Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Post questions or suggestions here.

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Alex Jacob » Thu Jan 15, 2009 3:57 am

That is a very decent and appropriate question, Carl. The primary take-off point is to arrive at the internal decision that Israel's essential cause---its existence---is legitimate, and to begin to defend that legitimacy, that right to exist. Given the sorts of narratives that are out there floating around, this is a question of self-education, which is an issue involving association---to associate with those who describe an 'honest narrative'. I do myself feel strongly that that honest narrative is found in recognizing the Jewish claim to Israel, and the description that Vic offered in the post above (the link) makes a great deal of sense. On the other hand, to see through a narrative built on untruth or semi-truth is to 'deconstruct' it, so I think there is another side of the 'work' of seeing clearly in our world, and that is submitting to a process of deconstruction of a wide group of lying narratives that are popular these days, and to see why they are constructed, what interests construct them, and why, and also where they lead.

Well, I am describing how I see things, and since I cannot force you or anyone to concur with me I can only make suggestions. I believe that once one has come to a 'real' decision, a sound and defensible decision that accurately describes possible routes to peace and coexistence, that obvious lines or paths of action open up directly from that, just as 'real' solutions open up in our own lives when we see things clearly and make core decisions. Primarily that would be to support those groups and factions who operate from that standpoint---that Israel's existence is valid, and supported, without question, without qualification---and who seek to build bridges to a coexistence that would proceed from that. Those who intend or plan or preach violence against Israel, or an eventual destruction of Israel, must be resisted completely and those narratives, as possibilities, must be completely shut down, pushed to the side, seen as inconsiderable, and eliminated. If the majority of Israel's (seemingly innumerable) meddlers---those who seem to devote more energy to Israel's politics than they do to their own---were to devote their energies to asserting and strengthening a practicable plan for peace, instead of always giving energy to the acutely impracticable, the impossible in fact, I have a strong feeling that the roads to a real peace would begin to reveal themselves.

What do you think of my line of thinking?
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Alex Jacob
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Alex Jacob » Thu Jan 15, 2009 4:59 am

Diebert wrote:

"One should at least explore the viewpoint that saw the immigrating Jews increasingly as distant cousins who once left and of which many underwent centuries of exposure to different civilizations, different cultures which didn't leave them unchanged, even when they tried and thought they remained true to old traditions. The Jew coming back from exile is then seen increasingly as invading, violating, domineering - representing something entirely different than what was traditionally seen as Palestinian, as original inhabitant with claims [by locals or the ruling administration of a period] and the settler movement becomes very much like an attempt in colonization of a style abandoned somewhere in the 19th century but suddenly re-applied in the 20th century after intense lobbying. As all colonialism it was steeped increasingly in asymmetric power relations, perhaps initially accepted and welcomed but when teeth and claws were finally shown, initial enthusiasm would be steadily replaced by a booming resistance to the process."

It would be innaccurate, if not 'unfair', if I didn't affirm that I completely understand the view that you put forward. Life so many of us, this structure of view was (in my case at least) the 'mother's milk' I drank when young, being essentially informed by left-narratives in a university setting. It is not a question, for me, that I have to 'explore' these views, or give them a chance to sprout, or associate with those who hold them, because I see the logic (or 'logic') in them, I truly think I grasp how the narrative functions, and what other narratives about our modern problems they connect to. And connect they do, just as it was stated in that documentary I posted links to sometime back: the issues burning in the Near East encapsulate a clash of world-views and a clash of civilizations (etc.)

I do think though that one has to make some core decisions, and to stand by those decisions, even though it means supporting things that are not entirely correct or entirely 'righteous'. It is one of the events in any adult's life: the recognition that the whole field is contaminated in some degree, and yet you still have to try and make the best decision you can. Part of that is also defining 'what side you are on'.
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Alex Jacob
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:25 am

Alex Jacob wrote:The purpose, I assert, of these narratives (the ones you bring forward and intone like mantras) is to undermine the legitimacy of Israel

The purpose in every discussion I engage in should be clear: to undermine falsification, alienation, delusion and deceit. Unconsciousness in other terms. To the degree the state Israel - as is - represents falsehood, to that degree I will naturally undermine it. The same I'd do and am doing to any other similar state.

to lend support to the cause of the enemies of Israel

That's meaningless to me. The enemies of my enemy are not automatically my friends. If others for whatever motive are battling falsehoods or their consequences, it's no reason for compromise.

If lets say Osama Bin Laden points out in a speech the errors of US foreign policy, does it mean I cannot dismiss American foreign policy anymore? Of course not! You're delusional here.

and every year that goes by the same destructive forces are nourished

In my view only because people are indulging themselves in the same set of lies, over and over again until they'll almost ingrained in various societies.

Are you secretly longing for some underground, rebellious lifestyle or pitched battles, grenades and house to house battles? ... In what tangible way do you contribute to peace in the Near East?

All violence is fundamentally the same: it's based on violations of rule, law, people, values and ultimately truth, tao. All peace making is fundamentally the same: restoring, respecting [international] rule, dialog, mutual respect but ultimately reinstating the ways of truth orientation.

The violence you refer to is just a response to violence which is a response to violence and so on. Underlying this violence are ideas, philosophies that violate fundamental truths, small lies covering bigger lies. These are my targets and if I could throw a grenade to remove falsehoods I would. But all it does potentially is removing the temporary manifestation but the ignorance surfaces again like an undying monster, perhaps with even more heads this time.

Real peacemakers are those who have grown tired of violence, they have been too close to it, they know it inside out. Don't mistake them for false peacemakers who don't even understand why violence is there in the first place and therefore not know where to the path toward peace even starts.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 4952
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Carl G » Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:55 am

Alex Jacob wrote:That is a very decent and appropriate question, Carl. The primary take-off point is to arrive at the internal decision that Israel's essential cause---its existence---is legitimate, and to begin to defend that legitimacy, that right to exist.

