[Sauron]

liv, vm -- I don't want to totally derail this thread. But Paranoid's comments did appear here in the thread first, so I guess it's OK that I respond here.

If you want to split this off and start a new thread with this, please feel free to do so.

Originally Posted by Paranoid

The problem with that statement is that you assume that the Israelis dispossessed the "Palestinian people" of their homeland. Before 1880 or so, Palestine was basically an unpopulated wasteland.

This is patently false.

There were maybe a quarter of a million people in all of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, a land that now supports some 12 million or so? And probably a third of them were in Jerusalem.

1. First you said it was unpopulated, then you say it has a quarter million people?

2. The estimate of 250,000 you offer is wrong; and finally

3. The carrying capacity of land is a key determinant of how many people can live there. But the carrying capacity is impacted by more than just available land and water. In 1880, the economy was primarily agricultural and not city dwellers, like now. The technology and infrastructure that allows for dense population did not exist at that time. The comparison to a modern-day 21st century country is bogus.

4. Your approach here also ignores the basic question: the fact that my land is empty does not give you the right to settle on it.

The place was a waste due to centuries of overtaxation under Arab and Turkish domination.

Also incorrect.

In the late 1800s, the Zionist movement (by which I mean the movement to get people of Jewish heritage to move to Israel, I mean nothing about any religious-dominated society) started getting some big backers to move to Israel, to hook up with the continuous Jewish community of Jerusalem, and to start building cities and farms.

Well, in point of fact the zionist movement WAS a religious dominated society.

The Jews, mostly from Europe, brought a great deal of money with them, and needed help with the work, so they hired a lot of laborers. Most of these laborers were Arabs, some were Lebanses or Turks, some were Egyptian. These were the ancestors of most of the current-day Palestinians.

Ah. So I guess you think that Palestinians didn't exist; they were only Turks or Egyptians. I had been expecting that attempt as well. It, however, is also wrong. The ancestors of the current day Palestinians were the Arabs who lived in that area.

So the "dispossessed" Palestinians are really a mix of many other people, and most of their ancestors were NOT in Palestine 200 years ago.

Incorrect. The Palestinians were there, althoug if you perouse the right-wing zionist literature you'll find they also try to pretend that Palestinians are relatively new, and use that as a basis to deny them a historical claim.

Heh. I didn't realize how ironic that behavior is, until I stopped and thought for a moment. I mean, for a group of Jews from Europe, Russia and America to deny another group a historic claim based upon being relative newcomers to Palestine is the height of pot-kettle-black behavior.

And much of the land was BOUGHT, for cash, not "stolen".

*Some* of it was bought, correct. But not as much as you seem to think. There were, of course, individual Arabs who sold their property. No doubt about that. But Jewish squatters took a lot of the land, with both passive and active assistance from the British.

Other times, the British sold the immigrant Jews various tracts of land that the Brits themselves had simply taken from the local Arabs. Which is kind of like selling a stolen TV set out of the back of a van: the fact that you paid good money for the TV does not change the fact that it was stolen in the first place.

As enmity grew between the two peoples from 1910 through maybe 1948, atrocities were committed on both sides. But that doesn't negate that the original claim of land in Israel was that of purchased land, not "stolen" land.

Enmity is not the basis of the statement about stolen land. HISTORY is the basis of that statement. Even Moshe Dayan knew that the land was Arab, inhabited, and not empty:

"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."

But in the end, in 1948 Britain partitioned off a tiny sliver of Jewish land out of the land already bought by the Jews, and a big piece of Arab land. Basically, they said, like a frustrated parent, "separate!"

No. Utterly false. The mandate gave 44% of the land to the Arabs, and 56% of the land to the Jews - even though the Jews were only 1/3 of the population in the mandate at that time. What's more, the Jews got the best land - the ports, fertile areas, and some villages that were entirely Arab and Muslim. A rather good deal for the Jews, but a big screw job for the Arabs.

The Jews were not happy with the partition,

Indeed. They wanted to see their dream of "greater Israel" in the entire mandate area.

the original plans had given them much more, but they were willing to settle for it. THE ARABS WERE NOT WILLING TO SETTLE.

Not surprising. The Palestinians were the original owners of all the land. Why should they submit to the division of their land anyhow? If strangers invaded your house, would you honestly submit to an outside arbitrator to decide how many bedrooms they deserve? I'm sure the squatters would be delighted to have such an arbitrator; they get to legitimize their act of illegal occupation in a way they scarcely dreamed of. But the reality is that the entire house is yours.

They attacked, and Israel got bigger. Land was not "stolen", it was won in a war Israel did not start. If the Palestinians want to complain that that land was taken from them, they only have to look in the mirror to see who is to blame.

