Israel, Palestine and Dispossession

[Paranoid]

Originally Posted by maddog

In practical terms in my own life, the main thing I run into is that if I criticize Israel at all, I'm labeled anti-Semitic. This is very disconcerting to me.

You would think that, of all people in the world, the Jews would understand what it means to be dispossessed, and to need a homeland.
#461

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. 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. The place was a waste due to centuries of overtaxation under Arab and Turkish domination. When the Brits took it over, they were absolutely amazed at how few people were actually there. The "holy" places to Muslims there now were old temples that had gone unused and unentered for hundreds of years.

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. 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.

So the "dispossessed" Palestinians are really a mix of many other people, and most of their ancestors were NOT in Palestine 200 years ago. And much of the land was BOUGHT, for cash, not "stolen". 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.

Yes, go ahead and give evidence that some of the land were forced purchases. Some was, during the period of fighting. AND A LOT WASN'T. One statement saying that some was does not a whole story make. Sure, the original Zionists committed some atrocities. SO DID THE ARABS. Again, unlike the crypto-Nazis, I will not mislead by telling only one side of the story. BOTH sides committed criminal acts. The Crypto-Nazis will only give evidence for one side.

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!" The Jews were not happy with the partition, the original plans had given them much more, but they were willing to settle for it. THE ARABS WERE NOT WILLING TO SETTLE. 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.

And the Arabs attacked again. And again. One time, they massed all their armies on three different borders of Israel, preparing for a simultaneous attack on tiny, difficult to defend Israel. Israel shot down their planes on the ground, and won even more land.

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. Land was bought from, and more land was won in battle from, a people who only showed up in the first place looking for work.

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.)

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

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.

So quit attacking Israel merely for existing. It's not constructive. Attack their methods, but ONLY if you can give an option that's better. Don't attack their people, they are not a monolith. And although Israel has some religion entangled with the government, they are NOT a religious state in the least, and they allow free worship of any religion without penalty or jail, unlike Iran or Saudi Arabia. Calling them religious fundamentalists is again a disservice. The Orthodox are a small minority in Israel, most of the country are pretty secular.

And most of all, if you come up with a demonizing statement like "we should even deny them humanitarian aid if the Arabs drive them into the sea", well, you need to take a real long hard look in the mirror and figure out *who* has become the demon. Those are the kind of statements that you can't turn back from, and define you as either a moral human being or a racist monster in the making.

I would never deny humanitarian aid to ANY group, anywhere. We are all human beings.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by Paranoid

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

Sorry, could you explain the point of this central theme in your post? Is it that the Palestinians have a degree of ethnic diversity that shows they were not dispossessed, or the alleged fact that their ancestors came from elsewhere, or that they came from elsewhere more recently than 200 years ago?

All these things are true of the place I grew up, Saskatchewan. But if the British stepped in and simply declared a Mennonite state there (hey, there are large tracts of land legally owned by Mennonites!), the people thereby dispossessed would be no less dispossessed for it.


I also didn't quite follow the distinction between stealing and "winning in battle". If I pick your pocket, that's stealing; but if I kick the shit out of you and take your wallet, that's winning it in battle? Maybe you didn't mean this in the way it came across.

[livius drusus]

I'm not really sure how your post is relevant to the issue of anti-semitism accusations in response to critiques of Israel, Paranoid.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

I'm not really sure how your post is relevant to the issue of anti-semitism accusations in response to critiques of Israel, Paranoid.

Oh, that. My response too, then. Oops.

[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.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Paranoid

The problem with that statement is that you assume that the Israelis dispossessed the "Palestinian people" of their homeland.

Actually, I made, and make, no such assumption. My understanding was that there were Palestinian people who, because of the multi-national partition of the British-controlled areas in pre-1948 (and post-WWII) Palestine, ended up in a kind of "diaspora," and who long to have their own homeland in a place that is spiritually meaningful to them. That's all. I'm not blaming anyone for anything; I'm simply confused that, given the longing of many Jews for a Jewish homeland (that was my original understanding of the word "Zionist"), many Israelis and some American Jews I know or have met don't seem as readily able to identify with SOMEONE ELSE's longing for a homeland. I feel disappointed and confused by the apparent lack of empathy from people I would normally consider empathetic.