I do not subscribe to the right of any nation to exist. I am not a nationalist. I recognize that most borders as well as most leaderships were established and are held in place by force or guile, or both, mostly for the benefit of the few. All of it is subject to change by the same (force and guile). Why? This is not an age of reason or self-responsibility, it is one of force and guile.

Given the sorts of narratives that are out there floating around, this is a question of self-education, which is an issue involving association---to associate with those who describe an 'honest narrative'. I do myself feel strongly that that honest narrative is found in recognizing the Jewish claim to Israel, and the description that Vic offered in the post above (the link) makes a great deal of sense. On the other hand, to see through a narrative built on untruth or semi-truth is to 'deconstruct' it,

Find those whose words seem to make sense, and listen to them? That's why I believe most if not all governments today are viper pits of dark energy, with no legitimacy despite their "claims."

so I think there is another side of the 'work' of seeing clearly in our world, and that is submitting to a process of deconstruction of a wide group of lying narratives that are popular these days, and to see why they are constructed, what interests construct them, and why, and also where they lead.

This is an age of propaganda, for and against. And the propaganda of for and against, the propaganda of "rights," "claims," and "legitimacy" which are sold every day, hoping to legitimacize the rights of the few to claim the riches and power of the many. This is the mess we are in.

Well, I am describing how I see things, and since I cannot force you or anyone to concur with me I can only make suggestions. I believe that once one has come to a 'real' decision, a sound and defensible decision that accurately describes possible routes to peace and coexistence, that obvious lines or paths of action open up directly from that, just as 'real' solutions open up in our own lives when we see things clearly and make core decisions. Primarily that would be to support those groups and factions who operate from that standpoint---that Israel's existence is valid, and supported, without question, without qualification---and who seek to build bridges to a coexistence that would proceed from that. Those who intend or plan or preach violence against Israel, or an eventual destruction of Israel, must be resisted completely and those narratives, as possibilities, must be completely shut down, pushed to the side, seen as inconsiderable, and eliminated. If the majority of Israel's (seemingly innumerable) meddlers---those who seem to devote more energy to Israel's politics than they do to their own---were to devote their energies to asserting and strengthening a practicable plan for peace, instead of always giving energy to the acutely impracticable, the impossible in fact, I have a strong feeling that the roads to a real peace would begin to reveal themselves.

I can't quite muddle through this stump speech. I do know that I am aghast at the irony of Jews behaving very much as their oppressors the Nazis did just a couple generations past, for whatever reason they are doing it. The behavior and attitudes I am seeing is reprehensible even by today's even more thuggish standards. The creation and crushing of the ghetto of Gaza is just the latest horror.
Good Citizen Carl
User avatar
Carl G
 
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Alex Jacob » Thu Jan 15, 2009 7:50 am

Carl wrote:

"I do not subscribe to the right of any nation to exist. I am not a nationalist. I recognize that most borders as well as most leaderships were established and are held in place by force or guile, or both, mostly for the benefit of the few. All of it is subject to change by the same (force and guile). Why? This is not an age of reason or self-responsibility, it is one of force and guile."

"Find those whose words seem to make sense, and listen to them? That's why I believe most if not all governments today are viper pits of dark energy, with no legitimacy despite their "claims."

I understand the language, I might even say that I understand the sentiments that produce the language. I can only comment that with such a view, you are sort of fucked clean out of existence. If the very state you live in is 'a viper pit of dark energy', it follows that you as an individual must be complicit in that darkness, it seems to me. Such an essentially obscure and paranoid view of everything can only, it seems to me, produce disassociation as its end.

But no matter what you think-feel (I sense that these are sentiments, almost a kind of emotion): states and nations exist, and they will keep on existing. It is a far more realistic platform to simply accept that they are all highly imperfect---as imperfect as we are I suppose---and yet we live within these structures and have to find a way to contribute to the positive aspects, to make the best of things, to nourish the positive, etc.

Your view is not really your own: it is a shared view, a common narrative for the alienated, the disconnected, and it has been a common theme for some generations. I only suggest that it seems to have a defeatest edge, to express fatalism, and of couse all that is common.

To be truthful, that is what the sum total of your contribution to any and all conversations essentially reduces to. Apart from that, what else do you have to contribute? Nothing...

What an unfortunate state to be in, it seems to me.

Personally, I think that part of growing up is to come to understand that the world is a very imperfect place, and yet we have to make realistic choices based on a realistic apprehension of reality, which means, of course, to accept the existence of states, and to accept the brutal human nature which, as you rightly point out, is at the core of all human endeavors.

Like so many 'thinkers' on this list, you seem to start from some disassociated, highly alientated starting point which you call 'truth' or 'clarity', and then construct some neurotic 'philosophy' on top of that which renders itself irrelevant because it has no way to connect with the flow of reality. Well, that's how I see it anyway.

"I do know that I am aghast at the irony of Jews behaving very much as their oppressors the Nazis did just a couple generations past, for whatever reason they are doing it. The behavior and attitudes I am seeing is reprehensible even by today's even more thuggish standards. The creation and crushing of the ghetto of Gaza is just the latest horror."

What a paradox. You have established the core evil at the base of all states, which you repudiate and sort of wring your hands in grief, but you are 'aghast' that, as you see things, as you chose to describe them, the Israelis act like Nazis, and for you it wouldn't even matter if they had a 'good' reason for it or not. Your discription, I say, is false from the start because Israelis do not and have not (and will not) behave like Nazis and do not have those ends in mind, at all. This is likely your own delusion, a 'feeling' that you hold and nourish for your own purposes. It is flatly false however. It is a lie, if it is not a false perception. You cannot it seems accurately see and describe reality, your vision of things is predetermined by your moods, by an inner, dark romanticism! The conditions in Gaza are, if anything, a joint-creation, and Palestinians and Arabs have had a huge role in constructing the misery of the situation, and they also derive benefit maintaining it as it is, and some in the West lend a form of support to maintain things as they are too. It is an odd 'system'. I say that part of arriving at 'truth' (that could lead to solution) is to describe the internal conditions that produce the narratives, and the variations of narratives, that people like you hold. That is actually a major area for creative work in this confusing question.

