Watching the Gazan Fiasco

[OnTheMoor]

If somebody offered me between $200,000 and $450,000 to move off of land I got for nothing, I think I'd find it in myself to swallow my tears, put on a brave face, and move.

And you fled from where to settle in Montreal? I think it is fair to say that you have not had the same experience that the Jewish settlers have had. And it doesn't matter what you would think because you wouldn't have a choice.

"Remember when we said you could live here? Sorry, big misunderstanding, here's some cash for your troubles."

They ARE allowed to live there, you know, but citizens of a Palestinian state, not as Israelis.

The parallel with Montreal doesn't work very well. The kind of distance we're talking about moving is less than moving from here to Ottawa, which is also a nice city.

And they DID have a choice - they chose to live on disputed territory.

Exactly, the parallel doesn't work at all, which is why you saying that you would take the money is irrelevant, you haven't had anywhere near the same experience as them. You moving from one place to another is no big deal. But for people who have traditionally been hated everywhere they go it is a bit of an issue. And thank you, I enjoy Ottawa very much

No they didn't have any choice, the settlements were created in the first place because of overcrowding. They were stuck between a Europe where they were obviously not wanted and land that was being offered to them with people who shared their history and religion. Was the Balfour declaration the right thing to do? Nope. But if I was Jewish living in Europe in 1917 and then later on in the 30s and 40s, I would think that being allowed to live in what I'd always considered my promised home would be a pretty sweet deal... I'd think being allowed to live in any home would be a pretty sweet deal. I think "choice" is something that you don't have a great deal of when you are a Jew living in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany.

[OnTheMoor]

Says who? It seems silly to me to put a value on a family's home and entire life, they settled there for a reason.

They were paid to go there by their government, entirely for the purpose of creating bargaining chips.

"Settling" in the occupied territories *is* an act of war, and these people have been the troops. They live in armed compounds surrounded by barbed wire and guarded 24/7 by soldiers who are paid by the government.

These aren't communities, in other words; they are military encampments.

No they are communities protected by military encapments. Whether or not you agree with the creation of Israel, it has been at war since 1948, officially or not, and, whether you agree or not, it will try to protect itself. I don't believe it is as simple as saying "okay, we're Palastine now, you win" (which will never happen anyways), the Arabs want the Jews out. You can learn from history, you can't change it. Israel exists and it will do everything it can to continue to exist.

I think the reason for the pullout is so that Israel can point to the areas it has left (effectively run by criminals now and it will be a serious pain to the 750 Egyptians who are now there) as reason why Palastine cannot exist.

[s1m0n]

No they are communities protected by military encapments.

The settlements exist solely for military & strategic reasons; not a one has ever come close to breaking even, financially. The whole settlement process has been a massive financial drain on the US taxpayers who pay Israel's bills.

I note you've skipped--as these debates always do--straight from a discussion of Israel's occupation of Palestine to assertions about Israel's right to exist at all. As far as I know, that's not under debate.

[s1m0n]

No they are communities protected by military encapments.

The settlements exist solely for military & strategic reasons; not a one has ever come close to breaking even, financially. The whole settlement process has been a massive financial drain on the US taxpayers who pay Israel's bills.

I note you've skipped--as these debates always do--straight from a discussion of Israel's occupation of Palestine to assertions about Israel's right to exist at all. As far as I know, that's not under debate.

[anniemcu]

...with more than adequate compensation...

Says who? It seems silly to me to put a value on a family's home and entire life, they settled there for a reason.

It seems far worse than silly to put no value on a family's home and entire life, ... the former residents settled there for a reason too.

The problem is that one does not actually negate the other, and yet that is how it has been handled and looked at for the entire duration. Certainly the Isralis have suffered, but though that has been our focus for a long time, the Palestinians have suffered at least equally. If we are to be fair *at* all, we have to be fair *to* both. Peace cannot possibly come to the area until then.

[OnTheMoor]

I'm not arguing about its right to exist, I'm arguing that it will exist. And I don't understand how you can have one debate without having the other. Here is a rough map of what is known as Palestine:
http://www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_a/ipc_a-1/a_map/pal-e.html
Please tell me how you can talk about the "occupation of Palestine" without talking about the state of Israel.

[Cayden]

I was watching some footage of a bulldozer pulling down houses in the settlements yesterday on the RTE nine O Clock news. The reporter said something like it was heartrending for the moved settlers to see their houses pulled down. And then she added 'but it's better than leaving them for the Palestinians'. Still baffled by that reasoning.

[fiddleronvermouth]

Says who? It seems silly to me to put a value on a family's home and entire life, they settled there for a reason.