Originally Posted by Paranoid

Before 1880 or so, Palestine was basically an unpopulated wasteland. 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. The place was a waste due to centuries of overtaxation under Arab and Turkish domination. When the Brits took it over, they were absolutely amazed at how few people were actually there. The "holy" places to Muslims there now were old temples that had gone unused and unentered for hundreds of years.

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. 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.

Thank you for this background. That is interesting.

Originally Posted by Paranoid

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

How many of the ancestors of present-day Israeli inhabitants were in Palestine 200 years ago? I was under the impression that the Jewish claim to "homeland" in Israel/Palestine has to do with Biblically-based claims, and not who actually LIVED there within a certain period of time. Even the historical/Biblical claim, i.e., to Israel/Palestine/Judea as the "promised land," as far as I understand it, concerns the Hebrews or Israelites, who were not natives, and whose ancestors hadn't lived in Canaan for 200 years previously to their arrival there (whether that arrival was achieved by simple settlement from nomadic life, by purchase, or by conquest, or any other means). The United States as a nation is just over 200 years old; many, many Americans' ancestors had not lived here 200 years ago, but I'm not sure that makes a difference as to the desire for a national home.

Originally Posted by Paranoid

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

Yes, go ahead and give evidence that some of the land were forced purchases. Some was, during the period of fighting. AND A LOT WASN'T. One statement saying that some was does not a whole story make. Sure, the original Zionists committed some atrocities. SO DID THE ARABS. Again, unlike the crypto-Nazis, I will not mislead by telling only one side of the story. BOTH sides committed criminal acts. The Crypto-Nazis will only give evidence for one side.

Now, you're arguing with someone who isn't me, and you're arguing against statements I never have made, and positions I don't hold. I don't know who these comments are addressed to, as my only statement was that Jewish people, of all people, should understand what it is to want a home. Shouldn't they? After all, they had been waiting for the fulfillment of THEIR dreams for some centuries, if I understand their aspirations.

Originally Posted by Paranoid

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!" The Jews were not happy with the partition, the original plans had given them much more, but they were willing to settle for it. THE ARABS WERE NOT WILLING TO SETTLE. 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.

And the Arabs attacked again. And again. One time, they massed all their armies on three different borders of Israel, preparing for a simultaneous attack on tiny, difficult to defend Israel. Israel shot down their planes on the ground, and won even more land.

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. Land was bought from, and more land was won in battle from, a people who only showed up in the first place looking for work.

Again, I don't know who this is addressed to.
* maddog looks around.
You are arguing about things I have never said.

Originally Posted by Paranoid

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.)

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

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.

I repeat, I don't know who you are talking to. I said none of these things.

Originally Posted by Paranoid

So quit attacking Israel merely for existing. It's not constructive. Attack their methods, but ONLY if you can give an option that's better. Don't attack their people, they are not a monolith. And although Israel has some religion entangled with the government, they are NOT a religious state in the least, and they allow free worship of any religion without penalty or jail, unlike Iran or Saudi Arabia. Calling them religious fundamentalists is again a disservice. The Orthodox are a small minority in Israel, most of the country are pretty secular.

/me looks around again, still bewildered and mystified.
I have never done what you are arguing against here.

Originally Posted by Paranoid

And most of all, if you come up with a demonizing statement like "we should even deny them humanitarian aid if the Arabs drive them into the sea", well, you need to take a real long hard look in the mirror and figure out *who* has become the demon. Those are the kind of statements that you can't turn back from, and define you as either a moral human being or a racist monster in the making.

I would never deny humanitarian aid to ANY group, anywhere. We are all human beings.

/me faints dead away.
I absolutely do NOT know who you are talking to, but it can't possibly be me.

In a way, this is a classic example of what I mean, and what happens to me if I express even the slightest criticism of Israel. Anyone reading your response to my post would be likely to think that I had said or thought a lot of terrible things that I don't think and never said; anyone might be likely to think I'm anti-Semitic. Is it anti-Semitic to wish people to be kinder and more charitable of one another's aspirations? I'm sad and confused.
#468

[livius drusus]

Honestly, maddog, I kinda think he was just using your post as a coincidental springboard, and that the "you"s were really all general plurals instead of referring to anything you had actually said.

