middle east

[mike777]

This reminds me....the USA is in a war, a real war...What does the other side want and why do we not just give it to them...... I must admit I have no idea what the "other side" wants so how do I surrender?

simple, they want us to cease being infidels, to live as they dictate... iow, to cease to exist as a nation

 

This reminds me what Israel must feel...just what does the other side want and have they not offered it?

see above

Ahh so you are saying they want a one world government where we all live in peace and harmony and we are not infidels..how bad can that be?

 

Is this not what that little corporal wanted?

[pbleighton]

"This reminds me....the USA is in a war, a real war...What does the other side want and why do we not just give it to them......"

 

Remind me again, which countries are we at war against?

 

Peter

[Impact]

"Under these circumstances, when your basic right to exist is denied (and as a race you have seen what happened), peaceful negotiation is not going to lead to anything except your extermination."

 

This is a nonsensical statement.  You are equating ongoing negotiation with laying down your arms, which I have never advocated.

 

Aside from the value judgment made in your first statement, just examine the position: one side takes as its base point the destruction and extermination of the other. If you happen to be the "other" oddly enough you might consider that not to be negotiable.- ie a concession that cannot be made so that you can live for another day. If the baseline mentality is maintained any concession is just heading further towards that ultimate losing point. So, until that fundamental change is made (and remember Arafat's Arabic commentary to his people that Oslo was just the start to destroy the Jews), negotiation has a very limited place.

 

"As for the "Right of Return" and compensation: ignoring for the moment the arguments about the basis and reason that many left (the arab armies sweeping all before them and the desire not to be in the way for some, yes discrimination against others...) it seems strange that the same arab states which scream for a right of return exercised all kinds of expropriation against Jews living in those states following variously 1948, 1956 & 1967 and there has never been any suggestion of compensation.....he who seeks equity, must first do equity."

 

You are completely missing the point.  I hold no brief for the corrupt (largely U.S. installed and/or supported) Arab regimes.  It is the Palestianians Israel must negotiate with.

 

So Israel must give to the various Arabs and palestinians but the Arab states owe nothing to the Jews - or indeed to theirown brethren?

Israel took in the Jews from the other states but the Arab states appear to take a delight in distracting their own populations with rages against Israel while providing precious little aid to their Palestinian brethren (withtheexception of bounties for the families of suicide bombers!)

 

The rest of the Arab world is relevant because, in the absence of a solution to the Palestinian problem, Israel will be subject to a nuclear attack.  This will most likely come from a terrorist group, since if a country did it, it would be subject to horrible reprisal (of course Israel will seek revenge in this case anyway).

 

This attack is possible even with a generally accepted solution.  It is nearly certain without one.

 

Israel's position has always meant that one decisive battle could mean its elimination - no matter how many wars it won. Nothing has changed.

Part of being a state is taking responsibility for your citizens and their actions: providing aid (financial and security) not to mention encouragement to terrorist organisations, and then protesting that thestate cannot be held responsible holds no water, and such sophistry should not be permitted to protect them. To such an extent even Dubbya can get it right: and it doesn't matter whether it is the Taliban in Afghanistan, Ghadaffi in Libya, Assad in Damscus, Sauds in Saudi or Ayatallohs in Iran. THe governments are responsible for their citiazens and what goes on and emanates from their borders.

 

It is interesting that neither you nor any of the other anti-Palestinian posters address either the above scenario or the historical injustice against the Palestinians in this situation.  The Palestinians didn't deserve to pay for Christian (culminating in Nazi) atrocities agains the Jews.  Now they (and the Israelis) are paying for this injustice.  If they don't work it out between them

they will both likely perish.

 

A few assumptions : anti- Palestinian and "historical injustice against the Palestinians".

 

In fact, although there has not been a Palestinian state previously (and certainly not an Arab one), by all means let them have a separate state.

 

On the side of history, you can trace the injustices fgor centuries, but there has been a Jewish presence in the area (and a significant one at that) for thousands of years. Admittedly modern Zionism dates from a much later period - but so what?

 

What precisely was the nature of the individual injustice of which you speak: 1948partition? Why is or was that an injustice?

 

You don't undo centuries or millenia at the stroke of a pen calling it "injustice". Every time a conflict has arisen in history, injustice has been done but you can't right all the wrongs or restore descendants to their origins without causing an awful lot of intervening injustice (but then again I don't believe in affirmative action either : as system which merely benefits current groups while paying lipservice to their progenitors).

 

Regardless of the rights or wrongs, prior to 1948 partition there was a significant Jewish population - and no reason why they should not be self-governing.