They were paid to go there by their government, entirely for the purpose of creating bargaining chips.

"Settling" in the occupied territories *is* an act of war, and these people have been the troops. They live in armed compounds surrounded by barbed wire and guarded 24/7 by soldiers who are paid by the government.

These aren't communities, in other words; they are military encampments.

No they are communities protected by military encapments. Whether or not you agree with the creation of Israel, it has been at war since 1948, officially or not, and, whether you agree or not, it will try to protect itself. I don't believe it is as simple as saying "okay, we're Palastine now, you win" (which will never happen anyways), the Arabs want the Jews out. You can learn from history, you can't change it. Israel exists and it will do everything it can to continue to exist.

I think the reason for the pullout is so that Israel can point to the areas it has left (effectively run by criminals now and it will be a serious pain to the 750 Egyptians who are now there) as reason why Palastine cannot exist.

The UN website has a nice overview of the history of the conflict in Palestine if you'd like to brush up.

I don't see much point discussing vague spiritual injuries done on past generations of Jewish people in a conversation about Palestine's right to sovereignty, self-determination, and freedom from persecution and torture. If it was wrong for Jewish people to suffer these indignities, surely it must also be wrong for them to inflict them on Palestinians. If it's not wrong to persecute Palestinians, then it must also have been OK to persecute Jews.

Either way, the argument that if I could only put myself in their shoes I'd understand why the illegal occupation of Palestine is so important doesn't hold much water. I'd like to think that if I were Israeli or Palestinian, I'd still be a very logical person with a talent for sniffing out hypocricy.

[OnTheMoor]

They were paid to go there by their government, entirely for the purpose of creating bargaining chips.

"Settling" in the occupied territories *is* an act of war, and these people have been the troops. They live in armed compounds surrounded by barbed wire and guarded 24/7 by soldiers who are paid by the government.

These aren't communities, in other words; they are military encampments.

No they are communities protected by military encapments. Whether or not you agree with the creation of Israel, it has been at war since 1948, officially or not, and, whether you agree or not, it will try to protect itself. I don't believe it is as simple as saying "okay, we're Palastine now, you win" (which will never happen anyways), the Arabs want the Jews out. You can learn from history, you can't change it. Israel exists and it will do everything it can to continue to exist.

I think the reason for the pullout is so that Israel can point to the areas it has left (effectively run by criminals now and it will be a serious pain to the 750 Egyptians who are now there) as reason why Palastine cannot exist.

The UN website has a nice overview of the history of the conflict in Palestine if you'd like to brush up.

I don't see much point discussing vague spiritual injuries done on past generations of Jewish people in a conversation about Palestine's right to sovereignty, self-determination, and freedom from persecution and torture. If it was wrong for Jewish people to suffer these indignities, surely it must also be wrong for them to inflict them on Palestinians. If it's not wrong to persecute Palestinians, then it must also have been OK to persecute Jews.

Either way, the argument that if I could only put myself in their shoes I'd understand why the illegal occupation of Palestine is so important doesn't hold much water. I'd like to think that if I were Israeli or Palestinian, I'd still be a very logical person with a talent for sniffing out hypocricy.

Please stop telling me what I don't know unless you can point to a historical fact that I am incorrect about. I'm well aware of the history of the region, just as I'm well acquainted with Islam as I said in the other thread.

If you were an Israeli or a Palestinian you would be interested in self-preservation and making a life for yourself. It is a horrible situation, and as annie just stated, there is no easy answer. Part of the problem is that whenever someone has sympathy for the other side there is an immediate "Well what about the Palestinians!!!???" or the opposite. I'm just justifying my sympathy for people who have very recently lost their homes. If I cannot do that without saying "but the Palestinians lost their homes 50 years ago, so it all evens out", well I'm sorry.

I'm sure everyone has seen the various documentaries of Arabs and Jews living together peacfully. There was one a little while ago on a Jewish circus troupe with many Arab members and how much good they were doing. It is possible, unfortunately some people believe that the Jews must leave no matter what and the Jews therefore believe that shooting everything that moves is a good way to protect themselves. All this while people in other parts of the world cheer one side or the other on. There is no easy solution, at least none that would not result in massive genocide. I can understand both sides, but I'll take neither.

EDIT: Persecution and torture are never okay, but if you're arguing that the persecution of the Jews in Europe is in any way the same as the persecution of Palestinians in the Middle east, then perhaps you should do some brushing up. Israeli security practices are based on more that traditional stereotypes, they're based on 50+ years of war and killing.