Thank you for managing to make integrate his post into the topic of the thread, though.

Paranoid, this thread is not about who lived where when. It's about charges of anti-semitism in discussions of who lived where when. I'd be interested to hear your perspective on the actual topic here, but if you'd prefer to just talk about Israeli politics I'd be glad to split your, Clutch and Sauron's posts to a new thread.

[Paranoid]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Honestly, maddog, I kinda think he was just using your post as a coincidental springboard, and that the "you"s were really all general plurals instead of referring to anything you had actually said.

Thank you for managing to make integrate his post into the topic of the thread, though.

Paranoid, this thread is not about who lived where when. It's about charges of anti-semitism in discussions of who lived where when. I'd be interested to hear your perspective on the actual topic here, but if you'd prefer to just talk about Israeli politics I'd be glad to split your, Clutch and Sauron's posts to a new thread.

I was merely responding to the claim that Israelis should be concerned for the plight of the dispossessed, brought up in this thread, and explainging why it was such a misleading term. Not meant as politics, but as background.

For Sauron's quotes: So you do admit some of the land was purchased. And some of the land was taken by squatters where no one else had laid claim to it. Since the British technically owned it (not YOU, and not the Palestinians), they could allow or deny squatter's claims by their own laws. And sure, Israel is building the wall farther out than the 1967 lines, to protect settlers out in the West Bank. Argue the route (agreed they should stick to the settlements and nto steal water and fields used today), the hardships, but not the design to protect settlers settling on land they won in a war prompted by the actions of others. The 1967 line will be breached, that's the reality.

On your 3 for 3 "wrong": (1) Some land was stolen, some was bought, some was squatted on where obviously unused. In return, Jews in Arab lands had their possessions and lands stolen, and were driven out of THEIR homes. Seems about a fair trade. (2) "Holy" land: you never addressed this, because you cannot. All muslim claims of holiness of the land were made up after 1900. It was a wasteland before that. (3) "Indigenous": Sure, they're part native. And part not, again you only cover one side of the story.

Mad Dog: the quote about crossing the line from human disagreement into racist monster was not specifically directed at you, it just serves to draw the line, a line that others on this board have clearly crossed, and one I would never cross. For example, I have extreme disagreements with some hyperfundamentalist Christians. But I would never deny them food and water and aid after a disaster, that would be immoral. Some other posters here have crossed that line, and are showing ugly green stripes of racism.

I think that comes back to the most important point, if you cannot find sympathy for the plight of another group, you have become a racist. I have great sympathy for the Palestinian people, and I feel great sadness that their leadership has in the past held their population and their children hostage to a cult of martyrdom. Arafat had an incredible opportunity with Barak to bring the Palestinian people their own state, an internationally-run East Jerusalem, and an end to all hostilities.

But in the end, he was hostage to his own ideological stubbornness, and he screwed his own people over. If he had shaken Barak's hand (even Barak would've had a hard time getting it through the Knesset), we would've had peace, and the world would've poured dollars into Palestine for rebuilding. Instead, he chose intifada. I mourn for the senseless violence he has caused, and hope that the new leadership will be better. Israel has no stepped rightward (in response to the intifada), but there are some indications that they may still be up for peace, and the judges are trying to lessen the impact of the wall.

[livius drusus]

Please hold while I split this tangent. Thank you.

This thread was split from the discussion of anti-semitism here.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by Paranoid

For Sauron's quotes: So you do admit some of the land was purchased.

I said as much. But far less than you seem comfortable admitting.

And some of the land was taken by squatters where no one else had laid claim to it.

But I certainly did not say that. Squatters took land that was already claimed. For a modern day example, see the article I posted from Counterpunch.org.

ALL the land was claimed by someone long before the first zionist set foot in the area. None of it was available out in the open, without claims already on it. Your attempt at characterizing the action of the Jewish squatters into an innocent "finders, keepers" event is silly.

Since the British technically owned it (not YOU, and not the Palestinians),

1. No, they did not "technically own it"; they took it by force. Is that your definition of technical ownership?

2. Even within that framework, the locals still owned the land; the British merely got the area as part of the post-WW1 mandate from the League of Nations. But that wasn't a transfer of title for real estate; it was a protectorate charge laid upon the UK, with the eventual goal of the local people being given a state of their own. It wasn't a real estate event; it was a nation-building event.