1. Land *was* stolen. Not all, but a hell of a lot - and certainly more than you are apparently comfortable with admitting;

2. Israel started the war by the pre-1948 actions. People moving onto your land and setting up shop is not violent in the guns and ammunition sense of the word. But such invasions have been acts of war in the past, and people have used violence to defend what is theirs.

So, we get into this quagmire now. But to claim that Israel was stolen from an indigenous population, well, that's quite a stretch of the truth.

Incorrect. It's the accurate reading of history, with the caveats I listed above.

So go ahead and criticize the Israeli government. (Hint: it's a lot more effective when you give a VIABLE OPTION to their current plan of action. "Knock down the wall" means nothing if you have no plan to stop suicide attacks.)

No one is saying "knock down the wall"; if the Israelis want the wall, then fine. Let them have their damn wall. Just put it on the 1967 border, instead of deep inside the West Bank. If its purpose is just to protect, then the wall can still perform that same protective function if it sits on the 1967 border.

But you know what? The Israelis aren't willing to move that wall, even though the Labour party in Israel has been calling for it. Why? Because the purpose of the wall isn't security; it's a tool in land annexation. And it's being done because of the influence of the far-right wing and orthodox segments of Israeli society and politics.

By the way: even the Israelis admit that the wall isn't a security measure.

http://beit-sahourghetto.blogspirit....tion_of_t.html

Israel admits political motives behind the construction of the Separation Wall

For the first time, the Israeli state prosecution argued on Tuesday that the Israeli decision to construct the Separation Wall in Jerusalem area stems from political considerations, in addition to security purposes.

Israeli prosecution handed an extended panel of 11 High Court justices who convened on Tuesday, a document which admits to political motivations behind the construction of the Wall.

The panel convened to discuss petitions against the construction of the Wall in Jerusalem area.

The document clearly states that when dealing with the construction of the Wall within the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem, the route of the Wall has political implications and ramifications.

Moving along..........

And go ahead and attack the settlers for trying to take all of Judeah and Samaria.

You realize that religious fundamentalism is behind that activity, right?

But criticizing Zionists for "stealing" the "holy" land of the "indigenous" people is stretching the truth 3 different way. Land wasn't stolen, it wasn't holy, and the people weren't indigenous.

3 out of 3 wrong, with the caveats mentioned.

So quit attacking Israel merely for existing. It's not constructive.

It's also not accurate. No one is attacking Israel for its existence. Two things are being attacked:

1. the creative re-writing of Mideast history to excuse the zionist movement from its responsibility and culpability, both in specific instance and in overall scope;

2. the modern day behavior of the state of Israel with regards to Arab land, which is continuing the same policies and patterns from 1880 forwards, thus making it impossible to 'let bygones be bygones'. Here's one particulary poignant story illustrating that Jewish squatters are still alive and well:

http://www.counterpunch.org/rooij05202005.html

A reality check

In 1989, a group of armed settlers invaded a house in the Old City of Jerusalem and occupied the top floor; the Palestinian family managed to fend off the settlers from the ground floor. The Palestinian house owner sought police help to evict the invaders, but was fined NIS 500 for "disturbing the peace". During the ensuing months, the settlers set out to make the Palestinian family's life miserable by throwing garbage onto their courtyard, pounding on the floor at night, and throwing boiling water onto the children when they ventured near the front of the house. The settlers eventually drilled a hole through the sewage pipes so that the dirty water would drip onto the living room/kitchen below where the eleven family members were now forced to sleep. At least two adults were forced to stay at home all the time to prevent the settlers from invading the rest of the house. The family resisted for more than a year, building several contraptions to stem the sewage flow onto their ground floor living quarters. I visited this family several times and witnessed the menacing, bearded, armed settlers asking the Palestinian homeowner when he was going to leave. Furthermore, this type of incident has been repeated thousands of times throughout the occupied territories where settlers or the army have invaded and confiscated Palestinian houses.

Such incidents are worse than house demolitions, because in addition to their dispossession, Palestinian families are subjected to abuse and humiliation. While house demolitions are an impersonal affair conducted by soldiers with explosives or Caterpillar bulldozers, the home invasions are an exercise in calculated humiliation and intimidation -- this is up close and personal. It would seem that if the intent is to steal the houses, then this could be attained in one fell swoop. The fact that the settler or soldier sieges last for months indicates that their purpose is also to drive out Palestinians from the area; it is not enough to deprive families of their houses or businesses -- the intent is to drive them out of their cities and "Israel" altogether. Besides the house under siege, the message is also meant for the neighboring Palestinian families. Any film that would raise awareness of this type of dispossession and brutality should be welcomed, but ...

Calling them religious fundamentalists is again a disservice.

No. It's exactly on-target. You apparently are not familar with them, their ideas, or their political agenda.

The Orthodox are a small minority in Israel, most of the country are pretty secular.

So what? The percentage in the country is not the question. Their INFLUENCE is what matters.