 

BTW if you check your sources I think that you will find that the Jordanians killed more "Palestinians" circa 1970 than the Israelis have overall, but of course that does not seem to count.

 

When you stack statistics of those killed you take a Western viewpoint conveniently to suggest injustice by loss of life: but it is only one side (the Israeli) which has placed the Western huge premium on individual life. In fact it is percisely that premium and point that they attempt to preserve.

 

Regards and hoping that a discussion can be kept cordial - and the premises considered with the same rationale that you might accord to different bidding systems...

Edited July 5, 2006 by Gerardo

[Gerardo]

I modified the message above strictly for formatting, no content changed.

[pbleighton]

"In fact, although there has not been a Palestinian state previously (and certainly not an Arab one), by all means let them have a separate state."

 

Disingenuous. The Palestinians had lived in Palestine for centuries, under various oppressors, the most recent of which were the British.

 

"What precisely was the nature of the individual injustice of which you speak: 1948partition? Why is or was that an injustice?"

 

No, it started with the the 1922 Mandate For Palestine, which attempted to cut out from Palestine a homeland for European Jews. You can read about it on the Internet, if you like.

 

"Regardless of the rights or wrongs, prior to 1948 partition there was a significant Jewish population - and no reason why they should not be self-governing."

 

Jews were one seventh of the population in Palestine. As a parallel, let us suppose an superior power occupied your country, identified an ethnic or religious group comprising one seventh of the population, carved out a section of your country, gave it to them, and invited all members of that group from around the world to move there permanently. Assuming that you were not a member of that group, how would you feel about this?

 

"When you stack statistics of those killed you take a Western viewpoint conveniently to suggest injustice by loss of life: but it is only one side (the Israeli) which has placed the Western huge premium on individual life."

 

Nonsense. This is essentially a civil war, with mass murder on both sides.

 

Here is another perspective on injustice, from the first Prime Minister of Israel, David Ben Gurion, a dedicated Zionist:

 

"Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: they think we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance."

 

Peter

[Elianna]

You must have misunderstood my intentions. I am all for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, but I am also all against negotiations with terrorists.

 

I believe it was Zionists pre-Israel who killed 200 at the King David Hotel with a bomb. When the terrorists become the country, what then?

Actually, it was the Irgun, who were denounced by many Jewish organizations, including the Jewish Agency (one of the most important Jewish groups in that time. The agency in fact helped hunt down Irgun members) The group that came into power in 1948 was the Palmach, and any more detail woul be another story.

 

Most "zionists" were appalled by the bombing of the King David Hotel, and that is why the Likud (what the political side Irgun became) did not come into power for a long time. Interestingly enough, it was a Likud PM that made the first deal with a Muslim power: Menachem Begin giving the Sinai back to Egypt.

 

I just wanted to point out that not all Zionists, just as not all Arabs or Muslims, are alike, even though many people like to paint all of these groups with the same brush.

 

Another note on that subject: most sources seem to place the number that died in that bomb at 91, not 200. And the Irgun targetted that hotel not because it was a resort site (as the name might imply) but because it was the headquarters of the British in Palestine. Of course, this does not negate the fact that most (if not all, I don't know this detail) of the people killed were civilians, and that this was truly a terror act.

[luke warm]

"Under these circumstances, when your basic right to exist is denied (and as a race you have seen what happened), peaceful negotiation is not going to lead to anything except your extermination."

 

This is a nonsensical statement.  You are equating ongoing negotiation with laying down your arms, which I have never advocated.

 

Aside from the value judgment made in your first statement, just examine the position: one side takes as its base point the destruction and extermination of the other. If you happen to be the "other" oddly enough you might consider that not to be negotiable.- ie a concession that cannot be made so that you can live for another day. If the baseline mentality is maintained any concession is just heading further towards that ultimate losing point. So, until that fundamental change is made (and remember Arafat's Arabic commentary to his people that Oslo was just the start to destroy the Jews), negotiation has a very limited place.

a very important point, and well made... so much so that i doubt if anyone addresses it

 

Part of being a state is taking responsibility for your citizens and their actions: providing aid (financial and security) not to mention encouragement to terrorist organisations, and then protesting that thestate cannot be held responsible holds no water, and such sophistry should not be permitted to protect them. To such an extent even Dubbya can get it right: and it doesn't matter whether it is the Taliban in Afghanistan, Ghadaffi in Libya, Assad in Damscus, Sauds in Saudi or Ayatallohs in Iran. THe governments are responsible for their citiazens and what goes on and emanates from their borders.

well said, but moot... when the government of the country in question is itself a terrorist organization, one which (as you point out) has as its core doctrine the complete and total destruction of israel and "death to all jews," it has no moral high ground to reign in anyone

[Impact]

"In fact, although there has not been a Palestinian state previously (and certainly not an Arab one), by all means let them have a separate state."