One must take note that, with your views, there is nothing you could even defend. Nothing you could ever fight for, because all is evil, dark, viperish at the core. But I know for a fact that many people in Israel feel they are defending something very worthy of defense, and I take their side.
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Alex Jacob
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Carl G » Thu Jan 15, 2009 7:58 am

Gee, Alex. How fancifully -- and floridly -- wrong is your analysis of me.

Psychology is definitely not your forte.
Good Citizen Carl
User avatar
Carl G
 
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Alex Jacob » Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:09 am

Diebert writes:

"The purpose in every discussion I engage in should be clear: to undermine falsification, alienation, delusion and deceit. Unconsciousness in other terms. To the degree the state Israel - as is - represents falsehood, to that degree I will naturally undermine it. The same I'd do and am doing to any other similar state."

All those who create opinions and seek to persuade, if I understand correctly, start from this position, don't they. Otherwise might we say: 'The purpose of every discussion I engage in (really, subvert) should be clear: to undermine clarity, a sane course of activity, and realism. Consciousness in other terms...'

I certainly like you quite a bit, and would likely trust your judgments in some circumstances, I might even rely on you for clear seeing. But not in this case. I don't get the impression you have been in or lived in a 'pit of darkness' where real human problems, stemming from real human error abounds (the making of error, the living in accord with error, the self-will of erroneousness as a way of life). I think you are accostomed to deal in and operate within idealisms. I don't think you have a real grasp of the 'world'. You state 'facts' that exclude so many other facts. You know so much and yet you know nothing!

You and your views, I suggest, are actually part of the problem and not part of a solution.

I guess it is another way of saying: I don't believe you.

,-)
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Alex Jacob
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Alex Jacob » Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:12 am

You'll have to explain more, Carl.
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Alex Jacob
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:21 am

Victor, not sure about the context of your quotes, I'm not gonna click on a crappy Yuku link to find out. I'll assume they're your own remarks and will pick a few to comment on as time is limited.

vicdan wrote:The local inhabitants did not call themselves "Palestinians". The concept of a "Palestinian" to describe the local residents has not yet been invented;

That's what I said, Palestinians just were really: 'local inhabitants', including originally various [wandering] tribes, Jews and Christians, with many of them adopting Arab language and Islam religion over time, to adapt to the neighborhood. The concept came in to being with the rising of various nationalist movement, Zionist, Arab, etc. And as such 'Jewish' state or 'Arab' nation or federation became important although the Arab nationalist movement died out. It subsided locally into a Palestinian identity, which is still forming as if it was 'stilled' in its development for half a century!

Even Arab historians have admitted that "Palestine" never existed:

But the people, no matter if numbers were not impressive, were there and are real enough in the 19th and 20th century! The land always has been sliced up, changed ownership, foreign and local conquests and so on. The Jewish rule 2000 years ago is just one of many and there's no way to make that mean anything more than Judaism being state religion for a short while.

In 1946, Princeton's Arab professor of Middle East history, Philip Hitti, told the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry: "It's common knowledge, there is no such thing as Palestine in history."

Yeah, the area was called Canaan in many periods, including Lebanon and some more. Who was saying there was a 'Palestine'? Why making up straw arguments to counter, shadow boxer?

Zahir Muhsein: In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people

Which was kind of my argument. And if the Jews have a place there, and I believe they certainly do, it's because they are part of this group and not in opposition to it. And even if they would be fundamentally different, like black and white: the age of colonialism has ended and new ways have to be found if peace has to be approached.

The Arabs who now claim to be natives of the Holy Land migrated to "Palestine" after 1918 from neighbouring Arab countries, predominantly from what are now Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq.

These are at the least highly controversial studies and could be considered more or less debunked already. See: The question of late Arab immigration to Palestine for some references.

And from here: Whatever the differing viewpoints over the timing, causal mechanisms, and orientation of Palestinian nationalism, by the early 20th century strong opposition to Zionism and evidence of a burgeoning nationalistic Palestinian identity is found in the content of Arabic-language newspapers in Palestinian Territories, such as Al-Karmil (est. 1908) and Filasteen (est. 1911).[30] Filasteen, published in Jaffa by Issa and Yusef al-Issa, addressed its readers as "Palestinians",[31] first focusing its critique of Zionism around the failure of the Ottoman administration to control Jewish immigration and the large influx of foreigners, later exploring the impact of Zionist land-purchases on Palestinian peasants (Arabic: فلاحين‎, fellahin), expressing growing concern over land dispossession and its implications for the society at large.

The Moslem religion was invented by Muhammad in the 7th century CE

LOL! Religions get invented all the time and the longer one holds on to one, becoming ingrained into nationalism or other fevers, the more problematic it becomes. Hint! Hint!

One should at least explore the viewpoint that saw the immigrating Jews increasingly as distant cousins who once left
Left? Were expelled by force.

What matters is that they left. I specifically didn't say how or why as there's no historical fact how exactly things happened 2000 years ago. What does matter is the fact that they were gone for a long while and this very fact alienates one from Land, over the centuries. This is an easy to see reason why it was Jewish immigration that was eyed with suspicion, like all foreigners from far away would. This is the question about natural relationship to Land, and not about idealistic relationship.
Last edited by Diebert van Rhijn on Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:55 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 4952
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Dan Rowden » Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:24 am

Carl G wrote:
Alex Jacob wrote: In what tangible way do you contribute to peace in the Near East? I don't mean with (irresponsible) words but with concrete actions?