3. The "me" in my analogy was mean to include anyone in the situation of ownership. Just because John has empty acreage on his land, that doesn't give Joe the right to put up a house on it.

Israel is building the wall farther out than the 1967 lines, to protect settlers out in the West Bank.

No, to annex land.

If Israel wanted to protect people, it wouldn't offer tax breaks and financial incentives to people to encourage them to move and build homes in an area that it describes as a war zone.

This is not about protection. This is about expansion.

Argue the route (agreed they should stick to the settlements and nto steal water and fields used today),

But they do steal water. 80% of the WB water goes to Israel.

the hardships, but not the design to protect settlers settling on land they won in a war prompted by the actions of others.

The war was prompted by:

• the Jews' own actions in the pre-mandate era of attempting to set up a zionist country where another country already existed;
• the Jews' own actions in the mandate era, along with those of the UK;
• the actions of the UN in creating a grossly uneven partition, at the request of the Jewish organizations lobbying the UN, the UK and the US govt;
• And after the war of 1948, the prompting came as a result of actions by the Israeli govt. in evictions and expansion into even more territory.

You deliberately ignore the fact that the Arab moves were not actions; they were reactions to earlier Jewish and/or Israeli moves.

On your 3 for 3 "wrong": (1) Some land was stolen, some was bought, some was squatted on where obviously unused.

Still wrong. See above.

In return, Jews in Arab lands had their possessions and lands stolen, and were driven out of THEIR homes. Seems about a fair trade.

What a crock of shit. What Morocco did in Morocco is not connected to what Israel did in Palestine. If a Catholic steals a house from a Protestant in Northern Ireland, that doesn't justify a Protestant stealing a house from a Catholic in South Africa. Each nation answers for its own actions. The Arabs aren't one big block of people that share some kind of collective financial responsiblity. No group bears any such responsibility as that.

(2) "Holy" land: you never addressed this, because you cannot. All muslim claims of holiness of the land were made up after 1900.

I did address it; you're simply a sloppy reader. I said your claim about the holy places was wrong - which it is. And since you've failed to demonstrate that claim with anything more than mere assertions, my rebuttal work is done.

It was a wasteland before that.

Also wrong.

(3) "Indigenous": Sure, they're part native. And part not, again you only cover one side of the story.

They're almost ALL native. If you have evidence otherwise, bring it to the table.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by Paranoid

Arafat had an incredible opportunity with Barak to bring the Palestinian people their own state, an internationally-run East Jerusalem, and an end to all hostilities.

But in the end, he was hostage to his own ideological stubbornness, and he screwed his own people over. If he had shaken Barak's hand (even Barak would've had a hard time getting it through the Knesset), we would've had peace, and the world would've poured dollars into Palestine for rebuilding. Instead, he chose intifada. I mourn for the senseless violence he has caused, and hope that the new leadership will be better. Israel has no stepped rightward (in response to the intifada), but there are some indications that they may still be up for peace, and the judges are trying to lessen the impact of the wall.

In point of fact, Arafat had no such chance. The deal that Barak offered was no deal at all. From seanie, at IIDB, discussing the peace accords and the various plans for dividing jurisdictional control:

• In all the maps the Israelis retain control of the western edge of the West Bank along the Green Line.
  
• In all the maps the Israelis retain control of the eastern edge of the West Bank along the Jordan valley and the Dead Sea.
  
• In all the maps the Israelis entirely surround the Palestinian areas.
  
• In all the maps the Israelis retain links through the Palestinian areas, further dividing up the territory into seperate islands.
  
• In all the maps the Israelis retain virtually all of Jerusalem.
  
• In all the maps the Israelis retain control of the water supply for the region.
  
• In all the maps the Israelis retain almost all the illegal settlements.
  
• The Israelis aren't offering the Palestinians a sovereign state. They're offering bantustans. Reservations. Palestinian islands in an Israeli sea.

Permanent institutionalization of Israeli control, inside an internationally recognized framework like a US - hosted peace treaty. This is precisely why Arafat couldn't accept the offer - it would have been a death sentence.

Read more about the Myth of the Generous Offer.