 

Disingenuous. The Palestinians had lived in Palestine for centuries, under various oppressors, the most recent of which were the British.

 

"What precisely was the nature of the individual injustice of which you speak: 1948partition? Why is or was that an injustice?"

 

No, it started with the the 1922 Mandate For Palestine, which attempted to cut out from Palestine a homeland for European Jews. You can read about it on the Internet, if you like.

 

"Regardless of the rights or wrongs, prior to 1948 partition there was a significant Jewish population - and no reason why they should not be self-governing."

 

Jews were one seventh of the population in Palestine. As a parallel, let us suppose an superior power occupied your country, identified an ethnic or religious group comprising one seventh of the population, carved out a section of your country, gave it to them, and invited all members of that group from around the world to move there permanently. Assuming that you were not a member of that group, how would you feel about this?

 

"When you stack statistics of those killed you take a Western viewpoint conveniently to suggest injustice by loss of life: but it is only one side (the Israeli) which has placed the Western huge premium on individual life."

 

Nonsense. This is essentially a civil war, with mass murder on both sides.

 

Here is another perspective on injustice, from the first Prime Minister of Israel, David Ben Gurion, a dedicated Zionist:

 

"Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: they think we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance."

 

Peter

Gerardo,

 

Thank you for correcting the formatting previously.

 

Fairly obviously, I do not know how to intersperse the quotation withmy comments to achieve the format. I request your assistance again.

 

Peter,

 

THe use of dismissive and derogatory comment such as "disingenuous" does nothing for your argument, but tends to be an attack on the man (as opposed to playing the ball - or merely ad hominem classically).

 

Your claim of "various oppressors" of "the Palestinians" is interesting.

 

Firstly, define your "Palestine": do you mean the British mandate following WW1, the Roman colony, Israel plus other areas?

 

Bear in mind that with the exceptions of the Roman colony and the British mandate, there has not been a single state "Palestine" - or any people who so identified themselves! The concept is a recent one - but that does not make it wrong - just don't try to wrap it in centuries of historical conflict. Otherwise you might as well say that various areas of the Middle East (or the Balkans or Europe or anywhere else) have been conquered and reconquered.....

 

Similarly when you allege "Jews were one seventh of the population of Palestine" - are you taking that definition of "Palestine" as the British Mandate at the date of partition?

 

The changing boundaries and carving up of areas into smaller groups ahs gone on for centuries: post WW1 rampant nationalism and self-determination. Post WW2 India and Pakistan andcontinues today with the continuing fragmentation of what used to be known as Yugoslavia (Monte Negro's separation from Serbia being the most recent).

 

It is a formula for a majority of people of a particular persuasion to obtain autonomy. Whether it is sensible, economically viable or practical is another issue. Pragamatism dictates that it has occurred as a worldwide phenomenon, and that we accept it.

 

If your point is that there is injustice in the form of drawing borders - you are right: there always will be whenever an artificial distinction is drawn. There will be injustice on both sides of the line.

 

If your point is as to strict division of territory on per capita basis at the time, again live with it: it doesn't happen. Every chronicle I have read suggests the British did the future state of Israel no favours in its division but I accept that someone will alwaysfeel disadvantaged.

 

As to your comment about "dividing off one portion of their country":-

a) there was no "country" extant at the time - if anything the "Palestinians" really were no more than Syrians and Jordanians (and let us not examine too closely Jordan and its antecedents !!) . Facetiously, they did not play football as a state, have a separate government or appear at Olympic Games. Realistically there was no single differentiating characteristic to argue that those living in that area were a separate people.

 

:lol: rightly or wrongly, it happens all the time: break-up of the Austro-Hungarian empire, Ottoman empire, USSR....it is the right of people to form their own groups and secede as they will. It may yet happen in another construct: Iraq. It is not necessarily progress, but self-determination is apparently part of human nature...

 

c) it is not as if the group annexed all the best areas or valuable economic assets - they certainly did not get oil (blame Moses?).

 

I suggest what really annoyed many was that land was sold to Jews at what appeared to be a high price for uncultivated and generally believed to be unarable land - which was then rendered arable. THe vendors moved from self-congratulation at their own cleverness to irritation that they had been underpaid. there are few things as annoying as humiliation - and watching your neighbour progress after you had the opportunity for decades but did not avail yourself thereof, tends to be frustrating.

 

I agree with you and Ben Gurion as to an understanding of their frustration but that does not make it right.

 

You might note that Ben-Gurion referred to "the Arabs" as opposed to Palestinians.