What concrete actions do you suggest are possible?


That's easy to answer, Carl!
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:42 am

vicdan wrote:yes, a muslim holy city with a thriving muslim community... more like a tiny backwater town, until jews started returning en masse.

Hmm, why then the percentage was 64.4 % in 1910 and just 69.4 % in 2005? Wow 5% increase in 95 years! Illustration

It means the city grew in totality and one can not just say so easy the Jews were causing it based on those numbers especially since they controlled much of it since 1948! Of course the 'colonists' brought in lots of good stuff, didn't you ever study colonialism and how it [not] worked on the long run without putting down the present inhabitants in some way?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 4952
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:52 am

vicdan wrote:Wording from the original 1964 PLO charter:
This Organization does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, in the Gaza Strip or the Himmah area
So they didn't actually want palestine, they just wanted the lands jews were on. They didn't give a flying fuck about palestinian nationalism or independent state, they just wanted to kill the jews.


No, that was land under Egyptian and Jordanian control at the time. They could have challenged that as well but it wouldn't be smart to piss off allies. It's clear to everyone with a bit of historical and political sense that this was regarded as a problem for later.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 4952
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Tomas » Thu Jan 15, 2009 11:41 am

Dan Rowden wrote:
Carl G wrote:
Alex Jacob wrote: In what tangible way do you contribute to peace in the Near East? I don't mean with (irresponsible) words but with concrete actions?

What concrete actions do you suggest are possible?


That's easy to answer, Carl!


Hmmm, scary .. is the fence electrified?
Don't run to your death
User avatar
Tomas
 
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby vicdan » Thu Jan 15, 2009 12:42 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:What matters is that they left. I specifically didn't say how or why as there's no historical fact how exactly things happened 2000 years ago. What does matter is the fact that they were gone for a long while and this very fact alienates one from Land
Great. The same argument applies to palestinians. They have been gone from most of the the israeli land for over two generations. Case closed, right?

No?

Color me surprised.

The 'past ownership' argument cuts both ways, the quibble is only over duration. it's like the old joke about Churchill -- "we already established what you are, now we are just haggling over the price".

No, that was land under Egyptian and Jordanian control at the time. They could have challenged that as well but it wouldn't be smart to piss off allies. It's clear to everyone with a bit of historical and political sense that this was regarded as a problem for later.
of course. Jews were the real problem, not arabs. The allies which own half of 'your' land and have no plans to give it to you? Let the sleeping dogs lie. :)
Forethought Venus Wednesday
User avatar
vicdan
 
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:48 am
Location: Western MA, USA

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Carl G » Fri Jan 16, 2009 2:46 am

Alex Jacob wrote:You'll have to explain more, Carl.

Okay.
Carl: I do not subscribe to the right of any nation to exist. I am not a nationalist. I recognize that most borders as well as most leaderships were established and are held in place by force or guile, or both, mostly for the benefit of the few. All of it is subject to change by the same (force and guile). Why? This is not an age of reason or self-responsibility, it is one of force and guile.

Find those whose words seem to make sense, and listen to them? That's why I believe most if not all governments today are viper pits of dark energy, with no legitimacy despite their "claims.

Alex: I understand the language, I might even say that I understand the sentiments that produce the language.

You inaccurately denigrate me by referring to my observations as "sentiments" as though they only have the validity of feelings.

I can only comment that with such a view, you are sort of fucked clean out of existence.

Obviously false as I am very much here.

If the very state you live in is 'a viper pit of dark energy',

If you mean my internal state, you are wrong. It doesn't follow that if one lives in an external state -- the United States of America for example -- that is ruled by a corrupt government then one must be dominated by dark energy within the self.

it follows that you as an individual must be complicit in that darkness, it seems to me.

Complicit, yes, by default if for no other reason, as we are all interconnected (and imperfect).

Such an essentially obscure and paranoid view of everything

This is conjecture, and wrong. I don't know how you get obscure. If you mean non-mainstream, okay. If you mean unclear, you are incorrect, I see quite clearly. And I don't know where you get paranoid, except maybe by your own projection.

Paranoid: adj.Exhibiting or characterized by extreme and irrational fear or distrust of others.

This is not my stance or mode at all...

can only, it seems to me, produce disassociation as its end.

...and so this doesn't apply to me.

But no matter what you think-feel (I sense that these are sentiments, almost a kind of emotion):

Again, an errant analysis. You have no idea about any research involved or the years of observation. You discount that possibility, probably because of your own views on the issues, your particular world view.

states and nations exist, and they will keep on existing.

I did not say they didn't or wouldn't. I simply said I do not subscribe to the systems governing them, that of the few in cahoots.

It is a far more realistic platform to simply accept that they are all highly imperfect---as imperfect as we are I suppose---

Yes, the evil in power is there by complicity and complacence of the many.

and yet we live within these structures and have to find a way to contribute to the positive aspects, to make the best of things, to nourish the positive, etc.

Yes, which can be done on the individual and local level. Self to self. Neighbor to neighbor. I never said we couldn't make a difference within the oppressive structure. Within it. Those who try to make a change to it, though, if they begin to be effective, are usually marginalized or taken out. The power structure protects itself.

Your view is not really your own: it is a shared view,

There is no new thing under the sun. So what.

a common narrative for the alienated, the disconnected, and it has been a common theme for some generations.

This generalization is your bullshit you are trying to slap me with, a broad brush of caricature, and an insult to many.

I only suggest that it seems to have a defeatest edge, to express fatalism, and of couse all that is common.

You don't suggest, you accused ("alienated, disconnected").

The fact is that the average individual has very little power over world affairs. If you disagree I would like to know what you personally are doing to affect world governments and international business leadership towards bringing about a brighter and more sane future for humanity.

