the Temple in order to force Jesus to come back, to get rid of all them evil liberals.
You err. When Jesus comes back it will get rid of the good conservatives, and the evil liberals will be Left Behind to face the tribulation, which will feature a particularly nasty war between Gog and Magog in the middle east.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrWaters:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The pro-Israel lobby in Washington and the evangelicals who believe that Israel needs to rebuild the Temple in order to force Jesus to come back, to get rid of all them evil liberals.
A while ago I heard a theory that 95% of Jews live in swing states in the US (I use figure 95% as a symbol, meaning that they are an important. key demographic). Additionally almost everyone in that population votes which makes them extremely influential in the election circle.
Making 'the Jews' out to be a monolithic voting bloc is going to do a grave disservice to the actual opinions of Jewish Americans.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrWaters
Shipmate
# 18171
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by mrWaters:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The pro-Israel lobby in Washington and the evangelicals who believe that Israel needs to rebuild the Temple in order to force Jesus to come back, to get rid of all them evil liberals.
A while ago I heard a theory that 95% of Jews live in swing states in the US (I use figure 95% as a symbol, meaning that they are an important. key demographic). Additionally almost everyone in that population votes which makes them extremely influential in the election circle.
Making 'the Jews' out to be a monolithic voting bloc is going to do a grave disservice to the actual opinions of Jewish Americans.
I'm not suggesting that they are one single voting block. However fact is that quite a lot of them live in states which are heavily contested between Republicans and Democrats, where sometimes every vote counts. Additionally I believe that Jewish population as a whole gives more political contributions than the average.
Posts: 80 | From: Aberdeen | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
As I understand it, Jews in the US vote overwhelmingly Democratic.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