 

All sorts of explanations aside from religious ones can be posited: curseof an outsider, uniting your own impoverished populace against an external force, a perceived attack on Western colonialism, distracting your own populations from their own economic woes, support from USSR against a democratic/capitalist foothold in the area, remnants of support of Nazi Germany- and nobody really knows which of those and other influences and their relative extent was dominant or even contributing.

 

In any event, more than 2 generations have passed but if anything the positions have become more entrenched fuelled by money while keeping the Arab population in comparative penury - perhaps to keep their attention focused?

 

If I lived in comparable circumstances exposed to continuing propaganda I too might feel as tehy do. I can understand how and why they feel that way - but that does not mean I accept it as logically correct, much less their "solution".

 

 

 

Elianna,

 

One further point about the bombing of the King David Hotel which certainly fits a definition of terrorism: warning was conveyed to the British in much the same way as the Irish conveyed occasional warning to their victims in England, but the warning was ignored. That does not make it right - or remove it from "terrorist " classification as far as I am concerned - but there was some concern for innocent civilian population evinced, albeit insufficient.

[hrothgar]

Bear in mind that with the exceptions of the Roman colony and the British mandate, there has not been a single state "Palestine" - or any people who so identified themselves! The concept is a recent one - but that does not make it wrong - just don't try to wrap it in centuries of historical conflict. Otherwise  you might as well say that various areas  of the Middle East (or the Balkans or Europe or anywhere else) have been conquered and reconquered.....

Most of the "nation states" in the Middle East are an artifact of either Ottoman provinces or British / French meddling.

 

The issue of historic "statehood" is almost irrelevant to these discussions. I couldn't care less if if the "Palestinians" were granted their own state or (alternatively) this territory had been merged into Jordan or Syria.

 

What I do consider very significant is whether or not the traditional inhabitant of these territories were forcibly dispossed from their lands. In particular, its very hard to defend the Israeli ethnic cleansing campaigns during the 1948 war.

 

To me, the biggest regret is that the Allies tried to do everything on the cheap in this part of the world. I suspect that the world would be a very different place if some of the funds that the US tossed arround during the Marshall plan rebuilding programs had been used to provide compensation for the "Palestinians".

 

Pennywise, pound foolish

[Winstonm]

What I do consider very significant is whether or not the traditional inhabitant of these territories were forcibly dispossed from their lands. In particular, its very hard to defend the Israeli ethnic cleansing campaigns during the 1948 war.

 

By that same token, it is hard to defend the ethnic cleansing done West of the Mississippi by the U.S. cavalry and the early western settlers.

[mike777]

What I do consider very significant is whether or not the traditional inhabitant of these territories were forcibly dispossed from their lands. In particular, its very hard to defend the Israeli ethnic cleansing campaigns during the 1948 war.

 

By that same token, it is hard to defend the ethnic cleansing done West of the Mississippi by the U.S. cavalry and the early western settlers.

Of course there was even more ethnic cleansing east of the Mississippi.

 

To be fair those inhabitants did even more ethnic cleansing before Europeans ever arrived. They were not pacifists.

 

Which reminds me of all the ethnic cleansing the Saxons did, Celts, Slavs, Franks, Vandals, Huns etc etc etc.......

 

Heck did not the Romans basically wipe the Phoenicians off the face of the earth and then salt the ruins?

[Winstonm]

What I do consider very significant is whether or not the traditional inhabitant of these territories were forcibly dispossed from their lands. In particular, its very hard to defend the Israeli ethnic cleansing campaigns during the 1948 war.

 

By that same token, it is hard to defend the ethnic cleansing done West of the Mississippi by the U.S. cavalry and the early western settlers.

Of course there was even more ethnic cleansing east of the Mississippi.

 

To be fair those inhabitants did even more ethnic cleansing before Europeans ever arrived. They were not pacifists.

 

Which reminds me of all the ethnic cleansing the Saxons did, Celts, Slavs, Franks, Vandals, Huns etc etc etc.......

 

Heck did not the Romans basically wipe the Phoenicians off the face of the earth and then salt the ruins?

Precisely. In my view it can only be deemed "ethnic" cleansing when a sovereign nation attempts to annihilate an ethnic group - otherwise it is tribal brutalism which has been occurring from the beginnings of mankind and cannot be stopped from occurring over and over and over.

[hrothgar]

Of course there was even more ethnic cleansing east of the Mississippi.

 

To be fair those inhabitants did even more ethnic cleansing before Europeans ever arrived. They were not pacifists.

 

Which reminds me of all the ethnic cleansing the Saxons did, Celts, Slavs, Franks, Vandals, Huns etc etc etc.......