To be truthful, that is what the sum total of your contribution to any and all conversations essentially reduces to. Apart from that, what else do you have to contribute? Nothing...

What an unfortunate state to be in, it seems to me.

Now this seems sort of defeatist and fatalistic in itself. What prompted it, simply a personal perception that you and I are not on the same wavelength (coupled with the value you place on your particular world and life view)?

Personally, I think that part of growing up is to come to understand that the world is a very imperfect place, and yet we have to make realistic choices based on a realistic apprehension of reality, which means, of course, to accept the existence of states, and to accept the brutal human nature which, as you rightly point out, is at the core of all human endeavors.

One must live with them, yes, but no, I don't believe one needs to accept those things if they do not correspond with one's values. Or, depending on definition, one can accept them but not subscribe to them, not support them.

Like so many 'thinkers' on this list, you seem to start from some disassociated, highly alientated starting point which you call 'truth' or 'clarity', and then construct some neurotic 'philosophy' on top of that which renders itself irrelevant because it has no way to connect with the flow of reality. Well, that's how I see it anyway.

Yes, that is how you see it, and telling it is.

Carl: I do know that I am aghast at the irony of Jews behaving very much as their oppressors the Nazis did just a couple generations past, for whatever reason they are doing it. The behavior and attitudes I am seeing is reprehensible even by today's even more thuggish standards. The creation and crushing of the ghetto of Gaza is just the latest horror.

Alex: What a paradox. You have established the core evil at the base of all states, which you repudiate and sort of wring your hands in grief,

I do not "wring my hands in grief." That is totally your projection.

but you are 'aghast' that, as you see things, as you chose to describe them, the Israelis act like Nazis, and for you it wouldn't even matter if they had a 'good' reason for it or not.

Correct. There is no good reason for that behavior.

Your discription, I say, is false from the start because Israelis do not and have not (and will not) behave like Nazis and do not have those ends in mind, at all.

Fine. Your opinion is noted.

This is likely your own delusion, a 'feeling' that you hold and nourish for your own purposes. It is flatly false however. It is a lie, if it is not a false perception. You cannot it seems accurately see and describe reality, your vision of things is predetermined by your moods, by an inner, dark romanticism!

Again with the suggestion for me it's all feeling, with the implication that there can't possibly be any research, observation, or thought behind it, presumably because it doesn't jive with your own views (which are based on rational thought and solid facts).

The conditions in Gaza are, if anything, a joint-creation, and Palestinians and Arabs have had a huge role in constructing the misery of the situation, and they also derive benefit maintaining it as it is, and some in the West lend a form of support to maintain things as they are too.

Such are all conflicts. And to a large degree they are orchestrated for those outcomes. It's a heck of a mess we are in because of it. So many people have given their power away.

It is an odd 'system'. I say that part of arriving at 'truth' (that could lead to solution) is to describe the internal conditions that produce the narratives, and the variations of narratives, that people like you hold. That is actually a major area for creative work in this confusing question.

That is a great thing to do, to analyze, how did we get here. To unravel it. Most people have no interest in it, or are too busy putting food on the table. Until it becomes a personal concern on a massive scale, or there is a cosmic shift -- who knows -- I don't see much chance of overthrowing the rule of the evil few over the many.

Did anything change after the carnage of World War II, in people's hearts? Did it lessen the incidence of genocide and war? Were any lessons learned at all?

One must take note that, with your views, there is nothing you could even defend. Nothing you could ever fight for, because all is evil, dark, viperish at the core.

Another projection on your part. First, I don't see things in terms of fight and defend. Second, you imply there is nothing I could or do stand for, or represent, which is false. And third, world governments being evil, dark, and "viperish" doesn't mean "all" is that way "at the core."

Your drama is getting away with you!

But I know for a fact that many people in Israel feel they are defending something very worthy of defense, and I take their side.

It's really not about the "people in Israel." Most people everywhere are "good," although quite sheeplike, you must admit.
Good Citizen Carl
User avatar
Carl G
 
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Alex Jacob » Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:09 am

The views that you express, the views that are part of your formation, are quite common, and lots of people are 'informed' by these kinds of ideas. I am interested in coming to some understanding about why so many people, mostly on the 'alternative' side of things, or perhaps the Left-leaning side of things, share your ideas about things. I am trying to understand why it is that you construct these views, and 'operate' them, views that function as-against Israel. I stick by my sense that it is entirely possible that behind ideas there stands, or directs, emotions. Or, behind conscious formulations there operates unconscious formulations. In a way, this idea sheds a good deal of light on many issues of our existence, not the least of which is the Israeli situation, which receives a constant stream of projection of unconscious content, is made the world's beloved enemy, gets all the attention, is constantly paraded through the news. The basic character, as I see things, of the 'animus' that is expressed against Israel, reduces to a kind of emotionalism, to emotional sentiments. If there were a preponderance of clean reasoning, I say, what Israel has done and continues to do would make a great deal of sense. See where I am coming from?

The whole world 'wrings its hands in grief' about Israel, even when some Israeli cuts an inopportune fart. I have seen numerous studies where it is demonstrated that Israel receives a disproportionate amount of media attention as compared to other states and other issues. Israel, in much left discourse, is sort of the hand-maiden of the Great Satan of the US and hand in hand they are out there, committing evil, lording it over all the Earth's people. etc. The narratives that are a part of your view-structure, by your own admission, have distinct ties to these operative narratives, but I don't pretend to be able to dissect you to reveal all this. I am working with general ideas, general perceptions, and just want to see what sticks and what doesn't. I don't necessarily separate myself from any of this (the guiding power of narratives), so it is not so much an effort to manhandle you, to abuse you, but to find out why it is that you seek, with the narratives you select to state, to repeat, to nourish, to give energy to, do do ME harm, that is to say of course my people, Israel. I think you are a smart enough fellow and you might be able to pick up on some of this.

