Subject:
|
Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Apr 2002 15:48:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
525 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> I found that article pretty sketchy on facts I could agree readily agree with.
>
> The author of that article pointedly equates criticism of Israel with "Jew
> hatred" -- which to my mind is NOT the same thing at all. Hatred of a
> people for no reason is obviously a stupid thing. Measured criticism
> against a political entity, for the specific actions of that political
> entity, seems very reasonable to me.
>
> Please be careful to note that I very consciously separate people from the
> political entities that supposedly represent them.
I agree that you can't always hold the people responsible to what the
leaders do, but wouldn't you agree that sometimes when it's clear that the
leader is doing what the people want, the people _should_ be held responsible?
> And how about these various quotes from that article:
>
> "The whole idea of a Palestinian nation and a Palestinian people is an
> invention of Arab propaganda" -- okay, but wasn't there a British
> protectorate called "Palestine"?
nod... but that doesn't have anything to do with a palestininan nation...
I mean, there's an area called the Middle-East - does that mean there's a
Middle-Eastern Nation?
> "The only people to have lived continuously on the land "from time
> immemorial" are Jews." -- right, but didn't she just assert that: "Six
> hundred thousand Jewish refugees from Arab nations fled to Israel -- many in
> fear for their lives, most after having their property expropriated. They
> were assimilated by Israel." So, all of these Jews haven't been there for
> that long a time, certainly not since "time immemorial." Really, the whole
> point is moot, and sounds a lot like a moldy book appeal to pathos.
I agree that it doesn't matter who was there since when, really... but she
didn't actually say that "ALL the jews were there from time immemorial",
just that there was a continious jewish settlement in parts of Israel since
then...
> "About the same number of Arab refugees fled what is now Israel, the West
> Ban and Gaza. They were not assimilated by the Arab nations, with whom they
> shared a common religion, ethnicity, history and language, but were instead
> herded into refugee camps the better to "return" to their homes after Israel
> was obliterated by Arab armies....<snip>... Further, these Arab refugees had
> no ancient tie to the land of "Palestine." Most were recent immigrants, a
> fact implicitly acknowledged by the United Nations when it altered the
> definition of refugee to apply to those who have lived "at least two years"
> in a location." -- Seems to me like most everyone there now immigrated there
> during this century. But why did these Arabs have to flee Israel? Who
> herded them into refugee camps? Ah, the moldy book argument -- dig it!
why did they "have" to flee? because they were scared the Israelis would do
to them what the Arab nations wanted to do to the Jews... "Drive them into
the sea" I believe is the quote. The arabs who didn't flee, are now
arab-israelis, and are citizens... So they didn't have to flee, they just
believed their leaders a bit too much. Who herded them into refugee camps?
the nations they fled to! do you really think Israel in '67 somehow made
the refugees into Lebanon go into camps? how? the Lebaneese (sp)
gov/people didn't want all these people to settle there, so they put them
into camps. Same for Jordan, who already has 90% "palestinian" population.
> "So many others have conquered, ruled, thrived and ultimately perished there
> that the list would take hundreds of pages. A mere sample would include:
> Byzantines, Persians, Arabs, Turks, Circassians, Kurds, Abbassids (Iraqis),
> Egyptians, Kharezmians (Genghis Khan), Mamluks, Mongols, Latins (Crusaders),
> Ottomans, French and English." -- and, er, what was your point again? O
> right, claims to the land since time immemorial...
I think it just makes the point that the claim of "my father's fathers were
born here" holds little pull - I think we both agree on that.
> Now, I don't know if this is a perfect source of information, but I found it
> at http://www.jewfaq.org/israel.htm (a site webmastered by Tracey R Rich)
> and it seems like something I can more or less agree with:
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Jews were exiled from the land of Israel by the Romans in 135 C.E., after
> they defeated the Jews in a three-year war, and Jews did not have any
> control over the land again until 1948 C.E
>
> <big snip>
>
> After World War I, the land of Israel was part of Palestine, a British
> protectorate which included Israel and parts of Jordan and Egypt. In a
> letter from British foreign secretary Lord Balfour to Jewish financier Lord
> Rothschild, the British government expressed a commitment to creating a
> Jewish homeland in Palestine. This letter is commonly known as the Balfour
> Declaration of 1917. After the declaration, Jewish immigration to Israel
> expanded rapidly, but little actual progress was made toward the
> establishment of a Jewish state until after the Holocaust destroyed a third
> of the world's Jewish population.
>
> In 1947, the British handed the problem of the Jewish state to the
> newly-founded United Nations, which developed a partition plan dividing
> Palestine into Jewish and Arab portions. The plan was ratified in November
> 1947, the new State of Israel was proclaimed on May 14, 1948 and British
> troops pulled out of Palestine.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> BTW, isn't that an almost 1800 year break in the time immemorial scheme?!
no - she never said that the Jews ruled the land, just that there was a
continuous settlement there.
> But, you know what? We are well past whether the creation of Israel was or
> was not a good idea. People calling themselves Israelis live there, as do
> other persons calling themselves Palestinians.
nod, agreed.
> Tonight, as I write, I am just wondering why Ariel Sharon would be denying
> the U.N, the Red Cross, and Amnesty International entry into the city of
> Janin. [My source for this info is NPR, it was announced as part of a
> series of news highlights.]
I was wondering that too, btw. The only reason I can think of came from a
CNN interview with a palestinian fighter who surrendered to Israel in
Jenin... he said (paraphrase) "we left more than 2000 booby traps in the
camp, from small bombs the size of water bottles to big ones that can blow
up tanks"... In that situation, I can see why the IDF wanted to keep
civilians away until the sappers had a chance to clear the camp. Remember,
IDF actually tries to avoid civilian casualties, unlike some of the
Palestinians...
> So thanks for the history lesson, but no thanks. I'd rather have quick
> lessons on how to get the Hatfields and the McCoys to make nice-nice in the
> M.E, because really that's what we have there -- a blood feud.
hmmmm. you might have to expand on that... If I understand what you mean
here, you're saying that the Palestinians and the Israelies are the same
nation, which I disagree...
> The people of the M.E. fight just like the members of various gangs found in
> most major american cities nowadays -- which to me seems like a more
> pressing problem, since it exists in the land I call my home. You're
> probably thinking, "Yeah, but those gang members only imagine their turf
> conflicts."
>
> And the people of the M.E. are different how?
not knowing much about gang conflicts, I'm not sure I can parse that turf
thing... the way I see it is simple - both Israel and the PA want their own
country. Both think they deserve self-rule, autonomy, etc... I've no
problem with that. What I have a problem with is that apparently, Arafat
(and that may or may not reflect the palestinian people) wants that country
to be the whole of Israel... and the Israelis can't accept that (for
obvious reasons, I think?). I beileve Israel is willing to co-exists with a
"Palestine", and I don't see the same willingness no the other side.
Dan
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
| (...) So far I think we're all on the same page. (...) How has this been made apparent? This is not apparent to me. What is apparent to me is that they want territories that Israel stole in the 60s back and they aren't willing to compromise on it. (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
| (...) I have to question your evidence of such desire on the part of the people. Here in the Bay Area of California I often express myself as I see fit, I feel free and safe to do so. When I lived in a suburbs of Chicago I felt less free to discuss (...) (22 years ago, 25-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
| I found that article pretty sketchy on facts I could agree readily agree with. The author of that article pointedly equates criticism of Israel with "Jew hatred" -- which to my mind is NOT the same thing at all. Hatred of a people for no reason is (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
93 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