[jGilder]

I was watching some footage of a bulldozer pulling down houses in the settlements yesterday on the RTE nine O Clock news. The reporter said something like it was heartrending for the moved settlers to see their houses pulled down. And then she added 'but it's better than leaving them for the Palestinians'. Still baffled by that reasoning.

Peter, how has RTE covered the plight of the Palestinians over the years? Did they show their homes being bulldozed by the Israelis? Did they cover the slaughter of Palestinians who resisted? Did they cover the Rachel Corrie story? Here in the US mainstream media ignored it. I noticed a big difference in the news reporting in Ireland when I was there last November. At that time Arafat died and their coverage and commentary was far better than what was reported here in the US. But now, after reading your comments, I can't help but wonder about what RTE's over all coverage of the Palestinian issue has been.

[fiddleronvermouth]

here's the link to the UN's brief history:

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html

And here's a map of what most people (with the exception of ultra-religious groups) are referring to when they talk about Israel and Palestine:

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/atlas_mi ... el_map.jpg

When people talk about "occupation" they're talking about Israel's military actions in Palestinian territory, which include the destruction of government buildings, schools, and sometimes entire villages of Palestinian refugees evicted from Israeli territory, as well as the sweeping imprisonment and torture of Palestinian men, blockades that prevent Palestinians from moving freely in Palestinian territory, *and* the establishment of hundreds of Jewish communities throughout Palestinian territory.

If the map you've posted is meant to indicate Israel considers the entire territory on that map to be the property of Israel based on a 2000 year old map, they're just wrong.

Or, if they're not, let's turn Ireland over to the Romans, and Mexico over to the Aztecs, and Ontario over to the Hurons while we're turning back the clock. And we might as well re-establish the USSR, etc, etc.

[anniemcu]

I was watching some footage of a bulldozer pulling down houses in the settlements yesterday on the RTE nine O Clock news. The reporter said something like it was heartrending for the moved settlers to see their houses pulled down. And then she added 'but it's better than leaving them for the Palestinians'. Still baffled by that reasoning.

It is baffling, for those who don't view their neighbors as less than human.

Hatred and fear do horrible things to the soul... no matter its human ethnicity.

[Cayden]

Peter, how has RTE covered the plight of the Palestinians over the years? Did they show their homes being bulldozed by the Israelis? Did they cover the slaughter of Palestinians who resisted? Did they cover the Rachel Corrie story? Here in the US mainstream media ignored it. I noticed a big difference in the news reporting in Ireland when I was there last November. At that time Arafat died and their coverage and commentary was far better than what was reported here in the US. But now, after reading your comments, I can't help but wonder about what RTE's over all coverage of the Palestinian issue has been.

They are usually not bad at all, I am still wondering was it an axtremely badly put line or a thought she picked up from the settlers. Either way you'd expect the news editor pick up on it an d have her re-phrase it.

There was an interesting bit in the Irish Times last week about how the hard line settlers were playing down the compensation they were receiving for being moved out. But that's another story.

[jGilder]

I'm sure everyone has seen the various documentaries of Arabs and Jews living together peacfully. There was one a little while ago on a Jewish circus troupe with many Arab members and how much good they were doing. It is possible, unfortunately some people believe that the Jews must leave no matter what and the Jews therefore believe that shooting everything that moves is a good way to protect themselves. All this while people in other parts of the world cheer one side or the other on. There is no easy solution, at least none that would not result in massive genocide. I can understand both sides, but I'll take neither.

The Arabs and Jews are quite capable of living together peacefully. The Palestinians are as compassionate as the rest of the world about the plight of the Jewish people through time, and welcomed the Jewish people to come and live amongst them. But they didn't want to be kicked out of their homes and off their land and be ruled by them. And they certainly didn't want to be killed if they resist.

The creation of the state of Israel was done in error. Most everyone wanted to see a homeland for the Jewish people, but to establish it unjustly with violence and death was a huge mistake. The UN offered the Jews land in Ethiopia, but they refused. They wanted to live on land that was promised to them according to scripture, but this ignored what had gone on for 2000 years in between. Since scripture and reality were at odds -- the realization of prophecy had to be forced -- and the result is one of the world's great tragedies.

[OnTheMoor]

My point is that nothing is good enough other than the removal of Israel from the Middle East. Unfortunately you are dealing with religious hardliners and nationalists so your map is next to useless. No Israeli concession other than the evacuation of every Jewish person from the area will be good enough for the Palestinians with the guns.

So 50 years is your cutoff point? Why? Relatively speaking, the eviction of Native Americans wasn't all that long ago, there are still plent of Indians who would gladly take the land back, so yeah, why don't you offer up your house? As I said above, history is history. This is not just about the occupation of those territories this is, no matter how much you say it isn't, about the existence of Israel.