There are very many VERY GOOD REASONS for Israel's attack on Hamas in Gaza. But, to 'see' that clearly would mean to have clear vision, and reasonable vision, but to have that one has to have been liberated from the guiding power of narratives that mold perception and guide understanding in certain, specific ways, and this of course is exactly the point(s) I am interested in making. Do I mince my words? You, Dan, Diebert and others are the mouthpieces of this order of view. You assume it is the result of pure, mathematical reasoning or clear seeing, but I say it is not, in fact it is quite on the opposite of that, otherwise you could define, rationally and as an A-B-C why it is that Israel does what it does, and in what specific ways this stems from 1967 and of course earlier.

It is not, though, an 'opinion', jack-ass, that Israel does not behave like the Nazis behaved. It is simply obvious to anyone who reasons fairly, not guided by emotionalist, even romanticist, narratives, as you give evidence of. But it doesn't matter what rational defense someone might offer you, as they might to a revisionist, what functions in you is some core, emotional ideas that you dress up in pseudo-rationalism and then find other people with whom you share your agreements. That is an emotional project, a mass project, and it is a destructive project, given the facts of Israel's existence, its survival. War is the meting out of violence, and the Israelis, like their enemies, mete out violence, but that is not the same as being a Nazi, or having Nazi ends in view. The truth, given the facts of Israeli culture and the participation of Israel in world culture, goes straight against such a characterization. But you feel you can say it, and you do say it.

Carl writes:

"That is a great thing to do, to analyze, how did we get here. To unravel it. Most people have no interest in it, or are too busy putting food on the table. Until it becomes a personal concern on a massive scale, or there is a cosmic shift -- who knows -- I don't see much chance of overthrowing the rule of the evil few over the many."

Sure man, but wasn't one of your main influences, or 'a main influence', that freak-show on wheels who posits a lizard progenitor for the ruling class of the human race? Hmmmmm? Sure, we can look at the problems of humanity and the human condition, but do we have to put on such FREAKY glasses with which we look at it? But listen up so that there is no misunderstanding: many people, not just you, are informed by really freaky ideas about why things are the way things are. Here's an alternative, or perhaps an antidote: maybe things are just not so bad after all? Maybe it could all be a great deal worse. Maybe things (like in the Middle East) could move in a positive way if PEOPLE LIKE YOU would examine the core narratives that drive them? Especisally when you and others lie and distort, unconsciousnly of course, you are after all little reasoning angels...

"Did anything change after the carnage of World War II, in people's hearts? Did it lessen the incidence of genocide and war? Were any lessons learned at all?"

Do you really want me to answer that? Or, is it really much more a sentimental song you prefer to sing all by your lonesome?

;-)
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Alex Jacob
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:00 am

vicdan wrote: The same argument applies to palestinians. They have been gone from most of the the israeli land for over two generations. Case closed, right?

Indeed not too different but in the reverse sense: many [arriving] Jews as well as [fleeing] Palestinian Arabs can both be defined as refugees since the 1948 conflict. The difference is that Jews are allowed to return and prosper and Palestinians cannot return, not even in smaller numbers.

The situation is unique even for standards of international law: refugees that keep this state for over two generations made the UNRWA expand the status to descendants. And Jews returning to a land they or any documented direct ancestor didn't leave. This is hairy!

Now the case can be made that without declaring their own state and arming themselves, the Jews would never have been able to return safely. But the situation which has arisen now, with the amazing broadly applied 'right of return' laws, is that it has become a form of colonization as not all immigrants can claim refugee status. To guarantee the rights of Jews, Palestinian rights are being ignored.

Do you see the difference? For international laws equality is implied. Otherwise the laws or membership to the agency upholding them should be abandoned.

No, that was land under Egyptian and Jordanian control at the time. They could have challenged that as well but it wouldn't be smart to piss off allies. It's clear to everyone with a bit of historical and political sense that this was regarded as a problem for later.
of course. Jews were the real problem, not arabs. The allies which own half of 'your' land and have no plans to give it to you? Let the sleeping dogs lie. :)

That's called realism, something the state of Israel seems to increasingly abandon.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 4952
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby vicdan » Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:24 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
vicdan wrote: The same argument applies to palestinians. They have been gone from most of the the israeli land for over two generations. Case closed, right?

Indeed not too different but in the reverse sense: many [arriving] Jews as well as [fleeing] Palestinian Arabs can both be defined as refugees since the 1948 conflict. The difference is that Jews are allowed to return and prosper and Palestinians cannot return, not even in smaller numbers.
1) jews are only 'allowed to return' to a relatively small part of their ancient homeland. that's OK, it's fair -- palestinians need a home too. I have no problem with that. just let's stay honest, eh?

2) There is a million and a half palestinians within Israel who have more political rights than any other major arabic ethnic group anywhere in the world.

Now the case can be made that without declaring their own state and arming themselves, the Jews would never have been able to return safely. But the situation which has arisen now, with the amazing broadly applied 'right of return' laws, is that it has become a form of colonization as not all immigrants can claim refugee status. To guarantee the rights of Jews, Palestinian rights are being ignored.
And vice-versa. More jews left the muslim land than arabs left the jewish land, and jews lost more financially in that flight than arabs did, too. neither group will get their 'return'. Yeah, it happens sometimes when the rights of two groups are in inherent conflict.

That's called realism, something the state of Israel seems to increasingly abandon.
Where is such realism applied to Israel? Where was it in 1948? 1956? 1967? 1973?

Looks to me like palestinians applied 'realism' to the occupying arab countries, and rigid anti-semitic ideology to Israel.
Forethought Venus Wednesday
User avatar
vicdan
 
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:48 am
Location: Western MA, USA

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Tomas » Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:47 am

.

-Dan-
That's easy to answer, Carl!