 

Heck did not the Romans basically wipe the Phoenicians off the face of the earth and then salt the ruins?

Its difficult to provide any kind of excuse for genocide.

 

With this said and done, most people hope that civilizations matured over time... Part of the reason that the Holocaust is considered with such horror is that a supposedly "civilized" committed an atrocity on such a massive scale.

 

It igenuous to compare the Punic Wars with 1948

[pbleighton]

"Your claim of "various oppressors" of "the Palestinians" is interesting.

 

Firstly, define your "Palestine": do you mean the British mandate following WW1, the Roman colony, Israel plus other areas?

 

Bear in mind that with the exceptions of the Roman colony and the British mandate, there has not been a single state "Palestine""

 

This was in fact my point. They are a people who have never been permitted to have their own country. This does not make their suffering and injustice any less real.

 

"Similarly when you allege "Jews were one seventh of the population of Palestine" - are you taking that definition of "Palestine" as the British Mandate at the date of partition?"

 

My "allegation" is from the 1922 census performed by the British. You may verify this easily, if you wish.

 

"If your point is that there is injustice in the form of drawing borders - you are right: there always will be whenever an artificial distinction is drawn. There will be injustice on both sides of the line.

 

If your point is as to strict division of territory on per capita basis at the time, again live with it: it doesn't happen. Every chronicle I have read suggests the British did the future state of Israel no favours in its division but I accept that someone will alwaysfeel disadvantaged."

 

This "realpolitik" is quite dismissive of injustice - "live with it". There is resistance to injustice - live with it.

 

You are also ignoring the elephant in the room - this was carved out not merely for the Jews in Palestine, but for European Jews as well. A mass migration was planned (and it happened). This was not something common in history, as you state it was.

 

"I agree with you and Ben Gurion as to an understanding of their frustration but that does not make it right."

 

Says who? You make a "screw it, that's life" argument, and then turn around and say that it is wrong for victims of injustice to fight back. This is logically inconsistent.

 

"I suggest what really annoyed many was that land was sold to Jews at what appeared to be a high price for uncultivated and generally believed to be unarable land - which was then rendered arable. THe vendors moved from self-congratulation at their own cleverness to irritation that they had been underpaid. there are few things as annoying as humiliation - and watching your neighbour progress after you had the opportunity for decades but did not avail yourself thereof, tends to be frustrating."

 

There was in fact substantial Palestinian opposition from the start. Your general attitude towards Palestinians in particular and Arabs in general is encapsulated in this comment.

 

"If I lived in comparable circumstances exposed to continuing propaganda I too might feel as tehy do."

 

This is totally ridiculous. Don't kid yourself. If you (or I) were either Palestinian or Israeli, you/I would be partisan, with or without what you dismissively refer to as "propaganda". Not necessarily extremist (many Palestinians and Israelis are not), but partisan nonetheless. As proof, how many Palestinians AND Israelis are not partisan to some degree?

 

Peter

[mike777]

Trying to get back to current day.

 

After Israel pulled out of the Gaza strip over one thousand rockets have landed from it onto Israel, pre 1967 borders.

 

Again since Gaza is a nation, firing 1000 rockets into Israel what do they want and why do not the Israels give it to them?

 

I would expect If Mexico fired 1000 rockets into New Mexico we would at least try and find out why and what Mexico wants and give it to them.

[Winstonm]

This was in fact my point. They are a people who have never been permitted to have their own country. This does not make their suffering and injustice any less real.

 

Where in the "Rules of the World" does it state that a group of people has the right to have their own country? What constitutes this group? Is it a common language? If so, then the USA should disband as the group of people who inhabit its shores have no common language.

 

Palestinians have no more right to a Palestine than the Israelis to an Israel - which came first, the chicken or the egg? Whose God wins? If the Palestinians want a country, invade Jordan - or kick out the Israelis and let the Israelis invade and take over Jordan. Then we could have a Jordanian crises - at least it would be something different.

[pbleighton]

"Again since Gaza is a nation".

 

Gaza is not a nation.

 

Peter

[Impact]

Peter,

 

1) "You are also ignoring the elephant in the room - this was carved out not merely for the Jews in Palestine, but for European Jews as well. A mass migration was planned (and it happened). This was not something common in history, as you state it was."

 

If you accept that people have a right to self-determination, they then have a state and they make the rules regarding migration/immigration to that state.

 

Your point being???

 

 

2) Utopia is the only state in which there is no injustice.

 

Every time we make a law, draw a boundary or any real or artificial distinction there are hard luck cases or those of injustice.

 

We would all love to see a world where it is not so - but it doesn't happen. So, one hopes that steps are taken to attempt to minimise the injustice.