Nevermind, not only electrified (duh, note there is nobody leaning on them), but the area is seeded with landmines and motion-activated automatic machine guns and various other non-lethal accoutrements.

Thank goodness America provides a few paltry billion a year for the defense of such a noble ally as Israel.
Don't run to your death
User avatar
Tomas
 
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby vicdan » Sat Jan 17, 2009 10:13 am

Tomas wrote:.

-Dan-
That's easy to answer, Carl!



Nevermind, not only electrified (duh, note there is nobody leaning on them), but the area is seeded with landmines and motion-activated automatic machine guns and various other non-lethal accoutrements.
The wall has helped avert a number of terrorist attacks since its consrtuction -- among them two attempted suicide bombings by pregnant women who were claiming to need emdical attention (they were discovered at the checkpoints).

But yeah, the jews should simply let the arab terrorists murder them.
Forethought Venus Wednesday
User avatar
vicdan
 
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:48 am
Location: Western MA, USA

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:46 pm

vicdan wrote:1) jews are only 'allowed to return' to a relatively small part of their ancient homeland. that's OK, it's fair -- palestinians need a home too. I have no problem with that. just let's stay honest, eh?

A relatively small part? Under the original partition plan perhaps! Get real. And if we have to be honest lets not smuggle in David and Solomon's kingdom as 'ancient homeland' unless you want to maintain these are historical characters who had the Jewish identity.

Now you're gonna tell me Negev was actually worthless land that Israel improved once owned! Fact is we're still not talking about a 'small' part of 'ancient homeland'.

2) There is a million and a half palestinians within Israel who have more political rights than any other major arabic ethnic group anywhere in the world.

You mean the right to a government without at least a specific Jewish identity or the possibility to vote for a party wanting some form of Islamic rule, identity or influence. They can do that in Islamic countries you know! And this is seen as a very important and basic freedom to many Arabic people.

And vice-versa. More jews left the muslim land than arabs left the jewish land, and jews lost more financially in that flight than arabs did, too. neither group will get their 'return'. Yeah, it happens sometimes when the rights of two groups are in inherent conflict.

It seems the Palestinians are punished then for the losses of those Jewish refugees. While Jews are in the position to prosper and rebuild, many Arabs are not. Do you think they could in their current situation if they really tried? Explain.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 4952
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby vicdan » Sun Jan 18, 2009 7:10 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Now you're gonna tell me Negev was actually worthless land that Israel improved once owned!
No, Negev is still fairly worthless. Israeli improvements mostly took place elsewhere. Now how is this relevant?

You mean the right to a government without at least a specific Jewish identity or the possibility to vote for a party wanting some form of Islamic rule, identity or influence. They can do that in Islamic countries you know! And this is seen as a very important and basic freedom to many Arabic people.
As is the right to vote for the 'correct' candidate, i am sure.

You seem to be seriously suggesting that democracy and theocracy are equal in terms of political rights they deliver. Wonders never cease, I imagine.

It seems the Palestinians are punished then for the losses of those Jewish refugees.
Nope. i am simply pointing out that any discussion of 'compensation' for palestinians, if it doesn't also involve the corresponding -- and much bigger -- issue of 'compensation' for jews, is dishonest from the start.

While Jews are in the position to prosper and rebuild, many Arabs are not. Do you think they could in their current situation if they really tried? Explain.
What is there to explain? They had numerous chances -- from 1948 onward. Most recently, Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005, leaving some good economic infrastructure behind. Instead of using the greenhouses the illegal settlers abandoned, palestinians smashed them. Instead of building a nation, they started shooting rockets at Israel. Then they elected Hamas, Hamas promptly continued to demand utter destruction of israel while shooting rockets at it, with the entirely predictable economic sanctions, and eventually blockade, to follow.

Yeah, palestinians in Gaza had a chance to choose peace -- yet another one. However, as Hamas never tires of proclaiming on TV, they love death as much as Israelis love life. The results are self-evident.
Forethought Venus Wednesday
User avatar
vicdan
 
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:48 am
Location: Western MA, USA

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Tomas » Sun Jan 18, 2009 8:21 am

vicdan wrote:
Tomas wrote:.

-Dan-
That's easy to answer, Carl!



Nevermind, not only electrified (duh, note there is nobody leaning on them), but the area is seeded with landmines and motion-activated automatic machine guns and various other non-lethal accoutrements.
The wall has helped avert a number of terrorist attacks since its consrtuction -- among them two attempted suicide bombings by pregnant women who were claiming to need emdical attention (they were discovered at the checkpoints).

But yeah, the jews should simply let the arab terrorists murder them.


I'd rather the jews and arabs duke it out amongst themselves.

No foreign aid, military or economic from any country. Private money from individuals ok, though.
Don't run to your death
User avatar
Tomas
 
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:07 am

vicdan wrote: Negev is still fairly worthless. Israeli improvements mostly took place elsewhere. Now how is this relevant?

Never mind. But would you concede your remark about "a relatively small part of their ancient homeland" since it doesn't appear to have any foundation? Did you actually look at the size of the Hasmonaeon Kingdom and Israel, even without occupied territories? Where is the 'smallness' exactly?

You seem to be seriously suggesting that democracy and theocracy are equal in terms of political rights they deliver.

Lebanon's confessionalism is there of course, it even facilitates Hezbollah! Iran had fair elections in the 50's. Without foreign countries mingling each time there is a democratic election in these countries, it might actually prove itself. And the Palestinians actually had democratic elections as well in every sense of the word but the outcome was brutally dismissed by the usual suspects.

In the end it's Zionism and foreign policy of the US which don't have any use for democracy in the Middle East. Every time it happens an undesired and for them seemingly unexpected outcome is perceived. The cause of this is simple: we're seeing the struggle of an essential undemocratic power politics against grass roots democracy.