 

3) You seem to feel that all Palestinians have been dealt this huge injustice.

I can understand that in the case of any who were forcibly removed from property or had it appropriated, but that is only a small minority on any basis that I have read - even giving credence to the more pro-Palestinian accounts.

 

4) You have never come to grips with the basic tenet that the Palestinians deny the Jews and Israel the right of existence.

On the other hnad you seem to feel that a minority (of Palestinians) alleged economic injustice outweighs the right to exist of the Jews.

 

That is an interesting view of "injustice".

 

5) When referring to the dispossessed you never acknowledge or have regard to the plight of Jews

a) who lost their land/possessions by being in the wrong part of partition at the relevant time;

:lol: who were dospossessed and forced to flee from the various Arab states in the Middle East over the succeeding decades- and a complete lack of compensation for those persons from the same Arab states who bleat about Palestinians (and which states benefited by expropriating property.

 

You might have thought that would weigh heavily on the scales of injustice.

 

Or is the real difficulty, that one tiny nation (geographically and demographically), actually provided succour and refuge to victims - while all the surrounding nations with far greater orders of magnitude of land and population declined to provide succour and refuge to the victims with whom they empathised?

 

 

6) "General attitude to Arabs": well, I'll take each person on his/her merits -regardless of background, race, creed or colour -or even bridge-playing (or denigrating some: card-pulling) ability!

 

However, if and when someone says "you don't have a right to exist", I get a little concerned and am unlikely to make of that person my best friend. Indeed a little wariness is in order: even if you're paranoid it doesn't mean they're not trying to kill you.

 

Fortunately, living in a nation which encourages tolerance of all, virtually any minority recognises it is just that, and unites in love of sport and general laissez faire.

 

I suggest your comment is - at best- unfair. At worst I could turn the tables and accuse you of anti-semitism, but I don't.

 

I don't know you. It would be unfair and improper to do so.

 

I am attempting to deal with arguments - and attempt to sway someone whom I see as making continuing emotional pleas to consider additional facts and /or premises in an attempt to convince him - or at least mitigate a perceived antipathy.

 

I request that you accord me the same courtesy, rather than ridicule or denigration.

 

 

7) As to partisanship: who if anyone can be totally unbiased?

We are all biased or prejudiced by our backgrounds, family inculcation and the knowledge that we have acquired and its sources.

 

If I watched and read "Greater Israel" propaganda thart would be no better than (pardon the pun) taking as gospel what is broadcast on Al Jazeera.

 

Proof of partisanship by reference to some undefined basis of the participants in a conflict (which for some is life and death) seems somewhat irrelevant. When self-interest is at stake there will always be a measure of "partisanship".

 

I suggested that I - as did ben Gurion- could understand or even empathise with another's feelings.

 

Understanding the source of their anger might help to find an answer but the mere perception of the reason for the anger is not a justification; it is an explanation.

 

There are undoubtedly crazies on both sides. No group is completely right but the implementation of any policy requires compromises THAT PEOPLE CAN LIVE WITH - not those that start from a premise of the complete destruction of one group.

 

No matter how moderate, that is the problem that any Israeli has to deal with - and I am obviously sympathetic to THAT problem.

 

regards

[jdeegan]

"When we took land from the native americans we could support 50 persons on the same land that supported one indian. "

 

Huh?

 

The best current estimates are that there were between 50 and 100 million Native Americans in the U.S. before European colonization.  By the end of the 19th century there were about 2 million.

 

Peter

:lol: The numbers are quite different and suggest some different conclusions.

 

Scholars have been able to correlate archeological evidence from Indian mounds (which are the surviving ruins of ancient Indian cities) and some surviving accounts from the very first 16th and 17th century European explorers (Spanish and French). Clearly, the Indian population of what is now the U.S. was considerably more than what the first English encountered in the 17th and 18th centuries. Some of the difference was probably the die off due to the introduction of Old World diseases (in Mexico we know from Spanish records that the ultimate die off there was between 80 to 90% in the space of about 60 years - 1520 to 1580). Farther north, without further incursions by Europeans, the damage from the Spanish and French expeditions was probably far less.

 

The other, controlling factor was the lack of domestic animals for food. Sustainable population depended on supplies of protein from the wild - fishing, bison, deer, antelope, etc. This is what accounted for the fact that by the early 1800's European settlers could support anywhere from 10 to 100 persons on the land it took to support one Cherokee - this is what concerned the Cherokee councils of the time. Cherokee lands at the time (1790) supported a population of an estimated 26,000 persons living their traditional lifestyle. The current population of this area is about 10 million.

 

The archeologists have found that a number of long defunct Indian cities, Cahokia and other Mississippian culture sites, collapsed well before any Europeans showed up in the New World. Depletion of local hunting grounds look like the likely culprit.

 

Bottom line is there is a lively academic debate about the actual Indian population in what is now the U.S. as of, say, 1500, but the evidence, to date, supports numbers more like five to eight million. This compares to a low point of less than two million in the 19th century and 4+ million now and growing at a rate much faster than the rest of the U.S. population.

 

Whites are now moving out of the northern great plains states - the Dakotas, eastern Wyoming and Montana, western Nebraska etc. In some areas, native grasses are being reintroduced, cattle ranches have been losing money, bison herds are growing, and Native Americans, at least the few I know from those tribes, are seriously considering moving (and some have) from cities like Dallas back to the northern great plains where their parents and grandparents came from.

[luke warm]

I request that you accord me the same courtesy, rather than ridicule or denigration.

i suggest you not hold your breath

[pbleighton]

1) "You are also ignoring the elephant in the room - this was carved out not merely for the Jews in Palestine, but for European Jews as well. A mass migration was planned (and it happened). This was not something common in history, as you state it was."

 

If you accept that people have a right to self-determination, they then have a state and they make the rules regarding migration/immigration to that state.

 

Your point being???

 

 

 

I do not accept self-determination of one group at the expense of other groups.

 

 

 

 

2) Utopia is the only state in which there is no injustice.

 

Every time we make a law, draw a boundary or any real or artificial distinction there are hard luck cases or those of injustice.

 

We would all love to see a world where it is not so - but it doesn't happen. So, one hopes that steps are taken to attempt to minimise the injustice.

 

 

 

Your point being?

 

 

 

 

3) You seem to feel that all Palestinians have been dealt this huge injustice.

I can understand that in the case of any who were forcibly removed from property or had it appropriated, but that is only a small minority on any basis that I have read - even giving credence to the more pro-Palestinian accounts.

 

 

 

 

What is now Israel used to be Palestine. The Palestinian people had lived there for centuries. If you can't see that this is injustice, I can't help you.

 

 

 

4) You have never come to grips with the basic tenet that the Palestinians deny the Jews and Israel the right of existence.

 

 

Yes I have. I stated emphatically in an earlier post that they needed to do so.

 

 

 

On the other hnad you seem to feel that a minority (of Palestinians) alleged economic injustice outweighs the right to exist of the Jews.

 

That is an interesting view of "injustice".

 

 

 

I do not. This is either an absolute fabrication on your part, or a refusal to actuall read posts you are responding to.

 

 

 

 

5) When referring to the dispossessed you never acknowledge or have regard to the plight of Jews

 

 

 

 

 

Again, false. Please read my posts efore you respond to them.

 

 

 

 

 

a) who lost their land/possessions by being in the wrong part of partition at the relevant time;

who were dospossessed and forced to flee from the various Arab states in the Middle East over the succeeding decades- and a complete lack of compensation for those persons from the same Arab states who bleat about Palestinians (and which states benefited by expropriating property.

 

You might have thought that would weigh heavily on the scales of injustice.

 

 

 

I do. From my first post in this thread:

 

"I don't think either the Israelis or the Palestinians have learned much since the British robbed the Palestinians of a chunk of their land and gave it to the Jews, one of the worst-considered pieces of racist social engineering in world history.

 

The Palestinians will have to accept historical injustice, and recognize Israel's right to exist. It is not going away, and the Israelis have acquired the right to live there by longetivity. Israel should never have been established, but it was (actually, it should have been established in Germany after WWII, but that is another story...). They can look to Native Americans for grief counselling."

 

 

 

6) "General attitude to Arabs": well, I'll take each person on his/her merits -regardless of background, race, creed or colour -or even bridge-playing (or denigrating some: card-pulling) ability!

 

However, if and when someone says "you don't have a right to exist", I get a little concerned and am unlikely to make of that person my best friend. Indeed a little wariness is in order: even if you're paranoid it doesn't mean they're not trying to kill you.

 

Fortunately, living in a nation which encourages tolerance of all, virtually any minority recognises it is just that, and unites in love of sport and general laissez faire.

 

I suggest your comment is - at best- unfair.

 

 

 

I suggest that it is true - I said that your comment encapsulated your attitude toward Arabs/Palestinians. Every comment you have made in this thread has shown zero respect for Arabs/Palestinians. I am not saying that in your personal life you would treat them badly - I am not accusing you of personal racist behavior. However, your comments have been quite consistent, and quite negative.

 

 

 

 

At worst I could turn the tables and accuse you of anti-semitism, but I don't.