Arabs in Israel do not enjoy some very basic fundamental rights, which might not be obvious to everyone: their ability to connect to foreign and/or fled family, friends and fellow Arabs in general is seriously hindered, if not impossible. There's a growing segment of the Jewish population getting hostile and seeing them rather go [should sound familiar to Jews somehow]. In a highly militarized society as Israel not allowing to serve in the military creates huge gaps economically and socially. The Law of Return clearly targets Jews worldwide, persecuted or not, while denying Arab refugees to come back from the 1948 affair.

And all these things are not contestable in a political sense so it's not exactly a democracy with equal representation is it? Any suggestion it is, sounds to me like using a democratic front to excuse something way worse than even some of the theocracies, depending on what you think people truely value in life. The pretense actually makes it worse as the world is asked to believe there's nothing to see and they should move on.

Most recently, Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005, leaving some good economic infrastructure behind. Instead of using the greenhouses the illegal settlers abandoned, palestinians smashed them. Instead of building a nation, they started shooting rockets at Israel. Then they elected Hamas, Hamas promptly continued to demand utter destruction of israel while shooting rockets at it, with the entirely predictable economic sanctions, and eventually blockade, to follow.


History revision nicely at work. Israel became so paranoid about terrorists attack they applied many long and short term 'closure policies' which effectively turned the economy that had grown over the decades to be utterly dependent of the flow of goods to and from Israel, into a lame duck. Even the UN and IMF expressed anger about it several times.

The many other measures by Israel and allies, were taken as direct response to the election of Hamas, without waiting for any actual action. Even the Fatah party is here to blame by the way, they got forced to choose between one and the other I suppose (the familiar irrational theme of "you're with them or against them").

Where do you get your information about abandoned greenhouses? The farms were mostly destroyed by the settlers who were forced to leave and had no reason at all to be so thoughtful. That's why it's very hard to believe your flowery version. Even if they would have used the greenhouses with the roads to the market place closed down: what's the point?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 4952
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby vicdan » Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:51 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Iran had fair elections in the 50's.
The outcome of that election was not theocratic. Mossadegh was not a theocrat.

Without foreign countries mingling each time there is a democratic election in these countries, it might actually prove itself. And the Palestinians actually had democratic elections as well in every sense of the word but the outcome was brutally dismissed by the usual suspects.
No, what resulted in a dismissal is hamas's refusal to give up either its goal of destroying Israel, or its fixation on terrorism. Are you surprised? We didn't respect Nazi Germany's democratic choice either.

Arabs in Israel do not enjoy some very basic fundamental rights, which might not be obvious to everyone: their ability to connect to foreign and/or fled family, friends and fellow Arabs in general is seriously hindered, if not impossible.
Huh? They can't go across checkpoints or travel abroad? They don't get arab media?

There's a growing segment of the Jewish population getting hostile and seeing them rather go [should sound familiar to Jews somehow].
This is unfortunately true. It can be understood, but not excused. hate is seething on both sides. However, this doesn't exactly do anything to undo my claim that israeli arabs enjoy the greatest political freedom of all the major arab groups in the world.

In a highly militarized society as Israel not allowing to serve in the military creates huge gaps economically and socially.
Huh? Not allowed? Not required; and vast majority elect not to. However, some volunteer, and serve in the IDF.

The Law of Return clearly targets Jews worldwide, persecuted or not, while denying Arab refugees to come back from the 1948 affair.
Indeed. However, this doesn't constitute discrimination against israeli arabs.

And all these things are not contestable in a political sense so it's not exactly a democracy with equal representation is it?
Actually it is. The arab situation in Israel is comparable to the black situation in US -- the de facto discrimination is real and exists, but they are a fully legally enfranchised minority.

History revision nicely at work. Israel became so paranoid about terrorists attack they applied many long and short term 'closure policies' which effectively turned the economy that had grown over the decades to be utterly dependent of the flow of goods to and from Israel, into a lame duck. Even the UN and IMF expressed anger about it several times.
When? Link it.

Israel imposed partial sanctions in 2006, AFAIK -- a year later, when the rockets kept coming. here is a little reminder for you:
Posted 12/2/2005 11:28 AM

Militants let back in Gaza, Israel threatens sanctions
in December 2005, three months after total withdrawal, they were still threatening sanctions. The rockets kept on coming. Israel didn't impose full sanctions until 2007, when Hamas kicked Fatah out. It was only in June 2007 that Israel barred exports from the Gaza strip, and limited imports to humanitarian supplies. Palestinians had two years to at least show signs of getting their shit together. They elected to keep firing rockets instead.

The many other measures by Israel and allies, were taken as direct response to the election of Hamas, without waiting for any actual action.
The rockets kept coming, and Hamas didn't reject either its constitutional goal of demolishing Israel, or its embrace of terrorism. However, Israel didn't blockade Gaza until Hamas took over in mid-2007, in a bloody internal fight with Fatah a year and a half after the actual Hamas election.

Note that Hamas was elected a mere four months after Israel pulled out, but Israel didn't bar Gaza imports and exports until another year and a half later, while it still looked like palestinians had some chance to work out a peaceful governance solution.

Where do you get your information about abandoned greenhouses?
From closely watching the eviction at the time. I remember seeing actual pictures of the facilities the settlers were leaving behind. The settlers started resisting near the end, but the first few settlements were evicted with minimal problems.

The farms were mostly destroyed by the settlers who were forced to leave and had no reason at all to be so thoughtful. That's why it's very hard to believe your flowery version. Even if they would have used the greenhouses with the roads to the market place closed down: what's the point?
Indeed there is none, if your aim is to destroy Israel rather than build up Palestine; if you love death more than Israelis love life, as Hamas keeps claiming.
Forethought Venus Wednesday
User avatar
vicdan
 
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:48 am
Location: Western MA, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Help Desk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 0 guests