 

 

 

And what comment have I made which would enable you to do that?

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know you. It would be unfair and improper to do so.

 

I am attempting to deal with arguments - and attempt to sway someone whom I see as making continuing emotional pleas to consider additional facts and /or premises in an attempt to convince him - or at least mitigate a perceived antipathy.

 

 

 

 

If you bothered to read my posts carefully, you would have seen that there I have no antipathy towards Israel. The establishment of Israel was an injustice, as was the conquest and genocide of Native Americans. Israel has earned the right to exist, but it must make peace with the Palestinians, for moral and practical reasons. You deny the moral reasons and have never dealt with the practical: Israel literally cannnot exist indefinitely in a world with 600 million Muslims without making peace with the Palestinians. There will, sooner or later, be a nuclear weapon(s) detonated in Israel. This will be totally wrong. It will also happen. Nuclear weapons have changed a lot of things. In a previous century, Israel would not have to make peace (there is, as you say, plenty of historical injustice).

 

 

 

 

I request that you accord me the same courtesy, rather than ridicule or denigration.

 

 

 

 

Stop being so sensitive. You misread/don't read my posts, and make comments which verge on being flames. I suggest that you modify your posting style on political topics if you can't stand a little heat.

 

And here is another suggestion. My posts evidently bother you. You have an option. Ignore my posts. If you tell me that you are going to do this, I won't respond to your posts. I am not saying that you should do this (I am, after all, composing lengthy replies to your posts), but it is an option for you, if you wish.

 

I have already done this with luke warm. I no longer respond to his posts, based on a posting he made with respect to Iran:

"i don't think you can ignore religion, i think you underestimate the actions of people who think they will go straight to heaven when they die, with shitloads of cattle and virgins waiting for them"

 

Based on this, I came to the conclusion that further discussion with him would be fruitless. He may well be a good guy in his personal life, I'm just not going to waste my time responding to someone with his worldview. Life is too short.

 

If you have the same reaction to my posts as I had to his, just let me know and I will have the courtesy not to bother you any more.

 

Peter

[pbleighton]

"The numbers are quite different and suggest some different conclusions. "

 

"Estimates of how many people were living in the Americas when Columbus arrived have varied tremendously; in the 20th century scholarly estimates ranged from a low of 8.4 million to a high of 112.5 million persons. Given the fragmentary nature of the evidence, precise pre-Columbian population figures are impossible to obtain; estimates are often produced by extrapolation from comparatively small bits of data. In 1976, geographer William Denevan used these various estimates to derive a "consensus count" of about 54 million people, although some recent estimates are lower than that.[1] Anthropologists agree that the bulk of indigenous American ancestry can be traced to ice age migrations from Asia over the Bering land bridge, though some believe previous sea faring peoples contributed small population stocks."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_hi...igenous_peoples

 

Peter

[luke warm]

I have already done this with luke warm. I no longer respond to his posts, based on a posting he made with respect to Iran:

"i don't think you can ignore religion, i think you underestimate the actions of people who think they will go straight to heaven when they die, with shitloads of cattle and virgins waiting for them"

it's true, i said that... and i do think you underestimate the actions of those who believe that if they strap 100 pounds of explosives to their bodies and blow up a synagogue, willy nilly killing anyone who happens to be in proximity, they will go straight to heaven, with the aforementioned rewards

 

i do not see the inaccuracy in what i said

[helene_t]

Those estimates that vary from 8 to 115 millions are for all of the Americas. This is something different from the US.

 

If someone said that the immigrants could feed X people from the land that could feed one Indian, it obviously depends which land and which ethnic group of Indians they're talking about.

[jdeegan]

"The numbers are quite different and suggest some different conclusions. "

 

"Estimates of how many people were living in the Americas when Columbus arrived have varied tremendously; in the 20th century scholarly estimates ranged from a low of 8.4 million to a high of 112.5 million persons. Given the fragmentary nature of the evidence, precise pre-Columbian population figures are impossible to obtain; estimates are often produced by extrapolation from comparatively small bits of data. In 1976, geographer William Denevan used these various estimates to derive a "consensus count" of about 54 million people, although some recent estimates are lower than that.[1] Anthropologists agree that the bulk of indigenous American ancestry can be traced to ice age migrations from Asia over the Bering land bridge, though some believe previous sea faring peoples contributed small population stocks."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_hi...igenous_peoples

 

Peter

B) The numbers you are citing include the Inca, Mayan and Aztec regions. I was just thinking about what is now the U.S. and maybe Canada. Very few people in the U.S. think of themselves as Indian or native American culturally, but lots of people in the U.S., including a couple of my own grandchildren, have a little bit of Indian blood in them.